Peter Leithart's Principle of Protestantism

I cannot pass up this latest article by Peter Leithart in the First Things blog/magazine entitled the End of Protestantism.  Leithart argues that Protestantism needs to end and is ending, but the Reformation goes on.  He spends some time making the case that Protestants just knee jerk react to Romanism and think history begins with Calvin and Zwingli and that it is a bad attitude to have.  I don’t really want to interact with any of that.  What I think is more interesting is the emphasis on Historical Doctrinal Development that I have argued was a main plank of the Federal Vision movement from the beginning. 

Leithart advocates at Reformed Catholicism, which used to be the name of a blog that agreed with the FV and promoted Mercersburg Theology.  Leithart sets this whole article in terms of dialectical opposition without using the phrase.  Phillip Schaff would be proud.  Protestantism is simply the antithesis to the thesis of Romanism.  Do not miss that vital point.  Each has doctrines that will need to be jettisoned such as forensic justification in favor of salvation that is intrinsically “social” and the Romanist will need to jettison the papism, but in the end both sides are wrong.  The Thesis and Antithesis are both the wrong answers.  Leithart does admit the serve a purpose or as he puts it, “Protestantism has had a good run”.    Now however is the time for the synthesis. 

And Leithart does call for that synthesis.  He states,

"Reformed Catholicism meets George Weigel’s Evangelical Catholicism coming from the direction of Rome and gives it a hearty handshake."

He concludes by saying “It’s time to turn the protest on Protestantism and look for a new way to be heirs of the Reformation”.  A new way.  Doctrinal Development.  A new way that is meeting in the middle with Roman Catholicism.  This is exactly what Phillip Schaff envisioned in his Principle of Protestantism: a reunion of Romanism with the worship and objectivism with the Protestant subjectivism and rejection of a pope. 

You will note Doug Wilson is already coming to his defense while claiming to be Protestant through and through.  Wilson favors doctrinal development as can be seen in Reformed is Not Enough.  The only thing he really disagrees with in Leithart’s article is the labels.  See his attack on R. Scott Clark and his response to Leithart.  After all these years I still doctrinal and historical development is a motivating factor for the Federal Vision and a real danger in our denominations.  And despite all the papers condemning FV, it is seldom mentioned.  Schaff’s Principle of Protestantism is still the principle at work in the Federal Vision and Leithart just as it was the principle at work in Mercersburg. 

Who really won the PCA?

I have already made it plain that I think the PCA is dead.  Others are now coming to the same conclusion.  Lane makes a few excellent points about what the FV men surely did, and it helped their cause.  They did start to lay low: blogs were removed and went silent.  Whether as a strategy or as a self preservation, it is hard to say, but it did help them in the court of public opinion.  Doug Wilson was able to defend them from the outside and those who had a tendency to be less winsome than Doug stayed silent.  But that is not why they won, because they did not have total radio silence.  They still published books, maybe not as many, but they were still writing.  They got out a freschrift for Norman Shepherd, for example, that includes James Jordan, Rich Lusk, Peter Leithart, John Frame, and many others.  

Here is what I think happened.  I will use an analogy from the old west.  The PCA is a large ranching operation with a big main house.  The FV are the outlaws disturbing the herd of cattle and the anti-FV crowd goes out guns a-blazing to fend off the thieves.  They manage to chase off a few of them while taking heavy fire, and when it looks like they get a break in the action they head back to the big house, and low and behold the locks have been changed, and they are no longer welcome.  

You see Lane and I put the blame in different places.  Lane thinks the FV guys won and took over, and I think that a 3rd party took the opportunity run off the TR's (for lack of a better term) and gain complete control.  I think the "evangelical middle" as Lane refers to them has always had designs on running this denomination.  

Let me take you back to the Presbyterian Pastors Leadership Network and 2002.  They pushed Good Faith Subscription and a change in the way of GA taking original jurisdiction.  Now the change to BCO 34-1 and original jurisdiction failed, but the PPLN won.  40 Presbyteries agreed, it just was short of the 2/3rds required.  Thus the majority of the PCA thought Presbytery discipline was enough.  Couple that with the Good Faith Subscription, which in my opinion gave more wiggle room to those who disagree with the confession, and the groundwork is set.  

That lead nicely into Presbyterians and Presbyterians Together in 2006 (which is no longer on the internet but my summary is still up).  This was a clear call from many men that prosecution of others would not be tolerated.  This was not so much the FV men courting the evangelical middle, this was the establishment of the PCA saying they wanted the FV men and could do without the TR guys.  Lots of Covenant Theological Seminary men signed this document.  This is of course the same year that The Missouri Presbytery Report of FV came out, which was an attempt to split the middle, and would later serve as the basis for clearing Rev. Jeff Meyers, who was on the committee.  So, too, by the way, were Bryan Chapell, C. John Collins, and David Chapman of Covenant Seminary.  

Then comes the 2007 FV report at GA.  Now this was heralded by the TRs as a great moment, but really it meant nothing.  This is one reason it was able to get such a wide margin vote.  The groundwork had been laid that Presbyteries could let in whoever with Good Faith and that the prosecutors in trials are the bad guys.  And this report was in no way judicial so why fight it.  

This brings up the fight against Steve Wilkins in 2008.  Armed with the new FV report the TRs then went after Steve Wilkins.  Note then that this is the first time the TR's went to the judicial process against the FV men.  In 2001 when Rev. Moorecraft sounded the alarm, they discussed, held colloquiums, and fought on email lists and web sites, but this was the first major judicial test.  This was another defeat in the end for the anti-FV crowd.  Yes, Wilkins left, and yes the Louisiana Presbytery had to retry the case (because they cleared him the first time), but no judicial guilt was found against him in the end.  Just like the John Wood case about women preaching a decade earlier.  If you don't get a guilty verdict, it is really a loss.  Just because the man leaves does not make the problem go away.  This became evident then when Missouri Presbytery and Northwest Presbytery refused to discipline FV men in their bounds.  

This is about the time that the 9th Commandment issues came up as Lane mentions.  Siouxlands Presbytery was ripped apart by the factions.  TE Lawerence and TE Moon were brought up on charges and both were cleared.  This was followed by the major instigators of the charges being brought up on charges themselves.  TE Carpenter and TE White were both brought up on 9th Commandment charges and TE Keister himself was tried for unorthodoxy.  This was not so much the movement of the FV crowd as the people at home in the ranch.  It became a standard response to accusations, but I do not think that it was always leveled by those who actually hold to the FV.  

Enter into the debate now the powerful Tim Keller.  Published author, featured in magazines, and pastor of a huge church in New York City.  Keller gives a speech in June of 2010 about what is so great about the PCA.  While I disagree with a lot of Keller's historical analysis, the main point of Keller's paper/talk was to promote the idea that the PCA is a diverse body and should remain that way.  Clearly then those who are trying to get rid of a subgroup are in the wrong.  There was a lot that went into the Strategic Plan that the PCA bounced around and they did change some of it, but they still created "safe spaces" and they advanced their overall agenda of the PCA being a "big tent" denomination, a "big tent" that included the FV.  Only those who do not want a "big tent" are not welcome. 

And then, of course, there are the secret groups that seem to have won the day at GA.  The National Partnership was created this year with the express purpose of using the GA to further the "health" of churches.  The email sent out was sent by Rev. George Robertson, I believe another author of the Missouri Report on the FV.  Don't forget the behind the scenes working to prevent debate about the SJC ruling on Leithart, and changing the rules to make sure certain people are not on the SJC that happened this year.  It was not pretty, and it was not done by FVers alone.  No, this was done by others: the power brokers.  

So to summarize, I think the PCA has been systematically undermined by a group of power brokers who have worked hard to make the PCA a big tent, and those who are against that idea are the ones that have to go.  Ultimately, the PCA was not won by the FV.  And the group that now controls the PCA wants the FV and does not want the TR guys.  If I were guessing why, I would assume it was because the FV guys are more likely to have a "cultural" impact than the doctrinalists, and of course, a lot of these guys have a cult following and publish often.  Name recognition can not be underestimated.  Dr. Aquila and Dr. Pipa may be known in some PCA circles, but Doug Wilson and the Credenda Agenda are known by people even outside the PCA.  And it also happens that many of the TR guys are down south, which is often considered embarrassing, which may help shed light on why Steve Wilkins can be chased out, but the other FV guys are all safe.  

So I think Lane has great insights into what the FV has been up to and how they did avoid trouble.  But I think he understates how the "middle" was actually working against the TRs, and has for some time.  The middle is the group that actually won the PCA.  

When is it time to leave?

As a follow up on the previous post for conservatives to leave the PCA, I will enter into a short discussion about why and what I think governs the decision of when it is time to leave.

The decision to leave a denomination hinges upon the marks of a true church: faithful preaching of the word, right administration of the sacraments, and church discipline (as found in Belgic Confession of Faith second paragraph of Article 29).  The reason it is time to leave the PCA is because they have forsaken these marks.  And as Article 29 somewhat lesser known continues to state a true church should "in short, if all things are managed according to the pure word of God, and all things contrary thereto rejected . . ."  The PCA has failed to reject things contrary to the Word of God.  

The situation in the PCA is a good example to us all about knowing when we should leave.  It started with people who were professing and preaching doctrine that was unfaithful and heretical.  Now just because it turned it that the denomination had a fairly sizable minority that disagreed on the basic premise of salvation is not in and of itself grounds to leave the denomination.  This is because there are three marks, one of which is discipline.  The correct thing to happen to bring these unfaithful preachers up on charges, to begin discipline.  One might could argue that the PCA waited to long to start this process, but it was a process they started eventually.  And the wheels of discipline grind slowly.  I would argue purposefully slow.  The slow speed gives people a chance to catch their breath, biblically evaluate, and if need be repent.  The goal of discipline after all is restoration and reconciliation.  So, one must wait for the process to finish before conclusions can be reached.  

However, what has happened is the highest and final court in the PCA has declared the Federal Vision theology of one of its preachers to be acceptable preaching and beliefs in the PCA.  Thus, there not only has been a failure to practice discipline, but that failure has enshrined a unfaithful preaching as acceptable, and many of these questionable beliefs are also about the sacraments.  So what mark of the true church is left?  If there are no marks left, then why stick around?  

There are others who have a much more gracious opinion to what has happened than I do, such as Rev. R. Scott Clark.  He presents a nice syllogism that he thinks got confused somewhere.  I suppose I think the only way this verdict can be read is that the PCA no longer rejects the doctrines of the Federal Vision.  It does not matter what happened in 2007.  Judicially this is the first big challenge, and the PCA has accepted rather than rejected the FV.  

Are there still plenty of faithful, biblical churches left in the PCA?  Absolutely.  Could I recommend the PCA church to someone who was moving to another town?  No.  Because even if the PCA pastor there now was faithful, who would be next?  And what does it say about a church that stays in communion with other churches that have a fundamentally different gospel?  

That is the question for conservatives to answer (and for anyone who is thinking of switching denominations), is the Federal Vision of Peter Leithart a fundamentally different gospel?  If so, then how can one continue to be in the same denomination with them, and now with others who think that it is an acceptable gospel?  If it is a different gospel (and if it is not why was he on trial), then at least two of the three marks of a church are missing, distorted, or ignored.  When that happens it is time to go.  

PCA: 1973-2013

The Standing Judicial Commission of the PCA has handed down its decision in the case against the Pacific Northwest Presbytery and their decision to clear Dr. Peter Leithart of all charges.  The SJC of the PCA has agreed that Leithart is confessional and orthodox.  The PCA is now the only church in the NAPRC to not condemn Federal Vision, or at least to judicially clear its biggest proponent.

Add to that the slow removal of conservative influence on important PCA committees.

Add to that yet another group seeking to direct and lead the PCA in an obvious non-confessional direction.

And I am not even going to bring up intinction or Biologos or the denominations inability to make a stand on Genesis 1 or 2.  I could go on.

The main point here is that it is time to leave.  The conservatives probably won't, but they should.  The time is now.  Join the OPC.  You could easily double the size of that denomination, and could help the OPC avoid the same mistakes the PCA made.

You would think a denomination full of Southerners would be quick to leave a union they had no control over, but they are not quick to leave, and that is okay.  The fight was fought.  But it has been lost now.  The Study Committee Report was always a distraction.  It was the conservative view and it passed widely, but it passed widely because it was pointless.  The only thing that ever mattered was the judicial process.  And that process is now over.  Leithart and the FV won.

The PCA is now about inclusivism rather than confessionalism and Gospel Eco-Systems rather than . . . well there really is not an opposite of Gospel Eco-Systems, that is how bad that idea is.

I have a lot of friends in the PCA.  I feel for them.  Most of them probably would not make good fits in the RCUS because we are not Westminster based, but I think neither is the PCA anymore.

Wilson and his attempt to undermine the URC

Rev. Doug Wilson is at it again. He has now posted an article trying to explain why there is a Federal Vision (FV) controversy. He comes up with three reasons. Belief of FV men in 6 day creation, power struggle (which Wilson couches as no heirarchy), and creation of a new Christian Culture as shown in Moscow, ID.

Now, before we dismantle these obviously wrong points, we need to recognize what Rev. Wilson is doing. These are not serious points. He does not honestly believe these are the reasons there is a FV controversy. If he did then he would have dealt with them in the Joint Federal Vision Statement. Only the third point comes up in that statement and that only barely. None of the points comes up in say the Knox meeting published as Federal Vision: Pros and Cons. Not a single one of these points is honest. This is really an attack on the Westminster faction in the URC. One can describe this as an attempt to split or at least play on the tensions within the URC now, probably in hopes of increasing the CREC.

Now before anyone accuses me of assuming motives just read his piece again. He mentions creation and links to multiple articles about the disagreement over creation in the URC, both of which point out the Westminster West crowd is Framework. This also cannot be a reason for the FV controversy because despite his linking to the weakness in the PCA, OPC, and the URC, Rev. Wilson has forgotten the other major NAPARC denomination that condemned the FV: The Reformed Church in the United States. Now the RCUS has a crystal clear position on 6 Day creation, yet we passed unanimously the condemnation of the FV views. I won’t go into the opposition in the PCA comes from pro-6 Day creation men like Dr. Joseph Pipa and others. Clearly this is not a real reason. It is however a well aimed attack.

The second reason is also meant to pick at the recent scab of who runs the URC. Many during the CanRC union talks accused Westminster as well as Mid American Reformed Seminary as trying to run the URC and the reason why mergers did not happen. They were accused of the same thing in the Shepherd Controversy. See a recent motion at the last Synod that the 9 points of the URC were not properly before Synod. The accusation was that a group of men pushed heirarchy down the throats of the confederation by considering and passing the 9 Points. Heirarchy is the theme of Rev. Wilson’s second point.

The third point is about the latest controversy on the URC message boards. The two kingdoms theology versus Abraham Kuyper’s Christian culture theology (or at least the Dutch understanding of it). Wilson claims to be the heir apparent of Kuyper, and the two kingdoms approach advocated by Westminster West looked down on. Well, the URC is Dutch and Kuyper is a hero. Already this same debate is coming up in the URC and will probably split that church. Wilson is getting his vote in now so that people will know where to go when the split occurs. It should go without saying that many of Wilson and the FV critics are Kuyperian.

No, these are not Wilson’s thoughts on why there is a FV controversy. These are shots at Westminster West and an attempt to widen the gap that is growing in the URC.

Imputation of the Active Obedience and the Heidelberg Catechism

I grow weary of these endless attempts to cast off the Active Obedience of Christ. I especially weary of the attempts to say that the Heidelberg Catechism does not teach the Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ. Question 60 really ought to speak for itself (emphasis mine).

How are thou righteous before God?
Only by a true faith in Jesus Christ; so that, though my conscience accuse me, that I have grossly transgressed all the commandments of God, and kept none of them, and am still inclined to all evil; notwithstanding, God, without any merit of mine, but only of mere grace, grants and imputes to me, the perfect satisfaction, righteousness and holiness of Christ; even so, as if I never had had, nor committed any sin: yea, as if I had fully accomplished all that obedience which Christ has accomplished for me; inasmuch as I embrace such benefit with a believing heart.

Listen to Rev. Mark Horne now try to get out of this clear cut statement.

If this taught the imputation of Christ’s active obedience, it would be a fine statement. And, if this were some sort of committee document, or in some other way obscured authorial intent, I wouldn’t have a problem with the words being taken in this sens(sic). . . the author of the catechism lectured on it and approved a commentary from those notes. Every time I find Ursinus explaining himself he refers to Christ’s sufferings as the merit which is imputed to believers

Rev. Horne then goes on to quote something from Ursinus’s commentary on Question 61 (not 60) for his back up. A reading which I think is highly debatable by the way.
But of course the Heidelberg Catechism was a committee document, a committee of two. Ursinus and Casper Olevianus wrote the Heidelberg so can a commentary by one of the men really be the only place to look for intent? And in that commentary is question 61 the best place to look for answers?

Before we jump to the Commentary perhaps we ought to look at the rest of the Heidelberg Catechism itself. Does the phrase “satisfaction, righteousness and holiness” appear anywhere else other than 60? Why yes it does. Question 61 in fact. This is the one where Horne claims Ursinus means by righteousness only the sufferings of Christ. But does the Catechism bear this out? No of course not. In fact Question 62 is rather important.

But why cannot our good works be the whole or part of our righteousness before God?
Because the righteousness which can stand before the judgment seat of God, must be perfect throughout and entirely conformable to the divine law (Gal 3:10; Deut 27:26), but even our best works in this life are all imperfect and defiled with sin.

It seems from Question 62 the righteousness being spoken off is perfect obedience to the law. Christ’s Active Obedience. Thus righteousness is defined for us by the Catechism. This is the righteousness that is imputed to us in 60 and also in 56.

What do you believe concerning the “forgiveness of sins”?
That God for the sake of Christ’s satisfaction, will no more remember my sins, nor the sinful nature with which I have to struggle all my life long, but graciously imputes to me the righteousness of Christ that I may never more come into condemnation.

Here we see it again the righteousness of Christ is imputed to me “for the sake of Christ’s satisfaction.” Horne wants us to think that this is only the passion and death of Christ, his “willing suffering”. But let us remember that the Heidelberg defines the suffering of Christ as something that that was “all the time he lived on this earth” (Q&A 37). So when we read of Ursinus talking about “suffering” we ought not assume he is only speaking of the end of Christ’s life and His work on the cross.

But what about Ursinus’s Commentary? Well, we can weed through the quotes used by Rev. Horne, but let us just cut to where Ursinus defines righteousness in his commentary, at question 60 (pg.325 – emphasis mine).

What is righteousness in general? Righteousness is derived from right, which is the law, and is a conformity with the law, as sin or unrighteousness is the transgression of the law. . . . Righteousness, therefore, in general, as far as it has a respect to creatures, consists in fulfilling those laws which pertain to rational creatures; or, it is a conformity on the part of the rational creatures with those laws which have respect to them. Finally, righteousness is the fulfillment of the law, and a conformity with the law is righteousness itself. This must be observed and held fast to, because our justification can only be effected by fulfilling the law. Evangelical righteousness is the fulfilling of the law, and does not conflict with it in the least. The gospel does not abolish the law, but establishes it. . . . Evangelical righteousness is the fulfilling of the law, performed, not by us, but by another in our stead, and imputed unto us of God by faith.

Ursinus here claims that Christ fulfilling the law is vital to our justification. And the fulfilling of the law then is not just so Jesus might be the perfect sacrifice, the lamb without spot or blemish. Rather that performing of the law is imputed to us of God by faith. Since the quotation above proceeds the quotation used by Rev. Horne one can now see that Horne is not correct in his assessment.

Yes, Ursinus clearly saw a major link between Christ’s death on the cross and his life. But then who ever argued against that? Rev. Horne seems to be tilting at windmills. No one is really arguing for a separation as if somehow the cross is not imputed, but his Active Obedience to the Law is. They are linked. Ursinus saw them as linked. Everyone sees them as linked. You cannot have one without the other. The problem comes when Horne says, “But neither do I see any way that we must say that one supplements the other or that each does a different job in our salvation. The curse
But neither do I see any way that we must say that one supplements the other or that each does a different job in our salvation.” Clearly Ursinus saw a way that they did jobs and supplemented each other. He went so far as to say that without the fulfilling of the law our justification could not be effected. Christ’s righteousness had to be imputed to us. Listen now to the paragraph right above what Rev. Horne quotes (pg. 327):

To justify is to make the subject of it comformable to the law, either in himself, by a righteousness which is called his own, and which is inherent, infused, and legal; or it is to be made righteous in another which is called imputed because it is not inherent in us, but in Christ. This consists also in conformity with the law; for faith does not make void the law, but establishes it. And such we may remark is our righteousness anad justification; for we now speak of that righteousness with which we as sinners are justified before God in this life;

Now re-read Rev. Horne’s last couple of paragraphs in the second linked post. Does that sound like Ursinus? Ursinus is concerned about us being declared righteous and the law being upheld. Rev. Horne is speaking of blood wiping away the penalty and there is “ nothing left to demand of you”. Ursinus clearly saw a role for the Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ that Rev. Horne has missed.

And just so we know that we are not just picking on Rev. Horne, others make similar claims about Ursinus. At least he has the sense to try and claim both Ursinus and Olevianus did not believe in Imputation of Active Obedience. But that of course leaves the puzzling question of why then did they write it into the Catechism. Some of claimed that Ursinus later rejected the Active Obedience but held to it at the time of writing the Catechism (rejection is dated around 1566), but all of this information is based on second hand stuff. Usually it is based on the fact that David Pareus (student of Ursinus) and Johannes Piscator (student of Olevianus) rejected it, but that is a logical fallacy waiting to happen. The truth is the plain reading of the Heidelberg Catechism supports Imputation of Active Obedience, as even Rev. Horne admits, and that neither Olevianus nor Ursinus ever rejected any part of the Heidelberg and they taught it to others for the rest of their lives.

I just read a piece from Peter Leithart from the on-line Credenda Agenda called On Not Blackballing. The argument in the piece is that it is the Reformed tradition to be inclusive. His evidence is from a book about the openness of the Westminster Assembly and the English Delegation getting certain condemnations removed from the Synod of Dort. Both showed a willing to be inclusive of certain positions and not have a down the line dogmatism. Thus, the Reformed tradition is one that is tolerant of certain divergent views and it should not use those documents to blackball certain people or at least certain positions out of the Reformed churches. Such action would violate the very spirit that made the documents. Or at least so goes the argument.

This was an interesting piece since Leithart himself is now going to be on trial with the PCA in his presbytery and the SJC has basically already condemned him. This article seems then to be a bit of plea not to go down the road that the PCA appears to have chosen to go down.

However, his argument has one glaring hole. Even if we agree that the documents (Dort and the Westminster) are documents that are open to various positions, what does it mean for those positions that are clearly outside of those documents? If Dort was unwilling to condemn the idea that some people could temporarily enjoy some soteriological benefits, does it then mean that those who teach sacraments convey salvation benefits must be tolerated too, or those who change the definition of election taught in the standards must not be forced out of Reformed churches? Does it mean that everything not specifically condemned in the Canons of Dort are to be accepted? Such appears to be the plea. But, it seems to me that if the Synod was as open as he claims that those things that contradict the teachings of Dort then not only are not acceptable, but must be blackballed. If such an open Synod did not leave room for it then it cannot be tolerated in any way shape or form. The same can be said for his point about the Westminster Confession. If the Westminster was still nice to some who argued for positions that were not in the end adopted, those who outright go against the Westminster cannot be allowed anywhere near a Presbyterian pulpit? If it was so bad that such an ecumenical gathering could not allow it, then it cannot be allowed ever. That seems to make sense to me.

So, I wonder if Leithart has not argued himself into a corner in this article. Clearly Leithart does not believe he has violated the Westminster or Dort for that matter. But, when I think I have not violated the speed limit, it does not get me off the hook when the officer shows me the radar gun. What matters is whether or not I did violate the speed limit, not whether or not I think I did. Ultimately God is the judge of such things, but on earth the church will make such a decision. It is what pastors mutual agree to when they join a denomination.

I am not a big fan of the PCA judicial system. In fact, I think it is a mess. But, I do hope Leithart actually sticks around for the trial rather than running to the Confederation of Reformed Evangelicals. I think all sides deserve a day in court.

Venema's Children at the Lord's Table

I have been reading Dr. Venema’s book entitled Children at the Lord’s Table, and I have to say I am quite disappointed. Venema is against them, but I do think he gives away too much, argues for the wrong thing, and therefore loses the debate. I have made no secret that I argue for Confirmation based Communion. Or in other words, communion based on instruction in the faith, understanding of the faith as well as a profession of faith. Venema merely argues for the last part: profession of faith. And in so doing he gives away too much. His opening chapter states that a soft padeocommunion (young children professing faith) is just a slight historic deviation, not something that is wrong. Rev. Wilson actually shows the silliness of this position, in effect it becomes merely an argument over age rather than principle. Thus, he is merely arguing about age with the padeocommunists, and I think Venema stands outside the Reformed tradition and biblical teaching on the point. What makes it worse is that Venema agrees, he just does not seem to notice that he does.

Let me illustrate. His third chapter on the Reformed Confessions states that “they [Reformed Confessions] also insist that such children, prior to their reception to the Table of the Lord, require instruction in the Christian faith in order that they might be prepared to receive properly the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament” (pg.27-28). Terrific! I agree. Admission to the table requires more than a profession of faith, it requires instruction (implied understanding) as well. This must be done before kids can partake. Venema then does a nice job of proving the confessions teach just that. Yet, Venema takes it all back when he states at the end of the chapter. “The purpose of catechetical instruction instruction of children of believing parents is to prepare them to make a credible confession of faith, which, in the traditional practice of Reformed churches, is effected by means of a “public profession of faith”.”(pg.48). No, that is not correct. People can make a credible profession of faith, and still be admitted to the table. Catechism was traditionally done prior to first communion. Calvin did it and Bucer did it (although Venema leaves both of those facts out of his history). Lutherans still do it, as do the churches of the RCUS. Even in history the Roman Catholics required Confirmation before First Communion. Traditionally catechism is not to get a public profession of faith, but to instruct them into a fuller understanding of the faith. Public Profession may have been done, or confirmations may have been done (which might be considered the same thing), but we cannot confuse a profession of faith with an instructed understanding of the faith.

Just in case you think I am misrepresenting Venema he states up front what his position is: “the traditional view, which emphasizes the necessity of a public profession of faith prior to the believer’s admission to the Table” (pg.2). All Venema is arguing for in the book is a public profession. It appears as the book goes on that he might want some instruction, but he consistently fails to make it a requirement. Yet, his historical research shows that it was always a central part. The Reformed Confessions argue for instruction prior to the admission to the table. Even the Scriptures argue for the admission being based on a knowledge that is deeper than just a profession of faith. I think I will comment further on this book as I have some theories as to why Venema fails to put the addition of the instruction in his requirements. But let us save that for another post.

Rev. Wilson and the Cup

Doug Wilson is at it again. In a recent post about the Lord’s Supper he illustrates what is wrong with his view of the Supper.
First, Matthew 23:25-26 is not talking about the Supper. Thus, to apply this to the supper just because it mentions the word cup seems wrong headed.
Second, this sentence is just plain wrong. "When the Lord’s Supper is observed rightly, what is on the inside of the cup? It is the blood of Christ, the blood that cleanses from all sin."
It is not the blood of Jesus on the inside of the cup. It is wine. Unless one believes in transubstantiation it is always wine on the inside of the cup. The wine symbolizes the blood, but it is still wine. He is right that only the blood cleans us from sin, but he specifically states that if the Supper is rightly observed that the inside of the cup is blood on the body is on the platter. This is Romanism, and after over a thousand years it is still wrong.
Third, he contradicts himself in this next paragraph.
"Cleansing the inside of the cup is not accomplished by introspection. Cleansing the platter is not brought about by self-accusation. Sinners can only be cleansed because Christ their Savior died—and at this meal, we are confronted with that reality. Christ bled. Christ was broken. This broken bread cleanses the platter. This shed blood cleanses the cup. Look to that reality and respond in faith."
Note in this paragraph he says it is only the reality of the death of Christ that makes us clean. And that reality is not in our cup (admitting that the cup is only wine). That is much better, but does contradict what he said in the paragraph right before. He also seems to be confused about the benefit in the meal. He wants to deny it is benefit from mental activity, so he states it is not from introspection. Then he admits the benefit is only found in looking to Jesus, which is not actually in the cup. Thus, benefit can only be derived from a mental activity, the one of faith. "Look to that reality and respond in faith" is what the meal is supposed to do. Remind us the death of Christ. In faith, we can be strengthened through our remembrance of Him. But, the whole point of this post by Wilson is to say what is inside the cup cleans us. That cannot fit with "look to that reality and respond in faith."

Wilson tries to have it both ways in this post. That is part of the problem with Rev. Wilson. He just wants it both ways. But two opposites cannot both be true.

PCA Denominational Renewal

I have to say there is some amazing stuff going on over in the Presbyterian Church of America. Now I am not a member of the PCA, and I don’t want to appear to be throwing stones for the RCUS has troubles of its own, we are just too small for them to become internet fodder. No one has sights dedicated to the troubles of the RCUS. That being said, I would like to lovingly point a few things out to my friends in the PCA.

There is a discussion now that follows up on a conference held a few months ago called Denominational Renewal. Of course the goal is to renew the PCA. Fair enough so far. The discussion includes negative voices and friendly voices and is supposed to be a denominational wide discussion. The latest talk was on Renewing Theology and is positively reviewed by John Frame. It is opposed by Sean Michael, a professor at Covenant Seminary. I believe the talk by Jeremy Jones and the response by Dr. Frame are fundamentally very dangerous, and I fear that it is being missed in the PCA.

Note one of Frame’s points.

3. The PCA is a “confessional church,” as we are often told. We should, however, forthrightly ask the question whether this is a good thing. If it is, what role should a 350 year old confession have in a contemporary church? Is it plausible to suggest that we should treat the confession in effect as an infallible presentation of biblical doctrine? How then can we do justice to the immense amount of quality biblical scholarship and theological reflection that has taken place since that time? Does confessionalism itself lead to sectarianism? If not, how can a confessional church guard against sectarians who appeal to the confession as a “golden age” document? On these matters I am, for now, content to ask questions, rather than presuming to provide answers.

This is little other than John Williamson Nevin, who is back in vogue even among Presbyterians. Confessionalism leading to sectarianism is pure Nevin speaking of creeds as a "necessary evil". The problem with the Confession for Frame is that it is old. It is not contemporary. And more importantly as he points out people will "appeal to it". That is the real problem for Frame. It is out of date and people want to use it anyway. Renewing Theology then becomes a modernization of theology or at least the bringing to bear scholarly developments to it. Implicitly then Frame is saying the Confession is flawed and thus wrong. He would probably want to couch it in terms of the WCF being a ‘second grade text book that is not enough for our 12th grade understanding of these subjects.’ At least that is the analogy used by Doug Wilson in his works not to mention Philip Schaff in his. What concerns me even more is that the opposing reviewer cannot quite put his finger on it. Michael states:

first, it strikes me that his proposal for renewing theology holds out great hope for “creative theological thinking.” And yet, if we pay attention to those witnesses of the past, like Irenaeus and Tertullian, they stressed not their creativity, but their unoriginality. . . . the unspoken tension in Jeremy’s paper is actually between “theology” and “history.” That is to ask, how does this rich confessional tradition (or, to maintain the stream of thought, collection of witnesses) called “the Reformed tradition” speak to contemporary theological reflection? Should “the Reformed tradition” be a privileged witness among other witnesses for those who subscription to a Reformed confessional standard? If so, how does such privileging work?

The tension is identified, but not exposed. Michael sees the "creative theological thinking" as a potential problem, but does not denounce it at all. He sees tension between theology in history in the talk, but does not seem to see that Renewing Theology means making sure theology keeps up with history.

Over at Green Baggins elder Bob Mattes goes into a review of these talks and Rev. Frame’s particularly. He quotes from Frame and then comments (the Frame quote is from above and is the first two lines).

How then can we do justice to the immense amount of quality biblical scholarship and theological reflection that has taken place since that time?
I’m not sure that I understand what Dr. Frame means by this question. Given my response to his last question, does he wish to say that someone has found an error in the Standards in the intervening period? I’m just not sure where he’s going here.

Elder Mattes is being too nice in my opinion here. Dr. Frame in context (as can be seen above) is putting scholarship in contraposition to the confession as an accurate summary of God’s Word although he uses the word infallible in order to make his case look better. Frame is essentially saying if you continue to appeal and use the WCF then you have rejected all the better learning and theological advancements we have made. That is Frame’s position. The goal obviously is the alteration of the WCF or its removal. Why else ask the question in such a fashion. This is the discussion that is going on under the noses of many in the PCA.

My loving brotherly encouragement to men like brother Mattes and Michael is to dig deeper into what they mean. Have the debate of whether history and modern scholarship really has advanced theology to the point of changing it substantially so that it needs to be renewed. Do not be distracted by the talk of theology is application to modern life because it is not. Theology is the study of God, words about God. I have no problem with applying theology to life, and I admit that as history and technology move forward we will apply our theology to new situations. But the talk of changing the way we apply theology or updating or contextualizing applications of theology is really a back door way to change the theology itself. Has man’s sinful condition changed so much that we need a new way of applying ‘justification by faith alone’? What about Scripture? Is allowing people to understand creation as either 6-day creation or Framework or Day-Age really just contextualizing the doctrine of creation for modern man or updating it considering all the great ‘science’ or is it altering the theology fundamentally?

Normally, I would keep my mouth shut about such things, or at least I might have. But, I fear that the PCA is letting its guard down. I have spoken to several who believe the threat of challenges to justification by faith and other fundamental doctrines are basically over since the Federal Vision has been “defeated”. Many have said it but Bob Mattes again gives it the best expression in a comment on Professor Michael’s essay.

Al - May I offer that our current constitution (Westminsters + BCO) handled everything thrown at it so far? To address your specific examples,the Standards handled Federal Vision nicely. Yes, it took a study committee to ferret out the details, but there's nothing wrong with a careful effort. Feminism in the church context is nicely covered in the BCO backed up by Scripture.

While I have no doubt the Westminster rejects Federal Vision the problem is far from handled. Rev. Wilkins left as a minister in good standing and is now a part of another denomination. We could all list several other ministers still in good standing in the denomination who follow the Federal Vision and contributed to a book by that title. The fight is not over, it is simply in a new phase. The direct attack failed. Now the back door approach comes. Read Dr. Frame again. He complains of appealing to a 350 year old document and how it hampers new scholarship. I hope you can all see how accepting this Denominational Renewal would allow the NEW perspectives on Paul and the Federal Vision in the driver seat.

Response to Sandlin's De-Intellectualization Part 3

Part 1
Part 2

Sandlin response part 3

Another important thing to notice in Andrew Sandlin’s article is the latent episcopacy in his thought. Sandlin is in effect arguing for bishops despite the objection to such leaders on the surface. His article starts off commenting on a response to a book written by Carl Trueman. Trueman makes the following criticism of the book Young Restless and Reformed and the movement associated with that title.

First, there is the absence of the church at key points. Now, this criticism needs to be nuanced. All of those mentioned above are churchmen, and none would wish to see their conferences or their personalities becoming in some way substitutes for the institutional church. Yet the danger is always there whereby people become attached to the man rather than to the message or to the church. We are commanded to love the body of Christ; and our leaders are useful only to the extent that they are instrumental to that end.

Sandlin seems to agree with this attack, but feels it does not go far enough. This is when he launches into the his idea about the need for intellectuals and the lack of them in the list of people in this movement. Again note the criticism is that the leaders of this movement may draw a cult of personality rather than draw people into the body of Christ despite the fact that most of the leaders named by Trueman are by his own admission churchmen and pastors.

Sandlin gives a list of people that were leaders of the Reformed ‘Movement’ when he came into it, who were all intellectuals.

Greg Bahnsen, Donald Bloesch, Gordon Clark, John Frame, John Gerstner, J. I. Packer, R. J. Rushdoony, Francis Schaeffer, Cornelius Van Til.

Note these leaders: Bahnsen was ordained, but never a pastor a church as far as I can see. Bloesch taught at a school for his entire career (E&R and UCC if you are interested). Clark was a professor at Wheaton and Butler for most of his career. Frame is a professor for Westminster for most of his career and is currently at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando. Gerstner was a professor at Pittsburgh Theological and Knox Theological Seminaries. J. I. Packer is a professor most recently of Regent College in Canada, and never appears to have pastored a church. Francis Schaeffer was a pastor for about 10 years, but is most famous for his work at L’Abri, not his work in a pastorate. Cornelius Van Til was yet another life long professor. He taught at Princeton and Westminster Seminaries. R. J. Rushdoony is an exception as he served as a pastor and a missionary; however, he is again best known for his work as a philosopher and writer.

The point here is this. The very objection made by Trueman and expanded upon by Sandlin can be applied to Sandlin himself. Trueman warns against a cult of personality that will end up with follower of man and not followers of Christ implanted into his church. Trueman makes this critique of men who currently pastor churches like John Piper, Ligon Duncan, and Mark Driscoll. Sandlin feels the critique does not apply to the men of his generation like Bahnsen and Van Til, but why? The reason is because they are the intellectuals, and the current crop of men are not. The critique of having a personality cult does not apply to Van Til, Bahnsen, Clark, and Schaeffer because they taught other people ideas and intellectual innovative ideas (according to Sandlin), and they did not ‘shepherd’ (we have seen what Sandlin thinks of that)

I am not saying that Sandlin is against pastors or against the local church. By no means. But, I am saying that Sandlin clearly believes that the leaders of church as a whole ought to be above that. His argumentation appears that way. Here he is in his own words:

We now have in their [see the above list] stead Mark Driscoll, Mark Dever, Ligon Duncan, Joshua Harris, Tim Keller, C. J. Mahaney, Albert Mohler, and R. C Sproul — popularizers and pastors and effective leaders, but not intellectuals.

Sandlin then seems to think the church is only "a virile, creative, living, world-engaging intellectual force" when it is led by intellectuals who are not pastors. What other way is there to describe this than episcopacy? He may not want the actual church hierarchy to go with it, but effectively he wants a bishopric of the Teacher of the Theology. Only under their guidance and leadership can the church then become effective. Sandlin is actively arguing that the church needs Intellectual Bishops to led the church in a direction that will make it an effective force in the world.

This is neither the time nor the place to argue presbyterian from of church government, but it is the time to point out what Sandlin argues for. He is not really against personality cults. He is just against them if the personalities are pastor popularizers.

Sandlin response part 2

Part 1

The next thing I want to point out about Sandlin’s article, The De-Intellectualization of the Reformed Movement, is the complete and utter lack of respect if not out right contempt for the “pastor”. Sandlin is arguing for more giant intellectuals, and that is okay to want giant intellectuals, public intellectuals, but it is not okay to spurn the pastors of the church in the process. This statement is the first hint that something is amiss.

We were not "shepherded" into the movement; we were tractor-beamed into it by the force of ideas.

I do believe that some people come to the Reformed faith because of the consistency of it logically, or because they see the ‘force of ideas’ that are coming out of it. But does that mean we should mock or put scare quotes around those who were ‘shepherded’ into the Reformed church? Certainly not. Can we not minister to people in different ways? Not everyone is the same. I do not need to prove that the Bible favors shepherding people. That really ought to go without saying.

The critique from Sandlin gets more specific in his last section entitled, ‘The Pastoralization’. That entire section is a derision of pastors. Sandlin means to specifically attack the modern leaders of the Reformed Church who are in his mind Pastors or popularizers, but his attack reveals more than that.

The pastoral concerns — concerns, to be sure, from a Reformed perspective — will predominate. The life of the mind will be pushed to the periphery. Calvinism will be reduced to the institutional church, to the "5 Points," to devotional books, to seventeenth-century reprints. It will become therapeutic recovery for exhausted and jaded Arminians. What it will not be is a virile, creative, living, world-engaging intellectual force.

While it is nice he admits pastoral concerns are nice, he separates completely the pastoral concerns from the life of the mind. And this is how I think his attack goes to far. If he thinks that Popularizers are not good for the church as a whole fine. But this attack is not upon popularizing the message. The only fragment of a sentence that can be seen as an attack on popularizing is the ‘5 Points’ comment, which he explained earlier was a term of derision for those that over simplify Calvinism. Devotional material cannot be seen as bad. Should not leaders produce devotional material. Should not pastors be devotional? Is teaching others to be devotional a bad thing? Is it a good thing that Sandlin approves of intellectual leaders who could not write a devotional book if their life depended upon it? I do not think so. I can agree that the church should not be mainly a place of recovery for jaded Arminians, but how can one object to the church being a refuge for such people? I am not sure, but Sandlin appears to object. His comment about the 17th century reprints actual belongs in his earlier paragraph, and his attack on the institutional church is just confusing? Should we be encouraging the non-institutional church? What is it that we do not like about churches? One can only assume it is because they are too ‘pastoral.’

Sandlin then continues his assualt and goes overboard once again.

We should not be surprised that this reduction of Calvinism should occur in a deeply postmodern age — an age that eschews rigorous thinking and sharp distinctions, that delights in "community" and warm emotions, that craves not truth but "relationships." In this way, despite their antipathy to postmodernism, the new non-public intellectual pastoral Calvinists reflect a concession to today’s "postmodern turn."

Now it is true that post-modernism hates truth and prefers relationships. But does that mean that relationships and truth are really against one another? No, of course not. The church can have both, and should have both. Of course intellectual leaders and book writing can only have truth and has nothing to do with relationships or community. However, the bible has different views. We are commanded to come together and worship and not neglect the communion of the saints so that we can provoke one another to good works (Hebrews 10:24-25). It seems the author of Hebrews believes that relationships and community provoke people to good works in their life. Their life in the world. Sandlin of course disagrees:

How can we have a virile, creative, living, world-engaging intellectual force when we lack virile, creative, living, world-engaging intellectuals

Again Hebrews seems to answer this question at least in part with community and relationships. Sandlin thinks such ‘pastoralization’ a bad idea.

Sandlin's De-Intellectualization: A Response Part I

Andrew Sandlin has written a blog called, The De-Intellectualization of the Reformed Movement. It is a piece that deserves attention and probably will receive several responses from me at least because of the many things within it that deserve full treatment by all men.

I do want to say right off the top that I am not against intellectuals or the church having rigorous thinking. I think Sandlin and I would define intellectual very differently, but I understand and appreciate his point that the church needs serious thinkers to interact with the culture at large.

That being said, I disagree with almost everything else said in the blog/article. Let us start with what everyone is expecting me to say: this is pure blooded theological development. I have long thought Sandlin is the most honest and up-front about his holding to theological development that is similar to Schaff. Sandlin again makes that clear here. He starts it in the very title by making sure he always refers to it as the Reformed Movement rather than Reformed Theology or the Reformed Church or the Reformed Tradition. All of that is pushed aside so that we know to be truly reformed means to be moving into new theological ideas all the time. He praises the idea of theologians doing ‘paradematic science’ which he defines as:

"Paradigmatic science," on the other hand, is a landscape-altering scholarship that rearranges the scholarly data into a new model or way of looking.

What Sandlin advocates is a completely new way of looking at the Bible or at Christ or the world through Christ or something. He leaves it a little unclear, but what he misses is the people who took Christianity and jumbled it up, changed it up, twisted it up, and said "here a new theology." To Sandlin that is the heritage of the Reformation. I could not disagree more. Sandlin goes on to bemoan the fact that

The latter [Van Til, Rushdoony, among others], creative thinkers, were, in one way or another, reshaping the theological landscape. The former [Scott Clark, Lig Duncan among others], plodding thinkers, are today trying to get the landscape back to what it looked like before the creative interlopers came along and messed up the lawn.

Sandlin glorifies the ‘creative thinker’ as if the Bible needs to be viewed creatively. If we need to reshape what the Bible teaches every generation or maybe even more often. When we see this love of theological development in Sandlin, it becomes easy to see how this undergirds the modern movements toward Theonomy and why so many theonomists continued on into the Federal Vision. And one can see why Norman Shepherd is beloved. They crave the new. Anyone who comes along and preaches a new way of doing ‘Christianity’ will be the champion. Those who desire something new will continue to move with any new thing because the newness is itself a good virtue. Not following new things is a sad misplaced staleness which Sandlin insults as plodding thinking. He continues his backhanded assault.

First, the bright younger leaders, lacking the intellectual firepower of their immediate predecessors, retrench in a scholastic orthodoxy, taking refuge in the older confessions, wary of the speculation, innovation and daring that characterized those predecessors and committing themselves to policing the ranks of all heterodoxies — real or imagined.

Listen to the insults and see what he is actually insulting. Yes, he is insulting everyone who is not following some new trend and some people are specifically named. But look at what else he insults. "They take refuge in the older confessions". The confessions themselves are insults. Who would want to cling to such ‘old’ (read ‘outdated’) relics. Only the wimps, the intellectual lightweights. The confessions are not good because they do not speculate, change, and innovate. This is very much like Nevin’s comment that they are a ‘necessary evil’. Once people use creeds to hold on to they have missed the point and become intellectual lightweights.

Where oh where do we see the Bible speak like this? Does the Bible invite us to innovate or does it say that it can be understood now and forever. "And all the glory of man as the flower of the grass. The grass withers, And the flower falls away, But the word of the Lord endures forever." (I Peter 2:24-25). Does the meaning of the Bible change or does it endure as a timeless truth to be held by all?
I cannot but help but think of Jeremiah 6:16, "Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein."

More to come

Sectarianism?

This quote from James Jordan says it all.

“The sectarian compares the weakness of other churches to his own supposed strength, and pronounces them apostate on that basis. The catholic notes the weakness of other churches, and because of that tries to work with them, and prays for them. The sectarian thinks history has ended; the catholic realizes that it has not. (If anything, by the way, ‘postmillennialists’ should be even more flexibly catholic than others, because they believe that history has a long way to go, and that theology and ecclesiology will be developing for centuries to come.)”
- James Jordan, The Sociology of the Church, pg. 59

I took this quote from The Liturgical Institute.

The sentence in the parenthesis is what needs pointing out the most. Theology and ecclesiology will be developing for centuries to come! That is a bold statement. Let me boil it down. It basically means that
1) James Jordan knows that Christ will not return for centuries to come, 2) that everything we know about Christ, the Trinity, salvation, the church, and the Bible are all wrong, 3) we need to be willing to jump on whatever new fad comes along.

Call me sectarian if you like, but that is clearly what he is saying. Some might come along and try to paint theological development as like ‘organic’ growth or ‘aging’ growth. They like to use the comparison of math. They argue as follows: ‘When you are young all you know is 2+2=4. But soon you learn division and then geometry and maybe even a little calculus. That never invalidates 2+2=4, but builds upon it.’ That is a nice try at a defense, but it is wrong. The whole idea of theological development is not based on a math model, but on Hegel’s dialectic model. Where the thesis and the antithesis make a new synthesis. The original thesis and antithesis are now both wrong. They are not built upon, they are left behind. So it is with theological development. The more honest thinkers will admit that (see Philip Schaff), but that is hard to come by today. The other reason the analogy with math breaks down is because of the nature of theology. Justification by Faith Alone is invalidated if add works to it. It is no longer justification by faith alone. One can change the definition of the word ‘faith’ or the word ‘alone’, but it still invalidates the original claim, and it does not build upon it.

I am tired of people telling me that the church is ignorant and needs a few centuries to grow up. The truth is the truth yesterday, today, and forever.

Doug Wilson and His General Associations

This is just too much for me to lay off. The RPCNA has just come out with a few short statements rejecting the Federal Vision and the New Perspectives on Paul. Doug Wilson has attacked this statement to no one’s surprise. Now notice his response is an attack on the idea that the RPCNA stated they rejected "the theological views that are generally associated with the movements identified as "the New Perspective(s) on Paul" and the "Federal Vision"." His entire post is rhetorical flourish attacking this one line. Of course he drives it to absurd conclusions, but that is what Rev. Wilson does best: be absurd.

Let us examine exactly why the RPCNA said ‘generally associated’ with the Federal Vision. You may remember those early denunciations of the FV. They did not use ‘generally associated’ and of course the FV proponents jumped all of it. Notice the lines saying the Federal Vision is not a monolithic movement in Joseph Minich’s paper saying that they are not movements but ‘impulses’. That paper is found on the site dedicated to setting the record straight about the Federal Vision. This was of course one of the ways they rejected the attacks on the Federal Vision. Of course if that is not enough proof see Rev. Steve Wilkins’s response to the Mississippi Valley Report. It is his second reason why the report is flawed when it criticizes the Federal Vision. You remember Rev. Wilkins, right? He is the guy who just escaped discipline by fleeing to Doug Wilson’s Confederation. And just in case you did not believe me, we have the joint Federal Vision Statement itself, which I think Doug signed or wrote. It specifically states that the Federal Vision is not a ‘monolithic movement’ and is more accurately called ‘a conversation’, ‘a broad school of thought’, ‘a series of similar questions’ and so on.

So knowing the tendency of Federal Vision advocates to get cranky when lumped together it seems quite reasonable to condemn those ideas generally associated with the FV. If Doug’s complaint is like Mark Horne’s who does not want to condemn innocents by using such a broad brush, they need look no further than the second and third point of their statement. One requires the belief in several things including imputation of active obedience and justification by faith alone, and the other directs people to several other church and seminary papers further defining what they mean in their general denunciation that Doug Wilson finds so broad. Perhaps he should have kept reading.

Let me tell you why this makes me so angry. At best this is Doug Wilson trying to have his cake and eat it too by criticizing either method of attacking the FV. At worst this is Doug being completely disingenuous by taking the opposite side of what he had been doing for so long. However, I could look past both of these things. It was the last lines that made me so upset. After quoting Dr. Scott Clark’s listing of all the denominations that have rejected the FV, he makes this quip.

That's the problem with men like Athanasius. No good at math. Don't know how to count. Can read pretty good though.

Really? So, let me get this analogy straight. Doug Wilson is the persecuted champion of the Trinity. That makes all of those who disagree with him Arians and heretics. Well, at least we can all dispense with the niceties. It is clear that the Federal Vision (and those who associate with it but prefer to call themselves a conversation) is another gospel. They teach another gospel. Finally, Doug is honest, and he rejects the traditional Reformation doctrine of salvation by faith alone as like that of the Arians: heresy.

I hope no one is left who misunderstands exactly where Rev. Wilson stands on the playing field. He is not in the middle, on the side line or in the stands. And he is clearly not on the team of salvation by faith alone.

Baptism and the Covenant

I wanted to blog about this post by Mark Horne over at Biblical Horizons. I know it is a post from long ago, but it was interesting and I thought deserving of a response no matter how late.

The question he is dealing with is whether or not baptism admits one into the covenant or confirms that one is already there. He does some quoting from the Westminster Shorter Catechism and makes his argument that baptism admits one into the covenant. With this I disagree. I shall not deal with Westminster quotes or argumentation because I do not hold to the Westminster and thus shall just let someone else argue about it. However, I should point out that this might be a difference between the Westminster and the Heidelberg Catechism. The HC specifically states about infant baptism, "Yes [infants are to be baptized], for since they, as well as their parents belong to the covenant and people of God," (Q.74). Thus, the reason given for infant baptism by the Heidelberg is that the infants already belong to the covenant of God. It should also be noted that the Heidelberg is explicit that sacraments are for assurance and confirmation not for conveying (see Q.65 and 67). The Westminster is less clear.

Rev. Horne does nice work in examining OT passages regarding the Passover, special feasts and circumcision. He has some ideas about why women were unclean after birth and whether or not that makes babies unclean and why that puts circumcision on the 8th day. I do believe he drifts into some speculation such as making the argument that children in utero were partaking of the Passover. He even goes so far as to make this an argument for paedocommunion. This makes the sacrament more about the act of eating than anything else. I find little support for the idea that babies getting nourishment through an umbilical cord is seen biblically as participating in the feasts of the OT. But I digress. Rev. Horne does deal with many Psalms that indicate a special saving relationship between God and the unborn (8.2; 22.9-10; 71.5-6, 17). He also mentions else where Samson and one could add John the Baptist as well. His answer is that is because the child is "in" the mother or "covered by the mother". He gives his defense from the ceremonial law. It makes for interesting reading.

But, I disagree because of a verse that Rev. Horne did not discuss. Genesis 17:7 speaks of the covenant and who it is with. Note the language. "And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." Here we see the covenant is with God and Abraham, but also with his seed. At this time of course Abraham has no seed, but the covenant is still with them. They are not yet in their mother so the idea of the mother covering them cannot be used in this example. They are already parties to the covenant. The seed of Abraham are already made parties to the covenant here in Genesis 17. Rev. Horne does deal with Genesis 17:14 where the uncircumcised male child shall be cut off for breaking the covenant. Rev. Horne believes this only applies to the adult, but admits that language like this is used and the line is hazy. However, I think that Genesis 17 fits nicely with the Psalms mentioned above by us both that God is in covenant relationship with them already, prior to baptism.

It should also be noted that both the Belgic and the Heidelberg list as reasons for baptism of infants the fact that the promise of salvation is to them. Of course the Matthew passage of let the little children come to me is listed (19:14). And the Belgic makes reference to Leviticus 12:6-8 where the command is given to sacrifice for a child born either male or female. Females of course did not have circumcision, but they had the promise of redemption as seen in the sacrifice, thus they should be baptized. And the fact that the promise of redemption was for these children, it implies that they are a part of the covenant by birth. Rev. Horne fails to deal with this difficulty as well. If circumcision admitted one into the covenant rather than serving as a sign of it or confirmation of it, were women in the covenant? If so, how did they get in? Their birth alone cannot be the reason or all of the argumentation is undone. It would be helpful for Rev. Horne to address this problem in his argument.

The article is interesting and his admonition to deal with the book of Leviticus and OT typology is well taken. This book cannot be ignored. However, in the end, I find his argument wanting, and I must take the opposite position. I believe, along with the Three Forms of Unity, that baptism does not admit one into the covenant, but rather confirms one as already in it.

More on Wright and Life after Death

In the most recent Christianity Today Bishop N.T. Wright has an article (or perhaps it is an excerpt) about his new book and Heaven. I had previously questioned Bishop Wright’s belief in a traditional view of heaven based on some interviews given to promote the book. The article is much more illuminating. I was wrong in my first reading of the article. Bishop Wright does hold to a traditional view of heaven, and that is much more clear in this article. Especially when he uses phrase like ‘life after life after death’. He is trying to focus on the resurrection of the body, and in my opinion, he needlessly knocks heaven to focus on the New Heaven and New Earth. But, despite his slighting it, I do think he believes in it. I still have a few quips with the article, but Bishop Wright is bringing focus in on the resurrection of the body, which is not a bad thing, and maybe in many places really needs to be brought back into focus. There is an attitude of escape that permeates parts of evangelicalism that need to be reminded that the ultimate destination is a re-made world, a new Earth and a new Heaven, and that these bodies will rise just as Jesus rose on the third day. That message is laudable.

I do think that Bishop Wright promotes a bit of an environmental agenda with this doctrine, and I do think that he overplays the problem. After all any church that confesses the Apostle’s Creed confesses belief in the ‘resurrection of the body’; however, I am willing to admit that the situation may be different in England. Some of his exegesis bothers me such as his interpretation of ‘citizens of heaven’ in Philippians 3, but he is not denying a heaven that exists now for those who are dead in Christ until the bodily resurrection.

I wrote this brief piece to follow up the earlier critical piece. The interview was a little misleading, but this article is clearer. It is better than his interview.

Theological Renewal or Defining the Conversation?

Jeff Meyers has a post up about a recent conference lecture. The lecture is by a man named Jeremy Jones and is entitled Renewing Theology. From what Rev. Meyers discusses it seems that the talk spoke of how Reformed Churches often become ‘Police States’, and tries to explain how that happens so it can be avoided in the future. This post intrigued me and I think deserves a thoughtful response. I will use the same number used in the Meyers post for ease of reference.

An unnumbered point is that all Reformed churches or theologies begin with a ‘golden age’. The example of the 17th century is used. When you read someone attacking a golden age and equating the golden age with the 17th century you can simply substitute in Westminster Confession of Faith. It sounds better to attack an idea of golden age, but I think it is also a vain attempt to hide the real source of the attack, the creed. Likewise if you ever read of someone attacking a 16th century golden age you can substitute the Heidelberg or Belgic Confession. So reading the post, understand that point. The creeds are in view.

1. Presupposed theological decline – This sound interesting. If we start with a golden age (creed) one can only go down and not improve on the creeds, or at least that is the supposition attacked here. Thus, the inverse is being argued, that theological progression is indeed possible. Not only is it possible, but it is desirable. There really only appear to be two options on understanding point number one. Either it is wrong to require adherence to the creed and punish people for failure to adhere or theological progression should be the norm and thus creeds are only a “necessary evil” as John Nevin once said. I would bet that the latter is in view, but it is a debatable position. Theological Development is not universally accepted and a full fledged debate on that point has yet to occur.

2. Equating current disputes with past ones – Again this is well put. It seems wrong to compare one position to an older already condemned position. Almost as if it is a logic trick of some kind to poison the well of debate. However, what of the Biblical admonition that there is nothing new under the sun? If nothing is new is it not possible that many of the ‘new’ ideas are really old ones with a new coat of paint? And if so it is wrong to demonstrate similarities? If we can never equate current events with historical ones then why study history at all? What purpose does it serve if not to warn? It seems the real objection ought to be the lack of listening or the sloppy connections or the lack of proof. But, that is not how the objection is phrased. The objection is the comparison in the first place.

3. The use of slippery slope argumentation – Here the objection is made that opponents will say that someone’s thinking leads to some other outright error even if it is specifically denied by the defendant. Is arguing the ‘logical consequence’ of a position a wrong or the sign of a police state mentality? A quote is given from Dabney who argues that false principle will always work out to their logical conclusion. A sound statement in my opinion. Logical consequences must be examined. At the very least there seems room for disagreement about whether or not false ideas will work out to their logical consequences in time.

4. An interconnected system means one problem threatens all – Here again I believe real and deep philosophical possibilities are simply rejected out of hand. Coherentism is an espistemological position that does seem to say that breaking one strand of the spider web damages the whole. That all beliefs are interconnected. Even such recent theologians as Gordon Clark thought that how coherent a system of thought is should be the ground to judge it as a legitimate system. Like it or hate it, it is a real philosophical debate. One cannot cast it aside as if it were wrong outright.

These things add up to show a denomination police state according to the lecture/blog. One wonders at the real nature of the objection when the comments are read. Look at the first comment by James Jordan.

You know that there is much, much more that is going to come forth from the Word as new cultures are converted and bring new questions and perspectives. The Spirit has only begun His work. We are in a Conversation.

I believe the real objection at work here is the whole idea of creeds. Creeds are not a conversation. Creeds hold people back from moving along with the developing culture and questions. What one needs is to be open to theological development. The real objection is to the resistance to tearing down the old spider web and building a new one. Mark Horne also comments in the sixth comment.

But in general, everything in the past is meant to be surpassed. Everything we know will one day seem uncivilized and tainted with error by future generations that know better.

Everything we know will be overthrown as tainted with error? Jesus Christ as the eternal-godman will one day be seen as an outmoded way of talking about Jesus? Nicaea, Chalcedon, Ephesus, all will be in the dustbin of history with Marx and the Westminister Confession of Faith? I beg to differ. I do not hold to Theological Development, nor do I hold to golden ages. It is interesting to me how the word postmillennial is now co-opted to mean Theological Development. I know that people can hold to a return of Christ that comes after a 1000 year reign and not think that all knowledge is meant to be surpassed and that the church is still an infant.

I could talk about how this was argued by Schaff and Nevin, but that would break one of the rules. I could talk about how such a position logically is an attack on history and those who have gone before, but that violates another rule. I could talk about how such a belief in theological development necessitates developing and changing the rest of your beliefs, but that was also forbidden. I do not think this Renewing Theology Lecture is so much an attempt to show the police state nature of modern churches as to frame the debate so that there is no way for Developmentalists to lose.

I am not defending the PCA, but I do not think this helps further the discussion

Wright on Life After Death

Bishop N.T. Wright recently gave an interview to Time Magazine where he explained why the traditional view of life after death is wrong. I found this article because of Barb at Whilin Away the Hours who defends Bishop Wright as teaching "very good" and did not see this article as a rejection of Christian teaching despite the name of the article which Wright agreed with when asked. So, I thought I would quickly show exactly where Wright is rejecting orthodoxy and the traditional view of heaven and life after death.

I should start with some agreement, so let me agree with Barb that the main point of Bishop Wright’s’ article is to describe the ultimate state, the one of a reunited soul and body after the return of Jesus. Bishop Wright wants to put more emphasis on this final state. That is not wrong. All Christians have believed that the ultimate state is one of a resurrected bodies, and perhaps one can make the case that this is too often ignored. Bishop Wright’s motivation comes from a desire to recapture that doctrine of Christianity. However, it seems he may desire to emphasize that because he thinks that the traditional view allows people to do whatever they want with their bodies now, and that might lead people to not care about "acid rain or greenhouse gasses" or even if we bomb "civilians in Iraq". So, it is fairly clear that Bishop Wright wants to draw attention to an orthodox point of doctrine; however, his motives may indeed be based in politics and social gospel stuff.

Now that we all agree the ultimate state of man is both resurrected body and soul, we can move on to his rejection of what happens to the dead believer prior to the return of Christ. Of course, Bishop Wright mischaracterizes it and uses a book by Maria Shriver (Arnold’s wife) to buttress his point rather than an actual book by a theologian. The traditional view of life after death is that a man’s soul goes to be with the Lord in heaven, and there awaits the final resurrection, but while there the soul is engaged in activity such as worship. Bishop Wright does not deny that we are somehow in the presence of God, but Wright goes on to say we are:

resting and being refreshed. Paul writes that it will be conscious, but compared with being bodily alive, it will be like being asleep.

He quotes another idea favorably:

"God will download our software onto his hardware until the time he gives us new hardware to run the software again for ourselves." That gets to two things nicely: that the period after death is a period when we are in God's presence but not active in our own bodies, and also that the more important transformation will be when we are again embodied and administering Christ's kingdom.

Of course the ultimate reason that church has believed the wrong thing for so long is that we are too Greek and not Jewish enough. Same old, same old. Plato is the real enemy and Second Temple Judaism is the savior. Yada, yada, yada. He does briefly touch on a few verses that uphold the traditional view. He rejects Jesus saying to the thief ‘Today you will be with me in Paradise’ because Jesus is not resurrected for three days, so it must be some intermediate state. Wright here ducks the question by trying to answer it as a resurrection question rather than what happens right after you die question. He also seems to imply that Revelation 4 and 5 are about the worship of the church on earth right now and not in heaven, but I must admit I may not be completely understanding him at this point as there really are a lot of possible views on the book of Revelation.

So in essence Bishop Wright is advocating some sort of peaceful conscious sleep that is like being uploaded into God to wait until we get bodies. This is not the traditional view, and allow me to give some Scriptures that more clearly deal with life after death. The story of the Rich Man and Lazarus given in Luke 16 is the best example. There the rich man is suffering torment and Lazarus the beggar is with Abraham. Yet, communication is possible. The Rich man pleads with Abraham, who is also there, and the two talk. Clearly, no bodily resurrection is in view, but hell exists, punishment is being given and rewards are being given. The Soul, sans the body, is able to feel and communicate. They are not sleeping nor simply downloaded. They both seem very active. Another place is Revelation 6. Regardless of how one reads 4 and 5, chapter 6 presents a problem for Bishop Wright. Verses 9-11 tell of the fifth seal where the Martyrs cry out. Here the martyrs are under the altar and crying out for God to avenge them. So we can see we are pre-bodily resurrection because the word "souls" is used in verse 9 so this is not soul plus body. We know it is pre-return of Christ because that appears to be what they are asking for. And we know that the souls are crying out. Speaking. Communicating. They are active in a sense that Bishop Wright seems to reject. 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 prove problamatic for Wright as well. As Paul speaks of a man being caught up into the Third Heaven which he also calls Paradise (providing problems for Wright’s rejection of the Thief on the Cross), and in that third heaven Paul heard wonderful words. It was not a place of rest, but rather a place of revelation from God. Of course Elijah provides problems as a man who avoided death. But even more of a problem is the Transfiguration where Elijah and Moses appear with Christ. Clearly we do not yet have a bodily resurrection, but two men are seen with Christ and they are recognized. And then John 14:2-3 seem to militate against the Wright redefining of life after death. There Jesus tells the people he goes to prepare a room for them in His father’s house. And he shall receive them Himself. Now Wright seems to indicate that Jesus always spoke of coming again to us, but here is one clear occasion where Jesus spoke of us going to Him.

In conclusion, I think that Wright wants to place more emphasis on the body, and there may be a real place for that, but Wright has gone to the other extreme and minimized the soul. He seems to say that without the body man is unable to do things like worship, communicate, and exist in a physical place. He prefers the software to hardware analogy. Software is useless without hardware, but that is hardly the picture we get from the Bible of our souls after death. He starts off worrying that we ignore our bodies, and ends up making us almost nothing but bodies.

[The following should be viewed as redacted. I did not corretly remember and represent the position of Philip Schaff. I leave it set off in italics for historical purposes. See discussion in comments for more details]
And for those of you wondering about how this fits into the thesis that most of the FV/Shepherd/Wright stuff is a revival of Mercersburg Theology, Philip Schaff taught a Middle State very similar to this. It was the only time he was censured by the Board of Visitors of Mercersburg. He promised to not teach it, and the Visitors agreed not to turn him over to Synod for a trial. However, we now know that it appears he continued to teach it anyway. There is nothing new under the sun.

PCA and FV Update

Perhaps you have already heard but Rev. Steve Wilkins and his entire church have left the PCA and are seeking union with the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CRE). This is not surprising per se as the CRE is the final destination for all FV men or at least it will be.

It is a little bit of a surprise that Rev. Wilson seems to call it a victory. He is quite happy about the church joining his denomination, but a few months ago he seemed excited about the PCA being exposed by having this process done out in the open. The PCA did seem to encourage the strategy finally employed by Rev Wilkins in their ‘Leave or else’ declaration. Both sides decided in the end to avoid a fight, and what exactly happens now is up in the air. Does the PCA continue to prosecute the Louisiana Presbytery? Will other members of that presbytery flee to the arms of the CRE? Will the PCA turn its attention to others like Rev. Leithart? The issue is not dead, but it is ducked for another year or so.

Another interesting post is the one at Reformed Catholicism. Read the interaction in the comments especially response #9 from Rev. Sandlin. Sandlin has a very large rebuke for the CRE.