WCF vs. 3FU Adoption

There is another difference between the two that is more of a difference in emphasis and omission.  And that can be found in the Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 12 echoed in the Larger Catechism 74 and Smaller Catechism 34.  This chapter is on adoption.

Again it is not that the Three Forms of Unity deny adoption.  But they simply move past it quickly as a given or merge it into justification.  The Heidelberg Catechism assumes this doctrine as the phrase “my Father” is used in many places such Question 1 or more prominently HC#26 where the answer states, “That the eternal Father of our Lord Jesus Christ . . . is for the sake of Christ, his Son, my God and my Father”.  But the force of HC#26 is about the providential control of the God the Father Almighty, and is not specifically addressing adoption.  Clearly it is believed, but not explained.  The Belgic Confession has no chapter on Adoption, and it is only briefly mentioned in the chapter on Baptism (34) as God being our Father. 

The Westminster is unique in its emphasis on Adoption.  The French Confession of Calvin does not discuss it, the Second Helvetic Confession of Bullinger does not discuss it.  Even Turretin’s Elenctic Theology does not have a separate section for adoption.  Rather there it is discussed as a subset of justification.  And the famous “ordo salutis” as advocated by Louis Berkhof does not include adoption.  And so it would seem flowing out of the Dutch creeds, adoption has not been stressed. 

However, the Westminster does seem to put Adoption into the ordo salutis.  The chapters of the Westminster go from Effectual Calling to Justification to Adoption to Sanctification and eventually to Perseverance to the end.  The Westminster stresses it by giving it is own chapter.  And it points out that adoption is a free grace and is a legal action that by which we are given the liberties and privileges of being a child of God.  This beautiful chapter in the Westminster is only one article, but by going against the flow of Reformed Creeds and giving adoption its own chapter makes it an important chapter.

I think you could probably argue that adoption still does not get the emphasis that it needs in the Reformed world today.  However, only the Westminster can rightly claim to have given adoption a place of importance and stress. 

WCF vs. Three Forms - The Church

Let us move on to the next difference between the Westminster and the Heidelberg specifically.  And this is regarding the Church.  This can be found in the Heidelberg mainly in Question 54 about the Holy Catholic Church and the WCF chapter 25. 

Now there is wide agreement.  Both have Christ as the head of the church (WCF 25.1, HC#50).  Both define the church primarily as the elect throughout all of history (WCF 25.1, HC #54).  Both understand that the church on earth contains unbelievers (WCF 25.2,4-5, HC#82).  Now it is explicit in the Westminster, and more an implication in the Heidelberg.  The Westminster labels it as an invisible and visible church.  This labeling is not found in the Heidelberg and the answer to HC#54 about the church specifically speaks of the elect.  Yet, we do see the Heidelberg talk about infants belonging to the people of God (#74), and the practice of church discipline to remove unbelievers and hypocrites (#82).  Clearly then the Heidelberg acknowledges this visible church understanding and the presence of unbelievers in the visible walls of the church. 

The main difference comes in WCF 25.3 and Heidelberg Q#54.  The Westminster begins here, “Unto this catholic visible Church Christ has given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God for the gathering and perfecting of the saints in this life”.  The Westminster than has the Church given Word and the Church then gathers with the oracles, ordinances, and ministry, which is later said to be made effectual by the Spirit.  The Heidelberg has a different approach.  “That out of the whole human race, from the beginning to the end of the world, the Son of God, by His Spirit and Word, gathers, defends, and preserves for Himself unto everlasting life a chosen communion in the unity of the true faith; and that I am and forever shall remain a living member of this communion.”  Do you see the difference?

Yeah okay, I didn’t either the first times I read it.  But the difference is in where the church comes from.  The Westminster has the church existing and then being given the ministry and oracles and is the main actor in the gathering and perfecting of the saints, although its power is still rooted in the Spirit.  The Heidelberg has the church created by Son with the Word and Spirit of God.  The main actor then is no so much the Church as Christ. 

Perhaps you have heard the quote, “You cannot have God for your father unless you have the church as your mother”.   It is from Cyprian as far as I can tell.  And the metaphor of Church as mother is often seen even in Calvin’s writings.  However, I believe the metaphor only fits the Westminster view of the church.  There the church is an actor in bringing about gathering of believers.  This leads to the declaration that “outside of [the church] there is no ordinary possibility of salvation”.  A phrase found in the Belgic, but not the Heidelberg.  For the Heidelberg if you are saved, you are part of the church.  You were not birthed by the church, but gathered by God and now a member of His church.  Now Q#55 lets us know you will now feel bound to use your gifts in the communion of the saints and thus, no believer will keep himself apart from a visible church, but ultimately the stress of the Heidelberg is that you are in the church now.  Christ saved you.  It is not God as father and Church as mother.  It is gathered by Christ to be the church.  Through the Word and Spirit you have been gathered and made part of the church now.  The Heidelberg is stressing the individual’s integration into the Church.  The last clause does that as well.  You are now and forever shall remain part of that communion.  The Westminster has the people gathered by the Church’s use of the means and the integration of the individual into the Church is not discussed. 

It has to be noted here the Belgic has the Westminster’s view.  And oddly enough the Westminster Larger Catechism has the Heidelberg’s view.  WLC #63 the church is gathered and protected by God and it is God who offers grace by Christ to the members of the Church, and not the Church being given the ministry and then the church using that ministry to gather people in.  Remember this fact when we get around to discussing the Westminster Larger Catechism as its own document and not really a summary of the Westminster Confession of Faith. 

The outworking of this view of Church is a bit more difficult to see.  But the WCF has a Higher Church view than does the Heidelberg.  It is not surprising to see then occasional revivals of High Church theology in a Westminster system. 

Three Forms vs. WCF: Assurance

The first difference I would like to examine is not the Sabbath, but rather works and their role in assurance.  

It should probably be noted that the different places these works of a believer are discussed is probably important.  The Heidelberg starts with our sin, moves to salvation in Christ (where works are denied), then hits the sacraments before going on to Christian works of thankfulness.  The WCF starts with creation, sin, salvation in Christ (where works are denied), and then goes into works, assurance, the Law, and even civil government before getting around to the sacraments.  

Let us start with WCF 16.2: "These good works, done in obedience to God's commandments are the fruit and evidence of a true and lively faith and by them believers manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their faith . . ."  

The WCF starts by letting us know that good works are an evidence of our salvation in Christ.  Thus, we can expect to see works as a major portion of our assurance of salvation.  The article does mention the role of works in strengthening our faith among other things.  The section does go on to mention the imperfection of even these works, but still the works are a reliable evidence of our salvation.  WCF 18.1 then does follow this logic by stressing assurance can be had for those who "truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love Him in sincerity, endeavoring to walk in all good conscience before Him".  Notice the assurance seems to be looking primarily at ourselves including our works, which I would say falls under walking in a good conscience before God.  18.2 gives the ground of assurance as the "divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promise are made, the testimony of the Spirit witnessing with our spirits".  While this does add the outward promise of God the other are inward focused.  The Westminster Larger Catechism Q.80 answers assurance by combining those two making the stress again fall upon those who are endeavoring to walk in good conscience.  Absent from the assurance section is any mention of the sacraments.

The Heidelberg takes a very different view focusing outward on Christ for assurance.  Assurance shows up in Q65 about the sacraments where the Holy Ghost confirms our faith by the use of the holy sacraments.  Now the WCF uses the confirming one's faith language in their section on the sacraments, but the sacraments themselves do not show up in the section on assurance and works do, while works themselves have already been discussed.  The Heidelberg begins with the sacraments, which "declare and seal to us the promise of the Gospel".  Thus, assurance is going to come from the means of grace, which are designed to direct us not to ourselves, but to the "sacrifice of Christ on the cross as the only ground of salvation" (Q.67).  Then the in-depth discussion of both sacraments is slamming that fact home.  How do they direct us to the cross?  Where can you find that in the word?  Is the power in the sacraments themselves?  Now in HC.Q86 we do see the Heidelberg say that works have the function of assuring our faith by the fruits thereof, but it still comes out as third in a list of four.  Let us not forget that the Heidelberg has already taught us that our good works in this life are all defiled with sin (Q.62).  The discussion of the commandments is next, and it ends with this reminder that "even the holiest of men, while in this life, have only a small beginning of such obedience" (Q.114), and that the law for the believer is still ultimately to teach us our sinfulness and drive us to Christ for forgiveness and to Him in prayer for sanctification (Q.115).  It is not quite the same view of the Law shown in WCF 19.6 where the law itself is useful to the regenerate to "restrain their corruptions".  The Heidelberg seems to focus on the law as showing our corruption and leaves the making us ready and willing to live unto God up to the Spirit (HC#1).  

So it appears a very different method of assurance is found in the Three Forms as opposed to the WCF.  The WCF points heavily to oneself and the personal witness of the spirit and their own works, to serve as evidence of salvation and thus assurance.  The Heidelberg points much more toward preaching and the sacraments as the main route of assurance since those both point toward Christ on the cross.  The Belgic seems to agree more with the Heidelberg as it states in Article 24 if we looked to works "we would always be in doubt, tossed to and fro without any certainty, and our poor consciences would be continually vexed".  No assurance that does not point to Jesus Christ.  Although it has to be admitted that the Canons of Dort 5th Head of Doctrine seem to point inward to a witnessing of the Spirit to one's spirit, and to one's work as the way to assurance.  

In summary assurance for the WCF is to look within oneself to see the fruits and for the Heidelberg and Belgic it is to look to what Christ has done.  

I open the floor for discussion and rebuttal.

Westminster Vs. Three Forms Intro

One of the things that concerns me about the growing call for more Calvin in the Lord’s Supper and the rooting out of all Zwinglians, and thus unknowingly the Bullinger position as well, is the enshrinement of the Westminster tradition over the Continental traditions. 

I am not sure how the Westminster became so dominant, but it clearly has.  Yes, this is a country of mostly Englishmen and Scots.  I get it.  But still denominations with Continental backgrounds almost cannot wait to talk about and follow the Westminster.  Is there any stricter sabbatarian denomination around than the URCNA or the Heritage Congregations?  Both of those denominations have a very Westminster view of the Sabbath despite having confessional documents other than the Westminster!  The Two Kingdom debate is dominated by how it fits with the Westminster (see the Confessional Presbyterian and the Mid America Journal of this past year) even though some of the people participating adhere to the Three Forms.  When was the last time you saw an argument about what the Heidelberg and the Canons of Dort said about the issue? 

It is often said that there is no real difference between the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms, but only in tone.  This is simply not true.  Now I am not saying the Westminster is a different faith or anything like that.  The Westminster Standards and the Three Forms are both part of the Reformed Tradition, but the differences are real and do end up in some different places.  It is not just about style, nor is it that the Westminster is just further along the doctrinal development road (that is just condescending and in the end probably a way to help make the Westminster tradition the only one), nor is it that it is just in one or two questions.  I hope to start going through some of these differences so that we can stop trying to merge these traditions.

Three Views on the Supper

I do reserve the right to have my mind changed by debate that I do hope happens, but I will just start the conversation because I don’t think the conversation is taking place at all, and that is to our detriment.  

The conversation is about the Lord’s Supper and the phrase “Means of Grace”.  Everywhere one looks on the internet you can find people complaining about Zwinglianism and the answer to it always be more like Calvin, which is defined then as a Means of Grace view.  First, I think Zwinglianism is an acceptable Reformed view, and undeniably the original reformed view.  Second, I think there are more Reformed views than these two, namely you have Bullinger’s view.  Third, I think all three views are rightly described as a “Means of Grace”.  

It starts with the word “means”.  Dictionary.com shows us that definition can be “to be used to convey; denote” or it can be “to act as a symbol of; signify or represent”.  If you are familiar with the Zwingli vs. Calvin debate in the Lord’s Supper, I think you can see Calvin would use “means” according to the first and Zwingli fits nicely into the second definition of “means”.  Calvin thinks the bread and wine instrumentally convey grace and Zwingli thinks it represents grace already accomplished.  Thus even Zwingli could claim the Supper as a means of grace since pondering what is symbolized and represented in the bread and wine is using the Supper as a means to understand and remember the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.  So this debate needs to stop degrading Zwingli so thoughtlessly.  It really is more a debate between “Symbolic Memorialism” vs. “Symbolic instrumentalism”.  And there is another option.

Bullinger had a different view that one could easily argue was actually the majority opinion in the Reformed Churches known as “Symbolic Parrallelism”.  Bullinger admits a present grace, but denies the instrumental connection that Calvin demands.  As Bullinger describes in Chapter 19 of the Second Helvetic Confession, “so that the faithful, when they receive them [sacraments] of the ministers, do know that the Lord works in His own ordinance, and, therefore, they receive them as from the hand of God”.  Bullinger admits a present grace, which Zwingli seems to reject, but Bullinger has the physical sacrament on a completely different track than the receiving of the grace.  Grace can be seen as parallel to the sacraments, but not physically united to it.  Compare that to say the Scots Confession of 1560 Chapter 21, which after damning those who believe in bare signs and rejecting transubstantiation goes on to say, “but this union and conjunction which we have with the body and blood of Christ Jesus in the right use of the sacraments is wrought by operation of the Holy Ghost, who by true faith carries us above all things that are visible, carnal, and earthly, and makes us to feed upon the body and blood of Christ”.  Note here the conjunction of the grace to the physical element.  Again in the French Confession of 1559 Chapter 37, “He sacramentally exhibits; and, therefore, we enjoin with the signs the true possession and enjoyment of what is offered to us in them.”  They are not parallel, but intersected.  Christ is in the signs, and true enjoyment of the grace of Christ is offered in the bread and wine.  The sacrament is the instrument used by Spirit to bring grace to us.  

If you are looking to categorize Confessions we can easily see many that are Calvinistic “Symbolic Instrumentalism” such as the French Confession, the Scots Confession, and The Belgic Confession”.  We can see some Zwinglian “symbolic memorialism”.  And we can see many Bullinger inspired confessions or “symbolic parallelism” such as the Second Helvetic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism.  Yes, the Heidelberg is Bullinger on the Lord’s Supper.  Question 75 goes to great length to keep grace unfettered from the sign.  “As certainly” as I see the sacrament, I know Christ the promise of Christ being offered for me.  It is a “pledge and token” (Q.73), “testifying” (Q.80) of what Christ offers and has done.  The grace is parallel to the sacrament, not presented in or instrumentally through.  In fact Question 76 of what does it mean to eat the crucified body and drink the shed blood can be summarized as simply “believe the promise of God and be united to Christ” something not really tied to the administration of the sacrament at all.  

Still think it might be Calvinistic?  Consider this comment from Calvin in a dedication to Frederick III of the Palatinate:

That we really feed in the Holy Supper on the flesh and blood of Christ . . . we freely confess.  If a clearer explanation is asked, we say, that the substance of Christ's flesh and blood is our spiritual life, and that it is communicated to us under the symbols of bread and wine. (as quoted in A Faith Worth Teaching, Jon Payne, pg.117)

That is not what the Heidelberg says.  Feeding on Christ is not said to be done in the Supper, but in believing, and never is it communicated under the bread or wine.   

The Westminster Confession is ambiguous, but the Larger Catechism (especially 170) is very Calvin.  The First Confession of Basel is ambiguous, but clearly not Zwinglian.  The First Helvetic Confession is Bullinger’s Parallelism although perhaps a Zwinglian could claim it.  Farel’s Geneva Confession of 1536 is Zwinglian.  Laski’s Emden Catechism of 1554 is Zwinglian.  

I hope that we can see that it is not as simple as Zwingli vs. Calvin and that toss everything that is not Calvin aside is to throw away the vast majority of the Reformation.  There will be more, but for now I stop to listen to the comments (if any).  

Nothing New at New Life

Christianity Today’s cover article actually made me sad.  It is about New Life church in Colorado Springs and where it is now (supposedly in a recovery) after the Ted Haggard business and the shooting that followed not long after.  It made me sad because I still don’t think they get it. 

The article is written by a man who worked there for a long time, left after all the bad stuff, and has recently come back.  But listen to his description of why he started going there in the first place.  He describes the priorities as: “Be a blessing to the world around you”.  Then he states,

"Haggard issued a straight-forward gospel, one calling Christians to give their lives to steady prayer and acts of love." (CT Dec. 2013 issue. pg. 38) 

I am not against prayer and acts of love nor being a blessing to those around you, but this is not the straight forward gospel.  The gospel call is straightforward, but it is “Repent and believe”.  Believe what?  Believe Jesus is the Christ, Son of the living God, who has come into the world to take away our sins.  According to the article this was not part of the “glory days” of New Life.  Sin is not something you will find mentioned much in the article nor repentance.  Then, according to the article, they went astray getting into politics and then the awful stuff.  Now they are getting back to basics.  What are those basics?  Back to prayer and being a blessing to the less fortunate with acts of love.  This is not getting back to the gospel of Jesus Christ, it is back to community service. 

The article goes on to talk about how at New Life – Downtown they are doing some sort of Anglican worship and how the elders have now voted the Nicene Creed as their statement of faith.  But it is hard to escape the notion that they have no idea about the theology behind Anglican worship.  Or behind a man being ordained a “priest”.  The article mentions the insights of John Stott, Karl Barth, N.T. Wright, but most importantly Eugene Peterson, the author of the Message.  Somehow, I think even Wright would be horrified at that thought. 

The article was the cover article and touted as good news amidst the awful news that is usually reported.  I found the distinct lack of “good news” to be the main problem.  I am glad that community service is being done.  But that is not what saves people’s souls.  That is not any different than what the Rotary Club does.  New Life appears to have never focused in on the gospel, and they are still missing the boat.  Out of all the bad news usually reported, I find this to be the saddest of all.

 

DISCLAIMER: I lived in the Springs and knew several people who attended New Life before the Haggard controversy. 

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. 

September 14th worse than September 11th?

September 11th was a horrible day.  A day worth remembering.  However, does anyone remember the devastation of September 14th?

President George W. Bush declared September 14, 2001 to be a National Day of Prayer and Remembrance.  And at noon, eastern time, a service began at the Washington National Cathedral that was headlined by the President and mega-evangelist Billy Graham.  However, these were not the only speakers.  Rabbi Joshua Haberman took the stage to read Scripture, and Imam Muzammil Siddiqi offered a prayer.  This service was broadcast on every major channel and seen by much of America and in many schools.  In fact, at Compassion International, where I worked at the time, everyone stopped working to watch.  

During the Clinton administration, people often talked of how the President, by his poor example, was teaching a future generation promiscuity and lies.  Those people were right.  The President does wield great power, and Clinton probably did teach really poor sexual ethics to a generation of kids.  However, those critics were silent when President Bush later taught a generation of kids that there is no difference between Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.  That service on September 14th violated the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd commandments, just to name a few.  And for the most part, the Christian world stayed silent.  And what's worse is the much-revered Christian leader who participated in a worship service where prayers were offered to Allah.  I seem to remember that his remarks included references to Jesus Christ, but long after the words are forgotten, the visual image remains.  Billy Graham and President Bush had no problem worshipping with Muslims and Jews.  And the whole world watched, and the whole world was silent.

Is it any surprise that 12 years later we have a generation of young adults who think tolerance is the most important attribute?  Is it a surprise that we have witnessed such a dramatic rise in acceptance of sinful behaviors ranging from getting stoned to homosexuality?  Is it a surprise that the church is facing new movements such as the Insider Movement or the Hebrew Roots movement?  And a big reason for these changes is the young adults who have dramatically different views about the world from their predecessors.  In fact, more Americans today claim no religious affiliation at all, and the largest number of those is under 30.  Those are the people who were young and impressionable in 2001.  Could it be that they were influenced by September 14th?

I am not saying that one worship service entirely changed the culture, but I do believe that this one had a larger influence than we think.  It was a moment when the world stopped, and people took notice of what was going on.  And the church (for the most part) stood by silently when the truth of "You shall have no other gods before me" was attacked in a very public forum.  And that silence was deafening.  Maybe it was because everyone's focus was on the looming war or the shock of what had happened.  Maybe no one wanted to shatter the apparent unity that encompassed the capitol and the nation.  Maybe we put America above God.  Whatever the reason, we are certainly reaping the harvest now.  

May God forgive us for our sins, including those of omission, for it is only in His mercy that can we find hope.   

St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre: Providence and its Sudden Switches

Sometimes we forget just how quickly things can change.  God has his plans, and we do not always know them.  And they can occasionally be brutal.  

One of those sudden shifts that changed the world occurred on August 24, 1572.  In the early morning hours, the church bells rang as a signal for the Romanists to start slaughtering the Reformed believers, the Huguenots.  Thousands died.  

Let's rewind for a minute and consider the situation.  The Huguenots were in Paris because of the royal wedding between Henry of Navarre, a fellow Huguenot, and Margaret Valois, a daughter of the King.  This was to be the union between the Romanist faction, as represented by the royal family, and the Huguenots, as Henry was in line for the throne.  Violence had broken out several times before.  There was the Massacre at Vassy (1562) which led to a war and ended with more of a cease-fire than actual peace.  A second war broke out in 1567, and a third in 1568.  The third war ended in 1570 with very favorable terms for the Huguenots.  Even though many sections of the country still had great hostility toward them (and occasionally murdered them), hope was probably on the rise.  In 1571, the great Synod of La Rochelle met, Coligny's daughter was married, and the Huguenots were given high ranking places at court again.  They seemed to have the ear of the King for the first time in a very long time.  Now, the Protestant King of Navarre, Henry, who was already Prince of the Blood for when the Valois line died out, was taking a Valois to be his wife.  Not everyone was happy about a mixed religious marriage, but it was clearly an attempt to knit together the fragile kingdom so peace could finally reign.  

Then the toll of a bell in the early morning hours signaled the beginning of a genocide that lasted for days.  Widespread, methodical murder lasted for three days, and Romanists were still hunting down Huguenots seven days later.  A drastic, unexpected, and quick turn of Providence.

Yet God always has His purposes, even in death.  Whether it is Job or the protestants at the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, we know that God is bringing himself glory.  We can see that such persecution helped enrich the surrounding countries a great deal by infusing them with devout Christians, even the new world saw the arrival of Huguenots (there is still a Huguenot church in Charleston, SC).  Perhaps the difference between the true religion and the false was made more plain.  Who knows all that God accomplished on that fateful day.

"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them that are the called according to His purpose" Romans 8:28

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.  

PCA GA follow up

Since I did a post on the PCA a while back, I ought to just follow up briefly.  If you are interested in what happened take a look at the Aquila Report.  They have nice round up.  No real bias shown.  Very news like.

However, the GA did not bring back hopes of life for the PCA.  They failed to do anything about Meyers or Leithart.  The two men now stand clear and free of charges.  Not only that  but the PCA allowed paedocommunion exceptions in what is probably the start of something new.  They had to recommit a report because it said Jehovah and Allah can be the same (although in an admittedly vague and maybe you can read it another way manner).  They also struggled with a report on child abuse in the church.  Difficult to understand why the removal of some mandatory reporting language was done in the first place.

But perhaps a better exercise to see the state of the PCA is to follow the PCAGA hashtag on Twitter.  Scroll past the good byes and had a good times down to the days where the debate was taking place.  A lot of vitriol and anger from both sides.  There was one in there about Dr. Pipa's mustache being alive and the reason he was so confused right above one thanking Pipa for pointing out confusing language.  And the weird thing is that it was probably not as bad as last year on Twitter.  The PCA is a denomination divided.

I wait to see if the conservatives will do anything, but I am betting they will do nothing.

I pray for the PCA, and I have a lot of friends in it.  But it is hard for me to say the GA was anything other than a disaster for conservative historic Reformed theology.

Dark Knight Trilogy

Perhaps I should review a movie positively since I just usually write reviews for movies I hate as I did with Les Mis.  However, this will let everyone know that I am a very low class kind of guy.

I really enjoyed the Dark Knight Rises, and in fact the entire Dark Knight Trilogy was great.  Dark Knight Rises stress the freeing and important nature of truth.  "Maybe we should let the truth have its day." Alfred states at one point.  The lies ultimately proved to be the undoing of the city.  Lies are shown to have a short term gain, long term loss.  This of course ties into the way the second movie ended where Batman was taking the blame for someone else's crime.  The point was to give Gotham hope.  But hope cannot continue built upon a lie.  A lie is a foundation that hope cannot grow upon.  Seldom do you see movies today take the theme of honesty seriously (outside of the romantic comedy where the lie alway causes problems).

In fact, looking back over the entire Trilogy each character is defined by his view of truth and morality in general.

For example:
Commissioner Gordon has a pragmatist view.  Truth is less important than outcome.  He fakes his death and lies to his family in the second movie.  He lies about Harvey Dent in order to clean up Gotham.  He bends the rules to get things done.  In the second movie he is constantly telling Harvey Dent that he works with what he has, even if what he has is a group of corrupted old policemen.  He does not turn on them when they take bribes (in the first movie).  His view breaks down in this final movie.

Harvey Dent's view changes.  Originally sticking to the truth and rules, but goes to a view of determinism and fate when his rule keeping literally blows up in his face.  Interestingly one of his big complaints is that he had to lie to the woman he loved as she died.  He is complaining about truth all the way until his death.

Catwoman is looking to hide from the truth.  She has a past she regrets and wants to get away from or out from under.  She does not know how to do this (no idea of forgiveness and repentance), so she looks for a computer program that will erase her past from the computers of the world.  Then the truth will not matter anymore (or at least that appears to be her hope).

Joker of course had no place for truth.  Lied regularly.  His lies lead to people making decisions based on faulty basis, and the trouble that creates is what makes the second movie so fun.

I could go on, but overall the Batman trilogy is very good and very fun.  And best of all . . . no one breaks into 3rd rate singing.

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.

Scholar Pastors and the decline of Conservative Presbyterianism

I want to interact for a moment with William Evans's article about the Decline of Conservative Presbyterianism.  I want to interact with it because I think it has missed the boat entirely by misplacing where the influence flows.

You should read the article, but in summary he has 5 reasons for the supposed decline: declining prominence of conservative scholarship, intramural squabbles, unfinished theological business, tenuous situation of Presbyterian seminaries, splintering of the Presbyterian and Reformed presence into denominational locations.  

Do you notice anything about these complaints?  Let me help.  They all revolve around the academic world.  If one can draw conclusions from his list of problems the solution to greater Presbyterian and Reformed influence is fewer seminaries with greater cooperation among denominations in order to produce great scholars who focus on finishing the Reformation rather than petty debates.  Is this really the way churches grow?  I hate to break it to Dr. Evans, but the days of the Princeton Review are gone, and the days of people reading that review are not coming back.  The culture is not drifting away from Christianity because we do not have a strong intellectual arguments.  Churches are not going away from the Reformed Faith because we lack a new Calvin.  

Let me quote a sentence from his article.  "Concurrent with this we see the rise of the "scholar-pastor" model in Presbyterian circles".  While I was at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary they often talked of the importance of the "scholar-pastor", so I agree with him that this model is on the rise and in the ascendency in Reformed and Presbyterian circles.  However, unlike Dr. Evans, I see it as the problem.  

The scholar-pastor breeds the intramural squabbles (though I disagree that some of the things he has listed are intramural, some are quite fundamental).  It also leads to the breeding of Presbyterian Seminaries.  If I am a scholar, then I am able to teach at the seminary level.  And if no seminary currently supports my view, I can start my own.  It is really quite logical.  And thanks to rose colored glasses we use to look at Princeton Seminary, we all think a good seminary can do great things.  

Don't get me wrong, I am not against a strong academic rigor to our theology.  But, I think it is time we split the "scholar-pastor" back into "scholar" and "pastor".  Or at least get the order right and be "pastor" first because ultimately that is where the influence is best applied.  It is the pastor not the academic who is on the ground fighting the fight.  it is the church planter who is out in the field gathering the harvest.  It is the church to which Christ has entrusted the Word of God, not the seminary.  

Too often we forget this important fact.  We forget it everywhere.  Take for example our great love for Calvin.  And love him we should.  But do we realize that Calvin never took a city from Romanism to Reformed.  Geneva had already declared for the Reformation long before Calvin came to town.  Does anyone even know who the pastor was who helped led Schaffhausen into the Reformation?  The Reformation happened not led by a seminary or a scholar from afar, but rather pastors on the ground, often working together, to transform the world for Christ by the gospel.  And that is the hope for the future too.

If it were up to me, I would encourage less small seminaries, and instead use Log College models or better yet Swamp College models, and return to the mentorship model of educating men for the ministry.  Sure there would always be a few of those grand professional educational institutions, and they play a role, but not THE role.  No, that is done on Sunday mornings from the pulpit and by the members of the body Christ "equipped for the work of the ministry" not by reading scholarly works but by the "pastors and teachers" (Eph 4:11-16).  

2K Discussion Points?

An interesting point-counter-point has developed.  It seems like a good place for discussion to start, and it still makes me think I don't fit either group.  However, it appears to be a series of points based off solely Van Drunen.  I still think the 2K/Transformationalism is a spectrum  or a sliding scale.  But, it is a nice thing to read if you want a starting point for discussion.

That is not to say I think it is great.  Because I also think that the Counter-Point is occasionally squarely and unhelpful.  Take points 8-10.

Point 8 lays out the 2K claim that Lex Talionis governs the Common Kingdom.  Point 9 then admits that it is flexible, imprecise, and capable of softening.  Point 10 is then "Principles of Mercy and Forgiveness do not govern the common kingdom".  Straight forward enough.  The Counter-Point is "Principles of mercy and forgiveness do operate in the common kingdom, if one understand the common kingdom to include families, personal relationships, etc."

Now that is unhelpful in my opinion.  First, "govern" and "operate" are not exactly parallel.  Saying one governs does not mean that the other cannot operate.  Second, Point 9 admitted that mercy and forgiveness can and do operate, they just don't govern.  At least that is how I read  Point 9.  So, I feel that sometimes the guy wants to disagree and make a point and does so in less than upfront ways.

Still, it is a place to start the discussion.  Enjoy the reading.

Movie Review: Les Miserables

You are not supposed to be against classics.  It just means you are a jerk if you say what everyone is thinking about Les Miserables (Les Mis from now on).  But I don't mind being a jerk.  That movie was just plain awful.

Look, I knew it was a musical.  Fine.  I have seen many a musical.  West Side Story for instance.  People randomly burst into song.  It is what it is.  However, in Les Mis no one talks.  Every other musical I have ever seen (like Grease) people speak and then sing and speak again.  No, not in Les Mis.  Only song.  I guess I can chalk that up to taste, but if you are going to make a movie where there is only singing, get good singers.  Forgo the big name actors and focus on people who drive home your song.  No offense to the guy from "A Beautiful Mind" but he can't sing.  While everyone else in the theater was crying, I was rooting for Jean Valjean to die so he would stop singing.  I had had enough.  I know, I am heartless.

But there is more, and it gets worse.

Everyone raves about the Christian message of Les Mis.  And there are clearly some very beautiful moments of grace.  Of course the abbot purchasing Jean Valjean freeing him from going back to prison, Jean Valjean confessing they have the wrong man in front of a crucifix.  Yes, grace is clear and presented.  Of that there is no doubt.  But is it clearly a Protestant message?  I don't think so.  I still think this is a Roman Catholic message of grace and works.  Now, I confess I have not read the book in ages, so I am only speaking of the movie.  But the Valjean death scene where the dead are returning and conversing with him he sings a line about "did I do enough".  They comfort him with the assurance that he will see heaven.  And that is the problem.  Jean Valjean was trying to earn his salvation and on his dying day he still does not know if his good works were enough to out weigh his bad ones.  And the movie down plays his bad ones.  Jean Valjean did steal bread.  But it is portrayed as something the poor do because they have to do it.  This is not how God's law operates.  He stole.  He also ignores Fantine when she needs someone to aid her.  A sin he has to pay for.  He was too worried about himself.  In fact, he is worried about his lies unraveling.  Another sin.  

I could go on, but the point is that Jean Valjean is constantly asking himself what must he do, can he let someone else bear his punishment.  Can he let Javert go?  Can he save the boy?  Should he?  He makes the right choices, but not out of thankfulness for the salvation he has received, but in hopes of paying off his sin.  At least that is how I saw it.  Which led me to believe Javert had the appropriate response to a world where salvation was based on doing right.  Javert killed himself because he knew he could not pay of his debt, and he realized he had debt for the first time.

So I am not gaga over Les Mis.  Victor Hugo as a Roman Catholic, and I think it comes across in this movie.  Sure, it is a better message than "Brokeback Mountain", but that is not the same as being a movie about true redemption.  We do not earn anything.  In a movie culture that is starved for a message of grace and forgiveness, let us not accept a Romanist version of it.

Go and enjoy the movie if you like singing that much, but do not forget the shortcoming of Catholicism while you watch it.  

Heidelberg Anniversary

This year, 2013, is the 450th Anniversary of the Heidelberg Catechism.  It was printed in January with the seal of Frederick III of the Palatinate, so this is the month to celebrate.  I do intend to put some stuff up here about the catechism throughout the year, but let me encourage each and every one of you to read the Heidelberg.  See how the Catechism again and again points to Jesus Christ.  Over and over, it turns to the only comfort in life and in death . . . Jesus Christ.

Go read it now.

And yes, I do plan on posting more this year.  I have decided that occasionally working things out by writing can be a helpful skill.  One that I need to develop a bit more.

October 31st - Reformation Day?

Today is a day that many will celebrate as Reformation Day.  Now, I don't have problems with people and churches looking for days to remember and celebrate the Reformation.  I want to be clear about that.  In fact, the church I pastor often has a celebration, a joint service with the OPC church in town, and it is great.

  But historically, is this the day the Reformed ought to be lifting up?

No, I think we have to say no.  October 31st is the day that Martin Luther posted his 95 theses, so it is a nice and easy day to point and say here it begins.  But, really the 31st is the day the Lutheran Church is born, and in reality that has little to do with the Reformed Church.  In fact, the Lutherans hated the Reformed Church for centuries.  Luther said we were of a different spirit, the Lutheran teamed up with the Romanists to try and kill us in the 30 Years War.  Some of their ministers actually said we were worse than Islam. 

Our Reformed forefathers always pointed to a different day . . . January 1st, 1519.  This was the day that Zwingli proclaimed he would preach straight through the book of Matthew throwing out the Lectionary.  The 100th Anniversary was celebrated at the Synod of Dort on January 1, 1619.  The RCUS Directory of worship suggests that churches may keep several days if they wish, and one of those days is January 1.  Now, I have always assumed it was because of the New Year, but it may actually be because it is the anniversary of our Reformation.  Hard to say.

In the end, the point is remembering October 31st only points to the Lutheran Church, and it is very different than the Reformed Church.  Very different indeed.  Remember this in a few years when people want to celebrate 500 years of the Reformation in 2017.  That celebration has to be focused on Luther.  The day we want is January 1, 2019.  That way we can focus on the Reformed Church. 

Two Kingdoms Escondido Theology Wrap Up

I ought to come back and offer some concluding thoughts on the Frame book.  Let me start by just stating again that if you are wanting a book to deal with 2K in a serious way from a Transformational view point this is NOT your book.  If you are looking for a book that is a deep insight into Frame's hostility toward his former employer then this book is worth the money.

So in my quest to look into 2K deeper this book was not all that helpful.  It did point out one very big problem in trying to learn more about 2K Theology, and that is Westminster West itself.  Let me explain.

The book is called Escondido Theology, and it is a common name for the 2K teaching because those guys are pushing it and publishing about it.  However, it really clouds the issue.  Mainly because the Westminster West guys teach and push other things that are not necessary to 2K theology, and often not even related to 2K theology, yet because it is often called Escondido Theology they get mashed up together.

The full title of Frame's book is "The Escondido Theology: A Reformed Response to Two Kingdom Theology".  The problem is the Escondido theology and Two Kingdoms really can be two separate issues.  And in my opinion, often are.  Go back to the introduction.  No, not the first introduction.  Not the second or the third.  The one entitled Author's Introduction.  Frame gives a big list of grievances.  They include several points that are what we would call Redemptive-Historical Preaching.  A few more are simply about traditional worship.  There is at least one about the interpretation of the Sabbath.  And a couple more about the "absolutizing" of a certain traditions and declaring them to be the only Reformed tradition.  He does actually have a few about 2K such as whether or not the cultural mandate is fulfilled in Christ or by us still today, and whether or not the Christian has a mandate to seek change in the political order.  But the majority are simply lies like saying that Escondido teaches "We should take no interest in our inner feelings" or that "Jonathan Edwards and Martin Lloyd Jones are not Reformed".

Frame does not prove most of these points, and thus his book should be considered a failure.  But more importantly, Frame spends a lot of time on the worship complaints and the Absolutizing complaints.  These have nothing to do with being a "Reformed Response to Two Kingdom Theology" as the sub-title advertises.  Frame does not deal enough with the Two Kingdoms.  And it needs to be separated out from some of this other stuff.  Horton's book on worship has nothing to do with Two Kingdoms.  And I can agree that Recovering the Reformed Confessions seeks to absolutize certain positions that the Reformed world has never agreed upon (no hymns for example and framework creation).  I can agree that Redemptive Historical Preaching is off in its understanding of preaching (although I think Frame does not deal with it fairly in this book).  So, in a lot of ways, I am not in line with the Escondido Theology.  But Frame does little to convince me to be a transformationalist.

If anyone out there knows of a decent book criticizing Two Kingdoms, let me know.