Shepherd vs. Heidelberg Catechism

Norman Shepherd has posted a brief response to Barry Hofstetter’s online critique of Shepherd’s book A Call of Grace. In this article Shepherd attacks the idea of the imputation of the active obedience of Jesus Christ. In other words, the imputation of Christ’s obedience to the law, his righteousness, to us. His basis is of course denying that a Covenant of Works exists.

I just wanted to briefly respond. Many men better than I have already responded to the basic principles he discusses. However, in this response Rev. Shepherd admits that the Covenant of Works and Active Obedience of Christ may be found in the Westminster, but he denies it is found in the Heidelberg Catechism. It is this claim that I wish to debunk.

Shepherd cites Q.1, 66, and 67 as proof that the Heidelberg knows nothing of a covenant of works, or imputation of obedience to the law. Question one states that we "belong to our faithful savior Jesus Christ, who has fully satisfied for all our sins by his precious blood." Shepherd states that his sacrifice on the cross is the only grounds for the sinner. Q.66 and 67 are discussing the sacraments, and they state that we have "everlasting life for the sake of the one sacrifice of Christ accomplished on the cross." Shepherd says that adding Christ’s obedience to the law to the cross hides the cross as the only ground of salvation. Shepherd further states that we have two sacraments and they both memorialize the death and resurrection, not the life, of Christ.

Allow me briefly to illustrate the Covenant of Works and Active Obedience of Christ in the Heidelberg Catechism. It is implied in the beginning of the catechism with Q.4 which tells us the Law of God requires perfect obedience, and then again in Q.7 and 9 both tell us that Adam and Eve broke this law, and lost righteousness for their descendants. In case any have missed it the Catechism adds Q.18 where Christ is given to us "for complete redemption and righteousness." Our Lord gives us redemption and righteousness. Q. 21 tells us that God has given “not only to others, but to me also, forgiveness of sins, everlasting righteousness, and salvation freely given by God, merely of grace, only for the sake of Christ’s merits. Here we see we are given righteousness by the merits of Christ. Merits of Christ! This is exactly what Shepherd is denying in his article. The Catechism goes on to explain the Apostle’s Creed. When we confess that Christ ‘suffered’ for us what does that mean (Q.37)? It means, "all the time he lived on earth, but especially at the end of His life . . ." Clearly here more than the death of Christ is in view, but his entire life is for us. The same question ends, "He might redeem our body and soul from everlasting damnation, and obtain for us the grace of God, righteousness, and eternal life."

Then the really clear questions begin. Q.56 asks what we believe concerning the ‘forgiveness of sin?’ The answer, ". . . but God graciously imputes to me the righteousness of Christ, that I may never more come into condemnation." Shepherd cannot confess this question and hold to what he wrote in the article or the book. God gave us the righteousness of Christ. Q.60 further explains when it asks, ‘How are you righteous before God?’ The answer concludes, "yet God, without any merit of mine, of mere grace, grants and imputes to me the perfect satisfaction, righteousness and holiness of Christ, as if I had never committed nor had any sins, and had myself accomplished all the obedience which Christ has fulfilled for me, if only I accept such benefit with a believing heart." Nothing can state the case any clearer than those two questions. Not only the satisfaction made on the cross, but his righteousness, which is linked to his obedience is imputed to us to be our own. There is not a better description of salvation anywhere, and Shepherd denies it, and claims the Heidelberg Catechism never teaches Christ’s obedience is given to us. He either does not read his Catechism, or does not understand what it says. See also 61, 62, and 84.

Just to show also that he did not even finish reading the Catechism regarding the sacraments. Q. 76 tells us that eating the crucified body and drinking the shed blood of Christ means, "to embrace with a believing heart all the sufferings and death of Christ. . ." When we reference what the Catechism has already taught us regarding the suffering of Christ in Q.37 we see that this means his entire life, not just the end of it. So, Shepherd’s claim that no sacrament memorializes his life is also wrong.

Thanks to Barb for directing me to the articles.

Democratic Ignorance

I have lived lots of places in my life. I grew up on the Tennessee/Virginia border so that I got to see the politics of both states. I moved to South Carolina and then Colorado, and now I live on the South Dakota/North Dakota border so that I can see the politics of both states. I have to say that if the Democratic Party does not learn to abandon the New England Liberals soon, they will cease to exist as a party. I give them 20 to 25 more years. When my children are old enough to vote, there will be the Republican Party and a party to the right of it.

I say this because I saw the end of the Southern White Democrat that was the backbone of the party for such a long time. I saw the Democrats unable to win over a state full of immigrants in Colorado, and I see now traditional democratic farmers vote Republican in every election. The problem? Democrats have stopped being the party of entitlements and social handouts and started being a party with a social agenda no one likes. Roe v. Wade was the height of their power, and since then as devotion to Roe has gone up, the Democratic power has gone down.

If the Democrats would run Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico as a Vice Presidential candidate and someone like Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska or former governor of Virginia Warner for President, the Democratic Party would win in a landslide and pick up seats in the Senate and House at the same time. These men could stress issues that are important to everyone like border security, working with the opposition, as well as appeal to the minority population and champion entitlement programs and government handouts. That ticket would sweep New England and California. It would take back Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada, and probably steal away South and North Dakota, Nebraska, Virginia, Missouri, and Louisiana without much problem. Minnesota would stay a blue state as would Wisconsin and Illinois, and with some effort maybe Michigan too. This would be far and away enough to win.

If they change nothing they will lose another state or two every election. They will lose Minnesota in one, Wisconsin in the next. They will not be able to hold Michigan and Pennsylvania forever, and by that point the party will collapse. It amazes me as I watch some of Judge Alito’s hearings that the Democratic Party has not yet discovered this plan for success. Enjoy the Democratic Party now because in 20 years, it will be a thing of the past.

P.S. My wife disagrees with me. She thinks that because of the current government school monopoly, our nation's children will grow up to support some party that will be to the left of the Republicans.

High Church Calvinist

D.G. Hart’s John Williamson Nevin: High Church Calvinist is an interesting book. It is well written and easy to read. It is not a traditional biography, so do not expect to see the depth of Nevin’s friendship with Philip Schaff or discover what his married life was like. That was not Hart’s purpose in writing the book. It is more of a theological biography to show the reader the circumstances that aided Nevin in the creation of his unique brand of theology. The goal of the book is to show the reader John Nevin, and re-introduce him into the public world along with his theology, mainly the belief of the church as the mediator of grace. It is therefore a decidedly pro-Nevin biography.

I have several critiques of this book. The first is the scholarship of the book. I do this with great trepidation because Hart is an extraordinary scholar and historian. Yet, I felt that he neglected some major sources that should have been dealt with more carefully. I mentioned in a previous post that Hart fails completely to recognize the German Reformed Church known as the Reformed Church in the United States continues on today. He assumes the tradition disappears into the United Church of Christ, but that is simply untrue. I do believe that the book would have benefited by at least addressing the perspective of the continuing RCUS. You Shall Be My People, a book written to commemorate the 250th Synod of the RCUS in 1996, could have been consulted. Or even an interview with Rev. Robert Grossmann, who has written on the history of the RCUS and whose father led the Eureka Classis when it refused to merge and continued as the RCUS, would have been appropriate and helpful. It seems a good idea to define the German Reformed Tradition by talking to those who still speak German and minister in that church. I also think that James I. Good, a early 20th century historian in the RCUS, should have been consulted and his critique of Mercersburg Theology dealt with during this biography. Or at least references to Benjamin Schneck’s objections to the Mercersburg theology as outside of Protestantism. Both are listed in his biblographic essay at the end of his book, but he seems to write James Good off as a historian with a score to settle (pg. 258). Hart never concedes that Nevin may have been outside of the Reformed and Calvinistic traditions completely with his theology. He never really defends it either, and both Schneck and Good argue it rather well in their respective books. If Hart’s goals was to recommend Nevin to us, and I believe it was, then he needed to do a better job dealing with the actual controversy around his theology.

I also wonder if Hart completely sees Nevin’s High Church argument. Hart seems to argue for a return to the High Church conception of Nevin and then faults Nevin for neglecting preaching while he tried to re-emphasize the Lord’s Supper and Baptism. Hart thinks if Nevin had emphasized preaching he would have won some Old School Presbyterian converts. Yet, it seems to me that Nevin would never have emphasized preaching. In fact, Nevin has no trouble saying a pulpit-based liturgy is ineffective and a source of problems. Nevin argues for an altar-based liturgy as the only way the church can be saved. This is not a neglect of preaching by accident, this is a neglect of preaching on purpose. Hart seems reluctant to admit that Nevin openly wanted a return to an altar-based liturgy, which is clearly out of accord with the Protestant Reformation. Hart believes that emphasizing the preaching of the word would have still fit with Nevin’s theology of the church as a mediator of grace, and attributes this failure to Nevin’s obsession with sacramental theology. Hart’s critique on page 214 even says that the Reformation used the pulpit over the table, and not an altar. Nevin was clear that he wanted an altar, and that the Reformation was wrong. Preaching did not fit his view of the church as mediator of grace. The sacraments were objective and the preaching was not. Nevin’s High Church argument revovled around this point, at least in the Liturgical Controversy portion of his career. Hart seems to miss this point, and view it as an oversight in Nevin rather than a direct result of his theology.

The rest of my objections are more minor points of disagreement. Hart seems to cast dispersions on opponents of Nevin such as Bomberger and Berg as insignificant reactionaries. These men did not produce great scholarly works, but they were hardly insignificant. They were major pastors of influence within the church. Hart only views other academic challenges to Nevin as real challenges. I also think he underplays the victory of Mercersburg Theology. In fact, he concludes that it lost out after the peace commission finished in 1887. I would argue that Mercersburg won. Hart admits the Mercersburg Liturgy was allowed to stay, but it was no longer mandatory. This is not a defeat, but a victory for Mercersburg. The German Reformed Church’s merger with a Lutheran denomination that had an altar liturgy and a sacramental view closer to that of Mercersburg than to the Old Reformed is telling of who really won in the peace commission.

The book as a whole is good, but I do not believe presents every side of the controversy surrounding Nevin and his theology.

Pat Robertson again

It goes without saying, but in case anyone doubts, Pat Robertson is out of line with his attribution of Prime Minister Sharon’s stroke to God being angry about the ‘holy land.’ Yet, Pat Robertson has tremendous influence and has his defenders even after calling for an assassination, telling people not to call out to God if they are against Intelligent Design, and this incident as well. It seems to me that Robertson’s The 700 Club is actually one of the more dangerous influences in the Christian sub-culture today. Not only does the 700 Club take money from the elderly and poor at an alarming rate, but it promotes disturbing theological ideas and often outwardly anti-Christian behavior (like killing foreign leaders), as well as promoting salvation through politics.

Schaff against Rome or against Geneva?

Rick Phillips at Reformation 21 gives us a quote from Philip Schaff about the evils of Popery or Romanism, and how it is not Catholicism. Schaff compares Catholicism to Judaism. Judaism pointed the way to Christ, and then after Christ became something altogether horrible. For Schaff so too did Catholicism. It pointed the way to the Reformation, and at Trent it became something horrible. It became Popery. While I agree Popery is wrong, I disagree with the reasoning Schaff gives. Schaff states, Popery never forgets and never learns anything, and can allow no change in doctrine (except by way of addition), without sacrificing its fundamental principle of infallibility, and thus committing suicide. It seems to me that Schaff is saying that Popery is wrong because it does not change its doctrines. Do we as Protestants want constant change in our doctrine? We ascribe infallibility to the Bible alone, but do we really want to say a church that refuses to learn and change is a church that is dead?

Rick Phillips seems appreciative of the quote because it does not pander to Romanism, which he thinks is a growing error in the church today. I believe this a somewhat thinly veiled reference to ECT and the Reformed Catholics of today’s churches. Yet, is this quote not exactly the sort of thinking that has led to Reformed Catholicism, and Federal Vision movements in today’s churches? Historically speaking Schaff and Nevin pandered to Rome by changing Protestant doctrines into more Roman Catholic ones. They argued for altar based liturgies, they did a lot of what could be considered pandering to Rome. I believe Rich Phillips has mistaken Schaff’s refusal to pander to the Pope and mistaken it for a refusal to pander to Rome. Perhaps even worse, he has missed the endorsement of Historical and Theological Development that is Schaff’s critique of the Pope. Unless we as Protestants are willing to sign on to Schaff’s ever changing doctrine as the principle of Protestantism, as he suggests, then we need to throw out Schaff’s critique, and hopefully one day clarify a better Protestant historiography

Hart, Nevin, and the German Reformed

I have just begun reading John Williamson Nevin: A High Church Calvinist by D.G. Hart. I have only finished the opening sections, but I am already highly disappointed in Mr. Hart. Do not get me wrong. I greatly respect the scholarly nature of D.G. Hart’s work, and have a decent number of his work, but he makes an insulting blunder in his opening. On page 18 he writes,

What is more, the German Reformed Church itself vanished over the course of the twentieth century, going through a series of mergers and church unions that landed the denomination in which Nevin labored for over half of his life in the United Church of Christ.

This is simply false. Yes, the vast majority of the German Reformed Church followed the mergers, but not all did. The Reformed Church in the United States did not disappear, as in fact, I currently serve the RCUS. I am sure that our denomination would be surprised to learn that it disappeared. While, I would not find it hard to believe that laymen would make this mistake, D.G. Hart is a scholar, and should have known that the RCUS still exists today. The German Reformed Tradition is alive and well.

Yet this is more than just upsetting because he overlooked my particular denomination as existing, but because I believe it may affect his analysis of John Nevin the biography. When one reads and learns of the German Reformed Tradition and church in America, Nevin has a high place in it; however, is he a legitimate representative of it is unclear. Hart is already using Nevin interchangeably with German Reformed tradition. This is not correct, or at least has to be defended.

Hart is right that the German Reformed tradition has been overlooked by American Theologians, much to the detriment of church by the way. The RCUS is a church that was mostly immune to the church splits of the First Great Awakening, that stood against the Biblical criticism of the early 20th century, never caved to feminism, and today is still highly resistant to the Federal Vision and other movements in popular Presbyterianism. Hart is wrong about what the German Reformed tradition is, but is right that it needs to be rediscovered.

James Buchanan

This is the first biography that actually made me mad. Not necessarily at the author, but at the culture as a whole. James Buchanan, by Jean Baker is a decent short biography. It is part of the American Presidents Series, which simply introduces us to each President. It has almost nothing about his personal life, only a brief discussion of why many consider the only bachelor president to be the first homosexual president, and is much too short to be considered scholarly, but it does review his public life and make comments.

The book begins by asking in the introduction how can the most qualified man in American History to be President fail so badly at it when he finally achieved it. Buchanan had served in the state legislature with great distinction, had shown himself competent in the House, made a name for himself in the Senate, and declined invitations to sit on the Supreme Court from two separate Presidents. He also served as the Secretary of State for James K. Polk, and arguably had the most work and most success of any Secretary of State to date. He negotiated for Oregon and a peace treaty with Mexico during his four year stint in that position. He later came out of retirement to be successful as a minister to England. Yet, Buchanan is always in the bottom five Presidents of all time, and usually at the bottom as the worst President in history.

Yet, the author concludes he was a failure as a President because of his "legalistic, strict constructionist approach to the executive powers in Article 2 of the US Constitution." She goes on to state that while Buchanan prided himself that the Civil War did not break out on his watch, he was wrong. That war broke out with secession in 1860, not firing the first shot at Fort Sumter. A view that the Supreme Court confirmed in a later decision by the way.

Now, I have to admit that I am a Southerner, and that when people ask me who was right in the Civil War, I usually reply, James Buchanan. Davis and the Deep South were wrong, Lincoln and the North were wrong. Only Buchanan got it right. While the author of the book chastises Buchanan for his literal adherence to the Constitution when the great Presidents saw room for expansion of powers and did whatever it took to get the job done. Of course, Lincoln, FDR, and Teddy Roosevelt are the examples usually referenced. But what makes me so mad is that maybe we should not be so results oriented. Lincoln, FDR, and Teddy Roosevelt all violated the Constitution to get what they wanted. Buchanan refused to do it. He would not take to himself more power so that he could preserve the Union. He felt the Constitution gave him no ability to take an army into a rebellious state. He defended himself by pointing out that the Constitutional Convention suggested a clause that gave the President the right to correct delinquent states, and it was rejected, even Madison voted against it. Thus, he would not take that power to himself. It had been rejected explicitly. Lincoln did without care or concern, but Buchanan took his oath to uphold the Constitution a little more seriously.

Today’s culture has put results ahead of principles. Lincoln is looked upon as a great President because he ended slavery (actually the 13th Amendment ended slavery), so the Civil War is seen as the correct path and deemed right. Franklin Roosevelt is deemed a good president because they ended the Depression, and thus his New Deal must be a good thing. Harry Truman is deemed a good president because he won WWII, therefore, the Atomic Bomb is usually seen as acceptable military strategy. It is high time that we stop using the results to approve the method, and start judging presidents by the Constitution. Maybe then we would have a different view of James Buchanan.

Christmas Wish

I do hope that all had a Merry Christmas. I was too busy having a Merry Christmas to post anything prior to Christmas. So let me say now, Merry Be-lated Christams and blessings to all this New Year.

More Pastor vs. Priest

Mark Horne has joined the discussion about pastors as the continuation of the OT priesthood. He argues the Westminster Confession does view the office of pastor as the continuation of priests because of Form of Presbyterian Church Government that came out of the Westminster Assembly as because of Larger Catechism Question Q.156, which discusses who should read the Scriptures during worship. He points out that the footnotes show the restriction of lay readers in the Westminster comes from OT references to the law being read publicly by the Levites. Although admitting the footnotes were forced on the Westminster Divines, and that later questions show how the office of pastor is connected to the office of prophet, he claims that the Westminster tradition shows the office of pastor to be the Levitical priestly office in the OT.

Despite Rev. Horne’s reasoning, I believe he has still failed to show that pastors are modern day priests. Nor does he show that many of the Westminster Assembly thought pastors to be modern priests. I think what Rev. Horne has shown is that the office of pastor does not have a one to one correspondence with OT offices, especially with offices whose job dealt with the temple. The NT pastor does read the Bible, which Levites did, proclaims the word, which prophets did, and rules the people, which judges or kings did in the OT. The NT office of pastor is just that, a New Testament office. It does not fit perfectly with any OT office, and we should not force it into such a mold. Rev. Horne has shown that the Westminster Divines thought along these lines by referencing Larger Catechism 156 and 158.

Rev. Horne’s thesis also takes a historical hit when one considers the Puritan tradition in England. The Vestment controversy had roots in what we are discussing now. The Vestiments, robes worn by the clergy, they claimed had a jewish, ie. priestly, origen. Bishop Hooper refused to ever wear them on account of his scruples to the idea of pastors being priests. Despite wearing them for a time, Archbishop Cramner along with Bishops Latimer and Taylor all expressed contempt for them before their deaths. Also Peter the Martyr Vermingly desired the church to be rid of them forever. This is the history of English Church. Despite Horne’s claim to the contrary, it certainly would have been controversial to claim the office of pastor is the OT office of priest.

Another blow to Rev. Horne’s idea is that not every Levite was a priest who sacrificed in the temple. Only the line of Aaron did the sacrificial work. Thus, linking pastors to Levities reading the law is not the same as linking pastors to priests. An important distinction that I fear is blurred in Rev. Horne’s article.

Rev. Horne also links another article of his that I believe is much more helpful. This article is a paper written for the candidates and credential committee of the Pacific Northwest Presbytery of the PCA. Here Rev. Horne is much more careful about the Levite/priest distinction, and unconvincingly tries to show how they could be synonymous. Yet, Rev. Horne’s paper shows both another hole in his argument and confirms my fear for where this argument is going. The hole Rev. Horne accidentally exposes is the fact that it is traditionally not reformed to link the office of pastor to the office of priest or Levite. The paper admits that the pastor is generally linked to the office of prophet or even perhaps judges. Yet, of more value is his stated desire in getting the office of pastor linked to the office of priest. He says in his conclusion:

Finally, if we allow that the Levites were the precursors to our pastors, then should we not ask if perhaps Levitical worship provides guidance and principles for pastoral worship?

There it is. Rev. Horne sees not just a redefinition of the office of pastor but of all worship along with it. This allows a weekly communion, and perhaps a more sacrificial view of the Supper. It leads to seeing ministers as mediators of the presence of God. All of which Horne argues for in his paper or in his footnotes.

Redefining Priests

There is a movement afoot to redefine the work of priests, and to re-institute priests into Protestant churches. This process of re-introducing priests should not surprise us much since movements exist to make the Lord’s Supper an actually sacrificial meal that contains objective grace. Priests may then be needed to dispense such a meal. The task begins by reworking the role of the OT priest. Rev. Barach explains what he believes was the role of the priests in the Old Testament.

What were the duties of priests in the Old Covenant? They don't exactly appear to be mediators. As Leithart has shown, priests were primarily housekeepers. They cooked God's food, guarded access to God's house, made sure the house was lit, smelled nice, had bread on the table, was kept clean, and worked to see that God's people (who are also God's house, represented by the tabernacle and temple) were taught, kept clean, and so forth. Priests are God's chefs, guards, housekeepers: servants in His royal retinue.

Does anything appear to be missing to you? Can anyone think of a duty of the priests that is not listed? Making sacrifices perhaps? I do believe that the job of overseeing sacrifices is included by Rev. Barach in calling them God’s chefs, but the omission of making sacrifices is glaring. Especially since this appears to be the main focus of their job in the OT. They made daily sacrifices, morning and evening. They made special sacrifices on holy days. The Bible concentrates on this aspect of the priest much more than it does their making the temple of the Lord smell nice. Rev. Barach’s refusal to recognize the job of making sacrifices as the primary role for priests helps explain why he cannot see how priests were mediators. Although, in another article, he recognizes that Christ as our priests gives us access to God, the Holy of Holies, which only High Priests could do prior to Christ. After noting this is the sense of Hebrews 10:19-22 and I Peter 2:5, he continues to tell us;

But some people are priests in a special sense. Pastors are a special sort of priest, servants appointed by God to teach, to proclaim God's Word, to help us carry out our calling as God's priests.

Elsewhere he includes serving the Lord’s Supper as part of the role of this new special priesthood called pastors. It should be noted that Rev. Barach freely admits his debt to Peter Leithart and his book Priesthood of the Plebes, and James Jordan and his book From Bread to Wine.

Some of you may be asking, ‘what is the big deal?’ Here is my concern with such a movement. Barach has downplayed the sacrificial role of the priests, but not eliminated it. He has focused upon the housekeeping role, but misapplied it. And I believe he has confused the office of prophet and priest. First, if Rev. Barach really wanted to say the priests were housekeepers, and maintained the physical appearance and working order of the temple, then the modern day priests would be deacons, not pastors. Who is charged with making sure bread is on the table of the new temple of God, the people of the church? Acts 6 makes clear that it is the deacons, not the apostles. Second, Rev. Barach has denied a mediatorial role of priests. They offered sacrifices day and night, and on special days including the Day of Atonement. This was the priests mediating with God via the sacrifices that they alone could make. This job is officially finished because of the work of Christ. Third, Barach’s definition of the role of pastors seems to be all about teaching and preaching. This job is more associated with the office of prophet than that of priest.

This last reason shows my fear of what is really at stake in this debate. The new emphasis and re-definition of priest to make it seem as if pastors are the continuation of priests will make pastors mediators and give to them the job that is finished by Christ. Only the pastor/priest will be able to offer the Lord’s Supper which will now be viewed as a sacrifice, as the priests of old did with sacrifices. This by the way is what the Roman view of priests contains. Only the pastor/priests will be able to open the presence of God for us by having sole authority over worship in the church. James Jordan includes "organizes/disciplines the people for worship" as a job of the priest on page 11 of his book according to Barach’s article. Only the pastor/priest will be able to dispense pardon for the people. See Peter Liethart’s. series of articles about Liturgical worship and the role of absolution by the pastor/priest.
The Bible is clear that we all have access to him because he is our only mediator. He is the only sacrifice, and he is the only one who forgives sins. These things belong to him alone, and the priesthood of Aaron prefigured His work. The Reformed Confessions are clear as well. See WCF chapter 8, Larger Catechism 36-45, and HC 12-19, 29-30. This subtle new twist is no harmless thing. It leads down a road that the Church abandoned during the Reformation.

Westminster Brass

Westminster Brass is a group blog that I have been asked to participate in. Occassionaly I will be posting the same articles I post here. Occassionaly, I will post new ones. Make sure you check it out.

Creeds as Boundaries

Daniel at Sibboleth, which incidentally is the best blog name I have run across, argues that Confessions of faith are not to be misconstrued as ‘boundaries, but rather should be envisioned as ‘trajectories’. This of course denies the whole point of confessions, creeds, and statements of faith. Allow Daniel to express his views of the role of confessions in his own words.

(1) a given confession of faith as an "outline." That allows for this or that point to be disputed; it allows for an overall sameness is thrust while simultaneously allowing different people to fill in gaps in different ways. (2) A confessional tradition as setting "trajectories". I like this option because it assumes growth, change, development and even divergence over time (i.e., it is in step with reality).

In the article he gives as historical evidence the Presbyterian practice of allowing scruples to the Westminster. There is no doubt that many today in the OPC and PCA view the Westminster in one of the two ways suggested by Daniel. Yet, I believe Daniel’s argument fails for the following reasons.

1. The scruples to a confession are by no means universal. Yes, American Presbyterianism allowed Scruples in the Adopting Act, but there are many other traditions that do not allow scruples to any points. For example the RCUS does not allow one to scruple. It is strict subscription or find another denomination. So while Daniel’s point may help him in American Presbyterian circles, it does not help in trying to say confessions in general should be 'trajectories.’
2. This is not the view churches have taken throughout history. Just look at the Nicaean Creed as an example. The creed was written to exclude men like Arius from the faith. One could not scruple the word ‘homoousian’ in the Nicaean Creed. It was not viewed as a trajectory to launch new way of thinking. In fact it was reaffirmed at Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, and I could go on and on. The point is that early creeds were not viewed the way proposed at Sibboleth. The creeds were drawn up precisely as boundaries. The creeds kept out men like Arius and Nestorius.
3. The creeds tell us what the Bible says and does not say because they are summaries of the teaching of the Word. Daniel tries to make the jump that creeds then also tell us that the Bible cannot say certain things. I disagree with this jump. Daniel’s argument assumes a some things, and one is that people today will be able to see truths in the Bible that the earlier generations missed. The creeds received and used today do not speak on areas of the Bible that are unclear. Has anyone ever seen a creed that mandates a particular end times view? The creeds are usually about salvation, Christ, and God. Not exactly hidden subjects in the Bible. Also, every denomination that I know of has a procedure for amending the creeds if it is found to be in error. Hardly a sign that creeds dictate what the Bible can and cannot say.

If the creeds are not boundaries in some real sense, then they have absolutely no purpose at all. They are just documents for us to discuss, or paper to line birdcages. Creeds have always been designed to keep members from heresy, and keep heretics out. In other words, boundaries.

Is Sandlin part of the Federal Vision?

Andrew Sandlin has made it known that he is not a follower of the so called Federal Vision. He points out that he is not in agreement with many points put forth in the Auburn Avenue theology, such as sacramental efficacy and union with the Church being union with Christ, nor is he a high churchmen. These things I freely acknowledge, and do not challenge. Despite this I have from time to time placed Andrew Sandlin as a promoter of the Federal Vision on this blog. Allow me to give my reasons, and then give your feedback of whether or not I should continue to include Rev. Sandlin as a promoter of the Federal Vision. I am willing to be convinced either way on this one.

The main reason I have occasionally included Rev. Sandlin is his holding to Theological Development. I believe that this is a central tenant of the Federal Vision. In a sense Theological Development serves as the glasses one needs to have the Federal Vision. Simply because Sandlin ends up in different places than most of the Federal Vision adherents does not disqualify him.

Another reason is that Rev. Sandlin agrees with the great work of Theological Development, Christian union. Sandlin participated in the old Reformed Catholicism blog arguing for union between Protestant and Rome. He can be found to be calling Roman Catholics brothers from time to time, and even claims the Eastern Orthodox formula for the Trinity cannot be improved upon. Which, by the way, has always made me wonder if he holds to the fact that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, but that may be a conversation for another day.

Sandlin does end up in the same place as many Federal Vision adherents on other issues as well. He has a similar dim view of creeds holding that only the early church creeds ending with Chalcedon are the test of orthodoxy. He basically agrees with Norman Shepherd’s view of justification, which seems to be a major center piece in the current debates.

Thus, in summary, Sandlin does hold to what I consider the foundation of the Federal Vision, and holds to one of its pillars, the justification view espoused by Norman Shepherd, but not to the other major pillar of sacramental efficacy. As for his other two denials. I believe the high liturgy movement to be a non-essential, and it should not disqualify one from being a Federal Vision man, and his third statement would probably draw ire from most Federal Visionists, and thus I do not see how it applies.

If I have done Rev. Sandlin an injustice in your opinion, I would like to know.

False Charges of Icon Worship

Mark Horne argues against using icons in worship and is upset that Woodfuff Road Presbyterian Church claims that Federal Vision adherents promote the use of icons in worship. Some how an unpublished book by Guy Waters serves as the source.

Before continuing, I should point out that I am a former member of Woodruff Rd. PCA. I was there under Dr. Rod Mays, and briefly there for the current pastor, Rev. Carl Robbins. That being said, I have to agree with Rev. Horne. I have never run across the promotion of iconography in worship by any of the Federal Vision blogs or books. I have not read them all, but I have read enough. I do not have the context for Guy Waters’s remarks, so I will withhold judgment, but the session of Woodruff Rd. has to take that statement down. If they believe they have proof, they should produce it. If their only proof is Guy Waters, then they need to take it down. Rev. Horne did not allow comments on his blog post concerning the subject, but if he did, I would have urged him to bring Woodruff Rd. up on charges before the GA or whatever court is appropriate.

Don’t get me wrong. I am against the Federal Vision, and I think it heresy. However, it can be argued against and defeated without making up false accusations. I sincerely hope that Woodruff Rd. will remove the claim of iconography or back up their assertion.

The Dilemma of the PCA

In 2001, the Presbyterian Church in America decided that the phrase, God created, “in the space of six days” in the Westminster Confession of Faith could mean a variety of things. Most of these views had little or nothing to do with “six days.” One should notice that recommendation number 2 states that the “diversity of views” means that the Westminster’s view must take a back seat to allow everyone else’s view a place at the table. People at the time worried that this would lead to a slippery slope that would expand beyond the creation controversies into other areas of the Confession or theology.

Welcome to the bottom of the slippery slope. The “diversity of views’ argument is being tossed around by almost all the Federal Vision adherents. They want the Westminster’s view to take a back seat again, and allow the many other views on doctrines like justification and the sacraments. They can cite Norman Shepherd and his redefinition of faith to say in thesis number 11 “Justifying faith is obedient faith,” as a diversity of views. Then they can have the Westminster’s phrase “Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, (XI.2)” to actually mean ‘receiving, resting, and acting.’ Or one could redefine the ‘righteousness of God’ as his faithfulness rather than his moral perfection and apply that to any passage he wanted. This would allow them to deny a covenant of works (VII.2) among other things. This then is the dilemma how to stop such redefinition. Sadly, the answer is plain. The PCA has no ability to stop them. In fact, the precedent is in favor of allowing the diversity of views to exist. Creation was sacrificed in order not to look anti-intellectual in the world’s eyes, and now all the Confession is sacrificed to the Federal Vision and to whoever else comes along. Gone are the days when the Confession said what it meant. Now, are the days when the Confession says one thing, but all other voices are acceptable.

Now he belongs to the ages

Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin is a very interesting biography of Abraham Lincoln. It follows not only Lincoln, but his top three rivals for the Republican Nomination for the Presidency in 1860, Salmon Chase; William Seward; Edward Bates; and later adds Edwin Stanton. All of whom end up in Lincoln’s cabinet. By taking this interesting approach, she is able to give us a glimpse into the personal side of Lincoln by quoting liberally from personal letters and journals of these men. In fact, she has done a remarkable amount of research into the journals of almost anyone who ever came across Lincoln giving you the thoughts of General McClellan, all of Lincoln’s cabinet, and Lincoln’s personal secretaries, just to name a few.

The book is quite good. I enjoyed her writing style. The ending where she describes the “Night of Horrors” where the assassinations of Lincoln, Seward, and Johnson were attempted is very good. She simply relates events, and lets the survivors and witnesses to the events tell the stories in their own words. It is actually quite moving, and I grew up in the South. Reading this book one gets a good insight into the burden of running a war, and political campaigns. I would recommend the book to all who want to know more about President Lincoln as a man.

Yet, I have this against her. She white washes Lincoln completely. The theme of her book is that Lincoln was a political genius because he never made an enemy, and never let grudges develop. Yet, she tries to equate this to being a great statesman and President. I do not believe the two to be the same. She never speaks of Lincoln’s attempt to arrest the Chief Justice of the United States. She never discusses the unconstitutional act of creating the state of West Virginia, or the dilemma of taking land from a Virginia which was still a state in the Union, only in rebellion in Lincoln’s view, without Virginia’s consent. She barely mentions his suspension of habeas corpus without Congressional approval. She dedicates all of two sentences to Lincoln’s raising money to sway critical off year elections in several states. Then when she has built this great picture of a Lincoln who was loyal to his friends and above reproach on all matters, she writes off his dismissal of Motgomery Blair from his cabinet, as only “possibly” a part of deal that caused Fremont to withdraw from the 1864 Presidential campaign. He had told Blair earlier that he would never ask Blair to leave to satisfy his political enemies, and then from all facts, did just that. These things make Ms. Goodwin fall into the category of hero worship in her biography. Yet, I still recommend the book for those who want to know Lincoln as a person. The book falls short of giving us a view of Lincoln the President or upholder of laws, or even a complete record of his events in Presidency; however, through the quotations from her many sources one finishes with a feeling they know Abraham Lincoln the man.

Re-examining the Great Awakening

Pick up any Presbyterian history book, and they will all say the same thing about the Great Awakening. Praise on top of praises. Edwards, Whitefield, and the Tennent family will be set on pedestals. Now, depending on how conservative your book, you will find differing reactions to the Second Great Awakening.

Far be it from me to disagree with history, but I think we ought to be careful before proclaiming the First Great Awakening such a success. I shall briefly argue that pro-Awakening side, the New Side, was actually wrong and did much damage to the church, and the anti-Awakening side, the Old Side, stood forth for orthodoxy, and suffered for it.

First, the pro-Awakeners instituted the conversion narrative as a pre-requisite for membership in churches. This practice has no biblical foundation, and was unknown in the churches of America at that time, even in congregational New England. The narrative is still used in many Presbyterian churches today, although today it is mainly a rubber stamp procedure. A candidate for membership tells everyone when they came to know the Lord, their own conversion narrative, and then the elders decide if it is credible or not. The Old Side simply asked for a profession of faith (ie. what you believe, not how you came to believe it), and then both sides did require living out the beliefs as members.

Second, the New Side instituted the ‘Terrors of the Law’ as a method of gaining or winning souls to Christ. This was a technique of preaching pointedly to the sins of the people and describing the terrors of hell, in order to prepare the way for the gospel. This was often done in one on one conversations as well. The New Side believed in putting people under great distress before giving them the relief of salvation in Christ to make sure they truly knew their sin. This lead to wild outbreaks of screaming and ranting and wailing and disruptive outbursts that Edwards speaks of in his books, and the type of outbursts condemned in the Second Great Awakening by many, and today lauded by Pentecostals as proof of divine power. The Old Side, of course, stood against such things believing God could save on a message of love, mercy, giving, or law, and could even do it without such a period of distress (by the way the period of distress is often what the New Side wanted to hear in the conversion narrative).

Third, the New Side, unintentionally I believe, destroyed the model of the local pastor being the primary source of religious authority. George Whitefield was the first modern evangelist. He had no congregation, and traveled to America 7 times. He visited all 13 colonies. Other New Side leaders followed his example. Gilbert Tennent did tours through New England. John Wesley tried his hand at it in America. James Davenport did it so much that he was brought on trial for neglecting his home church (it was a civil crime in New England), but found mentally incompetent to stand trial. The New Side Presbytery licensed people to be evangelists. This made people begin to look for the mega-evangelist as the authority, and not the local minister. This was partly because of the heavy abuse that the local minister often took from men like Whitefield and Tennent. Whitefield was not allowed into any pulpits in Philadelphia because he had abused the local clergy so much, but his fans built him a church. The Old Side wanted rigid rules about not preaching out of bounds and gaining permission before entering another man’s pulpit on account of how often the New Side men preached in pulpits without permission, which of course introduced division into many churches. This is one of the main ways the Awakening spread.

I hope that one can see now how the Great Awakening laid the foundation for the Second Great Awakening. In fact, it is basically a logical outgrowth. The Second Great Awakening took the model of the First Awakening, expanded it a little here and there, and out came the Second Great Awakening. The arguments over the Second Great Awakening are not the same as the arguments over the First Awakening. The Old School (anit-Second Awakening) are simply the New Side (pro-First) who did not want the minor expansions the New School (pro-Second Awakening) had added. I think it is about time that historians take a dimmer view of both the First and the Second Great Awakenings and start to recognize the still demonized Old Side anti-Awakening party as true defenders of the faith.

Relativism Revisited

It seems I am being accused of having made a logical fallacy in my last post. The fallacy of Post Hoc, the fallacy of using the fact that one event preceded another as sufficient evidence for causality. It apparently won me the ‘Whatever’ award of the week, for which I am very proud. It also generated a few laughs at my expense.

While I will grant that I did not connect all the dots in the last post, I do not think I have committed the fallacy in question. Even if the post was a bit sketchy, it does not necessarily follow that I am wrong. If I mistakenly assumed that my readers have an exhaustive familiarity with the Mercersburg Theology or the Federal Vision theology and its arguments, I apologize. Allow me now to connect the dots for everyone now.

Philip Schaff admits that the great and most important work of theological development is Christian union, the reuniting of all the churches, including the Roman Catholic, under one banner. Christian union is the ultimate endpoint of Schaff’s line of thinking by his own admission in his book, What is Church History? John Nevin makes clear his positions on church creeds and confessional distinctions in his book, The Anti-Christ by saying:

In admitting moreover the necessity of confessional distinctions, we do not allow them to be good and desirable in their own nature. They are relatively good only, as serving to open the way to a higher form of catholicity than that which they leave behind; whilst in themselves absolutely considered, they contradict and violate the true idea of the Church, and are to be bewailed on this account as an evil of the most serious magnitude

Nevin does not want anything to do with distinctions, especially confessional distinctions. They are inherently evil in his view. The people should rise above such distinctions. They have no importance except to weight us down. Hopefully my readers can begin to see here the seeds of theological relativism. It is no surprise to find the generation after Schaff and Nevin attempting to merge with any church that will have them. They were rejected by the Presbyterians prior to their successful uniting with the Evangelical Lutheran denomination. The merger with the Evangelical Lutherans allowed the Lutheran creeds to stand alongside the Heidelberg Catechism in the new denomination, the Evangelical Reformed. The new denomination’s constitution stated, "Wherever these doctrinal standards differ, minister, members, and congregations, in accordance with the liberty of conscious inherent in the Gospel, are allowed to adhere to the interpretation of one of these confessions." By this the new church allowed even individual members within the same congregation to have different opinions on the use of images, the efficacy of sacraments, and other doctrines. Rev. Peter Grossmann said it well, "When one body claims to hold equally to three conflicting confessions, we can be sure that there will either be disunity if doctrine is taken seriously, or even worse there will be the conclusion that doctrine is unimportant." The Mercersburg Theology led to the latter. Schaff’s drive for organic union and Nevin’s disrespect for confessions allowed men to say, when theologies differ, just decide for yourself. To strengthen my case, E&R publications credited the theology of Philip Schaff for this merger. That really ought to be enough to dismiss the Post Hoc fallacy charge.

Do the Federal Vision men exhibit the same signs as the Mercersburg men? Yes, I believe they do. Busy attacking me as foolish, no one bothered to deal with my example of the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches (Doug Wilson’s denomination). After allowing member churches to adhere to almost any Reformed Confession, including Baptist confessions, they state the following in their constitution:

G. Controversies within a local congregation regarding matters arising from differences between our various confessions will not be adjudicated beyond the local church level. All churches agree to work cheerfully and carefully in their study of doctrinal differences, and to strive for like-mindedness with one another

Thus differences in the Westminster and the London Baptist confessions over baptism are unimportant and should be left alone. Differences regarding the Sabbath between the Three Forms of Unity and the Westminster should also be ignored. You get the picture. This is similar thinking to the E&R in the early 1900’s. When Confessions differ, just decide for yourself. The denomination does not think it matters.

But there is more! Andrew Sandlin claims:

We CRs have a broadness of our own, but it is the broadness of the orthodox Christian tradition itself. We are committed to what Thomas Oden terms “classical Christianity,” the early ecumenical orthodoxy of the undivided church as set forth principally in the Apostles, Nicene, Chalcedonian, and Athanasian Creeds.

Here Sandlin argues that Christianity can differ on many points as long as it does not differ on the points covered in the early creeds. In this perspective, justification by faith alone is one of those doctrines that one does not have to believe. Works, faith, whatever, just as long as one understands Christ is one person in two natures. It should not be hard to see this progression toward theological relativism.

What about Nevin’s view of the creeds and confessions? Does anyone believe that the creeds are barriers to catholicity that need to be overcome? Why yes! One quote from Rev. Rich Lusk should be enough:

Nevertheless, the Catechism can serve as a barrier to Reformed catholicity. The Shorter Catechism essentially reduces the biblical story to a set of propositions. It treats theology in a highly analytic way, as a matter of defining terms (e.g., "What is justification?", "What is sanctification?”, etc.).

For Rev. Lusk, defining words like justification and sanctification gets in the way of ecumenism and catholicity. John Nevin would be proud.

Mercersburg adherents and Federal Vision supporters both find themselves on the same slippery slope. They view confessions as barriers to catholicity and Christian union, they believe creeds with differing theologies can be held equally, and they affirm that doctrine develops and changes. One hundred years ago, this led to relativism in Mercersburg defenders, and I believe the foundation has been laid for a repeat with the Federal Vision. Aside from the name-calling, no one has yet to step up and offer a counter argument.

So remember, the next time you hear someone defend their theological viewpoint by asserting that differing theologies of salvation (or the sacraments or whatever) are allowable because they come from different parts of the same Reformed tradition, be assured that that is a step towards relativism.

To Rome or Relativism?

Finally, the high regard for Mercersburg Theology is open and apparent. They wish to be High Church Calvinists like John Nevin and Philip Schaff. I am sorry that Rev. Meyers thinks that Nevin is not understood and that he is used as an albatross to tie around necks. Nevin and Schaff destroyed the German Reformed Church. They ran out members that disagreed, they forced Liturgy and new theology on the church. It lead to decades of strife, contentiousness, and hostility. In the end, Nevin won because they controlled the seminary. The RCUS merged with the Evangelical Lutheran church, and then they merged with a Congregational group to make the United Churches of Christ. Rev. Meyers is right about one thing. Being a Mercersburg High Church Calvinist is not being on the road to Rome and her doctrine. It is on the road to no doctrine at all.

If the Reformed tradition turning into the UCC is not proof enough, then examine the new denomination of the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC). This denomination is permeated with Federal Vision proponents such as Wilson, Sandlin, and I believe Leithart ministers in one of their churches. There constitution allows member churches to choose which Reformed confession to follow including the Westminster and the London Baptist confession. What about the differences over such things as sacraments? Those differences are not important. Doctrinal unity gives way to organic unity. The Federal Vision is not on the road to Rome for even Rome recognizes doctrine is important. The Federal Vision is on the road to relativism.

More Meyers and More Development

Rev. Jeff Meyers has a very able bodied defense of doctrinal development. He states his case in very well written and thoughtful essay. He expresses his views well when he comments

I'd want to insist that even the things that might be genuinely new (e.g., I think Peter Leithart and Jim Jordan have truly broken new ground in several areas over the years) are essentially organic outgrowths of the tradition.

He goes on to tell us about new exegetical insights formed over the years.

the whole idea of a "new perspective" is that we are looking at the same old stuff, but from a new angle. Since it's the same stuff, we're not going to come up with anything that's totally earth shattering, brand-spanking, overturns-everything-I-ever- believed new. But since it is, nevertheless, a new perspective, we're going to see things there that we never saw before. . . . It opens up new avenues of application. It brings together aspects of the text where the connections were unclear before.

It is this aspect of the Federal Vision movement that I believe unifies it as a movement. It is this aspect that I believe does not get enough attention. We should be examining this claim in the light of Scripture for this is the claim that underpins the rest of their theology. I believe in this view of theological development there are several troubling aspects.

1. An implicit historical superiority of the modern age. I am not trying to glorify the past or say that those in the 16th century were better Christians. I am saying that neither are we better Christians than those who lived in the 16th century or before. Those before us did not have all sorts of unclear connections or blank spots that our new insights from history, exegesis, and technology have allowed us to fill in. For example, many have accepted the ‘New Perspectives’, which arise from a new understanding of First Century Judaism. Thus, our modern greatness has given rise to a new understanding of the Bible in light of such knowledge. Should we take our modern word, or the word of men like Ignatius, who knew first century Jews? (Ignatius warns often of Jewish legalism – see Epistle to the Magnesians chapters 8-10).
2. Based on a Hegelian model of reality. Peter Leithart baffles me with this post. He commends the Philip Schaff’s Priniciple of Protestantism, but wishes there was less Hegalianism in it. This is the book that admits up front that "The idea, unfolded in comprehensive and profound style particularly by the later German philosophy, that history involves a continual progress toward something better, by means of dialectic contrapositions, is substantially true and correct". How can we accept the superstructure or the results if the foundation is wrong? Can we trust such a view of history?
3. Seeming denial of truth. This flows out from Hegelian concerns. If theological development is true, then how can one ever know if what he believes is true? Is his new perspective true? Is it the next step in the synthesis chain or is it a self-deluded jump to mold the bible and God into our image? Where does one turn to discover the answer? Both sides point to the Bible, they simply define the words differently on account of new insights. They cannot turn to those who have come before them for it violates the very spirit of theological development. Truth remains elusive, unreachable, and unknowable.
4. Systematic theology becomes useless. This admittedly is less of a concern, but worth point out since Rev. Meyers makes the comment that it is a conservative disciple by nature. Each new insight requires a complete reworking of systematics to fit in the new info, and by the time that is done, it is time for another new info. If theological development becomes the norm, then systematics, like creeds which are a systematical exercise, will become the enemy. It is a discipline that holds thought and theology back.

I put this points out there for discussion because my denomination, the RCUS has been through this before. Theological development tore the RCUS apart beginning in the 1840’s. It gained control and the result is the modern day United Church of Christ. The UCC is united by only one thing, and that is the fact that nothing is to be held for too long. All should be thrown out, like