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

Apt Summaries

Mark Horne has a post attacking the idea that the confessions can be "solid rock amid shifting sands." You can decide for yourself whether he is directly referring to my post of a similar title. His words deserve a response either way.

Rev. Horne is correct that the confessions themselves are not the “Solid Rock.” That appellation belongs to Scripture. However, the confessions are “apt summaries of the Word of God.” If one believes that Scripture, the solid rock, never changes, why would one think that the summaries of Scripture should change? None of the confessions deal in subjects such as millennial views or apologetical approaches. They deal with primary issues like salvation, the church, and creation. Rev. Horne suggests that Reformed faith is dead on arrival if its adherents cling to the confessions. For some reason Rev. Horne would say Scripture is unchangeable but summaries of Scripture are malleable and ever changing.

The only reason I can imagine why a summary of the never changing Word of God should change is if man cannot know the Word of God. This would explain why we must have a summary that is in constant motion with the times. Any minister believing this would hopefully be honest and take an exception to WCF 1.7. However, anyone who thinks the Word is unknowable is in a very untenable position. First, if the Word is unknowable, then the 2000 years of theology in the church has been wrong because no one really understood what God was communicating to man. Second, he would have to admit that he could not know the Word of God either, and thus, the confession could very well be more accurate than he is on any given subject.

The church has for centuries found no need to change or abandon confessions like Nicaea or Chalcedon, but if Rev. Horne’s logic is true, then that is simply proof that the church has been dead for centuries rather than evidence of the accuracy of those confessions. To argue that it is nothing but a practice of dead orthodoxy to hold fast to confessions as summaries of God’s Word is nothing more than avowing that one has disagreement with certain aspects of those confessions. It is time for these men to either write a confession, a generally-accepted delineation of their system of faith, that they believe IS maintainable or admit that they believe the Word of God is unknowable and that confessions, including the ones they have promised to uphold, are more a stumbling block than anything else.

The Value of a Housewife

You need to read Matt’s piece on women at home. Very well done. Look around on his site for the first part of this discussion.

Revelation Commentary

Does anyone know of a Partial Preterist commentary on Revelation? I have Ken Gentry’s works on dating the book and the Beast, but have not yet come across a verse by verse commentary from his viewpoint. I would be interested in seeing the entire book from the Partial Preterist perspective.

Thanks in advance.

Acts 15 and the Law

I would like to hear a Federal Vision interpretation of Acts 15, especially Peter’s speech. Verse 10 of that chapter says, "Now therefore why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear." I have not seen much discussion on this verse, and I think it presents some problems for the Federal Vision position of faithful obedience as doable. Peter here is disputing with brothers, elders in fact. Obviously then these who want to argue for law keeping and circumcision are not those who want faithless law keeping. These men from Judea are full of faith and desiring to pursue the law of righteousness by faith, but yet Peter says it is wrong to do so. He also clearly states that the law is a yoke that no one is able to bear. I would like to hear an exegesis of this passage from the "Law is Doable" perspective.

Covenant of Works?

There seems to be a lot of discussion on the Covenant of Works. It is one of the contentious issues of the Federal Vision controversy. Sadly, I have to say that I disagree with both sides in the debate. What that makes me, I am not sure. But here is a quick look anyway.

First, the Federal Vision adherents seem to deny the Covenant of Works existed. This is linked with their denial of the imputed righteousness of Christ. Dr. Jordan puts forth an alternative that we do not want the merit of Christ, but rather his maturity. He does not see a covenant of works and a covenant of grace, but immaturity and maturity. I do believe in a Covenant of Works. It is not hard to spot in the Bible. All the parties are present in Genesis 2 and 3. Conditions given, and a promise made. We even see in Hosea 6:7 God say Adam transgressed the covenant, "they like Adam have transgressed the covenant". So it is quite biblical to speak of a covenant being made with Adam. The New Testament is full of setting the idea of salvation by works (a Covenant of Works) next to salvation by Christ (Covenant of Grace). Romans 10:5, 11:6-7, Galatians 3:12-13, and especially 4:21-26 where Paul says there are two covenants. All of these are but a sampling with the two major passages being Romans 5 and I Corinthians 15. In these two passages we see the two covenant heads set side by side. Adam and Christ, who is called the Second Adam or the Last Adam. Here we see that one is either in Adam and his covenant or in Christ and his covenant. These are the two classic passages showing us the two covenant system. Thus, I cannot side with the Federal Vision men and deny a covenant of works made with Adam.

Second, the Truly Reformed, if we shall call them that, seem to imply that the Covenant of Works was a Westminster invention. They claim that no other confession prior to the Westminster (save an Irish Confession in 1611) taught a Covenant of Works. While, I will grant that the title, Covenant of Works comes first in the Westminster, it seems fairly obvious that most of the Reformed Creeds prior to the Westminster held to it. The Heidelberg Catechism question 60 is clear when it states that Christ fulfilled obedience for us, implying a covenant of works. That along with question 9 and 10 speaking of man being required to live up to the law perfectly, and several other questions make the Heidelberg teaching a Covenant with Adam and Eve that demands perfect obedience that Christ then fulfills for us. That is about 100 years prior to the Westminster. Turretin speaks of a Covenant of Nature. Witsus tells us the Covenant of Works also used to be called the Legal Covenant and/or a Covenant of Nature showing us that concept had been around for sometime. Calvin seems to hold to a covenant with Adam where we all exist until Christ "transfers into us the power of his righteousness (2.1.6)." The concept of the Covenant of Works is easily seen throughout the Reformation, not just with the Puritans. But does it occur earlier? Yes, I believe it does, though again without the current title. It is not hard to find in the Middle Ages with men like Anselm clearly stating Adam could have earned life with obedience and with their fall all men fell with them, and other aspects of the Legal Covenant. Clearly one is lead to believe that Anselm would have had no difficulty with the Covenant of Works. I only have space for one more example, so we shall use Chrysostom a bishop of Constantinople because he is well known and from his position he would have had great influence with his writings. It is evident from Chrysostom’s commentary on Galatians and his Homilies on Romans that Chrysostom held to "two covenants." One covenant is of bondage and the other of freedom and grace. This puts the idea of two covenants all the way back to the 4th Century.

It seems to me that the Greenville argument that Westminster perfects the doctrine of the Covenant of Works harms the cause, in that it implicitly accepts a developmental idea. I do not know if Greenville Theological Seminary is opposed to the idea of Doctrinal Development, but I will say that during a Medieval Church History class the teacher wanted us to know that the Medieval Church is the bud from which the Reformation flowers. This is an almost direct quote of Schaff, and might I add, not proved during the rest of the class.

This ought to be enough to get the discussion going. I look forward to the responses.

Strict Subscription vs. No Subscription

There is an interesting discussion about strict subscription that should be commented upon. Rev. Meyers shows his opposition to strict subscription by quoting James Jordan. Jordan argues that the system of doctrine in the Westminster has little to do with the details of the Confession.

Well, of course there is a "system" in the Standards, but the question is how detailed that system is. To say that there is a general system though many details in the Standards are not necessarily bound into that system, is quite different from saying that the Standards form a system that is tightly locked down in every detail.

What Rev. Jordan means by detail is 'word' or 'thought'. The system of the Westminster is not to be bound in every word or thought of the Confession. The System is something much broader. Thankfully, Rev. Jordan supplies an example.

For instance, we hear today that the “covenant of works” notion is an integral part of the Westminster Standards’ theology, and that departing from it is a departure from the Standards. Not so. The Westminster documents also use the phrase “covenant of life.” The “system” is that there are two stages of human life, a first stage with Adam and a second stage with the New Adam.

Here Rev. Jordan explains that even though the Westminster speaks of a covenant of works and a covenant of life the "system" of the Westminster only means two stages. The entire idea of covenant is thrown out the window as if it were some extraneous abstract idea that has no meaning.

Which brings us to the idea of strict subscription. Is it still subscription when one does not believe the words of the document are important. It seems to me that ‘Good Faith’ or ‘Loose’ subscription is really just interjecting Neo-orthodoxy into Confessional readings. The debate is between the ‘Confession is the system’ and the ‘the Confession contains the system’. Jordan, the Presbyterian Pastoral Leadership Network, and others argue for the Neo-Orthodox Confessional reading. These men want to be subscribers to the Confession, but only if they can ‘demythologize’ it first. Strip it of its silly old notions and replace them with the new enlightened ones. Once we allow this into our churches (as the PCA already has) then no Scriptural truth is safe.

Hatred for the Past

I just had to post a comment from Rev. Meyers that can be found in the comments to article under previous discussion.

1. The fact that REFORMED churches are still clinging to a 500-year old document is evidence of our loss of theological vitality.

2. The Westminster standards were written to answer the pressing issues and questions for 17th-century people - mostly English speaking people, too. This is fine. Confessions and catechisms are supposed to speak to the culture and use the language and conceptual categories familiar to people in order to disciple them in the biblical faith. But we no longer live in the 17th century. Duh.

3. Does anyone really think that we will still be using the Westminster Standards 200 years from now? Yikes.

4. There's been a great deal of theological and exegetical work done since the 17th century. Just think of the work on the Trinity in the broader church, but also in our own Reformed circles the theological work done on the covenant. The best of that work needs to be proclaimed publicly in our confessions and catechisms.

5. Until we compose something contemporary we will continue to have people tempting us to accept some form of "living in the past" as the answer to modern problems. As if repeating Reformed scholastic definitions of terms is what the modern world needs.

Never before has such a clear case of Mercersburg Theology been laid before us. These 5 points are full of Historical and Theological Development, but also contempt for the past. Nothing shows the Federal Vision’s hatred of the past more than point number 1. Rev. Meyers is actually saying that there is no way people 500 years ago could have come up with quality of theology that we can today, even though they have access to the same bible. Theological vitality is tied to shedding off theologies of the past and coming up with innovative ideas. If it such a bad idea to be clinging to 500 year old documents as good theology, just think how awful it must be to read documents from the Middle Ages, or worse yet those poor simpletons that sat at the feet of the apostles. Poor Polycarp and Ignatius! What trash their letters must be! And the Nicene Creed? Utterly useless. Just look at point 4 if you doubt Rev. Meyers argues that way. We have improved the doctrine of the Trinity and have better exegesis because a few guys now know what Judaism really looked over 19 centuries ago.

Charles Hodge once said of Philip Schaff’s Theological Development that it would cause people to always see an evolution of and never a possible devolution from the gospel. Could there be any clearer proof than Rev. Meyers’s point number 1?

The Heart of Harriet Miers

I have been slow to make any judgments about Harriet Miers and whether or not I think she will be a good Supreme Court Justice. Readers of this blog probably can guess that I am fairly concerned about it. Her qualifications do not concern me, but her beliefs do. Mainly because I have no idea what they are. I have been puzzled about why President Bush nominated her. His ‘trust me’ defense does not hold much water with me. However, I did just read an article in World Magazine that makes a good defense of Bush’s motives. The article argues that intellect alone does not make a good judge, but heart has to be a consideration. I suggest all read it for it makes some good points about needing to know a person’s heart and how heart ought to be a part of why we appoint people to positions. Imagine yourself for a moment having a task of great value, would you sooner give it to the unknown man with a good resume or your best friend who is competent and whom you know you can trust. It seems to me the bigger gamble is on the unknown quantity.

Just for the record I still have grave concerns about Ms. Miers but I understand the reasoning of President Bush. The problem is that I do not trust President Bush to be a good judge of heart. After all, President Bush is the one who looked into the soul of President Putin of Russia and saw a man he could trust rather than the autocratic KGB agent who rolls back Democracy, does joint military exercises with China, and stays out of the war on terror that the rest of the world sees.

Solid Rock or Shifting Sand

Jeff Meyers tries to answer the question I have been dying to know about the Federal Vision. How can one advocate changing the standards (especially the Westminster) to fit the new insights of Biblical Theology, and then still claim early Reformed writings back up your point of view? Either it is a new insight, or it is not? Which is it? Sadly, Rev. Meyers fails to give an adequate answer. He tries to tell us that it is both new and not new, which ducks the question. Then he states,

Some of the terminology and phraseology is new. I'd admit that. But again, this should be no problem. That's one of the great things about "system" confessional subscription. We don't bind ourselves to a particular forms of words, just to the overall content. So we have freedom to reformulate biblical truth for the context in which we're called to minister.

This is a telling answer. What Rev. Meyers is arguing is that the system is what is important, not the content. This is how one argues for changing the Standards, but can still claim to be a part of that ‘system’ or tradition. Rev. Meyers would have us believe that the system remains unaltered even if all the words in the system are changed. Thus, one can change the meaning of ‘elect’ or ‘justification’ or the meaning of baptism and the supper, perhaps even the meaning of the Regulative Principle of Worship, and the system will remain the same.

Now, I think where Rev. Meyers and I will disagree is on the affect of reformulating biblical truth. Rev. Meyers thinks it does not affect the system of doctrine, and I believe it does, at least the way it is being done now by the Federal Vision proponents. It is one thing to speak confessional truths in a language and manner that is understandable by your audience, it is another to speak in a manner that is understandable to your audience, but contradicts the confession. The first, I believe, is ministering biblical truth in a particular context, and the second is reformulating biblical truth for the context.

Meyers goes on in his blog to accuse those who oppose the Federal Vision of “cultural imperialism.” He is saying that those who want to remain faithful to the Standards are stuck in a by gone cultural, and refuse to see how one must reformulate the message to fit the modern culture. Rev. Meyers wants to change the message to fit with the changing times, not only for the needs of the audience, but also for the advances in Biblical Theology. After all, changing the message does not affect the system for Rev. Myers. Thus, again, Philip Schaff’s Principle of Protestantism rears its ugly head. The dialectical movement of doctrine throughout history is what Myers is ascribing to in his post. One cannot hold to the doctrine of the Reformation because the Reformation was a previous stage of development, and it would be ridiculous to cling to that which history has past by. The system is more important. And the system for Rev. Myers is not what the Westminster or the Three Forms teach, not any more. Rev. Myers holds to a system that contains internal change in a movement toward a fianl synthesis.

The debate over the Federal Vision is not just about justification or the sacraments, as Rev. Meyers rightly points out. It is also a debate about whether or not the truth is knowable, whether or not it is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Is the doctrine of the church a solid rock upon which to build, rock that can be written down in Confessions and trusted forever, or is it shifting sands that blow and move around with the times.

Air Rage

I am currently on vacation, and that is why this page has not had any updates recently, but I thought I should take a few seconds to comment on the recent Air Rage epidemic. Air Rage of course is Road Rage for those in air travel.
I recently flew a series of flights from Bismarck, ND to Knoxville, TN and witnessed at least two such events myself. One incident had a stewardess spend no less than 3 minutes arguing with a passenger to return his seat to an upright position for landing. It is a standard rule to straighten your seat back when the plane is about to land, but this passenger would not comply. They argued rather loudly for an extended period of time, and I did not get to see who won. The reason, for those of you who are wondering, that one must return the seat to an upright position is because if the plane crashes, the seat my block those in the rows behind you from being able to exit quickly.

The second incident involved my spilling a drink. I spilt my coke, and the lady next to me and I received the lion’s share of the drink. We dried off as best we could and the seat as well, but apparently some dripped in-between the seats and onto the floor. This angered the passenger behind me because his carry-on item received a few drops of coke. I did not immediately notice his anger, but it was brought to my attention later. I apologized while the plane taxied to gate, and he refused to accept my apology. Only after his wife pleaded with him and repeatedly told me it is okay, did I even get anything remotely related to an acceptance of my apology.

A shocking third incident occurred a week later when my 80 year old grandmother flew from Jackson, MS to Knoxville, TN and a fellow passenger took her seat. My grandmother was in row 3, near the front on the aisle, and in need of making a quick connection. Her plane was already 50 minutes late. Some man who had a seat in the back, row 12 next to the window, took her seat, and did not let her sit down when confronted. His reason? He had to get off the plane quickly, and did not want to wait. My grandmother eventually took his seat in the back. Yet, the stewardess found out, and tried to make the man move, and he still would not relinquish his stolen seat.

The only possible explanation for such amazing acts of selfishness, and rudeness is Air Rage. Perhaps it is transmitted like the Bird Flu, but no matter what it appears to be everywhere. I will be flying home soon, and I am sure to run into more.

Until then let everyone be warned. If you are flying the biggest trouble you will probably face is from someone next to you.

James Jordan's point of view

In the interests of fairness, I should report that I have discovered Dr. Jordan’s side of the story. The broad references to men motivated by political gains and those who opposed him while in Tyler, TX are directed at Joe Moorecraft. Also, Dr. Jordan’s view on the Mississippi Valley Presbytery is based on this timeline of events. I hope that the Mississippi Valley did a little more than is reported in this timeline.

In the end, it does not matter. I still think that James Jordan is wrong. He should have named names. If he meant Joe Moorecraft, then say it. It is childish to attack without naming names. Also, I bet that even Joe Moorecraft is motivated by doctrinal concerns, and not just pure political gain. Just in case any think that this is all my twisted view of things, Federal Vision defender, Joel Garver agrees that theology is at the heart of the debate. All Jordan’s recent essay shows me is that Jordan has a deep-seated bitterness against Rev. Moorecraft, and against all those who refuse to be innovative with their doctrine.

Judicial Restriant vs. Originalism

I hate to say it but I am opposed to John Roberts. I hope that I am wrong, but until I am proven as such I think the country lost in the trade of Reinquist for Roberts. The reason, judicial philosophy. I do not think that Republicans took seriously the need to find Roberts’s judicial philosophy. I am fairly certain that Roberts will not be a Judicial Activist, but that does not mean he therefore is an Originalist. We cannot mistake Judicial Restraint with an Originalist position. Philologous or James Solis, a friend of mine who will eat me alive for this post, recently said this about Roberts:

I for one was satisfied by the only real answer Roberts could give on the question of his judicial philosophy. When asked if we would be for the little guy of the big guy, Roberts replied, "If the Constitution says that the little wins, then the little guy wins. If the Constitution says that the big guy wins, then the big guy wins."

While it is good he sees the Constitution as the deciding factor, what he does not say is whose view of the Constitution gets to speak. Currently five Justices think the Constitution says city governments can take your land and give it to other private citizens. It is pretty clear that the authors of the Constitution would not have agreed. Currently at least five Justices think the Constitution says people can kill their babies. Five Justices think that the Constitution says putting to death Washington D.C. sniper, who is under 18, is cruel and unusual punishment. What I want to know is Roberts going to view the Constitution through the eyes of precedent or through the eyes of Madison and the other framers. Roberts constantly said that he respected the precedent. He even respected the precedent of Roe v Wade and the privacy cases leading up to it too. I did not see much in his answers to convince me that he is going to stand with Thomas and Scalia and fight for an Originalist interpretation of the Constitution. His view of Restraint will stop him from returning America to the goverment of the Constitution.

Philologous has also suggested that the Senate should not use its "advice and consent" powers to stop a judicial nominee. He effectively quotes Madison. However, we currently have several Justices who base decisions on Foreign Law. If a President put up a nominee who stated they would do such a thing, should the Senate confirm him or her? That is only his/her judicial philosophy? Can the Senate exclude on such bounds? Yes, I believe so. Would Madison? Yes, I bet he would. It does not take long to see in the writings of Washington to see the dangers of foreign encroachments to American sovereignty. Madison’s record as President brings out the same point. The Senate has always been allowed to reject things they believe are wrong in other matters where only consent is asked of the Senate. Treaties for example. Henry Cabot Lodge rightfully led the rejection of Woodrow Wilson’s treaty to end WWI and the League of Nations because it violated American sovereignty. It put the Constitution in jeopardy. The Liberal judicial philosophy of the Constitution as a “living breathing” document and use of foreign courts is the same. It puts the Constitution in jeopardy. The Senate cannot consent to such things.

Now, I freely admit that Roberts will probably not further the damage done by Liberal Judicial Activism in the past, but he also will not undo it. He will not return the power to the states stolen by Federal corruption. He will not return our free speech by striking down Campaign Finance Reform. He will not do many things because he believes more in Judicial Restraint than the Constitution, in my opinion at least.

Robespierre

Admittedly, I started Robespierre: The Fool as Revolutionary a long time ago. I put it down because I thought it would be a biography of Robespierre, but it really is a tour of the French Revolution as a whole. Not much personal information about the Butcher of France, but it still is a decent book. It really should have decided whether or not it wanted to be about Robespierre or the French Revolution for the book follows many of the leaders of the Revolution and begins long before Robespierre arrives on the scene. Yet, it ends with Robespierre’s death and leaves the reader wondering what happened in the rest of the Revolution, and how did Napoleon arrive on the scene. It should have been one or the other.

Other than that disappoint point, Otto Scott does a wonderful job of exposing the horrors of the French Revolution by simply retelling how it happened. He does not try to analyze the Revolution, he just tells the story. It is enough to make one hate the French all over again. I must say I came out of the book feeling very sorry for the pitiful Louis 16th not to mention his son Louis 17th who died, not by the losing his head, but by sheer neglect. The guards just stopped feeding him, and stopped coming to check on him after they had killed both of his parents. He died of neglect. Barbaric. I learned a great deal of names and events that I will probably soon forget, but it was probably still worth it.

One thing I did learn that I found a great stroke of divine justice is that the event that brought Robepierre’s leadership of the Revolution to an end is a festival held by the Assembly to celebrate the existence of the Divine. Robespierre hated Christianity, but hated atheism as well since “the people believe there is a god.” Thus, for Robespierre it was an act of aristocracy to deny God existed. They held a giant festival where everyone was forced to wear their best suits, and the Assembly all bought new blue uniforms for “blue was a virtuous color.” Speeches were made, food eaten, it was just like old times in Paris, which is apparently what made people think Robespierre had become a “tyrant in the name of anti-tyranny.” Robespierre tried to kill himself to avoid the guillotine, but was too afraid and only shot his jaw off. So he ended up with his head in the basket like all of the people he had condemned before.

“Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, or Death!” France’s gift to the world.

James Jordan on the attack

Dr. James Jordan has made some provocative comments in his Biblical Horizons newsletter. I do agree with Jordan on one point. It is a shame that great theological works are not being turned out as they may have in years past. When was the last great Systematic Theology written? I do wish that more of the great thinkers of our day would look to put their thoughts in print; however, I disagree with Jordan’s conclusion on such a matter. He states,

It seems no longer so. The controversies over the so-called "federal vision" and "new perspective on Paul" are but two examples of the closing of the Calvinistic mind, at least in many parts of the Reformed world. Men with little knowledge of history, evidently incapable of thinking presuppositionally, and sometimes (not always) rather obviously motivated by political concerns (if not by sheer envy), have not hesitated to distort and even lie about this thing called "federal vision" (which, as they discuss it, is largely a product of their own minds).

This is a bold claim with no support. Who is attacking the Federal Vision merely of political concerns? Point them out! Instead Jordan cowers under mere innuendo. There are people attacking the Federal Vision, but to say that men like Dr. Joseph Pipa and Morton Smith know nothing of history and can’t think presuppositionally is preposterous. I had both of these men in seminary, and I can personally attest to their knowledge of history and presuppositional thinking.

Jordan in the next article continues his blatant attack on all who oppose him and his thinking. After chastising all who oppose the Auburn Ave. Theology, he tells us all "to grow up." He then continues,

Having said that, I’m going to take the gloves off and point out that those critics who accused us of being Eastern Orthodox, etc., knew full well that we were not anything of the sort. They knew that they were lying about us. They were motivated by evil desires, often envy, and for that reason sought to tear us down. It was not ignorance. It was not really juvenile thinking. It was just envy and evil. Why should I sugar-coat it and pretend that this is not so, when everyone involved knows that it is?

While I have no knowledge of the events he is discussing here, it again seems odd that even with the gloves off, no names can be found. Who are these myesterious men who oppose people for political gain? Finally, we see names in the next paragraph.

A second large problem connected with the current noise is deceptiveness. The Mississippi Valley presbytery of the PCA has issued a report on FV and related issues, again erroneously lumping the NPP with the FV.

Jordan believes that the Mississippi Valley Presbytery is part of the slander campaign. He even seems to give proof with the “lumping of the NPP with the FV.” But, there is one problem with that assesment, the report did not lump them together. The report deals with the New Perspectives on Paul and the Federal Vision, but it does so in separate sections. The report also deals with N.T. Wright and Norman Shepherd in separate and distinct sections. One can argue, as I have, that the report tries to take on too many topics, but I do not think that one can argue they are lumped together. They are even under different headings.

Sadly, Jordan’s no-name rant on all that oppose the will of Federal Vision People has really rallied the troops. Those excited about Jordan’s claim that all who are not with him are anti-intellectual include, Mark Horne, Sibboleth, and Barb. Those are just the blogs I frequent, so there could be many more.

It upsets me a little that these rants are accepted among Federal Vision adherents, all the while clamoring for more dialogue, as Jordan does. If someone on the other side of this debate did such name calling and finger pointing at no one in particular, it would be condemned (see reaction to John Robbins), and it would be used as proof of a corrupt church system only out for political gain. If anyone thought that the Federal Vision feud was over, think again. This appears to be a controversy that will be around for quite some time.

The New Perspectives and the Bible

As much as I think the New Perspectives movement distorts first century Judaism in the extra biblical literature, I think that their biggest error is ignoring the Gospels. We have a divinely inspired picture of first century Judaism, and it ought to trump all else. Several gospel encounters should shed light on the nature of first century Judaism.

John 3 is a perfect example. Christ present Nicodemus with a beautiful picture of salvation by grace in stating that we must be born again. Yet, Nicodemus cannot comprehend it. He thinks Christ speaks of a physical rebirth. Christ chastises him for not understanding grace, the need to be born again. Nicodemus a teacher of Israel did not think much of grace. Nicodemus asks, “how can these things be?” to the teaching that “that which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” Hardly the response of someone who already lived and participated in a religion of grace.

Matthew 23:4 shows us Christ describing what the Pharisees do as they teach. They “bind heavy burden and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders.” Surely this is a description of a graceless religion that cares only of works. Peter echos this sentiment in Acts 15 when he says the law is a yoke that “neither we nor our fathers could bear.”

The Rich Young Ruler in Matthew 19:16-26 is another example. Although men like Steve Schissel try to turn this story into an affirmation that the law is doable, it really condemns salvation by works. We must not forget when reading this story that Christ begins with “Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God.” Christ is beginning by reminding the rich young ruler that no man is good, no man keeps the law. Only God is good. Then when the rich ruler does not get it and still asks what he “lacks”, Christ shows him all he lacks is a heart that desires God. It is the 10th commandment, the internal commandment that he cannot keep. We should also not stop there. The story continues to the disciples who then hear the camel and the eye of a needle teaching. They rightfully ask, “Who then can be saved?” Christ responds, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” No man can save himself. No man can save himself by the law, but God can save. God alone is good and God alone can save.

Matthew 5:20 and indeed all the Sermon on the Mount is related to that point. “For I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.” This is to tell us that as good at law keeping the Pharisees and religious leaders are, they still deserve only death. Not only does this help show us that the Judaism of the time of Christ looked to obedience to the law for righteousness, it shows us also that obedience to the law is impossible. Why? Because the law is internal as well as external. This is why those who know they are poor in spirit, mourn that fact, are meek, and thirst for that righteousness they lack will receive it. They are blessed and will be filled with a righteousness that is not their own, but comes from Christ.

These are but a few of the gospel accounts of first century Judaism. I am sure that many who are better than I can quickly show more. Often the NPP refuses to accept Biblical testimony to the nature of Judaism. The Bible paints a picture very different than that painted by most NPP advocates.