Sacramental Efficacy

The Sacraments are one of the contentious issues of the current controversies. Do the Federal Vision men believe sacramentalism, and if so is it outside of the Reformed Norm? I would argue yes to both points. Baptism is a good place to start. The Federal Vision men always raise their voices in protest when they are accused of believing in Baptismal Regeneration or that “baptismal efficacy is affirmed...of every recipient of the sacrament" (lines 42-44 FV section of the MVP report). They always deny it. And here is an example of how they do it. Joel Garver says:

If the report means to say that I believe that all the baptized truly receive Christ and all his benefits as those are offered in the sacrament of baptism, then this is most certainly not the case. I do not believe that every baptized person receives Christ and all his benefits as those are offered by the sacrament of baptism. Receiving the sacrament, for instance, in hypocrisy and unbelief will not benefit the recipient unless he later comes to faith.

If the report, however, means to say that I believe that what is signified and sealed by the sacrament of baptism is truly offered to all in its administration, then I do, in fact, believe that. But, as far as I can see, this is simply classical Reformed doctrine, consistent with the Westminster Standards.

Auburn Ave Church makes this statement:

By baptism one is joined to Christ's body, united to Him covenantally, and given all the blessings and benefits of His work (Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:1ff; WSC #94). This does not, however, grant to the baptised final salvation.

Again Garver gives clarification of AAPC statement:

The AAPC Statement, however, is perfectly consistent with final salvation being "offered" or "given" but not being "received" in such way that would grant final salvation. Otherwise, the statement would be flatly contradictory since "all blessings and benefits" would have to include "final salvation" since surely that is the chief blessing and benefit of Christ's work.

Regarding Saul the AAPC Statement says, "he did not receive the gift of perseverance." But the language here is that of "receiving," not being "given" or "offered."

Thus we see a lot of word parsing being done by the Federal Vision men that is not picked up on in the MVP report or many of the discussions about the subject.

On the contrary the Classical Reformed Position is stated in the Heidelberg Catechism.

Q. 61 Why do you say that you are righteous by faith only?
A. Not that I am acceptable to God on account of the worthiness of my faith, but because only the satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ is my righteousness before God; and I can receive the same in no other way than by faith only.
Q. 72 Is then the outward washing with water itself the washing away of sins?
A. No, for only the blood of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit cleanse us from all sin.

Here it is extremely important to note the discussion of how we are righteous immediately proceeds the discussion on sacraments in the Heidelberg. We are righteous by faith, and then the sacraments ‘confirm’ it to us, as the catechism plainly teaches.

Allow me to summarize. The Classic Reformed or Old Reformed Position is that those who receive the sacraments by faith receive the benefits signified by them. Thus our faith is confirmed by the sacraments and salvation and righteousness come only by faith. Without faith the sacraments are of no hope or use to you. The Federal Vision position appears to be those who receive the sacraments receive the benefits of them unless they frustrate the grace by unbelief. Another way to say it is they receive the benefits of the sacrament as they receive it in continuing faith. These two positions are not the same. The Old Reformed position has faith as the instrument and the Federal Vision position has the sacrament as the instrument and faith is just a manner of receiving. The sacrament itself contains grace and offers it to all, and unless it is prevented by unbelief, then it is conveyed or received. The Old Reformed Position states faith is the only way to gain benefit, and constantly reminds us that the sacraments are signs and tokens. They do nothing in and of themselves.

However, it must be admitted that the MVP report is wrong in saying that they believe all who receive baptism are saved because the Federal Vision makes allowances that people can frustrate grace through unbelief, and thus fall out of the covenant with God to which they were joined. The baptized have true union with Christ, but can then later frustrate that union and lose it, through unbelief or a lack of continued faithfulness. This is why I wish the MVP report had taken the time to be detailed. The Federal Vision men rightly have a complaint about the report, but their teaching is still contrary to the Reformed Faith. A clearer report might have helped close the loopholes that the Federal Vision position slips through.

Terri Schiavo

One of the absolute crimes of the Terri Schiavo case is the state’s view of marriage. Don’t get me wrong there are hundreds of things wrong with the Schiavo situation, but the others are getting a lot of attention. The view of marriage propounded by the state of Florida astounds me. The ruling is that Michael Schiavo is Terri’s husband and thus has custody and care. Yet, Michael, for many years now, has lived with another woman and even has a child with another woman. He took vows before God and the State that he would care for her in sickness and in health. Yet, the first major sickness comes along and he is in bed with another woman, playing husband to her. Can the state really not see that Michael Schiavo has abandoned his position as husband, and that perhaps guardianship should be awarded to someone else? At least it should make us question his word. Then add on top of that, the fact that he promised to use the malpractice money to care for her, which probably made the settlement larger than if he had told the jury he wanted to starve her quickly, no one should be taking this man at his word. We all should be questioning exactly how he is acting as her husband when he has already started a family of his own without her, while still married to her. Yet, none of this seems to bother Florida judges. We have a long way to go in this country if we really want to protect marriage. It will take more than simply keeping it defined as between one man and one woman. We are going to need to teach the morality behind marriage as well.

The Coming Meetings

It is that time again. Time when churches begin to go to Classis and Presbytery, and in a few months we will see Synods and General Assemblies. This is the time of year then when the most trouble is stirred up, and debates get hot. This year appears to be no exception. A new round of critiques of the Mississippi Valley Presbytery’s Report has begun. Apparently the report has been made a communication to the PCA General Assembly, so that is sure to cause a little trouble. It appears that many are upset because the report, in a round about way, declares many ministers outside the realm of orthodoxy. This is because they published the report without notes, and people wanted the proof for such claims, so they published notes, and now people are mad that names were given. It is a no win situation when a Presbytery gives a report of this nature. I do agree that if the Presbytery does not file charges in the appropriate courts then they have done people wrong. You can’t make claims about one’s orthodoxy being faulty and then not follow through with anything.
It will be interesting to see what the PCA and the OPC do. It hardly seems likely that the situation will go away without any sort of action. Soon, action will be necessary. Yet, this will be an interesting test to see if people can nail down the beliefs of those in the Federal Vision and if they can nail down their own set of beliefs. Then, if they can do that, will they be able to line the two systems up side by side a see where they conflict. Then the task will be to decide which system is more biblical. I have to admit that I am skeptical that such a procedure will occur. Need I remind everyone of the Rev. John Wood case a few years ago in the PCA. If memory serves me correct, John Wood allowed a woman to preach in the pulpit for a Sunday service or two, and was acquitted for it because they could not really nail down a definition of preaching. Rev. Wood claimed she did not preach because preaching requires authority, which the woman did not have since she was a woman. Thus, he got off of the charges. Maybe my memory is faulty, or maybe I am overly pessimistic. No matter what, I hope an interesting discussion comes around from these meetings where we can honestly line up the doctrine of each group and see where we disagree.
Lord willing we can give this a try here on this page.

Family Voting

One of the traditions that still goes on in many RCUS churches is that of Head of Household voting. This is where the men of a certain age vote in the church and the women do not. This is done because the man is the biblical head of the household, and thus when the family votes it should be done by the head. Now, it should be stated up front that this is not an official RCUS position. Some churches allow all confirmed members to vote, others allow men of a certain age and also allow widows to vote. So this is not a uniform practice at all, but in order to have some fun and promote discussion I thought we would examine this practice.

The church I currently serve follows the Head of Household Voting practice. All the men over the age of 20 are allowed to vote in the congregational meetings. This means that women do not cast any votes in the church, nor do those young men who may have been confirmed, but are still under their parents headship. The age of 20 has been picked by our church as an age where a young man may sign the church constitution to signify the creation of his family allowing him to vote. I believe this to be a good and biblical practice.

1. The Bible seems to tell us that the base unit is a family rather than individuals. For example, it was not good that Adam was alone, but it was very good after there was a family. Notice that when Israel is broken down it goes from tribes to clans to families, but usually not down to individuals. Punishments were usually dished out to families. It just seems voting in families appears to place appropriate emphasis on the biblical unit of families.
2. If women are to submit to their husbands, why would their ever be a reason that husbands and wives vote against one another. And if their vote is always the same, then why not just make them vote as a unit, which is what voting in families does.
3. I believe that this practice promotes family interaction and responsibility. Husbands and wives should discuss votes prior to their coming to the meeting. Sons should discuss and look after their widowed mothers as they vote in church matters. The duty of each family member to one another is encouraged by this practice.

I thought I would just send this discussion out there and see what comes back.

Forgotten Reformers

I have been recently getting lost in reading the primary sources of the Reformation. No, not Calvin, or Luther, or even Knox, but those other guys, the ones that are usually just footnotes in some seminary class. One often gets the impression that Luther, Calvin and Knox pulled off the Reformation single handed, or at least through their great influence. Don’t get me wrong, I am not trying to run down Calvin and the lot, but there are a lot of other leaders out there that don’t get much attention. These men too helped shape the world.
Over the last month I have gotten my first book by Peter Martyr Vermigli, which is Predestination and Justification. A fantastic book. Vermigli doesn’t pull any punches, and answers objections that one can still find lingering today. I also just received The Decades of Henry Bullinger. These were 50 sermons, designed for publication, published in groups of 10. I have not had the chance to read very much in this yet, so I should withhold judgment. One thing struck me as I have pursued this book and the Vermigli book. It is how much these men quote from the early church fathers. Glancing back at Calvin’s Institutes, he takes great care to do the same. These men who led the Reformation were not trying to take the church to a new phase of development or invent some new church, they were trying to bring it back to the early years. They take great pains to show that the history of the church lies not with the Romanists, no matter what they claim, it lies with the Reformed.
I guess the last point I want to make is that today we need to reclaim the spirit of the Reformation. That is not done by looking for great men like Calvin and Luther to come lead us. Instead, scholarly pastors preaching the word of God all over do it. Sure great men can be found among them, but the Reformation was not limited to them. There are those who did much, but now receive little fame, or are even forgotten by history completely. The spirit of the Reformation is more than just the legacy of a few, it is the legacy of the church. When the church preaches the truth boldly about her savior, then the world will change, the heathen will repent, and the gates of hell cannot stand before her. May everyone have a blessed Lord’s Day.

Infant Communion

There is a resurgence of those advocating infant communion. This is not confined to Federal Vision advocates. It really seems to be a teaching that is catching on. A book is in the works with a collection of essays by various authors discussing Paedocommunion. It includes James Jordan, Tim Gallant, Jeff Meyers (all Federal Vision men), and R.C. Sproul Jr.

Tim Gallant has an article about how one can hold to the Three Forms of Unity and believe in Paedocommunion. His argument is that the Heidelberg Catechism does not address the issue of infants at all. He claims that question 81 is who “ought” to come to the Supper, not who “may” come. Thus, infants may come, but are not required. They are also not specifically forbidden to come in the following question, thus, children are allowed. Or at least one can claim to hold the Heidelberg Catechism without exceptions and still in good conscious hold to the practice of giving infants communion. He also uses his explanation of I Corinthians 11 to rid himself of the self-examination clauses in the Belgic and Heidelberg.

Not addressing any of his Biblical exegesis, the whole essay seems to me a search for loopholes in the Three Forms of Unity. “How can one sneak kids into this?” appears to be the question that drives the essay. I know that Gallant is sincere in what he is doing and saying, but he really seems to be changing the meaning of the Heidelberg to mean what we want it to say rather than what it says, or what the author meant it to say. The only quote I need to give you all is one from the author of the catechism, Ursinus. It can be found in his Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, pg. 434. Here he is speaking of the differences between baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

They differ as it respects the persons to whom they should be administered. Baptism is administered to all who are to be regarded as members to all who are to be regarded members of the church, whether they be adults or infants; the Lord’s Supper is to be given to none except those who are able to understand and celebrate the benefits of Christ, and to examine themselves.

It seems clear that Ursinus, who wrote the catechism, felt children were to be excluded from the Supper in his catechism. Wouldn’t it be more honest just simply to say, “I take exception to question 81”?

To 'Filioque' or not to 'Filioque'

‘Filioque’ is a Latin phrase meaning “and the Son”. It was added to the Creed of Nicaea by Charlemagne so that the creed now states that the Spirit proceeds “from the Father and the Son.” This is how Protestant churches, and the Roman Catholic Church both confess the relationship within the Trinity. The Eastern Orthodox Church is the only one that refuses to claim the Jesus Christ can send the Spirit as well. Thus, for the Eastern Orthodox the Spirit proceeds only from the Father.

Sadly, one does not have to look very far in the Reformed world to see those who would desire to return to the Eastern view of the Trinity. It is an idea held forth by many within the Federal Vision movement, although I would stop short of saying that it is a characteristic of that movement. Andrew Sandlin holds forth this idea of revoking the Filioque clause.

If the Eastern form of Trinitarian dogma (which is where orthodox Trinitarianism developed) cannot be improved on within the Reformed tradition (and we don’t believe it can!), we have no problem championing the Eastern view; in other words, we do not feel it necessary to create a “Reformed version” of every doctrine (which may easily lead to heresy).

It have seen it on several other blogs telling us that this idea has taken root. The removal of the Spirit proceeding from Christ is not a minor thing. It opens the door again to Arianism, which is why the clause was first adopted in Spain, and then inserted by Charlemagne. The Arians claimed the if the Spirit only proceeded from the Father, then Christ was lesser than the Father. But more importantly, the Bible teaches us pretty clearly that the Son sends the Spirit too. John 15:26 Christ says, “I will send” the Spirit. John 20:22 states, “And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost.” This fairly clearly shows that the Spirit proceeds from the Son as well. The Bible seems to say the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Why the sudden interest in rejecting this? I confess, I don’t know. It seems that there is a great need to undo things agreed upon, or go to the least common denominator in all arguments, but the motive is still unclear. However, one thing is clear, the church appears on the verge of having to re-fight a great many battles that we should have already settled.

Harry Potter!!!

Yes, it is true. I read Harry Potter. I just finished reading the first novel, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone. I had to see for myself what all that fuss was about. When these books first came out people protested and said they were anti-Christian, and it happens again every time a Potter movie comes out. So, I rented it from the Herreid, SD library, and read for myself. My conclusions is the book is harmless. I do reserve the right to change my opinion after I read more of the series because it is only book one, but so far so good.

The main objection is that it glorifies witchcraft, which it does to a certain extend, but this is a children’s fantasy book. It is just a book to make kids use their imagination, take them to another place. I do not believe that this is a bad thing. If it is then we must censor every book where magic is practiced including The Lord of the Rings and The Chronicles of Narnia, not to mention every book where robots talk or the mystical “Force” is used. This is needless. A child can use one’s imagination without going over to worship Satan. As long as this is not the only book one’s child reads then there is nothing to worry about. Biblical knowledge is of course the best antidote to all things, so make sure Bible reading is part of a child’s reading list and you should not have to worry about too much in the Harry Potter books.

That being said, I do believe that there are two things that should be addressed by parents, or at least things they should be aware of about Harry Potter.
1. There is a tendency to promote a ‘elitism’ of sorts. The idea of ‘muggles’ or non-magic folk could lead toward elitist attitudes. The only muggles portrayed in this book are Harry’s family, which of course are horrible people. They are self-centered, undisciplined, and mean. You have an idea that there are good muggles out there, but they are still referred to as muggles. Anytime people that are different than you have a group name, it is bad, and will lead to an elitist outlook. For example, I grew up in the South, and everyone who is not a Southerner is a ‘Yankee’. Now this promotes sectional strife, and all kinds of stereotypes, but in the end, this is a label that means ‘everyone else is worse than me’. Although I believe it is unintended, Rowlings has done just that in her novels.
2. The book promotes breaking of rules, and indeed rewards the breaking of rules. Harry Potter and his friends break the rules all the time. It is often full of good intentions, but they break them none-the-less. Not only that subtle hints show that breaking the rules is a good idea. Harry’s female friend was considered a know-it-all, and stuck up until she broke the rules and lied to a teacher. From that point on they were good friends, and she broke the rules much more often, changing her character for the better. One also finds out in the end that the headmaster of the school encouraged Potter to brake the rules by giving him an invisibility cloak. And then Potter’s ‘house’ in school is given the ‘house cup’ when the headmaster steps in at the last second and gives Potter and his friends loads of points for doing things that were against the rules, and that they were specifically forbidden from doing. This probably should be addressed with any children who read this book.

Since I have given the bad, I should also point out some good in the book. Lessons that you would want your child to learn.
1. There is a pronounced theme of good vs. evil. The ‘Dark Arts’ are bad and the rest of magic is good. One must stop the evil and promote the good. This is the conflict that drives the book. How can we stop those who are evil and are out to corrupt and ruin the good things we love, mainly the school and one’s friends? Evil must be fought, and stopped. Harry comes to realize that he must take a stand against evil, and that is a good thing. Children can learn the value of good and the necessity of stopping evil by reading these books.
2. There is a second theme that is much more subtle, but worth while. Things that are scary or fearful are made worse by our fear. The book has a story line about not saying the name of a certain evil wizard. Yet, the headmaster always makes a point of calling out the name, and in the end Harry does as well. He learns that by refusing to call something by its name only adds to the fear, and is counterproductive. I hope the other books continue on this theme. By the way, this is one that the movie left out. It probably shouldn’t have.

All in all, don’t go to any great lengths to stop your kids from reading this book. It is not that bad. It is an easy read and entertaining. It could help children love reading, which is important. While this book is not of the quality of C.S. Lewis or J.R.R Tolkien, it is still a decent book.

Historical Arguments

I thought I would specifically deal with some of the arguments for doctrinal development. These men that hold to such a thing love to point to “examples” in history of doctrine developing. Their favorites are the doctrine of the Trinity, including the doctrine of Christ, and Justification, including the atonement. Sadly, one can hardly find a history book that is not polluted with this very idea. They speak of these doctrines as being ‘developed’ and finally agreed upon. In this post, I thought I would examine their arguments about the doctrine of Justification and atonement as developing.

Those who hold to development of justification and the atonement of Christ love to say, that Reformation’s idea on justification and the atonement cannot be necessary because no one held that until Luther. Thus, either one has to allow variant ideas on justification or one excommunicates every person prior to the Reformation. Yet, this is a false dichotomy. A choice that we need not make. While, people can trot out all sort of strange views from the saints of old about the sacrifice of Christ, it does not mean that the church at large understood Christ and his justifying work in such strange ways or that they had no clear understanding. For every Abelard, who believed Christ’s death was at best a moral influence upon us, there are 100 people, if not more, who rightly saw Christ’s death as a sacrifice. Athanasius states:

He became incarnate for our sakes, so that he might offer himself to the Father in our place, and redeem us through his offering and sacrifice . . . For Christ, our passover, is sacrificed.

Augustine continues along the same lines:

He offered sacrifice for our sins. And where did he find that offering, the pure victim that he would offer? He offered himself, in that he could find no other.

Southern France and Northern Italy seemed to always hold forth Protestant theology. Ambrose held that the “justification of the sinner and the remission of the sins were not human merit, but by the expiatory sacrifice of the Cross. (J.A. Wylie. History of Protestantism. Pg.19)” It seems that the church held to a correct view of justification and atonement from the beginning. It should be noted that Ambrose, Athanasius, and Augustine are three of the biggest doctors of the church. It seems likely that their teaching was followed widely. Now like many things the final verbiage was not settled. The Reformation drew important lines of distinction to make sure error was kept out. Yet, the Reformers themselves never thought of themselves as developing doctrine. They thought of themselves are returning to original Christinaity. They saw themselves are returning to the early centuries of the church. Calvin in the his Institutes quotes everybody from Augustine to Bernard of Clairvaux to prove his doctrine of justification is not an innovation or a development, but rather it is the plain truth that the church had always held.

Media Bias and ESPN

I wanted to leave a quick note on how much I am starting to hate ESPN. Yes, I love sports, and I watch ESPN. But for those who think that bias in the media stops at CBS and CNN, think again. I am still a little bitter that ESPN actively promoted Charles Woodson for the Heisman Trophy award several years ago, but this latest outrage is even worse than that.

Sportscenter this past evening had its Major League Baseball experts come on the show and say that there is no way anyone can keep Barry Bonds out of the Hall of Fame. They even went so far as to say that there is no way anyone can take away his records or even put an asterisk next to his name in the record books. This is hands down the stupidest thing I have heard in a few years.

Assuming that the Grand Jury testimony that was leaked is accurate Barry Bonds admitted to unknowingly taking steroids the year he set the major league single season homerun record. What more does anyone need? Whether it was knowing or not, he was cheating the year he set the record (the Feds seem to imply that they have a lot more evidence on Mr. Bonds). That deserves at least an asterisk. If this happened in Track and Field or the Olympics, Barry Bonds would be disqualified, forfeit anything he won, and be suspended for two years. ESPN thinks that it is not enough to strip Barry Bonds of anything, or even make a note of it in the record books. We know that Pete Rose gambled on baseball as a manager, but that never affected any of those 2,000+ hits he recorded, and baseball rightly excludes him from the Hall of Fame. Barry Bonds admitted to cheating. ESPN obviously thinks that cheaters should get to keep all that they won by cheating. It seems obvious to me that ESPN knows it makes more money, gets more viewers, and has higher ratings if people tune in to watch Barry try to set new records. Yet, if people think that Barry is a cheater, and his records illegitimate, then no one watches. It is sad to see news organizations sell out, even if that organization is sports news.

China

I normally don’t venture into the realm of world politics because so many other blogs out there are better at politics than I am. But, I thought I would share my thoughts on European Union probably lifting of the embargo on arms sales to China. This is a monumental shift in the thinking of the entire world. I don’t think that his can get enough press. This decision is not just reflective the politics of power, but of a new religious mindset that controls the world.

Western Europe formed NATO with America in order to combat the Communistic threat of Russia, China, and Eastern Europe. This was not just a military strategy. It was a common denunciation of communism as evil. Russia was commonly called the ‘Evil Empire’. It was during this time that America added the phrase “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance because we wanted to mark the major difference between communism and America. Communism was a godless system that oppressed the people more than they had ever been repressed before. As we know Reagan helped bring Russia to its knees. But China remains. The world continued the pressure on China, but now they are considering lifting that pressure. Why? The only conclusion is because the world no longer sees issues as ‘good vs. evil’. The moorings of the Western world in Christianity have been set aside and undermined. Countries like France desire the EU to be a godless secular society and no longer have any real problems with Communism. Communism may have failed as an economic system, but as a philosophy about man, the state, and god, it is alive and kicking.

President Bush should be applauded for not wanting this arms embargo lifted. It is a credit to him that he can still evil for what it is, and stand up against evil even though it may cost America a few arms sales. How quickly the world has forgotten the horrors of godless Communism. It has forgotten the bloody revolution of Marx, the murders done by Lenin, the systematic eradication of all who stood in Stalin’s way, the ruthlessness of Mao. How quickly the world has forgotten that the last time China used its military might, it was to run over and gun down college age demonstrators in broad daylight. This is the sort of behavior that godless systems promote, and this impending decision by the EU shows just how far the world has moved away from its Christian roots.

A Review of the MVP Report

It is my turn for a little discussion on the controversial Mississippi Valley Presbytery report. In general, I found it to be useful. The summary statements are well documented in the footnotes, and the need for such a study is defended in the opening of the report. Yet, I do have a few points to quibble about.

First the minor points. These are just small points that really don’t detract from the quality of the report. Mostly they are my little pet peeves.
1. More contrast of the views in question with the Westminster and the Bible would have made this report invaluable, but they left it out. They admit it up front and state that it laid outside the commissions given guidelines. One can understand that, but I still wanted to see it.
2. They only name names in the footnotes. The committee also tells us that they only named names in the footnotes because of the outcry of misrepresentation from the copy that did not have footnotes. I hate it when they fail to name names. This is an old Presbyterian trick that dates back to Gilbert Tennent. Go present a paper that attacks the doctrine and/or Christian life of fellow ministers, and then refuse to name names, or bring charges. It was wrong in the 1700’s and it is wrong now. If they truly believe that these men are teaching anti-confessional, misleading, confused and confusing doctrine, and have dangerous tendencies, then the next step for this Presbytery had better be charges against someone.
3. They need to mention the RCUS more. We got one small note. We did not even make the list of all the denominations and presbyteries taking action. That hurts.
Now for the things that I think are a little more serious defects.
1. They tried to take on too much. This report examines The New Perspectives on Paul, Bishop N.T. Wright, Norman Shepherd, and the Federal Vision. This would have better been split into several papers. One of the chief complaints made by the Auburn Avenue Church is that the report does not recognize the nuances of their argumentation, and it does seem to overlook some. The report does state on a few occasions ‘they attempt to qualify this statement, but . . .’ This is the sort of overlooking that the proponents of these views complain about. It is very possible and often true that their qualifications don’t change the logical outcomes of their beliefs, but those qualifications need to be dealt with head-on.
2. No mention or condemnation is made of Theological and Historical Development, which most of these men promote. I admit that this is one of my hobby horses, but I believe it to be important. Without destroying this foundation the impetus to innovate in doctrine will continue. But even more importantly, the PCA will not be ready for the next step in this debate.

Let me elaborate further. The proponents of the Federal Vision and the other views entailed in the report are always discussing the "diversity within the Reformed tradition." This is one of their main defenses. They claim to represent just another acceptable line of theology. The can quote people from history to prove this point, mainly men from Mercersburg, but there are others. The place that this argument leads, and I believe it will be the place the PCA ends up, is in the necessity, usefulness, and place of creedal subscription as a whole. When one holds to doctrinal development what use can a creed that does not develop have? Why should one be bound to such an old formula? When one sees that history move and doctrine does as well (as they claim) creeds must be abandoned. The key phrase will be ‘liberty of conscious’ to choose the ‘historic tradition’ that best fits you. This is where Mercersburg took the RCUS. The RCUS merged with a Lutheran church and where the two creeds conflicted everyone was allowed to choose the tradition that best suited them. It is where the Presbyterian church went in beginning of the 1900’s. They changed the confession, they declared such outmoded beliefs like the Virgin Birth to be non-essential, and weakened the faith to keep up with the times (Schaff had a role in that as well from his post at Union Theological Seminary).

If churches do not actively denounce this idea of doctrinal development, and defend the Biblical nature of the confessions, then they will be one step behind and one step late when the debate shifts to the role of creeds. Just one man’s opinion.

Sectarianism?

Andrew Sandlin has posted his thoughts on the Mississippi Valley Presbytery report. He believes it to be a sectarian document, which of course goes against Christian catholicism, and unity in general. He makes the statement that :

The real enemies populate abortion clinics, Hollywood, Ivy League universities, seats in the U. S Senate, and Islamic terrorist training camps. We do well to note this crucial distinction.

While he has a point that we, the Church, should never get so inward focused as to overlook evangelism and interaction with pagans outside the church, I disagree that this means we ought to be seeking peace and acceptance of such divergent views from Christians. Sandlin assumes that both views of the gospel (the Federal Vision view and the Old Reformed View) are the same, or at least both acceptable. Yet, it seems to me that is precisely what is in debate. Is the Federal Vision, or Shepherdism, or whatever name you want to insert, a different gospel?

Sandlin is right that we should always remember those without Christ and war with them in the arena of culture, but if we can’t get the gospel right, then we really don’t have anything to say to people outside the church?

Power Struggles

I have been thinking recently on our wonderful Constitution, and wondering what the founders would do if they lived today. I suspect that they would take up arms and lead a rebellion. Just kidding, but now that I have your attention and no one is sleeping through this history post, I shall continue.

American history has always fascinated me, but recent events have led me to ponder our founders wisdom all over again. In addition to the formation of a fledgling government in Iraq, a recent West Wing episode promoted me to think over the Constitution. In the episode, the White House was hosting the leaders of Belaruse who were trying to form a constitution. A White House staffer argued for a Parliamentary system as opposed to one that had a chief executive. According to him, only four executive systems made it past 20 years, the rest descended into tyranny. An interesting proposition, but one that I believe misses the point of the American Constitution. It misses the mark on at least two points.

First, the true beauty of the Constitution is that the National Government is ‘supposed’ to be weak. It has very little power according to the Constitution. It taxes, it provides for the defense, interstate commerce, and delivers the mail. But other than that, it does not do too much. The 10th amendment specifically states that if the power is not in the Constitution, then the National government does not have it, and can’t take it. It is not the chief executive that the founders feared as being oppressive, it was the whole national system they feared being oppressive. A Parliament can trample rights just as easy as a President, something the founders had just lived through.

Second, our government is designed to have conflict. It is not about running things smoothly. It is about power struggles. That is how they designed it. If there is no power struggle, then someone is hoarding all the power, and that is trouble. In a Parliamentary system, that power is hoarded by the Legislative branch. Our forefathers wanted a government filled with strife. They made it so that if the President got too far out of line, he could be removed. They made it so that if laws were passed that the President did not like, he could veto. Our history is story about this power struggle. Right off the bat the Judicial branch tried a power grab that led to Congress and the States passing the 11th Amendment. Later President Jackson thought they overstepped their bounds again and he just ignored Chief Justice Marshall’s decision. Jackson marched the Indians to Oklahoma anyway (a move that probably saved more lives than it lost). The States protested the Alien and Sedition Acts of John Adams. The National Bank was outlawed by some states and finally squashed by Jackson. Presidents have taken power and they have lost power. Congress has taken power and they have lost power. The latest Judicial Activism is an attempt to take more power and strip Congress, which grew powerful after forcing out Nixon, who inherited a powerful executive from JFK and LBJ. Our American history is a rich story of people fighting over power, and I would not have it any other way.

Reactions to Report

Joel Garver makes my point for me. In his criticism of the Mississippi Valley Presbytery’s (PCA) report about the Federal Vision and New Perspectives on Paul he states that one of the major disagreements is about Theological Development. He states:

The question here is, in part, one of theological development within a tradition--some of that development looking back to parts of our heritage and confessional tradition that have been neglected, some of it trying to speak the Reformed faith to a world in which certain historically-conditioned and limited categories are no longer as meaningful, and some of it attempting to grow and develop our tradition in light of fresh insights into aspects of the biblical Gospel.

In the many discussions that will take place over the next months and maybe years, one that should take place is about theological and historical development. This underlying belief drives people to innovation in doctrine.

Here are a few other thoughts about the report from Federal Vision proponents or at least those who think the report is bad:

Mark Horne
Paul Owen
Doug Wilson
Auburn Ave. Presbyterian Church

And some who enjoyed the report:
Okay so I have not yet found any on the web. I will keep looking, and after I read this report, maybe I will comment on it. And maybe it will be positive.

More Biblical vs. Systematic Theology

I have done as many of you have suggested and examined Vos concerning the Kingdom of God. Then I read similar sections in various Systematics. I read Turretin (where it is under the Kingdom of Christ), Hodge and Berkhof. One can easily see the influence of Vos on Berkhof, but the other two are pre-Vos, and thus have a different discussion of the Kingdom of God (or Christ). This may get me in trouble, but I prefer Turretin and Hodge.

Vos emphasizes the eschatological aspect of the kingdom of God. He teaches an "already and not yet" emphasis on the word, but gives the primary spot to the eschatological aspect. Berkhof following Vos gives an even larger role to the eschatological or the "not yet". Hodge and Turretin emphasize the spiritual aspect of the Kingdom, along with the role of Christ. Turretin even calls it the kingdom of Christ. They view the kingdom as ‘progressive’ rather than ‘already and not yet’. This reading to me seems to fit many passages better, including the parables, and avoids the idea of mistaking the culmination of the kingdom as a commencement of the kingdom.

It should be noted as well that Vos goes outside of the Bible to aid his reasoning of the phrase. At the bottom of page 1 he states, "In the Jewish literature which lies between the Old and New Testament we also find the Kingdom of God spoken of." So, my worries that Biblical Theology require one to go outside of the Bible have not found much solace with Vos.

So some questions remain:
1. Does Biblical theology require one to go outside of the Bible to aid understanding of the Bible? If it does not, how then does it differ from Hermeneutics, which Systematics has always used?
2. How has Vos’s focus on the eschatological kingdom of God aided the older Systematic view of a progressive spiritual kingdom?
3. Does the search for one main thrust or point, which seems to define Biblical Theology, end up coloring the reading?

the Federal Vision as Anti-creedal

The Federal Vision Theology is also inherently anti-creedal. This again, stems from the belief in Historical and Theological Development. Philip Schaff and John Nevin were no friends to creeds either. The Mercerburg Theology eventually led to a merger between the Evangelical Lutheran church and the RCUS and then later with Congregational Churches to form the United Churches of Christ. The differences between the creeds of the churches were ignored and left up to a liberty of conscience. James I. Good states that Nevin and other Mercerburg proponents mistranslated the Heidelberg Catechism on purpose so that it supported their ideas. Philip Schaff argued for changing the Westminster Confession of Faith toward the end of his life. In the end, John Nevin states clearly the Mercersburg position on creeds:

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 states that creeds are an evil of the most serious magnitude. Creeds violate the principle of Theological development because people adhere to them, and thus are reluctant to move along when the next stage of truth arrives.

Sadly, this same attitude can be found in the Federal Vision men of today. Confessions are a barrier to catholicity, unity with all churches, both Protestant and Roman. Rich Lusk states his view on the Westminster Shorter Catechism.

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.).

The very idea of defining justification is seen as a barrier to unity and goes against the very foundations of Theological Development. A definition does not change, and that is the root of the problem. John Barach agrees and apparently so does Andrew Sandlin. Christianity is not to be defined in the Federal Vision Theology. Creeds may have a purpose, but they are ultimately evil or at least in the way.

A new denomination has grown up over the last several years called the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches. If you browse their church constitution, member churches must adhere to a Reformed creed, and just about any from the 16th or 17th century will do. The Westminster is allowed in both its original and American forms, the Three Forms of Unity, or even the London Baptist Confession. What about where these creeds disagree, such as on such important questions as baptism? Each church is to be respected and trouble with creeds is not to be adjudicated above the local church level. This seems to follow nicely the path blazed by Schaff and Nevin. If the creeds contradict, then just do whatever feels right to you. Who needs creeds anyway?

Biblical vs. Systematic Theology

One aspect of this controversy is a strong dislike of systematic theology. Insted they desire a Biblical theology. It has caused me to wonder about the legitimacy of of Biblical Theology.

Systematic theology approaches subjects. If one wanted to understand sin, then the entire bible would be examined for uses and treatment of sin. All the data would be compiled and then the doctrine of sin would be discovered. This, in a nut shell, is systematic theology.

Bibilical theology approaches books of the bible in segments. It says if you want to understand sin, then you begin at the beginning of the Bible, make a meaning and then when you get to a new book, start all over again. Sometimes this is done by authors of the Bible, such as Paul or Moses, but one should not examine both, just one or the other. It

Systematic Theology was around first, by my understanding, but the Dutch helped popularize Biblical theology. The two groups wared for a while, but soon they made peace. Today seminaries teach both side by side.

So I have the following questions about Biblical theology, and I hope to get everyone's thoughts.

1. Does Biblical theology violate the principle of interpreting Scripture with Scripture? Since in discovering Pauline theology one is not allowed to look in John or the gospels, it is in violation.

2. Does Biblical theology have an inerrant tendency to create unorthodox readings?

3. Is there a real need for Biblical theology?

I hope we can get some good discussion on this.

A comment answered

Yes, I have had another comment problem. The "History Lesson" post seems to be broken, and I have no idea how to fix it. But, I was able to retrive this comment.

"What book would you recommend to study more about this area of church history? In addition, do you know if the Mercersburg Theology was at all related to the Oxford Movement in the Anglican Church? Scaff and Nevin seem to have had similar ideas to Newman and Pusey."

I am not sure if I could recommend just one book. I am of the mind that primary sources are always your best bet. So, if I were to choose one book I would recommend James I Good's "History of the Reformed Church in the United States in the 19th Century." Of course, like all good books, this one out of print. But you are in luck. The RCUS has put this book along with many others on a CD Rom as an e-book. Just call this number 605-347-5666 and ask for the James I Good Collection on CD Rom. I believe they still have this.

As for how they relate to the Anglican movement I am unsure. I have not read enough. It can be said that Pusey comes up quite a bit in the writings of Schaff, he personal does not see himself as related, but others did charge him with Puseyism. I am afraid, I do not know enough to decide who is right and who is wrong.

I do apologize for not getting this answered earlier.

A political moment

If I may take a moment to speak politically for a few moments. Sunday is the scheduled election in Iraq. We should all be praying for a safe election for the people of Iraq, and pray for a stable future for the country.

That being said, let us not get too caught up in the moment. President Bush would have us think that freedom is on the march. But let us not confuse democracy and freedom. As the movie Patriot states, "Why would I trade one tyrant 3,000 miles away for the 3,000 tyrants 1 mile away?" Democracy is not a synonym for freedom. One brief look at America should tell you that fact. There are many ‘freedoms’ that we do not enjoy. The government requires we pay into their retirement program, the government requires that no religion, or more specifically Christianity, be taught in government schools. They limit how I give my money to political candidates, they tell us what a ‘hate’ crime is and what it is not. Other countries that have constitutions and democracy like Canada and France are even better examples. Canada has banned ‘hate speech’ or any speaking out against homosexuality. France has banned religious symbols worn by children at schools. No crosses, no stars of David, no head dresses, nothing. All in the name of democracy, constitutions and freedom.

True freedom is not brought with the sword or even the Abrams Tank or the Apache helicopter. It is brought only through the gospel of Jesus Christ. Without the truth of Jesus, Iraq will be in the same state it was prior to the war. Enslaved to sin, with rulers enslaved to sin, in a culture that loves only sin. Sure, it will be better politically, and it is always good to have madmen removed from power, but it is not the same as freedom.

So let us pray and watch the elections in Iraq, but remember that the true battle for freedom is not over. The spiritual battle is being fought by the church, by our Christian brothers and sisters who proclaim the truth of Jesus Christ in Iraq. True freedom can only be brought by preaching, by witnessing, and by the power of God.

A History Lesson

The next thing that needs to be examined in the Federal Vision controversy is the idea of Historical and Theological development. I believe that this belief serves as the underpinning for the entire system. To show this a little history lesson is in order.

Historical Development (which includes the idea of theology developing) was popularized by Philip Schaff, a professor of Church History in Mercersburg Theological Seminary in the mid-1800’s. He came to America from Germany where he partook of the theology of Hegel. Schaff, while verbally denouncing Hegel, used Hegel’s idea of Synthesis to make a model of church history. For Schaff history unfolded as a series of conflicts between a thesis and an antithesis, which formed a synthesis, which in turn fought with a new antithesis forming a new synthesis, and so on and so forth. The process did stop at some point, but until then theology changed as the process moved on. Schaff preferred the term develop or grow to change, but you get the idea.

Schaff and his friend and fellow professor at Mercersburg, John Nevin, promoted this idea through their teachings and writings. Schaff’s first speech was entitled the Principle of Protestantism where he unfolded these ideas. The RCUS brought him up on charges, but failed to convict him. Schaff continued with a book, What is Church History, and Nevin wrote one called, Antichrist the Spirit of Schism, in addition to several articles. Here they taught that the Reformation was the budding of the Middle Ages, and that what was needed now was a reunion of Rome and Geneva. A church with the doctrine of justification by faith, but with the sacramental teachings of Rome. This was the next and final synthesis for Schaff and Nevin.

It should not surprise us then to know that after the battles concerning history subsided with a Schaff victory, the next step in Mercersburg Theology was the sacraments. Nevin and Schaff went on with those who followed them to teach a Roman view of the sacraments, reform worship to make it follow a liturgy and look much more Roman, as well as redefine views on the incarnation, salvation including justification, and the church. Again, it all flowed from this first principle of Historical Development. Of course this story ends with the heirs of Schaff and Nevin merging the RCUS with a Lutheran denomination, and eventually with some congregational churches to form the United Churches of Christ, an extremely liberal church.

How does this tie into the Federal Vision? Well, the two groups are strikingly similar. The views on the incarnation, sacraments and salvation are almost the same, and worship in many of these churches tends toward the high liturgy that Schaff and Nevin would have applauded. So, it should not surprise us that we see a shared view of Historical development. When we read Doug Wilson’s book "Reformed" is Not Enough: Recovering the Objectivity of the Covenant we should understand that what Wilson means is that we need to find that synthesis between the subjective doctrines of the Protestant church and the objective things in the Roman church such as their sacramentalism. It should also not surprise us that we find some in this camp who actively seek an audience with Roman Catholicism to work toward union, such as those on the Reformed Catholicism blog. After all, Schaff himself said the end purpose of historical development is Christian union.

Federal Vision Theology

Federal Vision Theology. Is there such a thing? If so, what does it teach? Many militate against the idea that there is such a theology. Others do not want to be lumped into a category at all much less this one. It must be admitted that there are a wide variety of views held by those who have been labeled as Federal Vision proponents. Yet, I do not think that is excludes the idea of a Federal Vision Theology. Allow me to outline what I believe are some major pillars of Federal Vision Theology.

1. Justification and salvation are no longer "by Christ" rather they are done "in Christ." This is a subtle but huge difference in the two approaches. The first is forensic, forever, and final. The second is best described as Participationist. It can be forensic, but should not be limited to it. It is possible that it is forever, but it is assured. It is not final until death, but it has a final stage. The Federal Vision men seem to all have a place for falling out of Christ or apostasy. The claims are made that one can truly be "in Christ" and then fall out of Christ. A difference from the "by Christ" traditional view.
2. Sacramentalism. The Federal Vision proponents unite behind an intrinsic grace or objective grace that is given in the sacraments. Baptism becomes our way into Christ. The Lord’s Supper becomes grace we eat, Christ brought to us. This change in the traditional reformed approach often leads to weekly communion and infant communion.
3. Doctrinal development. The vast majority of the Federal Vision men are committed to the idea that doctrine develops. I will let Andrew Sandlin say what this means.

Another perspective from which to view RefC comprises what we might call the contemporary school. John Armstrong, Steve Schlissel and I (others too) are convinced that the semper reformanda principle demands a critically sympathetic assessment and implementation of contemporary (20th and 21st century) theology. (I suspect that Jim Jordan and Peter Leithart often spin in this orbit.) We are confident not only that profound theological insights are around today (e. g., John Frame, Don Garlington, Cornelius Van Til, N. T. Wright) but also, moreover, that those insights need not be mere appropriations of the 15th and 16th centuries. In other words, we believe in substantive, and not merely amendary, theological development.

This is a crucial and critical idea. They believe that doctrine develops, or in other words, the Reformation, the apostles, the apostolic fathers were wrong, and in another century so too will this generation. Notice Sandlin says "demands a critically sympathetic assessment". The church must read new ideas with a sympathetic eye, and a view to implement them. The church must substantially develop new doctrinal positions. It is what their theology demands. Thus one can notice several other idea that permeate the majority of Federal Vision men and churches. The vast majority are theonomic, the Regulative Principle of Worship is often being replaced by the Informed Principle of Worship or at least a higher liturgy, the New Perspectives on Paul are often held, Biblical Theology is favored if not outright replacing Systematic Theology, creeds are held loosely or not at all, and the next round of development will also be implemented according to their own words.

This is what I believe helps define the Federal Vision. All aspects including the doctrinal development aspect needs to be addressed by churches. If not then the crisis will not be resolved and the discussion will not yield the desired fruit.

A discussion worth action

Matt has a great discussion going between himself and an atheist named Darksyde. And it all started with Martin Luther King Jr., and his dream. I suggest you check it out.

And as long as I have a quick post, I want to remind everyone about that January is the anniversary of Roe v Wade. Today we may believe the climate is changing and I pray it is, but in the end Late Term abortions are still legal. This is the sort of abortions that Pharaoh wanted during the time of Moses in Exodus 1. And sadly the Supreme Court has become a place of party politics and agendas. This month I suggest everyone write your Congressman and Senator. Also write your State Representatives, after all Constitutionally this is a state issue. More importantly, pray. This is a national sin, and we should all be on our knees. It is God who heals and forgives, not any form of government.

Definitions

The problem of definitions and agreement is perhaps the biggest problem in any debate. It is no different in the current Federal Vision debate. In fact, many will get upset by the name Federal Vision Theology. They claim there is no such thing. They claim that Reformed Catholicism is not a movement, but simply the name of a blog (please note the blog refers to itself as a movement). No one likes the name, but you have to call it something. But, maybe that is the whole point, once they admit they are something else, that is not the traditional (and I believe biblical), they have given away the farm.

This debate about definitions goes far beyond what to call the movement. Do Federal Vision men believe in Justification by Faith alone? Yes, they all say so, but then again, no for they fight for conditions of repentance and obedience on the covenant of grace. Do they believe in forensic justification? Yes, they say they do. But then again, there is an initial justification, and a final justification and final salvation. Do they believe in a process of justification? No, they will tell you as much. But then there is that initial and final part that sure makes it sound like a process.

One could list the examples forever. This is simply part of the process of debate, I believe. The Remonstrants debated for several years before they were pinned down, as were the Nestorians, the Arians, and even the Protestants if you want to look at it that way. Every other group you could imagine has the same process of taking time to settle into terminology and definitions.

Thus, after I finish the next post on Shepherd, who I still believe has minimal influence over the current debate, we will begin to examine the theology of the Federal Vision and compare it with the Reformed Confessions. It is important to remember that you cannot take one piece of the puzzle like Justification, and hope to score a victory for they will not be pinned down. This was part of the mistake that Westminster Seminary made when they first examined Shepherd, they did not want to look at his other views. It is looking at the whole of one’s theology that nails one down to a position. It takes looking at the sacraments, Christ, covenants, worship, and justification (just to name a few) to understand the implications and definitions of one’s theology.

Shepherd and the Reformed Tradition Part III

Does Norman Shepherd find a place in the Puritan theology? I confess that this is the one Rev. Shepherd seems to believe teaches his position. He did, after all, teach in this strand of Puritan-Presbyterianism and always maintained that he adhered to the Westminster Confession of Faith. As can be seen in many who believe similar things to that of Rev. Shepherd, quotes from the Westminster Confession are many. Yet, it is still difficult to argue that he does truly adhere to the Westminster and the Puritan brand of theology.

William Ames seems to disagree with the distinctive of Shepherd in his Marrow of Theology. Ames specifically states, yet without naming it, the Covenant of Works in section 10 paragraph 32. Man was governed by a covenant that stated ‘Do this and you will live, if you do it not you shall die.’ He then proceeds to elaborate on how man broke this covenant, and then into the process of redemption. He does specifically refer to a Covenant of Grace.

Ames appears to have a different understanding of justification than Shepherd as well. Ames clearly argues that justification is "completed in a moment and in only one act." It is also a "gracious judgment of God" and the "pronouncing of a sentence" and a "judicial" change. Yet section 27 paragraph 8 seems to be pointed toward today’s controversies.

Therefore, Thomas [Aquinas presumably] and his followers are completely mistaken for they would make justification a kind of physical motion from the state of unrighteousness to that of righteousness in a real transmutation. They consider that it begins with sin, ends in inherent righteousness, with remission of sin and infusion of righteousness the motion between.

Ames continues to explain "the righteousness of Christ is imputed to believers in justification." Ames deals with good works in a completely separate section Book II of the above mentioned title. Here he declares that good works in this life are all "imperfect and impure." He goes on to state, "The works of the regenerate do not have any merit worthy of a reward obtained on the basis of justice." This includes for Ames the judgment on the last day. Our reward there is merely of grace, and not viewed as a final justification.

It should be noted that Ames was widely read, and his book was the only theology text book for the first several years of Harvard’s existence. It is safe to say, Ames had a large impact on the Puritan theology, especially in America.

Robert Trail said in a book entitled Vindication of the Protestant Doctrine Concerning Justification:

All great fundamentals of Christian truth, . . . centre in this of justifcation of a sinner by the imputation and application of that satisfaction.

Trail saw justification by works as the natural religion of the world and threat to the Protestant doctrine of justification. Yet, they claimed that faith was never alone, a line from the Westminster Confession of Faith. Faith produced the works of repentance and obedience. They came after faith. Faith produced them. This is how quotes from the Westminster and John Owen given by Rev. Horne should be understood. Of course they say repentance is unto life, but it comes out of faith, not along side of it and independent of it. Shepherd often confuses the two at best. It does appear clear that the Puritans believed in justification in faith alone. While they adhered to works being the fruit of the faith, they kept a wall between works and justification. Some other quotes may be of assistance.
"Faith justifies the person, works justify the faith." – Elisha Coles
"We are not justified by doing good works, but being justified we then do good." – William Jenkyn
"As the apple is not the cause of the apple tree, but the fruit of it: even so good works are not the cause of our salvation, but a sign and fruit of the same." – Daniel Cawdray
"There is, indeed, mention made of a mercy-seat in the temple, but there was never heard of any school of merit but in the chapel of the Antichrist." – John Trapp

Not even a mention of justification at the last day or meriting eternal life in the mainline Puritans. The idea of justification as a process or participationism also does not appear to be a teaching of the Puritans. I am sure that there are many out there who are more qualified to defend the Westminster Confession, so I will leave the Puritans for now.

Blogging in Anger

Please forgive me for interrupting the series on the Auburn Avenue controversy, but sometimes something makes you so mad that you have to vent. And since my wife wants me to let her go back to sleep, here I am.

Beyond the Da Vinci Code was a show on the History Channel tonight. It was supposedly checking into the historicity or plausibility of the teachings popularized by Dan Brown in his book, the Da Vinci Code. For those of you lucky enough to have never read the Da Vinci Code, the book claims that the Holy Grail is Mary Magdalene who was the wife of Jesus. Of course, I suspected the show was not going to be completely fair, but it surpassed even my imagination.

Not a single Christian believer was interviewed during this whole show. Those who were supposedly against Dan Brown’s version of events, never argued that Dan Brown was wrong, or that Gnostic Gospels are heresy, or wrong. No, these people only argued that Dan Brown lacked solid proof. An understatement by the way. It was apparent that no one believed that Jesus was God, but instead, only a man. No one seemed to have a problem with the Gnostic claims of the Gospel of Philip. The claim was made that these 2nd century documents predated the Biblical gospels. The claim is made that Eusebius is the only history we have of the early church, and that he was a pawn of Constantine, who is the main villain in Dan Brown’s novel. The only decent part of this mind numbing bias that passed for television is when an art critic thoroughly debunked Dan Brown's theories about Da Vinci's paintings. Yet, that did not stop the show, or the outlandish claims to Dan Brown being correct. While, this show occassionally offered the possibility that Dan Brown was wrong about documented events such as the end of the Templar Knights, the proceedings of council of Nicaea, and the systematic burning of false gospels, they made sure always to come back and propose a loop hole in the established history that is beyond question. The Bible was thrown out for the Gnostic gospels and Egyptian legends and a few stories about the Merovengians in France.

This show by the way is only a month or so removed from a Discovery Channel production of The Wrath of God or Man a wild claim that the story of the 10 plagues and the death of the Pharaoh’s son can now be proven false by archeology. I must say my eyes are open now to an all out assault on Christianity. We should probably prepare for more of these outlandish, biased attacks. It appears that the liberal elite are indeed scared. They are pouring all of their energy into discrediting the Lord of the Universe. May God have mercy on their souls.

The Buzz

The buzz about the 2005 Auburn Ave Pastors Conference is in. It seems apparent from my reading of the many bloggers who participated that the conference was a great success. Around 500 people attended the conference to hear Bishop N.T. Wright and Dr. Richard Gaffin speak on the theology of Paul. Apparently some small differences between the two men exist, but all was handled in a polite and courteous way. As a side note, I am not sure if I have ever seen so many pastors write about what a magnificent speaking ability Bishop Wright has been given before in my life. It must be concluded that Bishop Wright truly must be a wonderful orator. The conference concluded with a standing ovation for the two men.

The lecture by lecture notes are appearing on the web. The general flow of the conference can be found in them, if you do not want to purchase the audio version. Let the discerning reader decide for himself the teaching of these men.

It should be noted that Rev. Norman Shepherd preached in the Auburn Ave pulpit the Sunday prior to the conference, and he stayed in attendance the whole time, as did the previous four speakers.

Now allow me to ‘rant’ for a moment. The AAPC has started a whirlwind of trouble in the Reformed churches. Trials have occurred, accusations are thrown about, and it cannot be denied that it started in earnest with the 2002 AAPC. Since then the men adhering to the New Perspectives on Paul and the Federal Vision have been quite sensitive to any sort of condemning speech from their opponents. The affectionately refer to the word ‘heresy’ as the ‘H-bomb’ and constantly denounce the idea of their views being outside the pale of orthodoxy. Usually they admit that the traditional views are also inside the pale. Indeed, Reformed Catholicity argues many people are inside the pale of orthodoxy. After reading the posts from those who attended, I am beginning to see that sort of ‘peace-talk’ disappear. They are becoming a community within a community, and a community longing to lash out, if you ask me. Take a few examples if you will. Dr. James Jordan apparently wore a John Robbins nametag. John Robbins of course is no friend to the movement. This sort of mocking is always a first step, and a sure sign of a growing identity that does not include those outside of the Federal Vision. So much for everyone in the pale of orthodoxy. Doug Wilson openly states that he believes people will not be careful with the words of those at the conference, and that a new sort of Salem Witch Hunt is on. Tim Gallant seems to argue that Guy Waters, in his new book, butchers the view of those he critiques. Others show their low view of J. Ligon Duncan III, who has argued against the NPP. The ‘can’t we all just get along’ rhetoric is over.

I for one am glad for it to be gone. The views appear to be diametrically opposed to one another. The Protestants and Romanists anathematized each other over the doctrine of justification, and now a new doctrine has arisen. Can any change in the Protestant position be peacefully lived with? No. No it cannot. Historically, it never has been. The complete re-working of theology that the Federal Vision is, cannot stand together with the Traditional Reformed views. They are not able to share the same space, the same denominations. Not that we have to be rude to one another, but we should at least be honest about doctrine and unity with one another. The talk of large pails and peaceful unity at any cost is a dangerous one. The people who always take the denomination to liberalism or corruption are not the true liberals. They never win on their own. The people who take denominations down are those who want peace above all else. Those who prolong the stalemate, who put off the fight, end up giving victory to the innovators, the liberals. I submit to you Charles Erdman of Princeton Seminary. A self proclaimed Old School man, who just wanted unity. He helped take apart Princeton Seminary, and he was the moderator who forever gave control of the General Assembly to the true liberals. He opposed them theologically, but he wanted that giant pale of orthodoxy that can never truly be. Maybe now the debate can be joined in earnest.

Shepherd and the Reformed Tradition Part II

Does Norman Shepherd have a place in German Reformed theology? I would answer no. I readily admit I do not have access to all of the great German leaders, mainly Martin Bucer (if anyone wants to donate some, I am always ready to accept), but I believe one can still conclude that Shepherd is out of place in German reformed theological history. It should be noted that Rev. Horne did not quote from the works of the German leaders such as the Heidelberg Catechism, and that the Reformed Church in the United States, the only German reformed church in America, is one of the leading opponents of Shepherd’s theology.

The Heidelberg Catechism goes out of its way to exclude works from any part of salvation, justification, or righteousness before God. Let us just quote the most germane questions.

Q60: How are you righteous before God?
A60: Only by true faith in Jesus Christ: that is, although my conscience accuses me, that I have grievously sinned against all the commandments of God, and have never kept any of them, and am still prone always to all evil; 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.
Q61: Why do you say that you are righteous by faith only?
A61: Not that I am acceptable to God on account of the worthiness of my faith, but because only the satisfaction, righteousness and holiness of Christ is my righteousness before God; and I can receive the same and make it my own in no other way than by faith only.
Q62: But why cannot our good works be the whole or part of our righteousness before God?
A62: Because the righteousness which can stand before the judgment seat of God must be perfect throughout and entirely conformable to the divine law, but even our best works in this life are all imperfect and defiled with sin.
Q63: Do our good works merit nothing, even though it is God's will to reward them in this life and in that which is to come?
A63: The reward comes not of merit, but of grace.

Here we can see Casper Oleianus and Zacharias Ursinus reject the idea of works having any merit or necessity for eternal life. Even the rewarding of our works on the last day is of grace, and thus the answer of question 63 is ‘Yes, our works merit nothing.’ If that were not enough to show that Ursinus did not agree with the teaching of Norman Shepherd regarding works as necessary for a continuing state of justification between the initial justification (which Shepherd seems to admit is of faith alone), and the final judgment and life eternal, he refutes it in his commentary as well.

Eternal life is not given on account of our works, whether present, or forseen; but only out of the free mercy, and love of God toward the human race, and from his desire to manifest his mercy in the salvation of the righteous, through the satisfaction and merits of Christ the mediator, imputed unto us through faith, for this end, that God may be eternally praised by us. (pg. 322)

Ursinus goes on when he comments on the questions listed above to deny that even faith is a work, which Horne hints he will show later. Ursinus points out that we are justified ‘by faith’ and never ‘on account of faith’. He actively defends the idea of faith only and claims that the idea of justification partly by faith and partly by works is a Romish invention. He even directly states that the idea of eternal life (not justification, but eternal life as Shepherd seems to indicate) being the reward of works is the doctrine of Rome according to Ursinus. His commentary on the subject is rather good.

As for the Covenant of Works, it is not mentioned specifically by the Catechism. Yet its existence seems understood. Question 4 states God requires man to love the Lord with his whole heart and his neighbor as himself, a summary of the law. It goes on to explain we cannot keep it. Question 60 makes explicit again that we fail to keep the law, and adds that Christ kept it for us, and that Christ’s obedience is imputed to us as if it were our own. This seems show that the idea of two covenants is in place. The names do not appear, but the theory is there.
Oleianus also appears to be one of the original fountain heads of Covenant Theology. He was the author a book on Covenant Theology, that again I do not have. Yet, it can easily be assumed that he agreed with the Heidelberg Catechism in its final form. He did after all subscribe to it, and co-author it.

The German Tradition seems to exclude Norman Shepherd from consideration as a legitimate strand of Reformed Theology. In later posts we will show the links to German Theology of the Federal Vision and New Perspectives, but calling it German Reformed Theology seems to be contrary to the Heidelberg Catechism.

Shepherd and Reformed Tradition Part I.

I know that I said, I would not deal very much with Shepherd, but I feel the need has arisen. Rev. Mark Horne has tried to defend Norman Shepherd as in line with the Reformed tradition, and specifically called into question the RCUS position paper on the matter. Thus, I feel I should respond. Also, since Shepherd is first on the chronology, it fits the series on the Federal Vision controversy.

It first must be admitted that discussion is difficult because the two sides seem to have different definitions of justification. Rev. Horne claims the RCUS paper is wrong to state that Norman Shepherd believes that “faith and obedience function as conditions in the same way in that they both are equally necessary to obtain justification and eternal life. (this occurs in footnote 5 of his article)" Rev. Horne admits that Shepherd makes both necessary for eternal life, but not for justification. Here we see the differing uses. For the RCUS being justified is gaining eternal life, while Shepherd seems to desire stages of justification. Faith is the initial stage, but the final stage, the stage that ends with eternal life, works are required. Horne fails to note the paper specifically rejects the idea of a future stage of justification in Resolution 2.i. It is the very idea of Justification by Process that makes Shepherd so out of line with the Bible and the Reformed Tradition.

It is the main point of Rev. Horne’s article that Shepherd is a legitimate strand of Reformed Theology. He quotes the Westminster, John Owen and criticizes the RCUS for their quotes of Turretin and Calvin, which he attempts to refute. So, let us examine the idea in some Reformed authors of the past. This first part we shall examine the Dutch thinkers. In the next several posts we shall look at Germans, Puritans, and Turretin.

Herman Witsus is fantastic on the covenant of works and grace. He states:

A condition of a covenant, properly so called, is that action, which, being performed, gives a man a right to the reward. But such a condition cannot be required of us in the covenant of grace, is self-evident; because the right to life neither is, nor indeed can be founded on any action of ours, but on the righteousness of our Lord alone . . . Futher, the apostle, more than once, sets forth the covenant of grace, under the appellation of a TESTAMENT, which is God’s immutable purpose, not suspended on any one condition: and as it is founded on the unchangable counsel of God, and ratified by the death of the testator, so it is not possible it should be made void by any unbelief of the Elect. (3.9-10.284)

Later is Witsus discussion on faith he speaks of knowledge, assent, love, hungering for Christ, and receiving Christ. Faith is not discussed as part of faith. It is later referred to the fruit of faith, but nothing more. No ‘faith is not alone’ language.

Louis Berkhof continues the pattern and discusses both a covenant of works and a covenant of grace. He sees the covenant of grace as both conditional and unconditional. It is unconditional in the sense that there is no meritorious conditions. He does admit that faith and repentance are laid down as conditions of the covenant of grace, but reminds us that those are both from God, and that man is not expected to fill the conditions by his own strength. He believes the covenant is conditional only upon the suretyship of Jesus Christ in his fulfilling the covenant of works, which Shepherd denies. Just to make Berkhof’s distinction plain, he says;

We may say that faith is the conditio sine qua non of justification, but the reception of faith itself in regeneration is not dependent on any condition, but only the operation of the grace of God in Christ. . .
When we speak of faith as a condition here, we naturally refer to faith as a spiritual activity of the mind. It is only through faith that experimental knowledge of the covenant of life is entirely dependent on the exercise of faith (pg. 280).

In summary, we see both Witsus and Berkhof speak of two covenants, a covenant of works and one of grace. They speak of faith as apart from works, and that the covenant of grace is unconditional. Any conditions that can be adduced are filled by God, such as the giving of faith. Both state that Christ’s fulfilling the covenant of works, or his active obedience, is given to us. Neither speaks of a final justification where those who may have been justified by faith initially can now lose his justification for lack of works. Works are always referred to as a proof of faith, and are not granted any merit or any ability to knock one out of a state of justification. All of these things agree with the RCUS position paper. All of these positions listed also appear to be denied by Rev. Shepherd. Clearly he does not stand in the Dutch Reformed Tradition.

Comments Allowed

My apologies to all who may have tried commenting. I am still fairly new at this stuff. Apparently only Registered Users or some such non-sense were allowed to post comments. That problem has been rectified. If there are any other problems, let me know. Thanks for reading the blog!

Lee

Time Line

Perhaps before we discuss the details we should look at the time line of the recent controversy. There was a controversy back when Norman Shepherd taught at Westminster, but that had long since been forgotten. This new round of controversy appears to have a broader scope, and involves a larger cast of characters. Of course the New Perspectives on Paul, a biblical theology movement, also has roots that go back to the 70’s. We will get to the NPP, but this timeline will only cover the recent events. I do apologize that I do not have the exact dates for all the events.

2000 – Norman Shepherd publishes his book Call of Grace.

June 2002 – Auburn Ave. Presbyterian Church held its Pastor’s Conference. The speakers were Doug Wilson, Steve Wilkins, Steve Schlissel, and John Barach. Apparently Norman Shepherd was scheduled, but was unable to make it.

June 22, 2002 – The Covenant Presbytery of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States sent out resolutions condemning the teaching of these four men at the conference. It should be noted that none of the pastors who were speaking are members of this denomination.

July 2002 – The church of all four of these pastors respond with a denial of the label ‘heresy’ to the teachings of their pastors. They also all complain of not being contacted first by the Covenant Presbytery.

July 17, 2002 – Andrew Sandlin weighs in with a couple of different articles that do not specifically support the ‘Auburn Four’, but do attack the RPCUS Resolutions.

Late 2002 – Doug Wilson takes his view to print with the release of “Reformed” is Not Enough: Recovering the Objectivity of the Covenant. This book generated a great deal of controversy.

March 2002 - July 2003 - Elder John O. Kinnaird placed on trial for teaching the New Perspectives on Paul. This former moderator of the OPC General Assemble faced a trial, and the original guilty verdict was over turned by the GA, if I am not mistaken, John Robbins covers this topic.

2003 – Auburn Ave. had another Pastor’s Conference with the same speakers. This time they also included a group of speakers who were against the Federal Vision as it was now being called. These speakers included Joseph Pipa, Morton Smith, Carl Robbins, and R.C. Sproul Jr.

April 28, 2003 – “Christian Renewal” Magazine ran an interview with the four speakers of the Auburn Conferences. Later the same magazine would run an interview with others who opposed the new Federal Vision.

2003 – J. Ligon Duncan and Douglas Kelly weigh in against the New Perspectives on Paul. The PCA discussion board carries an open debate concerning the New Perspectives on Paul. The debate was by no means one sided as the depth of the division in the PCA is revealed.

2003 – Canon Press publishes Peter Leithart’s Against Christianity.

2004 – The Trinity Foundation publishes a response to Doug Wilson’s book. This book authored by John Robbins and Sean Gerety called, Not Reformed At All opens a new round of vitriolic debates.

May 2004 – The Reformed Church in the United States unanimously votes to pass a statement condemning the teachings of Norman Shepherd.

2004 - Federal Vision, a book of articles edited by Steve Wilkins, enters circulation. The book includes not only the original four speakers, but has articles from James Jordan, Peter Leithart, Rich Lusk, and Mark Horne.

2004 – Also sees the publication of a symposium held at Knox Theological Seminary, Federal Vision: Pros and Cons. This book has 7 pro articles and 7 con articles over the Federal Vision.

Late 2004 – A book comes out critiquing the New Perspectives on Paul. This book was backed by J. Ligon Duncan.

January 2005 – N.T. Wright and Richard Gaffin speak at the Auburn Ave. Pastors Conference.


Which brings us up to date. So now we shall go through and examine the aspects of this debate. It should be fun, entertaining, and educational for us all.

By the way, if anyone has specific dates or more that should be added, let me know. I will add them into the timeline.

Auburne Ave, the PCA, and Unity

The Auburn Ave Conference took place this past weekend. It will be interesting to get ‘the buzz’ in the upcoming days. This conference really helped bring out the controversy over Justification in the past several years. Pastor Wilkins and the Conference boldly go forward this year with, from all accounts, a record setting attendance for speakers Bishop N.T. Wright and Richard Gaffin. Wright is of course famous for his work in what is called the New Perspectives on Paul, and Gaffin was a vocal supporter of Norman Shepherd during his teaching stint at Westminster Seminary.

I look forward to hearing the results of this conference and posting some thoughts on the whole thing over the next few days, but let me start with one that seems so obvious that it is over looked. Rev. Wilkins, his associate pastor Rev. Lusk and really the majority of the Louisiana Presbytery are actively promoting a different doctrine concerning many things in the PCA. Regardless for now of who one thinks is right, it has to be admitted that it is a different approach, a different doctrine. The opposition of Dr. Pipa, Dr. Smith, and many others in the PCA can attest this fact. Yet, not a peep about discipline can be found. This Presbytery is in active opposition to a large group, I would venture a majority, in the PCA, yet no one seems to desire to put an end to it. Yes, there have been debates and discussions, but no real talk of shutting down the annual conference, or asking them to avoid certain themes.

The PCA is now in a situation where the Mississippi Valley Presbytery helps publish a book that specifically attacks and condemns the teachings of N.T. Wright, who the Louisiana Presbytery supports and brings to teach. As a former member I hate to say this, but the PCA appears to be in some shambles. They have trouble bringing about discipline and agreeing major matters. Before this controversy erupted in the ranks, the Presbyterian Pastors Leadership Network had seemingly taken over. They weakened subscription, made it harder for other presbyteries to ask the General Assembly to step in to discipline wayward presbyteries, and now this. It has to be said that unity among the PCA is gone. You could go to a PCA church in the South, for example, and hear Puritan style preaching and worship, go to another PCA church in Colorado Springs and get a mix of contemporary worship styles and music or even a completely “seeker sensitive” church. You could find churches that follow the Westminster strictly, others that barely follow it at all, and some who want to redefine it. It just seems a shame to me that this denomination struggles so with unity and appears no closer to finding it now than 30 years ago when they started.

A Look at the Controversy

I will be posting the next few days on the controversy that has arisen in the Reformed Camp over Justification and the Covenant. I hope that it spurs some comments and discussion.

I will be trying to cover all the aspects of the controversy, but I will not be discussing Norman Shepherd. There are three reasons why.

1. I have not read Norman Shepherd.
2. His views are covered fully by the RCUS position paper. Also the history of the controversy is well discussed in The Current Justification Controversy by O. Palmer Robertson.
3. I do not believe that he is the primary motivator in this new controversy. I am sure that some of his former students are on his side, and that his book has influenced some, but over all I believe that the other big names are the ones that have more impact, and Shepherd has little to do with them. He is seldom quoted in their books and articles, and some of them get offended when you refer to them as Shepherdites.

So, I have no real inclination to discuss Rev. Shepherd, since I believe his role in the controversy is minimal.

Let the discussion begin!

Arch Bishop Fiasco

Rowan Williams, the Arch Bishop of Canterbury has spoken out again. I know that I should be charitable to others, but this guy scares me. The article begins with this statement.

The Asian tsunami disaster should make all Christians question the existence of God, Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, writes in The Telegraph today

He also speaks of the “random, accidental death” of those in the Tsunami Disaster. This man is the head of the Anglican Church. I will be honest and admit that I openly worry about the health of the Church of England. This is the same leader who has taken a rather weak stand on the openly gay bishop elected in America. He has supported a new ‘sinner friendly’ bible translation and wants the Gospel of Thomas included in the Bible. Now he has done it again. A complete denial of God’s sovereign control. He offers no help, no comfort. Instead, he tries to rip away the only source of comfort in such an event. I have to wonder, how did this man ascend to the highest post in the Anglican Church? How can those faithful branches of the Anglican community, not only the churches here in America, but in Africa especially and elsewhere, remain united under this man’s leadership?

It saddens one to think that there are Christians out there who would turn to the Arch Bishop for guidance, and this is what he gives them. ‘It is okay to doubt God, and wonder why God exists.’ The great and glorious history of this church suffers a black eye under Dr. Williams. Somewhere Thomas Cramner is rolling over in his grave.

R.C Jr., and a little irony

R.C. Sproul Jr., sometimes makes me laugh. He actually has a blog about why blogging is not so good. Actually, it is a nice post about how we should not think too much of ourselves, and it is a reminder to go play with your kids. Yet, the irony was just too much to pass by. Sort of like the irony of having an agrarian mindset that teaches us to think locally, buy locally, and play locally, yet get frequent flyer miles for all of the lecturing, and have a web site and a magazine that reaches far more than just locals.

Links!

Yes, finally! My blog now has some links. I do hope that you will check them out. It should be noted that inclusion on my Blog Roll in no way is an endorsement of anything on their page. It simply means that I read their blog regularly. The Links category, however, is reserved for things I use, and endorse. These are not blogs, but web pages. I do hope that all enjoy. I will be adding to these from time to time, so keep checking the links for new places to go.

Pictures of Christ

I am amazed at how accepted pictures of our Lord are today. Jeff Meyers links to a report that decides pictures of Christ are okay. It in effect decides all pictures are okay as long as they are not worshipped, but that is another matter. Here is a portion:

Another argument against portraiture of Christ is based on the idea that all such representations of Christ are necessarily limited to depicting His human nature, failing to do justice to the fact that the Second Person of the Trinity has both a human and a divine nature. But surely this line of reasoning fails to recognize the teaching of Scripture that God appeared in human form when He walked the earth, and that is what the people of Jesus's day saw--a man. Moreover, God was pleased to reveal to Peter and others that this man who lived among them was the Messiah, the Son of God--divine as well as human (Matt. 16:17). And so the apostle John testifies: "We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son" (John 1:14), and again, Jesus said, "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9).

I find this paragraph an astonishment. This paragraph is a defense of pictures? It is not even really historically accurate. First, most defenders of pictures admit they depict only the human nature. Even John of Damascus admitted that much. Second, it is the fact that the person of Jesus Christ is both divine (which is not to be pictured) and human that is the problem. Any picture of the person is a picture of divinity. Jesus was God and man. The verses quoted show exactly why it is so troubling to picture Christ as a man. “For anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.” Can that be captured in a picture? No, never.

Basically you either have to admit that the divine nature can be pictured without violation of God’s law, or you have to say the natures can be separated and only the human nature is in the pictures. The former way opens the door to allowing pictures of the Holy Spirit and the Father since the divine nature can be pictured (few are willing to go there), and the latter destroys the formula of Chalcedon and makes one a Nestorian. Either way it is wrong.