Relativism Revisited

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But there is more! Andrew Sandlin claims:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To Rome or Relativism?

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

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

More Meyers and More Development

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apt Summaries

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

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

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

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

The Value of a Housewife

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

Revelation Commentary

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

Thanks in advance.

Acts 15 and the Law

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

Covenant of Works?

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

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

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

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

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

Strict Subscription vs. No Subscription

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hatred for the Past

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Heart of Harriet Miers

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

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

Solid Rock or Shifting Sand

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

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

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

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

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

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

Air Rage

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

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

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

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

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

James Jordan's point of view

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

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

Judicial Restriant vs. Originalism

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

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

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

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

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

Robespierre

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

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

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

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

James Jordan on the attack

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The New Perspectives and the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Perspectives on First Century Judaism

I am not an expert on the New Perspectives on Paul by any means. However, the exegetical movement has gained strength and underpins a lot of the Federal Vision controversy. As obvious from some discussions on previous posts it leads to dramatically different readings of Paul, and the Bible as a whole. The main tenant of the NPP is that first century or second temple Judaism was a religion of grace and not a religion of works. Thus NPP advocates have to now read the condemnation of Judaizers not as a condemnation of works as a whole because that is a misunderstanding of Judaism. This allows them to find a more positive role for works in places like Romans 2.

Instead of arguing about specific exegesis, which will get no where since the presuppositions are different, let us examine first century Judaism. Admittedly, I do not have access to all of the material, but I think an argument can still be made that Judaism is indeed a Pelagian religion of works, not one of grace.

One source of first century Judaism is the Apocrypha. These are the books that are often included in Romanist Bibles, but not in Protestant ones. They were written during the second temple period and thus give us a glimpse Judaism at that time. These books do not put forth a picture of Judaism as a religion of grace. In fact, Romanists often quoted from Ecclesasticus (sometimes called Ben Sirach) to prove works are needed during the Reformation. First and Second Maccabees are even worse as they encourage the keeping of Hanukkah, make the law keeping of Judas Maccabeus as the basis of his victories, and show us that sin offerings for the dead can atone for the sins of the dead. While that may be a mercy for the dead soldiers it is a mercy grounded on the law keeping of Judas. The additions to Esther seem to linger on law keeping adding that Esther hated her marriage bed because it was with the Gentiles, and she kept away from the table of the Gentiles, and hated her position as Queen of the Gentiles. So too do the additions to Daniel adding stories where vindication is given to upright Jews like Susannah not by the miraculous mercy of God, as Daniel in the Lion’s Den, but by wisdom and legal maneuvering. Third Maccabees is again about remaining loyal to Jewish law even in a foreign land. It even goes as far to suggest that God will reward the law keeping. Fourth Maccabees blatantly offers salvation through ‘virtue’ and obedience. Psalm 151 gives more glory to David than to God. Even if the Prayer of Manasseh does suggest mercy, it is clearly in the minority. Many of these second temple Judaism books are heavy with Pelagianism.

Another source is the Mishnah. This gives us a good glimpse into what the Rabbis of the first century taught. Here Sanders fails to convincingly show grace in Judaism. We see ideas such as Gehenna, a place where those whose works were balanced between good and evil go to scream and pay for their evil deeds before heading up to heaven. The school of Shammai follows this doctrine. It is a Pelagian doctrine since man must still pay for his sins himself through suffering. Many rabbis seemed to also argue that election of Israel was also grounded in obedience, either in that of a patriarch or the future obedience of Israel. Others thought the covenant had been offered to all nations, and only Israel accepted it. These reasons are blatantly Pelagian. Sanders pushes them aside and emphasizes the fact that Israel is elect as proof of grace. Ignoring the works basis of that election.

I have a hard time seeing where first century Judaism can be seen as anything but a Pelagian system where works/obedience serve as the basis for salvation. Allow me to quote the end of Ecclesasticus (51:30), “Do your work in good time and in his own time God will give you your reward.”

George Washington Biography

I just finished a biography of George Washington called, Washington: The Indispensable Man by James Flexner. It was okay. I learned a lot of facts, and the book is readable, but not necessarily well written. The chapters are short, and that is a plus. I got the book at Mount Rushmore, so I have no idea if it is even well received in real bookstores. I usually like to do a little more research into the books I buy, but I had to get a book from Mount Rushmore. How many times does one get to go to Mount Rushmore?

I have one major complaint about the book. I felt as if Flexner had an agenda to smear the first President with the charge of adultery or at least impropriety via innuendo. He spends a chapter on Washington’s boy hood relationship with a woman named Sally, who ends up marrying a neighbor. Washington apparently confessed his love for her, and wrote her off and on for the rest of his life. In the beginning of her marriage, he still writes with some passion that she encourages, but that quickly ends. The rest of their correspondence appears to be only friendly. Flexner brings up Sally often, and compares her favorably to Martha Washington. Flexner never speaks highly of Martha, and states George never loved her because he always loved Sally. No proof offered. After Washington becomes President, Flexner introduces another woman who attended the dinners George and Martha gave in Philadelphia. She too is compared favorably to Martha, and Flexner assumes that George would have preferred her company to Martha’s company. Despite the existence of love letter from Martha to George and scenes of great devotion between Martha and George at the end of George’s life, Flexner feels the need to run down their marriage again by implying that no one was ever able to “prove” adultery, but declares George to have been a ladies man. That running theme really irritated me, and I would recommend everyone buying a different biography of General Washington.

On the bright side, I do recommend Mount Rushmore.

Emergent Evangelical Disaster

I have not blogged in a little while because I have been having discussions with some of my friends in Colorado Springs. It has been a sad, painful experience to say the least. Some, who formerly believed, now no longer do. Others seemed more and more confused on the gospel by the minute. They freely and quickly spout justification by faith and works.

It began with a group email conversation with former co-workers, one of whom attends an Emergent Church, or a church affiliated with the movement or whatever they want to call it. It is obvious the doctrine of justification by works must be taught or at least allowed to grow in that congregation. I protested and pointed to Scripture, but to my horror, other former co-workers jumped in siding with justification by works. These were members of mainline denominations, non-denominational churches and they all had no clue about the doctrine of justification. Upon hearing the traditional Protestant exegesis of James 2 and the belief that works flow from thanksgiving for salvation, they pronounced it “full of crap.” By the way, I used to work at a Christian ministry in Colorado Springs that had weekly chapels that apparently do not bother with salvation either.

It is one thing to know that evangelical churches out there are not doing a good job of proclaiming the gospel, but it is another to be hit right in the face with it. It was a good reminder to why I became a minister in the first place. It also reminded me not to take even the most basic doctrines for granted. The gospel must be proclaimed or people will revert to trusting in themselves. May God strengthen His church to boldly proclaim his message once more.

RCUS Report on N.T. Wright

The Reformed Church in the United States position paper on N.T. Wright has been put on the web. It is good and passed unanimously. If you do not know why the RCUS would go out of its way to condemn the odd teachings of an Anglican Bishop, it is because he has a great following in the Presbyterian and Reformed world. Not only did he speak at the 2005 Auburn Ave. Conference, but many men openly confess their adherence to Wright's re-write of Paul and his odd brand of Biblical Theology.

Please browse the report. I think you will find it helpful.

Henry Clay

“The Old Coon”, “the Greatest Statesman never to be elected President”, “the Great Pacificator”, and “The Great Compromiser”: all titles that belong to Henry Clay. I just finished reading Henry Clay: Statesman for the Union by Robert Remini. A fantastic book. I have praised Mr. Remini’s writing style in past posts, so I will not recount it here.

Clay stands as the greatest Senator, and or Congressman that America has ever had. He was a man of principle, and he never wavered from them. Yet, he lost 3 attempts at the Presidency, and two more attempts at gaining his own party’s nomination, a party that he started. Both times that he lost the nomination, his party won the presidential election. Both were war heroes, and neither truly held Whig party beliefs. Despite all of that, Clay still has a legacy that will go unmatched as far as service to America. He formed the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise Tariff, and the Compromise of 1850, to name a few.

Yet, Remini does a good job of exposing the private side of Henry Clay. Remini is willing to flat out state that Clay was a bad father. His sons all were failures, drunks, or committed to mental institutions. Clay apparently often cheated on his wife, and his notoriously loose morality helped defeat his Presidential hopes many times. But, Remini lets us know that late in Clay’s life during a period of loss and grief, he joined the church, and never fell out of communion with it for the last decade of his life. Hopefully it was a true conversion.

The book is a good insight into the most influential man in the early 1800’s in America. If you like history, Henry Clay is worth a look.

Thoughts on John Roberts

Howard Phillips has some interesting thoughts on John Roberts. Phillips had not yet made up his mind on the nomination, but raises some good points. Here is the quote that most disturbed me.

A liberal law partner [of Roberts] at Horgan & Hartson says—and this is a rough paraphrase: “I’ve had dinner with John Roberts, or lunch, on more than a thousand occasions, and if you asked me what he thinks about anything other than whether he prefers bacon, lettuce and tomato to tuna fish I couldn’t tell you.”

Charles Krauthammer, another pundit whom I respect, sees some trouble in John Roberts. I have to say that I am looking forward to seeing these hearings. I have to admit that I am even more interested in the next Supreme Court nominee. For me the verdict on Bush’s presidency is still out. Is he a conservative? Well he cut taxes, but loves deficit spending. He seems to respect federalism in some cases, but does not mind increasing National bureaucracy, and federalizing airport personnel. John Roberts could tilt the scales for Bush one way or another. Is Roberts a Thomas or a Kennedy? I fear that the hearings will be pointless. I fear that Republicans will try to argue you should not get to vote against a judge because of judicial philosophy, which is why Republican overwhelmingly approved Ruth Ginsburg. Then they turn around and whine about judicial activism. Yet, I suspect Roberts will not answer anything and remain a mystery for sometime even after he gets his seat on the bench.

I hope Roberts comes out strong and answers question for the Senate. I also hope Bush nominates someone who has a clear record for the next seat. He won’t, but hope springs eternal.

Katrina’s Political Danger

Now that the worst appears to be over, and evacuations are running smoothly, talk has turned to investigations and fault. Thankfully the racism finger pointing appears to be done with as well. However, the worst fall out could still be to come.

Let begin by acknowledging my fault. In an earlier post, I did criticize the President for a slow reaction. I have since learned that I probably was mistaken as to the speed of aid delivered. FEMA had coordinated with the Red Cross, who had trucks of water, food, and other supplies standing by. They were prevented from entering the city and going to the Superdome and Convention Center by the Louisiana department of Homeland Security. This is NOT a branch of the Federal Department of Homeland Security, thus freeing Bush of blame and placing it solely on Louisiana. I guess I owe Matt and President Bush an apology. Also some thanks to James and WoCoFunk for putting me back on the straight and narrow. However, I do still think that President Bush should have gone back to the White House quicker (he waited a full day after the levees broke before returning), and addressed the nation from there. Symbolism is important, and while Crawford may be equipped to do as much as the White House, Crawford is not the nation’s capital. That is about as far as I am willing to blame President Bush with what I know now.

James also brings up good points about Federalism to which I would like to add my voice. The new danger of Katrina could be more power going to the National Government. Soon people will be demanding FEMA have more authority to shove aside state governments to make sure help is given. It is becoming more and more obvious that the governor of Louisiana made some pour decisions. She would not let the Red Cross bring food, water, and supplies to the Superdome and Convention Center. She did not give her National Guard enough authority, she turned down help from President Bush. The list gets longer and longer. So many people will claim that the National government should by-pass the states and act directly with its own authority. Our “conservative” President has already showed that this power grab is his mode of operation as he has done such things as Federalize airport security, create a department of Homeland Security, and accept the idea of an Intelligence Tzar.

Yet, should not the lesson of Katrina be the less National government involvement the better? Maybe the real lesson here is that who we elect to our State offices matters. Is it possible that a commission investigating the disaster will find that the laws are not bad, the set up is good, the people of Louisiana just elected an incompetent, and have suffered from years of Legislatures who never revised evacuations plans, spent money on non-essentials, and did not improve the levees? The growing reach of the National government has made us not care about local and state politics. Off year elections get little attention, and hardly have a turnout at all. Can you name your state representative? What about your state senator? These are the people that make the laws for your state. These laws played a major role in the recent disaster. Katrina’s legacy ought to be a lesson about paying attention to local and state elections, but it will probably be a new department and increased power for the National government. Well, if it worked for Amtrak . . .

Liturgical Ritualism

Here is what I believe to be a good example of the thinking of Federal Vision/High Liturgy men, and its danger. It is a quote from Steve Wilkins in an interview he gave in 2003 about the Auburn Ave. Theology. He is discussing baptism.

It's like a wedding. There is a transformation that takes place because of the ritual. A single man becomes a married man. He is transformed into a new man, with new blessings and privileges and responsibilities he didn't have before. A similar thing happens at baptism. The one who is baptized is transferred from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light, from Adam into Christ, and given new privileges, blessings, and responsibilities he didn't have before.

Note that Wilkins here makes the argument that ritual makes a change within you as to your status and to the blessings, responsibilities and privileges one enjoys. For Wilkins it is the ritual that makes one married, not the vows, not the rational consent, only the ritual itself. Also Wilkins then claims it is the ritual of baptism that makes one in Christ as opposed to in Adam. It is the ritual of baptism that actually transfers one from hell to heaven, darkness to light, Adam to Christ. The ritual of baptism saves for Rev. Wilkins. I believe this is one of the major lines of thinking for both the Federal Vision and those who desire a High Liturgy. Ritual saves. The rituals actually convey what they represent. High Liturgy men want a weekly communion because the ritual of Eucharist will convey what it represents by simple eating. For the record Wilkins is a paedocommunist because he believe the infants will receive the blessing from partaking in the ritual. Other aspects of the High Liturgy, besides the sacraments, include such things as the pronouncement of forgiveness. Here the minister pronounces the people forgiven of their sins after they repeat a formal confession of sin, sometimes in the format of a prayer. This too gives rise to a sacerdotalism where the priest/pastor actually has the power to forgive sins. The ritual of pronouncement will convey what it represents. That is what Wilkins argues for in the above quote. That is what High Liturgy conveys, and that is why this is an important discussion.

Katrina Controversies

It never ceases to amaze me how the two major parties in this country fight like cats and dogs. It really does not matter what the subject is, they just have to fight. It has to be the main reason that 50% of this country fails to vote. It makes me not want to vote, at least not for either the Republicans or Democrats. Hurricane Katrina is no exception. The hurricane that flooded the 35th largest city in America and destroyed oil refineries and valuable coastline, not to mention probably killed more Americans than 9/11, has produced the most disgusting display of partisan bickering I have ever seen.

There are some legitimate questions and debates we can have once everyone is safe. I think it is reasonable to evaluate the efficiency of our nation’s response. Matt at Wheat and Chaff puts up a defense of the administration. While the post points out some things President Bush does well, I think comparing the responses to hurricanes in Florida last year and this one make President Bush look a little too slow. Tim Challies points out the differences between the mayor of New Orleans and Rudi Guiliani during 9/11. A good point that the most of the blame should fall at the feet of the city of New Orleans itself. These debates are not emotionally charged, and they will help the nation respond better next time. These are legitimate debates, and not the ones that draw my ire.

The ones that make me sick are the obviously idiotic charges of racism. Democratic fanatics like Michael Moore, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton are blaming the slow response on racism. These giants of equality are not blaming the city's black mayor or even Louisiana's white governor, but they are calling President Bush a racist. The first President to have a black Secretary of State, and then the first to have a black woman as Secretary of State is now a racist, and apparently so is Ms. Rice, who is black. Charges like this cannot be made on emotion alone. They require proof. If you are going to accuse someone of something so heinous, you had better have more than a gut feeling. Especially if you are going to do it while people are still stuck on their roofs. Instead of rallying to help the nation through its worst disaster ever, these men are playing the one card that will divide America, and they are doing with no proof whatsoever. The depth of partisan anger goes so deep that Arianna Huffington actually lashes out at President Clinton for helping out. That makes me sick. Do we really have to make every waking moment about partisan bickering and finger pointing? Apparently so.

The Danger of Weekly Communion and High Liturgy

I thought I would follow up on an earlier post. I mentioned that the Mercersburg men won their battle for a new version of reformed theology, not by direct confrontation, but by agitation for a high liturgy. The Federal Vision adherents appear to me to be trying a similar tact. I worry that they too will be successful if more attention is not paid to the theology of liturgy by old reformed churches.

Weekly communion is one example of that higher liturgy that is likely to gain inroads for the Federal Vision theology. Many pastors do not see a problem with weekly communion. In fact, they do not appreciate any suggestion that weekly communion is dangerous to the preaching of Christ crucified. With so many churches already moving towards a weekly communion, it is easy to see how the argument for a high liturgy will be an easier sell for the Federal Visionists than an outright change of orthodox dogma would be. Especially when you consider that other ministers advocating a high liturgy like Michael Horton and R.C. Sproul, who are not known to support Federal Vision adherents, may now be aligned with them in this fight to change the worship service. Some might say that one could promote a high liturgy without holding to a Federal Vision view of sacraments and justification. Let us hear John Nevin of Mercersburg on this issue.

In this way our liturgical controversy is, in reality, a great theological controversy; one that should be of interest to other Protestant Churches, no less than to our own. We see in it two general schemes of theology; two different versions, we may say, of the meaning of Christianity; two Gospels in fact, arrayed against one another, . . .(Catholic and Reformed, Vindication of the Liturgy, pg. 381).

One cannot take an altar-based liturgy, of which weekly communion is a part, and peacefully put it in the pulpit-centered churches of Geneva. One of the two must give way because they are of a different spirit. Henry Bullinger, in his Second Decade, wrote that that God is a spirit and must be worshipped in spirit and holiness. This type of worship commanded in the second commandment is contrary to any outward honors or displays (kneeling or prostrating or turning towards a cross) made to any thing, including the Eucharist. He goes on to decry the ministerial robe as a copy of the priests and a tradition of man, given only to create superstition (Fifth Decade). The Puritans, like Samuel Mather and John Cotton, rightly argued that a book of prayers sets itself against the Bible as the only sufficient book and that form prayers set themselves against the unction of the Holy Spirit and against praying in the Spirit.

The weekly communion service, with the rest of the elements of high liturgy, elevates the supper to a place where it does not belong. The weekly service harmonizes well with the teaching of Federal Vision adherents that the supper keeps us in union with Christ. Practicing Communion becomes essential for continued salvation. It naturally turns the focus of worship from the invisible proclamation of Christ in the gospel to the visible proclamation in the sacrament. Faith is replaced by sight. It will raise the call for more and more objective, visible elements appealing to all the senses, which in turn will lead to the introduction of unbiblical elements into worship. The argument that our worship is structured on the OT sacrifices of the temple will be employed to justify such things as incense, processionals, robes, and prayer book formulas. Slowly the table will again become the altar. This is how the medieval Roman Church built the mass: first an over-emphasis on sacraments, then the suggestion of the corporal presence of Christ, then the concept of transubstantiation, and finally the presentation of the mass as a real sacrifice central to salvation. The reformed understanding of the gospel has not existed peacefully with the practice of weekly communion in the history of the church. Not in Rome, nor in Constantinople, nor in Wittenburg, nor in Canterbury. Reformed theologians need to rally and to proclaim the Biblical understanding of worship and liturgy before it is too late.

Who is responsible for Katrina?

I would first like to add my prayers to the millions going up around the world for those victims of Hurricane Katrina. I have family in Mississippi and had been to Biloxi before. My family is in Jackson and without power, but out of the path of devastation. My wife and I received confirmation today that the others that we knew in Biloxi area are safe, although their property probably is not. I know that many others have not yet received word, and some may never. For those I offer prayers that God would show his hand and uphold them in this time of trial.

Which leads me to a quick point. It is both sickening and sad to see people blaming Hurricane Katrina on man. Cindy Sheehan has blamed it on President Bush, and Robert Kennedy Jr., on the governor of Mississippi. Not only are these individuals trying to use a natural disaster for political gain, but they know nothing of who controls the world. It is not us, and it is not even the government. All things flow from God, for they are all under his control. There can be no real hope or comfort for those who reject God the Creator, Sustainer, and Savior. It is hard to say it better than Heidelberg Catechism #26, so why try.

What do you believe when you say: “I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth”?

That the eternal Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who of nothing made heaven and earth, and all that in them is, who likewise upholds, and governs the same by His eternal counsel and providence, is for the sake of Christ, His Son, my God and my Father, in whom I do so trust as to have no doubt that He will provide me with all things necessary for body and soul; and further, that whatever evil he sends upon me in this troubled life, He will turn it to my good; for He is able to do it, being Almighty God and willing also, being a faithful Father.

An almighty faithful Father, now that is comfort. Amen.

The Federal Vision's Liturgical Movement

As long time readers will know, I believe that the Federal Vision is nothing more than a second coming of Mercersburg Theology, including the foundation of Historical and Theological Development. There is a rising parallel in the way the debate is headed as well. In the original Mercersburg movement, the debate began with a discussion of Theological Development. It was the closest Schaff and Nevin ever came to being convicted of heresy. Schaff actually found himself on trial. Federal Vision managed to skip this dangerous portion of the debate. Something I hope that will be remedied one day. Next, the Mercersburg controversy went to the sacraments and justification. Nevin’s book The Mystical Presence spearheaded that campaign. That is when the Mercersburg movement began to be noticed across the spectrum of Presbyterian and Reformed churches even earning a rebuttal from Charles Hodge and Princeton. Federal Vision began at that step, and they too have taken heat from every corner of the Presbyterian and Reformed spectrum. Perhaps not as much as many would want, but they still have taken it. Thus the third step. The Mercersburg movement then began to concentrate on a liturgical movement. They reformulated the German Reformed Church liturgy from a pulpit dominated liturgy to an altar based liturgy. The Theological Development step was dangerous, the Sacramental theology step was hazardous, but the liturgy step won the battle. Yes, a long fought war, but in the end, all the goals of Mercersburg were accomplished. The altar liturgy sneaks a sacramental theology in the back door, and it prepared the way for Christian Union with other churches, which Schaff said was the great goal of Theological Development. The Federal Vision men are beginning that step.

Yes, it is harder and harder to find the Federal Vision men propagating or openly defending their views on Covenant and Sacraments. Yet, they appear to be eager to expound on elements of the liturgy such as kneeling and clerical collars, and robes. Admittedly some of these men have long been promoting High Liturgy, but others are just now leading their churches through a change. Others promoters of liturgy are Jeff Myers, Mark Horne, and Tim Gallant. It appears as though the church will suffer through a tumult over the liturgy. Churches such as the OPC and PCA may soon find themselves making room for high church altar based liturgies. In so doing they will give away everything. I hope the Federal Vision liturgy movement will end better than the Mercerburg liturgy movement ended.

St. Bartholomew’s Day

This is a blog that hopefully will come to a point. I did want to post something more about the mass murder that took place on St. Bartholomew’s Day, August 24th, 1572. That day King Charles the 9th ordered the slaughter of the Reformed believers in France. It was worst in Paris where Admiral Coligny was slain. 10,000 men in that city alone were executed in the streets. Many of the murders went around singing the Psalms from the Reformed Psalter of France to mock the dying, and Lord might I add. Henry of Navarre, a Protestant with a claim to the throne, did not die that day, but at knife point he had to take Mass and recant. So too did the Duke of Conde. Others were not as fortunate. Some who took Mass to avoid death were forced to murder their friends in order to prove their loyalty to the Roman faith. King Charles himself is said to have shot some that came to his palace seeking refuge.
The order went out to all of France, and while some refused to do the work, others did it joyfully. 70,000 people total died on account of their faith that day. The leading preachers in Navarre were put to death. In one region the Reformed were put into prison to keep them safe, but the people found them, broke down the jail, and murdered all inside. All because of a differences in their religion, a different faith.
The world reacted differently to this massacre. England refused to have relations with France for quite sometime, but in the end did nothing. John Knox of Scotland pronounced the King of France a murder and asked God to pay him back. The Pope commended the King of France and celebrated a High Mass in honor of the deed. Spain took heart in the murders and stepped up their own persecutions. The King would commission a coin minted in honor of the Massacre. All because of a differences in their religion.
Murder should always be condemned, and religion is no excuse but those Romanists took it serious enough to kill. The Reformed men took their faith seriously enough to go to the grave. Both sides saw a difference, a real meaningful difference between Protestantism and Romanism. Is that belief that there is a real and meaningful difference in Protestantism and Romanism around today? There is a Reformed Catholicism movement in the Protestant Churches. There is a new spirit of ecumenicity breaking out all over the evangelical spectrum. Romanists and Protestants are joining hands across the nation in order to win political victories. Big evangelical leaders refuse to condemn the Roman Catholic Church. The late Pope John Paul II saw acclaim from most Protestants when he died. In small towns, like mine, ecumenical services take place. Protestants worshipping as Romanist preach their version of the gospel, which is not a gospel. Why the difference between the two ages? Why now do people view the difference so small as to be insignificant, and then they viewed it so large as to be a matter of life and death? While I praise God that the years of Romanists murdering Protestants and Protestants murdering Romanists is over, I pray that we would find again the dedication to our faith; in order that we may realize that the differences between us are real, and are a matter of life and death. Not physical life and death, but eternal, spiritual life and death.

Pat Robertson should repent

I just wanted to post a quick not to let everyone know that Pat Robertson is wrong. He should publicly repent, just as he publicly sinned when he threw away the 6th commandment to make a political statement. His suggestion now that he was taken out of context make it more ridiculous. “Take him out” usually means killing, and in context it is hard to see how he meant anything else. Even if he did mean kidnapping, he is still throwing away the commandments of God. Such things should not be suggested, especially by an ordained man.
I believe this is related to previous discussions about salvation through politics. Why would a minister suggest such things? What do we, as Christians, have to fear from a foreign dictator, even a strong communist one? The answer is nothing. He can do nothing to us. There appears to be a confusion somewhere between the Church, the Kingdom of God, and America; a confusion between the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and Free Market Democracy. These things ought not to be confused. Robertson should stop stalling, admit his wrong, and repent.

Mercy in the Massacre

The St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre is a tragic event. It saw the extinguishing of many great lights in the church. But, even in these darkest hours mercy from God can be seen. There are stories of the governors who would not carry out orders to murder French citizens simply for the religious belief. Some governors did not believe that the King actually made the order because it was too appalling. The Governor of Auvergne would not act unless the King himself came and participated. The Governor of Baronne received a handwritten note from the King, but still would not obey. He claimed, “I have committed your Majesty’s orders to your faithful inhabitants, and to the troops in the garrison. I have found them good citizens and brave soldiers, but not one executioner.”

Other stories of God’s great grace can be found. My favorite is Peter Merlin. Rev. Peter Merlin ministered to the church in the family of Admiral Coligny. Men from the king came to hunt down this minister of the Reformed Faith. Merlin jumped from his window when they broke down his door. He then ran from the King’s men, and took shelter in a hen house. He slept on the hay with the chickens for three days. The first day a certain hen came over next to Peter, and laid a single egg. She then left the egg. Peter Merlin, with thanksgiving, ate the egg. The same hen returned the next morning. She laid an egg, and left it for Merlin to eat again. The third day, the hen returned and laid the egg for Merlin. By this time the murderous rage had subsided and Merlin felt safe enough to venture out of the hen house. Yet, he never forgot the hen who laid an egg for him to eat every morning while he hid from certain death.

In this country we can talk about the church and its troubles. Whether or not the state is going to overturn Roe v Wade or whether or not the state will allow same sex marriage often dominate the discussions today. Yet, it all seems to pale in comparison when placed in its proper historical context. We can start to worry about the government of America when we have to hide in hen houses to escape death.

Christian Activism and Salvation by Politics

Here is an example of how Christians confusing the gospel and politics. The Center For Reclaiming America for Christ, headed by Dr. James Kennedy, has mailed out a petition for people to sign asking each of their senators to confirm John Roberts. The whole appeal is couched in Christian language, even though it admits that one can only pray that John Roberts will actually defend such things as the Right-to-Life and ‘defend Biblical marriage.” They want us to make sure that the faith of John Roberts will not be attacked during this confirmation battle. This whole admission shows the misunderstanding. Why should people of faith rally behind Mr. Roberts? Even the letter of appeal is careful not to be too specific in its praise. It states that “we understand John Roberts is a man of integrity” or “he is spoken of” rather than knowing for sure one way or the other. Since we are not sure of his faith, why support him so strongly? He is a Roman Catholic, why should I as a Protestant trust his faith? Dr. Kennedy does not answer such questions. Nor does he answer why Senators are not allowed to discuss or attack his faith. If we want the Christian faith to guide our government why should we not want our Senators to check it out? These are just a few of my problems. In my opinion, Dr. Kennedy and his group is just acting on behalf of the Republican Party.

Gaspar Coligny

The Huguenots, the Reformed in France during the Reformation, are often over looked during studies of Reformation history. Probably because in the end, the failed to reform France. Yet, the Huguenots stand forth for all the ages to see a biblically minded, steadfast, loyal group of Christians. August is the month where the French Government slaughtered them in mass. So from now till St. Bartholomew’s Day, the day of the massacre, August 24th, I thought I would post a few profiles of these men, men who died for the faith.

Gaspar de Coligny was a man of devout faith, a picture of virtue. He succeeded in everything he did. He became a great warrior for the kingdom of France, and received the highest honor for his work, the title of Admiral. His prestige and position as a Count also made him a statesman. There too, no one could impugn his character. People tried to accuse him of murder, and plotting against the king, but all were easily refuted as lies of those who hated the Reformed faith. Indeed, it was Coligny that always counseled caution, that actively argued against open war and rebellion. He trusted God to care for their souls, and the mission of the church to reform France. A constant voice for religious toleration in France, and he found friends for his cause even in the Romish church. Perhaps it is because of his high standing and great success that Coligny was singled out for brutal treatment by those who made war on God’s people.
On August 24th, 1572, Admiral Gaspar Coligny died at the hand of a band of murders. Two days earlier he had been shot by an assassin, but lived. The King came to his bedside often, so often in fact that the Queen Mother, Catherine de Medici, created lies and incited a plot to exterminate the Huguenots. The weak King, whipped into an emotional frenzy, agreed. The morning of the 24th found the King in his right mind, but the plan under way. A message went out from the King to stop, but the orders were ignored. A gang of thugs led by Romish nobles broke down the doors to Coligny’s place of residents and began slaughtering his guards. A servant woke the Admiral saying, “My Lord! God calls us to himself!” Coligny read prayers, told his servants to save themselves, and continued his devotions until the attackers found him. He was stabbed by everyone in the room, his body thrown outside to find positive identification, and then his head cut off and sent to the Queen Mother.

Coligny stands as a permanent reminder that one does not have to be a minister to be an effective Christian, one must only live his life in accordance with the will of Jesus Christ. May we remember him, and follow his example.

Politics or Gospel?

The PyroManiac, Phil Johnson, has a bit of disagreement with Jus Divinium of Triablogue. The disagreement seems to be over the role of the Christian in politics. While I am personally acquainted with neither of these gentlemen, this is the blogosphere, and I am going to give you my opinion of this debate. To summarize, Phil is arguing the traditional fundamentalist viewpoint that there is no “reasoned biblical rationale for connecting common grace with a ‘cultural mandate’ for the church,”(quoted in the response section, not the article proper). Jus, on the other hand, is arguing that Christian political activism is a legitimate enterprise of the church. Jus is defending Chuck Colson and his political scheme that includes working alongside Romanists and unbelievers to achieve political goals, and Phil is saying that this clouds, confuses, and distorts the gospel, referencing Colson’s Evangelicals and Catholics Together document as proof.
I think that they are both wrong. Phil seems to have a problem saying the Bible gives Christians and the Church a ‘cultural mandate.’ I would argue that Genesis 1:28 gives us a cultural mandate, the biblical directive that Phil seems to desire. In this verse, God tells us to have dominion over the entire earth and all that lives and moves within it. Phil admits that the individual Christian is to be salt and light in whatever area he finds himself, so the question becomes why is it wrong for the church to instruct him in exercising dominion? Why is it okay for a Christian to be salt and light as a politician or a dentist but not okay for the church to instruct that Christian on how to be salt and light in government and oral hygiene? I would also argue that Christ did affect the political climate of his time. He spoke and acted against moral injustices that faced him. He overturned the moneychangers in the temple, and he condemned the Pharisees and Scribes as hypocrites and whitewashed tombs. Christ made sure Pilate knew all authority on heaven and earth came from God, not from Rome. Paul used his Roman citizenship to further his purpose. The book of Proverbs contains wisdom for kings and rulers as well as ordinary men. The Word of God speaks to all areas of life, or as Kuyper put it, there is not one inch of creation of which Christ does not say, “mine.”
Yet Phil has a legitimate complaint about Jus and Chuck Colson. Too many people think that salvation for our country and maybe ourselves comes through the voting booth or the next Supreme Court nominee. When we begin to form political alliances with unbelievers. While Jus agrees that confusing the gospel and politics is bad and admits it should be rebuked, he fails to realize that Colson does just that. Phil is right that it is a historical fact that when a church compromises for the sake of political activism, it leads to ecumenism and, I would add, liberalism. The church’s job is to be the salt that preserves God’s culture, but this means defending God’s Law and Word, not promoting human political parties that have little to nothing do with God’s Law or Word. The church should cry out with all her strength about the mass-murder atrocity that is abortion, but she should not insert herself in the choosing of a Supreme Court nominee or throw the weight of God’s approval behind a political party or a person. When we look to Chuck Colson and his ECT or Dr. Dobson and his Focus on the Family political action committee for direction in casting our ballots, we have lost sight of the true nature of the gospel. The church should teach about voting and moral issues and should critique worldviews; however, organizing Political Action Committees does not fall under those auspices. I would encourage Jus to take another look at ECT, and see if the gospel may have been hidden.
Phil seems to argue that evangelism is the only method of changing the culture that the church can utilize. I disagree. Churches ought to condemn abortion, the Right-to-Die movement, and homosexual marriage. Churches ought to encourage Christians to oppose such things. Jus needs to recognize that political victory without the gospel spells certain death in the long run. Was Rome really better because Constantine was a Christian? Was the church? The answer is not the simple ‘yes’ Phil’s argument assumes. We have a cultural mandate as Christians and as the church, but it is so tightly wrapped up with the gospel that we can never set it aside, lay it down, confuse it, or replace it. The church ought to speak out on cultural issues, educate its members about them, but the can’t pick political parties or candidates for her members. The church also cannot compromise the gospel in order to achieve political ends. There is no benefit to outlawing abortion if we have to deny justification by faith alone to accomplish it.

John C. Calhoun

I am just finishing another biography of a political leader from America’s past. John C. Calhoun, by John Niven, is not a book I would recommend despite the fact that John C. Calhoun is perhaps the most interesting political figure of all time. Calhoun was a man who served as Senator and Vice President and was defeated several times running for President. He was the Vice President for John Qunicy Adams, a Republican, and Andrew Jackson, a Democrat. He was elected Senator as a Democrat and an Independent, and served as Secretary of State for President Tyler, a Whig. He truly was a man without a party. He never changed his values, and that made him an outcast from every party he ever joined. Even more interesting is that Calhoun rightly predicted every major disaster in the country from 1814 to the Civil War. He saw every economic downturn, the panics, and the bank trouble all several years ahead of them, but no one ever listened. He saw the split in the Whig party, the split in the Democratic party, and the arrival of a 3rd Party based on ‘Free Soil’ abolitionist ideas. He knew the trouble the Mexican War would cause, and voted against it at every turn. He saw predicted almost to the day the beginning of the Civil War, its cause, its outcome, and the event that would begin it all. He died before that prediction came true. Calhoun was a rare politician of principle, and deserves history’s respect, even though his views on race and slavery were despicable.
With such a great character to work with, how did the author fail to write a good book? The book has two major faults. The writing is not very engaging. It reads more like a textbook than an autobiography. It makes it a little more tedious than it should be. The next major fault is that Calhoun’s personal life, and its implications for the rest of his life are almost ignored. You get glimpse here and there, but 90% of the home life glimpses revolve around financial trouble of him and his children. This leads to a failure to connect with Calhoun personally while reading. He is not humanized by the author for us. It also leaves glaring holes in understanding why Calhoun did what did. How did the fact that Calhoun own slaves affect his overreactions in the Senate? Calhoun ruined his chance to ever be President because he would not force his wife to repay a social call to a woman of ill-repute, who was now married to a high ranking cabinet member and friend of Andrew Jackson. Is this not a good time to examine his love for his wife? The author tells us Calhoun knows the political damage he will take for the social snub, but he actively chooses his wife over politics. I want to know more about that side of John C. Calhoun. The author lets us down quite a bit on that note.
If anyone has a better suggestion for biographies on Mr. Calhoun, please, let me know.

Louisiana Presbytery Report: Exoneration or Fabrication

There are a lot of things that concern me about the recent Final Report on Federal Vision of the Louisiana Presbytery. I will simply concentrate on the two big ones for now. First is the report’s insistence on the necessity of ‘theological development and inquiry’. Inquiry, I can understand. This is what the church does as new issues arise. ‘What does our theology teach about abortion or euthanasia?’ This is a good example of theological inquiry, and the report is correct in stating that the place for such inquiry is in the church courts. Then what does the report mean by theological development? It seems obvious that they mean continued change in theology to any area of theology. This is the same as Sandlin’s “substantial theological development.” They prove this point when they go on to misuse the ‘always reforming’ quote, to show that they are indeed willing to change even cornerstone doctrines of the faith. This, I still contend, is a major front in this fight.
Second, the final proposal, which was adopted, was an exoneration of Rev. Steve Wilkins of Auburn Ave. Presbyterian Church. Not only is he exonerated, he is declared to be in conformity with the Westminster Standards. That this could be done flabbergasts the mind. The report itself just finishes saying that the WCF does not allow for the view that men can be in vital internal relationship with God and lose it. Rev. Wilkins’ church put forth a statement that says,

8. God has decreed from the foundation of the world all that comes to pass, including who would be saved and lost for all eternity. Included in His decree, however, is that some persons, not destined for final salvation, will be drawn to Christ and His people only for a time. These, for a season, enjoy real blessings, purchased for them by Christ’s cross and applied to them by the Holy Spirit in his common operations through Word and Sacrament (Hebrews 6:4-6; Matthew 25:14ff; etc.).

How is this not contradictory? Did Rev. Wilkins recant? No mention is made of that. Did AAPC take down this statement of faith? No. I looked it up this morning. So, how can someone have this statement, among others, as a statement of faith, a church court declare it to be out of accord with the Confession, and then the same court declare the man holding that position to be in complete agreement with the Westminster Confession of Faith? This exoneration is not going to end this controversy, nor should it. I hope that the rest of the PCA will realize that this exoneration does not seem realistic. Judicial cases must be brought against those who hold the Federal Vision positions. Norman Shepherd lived to plague the church in later decades because the OPC refused to actually hold a judicial case against him. These men will too unless bold steps of love are taken and charges filled.