Three Party System - Conclusion

Allow me to examine one last era of history for I believe it will answer some objections that have been raised. That is the Progressive Era around the turn of the 20th century. We have seen how 3rd Parties can overcome regional odds and win national elections eventually replacing old parties. The Progressive Era shows us a second way 3rd Parties are important. During this time we see two 3rd Parties rise and fall: the Bull-Moose Party and the Progressive Party. They had some electoral success such as La Follette being elected governor and into Congress. But nationally they failed. Or did they?

The Progressive Party stood for ‘progressing’ society, and they desired to use the government, at all levels, to accomplish that purpose. They clearly stood in the Nationalistic tradition. They were for government regulations on food industries, women having the right to vote, senators being directly elected by the people, prohibition, removal of the gold standard, women’s suffrage, income tax, busting up monopolies, and child labor laws. Sound familiar? All of them are laws today with the lone exception of prohibition, but that did make it into the Constitution for a time. There are child labor laws despite the child labor amendment to the Constitution being defeated. Yet, the Progressive Party never won a national election. Teddy Roosevelt defected to the Bull Moose Party, and only succeeded in getting Woodrow Wilson elected President. They never controlled congress, or even came close. How did these third parties get everything they wanted without winning?

They got everything they wanted because the other parties stood up and took notice. They never really had a large public face or great ballot box victories. La Follette from Wisconsin and La Guardia from New York were about as good as it got, but these men turned their positions in the House into soap boxes. These men were elected to seats and that kept seats from the two big Parties, the Republican and Democrats. It did not take long for the parties to respond. Woodrow Wilson helped kill the Bull-Moose Party by taking all their ideas. The Progressive Party died the same death when the two parties came around on the positions taken by the Progressives, eliminating the need for them. The Constitution was amended twice between the Bill of Rights, 1792, and the Civil War in 1860. Two times in 50 years. Then the Civil War necessitated three amendments. Those lasted until the Progressive era of 1900. 5 amendments in over 100 years. Then in a 25 year span (1910-1935) the Constitution was amended 6 times plus one amendment that passed Congress only to be struck down by the states. The Progressives dominated this time despite having no national power at all. People voted for them, and that was enough to send the message. The two big parties responded, and the 3rd Party died, but won the day. Its ideology became enshrined in the two party system.

This is why voting for a third party is not throwing your vote away. It is a signal to the two main parties they are losing touch. If they respond, the 3rd party has served its purpose and goes away. If they do not and continue to neglect the people, more and more will join the 3rd Party until it replaces a party at the table. Look back on Ross Perot. He cost President Bush the First the election with a campaign slogan of "throw the bums out" that decried government corruption. Since then we had the Republican Revolution, which ran on balancing the budget and reforming government. This was Perot’s platform, and Perot endorsed the Contract with America during the 1994 Congressional races. I think Perot’s Pie Charts about finances, corruption, and balanced budgets got through even though Perot’s party is now in shambles.

What about the Green Party of Ralph Nader? He severely hurt Al Gore in his bid for the White House. Since then we have seen the Democrats run to the far left with Nancy Pelosi as House Minority Leader, Howard Dean as DNC chair and Al Gore himself now makes Environmental movies. The Green Party responded by not nominating Nader in 2004, which sounded a lot like a death toll for them. The Democrats responded, and their need is diminishing. The Bull Moose Party did the same thing when they endorsed a Republican candidate against Wilson because the Republicans had taken up the Bull Moose cause.

The Republican Party is currently made up of anyone who believes in tax cuts. It houses big government men, it houses social liberals, it also holds libertarian leaning men. The Libertarian Party and the Constitutional Party and any other far right 3rd Party has a real opportunity, in my opinion. They should probably not concentrate so much on Presidential races, but run local Congressional elections. The House is where the power is for 3rd Parties. They need to talk about boarders and run away spending. Those two issues alone would probably play well for this election and 2008. It would only take the election of one man to cause shock waves. Men like Tom Tancredo and Tom Coburn are being pushed aside in the Republican Party of Compassionate Conservatives, and 3rd Parties can either return them to power in the Republican base by calling it back to its small government roots, or it may well be replaced.

In short voting for someone who is not a Republican or a Democrat is not throwing your vote away. It is a vote for an ideology. It is saying, "what is important to me is not represented by the two parties." When enough people ban together to make that statement, the parties listen. Voting for the lesser of two evils only guarantees evil. Voting against evil may allow evil to win or it may get someone to take notice.

Answers to Armstrong's Ponderings

I have to comment on this post by John Armstrong. It involves a list of questions he ponders as a Reformed Christian, and I believe he deserves some answers, or at least some reply questions.

Q1. Why do modern conservative Reformed Christians seem to have historical amnesia when it comes to events that transpired in church history from the death of John on the Isle of Patmos, late in the first century, until the completion of the Canon several centuries later?

A. I do not believe most modern Reformed Christians ignore the first centuries of the church. Just check the back of any Trinity Hymnal, an OPC production, and you will find the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed. Both of which were written in the time period he describes. More importantly what is Rev. Armstrong implying in the question? Was the Canon of Scripture not completed after the last apostle died? Was it not completed the minute the last book of the Bible was written? What is the point is saying that there is a gap between the apostles and the formation of the Bible? It would appear that Rev. Armstrong believes the church created the Bible, and that is troubling.

Q2. Why do modern conservative Reformed Christians virtually ignore the Church Fathers as well as the catholic creeds of the Christian church?

A. I fail to see how this is different than the first question, and it is just not true.

Q3. Why do modern conservative Reformed Christians ignore the fact that John Calvin was especially influenced by the Church Fathers? For that matter why do these same conservative Reformed Christians virtually ignore other Reformed writers who relied very heavily upon the classical catholic tradition such as Thomas Cranmer, Hugh Latimer and Nicholas Ridley?

A. Obviously someone has an ax to grind by repeating the same thought in three questions. Would it not be faster just to come out and describe an example of how conservative Reformed Christians ignore the early church? Without examples it is really just the fallacy of ‘hasty generalization’ not to mention completely baseless.

Q4. Why do conservative Reformed Christians treat only certain confessional traditions, such as the Westminster Confession or its cousin the London Baptist Confession, as if only these confessions and catechisms were the proper confessional grounds for the Reformed faith and thus for contemporary understanding of the Bible and classical Christian thought, if they even care about classical thought? These important creedal standards of the 17th century are not the only standards for orthodoxy, for all time and all cultures, and few have ever treated them in this manner. Therefore, why do ordinary Christians hardly ever hear this from the many of the conservative Reformed spokesmen? (There are few if any conservative Reformed spokeswomen, which is another question for another time.)

A. Let us just leave aside the disturbing comment about women for today. Coming from a denomination that uses neither the Westminster nor the London Baptist Confession, I would argue that to make this question fit, Rev. Armstrong needs to replace the word “Reformed” with “Presbyterian”. There are many conservative Reformed denominations that use the Three Forms for example. More importantly note how Rev. Armstrong thinks that orthodoxy changes over time. He makes sure to include the idea that the WCF is not a standard “for all time”. If you do not think the WCF is orthodox, fine. Come out and defend your point. But arguing that it was orthodox, and now is not because of the advancement of contemporary thought is Hegelian, denying the truth can be known, and dangerous to say the least.

Q5. Why do conservative Reformed Christians demand a kind of purity from other modern Reformed writers that allows so many of them to never actually engage the culture and do the hard work of the Kingdom in the 21st century? Why do they attack all expressions of emerging culture and church life when in fact their tradition emerged in a specific time in history too?

A. While this is again purposefully vague, one gets the idea that this might be about opposition to the Emergent Church. However, the implication of his words seems to say that ‘purity’ presumably of doctrine forbids engaging the culture. From that opinion, I dissent.

Q6. Why do conservative Reformed Christians identify so strongly, and often so stridently, with other non-Reformed Christians in certain area of gospel controversy, especially in advocating very narrow definitions of the gospel in an attempt to impress lay people and inadequately taught pastors that they alone are standing for the truth in this dark day? This has been done over the last ten years with the issuance of various joint statements and widely promoted conferences, as if these faithful spokesmen alone have the courage to defend the gospel and the correct understanding of what actually constitutes the gospel.

A. I have to admit that I am lost on this one. Rev. Armstrong obviously has specifics in mind but refuses to name them. This puts him squarely in the tradition of Gilbert Tennent. But since I have no idea what he really means, and I do not attend many, if any, conferences I will just take a pass.

Q7. Why do conservative Reformed Christians generally treat Roman Catholics (and Orthodox Christians if they bother to respond to them at all) as non-Christians, especially in their public pronouncements? Do these same Reformed Christians, at least on the Presbyterian side of the aisle, ever admit that their own traditions have always accepted Catholic/Orthodox baptism as valid Christian baptism? I also wonder if these conservatives, who stand should-to-shoulder with other non-Reformed fundamentalists in a type of reductionism that results from their narrow gospel definitions (as noted as in question six above), really ever make these facts plain to their non-Reformed (Baptist and dispensational) allies, who I suppose would be aghast if they understood this?

A. This I believe is a valid question. One that was discussed recently by many ministers in my denomination. But, I do not think that accepting the validity of Baptism means that we are accepting the validity of the Roman/Popish/Eastern church. Baptism in the end is the work, not of the minister, but of the Holy Spirit. It does not depend on the holiness of the man, but on the promises of God. And just to show I do not ignore history, Augustine made this argument against the Donatists many centuries ago, and it is the basis of the Reformed position. As for making it clear to Baptist allies that we accept the baptisms of Romanists, I hope we do. Because if there is one thing we need to have discussions with Baptists about it is baptism.

Q8. Why do conservative Reformed Christians rail so harshly, and react so emotionally, against liturgy in worship (a huge list could be constructed to make this point) on the one hand, while on the other they hate pop-cultural, happy-clappy, contemporary evangelical worship services with a passion? Do they realize that what they have created, in many cases, is a modern lecture hall with hymns and a collection? Do they realize that this is much more like a Plymouth Brethren gathering than a truly Reformed service, with all its variations and rich use of older liturgical tradition?

A. We rail against both because driving into a ditch on either side of the road is a bad idea. For clarification, liturgy itself is not bad, but I suspect that Rev. Armstrong mean a high altar-based liturgy. Conservative Reformed Christians usually argue for a Pulpit based liturgy. John Nevin, a proponent of altar based liturgy said it best, “They are two different theological systems.” Nevin was not confused by the railing. The altar based system and the pulpit based system are not the same liturgical tradition. If Rev. Armstrong does not mean to argue for Nevin’s system, then I suppose his attack is so narrow that I do not know much of the lecture hall environment he describes.

Q9. Why do conservative Reformed Christians often promote a high ecclesiology (in theory) while in practice they act much more like Southern Baptists who add presbyteries and general assemblies on to a modern form of culture religion? In practice these sorts of Reformed groups govern themselves, and do theology, less and less like historically Reformed bodies. Think populism and democractic idealism, not historic Reformed confessionalism, and you get my point.

A. I think the best answer there is sin. We tend toward populism rather than confessionalism naturally, and it is a constant battle. It is good to be reminded of our need for grace even in our ecclesiology.

Q10. Why do conservative Reformed Christians promote certain aspects of Puritanism, often without really understanding Puritanism in the way a real scholar like J. I. Packer does, while at the same time they despise the real Puritan approach to the Holy Spirit and to a practical experiential religion centered in the heart? And why do these same people hate almost every type of ascetical or mystical theology while whole segments of the Reformed movement have loved these parts of the Christian tradition deeply? (This is precisely why some conservative Reformed spokesmen despise Jonathan Edwards, which I discovered first-hand, to my profound surprise, about ten years ago.)

A. I am not a Puritan expert since I am not really in the Puritan tradition in the RCUS. I would be interested, however, in which parts of the Reformed traditions loved asceticism and mysticism. I am not sure why I am required to enjoy Jonathon Edwards either. He has his good points, and he has some bad points.

Rev. Armstrong challenges men to come out and abandon their narrow confessionalism. He adds his wishes that churches would live in the 21st century rather than the 17th. Yet, here is where I would challenge Rev. Armstrong. I wish he would have an open debate about Theological and Historical Development. Why is it that orthodoxy of the 17th century is now the unorthodoxy of the 21st? I believe the historical development theories of Hegel, Schaff, and Nevin are philosophically, theologically, and historically absurd. As a matrix for viewing history, the bible, and the church it fails completely. Yet it is historical development is the underpinning of the Federal Vision, Reformed Catholicism, and Rev. Armstrong’s entire post. However, I, like Rev. Armstrong, will not hold my breath.

Third Party Necessity continued

The importance of the third party is best seen in the Civil War, but before we examine that point, let us look at the election of Andrew Jackson first.

The 1824 election had only one party, and the party nominated John Quincy Adams, a Nationalist. The anti-federalist were not going to sit for this, and John C. Calhoun threw his name into the hat, as did a Southern Federalist named Crawford. Henry Clay, a lesser Nationalist also ran in 1824. Just to make the race even more interesting Andrew Jackson a Federalist was nominated by some friends at the Tennessee state convention. The one party had told people to vote for Adams, the people had listened when they put forth James Monroe twice. Yet, this time the people voted the way they felt rather than the way their were told by their party. Calhoun bowed out before election day accepting the only Vice Presidential nomination instead. He threw his support to Andrew Jackson, the next alliance of the anti-Federalists, and Jackson won the popular vote and the electoral count, but because Crawford and Clay also grabbed electoral votes, it went to the House where Adams was made President. Jackson went on to create the Democratic Party, which still exists today, and the National Republican party of Adams disappeared after two Jackson victories in 28 and 32, along with his Vice President, Martin Van Buren winning in 36. The electorate disregarded the party and while losing the actual election, created a party that rode into power easily in four years.

The three way ideological split is easily seen in the Civil War’s three great Senators.
William Seward was the Nationalist who favored banning slavery from the territories and viewed military struggle with the South as inevitable.
Stephen Douglas was the Federalist who favored the rights of those living in the Territories to decide the question not the federal government.
Jefferson Davis was the anti-Federalist who viewed the territories as belonging to the States in general; thus, slaves could be taken into any territory and only when the territory became a state did it have the right to settle the slavery question.

Both the Whig and the Democrats were alliances between these ideologies, and the existence of third parties like the Free Soil showed the discontent of the Nationalists. The Free Soil party merged with the Know-Nothings and gained some unhappy Whigs like Seward and made the Republican Party. This was a completely nationalist party. The first election for the Republicans showed their strength in 1856 even though they lost the election. By 1858 they had control of the House of Representatives, and in 1860 they won the Presidential election. They replaced the Whig Party which died out because it would not take a stand. Thus, one ideological group left and voted for a party more in line with its thinking, and it won out. The same can be said of the Democratic Party. It put forth a Federalist, Stephen Douglas and the anti-Federalist group walked out. They put forth John Beckonridge, and they finished second. The Federalist finished last because the leftover Federalist Whigs failed to support Douglas and put forth John Bell as a Constitutional Union candidate. The Federalist party failed to find a place to stand and thus with the Nationalists in control of the North and the anti-Federalist controlling the South it ended in bloodshed.

The third party point in all of this is that people voted their conscious and major changes ended up occurring. It may have taken many years to actually achieve a victory, but victory was achieved. The Free Soil party had been around for decades, and finally enough people saw their point, and voted with them to win the Presidency. It should be noted that Abraham Lincoln was not on the ballot in every state because the Republican Party was a regional party. Yet, people voted for them anyway, and victory came. If people had the attitude of you need to be on every ballot Lincoln would have lost and slavery might still exist in Utah. Principle was more important the electability. Voting for principles beginning the process with the Free Soil Party, ended up changing the face of America forever. A point well worth remembering when trying to decide where to cast your vote.

Continuing the discussion about America’s Three Party system.

Thomas Jefferson was elected President in 1800, and that was the beginning of the end for the Nationalist Group (then called the Federalist Party). The Democratic-Republicans (an alliance between Anti-Federalists and Federalists) began its long road to eventually becoming the only political party left in America. This occurred because of the death of Alexander Hamilton who was the main organizer of the Nationalists, and because of the treasonous stand that many New Englanders took during the War of 1812. The Federalist Party disappeared, so that even John Quincy Adams was a Democratic-Republican, although they soon became known as Republicans.

However the divide between the Federalists and Anti-Federalist becomes apparent as both Jefferson and Madison show their Federalist leanings while President. Jefferson does several things to increase the power of the Chief Executive and Madison charters the Second Bank of the US, something he thought unconstitutional while in the House. This leads to a visible break in party unity as John Randolph, a Representative from Virginia and an Anti-Federalist often voted against his party along with a few other Anti-Federalists in Congress. It was the beginning of a long search for a new political alliance for the Anti-Federalists that sadly ended in the Civil War.

With the Presidency of James Monroe the ‘Era of Good Feelings’ began where there was only one party in America. Yet, this one party contained men as diverse as Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, and John C. Calhoun. In fact the three most famous Senators of all time illustrate quite well the three party system.

Daniel Webster – A senator from Massachusetts who was an extreme Nationalist. He ended up in the National Republican Party, and then later the Whig party. He argued for a loose construction of the Constitution that allowed the government to fund internal improvements within a state, chartering of a bank of the US, high protective tariffs, and against a state’s right to depart from the Union.

Henry Clay – A Representative and then Senator from Kentucky. He was also more a Nationalist than anything else, but his love for Union could have him considered a Federalist. He favored a loose construction allowing for Internal improvements and a Bank of the US. He also desired Protective Tariffs but was willing to sacrifice them in order to save the Union during the Nullification Controversy in South Carolina. He was against abolitionism because it interfered with State’s rights, but did think Congress had the right to legislate it in the territories, but never pushed it because he knew it was a contested right.

John Calhoun – A representative and then Senator from South Carolina. Calhoun was the model anti-federalist, and most of the South followed his lead. He was a strict constructionist. He argued tariffs were for revenue, not protection, was against government funded internal improvements, against a central Bank of the US, and favored not only a state’s right to leave the union but a state’s right to nullify laws that were unconstitutional.

One could also add to this Andrew Jackson as a better example of a Federalist than Clay. Jackson allowed high tariffs, viewed the Bank of the US as unconstitutional and destroyed it, vetoed internal improvements, did not think a state could nullify Federal laws and was willing to use military force to enforce those laws. But also he thought a state was sovereign over those within its boundaries, which led him to move the Indians to Oklahoma against the attempt at legislating laws from the Supreme Court’s leading Nationalist John Marshall.

This era also regularly had more than three parties on the ticket. Even three Presidential Candidates was a regular occurrence. The Republican Party dies, the Democratic Party and the Whig Party are born. The Free Soil Party is born, as is the American or Know-Nothing Party. The Democratic Party was an alliance between Anti-Federalists and Federalists, while the Whig was an alliance between Federalists and Nationalists. The Free Soil Party and American Parties were mostly Nationalists.

The next post will show how voting for third parties influences and eventually changes all other parties, which is why one should be voting for third parties when they more correctly line up with your beliefs.

Two Party or Three Party System?

Did I say three party system? Yes, I did. I have heard people over and over again say that voting for a third party is a waste of a vote because there are only two parties with a chance to win, and our country is founded upon a two party system. I disagree. I believe the country is founded upon at least a three party system and occasionally sustaining four. Now there are not always three parties in name, but there are always at least three parties in number. Hopefully over the next few blogs I will show that fact, and hopefully be able to draw applications from it. Admittedly this is not theological in nature, but a little variety on the blog never hurt anyone.

I should also say up front that I think the two party bias that circulates has colored a lot of history text books as well. For example, most books will tell you of the Federalists and the Anti-federalists at the Constitutional convention, and then again during the reign of Washington as President. Yet, this view falls into conflict with the facts. One good problem that the two party view encounters is James Madison. Which side did James Madison take? He was the author of the Constitution and a co-author of the Federalist papers, so he must be a Federalist. Yet, he led the opposition to fellow Federalist writer Alexander Hamilton in the House, introduced the Bill of Rights into Congress and worked closely with Thomas Jefferson. Those credentials would make him an anti-federalist. Most books try to solve this dilemma by claiming Madison did the first ever political flip-flop to curry favor with the voters. I have a different solution. The three party view.

The Constitutional Convention had three parties that continued into Washington’s Presidency. The anti-federalists did not want any real changes in the Articles of Confederation and were led by men like Patrick Henry, who refused to serve in the Senate because he so hated the Federal government, and George Mason, who walked out of the Constitutional Convention because it took too much power from the states. The Federalists wanted a new government that had more power, but still wanted to retain individual state rights. George Washington, James Madison, and even Thomas Jefferson fall into this category. Here many wanted different things, most of which show up in the Constitution. Washington wanted a chief executive because he had experienced the trouble of running an army that answered to a legislative body. Madison wanted the power to tax because a government had no authority without it. So on and so forth. The third party is the Nationalist party, who would have been happy to rid the nation of states completely. Alexander Hamilton and John Adams fall into this group. These men lost in the Constitutional Convention, but manage to pull the early republic more their direction. Hamilton won passage of debt assumption after a compromise was worked out about the location of the capital. Hamilton argued for loose construction to help win passage of the Bank of the US. Adams passed the Alien and Sedition Acts which criminalized speaking against the government. A lot of this happened because the true anti-federalists refused to participate in the Federal government, like Patrick Henry. However, by the Adams administration we see anti-federalists take a more active role, and the passing of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions opposing the sedition acts are a good example of anti-federalist thinking.

In summary we can see in the early years of the Republic there were three ideological parties.
Nationalists: Held to a ‘loose’ or ‘broad’ construction of the Constitution, and generally tried to gain more power for the Central government.
Federalists: Held to a ‘strict’ or ‘narrow’ construction of the Constitution, and tried to balance the Central with the States.
Anti-Federalists: Held to the state constitutions as above the Federal Constitution, and they tried to keep power in the state level.

Now the extreme anti-federalists faded as the first generation of Americans grew up under the Constitution. Less extreme Anti-Federalists, such as Richard Henry Lee, joined forces with the Federalists to oppose the power grabs of Hamilton and later Adams. The Nationalists made the political party known as the Federalists and Anti-Federalists made up the group known as the Democratic-Republicans.

I promise this will get to a point in some future blog.

Presbyterians and Presbyterians Together

Presbyterians and Presbyterians Together is a document that gains signatures daily. Its main focus is to promote charity in theological discourse. The charity is not only in how we discourse with one another, but also in recognizing divergent views within the Presbyterian/Reformed tradition. The following list of doctrines where it is “acceptable” to deviate is taken from their website, but put in my own words for the sake of space.

- the chronology and timing of creation
- the characterization of the Adamic covenant and its relation to the covenant of grace
- the priority of biblical theology, historical-grammatical exegesis, apostolic typology, and ancient contexts
- the role of conversion experience
- the spiritual life of covenant children
- whether sacraments are instruments or occasions for imparting grace
- what the bible teaches concerning worthy participation in the Lord’s Supper (read paedocommunion).
- application of the Regulative Principle of worship
- application of the 4th Commandment in the new covenant
- church polity
- relation between the church and culture as well as the civil magistrate (read theonomy)
- the application of election to the visible church
- how we view the second coming of Christ and the millenium.

We can see that this list covers almost everything that has been debated in Presbyterianism over the past several decades. It goes from the things where the creeds allow wiggle room such as the millenium to places where the creeds are clear such as paedocommunion. It allows for divergent views on the sacraments and exegesis along with creation. One wonders after reading this what is left to discuss. One can have charitable discourse on these subjects, but if signing this document means allowing all views on these things to be acceptable, what is the point of discourse? The end conclusion is already granted by the mere act of signing. All of these differences are acceptable.

It was pointed out to me that this tactic was used once before. The idea of claiming many biblical doctrines non-essential, able to be disputed, and calling accepting that reality ‘charity’ was used in the Auburn Affirmation in 1924. That declaration said that many theories about one subject, such as the virgin birth, could be deduced from Scripture. Thus, all were acceptable, and the church should accept all the views. This was basically made the position of the church in 1926. The Presbyterian Church in the United States has really never been the same sense. Within a decade Princeton was dismantled and rebuilt in the image of the new PCUSA, and men like Machen were expelled from the ministry. While, I cannot speak to the outcome of Presbyterians and Presbyterians Together, I do believe that the two documents are similar in nature. Each declares the Scriptures are unclear and multiple legitimate theories can be deduced from them. The bible does not clearly state for us how God wants to be worshipped, what the sacraments do, who is to partake of the Lord’s Supper, how God created the world, nor how his church should relate to the culture or magistrate. These are just a few of the places where the Scriptures teach many different things, or at least unclear, according to the PPT document. I will not be signing, and I hope many others will consider exactly what they are doing when they put their name on a document. This is not a call to be nice in discussions, but a statement about the Bible itself.

Thoughts upon my return

I am back from Synod. It was a fun time and while not quite as productive as I had hoped, it was a meeting filled with remarkable unity. The issue we expected to divide and cause rifts (the idea of a denominational seminary), did not. We did recommit our Federal Vision report to make it stronger with more proofs, which did disappoint me a little. I did think the report was not up to usual standards, but I hoped we would make an effort to make some sort of statement. Older and wiser men than I prevailed, and we made no such statement. However, the unexpected highlight of the meetings was the passing of a salary for a missionary to Uganda in joint co-operation with the OPC. Apparently two men in our denomination now are praying about it, and we approved money for one to go for four years and teach in a seminary in Uganda. This is quite a high moment in the RCUS history as we have committed to foreign missions. It was a wonderful time over all.

And just to prove it was not all church politics and crunching numbers, I thought I would share a thought that was shared with me about the ‘word of the Lord’ phrases often used in the OT. I want to open this up for comment because it was an idea that had not occurred to me in the past, and I want the thoughts of others.

Places such as Genesis 15:4 or 2 Samuel 7:4 use the phrase, ‘the word of the Lord came unto him, saying’ and then follows the prophetic statement. Notice the statement literal claims the word of the Lord said something to the prophet. It is also similar in other places such as 1 Samuel 3:21 where the Lord is revealed to Samuel by the ‘word of the Lord’. Here the word of the Lord reveals Jehovah to Samuel. Do these type of references, which are common place, have any connotation of Jesus Christ being the agent or teacher or revealer. We know the Jesus is the Word of God (John 1:1) and that Christ. So the term ‘word’ is not a difficulty. It may also fit with 1 Peter 3:18-20 where Christ preached in the days of Noah.

I would like to hear the thoughts of those more skilled in Hebrew, and those who have more commentaries than I do. It is an intriguing theory, but I am not yet convinced it is exegetically possible or sound. I look forward to comments.

The American Gospel by Jon Meacham

I read The American Gospel by Jon Meacham, who is the chief editor of Newsweek, because of his media blitz. I saw him on everything from Tim Russert to the Colbert Report. The premise of the book is America has always had its own gospel, a religious center that allowed public religion (ie. invoking God), but favored no religion. Meacham proclaims that America is not a Christian nation, and that freedom and liberty ruled the founders not Christianity. The book reports to prove this theory. Sadly it fails on many fronts. It fails so bad in fact, I have to say it was an absolutely awful book. My major critics of this book fall into several major categories.

Stylistic: This book is written in a halting style. He has a new topic or a new time period or person to deal with every four paragraphs or so and he chooses sub-chapter divisions to show this change. It also leads to very little connection between this sub-chapters. So much so in fact that the thesis of the book is sometimes lost, and one has to look back in the book to see what the point this disconnected stories are supposed to be proving. Perhaps this is the best way to deal with such a vast time period, but I did not enjoy it. I will admit this may simply be a preference of mine to enjoy connected paragraphs, but it is still my preference.

Scholarship: It is one thing to pile up examples that you think prove your point, but anyone can do it. The question is can you deal with the examples that do not fit your model. Of course Meacham loves to quote Jefferson, Paine, and Franklin. He has some quotes from Madison and Adams, and as history progresses he gets more ammo. He does a good job of making Jerry Fawell look like an idiot, but not once does he deal with contrary evidence. One can easily find quotes from Deists who think America is not a Christian nation, but what about those who thought it was a Christian nation. Thomas Jefferson may support his argument, but what about Patrick Henry or Samuel Adams? How do they fit in? It is fine to quote Jefferson’s Religious Freedom Statute in Virginia or a Treaty with Tripoli, but what Holy Trinity Church v United States or public days of prayer and thanksgiving or chaplains in Congress, or state churches that existed long after the First Amendment. Meachem does not deal with these things at all. Not once does he take on what one might call evidence for the Christian heritage of the nation. That is poor scholarship in my opinion.

Theological: It is often a bad sign when non-Christians start writing about Christianity. If they do not understand it, can you trust their conclusions? I do not know the religious standing of Mr. Meacham, but he did make a few off hand comments about the ‘myth’ of sin and redemption that leads one to think he does not highly esteem Christianity. He makes a fundamental mistake, in my opinion, when evaluating our nations history. He does not understand the difference between a country founded on Christian principles and a Theocracy. He thinks Christian nation is a synonym for Established Church. That is not the case. Meacham wastes countless pages juxtaposing religious liberty and a Christian nation never stopping to consider that maybe a Christian nation is the foundation for religious liberty. I would argue that is what the Declaration of Independence is claiming when it invokes God and says ‘liberty’ is an inalienable right. Meacham comes away thinking the phrase liberty is there to protect us from Christianity. Meacham quotes Alexander Hamilton who states, “morality must fall without religion”, but fails to connect the dots. Meacham thinks all religions are acceptable standards of morality, and the founders wanted it that way. Yet, the morality of the Christian religion conflicts in many areas with the morality of Islam. Islam sees many times when it is okay to kill innocent people, but there is not a state in the Union that allows that morality. I have no doubt the founders wanted Jews, Christians, and Muslims to live together in a new nation, but that does not mean they were indifferent about the moral system used to set up our country, or that at some point ‘smiting infidels on the neck’ would be deemed acceptable behavior because any moral system will do. The vast majority of Meacham’s arguments and proofs are proof that the founders did not want Congress to establish a state church, and have very little to do with modern debates about the morality of homosexuality, abortion, and prayer in schools.

Political: I am not a big fan of modern conservatives, but in the later chapters of the book Meacham comes across as a man with an ax to grind. He praises Billy Graham’s inclusive move in his later years, and vilifies Jerry Fawell. I mean he does not waste an opportunity to jump on Jerry or Pat Robertson. I do not care for them that much either, but those two men do little to advance the cause of his book. Besides he has a hard time wiggling out of the conflict that he creates after praising Martin Luther King Jr., and criticizing Fawell.

In the end, I disagree with Meacham’s conclusions. I feel he did not interact with any evidence that might make his case look bad, and I think it was a slow read without much bang for the buck. It saddens me to think that he is being considered a scholar and speaking authoritatively on the subject on talk shows.

English Only

Lately I have been thinking a bit about immigration and English as the official language of America. I have heard the arguments on both sides. Some say that English is the language of the American culture and if you want to be a part, you need to speak the language. I know people who cannot get jobs as teachers because they are not bi-lingual and that seems unfair. Others claim that it is not merciful to make old men learn new languages, and that one culture is not necessarily better than another. Both make some good points.

I do believe that I am in favor of making English the official language and requiring those who wish to immigrate here learn English. The reason is because multiculturalism is dangerous. Do not mistake what I am saying. I am not trying to say there is something superior about cultures that speak English, but rather any time two cultures try to exist side by side, they eventually war. Language is very related to that subject. Different languages prohibit one from entering the culture. A non-Spanish speaker can never really be a part of a Spanish speaking culture until he learns the language. The same goes for any language. Different cultures with differing languages or even dialects have tried to exist side by side before, and it has not worked. Take Quebec and Canada for example. Quebec has always tried to separate from Canada because it has its own language and its own culture, and it does not like being part of Canada’s English speaking culture, and the feeling goes both ways. In fact, that problem can be traced all the way back to the American Revolution and the ‘Intolerable Acts’. One of the Intolerable Acts was allowing the newly acquired Quebec to remain French speaking and Roman Catholic. The colonists hated this idea, and during the revolution tried to invade Quebec. Even here in America the Southern accent is still viewed with disdain because at one time it was the sign of a completely different culture, a culture that the Civil War wiped out. The Southern and the Northern cultures could not exist because they were radically different. The same can be said for Ireland, and their they speak the same language. One need not look past modern Israel in this debate either. Two separate cultures cannot exist together in peace. Requiring the learning of English has worked to assimilate many different cultures already. American has always been the great melting pot. America does not have as big a problem with Islamic radicalism because we do a much better job of giving them access to American culture. England and France stand as very recent examples of violence that was homegrown. Thus, I believe it is more merciful to make that old immigrant learn English than to let his children or grandchildren die in a great deal of violence because we did not.

I look forward to some discussion on this topic.

Within the Bounds

Joseph Minich has written a paper called Within the Bounds of Orthodoxy. It is a paper about the current controversy regarding the Federal Vision. It has been endorsed by John Frame and Steve Wilkins and commented upon favorably by many other bloggers both pastors and laymen.

It is an interesting paper. It seeks to establish the faithfulness of the Federal Vision to both the historic Reformed positions and to the Bible. Although it concentrates on showing the Federal Vision to be a historically held position. The paper has an abundance of quotes and must be admired for its scholarship and research. Thus in evaluating this plea we must carefully look at the historical record he provides.

I do believe that a few glaring historical quotations have been taken out of context and twisted to fit a Federal Vision view point when what they really do the opposite. For example, Mr. Minich quotes Turretin as supporting the view that Jesus offers the Rich Young Ruler the gospel. First no one denies that Jesus offered the gospel, the difference comes in whether or not the offer of obedience to the law was the gospel or showing him the need for the gospel. Turretin says Rich Young Ruler must follow Christ, which is not the same as saying the ‘Law is Gospel and Gospel is the Law’ as Steve Schissel put it.
Minich next quotes Ursinus as saying, “Good works are necessary to salvation”, which he does say on page 485 of his commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism. But the Federal Vision relates good works not to salvation in general, but justification specifically. The same paragraph quoted by Minich of Ursinus says, "To say that good works are necessary in them that are to be justified, is to speak ambiguously, because it may be so understood as if they were required before justification, and so become a cause of justification." This is a fairly harsh condemnation of the language used by many Federal Vision men as well as an outright rejection that good works are a cause or ground of justification in anyway. Salvation and justification are not necessarily interchangeable and Mr. Minich has missed that point.

In discussing the Covenant of Grace and the issue of conditions, Mr. Minich argues that the Federal Vision does not claim man must fulfill conditions in anyway. To show the Federal Vision asserts Christ kept the conditions for us he turns to Rev. Rich Lusk:

He [Lusk] says further, "Any and all covenant conditions must be understood within this wider framework of union with Christ, the One who has already kept the covenant in full on our behalf, and who shares that covenant keeping (as both status and life) with us. All covenant conditions are intrinsic to our union with Christ, not extrinsic (as though they had to be met from outside of union with Christ). The conditions are not… ‘Do this and live.’"

Yet the fact that one can be in Christ and then fall out of Christ, and whether or not that implies conditions intrinsic to our union with Christ is not discussed at all. Thus, the major issue in the debate about conditions is artfully avoided.

When dealing with the objection that the Federal Vision makes justification a process with an initial justification and a final justification, Minich states that having a beginning and an end does not make something a process. This may very well be true, but Minich fails to deal with the most significant objection, and evidence that the Federal Vision makes justification a process. All advocates of the Federal Vision make clear that one can loss his status in Christ. He can be initially justified, but may not be finally justified. Thus, not only is there a beginning and an end, but also an ability to have started, but not finish. It is hard to deny the claims of a process when that element is considered. This fact should also be remembered when evaluating his quotes from old reformers. If they did not mean one could start and then not finish, they do not support the Federal Vision view of justification. When the paper does get around to the subject of apostasy it rejects the idea that one stays in the covenant by work. The paper does quote the Auburn Ave. Church by saying, "Those elect unto eternal salvation are always distinguished by their perseverance in faith and obedience by the grace of God." Yet, the fail to see this as work. What that quote reveals is that the difference between those who have only an initial justification and those who have both an initial and final is perseverance in faith and obedience. In fact, the same statement goes on to say that those who are not ordained to eternal life have all the benefits of Christ crucified except the gift of perseverance. The paper does not attempt to reconcile the idea of persevering obedient faithfulness being the sole difference between apostates and elect with the idea that remaining in the covenant is not of works.

When addressing the denial of imputation of the active obedience of Christ, Minich states that all affirm the doctrine. He specifically lists James Jordan as affirming the imputation of the active obedience of Christ. One cannot find such support when reading Dr. Jordan. He states,

But merit theology often assumes that Jesus’ earthly works and merits are somehow given to us, and there is no foundation for this notion. It is, in fact, hard to comprehend what is meant by it. . . . What we receive is not his earthly life and His death, but His death and His glorified life. What we receive is not Jesus’ merits, but His maturity (Federal Vision. Pg. 194-195).

Minich does admit that the model of imputation is not the same with many favoring conjoining imputation with union with Christ. Mr. Minich fails to recognize that implantation or participationism is different from imputation. The mode is important in this discussion.

The paper concludes unhappily with a slap at American Presbyterianism pointing out that the Federal Vision controversy does not rage in Europe. The sad state of European Christianity should not be the standard to which we measure anything. Yet, later in that same paragraph Mr. Minich contradicts his own thesis by showing the Continental tradition does have conflicts about the Federal Vision by showing that both Norman Shepherd (Christian Reformed Church) and David Englesma (Protestant Reformed Church) are on opposite sides of the Federal Vision debate. He also argues for the Mercersburg duo of Schaff and Nevin, but fails to point out that their theology created the United Churches of Christ, hardly a Reformed entity at all. I will admit the Federal Vision is a much bigger deal in the American Presbyterian Churches. I could go on to argue for the superiority of the Three Forms of Unity, but that would cause needless anguish. The paper then goes on to state that the critics of the Federal Vision have never once accurately represented the Federal Vision. His proof? When critical statements come out the condemned speak out against it. Hardly convincing proof. Next, he claims that the Federal Vision and the New Perspectives are not movements, but rather they are "impulses". The distinction between the two is not elaborated. He then pleads for better communication and more open understanding as well as letting biblical theology be the guide and allow the ‘dynamic’ nature of language and words their rightful place.

In the end this paper designed to show the Federal Vision as within the bounds of orthodoxy is not a fair treatment of the debate at all. It should not surprise us that Federal Vision men were willing to so quickly endorse it. I can wholeheartedly endorse the need for further and better communication. Yet, the communication cannot simply be denying that critics understand the Federal Vision or its implications. Maybe the do, maybe they don’t, but denials do not make it so. The hard consequences of the Federal Vision thought must be laid bare on the table, which this essay avoids doing in every circumstance. It is good that they deny justification is a process, but is the result of all aspects of their thought that justification is a process. One does not have to outright affirm a process in justification to be teaching a process in justification. I hope Mr. Minich will consider that fact in any future writings.

Some light reading

A few links to keep you reading.

Tim Challies has a nice post on the importance of catechizing.

Johannes Weslianus has a nice piece about theology, its importance, and discussion of it.

The Chicago Sun Times reports that some immigrants are against a boycott on May 1st for fear that it might cause a backlash against the immigration cause. I bet it is too little too late to call of the boycott now. Whoever decided to put the boycott on the Communist May Day anyway? Why not wait until Cinco de Mayo and then you could at least claim a cultural heritage to it? Just some thoughts.

I have been at a workshop put on by Heidelberg Seminary. It was an enjoyable time. I will get something up later today.

Can Protestants and Romanists Marry?

Andrew Sandlin discusses marriages between Romanists and Protestants. He concludes,

I conducted an intra-faith, inter-sector wedding. In short, I conducted a Christian wedding. As a catholic Protestant, I perceive Rome as occupying a different sector of Christendom than Protestantism. It is not a different Faith (as, for example, Islam or Judaism are), but a different sector of the Faith. We Protestants join with Rome in affirming the great truths of the early ecumenical creeds and thereby the structure of orthodox Christianity. In this sense, both Rome and Protestantism constitute orthodox Christianity.

In this new found understanding of the ‘one, holy, and apostolic church’ Rev. Sandlin is not alone.

He goes on to admit that this position is contrary to the Westminster Confession of Faith, Protestant creeds in general, and both Romanist and Protestant position through all history. Of course, Rev. Sandlin believes these statements by both Protestants and Romanists to be wrong. For Rev. Sandlin, both Rome and Geneva affirm the structure of Christianity, ie. the early creeds of Nicaea, Apostle’s, and Chalcedon. The other differences between the two parties do not place them outside the realm of Christianity, and therefore, do not place them outside the realm of inter-marrying.

Allow me to defend the historic positions of both Rome and Geneva for a moment. While I do believe that Rome violates those early ecumenical creeds in practice, and thus, their profession of them is worthless, I do not believe that is the only reason Romanists and Protestants are an inter-faith wedding. Traditionally it takes more than just a believing affirmation of who Jesus is and who God is for a person to be considered orthodox or even a Christian at all. Protestants have traditional stated that if you do not believe you are saved by faith alone, then you are not a Christian. Rome has said, since Trent at least, if you do not believe in salvation by faith and works then you are not a Christian. Thus, the difference between Rev. Sandlin and both historic Protestants and Romanists is whether or not how salvation is obtained and applied part of the structure of Christianity.

The Bible seems to concentrate an awful long time on the importance of justification by faith alone. Romans 3:21-25, 4:4-5, Galatians 2:16, Philippians 3:9, and Ephesians 2:8-10 are just a few of the examples that seem to show the importance of Justification by faith alone, a doctrine which the Roman church curses. Yet, perhaps none show the difference as clearly and straight forward as Galatians 5:4. "Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace." Here the application of salvation, whether it be by law/works or faith, is linked to Christ. Those who get it wrong, do not have Christ at all. Then a marriage between one who has Christ, and one who does not have Christ is by definition an inter-faith marriage. I have to respectfully dissent from Rev. Sandlin concerning the status of Roman Catholics with regards to the Christian faith.

Hodgepodge

I will be traveling to visit New Geneva Seminary for the RCUS most of this next week, so I thought I would leave you with some posts to keep you reading.

I did write a post for Westminster Brass, if you are just dying to read new things from me.

For those of you who cannot get enough political news, do not forget that the military is fundamentally a political entity as you read about retired generals against Rumsfeld. I am not taking a stand one way or another on the Iraq war. I just think that people need a little more historical perspective about generals and politics. After Washington and Jackson were the two most popular Presidents, the army became a way for people to step into politics. James K. Polk conquered Mexico, but knew he was defeating his own political party in the process because all of his top generals were Whigs. Eventually General Zachary Taylor became President. Of course who could forget General William Henry Harrison or General Grant or Gen. Eisenhower, all of them won the Presidency, and so did Rutherford B. Hayes who also served. Generals Fremont, Scott, and Hancock all ran for the Presidency after winning party nominations. Countless others also served in politics after military careers like General Wade Hampton. If you think it is only historical figures take a look at Colon Powell or Wesley Clark. A general making political a statement is old hat and is not news worthy.

I did watch a portion of a show on National Geographic channel about the Gospel of Judas. It was basically an all out assult on Iranaeus as simply choosing four gospels when the Gospel of Judas was just as legitimate. Sad. Read a good critic of National Geographic to learn more.

If you are interested in illegal immigration then you need to be reading Philologus.

If you are going to see N.T. Wright speak soon, you should keep this critique in mind.

If you care about all things, and enjoy a good laugh from time to time, you should check in on Untied, the blog of Tucker Carlson. And if you are not watching the Situation with Tucker Carlson, then you are missing out on Willie Geist, news, laughs, and hands down the best show on TV (excluding Lost of course).

I also will be adding some new blogs to the link on the side such as The Wittenburg Door and Soli Deo Gloria.

The Images Strike Back

Images, otherwise known as icons, are making a comeback. Admittedly this comes from Christianity Today whose definition of Reformed apparently comes from Andover Newton Theological Seminary, which if I am not mistaken feeds the United Churches of Christ. The church that pushes for homosexual marriage is hardly the representative of the Reformed tradition. Yet, this is not the only example of a push to return to images. Take for example, Reformed Catholicism’s recent post on the subject. If one wants to see the exegesis in favor of images, Dr. Paul Owen provides us with the new analysis of the Second Commandment allowing for images in worship.

It is no secret since I have posted on the subject before I am against images. No pictures of Christ, no pictures of the Spirit, nothing. I base this in part on the second commandment. Dr. Owen’s post assumes too much about the nature of the second commandment, and Deuteronomy 4:14-20 for that matter. Dr. Owen restricts this to imaging surrounding false gods. He seems to deny that imaging God is forbidden, only imaging false gods. Yet it should be noted that in Exodus 32:4-5 Aaron clearly claims the golden calf is an image of Jehovah. It is not some new false God, he proclaims it is the god that brought them out of Egypt, a reference to Jehovah. And then he proclaims the next day as a feast to Jehovah. The proper name of God is used in reference to the golden calf. They were not making foreign gods, they imaged the God, and it violated the Second Commandment.

Dr. Owen also fails to deal with John 4:24 that tells us we are to worship God in spirit and truth. We are not to need physical objects to aid our worship. We are not to need Jerusalem or any old mountain. We are not to need these relics to be true worshippers. Instead, our worship is to be in spirit and truth. Nor does he deal with Romans 10:17 that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Sight is not mentioned at all. In fact, we are to walk by faith and not by sight. Nor did he reference Isaiah 40:18 where he openly asks, "To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him?" These verses do not seem to lend themselves to only discussing foreign god images, but a prohibition on images all together in worship.

Dr. Owen did provide another argument in favor of images of Christ that is commonly used. Jesus is the image of God, and we are simply imaging the image of God. That must be allowable. Plus, they are not images of the divine nature, but Christ in the flesh. That argument was given by men like John of Damascus when they argued in favor of images. The imaging Christ’s flesh argument runs afoul of the universal definition of the person of Jesus Christ as given in the Council of Chalcedon. The person of Jesus has two natures, and they cannot be divided nor mixed. Thus, any picture of the person of Jesus Christ is a picture of the divine nature as well as the human nature. No picture can do that, and any picture that tries violates the Second Commandment. By making the argument that images are not trying to capture the "ineffable divine nature", he admits that trying to do so is wrong. Thus, in order to keep images of Christ, one must throw out the Council of Chalcedon. This is the conclusion reached by Constantine V as did the Council of Hieria which included 338 bishops. They rightly pointed out that Jesus left us the bread and wine as proper images, we need nothing else. Images were also rejected by Charlegmane and the Council of Frankfurt lest anyone be swayed by the argument that the church pronounced them acceptable in Nicaea II.

In the end, we should remember the progression of Romans 1:18-32. The rejecters of God refused to glorify him as God (21) and turned to their vain imaginations instead. Thus, they changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image (23). It is from there that they continue down the path of sin. Images are no small matter, but cut to heart of the nature of God.

Grover Cleveland

I admit it. I was watching a history channel presentation on the Presidents. In my defense, I was tired after some yard work. Anyway, it struck me that we need more men like Grover Cleveland.
Cleveland actually won the popular vote for President in three straight elections. He is best known for being the only President to get a second term after sitting out of office for four years. However, he should be known as a prophet, a statesman, and a man to emulate.
Cleveland vetoed twice as many bills in his first term than all of his predecessors combined. He vetoed draught assistance to farmers, pensions for Civil War vets, granting disabilities for Civil War vets for disabilities suffered after the war. He vetoed just about every spending bill that came across his desk, especially Federal Handouts. He stated, Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character. . . .. He was against high protective tariffs. He defended the gold standard even in tough times. He had a heavy hand in foreign policy, and sent the army in to brake up a union led strike in Chicago that affected mail delivery. In most of these things he was right.
Franklin Roosevelt should have listened to Cleveland. Cleveland was President during the worst depression in America’s history to that point, just like Roosevelt. Cleveland’s was caused by the high protective tariff enacted during his four year absence from the Presidency. Cleveland refused to remove or replace the gold standard of US money. He would not even add silver to the standard. Roosevelt removed the gold standard and by all accounts made the depression worse because of it. Cleveland refused for the Federal Government to get involved in the aid to the poor, unemployed, farmers, or help out failed businesses. Roosevelt did all of those things. Cleveland knew that not only would was it not the job of the Federal Government, but he knew it created dependence and that weakened the economic fiber of America.
Sadly today we have the legacy of FDR and not the responsible legacy of Grover Cleveland. We have men who give away money in hope of votes. Instead we should agree with President Cleveland who said, What is the use of being elected or re-elected unless you stand for something?
I am looking for a good biography on Cleveland. Suggestions are welcome.

The Covenant of Grace and Conditions

I have been debating with a few friends whether or not the Covenant of Grace has conditions. This debate has just popped up on line quite outside of the discussion I was having off-line. Rev. Horne tries to draw upon historical Reformed authors to indicate that they believed the Covenant of Grace has conditions.
Rev. Horne first quotes Zachrias Ursinus when he states, "This agreement, or reconciliation, is called a Covenant, because God promises to us certain blessings and demands from us in return our obedience" (pg. 97 of Commentary on HC). Yet the next sentence states, "It is called a Testament, because this reconciliation was made by the interposition of the death of Christ, the testator, that it might be ratified; or because Christ has obtained the reconciliation by his death, and left it unto us." He explains a covenant has conditions that must be met, and a testament has none. The Covenant of Grace is both. He makes a covenant with us, but Christ fulfills it. Therefore, does Ursinus truly believe there are conditions on the Covenant of Grace? Yes and no. It is hard to claim Ursinus as support, as Mr. Horne tries to do. Instead it appears that Ursinus holds the covenant fulfilled for the elect by the testator, Jesus Christ leaving no conditions for the elect. This is certainly in keeping with the Heidelberg Catechism.

Rev. Horne then goes on to Francis Turretin. He quotes Turretin in many places talking of conditions on the Covenant of Grace. While this time Horne does admit that Turretin’s position is “nuanced” he then goes on to quote Turretin as saying, "it cannot be denied the covenant is conditional" and then proceeds to list Turretin’s argument. This leaves a false impression about Turretin’s actual position. If Rev. Horne would have quoted the very next sentence on pg. 185 we would see Turretin himself deny conditions on the covenant of grace. Turretin says, "But if they are taken for the promises concerning the means (to wit, concerning faith and regeneration or repentance), they certainly cannot be conditional, but are simple and absolute because other-wise there would be granted a progression into infinity and the condition of a condition would also be demanded (which is absurd)." Even prior to this Turretin clearly states in paragraph 3 of the same page, "These things being laid down, we say first, if the condition is taken antecedently and a priori for the meritorious and impulsive cause and for a natural condition, the covenant of grace is rightly denied to be conditioned." Thus Turretin is telling us any discussion of conditions has to deny the conditions are the ‘means’ to salvation, that they are ‘meritorious’ for salvation, that they are the ‘cause’ of salvation, and that they are from the nature of the covenant. The discussion of conditions on the covenant of grace is also to speak ‘broadly and improperly’ about the covenant of grace. Turretin later tells us that the covenant of grace is only with the elect (pg. 191), which was the common opinion of the Reformed (pg. 207), and that the God "fulfills the very conditions of the covenant" for the elect. When the broad improper way of speaking about the covenant is used then they are speaking about those who are under the "external dispensation", but are not properly partaking of the essence of the covenant. Turretin soundly disagrees with Rev. Horne and the Federal Vision regarding conditions on the covenant of grace.

In the end, I believe both the early and late Reformed traditions deny conditions on the covenant of grace properly speaking. They seem to reject the usage of a conditional covenant propagated by Rev. Wilkins, Shepherd, Rev. Horne, as well as other proponents of the Federal Vision.

The Gospel of Judas

The Gospel of Judas is soon to be in print. I can see Dan Brown's next book already. This is an NBC mini-series waiting to happen. Leave it to those gnostics to make Judas the hero.

Sectarianism the real danger to the church?

John Armstrong’s article in Acts 3 is an interesting critique of the situation in the PCA churches today. It is a critique that makes the danger to PCA churches out to be not liberalism, but sectarianism. Armstrong contends that a vocal minority of PCA ministers trouble the church on a regular basis, stopping the PCA from living up to its potential in things like education and missions.

Armstrong’s definitions of liberalism and needless sectarianism are revealing. Liberalism for Armstrong is homosexual marriage, homosexual ordination, and anti-Semitic overtures. Then he defines needless sectarian bickering as:

justification and the New Perspective on Paul, the Federal Vision (with related debates about baptism and the Lord’s Supper), Norman Shepherd’s misunderstood views on justification and sanctification, the place of liturgy (including weekly communion, forms of worship expression, ministerial robes and clerical collars), the role of women (including women serving as ordained deacons and women serving in the military), paedocommunion, Bible translations, etc

Needless sectarian bickering is defined then as anything regarding justification (including adding works and sacramentalism to justification and altar-based worship), ordination of women, and translation of the Word of God. These issues have always been at the heart of the church. If these are indeed needlessly sectarian the Reformation itself was a needless exercise, and we should all still be Romanists.

In the end, Armstrong is defining liberalism as those things to the left of him, and sectarian trouble everything to the right of him. He paints himself as the martyr who will be attacked for his views. Yet, in the end he is a liberal on this point. The entire Reformed tradition places the utmost emphasis on justification by faith alone. The Reformed have always gone through great pains to distinguish the sacramentalism of Rome from what the Bible tells us about the sacraments. The Reformers viewed a high liturgy, not as a needless, unimportant difference, but as an attack upon the truth of the gospel. These things are not meaningless as Armstrong would have us think. No one in the history of the church has thought it meaningless. Clearly, it would be better for Armstrong if people quit discussing these things for then he would be able to propagate his theory on progressive Christianity unabated. However, it would not be better for the PCA, the OPC, the Reformed in general, or the church universal.

The Fatwa of Church Discipline?

There are a few disturbing remarks that cannot pass without criticism. It is one thing to disagree with the practice of bringing the Federal Vision proponents upon trial in the church courts. It is another to call that practice a ‘Fatwa.’ Sadly, it appears this description of Presbyterian pastors who oppose the Federal Vision as Islamic Terrorists or Suicide Bombers is one that is growing in popularity.

This comparison is disgusting on so many levels that it makes my head hurt. Are these men really trying to say that the Central Carolina Presbytery, who has brought charges against Rev. Wilkins, and the Louisiana Presbytery are the equivalent of Osama Bin Laden? Do they really want to compare a church trial to the destruction of the Twin Towers and the deaths of thousands of people? Do they want to compare those who oppose the Federal Vision to those who blow themselves up in marketplaces and buses? I would hope not.

What makes it worse is that this is same crowd that was calling for tolerance and a level-headed debate not too long ago. Now they are the ones killing serious discussion. I suppose the need for restraint and respect only goes one way.

Christ and Universalism

I am wary to wade into this mess, but it needs to be done. Mr. Michael Spencer began a discussion of John 3:16 and other "all men" passages at The Boar’s Head Tavern. Mr. Spencer is highly critical of the Calvinistic view of Limited Atonement, in other words, Mr. Spencer wants to argue that every man’s sin is on the cross. He goes as far to say,

A universalist understands Jesus far better than someone who splits humanity into people God loves effectually and savingly in Jesus, and people God is gracious to but excludes from his saving intentions in Christ.

In other words, Mr. Spencer thinks one shows his ignorance of Jesus if he were to claim, "Whoever is not with [Christ] is against [Christ], and whoever does not gather with [Christ] scatters" (Matthew 12:30). In fact, Mr. Spencer believes those who specifically say ‘all will be for Christ no matter what’ have a better understanding of Jesus.

Mr. Spencer’s chief complaint is that Calvinistic exegetes try to apply the rules of grammar and logic to the text. Arguing that ‘all’ can refer to everyone in a group rather than ‘every single person ever’ is apparently showing a lack of respect for the inspiration of Scriptures. Mr. Spencer does not see Jesus burdening people with talk of eternal decrees, instead Jesus just showers love on people. He explains:

Jesus feeding the 5,000 in Galilee or the 4,000 in the Decapolis. Just after the meal, a disciple stands up and explains that "God doesn't necessarily love all of you. Don't take this feeding miracle as implying that God loves everyone without exception. That's clearly not true. Have a nice day."

While I do not agree with the picture of Limited Atonement believers he paints, it should be noted that the day after Jesus feeds the 5,000 the same crowd followed him, and he laid on them such truths as "No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father" (John 6:44). Fairly clearly a discussion of decrees by Jesus, something Mr. Spencer thinks a bad idea. The result was the disciples said, 'This is difficult' (v.60) and they left. The end of the discourse also has Jesus pointing out the Judas was a devil. Hardly Jesus telling the entire crowd he loved them.

One wonders how Mr. Spencer fits the end of Feeding of the 5,000 narrative into his theology. Mr. Spencer can respectfully disagree with the Limited Atonement exegesis if he wants, but declaring they have no business saying they know anything about Jesus crosses the line. If Mr. Spencer thinks the grammatical and logical arguments are worthless, then he can argue against them. It is not wrong to use grammar and logic in exegesis of Scripture. In fact, doing so shows reverence for the Word and its inspired status, not disrespect as he claims. Mr. Spencer should beware of forcing the blanket of his own personal experience over the eyes of others. A calmer discussion would be more fruitful for both sides.

Sadly, it is a discussion that needs to occur again today. One can see advocates of universalism (or at least universal atonement) in several different places today. Let the church be on notice, universalism is back and needs to be refuted.

Billy Packer and March Fairness

It is March Madness time, and if you are not a college basketball fan (I do feel sorry for you) this post is not for you.

Billy Packer is a basketball commentator who recently criticized the NCAA Selection Committee for letting in 4 teams from a small conference the Missouri Valley Conference. His beloved ACC and Big 12, traditional power conferences only got 4 each as well. He even implied a conspiracy by the smaller conferences. Packer’s reasoning was that traditionally the ACC and other of the 6 major conferences dominate the tournament. His point is well taken when you consider no small conference team has won the NCAA tournament since UNLV (Mountain West) in the early 90’s. Of course Mr. Packer forgot to take into account all of the advantages the Big Conferences get, such as routinely getting 6 teams in the tournament (this year the Big East sent 8), always getting the better seeds, being put close to home, and having more TV exposure to get better recruits.

Now if Mr. Packer is honest and he really thinks that if the Missouri Valley or other smaller conferences deserve more invites if they perform well in the tournament, then next year he should be singing praises of several conferences for more bids. The Patriot League for instance. In the last two years the Patriot League is undefeated in the first round, each year upsetting a higher seed from a power conference, and even achieving the sweet 16. Will Mr. Packer argue for the Patriot League next year? I doubt it. The Missouri Valley this year was 2-2 in the first round, and has 2 teams through to the Sweet 16, which of course means they are out performing what was expected. Will Mr. Packer argue for the Missouri Valley next year? No. He had his chance to admit he was wrong about the Missouri Valley on TV last night when Jim Nance sent out congratulations to the Missouri Valley for having 2 teams advance. Mr. Nance had been hard on them as well. Mr. Nance allowed a few moments of dead air with the obvious purpose of Mr. Packer to add his thoughts. Mr. Packer chose not to say a word. The Colonial Conference had two teams in the tournament and one of them is in the Sweet 16. By contrast the Big 10 had 6 teams in the tournament and none of them made the Sweet 16. The Big East only had 50% of its teams make the Sweet 16: the same percentage as the Missouri Valley and the Colonial, and below the percentage of the West Coast Conference. Will Mr. Packer stay true to his argument and next year scream for less Big Ten participation and a higher participation of these successful small conferences?

Let us face the facts, Mr. Packer is a decent announcer who great basketball knowledge. He, however, is prejudice beyond belief toward the bigger schools. He does not like the small conferences and will never like them. Sadly, people will not remember Mr. Packer for his work behind the microphone, but will only remember his stupid blunders like his relentless attacks on Dick Vitale. This attack on the Missouri Valley is just another one of those examples of Mr. Packer sticking his foot in his mouth, and being unwilling to admit it.

Incarnation, Election, and Fall Part IV

It is time now to see what Scripture has to say about the Incarnation and what the purpose of the Incarnation truly is. Many Federal Visionists claim the Incarnation would have taken place even without the Fall. Is this the view of Scripture?

Now there are plenty of verses such as John 10:15 or the Servant Songs of Isaiah that speak of Jesus coming in order to lay his life down for his sheep. These show that Jesus knew his mission was sacrifice of himself on the cross. Yet, these verses do not prove the point of the Incarnation is the atonement for sin because they are all comments made post-fall. I do not think anyone is denying that after the Fall atonement became necessary. What is needed are verses that speak of the atonement being a pre-fall idea. The Bible does provide a few glimpses of the atonement being a pre-fall necessity.

Rev. 13:8 speaks of The Lamb’s Book of Life. This verse tell us that the Lamb was "slain from the foundation of the world." This verse speaks of Jesus as the Lamb, which is sacrificial language. Thus, Jesus was from eternity past to be incarnated in order to be slain. Christ was meant to be sacrificed for our sins from the foundation of world, which pre-dates the Fall. There seems to be no room for how Jesus could have meant to be incarnated apart from his role as Lamb in this verse.

I John 3:8 also speaks to this point. It tells us that "For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil." Here the purpose of Jesus Christ being made flesh was to destroy the works of the devil, to destroy sin. It also tells us earlier in that verse that the "devil sinneth from the beginning." So here again we see that the devil sinned from the beginning and thus the Son of God took flesh in order to destroy his work.

Heb. 2:9 continues this theme. "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man." Jesus is made in the flesh of man, which is lower than the angels, for the suffering of death. He was made a man to taste death and pay the price of death for his people. Again the purpose of the Incarnation is linked with death and suffering which only comes through sin. The necessity of the incarnation is linked to the presence of sin. Again not much room left for an incarnation apart from such things.

2 Tim 1:9 and 10 again link the incarnation and sin, and do so in an eternal way. "Who hath saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, (10) But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel." This verse shows us the benefits of Christ are given to us before the world began. Those benefits are abolishing death and giving life and immortality. His recent incarnation made those things abundantly clear to all. Paul believes that the benefit of Christ’s destroying death is laid out before the world began. And it is given to us then as well. The Incarnation then is placed in eternity past and is linked in eternity past to sin. Paul does not contemplate immortality and life being possible if there were no sin. He does not contemplate then being given to us apart from the atonement of Christ.

This leads to another point that needs to be made. Some have claimed that the Incarnation is much more than Atonement. They support this claim by pointing to his miraculous birth and his being both God and Man for all eternity. Are not these things more than simple atonement by death and resurrection? The problem is that the atonement is much more than simple death and resurrection. It is no wonder they believe the Incarnation to be so much more than atonement for they limit the scope of the atonement. The Virgin Birth of Christ is linked to his atonement. His miraculous birth, I think we can all agree, frees Christ from the stain of original sin so that he might become a high priest for us. One who is tempted in every way like us, but is not conceived and born in sin. Then it is good and right for us to say his Virgin Birth plays a role in the Atonement. What of his ascension into heaven? Hebrews tells us of Christ the High Priest at the right hand of God. Romans 8 tells us that he is at the right hand of God making intercession for us even now. Does Christ himself not tell us he goes before us to prepare places for us? Is this not a part of the atonement? Of course it is part of the atonement. That is why Revelation almost always refers to Christ in heaven as the Lamb. The atonement is always before the eyes of God. The Lamb that was slain is there for us. His whole life is living a life without sin so that when he did die and rise again he

Justice O'Connor on Judicial Independence

Former Justice O’Connor has spoken out about the need for Judicial Independence in America, even using the term dictatorship. Her speech shows exactly why she was a bad Justice. She does not understand Judicial Independence.

In her speech Justice O’Connor quotes the Republican attacks on Judicial system. She never names names, but quotes Tom Daly and Justice Sunday. She states her opposition to judicial reform based on partisan politics. All of this she believes threatens Judicial Independence and is the beginning of dictatorships.

I have two major problems with this speech. I believe they correspond to two major flaws of Justice O’Connor. The first is her misunderstanding of Judicial Independence. We do have Judicial Independence in this country. I am not aware of any laws proposed by Mr. Daly or the Republican Congress that reshapes the Supreme Court or Federal courts at all. To have Judicial Independence threatened their must be a law of some sort. The only possible example is the Terri Schavio case where Congress passed a law to allow a Federal Court to hear the case. When the courts did nothing, Congress did not step in again. So, even this example is weak. The Republican Party did run on a platform of picking judges to sit on the bench, but that is hardly a threat to Judicial Independence that is simply how the Constitution says judges are to be chosen. People are allowed to criticize judicial decisions. This is what Justice O’Connor really seems upset about. Mr. Daly and others publicly said the Supreme Court was wrong. Justice O’Connor thinks that is a threat to Judicial Independence. While it may be a threat to the Judicial Dominance that has been going on for several decades, it is hardly a threat to the system as a whole. It is simply a healthy pull and tug for power that the Founders of the Constitution placed in the Constitution. Checks and Balances really means a struggle for power. As long as our government is fighting for control between the branches the people are safe. When the President takes too much power, invariably the Congress tugs back. Exhibit A is what is going on in D.C. right now. When the Supreme Court tells Congress its laws are all wrong for too long, expect Congress to take a swing back at the Court. It is a tension filled system, but a system that works. Justice O’Connor wants to be praised, but not criticized. This simply shows a complete lack of understanding of how the American Government works. If she thinks people should just accept Supreme Court decisions without speaking a word, she needs to read more about President Andrew Jackson.

Second, Justice O’Connor seems to have no understanding of how dictatorships work. It is a nice fantasy that once Judicial Independence is gone then dictators rise to power, but in the end it is simply a self-aggrandizing fantasy with no basis in reality. Name one example of dictatorship by political takeover of a judicial system. Try it. Now think of some dictators and how they came to power. Yes, they come to power on the backs of horses or tanks or armies. Julius Caesar, Lennin, Chairman Mao, Castro, any dictator in Africa or South America, even Napoleon. American has had plenty of actual attempts to interfere with Judicial Independence. FDR got all of his Welfare State passed by threatening to put more justices on the bench. Abraham Lincoln tried to arrest Chief Justice Taney for issuing a decision against Lincoln’s government. Are we in a dictatorship now? No, no we are not. Is Justice O’Connor upset about those Presidential actions? No, I doubt it.

Justice O’Connor’s inability to understand the Constitution and history help explain some of her bad decisions on the court. I hope history picks up on this speech and judges her for it.

The Author of Hebrews

In a shameless attempt to draw out a friend of mine in debate, I have decided to answer the age old question of who is the author of Hebrews. I shall mainly be interacting with the arguments of John Owen who believes both internal and external evidence shows that Paul is the author of Hebrews. This I reject out of hand. For those unfamiliar with Owen’s arguments, Dr. Crampton has a condensed form.

Let all know also that the true author of Hebrews cannot be known for sure, nor is it fundamentally important. The book is canonical inspired by God. In heaven the author will be known, until then we can only argue. But sometime arguing can be fun, so let the fun begin.

Owen puts forth several claims that supposedly prove Paul the author of Hebrews. First is the external evidence. In the list of divines who held to Pauline authorship we would include Clement of Alexandria, Jerome, Tertullian possibly, Eusebius, Augustine, and almost all the Medieval Theologians. Some would add Origen, but his endorsement is more along the path of ‘if people say so, fine by me’; thus, he should not be included in the list. W.H. Goold wants to add Ambrose, Hilary, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, and Athanasias. Yet, this list only tells half the story. Hebrews was slow to be universally recognized as part of the canon because many in the West did not believe it to be from Paul. Rejecters of Pauline authorship would include Clement of Rome, the Muratorian canon, Gaius, the Roman church at the time of Eusebius, and Jerome can be quoted on this side as well. Also Tertullian does explicitly ascribe Hebrews to Barnabas. To this we can add the doubt of Origen, who seems less than convinced himself. Throw in the fact that the Roman church and the Western tradition first recognizes it as canonical while denying its Pauline authorship, and the case Owen makes seems a little different. So appeals to the external evidence comes up wanting.

Owen also points to the internal evidence. He shows great relation to the existent works of Paul. Similarity in syntax, vocabulary, and doctrine. This is Owen’s strongest point, yet I remain unconvinced. Most people grant that Hebrews was written by someone in the Pauline circle. Thus, they would have used similar vocabulary, syntax and of course doctrine. Origen, despite his many faults, was a fine scholar of languages held that the Greek of Hebrews was superior to Paul’s epistles. Origen posits the Greek of Luke-Acts or Clement of Rome as equivalents rather than any other epistle of Paul. Eastern Church acceptance of Pauline authorship did not deny this difference, but instead posited a hebrew original written by Paul and translated into Greek by Luke. The superior polish of the Greek in Hebrews cannot be explained by appealing to a contested oral origen of the book. For Paul himself claims to be a speaker without oratorical polish in I Corinthians 2:1-5. Also Hebrews calls itself a letter in 13:22.

Also in favor of the Pauline authorship is other internal evidence. The pre-64 A.D. date puts it around the right time for Paul to be released from his first imprisonment in Rome, where most believe the epistle originated. This meshes well with 13:23,24. Yet, no where does is it stated that the author was in prison or being set free from prison. Only Timothy is said to be set free and about to visit. Surely Paul would have written of his own release. Or spoken of the chains of prison as his own, as he does elsewhere (Philippians 1:13-16, Colossians 4:3). 13:3 indicates to pray for those who are in chains, chains that are not his, but belong to others. A very non-Pauline way of speaking regarding imprisonment for the cause of Christ.

Owen also claims that 2 Peter 3:15 is a mention of Hebrews when it talks of Paul’s letter. Owen attempts to use 1 Peter 1:1 to show that Peter’s epistles were to Jews since it uses the term ‘dispersion’. However, this proof requires the reading of dispersion to mean only Jews instead of Christians in general, a reading that is questionable. It also neglects the fact that Paul’s letter referred to in 2 Peter could easily be Galatians rather than Hebrews.

Of course the main objection used by those who deny Paul the author of Hebrews is 2:3. “How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation;; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;”. The objectors point out that Paul who never have claimed that the gospel was confirmed to him by others. In fact in Galatians he goes out of his way to show he received the Gospel directly from Jesus. Hebrews seems to claim that it was given to the author by the apostles, which would place the author outside their number. Some claim that it makes him a second generation Christian. This point is the major reason Calvin, Luther, and Beza reject Paul as the author of Hebrews.
John Owen’s argument on this verse is convincing. I believe Owen here destroys the idea that the author is not an apostle and has to be a second generation Christian. He shows that the having the gospel
“confirmed to him” is not the same as given to him. Paul himself admits in Galatians that he went to Jerusalem to make sure he had not run in vain (Galatians 2:2), which could be seen as confirmation of the gospel. Reading 2:3 this way brings back into play the first generation Christians, including Paul. However, it does not establish Paul. Barnabas and Luke could both fit having the gospel “confirmed”, as would Apollos and about any other person ever suggested for the book.

Thus, my objections to a Pauline authorship of Hebrews rest on stylistic differences between the Epistle to the Hebrews and all of Paul’s other epistle including his lack of a signature, the highly polished Greek of Hebrews, the constant quoting of the Septuagint (Paul often corrected the Septuagint), and the fact that Paul is the apostle to the Gentiles and the letter is to the Hebrews. Another objection that I do not know enough about, but should be mentioned is Hebrews’ use of the Codex Alexandrinus while Paul used the Codex Vaticanus. Take that for what it is worth.

I think the best case can be made for Barnabas as the author of Hebrews. The reasons for Barnabas include Barnabas was from Cyprus where Greek would be his first language answering for the highly polished Greek in Hebrews. He was a Levite and much of Hebrews is about the imagery of Jesus in the temple and the priesthood. The similar vocabulary to Paul is answered by his close association with Paul. This also fills the requirement of 13:22-23 with Timothy. Cyclical nature of warnings and encouragement in Hebrews fits well with a man known as the “Son of Encouragement.” Barnabas is an apostle according to Acts 14:14. Yet the best evidence is the long standing tradition of Barnabas being the author of Hebrews. This tradition pre-dates Paul, and is attested to as far back as A.D. 200 in Tertullian. Tertullian states it as if it were a fact beyond dispute. This North African Tradition of Barnabas is also attested by Jerome, Filaster, and Gregory of Elivra, all of whom lived in the 4th Century. This tradition is deeply rooted in Alexandria, which is a death blow to the Luther’s guess of Apollos as author since he was a native Alexandrian. Barnabas seems to remain as the best candidate and one of the earliest candidates for the authorship of Hebrews. Without other writings of Barnabas it is impossible to establish, but since this blog is about conjecturing for fun, I will argue Barnabas is the author.

Classis

I have not been blogging lately because I have been at Classis and preparing for it. Now that it is over I can breathe a sigh of relief. At least until Synod in May. I enjoyed the time of fellowship and the meeting was mostly productive. I received quite an education in parliamentary procedure. I am sure everyone would tell you, I still have quite a way to go.

Incarnation, Election, and Fall Part III

We have been looking at the idea that Jesus would have become incarnate even if Adam did not sin in the Garden put forth by many Federal Visionists. Some of you may be asking is this really important? Isn’t this sort of like the debate about whether or not angels have voice boxes? Does it affect our system of beliefs or is this just something pastors do when they have too much time on their hands? I believe it is important and it does affect our system.

If we hold to an idea about Jesus coming even without sin, then we have fundamentally altered the work of Christ on earth. The redemption from sin purchased on the cross becomes secondary, something that was added because of Adam’s failure, but what Jesus would have given Adam in the Garden remains the major focus of salvation. The death of Christ is no longer as important as the incarnation of Christ. It is nice to have our sins removed from us, but it is not salvation, nor can it be seen as Christ’s major work in the Federal Vision system. As James Jordan puts it, “What we receive is not Jesus’ merits, but His maturity, His glorification” (pg.195).

Notice who held this position historically in the church. Rupert of Deutz seems the first to put forward this position of Christ becoming Incarnate if Adam had not sinned. Rupert was a German Mystic who lived around 1120. The mystics were famous for two things. One their devotion to God, and two the union of the believer to God. In this union came justification. In this union came all things. Union takes priority over everything else. The devotion often aids in the union with Christ. Salvation then takes on more of a participationism or implantationism rather than any form of imputation of Christ’s merits to us. This is very similar to Jordan’s desire for the maturity and glorification of Christ rather than any sort of merit from Christ.

John Duns Scotus is also a proponent of Jesus Incarnate apart from Adam’s sin. Scotus is most famous for his view of the Freedom of the Will of God, or volitionism. In his working out of this doctrine, he declares that God’s election is free from everything else including sin. He goes on to state that nothing in nature or guilt of sin made it necessary for the Son of God to die. Salvation could have been accomplished in many other ways. God simply chose the death of his Son as the way it would be done. Scotus then separates election and the incarnation from the redemption from sin. It then downplays the centrality of the cross as salvation could have very well been done by an man or angel if God had so willed, and Christ would have become incarnate if Adam had not sinned.

These men reveal some of the tendencies that Incarnation apart from sin creates. While Scotus can be seen as positing his view as a defense of God from any accusation from sin, more can be gleaned. Scotus lowers the atonement of Christ by saying election and salvation could be done in many ways, God simply choose to have his Son die on the cross. The lowering of the atonement is a bit more explicit in the Rupert the Mystics view where union with God gains a greater focus. A trend continued in the Federal Vision.

In short, arguing for an Incarnation apart from sin removes the atonement or death and resurrection of Christ from the center of the gospel. The emphasis is shifted to his birth or his incarnation in general. What the believer needs is no longer the death of Christ so much as his life. This of course can be gained through the mystical sacramental eating of grace or faithful obedience that keeps one in covenantal union to Christ’s life. Therefore, this discussion is not a mere distraction, but part of the main issue in the Federal Vision debates.