REJOICE!
Love Himself has become human!
God the Highest has come near to save us!
His name is JESUS.
As the prophet Isaiah said in ancient times,
"For to us a Child is born,
to us a Son is given;
and the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Of the increase of His government and peace
There will be no end...."
Merry Christmas!
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Christmas
Friday, December 21, 2007
Ordination with fasting
In the course of a small study on fasting in the Bible, I realized that the book of Acts has exactly one reference to the ordination of elders (14:21-23) and one to the commissioning of missionaries (13:1-4), and in each of these places prayer with fasting is a prominent part of the ordination ceremonies.
Biblical narrative is not an absolute rule for the Church's practice. But wouldn't it be wise to imitate the apostles' example at least in this momentous act of the Church, by setting aside a period of time for prayer and fasting whenever elders, missionaries, and evangelists are commissioned for their daunting task?
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Baptism and the world (Leithart)
“Baptism is not a merely social event because there is no such thing as a ‘merely social’ event. God is always involved in every act and movement of the creation, and the universe teems with other spiritual beings, beneficent and malevolent, that are also active. The world is not a ‘merely social’ reality because it is dominated by principalities and powers and controlled by sin and death (which are nearly personified in some parts of Paul’s letters). It takes a divine act—a series of divine acts—to extract someone from the world and then plant him in the body of Christ. Baptism is one of those divine acts.”
—Peter Leithart, The Baptized Body, p. 80
Friday, December 14, 2007
Some thoughts on the PCA's Nine Declarations about the Federal Vision
The post below is an extended response to a question from Grover Gunn, comment #24 on the thread "None of This Is New Under the Sun" on Green Bagginses.
Grover had asked,
Jeff, would you agree that the doctrines which the nine declarations recently adopted by a PCA General Assembly identify as contrary to the fundamentals of the Westminster Standards are indeed contrary to those fundamentals? Would you agree that the nine declarations are not distortions of Westminster theology due to over-reaction?
Grover, I should say that this question is an important one for some to answer, but is not as directly relevant to me. Up to this point, I have not taken vows to uphold any particular set of Reformed doctrinal standards. If and when I am ordained as an elder with teaching responsibility, I would prefer to be held accountable to the Three Forms of Unity than to the Westminster Confession.
Speaking only for myself and not as a reflection on anyone else, I am uncomfortable with the WCF in several ways: generally, for its lack of sensitivity to the historical-narrative character of much of Divine revelation, and specifically, for a few places where the WCF seems to stand in direct opposition to the principles of God's own Word, at least as they appear the Old Testament (e.g., the last line of WCF 21.8, cf. Ex. 31:17; the last sentence of 24.4, cf. Deut. 25:5; the second half of 27.4, cf. Acts 8:38; 9:17-18). If we find something in the Westminster Confession or any other human tradition to run contrary to the Word of God, then shall we make the commandment of God of no effect by our tradition (Matt. 15:6)?
With all that being said, I believe that any true departure by a Reformed pastor from "the fundamentals of the Westminster Standards" is a matter of serious concern. If such a thing is found to have happened, it should be investigated first in the light of Scripture, and then also in light of the Westminster Standards or other confessional documents as appropriate, to the extent that they depend on and accurately represent the teaching of Scripture.
So as for the nine declarations:
1. The view that rejects the bi-covenantal structure of Scripture as represented in the Westminster Standards (i.e., views which do not merely take issue with the terminology, but the essence of the first/second covenant framework) is contrary to those Standards.
First of all, I don't see Scripture as having a bi-covenantal structure. When the Holy Spirit discusses and contrasts the two major covenants among others, they are the "First Covenant" which was enacted through Moses and the "New Covenant" that was mediated by Christ (Hebrews 9:11-22). In the Westminster system, these are merely two different administrations of the "covenant of grace," which also has several other administrations. Meanwhile, the "covenant of works" (the other major covenant according to the WCF), is more often than not described in the Bible with other terms than that of "covenant." So to see the Bible's history as divided up between two great opposing covenants, a covenant of works and a covenant of grace (neither of which is ever called by this name in the Bible) seems quite artificial to me. However, some leaders of the FV including Steve Wilkins have declared that they're happy with the Westminster explanation of the covenants of Scripture (with the caveat, perhaps, that WLC 20's "covenant of life" is a more accurate term than "covenant of works").
To answer your question, then: for declaration #1, the view that the PCA General Assembly pronounced contrary to the Westminster Standards is in fact contrary to those Standards (although not necessarily contrary to Scripture), and in any case Wilkins, Leithart, and Wilson agree with the PCA at this point.
2. The view that an individual is “elect” by virtue of his membership in the visible church; and that this “election” includes justification, adoption and sanctification; but that this individual could lose his “election” if he forsakes the visible church, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
This declaration adopted by the PCA GA is simply confused, and confusing, in its language. By putting "elect" in quotation marks, it seems to suggest that "elect" may be used here in a different sense than the Westminster Standards use the word. However, the terms justification, adoption, and sanctification appear to be used exclusively in the Westminster sense, and in this sense no FV advocate believes that election can be lost. If the four key terms are defined according to their use in the Standards, then declaration #2 is valid and Steve Wilkins agrees with the PCA in condemning the false teaching of which it speaks. One the other hand, if the four key terms are allowed to be defined differently from how they are used in the Standards, then how can the Standards speak to this usage in one way or the other?
The term "elect" only has meaning, of course, when it is specified to what a person is elected. In one important sense, Jesus Himself says that all of the Twelve were elected (exelexamēn) by Him, including Judas Iscariot who was a devil (John 6:70-71). Other passages speak of a different kind of election which leads unalterably to eternal life. The second declaration adopted by the PCA General Assembly fails to achieve clarity because it does not include definitions of any of the key theological terms it uses -- where the definitions of these terms are precisely the matter in question.
Grover, I could go through all nine declarations in this way, but I think you get the idea by now. If they are taken in one way, every FV advocate would agree with most of them in their condemnation of what is self-evidently false teaching. If taken in another way, what they express appears contrary to how the Bible itself speaks, and of course the FV men would object.
Both Peter Leithart and Steve Wilkins have noted in their responses to the PCA report that declaration #9 actually contradicts WCF 33.1 (which affirms the Biblical teaching that the final judgment will be according to works).
Declaration #9 adopted by the PCA GA: "The view...that the so-called 'final verdict of justification' is based on anything other than the perfect obedience and satisfaction of Christ received through faith alone, is contrary to the Westminster Standards."
WCF 33.1: "God has appointed a day, wherein He will judge the world, in righteousness, by Jesus Christ, to whom all power and judgment is given of the Father. In which day, not only the apostate angels shall be judged, but likewise all persons that have lived upon earth shall appear before the tribunal of Christ, to give an account of their thoughts, words, and deeds; and to receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil."
In closing, let me answer your last question by saying that yes, I believe "the nine declarations are," in part at least, "distortions of Westminster theology due to over-reaction."
Thursday, December 13, 2007
The dangers of reaction
The post below is a comment that I wrote for the thread "None of This Is New Under the Sun" on Green Bagginses. Even if you're not familiar with the "Federal Vision" controversy currently playing itself out in the Reformed and Presbyterian churches of North America, I hope you will find these thoughts to be edifying.
Any movement rooted and grounded in a reaction to something else is subject to great dangers. While modernism was busy rejecting supernaturalism, tradition, and the Sacraments, the nineteenth-century Tractarian movement attempted to save the Church from these ills by emphasizing traditions and rituals. In turn, Bishop Ryle reacted against the excesses of the Tractarians by arguing that "religion is eminently a personal business between yourself and Christ" -- a claim that would have sounded almost bizarre to any of the writers of the New Testament.
My own sympathies lie with the Federal Vision, but I do not see this approach as immune to the dangers that threaten all reactions. The best expressions of "Federal Vision" theology are those that hold tightly to the glorious truths of evangelical and Presbyterian/Reformed theology even while they point out ways in which the Church must continue to be reformed (ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda). To the extent that Federal Vision advocates are doing this, they are following in the footsteps of the original Protestant Reformers. Great men like Luther, Calvin, and Bucer did not reject doctrines or practices merely because they were "Romanist"; rather, they sought to glorify God and build up the Church along the lines of whatever was good, true, and Scriptural. For this, Luther himself and his Wittenberg allies were described as the "new papists" by the likes of Radical Reformer Andreas Karlstadt. (Once again, nothing is new under the sun.)
On the other side, there is great danger in a reaction against the Federal Vision that opposes everything in it except what is already comfortable and familiar. In their fierce opposition to the Federal Vision, some have drifted into what is almost an ecclesiological Docetism. The Docetist heretics taught that the presence of Christ on earth was only an appearance, a phantom, and the real substance of Him was all ethereal and invisible; some are now saying that there is no substance in the visible church, no special benefit in belonging to it -- that this is only a kind of phantom appearance of a church, while the reality is all spiritual, "invisible," and other-worldly.
May all the parties to this discussion seek out the "old paths, the good way," that we may walk in it. And may we all recognize that some of the old paths may be on our opponents' side of the boundary, and be humble enough not to rail at once against their entire position just because we think we see errors at certain points.
On both sides of the Federal Vision debate are disciples of one and the same Lord, members together of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church. Let us not denigrate one aspect of the Truth in our zeal to uphold another. Let us not force our brethren and our children to choose between James and Paul, between the Old Testament and the New, between faith and good works, between membership in the visible church and participation in eternal life, between Christ's righteousness imputed to us and His righteousness performed in us, between the Word and the Sacraments. All of these are ours in Christ (1 Cor. 3:21-23) -- all equally and gloriously ours! -- and only a great fool would claim that participation in some of these makes the others unimportant. Is Christ divided?
Chuck Colson: God sent the drought
Chuck Colson of Prison Fellowship writes here about the current drought in the American Southeast--his reasons for believing that this is a judgment from God, and what that means.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Which church father are you?
Interesting, but I think this little test would be much more meaningful if there were more options... You’re Origen! You do nothing by half-measures. If you’re going to read the Bible, you want to read it in the original languages. If you’re going to teach, you’re going to reach as many souls as possible, through a proliferation of lectures and books. If you’re a guy and you’re going to fight for purity … well, you’d better hide the kitchen shears. Find out which Church Father you are at The Way of the Fathers!
Thursday, December 6, 2007
A telling quote
“ ‘Thou shalt not’ might reach the head, but it takes ‘Once upon a time’ to reach the heart.”
—Philip Pullman, atheist and author of the children's novel The Golden Compass, which is being released as a movie tomorrow
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
