Don't Mumble It!

My church is a bit unique. We are a part of the Reformed Church of America, and certainly subscribe to their doctrine, but we operate like a pretty typical independent evangelical church. We've got guitars and drums and our pastor just started wearing one of those Tony Robbinsesque boom mikes. We don't talk a lot about our Reformed-ness. We even stopped wearing wooden shoes to church. So what gives us away as a mainline church? Saying the creed.

Every once in a while (twice a year, perhaps) we say the Apostle's Creed. I imagine this is to fulfill our obligation to the denomination. It's always a bit interesting as we stumble through reading the words. Those who lift hands and sway gently during the slo-jam half of the worship aren't doing that anymore. The staid non-hand-lifter, non-swayer types are forced to speak. It's really quite beautiful because of its awkwardness.

As a teacher, I have experienced the ritual of saying the Pledge of Allegiance thousands of times. Most students would be hard pressed to explain the meaning of the pledge. But they certainly know the words. They even have developed an annoying cadence that is nearly impossible to break, a cadence still familiar to adults.

I am happy to hear our faltering rendition of the creed. We haven't made it into a meaningless sequence of syllables. If this is what it takes to keep us alert to its meaning, let us say it as sparingly as we need to. It is a wonderful shock to those who, like me, have grown up believing that such a practice was tantamount to popery to realize that many have gone before us and kept the flame of orthodoxy.

Category: Theoblogia

Read more!

The Sixth Circle?

At the repository of sophistry known as Reformed Catholicism Kevin Johnson saw fit to edit out one of my posts there on the grounds that it was "inappropriate and disrespectful". I like to think of our blog as appropriately disrespectful, dispensing noogies, wedgies, wet willies, and occasionally even swirlies to all forms of doctrinal unsoundness. So I have posted the uncensored version here with light editing. Parental guidance suggested for children under 13.

This was written in response to Jamey Bennett's post.

----------------------------

Jamey,

I first read Wright’s What Saint Paul Really Said in the summer of 2001 and remember thinking to myself “there is a lot of good stuff in here, but gosh, some of this sounds a lot like Norm Shepherd and Daniel Fuller.” This is before the Auburn Avenue flap. You can probably buy the book for $10 or so. It really should concern you more than it seems to.

But saying "discipleship is salvation" is not the same as saying "discipleship is justification". I assume McArthur is using "salvation" here in reference to sanctification.

But the most charitable reading of Wright’s quote that God will declare us just "on the last day on the basis of an entire life" leads me to conclude that he is, at best, equivocating - "declare us just" is really in reference to our public vindication, not justification (our right standing before God). I chalk this sort of confusion up to the prevalent illiteracy in systematic theology. Anyone who has read standard works such as Berkhof knows better than to muddle such basic concepts. Or, heck, Reymond or Grudem or Hodge’s systematics tomes will do fine, too.

Another example of this systematics confusion is assuming that the statement “salvation is God’s work from start to finish” exonerates Wright from a Reformational standpoint. That statement is an affirmation of sola gratia (which even Romanists often affirm), but not an affirmation of sola fide.

Is Wright going to hell? Maybe. Maybe not. For St. Paul, it was a certainty that the Judaizer leaders were (thus his anathema) - but for the Galatian audience he only held it out as a live possibility, thus giving them a stern warning in hopes that they would accept correction. This is under the assumption that their faith of the heart was better than their momentary doctrine and practice. Hopefully Wright falls into the latter. I suspect he does, but does not a similar stern warning have propriety, as God disciples his sons?

I echo Phil Johnson's sentiments and appreciate the spirit and tone of your post. As I reflect on the matter further, I realize that most Anglicans - even academics - have probably never been exposed to standard works of systematics by us American presbyterians and Dutch-rooted Calvinists. Turretin is maybe the closest thing an Anglican might be exposed to. I could be all wrong here, since I don’t exactly have my hand on the pulse of the Anglican world.

One can affirm that “discipleship is salvation [i.e. sanctification]” yet deny that eternal life “hinges on faith lived out faithfully.” Justification judicially secures BOTH eternal life and the living out of our faith. So the living out of our faith (good works) is a descriptive condition of eternal life, not prescriptive. Thus, good works are not instrumental causes of justification or eternal life. I know that this metaphysics is rather tight, but wander off and you could step on a theological land mine.


----------------------------

Now Jamey's post was respectable, and if the ratio of posts from Jamey, Joseph Johnson, and Rev. Pahls to posts by Kevin Johnson and Tim Enloe continues to climb past a ratio of 1.00, then that web site might become a respectable little outfit conducive to edifying dialogue. I might even be forced to revoke my award I gave them for Most Pretentious Sophistry on the Internet.

Kevin took exception to my use of the "h" word. Hey, I am not the one who brought up the topic of hell in relationship to bad theology, Jamey did. On a serious note, I have a hard time seeing the reproducing of the biblical warnings to the Galatians as "disrespectful" to any ordained minister. The Judaizers received anathemas from Paul, but the Galatian church (including the ordained officers there) received a warning. I see no scriptural principle that bars church laity from making similar warnings to church officers or (in this case) about church officers.

As I have made clear, I'm calling no one a heretic nor anathematizing Bishop Wright. If I have learned little else from John Frame's writings, it is that one should always read an author's writings with the most charitable interpretation that logic and language can allow. Therefore, I believe his theological views are muddled, and while I honestly believe the faith of his heart is better than the teaching he articulates, I still see great propriety in warning brethren about his teaching.

Plenty of people who will be in heaven have muddled theology. The problem with muddled theology is, rather, a pastoral problem. You never know what sort of faith is really lurking inside all the smoke and haze of such a theology.

Category: Theoblogia

Read more!

Quiet Time Guilt

My co-bloggers, Jeremy & Garet, and I were involved in Campus Crusade for Christ once upon a time at Cal Poly, Pomona. After intense counseling, deprogramming, and absinthe consumption, we are now mostly healed. OK, I am jesting a bit. I still have a warm spot in my heart for Crusade, and I benefited spiritually from my experience there greatly.

However, I still cringe at my indoctrination with "Quiet Time Guilt", a form of guilt that is really ubiquitous with the larger world of evangelicalism. This is the belief that if you have not set aside time for daily prayer and Bible study devotions, you don't have a "strong relationship with God" at best, and are in sin, at worst. I was reminded of it when I ran across this article refuting this particular form of legalism. If you or a friend are suffering from Quiet Time Guilt, then read this article now.

Category: Gnat-Strainers

Read more!

Anyone for a Scottish Revival?

Dr. R. Scott Clark was kind enough to stop by again and lend our blog some credibility by posting some good stuff in the comment box. He alluded to some blog posts from Rick Phillips, which you can read here and here (which includes some info on the PCA side of the controversy). Apparently, a petition is going around, hilariously named "Presbyterians and Presbyterians Together", calling for "charity" in the whole Federal Vision debate. Fair enough, and I'm the first to say that we need to do all we can to prevent a "Scottish Revival" (i.e. church division). But what does "charity" really mean here? Clark observes:

I don't mean to be cynical, but is it mere coincidence that the PPT call for "charity" came out just after the OPC report?

Indeed. The Petition seems to go beyond a mere call for charity and assumes the very thing that is under debate in the church courts right now: that the Federal Vision is consistent with the confessional standards.

In my imaginary dream world, I can hope that the General Assemblies, Synods, and courts will biblically sift the wheat from the tares in the fairly heterogeneous Federal Vision world, laying out carefully and clearly which tenants or elements are outside the confessions and which are not. The involved ministers would then clarify, retract, repent, or turn in their collars accordingly. We would then all join hands and skip into the sunset, the soundtrack orchestra would swell, and the credits would roll. But somehow Reformed controversies seldom turn out that way.

Also: read Ron Gleason's demolition of similar "can't we all just get along" mushy-mindedness from John Armstrong here. He's the first guy I go to when I need theological firepower from an ex-tank commander.

Category: Theoblogia

Read more!

The Discerning Reader is Back!

Yup, the Discerning Reader is back. But it is not run by Rob Schlapfer anymore (if you remember that whole brou-ha-ha). Thankfully, the trustworthy Tim Challies bought the domain name. Excuse me while I go try and hide my wallet from myself.

Category: Between the Covers

Read more!

A Heat-Induced Analogy

My summer job this year involves lots of quality time with a shovel. That's right, I'm doing construction. Today my shovel and I were up on the roof of an industrial building, scraping tar paper off 20 year old plywood. It was a lovely spring day in California, but a bit warm on the roof. As I walked around, I was careful to walk over the joists; but when I put a foot on the middle of the sheet of plywood, it would flex or even let out an ominous cracking noise.

I was reminded of a most applicable verse:

Ephesians 5:15
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil.

This admonition comes in the middle of an exhortation against immorality. If we think of the world as the roof, Christians often go to two different extremes. The liberal acts as if there were no sin, and jumps up and down in the middle of the sheet of plywood until he falls through to the hard concrete of apostasy. The fundamentalist draws a very narrow circle around himself and thinks that if he stays inside it, he will be safe. Somehow he still manages to fall through an open skylight.

We have a serious problem. We are sinners. Like a drunkard or a man with vertigo, we do exactly the wrong thing when it matters most. As Christians, we are being changed, but we can certainly sin in extraordinary ways. Is there no hope? Fortunately, there is another verse for us:

Romans 7:24-25
Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?

Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.

Rather than denying our nature through libertine openness or a the phony discipline of a tie and short haircut, why not give Christ a chance? Through the work of the Holy Spirit, he keeps us on the path. If we try to keep ourselves pure any other way, the best we can hope for is traction.

Category: Theoblogia

Read more!

No More Craft Morecaroni and Cheese

Many of you will recall that the Federal Vision/Auburn Avenue theology flap started a few years ago when the RPCUS, led by Joseph Morecraft III, condemned the theology and those who taught it (including Douglas Wilson, Steve Schlissel, Steve Wilkins, and Steve Schlissel), calling such teachers to repentance. Wilson, in response, has rightly called it a "heresy-trial-on-the-cheap", and humorously ran a parody ad in Agenda/Credenda about the incident of "Craft Morecaroni and Cheese":

...Joe Morecraft made a travesty of biblical justice and judicial procedures. But at the same time, when the person in question is in the position that Joe Morecraft was in, such a response should not be done lightly at all. So when we were condemned as heretics, without evidence cited, without anyone talking to us, and without clear understanding what our actual positions were, the first thing we did was attempt to communicate with Joe privately before our church issued a public response of any kind. Joe flatly refused to work with us on it. Consequently, the only reasonable thing that was left for us to do was to explore the matrix between modern Southern Presbyterianism insta-mix heresy trials and Kraft mac in a box.

This incident got a lot of publicity, for bad reasons. The Federal Vision is a matter that Reformed Christians should debate and respond to, and the theological issues are important. I hope that proper debate and ecclesiastical judgment over the issue will get more publicity and eclipse the RPCUS flap for the edification of God's people and the preservation of sound doctrine.

Toward that end, the OPC has erected a study committee to critique the Federal Vision. After two years of labor, they have completed a report (hat tip to ReformedCatholicism.com) that will be submitted for adoption at this June's General Assembly. It does not rule on anyone's defrocking or excommunication, but does recommend that ordination candidates be tested for fidelity to the Westminster Standards contra some of the Federal Vision positions. The report concludes:

The committee believes that the following
points that are held by some one or the other advocates of FV are out of accord with Scripture and our doctrinal standards:

1. Pitting Scripture and Confession against each other.
2. Regarding the enterprise of systematic theology as inherently rationalistic.
3. A mono-covenantalism that sees one covenant, originating in the intra-trinitarian fellowship, into which man is invited, thus flattening the concept of covenant and denying the distinction between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace.
4. Election as primarily corporate and eclipsed by covenant.
5. Seeing covenant as only conditional.
6. A denial of the covenant of works and of the fact that Adam was in a relationship with God that was legal as well as filial.
7. A denial of a covenant of grace distinct from the covenant of works.
8. A denial that the law given in Eden is the same as that more fully published at Mt. Sinai and that it re-quires perfect obedience.
9. Viewing righteousness as relational not moral.
10. A failure to make clear the difference between our faith and Christ’s.
11. A denial of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ in our justification.
12. Defining justification exclusively as the forgiveness of sins.
13. The reduction of justification to Gentile inclusion.
14. Including works (by use of “faithfulness,” “obedience,” etc.) in the very definition of faith.
15. Failing to affirm an infallible perseverance and the indefectibility of grace.
16. Teaching baptismal regeneration.
17. Denying the validity of the concept of the invisible church.
18. A overly-objectified sacramental efficacy that downplays the need for faith and that tends toward an ex opere operato view of the sacraments.
19. Teaching paedocommunion.
20. Ecclesiology that eclipses and swallows up soteriology.

I agree with David Bayly on this matter:

Whether "Federal Vision" theology is cohesive enough or sufficiently heterodox to require such opposition we're uncertain. What is certain is that God's truth prospers in the light, not in smoke-filled rooms and alleyways.

I believe that many of the criticisms this Report makes are sound, and hopefully this will indeed shed light on the truth. For those with the courage, fortitude, and caffeine sustenance to wade through 91 pages of presbyterian polity and doctrinal jargon, I commend our audience to reading the whole Report. The main weakness is that I doubt that some, especially moderates like Wilson, would raise their hand and say that they affirm any of the 20 listed views. The lack of specificity may hinder the effectiveness of enforcing the Report's criticisms. Only the views of the more radical elements, such as James Jordan, Mark Hornes, and Rich Lusk (who are not OPC themselves), are liable to get swept up. I'm a URC guy, so I don't know much about the OPC world on a personal basis, but I doubt that the OPC will be rent apart by the adoption of the Report.

My beloved URC has made some moves at synod that generally go against some facets of the Federal Vision (specifically against paedocommunion), and one of the FV proponents, John Barach, has now left our federation for the CREC. On the PCA side, there is an overture for this year's General Assembly to erect a similar study committee on FV, and one presbytery has requested that Steve Wilkins' exoneration by his presbytery be reviewed. For further reading:

1. The Louisiana Presbytery Report exonerating, with some qualifications and concerns, Steve Wilkins.

2. The Mississippi Valley Presbytery Report condemning, generally, FV theology.

3. Calvin Beisner & Co.'s response to the Louisiana Report, detailing more specific criticisms of Wilkins' teaching. This specificity is very helpful.

4. The Auburn Avenue Theology, Pros and Cons. This is the book that educated me on these matters, and was a good first step in having a Christ-honoring debate over FV.

So, after all of this heady theology stuff, who's hungry?

P.S. - I have no clue who that guy is. The things you find w/ a google search!

Category: Theoblogia

Read more!