link rel="shortcut icon" href="http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e339/mongrelhorde/favicon.jpg" /> <body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/platform.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d18785001\x26blogName\x3dMongrel+Horde:++Just+Plain+Mutts!\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLUE\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttps://mongrelhorde.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://mongrelhorde.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d-4489462257632951631', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

Friday, April 27, 2007

sheep in poodle's clothing

You're not going to believe this ...

Labels: , ,

Read more!

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

rights for little women

Pastor John Piper blogs on the SCOTUS partial birth abortion decision.

Labels: , , ,

Read more!

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

In light of the VT Massacre

In the wake of tragedies such as 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina, as a teacher and pastor I've been challenged by young people to articulate an apologetic in defense of the concept of a loving, omnipotent God. Unfortunately, the most vocal of American church culture has skittered far off the trail of orthodoxy due to the ill effects of humanism, rationalism, and skepticism. This is most clearly illustrated in the anthropomorphous doctrine of God and deified doctrine of man preached from pulpits. In search for authenticity, today's youth quickly dismiss the ready made answers of shallow, untutored faith that gloss over the stunning implications of a creation that is in revolt against the moral order. Contrary to the unbiblical philosophical current, the fight must be waged to protect and advance a true doctrine of God that affirms His Sovereign purposes for the magnification of His Glory. It is to this end, the Glory of God, that all creation exists, and until we reckon ourselves to this truth, the answers of superficial spirituality will come back void.

Jesus, when asked why tragedy struck some and not others, didn't give a quaint answer. He didn't dish out smarmy platitudes intended to make people feel better. He instead responded with harsh reality, "I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."(Luke 13:1-5) In other words, no human deserves a peaceful end to life. It is by God's grace alone we haven't had similar God ordained calamity visited upon us- and there is no guarantee that the future holds otherwise. So be ready.

The links below articulate a position that I think, though at odds with the "mainstream", elevate true Christian doctrine and magnify Christ as the Sovereign ruler of this universe. The first is text of a sermon by John Piper that paints Christ as Supreme in the midst of general suffering. The second is an mp3 file by John MacArthur, wherein he addresses the VT Massacre directly on his "Grace to You" radio program. The third was written by Frank Turk (aka the affable CenturiOn and contributor to Pyromaniacs), it extracts the truth of the Gospel from the meaning of this tragic event. The fourth is a sermon preached by me.

By His Grace, Garet

1. John Piper's The Supremacy of Christ in the Age of Terror

2. Listen to John MacArthur

3. Frank Turk's Just Like Me

4. My sermon How Do We Respond When Life Hurts?


Labels: , , , ,

Read more!

Monday, April 23, 2007

God is sovereign at Virginia Tech

I preached this as a sermon March 22nd, 2006 to group of high school kids and young adults. Truth be told I was emerging from the most testing experience of my life. As I am preparing a short post on my thoughts regarding the VT massacre last week, this sermon came to mind. It is NOT a comprehensive treatise on the subject. Nor is the prose as clear and ordered as I'd like. In fact, it is mostly just a slightly fleshed out outline that I’ve slightly edited for blogging format. Regardless, I believe what I write here is true, as opposed to the religious escapism offered by much of evangelicalism. My desire is to foster a stalwart hope in the immutable purposes of God.

How Do We Respond When Life Hurts?


Life hurts. Sometimes it hurts so badly it overwhelms everything else. Physical pain manifests in the way of disease and sickness, natural disasters and accidents. And the thing is oftentimes it is the “innocent” who suffer most. Emotional pain is something that everybody lives with in varying degrees. Really this is the pain we hate the most. Probably the biggest bringer of emotional pain in American culture today is the impact of divorce on the family. To many kids get caught between feuding people unable to endure their commitment. When someone dies we feel pain- that sense of loss that perhaps a life that we needed (like a parent) or that we loved (like a child or friend) is gone. Suffering is real and it manifests in a variety of forms. Here is an example of evil that results in suffering, one that I pulled fresh off the internet this afternoon.

N.Korean defector says disabled newborns are killed
By Jack Kim
SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea has no people with physical disabilities because they are killed almost as soon as they are born, a physician who defected from the communist state said on Wednesday.
Ri Kwang-chol, who fled to the South last year, told a forum of rights activists that the practice of killing newborns was widespread but denied he himself took part in it.
"There are no people with physical defects in North Korea," Ri told members of the New Right Union, which groups local activists and North Korean refugees.
He said babies born with physical disabilities were killed in infancy in hospitals or in homes and were quickly buried.
The practice is encouraged by the state, Ri said, as a way of purifying the masses and eliminating people who might be considered "different."
The group urged the South Korean government to change course away from "silent diplomacy" and immediately begin taking action to pressure the North to improve its human rights record.
The South Korean government has refused to join international condemnation of human rights abuses in the North out of concern that such a move could rattle ties with Pyongyang, which considers any criticism of its human rights as deeply offensive.
"The government should stop trying to avoid upsetting Kim Jong-il," said another defector, Kim Young-sun, 67, referring to the North Korean leader. "It should try to upset Kim Jong-il," she said, adding it would be the best way to change the North.
Kim Young-sun is a survivor of the North's Yodok prison camp, notorious for its forced labor and life-sentences for people charged with conspiring against the Kim Jong-il leadership.
Mun Hyon-ok said women from her hometown in the northern region of North Korea bordering China were taken by a ring of human traffickers and probably ended up in China.
"And there are women who are selling themselves for a handful of rice," she told the forum.
North Korea has called itself a people's paradise and said criticism of its human rights was motivated by a goal of toppling the leadership of Kim Jong-il.
South Korea has come under fire from human rights groups and some countries for abstaining in votes on U.N. measures to condemn the North's human rights record.

This is taking place today, in our world.

So we find ourselves in a paradoxical situation. Here we are as Christians bringing forth a message of hope and salvation, yet so many people have a hard time seeing the possibility of God through the mire of their own strife. In fact, the most common argument for atheism and against Christianity and a belief in God in general is the problem of pain. The atheist says, “The world is full of pain and suffering, either God is an evil torturer, or He doesn’t exist.”

We must be ready to answer that. We can’t blame the devil; and we can’t blame each other, because ultimately God has created this universe. To suggest that human freedom or the devils schemes are the ultimate cause of suffering is to usurp God of his authority as God. It is to say that the universe is chaotic and out of control, and all he can do is react and try and fix it. We cannot allow such a belittling doctrine of God to take root in our hearts for this is not who the Bible says God is. God is unchanging, all-knowing, all-powerful, wise, just, loving and good. Therefore, we must search the scriptures and see how these attributes of God are to be reconciled with the reality of the universe that objectively brings misery into people’s lives seemingly without discrimination.

To understand suffering Biblically is to undergo an entire shift in attitude. It is to recognize one's self as a small and humble, and recognize that God’s main purpose in creating is to demonstrate the fullest measure of his glory. We must realize that the Gospel message does not just save our souls, but it saves our minds, bringing us to right understanding of God and his plan for human history.

Suffering is purposed by God
In one of his famous WWII radio addresses to the British people, C.S. Lewis said the following “Pain is God’s megaphone to rouse a deaf world.” This is not a concept that Prof. Lewis invented independent of orthodoxy. Scripture teaches that God decrees the evil acts of man and the calamities of the natural world to accomplish his purposes, namely, that his glory might be known.

In Isaiah 45:6-8, God speaks. “I am the Lord, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me, that people may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is none beside me; I am the Lord, and there is no other. I form light and create darkness, I make well being and create calamity, I am the Lord, who does all these things.”

The Apostle Paul articulated this reality well. In Romans 9:17, he explains that God hardened the heart of Pharoah against the people of Israel, writing “For the very purpose I have raised you up, that I might be proclaimed in all the earth.”

The Cross: Climax of Human History
The mind should marvel at the reality that all of human history is an epic story God has written with purposed intent, namely the magnification his glory. The crucifixion of “God with us” is the central theme and climax of existence itself. The cross is where the magnitude of God’s righteousness poured out wrath and burning hatred on sin, and the infinite depth of his mercy and loving kindness for his people, culminated simultaneously for the purpose of the praise of his glory. Jesus nailed to the cross is in the most evil act in the history of the world, yet it was God’s ultimate goal decreed in eternity past. What man had intended for evil, God intended for good.

Isaiah 46:81-13 “Remember this and stand firm, recall it to mind, you transgressors, remember the former things of old; for I am God and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying “My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country. I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed and I will do it. Listen to me, you of stubborn heart, you who are far from righteousness; it is not far off, and my salvation will not delay; I will put salvation in Zion, for Israel my glory.”

The Suffering Christian: Discipline for the one God loves
God disciplines those whom he loves, so sometimes he is using suffering to get our attention back on him when it isn’t. He molds us and shapes us into the likeness of Christ with the events of our life.

Hebrews 12:5-6 “My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor be weary when reproved by him. For the Lord disciplines the one he loves and chastises every son whom he receives.”

Romans 5:3-5 teaches that suffering is to be celebrated as a joyful thing. Why? Because, God in his love disciplines us for our sanctification; in Phippians Paul reminds us that we “have been granted for Christ’s sake… to suffer.” From this suffering three things derive that are essential for a Christ exalting life unto the glory of God.

Perserverence. Or, the steady persistence in adhering to a course of action, a belief, or a purpose; steadfastness. When God stretches our faith to the breaking point, the result is a greater capacity to endure.

Proven Character. Or, the experience of being tested and approved. When we respond to trials with persevervence it demonstrates the surety of salvation in Christ, for how we respond to trials proves that (in Christ) we have the strength to endure.

Hope. Or, the Christ exalting confidence that God is in ultimate control. He is working out his perfect plan despite circumstances that throw our lives into perceived chaos. This is why faith is “the assurance of things hoped for.”

In Summation
The Westminster Confession states, “The chief end of man is to love God and enjoy him forever.” I’ve heard it said that the most righteous deed in this life is to value most that which is most valuable. It should be obvious therefore, that anything that would deliver us from crippling idolatry and free us from self occupied myopia, drive us to our knees and focus us on the glory of God himself, is to be embraced and proclaimed. We must reckon the suffering and evil in this world for what is- the working out of God’s purposes for his glory and our joy.

“Momentary, light affliction is producing in us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison, while we look not at the things which are seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.” II Corinthians 4:17-18

Labels: , , ,

Read more!

I'm back

You probably didn't know I was gone, but I was. And a lot has happened since I last posted here. I will post in great length some time soon on the journey of the last two years. It could be said that I've learned Romans 5:3-5 through experience, and I hope to articulate for your edification, the deeper knowledge of Christ it wrought in me.

I do have several other posts in the queue, so be sure to check back frequently.

By His Grace,
Garet

Labels: , ,

Read more!

Friday, April 13, 2007

The Federal Vision: Fitting Its Square Peg Into a Round Hole


In this post I want to supplement my effort in the previous post to demonstrate that the Federal Vision's (FV) conception of the visible/invisible church distinction is foreign to the Reformed tradition by going beyond the Reformed confessions previously cited.

Various Reformed advocates, expositors, historians, and commentators have seen the invisible church to exist on the earth, in the present (at the very least in part, if not in whole), and not solely in the future. Some pre-date the Westminster Confession, and others are later yet trustworthy theologians and historians who can cast light onto the traditional Reformed doctrine of the church with some authority.

The Invisible Church According to Protestant Theologians and Historians, from Ursinus to the Present

Ursinus' view is important (especially if the reader consults the Objections he considers subsequent to the discussion below), considering that he is a powerful representative of the continental Reformed view, proving that the doctrine of the invisible church is not peculiar to the British/Westminsterian view of the church:

The church militant [that is, here on earth-DG] is either visible, or invisible....

The invisible church consists of those who are chosen unto eternal life, who are also regenerated, and belong to the visible church. It lies concealed in the visible church, during the whole of the struggle, and conflict which is continually going on in this world between the kingdom of light and darkness. It is likewise called the church of the saints. Those who belong to this church never perish ; neither are there any hypocrites in it; for it consists only of such as are chosen unto eternal life of whom it is said [quotes John 10:28 and 2 Timothy 2:19]. It is called invisible, not that the men who are in it are invisible, but because the faith and piety of those who belong to it can neither be seen, nor known, except by those who possess it; and also because we cannot with certainty distinguish the godly from those who are hypocrites in the visible church.

And it is of this universal invisible church of which this article of the Creed properly speaks, saying I believe in the Holy Catholic Church. These properties are also attributed with great propriety to the church, because it is holy, and because it is here that we find the true communion of the saints with Christ, and all his members. The difference which exists between the visible and invisible church is very nearly the same as that which exists between the whole and a part; for the invisible church is concealed in the visible, as a part in the whole

Zacharius Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, pgs. 286-288

And Turretin comments:

For the invisible church.

(a) it is taken for the mystical body of Christ constantly and intimately united to him as its head according to eternal election and efficacious calling….This is the catholic church which we acknowledge in the Creed. It may be regarded either universally and all together (kath’ holou) with respect to the whole multitude of believers (of which it is composed of whatever place and time) or particularly and as to its parts (kata meros)(now concerning that which reigns gloriously with Christ in heaven; then concerning this which labors and pursues its journey in the world and inasmuch as it is distributed into various particular churches which are designated by the same name as the whole).

Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 18.2.7

Although the entirety of Turretin's treament of the 7th question of the 18th topic (18.7) supports the present reality of the invisible church, we will just cite a portion of it:

II. The true origin of the controversy must be sought from this – that from the beginning of the Reformation the Romanists disputed from the Scriptures against Luther and others concerning indulgences, justification and human satisfactions (concerning which the controversy was at first carried on) and since they could not easily extricate themselves, they wished to drag them to the tribunal of the church that these questions might be decided by her dictation. They did not recognize any other church than the visible assembly externally professing faith (consisting of bishops, clergy and others, over whom the pope presided as head). But Luther was not only unwilling to allow this, but denied also that such either are or ought to be called the church. The true church was not to be measured by an external profession or subjection to the Roman pontiff, but by faith and internal piety alone (which cannot fall under the senses). Bellarmine acknowledges this: “Luther in book 4 of his De servo arbitrio since Erasmus had objected to him that it was incredible that God had deserted his church for so long a time, answered, God had never deserted his church, but that is not the church of Christ, which si commonly so called, i.e., the pope and the bishops; but the church is the certain few pious persons whom he preserves as remnants” (“De Ecclesia Militante,” 3.11* Opera [1857], 2:94). Hence arose the question concerning the invisibility of the church.

III. Now although this question (the distinction between the internal and external state of the church having once been established; and the parts of the church constituted by the pious and elect and called believers alone) may seem less necessary (for if it is true that believers alone constitute the church, since they alone are known to God, nor can they be certainly and distinctly known by anyone else, it is clear that the church is rightly called invisible). This Bellarmine confesses, “If they who are destitute of internal faith are not and cannot be in the church, there will be no further question concerning the invisibility of the church between us and heretics” (“De Ecclesia Militante,” 3.10 Opera [1857], 2:91). For as he adds at once, “No one can certainly know how are truly righteous and pious among so many, who externally profess righteousness and piety.” Still because it is one of the most important questions here agitated and capable of multiple relations (schesin), on this account we must treat distinctly of it.

Robert Shaw comments on the Westminster Confession of Faith's doctrine of the invisible church as follows:

But there is a twofold calling; the one external, merely by the Word—the other internal, by the Holy Spirit, which is peculiar to the elect. Hence the Church may be considered under a twofold aspect or form; the one external or visible—the other internal or invisible. The Church, viewed as invisible, consists, according to our Confession, "of the whole number of the elect that have been, are, or shall be, gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof." Of this Church the apostle speaks (Eph. v. 25-27): "Christ loved the Church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it, with the washing of water by the Word, that he might present it to himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish." Of the members of this Church some have already finished their course, and are now perfected spirits in heaven; others are still living upon earth, and engaged in the Christian welfare; which diversity of condition has given occasion for the ordinary distinction between the Church triumphant, and the Church militant. The invisible Church, viewed as comprehending the whole number of the elect, will not be completed until that day when "the Lord shall make up his jewels." This Church, viewed as actually existing on earth at any particular period, is composed of those who have been called by divine grace into the fellowship of the gospel, and sanctified by the truth; and these constitute one Church [emphasis mine], because, however distant in place, and diversified in circumstances, they are vitally united to Christ as their head, and to one another as members of the same body, by the bond of the Spirit and of faith.


Robert Shaw, The Reformed Faith: An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith

The Reformers introduced the terminology “visible” and “invisible” Church. By this they did not mean two distinct and separate Churches, but rather two classes of Christians within the same outward communion. The invisible Church is in the visible Church, as the soul is in the body, or the kernel in the shell, but God only knows with certainty who belong to the invisible Church and will ultimately be saved; and in this sense his true children are invisible, that is, not certainly recognizable and known to men. We may object to the terminology, but the distinction is real and important.

Luther, who openly adopted the view of Hus at the disputation of Leipzig, first applied the term “invisible” to the true Church, which is meant in the Apostle’s creed. The Augsburg Confession defines the Church to be “the congregation of saints (or believers), in which the Gospel is purely taught, and the sacraments are rightly administered.” This definition is too narrow for the invisible Church, and would exclude the Baptists and Quakers.

The Reformed system of doctrine extends the domain of the invisible or true Church and the possibility of salvation beyond the boundaries of the visible Church, and holds that the Spirit of God is not bound to the ordinary means of grace, but may work and save “when, where, and how he pleases.” Zwingli first introduced both terms. He meant by the “visible” Church the community of all who bear the Christian name, by the “invisible” Church the totality of true believers of all ages. And he included in the invisible Church all the pious heathen, and all infants dying in infancy, whether baptized or not. In this liberal view, however, he stood almost alone in his age and anticipated modern opinions.

Calvin defines the distinction more clearly and fully than any of the Reformers, and his view passed into the Second Helvetic, the Scotch, the Westminster, and other Reformed Confessions.

Phillip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 8, p. 458-9

The CRC systematic and historical theologian Louis Berkhof (1873-1957) comments:

The Many-Sided Character of the Church

2. THAT BETWEEN A VISIBLE AND AN INVISIBLE CHURCH. This means that the Church of God is on the one hand visible, and on the other invisible. It is said that Luther was the first to make this distinction, but the other Reformers recognized and also applied it to the Church. This distinction has not always been properly understood. The opponents of the Reformers often accused them of teaching that there are two separate Churches. Luther perhaps gave some occasion for this charge by speaking of an invisible ecclesiola within the visible ecclesia. But both he and Calvin stress, when they speak of a visible and an invisible Church, they do not refer to two different Churches, but to two aspects of the one Church of Jesus Christ. The term “invisible” has been variously interpreted as applying (a) to the triumphant Church; (b) to the Church of all lands and all places, which man cannot possibly see; and (d) to the Church as it goes in hiding in the days of persecution, and is deprived of the Word and the sacraments. Now it is undoubtedly true that the triumphant Church is invisible to those who are on earth, and that Calvin in his Institutes also conceives of this as included in the invisible Church, but the distinction was undoubtedly primarily intended to apply to the military Church. As a rule it is so applied in Reformed theology. It stresses the fact that the Church as it exists on earth is both visible and invisible. [emphasis mine] The church is said to be invisible, because she is essentially spiritual and in her spiritual essence cannot be discerned by the physical eye; and because it is impossible to determine infallibly who do and who do not belong to her. The union of believers with Christ is a mystical union; the Spirit that unites them constitutes an invisible tie; and the blessings of salvation, such as regeneration, genuine conversion, true faith, and spiritual communion with Christ, are all invisible to the natural eye; - and yet these things constitute the real forma (ideal character) of the Church. That the term “invisible’ should be understood in this sense, is evident from the historical origin of the distinction between the visible and the invisible Church ion the days of the Reformation. The Bible ascribes certain glorious attributes of the Church and represents her as a medium of saving and eternal blessings. Rome applied this to the Church as an external institution, more particularly to the ecclesia representativa or the hierarchy as the distributor of the blessings of salvation, and thus ignored and virtually denied the immediate and direct communion of God with His children, by placing a human mediatorial priesthood between them. This is the error which the Reformers sought to eradicate by stressing the fact that the Church of which the Bible says such glorious things is not the Church as an external institution, but the Church as the spiritual body of Jesus Christ, which is essentially invisible at present, though it has a relative and imperfect embodiment in the visible Church and is destined to have a perfect visible embodiment at the end of the ages. [emphasis mine]

The invisible Church naturally assumes a visible form. Just as the human soul is adapted to a body and expresses itself through the body, so the invisible Church, consisting, not of mere souls but of human beings having souls and bodies, necessarily assumes a visible form in an external organization through which it expresses itself. The Church becomes visible in Christian profession and conduct, in the ministry of the Word and of the sacraments, and in external organization and government. By making this distinction between the invisible and the visible Church, McPherson says, “Protestantism sought to find the proper mean between the magical and supernatural externalism of the Romish idea and the extravagant depreciation of all outward rites, characteristic of fanatical and sectarian spiritualism.” It is very important to bear in mind that , though both the invisible and the visible Church can be considered as universal, the two are not in every respect commensurate. It is possible that some who belong to the invisible Church never become members of the visible organization, as missionary subjects who are converted on their deathbeds, and that others are temporarily excluded from it, as erring believers who are for a time shut out from the communion of the visible Church. On the other hand there may be unregenerated children and adults who, while professing Christ, have no true faith in Him, in the Church as an external institution; and these, as long as they are in that condition, do not belong to the invisible Church. Good definitions of the visible and invisible Church may be found in the Westminster Confession.

Berkhof, Systematic Theology, reprinted by Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. (1996), pgs. 565-6

Lastly, the contemporary systematic theologian John Frame says:

That leads us to the distinction between the visible and the invisible church. This language is from tradition, not the Bible (as in the Westminster Confession 25.1-2). But it does guive us language to express the presence of both believers and unbelievers in the church. We should not take this to mean that there are two churches. Visible and invisible are just two different ways of looking at the same church, two perspectives. The invisible church is, to use Wayne Grudem’s definition, “the church as God sees it.” God knows for sure who is truly jointed to Christ by faith, for he can see people’s hearts. We cannot, for the heart is invisible to us….

Are those unbelievers “in” the church? In one sense, no, for they are not united to Christ in a saving way. So, we say that they are not part of the invisible church. But in another sense, yes, because they have taken vows.

John Frame, Salvation Belongs to the Lord, copyright 2006 P&R Publishing Company, Phillipsburg, NJ, pgs. 236-7


Category: Theoblogia
Read more!

Thursday, April 12, 2007

The Federal Vision: Homogenizing the Church Since 2002!


One of the disturbing things about the Federal Vision (FV) theology is its tendency to blunder things that should be Reformed Doctrine 101 due to the fact that much of what is driving FV is the effort to conceive of those within the covenant in a manner that is as undifferentiated as possible and to homogenize the nature of the church as much as possible (or as much as is plausible to confessionally-Reformed types, anyway). This is especially apparent in the conversation going on over in the combox at Green Baggins' blog, where Wes White has written an excellent article defending the distinction between the invisible and visible church against the re-formulations of FV.

FV embarrasses itself in trying to recast this doctrine in terms of a historical/eschatological distinction, making the distinction chronological rather than ontological. And then mighty works of sophistry, mental gymnastics, intellectual contortions, and academic jumping jacks ensue in order to defend this view in light of what the Westminster Standards say. But, in the end, their square peg isn't going to fit into the round hole, as we'll see.

In the next two posts, I'm going to go over the various evidence that indicates that the prevailing Reformed notion of the invisible church conceives of it as existing now, on earth, and not exclusively in the future. This being the case, the concept of the eschatological church cannot be made to substitute for it. This also makes it highly unlikely that the Westminster divines would have intended for their doctrine of the invisible church to be taken this way, unless we are prepared to believe that their Standards on this point are an anomaly in the Reformed tradition.

The first post will list quotations from various confessions from the Reformed tradition, and the second will list treatments from various Reformed authors.

Just a word of warning, these next two posts are not for the faint-hearted. They're crazy long, actually. So make sure you have a caffeinated beverage of choice onhand and click the "Read More" link below to continue.

The Current Controversy

Instead of holding to a distinction within the church as to its nature, visible (those who profess the true faith outwardly) and invisible (those regenerate who have true faith inwardly), FV prefers a chronological distinction: between the historical church (the church as it exists now) and the eschatological church (the church as it exists at the eschaton).

Here are some of Douglas Wilson's comments on the visible/invisible church distinction that originally helped spark the FV controversy:

If we abandon the Hellenistic ontological division between invisible and visible and adopted a more Hebraic biblical way of thinking and toppled the whole thing on its side, the invisible church is the eschatological church and the visible church is the historical church. Now notice what this now does, if I toppled the whole thing on its side and it is now in history, the eschatological church is now the historical church and it is at the culmination of history, all right, and the visible church is that same church at an earlier point in time.

Wilson, Visible and Invisible, 2002 AAPCPC lecture. As cited in The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology, Guy Waters.

It would be better to consider the one Church under a different set of terms, discussed earlier, and which preserve the necessary distinction made by visible and invisible – historical and eschatological. Because time is taken into account, we preserve the understanding of just one Church, and at the same time preserve the necessary distinction between those Church members who are ultimately saved and those who are ultimately lost. The historical Church is the counterpart to the visible Church, and consists of those throughout history who profess the true faith, together with their children. The eschatological Church is the elect, but it is not invisible. At the last day, every true child of God will be there, not one missing and every false professor will have been removed. At the resurrection of the dead, this Church will be most visible.

Wilson, “Reformed” Is Not Enough, pg. 74. As cited in The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology, Guy Waters.

Wilson thinks that, since the WCF talks of the invisible church as including the "whole number of the elect" that this rules out the possibility of the invisible church existing now, here on earth. In other words, the invisible church can only exist in the future (thus his equating this concept with the eschatological church) since it includes the "whole number of the elect, that have been, are or shall be gathered into one..." (WCF 15.1).

The problem with relegating the invisible church to the future only is that the Westminster Larger Catechism views the members of the invisible church as enjoying present, earthly saving benefits in Q&A 65, 69, 82, & 83.

Xon Hostetter speculates, in Green Baggin's combox (linked to above), that the Westminster divines could have been speaking of present members of the invisible church even if the invisible church does not yet exist.

This is problematic, considering that it would imply that the catholic or universal church, also, would exist exclusively in the future (according to the language of 15.1).

Yet this ignores the whole history of doctrine that the Westminster divines derived their teaching from. I have included below the most relevant portions of various Reformed confessions and articles that can only be understood as teaching explicitly or necessarily implying or assuming that the invisible church exists, at least in part, on the earth in the present.

The Invisible Church in the Reformed Confessions Outside of the Westminster Standards

For as without Christ Jesus there is neither life nor salvation, so shall there none be participant thereof, but such as the Father has given unto his Son Christ Jesus, and those [that] in time come unto him, avow his doctrine, and believe into him (we comprehend the children with the faithful parents). This kirk is invisible, known only to God, who alone knows whom he has chosen, and comprehends as well (as said is) the elect that are departed (commonly called the kirk triumphant), as those that yet live and fight against sin and Satan as shall live hereafter

Scots Confession (1560), Chapter 16

THE CHURCH APPEARS AT TIMES TO BE EXTINCT. Yes, and it sometimes happens that God in his just judgment allows the truth of his Word, and the catholic faith, and the proper worship of God to be so obscured and overthrown that the Church seems almost extinct, and no more to exist, as we see to have happened in the days of Elijah (I Kings 19:10, 14), and at other times. Meanwhile God has in this world and in this darkness his true worshippers, and those not a few, but even seven thousand and more (I Kings 19:18; Rev. 7:3 ff.). For the apostle exclaims: "God's firm foundation stands, bearing this seal, `The Lord knows those who are his,' " etc. (II Tim. 2:19). Whence the Church of God may be termed invisible; not because the men from whom the Church is gathered are invisible, but because, being hidden from our eyes and known only to God, it often secretly escapes human judgment.

Second Helvetic Confession (1564), Chap. 17

There is but one Catholic Church (out of which there is no salvation) containing the universal company of all the Saints that ever were, are, or shall be gathered together in one body, under one head Christ Jesus: part whereof is already in heaven triumphant, part as yet militant here upon earth. And because this Church consisteth of all those, and those alone, which are elected by God unto salvation, & regenerated by the power of his Spirit, the number of whom is known only unto God himself; therefore it is called Catholic or universal, and the Invisible Church.

Irish Articles (1615), Article 68

Finally, a modern confession describes the invisible church thusly:

God has his church in every age, and under every dispensation. It consists of all the people of God in heaven and earth, and may, therefore, be regarded as militant and triumphant. That portion of the church which is on earth, the church militant, consists of all professing Christians throughout the world, and may be divided into the visible church and mystical church

Confession of Faith of the Calvinistic Methodists or the Presbyterians of Wales (1823), Chapter 35

Category: Theoblogia
Read more!

Wednesday, April 04, 2007

URC Ministers Gone Wild!


Behold! The inimitable "Flying Pub" flugtag (pictured above)!

Do not suppose that abuses are eliminated by destroying the object which is abused. Men can go wrong with wine and women. Shall we prohibit and abolish women?
-Martin Luther


It just so happens that my pastor, Adam Kaloostian, was part of a recent broadcast on the subject of wine, that I thought dovetailed nicely with my post on wine from a few days ago. He has a regular podcast entitled Sinners and Saints, where he and two other URC ministers (Moses Janbazian and John Sawtelle) discuss various theological topics.

You can hear the entire Sinners and Saints series entitled "To Bet, Drink, Smoke, and Chew, and Run With Girls Who Do."

What do we do when the Bible gives us a promise of blessing coupled with a stern warning? Paul tells us (in 1 Cor. 6) that drunkards will not inherit the kingdom of heaven - and this sin is coupled with other ungodly sins:

the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God. Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.


So the Bible tells us that if we are drunkards, yet look down on homosexual sinners, then we have a huge problem that is both logical and moral. Let's call it good ol' fashioned hypocrisy.

But then we go to Psalm 104, where we are to "Bless the Lord!" from the soul for various things, including

wine which makes man's heart glad,
So that he may make his face glisten with oil,
And food which sustains man's heart


Wine is clearly listed as one of the blessings we receive that we should bless the Lord for, and is a blessing in a similar way as "food which sustains man's heart." So one must conclude, from the preceding and subsequent context, that wine is God's gift that we are to enjoy and thank God for.

When faced with two biblical admonitions, we ought to steer a middle course that honors both scriptural principles. We ought not drink to the point of drunkenness. Those who embrace drunkenness, without repentance, are clearly said to be unbelievers, destitute of true faith. But those who drink in moderation are said to have glad hearts, as a blessing from God.

An excellent book, detailing (in a whimsical, entertaining way) the history of alcohol in the Christian church, is Drinking with Calvin and Luther.


If we believe that Jesus has come to redeem all of creation (a creation which, according to Romans 8, is groaning for restoration) then we ought not hesitate to embrace all of the good gifts in God's creation, including alcohol, while rejecting the world's abuses of God's good gifts.

Category: Theoblogia
Read more!

Monday, April 02, 2007

Jeremy Caught Up to the Third Heaven



This last Saturday my co-blogger, Jeremy Felden, was married to the lovely woman next to him in the above picture, Allison Ewing. When he gets back from his honeymoon, his face shining like Moses', we'll put a veil over his head so he can render unto us more glorious blog posts for your edification and guidance.

I gave a toast at the wedding as one of the groomsmen. Here is the latter half of that toast:

The Psalms give us such a wonderful picture of what marriage is supposed to look like. Psalm 128 tells you, Jeremy, that you have the unique privelege of being a husband to a wife and, Lord willing, one day, also a father to children in the same sort of way that a farmer would "husband" or tend to a vine and cluster of olive shoots.

I know that this will work into you the unique sort of sanctification that only a marriage can bring, and that'll involve hard things as well as happy things. And you will be able to see and understand the things of God in a way that you otherwise could not, and you will be able to serve and glorify God in ways that you cannot do by yourself.

I've had many people in my life that I look up to and spiritually admire- giants in the faith. Most of these were in the latter half of their lives and some even approaching death. But their uniform testimony to me has been, "Dave, with the sole exception of my salvation in Jesus Christ, the greatest blessings, treasure, and source of joy in my life has been my wife, far and away." Allison will be that woman for you, and, should the Lord tarry, you will confess that of her in the sunset of your life.

So what is your reasonable response to this? Our charge to you is that you would treasure Allison today, tomorrow, and the next day knowing that is and will be true of her. Cheers!


The wedding went off wonderfully, and Jeremy and Allison were whisked off to their honeymoon soon after.

The day after the wedding, Jeremy and I had the following text message exchange:

DG: Hey man. Wanna go grab a beer somewhere if youre not busy?

JF: Sure. if im not busy.:-)


Funny enough I haven't heard back from him since.

Category: Blogging Ourselves
Read more!