Attempted Axiom: On the via media

Via media (i.e. middle way) arguments are bad because they are too accommodating. :-)

J. Michael Theological Books

I recently learned about a new online bookstore called J. Michael Theological Books. JMTB specializes in antiquarian and hard-to-find theological works from the Protestant Reformed tradition. I encourage you to check it out.

Dr. David Hall: On the 38th General Assembly

Here is an excellent and encouraging analysis of the 38th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America by the Rev. Dr. David Hall. Dr. Hall begins:

The 38th General Assembly of the PCA will probably neither prove to be the disastrous abyss that some think nor the inauguration of the eschaton expected by others. When measured by a longer perspective, it may prove to have been a fairly normal interaction between the grass roots and those who wish to manicure those stubborn shoots. It may also exhibit unintended consequences for the good.

Patriotism that Concerns Me

I am a patriotic American and very grateful to be a citizen of this great country, but after morning worship at an historic PCA church which included the stars and stripes and the statue of liberty on the cover of the printed order of worship, the singing of "My Country 'Tis of Thee" and "God Bless America," prayer for the revival of "our" (the church's?) nation, prayer for God to bless America, a sermon lauding the second great awakening as well as New School Presbyterianism's influence in starting the third (?) great awakening, and topped off with church bells ringing to the tune of Lee Greenwood's "Proud to be an American" as my family walked to our car, here is a good word from Dr. Hart.

Miscellanies 25: On Self-Justification

I just read some remarks D.A. Carson wrote on self-justification over at Justin Taylor's blog. Carson writes, "It is difficult to think of any sin we commit that does not include a dollop of self-justification."

This got me to thinking. Is self-justification inherently sinful? I don't think it is. Here's why:

The material principle of the covenant of works (see section 2 here) is indeed self-justification. In other words, before the fall Adam was to justify himself before God unto eternal life by obeying the law. Self-justification only becomes problematic after the fall. But, even then, it is not inherently sinful. It is problematic because sinners, by definition, cannot justify themselves before God. Ironically, our attempts at self-justification (i.e. obeying the law unto eternal life) are evidence of a diminishing of the law, which is a diminishing of the character of God, which is itself sin. Sinners can only be justified by faith (knowledge, assent, trust) in the work (i.e. self-justification, law keeping unto eternal life) of another, namely the Lord Jesus Christ. This is the covenant of grace (see section 3 here). Jesus obeyed the law perfectly, justifying himself before God and fulfilling the demands of the law--both its positive and penal requirements--for all those he represented, all those united to him by faith.

Wes White: An Explanation of the Proposed Strategic Plan

Wes White has provided a service to the PCA's GA commissioners in his latest blog post explaining the proposed strategic plan. If you'd like to know where the PCA is most likely headed if the proposed plan is adopted read this.

Dr. Clark: On Images of Christ

This is so good. In one of Dr. Clark's latest posts he responds to one commenter regarding the forbidding of images of Christ in the Reformed confessions writing:

We confess what we do because we believe that is what God teaches us to think. There’s no encouragement in the Hebrew and Aramaic Scriptures whatever to picture God. There is no encouragement in the Greek NT to picture God incarnate.

This is why Bullinger said what he said: God the Son did not become incarnate to make work for carvers and artisans.

Why not take a moment to read Danny Hyde’s book.

If you want a more academic treatment see David VanDrunen’s excellent essay on this question:

“Iconoclasm, Incarnation and Eschatology: Toward a Catholic Understanding of the Reformed Doctrine of the ‘Second’ Commandment” in the International Journal of Systematic Theology 6.2 (2004): 130 – 147.

There are two divinely authorized pictures of Jesus:

Holy communion.

Holy baptism.

These have direct, positive sanction in God’s Word.

The empty imaginations of sinful humans about how Jesus might have looked are exactly contrary to God’s revealed will. They are necessarily idolatrous. You don’t know how Jesus appeared. You don’t know what height he was. You don’t know how much he weighed. You can’t possibly represent him accurately. Thus any representation of him is mere symbol. So now we’re down to dueling symbols. You have man-made symbols and I offer two divinely authorized symbols, no, three: Word, baptism, and supper.

Your symbols come out of your or some other artist’s imagination. Now, imagination is a good thing and a gift from God but in the history of redemption he took a pretty dim view of the use of the imagination in the representation of himself.

Do we have a different God? Are we Marcionites? No.

So the only real question left is this: how does gold taste? I don’t want to find out.

Dr. Darryl Hart: On the Problem with Ecumenism Based on Confessional Minimalism

Ever been called a pharisee for believing confessional standards are the basis of the health of Christian unity? Here is an excellent post from Dr. Hart on the problem of ecumenism based on confessional minimalism. And here's an excerpt:

Ortlund’s post is standard fare among evangelicals who look for a lowest-common-denominator approach to Christian unity and so regard sticklers for doctrine and practice – like the Reformed – as sticks in the mud and unloving sectarians to boot. (Ortlund fails to remark that Baptists, Pentecostals, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Lutherans, who insist on the correctness of their distinct teachings and practices, are also would-be Judaizers.) Rather than acknowledge that differences exist within the church because different parts of the visible church interpret the Bible differently, Ortlund, like many a pietist before him, disregards actual differences and chalks up resistance to unity as a lack of love – for both Christ and for other Christians. As the Church Lady might say, “isn’t that charitable?”

Word's of Institution for the Lord's Supper

I had the privilege of leading worship the first Sunday of June. Below are the words of institution I gave for the administration of the Lord's Supper.

Brothers and sisters, our transcendent God has condescended to love us, his adopted children, by giving us visible and sensible signs and seals of his covenant of grace. One of those is now before us: The Lord’s Supper. The Supper is a sign in that it signifies the body and blood of Christ which was offered up for our redemption. In other words, it is a sign of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Supper is a seal in that it confirms and nourishes our faith in the same.

This is the Lord’s Table. It is open to all those who have trusted in the finished work of Christ alone for their salvation, to all those who are communing members in good standing of this or any other church where the Gospel of Jesus Christ is truly preached. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.

We are taught by the Spirit in Holy Scripture, "On the night Jesus was betrayed he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it saying, 'This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes" (1 Cor. 11:23b-26).

Let us pray, Father we are thankful that you have gathered us around your Son’s Table, not because we obeyed and satisfied your law, but because he obeyed and satisfied it on our behalf. Would you now grant by your Son’s mediation that the Holy Spirit would attend our eating of this bread and drinking of this cup and so cause us to feast spiritually upon the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, being raised up together to commune with him, along with the heavenly hosts, with great joy, in Jesus’ name, amen.

Dr. R. Scott Clark: On the Consequent Realism of Reformed Theology

One of the books I'm reading now is Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry: Essays by the Faculty of Westminster Seminary California (Notice the commas!!!), ed. R. Scott Clark. This volume is focused on historic Reformed covenant theology, the doctrine of justification, the current challenges being mounted by the NPP and FV theologies to both, and the pastoral implications of it all. It is excellent!

Here is an excerpt from Dr. Clark's essay on the works principle and the imputation of active obedience entitled "Do This and Live":

We do not live in a universe where God acts and speaks according to some extrinsic standard, by which both he and we can judge his speech-acts. Rather, we live in a world in which God acts and speaks according to his own nature. His speech-acts are creative, constitutive, and nominative. In this universe, the imputation of Christ's righteousness to those who are not intrinsically and fully sanctified is no more a legal fiction than was God's fiat lux (Gen. 1:3) or naming of the first creation (1:5) or the new creation (2 Cor. 5:17). God's powerful word makes things so. Reformed thology has typically taught a sort of consequent realism. Having willed to justify his people on the basis of Christ's righteousness, God grounds his declaration in the highest expression of his will, an actual, earned righteousness whereby justice was, in time and space, satisfied by the obedience and death of Jesus (Institutes 3.23.2). It is that actual righteousness that is imputed (Rom. 5:12-19) to believers, and on that basis believers gain a right to eternal life. It is a gift to us, but that gift was earned by the obedience of our Savior (4:4-5) (258-59).

Also, regarding the objection that the imputation of active obedience leads to antinomianism, Dr. Clark writes:

Those who confess the imputation of active obedience should find this criticism encouraging. It is, after all, the same criticism Paul faced (Rom. 6:1). Regarding justification, "we are not under law, but under grace" (6:14). We know the terrible and righteous demands of the law. It does not say "try," but "do." Christians confess that Christ has "done" for us (253).

Dr. Oliver Crisp Interviewed by Rev. Guy Davies

A week ago today Rev. Guy Davies interviewed Dr. Oliver Crisp, professor of philosophical theology at the University of Bristol and author of the recently published God Incarnate: Explorations in Christology. I haven't yet gotten my copy but plan to soon. Crisp's Jonathan Edwards and the Metaphysics of Sin was extremely helpful to me while writing my master's thesis on Jonathan Edwards's theodicy. His answer to the problem associated with Edwards's ordering of the decree is brilliant. Here's an excerpt from Rev. Davies's interview:

GD: I have sometimes heard Evangelical preachers say that Jesus became a human person at the incarnation. Do you think that Evangelicals are sufficiently aware of the creedal heritage of the Church?

OC: No, I don't. The creedal heritage of the Church is very important. We cast it aside at our peril. Some evangelicals are very much embedded in the tradition (e.g. some Episcopalians or Lutherans or Presbyterians). But evangelicals in what we might loosely term 'non-confessional' traditions, such as some baptistic denominations, and charismatic/Pentecostal traditions tend to be less concerned about confessions, thinking they can simply leap over the tradition to Scripture. This is a mistake. We read Scripture in the household of faith, in company with the saints before us, not in isolation from them. And in so doing, we learn from our forebears (from their triumphs and their mistakes). It is folly and hubris to think one can set this great cloud of witnesses to one side in theologizing. Not that I think the fathers and Reformers of the Church trump Scripture. But they help us to understand Scripture better just as a teacher helps the student to understand matters that might be difficult to grasp were the student to be left alone with the class textbook. . . .

GD: What is the most helpful work of theology that you have read in the last twelve months? It is a must read because...

OC: Jonathan Edwards, The End of Creation in Paul Ramsey, ed. The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Vol. 8, Ethical Writings (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989). To my mind, this is surely the most sublime account of the motivation God has for creating the world ever penned by human hand. It is by turns intellectually stimulating and deeply moving as a piece of spiritual, as well as philosophical theology.

I agree with Crisp on both answers! I've read Edwards's End once every couple years since 2002. The latest installment was with four of my students in a discipleship group earlier this year. Good times!

ht: ref21

Miscellanies 24: On the Faith of Christians and the Faith of Prelapsarian Adam and Christ

Recently I've been provoked to consider more seriously the nature of faith, not faith as the content of our belief (e.g. the Christian faith) but as the act of believing. Here are a few questions I've struggled with:

• Is faith a virtue?
• Was faith required in prelapsarian (i.e. before the fall) Adam's obedience to the law?
• If so, was the faith of prelapsarian Adam the same as our faith?
• Was faith required in Jesus' obedience to the law?
• If so, was his faith the same as our faith?
• If "the law is not of faith" (Gal. 3:12a), how then can we say that faith was required from prelapsarian Adam or Christ in the fulfillment of the law?

In what follows I'd like to answer these questions. First I'll examine what the Westminster Standards teach about the faith of Christians and the faith of prelapsarian Adam and Christ. Then I'll compare the two kinds of faith. I'll conclude by answering the introductory questions.

The Teaching of the Westminster Standards on the Faith of Christians

Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 72:

What is justifying faith?

Answer: Justifying faith is a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and Word of God, whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition, not only assents to the truth of the promise of the gospel, but receives and rests upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin, and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.

First, it is important to recognize the importance of the way Q. 72 is worded. Faith is modified by "justifying." The divines are distinguishing between kinds of faith. There is justifying faith and their is another kind of faith. What is the difference?

According to the divines, justifying faith is sourced in God's saving grace (i.e. "Justifying faith is a saving grace"). It is granted to sinners by the Spirit and the Word (i.e. "wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and Word of God"). It includes conviction of sin, misery, and total depravity (i.e. "whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition"), assent to the truth of the gospel (i.e. "assents to the truth of the promise of the gospel"), and a receiving and resting upon Christ and his righteousness for pardon of sin and right standing before God for salvation (i.e. "receives and rests upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin, and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation").

Also important is Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 14 "Of Saving Faith" Sections 1 and 2:

1. The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word, by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened.

2. By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God Himself speaking therein; and acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come. But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.

In this chapter faith is modified by "saving." So, how does saving faith differ from justifying faith? Is it simply a matter of nomenclature? After all the LC was written a few years after the Confession. Or is the difference substantial? Let's compare the two teachings.

There are clearly points of agreement. Just as the divines source justifying faith in the saving grace of God, so also they source saving faith in the grace of God (i.e. "The grace of faith"). Also, saving faith, like justifying faith, cannot properly be ascribed to either prelapsarian Adam or Christ, since it is unto salvation from sin (i.e. "whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls"). Furthermore, saving faith agrees with justifying faith in that it is wrought in us by the Spirit and the Word (i.e. "is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word"). Finally, we see in the second sentence of section 2 more agreement in that "the principle acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification. . . and eternal life by virtue of the covenant of grace."

There are also points of disagreement. Saving faith can be increased and strengthened (i.e. "the ministry of the Word, by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened"), indicating it is part of a process (i.e. sanctification) rather than event (i.e. justification). Furthermore, saving faith is the instrument whereby a Christian believes the whole counsel of God to be true and thereby begins to yield obedience to God's commands (i.e. "By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God Himself speaking therein; and acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come"). On the contrary, the scope of the object of justifying faith is narrower, namely the promise of the gospel (i.e. "being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition, assents to the truth of the promise of the gospel"). Finally, saving faith includes sanctification (i.e. "accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for . . . sanctification"), while justifying faith does not.

In summary, the divines teach that justifying faith is a subset of saving faith. Saving faith includes justifying faith, but it is also active in our sanctification, which includes our Spirit empowered obedience to the law in "true holiness" (WCF 13.1). Justifying faith, on the other hand, is only active in our justification. In the end the difference between the two is our sanctification.

The Teaching of the Westminster Standards on the Faith of Prelapsarian Adam and Christ

So, what about prelapsarian Adam and Christ? Was faith a required duty of their obedience to the law?

The Larger Catechism clearly teaches that faith is part of the duty required in the first commandment. Q. 104 says in part:

What are the duties required in the first commandment?

The duties required in the first commandment are . . . believing him; trusting . . . in him.

Furthermore the Confession teaches that the law delivered by God upon Mt. Sinai is the same law God originally gave to Adam naturally. Chapter 19 "Of the Law of God" Sections 1 and 2 teaches the unity of the law from Adam to Moses:

1. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which He bound him and all his posterity, to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.

2. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables: the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man.

And Chapter 4 "Of Creation" Section 2 teaches that the law given to Adam was given to him naturally:

After God had made all other creatures, He created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, after His own image, having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfil it: and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject unto change. Beside this law written in their hearts, they received a command, not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which while they kept, they were happy in their communion with God,and had dominion over the creatures.

Finally, the Confession teaches that Christ perfectly fulfilled the law. Chapter 8 "Of Christ the Mediator" Section 4 reads in part:

This office the Lord Jesus did most willingly undertake; which that He might discharge, He was made under the law, and did perfectly fulfill it.

And again the Larger Catechism teaches the same. Q. 48 begins:

How did Christ humble himself in his life?

Christ humbled himself in his life, by subjecting himself to the law, which he perfectly fulfilled.

So, according to the Standards, faith was a required duty of prelapsarian Adam's and Christ's obedience to the law per the first commandment. But how does the faith they were required to have compare to the faith Christians are required to have?

Comparing the Two Kinds of Faith

The law prelapsarian Adam and Christ were bound to obey is the same law Christians are bound to obey. Nonetheless, the covenant within which they were to obey the law (i.e. the covenant of works) is essentially different from the covenant within which we obey the law (i.e. the covenant of grace). In the covenant of works, prelapsarian Adam and Christ were to believe as part of their perfect and personal obedience to the law unto justification. In the covenant of grace, sinners are to believe in another's obedience, namely Christ's, unto justification. Only after being justified according to Christ's perfect obedience do we begin to gratefully believe as part of our own imperfect obedience. The unity of the two kinds of faith is in the law, while their diversity is in the covenants.

This is where theologians sometimes err. Some undermine the unity of the two kinds of faith by denying the unity of the law, teaching that the law is no longer applicable to Christians since we live by faith (i.e. antinomianism). Others undermine the diversity of the two kinds of faith by denying the diversity of the covenants, teaching that prelapsarian Adam and Christ were not justified by works of the law but by faith (i.e. neonomianism). Both cases ultimately represent a misunderstanding of the Law/Gospel distinction taught in Scripture.

Conclusion

So back to the original questions:

• Is faith a virtue? Yes. Faith, generally speaking, is a duty required by the law. Saving faith, which includes but is properly distinguished from justifying faith, is a virtue insofar as it includes our sincere obedience to the law (i.e. sanctification).
• Was faith required in prelapsarian Adam's obedience to the law? Yes. Faith is a duty required in the first commandment.
• If so, was the faith of prelapsarian Adam the same as our faith? Yes and no. While there is some unity between his faith and our faith in that the law to which all are bound to be conformed is the same, he did not need saving faith, which includes justifying faith (i.e. a receiving and resting in the work of another for justification).
• Was faith required in Jesus' obedience to the law? Yes. Faith is a duty required in the first commandment. Jesus had faith in the sense that prelapsarian Adam had faith.
• If so, was his faith the same as our faith? Yes and no. While there is some unity between his faith and our faith in that the law to which all are called to be conformed is the same, he did not need saving faith, which includes justifying faith (i.e. a receiving and resting in the work of another for justification).
• If "the law is not of faith" (Gal. 3:12a), how then can we say that faith was required from prelapsarian Adam or Christ in the fulfillment of the law? This text is speaking of justifying faith specifically (i.e. a receiving and resting in the work of another for justification) not faith in general.

Rev. Tullian Tchividjian: On the Law and the Gospel

Taylor interviews Tchividjian on these essential doctrines here. Here's an excerpt:

Do you believe in the so-called “third use of the law”?

Yes. I’m a staunch believer in the three uses of the law (pedagogical, civil, and didactic). The law sends us to Christ for justification (the first use—which is correct), but some would also say that Christ sends us back to law for sanctification (a misunderstanding of the third use). In other words, there’s a common misunderstanding in the church that while the law cannot justify us, it can sanctify us—not true. In Romans 7 Paul is speaking as a justified, rescued, regenerated Christian and he’s saying, “The law doesn’t have the power to change me. The law guides but it does not give any power to do what it says.” So, I would caution people from concluding that the third use of the law implies that it has power to change you. To say the law has no power to change us in no way reduces its ongoing role in the life of the Christian. And it in no way minimizes the importance of the law’s third use. We just have to understand the precise role that it plays for us today: the law serves us by making us thankful for Jesus when we break it and serves us by showing how to love God and others.

How would you boil your concern down to one sentence?

We are justified by grace alone through faith alone in the finished work of Christ alone, and God sanctifies us by constantly bringing us back to the reality of our justification.

How Doth It Appear that the Scriptures are the Word of God?

Answer:

The Scriptures manifest themselves to be the Word of God, by their majesty and purity; by the consent of all the parts, and the scope of the whole, which is to give all glory to God; by their light and power to convince and convert sinners, to comfort and build up believers unto salvation: but the Spirit of God bearing witness by and with the Scriptures in the heart of man, is alone able fully to persuade it that they are the very Word of God (Westminster Larger Catechism Q.4).

Rev. Jason Stellman: On the Tu Quoque Objection to Roman Catholic Apologetics

Rev. Stellman has written an excellent post on the essential epistemological equality of Roman Catholic and Protestant apologetics. Here's his conclusion:

So in conclusion, the Catholic’s point that his criterion is objective while ours is subjective is only true if you don’t start the clock until after he has finished doing all the subjective stuff in order to figure out what his criterion is in the first place.

When it comes to the most crucial part of the church-choosing process, therefore, the Catholic is indeed subject to the Protestant’s tu quoque objection, for before he surrenders his interpretive authority to the Magisterium he must work out from the Bible and church history what the proper criterion is for locating the true church.

Dr. Darryl Hart: On Social Justice and the Church

Here. And an excerpt:

The church’s mission is not social justice if, by such equity we mean the punishment of wickedness and the reward of virtue. . . .

If by social justice, like the way that Peter Lillback used it on the Glenn Beck show, one means various ways to improve a person’s material circumstances, such as education for the ignorant, relief for orphans, welfare for the poor, food for the hungry, and medicine for the sick, the matter of the church’s duties is contested. Word and deed advocates insist that the church carries out such work indiscriminately, that is, it provides welfare to everyone irrespective of their standing within the church (no matter whether a given congregation has the capacity to provide medical or educational assistance). Word and sacrament advocates in contrast hold that diaconal work is an important and necessary ministry but that the church’s role in alleviating misery extends only to the saints (except in extraordinary circumstances). Even then, the diaconate’s commission is not nearly as broad as the welfare state’s. Diaconal work is not an excuse, then, for the church to establish hospitals, orphanages, schools, and kitchens under the oversight of the church. The doctrine of sphere-sovereignty has long put limits on the church and given many of these functions to the family.

Rev. Roland Barnes: On Biblical Church Growth

Nick Batzig has posted a link to an excellent article on biblical church growth by Trinity PCA pastor Roland Barnes. Rev. Barnes writes:

It is the conviction of this writer that all efforts to plant and grow the church must be founded upon these two fundamental ingredients of ministry: prayer and the ministry of the word.

Dr. Guy Waters: On the Catholicity of Reformed Churches

Dr. Waters's writes in the foreword to Rev. Danny Hyde's excellent book Welcome to a Reformed Church:

You may be asking, "How do you reconcile your claim to 'catholicity' with the Roman Catholic Church's claim that she alone is the one true church?" Since the time of the Reformation, Reformed churches, in line with John Calvin, have argued that Rome is schismatic and that confessional Protestants are the true catholics. Such Protestants endeavor to hold fast to the pattern of sound words that Christ, the only King and Head of the church, has given to the whole church through His apostles (2 Tim. 1:13). Rome has departed in fundamental ways from this pattern. The claim to catholicity, these Protestants maintain, is valid only when it is attached to the reality of apostolicity. It is in this sense that Reformed churches are truly catholic (xv).

Overture from Northwest Georgia Presbytery: "An Alternative Plan for PCA Renewal"

The Northwest Georgia Presbytery has overtured the General Assembly offering "An Alternative Plan for PCA Renewal." Rev. Dr. Jon Payne writes:

Dear friends, the remedy to our denominational maladies is not the implementation of what some see as a fairly complex, mildly therapeutic, sociologically savvy strategic vision. Rather, what the PCA needs - in fact, what every NAPARC denomination always needs - is a clear, uncompromising call to biblical and confessional renewal, renewal that is on God’s terms, not man’s. It really is that simple. Indeed, God intended it to be. This way, when the elect are converted, sanctified (renewed) and comforted by the primary means of 1) faithful preaching, 2) biblical administration of the sacraments, and 3) steadfast prayer, then God gets all the glory. “Therefore, as it is written, ‘Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord’” (I Corinthians 1:31; see also WSC Q. 88).

Here's the overture:

Overture from Northwest Georgia Presbytery: "An Alternative Plan for PCA Renewal"

Whereas, the “PCA Strategic Plan” is a well-intentioned effort by the Cooperative Ministries Committee to address some of the perceived downward trends in the Presbyterian Church in America; and

Whereas, these apparent problems include a decline in membership, disunity and non-cooperation, and a lack of vision for twenty-first century missions; and

Whereas, the framers of this “Strategic Plan” have worked diligently to set forth a proposal that they believe will make the PCA a stronger, healthier denomination; and

Whereas, many will join with us in believing that the “PCA Strategic Plan” is misguided in its program for spiritual renewal, and view the downward trends in our denomination as having less to do with the various factors described in the “Strategic Plan,” and more a consequence of our unwillingness, as elders, to give ourselves wholeheartedly to what God, in His Word, has promised to bless for the health and extension of His kingdom; and

Whereas, the “PCA Strategic Plan,” among other things, seeks to cultivate spiritual renewal in the PCA by promoting “safe places” for theological discussion, “more seats at the table” of denominational development for women, young people, and minorities, and a closer working relationship with the “Global Church” in the area of missions; and

Whereas, while some may view these strategic proposals as leading the PCA towards a stronger future, many others will be uncomfortable with this strategy, believing that lasting spiritual renewal can come only through the outwardly foolish and weak means to which God has attached His saving promises; and

Whereas, the various committees already have the ability to sponsor “safe” discussions (these have been occurring for years in General Assembly and presbytery forums and seminars), and the nominating process has an adequate method of recommending seats at various tables; thus, short of specific BCO amendments, any merited aspects of these targets may already be pursued; and

Whereas, presbyteries, sessions, and other regional conferences—instead of by a top-down committee process—are the prime places for healthy discussion and for the generation of methods to improve our corporate life, and frequently do so with less vested interests; and

Whereas, some believe this “Strategic Plan” will create even further division in the PCA; and

Whereas, the greatest and most urgent need of the Presbyterian Church in America is not a complex strategy, but a clarion call to renew our avowed commitment to the Biblical, Reformed, Confessional, and Presbyterian Faith - a system of doctrine which has, for centuries, cultivated God-glorifying unity, humility, worship, spiritual/numerical growth, mission, service, sacrifice, giving, and cooperation all over the world; and

Whereas, our present need as a denomination is to rekindle our commitment to foundational Reformed doctrine and practice, reflected, in part, in the seventeen points listed below; and

Whereas, it is our conviction that a faithful implementation of these biblical doctrines and practices into the life and ministry of our presbyteries and churches will yield an abundance of spiritual fruit; and

Whereas, renewal on God’s terms cannot - and will not - fail;

Therefore, the Northwest Georgia Presbytery overtures the 38th General Assembly to call all its congregations and presbyteries to this simple, straightforward, unambiguously biblical call for renewal as an alternative to the complex and potentially divisive “PCA Strategic Plan,” except for the funding proposal already presented by the Administrative Committee, which this overture wishes neither to condemn nor support. And let us trust that in the coming years God will enable us, by His Spirit, to faithfully employ the spiritual means that He Himself has already provided us.

17 Points for PCA Renewal

A renewed commitment to the centrality of the God-ordained, efficacious means of exegetical, Christ-centered, application-filled, expository preaching (Is. 55:10-11; Ez. 37:1-10; Jn. 21:15-17 Mk. 1:38; Acts 2:42; 20:26-27; I Cor. 1:22-25; 2 Tim. 4:2-4; WLC 67, 154-5).

A renewed commitment to the centrality of the God-ordained, efficacious means of baptism and the Lord’s Supper (Gen. 17:9-11; Ex. 12; Mt. 26:26-29; 28:19; I Cor. 10:16-17; 11:17-34; Col. 2:11-15; I Pet. 3:21; Rev. 19:6-9; WLC 154; 161-177).

A renewed commitment to the centrality of the God-ordained means of private, family and corporate prayer (Ps. 63; Mt. 6:5-15; Mk. 1:35; Acts 6:4; Eph. 1:15-23; Phil. 1:9-11; I Thess. 5:17; I Tim. 2:1; WLC 154; 178-196).

A renewed commitment to - and delight in - the Lord’s Day (Gen. 2:1-3; Ex. 20:8-11; Is. 58:13-14; Mk. 2:23-28; Jn. 20:1;19; Acts 20:7; Rev. 1:10; WCF 21).

A renewed commitment to worship on God’s terms, according to Scripture (Ex. 20:4-6; Lev. 10:1-3; Deut. 12:32; Jn. 4:23-24; Acts 2:42; Col. 2:18-23; Heb. 10:24-25; 12:28-29; WCF 21.1).

A renewed commitment to private, family, and public worship (Ps. 63; Mt. 6:6, 16-18; Neh. 1:4-11; Dan. 9:3-4; Deut. 6:4-6; Eph. 6:1-4; Ps. 100:4; Acts 2:42; Heb. 10: 24-25; WCF 21.5-6).

A renewed commitment to wed our missiology to Reformed ecclesiology (Mt. 28:18-20; Acts 14:19-23; 15:1-41; 20:17, 28; I Cor. 11:17-34; The Pastoral Epistles; Titus 1:5; WCF 25; 30-31).

A renewed commitment to loving, Word and Spirit-dependent, prayerful and courageous evangelism (Mt. 5:13-16; 28:18-20; Acts 4:1-13; I Peter 3:15-16; WLC 154-7).

A renewed commitment to biblical church discipline (Mt. 18:15-20; I Cor. 5:1-13; 11:27-29; II Thess. 3:6, 14-15; I Tim. 5:20; WLC 45; WCF 30).

A renewed commitment to biblical diaconal ministry (Acts 6:1-7; Phil. 1:1; I Tim. 3:8-13).

A renewed commitment to catechize our covenant children in our homes and churches (Deut. 6:4-6; Prov. 22:6; Mk. 10:13-16; Eph. 4:12-13; 6:1-4; WSC).

A renewed commitment to biblical masculinity and femininity (Gen. 2:18-25; Deut. 31:6-7; Prov. 31:10-31; I Cor. 16:13; I Peter 3:1-7; Eph. 5:22-33; I Tim. 2:11-15; WLC 17).

A renewed commitment to entrust the leadership of the Church into the hands of the ordained leadership (Jn. 21:15-17; I Tim. 5:17; Heb.13:17; I Pet. 5:1-3; WLC 45).

A renewed commitment to the Reformed Confession which we have avowed, before God and men, to promote and defend as our system of doctrine (I Tim. 6:12; Heb. 4:14; 10:23; Jude 3; Westminster Standards).

A renewed commitment to the mortification of sin and worldliness (Rom. 6:11-14; 8:13; 12:1-2; I Cor. 6:12; Gal. 2:20; Eph. 4:20-24; I John 2:15-17; Gal. 6:14; WLC 76-7).

A renewed commitment to the doctrine of justification by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, apart from works of the law (Gen. 15:6; Hab. 2:4; Rom. 1:16-17; 3:21-26; 4:1-5; 5:1; Gal. 2:15-16; 3:10-14; Phil. 3:1-11; WCF 11).

A renewed commitment to rest, by faith, in Christ alone for salvation, without minimizing Gospel obedience (i.e. the third use of the law) / (Rom. 1:5; 6:1-2; 8:5-8; II Cor. 7:1; Col. 1:28; Eph. 4:1; 5:1-21; Phil. 3:12; I Thess. 5:23; Heb. 12:14; I John 5:3; WCF 19.5-7).

Furthermore, rather than having the Cooperative Ministries Committee propose additional structural changes, let us adopt this plan for renewal (reflected in the seventeen points above) asking our presbyteries and sessions, who are the best originators of denominational change, to study, discuss and implement it.

Accordingly, this overture asks our appropriate elected leaders to represent and publicize this to our churches in writing or in counsel as the action of the 38th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America. By taking this action, we, as elders, intend to send a clear and simple message to our churches, presbyteries, General Assembly, and the world, that the PCA will seek spiritual renewal on God’s terms, trusting solely in His sovereign wisdom and grace.

Humbly and Respectfully Submitted by:

The Northwest Georgia Presbytery

May 22, 2010

Geerhardus Vos: "Legalism" Diminishes the Law

One of the incipient characteristics of "legalism" is that it actually diminishes God's law. It is incipient for two reasons: (1) those who fall prey to "legalism" are usually unaware that they've actually diminished God's law and (2) those who fail to notice this fact react against "legalism" by adopting antinomianism and thus, practically speaking, come to the same end.

Concerning 2 Corinthians 3:6b, "For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life," Geerhardus Vos writes:

Inasmuch as condemnation presupposes sin, no reflection is cast on the law itself or the forensic relationship between God and man regulated by it. On the contrary, the very conception of the curse of the law enforced by God involves the full recognition and maintenance on the apostle's part of the forensic relation of accountability and inevitable liability to punishment in case of sin, as the broad fundamental plane on which God and man religiously meet. Ritschl has in vain tried to prove that Paul conceives of the curse of the law as detached or detachable from God. And if it is God's curse, then the mere fact of Paul's insistence on it stamps the whole scheme of man's treatment by God on the forensic basis with the apostle's approval. For it should not be overlooked, that the right of God to curse in case of transgression of the law is, from Paul's point of view, after all but the reverse side of His prerogative to bless and reward with the gift of eternal life where the law is obeyed. The apostle's doctrine of sin and the curse, therefore, is sufficient to prove his staunch adherence to the principle in question, as a primary principle of divine procedure. When he speaks contemptuously of the law method as a thing that is weak, that is no more than a letter that can but curse, these very expressions of contempt are based on the axiom that the legal relationship of man to God must have effect. It would be too little to say that the criticism of Jewish legalism involved in them is consistent with a high regard for the forensic principle in the abstract; in reality, it is the direct outcome of the latter. Because Paul is supremely concerned about the absolute necessity of meeting in some real way the legal demands of God, he pours contempt on the futile efforts of Judaism in this direction ("Legalism" in Paul's Doctrine of Justification, Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos, 389-90).

In other words, lessen the law and become a legalist. This is an ironic pattern of sin in the human heart.

Attempted Axiom: On the Church and the Gospel

[See this disclaimer and explanation of my Attempted Axioms here]

The church is the people of the gospel, not the gospel of the people.

Dr. Darryl Hart: On Machen, the Church, and Social Justice

Here

Zac Smith: To God Be the Glory

From Justin Taylor's blog. Justin writes:

Zac Smith is with Jesus. He fought the good fight of faith. He finished the race. He kept the faith. He’s entered into the joy of his Master. He didn’t waste his life, and he didn’t waste his cancer.

The Story of Zac Smith from NewSpring Media on Vimeo.

Wes White: On Love's Basis

Here is an excellent post from Wes on the health of Christian unity (i.e. love) and its proper basis (i.e. truth). And here's an excerpt:

Thus, often what people think is love is not love. If we are not seeking people's true good, then we are not really loving them. Conversely, it is very often the case that true love is not recognized for what it is. The child may not view it as love that he or she cannot have ice cream every night for supper, but this certainly does not mean that the parent who gives them meat and vegetables is not loving. In fact, if that parent were to give in to their child's desires, they would not be loving at all.

The Big Picture Story Bible

Yesterday, the Lord's Day, I read The Big Picture Story Bible to my five year old son (at HIS request!!!). I bought the book a couple years ago, and he's finally grown into it. If you have young children, I highly recommend it.

As its title suggests, it is wonderfully illustrated. But the title has a double meaning. David Helm really did a masterful job of bringing forward and communicating the "big picture" of the Bible in a way that is compelling and accessible for young children. For instance, rather than presenting God's Word as a book of warm morality tales, Helm returns over and over to the seriousness of sin and the great treasure of God's Promised Redeemer, our Lord Jesus Christ. It's one of the few children's books I've seen that actually teaches and illustrates sin, blood, and death, focusing on the grace of God in the redemption of his sinful people. The only drawback to the work is that it includes images of Christ, which in my view is a breaking of the second commandment. I've explained to my Son that the portrayals of Jesus are not real but instead are wrong. I'm teaching him that the Lord is risen and ascended and rather than leaving us pictures and statues of himself, he's left us the completed canon of Scripture and his Spirit. Interestingly, this is one of the messages brought forward by Helm at the end of his story Bible. But besides this problem, which is no doubt significant, The Big Picture Story Bible is a wonderful gift to the church!

Francis Turretin: On the Difference between the Natural Law and the Decalogue

Francis Turretin's Institutes of Elenctic Theology was THE text used to train generations of Presbyterian and Reformed pastors from the late 17th through the mid-19th centuries. He is a prime example of what Richard Muller has categorized as the "high orthodoxy" period (ca. 1640-1685-1725) of Protestant scholasticism (see Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics vol. 1 Prolegomena to Theology). Last year, as I studied the doctrine of the Sabbath, a friend recommended him. Turretin was most helpful, giving me precise categories with which to properly understand the biblical doctrine of the fourth commandment. Just the other day another friend encouraged me to read Turretin on the law of God. I began last night. Turretin's biblical insight and well-reasoned precision are wonderful. Here's what he has to say about the difference between the natural law and the decalogue:

If it is asked how this natural law agrees with or differs from the moral law, the answer is easy. It agrees as to substance and with regard to principles, but differs as to accidents and with regard to conclusions. The same duties (both toward God and toward our neighbor) prescribed by the moral law are also contained in the natural law. The difference is with regard to the mode of delivery. In the moral law, these duties are clearly, distinctly and fully declared; while in the natural law they are obscurely and imperfectly declared both because many intimations have been lost and obliterated by sin and because it has been variously corrupted by the vanity and wickedness of men (Rom. 1:20-22). Not to mention other differences: as that the natural law was engraven upon the hearts of men, the moral on stony tables; the former pertains to all universally, the latter only to those called by the word; the former contains nothing except morality, the latter has also certain ceremonials mingled in it.

Hence is easily gathered the reason why God wished to recall that law by Moses, to deliver it to his people viva voce, and proclaimed it in a solemn manner, committing it to writing and comprehending it in the decalogue. For although in upright nature there was no need of such promulgation, still (after sin) so great was the blindness of mind, such the perversity of will and disturbance of the affections that only remains of this law survived in the hearts of all (like rubbed pictures of the same, which on that account ought to be retouched by the voice and hand of God as by a new brush) (11.1.22-23a).

I'm sad to report that I've not read much Turretin. But I plan to remedy that soon.

Rev. Wes White: On Monocovenantalism and the Federal Vision

Wes has posted an excellent article on monocovenantalism and the undermining of the law-gospel distinction in Federal Vision Theology. Here's an excerpt:

What we are dealing with here, we shall call monocovenantalism, that is, one-covenantism. This does not mean that they believe that there are no differences between the pre-fall and post-fall covenants. Rather, the problem is that they believe that the fundamental structure of the covenants is the same.

How do they do this? They generally do not come out and say that life is obtained by works before and after the fall. Instead, they say that there is no such thing as a works principle. For them, life has always been obtained by grace through faith both before and after the fall. As Norman Shepherd writes in his book The Way of Righteousness:

The method of justification for Adam is exactly what it is for Paul as described in Romans 1:17, “The righteous will live by faith…” Justification now includes the forgiveness of sins, and faith is faith in the blood of Jesus. But the basic structure is the same: the righteous live by faith. It is true both before and after the fall that the righteous live by faith.

This may sound good to Reformed ears at first. After all, aren’t we staunchly for grace and faith? Why speak of a works principle at all? It seems that this gives us a powerful tool in contending for a gracious salvation.

However, what sounds good at first turns out to be the piper playing a song that leads us away from Biblical, Protestant theology. If the Bible does teach the works principle but we say that there is only a grace/faith principle, then we will end up turning the Biblical statements of the works principle into statements of the grace/faith principle. In other words, what the Bible calls law will now be called grace. What the Bible calls obedience will now be called faith. Works and grace will be confounded, and then grace will no longer be grace. Faith and law will be confused, and then the promise will be made of no effect.

Ironically, those who cry, “grace, grace” for all covenant structures end up with “works, works” for all covenant structures. This is always the result when the grace/faith and law/works principles are confounded. They end up with nothing but a law/works principle.

This conclusion, that the denial of the works principle in the name of grace necessarily leads to the denial of grace is indeed ironic.

Rev. Dr. Jon Payne: In the Splendor of Holiness

Yesterday I read Jon Payne's 2008 book In the Splendor of Holiness: Rediscovering the Beauty of Reformed Worship for the 21st Century. It is excellent! Of all the books I read last year on Reformed worship principles and practices, this is the book I will be giving to church officers and layman to introduce them to Reformed worship. Well written and deeply rooted in both the Bible and church tradition, Dr. Payne's (now there's a name I'd kill for) book is a refreshing drink for those wearied wanderers of the post-everything-once-held-to-be-sacred evangelical wilderness.

Following the foreword by Darryl G. Hart, Dr. Payne begins in chapter one by demonstrating the supreme importance of the church's worship and the fact that everyone has a liturgy. The question is not whether to have an order of worship? The question is whether to have an acceptable, biblical order of worship? Drawing from the biblical glimpses we get into heavenly worship (Isa. 6:1-3; Rev. 5:11-14; 7:9-10; cf. Heb. 12:28-29), Payne concludes that worship should be, "fervently reverent, gloriously dignified, exceedingly joyful, thoroughly God-centered, and ardently focused upon the person and redemptive work of Jesus Christ." He laments the fact that "In general, evangelical worship has become radically informal, presumptuously innovative, and biblically impoverished" (16). This is "due largely to the abandonment of a God-centered, biblically-regulated liturgy" (16). Payne describes the contemporary evangelical scene writing:

The design and focus of public worship has turned into a quest to satisfy our own felt needs rather than to glorify God. "Perverse modes of worship" [quoting from Calvin] characterize not only the sixteenth century Mass, but also much of twenty-first century evangelical worship. Drama and therapeutic messages have undermined the authoritative reading and preaching of the Word of God. Deep, affectionate, and substantial prayer has been pushed aside to make room for catchy announcements and personal testimonies. The best theologically rich, soul-stirring Psalmody, and hymnody has been replaced by shallow praise choruses. Baptism and the Lord's Supper have, in many quarters, been reduced to uninformed, sentimental rituals. To summarize, the means that God ordained and established for the salvation of his people (Word, sacraments, and prayer) have been, at best, minimized, and at worst, abandoned for something else entirely. A biblical liturgy, which sets forth and protects those means, must be recovered (17-18).

Payne goes on in chapter two to define and describe worship as: (1) Biblical, (2) God-Centered, Not Man-Centered, (3) Dialogical, (4) Simple, (5) Expressed in All of Life AND at Sacred Times, (6) Reverent, (7) Trinitarian, and (8) Setting Forth the Person and Redemptive Work of Jesus Christ. Worship should occur in three spheres: (1) Family worship, (2) Private worship, and (3) Public worship.

Payne finishes his book with brief chapters on the parts of a Reformed liturgy: (1) Call to Worship, (2) Singing of Psalms & Hymns, (3) Public Reading of Scripture, (4) Confession of Sin, (5) Assurance of Pardon, (6) Confession of Faith, (7) Pastoral Prayer, (8) Giving of Tithes & Offerings, (9) Preaching God's Word, (10) Sacraments, and (11) Benediction. Also appended to this volume are brief articles on the Lord's Day and the sufficiency of Scripture.

A few more excerpts of note are:

A biblically-regulated liturgy preserves and promotes God-exalting, Christ-centered, Spirit-filled worship. Of course, even with a well-ordered liturgy it is possible for a person to merely go through the motions. But isn't this true of any style or form of worship? Whether a congregation is confessing a creed or singing an energetic praise song, there will inevitably be congregants who are insincere. Hence, the church's prescribed order of worship must not be ruled by whatever we think enlivens the heart--something we ultimately cannot control. Rather, the inspired and authoritative Word of God must be the source and substance of our liturgy, thereby setting forth the means that God has promised to bless the lives of His redeemed children (19).

Theology, and not a pragmatic philosophy for church growth or the weekly quest for a mountaintop experience with God, must drive our worship (22).

God requires worship that is both outwardly biblical in form and inwardly sincere through faith (23).

No one's conscience should be bound in a worship service to do anything more or anything less than what God requires in Scripture (24).

Here is the point: If we truly believe that the sovereign God is drawing the elect to Himself--from every tribe, tongue, and nation--by uniting them to Christ through the means of his life-giving Word, then God-centered, Word-driven, Christ-exalting worship services will not only glorify God by making Him the central focus, but they will also be an avenue through which the elect will be gloriously converted (27).

Troubling in some of the more recent approaches to worship is the prominence given to music and singing. . . . Worship constitutes all the elements of the liturgy--from the call to worship to the benediction. Practically, this means that when the congregation is engaged in a corporate confession of faith, listening to an expository sermon, or receiving communion, they are worshiping God as much as when they are singing the final verse of It is Well with My Soul (28-29).

Worship in all of life flows from biblically regulated worship on the Lord's Day, not vice versa (32).

Family worship and personal worship are, no doubt, two of the best ways of daily preparing our hearts and minds for corporate worship on the Lord's Day (39).

In an effort to appeal to the secular and youth cultures, many churches have capitulated to the musical trends of our day, trends that plainly lack the reverence and beauty of first-rate, sacred music (52).

If taken to its logical conclusion, the "no creed but Christ" position is contrary to the Bible's mandate to sit under the teaching of Scripture by ordained men (see Timothy 2:1-2; 5:17; Hebrews 13:17).

Peter's powerful confession in Matthew 16:15-16, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God," sets forth the essence of the Christian faith. Creeds and confessions simply flesh out, in more detail, the meaning behind it (73).

The pervasive spirit of our day, it could be argued, is anti-authoritarian, anti-intellectual, and anti-formalistic. We see these attitudes in society at every turn. In general, people do not want to receive authoritative exhortation, even from God. They do not want to think on a deeper level than what the shallow pop-culture offers. And outside of a funeral service, most folks today rarely view an occasion which warrants a formal, reverent, and dignified posture (85).

Baptism is a means of grace, an instrument that the Holy Spirit employs not just once, but all throughout our lives to sanctify us and conform us more and more to the image of Christ (93).

Christ is not dragged down from the right hand of God when we partake of the Supper. His human nature is not ubiquitous. On the contrary, the Holy Spirit--who unites us to Christ--lifts us up by faith to the heavenly places to nourish our souls upon the life-giving Christ (96).

Today we see the effects of hard-core consumerism when we observe almost every strata of society busily working, buying, recreating and selling on the day that God established for worship and rest (108).

Pastors, I encourage you to purchase this book for officer training. It is rich in theological wisdom and insight, well written, and easily accessible for those without formal theological training. I highly recommend it!

CRITIQUING A CRITIQUE (Part 6): Dr. Stephen Wellum's "Baptism and the Relationship between the Covenants"

Just before moving to St. Louis a little more than a year and a half ago to fulfill a ministerial call, I began a series of posts critiquing Dr. Stephen Wellum's critique of the Reformed view of baptism. It's been a while since my last post in this series. I'd like to pick up now where I left off.

In part 1 we outlined Wellum's article. In part 2 we examined the introduction. In part 3 we looked at his ouline of the Reformed argument. In part 4 we looked at his treatment of the covenant of grace and infant baptism. In part 5 we looked at his treatment on the newness of the new covenant. Next we look at his thoughts on the nature of the covenant of grace. Here's where we are:

I. Introduction

II. The Covenantal Argument for Infant Baptism

1. An Outline of the Argument

2. The Nature of the "Covenant of Grace" and Infant Baptism

a) The "Newness" of the New Covenant

b) The Nature of the "Covenant of Grace": Conditional or Unconditional?

Wellum writes:

This present discussion raises two related issues that are crucial to understand why paedobaptists consider that the covenant of grace requires infant baptism. The first issue has to do with the nature of the covenant of grace. Even though it is difficult to define the exact meaning of the word “covenant,” most within covenant theology are pleased to define it somewhat as O. Palmer Robertson proposes: “a bond in blood sovereignly administered.”21

While I like Robertson's definition, I think it's better simply to understand a covenant as an agreement between two or more parties. These agreements usually include promises and provisos. Very simply it's 3 P's: (1) Parties, (2) Promises, and (3) Provisos.

Wellum continues . . .

In a covenant, especially a biblical covenant, God promises to be our God by his own sovereign initiative and grace. In response to God’s grace, we promise to be faithful to the Lord in terms of covenant obligations, namely, repentance, faith, and obedience.

It is important to remember that what Wellum has described is only true for postlapsarian covenants. It is not true for the covenant of works. In the covenant of works, "life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience" (WCF 7.2).

Wellum continues . . .

But this raises a thorny issue as to the nature of the covenant, especially whether the covenant is conditional or unconditional.

On the one hand, covenant theology has rightly argued that the covenant is unconditional. God acts in a sovereign and unilateral fashion to establish the covenant. Furthermore, he not only sovereignly establishes the covenant relation but he maintains and fulfills completely the promises that he makes to his people. In the end, everything God demands of his people in terms of repentance, faith, and obedience, he graciously grants them by sovereign grace in Christ and by the power of the Spirit. As Cornelius Venema nicely summarizes:

Not only are the covenant’s obligations preceded by God’s gracious promise, but these obligations are fulfilled for and in believers by the triune God— Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—in their respective operations. God’s demands are born of grace and fulfilled in us by grace. In these respects, the covenant of grace is unconditional, excluding every possible form of merit, whereby the faith and obedience of God’s people would be the basis for their obtaining life and salvation.22

First, I'm not sure what Venema means when he says the conditions of the covenant have been fulfilled "for" believers. He cannot mean that God believed the gospel for us. Reformed theology does not teach that God has fulfilled the condition of the covenant of grace for us in this sense. We understand that Christ fulfilled the condition of the covenant of works for us, the benefits of which we receive by faith alone (i.e. the condition of the covenant of grace). He must mean that Christ, according to the covenant of grace, fulfilled the covenant of works for us. So Venema seems to have both the covenant of works and covenant of grace in view when he says, "these obligations are fulfilled for and in believers by the triune God."

Also, the idea that God empowers us by his Spirit to fulfill the covenant obligation is simply another way of stating the Reformed doctrine of providence, namely that "God the great creator of all things doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest to the least" (WCF 5.1). This is true in a general sense for the actions of sinners outside the covenant and in a special sense for the actions of sinners within the covenant.

Wellum continues . . .

On the other hand, covenant theology has also argued that the covenant is conditional in at least two senses. First, the blessings of the covenant are totally dependent upon the work of Christ, since the last Adam fulfilled the conditions of obedience first set down in the covenant of works as both the representative and substitute of his people. Second, in order to benefit from the covenant, we are obligated to believe and obey.

The obligation (or proviso) attached to the covenant of grace is most properly speaking faith alone (WCF 7.3). Obedience is not an obligation of the covenant, it is an effect of the reception of its promise by faith. The only sense in which one might speak of obedience as a condition of the covenant of grace is if it is understood that sense it is our duty to believe the gospel so that we "obey" by believing it. But this is different from obedience as doing the law.

Wellum continues . . .

No doubt, these covenant obligations are not viewed as meritorious conditions; rather they are “necessary responses to the covenant’s promises” and, as such, are “instrumental to the enjoyment of the covenant’s blessings.”23 Most covenant theologians contend that the covenant of grace always involves a “conditional promise.” Thus, every biblical covenant, as part of the one covenant of grace, carries with it a conditional promise “with blessings for those who obey the conditions of the covenant and curses for those who disobey its conditions.”24 In other words, in principle every biblical covenant, including the new covenant, is conditional in the second sense described above and is thus breakable.25 It is precisely at this point that most covenant theologians argue for the “mixed” nature of the people in the covenant of grace. That is, the covenant community is comprised of both covenant-keepers and covenant-breakers.

This is not quite accurate. There are two kinds of covenant breakers: (1) a covenant child who never professes faith in Christ and (2) a professing believer demonstrating a lack of repentance for his sin. A covenant child who never professes faith would eventually and sadly just fall away from the church, willfully leaving the community. A professing believer who persists in his sin without repentance would eventually be excommunicated.

Wellum continues . . .

So the circle of the covenant community, whether in the old or new era, is wider and larger than the circle of election.26 Thus paedobaptists argue that, in principle, there is nothing objectionable in viewing unregenerate people as part of the covenant community and applying the covenant sign to them.27

This last clause: "there is nothing objectionable in viewing unregenerate people as part of the covenant community" is a bit misleading. It seems to suggest that covenant theologians are apathetic about the purity of the church. While it is true that regeneration is not a prerequisite for inclusion in the covenant community, and therefore not a prerequisite for receiving the covenant sign, it does not follow that Reformed churches are therefore apathetic about the purity of their membership. Instead, they should be striving for a purely regenerate membership. In other words, covenant theologians recognize that part of the work of the church is to be consistently teaching and calling its covenant children to a credible profession of faith. Likewise, it should be disciplining those believers whose lifestyles are casting doubt upon the credibility of their profession.

Interesting Book Buying Stats from Tim Challies

Here.

Dr. Benjamin Shaw: On Church and Culture

Dr. Benjamin Shaw continues his multi-post summary and commentary on the proposed PCA strategic plan here. In this post he gets into a church and culture issue that I think is one of the most significant differences among constituencies within the PCA. It has been my experience in talking with students and observing former students that Covenant Theological Seminary (the PCA's seminary) approves and teaches a transformational model of church and culture (i.e. an aspect of the role of the church is to work directly to transform broader human societies). Dr. Shaw of Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, on the other hand, represents the historic reformed perspective known popularly today as reformed two-kingdom theology (R2K) (i.e. the role of the church is to preach the Word, observe the sacraments, and pray unto the justification and transformation of human souls, which may, at best, have an indirect impact on broader human societies as individual Christians or non-ecclesiastical associations of individual Christians interact therein).

On the proposed strategic plan's list of twenty-five global challenges Dr. Shaw writes,

The real question is not whether these things are real challenges (they are, and not for the church only), but in what way they are challenges for the church as church. For example, with regard to #25 (sex trafficking), I'm not sure that the church as church, whether considered as the PCA in particular, or the global church, has anything other to do than to proclaim the whole counsel of God, to wit that manstealing is not only a crime, it is a sin; that rape and sexual abuse of other persons is not only a crime, but a sin; and that all who practice such things will stand at the bar of a holy God to answer for them. It may well be that particular Christians, and even coalitions of Christians, are burdened to speak and act in the political realm regarding this issue. They are not only free to do so, they should be encouraged to do so. But it is not the calling of the church as church to enter into the political arena on this or on any similar issue. The same analysis applies to most of the rest of these items.

Dr. Robert Letham: On the Need for Creeds

From his article "Catholicity Global and Historical: Constantinople, Westminster, and the Church in the Twenty-First Century" in the latest WTJ:

There are those who claim that we are entering an entirely new era requiring a massive paradigm shift in the church's thought and action. In this case, historical theology is merely a curiosity. It may have a part in an ongoing conversation but the debate has moved on. The past is effectively sidelined since a conversation, as it progresses in subtle and dynamic ways, renders obsolete and irrelevant comments made five minutes ago. Many voices praise the idea that the church will be freed from its captivity to Western Europe and North America. This misses the point that the foundations of the church were laid by Egyptians (Athanasius and Cyril), Turks (the Cappodocians, Maximus the Confessor), Tunisians (Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine), and a Syrian (John of Damascus), to say nothing of the apostles (Middle-Eastern Jews)--these hardly look like Western Europeans, let alone North Americans. This mantra is a coded message, indicating that its utterer wants to move away from the confining dogmas of the Reformation.

Moreover, precisely because the Christian faith is global, the contributions of Western Europe and North America have their place alongside those of Egypt, Turkey, and Syria. If globalism prevails, these regions can hardly be excluded. However, to place the speculation of Anne Nasimiyu Wasike that in the African context Christ is to be regarded as a mother--since mothers are what Africa needs--alongside the historic declarations of the church of East and West that have stood for a millennium and a half as acknowledging the truth, and to see them both as equal partners in a dynamic and ongoing conversation, is to deal a fatal blow to the apostolicity of the church. The ecumenical creeds cannot be reduced to conversation partners at a global roundtable. Insights there may and will be from various parts of the world. But the nature of the ecumenical council was quite different--they simply confessed the truth and the church recognized what they confessed. They were acknowledging the apostolic faith, not bringing insights from their culture. The same principle applies to the teachings of the Reformation. As Richard John Neuhaus insisted, where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will sooner or later be proscribed.

Traditionalism v. Confessionalism

At the end of the day ecclesiological traditionalism is the same as ecclesiological liberalism. Both deny the sufficiency of Scripture and affirm the sufficiency of human autonomy. Also, both reject the abiding value of the providence of God in the historical development of Christian dogma and doctrine. Neither is confessional. Here's an excellent post on these issues at The Confessional Outhouse with respect to worship. And here's an excerpt:

What is needed today is reform and recovery of confessionally Protestant worship in the liturgical tradition. Do we want true diversity in our midst? Then level the playing field by making worship Reformed according to Scripture where diverse social, cultural and political views can exist in submission to true worship instead of divvying us all up by forms of worship designed to divide by these same cultural value systems.

Of course, worship is simply the outward expression (and perpetuation) of a theology. What the wanting categories of “contemporary/traditional” worship tell us is that at the heart of all the rankle of worship wars is a theology that is quite at odds with a historically and confessionally Reformed theology. In some quarters the spirit of war has waned and hands are joined over the phrase “blended worship” where Genevan psalms are set to Metallica riffs. Traditionalists look down their noses less at the contemporary, and vice versa, because all have agreed on one crucial thing: worship is about us, so do what pleases your inward tastes most. Some might think they have transcended the rankle by validating these categories and asking innocuous questions of worship like “is it godly worship; are the words biblical; is God glorified; is it done is spirit and in truth?” Words and phrases like these sound pious, of course, but what do any of those questions really mean other than to show that they merely lean hard on sentimentality and not theology?