FRIDAY EDWARDS QUOTE

From Sermons and Discourses, 1723-1729, vol. 14 of The Works of Jonathan Edwards, "A Spiritual Understanding of Divine Things Denied to the Unregenerate."

We must be often praying to God that he would give us wisdom. Jas. 1:5, "If any lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him." If we would obtain spiritual knowledge, God is the fountain of all light and all understanding, and the way to come by knowledge from this fountain is often to go to it and wait at it for the flowing of the streams. They that come to God for instruction are most likely to be instructed by him (emphasis mine).

THE FUTURE OF JUSTIFICATION: A RESPONSE TO N. T. WRIGHT

Justin Taylor has posted the first of several entries on Piper's forthcoming book on Justification. Here is what Darrell Bock, Research Professor of NT Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, had to say about it:

A good biblical dialogue needs two good conversation partners, who work hard to understand each other and make their case biblically. Piper's look at justification does this with a superb tone and a careful presentation of his case. He and Wright exchanged communication before this book went public. Piper appeals to the wisdom of the ages on justification, a wisdom deeply rooted in Scripture. Wright argues his approach is also deeply rooted in Scripture as seen through a fresh appreciation of the first century context of Paul's writing, a context we too often underestimate. This dialogue is important for the church; Piper has put us in a position to hear both sides of the debate and understand what is at stake. He has served us all well by enabling the reader to be put in the place of considering what Scripture says as he or she listens to this conversation and to our God. Iron sharpens iron, and Scripture is a sword that cuts between the soul and Spirit. Be prepared to be sharpened by a careful dialogue about what justification is.

I can hardly wait for this book to hit the cyber-shelves!

THE PCA: ONE REASON FOR THE RESURGENCE IN CALVINISM AMONG PROTESTANTS

About a month ago Dr. Mark Dever, pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington D.C. and founder of Nine Marks Ministries, began a series of ten blog posts entitled: "Where'd All These Calvinists Come From?" The purpose of the series is to offer an answer to the question of how the resurgence in Calvinism among protestants today came to be? As of yesterday he is up to post number seven.

I had only read through the first couple until just a moment ago. I just finished reading the other posts and was proud (in the good way) of post number six. In post number six Dever offers the formation of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) back in 1973 and its subsequent growth to 1500 congregations and 300,000 communicant members (that's not counting all the children who have yet to join full communion!) as an answer to his question. He writes:

In the mid-twentieth century, Calvinism was at a low ebb in America (at least outside of Western Michigan!). I've suggested in this series some factors which explain something of its resurgence. The last one I suggested in the 1970s was the Inerrancy Controversy. In the early days of that--you could say in part, as some of that controversy's earliest fruit (even before the turn-around of the Missouri Synod Lutherans and long before the recommitted conservatism of the Southern Baptist Convention's leadership) was the founding of the Presbyterian Church in America.

Having just joined a Park Cities Presbyterian Church (PCA) with my family, begun working as a patoral intern at PCPC, and been scheduled to come under care of the North Texas Presbytery at the end of August, Dever's post makes me proud (again, in a good way) of being affiliated with the PCA.

Our triune God is both great and good. May he continue to honor his gospel among his people in the PCA or whatever denomination they find themselves in.

GRAHAM PREACHES EDWARDS, KIND OF

The Jonathan Edwards Center at Yale University has recently opened a very interesting online exhibit entitled: "Billy Graham and 'Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.'" Graham preached a personally edited version of "Sinners" during the Canvas Cathedral crusade in Los Angeles in 1949.

The exhibit includes two excellent videos from Dr. Kenneth Minkema, executive editor of the Works of Jonathan Edwards project, assistant professor of advanced religious studies at Yale Divinity School, and an expert in Edwards's sermonic literature. Digital recordings and manuscripts of Graham's rendition are also included.

A few points were particularly noteworthy to me. First, as Minkema points out, Graham's version avoided the covenant theology of Edwards's original. The theology of the covenant which had been so central to the Puritans of England and America and their Calvinist forebears on the European continent was now considered an ancillary issue for Graham and his audience a little more than 200 years later.

Second, Graham significantly softened Edwards's Calvinism to the point of transforming it into a practical Arminianism. Where Edwards spoke of the "mere arbitrary pleasure of God" as the only restraint keeping sinners from falling immediately into Hell's torments, Graham changed the language to the "mercy of God." For instance (Graham in red):

That the Reason why they are not fallen already, and don't do not fall now, is only that God's appointed Time is not come and for the mercy of Almighty God.

And also:

The Fire pent up in their own Hearts is struggling to break out; and they have no Interest in any Mediator rejected Jesus Christ, the son of God, there are no Means within Reach that can be any Security to them after they have rejected and turned down Jesus Christ. In short, they have no Refuge, nothing to take hold of, all that preserves them every at this Moment is the mere arbitrary Will mercy of God, and that is, uncovenanted unobliged Forbearance of an incensed a wrathful God against sin.

Third, Minkema makes a point that speaks to the change in religious sensibilities from mid-18th century colonial America to mid-20th century post-war America. Graham changes a significant aspect of the rhetorical structure of Edwards's sermon. He immediately offers the solution to man's sin, Christ, up front and often throughout the sermon. Edwards, however, waited until nine pages into the sermon after bringing the hearers to the brink of despair over their sin before offering Christ to them.

Finally, Minkema points out that neither Edwards upon first delivery nor Graham at the crusade was able to actually finish the sermon. The respective reasons are noteworthy. Edwards was unable to finish because the hearers were moaning and crying in distress at the condition of their souls and the awareness of their precarious positions relative to God. Minkema suspects that Graham was perhaps unable to finish because the sermon was just too long and people may have started fidgeting.

The exhibit is fascinating. Check it out.

PHIL RYKEN ON TRINITARIANISM AND WORSHIP

Given the question posed by Carl Trueman:

Is the practical ignorance among church leaders of the first five centuries of Christian thinking having a damaging effect not simply on the catholicity of contemporary Protestant theology, but also upon its understanding of who God is and how we relate to him, both in the worship service and in the worship of everyday life?

And the follow up question from Derek Thomas:

Is the current trend for "Christ-centered" preaching in danger of a subtle (or none-too-subtle) unitarianism?

Phil Ryken responds in part:

I suppose there is a danger that Christ-centered preaching may eclipse the Father and the Spirit. It should be kept in mind, however, that as our Savior and Lord, Jesus Christ rightly deserves our particular praise. To know the Son is to know the Father, Jesus said. And the work of the Spirit is to glorify Christ. So the Father and the Spirit are also worshiped when Christ is praised as our Creator and Redeemer.

With our proclivity in the work of theology to over- and under-emphasize the particulars of revelation to the point of misrepresenting the whole (i.e. sin), it is comforting to know that Christ is the great equalizer.

FRIDAY EDWARDS QUOTE

On the doctrine of original sin:

I look on the doctrine as of great importance; which everybody will doubtless own it is, if it be true. For, if the case be such indeed, that all mankind are by nature in a state of total ruin, both with respect to the moral evil they are subjects of, and the afflictive evil they are exposed to, the one as the consequence and punishment of the other, then doubtless the great salvation by Christ stands in direct relation to this ruin, as the remedy to the disease; and the whole gospel or doctrine of salvation, must suppose it; and all real belief, or true notion of that gospel, must be built upon it (Original Sin, vol. 3 of The Works of Jonathan Edwards, 103.)

FRIDAY EDWARDS QUOTE (LATE)

From "Miscellanies" No. 3:

Happiness Is the End of the Creation, as appears by this, because the creation had as good not be, as not rejoice in its being. For certainly it was the goodness of the Creator that moved him to create; and how can we conceive of another end proposed by goodness, than that he might delight in seeing the creatures he made rejoice in that being that he has given them?

It appears also by this, because the end of the creation is that the creation might glorify him. Now what is glorifying God, but a rejoicing at that glory he has displayed? An understanding of the perfections of God, merely, cannot be the end of the creation; for he had as good not understand it, as see it and not be at all moved with joy at the sight. Neither can the highest end of the creation be the declaring God's glory otherwise than to raise joy in ourselves and others at what is declared.

Wherefore, seeing happiness is the highest end of the creation of the universe, and intelligent beings are that consciousness of the creation that is to be the immediate subject of this happiness, how happy may we conclude will be those intelligent beings that are to be made eternally happy!

THE WORD OF POPE

In light of the recent discussion in which I have been reading and engaging on Roman Catholicism over at Parchment and Pen (sparked by this article from Dan Wallace), which I've posted articles on here, here, here, and here, I found todays NY Times Article quite interesting. Kind of makes me wonder if the pope has been reading Parchment and Pen.

GUY PRENTISS WATERS AND THE EFFECTS OF KANTIAN SKEPTICISM ON MODERN EXEGESIS

Recently I have been thinking a lot about the NPP. Fundamental to that dialogue is hermeneutics, the art of interpretation. One of the chief concerns of hermeneutics is the role of systematic theology in exegesis. Virtually everyone within the Reformed-Protestant tradition is in agreement that the grammar and historical context of Scripture is an essential element of sound hermeneutics. However, within the modern Protestant church some have challenged the role of systematics in the process of interpretation. In my experience, this was a popular, if not the predominant, understanding at DTS. My rather uninformed position has always been that systematics must play a central role in hermeneutics. I came to that conclusion by examining the way the church has historically interpreted Scripture, as well as through study in the science of knowing (i.e. epistemology). Scripture has never been interpreted in isolation from the wider canon or tradition. It has always been informed by both. And for finite creatures, parts and wholes must always exist in dialogue with one another. Each is essential to knowing.

I have had my suspicions as to why we "modern-thinking" people have tended to exalt the particular over the systematic. Mostly I have attributed it, in part, to Kantian skepticism and the reaction by Friedrich Schleiermacher and his successors injecting extreme individualism into Protestant thought. It seems that such individualism automatically leads to a suspicion of the systematic expression of truth.

Today, I began reading Guy Prentiss Waters's book Justification and the New Perspective on Paul. For the first time that I can recall I ran across an historical explanation of the phenomenon in question. After setting the stage with the Reformation principles of historical-grammatical interpretation, sola Scriptura (not nuda Scriptura), and the analogy of faith (i.e. Scripture interpreting Scripture), Waters writes:

We jump now from 1564, the year of Calvin's death, to 1826, the year that F. C. Bauer began to teach at Tubingen. In the interim, Lutheranism had declined in Germany. We may briefly note one pertinent cause of this decline here. European philosophy had now radically embraced doubt as its epistemological starting point. This skeptical posture extended to biblical authority and the church's understanding of biblical teaching, especially as that understanding came to expression in systematic theology. Exegesis would assume an unprecedented independence from systematic theology and the history of intepretation. H. A. W. Meyer reflects the stance in the 1829 preface to the first installment (1829) of his justly famous New Testament commentary:

The area of dogmatics and philosophy is to remain off limits for a commentary. For to ascertain the meaning the author intended to convey by his words, impartially and historico-grammatically--that is the duty of the exegete. How the meaning so ascertained stands in relation to the teachings of philosophy, to what extent it agrees with the dogmas of the church or with the view of its theologians, in what way the dogmatician is to make use of it in the interest of his science--to the exegete as an exegete, all that is a matter of no concern.

No longer would exegesis be governed by the teaching of Scripture as a systematic and theological whole. For many German students of the Bible, exegetical and systematic theology had effectively and finally parted ways (pp. 3-4).

I remember in seminary asking my Bible professor a question about his soteriology and getting the basic reply: "I'm a Bible teacher not a theologian." At the time I didn't understand how or why the two fields, Bible and theology, should or even could be separated. I still don't buy into the separation, but I think I'm beginning to at least understand the history behind the idea.

DR. FRANK BECKWITH ADDS TO THE DISCUSSION AT PARCHMENT AND PEN

For those of you who have been following the Protestantism vs. Catholicism discussion over at Parchment and Pen, today Dr. Frank Beckwith, the ETS president who recently converted to Roman Catholicism, commented in the discussion. You can read it here.

FRIDAY EDWARDS QUOTE (LATE)

This week I have been engaged in a conversation about the differences between Roman Catholicism and Reformed Protestantism. You can read more on that if you would like here, here, and here.

One of the basic points in the original post and now the follow up post at Parchment and Pen, has been that because Roman Catholicism has so much in common with Protestantism, then it is necessarily in a better position or somehow closer to true religion than those religions with which we have very little if anything in common (e.g. Mormonism, JW, Unitarianism, Islam, Hinduism, etc.)

This morning while reading from Edwards's "Miscellanies" I ran across this insightful entry. From "Miscellanies" No. hh (Yale edition of Works):

Antichrist. It is alleged against the Church of Rome being Antichrist--say they, how can he be Antichrist that profess Christ? To that it may be answered, that he is a great deal the more Antichrist for that, for he is a [great] deal the worse for it; and the worse he is, surely the more anti-Christ, against Christ. Now certainly, those wickednesses that are professed, est[ablished] and commanded by that church are much the worse for their profession of Christ, for their professing the fundamental articles of the Christian faith. They ever deny Christ, because they profess him, than it is possible for any of those that do not profess Christ to be; more anti-Christ than it is possible for the heathenish, Jewish, or Mahometan church to be.

To illustrate it by example: thus the filthiest of a snake or toad is much more abominable for being joined with life, which is in itself excellent, than the same filthiness and shape would be in lifeless matter. Thus again, the hatefulness of the devil is much greater for its being united with an angelic nature. So there is as much difference [between] the Church of Rome and heathens, Jews, or Mahometans, as there is between a viper or some loathsome, poisonous, crawling monster, and lifeless filthy matter of the same shape.

I do not condone the harsh rhetoric employed by Edwards here with respect to the conversation over at Parchment and Pen. That conversation notwithstanding, before passing judgment on Edwards's rhetoric in itself we must remember that this writing is from a personal notebook never intended for publication. I don’t quote him to bash those who may be my brothers or sisters in Christ who still hold membership in the Roman Catholic Church. I love my brothers and sisters as fellow members of the body of Christ, bought by his perfect life and sacrificial death. We are the adopted children of the Father who has loved us and given his Spirit to us. Why should I murder my brother in the spirit of Cain?

I only mean to point out that Edwards makes a salient point that is directly related to the discussion. He is asking and answering the question: Does the fact that Roman Catholicism holds so much in common with Reformed Protestantism necessarily lead to the conclusion that it is in any better position or closer to the true religion than those religions with which we hold very little if anything in common? I think the way Edwards answers that question is quite insightful and contrary to a fundamental assumption of both the posts at Parchment and Pen.

JAMES WHITE COMMENTS ON DR. WALLACE'S POST

Recently I read a post by Dr. Dan Wallace entitled "51% Protestant" over at Parchment and Pen. Basically, the post seems to be meant to diminish the differences between "the three major branches of Christendom": Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy. I commented in disagreement to some of what Dr. Wallace said in that post and have blogged on it here and here.

Today, it appears that Dr. James White has left a comment on Dr. Wallace's blog in disagreement with him on the same point. This has been a very interesting and profitable conversation for me and Dr. White's contribution is noteworthy.

FERGUSON ON GRACE AND CONNECTING IT TO THE ROMAN CATHOLIC GOSPEL QUESTION

Tony Reinke at The Shepherds Scrapbook posted a great statement today from Sinclair Ferguson on grace. Here is the quote:

No such ‘thing’ as grace

by Sinclair Ferguson

There is nothing between the person of the Lord Jesus and the person of the believer as that union and communion develops and grows. I think this is a very important thing for us to grasp. Let me put it the way I sometimes put it: The union with Christ we have is not that we somehow or another share His grace. Because – follow me carefully – there actually is no ‘thing’ as grace. That actually is a Medieval Roman Catholic teaching. There is a ‘thing’ called grace that can be separated from the person of Jesus Christ. It is something Jesus Christ won on the Cross and He can bestow it on you. And there are at least seven ways it can be bestowed on you and they all, as it happens, turn out to be in the hands of the church. And you can have this kind of grace, and this kind of grace, and this kind of grace … There is no such ‘thing’ as grace! Grace is not some appendage to His being. Nor is it some substance that flows from us: ‘Let me give you grace.’ All there is is the Lord Jesus Himself. And so when Jesus speaks about us abiding in Him and He abiding in us – however mysterious it may be, mystical in that sense – it is a personal union. Do not let us fail because of the abuse of expressions. Do not let us fail to understand that, at the end of the day, actually Christianity is Christ because there isn’t anything else. There is no atonement that somehow can be detached from who the Lord Jesus is. There is no grace that can be attached to you transferred from Him. All there is is Christ and your soul.

Lately I have been thinking through the proper way to distinguish between the gospel of Tridentine Roman Catholicism and the gospel of the Reformers. There can be no question that the two understandings are mutually exclusive. Therefore, someone has to be wrong. I believe the Reformed gospel is the right gospel. The Roman understanding, on the other hand, is wrong. But is the Roman gospel a false gospel?

I recently interacted with Dr. Dan Wallace, Professor of NT at DTS over at Parchment and Pen. He felt that, while the Protestant gospel is a better expression of the gospel than the Roman gospel, it is going too far to label the Roman gospel false. According to Wallace, it is incomplete, but not false when considered holistically. Therefore, it should be called a partial gospel.

In discussing the issue with dear friends today, I found myself confused. For more than four years I have been ready to affirm that the Roman gospel is semi-pelagian and, therefore, false. But I encountered several good reasons today why we should be very careful to label a tradition that we hold so much in common with as teaching a false gospel. While the scriptures treat the idea of a false gospel firmly and call for ministers to protect the church from false teachings, they also call us to be diligent in maintaining the bond of unity. Therein lies the rub.

We Reformed Protestants basically agree with RC on fundamentals such as trinity and the theanthropic Christ (although I still maintain that the doctrine of transubstantiation is for all practical purposes a denial of Christ's full humanity). But one major difference between us is soteriological: how is the benefit of Christ's atonement applied to sinners? The Protestant-Reformed answer to that question is summarized well in the Cambridge Declaration as sola gratia, sola fide, and solus Christus. I have heard some argue that while we may disagree on the how of salvation, we do not disagree on the who and therefore should not consider one another (and it is important to remember that the charge goes both ways!) doctrinally apostate.

But are sola gratia, sola fide, and solus Christus doctrines which are not essentially tied to one's view of Christ's person and also the triune God himself? In other words, are they merely the nuts and bolts of how salvation occurs but not included as necessary knowledge of the gospel that must exist at some fundamental level if a person is to trust Christ?

In the quote above, Ferguson is certainly not arguing for some fundamental knowledge of what Christ did (accomplishing our redemption) and how it's appropriated in our lives (sola gratia, sola fide, solus Christus). Nonetheless, perhaps his words are helpful in at least recognizing that separating the work of Christ from the person of Christ is a theoretical rather than phenomenological convention. It is only helpful in the process of communicating the many facets of who Christ is and what Christ accomplished, however, in actuality, the person of Christ cannot be separated from his work at all. For Athanasius, who was so key at the council of Nicea, the work of Christ was the fundamental argument mounted for the person of Christ, particularly his divine nature. Anselm later asked Cur Deus Homo?, "Why the God-man?" Answer: because what the God-man did required that he be the God-man, both fully man and fully God. In other words the work of Christ has a direct and necessary relationship with the person of Christ. One could make the case that apart from the early church's understanding of the work of Christ there would be no trinitarian orthodoxy.

Now certainly official Roman doctrine accords with both Athanasius' and Anselm's understandings of the work of Christ. I'm not suggesting that it doesn't. I am merely pointing out that the principle connection between the person and work of Christ seems to be one of fundamental importance in the development of orthodox Christian doctrine. An orthodox understanding of the person of Christ, however scant, simply cannot be divorced from an orthodox understanding of his work, however scant.

Another principle we must remember is that Christian orthodoxy has been clarified historically so that we should not be surprised that earlier soteriological expressions were a bit looser than they are today. There is clear historical precedent for the development of doctrine including the need for greater precision in Christian confession after its development. Perhaps this same principle could be applied to the doctrinal development of sola gratia, sola fide, and solus Christus after the Great Reformation?

I'm NOT suggesting that a person has to hold the equivalent of a Bible College degree in order to know and trust Christ, just that perhaps a basic understanding of the work of Christ ala sola gratia, sola fide, and solus Christus comes inherent to a basic trust in Christ himself for salvation. Along with this I am suggesting that a Christian with that basic understanding, when presented with the more precise truth of the further doctrinal refinement, should be expected to eventually embrace it as true just as Christians post-Nicea should be expected to eventually embrace its trinitarianism after being clearly taught. I also mean to suggest here that our historical situation being post-doctrinal-refinement in this respect (post-Reformation) means that one cannot simply level the charge that I'm therefore condemning large portions of the church prior to the Reformation because I am requiring that after being taught sola gratia, sola fide, and solus Christus Christians should be expected to affirm them or risk the label heterodox.

At this point in my understanding, I still do not believe it is enough to see the Roman gospel as merely partial. It is wrong at a fundamental, definitional level, and therefore false. That gives me no pleasure. It breaks my heart that such a large body of people that claims the name of Christ is, officially speaking, teaching a false gospel. We need to pray for those people and love them and share the gospel with them. And we need to understand the difference between official teaching and actual beliefs in the pew. Roman Catholicism is by no means monolithic when it comes to what the average Roman Catholic actually believes. Each person should be engaged as such with all wisdom and grace.

The study and thinking involved with respect to this, while far from over for me, has been exhausting, exhilarating, and always interesting. I praise the Son who came and took the form of a servant to save his church from her sins through the atonement offered in his own precious blood. I pray that by our Father's grace in all our thinking we who aspire to be teachers among God's people might apply with wisdom a resoluteness for doctrinal precision in protecting the church from falsehood, all the while maintaining a sincere desire for unity within the church he loves so dearly.

DAN WALLACE: 51% PROTESTANT

I regularly read a blog called Parchment and Pen. Dr. Dan Wallace, Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary is a contributer. His posts are always very thoughtful and interesting, truly contra mundane. I highly recommend them and the theology resources at Reclaiming the Mind Ministries.

Here is an interesting article posted by Dr. Wallace yesterday. The article seems to be aimed at minimizing the differences between Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestantism, and particularly, within the sphere of Protestantism, evangelicalism. Wallace concludes:

As I suggested in my last blog, I’m questioning some of the tenets of Protestantism and evangelicalism. That doesn’t mean that I’m questioning the whole thing; I still believe that the evangelical faith is the best expression of genuine Christianity today. But I also believe that it is flawed and that we can learn from Catholics and Orthodox. And just as it is possible for someone to be saved and be an evangelical, I think it’s possible for someone to be saved and be a Catholic or eastern Orthodox. So, I’m still at least 51% Protestant (and Luther is still a hero of mine), but I have no qualms criticizing my own tradition and exploring what we can learn from others.

This, of course, raises a significant issue: If the theological distinctions between Catholics, Orthodox, and evangelicals don’t define the boundaries of heaven and hell, then what do they do? What is the value of such distinctions? What purpose do they serve?

I agree that we must be willing to criticize our own traditions, and wider evangelicalism is certainly ripe for criticism. I also agree that we can learn from other traditions such as Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. We must hold to orthodox Christian doctrine with all humility. I am thankful that our God’s mercy is wide and his gospel even reaches some who sit under false-teaching with regard to Christian fundamentals. I would never go so far as to say that one who calls himself a Roman Catholic is ipso facto condemned. But if a person is truly informed, understanding the reality and importance of the doctrinal differences between official Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, yet elects to remain Roman Catholic, I have to doubt whether that person has any true basis to be assured of his salvation. How can we find true assurance in a false gospel?

Perhaps the theological reductionism that plagues contemporary evangelicalism, while perhaps helpful in some cases, may eventually serve to undermine itself. In other words, it may serve to blind its adherents to the very meanings of the words and phrases that make up their fundamental doctrines. Once the meaning of those doctrines is lost, any meaning becomes acceptable as long as the right words and phrases are used. I do not think this is what Wallace is advocating, but it does seem to be what is happening among evangelicals.

While on vacation a couple weeks ago visiting family in the promised land (i.e. the great state of Georgia) I heard two statements in two different conversations that might serve to illustrate this point quite well. First, I was asked by a Southern Baptist family member in Cochran, GA: "What is the difference between Presbyterians and Baptists?" I responded with the basics, while her eyes glossed over. Five minutes later when I finished my mini-diatribe, she responded: "Well you know I'm not really concerned with the formalities of religion. All I'm concerned with is whether or not I'm saved." I smiled and explained that I felt like the "formalities" of religion were the necessary outgrowths and expressions of the fundamentals of the gospel by which we are saved. She agreed so as to end the conversation as more company arrived.

A second conversation I had was with a couple of Charismatic/Holiness (Church of God) family members. I was asked point blank: "So Jay, what do you think of Joel Osteen." This same family member had asked the same question last year when we visited for Christmas. At that time he asked while all the family members were gathered and enjoying one another's company in multiple conversations in the living room. So after receiving, a sharp look from my wife, I just ignored his question and made conversation with someone else. This time we were alone, so I answered honestly: "I think he is preaching a false-gospel." He replied: "Really, how so?" I explained that Osteen denies original sin, the work of Christ, and offers people more than God has promised in this life (i.e. psychological wholeness, prosperity, good health) as the gospel. Silence. After a minute or so he said: "Well I know one man who preaches the gospel: Billy Graham." Oh no, I thought, the trump card! He asked: "What do you think of Billy Graham?" I responded that I thought, while many people may have come to faith in Christ through his ministry, Graham's inclusivism was a denial of the gospel and his revivalistic techniques were a plague within the modern church, the fruits of the Second Great Awakening. His girlfriend responded: "My dad was saved because of Billy Graham." I responded: "I rejoice in your father's salvation! What a gift of grace! But I don't believe that anyone is ever saved because of a mere man. Only God draws people to faith in Christ. Thankfully, he does that through the preaching of men, even if the doctrine preached is imprecise." She replied, "I just think there's too much dissension between people. They say, 'the Methodists are right' or 'the Baptists are right' or 'the Charismatics are right.' I think all that matters is whether your saved or not." At that point more family members entered the room and the conversation went another direction.

My point is this: Reducing everything down to whether or not God can save sinners in a given environment does not seem to be a particularly helpful or responsible way to evaluate theological traditions. Can God save a Roman Catholic? Of course he can. God's mercy is wide! Truth be told we were all saved as heretics through the witness of less-than-perfect theological traditions. Does that make Roman Catholic dogma right or minimize our responsibility to get our theology right? Not at all. As R.C. Sproul has said: "We never have the right to be wrong in our theology." That is why the church must be semper reformata semper reformanda, always reformed always reforming.

I left a few comments under Wallace's post in disagreement with one statement in particular. Wallace writes:

. . . the three major branches of Christendom all embrace the truths that Jesus Christ is fully God, that he died for our sins, that he was raised from the dead, and that we are saved by God’s grace alone through faith. There’s so much right with other groups that it’s impossible to claim that they’re all wrong!

Click the link to the article above to read my comments and Wallace's replies.

BTW, on Parchment and Pen my username is "jybnntt."

THE PARASITIC NATURE OF HERESY

I read a very interesting post over at Against Heresies this morning. Martin Downes makes the insightful point that most heretics, while willing to change their theology, are unwilling to change membership in their respective institutions. He sights contemporary church historian D. G. Hart as well as B. B. Warfield and J. Gresham Machen during the early debates between liberals and fundamentalists at the turn of the twentieth century. Downes quotes Warfield writing:

It may be, as Troeltsch seems to suggest, that "Liberal Christianity" lacks the power to originate a church and can live only as a kind of parasitical growth upon some sturdier stock. It may be that it is not driven by internal necessity to separate itself off from other faiths, on which it rather depends for support.

The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield Vol. III: Christology and Criticism, p. 444

Downes concludes:

This could be one reason why, having altered their theology, some preachers seek to hold on to their orthodox credentials and the constituency they belong to. Perhaps it is a tell tale sign when their books and conferences make a direct appeal to the disillusioned and disaffected followers of the host movement.

I think Downes and those he cites are right. I'd never thought about heresy in these terms. Very interesting!

D.G. HART ON BAPTISM AND CHURCH GROWTH

Following the lead of my liturgical-reformed colleague, Matt Bradley, I'm currently reading D. G. Hart's Recovering Mother Kirk: The Case for Liturgy in the Reformed Tradition. It is quite a leap for a recovering baptist (no disrespect to my baptist brethren intended) but definitely a welcomed breath of fresh air. After criticizing aspects of the modern church-growth movement Hart writes:

In and of itself, baptism is a technique for church growth unrivaled by modern methods. It's cheap, simple, and doesn't require strategic thinking. What is more, baptism, as the Westminster Shorter Catechism teaches, signifies our "engrafting" into Christ and "partaking" of the covenant of grace (Ans. 94). It also admits persons into the visible church. But aside from the phenomenological aspects of this sacrament (i.e. how much, how big, how many), baptism also nurtures the qualitative growth of individual believers. In the words of the Westminster Larger Catechism, the "duty of improving our baptism" is a lifelong endeavor that consists partly in "growing up to assurance of pardon of sin, and of all other blessings sealed to us in that sacrament" (Ans. 167). Pondering the significance of the sign that we wear daily because of the water of baptism, then, is actually more effective and of deeper significance than wearing a WWJD bracelet. Consequently, baptism gives exactly what church-growth experts want: numbers and spritual depth. More important, baptism is what Chirst commanded in the Great Commission, even though the legions of Protestants who look to Matthew 18:18-20 as the proof-text for all manner of evangelistic endeavors rarely remember that Christ commanded his disciples to teach and baptize. One way to fulfill the Great Commission, therefore, is to have more babies and see that they are baptized (47, emphasis added).

FINALLY FINISHED LIBRARY THING . . . FOR NOW

A couple months ago my friend and esteemed colleague, Matt Bradley, introduced me to a web resource for bibliophiles called Library Thing. Among other things, Library Thing allows you to catalog your library book-by-book with tags allowing for easier look ups. It also allows others to view your library directly from the site or through a sweet blog widget. (I've been scanning Matt's library and, besides having a mild case of library envy, I've already spotted a few books I intend to "borrow" from him when he's not looking.) It's free up to 200 books, then they want either $10/year or a $19 minimum "donation" for a lifetime membership. I opted for the lifetime membership. Yesterday I finally finished cataloging my books, at least until I buy more. You can browse my library by scrolling down this page and clicking my library in the sidebar on the right.

P.S. Gun, I've seen your cluttered library. You've got to get on this! Plus I need to know what sweet John Owen books to borrow from you.

PAUL HELM ON N. T. WRIGHT'S ORDO SALUTIS

Paul Helm has posted an excellent article examining and evaluating N. T. Wright's ordo salutis and doctrine of justification over at his blog Helm's Deep. Here's an excerpt:

It is fair to say, I think, that for Wright this first vindication is more event-like than state-like. At the same time Wright emphatically denies that justification is on the basis of the imputation of Christ's righteousness. (252, 256) 'It is not God's own righteousness or Christ's own righteousness that is reckoned to God's redeemed people but, rather, the fresh status of "covenant member" and/or "justified sinner", which is accredited to those who are in Christ, who have heard the gospel and responded with "the obedience of faith"'. (253) . . .

. . . With the help of the distinctions between temporal and logical order, and events and states, we are able to see that Wright's view of the ordo salutis follows a recurring pattern in Protestantism: the rejection of the imputation of Christ's righteousness, and justification on the basis of some change or achievement in the person concerned. That justification is temporally after the beginning of these changes is vital to this view of the ordo. Different versions of this pattern can be found in Arminianism, and other movements affected by Arminianism, such as Baxterian neonomianism and Cambridge Platonism. The pattern is: justification is grounded (partly at least) in subjective states. In Wright's case, in faith and covenant membership, unmerited gifts of God, (257) and all that they imply. Justification/vindication is temporally subsequent to being in the covenant, it is an assurance of it. (261) If, as Bishop Wright says, his account of justification 'does the job' of the Reformers' imputation of an alien righteousness, (260-1) then it does that job very differently.

If Bishop Wright has a controversy with the Protestant tradition, as he says that he has, then there is little that is new about his own proposal, even though it may be founded upon a novel account of what St. Paul really said. It’s the old, old story; a moralistic declension from true evangelicalism.