Category: Theology

Categories
Theology Worship

Christian Liberty and Liberty of Conscience

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

From a teaching series on Worship, this lesson explored the notions of Sphere Sovereignty and the limits of authority that God has placed upon certain institutions. It then explored the notion of Liberty of Conscience and how it affects our understanding of corporate Worship.

The lesson notes can be downloaded here: Christian Liberty and Liberty of Conscience

Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XX
Of Christian Liberty, and Liberty of Conscience

I. The liberty which Christ hath purchased for believers under the gospel consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, the condemning wrath of God, the curse of the moral law;[1] and, in their being delivered from this present evil world, bondage to Satan, and dominion of sin;[2] from the evil of afflictions, the sting of death, the victory of the grave, and everlasting damnation;[3] as also, in their free access to God,[4] and their yielding obedience unto him, not out of slavish fear, but a childlike love and willing mind.[5] All which were common also to believers under the law.[6] But, under the new testament, the liberty of Christians is further enlarged, in their freedom from the yoke of the ceremonial law, to which the Jewish church was subjected;[7] and in greater boldness of access to the throne of grace,[8] and in fuller communications of the free Spirit of God, than believers under the law did ordinarily partake of.[9]

1. Titus 2:14; I Thess. 1:10; Gal. 3:13
2. Gal. 1:4; Col. 1:13; Acts 26:18; Rom. 6:14
3. Rom. 8:28; Psa. 119:71; II Cor. 4:15-18; I Cor. 15:54-57; Rom. 5:9; 8:1; I Thess. 1:10
4. Rom. 5:1-2
5. Rom. 8:14-15; Gal. 4:6; I John 4:18
6. Gal. 3:8-9, 14; Rom. 4:6-8; I Cor. 10:3-4; Heb. 11:1-40
7. Gal. 4:1-7; 5:1; Acts 15:10-11
8. Heb. 4:14-16; 10:19-22
9. John 7:38-39; Acts 2:17-18; II Cor. 3:8, 13, 17-18; Jer. 31:31-34

II. God alone is Lord of the conscience,[10] and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship.[11] So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience:[12] and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.[13]

10. James 4:12; Rom. 14:4, 10; I Cor. 10:29
11. Acts 4:19, 5:29; I Cor. 7:22-23; Matt. 15:1-6, 9; 23:8-10; II Cor. 1:24
12. Col. 2:20-23; Gal. 1:10; 2:4-5; 4:9-10; 5:1
13. Rom. 10:17; Isa. 8:20; Acts 17:11; John 4:22; Rev. 13:12, 16-17; Jer. 8:9; I Peter 3:15

III. They who, upon pretense of Christian liberty, do practice any sin, or cherish any lust, do thereby destroy the end of Christian liberty, which is, that being delivered out of the hands of our enemies, we might serve the Lord without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.[14]

14. Gal. 5:13; I Peter 2:16; II Peter 2:19; Rom. 6:15; John 8:34; Luke 1:74-75

IV. And because the powers which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another, they who, upon pretense of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God.[15] And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity (whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation), or to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the church, they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against, by the censures of the church.[16]

15. I Peter 2:13-14, 16; Rom. 13:1-8; Heb. 13:17; I Thess. 5:12-13
16. Rom. 1:32; 16:17; I Cor. 5:1, 5, 11-13; II John 1:10-11; II Thess. 3:6, 14; I Tim. 1:19-20; 6:3-4; Titus 1:10-11, 13-14; 3:10; Matt. 18:15-17; Rev. 2:2, 14-15, 20

Things to consider:

What is the difference between a scruple and something in the Law of God?

How do we handle those whose scruples are more strict than our own?

How do we handle those whose scruples are less strict than our own?

Do the Elders of the Church have the right to decide what is right for worship and everyone just needs to go along?

What if everybody in a Church is fine with something in worship but an element of worship troubles the conscience of a single individual?

Categories
Sacraments

Who Deceives Whom with Baptism?

A discussion recently ensued when a Baptist brother claimed the following:

Another point I want to make is that every parent eveywhere is responsible for raising their children up in the LORD. It matters not if they are regenerate or not. We are all going to be held accountable for how we all discipled our children. It doesn’t take some kind of doctrinal Covenant inclusion to do this. In fact I think it is rather deceptive to teach a child they are in a New Covenant relationship with God when they may be strangers to the covenant. It neglects the nature of what the new Covenant is. A Covenant made based upon the forgiveness of sin and knowing the Lord. Not like the one that the early church fathers could break. It is an unbreakable Covenant.

I addressed my response to Baptists:

1. Baptists keep talking about an overarching presumption that, in telling children they are in the New Covenant, they can “rest on their laurels”. It’s like we’re saying: “Son, presume you are Elect and you have nothing to go to God for and say: ‘Save Me!'”

In so doing, Baptists are actually projecting the problem with their own presumption. Dr. Clark called it confusing decree and administration. As I noted before, what are you telling someone if you say:
a. The New Covenant is with the elect alone.
b. We only baptize those we have “maximal confidence” are elect
c. We are baptizing YOU, the man who just confessed Christ.

In essence, you are giving him an unwarranted presumption. In fact, I was just listening to Gene Cook and John Goundry say the other day that Preachers only have to tell those outside the NC to “…know the Lord” (i.e. repent and be baptized) because we don’t tell those in the NC that because that’s been fulfilled. Notice the presumption – they are baptized = they are in the New Covenant = they are elect.

This gets very confusing because I know if I press Gene on this he’s going to admit that he doesn’t know who’s in the NC so the exercise of who you can and can’t say “know the Lord” to becomes quite impossible. Do you see how Baptists can tie themselves into knots on this point if they actually thought about it? Yet, if you go back and read even portions of this thread we have people arguing that we should have people telling the Church: “Oh, I’m elect, the Holy Spirit told me so”.

Thus, I think the presumptive problem lies with the nature of Baptistic baptism and trying to find a nexus in the perfection of the New Covenant. It is not really fair for you to ascribe the presumption you have for the people you baptize with the hope and promise that we have for those we baptize.

2. Sadly, I feel a sense in which you are missing the very power and weight of the Gospel to convert. Romans 6 is part of the Gospel by the way. Notice what you guys keep saying about “presuming” on the part of sinners. Why do you think a reprobate man is going to presume any less for a Law passage (do this and live) than He is about a Gospel passage. If a man is dead in His sins and trespasses then he presumes upon everything. The Pharisees had presumption of the Law down pat as well as the threat of hell. They just deceived themselves that it didn’t apply to them.

Check out my teaching on Romans 6 at our website if you get a chance – http://www.baptistchurch.jp/teaching.html

It is my conviction that passages like Romans 6 can actually convert the soul. They feed hungry Christian souls. I think you guys worry too much about the reprobate presuming upon Grace and not enough about feeding Grace to the elect you have in your midst. Even as we sneer at Roman Catholics who say: “Don’t teach that kind of stuff because it’s a license for liberty”, we don’t preach it openly because we’re afraid (like them) that the wrong people are going to get the wrong idea. Worry about the right people getting the right idea more! Feed them this stuff. Stuff them with it! One-third of Romans is this stuff. It’s not merely doctrinally interesting but it is the basis for the ethics.

3. I love this point that Dr. Clark cited:

74. Are infants also to be baptized?

Yes, for since they belong to the covenant and people of God as well as their parents, and since redemption from sin through the blood of Christ, and the Holy Spirit who works faith, are promised to them no less than to their parents, they are also by Baptism, as the sign of the Covenant, to be ingrafted into the Christian Church, and distinguished from the children of unbelievers, as was done in the Old Testament by Circumcision, in place of which in the New Testament Baptism is instituted.

See, again, the problem I see is that it is the Baptists who presume too much. You guys presume, by your profession, that you’re elect and so you turn a wary eye toward the young’uns who haven’t. First, you shouldn’t be presuming upon your profession. Second, you should be seeing that everyone visible in your midst needs the kind of Grace I was just talking about.

You worry too much about the bad apples and you punish the whole crowd. You can’t figure out who to punish so you punish every child calling him unregenerate while claiming regeneracy for the adults. Where does such presumption come from? I’m not saying not to tell kids to repent but tell adults to repent too. Tell everyone to repent where Paul does. The Gospel is bouncing off the walls of your Church as you proclaim it to man, woman, and child. Stop worrying about who is elect among you and deal with the visible assembly in your midst. Let the Holy Spirit do its work but don’t preach with one arm tied behind your back. Preach the whole counsel of God and where it says “repent” tell everyone and where it says “rejoice” then proclaim it as the Word does. And let God sort out the rest.

Don’t even destroy the simplicity of the Gospel by demanding that solid, intellectual assurance that you want all adults to express. If a brother is struggling with assurance don’t impoverish him with “try harder” to determine if you’re elect. Focus him upon the Cross. Tell him that it’s as simple as believing. Do you believe Christ died for sin? Do you believe Christ raised Him from the dead? Believe! Proclaim Romans 8 to him. If he’s reprobate then that’s his problem but if he’s elect then let it feed him and establish him!

But stop impoverishing the flock by playing to the fear of the lowest common denominator.

***UPDATE***

After I posted this I got a response from a dear brother in the Lord who is a Baptist elder. He felt my words were intende to deny the fact that Baptists understand that Romans 6 is part of the Gospel. My extended remarks are as follows:

I think you need to take the position as a whole and not parse the issue and take it personally. I had to sum up a lot of people’s thoughts. I was unspecific because I wasn’t aiming it at a Baptist but a line of thinking that begins with the assumption that NC=elect -> Profession which necessarily excludes those who are too young to profess in a mature fashion.

There is then an underlying assumption that if you treat the immature as if they are spiritually minded that it will lead to presumption and that it is deceptive to teach them anything other than the condemnation of the Law. I repeatedly hear from Baptists (in general) that the only status that children have is that they are in Adam and unregenerate. They claim this on the basis of the child’s profession. Conversely, those that are professors are presumed (too much I think) to be regenerate on the basis of profession. There is an unhealthy mix of presumption about regeneration for professors and unregeneration for non-professing (young) members).

I wasn’t denying you believed all about Romans 6 and the Gospel in general. Please forgive me as I can understand how some of it came off as patronizing. I’m sorry to you and other Baptists if I sounded pejorative or condescending. I was trying to connect to the underlying concern in the OP, pull together some disparate posts, and draw it all out. I wanted to move from our common base of understanding regarding the Gospel and move to how the manner of Baptism and the way you talk about visible members actually undermines the program of the Gospel. In some aspects it is meant to sting (in a loving way) to get some to understand why the Reformed paedo baptizes into discipleship and not to declare of a person – this one is elect and this one is not.

The shoe fits for some or all aspects better than others, but credo-Baptism as an overarching system, in the way it treats the young – presuming them to be unregenerate – witholds an aspect of the Gospel from them. That witholding of the Gospel to the young is of the nature of Romans 6. It assumes that the only thing a child needs to hear is that they need to repent of their sins. On the other hand, it might see that adult professors don’t need to hear as much about repentance of sins (because after all they’ve professed). My view is that ALL in the visible Church need the full orbed presentation – professors or too immature to profess. The full presentation will mature and convert babes and the full presentation will mature and convert adults.

In the end, where the shoe fits, wear it. Your frustration is mine. As I stated in another thread, the Baptist view is very eclectic (even though you guys are all supposed to be 1689 LBCF) and some argue in different ways. I’m sorry that you feel slighted when I have to refer to a strain of Baptist thinking that is, in the main, representative of the issue. Conversely, Reformed paedobaptists are pretty monlithic in the understanding of the issue. Regardless of the aspects that you believe fit tightly or not, you have to answer for the reasons why you don’t baptize the young and why you believe profession alone is the arbiter of when discipleship begins. The difficulty in nailing down where Baptists fall on these issues communicates to confusion in the pews and why, when a Baptist calls up Pastor Gene Cook on the Narrow Mind he has no idea how he can possibly train his child in the fear and admonition of the Lord without training the child to obey the Law as a Pharisee might vice a motivation that focuses on love for God (Romans 6).

Categories
Worship

Why the Regulative Principle of Worship?

The Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW) simply defined is this: Whatever God has not specifically commanded in worship is forbidden.

The Old Testament is full of either implicit or explicit condemnation of Judah and the Israelites on the basis of false worship. It is the fundamental reason for their downfall. In fact, if you read the 1st Chapter of Romans you can see that man either worships God as He is and is thankful to Him as Creator or he turns to idolatry. Idolatry leads to a “giving over” to folly, which, in turn, leads to depraved actions – a downward spiral of unrighteousness. But it all begins with false worship.

To ask “Where has God told us not to worship Him except as He has commanded?” Try Exodus and Leviticus for starters. Implicit in the details is a reflection of the fact that God expects to be approached a certain way and that sacrifices before Him will be conducted a certain way.

Why not simply broad brush the whole thing and specify that animals are to be killed, Priests appointed, etc? For one thing, it ties back to the nature of man as outlined in Romans 1. The idolatry of man is such that, even with such detailed commands, man invents ways to even goon up specific commands.

Read 1st and 2nd Kings. What is the sin of Jeroboam? For political pragmatism, he sets the nation of Israel on a course of idolatry that they never turn from.

Read Jeremiah. It’s filled with references that state: “…which I had not commanded nor did it come into my mind….” Idolatry is not simply something God has forbidden but is referred to as something which He has not commanded.

Read the whole book of Amos. Understanding how they are worshipping (after reading 1st and 2nd Kings) sheds light on why they’re being condemned. It’s like Romans 1 being lived out in the Northern Kingdom. Idolatry and social injustice are simply two sides of the same coin. People were actually stricter in their religious observances than the Law required. The only problem is that they weren’t at the Temple.

In fact, as I was teaching Amos recently I realized that two men looking at the Southern and Northern Kingdoms and watching two worshippers from North and South would have been hard pressed to tell the difference. If I’m Joe the Ephraimite and grew up worshipping at Bethel, my worship externally looked precisely the same as Harold the Benjamite who’s bringing his sacrifice to the Temple in Jerusalem. Perhaps the same Words were being spoken as they place my hands on the sacrifice. Perhaps they were both scrupulous about the Sabbath. The only thing that separated them was geography. Post-modern man would scoff at any notion that they’re any different on such a basis.

But God commanded worship at His sanctuary and not at the high places.

It’s pretty hard, in the end, to separate God’s prescriptions for worship from His prohibitions against the way man commits idolatry.

Why?

Because of the sinfulness of the human heart. If we’re not getting our ideas on how to worship God from Him in His Word then Romans 1 declares that our natural inclination is to invent idolatrous ways to do so.

Categories
FV and NPP

On Douglas Wilson and Covenant Children

In a discussion about Covenant Children, Rev. Winzer wrote:

Believing parents are given a prime opportunity to be the means of their children’s conversion. Children of believers are more culpable for their unbelief because they have sinned against means. Believing parents become culpable for their children’s unbelief if they do not provide the means for their children’s repentance.

Concise and elegant as usual.

As critical as I’ve been of Wilson, it is not because I am unfamiliar with his work on the Christian family. I have read a number of his works, even used portions for studies on marriage and child-rearing. It is not all bad and there is some practical wisdom found therein.

Even before I thought Wilson was going in the wrong direction theologically, I would have warned a person to read him with a grain of salt and not completely drink the Koolaid in his writings. When he teaches, it is nigh impossible to distinguish between when he is exegeting a didactic principle from the Scriptures from when he is stating a “seems to me” opinion (however well founded in his own experience). In fact his opinions become the basis for further reflection so the text of Scripture is left even further behind. Because Wilson has no small degree of charisma, not all are able to separate where their consciences ought to be bound and where they shouldn’t.

I honestly don’t believe enough work has been done to link this issue of the family as the real genesis of the whole Federal Vision controversy. It really is the issue of Covenant Children that drives this issue. As has been noted, some of the criticisms of the laxity of Presbyterians regarding their covenant responsiblities is to blame. I would attend the OPC Junior and Senior High retreats a few years ago and only 1-2 out of a crowd of 300 young men and women could fill in the blank on catechism answers. Memorization is not a guarantor of regeneration but it does indicate a lack of family worship and instruction in the home.

Thus, you have Ministers and Elders with many apostate children and Churches that take no action because, after all, “…the children are not elect…”, so what can these men do about it? That attitude is completely contrary to the Word regarding the subject of apostasy. God never blames Himself for unbelief. As Rev Winzer pointed out, He blames the unbeliever and He blames the parents. To say He ordained the reprobation of a child is rather like Adam reminding God that, after all, You gave me this woman. Read Psalm 78, which describes the cycle of apostasy as children are not taught the things of the Lord and then forget Him.

Now, as much as I agree with Wilson that the state of affairs in the Presbyterian Churches is lamentable (and not Reformed in their understanding of parental responsibility) his solution is not the correct one. As with most errors, the course correction is usually tacked too hard. It is my belief that they wanted to link the issue of parental responsibility too much to the nature of salvation as if the nature of God’s election does not include such things as means and our responsibility to obey His Word. In the end, even the best parent will find ample failures on their part that, if weighed in the balance of perfection, would be reason for them to conclude that God does not “owe” them a redeemed child.

It needs to be enough for us to live according to the commands of the Scriptures to train our children (and to enjoin them to obey) without presuming upon the hidden counsel of God and change our Sacramentology and Soteriology to give us more assurance that our efforts will lead to the salvation of our child. In the process, in fact, as they have left the Confessional understanding of such things they have undermined the very Gospel that they should be pointing their children to!

Thus, be wary of Douglas Wilson’s works. Because he has some good things to say in criticism of the modern Reformed Church, his work is very alluring. But because He prefers personal interpretation, converts Proverbs to didactic literature, and his opinions are indistinguishable from his exegesis, he leads his devotees down a path which ultimately abandons our Confessions. We need no more assurance than the true Gospel will provide and creating a category of faithfulness to make us feel better about those intervening years of a child’s development, while we have to wait in faith, is drinking a poisonous Koolaid indeed!

Categories
Sacraments

The Gospel and the Sacraments Direct our Faith to the Same Object

I do so appreciate the opportunity to interact with Rev. Winzer on the Puritanboard. I learned long ago not to bristle when he challenges me on a statment I make. He challenged me today on my use of some sloppy terminology with respect to the sacraments and caused me to delve back into the Confession and the Heidelberg to determine the meaning of the Sacraments.

From Rev. Winzer:

Rich, thus far we have the gospel indiscriminately preached to all, whilst sacraments are administered to those in the visible church. We also have faith in the gospel essential to salvation whilst sacramental participation is not essential to salvation. The third and final point I am fairly sure you will concur with is that the gospel offers salvation as a present need, whereas sacraments are administered on the basis that salvation is a reality. Hence, the gospel is really and fundamentally a promise, whilst sacraments point to the fulfilment of the promise. Given these three qualifications, I would say the idea that sacraments are gospel is an unhelpful one, and it is best to distinguish Word (gospel) and Sacraments. Blessings!

When I think of promise in the Sacraments, I’m thinking along these lines:

WCF Chapter XXVII

III. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither does the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that does administer it: but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.

Heidelberg:

Question 66. What are the sacraments?

Answer: The sacraments are holy visible signs and seals, appointed of God for this end, that by the use thereof, he may the more fully declare and seal to us the promise of the gospel, viz., that he grants us freely the remission of sin, and life eternal, for the sake of that one sacrifice of Christ, accomplished on the cross.

Especially in Question 67, the Heidelberg underlines that both word and sacrament ar meant to point us to Christ. I realize that, after reading this, the Heidelberg distinguishes as you do from the teaching of the Gospel and assurance by the Sacraments. I need to be cleaner in my terminology. I won’t say they are Gospel but I will say they direct our faith to the same object that the Word does.

Question 67. Are both word and sacraments, then, ordained and appointed for this end, that they may direct our faith to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross, as the only ground of our salvation? (a)

Answer: Yes, indeed: for the Holy Ghost teaches us in the gospel, and assures us by the sacraments, that the whole of our salvation depends upon that one sacrifice of Christ which he offered for us on the cross.

In Question 69, I love the way the Heidelberg links the sacrament as a visible sign that can be used to help us remember what was done for us by the sacrifice of Christ for us who have faith:

Question 69. How art thou admonished and assured by holy baptism, that the one sacrifice of Christ upon the cross is of real advantage to thee?

Answer: Thus: That Christ appointed this external washing with water, (a) adding thereto this promise, (b) that I am as certainly washed by his blood and Spirit from all the pollution of my soul, that is, from all my sins, (c) as I am washed externally with water, by which the filthiness of the body is commonly washed away.

And to anticipate the objections of those who believe too much is being promised here:

Question 71. Where has Christ promised us, that he will as certainly wash us by his blood and Spirit, as we are washed with the water of baptism?

Answer: In the institution of baptism, which is thus expressed: “Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”, Matt.28:19. And “he that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be damned.”, Mark 16:16. This promise is also repeated, where the scripture calls baptism “the washing of regenerations” and the washing away of sins. Tit.3:5, Acts 22:16. (a)

or from those who think that the water is somehow magical…

Question 72. Is then the external baptism with water the washing away of sin itself?

Answer: Not at all: (a) for the blood of Jesus Christ only, and the Holy Ghost cleanse us from all sin. (b)

But yet there is still something fundamentally spiritual going on in the Sacrament.

Question 73. Why then does the Holy Ghost call baptism “the washing of regeneration,” and “the washing away of sins”?

Answer: God speaks thus not without great cause, to-wit, not only thereby to teach us, that as the filth of the body is purged away by water, so our sins are removed by the blood and Spirit of Jesus Christ; (a) but especially that by this divine pledge and sign he may assure us, that we are spiritually cleansed from our sins as really, as we are externally washed with water. (b)

Categories
Biblical Theology

The Children of Israel: Who Are They?

The Children of Israel

Exodus 3:10

Come, I will send you to Pharaoh that you may bring my people, the children of Israel, out of Egypt.


Notice that the whole of God’s people was that of Jacob’s Children (Children of Israel). At the end of chapter 2 we read, ““¦and God remembered his covenant he made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.“ We know that Jacob’s name was changed to Israel. Thus, we conclude, according to the precedent set so far in Scripture, that God is dealing with the Hebrew people covenantally. It is interesting to note that God doesn’t make a distinction bewteen the righteous children of Jacob and the unrighteous children. Rather, he refers to all of Jacob’s descendants. This, no doubt would include both believers and unbelievers, and yet God calls them all his people.

This has been historically understood in different ways. We will look at 3 such ways, and I will offer a dissenting opinion concerning the first (Dispensational). The remaining two (Reformed Paedobaptist and Reformed Baptist) are very much alike, with some differing views concerning the inclusion of infants in the Covenant. Because debates between these two tend to polarize I will avoid critiques of them, because I simply want this to be an informative post and not one of polemics. Don’t get me wrong, there is a time and a place for such debate, but not here and not now.

1) Dispensational Understanding-Just as their multipe shades and stripes of Baptists, Presbyterians, etc., there are multipe types of dispensationalists. Some are referred to as classical, some as progressive, and at least one I know refers to himself as a leaky dispensationalist (the last not being an official class of dispensationalism, but I would describe it as dispensational only in the context of eschatology).

The Dispensationalist would tend to recognize this as merely a physical identification of God’s people, because, according to them, the covenant is merely that of a land promise, etc. The Dispensational hermeneutic would say that there is little to no continuity between how God worked with Israel and how He works with the Church, resulting in an erroneous “two peoples of God” theology. Though most would say that the Hebrews were saved through justification by faith alone just like any other Christian, this would cause them to downplay, in my humble opinion, the role of God’s covenantal dealings with the nation. God’s covenant made with Abraham is more than just a land promise, and is called an everlasting covenant.

2) Reformed Paedobaptist Understanding-There are multiple denominations which represent this view. Presbyterian, Congregationalist, Dutch Reformed, Anglican Reformed, etc. There may be varying distinction in degree of emphasis, but are all very similar in regard to covenant.
The Reformed Paedobaptist would say that God’s covenantal dealings with Israel, as based on the Abrahamic covenant, have both eternal and temporary aspects. They would recognize a more strict continuity between God’s dealings in the Old Covenant and His dealings in the New Covenant. In fact, the Reformed Paedobaptist would make the case that the New Covenant is much more expansive than the Old Covenant, in that not only are believers and their children in covenant with God from the Hebrew nation, but there is a more thorough inception of Gentile believers and their children equated into the mix as well.

This is where the Reformed Paedobaptist would distinguish between what has been called the “visible” church, and the “invisible” church (Along these same lines is the idea of the external/internal aspects of the covenant). From their perspective, those adults who repent and believe are baptized, they and their children, and then are all a part of the visible church. However, no man can know a person’s heart, thus they can’t know beyond a doubt that a man is or is not a part of the invisible church. That being said, this means that the invisible church are those who have been elected by God, before the foundation of the world, and who have been irresistibly drawn, effectually called, justified, and are being sanctified until glory. This is how, they say, God could call the whole of Israel his people, yet knowing that many of them ultimately broke covenant. They would say that, likewise, in the New Covenant, there will be those who profess Christ, but do not possess him. These are they to whom the warning passages are directed (Hebrews 6, 10, elsewhere), and many of them are rooted out by means of church discipline, etc. (The warning passages are also directed to genuine Christians who are in need of repentance)

3) Reformed Baptist Understanding-There are also various shades of Baptists in this camp. Some would be Covenantal, some New Covenant Theologians, and still others may be a cross between, maybe more associated with the Continental Reformed concerning things such as the Sabbath, etc. I will be presenting the thoughts of the Covenantal Baptist camp.

The Reformed Baptist would say, along with the Reformed Paedobaptist, that God’s covenantal dealings with Israel, as based on His covenant made with Abraham, have both eternal and temporary aspects. They would, however, stop short of the strict continuity that Reformed Paedobaptists see between the Old and New Covenants. The contention of the Reformed Baptists is that the term “New” in the “New Covenant” means “brand new”. Alluding to passages such as Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8, the Reformed Baptist says in the New Covenant, all will know God, from the greatest to the least of them, whereas the Reformed Paedobaptist will see an “already/not yet” aspect to the aforementioned passages. Thus, to the Reformed Baptist, the status quo is no longer believers and their children being in covenant with God, but to the individual man, woman, boy, or girl who is confronted with the gospel to believe, repent, and be baptized. According to the Reformed Baptist, a man should only be baptized after having professed faith in Christ.

The Reformed Baptist, though not using exact terminology like “visible/invisible” church (although the 1689 does make mention of invisible church consisting of visible saints), has an underlying doctrine which basically states essentially the same idea as the Reformed Paedobaptist. In other words, Reformed Baptists understand a distinction between those who merely profess Christ and those who actually possess Christ. A baptism is performed on those who give a “credible profession of faith”, and in time this profession is shown to be true for a person who follows the Scripture and bears the fruit of the Spirit. For the man who does not live a godly life, yet professes Christ, he is subject to church discipline. The Reformed Baptist will follow the various stages of Discipline (Matt 18, etc) in hopes that the professing believer will repent and be restored to the fellowship of Christians. If such a professor fails to do so, then he will be considered and treated as an unbeliever, and according to 1 John 3, his actions are showing him as having never having been truly saved in the first place. Thus, the various warning passages in Scripture (Heb 6, 10, etc.) are directed to such a person for the purpose of having them “examine themselves to see whether [they] be in the faith.”

The preceding descriptions are not intended to be exhaustive, nor are they the only views out there. However, I think they are the prominent views. If I have misrepresented any positions, please let me know so that I may make necessary amends.

Categories
FV and NPP

Barlow Responds to my Post – My Response

Mr. Barlow was kind enough to respond to my article. His response was on his comment section of his blog but I wanted to include it here for full disclosure:

Rich,

Thanks for taking the time to interact with the discussion. Sorry for the rude remarks directed your way by some here. You characterized my critique this way:

“Pastor Phillips wants to try and convict Pastor Wilkins for not being a strict subscriptionist to only ONE confessional use of the terms election and perseverance. Pastor Wilkins does not deny election or perseverance in the way that the WCF use them and wholeheartedly agrees with them BUT merely denotes that the terms are used in a broader sense.”

That’s close, but not exactly what I hoped to have said in my paper. Something more like this (rephrasing your paragraph):

“Pastor Phillips wants to convict Pastor Wilkins by questioning the sincerity of his subscription. Phillips does this by saying that Wilkins cannot simultaneously confess to believe the confession’s formulation of doctrine X and say what he does about the scriptures.”

My response was to note that the confession is theology, and thus it can say “The Doctrine of Election is _____” while not meaning to imply that every time the word “election” is used in scripture it carries all the freight of that doctrine (a doctrine derived from the full counsel of scripture). It seems to me that Phillips misses what Wilkins says when Wilkins talks about the scripture’s “broader” use of terms. Phillips argument seems much clearer to you, evidently, than it does to me because I find him stretching quite a bit to classify Wilkins’s exegetical observations as confessional deviations.

I’m not saying the substance of Phillips’s critique is over terms. I’m saying that the substance of his error lies in his approach to terms. Your summary of Phillips’s critique is illustrative of this:

First, “Neither the scriptures nor the confession admit to a doctrine of conditional election.”

Wilkins would respond ““ “You’re right, I can’t support a doctrine of conditional election from scripture, and obviously the confession does not contain it.”

Secondly, “Neither the Scriptures, nor the confession, admit to a temporary perseverance.”

Wilkins would respond “The scriptures and the confession teach that the elect will persevere. The confession, however, does not talk much about the experience of the non-elect in the covenant of grace. There is evidence about the plight of the non-elect in the scriptures and not much is said about them in the confession.”

Thirdly, “Neither the scriptures, nor the confession, admit to a temporary union with Christ”

Wilkins would respond, “It depends upon what you mean by “˜union with Christ’. In general, the confession talks about the elect and the kind of union they have which is permanent. But the scriptures use metaphors of branches being broken off, remaining in the vine, being spit out of the mouth of the Lord, etc. And so I must conclude that there is more to the situation than the confession discusses ““ perhaps the non-elect have a kind of union with Christ for a time from which they will inevitably apostatize.”

Does that help? I wish that Phillips had stated his critique in the way you summarized it. Instead, he clouded the issue by focusing on Wilkins’s approach to the word “˜election’ in individual scripture passages and trying to tie those exegetical insights to a denial of the confession’s “doctrine of election.”

Hope this helps; perhaps we still disagree over what the “substance” of Phillips’s critique was, but hopefully you can trust that my goal is not to misrepresent him; that’s why I tried so hard to be excruciatingly clear in the paper, even risking being pedantic.

My response to Mr. Barlow:

Thanks for the response. I still believe that the substance of Pastor Phillips critique is levelled against the doctrinal conclusions drawn by Pastor Wilkins from passages that teach some *benefit* but not the way that Pastor Wilkins implies. The critique is that his conclusions about an *additional* meaning lead to a contradiction of the *first* meaning.

Rev Winzer cautioned me on the PB in a very edifying way:

Friends, when did the reformed church insist that the exact terms must be found in Scripture? The idea of conditional election to temporary benefits is clearly revealed in holy writ. Our Lord has provided a parable which specifically teaches that the reprobate are partakers in the kingdom of God temporarily — the parable of the wheat and tares. At the judgement, “the Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather OUT OF HIS KINGDOM all things that offend, and them which do iniquity,” Matt. 13:41. The visible church enjoys special “privileges” bestowed by God, which the world does not receive, Westminster Larger Catechism, answer 63. To be in the visible church is to enjoy these benefits. If any are made partakers of these benefits it is because God chose them to it (temporary election).

The term “temporary election” is used in reformed theology in the same way as “common grace.” Although Scripture uses “election” and “grace” only in relation to the members of the invisible church, there is a theological analogy which makes it appropriate to apply the terms to the members of the visible church in a common way, in virtue of the fact that the visible church is the temporal manifestation of the invisible church.

Consider the words of John Owen (Works, 4:430):

Thus God chooseth some men unto some office in the church, or unto some work in the world. As this includeth a preferring them before or above others, or the using them when others are not used, we call it election; and in itself it is their fitting for and separation unto their office or work. And this temporary election is the cause and rule of the dispensation of gifts. So he chose Saul to be king over his people, and gave him thereon ‘another heart,’ or gifts fitting him for rule and government. So our Lord Jesus Christ chose and called at the first twelve to be his apostles, and gave unto them all alike miraculous gifts. His temporary choice of them was the ground of his communication of gifts unto them. By virtue hereof no saving graces were communicated unto them, for one of them never arrived unto a participation of them.

As Owen goes on to note, the term election finds specific support in connection with the choice of Judas to the apostleship, John 6:70. That this was temporary is indicated by the fact that our Lord specifically says in chap. 13:18, I speak not of you all; I know whom I have chosen.” Now if this is true of Judas, who was given an extraordinary office in the church, and equipped with miraculous gifts, it must also be true of ordinary officers and members of the church, who are given the ordinary gifts to administer and receive the Word and sacraments.

The problem with the FV formulation of the teaching is that it supposes “saving graces” are communicated by virtue of this temporal election, contrary to what John Owen teaches above. It is at this point that justified criticism can be levelled at the FV. By denying the traditional reformed teaching of temporal election in order to oppose the FV, you make yourself equally chargeable with a departure from the reformed faith.

I believe that the substance of the critique of Wilkins is in the final paragraph.

Reformed writers have, for centuries, been able to speak of the temporary benefits of Covenant participation without making the error of confusing the idea that some saving grace is imparted.

I’m left wondering, sometimes, who this really benefits if we have to talk in such fine points all the time to explain ourselves properly. I fancy myself somewhat articulate and intelligent and men like Phillips and Winzer much more than I. If, in the final analysis, a small cliche can only understand the language your using and it’s causing the Church to reject you then maybe you can just use the same language we always have if you subscribe to the same idea.

Categories
FV and NPP

Critics of the Critics of the Federal Vision are So Unfair!

I recently read a blog entry at Barlow Farms: A Response to Richard Phillips’s Comments, Part One.

In the words of Mubatu from Zoolander: “I feel like I’m taking crazy pills!”

If we ever hope to understand each other then I want to make sure I break down what I believe Pastor Phillips clearly articulated because it is my estimation that this “response” doesn’t even enter into the same neighborhood as the criticism. I ask those who have read both to make sure I’m not stating this improperly.

Here is the substance of the response from Barlow (I’m summarizing):

Pastor Phillips wants to try and convict Pastor Wilkins for not being a strict subscriptionist to only ONE confessional use of the terms election and perseverance. Pastor Wilkins does not deny election or perseverance in the way that the WCF use them and wholeheartedly agrees with them BUT merely denotes that the terms are used in a broader sense.

He goes on to use an analogy of using the word trinity in another way (i.e. “Shadrach, Meschach, and Abegnego made up a trinity of dissent in the empire.”) and then being accused of denying the Trinity.

Thus, according to Barlow, the substance of Pastor Phillips critique is over the use of terms: you cannot use the word election or predestination in any other way than the Confession uses or we’re going to put you up on a pole.

Now, I ask the critics of the critics of the FV: Does this accurately represent Pastor Phillips critique? I thought Pastor Phillips was very cogent in his analysis. I’m constantly told that men are not dealing honestly with each other’s views. If there is going to be a response to Pastor Phillips’ critique then let it be on the substance of the critique.

The substance of Pastor Phillips’ critique is this:

*BEGIN*

Neither the Scriptures, nor the confession, admit to a doctrine of conditional election.

Neither the Scriptures, nor the confession, admit to a temporary perseverance.

Neither the Scirptures, nor the confession, admit to a temporary union with Christ.

*BREAK*

You see, it one thing to admit that the Scriptures use a term to address a larger body that includes both elect and non-elect. It is quite another to form a doctrine based on this syllogism:

1. Paul calls a Church body “elect” in some passages
2. Paul knew it consisted of both the regenerate and unregenerate
3. Therefore, Paul must mean that everyone there is elect in some way…

Barlow seems to completely miss the fact that Pastor Phillips convincingly demonstrates that the Reformed completely reject this in their confession. They do NOT conclude 3 in the way that Wilkins and others do and, on the contrary, reject the idea.

Would they admit to points 1 and 2 above? Certainly, they would believe it is Pastoral language. This is why there is the idea of presumptive regeneration where you treat and talk of people as if they are regnerate not knowing either way. Jesus still treated Judas as if he were a disciple when He knew from the beginning who truly believed even before He called Judas.

Thus, I find Barlow’s response to utterly obfuscate the critique. I thought Pastor Phillips critique was a scholarly and clear examination of the issue and am shocked that Barlow so utterly misrepresents the substance of the critique.

Are there any responses out there that do a better job of answering the actual charges?

Categories
FV and NPP

An Open Letter to the Federal Vision

I’ve decided to post this here to formulate more clearly a thought that has been slowly developing over time given the controversy.

I readily admit that I have dear friends who are sympathetic to the Federal Vision and take great umbrage, at times, that I have criticized those who are most visible in the movement.

I was reading the comments on Dr. Clarks blog post here.

The consistent refrain from Pastor Wilson and others who defend him is this: Critics of the FV are slanderous. The FV believes in all the right Reformed stuff, we’re told. I have to admit that I become concerned that some might be guilty of mischaracterization. I wonder, after almost 5 years, why nobody can get it right!

Let’s all pretend, for the moment, that the Federal Vision is correct in their insistence that they are orthodox and Reformed. Let’s assume that all scrutiny suddenly disappears and all are found orthodox. Let’s go further and turn the tables for a bit and pretend that the FV is in the mainstream and it is the rest of us who are the true quasi-Reformed and we must defend our position.

Here’s the question: What do we believe that is out of accord with Reformed or Biblical orthodoxy?

Surely this whole debate isn’t about us all being the same and all you’re arguing for is the right to use different words to believe the same thing. You’re not simply arguing for the right to quit being misrepresented are you? You haven’t divided Church against Church and disrupted every Conservative Reformed denomination simply to have us agree that you are Reformed just like we are, are you? Surely you must be arguing AGAINST something that we believe in. I shudder to think that so much division has been caused over semantics and your unwillingness just to use the same terms as we.

Perhaps it would clarify what you are FOR by criticizing the rest of us and telling us what you are against. Please, please, somebody in the FV camp step forward and write an article that accurately describes what we quasi-Reformed believe and then critique it. I’m sure you would understand our sensitivity to being accurately represented after all.

I think if we could determine where you believe that we are unorthodox it might help us to understand what you’re for and why you believe this fight is worthy of so much disruption within the Body of Christ.

Categories
Theology

Theonomy: Three Questions Answered

Jacob asked the following:

Theonomy is concerned with three irreducible questions, which anti-theonomists cannot answer in an epistemologically satisfactory manner:

1) Which sins should civil magistrates punish?
2) What should those punishments be?
3) How does one justify the answers to the first two questions?

If we are left to govern ourselves by general revelation, then civil laws must be ultimately a matter of opinion, yet laws by their very nature are to reflect what ought to be. Moreover, apart from Scripture inductive inference cannot be justified. Therefore, apart from Scripture it would be baseless to infer that all persons are endowed by nature with the same moral code. Accordingly, it would be tyrannical to impose unjustifiable codes of conduct, let alone sanctions for violations of those codes, upon others who do not claim to share those same codes.

My answer:

1) Which sins should civil magistrates punish?
The sins that God gives them the authority to punish.

2) What should those punishments be?
Generally based on the rule of restitution. The Law gives case law to indicate that you replace that which you take in the offense.

3) How does one justify the answers to the first two questions?
The Bible.

OK, I answered the questions so here’s my “beef”.

I don’t have a problem discussing the general principle that the laws of the magistrate ought to reflect God’s Law. I think, theoretically, if a country wants to punish blasphemy with the death penalty that it is not unjust for them to do so. To be unjust, intrinsically, would point to some sort of justice that is extra-Scriptural and the idea is not extra-Scriptural that blasphemy could be punished by death. Even leaving aside the issue of whether the magistrate should do so, it seems to me at least, to be pointless to argue whether the Magistrate would be making an unjust law if it decided to enforce that idea.

Now, here is where I start to get off the bus because, while I agree with that basic principle, I don’t see the Church’s chief aim as being activism to ensure that the Magistrate is introducing those laws.

The problem I have with those of a theonomic bent (though I don’t have a huge problem with them) is that they seem to devote more time worrying about transforming the Magistrate than the Apostles did. It is an argument from silence and I’m unlikely to win any debates to persuade a theonomist from his path but the general trend of NT doctrine is clear enough to me to believe that it is NOT the Church’s principle focus.

In other words, if all a theonomist wants me to agree to is the idea that a Magistrate would not be unjust for creating a law that punishes blasphemy by stoning a man to death then I am not going to spend a long time arguing that God is offended at the idea that a Magistrate would punish someone for blaspheming Him. It’s all very theoretical to me of course. BUT, if the same man wants me to join him in a crusade to tell the Pastor that he’s not preaching cultural transformation enough and that the Church needs to spend more time leading the charge to storm the State Legislature and lobby for the creation of those laws then I would tell him to pound sand.

The Church’s mission is the preaching of the Word, the administration of the Sacraments, and Church Discipline. Ironically, the most rebellious people I’ve met in the latter category are theonomists who would not submit to Church Discipline even as they wanted pagans to submit to God’s Law.

I believe, however, that as a citizen I have the right to exercise my time and talents to reform Civic institutions. I also believe that Magistrates will be judged for creating and enforcing laws in disobedience to the Law of God written on their consciences and will also be judged for failing to write laws that God has ordained. But that is their responsibility to create and enforce the proper laws and it is not the Church’s job to spend all it’s time, moving away from it’s primary mission, to pick up the slack where the Magistrate is failing. I believe they have a prophetic role to the State and that the State is further condemned for not listening but that does not make it the Church’s mission to do the State’s job.