tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28836381569500475992024-03-08T01:43:58.085-08:00Notes from the Shore"Peace when possible, Truth at all costs"James Stockdalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09305814564480759059noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2883638156950047599.post-27905795252812004152020-05-04T21:59:00.001-07:002020-05-04T21:59:49.356-07:00TwentyThe gyre turns<br />
Into a semipermeable void,<br />
Fiction and Substance.<br />
Longed-for Anarchy eludes us,<br />
Too free for chaos,<br />
The blessed inherit slavery<br />
<br />
An empty throne<br />
Before a semi-liberated people,<br />
Power and guilt.<br />
Rich fields absent shepherds,<br />
Undone by charity<br />
The people perish for lack of Knowledge.<br />
<br />
A crumbling precipice<br />
The inheritance of a drunkard,<br />
Not hot or cold.<br />
Falconer absent prey<br />
Hero without quest<br />
Laodicea slouching towards apotheosis.<br />
<br />
~JS 5/5/2020<br />
<br />James Stockdalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09305814564480759059noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2883638156950047599.post-63589022669925863172017-06-18T19:01:00.000-07:002017-06-18T19:01:56.450-07:00Why Covenant Theology? As is readily apparent, the majority of content on this blog to date has either been explicitly about covenant theology of all varieties, or touching on that theme in some respect. For those who know me best, or read this blog the most zealously (two categories whose Venn diagram I suspect resembles a circle), the question <i>why</i> that is the case is probably settled. In the interest of reaching out to those who may have only just happened across "Notes", or visit infrequently, I'd like to try to answer that question in my own words. Why covenant theology? In the whole wide world of theology and the Bible, let alone all other things, why devote time and energy to internet posts on God's covenants with man? <br />
<br />
The answer to that why is threefold in nature. There is the <i>hermeneutical</i> significance of CT: how our reading the Bible influences our view of the covenants, and, in one of the feedback loops common to the Christian walk, how our view thereof influences our reading of the Bible. There is also the <i>historical-theological</i> significance: the role CT plays in being Reformed, or, for those non-Calvinists or non-CT adherents in the audience, the self-identity and place in history (that is to say, among and in relation to our fellow men) lent to you by your place outside the CT camp. Finally, we have what I will term the <i>personal/practical</i> significance (although if you ever walk away from this blog feeling that hermeneutics and history have no personal or practical meaning, I will close up shop now). How does our view of God's covenants with man influence our day-to-day walk with God in terms of growth in holiness, spiritual maturity, the sacraments, or prayer? How (if at all) does CT shape <i>how we as individual Christians relate to God?<br /><br /> </i>Hermeneutics shape the Christian life as much or more as nearly all other theoretically "abstract" disciplines. While there is much truth to the old saying <i>Lex Orandi Lex Credendi</i> (the rule of prayer is the rule of belief), in our literate age, it is just as true, if not more, that how one reads (specifically the Scriptures) shapes ones belief system. Specifically, CT answers the following questions: 1) What is the law? Does God has one law, or more than one? How do Christians relate to the law today, and what parts of it, if any, are applicable as a canon for Christians? 2) What is the nature of progressive Revelation? How does the Old Testament instruct the Christian today. and why? How and why does the Bible abrogate or republish itself working from left to right? 3) To what degree does typology play a role in the grammatical-historical reading of Scripture? What parts of the Bible have more than one application? 4) Perhaps most importantly, <i>what story, or stories, is the Bible telling?</i> The first application for the answers to this question, or at least the most readily apparent, is eschatological, but there are other ramifications. Simply put, without hermeneutics, the Christian walk is left as unshaped by Divine revelation as it would be if God remained silent.<br /><br /> Covenant theology has been the underpinning of Reformed systematics at least since Witsius, and arguably dates all the way back to Calvin's <i>Institutes. </i>The Reformed Confessions, particularly, but not exclusively the Westminster Standards, place CT at the heart not only of Reformed hermeneutics, but also, Reformed identity. How one relates to the nature and place of the New Covenant in the <i>historia salutis</i> forms ones place in the often complex and turbulent denominational landscape of American Christianity, provides a link to one's historical forebears in theology, and in doing so, lends weight to one's standing as a member in the church Catholic, both living and historical. At least in the Reformed camp, having, and being able to articulate, a position on CT is the most important part of being able to place oneself in history, feel truly connected to the history of the Church, avoid invention a personal hermeneutic at the price of lost consistency, and enables us to truly "stand on the shoulders of giants".<br />
<br />
Last but not least, CT, even apart from strictly heremeutical considerations, shapes how one lives and thinks and acts as a Christian. It is worldview forming. CT alters how we view the law, and therefore our approach to sanctification and holiness, how we view the OT, and thereby what parts of it we apply to our lives (and in what ways), how we view and practice the sacraments and their roles in the church, and can even shape how we deal with important issues like church and the family, apostasy, how we approach God in prayer, the role of elders and form of church government, and many other issues. In other words, CT, as much as any discipline of systematic theology, touches the everyday walk and experience of the Christian and his local congregation in intimate, holistic ways. This is no mere dry collection of rote facts to memorize, but part of growing in the grace and knowledge of the Lord. Few "abstract" theological fields will prove to touch as diverse elements of your life as you study them.<br /><br /> Hopefully this brief survey has shed light on the emphases of this blog to date. Hopefully posts will be coming with more regularity in the near future, many of them will be centered on, you guessed, studies and book reviews in comparative CT. On the imminent docket: the next entry in my series on Federal Visionism, part one of a book review regarding the topic, and the beginning of may be a series introducing the issue of Republication of the Covenant of Works, and the ongoing controversy at Westminster West and East regarding that subject. Prayer for diligence in writing would be appreciated, as I have much to do, and seemingly not enough time to accomplish it.<br />
<br />In Christ,<br /><br />~JSJames Stockdalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09305814564480759059noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2883638156950047599.post-73441529766758465532016-08-17T21:15:00.000-07:002016-08-20T03:44:48.169-07:00Institutionalized: Calvin on the differences between the Mosaic and New administrations. <i>"Let us now explain the apostle's contrast step by step. The Old Testament is literal, because promulgated without the efficacy of the Spirit; the New spiritual, because the Lord has engraved it on the heart. The second antithesis is a kind of exposition of the first. The Old is deadly, because it can do nothing but involve the whole human race in a curse; the New is the instrument of life, because those who are freed from the curse it restores to favor with God. The former is the ministry of condemnation, because it charges the whole sons of Adam with transgression; the latter the ministry of righteousness, because it unfolds the mercy of God, by which we are justified. The last antithesis must be referred to the ceremonial Law. Being a shadow of things to come, it behooved in time to perish and vanish away; whereas the Gospel, inasmuch as it exhibits the very body, is firmly established forever...When we consider the multitude of those whom, by the preaching of the Gospel, he has regenerated by his Spirit, and gathered out of all nations into the communion of his church, we may say that those of ancient Israel who, with sincere and heartfelt affections embraced the covenant of the Lord, were few or none, though the number is great when they are considered in themselves without comparison."~II.11.VIII</i><br />
<br />
Calvin having recently concluded his chapter on the similarities of the Old and New Testaments, in which he continues to lay what would later become the foundation for the WCF's "One Substance, Multiple Administrations" formula of CT, and establishes the Abrahamic as a promissorial administration of the Covenant of Grace, he goes on to write on the five "heads" of difference between the Testaments. Whereas his chapter on similarity focused on the typical/promisssorial blessings on Abraham and the Patriarchs, his differences emphasize the Covenant of Law, e.g., the Mosaic administration, and that in the blood of Christ. Specifically in section eight, Calvin outlines: 1) the contrast between the Mosaic Covenant as "literal" and the New as "spiritual". Not that this is the juxtaposition the modern dispensationalist would have: there is no tension here for Calvin. There is a spiritual reality in shadowy form in the Mosaic, and a "literal", in the sense of "real", element to the New (indeed, for Calvin, the New is more "real" than the shadowy/typological Old). Rather, Calvin's emphasis is on the "do this and live" presentation of the Law, which does not, in itself, offer either unconditional promise, or gracious aid in seeking the reward (typologically represented in the Land promise, as Calvin explained earlier in the chapter). This is contrasted with the pouring out and post-Pentecostal indwelling of the Spirit and it's writing of the moral law on the hearts of men.<br />
2) The "deadly" element of the Mosaic administration is contrasted with the "life giving" promise of the Gospel. Here we see the smallest germ, perhaps, of a republication concept long before Owen or Kline: the curse of the Law is a representation of the curse already borne by the descendant of Adam, the breaker of the Covenant of Works.<br />
3) The eternality of the Gospel covenant in contrast with the temporary obsolescence of the Law.<br />
4) The extent of the Gospel promise, not to one chosen nation, but in great numerical abundance to all the nations of the earth.<br />
<br />
Thus, Calvin sets the foundation to many of the arguments of Westminsterian CT long before the existence of the Standards, as the eternality, numerical superiority, Spiritual power, internalization, and life giving promise of the Gospel Covenant are set forward, contrary to the assertion that classical Covenant theology flattens the Covenant of Grace out into an undifferentiated admixture.<br />
<br />
~JSJames Stockdalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09305814564480759059noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2883638156950047599.post-12785935654007479792016-03-31T03:45:00.000-07:002016-06-21T14:56:51.060-07:00On Suicide, Culture, and Self<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "opensans" , sans-serif , "helvetica"; font-size: 14px;">"Q. 135. </span><i style="background-color: white; font-family: OpenSans, sans-serif, Helvetica; font-size: 14px;">What are the duties required in the sixth commandment?</i><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "opensans" , sans-serif , "helvetica"; font-size: 14px;">A. The duties required in the sixth commandment are, all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves and others by resisting all thoughts and purposes, subduing all passions,</span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: "opensans" , sans-serif , "helvetica"; font-size: 14px;"> and avoiding all occasions, temptations, and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any.</span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: "opensans" , sans-serif , "helvetica"; font-size: 14px;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: "opensans" , sans-serif , "helvetica"; font-size: 14px;">Q. 136. </span><i style="background-color: white; font-family: OpenSans, sans-serif, Helvetica; font-size: 14px;">What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment?</i><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "opensans" , sans-serif , "helvetica"; font-size: 14px;">A. The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves, or of others..."~Westminster Larger Catechism</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "opensans" , sans-serif , "helvetica"; font-size: 14px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "opensans" , sans-serif , "helvetica"; font-size: 14px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "opensans" , sans-serif , "helvetica"; font-size: 14px;"> I wrestled for a significant period of time with mentioning that I have contemplated (not practiced) self-harm in the past. Aside from the fact, which I should think obvious, that it is intrinsically something that is difficult to talk about for people who shun pity and embrace emotional privacy, there were a variety of reasons not to begin there. The primary reason is that I personally consider it irrelevant. Derivation of facts from personal experience is Gnostic, ergo, non-Christian. Running parallel to this, a defining feature of post-modernity has been prefacing every commentary on a given topic by stating that one is privy to just such "personal truths", gained from experience, thereby filling the well with the concentrated arsenic of "don't you dare presume to tell me about (x), I have lived it." As this is one of the many features of post-modernity I loathe with ever fiber of my being, please take my word at face value and accept that this is not a tactic I am employing.<br /><br /> Reservations to the contrary aside, I decided to start there, because I do believe that while one does not need to be hit by a brick to know that it hurts, knowledge of the specific sort of pain we are discussing is, in fact, gained most readily from experience. Therefore, I raise the issue to assure those who might read this who can't quite shake the impression that I am speaking to this issue from a place of pure and clinical detachment, that no, in fact, I am familiar with the experience of poor emotional health.<br /><br /> Having thus presented my credentials at the threshold, I stride boldly into the room to announce to those within that the primary reason that I have never deliberately harmed myself (the adverb of volition playing an important role there) is that it is sinful. There are many sinful things that I have done, including many heinous ones. However, I believe that suicide, attempts thereunto, and physical self-harm exist on a moral plain that I shrink back from in fear. This fear is nothing of me, and all of God: I would fear nothing in the realm of evil were it not for the hand of grace in my life, so do not think that I am looking to exalt myself over other people in this. I have friends that have harmed themselves. I have friends that have killed themselves. I am no better than they. I am no worse. Sinners all, we are dependent on God for deliverance from the body of death. Self-identifying as a sinner, however, even one touched by the struggles with depression, loneliness, or alienation that have affected countless others, is not going to stay my hand from speaking here as to why I believe that self-harm is wicked, to be repented of, and why it is a product of a dying culture. For any who have stuck with me thus far who are offended, I do not demand you change your mind, only that you allow me to attempt to expose a fruitless deed of darkness without feeling that I am a hypocrite.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "opensans" , sans-serif , "helvetica"; font-size: 14px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "opensans" , sans-serif , "helvetica"; font-size: 14px;"> Firstly, it must be said that self-harm is murderous, in the proper sense of the term, that is to say, a violation of the sixth commandment. The violation of the sixth commandment, when done pertinent to other people, is a derogation of God's right to be God, as all the Decalogue. Specifically, it strikes at the precious gift of life that God has given to men, and it seeks to unmake what God has made in His own image. In the case of self-harm and suicide, this impulse is wedded to a larger and more palpable expression of <i>ingratitude</i>, in that the gift and the image-marring are uniquely personal. To harm oneself is to tell God that He was mistaken in making you, that His gifts are worthless, that His creative act is wrongheaded. Like all violations of the law of God, it echoes the Garden impulse to believe that one knows better. <br /><br /> Like all sin, this means that self-harm and suicide are acts of the ego, in other words, fundamentally selfish. However, because these sins are viewed from the outside as negations or assaults on self, the selfishness is wrapped in a far greater degree of paradox than other categories of sin. In order for one to violate God's law, to attempt to sit on His throne and say that it is our will that will be done, one must believe in the moment, however wrong-headed it may be, that one stands to gain from it. How is selfishness visible in an attack on self? Simply put, the person who commits suicide <i>has already located self somewhere other than God's decree has. </i>The final act of rebellion may be an act of despair in that the person does not believe the act itself is gain per se, but the origin of the despair has been a transfer of one's self-worth, how what defines oneself, and what one lives for to something other than what God wants.<br /><br /> One can see this pattern in the increasing number of tragic deaths in the West of recipients of "gender reassignment surgery", a process which is named for an impossibility from the decretal perspective of God. Who and what God created a person to be has been exchanged, as in the first chapter of Romans, for a lie. However, such a dramatic, and perhaps therefore, more obvious, example is merely a greater trend writ large.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "opensans" , sans-serif , "helvetica"; font-size: 14px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "opensans" , sans-serif , "helvetica"; font-size: 14px;"> My generation is said to be the most anxious, most depressed, most medicated, and most suicidal generation of Americans to date. While we did not unlock some secret category of sin, or transgress in some quantitatively different degree than our parents or ancestors, the worldview in which America, and the West generally is deluged has brought us to this. Despite being more obsessed than any past people on Earth with "self-esteem" and "self-realization", objective metrics can demonstrate that Americans hate themselves more than ever. And this is because the subjectivity of moral relativism has detached the anchor of self from the sea floor of objective truth. Americans run hither and yon seeking identity in people, places and things. Social media floods with stories of teenage girls who pop pills and slash wrists over social slights, and men who risk their lives with steroids to appear attractive to people they barely know. For myself, it took a great deal of effort in high school to reconcile myself to not fitting in with peers, and another great deal of effort to transition to a single life after college. Neither period was without temptations in the arena of self-destructive behavior. Neither period was without outright sin in that regard either. As fresh millions of adults embark on what are supposed to be the most stable years of their lives, they have left educational and recreational institutions fully sold out to the idea that there is no Creator God who values them and has a plan for them individually, and increasingly, self-conception becomes attached to money, sex, or, in my opinion most insidiously, the approval of others.<br /><br /> It is there that I want to conclude, because the thing that grieves me most about the selfishness of self-harm, and the thing that I think needs to be impressed upon people who struggle with despair, is that it sets a terrible example. This is leaving aside the already extreme impact that suicide or self-harm will have on a person's friends, family members, and significant others (and I have never met a person who was not loved by someone, if you are reading this, that includes you). No matter what you are dealing with, to hurt yourself over it is to tell other people who may go through the same thing, including people who may be younger and weaker, that it is acceptable to give up. In a world with an increasingly demagnetized moral compass, suicide is to tell someone else that their idols of prestige, insecurity or circumstances are worth giving up God's gift of life. Other people do not define you. Your faults and unfulfilled aspirations do not define you. Your Creator defines you, and if you are a Christian, that definition cost more than you can know. <i>Repent.</i> <br /><br /><i> </i>To those who read this all the way through, thank you. I appreciate if it was less than fun to do so. It was less than fun to write. The "usual schedule" of Notes will resume tomorrow, God willing, with the scheduled Institutes column that was supposed to run today. God bless.<br /><br />~JS</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "opensans" , sans-serif , "helvetica"; font-size: 14px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "opensans" , sans-serif , "helvetica"; font-size: 14px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "opensans" , sans-serif , "helvetica"; font-size: 14px;"><br /></span>James Stockdalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09305814564480759059noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2883638156950047599.post-78109290675139870162016-03-26T19:35:00.001-07:002016-03-26T19:36:34.199-07:00Institutionalized: The Resurrection and Cross indivisible. <i>"Our salvation may be thus divided between the death and the resurrection of Christ: by the former sin was abolished and death annihilated; by the latter righteousness was restored and life revived, the power and efficacy of the former being still bestowed upon us by means of the latter...Let us remember therefore, that when death only is mentioned, everything peculiar to the resurrection is at the same time included, and that there is a like snecdoche in the term resurrection, as often as it is used apart from death, everything peculiar to death being included. But as, by rising again, he obtained the victory and became the resurrection and the life, Paul justly argues, 'If Christ be not raised your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins"(1 Cor 15:17)...Then, as we have already explained that the mortification of our flesh depends on communion with the cross, so we must also understand, that a corresponding benefit is derived from his resurrection."~Institutes II.16.XIII<br /></i> Here, Calvin points out that it is impossible for the victory over sin and death to be accomplished without either the death of Christ, or His resurrection. To such degree does Calvin believe these to be two sides of the same coin that he states that each could be said to be fully concealed in the mention of the other in the text of Scripture. Why this is, Calvin outlines: the destruction of death and the power of sin can properly be said to belong to the domain of the Cross, as in Owen's famous<i> "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ"</i>, while righteousness and newness of life can be said to be consequent to resurrection (Calvin goes on to note in this passage that Christ is the forerunner of resurrection on behalf of the redeemed). This is not a pure split, however, and Calvin cites Paul to the Corinthians to remind us that the final triumph is not possible without the resurrection.<br />
<br />
The Christian faith in the work of Jesus cannot be divided piecemeal, so as to make him only the final and perfect sacrifice, or only the resurrected Lord of life. While no groups I am aware of claim to do so to an exhaustive degree, there have been times when the emphasis in Rome has been too greatly on the Cross (as witnessed by the continued and widespread use of the crucifix), whereas the various emergent groups denying penal substitution appear to want, as best as they can manage, a bloodless gospel. The irony in the former case is that the eucharistic theology of Rome empties the Cross of its power by making it a repetitious, non-perfecting work incongruent with a Savior who is ascendant and <i>seated</i>; the failure of the latter is an emergent unwillingness to deal with the reality of harsh realities of sin and the law brought to us by the Cross. Calvin reminds us, on this Holy Saturday, that Jesus has offered a complete Gospel and a finished work. As Paul said to the Corinthians before his proclamation of the resurrection's necessity, Christ is not divided, and neither is the atonement by His blood.<br />
<br />
~JSJames Stockdalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09305814564480759059noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2883638156950047599.post-65502027379830490662016-03-26T16:47:00.002-07:002016-03-26T16:47:32.552-07:00Internet Roundup: Politicized Evangelicalism, Gay Christianity, and more resourcesIn today's Roundup, we feature two databases of "free stuff", as well as a few specific pieces on topics of interest.<br /><br />1) The Heidelblog wrote an <a href="http://heidelblog.net/2016/03/is-infant-baptism-a-roman-catholic-leftover/">article</a> recently on infant baptism in the Reformed tradition and the notion that all baptism of very young children is Romanist in origin and theology. I link to it less because I believe that my current readership believes this, but pretty much every American knows someone who does.<br />
<br />
2) An old professor of mine linked to <a href="http://paulmatzko.com/what-evangelical-support-for-ted-cruz-marco-rubio-and-donald-trump-suggests-about-the-future-of-american-evangelicalism/">a very interesting article</a> on the faiths of Republican presidential contestants this year, and what the demographics in American "evangelicalism" indicate about their support base. While I hardly agree with all the conclusions drawn by the article (at the end, it strays into "pro-Rubio editorial" territory), my primary concern is to highlight a conclusion I think most practicing Christians could have drawn on their own, but has poll data to support it: the overwhelming burden of "evangelicals for Trump" can't be bothered to do things like regularly attend local churches.<br /><br />3) Already linked on the Facebook page of my life group, I re-post here <a href="http://www.desiringgod.org/messages/is-there-a-lord-s-day">a thirty-minute sermon</a> by Dr. John Piper on the abiding nature of the Sabbath. Particularly relevant to the earlier post here on the Sabbath in the Reformed confessions, I was surprised, given Piper's Bapist and post-Pentecostal leanings, to have agreed with the content of Dr. Piper's message as much as I did. While he did not use the words "single in substance, multiple in administration", his conclusions largely align with application of that principle to the cross-covenantal validity of the Sabbath. <br />
<br />
4) Covenant Theological Seminary has a bunch of <a href="https://www.covenantseminary.edu/resources/">free resources</a> that they want just an email address for (and they don't send a bunch of spam). The majority of lectures for several of their courses are available on audio free of charge.<br />
<br />
5) Monergism.com remains one of the most useful, and still updating, data-mines for Reformed reading online. If you haven't visited already, now's your prompt.<br />
<br />6) Finally, we have a link to the (lengthy, no visuals) audio of Dr. <a href="http://aomin.org/podcasts/GayChristianityRefuted.mp3">James White's response</a> to a talk given by pro-"Gay Christianity" presenter Matthew Vines. As this may be <i>the</i> issue confronting the American church today, and Vines is representative of a wide swath of readings in the "non-traditional" camp, I highly recommend this audio response as a place to start for the bemused, confused, befuddled, or those running low on ammunition.<br />
<br />
Hope you have a blessed Resurrection Sunday. In addition to today's post, stay tuned for a minor glut of additional content presently in the works.<br /><br />~JSJames Stockdalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09305814564480759059noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2883638156950047599.post-17880015488175930682016-03-19T15:56:00.003-07:002016-03-22T02:19:55.911-07:00Internet round-up: Rushdoony, Racism, and Romans. Time for another of Notes' internet round-ups, in which I share things that interest me from across the web. In no particular order, then...<br />
<br />
1) I may have already linked to R. Scott Clark's monthly webcast, the Heidelcast, before, but it's full archive is located <a href="http://heidelblog.net/the-heidelcast/">here</a>. I started listening to episode 58 and following yesterday, on the topic of Nomism (legalism) and Antinomianism (the belief that the abiding validity of the moral law of God for the Christian today), and think that that series will be of great practical impact to believers (particularly as episode 58 contains a fairly comprehensive presentation of the Gospel in Romans), and also has a lot of tie-ins with material previously covered on this blog. Check it out.<br />
<br />
2) There has been a dust-up over accusations of racism in the wake of a (now-deleted) tweet and accompanying facebook post by James White on a particular millennial of minority descent that Dr. White observed in public. Like moths to a flame, Joel McDurmon's involvement in the matter drew counter-accusations on the part of Pulpit and Pen including a firestorm of tweets and at least<a href="http://pulpitandpen.org/2016/03/18/some-white-guy-and-his-dirty-racism/"> one blog post</a> on racially charged statements made by the primary forefather of Reconstruction, RJ Rushdoony. I would like to relink the statements cited by P and P<a href="http://faithandheritage.com/2012/07/rushdoonys-kinism/"> here</a> so as to demonstrate the source of the controversy, but I would also like to link to at least <a href="http://americanvision.org/11824/the-new-racism-by-r-j-rushdoony/">one piece</a> by Rushdoony from the American Vision to attempt to demonstrate that the issue is not as clear-cut as either side, perhaps, would like it to be. I'm going to stay out of the issue, at least for the time being, except to say that it is brutally damaging to the Reformed community to allow the rhetoric around race and racism typically harnessed by secular interests to divide brother against brother in the church. I would also encourage folks who haven't actually read anything by Rushdoony to do so before jumping into Reconstruction-related issues.<br />
<br />
3) Princeton has a multi-lingual library of the writings of Abraham <a href="http://kuyper.ptsem.edu/">Kuyper available online</a> for free. While the bulk of this material will be obscured from folks who don't speak Dutch or Latin, there is a wealth of English material available also, including several lecture series and his entire book "The Work of the Holy Spirit". <br />
<br />
Have a restful and holy Lord's Day.<br />
<br />
~JSJames Stockdalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09305814564480759059noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2883638156950047599.post-49624008357747127652016-03-16T15:11:00.002-07:002016-03-16T15:19:49.817-07:00Wednesday feature column: "Institutionalized" Not only has post frequency dropped off recently, but I completely missed Saturday's installment of the round-up. Which may be for the best, as I hadn't really happened upon anything fascinating that week anyway. However, making up for this somewhat, I am launching a Wednesday evening tradition here at Notes that I will be calling "Institutionalized", wherein I will go over a passage from Calvin's <i>Institutes of the Christian Religion</i>, and talk a little bit about it. With no further introduction necessary, today's passage comes from the second book, "Of Christ the Redeemer".<br />
<br />
<i>"The saying of John was always true, 'whosoever denieth the Son, the same has not the Father' (1 John 2:23). For though in old time, there were many who boasted that they worshiped the Supreme Deity, the Maker of heaven and earth, yet as they had no mediator, it was impossible for them to truly enjoy the mercy of God, so as to feel persuaded that He was their Father. Not holding the Head, that is, Christ, their knowledge of God was evanescent; and hence they at length fell away to gross and foul superstitions, betraying their ignorance, just as the Turks in the present day who, though proclaiming, with full throat, that the Creator of heaven and earth is their God, yet by their rejection of Christ, substitute an idol in his place." II.6.IV</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i><br /></i>
It has often been said that the Institutes are a book in which the ink appears not yet dry, and the number of times one can find things relevant to our day and time continually astonishes. In chapter Six of the second book, Calvin has just given a brief overview of the various administrations of the Covenant of Grace, including Abrahamic, Mosaic and Davidic, and illustrated the need for the people of God for a Mediator, whether in the types and shadows of the sacrificial system, or the prophesied reign of the future seed of David. Calvin states that this need of a Mediator was so central to the understanding of Israel, that although it was obscured by the machinations of the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus assumed its importance. <br />
Calvin concludes that this centrality of the Mediator, and Christ's exclusive claim to that office of Mediation, is the background to 1 John 2:23. He ends chapter Six with the Biblical death blow to two common intellectual ailments of postmodernity: firstly, the idea that Christ is one acceptable path to God among many, and secondly, the idea that Rabbinical Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, worship the same God. Wheaton faculty protestation and Vatican II posturing to the contrary notwithstanding, to seek the Father without the Son is, for Calvin, the substitution of an idol in the Father's place.<br />
<br />
~JSJames Stockdalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09305814564480759059noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2883638156950047599.post-72893622349682066662016-02-27T17:08:00.001-08:002016-02-27T17:08:26.969-08:00Internet Round-Up: Of Presidents and Popes A few items from the web for your weekend perusal. A few were already on my Facebook, so apologies for any redundancies.<br /><br />1) James KA Smith, philosophy professor at Calvin College, wrote a solid piece on the potential Democratic nominees and student debt, which can be found <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/02/23/college-costs-student-loan-debt-sanders-clinton-voters-column/80776494/">here</a>. I would suggest that you pair it with some American Vision <a href="http://americanvision.org/?s=college">pieces</a> on the costs (financial/material and otherwise) of higher education today.<br />
<br />
2) <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/02/16/exclusive-twitter-shadowbanning-is-real-say-inside-sources/">This piece</a> on the idea of "shadowbanning" should demonstrate why I believe there is reason to fear the end of the era of free speech in the West. It would behoove all of us to keep an eye on who is being appointed to regulate what in the arena of social media.<br />
<br />
3) CNN ran a<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/18/health/zika-pope-francis-contraceptives/index.html"> story</a> on the Pope and his waffling on the "lesser evil" of contraceptives in the face of (yet another) thing that makes it uncomfortable to be both a humanist (and a humanist Bergoglio certainly is) and an opponent of contraceptives, namely the Zika virus. Irrespective of my views either of artificial contraception or the Pope, this is both fresh evidence of his worldview inconsistency, and the fact that said inconsistency is not entirely self-generated. The post Vatican II milieu, and the oddly discordant hardline stance on artificial contraception occurring at the same time have increased the number of objects kept in the air by the papal jugglers more than once.<br /><br />4) For those interested in the history and background of traditional dispensationalism, or for John MacArthur fans interested to find evidence that his views are not generated by a life of isolation in the theological woods, Louis Sperry Chafer's tract on dispensationalism is <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Dispensationalism-Lewis-Sperry-Chafer-ebook/dp/B003V1WHS8/ref=sr_1_1_twi_kin_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1456620893&sr=1-1&keywords=dispensationalism+chafer">available</a> at Amazon for 99 cents. It is not a pretty edition, in fact it defines the expression "no frills", but at that price, who can complain?<br />
I conclude with two pieces from "The American Conservative" relevant to the (increasingly disastrous-looking) Presidential election cycle, one of which reflects statements I made a number of weeks ago in regards to the "Rise of Trump".<br /><br />5) The <a href="http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/umberto-ecos-lessons-on-ur-fascism/">first</a> describes the element of American politics behind the Donald (and other aspects and personalities of this election) that can be described, in some sense, as "fascistic". One of the things appreciable about this piece is that it is at least partially clinical/analytical. Winners, writing the history as they do, "fascism" has been relegated to the domain of ad hominem, such that a logical fallacy has been created to designate "an appeal to Hitler", whereas "socialism" is not only a term with a meaningful dictionary definition in the American political consciousness, but a badge certain holders of public office wear with pride. Ironically, the American unwillingness to analyze the fascist boogeyman (which stems allegedly from abhorring it), has made some Americans unable to identify it. (This may be a theme deserving of stand-alone posts).<br /><br />6) The<a href="http://www.theamericanconservative.com/millman/rubio-is-no-kutuzov/"> second</a> is a political tactics post about the Rubio campaign. I'm mostly linking to it because it combines two of my favorite things: in-depth discussion of Presidential campaign strategy, and Napoleonic metaphor. <br /><br />Until next time, may we all continue to grow up in the Head, which is Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.<br /><br />~JS<br />
James Stockdalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09305814564480759059noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2883638156950047599.post-21867577717997531612016-02-20T18:31:00.000-08:002016-02-20T18:32:20.402-08:00Visions, Federal and Otherwise, or "dry Baptists, secret Lutherans and other oddities" (1) As addressed in other entries here, the modern Reformed and Paedobaptist (I dislike the habit of leaving the second term off and simply letting Baptists figure out what you mean) community has been riven by a specific set of issues for quite a while, and as the advocates of what is typically viewed as the novel position refuse to go away, that rift has widened. I refer of course to what has been known, depending on who you are asking, as the Federal Vision (or federal vision "movement", hereafter FV), Auburn Avenue theology, "monocovenantalism", or Shepherdism. Apart from hopefully shining greater light on the origin of that array of nicknames for the perspective, I am embarking on a mission with several diverse goals regarding it. Firstly, I hope to give a broad outline of what unifies the perspective (and what diversifies it), and how it is delineated from what I will at this point call the "traditional/confessional" perspective (hereafter TC). Secondly, I want to get into the meat and potatoes by reviewing and examining some key portions (or at least portions I found particularly interesting) of the book of essays published by some of the key figures of the movement itself, aptly entitled "The Federal Vision". Third, or rather intermingled with these, I want to provide commentary and concerns on the movement as a whole as the work progresses. I don't know how long this project will take, how many pages it will cover, or how many posts it will occupy. With that utter lack of confidence instilled in my beleaguered readership, I begin with some basics and background.<br />
<br />
One name given to FV, which typically has been assigned by it's foes rather than it's friends is "Shepherdism", and this is due to the fact that in order to give background to the FV controversy, and why people outside the perspective criticize it, I have to begin with earlier controversy which resulted in the expulsion of Norman Shepherd from Westminster Seminary Philadelphia (WSP). Shepherd was the heir of John Murray's post at WSP, and after almost a decade of controversy over various issues, was dismissed in 1981, left his presbytery (where he was facing disciplinary review as well) and joined the Christian Reformed Church in North America for the remainder of his pastoral career. While issues surrounding his dismissal were varied, the two that stood out most in the Westminster community and the OPC as a whole were: 1) Shepherds insistence on rejection of the Standards formulation of the CoW, replacing it with a system wherein Adam and the rest of man were all in the CoG, 2) a formulation of justification by faith which taught that "only obedient faith" perseveres or justifies. This second view may seem in the brief space I have allotted to it to be mere biblical truism to the Reformed reader abreast of the distinction between sanctification and justification, but as I hope to show in controversy surrounding modern FV proponents, similar views present greater difficulty than can be resolved by harmonizing Romans 5 and James 2. Additionally, point one above, the denial of the Covenant of Works as understood by the WCF, will be a feature common to, (but not universally accepted by all promoters of) FV, which explains the accusation noted at the outset of "monocovenantalism". Several FV men participated in the publication and authorship of a <em>Festschrift</em> for Norman Shepherd provocatively titled <em>Obedient Faith</em>, so while I cannot spend further time (and have no expert opinions to offer) on the influence of Shepherd on FV generally, his career and ideas will be relevant to consider in this post and those that follow. On a related note before moving on, overreaction to Shepherd's (and Murray's) positions on the Covenants resulted in much of the dustup at Westminster West over "Klinean Republication"...but that's a story for another time.<br />
<br />
Moving from there, the key element to what is now known as FV began with the presentations and papers resulting from the pastors conference at Auburn Avenue PCA in Monroe Louisiana, 2002. The four conference speakers at this, the first "Federal Vision conference" were Steve Schlissel, Steve Wilkins, John Barach and Douglas Wilson, and the topics addressed were primarily those of covenant theology. The controversy that brewed over the papers presented at the conference was partially summarized in the positions affirmed and denied in a joint statement on the "Federal Vision" signed in 2007 by eleven minsters of the PCA and the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC). At the end of this statement, under "Some Points of Intramual Disagreement", was a paragraph stating: <br />
"Some of these areas [of disagreement, JS] would include, but not be limited to, whether or not the imputation of the active obedience of Christ (as traditionally understood) is to be affirmed in its classic form. Some of us affirm this and some do not. Another difference is whether or not personal regeneration represents a change of nature in the person so regenerated."<br />
<br />
While this phrasing highlights that there are differences on key doctrines within the FV "stream", there were also many key affirmations, including shared postmillennialism, denial of Christian neutrality in "secular" politics, and a denial that <br />
<span style="font-size: small;">"...Adam had to earn or merit righteousness, life, glorification, or anything else." <span style="font-size: xx-small;">1</span><br /><br /> The significance of this to disagreement between some confessional Presbyterian thinkers and the FV men will become more clear, but should already have more light placed on it by the above mention of Shepherd's elimination of the WCF's formulation of the CoW. The linked FV joint statement should be read by anyone looking to grasp the related issue.<br /><br />I'd like to wrap up this post with a list some basic elements of agreement and disagreement within FV, and also a few key disagreements between FV and more "traditional/confessional" or "TR" perspectives. However, it should be remembered that the existence of the first list precludes the universality of the second, in other words, not all attacks launched from the TR camp can be said to be equally directed against all FV men, even within the eleven signatories of the joint statement.<br /><br /> To begin, a few areas of mutual agreement among all FV men, briefly summarized.<br /><br />1) Baptism, including of infants, truly makes all those to whom it is applied, truly united to Christ (in some sense, although which sense varies depending on which FV man you ask), truly part of his Church and truly a participant in the New Covenant. To the extent that the New Covenant is the covenant of Regeneration, all persons partaking of Triune Baptism can be said to participate in "regeneration" <em>in some sense, although not necessarily unto eternal life.</em><br /><br />2) Justification and Regeneration, while bearing the traditional/confessional reformed definitions, are multi-faceted, and can occur in different senses for different persons. <br /><br />3) God's decree comes unequivocally to pass, and includes all things in time, including justification unto eternal life, individually declared in eternity past. However, this justification is not the only human experience of justification in the sight of God.<br /><br />4) It is impossible to please God through covenant membership alone, and the faith men are called to in Word and Sacrament must be the living and active faith of James 2.<br /><br />5) Denial that "law" and "gospel" are, or should be used as, hermeneutics, accompanied by affirmation that saved persons can hear all parts of Scripture as good news, while unregenerate persons hear all parts of the Scripture as "the savor of death".<br /><br />6) A real, but spiritual and non-local, presence of Christ in the Supper, and participation therein in confirmation of New Covenant membership.<br /><br />7) It is possible to apostatize from the New Covenant, and breakers of the NC receive greater condemnation than pagans. However, it is not possible for the decretally elect to fall away from Christ.<br />
<br />
However, there are likely as many differences as there are unifying elements, including in no particular order:<br />
<br />
1) Paedocommunion. While the "joint statement" affirms the administration of the supper to "children", adherence to paedocommunion as practice (or definition of the term) varies among FV theologians.<br />
<br />
2) The exact emphasis of the biblical term "justification". Some within in the movement see the predominant biblical use as eschatological (<em>vis a vis</em> the "final declaration" of N.T. Wright), others as partially synonymous with sanctification-in-process (which would be their typical reading of <em>dikaioo</em> in James 2), yet others emphasize very strongly the element of justification which is in the union of both Jews and Gentiles in Christ (another theme shared with N.T. Wright and "New Perspectivism"). On top of all of these, there remains individual salvific justification by faith, and the emphases and terminology used will differ widely among which FV writer you are reading on the subject.<br /><br />3) The degree to which FV men can be said to affirm "baptismal regeneration", and in which sense.<br /><br />4) Some FV men will say they adhere to the entirety of the Westminster Standards, but read them differently in places than the TR community. Others will openly deny portions of the confession and suggest alternate doctrinal language at these places.<br /><br />5) Some FV men have a strong monocovenantal bent (particularly those who deny the traditional formulation of the CoW) while others affirm a two-covenant scheme but deny that Adam could have earned anything, or was expected to. Still others affirm most of the confessional position on the CoW, but don't focus on it as their main emphasis.<br /><br />6) The imputation of the active obedience of Christ is, as will be seen, affirmed by Douglas Wilson (known by many to be "FV light"), while it is mitigated or outright denied by others. The "joint statement" repudiates the necessity of use of the language formula "imputation of active obedience", but not precisely belief in it.<br /><br /> In highlighting the above lists, fault lines between traditional/confessional Reformed thinkers and the FV movement become more clear, and to complete this post, I will list what I believe to be the four most important. In the weeks and months to come, an ongoing project will be to expand this post as a series, with reviews of at least two books. In doing so, I will leave the descriptive/expositional material here to enter the fray myself, and in doing so, I trust will expose myself as in neither TR nor FV camp, agreeing and disagreeing at times with both. The four items below, which I encourage the reader to mull over, should demonstrate, at least partially, why I believe these are important issues.<br /><br />1) Is the language of the WCF on the Covenants deficient? Why and how? How should it be "fixed"?<br />2) Can the sacraments be said to regenerate us, and in what sense? Does Baptism make someone a member of the New Covenant by itself? Are all Baptized persons, in some sense, "Christians" and what does that mean?<br />
<br />
3) Does Justification accomplish active obedience and sanctification for the believer, or merely encourage it? Is there overlap between justification and sanctification, and if so, how much? What, if anything, did Christ merit for the believer by law-keeping?<br /><br />4) Justification by faith: is Justification by Faith unto eternal life the Gospel? Is it the primary emphasis of the New Testament? Is it the primary biblical definition of "justification"?<br /><br />~JS</span><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
<br />
<br />
1. All quotes and material from the "joint statement" were taken from this copy of the original located <a href="http://www.federal-vision.com/resources/joint_FV_Statement.pdf">here</a>. <br />
<br />
</span>James Stockdalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09305814564480759059noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2883638156950047599.post-67256822280163102982016-02-20T17:36:00.001-08:002016-02-20T17:36:35.621-08:00Internet round-up: Napoleon and nukes.A brief edition today, as work has interfered with a lot of time to dig up interesting links. Some things to look into from this week, though.<br />
<br />
1) A debate on the greatness (or not) of Napoleon I (a historical pet issue of mine) is <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxQ4TcTcPbI">here</a>.<br /><br />2) The Gospel Coalition published a piece on fear of dirty bombs in the age of ISIS <a href="http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/should-we-be-worried-about-islamic-state-building-a-dirty-bomb">here</a>. Gives some science on nuclear weapons that is historically interesting, and also shows the hysteria in some circles over nuclear power to be somewhat overblown.<br /><br />3) The Heidelblog has embarked on a series of posts about Dispensationalism (after wrapping up a series of citations on the Covenant of Works). The first is <a href="http://heidelblog.net/2016/02/three-things-dispensational-apologists-should-stop-saying-1/">here</a>, and begins three short pieces on dispensational fallacies, punctuated with other posts on the same topic. The series has been notable for bringing in sources on both sides of the debate for easy reference.<br /><br />4) American Vision did some pieces recently on the history of "Christian Socialism". <a href="http://americanvision.org/1868/the-violence-inherent-in-christian-socialism/">This one</a> is particularly notable for it's discussion of the theological and ideological backgrounds of the men involved in the John Brown incident.<br />
<br />
That's all for the this week, will hopefully have a richer trove next Saturday. Working on several longer pieces here as well.<br />
<br />
~JSJames Stockdalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09305814564480759059noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2883638156950047599.post-70772453370765131452016-02-13T16:45:00.002-08:002016-02-13T16:46:25.156-08:00Internet round-up: Psalmody, the Qur'an and more! It's time for another edition of Internet Round-up, the column with fun stuff on the internet in the realm of theology! Without further fuss:<br />
<br />
1) A blogger posted <a href="http://bethyada.blogspot.com/2016/02/interview-with-douglas-wilson.html">a brief interview</a>/Q and A with Doug Wilson recently, which I think gives some insight into where his head and heart are at, ministry-wise. <br />
<br />
2) <a href="http://dailydoseofgreek.com/">Daily Dose of Greek</a> is a good place to start if you are looking to get into the biblical source languages but aren't officially enrolled anywhere. Hopefully posting this link here will motivate me to actually sit down and invest time in this arena.<br />
<br />
3)<a href="http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/commentaries.i.html"> Calvin's complete commentaries</a> are available in English online. If you want to get deeply into Calvin's thoughts on just about any passage of Scripture, (no Revelation, sorry) look no further.<br />
<br />
4) Phil Johnson has <a href="http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2009/11/is-gambling-ok-dont-bet-on-it.html">a series of articles</a> (they've been standing for some time) on the potential sinfulness of gambling. Good stuff to bear in mind with the popularity of going to casino as a birthday celebration etc.<br />
<br />
5) Peter Leithart caused quite a stir lately with articles on "why Protestants can't write". The rejoinder by TCI, with links to the originals, can be found <a href="https://calvinistinternational.com/2016/02/04/symbolism-modern-peter-leithart-flannery-oconnor/">here</a>.<br />
<br />
6) If you can surmount the thick Scottish accent, a presentation on the importance of Klinean Republication relevant to the historical theology of the Westminster Standards is available <a href="http://www.freechurchcontinuing.org/publications/sermons/item/the-mosaic-covenant-a-republication-of-the-covenant-of-works">here</a>.<br />
<br />
7) For those who missed the recent Facebook link, the Arabic corpus of the Qur'an, with grammar and morphology, is free online <a href="http://corpus.quran.com/">here</a>.<br />
<br />
8) In a landmark moment of the Obama presidency (more's the pity) Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has passed away today. The Gospel Coalition has published an <a href="http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/9-things-you-should-know-about-justice-antonin-scalia">article</a> with nine basics about the late justice.<br />
<br />
9) <a href="http://adam4d.com/">Adam 4d</a> is a web comic about the travails and experiences of Christians in the world. It demonstrates an element of "kidding on the square" that we can all appreciate.<br />
<br />
10) A group known as "My Soul Among Lions" has released a Kickstarter-funded <a href="http://baylyblog.com/blog/2016/02/my-soul-among-lions-psalms-1-10-now-ready-pre-order">album</a> of "contemporary psalmody". While this album encompasses Psalms 1-10, they are hoping to eventually get to the entire Psalter.<br />
<br />
Hope everyone is having a good weekend and there's at least one thing of interest here for everybody. Have a restful and Christ-centered Sabbath.<br />
<br />
~JSJames Stockdalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09305814564480759059noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2883638156950047599.post-66795363287621464352016-02-06T23:14:00.002-08:002016-02-06T23:14:41.403-08:00Feature columns, and the first weekly "Internet roundup" In an effort to spur greater volume here, I will be attempting to generate larger amounts of shorter pieces (as spellbound as I'm sure you all are by multi-page book reviews and feature-length analysis of debates on the Mosaic law). To that end, I introduce Saturday's installment, "internet roundup", which will be a brief breakdown of amusing, alarming, awesome (and alliterative) miscellany I found interesting on the 'web. Not all of this (or even most of it, depending) is guaranteed to be relevant to theology. Some of it may just be nonsense. Amount of stuff will vary based on how boring (or busy) the week goes. Without further ado, Notes from the Shore brings you it's first ever "Internet Roundup", which will focus on sites (many of which I have already linked to here) from which I draw material and read every day.<br /><br />1) <a href="http://www.sermonaudio.com/main.asp">Sermon audio</a> is a vast database of sermon material from just about every English-speaking location and theological perspective under the sun. It has the added benefit of hosting many of the world's best theology podcasts. The website is no frills, and the content is free. Lets you never go a day without hearing the word of God preached, should you so choose.<br /><br />2) Amazon has blessed the world with the free Kindle app, which turns any laptop or smartphone into a Kindle for reading e-books for free (although on phones, the multi-MB book files will eat up a lot of storage). With one-click purchasing at shipping-free, vastly reduced prices, anyone looking for a specific title, or general category of reading material should look at Amazon before trying to order a paper copy (with all apologies to "traditional readers".)<br /><br />3) <a href="https://dougwils.com/">Doug Wilson's blog,</a> aka Blog and Mablog, features not only great puns like the one it's title, but due to the controversy associated with the author (if you google his name, you will get bonus hate blogs galore), will fulfill your duty to annoy a liberal every day you read it. He is, as they say, my spirit animal.<br />
<br />
4) <a href="http://heidelblog.net/">The Heidelblog</a>, by R. Scott Clark, and it's accompanying podcast, will give you the daily dose of historical theology from the "TR" perspective. Despite my disagreements with Dr. Clark, don't neglect this blog, especially if you're a postie, as it will give a fair and balanced Amil slant on the Reformed universe.<br /><br />5) <a href="http://pulpitandpen.org/">Pulpit and Pen,</a> a ministry of Montana pastor JD Hall and his friends, is a "watchblog" predominantly concerned with issues relevant to the SBC. That being said, my grave concerns about the upstream waters feeding the 'casts eschatological pool (to say nothing of my...lack of affinity for the Baptist tradition) have cut me out of the loop of the Pulpit and Pen Program for a while now. Still relevant for those who have an ear to the ground on the goings on in American Baptist life. Also a great source of JD Hall audio sermons, which are typically stellar, and often more balanced than his podcast material. Trigger warning attached for continuationists.<br /><br />6) <a href="http://reformedforum.org/programs/ctc/">Christ the Center</a> is a podcast (one among several) of Reformed Forum, and my pick for general Reformed podcast to listen to on a weekly basis. It covers a wide variety of topics, and doesn't come from an apologetic bent (for that, see item 7), but rather deals with theology generally. For personal edification in the way of Reformed theological education across a broad spectrum, this can't be beat.<br /><br />7) <a href="http://www.aomin.org/">Alpha and Omega Ministries,</a> aka Dr. James White and his friend Rich Pierce, were instrumental to my journey back over the Tiber. This is to my mind, the number one Reformed apologetics ministry and podcast on the web. If you are in the trenches defending the faith in your home and work life, you owe it to yourself to check it out.<br /><br />8) <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/">Bible Gateway</a> is my go-to for online Bibles. It has almost every relevant English Translation, and foreign language translations, and lets you view them in parallel commentary.<br /><br />9)<a href="http://americanvision.org/"> The American Vision</a> is the blog of Joel McDurmon and company, and therefore the heir in the blogosphere to the work of Rushdoony and North, with occasional contributions from Gary DeMar. Essential to an understanding of the goings-on in contemporary Theonomic/Dominionist thought.<br /><br />10) <a href="https://www.whitehorseinn.org/">White Horse Inn</a> is the podcast of Michael Horton, and I would describe as the "Westminster West" podcast. Makes a good companion to the Heidelblog, particularly regarding theology of the two Kingdoms, and eschatology.<br /><br />11) <a href="http://www.smbc-comics.com/">Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal</a> is a webcomic I often link to on Facebook. Depending on your workplace, it may not be professionally appropriate. On top of tickling my funny bone, I link it here because it occasionally stumbles onto deep insight (from the Theistic perspective) into the mind of the anti-theist Westerner.<br /><br />12) <a href="https://calvinistinternational.com/">The Calvinist International</a> is a website purporting to promote "Reformed catholicity", and is from a far more philosophical bent than some of the other links in this list. Also worthy of checking out is <a href="https://wedgewords.wordpress.com/">Wedgewords</a>, by a contributor to this site, has some secular history articles and updates infrequently, but is worth a look through.<br /><br />That's all for now, check in next Saturday for more good stuff from the 'net.<br /><br />In Christ, <br /><br />~JSJames Stockdalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09305814564480759059noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2883638156950047599.post-86046640354981643532016-02-02T18:09:00.000-08:002016-02-02T18:11:44.537-08:00Brief thoughts and bold predictions on Iowa.<br />
<br />
1) Nothing is over regarding the top five across both parties, and really I didn't expect anything to be. Proportional representation in Iowa means that in real delegate numbers, no one really got out to a meaningful "lead". In terms of "momentum", that may have more to do with self-fulfilling media prophecy than something intrinsic to the raw numbers.<br />
<br />
2) Steven Wedgeworth from <a href="https://wedgewords.wordpress.com/">Wedgewords</a> issued the bold prediction yesterday that these results make Marco Rubio "the next President". I hardly think things are as clear-cut as all that, but given a top-three showing in New Hampshire, Rubio, barring any gaffes in the short-term, has positioned himself for a deep run, especially when primaries and caucuses shift to the South.<br />
<br />
3) My personal bold prediction: Bernie Sanders will be the Democratic nominee. His numbers among young people mean more than the media is letting on, and in addition to possible...legal obstructions to the Hillary campaign, the CNN theory concretizing today that Sanders is only leading in New Hampshire because of it's proximity to Vermont ignore Bernie's appeal to a real and ideologically committed faction of the American left in blue states.<br />
<br />
4) Trump is far from finished, but not coming in first in Iowa is a big deal. The particular importance for me is that the poll numbers before real voting have been demonstrated to be "not real", which I predicted, which makes the 19 point leads in New Hampshire and South Carolina that Trump is showing far more superfluous than the networks would presently like.<br />
<br />
5) Iowa is not racially or ideologically diverse enough to give us the surprises I think are yet to come. And this is also bad for Trump. While there will be adequate numbers of what Wilson winningly called "the Trumpenproletariat" for Trump to put in showings for the forseeable future, states with larger numbers of Black, Hispanic and upper-class GOP voters will be telling.<br />
<br />
~JSJames Stockdalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09305814564480759059noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2883638156950047599.post-6531245175084191722016-02-02T17:55:00.002-08:002016-02-02T18:14:39.946-08:00Notes from the Shore's ten books of 2015. Ten of the literary treasures from the world of theology (and one not) I consumed in 2015 and recommend to you.<br />
<br />
1) <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Theology-Westminster-Standards-Historical-Theological/dp/1433533111/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1454464290&sr=1-1&keywords=theology+of+the+westminster+standards">The Theology of the Westminster Standards</a>, JV Fesko.<br />
<br />
While not one hundred percent comprehensive, gives great background to contemporary issues in American Presbyterian and Reformed theology, and will be an approachable primer to the historical and political world of the Standards. My book of the year.<br />
<br />
2) <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Case-Covenantal-Infant-Baptism/dp/0875525547/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1454464309&sr=1-1&keywords=the+case+for+covenantal+infant+baptism">The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism</a>, Ed. Gregg Strawbridge.<br />
<br />
Reviewed here earlier in the year. If you read one paedobaptism polemics book in your life (hah), read this one.<br />
<br />
3) <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Federal-Vision-Covenant-Theology-Comparative/dp/1596380330/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1454464327&sr=1-2&keywords=the+federal+vision">The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology</a>, Guy Prentiss Waters.<br />
<br />
I wouldn't read this by itself if you're doing in-depth study on FV, as it is unabashedly proposing that FV "as a movement" is un-confessional, and it would behoove those interested to read the men in question in a full, contextual way. To that end...<br />
<br />
4) <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Federal-Vision-Steve-Wilkins/dp/0975391402/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1454464327&sr=1-1&keywords=the+federal+vision">The Federal Vision</a>, Ed. Steve Wilkins and Duane Garner.<br />
<br />
As was mentioned to me recently, there is no "FV handbook", but this is as close as we're going to get right now. If you want to understand where the "movement", if movement it can be called (more on that later) is coming from, you should read this. Stands out for having one of the more...interesting articles on the theology of Genesis I've ever read.<br />
<br />
5)<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Lords-Service-Covenant-Renewal-Worship/dp/1591280087/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1454464390&sr=1-1&keywords=the+lord%27s+service"> The Lord's Service</a>, Jeffery J. Meyers.<br />
<br />
Otherwise known as "that Federal Vision Worship Book." Puts forward the thesis that the structure of Protestant/Reformed liturgy can be governed by a "New Covenant rendition" of the tripartite sacrificial structure of Leviticus, with the Supper constituting the thanks offering. While not converted in totality to it's claims, anyone who is interested in "how should we then worship" should read this book, particularly if you don't share the TR camps fixation of exclusive Psalmody, non-instrumental worship, low-church decor, and other aspects of that particular conservative interpretation of the RPW. Particularly valuable for an essay on that principle, arguing that it should be understood more like the Normative Principle typically has been, and for a lengthy exegetical piece in favor of paedocommunion.<br />
<br />
6) <a href="http://www.amazon.com/New-Covenant-Theology-Time-Accurate-ebook/dp/B00FG59X5M/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1454464371&sr=1-1&keywords=gary+d+long">NCT</a>: time for a more accurate way, Gary D. Long.<br />
<br />
Also reviewed here. Similar to the FV book (although not a collection of essays), important for understanding contemporary issues in American Covenant theology. This may be of greater interest to Reformed Baptists than all the FV stuff on this list, because closer to home. As mentioned in my review, has the benefit of being willing to consider a pre-fall covenant with Adam, in some sense.<br />
<br />
7) <a href="http://www.amazon.com/GREAT-BOER-WAR-Byron-Farwell/dp/1848840144/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1454464408&sr=1-1&keywords=the+great+boer+war">The Great Boer War</a>, Byron Falwell<br />
<br />
A conflict that most Americans don't know and don't care about, but largely responsible for the modern and postmodern history of South Africa, and formative to the nature and allegiances of World War I and the unfolding of British Imperialism during and after Victoria. Aptly walks the line between engaging and scholarly. Perhaps a little overeager to exonerate British miscues and ethical lapses.<br />
<br />
8) <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Five-Views-Gospel-Walter-Kaiser/dp/0310212715/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1454464434&sr=1-1&keywords=five+views+of+law">Five views on Law and Gospel</a>, Ed. Stanley N. Gundry.<br />
<br />
Out of several books in this series that I read this year, this one was the most valuable for it's interplay between Douglas Moo, William VanGemeren and Dr. Bahnsen on the three most common "Reformed" views of the law. Succint, approachable, and actually lets you look at the nuts and bolts of the views "cross-examining" each other. <br />
<br />
9) <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Five-Views-Gospel-Walter-Kaiser/dp/0310212715/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1454464434&sr=1-1&keywords=five+views+of+law">Covenant Theology</a>, Michael Horton.<br />
<br />
Not making the list because I think it's the best short-book length introduction to Covenant Theology I've read. In fact, in that regard I found it disappointing. Rather, important for understanding the distinctives of the position most common at WTS West, namely form-critical analysis of Covenant history of the OT, and a form of Klinean Republication. And on that note...<br />
<br />
10) <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Merit-Moses-Critique-Doctrine-Republication/dp/1625646836/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1454464488&sr=1-1&keywords=merit+and+moses">Merit and Moses</a>, Elam, Van Kooten and Bergquist.<br />
<br />
Demonstrates concerns about the doctrinal ramifications, and confessional relevance of the Klinean Republication view. Brief, but covers all (or most) of the bases. Hopefully "The Law is Not of Faith" will make the list next year.<br />
<br />
~JS<br />
<br />James Stockdalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09305814564480759059noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2883638156950047599.post-67159811418948486652015-12-15T22:44:00.001-08:002015-12-21T03:28:01.172-08:00Book Review, "The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism" This <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Case-Covenantal-Infant-Baptism/dp/0875525547/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1450247740&sr=8-1&keywords=gregg+strawbridge">book</a>, edited by Gregg Strawbridge, is a collection of 15 essays and an introductory piece by 16 authors, presumably invited by Dr. Strawbridge to participate in this project, as an ongoing part of his campaign on behalf of the titular baptism of children into the covenant in Christ's blood. He was the general editor of a <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Case-Covenant-Communion-Gregg-Strawbridge/dp/0975391437/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1450247740&sr=8-3&keywords=gregg+strawbridge">second work</a> that I hope to include in my series of reviews of work on Covenant theology, which similarly arranges pieces in favor of paedocommunion.<br />
<br />
Unlike that work, however, which appears to be largely a collaboration between various men affiliated in one sense or another with the "Federal Vision movement" (as befits it's thesis), "Covenantal Infant Baptism" (hereafter CIB) was put together by a veritable who's who of the Reformed and Presbyterian community, representing various denominations, hermeneutical leanings, seminaries, churches and States of the Union. Most notably perhaps, this panoply includes Dr. Strawbridge, two other CREC ministers (Jeffrey Niell and Douglas Wilson), and Peter Leithart, but also includes men who have operated in direct contradiction to the positions of the FV movement considered as a general "idea", notably Cornelis Venema and Joseph Pipa. While these men therefore have distinct differences on issues like confessional subscription, eschatology, paedocommunion and it's attendant ecclesiological issues, and the nature of the distinction between the Covenants of Grace and Works, they have placed diverse hands on a single plow to uphold the titular case: namely that the children of at least one believing parent are part of the Covenant of Grace, and therefore worthy of the sign of that covenant, water baptism. Some of the more intriguing aspects of the book, however, come from the fact that not all the hands appear to be directing the plow to the same furrow even on the issue from which they supposedly derive unity. This blog will address this issue more in the future, but for now, I note in passing that both the inclusion of Dr. Leithart in the project, and the fact that many of the signatories of the "joint statement on Federal Vision" believe that children are not in the covenant intrinsically, but <i>by virtue</i> of water baptism, may indicate that where the future of Presbyterian sacramentalism is concerned, "the center cannot hold".<br />
<br />
After the even-handed introduction by Dr. Strawbridge, the book is loosely organized into "topics" or rather, general areas of interest to the defender of covenant baptism. Loosely, these are: the origin and nature of baptism, the <i>oikos</i> (household) function of baptism, the biblio-linguistic basis for the purpose and mode of baptism, baptism in covenant theology, baptism and baptismal polemics in history, and "theology of children". Some of these areas will be more interesting to those reading the book in order to "give an answer", while others are more items of general interest on the topic.<br />
<br />
The two essays on the "<i>oikos </i>formula", presented by Joel Beeke, Ray Lanning, and Johnathan Watt, demonstrate adequately the arguments from covenant continuity (e.g., that children were put into the substance of the Covenant of Grace in Abraham's day, and there is no explicit biblical warrant to put them out) and the federal nature of baptism (in juxtaposition to our modern individualistic mindset). However, in my opinion they fail to adequately address some of the calls for consistency offered by credobapists, particularly to some of paedobaptists who make the family model the hinge turning the whole issue.* For example, the issue of the baptism, or otherwise, of unbelieving spouses is left almost untouched throughout the whole volume.<br />
<br />
While Mark Ross presents an intriguing look at the exegetical foundation for Westminster's confirmation of baptism as a "sign and seal", the subsequent essay on mode by Joseph Pipa wanders into the woods in several places. Although the linguistic case for baptism by pouring is adequately expounded, equal time is not given to the validity of immersion. The notion of pouring or sprinkling as adequate only for young children, or for adults also is left untouched, and Pipa presents the rather interesting idea that regenerate Christians, who are "dead to sin", have only one nature, which is not a sin nature. (Kindle location 1350) While Pipa affirms that we are "not sinless", he fails to address Paul's notion of "the old man's" abiding presence within himself and that "what he does he hates", or to give a theology of "the flesh" that accounts for indwelling sin, if man no longer has a sin nature. While this is not the subject of the book, or even Pipa's essay, it created an undue distraction from the primary thesis that baptism is a sign and symbol of regeneration, which this blogger grants.<br />
<br />
The concluding essays of the book, by Douglas Wilson and R.C. Sproul, Jr. are macro-level analyses of the "family church" which broaden and personalize the application of the <i>oikos</i> formula and the one-substance, multiple administrations (OSMA) position on the covenants. The specific goal of the two is to expose inconsistencies in the family theology of credobaptist heads of household, while presenting an understanding of covenant baptism that transcends the categories of both <i>ex opere operato </i>sacramentalism and the concept of the "wet baby dedication". They accomplish this task with Wilson's signature wit and Sproul's typical lack of sensitivity to weasel-words, as well as with a great deal of love for their "opponents" and a pastoral mindset throughout. One can only hope the aftermath of the revelation of Sproul's fall regarding the Ashley Madison scandal will lead to true and repentant restoration for him, as such sin issues cloud exemplary work in the realm of comparative theology.<br />
<br />
In contrast, the low point of the book for me was rather strange little piece on the history of paedobaptism in the church by Peter Leithart. I approached his contribution to the work with some trepidation given his <a href="http://baylyblog.com/blog/2014/12/peter-leithart-no-baptism-no-justification">prior statements</a> (recorded in numerous other works) on sacramentology, and I could not help feeling that it was only with the greatest reluctance that Dr. Leithart refrained from inserting views into the piece that would have met with disagreement, if not horror on the part of some of the other contributors. Specifically, his assertion that "the most serious threat to paedobaptism is posed...by compromised paedobaptists, who shrink from the full implications of their position and fail to embody their theology in practice" (2815), leads me to wonder, given the greater context of Leithart's systematics, what exactly he believes the "full implications" of the position in question are. Additionally, if one is expecting a rousing defense of the historicity of paedobaptism, particularly in the early church, one will find neither that defense, nor the conviction that Dr. Leithart is especially concerned to provide it.<br />
<br />
By far the most important part of the book, to my mind, is located appropriately near the middle: namely, the defenses of the OSMA position, and it's corollary parallel between circumcision and baptism. This falls to four chapters by Jeff Niell, Richard Pratt, Randy Booth, and Cornelis Venema. The first two deal with the absolutely vital issue of exegesis, counter-exegesis, and hermeneutics of Hebrews 8:8-13 and it's citation of Jeremiah 31:31-34, which as I have stated elsewhere in "Notes", has become a key passage, perhaps <i>the</i> chair passage for the confessional, covenantal credobaptist position. Thankfully, both Niell and Booth take special care to validate and address the concerns of those holding that view, although even here, the diversity (and perhaps in our present day, fluidity) of the covenant baptist perspective shines through, in that the two offer what could be viewed as <i>contrasting</i> viewpoints of the same passage. <br />
<br />
In what may be the most important essay in the book, Niell goes through things that are <i>not</i> new in the new covenant that are presented in the Hebrews 8 passage so as to describe things that the passage cannot be describing in the fulfillment of the covenant in Christ's blood. These include internalization of religion (including the writing of the law "on the heart" of man), divine initiative in confirmation of the covenant, personal relationship between God and the covenant members, knowledge of the Lord (surely regenerate people in the post-Sinaitic administration possessed this in some form) and Divine mercy proffered to men (without which there could be no regenerate persons in the first place). Niell then goes on to lay out an argument based both on linguistic analysis of the phrases "from the least to the greatest" and "know the Lord", and the context of Hebrews generally (which is predominantly about leaving behind the types and shadows and pressing on into the fulfillment, which is in Christ, a massive epistolary theme of the New Testament generally.) Niell concludes that "knowing the Lord, from the least to the greatest" is first and foremost about the abolition of the old priesthood and it's host of fallible human intermediaries, and the expanded egalitarianism in the transmission of the infallible mediation of Christ to the universal priesthood of the believer. (1660) Additionally, he advances the case that the "law written on the heart" in fulfillment of Jeremiah is the <i>ceremonial law</i>, which the context of Hebrews establishes as being fulfilled in Christ and no longer obligatory for the Christian. (1597) Space does not permit going into Niell's arguments in exhaustive detail, but it would suffice to say that I highly recommend this essay in particular to anyone currently wrestling with the issue of baptism, or study of covenant administration generally. The essay's (seemingly) exhaustive treatment of what is <i>not</i> new about the New Covenant is particularly helpful, even outside the immediate subject of the book, as systems which do not hold the OSMA formula can often hold deep misunderstandings about the role of Old Testament saints before God.<br />
<br />
The difficulty with taking in Pratt's essay on the heels of Niell's, is that Pratt may appear, at first glance, to be accepting the credobaptist assumptions about the New Covenant, including the idea that "no man will teach his neighbor, and no man his brother, saying 'know the Lord'" means that all members of the covenant are regenerate. However, Pratt is, on a close reading, bringing up something I addressed in my <a href="http://fromtehshore.blogspot.com/2015/06/book-review-nct-time-for-more-accurate.html">prior review</a> of Gary Long's work on NCT: that there are two parallel elements cooexisting in Hebrews 8 that make it untenable as the "chair passage" for the Reformed Baptist understanding of the New Covenant: namely, that there are elements of the promise therein that are only for the elect (which are fulfilled in the live of every believer), but that an eschatological element remains to the covenant in Christ's blood that makes parts of the promise yet-unfulfilled. Should one remain unconvinced, for example, by Niell's argument that the context of Hebrews dictates that chapter 8 deals predominantly with the abrogation/fulfillment of the ceremonial law, the other facets of the promise are encapsulated in the "already/not yet" hermeneutic skillfully expanded upon by Pratt. The important thing to note here is that these two heremenutical principles are not mutually exclusive. While the harmonization was not explicit to CIB, one must remember that the fulfillment of the ceremonial law is a promise presently realized for the whole covenant community (the Church visible) while the present reality of salvation in the blood of Christ and perfect knowledge of the Lord is only a present reality for the elect (the Church invisible) <i>but</i> that that reality has a teleological goal of expansion that adheres to the already/not yet advance of the Kingdom. This is particularly manifest when we draw parallels to other covenant prophecies of the OT prophets, for example, the idea of the knowledge of the Lord covering the earth as the water covers the sea (Is. 11:9, Hk. 2:14). This is a reason that I believe that covenant baptism walks hand-in-hand with a postmillenial eschatology; but that is a subject for another post.<br />
<br />
The latter half of the four essays on baptism as present within OSMA present more "macro-level" analysis of the historical/Westminsterian justification for CIB, which transitions smoothly into the historical essays proper. I pause here only to note in passing that the post-"Klinean republication" view of Michael Horton's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Introducing-Covenant-Theology-Michael-Horton/dp/080107195X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1450247902&sr=8-1&keywords=Michael+Horton+Covenant+theology">"Covenant Theology"</a> comes under skillful fire from Cornelis Venema, particularly in Horton's distinction of the Sinaitic Covenant (including the publication of the moral law) as a "works-covenant" and the Abrahamic Covenant as purely a "Royal Grant" (e.g., one without expectations of, or promised sanctions on, the human "signatories" of the covenant). The conditional nature of the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 17 is exposited, and Venema's work here provides material for a possible review of Horton on "Notes". Part of my concern there (totally aside from the form-critical basis of Klinean republication generally) revolves around the fact that this disjunction in nature between the "absolute" Abrahamic and the "conditional" Sinaitic may prove too much, in that lack of conditions and sanctions for the overarching basis of the one Covenant of Grace could be consistently shown to undermine the traditional basis for CIB. However, expanding on that score will have to wait for future entries.<br />
<br />
It may be premature, given the wealth of apologetic literature from both sides on the baptism issue, to label "CIB" <i>the</i> relevant work on the subject, but it cannot be denied that a treasure-trove of argumentation and relevant background to the topic is present here. For those with a vested interest in the subject material, you owe it to yourself to pick it up. Those already convinced prior to reading the work may find it superfluous, but on top of the concentration of diverse arguments and writing styles in one approachable work, it can give insight into the future if interior debate in the Presbyterian and Reformed community on sacramentology. For dedicated students of both baptismal persuasions, particularly Reformed ones, this is as close to a "must read" as I can get.<br />
<br />
5/5<br />
<br />
In Christ, <br />
<br />
~JS<br />
<br />
*For an example of paedobaptist presentation under fire that I believe may rely too heavily on the <i>oikos </i>formula, see <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoVXoH585gw">this debate</a> between Dr. James White (a classic, and published, adherent to Hebrews 8 as "chair passage"), and Dr. Bill Shisko.James Stockdalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09305814564480759059noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2883638156950047599.post-38471264795561480062015-10-18T05:49:00.002-07:002015-10-20T05:27:52.462-07:00Of Standards and Sabbaths, or "Why the OPC doesn't like me"<br />
<br />
<i>"VII. As it is of the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set
apart for the worship of God; so, in his Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual
commandment, binding all men in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven
for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him: which, from the beginning of the world to the
resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and, from the resurrection of
Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which in Scripture is called the
Lord's Day, and is to be continued to the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath. </i><br />
<i>
</i><i>VIII. This Sabbath is to be kept holy unto the Lord when men, after a due preparing of
their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs beforehand, do not only observe an holy
rest all the day from their own works, words, and thoughts about their wordly employments
and recreations; but also are taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises
of his worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy."~ WCF XXI:7-8</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i><span class="text Mark-2-23"><sup class="versenum"> </sup>"Now it
happened that He went through the grain fields on the Sabbath; and as
they went His disciples began to pluck the heads of grain. </span><span class="text Mark-2-24" id="en-NKJV-24285"><sup class="versenum"> </sup>And the Pharisees said to Him, 'Look, why do they do what is not lawful on the Sabbath?'</span><span class="text Mark-2-25" id="en-NKJV-24286"> But He said to them, <span class="woj">'Have you never read what David did when he was in need and hungry, he and those with him:</span> </span><span class="text Mark-2-26" id="en-NKJV-24287"><sup class="versenum"> </sup><span class="woj">how he went into the house of God in the days
of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the showbread, which is not lawful
to eat except for the priests, and also gave some to those who were
with him?<sup>'</sup></span></span><span class="text Mark-2-27" id="en-NKJV-24288"><sup class="versenum"> </sup>And He said to them, <span class="woj">'The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.</span> </span></i><span class="text Mark-2-28" id="en-NKJV-24289"><i><sup class="versenum"> </sup></i><span class="woj"><i>Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath.”~Mark 2:23-28"</i></span></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<i>103. "What does God require in the fourth commandment?"</i><br />
<i>
</i><i>"In the first place, God wills that the ministry of the Gospel and
schools be maintained, and that I, especially on the day of rest,
diligently attend church to learn the Word of God, to use the holy
sacraments, to call publicly upon the Lord, and to give Christian
alms. In the second place, that all the days of my life I rest from my
evil works, allow the Lord to work in me by His Spirit, and thus begin
in this life the everlasting Sabbath."~Heidelberg Cathechism, Lord's Day 38, question 103.</i><br />
<br />
As prior posts here should be sufficient to demonstrate, the proprietor of this blog is pro-confessional. Specifically, yours truly holds the confessions of the reformation to be largely representative of the holistic teaching of Scripture. Moreover, while this is decidedly a blog promoting <i>sola scriptura</i>, e.g., the idea that Holy Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith and practice for the Christian believer, it is diametrically opposed to the more recent practice of "solo scriptura", otherwise known as "me and my Bible under a tree". Radical egalitarianism, willful ignorance of history or its relevance to our day, and rejection of (fallible) church authority have been absent from the honor roll here, and will remain absent. However, all of these are one side of a dual error.<br />
<br />
Phillip Schaff, in the opening of his work on the creeds of Christendom, wrote that elevation of creeds and confessions to an unhealthy or imbalanced level of exaltation was "fundamentally Romanizing...[and] a species of idolatry." I believe creeds, confessions and doctrinal statements to be vital to the life of the local church and even the individual believer, and would adhere to the notion that they function as hermeneutical guidelines and teaching tools. However, I do not believe in binding the consciences of men by demanding that laymen in a given local church setting should be expecting to cling in slavish obedience to a specific confession or catechism. (The issue becomes more complex for pastors in denominations where they are expected to uphold a symbol verbatim, which is why I doubt the possibility of my becoming a minister in say, the OPC). Still less do I feel that such laymen should be subjected to the yoke of a man, or set of men's, <i>interpretation</i> of that standard. This post is to demonstrate a specific area where I feel that this unjust binding is taking place, not to besmirch the Christianity of venerable authors of confessional standards, but to demonstrate the primacy and importance of a true and vibrant doctrine of <i>sola scriptura </i>(with it's attendant healthy skepticism) in the everyday life of the church.<br />
<br />
Above I have listed three texts I want to briefly examine, all of them touching on the nature and function of the Sabbath for Christians in the covenant in Christ's blood. This is a broad issue, and it is beyond the scope of one post to go into each of the relevant substrata addressed in the passages above. For the purposes of this post, I will be assuming the following: A) the "traditional", which is to say Westminsterian, understanding of the threefold division of the law (which has been addressed here before, and will be again). B) That at least some elements of the covenant administration of the Sabbath have changed, including the shift from Saturday to Sunday (this is not an Adventist-apologetics post, although there is creative space here for one in the future). C) That the covenant in Christ's blood may alter, shift or abolish whole elements of the covenant of grace present before the earthly ministry of Christ, but that explicit Scriptural revelation is necessary to demonstrate that such has taken place.<br />
<br />
Beginning with WCF XXI, there is much about the paragraph to like. I concur with the perpetuity of <i>at least some</i> elements of the Sabbath command, bound up as it is with the eternality and immutability of the Decalogue, which is all classic threefold division stuff. As I said, I concur with the change of day, insofar as that goes in it's limited confessional treatment. However, I pause to ask how many people have ever, for "a whole day", rested from their works, words and thoughts (!) about worldly employments and recreations. It must be pointed out that such passages as Christ's healing miracles on the Sabbath are seemingly, at least in some vague way, exegetically headed off at the pass with the passage about "works of necessity and mercy". However, there are, to me, two issues outstanding. 1) Given the seriousness of the moral law, and the historical seriousness of Sabbath-breaking in the OT (see for example Numbers 15:32-36), can we safely draw the specificity and rigor of the exact wording of the confession from Scripture? 2) Does the Bible bear out the "one-to-one equivalence" of the Christian Sabbath to that of the OT that is implied in the language of the WCF?<br />
<br />
The entire address of the Sabbath in the Decalogue itself comprises three primary elements: 1) the general command to remember to keep the day holy/set apart. 2)The specific command to do all labor six days and do no labor on the seventh. 3) The grounds for the command, that is that the Sabbath is patterned after God's activities in creation, and thereby tied to the creature/Creator relationship itself. This third point is a primary basis for asserting the perpetuity of at least the essence of the Sabbath command, since the grounds for the command, like the rest of the moral law, transcends covenant administration and is linked to God's rights over creation generally (for a parallel, note the condemnation and penalogy regarding murder, and the grounds thereof, in God's pronouncing sentence over Cain).<br />
<br />
Note both what is present and what is absent, relative to WCF XXI. First, working six days is issued in the imperative and without distinction from the rest of the command, yet the strictest of Presbyterian Sabbatarians have not typically said that Christians <i>must</i> be gainfully employed six days out of the year. True, there is room for saying that the general purpose of the command is to affix a minimum portion of rest rather than an exact amount of work, but given that it is vital to the Westminster Sabbatarian position that the administration of the commandment change only in the day, this befits a non-WCF hermeneutic better than one in keeping with the Divines. This will be important in our exposition of Jesus in Mark 2 in a moment. Secondly, nothing about thoughts or words is mentioned in the commandment, nor in fact are thoughts or words mentioned in any Sabbath command in the remainder of the OT. Third, and in a similar vein, there is no mention of "recreation", even that of the "worldly" variety in any of the Sabbath commands of either testament. Regarding these latter two points, rigorous Sabbatarians could appeal to the internal admonishment to keep the day holy or set apart, but when considering the specificity of the claims made by the confession, a mere argument from silence will not do. When the Decalogue does not command it, the sheer volume of expectation placed on Sabbath-keeping in the original confessional language, given the gravity of the commandment, may appear to be tying on heavy burdens in the sense of Matthew 23:4. But to merely demonstrate the specific confessional language does not occur in the OT does not fit a sufficient burden of proof. Especially in light of the traditional commitment of the people of God to keeping Sabbath, what we require is specific New Testament language indicating that the covenant in Christ's blood does <i>not</i> require abstinence from recreation, "worldly" words and works, or (in the case of some who teach on a minimal alteration of administration on this point) overmuch physical exertion. It is that NT proof that I set forward to provide.<br />
<br />
From the above exchange in Mark 2 between Christ and the Pharisees, we can glean several important Truths about the Sabbath and Sabbath-keeping. Firstly, while Christ is making one of his numerous claims to the lineage and throne of David here, he is also making application that extends beyond the isolated incident at hand and encompasses more than just heads of grain, and more people than merely himself or his apostles. If the greatest king of Israel had committed what would have been perceived by the Pharisees as a greater Sabbath violation, in a more rigorous time of application of the commandment, we can reason from the lesser to the greater. The Pharisees, who commanded meticulous rule-following governing every aspect of life on the Sabbath (a trend which one can witness today in rabbinic Judaism), would not have accepted the apostles actions here as being an act of necessity or mercy. This holds true even on the level of David's requisition of the showbread or of Jesus' healing miracles (although in their blindness, they opposed all three.) It is important to recognize in this that Jesus kept the moral law perfectly, and was not advocating dishonoring the Sabbath, but was instead showing no regard for the "rule-following" pattern advocated by the scribes and Pharisees. Christ also circumvents the accumulated tradition surrounding the Sabbath and returns to the creature/Creator interaction nature of the commandment I previously alluded to. If, in fact, the Sabbath is made for man and not the reverse, than Sabbath-keeping, while important to honor God's law, is not about formalism or lists of don'ts, but at least partially about rest for man, even if that doesn't always look like what is expected. Thirdly, and perhaps most crucially, as True God and True Man, the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath, and He dictates what it will look like. This teaching, by itself, does not demonstrate a specific doctrine of the Sabbath in the New Covenant, but it does leave the door open to a change in understanding of it, perhaps even a radical one. Apostolic Christianity would provide additional epistolary evidence for just such a shift in understanding.<br />
<br />
In Colossians 2:16-17, Paul writes "<span class="text Col-2-16" id="en-NKJV-29511">So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, </span><span class="text Col-2-17" id="en-NKJV-29512"><sup class="versenum"> </sup>which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ." This passage is key to the issue, for obvious reasons, and interpretations exist along a spectrum ranging from the idea that it supports the total abrogation of the Sabbath command (reflected in NCT and to a certain extent in the well-known work by DA Carson, "From Sabbath to Lord's Day") to the full Sabbatarian perspective. Dr. Joseph Pipa, in the wonderful little book "Perspectives on the Sabbath", hypothesizes that only "ceremonial" sabbaths, or even non-christian religious festivals are in view, but this ignores the narrative flow of Colossians 2 in the overall context of Pauline theology. Paul has just concluded admonishing the audience of his letter not to abide by dietary restrictions pressed on them by the proto-gnostics they were dealing with at Colossae, which ties into his statements regarding no longer keeping ceremonial food laws. This comes on the heels of references to the "circumcision done without hands",(vs. 11) analogous to baptism and the new birth in regeneration, which is another reference to the ceremonial code's abrogation in Christ. Bolting all of this together is the assertion that "the requirements which were against us" have been nailed to the cross. (vs. 14) While there were clearly some pagan or Hellenized influences at work in the heresy at Collossae, all of these references show close ties to the kinds of language Paul used with the potential victims of the Judaizers at Galatia. Sabbaths, festivals, food laws and other ceremonial, external religious observances have been swallowed up in the "substance, which is Christ".<br /><br /> Some might point out that this lays the framework for the NCT position of the abrogation of the Sabbath, but as mentioned above, the eternality of the Decalogue and the links in both testaments between the Sabbath rest and the creative decree make this untenable. However, an analogy can be drawn between the <i>administration</i> of the Sabbath being altered for Christians, in much more than in a mere change in the day of observance, and the change of administration in circumcision, which has been subsumed in the "circumcision done without hands" and its covenant sign, infant baptism. For Pipa or other WCF Sabbatarians, denial of this analogy would undercut one of the major lynchpins of Reformed paedobaptist practice! While Jesus never abrogates the Sabbath, or recommends its violation, in the gospels, whereas circumcision as a ceremonial practice was done away with by Paul, there is room in the passages we have explored for a "middle way", in which the <i>essence</i> of the Sabbath command is observed without a set list of forbidden "thoughts, words and works" as in the WCF. (It is worth mentioning in passing that there is great disagreement within the WCF camp as to what exactly such a list would constitute.) </span><br />
<span class="text Col-2-17" id="en-NKJV-29512"><br /></span>
<span class="text Col-2-17" id="en-NKJV-29512"> Such a "middle way" may be alluded to in Hebrews 4:1-9, in which the "rest" in which the elect enter into in passing from death into life, the "rest" which Christ enters into in ascending to the right hand of the Father, the "rest" of passing from the wilderness into Canaan, and the Sabbath rest of the Decalogue are switched between rapidly so as to be functionally equated by the author of Hebrews. The "rest" that remains for the people of God in verse 9 is specifically said to be a "sabbatismos". With this passage taken with the others we have discussed, I would suggest that the date of the Sabbath day of rest has in fact, changed, but in that Christ Himself is the Rest for His people, I believe that the language of the WCF regarding total abstinence from worldly affairs on a specific day of the week is as extraneous as that which Colossians 2 calls "the appearance of wisdom". <br /><br /> If the Westminster Standards fall short in having too narrow and fixed a definition of the Christian Sabbath, I feel that the 103rd question of the Heidelberg Catechism above demonstrates a more balanced view. The answer encapsulates two key portions of Scripture's teaching. Firstly, the maintenance of the Lord's Day as holy through the learning of the Word and the use of the sacraments, and secondly, the acknowledgment of Christ as our rest through turning from <i>evil</i> works and preparing for the consummation of that rest, not one day out of seven, but "all the days of our lives". To my mind this says enough without saying too much (and perhaps rescues this blog from the reputation of "confession-bashing"). It is worth pointing out that each section of the Heidelberg is named after a "Lord's Day" of the year, and that the term "Sabbath" is predominantly applied only in Lord's Day 38, to our eternal Sabbath, which is in our union with Christ.<br /><br /> Hopefully this material will be useful to people who have questions about the Sabbath in the standards, and the issue generally. Not all answers were forthcoming here, or were intended to be. Carson's work on the Sabbath, and the "Perspectives" book listed above, as well as Calvin or a solid exposition of the WCF, would all be good places for further reading. As I post this, we are entering the early hours of the Lord's Day itself, and I hope that each day of your lives remains a <i>sabbatismos</i> for you as a child of God.<br /><br />~JS</span><br />
<span class="text Mark-2-28" id="en-NKJV-24289"><span class="woj"><i> </i></span></span>James Stockdalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09305814564480759059noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2883638156950047599.post-68677880631132372972015-09-27T07:01:00.002-07:002015-09-27T07:01:39.813-07:00Popery and other Humbugs, or "the Vindication of Norman Vincent Peale" Just kidding. This post will have little positive to say about Mr. Peale, the man or the theologian. If you wanted a blog that raved about Methodist Freemasons who advocated autohypnosis, you clearly took a wrong turn at Albuquerque. However, seeing as how in 1960, even men of that pedigree were opposed to a Roman Catholic running for President, the last fifty-five years have seen remarkable change in both this country and the peculiar Italian institution, no?<br />
|<br /> To describe responses to the Papal visit to the New World this week as "mixed" would constitute an exercise in calculated understatement; at least among card-carrying members of the religious right. Such responses range from the chummy pictures of Rick Warren and TD Jakes (ok, I'm stretching the definition of "religious right" there) waiting anxiously to kiss the ring of the World's Greatest Climate Scientist (tm) , to the somewhat hysteria-tinged posts over at Pulpit and Pen. For the record, while the creation of the hashtag #StillProtesting was a nice touch, reading far too much into the typical vagaries Bergoglio had on offer to provide ammo for snarky Facebook memes about the "Man of Sin" is exactly the kind of imbalance that bolsters P and P's reputation for intransigent counter-productivity. <br /><br /> JD and Co. are not alone in this, of course. The gratuitous fawning that highlights Faux News' typical response to anything Papal had most Reformed folks' hackles up, myself included. However, even in the case of something this central to our pet peeves, it's important to think through the relevant issues, address contemporary realities, and come to conclusions that function in the real world of apologetics. The universe that starts on your doorstep and ends at your computer server contains real Catholics with real beliefs, to say nothing of the great crowd of the religiously abused and denominationally confused, and I'm concerned our typical battle plans will stand contact with the proverbial enemy even less than the average. With this in mind, three general themes to touch on as Catholicism enters the national consciousness for the typical fifteen minutes before we remember the backlog on our DVR: 1) the necessity and relevance of a Church Reformed and always Reforming. 2) Evangelistic pragmatism, it's pitfalls and positives. 3) The consequences of the fact that this is not your grandfather's Catholicism, nor that of your neighbor Ryan Ohoulihan's grandpappy Patches. In full confidence that that sidelong reference to "Dodgeball" will increase the popularity of "Notes" with the youth of America, I press on.<br />
<br />
As this is, after all, a Presidential election season, I will start by throwing some red meat to the base. (Can a readership of seven people have a "base"?) To put not too fine a point on it, the Papacy is an institution built on a combo of historical fabrication, political expediency, and a whole lot of indulgence money bilked out of European peasants, which funds, I pause to note, are perfectly consistent with the soteriological backbone of Romanism, which is the heart of the matter. Men do not command Christ to render himself present, body and soul, on an altar. Neither should they appropriate the terms "Holy Father", "Prince of Peace", or "Alter Christus". Furthermore, Jesus is not honored when his gospel is swapped out for a system in which your eternal destiny rides on hoping a bus doesn't hit you crossing the street on the way to confess your latest lustful thoughts to one of these little christs. To the extent that Francis, and all other Roman priests, assume these powers and titles, the institution and it's teachings are to be rejected by Bible believers. <br />
<br />
Opposition to Popery is not limited to abstractions or the occasional concern in the midst of jaywalking, either. For every non-Catholic Christian reading this blog, you have to ask yourself, with all apologies to James White, whether you are a Protestant of convention or commitment. (Incidentally, I would say the same in reverse to Catholics). The funny hats and smell of incense are not gospel issues. Whether or not the Roman Catholic mass is the same sacrifice as that of Christ, but similarly (by the theory in question) perfects no one, is. Whether the penalty for the sins of God's people was paid on the tree or must be absolved by a human priest, is. Whether Jesus Christ is a perfect savior who loses none of what was given to him most decidedly is. How we live, our eschatology, or ecclesiology, our relationship to each other and to our pastors, our very relationship to Christ and what we trust in for the security of our eternal soul (and how secure is that security, anyway?) hang on the differences between Catholicism and the Reformed faith. Not only that, but our answers must, and can be, as biblical and relevant to a fallen world here and now, as in 16th century Europe. So yes, the watchword is, has been, must be, <em>Reformata et Semper Reformanda</em>. There's a river flowing deep and wide, and it's called the Tiber. Tulips are lovely flowers. Be ready to give an answer for the hope that is within us, in contradiction to false hopes. Let there be Calvinism on Earth, and let it begin with me (and you).<br /><br /> Thus, the bait; now, the switch. It is true that the Rick Warren approach is demonstrably a betrayal of the Reformation. However, I trust the average reader of this blog to be able to spot capitulation on that scale when they see it. The flip side of the coin (all imbalances have an opposite tipping point) is the fact that smugly quoting WCF XXV.6 does not create Protestants, but rather pissed-of Roman Catholics. Lest those that know me best fear I have taken leave of both my senses and my Van Til at the door, I am not suggesting that the gospel be altered, redacted, shrunk, massaged, nuanced away, or fashioned into a feather with which to tickle men's ears. Paul said that those at Mars Hill worshipped those which are not gods, and we can say, in full confidence that the Spirit does as He pleases, that Catholics preach (to a lesser or greater degree) that which is not a gospel. That being said, as Paul's solution to the monument to the Unknown god was not to break out the jackhammers, we should begin at the beginning with a positive, affirming presentation of the plain truths of Jesus Christ crucified in the place of dead men and interceding now on behalf of the living. This stands in contradiction to the often more satisfying (and certainly more reaction-eliciting) tactic of snide comments about the person of the Pope, hastily composed imprecatory psalms against every Catholic in earshot, and Pharisaical invocations of the flames of perdition against worshippers of images. (Yes, I said Pharisaical, you too once worshipped those which are not Gods, and in our imperfect state of sanctification, we sometimes still do. Hypocrisy is most foul on the lips of the redeemed).<br /><br /> This does not make certain practices of Rome any less odious, particularly to any cradle Calvinists I may have in the audience. The virgin Mary is not anyone's mediator, and to insist otherwise invites personal spiritual calamity. What it does mean is that we are called on to proclaim the gospel unedited, but <em>adorned.</em> Don't emphasize Revelation: emphasize Romans, by which I mean chapter 5, not 9. Don't start with Mary, or transubstantiation, or even the historicity of the Papacy: if you have an apologist, amateur or otherwise, on your hands, they'll take you there anyway. Start with the peace with God that you experience through Jesus Christ, that masses and indulgences cannot give or buy. Catholicism is a girl with too much makeup: the frippery and trappings distract from the core insecurity, and apologetics is about core issues. This goes for all the religions of men, but doubly so for as complex but fundamentally anthropocentric a religion as Rome's. When I referenced the counter-productivity manifest in the Hall camp earlier, do not misread "productivity" as "decisionism": but also don't confuse effectiveness with compromise. As a former Catholic, I can tell you that no one was going to convince me to come out of Babylon by describing it as icky. Point to yonder wicker gate, and tell your Catholic neighbor to fix their eyes on it. <br /><br /> Finally, a related issue to that above, but one much closer to the heart and experiences of Dr. White than of JD Hall: many Calvinists, Dr. White less than some, are shadowboxing with Jesuits who have been dead for two hundred years. It should be self-evident (but often isn't, particularly to a neoconservative stream of Catholic thought) that Francis is not Pius X. Dr. White emphasized only a few days ago on the most recent podcast that we should not be hammering away at canned speeches by Francis before the American Congress, which can be parsed for "fallibility" and "reinterpreted in light of Church teaching" by the Vatican's seemingly endless team of spin doctors, both professional and unpaid. Rather, says the good Doctor, we should focus on the dogmatic teachings of Rome themselves: <em>ex cathedra</em> papal statements, conciliar documents along the lines of Trent, etc. He has a point, in that these are the historical grounds of the soteriological heart of Romanism, but Dr. White has for a long time been engaged primarily (sometimes only) with the most informed, trained, conservative and apologetically engaged camp within the big tent of Rome. I live in Washington State. With all due respect to the "good Catholics" that I know, (and I do), the number of Catholics I know who can name the sources of dogma, let alone have systematized the arcane web of teachings of historical Catholicism into a daily complex of belief is slim. Here, conservative Catholics are rare, informed ones rarer still. Tridentine informed conservative Catholics are a particularly argumentative unicorn. This has consequences for our engagement with the man or woman on the street.<br /><br /> At the demonstration against Planned Parenthood I attended recently, Catholics outnumbered non-Catholics by a factor of at least three to one, and the conservatives amongst them, in various states of knowledge regarding their own faith, did not shrink back from proclaiming their whole counsel to me. (One wishing to see the same in reverse was, typically, disappointed.) These nice (predominantly) ladies, upon learning of my prior experience with Rome and my belief that the modern Vatican constitutes a departure from historic Catholic orthodoxy, promptly issued lines about "yes, all of that may be true, but do you know how many bad Popes we've had". I lack time and space to describe exactly how and why that "defense" of the Papacy is underwhelming, but the enterprising among you will be able to fill in the gaps. My point is this: beyond the positive presentation of the Biblical gospel, I do not believe we should start with Trent, because modern Roman Catholics are no longer part of the religion of Trent. The conservatives among them, proportional to the degree that they know their history, will desperately wish they were. Most will say they are. They are beholden to an institution that has a vested interest in telling them that they are. But they are not. Don't battle transubstantiation: ask them when they last left a mass that departed from Catholic worship standards. Don't start in on the nature of indulgences: ask them when the last time they heard a priest teach the necessity of priestly absolution for salvation was. Don't begin with the nature of purgatory (although this may come up incidental to the finished work of Christ): ask them whether they believe that Trent's view aligns with the multitude of Papal speculations in recent years about "instantaneous purgatory" and the like. Expose self-contradiction. Expose the severing of a wide swath of Catholicism from it's roots. Describe a basic familiarity with their faith, and ask them whether the timeless march of their unchanging Church is delivering on it's promises. This should come secondary to your positive, Biblical presentation, but the goal is not a that-day "decision for Jesus" (anything that easy will fade easily) but the planting of questions about the Catholic's authority. As with the Reformed faith and it's absolute dependence on inerrancy, the claims of Rome will live and die with the trustworthiness of the men making them.<br /><br /> "All of this sure sounds like a lot of work", you grumble, secretly wishing I'd been more ruthless with my elimination of run-on sentences. "Who has time to learn all of this, and who gets argued into the kingdom anyway?" First, you do. I play video games and have a job. I know you do. Second, I did. Second redux, we have a duty to God to proclaim his gospel and give that answer for the blessed hope, and contrary to what you may have been lulled into believing, Catholics are not stupid, nor are they mere creatures of their environment (not the practicing faithful, anyway). They have ready-made answers to difficult questions, and this is not their first rodeo. (If it is, they have a friend for whom it is not). I'll close with some questions: how important is the gospel of Christ to you? Has it changed your life? Did it give you a new heart? How thankful are you, really? Is what is worth having, worth sharing? And, to echo the man seeking to justify himself (Luke 10:29), who is your neighbor? <br /><br /> No one expects evangelistic perfection, or even a flawless readiness to give an answer. I don't have either, and neither does anyone else. Jesus does expect that we take the Great Commission as marching orders, though. But hey, I understand if you're busy. There really <em>are</em> a lot of channels on TV.<br /><br />~JSJames Stockdalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09305814564480759059noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2883638156950047599.post-67223901646525249922015-09-17T13:57:00.001-07:002015-12-21T03:40:52.269-08:00"About last night...", or "the CNN GOP debate in review" A few people specifically requested I do a write-up of last nights' clash of titans, or approved of my stated intent to do so. Never let it be said that I don't do requests. Hoping this won't be overly lengthy, but also hoping this will wet my thirst to return to regular updates. We'll see. <br />
Without further ado, a brief summary of each persons performance, with a 1-10 scale. Note that the ranking is not based on agreement or disagreement with the person's policy positions or ideology, only how well I feel they did in the debate.<br />
<br />
<i>Rand Paul</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
He is, as the kids say, "my boy", and he had a golden opportunity in this venue that I would say was only "partially seized". He stumbled falling out of the gate, because while he may have been able to play the persecution card regarding the usual Trump ad hominem, his opening statement did not take full advantage of the time allotted, and he seemed to lack an ability to connect with the audience. (Minus that one guy who clapped for everything he said, who I suspect is the same guy who travels to golf events to yell "get in the hole" whenever someone putts.) This lack is not surprising, as the Paul family appears to share my occasional delusion that the truth is it's own defender. It would be, and is, in the scope of providence, but here a little more pathos might be required.<br />
He finished strong, I thought that he accurately and directly summarized his views and he shines most when he diverges from the Republican mainstream, as on the Middle East and weed. Personal bias is playing a role there for me, of course, but I will leave it to the viewer to judge how much. Ultimately he was most damaged by a weak opening and a weak conclusion. Come on, the secret service isn't going to use a three word phrase for a codename. <br />
<br />
6/10<br />
<br />
<i>Mike Huckabee</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
In the past I have not been a Huckabee booster. I have still not gotten over the inanity of the typical fundygelical crowd's <i>Dolchstosslegende</i> during the Romney campaign. I continue to find the man's theology eye-roll inducing. All of that being said, he acquitted himself well Wednesday night. He had limited opportunity to speak (even with three hours, eleven speakers is a hard row to hoe), but on each of his presentations, he was unafraid to speak truth to power, particularly on the issues that matter most to Christians. He also had one of the strongest opening statements. I wouldn't give him an official "winner" label, as I doubt he can, or intends to, reach the broad conservative mileau, but the hour suited the man from the Christian perspective.<br />
<br />
8/10<br />
<br />
<i>Marco Rubio</i><br />
<br />
A clear winner on Wednesday. Looked intelligent, capable, well-spoken and ready to lead. Dominated Trump on the question regarding Trump's prior foreign policy gaffes. I doubt very much I am in the Rubio camp personally on foreign policy issues, and I think tactics like calling Vladimir Putin a "thug" reflect the typical neoconservative fantasy that we are still living in the 1980's and still dealing with the same Russia. But that does not reflect his score, and he showed a competent and polished blend of "compassionate conservatism" (his appeal to Spanish-speakers was a masterstroke) and no-nonsense American exceptionalism that plays to the base ("the American military was not designed for pinpricks" was similarly excellent). I saw concerns that he came off too scripted in the moment, but I don't doubt his commitment to his convictions, and after President Teleprompter, I don't doubt that most things would be an improvement.<br />
<br />
9/10<br />
<br />
<i>Ted Cruz</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
Yawn. Disappointing performance of the night goes to this guy. On top of the sheer moroseness of his mannerisms (one participant in my facebook drama during the live coverage wondered if the Clinton family was shooting his dogs whenever he answered a question), Senator Cruz meandered into generalized talking points rather than giving policy specifics. I thought essentially refusing to give an alternative to the Iran deal while insisting on the "tear it up" approach probably hurt him with "moderates". For those inexperienced with Ted Cruz, I recommend his Senate floor presentations over this debate.<br />
<br />
4/10<br />
<br />
<i>Ben Carson</i><br />
<br />
Numbers don't lie, this guy is within 3-5 points of Trump right now, although how much he's getting the benefit of some obvious voting tactics I'm unsure. He presented as dignified and confident throughout the debate, although the seeming lack of passion in his calm demeanor may hurt him with the right of the party. Was called one of the big losers of the debate on CNN, but I doubt his numbers will fluctuate much after his sticking to his guns. He was also one of three men on stage willing to talk about former foreign policy gaffes on the part of this country, which the media consistently underestimates in terms of impact on the white 18-30 crowd.<br />
<br />
7/10<br />
<br />
<i>Donald Trump</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
The debate format was structured essentially to give the other lobsters in the pot an opportunity to claw at the one on top, which they efficiently did. I had a whole post started on this man, but haven't finished it and am unsure that I will. Suffice it to say I think he showed his true colors in this event. Swaggering, blustery and utterly unconvincing on women's issues (he was actively booed when going after Bush on funding for women's health), the man has (hopefully) shown the American people that he cannot, in fact, be trusted to govern. He proved vague on immigration, nasty and issue avoidant in engagement with specific candidates, and paranoid and shallow on the issue of vaccines (Carson's line about doctors was particularly adept.) He also served as a near-bottomless fount of easy wins for Fiorina, which I doubt he grasped. On the other, hand, I think I'm probably awarding him a full point for his Secret Service codename joke.<br />
<br />
3/10<br />
<br />
<i>Jeb Bush</i><br />
<br />
Started out slow, giving me the impression he would sink to his common perception of being too soft. He later rallied, and I thought took an impressive stand on Planned Parenthood. While I disagree with him on minutiae of marijuana legalization, I thought he came off as honest and forthright with the American people on the issue, as well as humble. That moment alone was a high-water mark. Bush showed himself to be particularly adept at attack by defense. As the primary target of calumny from Trump, he showed a remarkable willingness to stick to his guns and defend both his family and his policy statements, which I think people will like. I doubt I'd vote for the man in a multi-option primary setting, but he displayed a deftness on Wednesday that will help him more than his copious cash reserves.<br />
<br />
7/10<br />
<br />
<i>Scott Walker</i><br />
There is not a lot to say here, as Walker didn't appear to have a lot to say there. What he did say was correct, but in mannerisms and terminology he appeared to have accepted the status of an also-ran. The appeal to Wisconsin experience was valid, but the lack of engagement with other candidates' specific statements made him look almost disinterested. It's telling that I am having a hard time remembering specific things he said.<br />
<br />
5/10<br />
<br />
<i>Carly Fiorina</i><br />
Had the title of clear winner snatched from her by the presence of Rubio. For every thrust Trump had, she had a parry, and she proved herself serious and competent even during the seeming throwaway questions. Her closing statement and answer to the "woman on the ten dollar bill" gave her the appearance of a leader and an adult, and gave the audience what any debater should: take-away memories. She was accused of being "unsmiling" in the aftermath, but I think many conservatives will recognize her as a serious woman for a serious hour in this nation. Bonus for being one of the candidates to engage on foreign policy and present more than vague keyword phrases.<br />
<br />
9/10<br />
<br />
<i>John Kasich</i><br />
<br />
In one sense, he did was he needed to do: present himself, implicitly rather than explicitly, as the voice of reason among a pack of extremists, while also showing himself direct and assertive (he probably led in direct confrontation with the "moderators", who on a side note showed themselves unworthy of the title). On the other side of the coin, he failed to convince anyone that all his talk of unity and compromise means anything other than the failed tactics of capitulation that the Graham's and McCain's have made a source of nausea for consistent conservatives. He dodged a bullet on not having to answer any questions about Kim Davis. But I think the informed GOP voter will know *why* he didn't answer any.<br />
<br />
5/10<br />
<br />
<i>Chris Christie</i><br />
<br />
The man's record does not make him a viable choice for right-wingers, however he might try to spin himself. Someone in the aftermath panel said a storyline of the debate was "magically, Chris Christie is a conservative", and in fact, he scored serious points speaking to his record as governor and his stances on the issues. Both he and Dr. Paul may have lost more than they gained on the marijuana tiff. He did, along with Kasich, show a seriousness and maturity in asked to hurry through the "fight with Trump" questions to the real issues. In a hypothetical general election, however, his record would be his undoing.<br />
<br />
6/10.<br />
<br />
All in all, it was a fairly riveting three hour marathon. Personally I'm hoping the current status of the polls will be shaken (or overthrown) by the exchange. The clear winners were Fiorina, Rubio, in one sense Huckabee, in another Bush. Cruz and Trump probably hurt rather than helped themselves. I would look forward to voting for any of them that aren't named Trump, given the alternative.<br />
<br />
~JS<br />
<i><br /></i>James Stockdalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09305814564480759059noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2883638156950047599.post-17379659809559204102015-07-09T05:16:00.000-07:002015-07-09T05:16:12.499-07:00Law/Grace Balance as central to the Gospel, or "yes, yet more musing on the law". Shout out to my friend Nathan, whose advice from the last post was "don't be Doug Wilson". I regretfully informed him that much of my style, word choice, views, etc. were shared with him before I knew who he was, but it was good advice. It would be uncharitable to liberals for there to be two of him, thereby causing their heads to explode. That being said, we press on.<br /> I have several disparate categories of thought swirling around at the moment, and I'm going to try to connect them even if it only makes sense to me. Lots of stuff has been in the news lately, and somehow my feebly sparking synapses have been unable to relinquish the notion of a connection between the recent decision of the General Conference of the Seventh-Day Adventist church to (fairly narrowly) reject women's ordination, and gospel preaching in the post-<i>Obergefell</i> kerfuffle. In fact, I'm actually going to link both of them with why I disagree with NCT's view of the law. So I guess you could call this "the month of Notes from the Shore in review". If this blog were popular enough to have themed nicknames for trends of posts, that is.<br /> Years ago, in my ignorance (well, greater ignorance), when I doubt I was saved at all, and my systematic theology, such as it was, constituted a fear of hell coupled with semi-biblical deism, I would have described myself as "an Old Testament Christian". I had back then a loathing of intellectual laziness and shallow morality systems that makes modern James look tame (it's possible, trust me), and untethered from rigorous commitment to two central Bible concepts (those being grace that is free, but never cheap, and Biblical support for robust Trinitarianism), I fell off a number of internal cliffs of thought. <br />
The one most easily spotted as error by just about any regenerate heart was my acceptance of a standard hermeneutic of the "Christian left", at least some of whom are humanists playing religious dress-up. (In Obergeville, you'd better believe that's going to get more obvious. Quickly.) This principle is the juxtaposition of the God of the Old Testament, who is about icky, uncomfortable things like wrath, judgment, personal holiness, and law, with the God of the New, who is represented by the icons of Jesus the robed European Soccer player who can't continue styling his hair, only because he's too busy holding the adorable lamb and softly glowing in gold-pink hues. This God, say our friends the ideological transvestites, is sweetness and light, acceptance and "love", knows all 271 verses to "Just as I Am" (and some he wrote himself), and is knocking meekly at the door of human hearts to offer mankind the lollipop of forgiveness for things we couldn't help much anyway. This God, say grown men who should know better, is a gentleman (or perhaps vampire), who will not cross that threshold to our precious feelings-bosom unless invited in. And I, the little-Deist who couldn't, accepted the existence of these two deities. I merely reversed the normal preference.<br /> The truth, of course, is that neither of these "Gods" exist. The God of the Old Covenant, the God who thundered on Sinai, loves mankind, and offered grace that men may turn and live. The God of the New Testament (who is the same being) reigns in a blood-stained robe with a rod of iron in His hands, and will (and is, and has) crush the nations in the wine-press of His fury. And I am grateful (and hope to remain so eternally) that God, in resurrecting me from the dead, did not do the gentlemanly thing and wait around to ask permission from my corpse. However, in believing an error in this arena, I developed a consequent, yet more subtle one, even after I had formally rejected the first. <br /> Justification by faith became a doctrine for sluggards and intellectual freeloaders in my mind, even after coming to terms with the Holy Trinity and at least assenting intellectually to the inter-testamental unity of purpose in the Godhead. I had come to see enough antinomians and those who pervert the grace of the gospel into licentiousness (Jude 4), or even enough just-plain mutton-heads, to believe that only a God who demanded self-justification by law was capable of being Holy and Righteous, and that only a God who stood over the shoulders of the redeemed with a clipboard was worthy of being worshiped, when in reality the gospel in all it's world-foolishness is the exact opposite. And this brings me to my overall point: the risk of Law/Grace imbalance.<br /> Balance between Law/Grace is vital to the Reformed faith, and to the apostolic faith, because one can fall off the horse on either side; and men often do. If a man believes that the prayer he prayed when he was four allows him to prolong his relationship with his live-in girlfriend, he commits the error of Jude. If a woman believes that God has given her firstborn the chicken-pox because she missed her devotional on Thursday, and will make up for it with three tomorrow (which she will later commend herself heartily on for two weeks), she has committed the error of Galatians. A God who delivers His Son, and thereby His very Self, to agony on behalf of spiritual worms is too Good to deny gratitude; and too Holy to mock by attempting to add to His work. But if I could hazard a guess without being either telepathic or a perfect judge of character, I would bet that all of us do so, and most of us tend to one more than the other. To apply the "split-God" hermeneutic much more accurately to our foibles than to God Himself, this creates "Old Testament Christians" and "New Testament Christians", and both types are imperfect by virtue of their category.<br /> This principle can be expanded easily to the macro-level, as churches, denominations and societies are little more or less than groups of men, humanistic theories to the contrary notwithstanding. Just as there can be Christians who love the best seat at theological conferences and pray loudly to thank God that they are not like that man over there, who doesn't know the definition of "supralapsarian" (self-righteousness can be theological, too), there are churches who will put 18 year-olds in front of ecclesiastical courts for being alone with a person of the opposite sex. And just like there can be Christians who think that Jesus' payment on the cross was sufficient to cover their offices' stapler (and three other things) too, there can be denominations that wink at sin, because after all, grace will abound. Here's mud in your eye, Episcopalians.*<br /> I was forcefully reminded of all this by the recent news of attempted shenanigans in favor of women's ordination at the upper echelons of Adventism. While there will be further repercussions as a result of what may amount to <i>de facto</i> rebellion on the issue in large swath of the North American branch of that denomination, it must be said that, as a church for whom cheap grace has seldom been a problem, SDA held the course in our "progressive" age where other organizations would have sold out. That does not take Adventism off the hook on the other end of the stick, though. This is not an Adventist-bashing post. Were I to write a church-bash post (perish the thought), I would have a teeming horde of more profitable targets. But an organization that maintains the centrality of original Sabbatarian commands and holds a belief that, at least in more conservative SDA circles, amounts to a covenant republication of portions of the ceremonial dietary law has reasons for low risk of antinomianism, not all of them the most healthy. <br /> With that convenient ripped-from-the-headlines example in mind, I would apply the same principle to societies as a whole, and I would take the idea of balance, which we have already looked at in men and churches, and say that it is key to gospel proclamation in a societal context. With all apologies to NT Wright, who is much smarter than I, Second Temple Judaism was a decidedly law-emphasis society. Although, in fairness, it was probably much easier to have an "Old Testament God" mindset so close in history to the Old Testament. The intellectual descendents of that mindset got Paul's most blistering <i>graphe</i> in the form of Galatians. However, if I could rock a few boats for a second, legalism is (dare I say it?) not the predominant theological crisis in 21st century America.<br /> Calculated underexaggeration aside, in fact, the number of pastors who preach on Deuteronomy or Leviticus, the number of men who can quote or understand them at all, and the number of twenty-somethings who've read any of them after they were shaving or driving is, um, low. The number of theologians who believe them to be inspired, or even relevant, is likewise less than stellar. One can only speculate as to the number of 30-year old laypeople. And this is why I believe that many Christians, even, perhaps <i>especially</i> Reformed Christians, are going about evangelizing this society the wrong way. Permit me to speak boldly. <br /> I have already commented on the fact that the particularly egregious forms of synergistic preaching are calculated to attract sinners without changing anything about them ("what a coincidence! I love me and have a wonderful plan for my life, too!"). However, in our zeal for the gospel, Reformed Christians can tend to put the cart before the horse in more subtle ways. "Jesus died for sinners", we say, "and you can be forgiven. You can have a relationship with your creator". All true, Amen and Amen, I got so excited I temporarily became a Baptist. However, what do we do with a person, what do we do with a <i>society</i>, who responds to that message with "sinners do not exist because sin does not, and therefore I am not one"? To them, I fear our response, if we are to awaken people, is to do what the classic "awaken-ers" like Jonathan Edwards did, e.g., bring the hammer. We must be willing to say, if it costs us (and it will), if it gets us called hypocrites (and in once sense it will <i>make </i>us hypocrites, as we ourselves are sinners), if we see no fruit but derision for years, "you are a sinner, and this is why. Activity x displeases God and without holiness, no one will see the Lord". In saying this, I have been met with well-meaning responses of "no one will listen to that!". People listened to Edwards. And that's because, outside of the loosest of senses, Edwards was not speaking. The Holy Spirit was. On this front, the average American could stand a refresher on Calvinism 101. The Spirit blows where It wills, and God does what He pleases.<br />
<br />
It is for these reasons, first and foremost, that I fear the ramifications of the NCT hermeneutic (and others like it) regarding the law and Americans. While the NCT men who exist right now are Calvinists, and gospel men, and lovers of the New Testament witness to morality, the one thing I feel Americans do <i>not</i> need more of is greater covenant disunity, that is to say, more reasons to disregard the text of the OT, and specifically the law. I do not say that the NCT scholars disregard the OT themselves, merely that read in one light, the idea of such concepts as abrogation of the decalogue continues to kick up silt in the already hopelessly muddied pond of American ethics. And while I know that this does not attribute guilt specifically to the nuanced and conservative positions held by these men of God, I can just hear the application of "love God and love neighbor" as NCT ethics chair passage to the rallying cry of the previously discussed Christian left. "Love thy neighbor shall be the whole of the law", cry the camouflaged secularists, while promoting their neighbors' lifestyle choice of moral filth, and in response we must be willing to say that the buck stopped long before that, when tablets carved without hands were brought from Sinai to a people who I suspect we would leave in the dust in terms of riotous living.<br /> I have commented before that now is an age, and this is a nation, that is desperately in need of a proclamatory people. I do not blame fellow Christians, including Reformed men, for a love of the gospel, for a genuine desire to bless their unbelieving neighbor, or for a natural human preference to bring good news before bad. But we must follow the apostolic example. Lumps struck on the anvil of the gospel are made into tools for the Creator's hand, but they are struck by the hammer of the law. But because this is offensive to men, does not make it impotent. One Spirit gave us life. One Spirit gave the Apostles their victories. That same Spirit can bring hope and change to us and to our fallen neighbor in the most unlikely message. Men who God has known in eternity past will trip over the stumbling stone of the law and in doing so, see Golgotha in the distance. We have marching orders and a conquering King for a general. "Son of man, can these bones live?"<br /><br />In Christ, <br />~JS<br /><br />*I fully realize there are saved, and even Reformed men and women in general American Episcopalian circles. To you I say: "come out from among them and touch no unclean thing, and I will be your God and you, my people."James Stockdalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09305814564480759059noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2883638156950047599.post-35962989311503366482015-07-05T12:45:00.000-07:002016-03-22T02:58:26.483-07:00Obergefalling all over ourselves, or "the causality of catechesis". In what may be my inflammatory link of the month (year?), Joel McDurmon (who else) posted <a href="http://americanvision.org/12155/eschatology-matters-homosexual-marriage-edition/">here</a> and <a href="http://americanvision.org/12163/pietists-you-may-now-kiss-your-bride/">here</a> on the blame for gay mirage in America resting with eschatological pessimists generally, and dispensationalism more specifically. While I am inclined to believe the AV club has something vaguely approximating a point, at least pertaining to the more....cavalier folks in the pop-dispensational camp, (here's lookin' at you, Hagee and Hunt!) I think that they are missing the forest for the trees. In other words, the truth about the church and potential culpability in the mirage is not smaller than the problem of cultural defeatism in eschatology, but it may be bigger. While conservative Christians can weep, gnash teeth and rend garments in a panoply of #thanksobama hashtags, most of us are complicit in the modern calamity to greater or less degree, and I will illuminate some broad stroke reasons that I feel this way below.<br />
<br />
1) McDurmon does have a point.<br />
Without belaboring the issue, it is difficult to make progress one is neither expecting nor working for. Theonomists have not been alone in presenting the problems with the sort of mindset McDurmon describes in the "rapture silver lining"camp. Suffice it to say I find the "escape hatch to heaven" doctrine both inconsistent with the overarching theme of Scripture and conducive to practice that has already cost multiple generations of Christians dearly. However, as others will spill more than enough ink on the topic, I move on to other more pressing items.<br />
<br />
2) Christian complicity with State education.<br />
Doug Wilson and others have written books, typed blogs and heated microphones to a steady radiance on the simple fact that Christian parents err grievously in handing over the time, energy and thought life of their still-developing children to as anti-Christian an institution as the US Department of Education. If the fact that light has no fellowship with darkness is insufficient to make the point, said Department's joining the recent rainbow logo fetish should be demonstrative to believing parents that State educators have a vested interest in de-magnetizing their childrens' moral compass. Plenty of parents whose children apostatize after years or decades in secular education express shock and dismay in the event, including parents who felt strongly that their child(ren) would be salt and light in the education system. Too often this is the equivalent of housing your nursery in a dingo preserve and expecting an end result of vegetarian dingos. Culturally, of course, the heirs of the legacy of Dewey (and by proxy, then, of Marx) are simply getting hungrier, as people perceiving increased proximity to their goals are apt to do.<br />
<br />
3) Christian underestimation of the power of media.<br />
Many of the same kids (including my peers, who are no longer children) left the hours a day, five days a week of secular catechesis they were already experiencing in order to pick up secular extra credit for additional hours and days in the form of secular tv, film and books, particularly television. I am no Luddite. In fact contrary to the stance of JD Hall or others, I do not feel that only television programs depicting a minimum of sin are edifying, or that consuming tv that depicts sin constitutes celebration of same. However, even if children, particularly young children (it is too late for much of my generation) are spared from exposed breasts and gunplay, the IV drip of poison continues in the form of ideological confusion. Sit down in front of the average program on "ABC Family" and count the number incidents of a) endorsement or outright celebration of homosexuality or other "alternative lifestyles" b) confused or absent ideas of what a "family" or "parent" constitutes c) promotion of herd mentality, particularly in the form of generation splitting (the out of touch mother or the workaholic father are proven less wise than the main character, usually a teenager's, friends, who of course all agree on whatever it is) d) presentation of anyone over thirty as backwards or out-of-step with reality and anyone over sixty as racist, obstreperous or senile e) flattening out of the concept of love into a conglomeration of sentiment, sex and tolerance. Prepare to be amazed. With the number of people my age who went directly from school and homework to tv every day of the week, it's honestly a wonder there are any twenty-somethings without a rainbow filter on their Facebook.<br />
<br />
4) Christian ignorance of history.<br />
We have been rendered impotent in the face of some of the most shallow and facile historical arguments I have seen on any issue. The slavery and race comparisons are so utterly bad that to be flustered by them is worse than admitting defeat, it's snatching it from the jaws of victory. Additionally, the inheritance of pietistic moralism in post-protestantism has resulted in a muddle of confusion on the distinction between sins and crimes, which results in the same regarding the states' role in either. To issue the example that cuts to the heart of the matter the quickest, the segregationist business owner who attempts to hide his bigotries under Christian terminology is a sinner in need of repentance. As soon as police officers force the desegregation of his business, he is now a resentful unrepentant sinner who is also a criminal. The bigot has learned nothing, and what society (especially the parts of society who control the police officers) has learned is that it can dictate morality. And a State dictating morality is not guaranteed to dictate only the kinds you like.<br />
<br />
5) Christian ignorance of the Bible.<br />
We cannot teach what we do not know. And I am not just talking about ordained ministers, but about parents, especially Fathers who are called to be the minister in their home. I didn't keep a running tally of statements on social media that betrayed a mind-bogglingly bad knowledge of Scripture, but I probably should have. These statements varied in content, but a fairly common example was, paraphrase permitting, "well, we all know that nothing in Leviticus or Deuteronomy [or the OT period] is applicable for Christians today, therefore...". These are young adults, active in a church (in some cases, I may be stretching my definition), with a existing, English-speaking first world pastoral staff and two professing Christian parents. Both the church and the parents are problems. But since I'm going to assume readers of this blog are on board with modern applicability of Old Testament texts, we all need to be committed to starting with Deuteronomy 11:18-21. <br />
<br />
The above issues are not new problems. They did not arise overnight, which means that <i>Obergefell v. Hodges</i> did not arise overnight, and if there is to be counter-revolution, it will not happen overnight either. As always though, change, if it is to come, must be Holy Spirit-driven, which is to say gospel centered. Starting with our children and our next door neighbors, the answer to the modern American crisis is not the Republican party (or any other political institution), but rather the identity of the Church as, first and foremost, <i>a proclaiming</i> people.<br />
<br />
In Christ, <br />
~JSJames Stockdalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09305814564480759059noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2883638156950047599.post-26231140759209604062015-06-29T05:42:00.002-07:002015-06-29T05:46:05.222-07:00Book Review: "NCT: time for a more accurate way", or "Covenants, Kids, and Commandments". Without further adieu, here 'tis in all its glory, my review of the relatively new work by Gary D. Long on "New Covenant Theology" (hereafter NCT) that Richard Barcellos called the best yet. Barcellos does good work (for a Baptist, sorry, had to) on the subject, addressing it over at <a href="http://www.1689federalism.com/">1689 Fed</a> as well as in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/In-Defense-Decalogue-Critique-Covenant/dp/0965495590">his work on NCT and the Decalogue</a>, and so I figured after getting the bare-bones basics of what is the new kid on the block (even relative to Dispensationalism, zing!) in the world of hermeneutics under my belt, I thought I'd start here. If my thoughts aren't very organized....well, welcome to my mind. Don't get lost. Of note before I get started: I am currently coming from what I would call the "Strawbridge/Wilson" perspective on the covenants, which some might call "moderate Federal Vision-ism" but I would prefer to call "consistent Westminsterianism". In other words, I'm as distant from Gary Long's perspective as I could get while still being willing to call that perspective a form of covenantalism. I'm open to having my mind changed, though. Unfortunately(?), as will be seen below, this book will not be the one to do it, for the reasons enumerated below. While this post was originally intended to be a sparse few paragraphs highlighting strengths and weaknesses of the book, as my reading developed alongside this posts creation, it evolved into a full-fledged response to the book, and to the NCT position generally. In other words, there's a lot to get to, so I'll start.<br />
<br />
1) Child-kidnap, sprinkling, and other baptismal horrors.<br />
<br />
I have been told, without seeing the scene(s) in question, that a sequence on the television show "Lost" features a Roman Catholic denizen of the island in question, kidnapping an infant to guarantee its baptism. Given the language on the question of paedobaptism in the book, which at times borders on the monotonous in its repetitiveness (a quirk I find bad editing on top of bad theology), one would almost expect this to be Long's belief on the tactical goals of covenant-baptists as a whole. Indeed, were Long's assertions about traditional Covenant Theology to be taken at face value, and were I a Baptist, I'd half expect Presbyterians to be hiding behind every rock and tree, lying in wait to merrily sprinkle every child within reach. Consistently, Long continues to make the bare assertion that Westministerian Covenant Theology (hereafter WCT) leads inexorably to infant baptism, without providing additional commentary in the immediate context. (See for example, 744<span style="font-size: xx-small;">1<span style="font-size: small;">, where Long "...affirms that infant baptism of covenant children is the Achilles' heel, a fatal weakness in the whole system of WCT..."). Why is covenant baptism an Achilles' heel, precisely? </span></span>Predominantly because Long presupposes (and in this text, the claim very much IS presuppositional) that "...the Bible was silent regarding infant baptism" (303). Now is not the time or place for me to go into an exegetical defense of the Westminsterian position, but suffice it to say that works such as that by Gregg Strawbridge, Doug Wilson and John Frame, as well as commentaries on the Standards themselves have sufficed to establish me in it, insofar as the Bible can speak to the nature of baptism outside of explicit reference to it's mode or subjects. However, given Long's repeated insistence on the unbiblical, indeed dangerous nature of covenant baptism, it is evident to me that the first major challenge to WCT mounted by the book, that of the notion of the classical Calvinist understanding of the Covenant of Grace, is rooted in a presupposition, namely credobaptism as the only consistent Biblical position. This weighs the book down in three ways: in terms of audience, in terms of historical perspective, and in terms of self-consistency. <br />
The book is not a beginners' guide to the credobaptist position, and in fairness is not intended to be, but I cannot recommend it to a covenant baptist as a starting place on differences in the positions (for that I would refer you to any of the marvelous work by Drs. Barcellos and Renihan, or a solid exposition of the LBCF). Neither can I recommend it in historical commitment to Reformed tradition, should that be something one is looking for. Again, this is not something NCT typically claims for itself (the very name of the movement describes that which is fundamentally "new"), but a thorough, if not exhaustive historical exposition of the Reformed confessions (that is, the paedobaptist ones) raises each documents' stance on baptism and the covenant, and criticizes all of them and their authors as flatly wrong. On this, Long and the movement can be commended for pulling no punches and not being afraid to hunt big game. However, at risk of signaling some lingering papistry in my present position, the simultaneous claims of pure biblicism in the book, coupled with rejection of so much of Reformed history, sails close to the ill wind of failure to acknowledge that we stand on the shoulders of giants. The greatest raise of the eyebrows in the historical arena came from Long's seeming affinity with the Anabaptists of the Swiss Reformation, specifically advancing the theory that Zwingli developed the confessional position on the Covenant of Grace (see below) unilaterally and out of whole cloth in order to pacify the sacralists of 16th century Switzerland (370). Leaving aside the historical validity of Zwingli's theorized capitulation to such men (which is hardly set in stone), Long himself admits not only that the Anabaptists, including the Swiss Brethren, "had some major doctrinal deviations" (391) but also that Zwingli himself used preexisting analogies between the covenant signs (that is, circumcision and baptism) and an already present hermeneutic of "a unity of the testaments" in advancing his case (370). If these elements pre-dated Zwingli's debate with the Swiss Brethren, one can hardly say that Zwingli is spinning theological gold from situational straw. And I am certainly not alone in questioning the wisdom of aligning Calvinistic baptists with the 16th century Anabaptist tradition, as JD Hall and other 1689 adherents have pointed out.<br />
Returning to the historical-confessional issue, the criticism of the documents in question (that is, the WCF, the SCF, the Heidelberg, the Belgic, the First and Second Helvetic and the Directory of Public Worship) centers on the notion contained within each that God has made one Covenant of Grace with man, purposed from eternity past, which has existed under various "administrations" but bears the same substance. Perhaps the most famous and perspicuous enunciation of this position is WCF VII's language: "There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations". Long states not only that paedopatism is "the doorway to the heart" of WCT, but that in reverse (citing theologians such as Bavinck) that the covenant of grace in the Westminsterian understanding is the foundation of Reformed infant baptism. In other words, in studying confessional history, Long has (correctly) come to the conclusion that "the one covenant of grace and infant baptism teaching of [WCT] are interdependent (416). This concept of interdependency will be important later in discussing Long's view of the Decalogue, but insofar as he exposits the confessions, Long's factual analysis is correct. However, his analysis of the Covenant of Grace as a theological/Scriptural concept leaves much to be desired, and may even ride on standards he does not apply to other concepts from the confessional/historical position, as we will see.<br />
<br />
2) Long's rejection of the Covenant of Grace<br />
<br />
Fundamentally, NCT, insofar as it can be said to be a common body of belief, is a Reformed Baptist perspective. Therefore there will be a number of areas both of agreement and disagreement on the issue of the covenant of grace, and both will be fairly predictable (although NCT does, as Long affirms repeatedly, differ in certain ways from the typical LCBF position). The predominant areas of disagreement relevant to the average covenant baptist are A) NCT's assertion (in common with the vast majority of Reformed Baptists) of the unmixed nature and substance of the New Covenant, that is, the identification of members of the New Covenant with the elect. Particularly vital for this viewpoint (as for the Reformed Baptist stance at large) is the use of Hebrews 8:11 and following as a "chair passage" on the nature of the New Covenant, a use made very popular in Reformed apologetics by Dr. James White. B) The "birth of the Church" at Pentecost and it's limitation to the post-Resurrection era. C) The notion that water baptism is not a sign and seal of the New Covenant, in contradiction to the Westminster Standards and similar confessions.<br />
I remarked some time ago on social media that the use of Hebrews 8:11 etc to confirm the New Covenant as unmixed is deeply flawed because of passages elsewhere in Hebrews noting that apostasy from the New Covenant is possible, that one can experience it as an objective reality, and in fact that that very covenant has judgement stipulations <i>directly paralled with those of the Mosaic administration. </i>Chief among these texts is Hebrews 10:26-30, although other passages, particularly in Hebrews and the gospels join that texts' witness. There are a variety of possible interpretations of Paul's citation of OT prophecy in 8:11 then, but the use of it as a supreme text on an unmixed NC administration is not one of them. To present two possibilities in brief, both of which could hypothetically be true together or separately, either 8:11 is addressing the specific effects of the New Covenant on its <i>regenerate </i>members, or there is <i>an eschatological component</i> to the promises of 8:11 that remains unfulfilled in totality to this day. Leaving aside the fact that the universality of language in 8:11 dovetails nicely with a postmillenial eschatology (but I digress), this idea, despite being heavily criticized by Dr. White and others, fits in with the mixture of present reality and eschatological promise in the book of Hebrews, which is a very "already/not yet" book. (See for example the contrast of our present possession of a kingdom which cannot be shaken [12:28] and the "coming short of entering the rest of the people of God" at 4:1 and following). Unfortunately, for Long 8:11 overrides contexts like these and seemingly settles the debate, but I for one, would demur from that view. <br />
I don't wish to spend too much time on the NCT doctrine of Pentecost and "spirit baptism", as I agree with Long's cessationism, his identification of the various "Spirit baptisms" of the book of Acts with in-grafting and confirmation of the gospel message with diverse groups of then-yet unreached people groups, and the greater measure of residence of the Spirit with believers in the post-resurrection age (931) (else, what did the Savior mean when he spoke of the Comforter "coming" to the apostles at Pentecost [John 16:7] when he allowed them to receive it for gospel binding and loosing prior to that event? [John 20:22]) I will comment, however, on the fact that Long does not make a strong positive presentation on the nature of the salvation and relationship to the Spirit of the saints of the Old Testament. To what measure did David possess the Spirit? What does it mean that John the Baptist was "filled with the Spirit from the womb"? We are not told. Perhaps other NCT adherents have relayed a more detailed position, but when the author has already allowed that Israel was "an <i>ekklesia</i> in the wilderness", it would behoove him to elaborate on the distinctions in the outworking of the spirit between Covenant dispensations, if in fact he intends to prove covenant discontinuity.<br />
In quoting John Murray on the union with Christ effected by baptism, Long accuses him of inserting confusion into the issue by calling water baptism a "sign and seal", when the Holy Spirit Himself is said to be the "guarantee of our inheritance" (Eph. 1:14), and Jesus explicitly calls the Eucharistic cup "the sign of the covenant in his blood." These things are precious truths, but the actual passages on baptismal covenant efficacy were left untouched by Long. One would like to think this was for the purposes of satisfying editors, but to be honest, I remain uncertain to this day what any Baptist does with the notion that Baptism clothes us with Christ (Gal. 3:27). The fact that baptism is not called "THE sign or seal" of the New Covenant does not strip it of the New Testament terminology surrounding it.<br />
To conclude on NCT and the CoG, Long notes that OT saints were "in Christ by covenantal promise" awaiting their ultimate salvation by the promised New Covenant in the blood of Christ. (955) This is consistent with the rest of Long's viewpoint, given that NCT teaches that OT saints were unified with God in heaven in the fullest sense at the event of Pentecost, but does prompt me to ask if it really benefits Long to affirm that men can be in Christ in more than one sense. To do so would seem to leave the door open to my primary opposition to the NCT rejection of the overarching CoG hermeneutic, that is, the concept of the NC as unmixed. Before moving on, however, there is much to appreciate both about Long's willingness to site WCT sources, and to affirm the essential position of the covenant hermeneutic in a Reformed reading of Scripture.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
3) Long's new take on the Covenant of Works concept, and the rejection of the Covenant of Redemption.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Less ink need be spilled on the Covenants of Works and Redemption, as the disagreement with the WCT position is more moderated in Long's work. A few points of interest do exist, however. Richard Barcellos has noted that Long's acceptance of a pre-fall covenant with Adam so as to preserve the federal union of fallen man with Adam (and thereby the justice of the grounds of redemption in federal union with Christ) is a relatively new development within NCT, and a welcome one. (1096) However, Long's primary issue with the CoW as traditionally understood (and his ground for calling his conception of the pre-fall covenant something other than "the Covenant of Works" is that reference to a <i>hypothetical</i> promise of eternal life for Adam is inconsistent with the infallible foreknowledge and plan of God and the notion that the free gift is not like the trespass (Rom. 5:15) (1050). This, it must be said, is odd coming from a self-described Calvinist, as the notion of hypothetical promises of life upholds the typical Calvinist understanding of the universal offer of the gospel. Additionally, the idea of eternal life for Adam contingent upon obedience to the pre-fall covenant stipulations (mirrored in the "do this and live" statements of the Mosaic administration) does not contradict the sovereign plan for better things in Christ, as God's infallible knowledge does guarantee that the Fall will come to pass in God's decretal will, but it would seem unjust to me to presume that eternal life was not offered to Adam in his already deathless pre-fall state, as death comes by the violation of the law of God.<br />
Meanwhile, it is not my intention here to defend the existence of a Covenant of Redemption as understood by Michael Horton as vital to the system of WCT. It has long struck me that while the language of a covenant among the persons of the Godhead remains consistent with the overall hermeneutic of Covenant as the Reformed position, that many elements of the principle beyond that extend into the realm of needless extra-Scriptural speculation. This is particularly notable because the idea of a Covenant of Redemption is left untouched in the WCF itself. However, it must be said that both of Long's specific arguments against the CoR are faulty. A) The idea that the CoR constitutes a "sovereign administration" of persons of the Godhead over each other, and therefore an introduction of disunity into the Trinity, (1306) is a misreading of a specific definition Long assigns here to the term "covenant". In fact, I would prefer the definition Long identifies as older which includes the concept of an agreement between two parties. This preserves not only the equality of the persons in the Godhead in a CoR, were we to assume one exists, but also the concept I laid out early of stipulations of judgment in the New Testament administration of the CoG. B) The citation of the CoR as a violation of Biblicism (1306, end of section) smacks of inconsistency. The standards identify both the explicit text of Scripture, and that which may be derived by "good and necessary consequence" therefrom, as the foundation of valid Christian doctrine, and it is the very principle of good and necessary consequence that Long has, at this point in the text, just finished using to demonstrate the validity of the CoW in light of Romans 5! What is good therefore, for one, should have at least some bearing on the validity of the other.<br />
<br />
4) NCT and the law of God.<br />
<br />
It seems fitting to continue the response to Long on the nature of God's law given the prior posts have dealt with the position of Theonomy as known by Bahnsen et. all, but where Theonomy stumbles over the stumbling stone in one direction, NCT (which I will not repeat Theonomy's error by calling "antinomian") decidedly lapses in the other. Specifically, NCTs position on the law of God diverges from WCT in the categories which follow. A) A denial of the three-fold division of the law. B) The introduction of covenant disunity not present in the confessional standards vis a vis the abrogation of the Old Testament law to be replaced with "the law of Christ". C) The rejection of the Decalogue as a summary reflection of the eternal and unchanging moral standards of God, referred to by Calvin and the Divines as "the moral law". Long's section here, despite being both the most radical departure from confessional Reformed theology as a whole and a wholesale acceptance of certain assumptions of traditional Dispensationalism, is hardly exhaustive, and in fact to my mind appears brief, given the complexity of the subject material. I would like to presume this brevity of coverage is not a result of the topic having nothing to do with the spine-tingling error of infant baptism, but that may be too much benefit of the doubt for me to extend.<br />
Following a historical examination of the exposition of the threefold distinction concept in the WCF, Long lays forth the exegetical case that Romans 2 (reflecting the idea that Gentiles "as a law unto themselves" acknowledge the righteousness, at least in part, of the unchanging Divine moral standard) and Genesis 1 demonstrate that Jesus' "two greatest commandments" (love God and love neighbor) are themselves that unchanging standard. (1416) He then cites various statements by Calvin and the standards regarding the Decalogue's dependence on love of God and neighbor, and the summary containment of the moral law (not it's exhaustive exposition) in the Decalogue, concluding with the literary throwing up of the hands marked by the phrase "what confusion!". (1460) Regrettably, it must be said that here I feel that Long is straining at gnats. The idea that this is an either/or proposition (Decalogue=moral law or "two greatest"=moral law) is deeply flawed for the simple reason that both can be true. Long's confident assertion that Christ's statement that "the Law and the Prophets hang on" the "two greatest" make a direct equivalence between the eternal moral standard and the "two greatest" is seeking to bear a burden of proof it cannot support. As cited later in the chapter, Calvin would have agreed that the summary content of the moral law is reflected in love of God and love of neighbor, (1588) but this does not mean that the same is not done in the Decalogue, nor does it invalidate the fact that Jesus, who said he came not to abolish but to fulfill, affirmed repeatedly the great and abiding <i>realization</i> of those two loves in the Decalogue, or for that matter, Israel's civil code. Here might be a good place to pause in order for prospective Theonomic readers to heave a sigh of relief that I don't disagree with them on everything.<br />
Long goes on to discuss the concepts of "absolute" and "covenantal" law, with the established NCT claim being that all law-codes in the OT, including the decalogue, were administered for a time but no longer abide, while God's "absolute law" as reflected in "the two greatest" continues in perpetuity. The primary defense of this hermeneutic is then mounted by a fascinating exegesis of another "chair passage": 1 Corinthians 9:20-21, which Long calls "NCT's central passage on the law of God". (1522) Long asserts that the word "Mosaic" could be reasonably inserted as a controlling adjective for each occurrence of the word "law" in the passage up until Paul's reference to "the law of Christ", which Long annotates as "the NC law of Christ". Several claims are made here. Perhaps the most odd to me is that while Long is demonstrably aware of the typical threefold division reading of this passage, up to and include the contextual clue that the surrounding verses of 1 Corinthians have to do with eating and drinking (e.g., the <i>ceremonial</i> dietary laws previously confirmed as no long binding consciences in the book of Acts), he argues that verse twenty makes sense if "Mosaic" is inserted, but not "ceremonial". I have followed his admonition to insert ceremonial into the verse several times since initially reading the book, and for the life of me, I cannot say I come to the same conclusion.<br />
<br />
Long also notes that being "under the law" <i>(hupo nomon)</i> is descriptive of unsaved Jews that Paul is seeking to win, while "under the law of Christ" is not not speaking of unsaved Christians, and that therefore "the law of Christ" in context cannot be synonymous with "the law of God" taken as a general category. This is very true, and I don't know any adherent to WCT that would take a position otherwise. Rather, the "law of Christ" in my understanding is synonymous <i>with that very eternal and unchanging moral standard reflected both in the Decalogue and in "the two greatest".</i> Long concludes his exegesis with the statement (in bold, no less) "the law of God and the law of Christ in this verse: intimately related, yes!totally equated, no!" (1568) But this is straw-manning. Westminster did not "totally equate" the "law of Christ" with the entirety of Mosaic law in the sense of perpetuity, but rather equates the law of Christ, the Decalogue, the "two greatest" and the pre-Abrahamic moral will of God, e.g., his eternal moral purpose written on the heart of the regenerate. Therefore, I would have 1 Cor. 9:20-21 read "to those under the ceremonial law, I became as one under the [ceremonial] law (though not myself being under the [ceremonial] law, that I might win those under the [ceremonial] law. To those outside the [ceremonial] law, I became as one outside the [ceremonial] law, not being outside (<i>anomos</i>, lawless) the law of God [that is, without the broader category of God's moral standards generally], but under the [moral] law of Christ [which he came to fulfill and not abolish] that I might win those outside the [ceremonial] law." Do you see the flow in the context of the threefold division? Paul abides by the standards of the ceremonial law so as not be a stumbling block for unsaved Jews he seeks to bring to faith and repentance, but by virtue of the new and better, glorious covenant administration in Christ's blood, he is not himself under those strictures of diet etc. as a rule of life. Meanwhile, he does not demonstrate rigorous adherence to ceremonial law which is no longer necessary in order to win Gentiles, but this does not make him lawless! On the contrary, he is in-lawed to Christ, who fulfilled all the law on Paul's behalf and wrote God's moral law (here the law of Christ, that is the law still proper and binding to the New Covenant) on Paul's heart. Long's exegesis fails, because it is dependent on the presupposition outlined above: that the "two greatest" are a distinct entity from, and abrogate, the principles of the Decalogue.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Long concludes his section on law by asking a variety of leading questions designed to allow people to question and wrestle with the notion of the threefold division. In reply, I have a few questions of my own for NCT. A) Does the law of Christ include specifics on <i>how</i> one loves God and loves neighbor? More importantly, does it <i>necessitate</i> specifics? B) Given that Long appears to believe that specifics are included, up to and including a republication of nine of the ten commandments and "fulfillment of the fourth in Sabbath rest for the people of God", why is it that it is so vital to abrogate the Decalogue and how does this support the idea that the law of Christ is not the same entity as the Mosaic law? C) What about commands in the Mosaic code that are not reissued in the NT? D) As a narrowing of the range of c), can NCT with confidence say that the term "sexual immorality" in the New Testament allows God to forbid the full range of sexual sin forbidden in the Old? Why or why not? <br />
<br />
A final note on the law issue, I feel, would edify before wrapping up with Long. Long quite purposefully seems to omit the issue of the Sabbath from his discussion of the Decalogue, minus a fleeting reference, (1605) and I find this odd. In fact, the Sabbath issue would seem to be the major area where NCT could "score points" on the issue of the law, at least with other Reformed Baptists, which appear to be the primary audience of the book. (Presbyterians on the other hand, have far more rigorous Sabbatarian language to wrestle with confessionally, which brings its own difficulties but at least consistently preserves the single covenant, multiple administrations conception of the 16th and 17th century confessions.) For those Calvinists without a specific doctrine of the Sabbath, it would behoove you to look at the issues and questions raised by NCT and ask if your position is sufficiently consistent to allow you to say why you disagree.<br />
<br />
5) Wrapping up.<br />
<br />
Despite the rather rough treatment it might appear to have gotten from me, Long's book raises valid and timely questions and challenges adherents to traditional understandings of the covenants, credobaptist and paedobaptist, to reexamine some notions they may have held uncritically. As theology, it remains unconvincing to me, as exegesis it suffers from unwarranted assumption in places, but as comparative systematics it is fascinating and as writing it is approachable and refreshingly easy to grasp in the sense of avoiding unnecessary technicality. It's rating for me was greatly enhanced for a rather ironic reason: the book mounts the best short and simple Biblical defense of the Covenant of Works I have seen so far (minus the terminological quibbling around ("hypothetical" and "works".) Despite the efforts of the Barcellos bunch, I predict NCT to be a rising force as the new generations of Calvinists feel their oats, not least because it offers a view of the law that will appeal greatly to many American Christians from Baptist and nondenominational backgrounds, and this will make it an important book as well as an entertaining read.<br />
<br />
3.5/5.<br />
<br />
In Christ, <br />
~JS<br />
James Stockdalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09305814564480759059noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2883638156950047599.post-4599680539414110922015-06-22T03:06:00.002-07:002015-06-22T03:39:54.804-07:00Theonomy follow-up, or "Spoiler alert: I am not a Theonomist" Prefacing this whole post, which will be a follow-up to my review of Hall/McDurmon debate, I want to say that I have read as much of <a href="http://americanvision.org/">American Vision</a> and <a href="http://pulpitandpen.org/">Pulpit and Pen's</a> blog posts in the aftermath as I could get my hands on (which, by the by, introduced me to two great men and two great blogs), and I have listened to all the episodes of the Pulpit and Pen Program addressing the Theonomy issue both pre-and post debate. Aside from this material, the booklet-length post-mortem/victory declaration made by JD Hall can be found <a href="http://creative.church/files/jd/Embers%20of%20a%20Dying%20Fire.pdf">here</a>. I wanted to make some brief summary points regarding corrections to my prior post, expansions of my knowledge base, changes of mind (I do have them) and the summary hullabaloo (did you know Firefox spell-check has a correct spelling for that word?) that is the Theonomy debate in the modern Reformed community.<br />
<br />
1) This is an important issue. But it is not a thing of first importance.<br />
<br />
What was of first importance in the Apostolic witness was the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ in perfect substitution for the sins of His people.<span style="font-size: xx-small;">1</span> Insofar as I believe the men at American Vision and those at P and P (and those in their respective camps) to be Christ-followers in saving belief in His good news, the sowing of division among brothers on this issue is not good. Some of the tactics and language in the Hall/McDurmon interchange specifically and much more so this debate more generally have smacked of the same sort of hyperbole and grandstanding, particularly in the realm of eschatology, that has marked traditional dispensationalisms' criticisms of "replacement theology". I urge my Reformed brothers and sisters to be bigger than that.<br />
<br />
2) I reiterate my prior statement that I agree with neither position.<br />
<br />
Rather, it would be better said that I agree with neither *personality in the "great debate" (more on that in a minute). Hall's premillenialism, his commitment to the Reformed Baptist position on the newness of the New Covenant, and his somewhat cavalier dismissal of things he does agree on with Theonomists makes his approach not only unnecessarily acerbic in places, but also radically different from the angle I would arrive from. All of that being said:<br />
<br />
3) I am not a Theonomist.<br />
<br />
One may notice I have insisted on ubiquitous use of the capital T throughout this post, and the reason is that the most unpleasant thing, to me, coming out of American Vision in the last few months has not been intrinsic to, or even directly based in their position, but is instead tactical. As JD has highlighted repeatedly on the PP blog and show, the folks at AV, dat Postmil podcast and others have been seemingly willing to settle for "theonomic-ish" when some of those sharing their links, retweeting their posts and mouthing their jargon do not share the true distinctives of their position, beginning with the call for precise reapplication of the Sinaitic penology and inclusion of some or all of the civil code as part of the moral law. More alarmingly, I would say egregiously, Joel and co. seem ready and willing to take the dead captive in this maneuver, as will be illustrated by the recent back and forth on the aforementioned blogs regarding the legacy of AW Pink on the civil dimension of the law. I think it can be readily demonstrated to a non-dogmatized reader that Pink did not hold to the two above Theonomic positions, which makes him not a Theonomist, regardless of whether Joel is "totally willing to call him one", which I find an interesting (ironc?) phrasing.<br />
<br />
It is on these two positions that I must side with JD and Pink, after relatively intense (but by no means completed or exhaustive) study of the issue since late March. Particularly illustrative was the series of debate essays in the "Counterpoints" series entitled "Five Views on Law and Gospel", which included an essay on the Theonomic position by the late, great Dr. Bahnsen himself, an essay which, relative to that on the "Traditional Reformed" position (which seemed admittedly scattered in places), honestly seemed to be focused more on open-ended questions than on answers. The typical understanding of the summation of the moral law in the Decalogue, and its recapitulation in (<i>not replacement by</i>) Jesus' "two great commandments" is greatly undermined by Bahnsen's position on the exact nature of the civil code, which he appears to have at least partially blended i<span style="font-size: small;">nto the eternal and unchanging standard by such quotations (some of which can be found in JD's "Embers" booklet) as pg. 304 of <i>Theonomy in Christian Ethics</i>, wherein Dr. Bahnsen called the "subdivision" of the law into "moral a</span>nd civil categories" (?) "latent antinomianism"(!). <br />
<br />
This brings me to a larger point, and a partial retraction of comments made in March about the debate. I have said multiple times that this is a debate that may have been better never to have happened, or rather, to have (continuted to) happen in writing, not only because of the passions (some ungodly) inflamed by the event itself, but also because consistency and solid reasoning for a preexisting position were much more on evidence in the written material, particularly post-debate. Nowhere is this more evident than in JD's actual dragging out of page numbers and other specific references for the now-infamous "boogeyman quotes". I said previously that North and Rushdoony's work has to my mind frequently generated more heat than light and that on issues related to, but distinct from, their position on the law (ranging from racism to soteriology), I have had cause for alarm, or even grave concern. Nothing in recent further study has alleviated these concerns, but rather exacerbated them. Meanwhile, I awarded debate points, perhaps decisive ones, in what I still believe to have been a close contest (grandstanding by the participants aside), to Joel due to the "Bahnsen is a liar" portion of CX in which the notion of Bahnsen holding to the (highly Westminsterian) threefold division came into question. Regrettably, further study has informed me that Dr. Bahnsen presented as at least confusing on the issue, if not outright dangerously wrong. <br />
<br />
The heart of the matter lies in the threefold division for me, not just because it is a matter of confessional importance (which I said in March it is), but because it is of Scriptural importance. How one derives a consistent, systematic position in which Paul and the other apostles teach that the civil magistrate is to exercise the civil code <i>as written</i>, at risk of incurring the divine wrath, from the New Testament, is beyond me. Certainly 1 Timothy, a book resoundingly about church discipline (we do in fact derive the Biblical qualifications for eldership therefrom) does not offer a governmental system, anymore than Romans 13 (which must be applicable to the authorities <i>as the first century church experienced them</i>) makes all governing authorities executors of the divine wrath only contingent on their application of the civil code with it's system of precise sanctioned activities and commensurate penalties. And here we come to another issue that I addressed more fully than the above in my prior post, but which bears repeating because it has grown as I have read: Theonomic inconsistency on penology. The puritan colonies, and other societies which Theonomists have held up as examples of law-keeping, have universally not held precisely to the punishments for various crimes in Bahnsen's "exhaustive detail", which brings us back to the concept of "theonomic-ish". It would not be enough merely to practice the death penalty for certain things, for example: unless stoning is carried out in every case that it is in the Levitcal code, the society in question is, at the least, swerving from the perfect justice of that code. After all, there is more at stake in penology than appearances. Community participation, number of witnesses, time and suffering involved in the punishment of the offender are all encapsulated in the prescribed penalties of the code. It would not be enough to merely say that "well the death penalty happened so justice was done". The Theonomist has painted himself into a small corner of his own making on the issue, whereas I believe the Massachusetts colonists in question were not adhering to Bahnsen or Rushdoony's exhaustive detail, but rather the Westminster Standards "general equity", which brings me back to the confessional issues previously addressed.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">It is known to many students of Calvin's sermons on the law (some of which have in fact been republished in works by Gary North) and the <i>Institutes</i> that Calvin's insistence was on the bare fact that that which is prohibited in the Law and not explicitly abrogated by Christ be punished, <i>not</i> that the punishments be universal and specific, or, in my reading, even carried out by persons specifically motivated by Scriptural standards. Whether North would agree with this, I do not know, but obviously Calvin's position was repudiated by Joel in the debate. The Westminster Divines, consummate Calvinists if ever there were some, were certainly aware that penology was, to the mind of Calvin, a matter of differing covenant administration</span><span style="font-size: xx-small;">2<span style="font-size: x-small;">, <span style="font-size: small;">and this, to my mind, makes a compelling case for the non-theonomic reading of the Standards regarding the "general equity" of the civil code: punishment for crime but not rigorous application of Sinatic covenant administration courts and penalties.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><br />In summation, I believe that the Theonomic (large T) position fails. It fails Scripturally. Importantly for Presbyterians, it fails confessionally. It failed in the mind of Calvin. This does not, as I said before, make JD Hall the keeper of the secret fire on covenant theology (as if you were worried I'd say that), but it is my position nonetheless. Feel free to comment here or PM on Facebook should you disagree.<br /><br /> 4) The Law is good, if one uses it lawfully.<br /><br />Far from affirming Joel's position on that text, the reason I have spilled lethargy-inducing volumes of digital ink on this topic is that I think this debate is not merely academic for three reasons. A) Theonomists confuse laypersons into believing they are in a camp they are not in through misrepresentation. As seen recently in the case of Pink and others, and in the skirting of the general equity clause by Bahnsen, there is a subtle undercurrent in Theonomy that divides Christians into Theonomists and antinomians. This is simply not the case, and it threatens to imply that adherents to the very position of Calvin are heretics (and antinomianism in its full-fledged sense <i>is </i>heresy). The term "civil judaizing" is a regrettable one. It brought as much lightless heat as any of the screeds of North, as it seemed to equate Reformed, solas-affirming men like Bahnsen and Joel with the accursed ones of Galatians. But the idea behind the term stands insofar as the more inflammatory remarks by Theonomists to their kin imply that deniers of the continuance of the civil code are soteriologically deficient, or at least involved in a matter of sin, much as the Judaizers implied the same of Apostolic Christians who invited Gentiles to the free grace of Christ without the encumbrances of the ceremonial law. To use the law lawfully in the New Covenant should mean to avoid even the appearance of asking believers to "submit again to a yoke of slavery".<span style="font-size: xx-small;">3</span> B) On a related note, the most well-known advocates of the position (North, Rushdoony, Marinov) have sown dissension among brothers over what, as I said at the beginning, should not be a matter of primary gospel importance. C) Theonomy is a very real issue for confessional Presbyterianism. I hold Dr. Bahnsen, God rest his soul, in high regard, but there is a reason Theonomists have lost positions and prestige over this issue. Laypersons need to know that not only does the one covenant, multiple administrations hermaneutic not require the Theonomic position, but that the position is contrary to the historic faith of the Standards. For men and women who care about such things, and go to churches that do, this is a matter of historical consistency and potentially church membership.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: small;"> As I said before, dialogue on the issue is welcome, and I am not done learning. Someday I will make it through <i>By This Standard</i>, and maybe even take a crack at <i>Theonomy in Christian Ethics.</i> Unfortunately, I have a lot on my plate right now, especially with Shaw's exposition of the Standards and Schaff's History of the Church in the on-deck circle. This is not, nor will it ever be, my pet issue. I hope this can be illustrative to at least one person, and if not, it's been good to get back in the swing of things. Stay tuned for my forthcoming book review of Gary D. Long's book on NCT, which will at least be in the same ballpark as this issue. Thanks for reading.</span><br />
<br />
In Christ, <br />
~JS.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">1. 1 Cor. 15:3 and following.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;">2. For this specific language on the part of Calvin, see <i>Institutes</i> II.11. Credit to JD in <i>Embers</i> for the reference.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;">3. </span>Gal. 5:1James Stockdalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09305814564480759059noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2883638156950047599.post-40449361653840554812015-03-03T22:20:00.000-08:002015-03-03T23:42:22.498-08:00Civil Discourse, or "the McDurmon/Hall debate post" I lied. This post will not be a continuation of the critique of Anthony Badger, which is on hiatus. Rather, I will be discussing <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvCJEGM0WMw">this.</a><br />
<br />
The short answer to "who do I think won" is Joel McDurmon, the reasoning for which is below. The short answer to who I agree with at this point is "neither, entirely". Each person failed to convince me of their thesis (which both participants had, as Hall was making a constructive argument as much as he was denying the affirmative). The issues at stake, to my mind (at least the ones addressed) were four-fold: 1) the issue of Scripture, 2) the issue of history, 3) the issue of confession, 4) the issue of Bahnsen. I will try to deal with each of them briefly here. <br />
<br />
1) The issue of Scripture. This issue was affirmed to be the most important by both participants, and I wholeheartedly agree, but this issue is why I'm hesitant to say the exchange had a clear winner. The core of McDurmon's constructive was the notion of the civil law (and its accompanying penalties and sanctions) not being abrogated unless explicitly stated to be so in the New Testament. Insofar as this was based on McDurmon's simple affirmation that "if they were just then they are just now", this strikes at the heart of an unstated presupposition on the part of JD Hall, e.g., an assumption of key Baptistic notions of substantive distinction between the covenants. There is nothing wrong with JD Hall holding this axiom per se (he would be a rather shoddy Reformed Baptist without it), but McDurmon didn't allow it to stand unchallenged, which made it a good debate. Hall, to my mind, failed to prove this (largely silent) assertion from Scripture, and this was made glaring by Hall spending a large part of a rebuttal period affirming the glory, truth, holiness and justice of the Civil code of Israel, a fact which towards the end, McDurmon pointed out meant that Hall was seemingly moving from firm didactic opposition to the Code as "obligatory", to merely asserting that it was one of a number of good governmental options. As an additional example, Hall dismissed the notion of the Puritans executing a man for bestiality by saying "pssh, do we really need the Civil code to know that bestiality is wrong?". This strikes me as a canard. It is by means of the law that men are brought to the realization of their sinfulness (witness the postmodern soup of sexual deviancy our nation is slipping into divorced from God's standard), and without the Civil code, it could be argued that the ethics of bestiality remain largely a matter of public consensus, but the <i>societal response</i> to it does not. In short, I remained unconvinced by the meat and potatoes of Hall's exegetical case.<br />
This does not let McDurmon off on this front however. In the midst of all the acontextual chicanery on what Joel called "the boogeyman quotes" from North and Rushdoony (more on that in a minute), JD landed on a solid argument, albeit one I would have advanced differently: what is the soteriological implication of transmission of Israel's "penalogy", whole cloth, into the New Covenant administration? McDurmon deeply disturbed me in not providing clear teaching from the Theonomic position, even in broad strokes on key questions here. Would a Theonomic state apply the penalogy of the Civil code only to nonbelievers, and how does this jive with Paul's admonition not to judge outside the Church? If the Civil code penalties are applied to Church members, even those making a credible profession, of what benefit are the merits of Christ to professors relative to the Old Covenant? Is the "libertarian" regime pushed by North and Rushdoony merely an excuse to slip Theocratic fascism binding the consciences of the unconverted in through the largest back door possible? And what exactly <i>would </i>the nature of doctrinal disagreement within such a state look like? To leave these questions unanswered means that I can't say Joel "won" in this arena any more than JD did.<br />
<br />
<b>Verdict: no clear winner.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
2) Joel, in my opinion, wasted a lot of time after a valid point had already been made spending what amounted to his entire first cross-examination on naming hosts of persons who he believed supported his reading of the Westminster standards and on the law. Even if he could have shoehorned more compelling argument into the time allotted, however, his point was made. Opinions on the standards regarding this issue have not been clear-cut or historically monolithic, and the idea that the Theonomists' usage of "general equity" stretches the bounds of credulity, as JD would have it, was adequately demonstrated to me to be in error. On that note, I believe McDurmon came out ahead here (but see below).<br />
<br />
<b>Verdict: McDurmon.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
3) Even if the historical positions on the standards regarding the nature of general equity are multifaceted, in my personal opinion, granted the language of "expired together with the State of that people', the Theonomic (big T) camp has some hard and serious questions to answer regarding the role of the movement within historic Presbyterianism. No matter how stretched the big tent of the phrase "general equity" gets, McDurmon failed to convince me that presbyteries would not be right to sanction ministers for denial of tenets of the standards if they refused to affirm the expiration of the judicial code. While it's true that Scripture is the final and infallible arbiter, for that to be a position to which McDurmon hastily fell back ceded the point Hall was making: that on a confessional level, McDurmon is being inconsistent. <br />
<br />
<b>Verdict: Hall.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
4) A defining moment of the debate for me was Hall's claim in 1ACx that he would refuse to believe Bahnsen if he said he had a tripartite distinction in the law. Why defining? Because this was merely the most dramatic example of a consistent cascade of misrepresentation of the Theonomic source material by JD Hall. I firmly believe if you picked a Bahnsen work remotely touching the subject material of the debate, even at random, and began to read you would identify Hall as a caviller on the actual position of Bahnsen. Full disclosure being made, I am no real fan of Rushdoony and North as men and conversationalists. It could even be that there was fleeting occasional substance in some of the accusations leveled against them by Hall (specifically as touching the aforementioned soteriological issues). But to devote this much of an entire rebuttal to the litany of deliberately de-contextualized quotes designed to scare people into (among other things) the idea that Gary North doesn't believe regeneration enables law-keeping, that the Theonomists make the moral and civil law coterminous, or that Greg Bahnsen denied justification by faith(!), is patently absurd. If you start watching the debate, the reason you should finish it is that McDurmon is allowed time to respond to this, and he picks it apart, as he should. This area of the debate is the area that would have scored the most points if I were sitting at a judges' table, as I believe that McDurmon exposed direct abuse of contrived evidence by JD. Your mileage may vary, but I suggest you delve into the authors in question yourself.<br />
<br />
<b>Verdict: McDurmon.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
In summary this was a great match-up between two men who came prepared and stuck to their guns, and like many great debates between brothers in Christ, it leaves as many good questions as it answers. I'm still in the in-between on the issue, but I can tell you that on points, this was a contest with a winner, albeit narrowly.<br />
<br />
<b>Winner: McDurmon by a half-stride.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b><br /></b>
In Christ,<br />
~JS.James Stockdalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09305814564480759059noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2883638156950047599.post-52684066499522160862015-01-28T15:45:00.000-08:002015-01-30T02:55:10.634-08:00How my garden grows, or "A response to Anthony Badger, pt. 1" The nature of this posts' titular garden is, of course, "full of tulips". And it is that set of doctrines that I am setting out to defend as regards a series of articles posted by Anthony B Badger in the journal of his own Grace Evangelical Society, the beating heart of the Zane Hodges "free grace" perspective. The faith statement of GES can be found <a href="http://www.faithalone.org/about/beliefs.html">here</a>, and the first of Dr. Badgers' articles, which I will be addressing, <a href="http://www.faithalone.org/journal/2003i/badger.pdf">here,</a><br />
I will pass over the background to the TULIP acronym and the issues of church history that preface the article series, which it must be said were commendably accurate and concise, and I credit Dr. Badger for allowing Westminster and the Calvin-crowd to define their own terms as regards total depravity (pg. 42 in the article). It is immediately following that definition however, that the wheels begin to come off, and I will be focusing on a few diverse statements of Dr. Badger on the doctrine of depravity, namely his repeated assertion that faith logically (and temporally?) precedes regeneration (a key hermaneutical stance on which much of later argumentation hinges), that consistent with Dr. Norman Geislers' stance in <i>Chosen But Free</i> (on which Dr. Badger heavily leans), mans will, despite the Biblical testimony to sin, is at least "partially" self-determinate, (pg. 54), and the typical GES misapprehension on the nature of saving faith and the presentation of a saving faith divorced from repentance and thus reduced to a form of "assent."<br />
Does the new birth, the regeneration of man and the promised giving of the heart of flesh (a <i>divine</i> action promised in Ezekiel 36:26), logically precede faith, so that the inability of man <i>in self-determination </i>to salvifically believe, as presented in the Westminster Standards, is upheld? Or is faith the means by which man, in his own choice, becomes regenerated? It would have been the context of Ezekiel 36, speaking of the promise to sprinkle Gods people with clean water, that Nicodemus would have had in mind in John 3. While the chapter is most famous for the exposition of faith as the means of <i>eternal life </i> in vs. 16, textually and in the exposition of Jesus, it is the second birth that Jesus mentions first, and this second birth is spiritual. Jesus contrasts the activities of the flesh in strict dichotomy with spiritual actions, (vs. 6), and asserts that the Spirit brings the new birth by its own power, and even without perfect human knowledge of its purposes in doing so (vs. 8). It is only in the context of the absolute necessity of a second birth, accomplished by the will of the Holy Spirit, that Jesus goes on to locate eternal life in belief in himself. Similarly, in John 6, Jesus says that all that the Father gives to Him will come to Him, and that the giving of the Father, and the Fathers will for the Son, is the grounds of those being given being raised on the last day. (vs. 36) No one, least of all Reformed theologians, would deny that the "coming" of John 6 is a coming in faith, a faith that views Christ as our very spiritual sustenance. But what is the grounds of that "coming"? A giving of the Father. Above and beyond that, in direct contradiction of "whosoever will-ism", Jesus directly asserts that no one is able to come to Him unless drawn by the Father, and that all who are drawn come! (vs 44, 65) The Greek construction there for "no one is able", <i>udice dunatai</i>, allows precious little wiggle room, and implies that the initiation of salvation rests solely on God and <i>precedes the action of man.</i> <br />
It would seem in this regrettably brief overview of Jesus' interpretation of the <i>ordo salutis </i>that divine action in making people alive, does in fact, logically precede that faith, but results in it nonetheless.<span style="font-size: xx-small;">1 </span>I will move on to briefly demonstrate that Paul shares this hermaneutic principle with Christ before addressing "Geisler-isms" on the human will (and one may be able to see my proverbial eschaton from the beginning). <br />
In Romans 8, Paul sets out the same stark contrast between flesh and spirit (not in a dualistic sense, but in the idea of human deadness, which will be important later) that Christ does, but with even stronger language. While Jesus gave us a portrait of human helplessness in the analogy of the new birth (how many babies have a say in their birth?), Paul divides the world into two camps, and asserts that minds set on the flesh are dead (vs 6), and do not obey Gods law <i>because they cannot </i>(vs 7). Perhaps more importantly the activity of the spirit in bringing life is the <i>grounds</i> of the promises of Romans 8:30. In context of the gracious, life giving action of the Spirit, those who are called are said inevitably to be glorified. In this, the "golden chain of redemption", Paul continues to expand on Jesus' assertion that those who are given come, and those who come are raised. But the second birth, the giving of the Father, the life-giving call, precede, textually and logically, the <i>response of the new heart</i> in faith. Similarly, Paul describes, in his first letter to the Corinthians, the fact that "the natural man...is unable to understand the things of God, for they are spiritually discerned" (1 Co. 2:14). Is not Faith in Christ "a thing of God"? Must not the Spirit then, give verse 16's "mind of Christ" (along with Ezekiels "heart of Flesh") <i>prior to the understanding of the things of God?</i> Dr. Badger must account for texts like John 3, John 6, 1 Co. 2, and Romans 8 in order to be exegetically credible on the order of salvation.<br />
<br />
As may be apparent, the passages I am addressing are <i>monergistic</i>. There is a lot about the Triune God accomplishing His purposes, about the spiritual death of men, about the sovereign bringing about of the new birth and the glorification of those called. There is very little about the intrinsic capacity of the unregenerate man to believe. I do not adhere to "The Princess Bride" theology. Man is not only mostly dead. Dr. Badger does an admirable job of providing the historical context of various theories regarding mans deadness in Adam, but then it must be said, radically departs from that context in favor of Dr. Geislers "biblical self-determination". <br />
Dr. Geisler's analogy of self-determinism on pg. 54 reads "Self-determinism might be likened to a
person acting on what he perceives to be good or desirable, to obtain
pleasure, or to avoid pain. We can actually decide whether to eat junk
food or a balanced meal apart from any externally compelled duress!". Simply put, Dr. Geisler protests too much. The question is not whether one desires the "bacon" of sin or the "salad" or Christ, but whether or not Jesus and his apostles consistently taught in the Scriptural witness whether our wills are enslaved to our sinful desires, for as Christ taught "everyone who sins is a slave to sin" (John 8:34). The question is not whether we are "free to want" but whether or not our "wanters" are broken by sin. It must be reemphasized that the metaphors of death and birth and slavery continue to recapitulate pictures of human inability, not of self-determined creatures "able to choose otherwise"; and let us not deceive ourselves, the battleground we are on is that of "libertarian" free will. <br />
Geislers position on the distinction between "person and will", also on pg. 54, is question begging. Synergists: find Scriptural evidence that a human person is the first cause of their actions, contrary to Genesis 50, the witness of the book of Acts to the use of mans sin in the Crucifixion, and the wisdom of Solomon that The Lord both "directs the steps" of man (Pr. 16:9) and "turns the heart of kings" (Pr. 21:1), or retract your statement. The entire section of the article on the alleged ability of unregenerate man to believe is bereft of a single Scriptural citation or even footnote, and I submit there is a reason for it; the argument being made lacks a Scriptural witness.<br />
Leaving aside Dr. Geisler's misrepresentation of Gospel efficacy in Calvinism (it is the Reformed position that the proclamation of the Gospel in human mouths is the <i>secondary cause</i> of regeneration and therefore the claim that Reformed theology "renders useless [the] gospel message to the sinner" (pg. 55) is utterly spurious), I briefly want to touch on the GES position on the nature of Faith and depravity. The analogy of the man in the well goes far farther than to assume that regeneration follow faith: it challenges the Reformed (and might I be so bold, Scriptural) definition of regeneration. The man is not waiting for our Fireman's steel cable; the man is dead. The well is filled with water, and probably sharks. But when the man is resurrected, he does not come out of the well with Wilkin's faith that is "a conviction that He is the Guarantor of eternal life"(pg 57), or rather, he does not come out of the well <i>only with the conviction that the Fireman drew him from the well.</i> The man, who is a <i>recipient of resurrection power with the prophesied heart, mind and Spirit of Christ</i>, brings the Fireman into his life, and (since the analogy breaks down as Christ is greater than any human savior), turns "the Fireman" into the model of his character and life. <br />
Robert Wilkin, in his 2005 debate with Dr. James White on the issue of the nature of Faith was pressed into acknowledging that faith in Christ is a <i>mere </i>intellectual assent, comparing faith in Christ's salvation to "faith in the projector" (on which slides for the debate were appearing) being the acknowledgment of the existence of the projector. Dr. Badger, as giving the "free grace" position, must answer for what regeneration actually accomplishes in light of James 2. I submit that this "assent to the drawing of the Fireman" is not only sub-biblical in its anthropology as illustrated above, but sub-biblical in its soteriology. The ESV renders participles in James 2:14 in such a way as to render the verse "can that faith save him?" Which faith? That faith that is without works. What does that faith look like? The belief "that there is one God", which even the demons have! It is vital to harmonize the book of James to avoid imbalance. On the one hand we find Roman Catholicism and similar systems, which make 2:14 join works to faith <i>as intrinsically justifying before God. </i>On the other we have Dr. Wilkin, who denies that a faith without works is dead. Dr. Badger has of course, not echoed Dr. Wilkin verbatim in this article, but it is absolutely vital to question those who share Dr Badgers convictions on faith and depravity to ask: "does saving faith sanctify, or not".<br />
Dr. Badger states that his view of depravity "... may be
seen as a separation from the joys of God’s presence, a non-appreciation
of His virtues, and an inclination to fall short of His character in our actions.
The lost-ness of the human race, however, does not mean that man
acts as badly as he is capable of, that he cannot think logically, that he
cannot hear and understand the propositions of the gospel, or that he is
unable to believe the truth. Man is rightly considered to be dead in sin,
and by nature the child of wrath, but he still retains the image of God in
his being. That image seems to carry with it an ability to believe the gospel"(pg. 60). Again, question-begging. Again, a dearth of Scriptural witness. If we are dead children of wrath, can we believe <i>prior to divine assistance? </i>I believe I have laid out a preliminary case to spark research but also to respond negatively. I must also conclude with the assertion that stating that logic, while marred in the unregenerate person, is not totally effaced (although the gospel itself is "foolishness to the world"), and that all men do not act as badly as they can (which is refuted in every notable Reformed systematics text), are positions I hold. These are frequent canards, which as is regrettably common in anti-Reformed polemic, are joined to true statements about the Reformed standpoint. Man is in fact incapable of understanding without the Spirit, and incapable of belief without the prompting of God. That is why there is a T in my Tulip.<br />
Join me next time in pt. 2 of this response, regarding the infamous doctrine of "unconditional election". As we move forward, I will build on prior information in order to demonstrate that the following points of the TULIP acrostic build on each other both Scripturally and in logical order, making this something of a "cascading argument". Pressing on, I urge readers that as the Father sends the Son and gives him a people, the Son dies on behalf of those given, and the Spirit works on the hearts of men to apply that redemption, consider the question: "does the sovereign God in His Trine will <i>save men, or make men savable?"</i><br />
<br />
In Christ,<br />
~JS.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">1. </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Not for nothing am I only using gospel passages from the gospel of John, as it was the late Dr. Hodge's perspective that the gospel of John is the only one written to Gentiles and because it does not contain the explicit word "repent", supports most out of the four gospels his position on faith and repentance, an assertion I would sharply contest.</span>James Stockdalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09305814564480759059noreply@blogger.com0