Category: Theological Thoughts

Posted on

Transcending Loyalties

John Frame argues (ST, 27-29) that God’s covenant transcends “all other loyalties.” As Lord of the covenant, he forbids allowing someone else to be Lord. Examples of this principle of loyalty abound in the New Covenant, but in particular, Matthew 8 and 10 argue for the supremacy of discipleship even over familial claims.

The Lordship of Jesus forms, therefore, the principle inherent in Sola Scriptura. While parents may play a role in shaping our understanding of life, our supreme authority is still to the Lord (Acts 5:29). Sola Scriptura does not compete with anyone else for authority. She is the ultimate authority, as Christ is the ultimate Lord.

Since he controls all things, therefore, he has the right to demand all obedience from his own and his creation. Human obedience becomes the means through which we show forth our loyalty to God above all earthly loyalties.

Thus, God’s authority covers all areas of human existence (28):

God claims the authority to direct all our thinking and all our decisions. The Lord is totalitarian, as only he has the right to be (28).

Posted on

Ecclesiastical Dogma and Practice

brown wooden church bench near white painted wall

There is a distinction between what the Church taught dogmatically and what the Church did practically. The Church spoke clearly on matters of dogma, but the Church has not spoken definitively on matters of practice. In other words, her praxeology may differ externally, but her doctrine is always clear internally.

For example, for centuries, churches met divided between men and women. Men sat on one side and women on the other. The seating arrangement preserved sexual distinctions. The Catholic church ceased such practice in the 20th century.

Women also covered their heads with some cloth/veil, though there were distinctions on how and when they were worn. In fact, the practice among Roman Catholics was not required until 1917.a The indication is that it was not in any way made law, and when it was, it was quickly removed a few decades later. Many traditions, even those devout to such practices, have ceased these practices individually and corporately in the last 120 years.

These are practices that go through various stages of evolution within the Church. Nevertheless, dogma refers to sound doctrine taught, believed, articulated, and defended in Councils. They should not be treated as mere practices to be renewed at the latest ecclesiastical gathering or to be sources of public dispute in the social media cosmos.

Dogma is settled business! The deity of Jesus is exegetically irrefutable and ought not to be trifled with at any level. There may be textual discussions about which text most clearly testifies to its truth, but the doctrine is dogmatically sound and must be affirmed and confessed when the Church gathers.

The Church may differ in practices, but she cannot be tossed by every wind of doctrine. She must be a refuge in an age of relativism and doctrinal lego-building. She must be the steady voice in a sea of confusion.

  1. It seems that “For the first time in history, the Catholic Church required head covering for Catholic women in their 1917 Code of Canon Law.”  (back)
Posted on

Douglas Wilson Responds to Full Preterism

Wilson does a fine job dismantling the Full Preterist paradigm. He offers ten reasons to reject it, and among them, he points to my podcast episodes to argue for the ecclesiastical consequences of abandoning orthodoxy:

As Uri Brito pointed out in a couple of his podcasts (here and here), the implications of this issue are massive. It is not a matter of abandoning congregational polity for presbyterian polity, or deciding to baptize with heads upstream from now on.

I could not embrace full preterism without that undoing the entire architecture and fabric of my mind. And I say this as someone who knows what it is like to go through theological paradigm shifts—I have been to the fair, and ridden on all the rides. Got sick on some of them. I have transitioned from Arminianism to Calvinism, from credo to paedo, from premillennial to postmillennial, and you know. One of those guys. If any one of those transitions was like bumping into the table and spilling a glass of water, full preterism would be like the Great 1906 San Francisco earthquake.

I am telling you all that all Reformed theology hangs together, and this is a theological jenga game—and full preterism is like trying to pull out a long block second from the bottom. It is not possible to talk about this issue all by itself.

Futurists and partial preterists disagree with one another about numerous passages of Scripture. But we don’t disagree with one another about the structure and framework of human history. We line the books up differently, and sometimes have fierce debates about that, but we both use the same bookends—creation and the eschaton.

What this means is that my difference with the full preterist does not fall in the same category, not at all. It is actually a difference about the meaning and teleology of all human history in its entirety. This is not a trifle, in other words. The ramifications are massive.

I like living where I do, and have no desire to move to an Arminian dispensational neighborhood. Let us be frank, I would have trouble adapting. But if an angel told me to move there, and to grow some five-point tulips in my backyard as a testimony to them, I think I could do it. Moreover I think I could do it without quarreling with the neighbors. But moving to a full preterist neighborhood would be like moving to an alien world. If an angel told me to move to Jupiter in order to grow giant cabbages, I confess that I would not even know where to start. I would be at an utter nonplus. And not only would I have difficulty not quarreling with the neighbors, I think I would have difficulty not quarreling with the angel.

Some of you might be saying aha! “He wouldn’t change his mind even if an angel told him to.” Yeah, well (Gal. 1:8).

Posted on

The Authority of Jesus

John Frame makes the case that the authority of Jesus far transcends earthly authorities. The Roman Centurion goes so far as to compare Jesus’ authority to heal from a distance to the military’s might (Matt.8:5-13).

Everything submits to Jesus. His authority “cannot be questioned” (26). Even though there are cases when God enters into dialogue with his people and changes his disposition towards certain nations or judgments, we know that this is still God’s means to manifest his authority. Man must come to him, petition him, and enter his universe. God is still the source of all human engagement. It cannot occur without man coming to him.

Further, this authority is unquestioned throughout biblical history. Abraham, for example, trusted in “God’s promise without reservation” (27). The Word was to be trusted more so than their current circumstance–namely their age. We trust God precisely because the data tells us otherwise.

Posted on

Substack, Lent, Etc.

I will take this Lenten Season to focus on a few other projects and ponder anew what the Almighty will do. While I will be away from social media, I hope you will follow me on substack and subscribe for daily Lenten meditations and updates.

Here is the first Lenten devotional with a hymn. I hope they will serve to encourage you and your family in the 40 days of Lent.

Hearty cheers and Lent merrily for the sake of our crucified and risen Lord.

Keep the fast. Keep the feast.

~Pastor Brito

Posted on

The Scenery of Sameness: Find Joys in Unexpected Places

I was reading some of Malcolm Guite’s work, where he lamented the sameness of American housing and hotels when he came to North America. I can only imagine the imprecations of a poet when receiving the same gray-carpeted reception everywhere he goes. Malcolm may wish to consider the lovely Airbnbs spread around the country with delightful scenery and an array of colors enough to satisfy a poet’s wishes.

But it was his reference to Chesterton that caught my attention. The rotund Catholic satirist observed that “an inconvenience is simply an adventure wrongly considered.” Paul was already in this business when he wrote to the Ephesians that wisdom guides you to redeem the time. The redemption of time means that inconveniences don’t exist. If you find yourself stuck at a mechanic shop for an additional hour, is that an inconvenience or an opportunity to learn, grow, and walk in wisdom (Eph. 5)? Is our Calvinism so cold and stale?

I told a friend recently that one of my hobbies in 2022 was exploring airport restaurants. It was unmistakably the busiest year of my life, but we managed to enjoy so many great scenes and view those “inconveniences” as opportunities to explore new foods, visit new places, and use the sameness of places as a temporary headquarter of rest. I have tried to remember the fascinating conversations I had with people on airplanes and at conferences. Though there was a sense of repetitiveness in many of my traveling rituals, the new things I learned, the stories I listened to, and the music we sang heightened the whole experience.

This may be why there are hymns for travel in the Christian tradition. Think of the 6th-century poem, “Be Thou My Vision,” an ode to the God who sees all things. The hymn-writer asks that God would provide meaning in all his doings, that he would reshape his priorities (“Thou and thou only, first in my heart…”). Perhaps God gives us “inconveniences” to train us to walk in his wisdom and word.

We can find newness wherever we are, rightly considering our places. We can always find adventures in inconvenient places. We can redeem the time in unexpected ways, even if surrounded by the scenery of sameness.