Category: Uncategorized

Peter Leithart enters the dialogue with a helpful piece entitled: Ecclesial Calvinism.

Leithart offers a few more valuable insights from a Federal Vision perspective. Leithart writes about his introduction to Calvin’s Institutes:

I remember the first time I read through the Institutes and discovered to my astonishment that Calvin, like Cyprian, thought we needed an earthly mother as well as a heavenly Father. That was not the ecclesiology that I encountered in the Reformed churches I first knew. Nor was Calvin’s sacramental theology popular among self-professed Calvinists. In this sense, FV is a kind of Reformed ressourcement, an effort to reconstruct a Reformed ecclesiology from the rubble left by Pietism and Revivalism.

Interestingly, the Federal Vision does not claim to have stumbled across a new expression of Reformed Theology, but it is rather a more robust expression of Calvin’s Reformation. Can any reader deny the impressive and most-dangerous influence left by Pietism and Revivalism? ^a The enormous corruption of our Reformed tradition comes when we subtly allow the infiltration of these un-Reformed thoughts in our churches. We lose our distinctiveness and our ecclesial heritage.

Hart does not seem to tackle the essence of Leithart’s arguments, though he mentions in passing:

But my sense, which is limited, is that FV has been a tad cliquish and disrespectful of Calvinists who are trying to embody the faith in discipline churches.

That FV’ers are somewhat cliquish is up for debate, but that FV’ers are disrespectful is somewhat dishonest. As Hart himself claims, the Auburn Avenue Conference treated him kindly when he spoke at their conference some years ago. Perhaps if more dialogues like these had taken place, many of these comments could have been avoided. Concerning the cliquish nature of FV’ers, indeed that may well be the case in some instances. However, it is to be remembered that when so many are phobic about a high sacramentology and a high view of the mission of the church, it is easy to see why there is a natural separation.

1. See Rich Lusk’s article on The Federal Vision for a more expanded treatment of this subject; also search on my site for Federal Vision where I deal briefly with Lusk’s points  (back)

I will be posting on my reading of the debate currently taking place at De Regno Christi. My posts will begin on the discussion that followed on September 17th ^a Beginning with Part 8, I will begin to focus on September 18th.

Doug Wilson begins the debate by stating some of the underlying assumptions of the Federal Vision and why it rejects what he calls: “Leaning against the creeping gnosticism.”

Wilson writes:

…our emphasis on liturgical worship reminds Reformed folks that they have bodies, and that they are to worship God with them. Our embrace of postmillennialism means that the kingdom is going to take shape here, on this earth, in concrete and three dimensional ways. Our insistence that baptism incorporates one into a visible church (that is truly the Church of Jesus Christ) is a similar kind of emphasis. Our rejection of “merit” as a spiritual bookkeeping category exhibits the same kind of bias. We grant there are invisible aspects to faithful Christian living, obviously, but wherever possible we want all those invisible aspects to take on a body.

In D.G. Hart’s reply, he seems to strongly oppose Wilson’s point on creeping gnosticism by stating that Wilson’s post-millenarianism is inconsistent with the New Testament version of dualism. What Wilson affirmed was that the harsh distinction between flesh and spirit hardens Presbyterianism to embrace a more robust liturgy. Hart’s strong commitment to Amillenialism and the Regulative principle as he understands it, makes it impossible for him to grasp Wilson’s commitment to bring together our bodies and our spirits into the church. This is evident in Hart’s comments concerning the temporary nature of the flesh and the eternal nature of the spirit. Hence, according to Hart, the fleshiness of this world is not worth liturgical investment. ^b What Hart seems to forget is that body and spirit is the ultimate eschatological goal of this humanity, hence to pray that God’s kingdom on earth be as it is in heaven is to call upon this holy merger of body and spirit in all human endeavor, including the worship of the triune God.

1. The debate officially began on the 17th  (back)
2. Hart does claim liturgy, after all, liturgy is an inescapable concept, however, Hart claims a different liturgy than Wilson and others claim.  (back)

A fascinating article by James Pinkerton. Somehow I sense I will be reading more of his pieces in The American Conservative. In The Once and Future Christendom Pinkerton argues that Tolkien’s strategy for the Shire is the strategy that the West is to take in combating the evils of Islamic expansionism. What any reader will find intriguing is that Pinkerton’s model does not include neo-conservative tactics, but rather, a religious tactic of unity and a new Christendom; or what he calls a neo-Constantinian vision.

In one of the great epics of Western literature, the hero, confronted by numerous and powerful enemies, temporarily gives in to weakness and self-pity. “I wish,” he sighs, “none of this had happened.” The hero’s wise adviser responds, “So do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide.” The old man continues, “There are other forces at work in this world … besides the will of evil.” Some events, he adds, are “meant” to be, “And that is an encouraging thought.” Continue Reading…

In the late 1940’s, Professor Cornelius Van Til wrote a series of articles for the Westminster Theological Journal. The articles analyzed Abraham Kuyper’s ^a view of Common Grace. It was in a sense a brief analysis of Kuyper’s great three-volume work on Common Grace published in the Netherlands. As a philosopher and a Dutchman, Van Til was amply qualified to deal with this topic. The book is a helpful overview of the Kuyper’s position, but also a recapitulation of the debates that ensued in the Christian Reformed Church in the early 1920’s.

This subject is particularly pertinent to Van Tillian philosophy since as Van Til states:

The question of where he may find a point of contact with the world for the message that he brings is a matter of grave concern to every Christian minister and teacher. ^b

Inherent in VanTillian (or Presuppositional) thinking is the idea of the “starting point” or “presupposition” of discourse with the unbeliever (unbelief). If common grace is after all common to all, then a point of contact is therefore established.

Van Til’s concern at the outset is to ensure the reader that the interpretation of facts differs depending on how one views the philosophy of history. Some attempt to look through facts as brute concepts—brute facts, as some may assume. Nevertheless, Van Til claims that the “believer and the unbeliever differ at the outset of every self-conscious investigation.” ^c Philosophers continue to debate the nature of epistemology ^d and their consequences for philosophical discourse. Even in the Reformed tradition there is strong disagreement over the starting point of investigation. Some will claim that reason is the starting point ^e and from there we may come to an objective conclusion. Van Til, however, argued strongly that the starting point of Christian philosophy is the counsel of God. For instance, according to Van Til:

Current scientific description is not merely explanation, but it is definitely anti-Christian explanation. ^f

Hence, Van Til’s philosophy of history understands un-Christian thought to be at all points in contradiction with the nature of reality. Reality, finds itself only in the Christian worldview; objectivity is by definition a Christian property, since objectivity needs a metaphysical entity to make sense of the data. The modern scientist will always and continually ascribe to the mind of man their discoveries and their conclusion, on the other hand, the Christian thinker will never attribute glory and honor to autonomous creatures, but always to God himself. God is the starting point of history, since He alone is the Creator and Sustainer of history.

The unbeliever cannot begin his investigation with a Christian worldview. The believer cannot begin his investigation with an unchristian worldview. The two are diametrically opposed. One seeks to sustain an anti-God proposition, while the other seeks to bring into submission all things to the Lordship of Christ. As Van Til appropriately concludes:

…the believer and the non-believer, are epistemologically self-conscious and as such engaged in the interpretative enterprise, they cannot be said to have any fact in common. ^g

Though epistemologically they are different, it must be mentioned that in Kuyperian view of common grace, there is a sense in which there are elements of commonality among believer and unbelievers, thereby providing certain venues for proper public discourse. For instance, both were created by God in His image and both are part of the same God-created universe. However, unless the unbeliever operates within a Biblical framework, his philosophy will always be by nature anti-Trinitarian. ^h

1. For two previous articles on Abraham Kuyper go here.  (back)
2. Van Til, Cornelius. Common Grace. Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1947. pg. 1.  (back)
3. Ibid. pg. 3  (back)
4. How we know what we know  (back)
5. For instance, Descartes  (back)
6. Van Til, pg. 3  (back)
7. pg. 5  (back)
8. Further discussion on Kuyperian view of Common Grace in articles to come.  (back)

Those who have survived the fury of legalism, ^a understand its deadly claim on individuals. After many years under legalistic teaching one begins to realize that the overwhelming nature of duty can never be alleviated or diminished by/through the nature of grace. Legalism, as a particular adherence to a code, may in a powerful sense be Screwtape’s tool to entrap the young and vigor-filled Christian.

No one living in a monarchy will deny obedience to his new king, especially if disobedience means death. Nevertheless, the reality is in the nature of this obedience. What is obedience? Further, why is legalism so detrimental in light of the clear commands of the ever-relevant law-word of God? It is answering the second question that one finds some clue into the first. My assumption, unlike so many, is that the Old Testament revelation bears both ethical and salvific ramifications for the New Covenant Christian. The central problem in understanding these sorts of questions is that the idea of “legalism” has been so injuriously associated with the Old Covenant laws and demands. However, nothing could be further from the truth. It is in the Old Testament where the Orthodoxical Shema is first given; it is in the pages of the Old (er) Testament where the command to love our neighbor (Leviticus 19:18) is made first explicit; and it is in the Old Testament where the grace of God is pervasive in the lives of the saints despite their many eggeregious sins. Hence, my contention is that if any case law, ceremonial or moral law is to be interpreted, it is to be interpreted in the context of grace; totus gratia.

The Reformed heritage and its current manifestation have not carefully sorted through such nuances. Sonship theology has exercised little time in considering the Old Testament demands of obedience for fear that it may make modern Christians “legalists.” The fact is modern Christian are miles away from the dreaded, and, rightly so, despised idea of legalism. Modermn Christians are too pagan to even become legalists. Let me note, lest it be misunderstood, that legalism is not in any sense equivalent to obedience to Old Testament law. It is rather the opposite of faithfulness to God’s law, since legalism makes God’s revelation irrelevant and substitutes it with man’s code or standard. Any time autonomous man makes laws and regulations outside of Biblical imperative he has become a legalist. Hence, legalism is obeying laws that find no Biblical grounds; ^b and as a result, using that pseudo obedience to attain something that they cannot earn.

Legalism and faithfulness to covenant demands are diametrically opposed. In popular discourse, the two ideas have been used interchangeably when in reality they do not belong in the same sentence, except to explain their great contrast. Micah 6:8 tells us:

He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

If to do these things is being understood as legalism, then I want all of it. But far from legalism this is God’s command to His covenant children of all ages. Fidelity and faithfuless to the covenant demands express loyalty; a loyalty that is grounded on grace from beginning to end. The problem with evangelicalism is anti-nomianism. After all, when was the last time you heard a pastor castigating his parishioners for doing too much for God’s kingdom? The opposite is true; parishioners are castigated for being too detached from their Christianity.

On the other hand, (In stark contrast to Sonship theology) the Reformed faith has also been castigated for its Puritan heritage, which some have labeled as legalistic. ^c Geerhardus Vos summarizes the criticism:

A consciousness of strict accountability in view of God’s sovereign rights over man has always characterized the Reformed religion, even to such extent as to invite the charge that its puritanic practice savors of a spirit of legalism more at home in the Old Testament than in the New. ^d

Later Vos defines legalism as those who “obey but do not adore.” Two comments will suffice at this point and the first one is that there ought not be any distinction between the ethical demands of the Old and New Testaments. If we are aware of the nature of the sacrifical system, then the Christo-centric implications and the ethical implications will leave no doubt that Christ in no sense ever eliminated or abolished the Old Testament obligations for the New Testament believer. Such distinctions are dangerously Marcionite. The second observation is that Vos’ definition is in some sense flawed if one should observe that the very nature of Old Testament law is doxological. You cannot claim to obey the law (first commandment) and yet not adore Jehovah alone.

As a final point, obedience, true obedience, stems from an inward response. It is gratitude to God’s grace, but it is also loyalty to God’s kingship over our lives. In the end, legalism offers death, but God’s laws offer life and to obey Him is the Christian’s delight.

1. For instance, in the case of Renee Altson in her book: Stumbling Toward Faith  (back)
2. Fundamentalists here can list a vast selection of do’s and dont’s.  (back)
3. One may be aware of the idea of something being Puritanical to indicate it is too strict or tedious  (back)
4. Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation, pg. 232  (back)

…the Christian life is always defined by a person’s concrete existence within a community. –Simon Chan ^a

1. Simon Chan’s Spiritual Theology, p.15  (back)

Why does it take a comedian to make sense out politics?

Wednesday 8:09AM I will be preaching tomorrow in Com. Lab. My text will be Ezekiel 36:22-28.

Words such as ‘freedom’, ‘democracy’ and ‘rights’ have long histories and their meanings have shifted over time. Further, when unscrupulous operators use them to rally supporters in some great cause, such words become hazy promises of better things to come. The warm glow of anticipation may be as deceptive as the witches’ promises to Macbeth…–Ivo Mosley

Monday, 7:24AM

The Lord’s Day was glorious. Despite some minor pain in my weary teeth, I was able to lead the congregation in music in morning worship. In the afternoon we enjoyed a perfect meal with the families of our church which included almost 40 children. It was a manifestation of God’s covenant faithfulness in our midst. We were saddened by the departure of a dear couple from our congregation, but at the same time we were filled with joy with a family of 11 that joined our church in membership. They will be going to South Korea for 6 months to minister to families and teach them how to educate their children and also how fathers can be better leaders in their homes. I pray God would grant them mercy and grace.