The Wednesday nigh lecture in downtown Denver, Objectivism vs. Christianity, by Dr. Locke, was one hour long. While strong on rhetoric, it was weak on argumentation.
This weakness was manifested in two different ways. First, the critique of Christianity was almost a series of unjustified assertions of what is wrong with its belief-system. Second, the analysis--the rightful basis of any critique--was almost a cornucopian presentation of how not to present an opposing viewpoint.
The critique of Christianity, at the beginning of the talk, was naturally based upon the assumed referent of Objectivism. Unfortunately, such a viewpoint was not defended clearly at the first. Perhaps the speaker thought the audience would be mostly friendly to his views.
The problem is this: most of the "problems" offered about Christian philosophy were only legitimate critiques assuming the truthfulness of Objectivism. From a Christian worldview, this necessarily becomes one large question-begging enterprise: the very thing in debate between Christians and non-Christians is whether the one worldview or the other has the legitimate standard of right and wrong, reason and non-reason, etc.
For example, when it was asserted that the Bible's view of justice is actually "anti-justice," this assertion is only valid given the truthfulness of Objectivism and its definition of 'justice'. As a Christian (or any non-Objectivists for that matter) I have a different standard of justice and a different definition. To merely assert that my view is wrong based upon the presumed (and unargued) position of Objectivism is to beg the larger question (to argue in a circle).
It would be another thing to demonstrate (prove) that the Christian doctrine of justice was internally inconsistent within its own worldview (philosophy). No such proof was offered.
When debating or talking about the superiority or inferiority of one broad-based philosophy or another, it is incumbent upon the initiator of the discussion to handle the entire worldview, not attack it piecemeal. Any single element in such thorough systems of thought is always dependent upon the rest.
Even so, some of the critiques, in the form of a question, are legitimate questions and I hope to answer them in future postings. The next article will analyze the second weakness of this lecture: the presented "facts" of Christianity.
More Info: For an eye-witness account, here.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Market Depressions?
A friend of mine writes about economics on the side. And he collects sources from those with more experience.
Here is an interesting article: America slides deeper into Depression
Here is an interesting article: America slides deeper into Depression
Friday, February 19, 2010
Converstaion with an FV Minister about his "gospel"
An inquirer visits a Presbyterian Church pastored by a Federal Vision minister. Let’s find out what he tells him.
Inquirer: I’m not a believer, but I have been listening to Christian radio a lot. I heard your ad on the radio, and I decided to visit your Church and see what it’s about.
FV Pastor: Well, I’m glad you did.
Inquirer: I have been thinking that I want to become a Christian, what do I need to do?
FV Pastor: You need to be baptized. If you come to the font and have water poured or sprinkled on you or if you get immersed, then you are a Christian.
(continued here)
Inquirer: I’m not a believer, but I have been listening to Christian radio a lot. I heard your ad on the radio, and I decided to visit your Church and see what it’s about.
FV Pastor: Well, I’m glad you did.
Inquirer: I have been thinking that I want to become a Christian, what do I need to do?
FV Pastor: You need to be baptized. If you come to the font and have water poured or sprinkled on you or if you get immersed, then you are a Christian.
(continued here)
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Christian Black History Month: Phillis Wheatley
Phillis Wheatley was the mother of African-American poetry. And she is a politically incorrect black heroine.
The fist to publish a book of poems as an African-slave, she was immediately popular in America. Her talent was recognized by George Washington, John Hancock and the governor of Massachusetts, Hutchinson. She was well-received in England as well.
Her slave-family showed some pity by educating her themselves. She was later set free by her family.
With her husband in debtor's prison and the loss of three children, tragically, she died at the age of 31,
Yet in spite of a sad life that would crush the strongest Christian today, her poetry demonstrates a heart sustained and empowered by the Holy Spirit.
The lost of an infant did not crush her:
The gift of heav'n intrusted to your hand
Cheerful resign at the divine command:
(On the Death of J. C. an Infant)
She rested on the grace and gifts of God:
Who taught us prayer and gave us grace and faith
Who but the great and the Supreme who bless’d
(An Address to the Deists)
Her childhood slavery did not overwhelm her. In amazing contrast with today's whining Americans, she wrote:
Twas mercy brought me from my Pagan land,
Taught my benighted soul to understand
That there's a God, that there's a Saviour too:
Once I redemption neither sought nor knew.
Some view our sable race with scornful eye,
"Their colour is a diabolic dye."
Remember, Christians, Negroes, black as Cain,
May be refin'd, and join th' angelic train.´
(On being brought from Africa to America.)
Although the research does not specify her theological orientation, she was likely a Calvinist. Her church was the Old South Church in Boston. She wrote a poem lamenting the death of her pastor. She wrote another on the death of Whitefield. And her poetic language (see above as well) uses well-known Reformed thought:
The Atheist sure no more can boast aloud
Of chance, or nature, and exclude the God;
As if the clay without the potter's aid
Should rise in various forms, and shapes self-made,
Or worlds above with orb o'er orb profound
Self-mov'd could run the everlasting round.
It cannot be -- unerring Wisdom guides
With eye propitious, and o'er all presides.
(To the Rev. DR. THOMAS AMORY…)
Here is a woman for our girls to emulate. Here the beauty of Christ shined wonderfully through His chosen vessel and her poems.
(Her poems are here)
Black History Month Series:
1. Lemuel Haynes
2. Jupiter Hammon
3. Phillis Wheately
The fist to publish a book of poems as an African-slave, she was immediately popular in America. Her talent was recognized by George Washington, John Hancock and the governor of Massachusetts, Hutchinson. She was well-received in England as well.
Her slave-family showed some pity by educating her themselves. She was later set free by her family.
With her husband in debtor's prison and the loss of three children, tragically, she died at the age of 31,
Yet in spite of a sad life that would crush the strongest Christian today, her poetry demonstrates a heart sustained and empowered by the Holy Spirit.
The lost of an infant did not crush her:
The gift of heav'n intrusted to your hand
Cheerful resign at the divine command:
(On the Death of J. C. an Infant)
She rested on the grace and gifts of God:
Who taught us prayer and gave us grace and faith
Who but the great and the Supreme who bless’d
(An Address to the Deists)
Her childhood slavery did not overwhelm her. In amazing contrast with today's whining Americans, she wrote:
Twas mercy brought me from my Pagan land,
Taught my benighted soul to understand
That there's a God, that there's a Saviour too:
Once I redemption neither sought nor knew.
Some view our sable race with scornful eye,
"Their colour is a diabolic dye."
Remember, Christians, Negroes, black as Cain,
May be refin'd, and join th' angelic train.´
(On being brought from Africa to America.)
Although the research does not specify her theological orientation, she was likely a Calvinist. Her church was the Old South Church in Boston. She wrote a poem lamenting the death of her pastor. She wrote another on the death of Whitefield. And her poetic language (see above as well) uses well-known Reformed thought:
The Atheist sure no more can boast aloud
Of chance, or nature, and exclude the God;
As if the clay without the potter's aid
Should rise in various forms, and shapes self-made,
Or worlds above with orb o'er orb profound
Self-mov'd could run the everlasting round.
It cannot be -- unerring Wisdom guides
With eye propitious, and o'er all presides.
(To the Rev. DR. THOMAS AMORY…)
Here is a woman for our girls to emulate. Here the beauty of Christ shined wonderfully through His chosen vessel and her poems.
(Her poems are here)
Black History Month Series:
1. Lemuel Haynes
2. Jupiter Hammon
3. Phillis Wheately
Saturday, February 13, 2010
VIII. Means of Grace: The Maturation Rite
VIII. Understanding the Means of Grace: The Maturation Rite
Why do I label this the "maturation rite"? It is thus dubbed in order to highlight the Presbyterian understanding in opposition to the paedocommunion position. Paedocommunion so emphasizes the objective element of the sacraments that the subjective and reflective demands
are watered down. Infants, toddlers, and young seven-year-olds are encouraged to partake of a meal that requires spiritual discernment as a cornerstone of participation. To "discern" the Lord's body is a spiritual activity that moves beyond simply balancing the church budget. In fact, death is specifically attached to this Meal for those who flippantly or in ignorance partake thereof.
But I get ahead of myself. Let me define the Lord's Supper or the Eucharist (the thanksgiving):
Q96: What is the Lord's supper?
A96: The Lord's supper is a sacrament, wherein, by giving and receiving bread and wine, according to Christ's appointment, his death is showed forth;[1] and the worth receivers are, not after a corporal and carnal manner, but by faith, made partakers of his body and blood, with all his benefits, to their spiritual nourishment, and growth in grace.[2]
1. Luke 22:19-20 2. I Cor. 10:16
The long and short of this summary is that 1) Christ's death (not his resurrection) is especially set forth in visible and tangible elements. This is the sign-signification aspect of the Supper. Thus, in common with Memorialists (who believe the Meal is only a mere recollection of what Christ accomplished), Presbyterians affirm there is a memorial aspect to the Supper.
But there is more. 2) "worthy receivers" receive the body and blood of Christ. The work of the cross as accomplished through his body and death is received by faith alone (WCF 29.7), There may be real spiritual growth that may accompany or follow the taking of the Supper. This is the seal, the confirmation of our faith and increase of our faith in Christ. This is denied by the Memorialists (most Charismatics and Baptists).
On the other hand, the Romish doctrine of transubstantiation is denied because Presbyterians deny the bread and wine become the body and blood o f Christ. Nor do we so affix grace to the Supper that it attends every administration of it almost regardless of the spiritual state of the recipient (some Federal Visionists). There is a proper proportion of the Supper in its objective and subjective dimensions in classical Presbyterian dogma (see Words of Life on the church
website).
This view of the Supper has been taught and is known by many of us-but how many know of the requirements for the Supper? It is not to be taken by just anyone. In fact, the preparatory aspect (both before, during and after the Meal) was taken so seriously during Calvin's time
that the session or pastor interviewed the members before administering the sacrament. This seriousness is reflected almost one hundred years latter in the Larger Catechism:
Q97: What is required to be the worthy receiving of the Lord's supper?
A97: It is required of them that would worthily partake of the Lord's supper, that they examine themselves of their knowledge to discern the Lord's body,[1] of their faith to feed upon him,[2] of
their repentance,[3] love,[4] and new obedience;[5] lest, coming unworthily, they eat and drink judgement to themselves.[6] (cp. Larger Catechism Q171 for more detail).
Before coming to the Lord's Supper examination is required: discernment of Christ's body (what He did for us), exercising faith and repentance (as daily activities), loving our neighbors especially the church) and striving in obedience. This is quite a list.
However, the catechism is not stating that perfection is required (cp. LCQ 172), but it is differentiating between the ignorant (children) and the worthy recipients.
2 Chronicles 30:18-20 brings the issue of proper preparation for the Supper into the foreground. Israel was sick because they had not cleansed themselves (or prepared themselves) for the Old Testament sacraments. After a prayer of forgiveness, the sickness was removed. In like manner, 1 Corinthians 11:30 notes that "For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep." This is a sober warning. And our Confession takes it seriously.
What this means in practice is a proper mediation, a self-reflection about the state of our souls. Perhaps on a Friday or Saturday night, one could find a quiet time and pray, examine the Bible passage and ask the Lord for more grace. Reflect upon life: are there relationships that need reconciliation? Are you clinging to Christ as your righteousness? Are you seeking repentance? Are you fighting sin, however incomplete your success? This is not exhaustive nor minimal.
One cannot give a 1-2-3 step as a law to bind all consciences.
The Lord's Supper is a special time not unlike attending a suit-and- tie meal with one's family. Yes, every day you should eat with your family (not unlike weekly preaching), but on occasion a special time requiring special instruction and preparation is required to celebrate the family. Here, we are celebrating Christ and His death. It is a solemn occasion requiring holy awe; yet a humble boldness is also required lest we think too much about ourselves and withdraw from the Supper.
I will quote from J. W. Alexander (from Remember Him) as a proper balance to pre-Communion examination:
Selling Webster's Speller
Noah Webster's American Spelling Book (aka, Blue-back Speller) is currently being republished. As the product description from one site declares:
"His goal was to provide a uniquely American, Christ-centered approach to training children. Little did he know that this remarkable gem would become the staple for parents and educators for more than a century and would help to build the most literate nation in the history of the West. Many of the Founding Fathers used this book to home school their children, including Benjamin Franklin who taught his granddaughter..."
What are Christians to make of these assertions? Is this book even worth buying?
Let us peal back the claims in reverse order.
First of all, the claim that many of the Founding Fathers used this to homeschool their children is dubious. In my experience, many historical claims have been circulated that have no foundation in fact (e.g. Jefferson, Witherspoon and John Jay were homeschooled, more here). The book was published in 1783. A little late for mass circulation for some Founder's children. Yet it could be the case that many of the Founders used Webster's book for their children. Not having easy access to the facts, I can only hold this assertion in abeyance.
Second, the book appears to have been a staple for education and helped raise literacy. This claim is true as far as it goes. It must be remembered, however, that this does not mean that literacy was not already being propagated by other means. The blue-book was popular but did not singlehandedly create a literate society. In fact, in 1765 John Adams noted:
"A native of America who cannot read and write is as rare an appearance as a Jacobite or a Roman Catholic, that is, as rare as a comet or an earthquake." (here)
Third, the book was written for schools. Webster notes in the preface,
"THE design of this Grammatical institute is to furnish schools in this country with an easy, accurate and comprehensive system of rules and lessons for teaching the English language."
Of course, it can be used for homeschooling. The irony is simply that the publisher and catalog are part of an organization that pushes, promotes and proposes homeschooling as the Biblical approach (here).
Fourth, the claims of a "Christ-centered approach" is dubious at best. Using an online transcript of the 1800 text, I searched for common words a presumed "Christ-centered approach" text would use. Here are some results:
Searching for sin and its cognates yielded a total of seven times in one section (lessons of easy words and moral duty). The word is mentioned eight more times in a similar fashion, most notably:
"He that covereth his sins shall not pros-per; but he that confesseth and forsaketh them shall find mercy."
Next, I searched for cognates of 'Christ'. It is used about ten times and once for pronunciation. Another few times it refers to what Christ said. The bulk was in the Moral Catechism section, making no mention of the Gospel.
The word 'Gospel' does not exist. 'Repent' and its cognates occurs once. 'Faith' occurs once as an example of a monosyllabic word. 'Believe' is never used with respect to God or Christ. 'Cross' is found in a list of words and part of a proverb.
Thus far the evidence is a far cry from a "Christ-centered approach." In fact,there is evidence to the contrary: in the appendix is a Moral Catechism. A Catechism without reference to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Although the Catechism does not mention the Gospel, it does mention the pure in heart:
Q. What reward is promised to the pure in heart?
A. Christ has declared "they shall see God." A pure heart is like God, and those who possess it shall dwell in his presence, and enjoy his favour forever.
Furthermore, in the section describing a "Good Boy" and a "Bad Boy" any reference to God, church and Christ are missing.
In contrast, Christ-centered instruction would point out that Christians (and "good boys") can only see God through the merits of Christ.
Lastly, the biography of Webster explains why this Speller--although useful--was not Christ-centered: he was not converted until 1808. He admits that before that time he preferred the more "rational" religion of doing good to one's neighbor over the more "emotional" doctrines of grace. But God's omnipotent love moved his heart to eschew moralism and accept a Christ-centered education in his life.
The conclusion of the matter is that this book is a mixed bag. It is heavy on the Law with no corresponding Gospel message. With today's weak Christian culture, this book can easily turn into simple moralism.
That does not mean that one cannot use it. It means that a father or mother must use it in an environment that has a clear presentation of the Gospel of Christ's righteousness. Hopefully, with these facts at hand parents will be better able to evaluate the selling and buying of Webster's Blue-back Speller.
"His goal was to provide a uniquely American, Christ-centered approach to training children. Little did he know that this remarkable gem would become the staple for parents and educators for more than a century and would help to build the most literate nation in the history of the West. Many of the Founding Fathers used this book to home school their children, including Benjamin Franklin who taught his granddaughter..."
What are Christians to make of these assertions? Is this book even worth buying?
Let us peal back the claims in reverse order.
First of all, the claim that many of the Founding Fathers used this to homeschool their children is dubious. In my experience, many historical claims have been circulated that have no foundation in fact (e.g. Jefferson, Witherspoon and John Jay were homeschooled, more here). The book was published in 1783. A little late for mass circulation for some Founder's children. Yet it could be the case that many of the Founders used Webster's book for their children. Not having easy access to the facts, I can only hold this assertion in abeyance.
Second, the book appears to have been a staple for education and helped raise literacy. This claim is true as far as it goes. It must be remembered, however, that this does not mean that literacy was not already being propagated by other means. The blue-book was popular but did not singlehandedly create a literate society. In fact, in 1765 John Adams noted:
"A native of America who cannot read and write is as rare an appearance as a Jacobite or a Roman Catholic, that is, as rare as a comet or an earthquake." (here)
Third, the book was written for schools. Webster notes in the preface,
"THE design of this Grammatical institute is to furnish schools in this country with an easy, accurate and comprehensive system of rules and lessons for teaching the English language."
Of course, it can be used for homeschooling. The irony is simply that the publisher and catalog are part of an organization that pushes, promotes and proposes homeschooling as the Biblical approach (here).
Fourth, the claims of a "Christ-centered approach" is dubious at best. Using an online transcript of the 1800 text, I searched for common words a presumed "Christ-centered approach" text would use. Here are some results:
Searching for sin and its cognates yielded a total of seven times in one section (lessons of easy words and moral duty). The word is mentioned eight more times in a similar fashion, most notably:
"He that covereth his sins shall not pros-per; but he that confesseth and forsaketh them shall find mercy."
Next, I searched for cognates of 'Christ'. It is used about ten times and once for pronunciation. Another few times it refers to what Christ said. The bulk was in the Moral Catechism section, making no mention of the Gospel.
The word 'Gospel' does not exist. 'Repent' and its cognates occurs once. 'Faith' occurs once as an example of a monosyllabic word. 'Believe' is never used with respect to God or Christ. 'Cross' is found in a list of words and part of a proverb.
Thus far the evidence is a far cry from a "Christ-centered approach." In fact,there is evidence to the contrary: in the appendix is a Moral Catechism. A Catechism without reference to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Although the Catechism does not mention the Gospel, it does mention the pure in heart:
Q. What reward is promised to the pure in heart?
A. Christ has declared "they shall see God." A pure heart is like God, and those who possess it shall dwell in his presence, and enjoy his favour forever.
Furthermore, in the section describing a "Good Boy" and a "Bad Boy" any reference to God, church and Christ are missing.
In contrast, Christ-centered instruction would point out that Christians (and "good boys") can only see God through the merits of Christ.
Lastly, the biography of Webster explains why this Speller--although useful--was not Christ-centered: he was not converted until 1808. He admits that before that time he preferred the more "rational" religion of doing good to one's neighbor over the more "emotional" doctrines of grace. But God's omnipotent love moved his heart to eschew moralism and accept a Christ-centered education in his life.
The conclusion of the matter is that this book is a mixed bag. It is heavy on the Law with no corresponding Gospel message. With today's weak Christian culture, this book can easily turn into simple moralism.
That does not mean that one cannot use it. It means that a father or mother must use it in an environment that has a clear presentation of the Gospel of Christ's righteousness. Hopefully, with these facts at hand parents will be better able to evaluate the selling and buying of Webster's Blue-back Speller.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
What Bunyan Confessed
In a day and age in which Christians too readily associate with anyone who names himself Christian, it is easy to blithely quote heroes of the faith.
Although some theological differences may not and should not move Christians to disassociate themselves from their spiritual forefathers, others may. And yet to examine what they believed may challenge us today to reexamine our own beliefs.
For the sake of historical truth, I present to you, dear reader, the theological beliefs of John Bunyan, author of Pilgrim's Progress.
A Confession of my Faith...
1. Naturally, he was Trinitarian (point 4)
2. He believed in Hell: "I believe, that those that die impenitent, shall be tormented with the devil and his angels, and shall be cast with them into ' the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone.'" (point 9).
3. He asserted that Christ obeyed the Law for us: "I believe, therefore, that the righteousness, and redemption, by which we that believe, stand just before God, as saved from the curse of the law, is the righteousness, and redemption, that consists in the personal acts and performances of this child Jesus; this God-man the Lord's Christ: it consisteth, I say, in his personal fulfilling the law for us, to the utmost requirement of the justice of God." (point 15)
4. Justification: "I believe, we being sinful creatures in ourselves, that no good thing done by us, can procure of God the imputation of the righteousness of Jesus Christ. But that the imputation thereof is an act of grace, a free gift without our deserving." (point 1).
5. Source of justification: "I believe, that the faith that so doth, is not to be found with any hut those, in whom the Spirit of God by mighty power doth work it: all others being fearful and incredulous, dare not venture their souls and eternity upon it. And hence it is called the faith that is wrought by the exceeding great and mighty power of God; the faith of the operation of God." (point 5)
6. "I believe, that this faith is effectually wrought in none, but those which before the world were appointed unto glory." (point 6)
7. Election by God: "I believe, that this decree, choice or election, was before the foundation of the world; and so before the elect themselves, had being in themselves" (point 2).
8. Election forever: " I believe, that there is not any impediment attending the election of God, that can hinder their conversion, and eternal salvation. ' Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. What shall we then say to these things ? If God be for us, who can be against us ? - Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect ? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth?' &c. Rom. viii. 3o—35" (point 5).
9. Calling & Spirit: "I believe, that to effectual calling, the Holy Ghost must accompany the word of the gospel, and that with mighty power: I mean that calling, which of God is made to be the fruit of electing love. 'Knowing,' saith Paul to the Thessalonians, 'brethren beloved, your election of God. For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance,' &c. lTh.i.4,5. Otherwise men will not, cannot, hear and turn."
10. Faith: "I believe, that effectual calling doth therefore produce, 1. Faith; and therefore it is said, that ' faith cometh by hearing;' Ro.x.17. by hearing the word...2. It produceth hope...3. It produceth repentance; for when a man hath heaven and hell before his eyes (as he will have if he be under the power of effectual calling) or when a man hath a revelation of the mercy and justice of God, with an heart-drawing invitation to lay hold on the tender forgiveness of sins...
11. Repentance: "Repentance is a turning the heart to God in Christ: a turning of it from sin, and the devil, and darkness; to the goodness, and grace, and holiness that is in him. Wherefore, they that of old are said to repent, are said to loath and abhor themselves, for all their abominations. ' I abhor myself,' [said Job,] 'and repent in dust and ashes.'...Godly repentance doth not only affect the soul with the loathsome nature of sin that is past; but filleth the heart with godly hatred of sins that yet may come."
12. Love: "It [effectual calling] produceth also love...[toward God and the brethren].
13. Bible: "I believe that the holy scriptures, of themselves, without the addition of human inventions, are able to make the man of God perfect in all things; and 'thoroughly to furnish him unto all good works.'...and to instruct thee in all other things, that either respect the worship of God, or thy walking before all men."
14. Creation & Providence: "Also, that after the time of the making thereof, he disposed of it to the children of men, with a reserve thereof for the children of God, that should in all ages be born thereunto.' When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel, De.xxxii. 8. for as he 'made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, [so he] hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.' Acts 17:26" (p.601)
Although some theological differences may not and should not move Christians to disassociate themselves from their spiritual forefathers, others may. And yet to examine what they believed may challenge us today to reexamine our own beliefs.
For the sake of historical truth, I present to you, dear reader, the theological beliefs of John Bunyan, author of Pilgrim's Progress.
A Confession of my Faith...
1. Naturally, he was Trinitarian (point 4)
2. He believed in Hell: "I believe, that those that die impenitent, shall be tormented with the devil and his angels, and shall be cast with them into ' the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone.'" (point 9).
3. He asserted that Christ obeyed the Law for us: "I believe, therefore, that the righteousness, and redemption, by which we that believe, stand just before God, as saved from the curse of the law, is the righteousness, and redemption, that consists in the personal acts and performances of this child Jesus; this God-man the Lord's Christ: it consisteth, I say, in his personal fulfilling the law for us, to the utmost requirement of the justice of God." (point 15)
4. Justification: "I believe, we being sinful creatures in ourselves, that no good thing done by us, can procure of God the imputation of the righteousness of Jesus Christ. But that the imputation thereof is an act of grace, a free gift without our deserving." (point 1).
5. Source of justification: "I believe, that the faith that so doth, is not to be found with any hut those, in whom the Spirit of God by mighty power doth work it: all others being fearful and incredulous, dare not venture their souls and eternity upon it. And hence it is called the faith that is wrought by the exceeding great and mighty power of God; the faith of the operation of God." (point 5)
6. "I believe, that this faith is effectually wrought in none, but those which before the world were appointed unto glory." (point 6)
7. Election by God: "I believe, that this decree, choice or election, was before the foundation of the world; and so before the elect themselves, had being in themselves" (point 2).
8. Election forever: " I believe, that there is not any impediment attending the election of God, that can hinder their conversion, and eternal salvation. ' Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. What shall we then say to these things ? If God be for us, who can be against us ? - Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect ? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth?' &c. Rom. viii. 3o—35" (point 5).
9. Calling & Spirit: "I believe, that to effectual calling, the Holy Ghost must accompany the word of the gospel, and that with mighty power: I mean that calling, which of God is made to be the fruit of electing love. 'Knowing,' saith Paul to the Thessalonians, 'brethren beloved, your election of God. For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance,' &c. lTh.i.4,5. Otherwise men will not, cannot, hear and turn."
10. Faith: "I believe, that effectual calling doth therefore produce, 1. Faith; and therefore it is said, that ' faith cometh by hearing;' Ro.x.17. by hearing the word...2. It produceth hope...3. It produceth repentance; for when a man hath heaven and hell before his eyes (as he will have if he be under the power of effectual calling) or when a man hath a revelation of the mercy and justice of God, with an heart-drawing invitation to lay hold on the tender forgiveness of sins...
11. Repentance: "Repentance is a turning the heart to God in Christ: a turning of it from sin, and the devil, and darkness; to the goodness, and grace, and holiness that is in him. Wherefore, they that of old are said to repent, are said to loath and abhor themselves, for all their abominations. ' I abhor myself,' [said Job,] 'and repent in dust and ashes.'...Godly repentance doth not only affect the soul with the loathsome nature of sin that is past; but filleth the heart with godly hatred of sins that yet may come."
12. Love: "It [effectual calling] produceth also love...[toward God and the brethren].
13. Bible: "I believe that the holy scriptures, of themselves, without the addition of human inventions, are able to make the man of God perfect in all things; and 'thoroughly to furnish him unto all good works.'...and to instruct thee in all other things, that either respect the worship of God, or thy walking before all men."
14. Creation & Providence: "Also, that after the time of the making thereof, he disposed of it to the children of men, with a reserve thereof for the children of God, that should in all ages be born thereunto.' When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel, De.xxxii. 8. for as he 'made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, [so he] hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.' Acts 17:26" (p.601)
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Colorado May Tax Online Purchases
In a cowardly move, the House and Senate are closer to taxing online purchases.
For years the internet has been a safe-haven from tax-and-spend Democrats across America. Now, if this Colorado bill passes, purchases at Amazon and other retailers who have no physical presence in Colorado will be taxed.
The cowardliness is the Democrats refusal to cut spending where it hurts. The multitude of government-dependent programs that ought to be operated locally or privately will never be touched because too many voters like being dependent upon the government and millions more like the feeling of "helping" others with other people's money.
Pray that this will not happen. It will surely put a damper on internet sales and hurt the poor who enjoy cheaper prices online.
For years the internet has been a safe-haven from tax-and-spend Democrats across America. Now, if this Colorado bill passes, purchases at Amazon and other retailers who have no physical presence in Colorado will be taxed.
The cowardliness is the Democrats refusal to cut spending where it hurts. The multitude of government-dependent programs that ought to be operated locally or privately will never be touched because too many voters like being dependent upon the government and millions more like the feeling of "helping" others with other people's money.
Pray that this will not happen. It will surely put a damper on internet sales and hurt the poor who enjoy cheaper prices online.
God: The Failed Hypothesis, A Review
“We now have considerable empirical data and highly successful scientific models that bear on the question of God’s existence. The time has come to examine what those data and models tell us about the validity of the God hypothesis.”
So claims Colorado professor Stenger.
Introduction
Victor J. Stenger is an adjunct professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado. And he is emeritus professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Hawaii.
Of course, there are many and sundry professors in America with similar training. What makes this book any different than the other new atheist books out there?
First of all, it is a scientifically involved book. Although some science understanding is needed in parts of the book, it is well written and well researched.
Secondly, it is endorsed by Dawkins: "...Stenger drives a pack of energetic ferrets down the last major bolt hole...I learned an enormous amount from this splendid book." This puts it on the national radar.
The chapters cover various examinations of the physical universe that purportedly reinforce the central thesis. But my intention is not to examine each chapter let alone each argument. That would become a book in itself. Rather, I will focus on the foundational elements of the book while highlighting a few other points. If the foundation of this atheistic-scientific house is missing, then the entire superstructure falls.
Building the House
Professor Stenger understands the importance of a proper and solid foundation. Thus, he lays out the ground-work in the beginning of the book, explaining what scientific model he is using and the God he is analyzing. From here the house superstructure is further built in the remaining chapters.
The 'god' he wishes to scientifically analyze is the one in common with the "three monotheisms": "...a supreme, transcendent being--beyond matter, space, and time--and yet the foundation of all that meets our senses...[one who] is a nanosecond-by-nanosecond participant in each event that takes place in every cubic nanometer of the universe...[who] listens to every thought and participates in each action of his very special creation..." (11).
And how will he investigate this 'god'?
“My analysis will be based on the contentions that God should be detectable by scientific means simply by virtue of the fact that he is supposed to play such a central role in the operations of the universe and the lives of humans. Existing scientific models contain no place where God is included as an ingredient in order to describe observations. Thus, if God exists, he must appear somewhere within the gaps or errors of scientific models” (13)
He simply equates the natural and supernatural as material and non-material respectively (14). And the science he uses is the doorway of our senses, our instruments, and generalized models of explanation. Hypothetical test that may reveal a non-material origin are proposed because " [God's] presence would be signaled, beyond a reasonable doubt, by the empirical verification of such a phenomena.” (14)
He acknowledges that a clever theist may retort that his god is still hidden, forever beyond the reach of empirical investigation. History and common sense, he replies, ultimately shows that "absence of evidence became evidence of absence. Generally speaking, when we have no evidence or other reason for believing in some entity, then we can be pretty sure that entity does not exist" (18).
He specifies that he will use a particular criterion in this book, falsificationism--an approach popularized by Sir Karl Popper. In particular, any hypothesis "must be one that contains the seeds of its own destruction...a hypothesis that cannot be falsified is a hypothesis that has no value" (25). In other words, the falsification criterion is the claim that valid scientific models are ones that could conceivably be proven otherwise. Popper rejected inductive reasoning postulating the progress of science in terms of conjecture (hypothesis) and refutation (testing). Instead of seeking out confirmation (evidence) of a theory, falsificationism seeks counter-facts and test to disconfirm a theory.
Analyzing the Foundation
“No consensus exists among philosophers of science on what distinguishes science from pseudoscience or nonscience, although most scientists would say they know pseudoscience when they see it.” (12)
This amazing admission is reworded elsewhere:
"falsification...[was] a means for distinguishing legitimate scientific models from nonscientific conjectures. Since then, however, philosophers of science have found falsification insufficient for this purpose" (26).
If no consensus exists on what criterion differentiates science from nonscience, why write this book?
Professor Stenger attempts to bypass this impasse: 'god' can be so falsified as a hypothesis because such a Being is "supposed to be everywhere..." If everywhere and a participant in all places and actions (of which all places and actions are at bottom material), then, argues the professor, this 'god' ought to be empirically discovered in any given place or action.
This assumes that science is the definitive technique for determining observable truth and that observable truth has no unobservable components—a gratuitous assumption as best. Behind this epistemic assumption lies a corresponding metaphysical assumption: that only the material exists. And further: if their is a non-material realm (of any consequence) then it will interact with the material realm in a testable way (again, therefore, falsifiable by scientific models).
Furthermore, the use of models is a tricky business. The author admits:
"Whether the elements and the processes that make up a successful model are to be taken as intrinsic parts of reality is not a question that can be simply answered…” because the model might be falsified in the distant future. Yet "when a model is falsified, we can reasonably assume that those elements and processes that are unique to the model…are likely not intrinsic parts of reality.” (13)
If each hypothesis is not necessarily an accurate model of reality and able to be falsified and thus replaced in the future, then how can one determine that now is the time to answer this God-question? Upon what (uncriticized) criterion was this decided?
Destroying the Foundation
The first problem is the definition of 'god'. In brief, the classical Protestant (Reformed) doctrine of God, as summarized in the Westminster Confession of Faith, does not present Him as merely participating in all things. Rather, this Triune God does "uphold, direct, dispose and govern" all things while ordering all to "fall out according to the nature of secondary causes..." even as God makes use of means, whilst free to work "without, above, and against them" (WCF 5.1-3). Such a God cannot be reduced to crass materialism, because the material universe is dependent upon Him. Therefore, any and all tests (and observations) are evidences for the existence of such a God.
The problem is that such a God is unacceptable to Stenger. Near the end of the book, he winnows out other 'god' options ('hidden gods') except the "hideous hidden God of Evangelical Christianity". Or more specifically the version given by an Evangelical Christian who admits that God does hide himself (contrary to Romans 1:18ff.). Even so, Stenger's attitude toward this God who "cannot be totally ruled out" is to accuse Him of "cowardice" and of not being "perfectly loving" (239ff.).
What is "perfectly loving" in an all-material universe? Most people believe it to be more than animal coupling. Perhaps it is the combination of bio-chemical and bio-electric reactions in the body? This questions does not even begin to touch the perennial question of what perfection is. This unscientific response is a picture of the entire effort of the book: to bring an Infinite and Transcendent God to the bar of finite human reason.
Given that this review is from the virtuous circle of the worldview of Christianity, what do non-Christians think?
Popper himself acknowledges the limitations of his scientific method. Professor Stenger notes that Popper restricted falsification to empirical statements only: "philosophical theories, or metaphysical theories, will be irrefutable by definition" (26). The God of Christianity in general, and Protestantism in particular, is a metaphysical God, notwithstanding Stenger's attempted reductionism.
On the other hand, the scientific worldview of Popper and others include "metaphysical theories" of what is a fact and what is material. Popper even admitted that "Darwinism is...a metaphysical research programme".
Among the other critiques of falsification as the heart of science, Martin Gardner, at Skeptical Inquirer, (2001, reprinted) explained:
"There are many objections to this startling claim. One is that falsifications are much rarer in science than searches for confirming instances. Astronomers look for signs of water on Mars. They do not think they are making efforts to falsify the conjecture that Mars never had water."
Another detractor summarizes several internal inconsistencies and contradictions. Mr. Dykes's paper, Debunking Popper (here), includes other well-known philosophers who have pointed unconquerable problems with falsification (aka, critical rationalism). One should suffice:
"Blanshard noted that particular propositions such as 'some swans are white' can only be falsified by showing that 'no swans are white.' Since the latter would be self-evidently untrue, 'some swans are white' is a perfectly valid scientific statement which cannot be falsified."
The boundary between science and nonscience is fuzzy indeed. Stenger is correct: "philosophers of science have found falsification insufficient for this purpose."
Conclusion
One cannot simply abstract God out of the interconnected web of beliefs of Christianity. Falsifying a single proposition is not the same as falsifying an entire worldview. Since well-developed worldviews cannot be falsified piecemeal, the new atheists need to use other tools in their quest to demolish Christ's kingdom.
Certainly confirmation and falsification are both useful tools in the domain of science (and even elsewhere). And critical self-evaluation is needed in any endeavor in life. But the hypothesis of falsification is not up to the task of tearing down the foundation of Christianity. Its inbred limitations are admitted even by its major proponent. Instead of disproving the God-hypothesis, falsification itself turned out to be a failed hypothesis.
So claims Colorado professor Stenger.
Introduction
Victor J. Stenger is an adjunct professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado. And he is emeritus professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Hawaii.
Of course, there are many and sundry professors in America with similar training. What makes this book any different than the other new atheist books out there?
First of all, it is a scientifically involved book. Although some science understanding is needed in parts of the book, it is well written and well researched.
Secondly, it is endorsed by Dawkins: "...Stenger drives a pack of energetic ferrets down the last major bolt hole...I learned an enormous amount from this splendid book." This puts it on the national radar.
The chapters cover various examinations of the physical universe that purportedly reinforce the central thesis. But my intention is not to examine each chapter let alone each argument. That would become a book in itself. Rather, I will focus on the foundational elements of the book while highlighting a few other points. If the foundation of this atheistic-scientific house is missing, then the entire superstructure falls.
Building the House
Professor Stenger understands the importance of a proper and solid foundation. Thus, he lays out the ground-work in the beginning of the book, explaining what scientific model he is using and the God he is analyzing. From here the house superstructure is further built in the remaining chapters.
The 'god' he wishes to scientifically analyze is the one in common with the "three monotheisms": "...a supreme, transcendent being--beyond matter, space, and time--and yet the foundation of all that meets our senses...[one who] is a nanosecond-by-nanosecond participant in each event that takes place in every cubic nanometer of the universe...[who] listens to every thought and participates in each action of his very special creation..." (11).
And how will he investigate this 'god'?
“My analysis will be based on the contentions that God should be detectable by scientific means simply by virtue of the fact that he is supposed to play such a central role in the operations of the universe and the lives of humans. Existing scientific models contain no place where God is included as an ingredient in order to describe observations. Thus, if God exists, he must appear somewhere within the gaps or errors of scientific models” (13)
He simply equates the natural and supernatural as material and non-material respectively (14). And the science he uses is the doorway of our senses, our instruments, and generalized models of explanation. Hypothetical test that may reveal a non-material origin are proposed because " [God's] presence would be signaled, beyond a reasonable doubt, by the empirical verification of such a phenomena.” (14)
He acknowledges that a clever theist may retort that his god is still hidden, forever beyond the reach of empirical investigation. History and common sense, he replies, ultimately shows that "absence of evidence became evidence of absence. Generally speaking, when we have no evidence or other reason for believing in some entity, then we can be pretty sure that entity does not exist" (18).
He specifies that he will use a particular criterion in this book, falsificationism--an approach popularized by Sir Karl Popper. In particular, any hypothesis "must be one that contains the seeds of its own destruction...a hypothesis that cannot be falsified is a hypothesis that has no value" (25). In other words, the falsification criterion is the claim that valid scientific models are ones that could conceivably be proven otherwise. Popper rejected inductive reasoning postulating the progress of science in terms of conjecture (hypothesis) and refutation (testing). Instead of seeking out confirmation (evidence) of a theory, falsificationism seeks counter-facts and test to disconfirm a theory.
Analyzing the Foundation
“No consensus exists among philosophers of science on what distinguishes science from pseudoscience or nonscience, although most scientists would say they know pseudoscience when they see it.” (12)
This amazing admission is reworded elsewhere:
"falsification...[was] a means for distinguishing legitimate scientific models from nonscientific conjectures. Since then, however, philosophers of science have found falsification insufficient for this purpose" (26).
If no consensus exists on what criterion differentiates science from nonscience, why write this book?
Professor Stenger attempts to bypass this impasse: 'god' can be so falsified as a hypothesis because such a Being is "supposed to be everywhere..." If everywhere and a participant in all places and actions (of which all places and actions are at bottom material), then, argues the professor, this 'god' ought to be empirically discovered in any given place or action.
This assumes that science is the definitive technique for determining observable truth and that observable truth has no unobservable components—a gratuitous assumption as best. Behind this epistemic assumption lies a corresponding metaphysical assumption: that only the material exists. And further: if their is a non-material realm (of any consequence) then it will interact with the material realm in a testable way (again, therefore, falsifiable by scientific models).
Furthermore, the use of models is a tricky business. The author admits:
"Whether the elements and the processes that make up a successful model are to be taken as intrinsic parts of reality is not a question that can be simply answered…” because the model might be falsified in the distant future. Yet "when a model is falsified, we can reasonably assume that those elements and processes that are unique to the model…are likely not intrinsic parts of reality.” (13)
If each hypothesis is not necessarily an accurate model of reality and able to be falsified and thus replaced in the future, then how can one determine that now is the time to answer this God-question? Upon what (uncriticized) criterion was this decided?
Destroying the Foundation
The first problem is the definition of 'god'. In brief, the classical Protestant (Reformed) doctrine of God, as summarized in the Westminster Confession of Faith, does not present Him as merely participating in all things. Rather, this Triune God does "uphold, direct, dispose and govern" all things while ordering all to "fall out according to the nature of secondary causes..." even as God makes use of means, whilst free to work "without, above, and against them" (WCF 5.1-3). Such a God cannot be reduced to crass materialism, because the material universe is dependent upon Him. Therefore, any and all tests (and observations) are evidences for the existence of such a God.
The problem is that such a God is unacceptable to Stenger. Near the end of the book, he winnows out other 'god' options ('hidden gods') except the "hideous hidden God of Evangelical Christianity". Or more specifically the version given by an Evangelical Christian who admits that God does hide himself (contrary to Romans 1:18ff.). Even so, Stenger's attitude toward this God who "cannot be totally ruled out" is to accuse Him of "cowardice" and of not being "perfectly loving" (239ff.).
What is "perfectly loving" in an all-material universe? Most people believe it to be more than animal coupling. Perhaps it is the combination of bio-chemical and bio-electric reactions in the body? This questions does not even begin to touch the perennial question of what perfection is. This unscientific response is a picture of the entire effort of the book: to bring an Infinite and Transcendent God to the bar of finite human reason.
Given that this review is from the virtuous circle of the worldview of Christianity, what do non-Christians think?
Popper himself acknowledges the limitations of his scientific method. Professor Stenger notes that Popper restricted falsification to empirical statements only: "philosophical theories, or metaphysical theories, will be irrefutable by definition" (26). The God of Christianity in general, and Protestantism in particular, is a metaphysical God, notwithstanding Stenger's attempted reductionism.
On the other hand, the scientific worldview of Popper and others include "metaphysical theories" of what is a fact and what is material. Popper even admitted that "Darwinism is...a metaphysical research programme".
Among the other critiques of falsification as the heart of science, Martin Gardner, at Skeptical Inquirer, (2001, reprinted) explained:
"There are many objections to this startling claim. One is that falsifications are much rarer in science than searches for confirming instances. Astronomers look for signs of water on Mars. They do not think they are making efforts to falsify the conjecture that Mars never had water."
Another detractor summarizes several internal inconsistencies and contradictions. Mr. Dykes's paper, Debunking Popper (here), includes other well-known philosophers who have pointed unconquerable problems with falsification (aka, critical rationalism). One should suffice:
"Blanshard noted that particular propositions such as 'some swans are white' can only be falsified by showing that 'no swans are white.' Since the latter would be self-evidently untrue, 'some swans are white' is a perfectly valid scientific statement which cannot be falsified."
The boundary between science and nonscience is fuzzy indeed. Stenger is correct: "philosophers of science have found falsification insufficient for this purpose."
Conclusion
One cannot simply abstract God out of the interconnected web of beliefs of Christianity. Falsifying a single proposition is not the same as falsifying an entire worldview. Since well-developed worldviews cannot be falsified piecemeal, the new atheists need to use other tools in their quest to demolish Christ's kingdom.
Certainly confirmation and falsification are both useful tools in the domain of science (and even elsewhere). And critical self-evaluation is needed in any endeavor in life. But the hypothesis of falsification is not up to the task of tearing down the foundation of Christianity. Its inbred limitations are admitted even by its major proponent. Instead of disproving the God-hypothesis, falsification itself turned out to be a failed hypothesis.
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
VII. Means of Grace: The Initiatory Rite
VII. Understanding the Means of Grace: The Initiatory Rite
Having explained that a sacrament is a sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace--a sign outwardly displaying what the inward reality should be and a seal testifying of God's faithfulness and encouraging our faith--we proceed to Baptism.
As an initiatory rite, Baptism brings one into the Church visible. This is not seriously debated by any Protestant. As a sign of regeneration, it portrays the truth of the Spirit's work in the lives of His people. As a seal, it confirms our adoptions as children of God. These truths are less known. So, as the goal is more
instructional than polemic, let us define our terms:
Q94: What is baptism?
A94: Baptism is a sacrament, wherein the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,[1] doth signify and seal our ingrafting into Christ, and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace,[2] and our engagement to be the Lord's.[3]
1. Matt. 28:19; 2. Rom. 6:3; 3. Rom. 6:4
It is 1) a "washing with the water"-meaning that the mode presumably should follow the Biblical pattern. Historically, the Reformed (both Presbyterian, Anglican and Congregational) have understood that mode to follow the prophecies of the Older Testament, pouring or sprinkling (just as the Spirit was promised, Ez. 36, Acts 2). This "washing" 2) signifies, or symbolizes or points to our engrafting into Christ,
partaking of His benefits and the demand to be the Lord's own in thought, word & deed. In parallel with the signifying (at least for the elect), there is 3) a sealing aspect to baptism (as just explained in part 6). It more confirms our consciences (increases our subjective awareness) of our part in Christ & all His benefits. As a seal it does not transmit grace, it confirms what is already ours. It highlights what is already ours. It strengthens what is already ours. That is why it is dubbed a "means of grace," for it increases saving faith (cp. WCF 14:1).
Naturally, just as baptism may be meaningless to some adult converts who publicly profess Christ (but inwardly are full of dead man's bones), so too, children may never be regenerate (cp. WCF 28.5). Yet in both instances, they were baptized. This is because baptism does not regenerate nor transmit saving faith to the recipient. That is the work of the Spirit. And the Spirit may work spiritual life
before, during or after baptism because His ways are inscrutable (John 3:5, 8). Again, this is a Presbyterian dogma: "Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it; or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated" (WCF 28.5).
The fact that children are given the sign of Baptism in many Protestant churches (Anglican, Congregationalists & Presbyterians) is because of Abraham (Gen. 17:7) & Peter. Yes, I said Peter. Note Acts2:38-39:
Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call."
The promise-the Gospel-is "to you and to your children." Just as the Gospel call is given to all, yet only those who are born-again will respond (John 3), so the call is especially given to those children of Covenant households, yet only the elect will respond. The children have greater illumination; hence, they have greater responsibility. To whom much is given much is required. They must own their baptism
through public confession.
And that moral truth is the basis of question 167 of the Larger Catechism:
"How is our Baptism to be improved by us?
Answer: The needful but much neglected duty of improving our Baptism, is to be performed by us all our life long, especially in the time of temptation, and when we
are present at the administration of it to others..."
What this entails is the fact that our baptism is not a relic of our past. Although objective insofar as God is publicly declaring our entrance into the Church, it is also subjective insofar as it is part of our past and conscience. Our baptism (whether as an infant or an adult) is for our comfort ("in the time of temptation") & our encouragement as we are faced with "the administration of it to others..."
The answer continues in detail how both of these are accomplished (with a plethora of verses!): by considering what baptism signifies and seals; by humbling ourselves for not living faithfully; by "growing up to assurance of pardon of sin..."; by clinging to our spiritual baptism into Christ's death and resurrection (Rom. 6:3-5); by living in faith; by obeying the call to holiness; by walking in the brotherly love because of our unity in the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13).
Although justification and regeneration should not be confused with baptism, baptism is for our own good. It should encourage us as part of our overall sanctification in righteousness. It should be part and parcel of our living in obedience (1 John 2:3ff.). The Spirit uses this tool to point to His work & confirm our faith; thus having begun in grace, we should continue in grace.
Having explained that a sacrament is a sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace--a sign outwardly displaying what the inward reality should be and a seal testifying of God's faithfulness and encouraging our faith--we proceed to Baptism.
As an initiatory rite, Baptism brings one into the Church visible. This is not seriously debated by any Protestant. As a sign of regeneration, it portrays the truth of the Spirit's work in the lives of His people. As a seal, it confirms our adoptions as children of God. These truths are less known. So, as the goal is more
instructional than polemic, let us define our terms:
Q94: What is baptism?
A94: Baptism is a sacrament, wherein the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,[1] doth signify and seal our ingrafting into Christ, and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace,[2] and our engagement to be the Lord's.[3]
1. Matt. 28:19; 2. Rom. 6:3; 3. Rom. 6:4
It is 1) a "washing with the water"-meaning that the mode presumably should follow the Biblical pattern. Historically, the Reformed (both Presbyterian, Anglican and Congregational) have understood that mode to follow the prophecies of the Older Testament, pouring or sprinkling (just as the Spirit was promised, Ez. 36, Acts 2). This "washing" 2) signifies, or symbolizes or points to our engrafting into Christ,
partaking of His benefits and the demand to be the Lord's own in thought, word & deed. In parallel with the signifying (at least for the elect), there is 3) a sealing aspect to baptism (as just explained in part 6). It more confirms our consciences (increases our subjective awareness) of our part in Christ & all His benefits. As a seal it does not transmit grace, it confirms what is already ours. It highlights what is already ours. It strengthens what is already ours. That is why it is dubbed a "means of grace," for it increases saving faith (cp. WCF 14:1).
Naturally, just as baptism may be meaningless to some adult converts who publicly profess Christ (but inwardly are full of dead man's bones), so too, children may never be regenerate (cp. WCF 28.5). Yet in both instances, they were baptized. This is because baptism does not regenerate nor transmit saving faith to the recipient. That is the work of the Spirit. And the Spirit may work spiritual life
before, during or after baptism because His ways are inscrutable (John 3:5, 8). Again, this is a Presbyterian dogma: "Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it; or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated" (WCF 28.5).
The fact that children are given the sign of Baptism in many Protestant churches (Anglican, Congregationalists & Presbyterians) is because of Abraham (Gen. 17:7) & Peter. Yes, I said Peter. Note Acts2:38-39:
Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call."
The promise-the Gospel-is "to you and to your children." Just as the Gospel call is given to all, yet only those who are born-again will respond (John 3), so the call is especially given to those children of Covenant households, yet only the elect will respond. The children have greater illumination; hence, they have greater responsibility. To whom much is given much is required. They must own their baptism
through public confession.
And that moral truth is the basis of question 167 of the Larger Catechism:
"How is our Baptism to be improved by us?
Answer: The needful but much neglected duty of improving our Baptism, is to be performed by us all our life long, especially in the time of temptation, and when we
are present at the administration of it to others..."
What this entails is the fact that our baptism is not a relic of our past. Although objective insofar as God is publicly declaring our entrance into the Church, it is also subjective insofar as it is part of our past and conscience. Our baptism (whether as an infant or an adult) is for our comfort ("in the time of temptation") & our encouragement as we are faced with "the administration of it to others..."
The answer continues in detail how both of these are accomplished (with a plethora of verses!): by considering what baptism signifies and seals; by humbling ourselves for not living faithfully; by "growing up to assurance of pardon of sin..."; by clinging to our spiritual baptism into Christ's death and resurrection (Rom. 6:3-5); by living in faith; by obeying the call to holiness; by walking in the brotherly love because of our unity in the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13).
Although justification and regeneration should not be confused with baptism, baptism is for our own good. It should encourage us as part of our overall sanctification in righteousness. It should be part and parcel of our living in obedience (1 John 2:3ff.). The Spirit uses this tool to point to His work & confirm our faith; thus having begun in grace, we should continue in grace.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Obama, Soros, & Offshore drilling in Brazil
I opened my email this morning to yet another pass-around-the-internet-article about the nefarious scheming of the Democrats. For some reason, I thought I'd check into this particular email to verify its claims of Obama wanting to give money to a Brazilian oil-company for off-shore drilling (!). Said company was also connected to Soros.
I took a quick google of the email title and found a Wall Street Article covering part of it, here. (August, 2009 article).
I noticed that five hits below was a townhall.com blog (reputable conservative, mostly) with a link to Bloomberg with the Soro connection, here.
Although not a surprise for some (nor as earth-shattering as my research into the Iraqi war), with two internationally known news-sources publishing something this big, I knew I had some sembelenace of truth to rely on.
Now, the churches need to keep praying and preaching the Truth. The Spirit is the only means to change such corruption (of the leaders and people) to repentance and faith in Christ
I took a quick google of the email title and found a Wall Street Article covering part of it, here. (August, 2009 article).
I noticed that five hits below was a townhall.com blog (reputable conservative, mostly) with a link to Bloomberg with the Soro connection, here.
Although not a surprise for some (nor as earth-shattering as my research into the Iraqi war), with two internationally known news-sources publishing something this big, I knew I had some sembelenace of truth to rely on.
Now, the churches need to keep praying and preaching the Truth. The Spirit is the only means to change such corruption (of the leaders and people) to repentance and faith in Christ
Monday, January 25, 2010
Sister-Presbyterian Regional Concerns
It is common that Presbyterian ministers and elders from different sister denominations fellowship with each other. Such is the case with myself, Wes and Brian. The latter two are members of a sister Presbytery that overlaps with mine.
We met about two years ago and hit it off well. It was not simply a meshing of personalities, but a recognition of a common understanding and approach to the Christian life and doctrine as summarized in the Westminster Confession.
Presbytery meetings are normally (virtually always) open to the public. The corporate decisions they make are public as well. Thus, I never had a problem informing my friends about the goings on in my presbytery nor they about theirs.
This is such a case now. A serious case. I cannot judge the details but the broad contours do not look good from my vantage point. Pray that a proper and biblical resolution would be forthcoming.
Here is part of the report:
"I have not generally written on our Presbytery (Siouxlands) except to briefly report on its actions, but what happened at this last Presbytery meeting needs to be described publicly. I went to Presbytery on Thursday mildly optimistic about what would happen. I was disappointed.
After nearly two years of attempting to get the Presbytery to deal with a man who claimed to me that he is in basic agreement with Federal Vision theology, the Presbytery has still not dealt decisively with the matter. I asked for the original investigation nearly two years ago. The Presbytery refused. I complained. The Presbytery refused. I complained to the General Assembly. The General Assembly sustained my complaint. The Presbytery decided to investigate. The committee came back 4-2 saying that there was a strong presumption of guilt. The Presbytery rejected the committee report by a 24-13 margin. I, along with others, complained. The Presbytery repented of being too hasty in its rejection of the committee report, and erected a new committee.
We were concerned with statements such as:
That new committee was to report at this meeting. They did so. They unanimously recommended that the Presbytery find a strong presumption of guilt. The Presbytery then decided to postpone consideration of this second committee's report until September.
The Teaching Elder who was investigated requested to be "instructed." So, the Presbytery recommended that a committee be formed to instruct him. One hitch. They said that all of those who would "instruct him" would have to be approved by the very Teaching Elder who was being investigated."
(More here).
(Here is an alternate description)
We met about two years ago and hit it off well. It was not simply a meshing of personalities, but a recognition of a common understanding and approach to the Christian life and doctrine as summarized in the Westminster Confession.
Presbytery meetings are normally (virtually always) open to the public. The corporate decisions they make are public as well. Thus, I never had a problem informing my friends about the goings on in my presbytery nor they about theirs.
This is such a case now. A serious case. I cannot judge the details but the broad contours do not look good from my vantage point. Pray that a proper and biblical resolution would be forthcoming.
Here is part of the report:
"I have not generally written on our Presbytery (Siouxlands) except to briefly report on its actions, but what happened at this last Presbytery meeting needs to be described publicly. I went to Presbytery on Thursday mildly optimistic about what would happen. I was disappointed.
After nearly two years of attempting to get the Presbytery to deal with a man who claimed to me that he is in basic agreement with Federal Vision theology, the Presbytery has still not dealt decisively with the matter. I asked for the original investigation nearly two years ago. The Presbytery refused. I complained. The Presbytery refused. I complained to the General Assembly. The General Assembly sustained my complaint. The Presbytery decided to investigate. The committee came back 4-2 saying that there was a strong presumption of guilt. The Presbytery rejected the committee report by a 24-13 margin. I, along with others, complained. The Presbytery repented of being too hasty in its rejection of the committee report, and erected a new committee.
We were concerned with statements such as:
In baptism we are given new life. John 3 – unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. The fulfillment of God’s promises is applied individually in baptism (Committee Report, p. 24).
The Bible consistently presents apostates as moving through three stages, with their final end worse than the beginning. We begin as being spiritual dead in our sin, our trespasses, without hope and without God in the world. But we are then made alive in a sense in Christ and experience the blessings within the context of God’s Church, God’s people. Finally, apostates are those who forsake the Lord of the covenant and lose those blessings (Ibid., 17).
[W]e do acknowledge that there is a difference between those who persevere to the end and the grace they receive and those for a while taste, are illumined, and walk with God. Saul is an example here. There is a difference between Saul and David, and that difference is God’s gracious preserving of David and granting him the grace to repent where Saul did not repent. Whatever grace reprobate covenant members receive is qualified by their lack of perseverance. The qualitative difference, however, is not in view in these passages. It is only manifest over a lifetime. It is not a distinction for us to meditate upon (Ibid., p. 19).
Thus, something like the question, "Are you, or am I, truly a Christian?" is never asked in Scripture. If you come to the font and have water poured, dipped, or if you’re immersed in it, you’re a Christian (Ibid., p. 62).
That new committee was to report at this meeting. They did so. They unanimously recommended that the Presbytery find a strong presumption of guilt. The Presbytery then decided to postpone consideration of this second committee's report until September.
The Teaching Elder who was investigated requested to be "instructed." So, the Presbytery recommended that a committee be formed to instruct him. One hitch. They said that all of those who would "instruct him" would have to be approved by the very Teaching Elder who was being investigated."
(More here).
(Here is an alternate description)
"I Thought I Was in the OPC!"
"In the past when TE Wes White and I have brought a report and asked for a judicial investigation, there were howls of protest ascending to the heavens....One presbyter said "I thought I woke up in the OPC!"
I suppose as an OPC minister I should take that exclamation as an insult, but I'm inclined to think of it as a backhanded compliment.
But the point of this posting is to bring some regional Presbyterian news form a sister denomination. In this case, a friend of mine, Brian, writes about some public events that we ought to be aware of. Naturally, if someone has an alternate view of objective and public facts they are more than welcome to write about it.
Having none before me, I will give a taste of this public eye-witness account:
"Since we spent a lot of time in executive session, there are lots of things I can't tell you. That's okay, because I want to tell you about what I didn't hear when my case was discussed."
"...Now, I am not in the least perturbed by all of this. I know that some of my supporters refrained from defending me or speaking against the proceedings because I told them that I didn't care if I was investigated. I think judicial investigations are fine and good. I am not threatened by them in the least. I didn't do anything wrong. I did some things that some don't like. I did some things that some don't think are right, but they are mistaken. My conscience is clear. And if a fair and competent investigation can convince me that I did do something wrong, I will repent."
[Now here is a man and an attitude worthy of respect!]
(More here).
(For the broader events, here)
I suppose as an OPC minister I should take that exclamation as an insult, but I'm inclined to think of it as a backhanded compliment.
But the point of this posting is to bring some regional Presbyterian news form a sister denomination. In this case, a friend of mine, Brian, writes about some public events that we ought to be aware of. Naturally, if someone has an alternate view of objective and public facts they are more than welcome to write about it.
Having none before me, I will give a taste of this public eye-witness account:
"Since we spent a lot of time in executive session, there are lots of things I can't tell you. That's okay, because I want to tell you about what I didn't hear when my case was discussed."
"...Now, I am not in the least perturbed by all of this. I know that some of my supporters refrained from defending me or speaking against the proceedings because I told them that I didn't care if I was investigated. I think judicial investigations are fine and good. I am not threatened by them in the least. I didn't do anything wrong. I did some things that some don't like. I did some things that some don't think are right, but they are mistaken. My conscience is clear. And if a fair and competent investigation can convince me that I did do something wrong, I will repent."
[Now here is a man and an attitude worthy of respect!]
(More here).
(For the broader events, here)
Malachi 4:6 & the Revival of Homeschooling
“Home educators, almost by definition, have turned their heart to their children [Mal. 4.6]… So, there’s been a revival that’s taking place in the heart of these homeschool families..."--Doug Phillips, 2006
"More and more parents are beginning to teach their children at home. God is beginning to “restore the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers” (Malachi 4:6).... Homeschooling is a spiritual revival." (The Heart of Homeschooling, 2006)
What are we to make of these assertions?
In another posting I critiqued the idea that homeschooling is a revival. This posting builds upon that critique by examining the supposed biblical foundation. If the above statements are true, then woe unto him who stands in God's way! However, if the above quotes are an egregious handling of God’s Holy Word, then what?
First of all, I will, in the spirit of Malachi 4:6 & the Fifth Commandment, quote my spiritual forefathers: Calvin, Henry, Keil/Delitzsch and Jamieson/Fausset and Brown. They all exegete Malachi 4:6 in a similar vein:
"6...Explained by some, that John's preaching should restore harmony in families. But Luk 1:16, 17 substitutes for "the heart of the children to the fathers," "the disobedient to the wisdom of the just," implying that the reconciliation to be effected was that between the unbelieving disobedient children and the believing ancestors, Jacob, Levi, "Moses," and "Elijah" (just mentioned) (compare Mal 1:2 2:4, 6 3:3, 4 )."--Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, Commentary
A good exegete will consider the immediate context, the book context and the overall Biblical context. Anyone can quote a verse and repeat it until everyone is convinced. Jamieson does something better: he points to book-level context and Bible-wide context. Malachi on two other occasions mentions other spiritual fathers in contrast to his present wicked generation of "sons". Mal. 1:2 contrasts the faithful spiritual seed of Jacob with the ungodly spiritual seed of Esau. Mal. 2:4, 6 & 3:4 contrasts the faithful seed of Levi with the ungodly seed of then-present priesthood. Malachi 4:6 continues this contrast, that God would turn the hearts of the unfaithful sons in line with the spiritual path of their fathers.
Second, quoting Luke 1:16ff. settles the question:
Luke 1:16, 17 "And he [John the Baptist] will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God. He will also go before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, 'to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children,' and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord." (NKJV)
Verse sixteen is the ground-motive of these verses: to turn the children (sons) of Israel to their God (Father)! Salvation is the issue. Also, note how the New Testament does not quote the OT word for word but interprets it for the reader: John the Baptist will turn the hearts of the fathers to the children "and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just..." The symmetry points to the fathers as 'just' and the sons as 'disobedient'. Of course, there are biological blessings; entire households were saved in the NT (cp. Henry). Yet, individuals were saved as well. At root this blessing, as with so much of the Bible, is spiritual.
Ask this: was Malachi thinking of homeschooling or family-integrated churches or any other method-based movement? Is this how John was to "make ready a people prepared for the Lord"? A serious reading of the life of John demonstrates that his primary purpose was to preach repentance: to turn the children of Israel to God--to bring salvation not homeschooling! Are these leaders preaching repentance to homeschoolers?
Third, Elijah--John the Baptist (Mat.11:14)--is the agent of God changing hearts. And this prophet is a man with an ordained office from God. God used an ordained church-officer to bring about this revival. I have never read or heard any homeschool leader assert as much—except that by their actions they are the ones leading this revival! Some of these men are ministers. That is good. But their articles and speeches are clearly not done in the context of being a minister. They announce themselves as concerned fathers. It is not the fathers that turn the hearts of the children, but the Spirit working through the ministry of the Word. Faithful ministers are used of God—as a rule—to bring revival. A cursory glance at the history of revival demonstrates as much.
Fourthly, with such unqualified claims of revival, where does that leave churches that are not homeschooling en masse or eradicating Sunday schools in toto? Or to put it in more personal terms, what about godly men and women who lose their families because they stand upon the truth of God’s word? They gently tell their nominally Christian spouse that they must follow God by attending a faithful church--the husband by leading the family. Then their wives rebel, leave or torment them. Then what? Is there no revival there? Is the Spirit not moving in the hearts of the fathers? Must all revivals (or only this one!) involve peace and growth in the biological family? What does Christ say?
"Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to 'set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and 'a man's enemies will be those of his own household.' " (Mat. 10:34)
In fact, Christ defined a 'father' and 'son' in their most fundamentally spiritual sense:
" Who is My mother and who are My brothers?" And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, "Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother. (Mat. 12:48)
Once this verse is thrown into the mix, the simplistic and dangerous interpretation of Malachi 4:6 becomes apparent. It is simplistic because it is only part of the truth, rooted in biology instead of spirituality. And it is spiritually dangerous to announce to people that they are blessed of God when they are under his judgment.
Judgment? Hosea 4:6 warns us that God's people were destroyed for a lack of knowledge--a lack of right thinking and right actions.
Half of the homeschoolers polled believed in salvation by good works! Only 15% were Evangelical anyway--an Evangelicalism so vaguely defined by Barna that orthodox Trinitarianism is not even mentioned! It gets worse: 57% of Evangelicals polled by the Pew Foundation believe that there are other ways to heaven outside of Christ. And high-percentages of born-again believers contend that they have obeyed vast portions of God's Law! Do these numbers reflect a blessing or a curse?
To apply this verse today without a clear understanding of the text itself, its direct application to the NT era and knowledge of American whole-sale ignorance is hazardous.
There is a correct and wholesome application of Malachi 4:6 today. It is a heartfelt prayer that God would raise up Elijahs in our midst to preach repentance, to turn the hearts of the dead American church to the heart of God.
Soli Deo Gloria
"More and more parents are beginning to teach their children at home. God is beginning to “restore the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers” (Malachi 4:6).... Homeschooling is a spiritual revival." (The Heart of Homeschooling, 2006)
What are we to make of these assertions?
In another posting I critiqued the idea that homeschooling is a revival. This posting builds upon that critique by examining the supposed biblical foundation. If the above statements are true, then woe unto him who stands in God's way! However, if the above quotes are an egregious handling of God’s Holy Word, then what?
First of all, I will, in the spirit of Malachi 4:6 & the Fifth Commandment, quote my spiritual forefathers: Calvin, Henry, Keil/Delitzsch and Jamieson/Fausset and Brown. They all exegete Malachi 4:6 in a similar vein:
"6...Explained by some, that John's preaching should restore harmony in families. But Luk 1:16, 17 substitutes for "the heart of the children to the fathers," "the disobedient to the wisdom of the just," implying that the reconciliation to be effected was that between the unbelieving disobedient children and the believing ancestors, Jacob, Levi, "Moses," and "Elijah" (just mentioned) (compare Mal 1:2 2:4, 6 3:3, 4 )."--Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, Commentary
A good exegete will consider the immediate context, the book context and the overall Biblical context. Anyone can quote a verse and repeat it until everyone is convinced. Jamieson does something better: he points to book-level context and Bible-wide context. Malachi on two other occasions mentions other spiritual fathers in contrast to his present wicked generation of "sons". Mal. 1:2 contrasts the faithful spiritual seed of Jacob with the ungodly spiritual seed of Esau. Mal. 2:4, 6 & 3:4 contrasts the faithful seed of Levi with the ungodly seed of then-present priesthood. Malachi 4:6 continues this contrast, that God would turn the hearts of the unfaithful sons in line with the spiritual path of their fathers.
Second, quoting Luke 1:16ff. settles the question:
Luke 1:16, 17 "And he [John the Baptist] will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God. He will also go before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, 'to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children,' and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord." (NKJV)
Verse sixteen is the ground-motive of these verses: to turn the children (sons) of Israel to their God (Father)! Salvation is the issue. Also, note how the New Testament does not quote the OT word for word but interprets it for the reader: John the Baptist will turn the hearts of the fathers to the children "and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just..." The symmetry points to the fathers as 'just' and the sons as 'disobedient'. Of course, there are biological blessings; entire households were saved in the NT (cp. Henry). Yet, individuals were saved as well. At root this blessing, as with so much of the Bible, is spiritual.
Ask this: was Malachi thinking of homeschooling or family-integrated churches or any other method-based movement? Is this how John was to "make ready a people prepared for the Lord"? A serious reading of the life of John demonstrates that his primary purpose was to preach repentance: to turn the children of Israel to God--to bring salvation not homeschooling! Are these leaders preaching repentance to homeschoolers?
Third, Elijah--John the Baptist (Mat.11:14)--is the agent of God changing hearts. And this prophet is a man with an ordained office from God. God used an ordained church-officer to bring about this revival. I have never read or heard any homeschool leader assert as much—except that by their actions they are the ones leading this revival! Some of these men are ministers. That is good. But their articles and speeches are clearly not done in the context of being a minister. They announce themselves as concerned fathers. It is not the fathers that turn the hearts of the children, but the Spirit working through the ministry of the Word. Faithful ministers are used of God—as a rule—to bring revival. A cursory glance at the history of revival demonstrates as much.
Fourthly, with such unqualified claims of revival, where does that leave churches that are not homeschooling en masse or eradicating Sunday schools in toto? Or to put it in more personal terms, what about godly men and women who lose their families because they stand upon the truth of God’s word? They gently tell their nominally Christian spouse that they must follow God by attending a faithful church--the husband by leading the family. Then their wives rebel, leave or torment them. Then what? Is there no revival there? Is the Spirit not moving in the hearts of the fathers? Must all revivals (or only this one!) involve peace and growth in the biological family? What does Christ say?
"Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to 'set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and 'a man's enemies will be those of his own household.' " (Mat. 10:34)
In fact, Christ defined a 'father' and 'son' in their most fundamentally spiritual sense:
" Who is My mother and who are My brothers?" And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, "Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother. (Mat. 12:48)
Once this verse is thrown into the mix, the simplistic and dangerous interpretation of Malachi 4:6 becomes apparent. It is simplistic because it is only part of the truth, rooted in biology instead of spirituality. And it is spiritually dangerous to announce to people that they are blessed of God when they are under his judgment.
Judgment? Hosea 4:6 warns us that God's people were destroyed for a lack of knowledge--a lack of right thinking and right actions.
Half of the homeschoolers polled believed in salvation by good works! Only 15% were Evangelical anyway--an Evangelicalism so vaguely defined by Barna that orthodox Trinitarianism is not even mentioned! It gets worse: 57% of Evangelicals polled by the Pew Foundation believe that there are other ways to heaven outside of Christ. And high-percentages of born-again believers contend that they have obeyed vast portions of God's Law! Do these numbers reflect a blessing or a curse?
To apply this verse today without a clear understanding of the text itself, its direct application to the NT era and knowledge of American whole-sale ignorance is hazardous.
There is a correct and wholesome application of Malachi 4:6 today. It is a heartfelt prayer that God would raise up Elijahs in our midst to preach repentance, to turn the hearts of the dead American church to the heart of God.
Soli Deo Gloria
Saturday, January 23, 2010
VI. Means of Grace: What Exactly Is a Sacrament?
VI. Understanding the Means of Grace: What Exactly Is a Sacrament?
The first thing I thought when I first heard the word 'sacrament' come out of the mouth of a Presbyterian was "Roman Catholic"! I suspect I am not the last. However, simply reading the writings of the Reformed readily dispel any such notions. In the first place, the Romish church understands the sacraments as mechanical means of obtaining grace; explicit faith is not a requisite. Pull the lever and out comes more infused grace.
In contrast, question 91 of the Shorter Catechism asks how the sacraments function: "The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them, or in him that doth administer them;[1] but only by the blessing of Christ, and the working of his Spirit in them that by faith receive them."
Thus, any mechanistic view of the sacraments are precluded before the Catechism even defines them! Romish sacerdotalism is ruled out.
But, then, what is a sacrament? The Shorter Catechism summarizes the Biblical doctrine of the sacraments thusly:
A92: A sacrament is an holy ordinance instituted by Christ, wherein, by sensible signs, Christ, and the benefits of the new covenant, are represented,[1] sealed, and applied to believers.[2]
1. Gen. 17:10 2. Rom. 4:11
It is "sensible"-pertaining to the senses of sight, touch, feel and taste; it is a sign-representing outwardly those inward realities. And it is more than a sign. To stop here is to endorse "memorialism," a view that rejects the sealing aspect of the sacraments and emphasizes the human-response element. (Many Christians do not realize that God is present in worship with His Word. There is an objective dimension, not simply a human side only. )
However, if it is granted that the Older Testament was the church in infancy (Gal. 4:1ff.), with a body of spiritual truths to imitate (1 Cor. 10:1ff.), then Paul's contention that circumcision was a "seal of the righteousness of the faith" that Abraham had before he was circumcised (Rom. 4:11) demonstrates that the sacraments of the New Testament are for substance the same as the Old (I Cor. 10:1-4; Rom. 4:11; Col. 2:11-12; cp. WCF 27:5). They were signs and seals for the saints of Old as well as the New; the outward trappings have simply changed.
In short, they are instruments-means-used by God to seal our faith. They help us grow in the Spirit. Our Creator-Father made us with a body. So, simply from the creation account alone we should understand that material things are not wrong in and of themselves. And because of the weakness of our flesh, God uses simple and despised means to strengthen our faith. Men mock preaching, for is it not mere sound-waves bouncing upon the ear? So, too, some Christians despise the sacraments as so much materialistic activity. Perhaps the fear is that to understand the sacraments as means of grace, as seals of redemption, is to follow the path to Rome.
Fear not. The Bible and any informed Presbyterian knows that the sacraments have no power in themselves. Faith is needed. Saving faith "is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word,[3] by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened" (WCF 14:1). The sacraments are not converting ordinances. They save no one. The Spirit especially uses the Word for that. Rather, the sacraments increase our weak faith. God stoops to our level and kindly draws us through audio and visual means. He is encouraging us, saying that He understands our frailties, our doubts.
They are not merely memorials; they are more. They are not merely signs; they are more. As a seal firmly confirms upon our conscience (1 Pet. 3:21) the truth of the content of the letter, so the sacraments confirm the truth of the Word. It is sometimes described as a hug or a kiss that shows "I-really-mean-it"-a token of that Communion already enjoyed through the Word.
"A college graduate receives a diploma to which an official seal is affixed. The seal is of benefit to the recipient, not the giver. The seal does not make the recipient an education person, however; it merely declares officially that the authorities so regard him. The message of Ahasuerus [Est. 3:12] was authentic without the seal; it actually was the king's decree. The seal was added to convince the king's subjects that the message really was his. It is so with the sacraments. Sacraments do not cause grace. Neither is grace dependent upon the sacraments. The sacrament is of benefit only to that man who is the receiver of grace. It is of benefit because it makes known, or declares, the salvation which the believer receives distinct from the sacrament. It is a confirming testimony to the believer concerning what he has received." [The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes, G. I. Williamson, p. 200ff.]
Means of Grace Series:
I. What Are They?
II. Passion for the Word
III. Benefits of the Word
IV. Power of God
V. The Foolishness of God
VI. What is a Sacrament?
The first thing I thought when I first heard the word 'sacrament' come out of the mouth of a Presbyterian was "Roman Catholic"! I suspect I am not the last. However, simply reading the writings of the Reformed readily dispel any such notions. In the first place, the Romish church understands the sacraments as mechanical means of obtaining grace; explicit faith is not a requisite. Pull the lever and out comes more infused grace.
In contrast, question 91 of the Shorter Catechism asks how the sacraments function: "The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them, or in him that doth administer them;[1] but only by the blessing of Christ, and the working of his Spirit in them that by faith receive them."
Thus, any mechanistic view of the sacraments are precluded before the Catechism even defines them! Romish sacerdotalism is ruled out.
But, then, what is a sacrament? The Shorter Catechism summarizes the Biblical doctrine of the sacraments thusly:
A92: A sacrament is an holy ordinance instituted by Christ, wherein, by sensible signs, Christ, and the benefits of the new covenant, are represented,[1] sealed, and applied to believers.[2]
1. Gen. 17:10 2. Rom. 4:11
It is "sensible"-pertaining to the senses of sight, touch, feel and taste; it is a sign-representing outwardly those inward realities. And it is more than a sign. To stop here is to endorse "memorialism," a view that rejects the sealing aspect of the sacraments and emphasizes the human-response element. (Many Christians do not realize that God is present in worship with His Word. There is an objective dimension, not simply a human side only. )
However, if it is granted that the Older Testament was the church in infancy (Gal. 4:1ff.), with a body of spiritual truths to imitate (1 Cor. 10:1ff.), then Paul's contention that circumcision was a "seal of the righteousness of the faith" that Abraham had before he was circumcised (Rom. 4:11) demonstrates that the sacraments of the New Testament are for substance the same as the Old (I Cor. 10:1-4; Rom. 4:11; Col. 2:11-12; cp. WCF 27:5). They were signs and seals for the saints of Old as well as the New; the outward trappings have simply changed.
In short, they are instruments-means-used by God to seal our faith. They help us grow in the Spirit. Our Creator-Father made us with a body. So, simply from the creation account alone we should understand that material things are not wrong in and of themselves. And because of the weakness of our flesh, God uses simple and despised means to strengthen our faith. Men mock preaching, for is it not mere sound-waves bouncing upon the ear? So, too, some Christians despise the sacraments as so much materialistic activity. Perhaps the fear is that to understand the sacraments as means of grace, as seals of redemption, is to follow the path to Rome.
Fear not. The Bible and any informed Presbyterian knows that the sacraments have no power in themselves. Faith is needed. Saving faith "is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word,[3] by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened" (WCF 14:1). The sacraments are not converting ordinances. They save no one. The Spirit especially uses the Word for that. Rather, the sacraments increase our weak faith. God stoops to our level and kindly draws us through audio and visual means. He is encouraging us, saying that He understands our frailties, our doubts.
They are not merely memorials; they are more. They are not merely signs; they are more. As a seal firmly confirms upon our conscience (1 Pet. 3:21) the truth of the content of the letter, so the sacraments confirm the truth of the Word. It is sometimes described as a hug or a kiss that shows "I-really-mean-it"-a token of that Communion already enjoyed through the Word.
"A college graduate receives a diploma to which an official seal is affixed. The seal is of benefit to the recipient, not the giver. The seal does not make the recipient an education person, however; it merely declares officially that the authorities so regard him. The message of Ahasuerus [Est. 3:12] was authentic without the seal; it actually was the king's decree. The seal was added to convince the king's subjects that the message really was his. It is so with the sacraments. Sacraments do not cause grace. Neither is grace dependent upon the sacraments. The sacrament is of benefit only to that man who is the receiver of grace. It is of benefit because it makes known, or declares, the salvation which the believer receives distinct from the sacrament. It is a confirming testimony to the believer concerning what he has received." [The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes, G. I. Williamson, p. 200ff.]
Means of Grace Series:
I. What Are They?
II. Passion for the Word
III. Benefits of the Word
IV. Power of God
V. The Foolishness of God
VI. What is a Sacrament?
Thursday, January 21, 2010
The Gospel According to Obama
(Republished in honor of his first year)
There are times in an individual's life that their view of the Gospel shines forth. It is a time when the problem of life is clearly defined and when the solution is presented in no uncertain terms.
This was that time for Obama.
At the center of the American stage, with millions of viewers hanging on his very words, he had the opportunity in his acceptance speech of 2008 to define the issues and present the solution. And he did just that. The problem was presented more negatively, yet clearly. The Dream is slipping away from the grasps of hard-working Americans: job insecurity, unpaid bills, credit debt, lack of good education, etc. In contrast, Obama wants to see these things change:
This was that time for Obama.
At the center of the American stage, with millions of viewers hanging on his very words, he had the opportunity in his acceptance speech of 2008 to define the issues and present the solution. And he did just that. The problem was presented more negatively, yet clearly. The Dream is slipping away from the grasps of hard-working Americans: job insecurity, unpaid bills, credit debt, lack of good education, etc. In contrast, Obama wants to see these things change:
We measure progress by how many people can find a job that pays the mortgage…We measure progress in the 23 million new jobs that were created when Bill Clinton was president …The fundamentals we use to measure economic strength are whether we are living up to that fundamental promise that has made this country great, a promise that is the only reason I am standing here tonight. (NY Times, transcript).
America's problem is not spiritual. The problem of America is economical. People need more economic opportunities to succeed: more education, more health care, more job security, etc. But the problem is not simply the economy, as the rest of his speech pointed out. The government bureaucracy is a problem as well. And it is politics-as-usual that is another block in the road of American Progress. There are so many problems (war, money, society), in fact, that America needs an all-encompassing change. It needs to return to her own primeval salvation: the American Promise: "Individual responsibility and mutual responsibility, that's the essence of America's promise"
America needs each other; America needs responsibility. America needs to pull herself up by her own bootstraps.
Obama's promise:
America needs each other; America needs responsibility. America needs to pull herself up by her own bootstraps.
Obama's promise:
The American Promise was summarized in a more forthright manner at the beginning of the speech when he described his parent's hope: "a belief that in America their son could achieve whatever he put his mind to." Immediately he elaborates: "It is that promise that's always set this country apart, that through hard work and sacrifice each of us can pursue our individual dreams. but still come together as one American family."
That is the key to the dream of Obama. The Obama Promise is that any American can "achieve whatever he puts his mind to." In fact that is the American Promise. And it is a promise that is for both the individual American and America in the aggregate: all of us together can make our dreams come true.
Economic inequality will fail; political incompetence will cease; social ills will vanish and faith in ourselves will never fail.
Obama's "I wills":
Obama's "I wills":
"I will end…I will build...And I will restore our moral standing so that America is once again that last, best hope for all who are called to the cause of freedom, who long for lives of peace, and who yearn for a better future." (p.5)
The American Promise is a promise of freedom, peace and a better future. It is heaven on earth. The sins of economic, political and social inequality will be eradicated and the tears of the disadvantaged will be wiped away.
And this will be almost single-handily accomplished by the DNC messiah: Barack Obama.
Well, it will be accomplished with the help of the American people, if they follow him to the promise land. He cannot do it alone. He's only human after all.
Obama's grace:
Obama's grace:
"But this, too, is part of America's promise, the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort." (p.5)
The Obama Promise—the American Promise—for the two are one and he desires we be one as they are one—is a promise of strength and grace. Grace is not the Promised Person that comes from eternity into time to grant forgiveness and regeneration, rather grace is the "promise of a democracy" wherein grace can be found by group-participation through our votes, decisions and will-power to achieve whatever we put our minds to.
And it is not because of America's wealth, military or education that she is great. "Instead, it is that American spirit, that American promise, that pushes us forward even when the path is uncertain; that binds us together in spite of our differences; that makes us fix our eye not on what is seen, but what is unseen, that better place around the bend." (p.6)
Obama's faith:
Obama's faith:
It should be clear by now that Obama's gospel is a gospel of self-help, of self-effort and of collective redemption through voting. His faith is in himself and in his America--a faith in "what is unseen." Furthermore, not once did he mention repentance, God or Christ for that matter. Sin and redemption have been completely transformed into liberal talking points about politics, economics and society. If these are the American sins—inequality in all its forms—then redemption comes through changing the environment, exercising good-will and voting Democrat.
This faith in the American Promise—in America working out her own salvation—is shouted out to all who have hears to hear, when he arrogantly applies the Sacred Word to himself and America:
"At this moment, in this election, we must pledge once more to march into the future. Let us keep that promise, that American promise, and in the words of scripture hold firmly, without wavering, to the hope that we confess. Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America." (p.6)
Democracy is where Obama finds grace; the unseen potential of America to achieve whatever she seeks is where Obama places his faith. The Gospel according to Obama is an unfettered America united for the glory of man.
Democracy is where Obama finds grace; the unseen potential of America to achieve whatever she seeks is where Obama places his faith. The Gospel according to Obama is an unfettered America united for the glory of man.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
floccinaucinihilipilification
–noun
the estimation of something as valueless
The longest word in the English language?
(thanks to Pinky and the Brain)
the estimation of something as valueless
The longest word in the English language?
(thanks to Pinky and the Brain)
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Evangelicals' Top Moral Issues Evaluated
A recent poll of Evangelical leaders lists their top moral concerns. The National Association of Evangelicals conducts monthly polls among many denominational, university, publishing and missionary leaders.
This month revealed these leaders' top moral concerns: abortion, moral relativism and mistreatment of others nearly tied in importance.
What is more interesting than this list is what is missing: doctrine.
The concern of moral relativism from these leaders is more a concern about society in general and truth in the abstract. As the article noted, NAE board member Carpenter said the problem is "a non-belief in Absolute Truth which permeates every other arena of our society."
If he meant to include the church in that sweeping declaration, then he is right on the money. And concern about abortion and mistreatment are certainly worthy of attention. But doctrinal decline is a moral concern as well.
That is the missing element in many churches and leadership statement these days: believing in falsities about God is a moral issue. And it is a violation of the first table of the Law. For to love God with all our heart, soul and mind, is to want to know Him more and not less. It is to know Him in truth, to know who and what He is and is doing for us.
It is to follow the truth of the Bible where it leads. And it leads to doctrine--that systematic teaching of the truth of God and His ways. Acts 2:42 reminds us today that is was not only fellowship and prayer that helped grow the church but doctrine as well. In fact, how can one have open fellowship and intimate prayer based upon untruths?
To ask the question is to answer the question.
So, next time you hear about the moral woes of America, remember, doctrinal ignorance is a moral concern as well. And a serious one at that.
This month revealed these leaders' top moral concerns: abortion, moral relativism and mistreatment of others nearly tied in importance.
What is more interesting than this list is what is missing: doctrine.
The concern of moral relativism from these leaders is more a concern about society in general and truth in the abstract. As the article noted, NAE board member Carpenter said the problem is "a non-belief in Absolute Truth which permeates every other arena of our society."
If he meant to include the church in that sweeping declaration, then he is right on the money. And concern about abortion and mistreatment are certainly worthy of attention. But doctrinal decline is a moral concern as well.
That is the missing element in many churches and leadership statement these days: believing in falsities about God is a moral issue. And it is a violation of the first table of the Law. For to love God with all our heart, soul and mind, is to want to know Him more and not less. It is to know Him in truth, to know who and what He is and is doing for us.
It is to follow the truth of the Bible where it leads. And it leads to doctrine--that systematic teaching of the truth of God and His ways. Acts 2:42 reminds us today that is was not only fellowship and prayer that helped grow the church but doctrine as well. In fact, how can one have open fellowship and intimate prayer based upon untruths?
To ask the question is to answer the question.
So, next time you hear about the moral woes of America, remember, doctrinal ignorance is a moral concern as well. And a serious one at that.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
V. Means of Grace: The Foolishness of God
Preaching is highly prized among conservative Evangelicals--even if it may be questionable preaching. Ministers are know in Evangelicaldom by their preaching prowess, stupendous speaking and charismatic chats. In some ways this is a good thing, yet, I fear, in today's inbred entertainment mentality, many churches follow the man and not the message. They like a good speaker, not because of what he says as much as how he says it. His highly charged presentation, flashy outfits, well-timed sighs and bold presence entertain the masses. The flash,the glamor, the ambiance of the stage create an atmosphere readily molded to the visual generation than the audio-rational mentality of yesteryear.
In fact, do many conservatives even understand why preaching has been so highly valued in our past? Or do we just follow along out of blind traditionalism? In true Protestant fashion, we must ask: what says the Lord?
In 1 Corinthians chapter one, Paul begins this book with the famous diatribe against Christian tribalism (group pride): "Now I say this, that each of you says, " 'I am of Paul,' or 'I am of Apollos,' or 'I am of Cephas,' or 'I am of Christ.' " (v.12).
Paul is quite amazed that the Corinthians so quickly fell away. In remedy to such man-centeredness, Paul reminds them of the supremacy of the Word, specifically preaching:"For Christ did not send me to baptize [or give the Lord's Supper], but to preach the gospel..." He tells them that they should not look to the man but to the message. True, if he is preaching the message it will be reflected in the man, but the root of the matter is preaching.
And such preaching is not based upon clever manipulation of words or rhetorical flourish (as the Greek speakers were wont to do), but upon the power of the doctrine presented. It is a message that is foolish to those drowning in their sins: "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing...."
Yet to we who are saved and being saved, it is the power of God! Gospel doctrine is power; biblical ignorance is impotence. Paul continues his reprimand by connecting the message with the method:
"...it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe." It is not only the Gospel that is the power of God, it is specifically that Gospel as preached that the Spirit is pleased to use.
Naturally, being inspired, Paul was consistent in his presentation. In that other famous book, Romans, Paul again aligns preaching with salvation in chapter ten:
"How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?" (v.14)
Of note is the fact that writing existed during Paul's time. Thus, the Spirit through Paul could have easily said: "And how shall they read without a reader?" It is the hearing, and, thus, the preaching, that is emphasized in these verses. That is why Paul quotes Isaiah in blessing the feet of the minister who brings the Good News through his speech (v.15). Paul concludes his line of reasoning just as he did in 1 Corinthians: "So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (v.17)
Again, latter in the Epistles, Paul ties the Spirit of truth with the message of truth:
"For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, *you welcomed it not as the word of men*, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe." (1 Thess. 2:13, emphasis added).
This is the foolishness of God that transforms lives, families and churches. This is the power of God! Paul is only echoing Ezekiel's vision of the dry bones: preach and if the Spirit pleases, he will raise up the dead bones and bring life! The Reformation began this way; the first and second Great Awakening began this way; and any future revival will begin this way. These passages are summarized in our catechism: "The Spirit of God makes the reading, but especially the preaching of the word, an effectual means [of salvation]..." (LCQ 155).
Preaching, in an age of sports, internet, television and other more entertaining mediums, is foolishness because it does not please the flesh, that old man. It takes work to sit still, more work to listen, and yet more work to listen intelligently and write notes! But if we take seriously these passages, we will be blessed, we will grow and we will persevere.
The means of grace, those tools used by the sovereign Spirit in His time and way, must begin with the Word. Nowhere else is Christ found. And Christ and His Words are our life. That is why four sections were used to expound the Scriptures as the foundation of the Christian faith and life. It all depends upon the Spirit, but for our part we must obey by reading the Word, inviting friends to hear the truth, and finding good, faithful preaching. Pray that we will.
[Next: What Are Sacraments?]
Means of Grace Series:
I. What Are They?
II. Passion for the Word
III. Benefits of the Word
IV. Power of God
V. The Foolishness of God
VI. The Initiatory Rite
In fact, do many conservatives even understand why preaching has been so highly valued in our past? Or do we just follow along out of blind traditionalism? In true Protestant fashion, we must ask: what says the Lord?
In 1 Corinthians chapter one, Paul begins this book with the famous diatribe against Christian tribalism (group pride): "Now I say this, that each of you says, " 'I am of Paul,' or 'I am of Apollos,' or 'I am of Cephas,' or 'I am of Christ.' " (v.12).
Paul is quite amazed that the Corinthians so quickly fell away. In remedy to such man-centeredness, Paul reminds them of the supremacy of the Word, specifically preaching:"For Christ did not send me to baptize [or give the Lord's Supper], but to preach the gospel..." He tells them that they should not look to the man but to the message. True, if he is preaching the message it will be reflected in the man, but the root of the matter is preaching.
And such preaching is not based upon clever manipulation of words or rhetorical flourish (as the Greek speakers were wont to do), but upon the power of the doctrine presented. It is a message that is foolish to those drowning in their sins: "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing...."
Yet to we who are saved and being saved, it is the power of God! Gospel doctrine is power; biblical ignorance is impotence. Paul continues his reprimand by connecting the message with the method:
"...it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe." It is not only the Gospel that is the power of God, it is specifically that Gospel as preached that the Spirit is pleased to use.
Naturally, being inspired, Paul was consistent in his presentation. In that other famous book, Romans, Paul again aligns preaching with salvation in chapter ten:
"How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?" (v.14)
Of note is the fact that writing existed during Paul's time. Thus, the Spirit through Paul could have easily said: "And how shall they read without a reader?" It is the hearing, and, thus, the preaching, that is emphasized in these verses. That is why Paul quotes Isaiah in blessing the feet of the minister who brings the Good News through his speech (v.15). Paul concludes his line of reasoning just as he did in 1 Corinthians: "So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (v.17)
Again, latter in the Epistles, Paul ties the Spirit of truth with the message of truth:
"For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, *you welcomed it not as the word of men*, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe." (1 Thess. 2:13, emphasis added).
This is the foolishness of God that transforms lives, families and churches. This is the power of God! Paul is only echoing Ezekiel's vision of the dry bones: preach and if the Spirit pleases, he will raise up the dead bones and bring life! The Reformation began this way; the first and second Great Awakening began this way; and any future revival will begin this way. These passages are summarized in our catechism: "The Spirit of God makes the reading, but especially the preaching of the word, an effectual means [of salvation]..." (LCQ 155).
Preaching, in an age of sports, internet, television and other more entertaining mediums, is foolishness because it does not please the flesh, that old man. It takes work to sit still, more work to listen, and yet more work to listen intelligently and write notes! But if we take seriously these passages, we will be blessed, we will grow and we will persevere.
The means of grace, those tools used by the sovereign Spirit in His time and way, must begin with the Word. Nowhere else is Christ found. And Christ and His Words are our life. That is why four sections were used to expound the Scriptures as the foundation of the Christian faith and life. It all depends upon the Spirit, but for our part we must obey by reading the Word, inviting friends to hear the truth, and finding good, faithful preaching. Pray that we will.
[Next: What Are Sacraments?]
Means of Grace Series:
I. What Are They?
II. Passion for the Word
III. Benefits of the Word
IV. Power of God
V. The Foolishness of God
VI. The Initiatory Rite
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)