The Heresies of Meredith Kline

The Reformed Covenanter has a post about Kline here:

http://reformedcovenanter.wordpress.com/2009/01/14/the-heresies-of-meredith-kline/

Interesting. Can anybody with first-hand knowledge of Kline confirm these quotes and speak to whether or not they are in context?

Bahnsen vs. Shepherd

[EDIT] Be sure to see my additions at the bottom, with some clarification/corrections…

Dr. Clark has a post here that speaks of theonomy and the fv being separated at birth. The discussion goes on for a bit and part of it calls into question the legitimacy of bring Dr. Bahnsen into the mix. It is often stated that Bahnsen was a strong supporter of Norman Shepherd by Dr. Clark, as you can see in this more recent comment: November 6, 2008 at 8:29 am

Now, I am one of the unfortunate ones in that I never knew Dr. Bahnsen personally. But I have read much of his work and listened to much of his audio. I suspect that the support Dr. Clark speaks of for Shepherd was more of a personal support than doctrinal. Every time I read or listen to Bahnsen, I find myself hearing the tried and true soteriology of the Reformation. Bahnsen never conflated justification with sanctification as far as I can tell. You can listen to a free mp3 where he vehemently defends the Reformation and repudiates the vile doctrine of the Roman Catholic church. It is found here: The Road to Rome, Was the Reformation Right?, by Greg L. Bahnsen. I am listening to a bible study he conducted on the book of Galatians right now, and again, there is just no question or gray area when he speaks on these issues. As a side note, I think this bible study was a study done during his later years when he was pastoring in Southern California. He is so gentle and pastoral, it is amazing! Much different from the talks he gives to large crowds. You can tell it is a small group because the telephone rings sometimes and the children can be heard in the background.

Anyway, that’s my take on it, but this man knew Bahnsen personally for many years, and writes 22 pages with many quotes from Bahnsen that really should settle the issue. I hope you take the time to read it:

http://www.westminsterrpcus.org/pdf/Bahnsen.pdf

Kazoo

[EDIT]

11/18/08

I should have been a little more careful in my comments above. Basically, my point is that Bahnsen’s support for the historical reformed doctrine of Justification is very clear in all the material I have ever read of his, or heard a recording of. I can not say that I am the best student of Bahnsen, but I will state that I know A LOT of his material. And I can confirm that I have never run into anything that would bring into question whether he believed and taught the orthodox reformed doctrine of Justification found in the Westminster Standards.

For example:

Larger Catechism Questions & Answers #’s 70 – 73

Q. 70. What is justification?
A. Justification is an act of God’s free grace unto sinners, in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faith alone.

Q. 71. How is justification an act of God’s free grace?
A. Although Christ, by his obedience and death, did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to God’s justice in the behalf of them that are justified; yet inasmuch as God accepteth the satisfaction from a surety, which he might have demanded of them, and did provide this surety, his own only Son, imputing his righteousness to them, and requiring nothing of them for their justification but faith, which also is his gift, their justification is to them of free grace.

Q. 72. What is justifying faith?
A. Justifying faith is a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and Word of God, whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition, not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel, but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin, and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.

Q. 73. How doth faith justify a sinner in the sight of God?
A. Faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God, not because of those other graces which do always accompany it, or of good works that are the fruits of it, nor as if the grace of faith, or any act thereof, were imputed to him for his justification; but only as it is an instrument by which he receiveth and applieth Christ and his righteousness.

Westminster Confession of Faith

Chapter XI

Of Justification
I.    Those whom God effectually calls, He also freely justifies;  not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them,  they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.

II.    Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification:  yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love.

Now, I am not an expert on the FV or Norman Shepherd. I am reading through Shepherd’s book “The Call of Grace” right now. So, it is/was unfair of me to hint at or to write with the assumption that Shepherd’s doctrine of Justification “conflates” sanctification with justification. Some say vehemently that it does, and others don’t. Dr. R. Scott Clark linked to a web page that David Bahnsen wrote to say that Dr. Bahnsen supported Shepherd both personally and doctrinally. That can be found here.

Like I said, I really don’t know very well what Shepherd taught or what he teaches and if the two are one in the same or if it has developed since Dr. Bahnsen’s death. Honestly, for this post, I don’t care. It isn’t relevant. But Bahnsen definitely DIDN’T stray from the Westminster Standards when talking about Justification. And THAT is my main point.

Lastly, when speaking with my very good friend Ron about these matters, I am constantly reminding him that the language he used to explain to me his understanding of justification sounds too much like the RC doctrine that I grew up with and rejected, and he is a self professed FV guy. That is probably one of the main reason I have to this day refused to take on the label “FV.”

Kazoo

About Me Updated

I just updated my ‘About Me’ page. Click on it above if you’re interested.

 

Kazoo

Article Written by the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission

I found it a wonderful work of Providence that shortly after I posted on “Salt and Light,” I received an e-mail from the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission speaking to the same subject. I asked for, and received permission to re-print this article since it is relevant to the latest discussion I started on this blog. I think you’ll find a different view here than you read find at the Outhouse, characterized by this recent article over there about the Pro-Life Movement.

As a note of introduction, the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission is headed by my former pastor, Dr. Gary L. Cass. He earned his graduate and post graduate degrees from Westminster Theological Seminary in California. He is a tireless worker for the Kingdom of Christ, and I am proud to call him friend. When he was the pastor of our small church, he was always at the forefront of the different ministries we were involved in. Evangelism Explosion was one of those ministries. Gary was always faithful to evangelism, constantly telling those of us closer to him that if the pastor wasn’t willing to get out and do the hard work, then he couldn’t expect the congregation to do it either. I later learned that he picked that up from Dr. D. James Kennedy who founded EE, and that Dr. Kennedy was constantly involved in evangelism (even evangelizing the taxi drivers!) to the end of his life.

Anyway, there is much more I can say about what I learned from Dr. Gary Cass during those many years he was my shepherd, but that will have to come at another time. If you can, stop by their web site and see what they are all about. You can sign up to receive periodic e-mail updates about ongoing Christian “bashing” and you can also donate to them through their site.

Enjoy,

Kazooless

---

---

It is disappointing when Christian conservatives who are engaged in the battle for the soul of the nation are subjected to misguided ideas of influential Christians like syndicated columnist Cal Thomas. In his latest column, Thomas pronounces a requiem for the religious right.

According to Thomas, the last election is proof that Christians’ attempt to influence the future of the nation for the past thirty years was in vain. Thomas advocates a retreat from the public square and limits Christians’ duty to preaching the gospel and doing good works.

Letting the culture disintegrate without a peep from Christians while we wait for a revival is, according to Thomas, the righteous thing to do. But this is contrary to our biblical duties and historical precedence.

A Lesson From History

The Great Awakening in America starting in the 1730’s did bring about social transformation. But the Awakening was preceded by efforts on the part of faithful Christians to reform public policy.

James Oglethorpe sought to reform England’s prisons. Due to the “gin craze,” Queen Caroline passed prohibition legislation against the sale of gin. Queen Anne established free schools for indigent children. The Society for the Reformation of Manners helped to convict nearly one hundred thousand people for debauchery and profaneness.

Raising the issue of public sins like drunkenness, brought conviction of sin and helped to break up the spiritually fallow ground in England and the colonies. The revival harvest came forth from seeds planted in the spiritual soil tilled by social reformers. So God used both means; first the preaching of social righteousness and then the gospel.

Thomas minimizes the efforts of Christians who are not willing to surrender their spiritual and constitutional birthrights. He offers a false choice and a limited view of the gospel that is not worthy of the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

What’s a Christian to Do?

Jesus commanded Christians to be the salt and light of the world. As salt, Christians are commanded to act as a preservative, mitigating the effects of sin decay. As salty advocates for biblical righteousness and justice, the Christian’s duty is not limited to the personal, familial, or spiritual realms. Being the salt of the world extends to all of life, including the realm of public policy.

Imagine what kind of world it would be if Christians did not resist the most egregious sinful impulses of radical secularists. Why they might try to take their second grade public school students on field trips to homosexual marriages. They might take their minor daughters to get risky, surgical abortions without notifying the parents. But Thomas tells Christians they should be silent and just feed the poor.

Christians are also to shine as lights, reflecting God’s character and truth. While Christians ought to reflect love and service, they must also stand boldly for biblical truth and morality. God is not just perfect love. God is also perfect truth, righteousness and justice. Christians must reflect all of the character of God, not just the parts we prefer or the world accepts.

This is not necessarily going to win friends. Jesus warned us that the world hates the light because it will expose man’s evil deeds. Being the light means standing for the truth out of a loving concern for the consequences, eternal and temporal, to individuals and society. Often the only thanks you get for doing this are insults.

No one other than Jesus Christ has ever been perfect salt and light, having come from the Father in perfect grace and truth. He was reviled, slandered and killed because he bore witness to the truth.

Being salt and light is the duty of every Christian. If we refuse to be the stinging salt and blinding light we make ourselves worthless. If we lose our effect as salt, Jesus said we deserve to be trampled on. Thomas would have us abandon our duty, but for what?

Thomas thinks that if Christians will just stick to loving people in his very narrowly defined way, and lay down our duties and rights to preserve and illuminate the culture, we will have real transformational influence, not empty political influence. This is a false choice.

Being salt and light does mean preaching the gospel and seeing God change the individual. It includes doing good to the widows and orphans, the sick and the poor. Studies have shown if you want to find voluntary works of compassion and charity, religious conservatives do much more than any other group. From hurricane and tsunami relief, to pregnancy care centers, homeless shelters, and hospices, it is religious conservatives that are generally the first on the scene and the last ones to leave.

It is not a choice between preaching the gospel or doing works of mercy or standing for biblical values. We can and must do it all.

Being “salty lights” consists of displaying obedience to Jesus Christ in every aspect of life. That includes the political debate about the future of our nation. Christians believe that God really cares about matters of killing unborn babies, the institution of marriage, religious liberty, just judges, parental rights in education, etc. These concerns are based on biblical values.

Cal Thomas suggests that Christians ought to serve in obscurity and a diminution. Ironically, he uses his nationally syndicated column to advance this idea. If he were serious, he would quit writing and go work in a homeless shelter.

Thomas is unable to follow his own advice because it is fundamentally flawed. He writes because he wants to impact the market place of ideas and influence public life. Why does he object when others want to do the same? Thomas ought to applaud Christians who are attempting to do the same thing he is doing only by other means.

 

PO Box 1115
Vista, CA 92084
1(866)-508-2232

To contact the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission email contact@christianadc.org

Please Pass the Salt if You Can See it

This past week or two the question of a Christian’s involvement in politics has come up once or twice. For example, Dr. Clark wrote an article (found here) in support of the California Proposition 8, which added just a few words to our State’s constitution: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California.”

My friend RubeRad wrote in support of Prop 8 using the WCF (found here). In this thread, you see Christians here wondering if it is okay to vote yes. There is mention of the opposing side’s rhetoric that voting yes would be “taking away a right” that homosexuals had (for a few short months. The prop was successfull.)

I’ll admit, I’m frustrated. These two particular blogs are home to proponents of a “2 Kingdom” theology that basically says Christians are citizens of a spiritual kingdom (Christ’s) and of a worldly kingdom (man’s). It further states that when we are acting in the sphere of man’s kingdom, like politics, that we must come to our conclusions of what is right and what is wrong by using the “Natural Law Theory.” I am still studying Dr. Clark’s particular flavor of this theory, since intellectual honesty is important to me, and knowing the truth is even more important to me. But, for now, I think I can give a basic explanation.

Dr. Clark’s Natural Law Theory basically seems to be saying that since all men are bearers of God’s image and have the moral law written on their heart, man can discover or at least ‘knows’ what is right and what is wrong through reason or general revelation. (Dr. Clark, feel free to correct me if I’m not correct). A Christian, therefore, doesn’t need to appeal to natural revelation when dealing in this civil sphere. He or she can reason with the unbeliever on common ground.

Anyway, all of this has got me to thinking about the following verse:

Matthew 5:13-16
13 “You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men. 14 “You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. 16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.

How is this verse interpreted from a “2 Kingdom” theology? What significance, if any, does it have for the Christian and the Church today? Why does Christ immediately after these words tell his followers NOT to think that He came to destroy the law? What did they think of when they heard Him say “law?” Why does he go on to give application with imperatives to them?

So, if you’re a 2 Kingdom guy out there, please, have at it. Explain it to me (and my two readers) please.

Kazoo

The Self Fulfilling Prophecy of the Amillenial 2 Kingdom Camp

Here is a well written article regarding the efforts of a few San Diego pastors: http://www.worldmag.com/articles/article.cfm?eid=7EF87E24-A0B5-BDF2-2E3D2AA862332998

Excerpt:

The 14th Amendment equal-protection argument in favor of gay marriage already is trampling First Amendment rights to religious exercise and free speech.

In March 2006, for example, the 103-year-old adoption division of Boston Catholic Charities (BCC) decided to close its doors rather than comply with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ requirement that it place children with homosexual couples. Five months later, the group’s San Francisco branch followed suit. Both moves were direct outgrowths of the legalization of gay marriage and domestic partnerships in Massachusetts and California.

In September 2007, a boardwalk pavilion owned by the Methodist Ocean Grove [New Jersey] Camp Meeting Association lost its state tax-exempt status after the association refused to allow two lesbian couples to hold civil union ceremonies there.

In April 2008, Christian photographers Jon and Elaine Huguenin were fined $6,000 by a New Mexico state “human rights” commission for politely declining on religious grounds to photograph a homosexual “commitment ceremony.”

Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel for Liberty Legal Institute in Plano, Texas, said religious rights of conscience—and not relational equality—are precisely the target in California. “Gays and lesbians there can already be domestic partners, and have all the legal rights of marriage. The Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of gay marriage is about something else,” he said. “It is a direct attempt to establish same-sex couples as morally equivalent to a married man and woman.”

Legal scholars on both sides of the debate agree that if Massachusetts begins exporting gay marriage, and/or California’s gay-marriage law is allowed to stand, it will likely trigger nationwide court clashes that will profoundly alter law and public policy in the areas of employment, education, family law, and even the boundaries of the First Amendment.

The idea that the Gospel doesn’t affect EVERY aspect of life and only applies to Christians is part of what has caused this state that we’re in. The preachers and teachers that are training our clergy to say things like the following are responsible for the degradation of our society:

If you want to protest Nike or McD’s do it on your own time. The church is not an activist group. Once again, your theonomy skirt is showing, and it reveals a Methodist ecclesiology over against a Reformed and Presbyterian one.

Proverbs 31:8-9 is the charge to Christ on behalf of his people. Believe it or not, it was not written to the pro-life movement to protect the unborn or to Green Peace on behalf of the whales.Social gospels have ways of circumventing the Christo-centric nature of the Bible.

I’m not saying that America has ever been a perfect idealistic nation-state, but the outward law-keeping it once had was good, to some extent. For example, at least there weren’t MILLIONS of babies being MURDERED EVERY YEAR. There is a blessing even in a non-regenerate population that keeps the law. If a society doesn’t enforce capital punishment for capital crimes, then eventually, when our capital crimes grow rampant (infanticide aka: abortion, rape, public approval of sodomy, etc.), God will bring His justice of capital punishment to our nation. But the sad thing is that these things can only happen if the church becomes impotent. When she deludes herself into thinking that the Gospel is only about an individual’s justification before God, and that the Church is only about the Word and Sacraments, then, AND ONLY THEN, will God’s enemies regain their ground. Jesus told us that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church. Most people think of this in a backwards way. The truth is that gates are stationary. They are there to protect the citizens inside of the city. They are defensive. Which means that Jesus is speaking of the church as OFFENSIVE. The church is to be attacking these gates, NOT defending against them. Instead, we’ve built gates and holed up within the city walls, sorry, I meant to say holed up within the church walls and we’ve let hell come bashing on our doors. We have been so pre-occupied with saving individual’s souls and entertaining them from a stage that used to be a pulpit. We’ve split up the families and created programs for different age groups, that the younger disciples aren’t benefiting from the wisdom of the older disciples. We’ve watered down the Gospel to a man-centered, individualistic psychological feel good alternative, that we’ve forgotten that Christ came to redeem the WORLD. It is HIS. He bought it back, and if we’re not going to get with that program, he’ll prune the dead branches and graft in new living branches that will actually produce fruit.

In Canada, preachers can’t teach the scripture when it comes to calling sodomy a sin for fear of being fined or going to jail. The legislation has made this a hate crime. So, the pessimillenialists that teach that there are 2 kingdoms, and that the church kingdom has nothing to say to man’s kingdom, and that the world will just get worse and worse until the end, will see their beliefs come to pass only if they act upon what they believe. And then they won’t be able to preach and teach without going underground like in China or the old Soviet Union. Mark my words, it can happen here. It’s already starting as you’ve seen above in the excerpt I’ve provided.

Let’s not follow in their footsteps anymore. Let’s become educated with the scriptures and realize that we need to pray that God’s ONE KINGDOM will come ON EARTH as it already is in heaven. And then let us act as if God will answer that prayer.

kazoo

Were 17th Century Puritans Theocrats or Theonomists?

I realize that it is anachronistic to ask a question such as this. But lately I’ve encountered the argument that there is a difference between the reformers (called Theocrats) and modern day Theonomists. Every time I read some of the earlier primary sources, I find myself wondering what differs in their view that makes them a Theocrat and me a Theonomist. I find myself agreeing very often with the early reformers that I’ve read, both in Europe and very early New England.

Anyway, realizing that the very question is anachronistic, the real question is if modern “Theonomy” is very consistent with the early “Theocratic” doctrine.

I’m just starting to study this question in-depth for myself so that I can know for sure when having this discussion with professional historians. But until I am done with that study (read: a long time from now), I will share some material that I found on The Reformed Covenanter blog. It’s a good read that quotes a lot from 3 Puritans in the mid 1600’s. When I read the quotes given from them, it sure sounds a lot like Bahnsen to me. So, maybe Bahnsen was a Theocrat and not a Theonomist after all! Seriously, I’m not taking this subject lightly. It is certainly one that I am committed to study for myself. I’m not new to Theonomy. I was introduced to Bahnsen over 10 years ago from my pastor who graduated with a doctorate at Westminster Escondido. But I’m now taking a deeper look at these early reformers by reading the primary sources. We’ll see how it all stacks up and I’ll keep you informed.

Take a look at the following post, and then let me know what you think.

http://reformedcovenanter.wordpress.com/2007/08/03/the-new-england-purtian-theocracy-the-new-england-purtian-theonomy/

EDIT: I forgot to add that sometimes you’ll find someone referring to the title of the second chapter in Greg Bahnsen’s book, “Theonomy in Christian Ethics” in a way that makes it seem as if Theonomy teaches that that every detail of the mosaic judicial laws should be enforced in every nation today. The chapter’s name is “THE ABIDING VALIDITY OF THE LAW IN EXHAUSTIVE DETAIL.” As you can see, the word ‘judicial’ or ‘ceremonial’ isn’t in front of the word ‘law.’ Plus, this is the chapter that presents his thesis and goes into a painstakingly detailed exegesis of Matthew 5:17-19. The rest of this 600+ page book goes into all of the qualifications and explanations, which indeed shows that he is NOT gunning for every detail of the case law to be enforced. I can’t go into the detail to support this right now, but I think it was worth noting in this post for now.

kazoo

Was Sinai a Republication of the Covenant of Works?

Searching for electronic copies of primary sources WRT the Westminster Divines, I came across this blog. Casey Bessette gives five reasons he disagrees with Dr. Clark from the Heidelblog where we find an article asserting that the Westminster Confession did in fact support the idea that God republished the CoW at Sinai. This article is linked here and entitled: Re-Publication of the Covenant of Works (1).

I thought I’d provide this here for anyone interested while I am re-grouping and preparing my next series of blog posts. Enjoy.

Kazoo

Gary North on the Latent Antinomian-Statist Alliance

I’m cooking something up myself, but for now I want to point you to the following short post:

Gary North on the Latent Antinomian-Statist Alliance

The Current American Presbyterian Confession

In my last post I pointed out how the American Presby’s undermined themselves by changing the confession in the very part that is what gave them their confession. They pulled the rug out from under their own feet!

Next, I want to address our modern “reformed” brethren from the W2K camp and very simply and shortly show how their modern “2 Kingdoms” view still isn’t in line with even the American revision of the Standards. Take note of the items I highlight in bold. This is from the 1788 version of the WCF.

Chapter XXIII

Of the Civil Magistrate

1. God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil magistrates, to be, under him, over the people, for his own glory, and the public good: and, to this end, hath armed them with the power of the sword, for the defense and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evildoers.

3. Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith. Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.

Chapter XXXI

Of Synods and Councils

4. Synods and councils are to handle, or conclude nothing, but that which is ecclesiastical: and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth, unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary; or, by way of advice, for satisfaction of conscience, if they be thereunto required by the civil magistrate.

Even our American Presby brothers have no issues telling the civil magistrate what he “may not” do and what his duty is. They tell us that “God… has ordained civil magistrates to be under Him…” They even tell us what laws their should not be! Not only that, but in chapter 31, it seems they forgot to revise their chapter 4 (chapter 5 in the original). Since magistrates can’t call synods anymore, they shouldn’t have mentioned that synods can give their opinion to magistrates if the magistrate requires it.

Anyway, my point is that even our revised confession still has no issue giving authoritative direction to the civil sphere of government. But too often today, we have people within the church telling us that we (the church) can’t tell government how to govern and that governors only have “natural law” to rely on to discover how to rightly govern. Hogwash!

Kazoo

The Irrational Presbyterians of America

In June of 1643, the English Parliament appointed the Westminster Assembly of Divines to restructure the Church of England. The result of this assembly was a group of documents known as “The Westminster Standards.” The Assembly produced and forwarded to Parliament “The Directory for the Publick Worship of God”, “The Form of Presbyterial Church Government”, a creedal statement, “The Westminster Confession of Faith”, a “Larger Catechism” and a “Shorter Catechism”.

In 1788 the American Presbyterians made a few changes to the confession, and one little change to the catechism. Furthermore, they took out many of the proof texts that the original assembly included (I guess they thought that if they didn’t refer to the scripture, then they weren’t bound to consider it any more, *tongue in cheek*). Although I don’t agree with some of the conclusions or doctrine that this man represents, you can read about the changes here: The 1788 Revision.

So the point I want to expose here (and I can’t imagine that nobody else has ever pointed this out), has to do with kicking the ladder out from underneath yourself. Have you ever seen a comedy where someone climbs up a ladder to change a light bulb in a chandelier and inadvertently kicks the ladder over, left only to hang on the chandelier? Ultimately they fall to the ground, having lost their support. This is exactly what the 1788 assembly did to themselves. Let’s take a look:

The Westminster Confession of Faith, 1646, states in Chapter 23, paragraph 3:

III. The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.

The Westminster Confession of Faith, 1788, states in the same place:

3. Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in the matter so faith. Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the Church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his Church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretence of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.

Now if we think back to how the Standards came about in the first place, we should all realize that they are a result of something that our 1788 fathers obviously thought shouldn’t have happened. So maybe they should have just met to decide not to use them at all, instead of revise them. Food for thought.

Kazoo

EDIT 04/07/2008: I should note for those that don’t know me, I am a member in good standing at a PCA church. I love being Presbyterian, so take this post with that in mind.

Legislate Morality?

I’ve been a little behind on the blog writing, so for now, I give you this:

http://larrytemple.wordpress.com/2008/03/31/who-says-you-cant-legislate-morality

kazoo

What kind of Apostasy? (Great or Small?)

Revelation 20:7-10
7 Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle, whose number is as the sand of the sea. 9 They went up on the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city. And fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them. 10 The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where[a] the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

With my recent endeavors to better understand the major views of eschatology, I have been introduced to a problem that I find quite interesting. It seems that all major camps believe that there will be a "Great Apostasy" at the end. One of the major texts teaching this is quoted above. What are the pre-conditions necessary for a number of individuals that "is as the sand of the sea" to fall away? Obviously, you have to be in the visible church before you can fall away from it, right? So, for a number as great as the sand of the sea to fall away from the church, the church will need that type of number to begin with. And since there will be some left in the church, then the number needs to be even greater than "the sand of the sea."

So, whose view of eschatology is able to account for such a great number? We read in verse 8 that Satan will deceive the NATIONS, gathering them together, and their number is as the sand of the sea. My understanding of the four views, pre-mil, dispi pre-mil, a-mil, and post-mil, tells me that only the postmillenialist can account for such a great falling away.

kazoo

(a couple articles I’m reading on this: "The Prima Facie Acceptability of Postmillennialism,""Objections to Postmillenialism," and "Postmillennialism: Wishful Thinking or Certain Hope?")

Enough is Enough, The Church needs to REPENT!

The Catalyst

This week 3 God hating covenant breakers declared that home schooling in California is against the law. This is just one little symptom revealing the state of our nations relationship to the Sovereign Lord and King. This act by these three judges is their confession that they have usurped God’s authority and the people must obey the state instead. Of course, this is nothing new. Just state coercion to idolatry. It wants us to worship/obey it rather than God. Remember Daniel? Shadrach Meshach and Abednego? Just read the Declaration of Independence and you’ll see that we’ve faced these issues not long ago here in America. How soon the people forget. The Apostle Peter dealt with this issue as well:

Acts 5:28-29
Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us. Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

Notice that Peter used the word “ought.” He didn’t say that they would “prefer” or that they “felt like,” but that they “ought” to obey God. You see NOBODY has the right to disobey God. NOBODY. God has communicated to everybody what is required of them. The apostle Paul does a great job of defending this idea in the epistle to the Romans. This idea being that ALL men will account to God for their disobedience to Him in this life AND in the life to come. Thank God we have a Savior to rely upon for settling that account. If you’re reading this and you don’t trust in Christ to save you from God’s wrath, stop now and seek His grace, forgiveness and repentance. Get familiar with the Gospel (Good News) and become one of His covenant keepers.

Now, the basic issue here is that God has ordained 3 (some say 4) spheres of authority/responsibility/rights. The family, the church, and the state. The fourth is the individual. So there is a self-government, a family government, a church government, and a state government. God gave each one of these spheres duties that are required of them, rights that are given to them, and ordained servants (ministers) to govern them. There are checks and balances between the three (or four), but each one has its own God given purpose. God’s law is clear that when one sphere steps into the other’s duties or rights, it is disobedience. When the state steps into the family sphere (in this case, education) then it is usurping God’s authority, and it becomes a tyrant. It becomes the beast. It is antichrist.

The Problem

Moving on, I want to talk about why we are finding ourselves more and more in the position of bondage to the state in this once great nation. And to be straight up about it, I’ll come right out and tell you what I think. THE AMERICAN CHURCH IS TO BLAME.

Deuteronomy 28:47-48
Because thou servedst NOT THE LORD thy God with joyfulness, and with gladness of heart, for the abundance of all things ; 48 Therefore shalt thou serve thine enemies WHICH THE LORD shall send against thee, in hunger, and in thirst, and in nakedness, and in want of all things : and he shall put a yoke of iron upon thy neck, until he have destroyed thee.

I recommend that you read all of chapter 28 in Deuteronomy. It’s quite an eye opener. But what does this have to do with our covenant breaking ‘friends’ in the California judiciary and the American church? Plenty. Take a look at my post “There is only ONE kingdom” and you’ll get an idea of what I’m getting at. You see, America is a wonderful inheritance that God established and gave to us. It should not be squandered. It is the land wherein each citizen possesses more liberty than this world has EVER seen. This was not some mistake of evolution or natural law or man’s ingenuity. America is a result of God’s providence AND His reward to His faithful servants who studied God’s Word and put it into practice as best they knew how. It is a blessing to His covenant people, and that blessing ran over and has blessed the covenant breakers as well. The blessing was so great that there is still blessing today AND even the WORLD has been blessed as a result. God is gracious. He is faithful, and His blessings last for generations. But the church has turned her attention inward. She has neglected the GREAT commission and replaced it with the ‘doom and gloom’ commission instead. The concept of God blessing or cursing a people can be seen in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. The ultimate judgment would have been stayed if there were just 10 God fearers. God blesses His people and he also chastises them. The church is starting to suffer His chastisement, and will be responsible for her ultimate modern day exile that is to come if she won’t repent.

“Repent from what?,” you ask. From her partial obedience. She obeys God in many ways today. That’s wonderful. But God demands full obedience. If one only obeys partially, then one is in some way disobeying partially. The extent of disobedience will determine the extent (or the area) of His chastisement. I wrote about whether the church has something to say to politics with the affirmative answer. She has neglected this part of her calling. We are suffering as a result.We are squandering our inheritance. Christians have a majority in America. We have a government made up of men (and women) representatives. With this majority, there is no excuse, no reason, for our government to be filled with God haters and covenant breakers. Sadly, this is the case though, because the church ignores this duty when she disciples her families and individuals. She only disciples partially. She doesn’t teach us that part of our commission is to engage the culture. There is no other reason for this rise in our government’s disobedient tyranny. Even those Christians that are representatives aren’t discipled to know how to properly serve under God. It is a sad state indeed.

A Flawed Excuse

On a related subject, why is the church this way? I don’t know, really. I don’t have the answers. I believe that the history of the church here in America is a complicated one. There are many events and attitudes that have occurred over the past four centuries that have brought us to this point, and I am not going to try and cover them in this post. However, I will address at least one attitude and doctrine that I have encountered that is partially responsible for this sin of the American church. Yes, I called it SIN. It is the idea that we are to be like the Jews in Babylonian exile. We are to suffer in the here and now, or else we’re not representing Christ properly. We are to look forward to glory, but for now we are just pilgrims with nothing to say to this world, this culture. It is a theology of pessimism. A theology of doubt toward God and His Word. It is a sorry excuse for their lack of obedience. You see, they say that “this is the way it is supposed to be.” We can’t do anything about it. And so they do nothing about it, with justification. And then they teach our pastors to teach us the same. It’s no wonder we’re so weak and useless. But that’s not God’s plan. The Christian life is one that promises blessings for obedience in this life AND in the life to come. I sometimes wonder if our theologians have forgotten about the “already” in the phrase “already and not yet.”

I went to a live taping of a radio show last night. It was about the sin of the church leaning toward consumerism and meeting felt needs. The sin of “selling” Jesus. I agree that this too is a problem and a sin in our church today. I do not at all advocate these views. But in bucking against the one extreme the opponents of the church’s consumerism have gone too far to the other extreme. They basically said that the good news of the Gospel is all future. Until then we must suffer. Dr. Clark answered a question I asked by saying that he’s been accused of preaching a “doom and gloom” gospel and to that he can only reply: “Welcome to the Kingdom of God.” This faithlessness makes me want to vomit. And cry. And plead with our Lord to have mercy on us.

The Solution

I say to the church of God here in America: “WAKE UP! REPENT! Keep doing what you’re doing right, and add to it repentance for leaving this world behind. Christ came to destroy the works of the devil. He came to destroy sin. So everywhere that sin rears its ugly head is where we are called to take the fight. But we won’t even take the fight where it belongs, if we don’t believe that it belongs there. May God have mercy on us.”

kazoo

Newly Found Theonomist Friend

A fellow blogger stumble upon my latest post and tracked back to this my "ONE Kingdom" post. He has a very well written post on "Theonomy and Natural Law." I highly recommend the reading. He touches on some points that I have been considering as a topic here, so he saves me some work.

kazoo

Powered by Qumana