Ordinary Means -- UPDATED

Sorry for the inactivity on the Confession stuff, but I've been holding down the fort while my co-pastor is on vacation.

I will return soon to the Confession (though I myself will be on vacation in the coming weeks), and I will be doing a follow-up post to the Cultural Christianity thread that caused quite a ruckus. Here's a foretaste: I've been reading David Wells's new book, The Courage to Be Protestant: Truth Lovers, Marketers, and Emergents in a Postmodern World (Eerdmands, 2008), as well as a collection of essays by Carl Trueman entitled, The Majority Report: Unpopular Thoughts on Everything from Ancient Christianity to Zen Calvinism (Christian Focus, 2008). Both men have quite a bit to say on this whole matter of the evangelical and emergent tendency to appeal and adapt to the culture at large. I will simply pilfer from them.

But the real reason I am posting under the title, "Ordinary Means," is that I have been asked to join Matt Bohling and Shaun Nolan -- two PCA pastors -- on the ordinary means podcast for the month of May. We will be recording this Thursday (5/22), and I imagine the podcast will be available shortly thereafter.

You can find the website here: http://www.ordinarymeans.com/

The blog can be found here: http://ordinarymeans.blogspot.com/

We will be picking up the discussion from the March podcast on the issue of Baptists and Presbyterians. My understanding at the moment is that they wish to ask me how Reformed Baptists handle convinced Reformed paedobaptists seeking membership in a Reformed Baptist church. If you want my answer, listen in.

That's all for now.

UPDATE: podcast won't be until next tuesday, 5/27. I'm still not sure when it will be posted; I'm assuming sometime later that day. I'll let my rabid fan base know as soon as I do...

Notes on the Confession: Introduction

The church is the confessing and worshipping assembly of Christ's covenant people. The church is the pillar and ground of the truth. She must ever be concerned with preserving, professing, and proclaiming the truth -- not only against all error and heresy, but for the salvation and sinners and sanctification of the saints. To that end, the vitality (if not the very existence of) biblical Christianity depends upon confessing the faith. At the very least, summarizing the system of theology revealed and contained in Holy Scripture must be viewed as essential to the well-being (bene esse) of the church.

In keeping with these (and other) convictions, I subscribe to the 2nd London Baptist Confession of Faith (1677/1689), as well as the three ecumenical creeds of the early church (yes, including Nicaea and its controversial descendit ad infernum). This Confession of Faith, though not exhaustive, is a faithful summary of the system of theology contained in Holy Scripture. In the weeks and months to come, it is my intention to provide a kind of running commentary, or notes, on the Confession.

When setting out to study any of the creeds, confessions, or catechisms of historic Christianity there are a number of important introductory questions that must be answered: (1) should the church confess her faith, specifically by way of written symbols such as catechisms and confessions; and (2) if yes, how does the church (or her ministers, more specifically) subscribe to these secondary theological and ecclesiastical standards? In short, (1) yes, and (2) fully (i.e., strict or full subscription).

Jim Renihan fleshes out these answers, better than I could, in a series of posts on the IRBS website. You can find those articles here:

Confessional Subscription: http://www.reformedbaptistinstitute.org/?p=78

The Scriptures and Confessions: http://www.reformedbaptistinstitute.org/?p=79

The Terms of Subscription: http://www.reformedbaptistinstitute.org/?p=80

The other articles that follow on the history of subscription amongst Baptists are also worth reading, but go beyond the scope of this post.

Two additional matters of prolegomena to this study remain: (1) the structure and substance of the Confession; and (2) the theological and historical setting of the Confession. Significant overlap obtains between these two matters.

As far as the structure and substance of the Confession are concerned, we will deal with those matters as opportunity arises (i.e., within the notes themselves).

The theological and historical setting of the Confession can be discerned if we keep in view some seven characteristics of the Confession. [Note: these characteristics are not original with me, but have been gleaned from several sources, most notably Dr. Jim Renihan's class lectures on the subject.] I will simply list these characteristics now, and return to them next week, Lord willing.

The Confession is: (1) Biblical, (2) Orthodox, (3) Protestant, (4) Calvinistic, (5) Covenantal, (6) Puritan, and (7) Independent and Baptist.

Hopefully, that whets your appetite for more to come...

Truth in Advertising

As one faithful reader reminded me recently, this is a site dedicated to confessional Reformed Baptist theology and practice.

To be faithful to that description, it is my intention in the near future to begin a series of notes on the Confession. (Just so we're clear, that's the 2nd London Baptist Confession of Faith, 1677/1689). It certainly won't be an exhaustive commentary on the Confession. Others (namely, Jim Renihan) are far more equipped for that task. My intention is far less ambitious (and far less demanding). So, I hope to devote at least one thread per week to the Confession.

Stay tuned...

Cultural Christianity: Bringing Together What God Hath Put Asunder

Recent evangelical theology, as well as the emergent-emerging movement, has trumpeted the cause for a kind of marriage between church and culture. Of course, they've done so to different degrees and in different ways, with the the evangelical folks appealing to a sense of immediacy and immanence, and the emergent-emerging folks appealing (at least in theory) to a sense of the transcendent. Nevertheless, the end result is the same; and the best way to describe this wide-ranging phenomenon that crosses denominational and theological boundaries (and makes strange bed-fellows out of folks who would otherwise be at odds) is as multiple expressions of a kind of cultural Christianity.


This, of course, is nothing new. One could argue that Finney's new measures (e.g., the anxious bench) were the 19th century expression of this same trend, just without modern technology. Finney rejected not only the doctrines of grace, but the means of grace, in favor of what he determined would produce the greatest results in the culture of his day and age. Since Finney, however, we've seen a great many incarnations of this approach, but it is increasingly the case in today's variegated evangelicalism (using that term in its broadest possible sense) that the one thing held in common is the presupposition that the church needs to be in step with today's ways in order to reach today's people. If you don't believe me, look up George Barna's research, and you'll see what evangelical and emergent-emerging folk are both thinking. For evangelicalism and emergent-emerging folk alike culture has become the defining principle in the church's articulation and application of her mission.


Admittedly, this is painting with a broad brush; this thesis doesn't take into account the ways in which the principle might be mitigated in certain contexts or exacerbated in others. Nevertheless, that this is easily demonstrated across the theological and ecclesiastical spectrum, raises a whole host of questions, not the least of which is whether or not it is, in fact, necessary for the church to accommodate to or adapt to (or even become like) the surrounding culture in order to fulfill her divinely-ordained and divinely-revealed mission? Is this kind of cultural Christianity justifiable?


If you know me, you know my answer: no, on both counts. We cannot bring together what God has put asunder. Cultural Christianity is an oxymoron, to the extent that cult (i.e., Christ's kingdom, the church) is ever distinct from culture in this new covenant age. "My kingdom," Jesus said, "is not of this world" (John 8:36). The church is "other-worldly," since we have come to the heavenly Jerusalem and the mediator of a better covenant, Jesus Christ (cf. Heb 12:22-24). Thus, in a very particular (i.e., theological, ecclesiastical, and liturgical) way, we are not ultimately interested in the culture and its ways, but Christ and his ways. In fact, if the church isn't self-consciously counter-cultural, in terms of confessing her faith (both doctrinally and liturgically), then, as our Lord declared, we will have lost our savor, and will be worthy only to be cast out (cf. Matt 5:13). The church that panders to the culture, in our Lord's estimation, is worthless.

Often we hear our Lord's words in Matthew 5:13 applied in terms of evangelism: to be the salt of the earth we need to be vigilant in our efforts to extend the influence of Christ throughout the world. If we're talking about missionary efforts to proclaim the gospel, fine. If, however, we've begun to think that 'salting' the earth requires accommodation to it, then we've completely missed the point. Jesus is speaking of the church -- that one holy catholic and apostolic church -- as that which is decidedly distinct and separate from the world (as Machen put it). No, not in the sense that fundamentalism has come to understand it: not drinking, not smoking, not playing cards, etc. The world from which we are separate is "that way of life that fallen humanity substitutes for God's holy ways. It is the world as an idol, as a rival to God's Word" (see Hart and Muether, With Reverence and Awe, 29). The salt loses its savor, then, when we stop preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ as the only way of salvation for fallen man. The salt loses its savor when the world, instead of the Word, regulates our worship. The salt loses its savor -- the church ceases to be the church in any meaningful, biblical way -- when we lose the sense of our separateness and our distinctness as the assembly of God's holy people (again, in a very practical way in terms of our proclamation and our worship).

The church needs to recapture a proper sense of its heavenly (i.e., other-worldly) and holy character; and when we do so, we will be forced to heed a heavenly and holy agenda, one which is intrinsically at odds with worldliness. We cannot function as the salt of the earth by taking up the world's, or the culture's, agenda. No, we function as the salt of the earth as we (i.e., the church) fulfill the great commission (cf. Matt 28:18-20). And what does that look like? What will that entail? The Shorter Catechism puts it best in question and answer 88: "What are the outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption? The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption are his ordinances, especially the word, sacraments, and prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for salvation." In other words, the fact that the church is counter-cultural, or contra mundum, is evidenced most clearly as we separate out from the world on the Lord's Day, gather together in Christ's name and at Christ's summons, to hear his word read and preached, to eat the bread and drink the cup of the Supper, and to offer up our petitions and our praises (both spoken and sung).

The world, the culture-at-large, will think this is utter nonsense. Should that dissuade us from maintaining a commitment to Word and sacrament and prayer? Should that prompt us to do something different, something more appealing, something more attractive, even something that appears more practical in reaching the lost? No, because that isn't God's way; indeed, none of the 'new measures' of today's evangelicalism or today's emergent-emerging-missional churches have not the promise of Christ attached to them: "lo, I am with you unto the end of the age" (Matt 28:20). None of them carry the promise of being made effectual unto salvation. None of them are the savor of death unto death in those that are perishing, but the savor of life unto life in those that believe.

Speaking in terms that are largely ignored today, Machen wrote, "The responsibility of the church in the new age is the same as its responsibility in every age. It is to testify that this world is lost in sin; that the span of human life—no, all the length of human history—is an infinitesimal island in the awful depths of eternity; that there is a mysterious, holy, living God, Creator of all. Upholder of all, infinitely beyond all; that he has revealed himself to us in his Word and offered us communion with himself through Jesus Christ the Lord; that there is no other salvation…save this, but that this salvation is full and free, and that whoever possesses it has for himself and for all others to whom he may be the instrument of bringing it a treasure compared with which all the kingdoms of the earth…are as the dust of the street. An unpopular message it is—an impractical message, we are told. But it is the message of the Christian church. Neglect it, and you will have destruction; heed it, and you will have life (see Machen, “The Responsibility of the Church in our New Age,” in J. Gresham Machen: Selected Shorter Writings, 376).

Now, this approach does not justify the church imbibing a kind of new imperialism, where we become culturally insensitive or rude in the name of the gospel. We are, however, arguing that where the church becomes like the world, she has lost her savor. Let us, then, deal with those unseen things of eternity, proclaiming that God's grace in Christ is full and free, even to the worst of sinners who will repent and believe; and let us not trifle with those temporal things that are seen, but instead worship in spirit and in truth, with reverence and with awe, the true and living God, the God of our redemption, with whom we enjoy communion of "infinite sweetness" (again, quoting Machen).

Let me put it simply: the church needs to be the church, as Christ ordains, as Christ reveals, and as Christ commands. That means we must not join together what he has put asunder. Betrothing ourselves to this world is the quickest way for the church to become irrelevant, at least in terms of that which really matters. Let us, then, eschew labels such as "user-friendly," "seeker-sensitive," and "culturally-adept," and instead be the faithful bride of the Lord Jesus Christ and thus serve and worship the Lord our God as those who already know, in principle, the blessings of heaven, of the age to come.

Let the church be the church of Jesus Christ.

Top Ten Books of the 21st Century

Though this new century is only 8 years old, and though the church seems as confused as ever, a number of very fine books have been published in that time span. And even though I live by the creed 'older is better' (at least when it comes to printed matter) the following list of the top ten books of the 21st century demonstrates something of the limitation of my creed.

I offer this list not as the final word, but as one minister's humble appreciation for the labors of certain faithful ministers and theologians of our generation.

The list is in no particular order. Book number 10 may be just as significant as book number 1 -- though I do think one of these books ought to be the standard for future generations. The list is also confined to my narrow window on the (theological and ecclesiastical) world. I don't pretend to have read every new book that comes down the pike. I have neither the time nor the interest, especially given my creed (see above). One more thing: no reprints made the list. If it was published before 2000, it's not on the list.

With all the caveats out of the way, then, here is the list:

1. D. G. Hart and John R. Muether, With Reverence and Awe: Returning to the Basics of Reformed Worship (P & R, 2002). Simply put, the most important book on the most important subject. Hart and Muether cover a whole range of liturgical issues in brief compass, and with great clarity and cogency. This little volume needs to become the gold standard for Reformed churches everywhere. Buy it, read it, and when you're done, read it again. See also D. G. Hart, Recovering Mother Kirk -- not quite as good as With Reverence and Awe, but still quite stimulating on the subject of worship.

2. Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725, 4 volumes (Baker, 2003). Yes, the first two volumes were published in 1987, but both volumes underwent revision and the final two volumes are brand new. So, it still makes the list. One of the most important, if not the most important work of historical theology in the last 100 years. Muller's extensive knowledge and familiarity with the primary sources makes for a fascinating read by itself. But perhaps the greatest value of this set is that it demolishes the Kendall-Armstrong-et al thesis that the generations following Calvin corrupted the pristine biblical theology of the Genevan Reformer by developing a rigid system of theology centered on the doctrine of predestination. For Pastors and Theologians of the Reformed tradition this is a must read. As an aside, I am tempted to put Muller's After Calvin on this list, too; but, I've not read the whole volume, and I don't own it. Because it is published by Oxford the cost is astronomical.

3. Walter J. Chantry, David: Man of Prayer, Man of War (Banner of Truth, 2007). Walt has the rare gift of employing an economy of words to communicate fully and powerfully the truth of Holy Scripture. The Lord's use of David is instructive, comforting, and challenging all at the same time. This little volume captures the heart of our Lord's dealings with David and, with theological precision and pastoral discernment, draws the reader into the life and world of the Lord's anointed. This is, without a doubt, a must read for every Christian.

4. R. Scott Clark, editor, Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry: Essays by the Faculty of Westminster Seminary California (P & R, 2007). Most volumes of collected essays by various authors suffer from a lack of cohesion. Not Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry. On account of the authors' commitment to classical covenant theology as enshrined in the Reformed confessional standards this work sets forth a coherent and cogent defense of the Reformed faith and the gospel against every contemporary revisionist movement, especially the Federal Vision and the New Perspective on Paul. The essays by Scott Clark and David VanDrunen are alone worth the price of the volume.

5. Michael Horton, Covenant and Eschatology (Westminster-John Knox, 2002), Lord and Servant (2005), and Covenant and Salvation (2007); one more volume forthcoming. There hasn't been a real attempt to write a comprehensive Reformed systematic theology since Berkhof early last century. Horton makes this list, not because I concur with everything he says, but because of his attempt to redress this glaring error. [As an aside, neither Robert Reymond nor Wayne Grudem can be considered comprehensive Reformed systematic theologies. Reymond is, by and large, his class notes put into book form -- and his understanding of the doctrine of the Son's eternal generation is highly problematic. Grudem is outside the bounds of Reformed theology on a number of points, most notably his affinity for Charismatic conceptions of revelation and worship.] While a number of salient points could be made, the most important aspect of Horton's work is his self-conscious attempt to structure theology around the organizing principle(s) of Scripture itself, viz., covenant and eschatology. This unifies the system of theology, and avoids an atomistic consideration of the various loci. Horton also deals with contemporary theological problems, thus avoiding a kind of Reformed parochialism. I should also say that the first volume can be tough-going; the second and third volumes are far more user friendly (though, neither would qualify as light or easy reading).

6. Guy Prentiss Waters, The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology: A Comparative Analysis (P & R, 2006). For anyone attempting to understand the way in which the Federal Vision diverges from Scripture and the Westminster Standards, Waters is essential reading. Waters quotes the FV men extensively, letting them speak for themselves. He contrasts the FV and classic covenant theology on several points (e.g., election, justification, perseverance, assurance, apostasy, etc.), demonstrating that the FV and Reformed theology in its confessional form are two different theological systems. Waters has also written a very fine volume dealing with the New Perspective on Paul: Justification and the New Perspective on Paul (P & R, 2004).

7. Terry L. Johnson, The Pastor's Public Ministry (Reformed Academic Press, 2001). I plan on writing a review of this little book in the near future, so any comment here will be extremely brief. Two things of note make this volume very helpful. First, in only 76 pages Johnson distills the best from the pastoral theologies of the past. Second, in all three sections of the book (leading in worship, leading in prayer, and preaching), Johnson draws on the extensive work of Hughes Oliphant Old in the area of historic Reformed worship. Since some of Old's work is out of print and unavailable, this is a helpful way of getting that information second-hand, and in a context dealing more with the pastoral implications of Reformed theology and worship. This work is written for pastors, but a work that is far more generally applicable, read Johnson's Reformed Worship: Worship According to Scripture.

8. James M. Renihan, True Confessions: Baptist Documents in the Reformed Family (Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2008). Hot off the press, this massive volume puts in parallel columns several 17th century baptist confessional documents, primarily for the purpose of elucidating the historical and theological context out of which came the 2nd London Baptist Confession of Faith (1677/1689). For any serious student of the confessional standards of Reformed Baptists (or the Reformed faith more generally) Renihan's work is most welcome. This work should sit alongside Beeke and Ferguson's Reformed Confessions Harmonized, and should be perused frequently.

9. D. G. Hart, The Lost Soul of American Protestantism (Rowman & Littlefield, 2002). What is there to say except that this is classic D. G. Hart: cranky and iconoclastic (as the cover asserts). Hart contends that the standard two-party typology of 20th century Protestant Christianity (i.e., liberal vs. fundamentalist/evangelical) excludes a third way, namely confessional Protestantism. Confessional Dutch-Reformed, Presbyterian, and Lutheran churches, in fact, represent a way of 'being Protestant' that is at odds with both liberal and fundamentalist-evangelical ideologies. Instead of individualized, mountain top experience piety, confessional Protestants have stressed the ordinary means of grace, catechesis, and the like. Hart offers several historical examples. While accepting folks like John Williamson Nevin as the standard of confessional Protestantism is a hard sell for me, the Mercersburg theology (e.g., Nevin), old school Lutherans, and old school Presbyterians were correct to eschew the 'new measures' of Finney, et al, and maintain an emphasis upon Word, sacrament, and prayer as the ordinary means of grace. Hart reminds us of just this emphasis, and he is to be commended for his labors.

10. Michael S. Horton, God of Promise: Introducing to Covenant Theology (Baker, 2006). This is the best contemporary introduction to covenant theology. I obviously disagree with Horton's views regarding the implications of covenant theology for baptism (he is paedobaptist, I am not). Nevertheless, the overall treatment of the divine covenants is highly commendable. Horton, in fact, is quite comprehensive. After a very fine introduction (probably the best I've ever read), Horton deals with the covenant of redemption, the covenant of works, the covenant of grace, and even considers the doctrines of providence and common grace under the rubric of covenant. Again, at work here is the conviction that covenant theology is the Bible's own organizing principle and super-structure; it is the marrow of theology. For anyone holding on to the atomistic approach of dispensationalism, in any of its forms, Horton will challenge those convictions, and demonstrate that God revealed himself consistently and harmoniously by way of covenant. God of Promise should be on every the shelf of every serious Christian.

A few more for your consideration: Cornelis P. Venema, The Gospel of Free Acceptance in Christ, and The Promise of the Future; David F. Wells, Above All Earthly Pow'rs: Christ in a Postmodern World; John D. Currid, Genesis, 2 vols.; Fred A. Malone, The Baptism of Disciples Alone: A Covenantal Argument for Credobaptism Versus Paedobaptism; Kevin J. Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to Christian Theology; Hywel R. Jones, Job; David VanDrunen, A Biblical Case for Natural Law; Dennis Johnson, Him We Proclaim: Preaching Christ from All the Scriptures, and Triumph of the Lamb: A Commentary on Revelation; and anything written by Carl Trueman, but especially The Wages of Spin: Critical Writings on Historical and Contemporary Evangelicalism.

Happy Reading.

I'm so excited, and I just can't hide it...UPDATED

Sorry for the 80's music reference, but it captures something of my excitement to learn this morning that Robert Rollock's A Treatise on Effectual Calling has just been published as a part of the Select Works of Robert Rollock, 2 vols (Reformation Heritage). It is pricey, but well worth it. You can cough up your 68.00 + shipping here: http://www.heritagebooks.org/bookstore/catalog/product_info.php?manufacturers_id=2199&products_id=8389&osCsid=jtql597uvj8dbi89bt705mch13

Rollock (d. 1598) was the first principle of Edinburgh University, and was a polific author in his day. His Treatise, however, is most significant, because it is a seminal work on the doctrine of the covenants.

I was able to read a few selections from this work while in seminary, but I have long since pined for its publication for several reasons. Selfishly, I wanted a copy (hint, my birthday is March 23rd); but more important, the Reformed world desperately needs to understand its rich theological heritage. Rollock's work demolishes the argument that such doctrines as the covenant of works and the covenant of redemption are late accretions that corrupted the more pristine Reformed biblical theology of an earlier generation. The Treatise demonstrates that these doctrines are not ancilary to the system of theology. No, covenant theology remains the super-structure, the skeleton, of the Reformed system.

Warfield was right when he opined that covenant theology is the architechtonic principle of Reformed theology. It is the governing or structuring principle of the Reformed system. Indeed, classical covenant theology is the marrow of Reformed (and biblical) theology. Rollock's Treatise will only prove Warfield's observation correct, and, God willing, will inform a new generation of Christ's people how to read the Bible as it was meant to be read.

UPDATE: I received a copy of Rollock for my birthday this last week. Thanks family.

Book recommendation

Hywel Jones, professor of practical theology at Westminster Seminary California, has recently published a commentary on Job.

The confessionalist highly recommends it, as Dr. Jones opens up the text in such a masterful, but plain manner. Dr. Jones summarized Calvin's preaching as "plain speech, close dealings." That comes through in this work, even though it is written as a part of a more scholarly series.

Take and read.

Another Blog

Been a busy week around here, so I haven't had too much time to think about posting.

I do have a couple of entries in the works, but I don't have enough time to finish them this week.

So, in lieu of anything new from me, I thought I'd pass along the link to the one blog I frequent.

http://www.deregnisduobus.blogspot.com/

Enjoy.

On Being Reformed

Here's an essay I wrote some time ago. I sent it out to a few select friends, and Dr. Renihan asked if he could put it on the new IRBS site.

I'd say a few things differently, but the substance would remain unchanged.

I'm posting the link here because it will give you, the reader, a greater understanding of my convictions and what you can expect to read here in the future.

Enjoy.

http://www.reformedbaptistinstitute.org/?p=25

Sabbath Observance

In the course of study for the coming Lord's Day, I found this searching statement from John Eadie, Paul: The Preacher, 297-298.

Speaking of Paul preaching on the Lord's Day to the congregation at Troas (Acts 20:7ff.) Eadie comments:

The disciples must have rejoiced at their privilege, and eagerly embraced it. What could keep any of them back from enjoying Paul? Alas! that so many in modern times regard so little the first day of the week...or otherwise [profane] it in the pursuit of lawless pleasure or pastime. And even of those who "come together," how many stay away for very trivial reasons, a passing cloud throwing a chiller shadow upon their souls than it does upon the earth, and betokening a fall in their religious affections deeper than the depression of the barometer. If one may thus absent himself, why may not all; the minister, too, as well as any of the people? Who keeps at home for such paltry reason from a scene of secular enjoyment, or the place of ordinary business? Are there not many sicknesses so cunning in their coming and going, so endowed with forethought as never to invade a weekday, but to appear with the dawn of the Sabbath and disappear on its evening? Is it not a law of our nature that difficulties grow with indulgence, and if weather regulate church-going, other barriers will soon make themselves be felt - irregularity followed by long pauses, and ending in utter spiritual remissness and death. Does not such fluctuation in duty deprive one of the divine promise, and may it not rob him of the very word which was adapted to his benefit? And if heaven is an eternal Sabbath for which this recurring Sabbath prepares, how can any one hope to enjoy it who cries out as to "the weariness" of the periodical rest on earth - who finds not exceeding luxury in...worship, or who regards not the day which God has blessed and sanctified as the happiest, holiest day of all the seven?

From the Lord's Supper to Amyraut

Earlier today I promised a blog entry for tomorrow. Well, you're getting it today instead. How's that for making up for lost time?

Anyways, what follows are my musings on a couple of random subjects which have captivated my attention recently.

1. The Lord's Supper.

Christ ordained the ministry of word and sacrament for his visible church. These, along with prayer, are the God-ordained means of grace (at least for those of us in the British Reformed tradition; see the Shorter Catechism Q.88-89). Reformed Christianity has a long history of trumpeting the centrality of the Word read and preached; and this is only right. Nevertheless, this does not mean that the other elements of public worship are relegated to a secondary status. While baptism and the supper, for instance, cannot be properly administered apart from the word (i.e., preceded by it), they are not something less than the word. Yet, as I survey the phenomenon that is American Reformed Christianity, the only conclusion I can reach is that for generations now we've largely ignored (or worse, forgotten) the significance of the Supper in the life and worship of the church. [To be fair, there has been a revival of interest in the Supper in recent years; yet, this can only be considered the beginning, not the end.]

The Supper is a sign and a seal of Christ's person and work, and specifically of the redemptive benefits of his substitutionary death. Through the Spirit, Christ presides at his table and feeds his sheep, on his broken body and on his blood, and yet we seem content not to eat of and receive the benefits of this spiritual feast. We come once a month or once a quarter or, in some cases, whenever the elders determine it is time again. If the nature and the benefits of the Supper are what they are, then what prevents us from observing the supper with greater frequency? Why should we not conclude, as Calvin did, that we ought to come to the Table of our Lord "at least weekly"? This conclusion seems harder to avoid especially when we consider in at least two instances the apostolic church appears to have adopted this very practice (see Acts 2:42; 20:7, 11). The only valid reasoning for less frequent observance of the Supper is, as T. David Gordon has concluded, is that we do not perceive the Supper to be of significant spiritual value, as was the case with Zwingli.

So, my question is this: If the Supper is one of the divinely appointed means whereby Christ communicates the benefits of his mediation, and if it was observed regularly, frequently, if not weekly by the early church under apostolic oversight, why, then, do we, as Reformed churches, not practice frequent or weekly communion?



2. Calvin vs. the Calvinists (especially with regard to the doctrine of limited or definite atonement).

To be honest, I have very little by way of expertise in this subject. Yes, I've read a number of the primary sources and a handful of secondary sources, both of which lead me to conclude that the Muller thesis (i.e., substantial continuity) is basically correct. Calvin's successors did not fundamentally depart from the basic contours of his theology; they did not corrupt a supposedly more biblical theology by the use of scholastic structures of teaching and thought.

My biggest difficulty in taking seriously the Kendall-Armstrong-et al thesis (that is, the discontinuity thesis) is that it always seems as though it has an theological ax to grind. This is no more apparent than with the doctrine of limited or definite atonement, which argues that Christ's death was efficient for the elect only. The saving efficacy of Christ's death takes into account only those for whom Christ was given to die (i.e., the elect, and not all men indefinitely). Though Calvin's view is admittedly difficult to understand (probably because of the context of the Reformation when compared to the context of the post-Reformation era), the views of historical and confessional Calvinism are not hard to understand. Both Dordt and Westminster (and with them Savoy and 2nd London) clearly confess that while Christ's death lacks nothing in terms of its sufficiency, his death is efficient for the elect only. Nevertheless, the discontinuity thesis wants to say that Calvin and his successors are so different at this point, that true Calvinism does not believe in limited atonement. They will jump on any and every instance of an isolated theologian making statements regarding the universal sufficiency of Christ's death and turn those theologians into proto Amyraldians (e.g., Ursinus).

My question to such a reading of historic Calvinism is this: why, then, has confessional Calvinism in every single instance affirmed the doctrine of definite atonement, and repudiated the teachings of Amyraut and those of his ilk. If the discontinuity thesis is correct on this point, why do the confessional documents of the entire Reformed tradition argue the very opposite? Why can't such fellows simply admit that they find the arguments of Dordt and Westminster unconvincing rather than attempting to turn nearly every Reformed theologian of the 16th and 17th centuries into a mouth-piece to voice their own theological agenda?

I know what the response from the discontinuity folks will be: "you've misunderstood, read this sound bite from the past". That won't do. It is insufficient. Read the historical confessions of the Reformed church and be honest. What do these documents (unanimously and unequivocally) teach?

Integrity, it seems to me, is still something worth maintaining, even whilst engaged in historical theology.

Peace...

Nearly two years...

Yes, that is the amount of time I have spent away from this blog. I figured after such a long hiatus, no one was reading this. I was wrong. Two people in the last several months have mentioned stumbling on to my blog. That got me thinking a bit, and I have concluded it is either time to delete the blog, or get it up and running (meaning: trying to post at least once a week). Time to put up, or shut up.

So, here's what I'm going to do: I'll attempt to post at least weekly for the next month or so. If I receive feedback, I'll keep going. If not, I'll probably shut 'er down. So, at the end of the day, people, it's up to you...

See you tomorrow with my first "return" post.