John Downame on Covenant and Justification.

Was reading John Downame today and came across this gem, which among other things reminds us that the Reformed orthodox did, in fact, distinguish between the law and the gospel -- and for good reason. Enjoy.

"The condition of these two covenants differ: the Law or the Covenant of works offereth salvation, under condition of perfect obedience: the Gospel or Covenant of Grace, under the condition of faith, that is to say, if we believe in Christ, who hath done it for us.

Of both these covenants, the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace, Jeremie [Jeremiah] speaketh in his one and thirtieth Chapter, and Paul to the Galatians sheweth, how they were shadowed by two women, as by two types, that is to say, by Hagar the bond, and Sara the free-woman: for these women (saith he) are the two Covenants. You may see further touching them both, Phil 3. Rom 9. Rom 10. Gal 3. And these two being the only means, whereby true happiness may be attained, are so contrary one unto another, that where the one is, the other cannot be: neither can salvation come in part by the one, and in part by the other. Whereupon the apostle useth to dispute that we are justified by works only, or by faith alone. This is the sum of the whole argument in the three first chapters of the Epistle to the Romans: Either we are justified by Works or by Faith. But not by Works, neither of the Law of Nature, nor of the moral Law, neither Gentile, which is without the Law written, nor Jew which hath it. Therefore by Faith. So he saith, Gal 3.17. For if the inheritance be by the Law, then it is not any more by promise, making it impossible and absurd, that both should concur together in the act of justification."

John Downame, The Summe of Sacred Divinitie Briefly and Methodically Propounded: More Largely and Clearly Handled and Explaned (London: Stansby, 1625), pp. 307-308.

Post-Reformation Digital Library

This website is, quite simply, a gold mine for anyone interested in Reformation and/or post-Reformation research. 

Memorize the url. Better yet, add it to your bookmarks.

Post-Reformation Digital Library

Lucas Trelcatius, Jr. (d. 1607) and the Covenant

Lucas Trelcatius, Jr., is (at least in our day) a little known Reformed theologian of the early orthodox era. Succeeding his father, Lucas Trelcatius, Jr., he served as professor extraordinarius at Leiden -- alongside both Gomarus and Arminius -- from 1602 until his death in 1607. Published in 1604, his major work was a mid-level theological text: Scholastica, et Methodica, Locorum Communium S. Theologiae Institutio, Didactice & Elenctice in Epitome explicata: in qua, Veritas Locorum Communium, definitionis cuiusque, Loci per Causas suas Analyst asseritur: Contraria vero Argumenta, imprimis Bellarmini, Generalium Solutionum appendice refutantur. This work epitomizes early Reformed orthodoxy (ca. 1565-1640), and evidences the use of a revised scholastic method for academic instruction during the era.

My interest in reading Trelcatius stems from the work of Richard Muller, who not only cites Trelcatius throughout his four volume Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, but who has also analyzed Trelcatius' doctrine of God [see Richard A. Muller, "Unity and Distinction: The Nature of God in the Theology of Lucas Trelcatius, Jr.," Reformation & Renaissance Review 10/3 (December 2008): 315-341]. I am currently reading his loci on the office of Christ and the doctrine of the covenant.

Given the significant debate in recent years over the nature of the mosaic covenant, and specifically whether or not or in what way that covenant is a republication of the covenant of works, Trelcatius' exposition of the covenant and its historical administration is illustrative of one of the number of ways in which historic Reformed theology delineated the relationship between the covenant of grace and its various administrations.

Having distinguished the covenant from that general covenant that God made with nature (a universal and temporal covenant, he says), as well as the covenant that God made with man in his state of innocence, Trelcatius states that the covenant with which he is concerned is "that covenant, which God entered into with man after his fall, by his special grace." This covenant is one only, he says, for there is only one way of salvation. Yet, this covenant is diversely administered. He thus distinguishes between the substance of the covenant and its diverse forms of administration made known "from the outward manner and circumstances."

The covenant that God entered into with corrupt man is, according to its substance, "the free disposition of God, whereby he promises eternal salvation, by the death of his Son, to the glory of his grace." After making a number of distinctions in an effort to further define the covenant, Trelcatius gets to the business of delineating the various administrations of this one covenant. Generally, the covenant is distinguished according to its times into two periods: the one of Christ to be exhibited, the other of Christ already exhibited. In this first period, the covenant was administered in diverse ways, or according to the manner of three ages.

1. According to the manner of promise. From Adam's fall to Abraham, "God expounded no less evidently than briefly, the whole manner of the covenant in that promise" of Gen 3:15.
2. According to the manner of covenant. From the time of Abraham to Moses, the promise published in Gen 3:15 was restrained to Abraham and his posterity.
3. According to the manner of a testament.

This third age, argues Trelcatius, consists of the time from Moses to Christ's coming, "when God in a more special manner disposed, declared, and confirmed that covenant, into the form of a testament." This testament -- or this outward form/administration of the covenant -- has two parts, the one being subordinate to the other. The first, subordinate part is "legal and conditional, requiring of man perfect obedience to the law, and under condition thereof, promising life eternal; which part was, as it were, a preparation unto the other, according as the Law is the school-master unto Christ." The second part of this testament was the evangelical doctrine "concerning man's reconciliation with God, and his deliverance from his misery, by the death of Christ, which part was shadowed forth with diverse types and ceremonies."

By his death, moreover, Christ abrogated this old testament and brought in the new testament. Trelcatius, in fact, argues that Christ abrogated both parts of the old testament: the first because the Law's requirement of perfect obedience is removed, the second because "the body succeeds the shadows; the truth, the figures; the thing signified, the signs, and sacrifices." In these two ways the Law (or old testament) is abrogated by the Gospel (or new testament).

Clearly the old testament or the Law (Trelcatius' terms), or the old covenant, or the mosaic covenant -- or whatever you want to call it -- is unique. While it is an administration of God's single covenant of grace, it is also subordinate to that covenant, both pedagogically and typologically. What is more, while Trelcatius does not use the term republication, the terminology he employs to describe the "legal and conditional" part of the "old testament" echoes his earlier description of that "special covenant" which God entered into with "our first parents in that state of integrity." This covenant contained "a special trial or examination of obedience," to which was attached "both the promise of a life supernatural, and a threat of a double death." Such a covenant was addressed to our first parents in their state of integrity, and thus a strict republication after the fall is impossible. Nevertheless, the publication of the same law, the same condition of perfect obedience, the same promise of life, and the same threat of death after the fall, to sinners in the state of corruption, is intended, not to be a trial or examination of obedience, but rather to serve as a schoolmaster to Christ, thus serving the ends or purposes of the covenant of grace. That is, on Trelcatius' terms, the Law, including its legal condition of perfect obedience and its promise of eternal life, is intended to drive sinners to Christ, who alone by his death has satisfied the condition and earns the promise.

Somewhere in all of this is a lesson for Reformed Christians today. Regardless of what one thinks of the doctrine of republication, Moses isn't the end of the story...

Up from the (ph.d.) grave he arose...

Well, I'm back...maybe. After approximately four years away from the blog, I have decided to give this another try. I cannot promise a great deal of activity right away, since I have just moved from Grand Rapids back to the Seattle area and have a couple of academic deadlines. Nevertheless, I hope to pass along various insights on all things Reformed Baptist in the not too distant future. Stay tuned...

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.

More on the Federal Vision and the New Perspective on Paul

Follow the link to a list of helpful resources on the subject, from a trusted source.

http://www.wscal.edu/clark/fvnpp.php

William Still and Private "Ministry"

In response to the quotation of William Still, my dear friend Aaron Hoak asked the following series of questions: "Is the pulpit the only place a pastor should be feeding sheep the truth? (Please note the question is not about the primacy of the pulpit ministry.) Can the Word be fed to the sheep in a conversation after church; in a visit to their home; in a counseling meeting? Or are these things worldly claptrap and goat entertaining?" As I began to reply, my response got a little too long. So I decided to post it here. Hope this helps.

The three questions you are asking are all different from one another. As to the last one, in the context of the quote, I don't find Still arguing that visitation or conversation with the sheep are "worldly claptrap." The comparison is at a very different level, viz., ministers who occupy their time with something other than their most basic and all-consuming task, the public ministry of the whole Word of God. Still does not address the question you have raised until later.

Your first two questions, however, present something of a conundrum. Should the pulpit be the only place the sheep are fed is a question of precept; but can the sheep be fed in personal conversation or pastoral visitation is a question of possibility. The two are quite different. Pardon the play on words, but we can't possibly answer the second question because, in itself, it is flawed. As ministers of the Word, and as Christians, we don't deal in the realm of possibilities (your second question), but rather we live and move and have our being in the realm of precept (your first question). The correct question to ask, then, is not "is it possible that some Christians might be fed by private ministrations of the Word," but rather, "What means of nourishment has God ordained, commanded, and promised to bless?" Neither you nor I can know the secret counsel of God; we must be content with what he has revealed (Deut 29:29). Ours is a theology (and pastoral theology) of revelation, not speculation. The question, then, is what has God said -- and more specifically for us, what has God said for us to do. And as we search the Scriptures we find that God has ordained, commanded, and promised to bless the reading, but especially the preaching of His Word unto the salvation (i.e., the feeding) of his sheep. There are a lot of things we don't know, but this much we do know: the sheep are and must be fed by the ministry of God's Word. Anything less is not the ministry.

Now, unless you conclude that I am dodging the intent of your question, let me assure you I am not. The perspective briefly laid out above has far reaching implications, and I can only address them briefly here. I (and Still) would argue that personal conversation and pastoral visitation are only complementary and supplemental to the divinely sanctioned public ministry of the Word, and only insofar as that kind of private word is actually necessary. Don't misunderstand. After church you are standing around and someone asks a question about the sermon. Are you going to ignore them? No, but your answer is going to confirm or amplify the preached Word. Will God bless that private Word? Yes, but as a by-product of the preached Word. Nevertheless, I think the question being asked here is less about that kind of conversation and more about a kind of regular, sustained "private" ministry of the Word [Not your question necessarily, Aaron, but the question as it is generally asked today]. Still (and I think he is quite right) contends that where the Word is properly ministered and faithfully preached the attention the sheep demand outside of the pulpit should naturally decrease. Seemingly needy sheep become faithful (fed or fat?) sheep as they heed the ministry of God's Word, so that the need for any other spiritual food (i.e., counseling) is greatly reduced. He writes, "My pastoral work of personal dealing, considerable though it is, has been greatly reduced through the years because the building up of people's faith, by the ministry of the Word of God, solves so much in their lives" (pp. 20-21). As I read him, he draws that conclusion for several reasons.

First, and most obvious, is the sufficiency of the Word (and the Word preached). The Word itself is living and active (Heb 4:12), and if the minister makes it his all-consuming duty to preach the whole counsel of God (not just tidbits or preferences), then the sheep should have a full diet that meets all their needs. The public ministry of the Word thus demands very little supplement -- and where it does, it is in the context of crisis or great need (e.g., death). Still is writing from a perspective that sadly not many share any longer -- one of a long tenure in the church, for both pastor and parishioner alike. If we are in it for the "long haul," the Lord will sanctify us by his Word over the "long haul." We have been trained to seek the immediate fix or the mountain top experience. And sadly many pastors either think they have the power or want desperately to provide that fix or experience for sheep who are struggling or suffering. But is that right? Is that biblical? No. None are freed from suffering and difficulty in this life -- it is an inescapable reality on account of the overlap of the ages. None are freed from sin entirely in this life -- it, too, is an inescapable reality in the life of the saint. But should that cause despair? Has the meager sheep no recourse or help? No, for our gracious Lord and Savior has ordained the public means of grace to be our steady diet, a diet that if faithfully administered and faithfully received Lord's Day after Lord's Day, is appointed to the end of our full nourishment. God will meet our real needs for solid spiritual food as his Spirit works through his preached Word. Hart and Muether make the same point in With Reverence and Awe concerning the slow but steady diet of the God-ordained public means of grace.

As I've already alluded to, the second reason Still (and I) would give for his conclusion is the sovereingty of the Spirit. The Spirit of Christ knows the sheep (their troubles, trials, etc.) with a perfect knowledge, unlike the minister. Thus, the minister ought to have confidence that the Spirit will apply his own living and active Word to Christ's sheep perfectly and sufficiently (far better, indeed, than you or I ever could) -- and the means appointed to that end is the preaching of the whole Word of God, both the law and the gospel. In this way faith and patience go hand in hand. Do we believe that God's Word is sufficient and God's Spirit is sovereign to save? If so, then we will not busily or frantically try to do the work of either (which, I fear is what we are doing by counseling, et al). Instead, we will fulfill our calling. We will preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, reprove, rebuke, and exhort with all longsuffering (i.e, patience) and teaching (2 Tim 4:2). We will minister God's Word when and where and how we are commanded and trust that the Spirit will accomplish his sovereign purposes of conversion and sanctification when and where and how God has promised, namely, as the Shorter Catechism states by the reading, but especially, the preaching of the Word of God.

The final reason, which I had never considered at great length, is the application of the preached Word in the communion of the saints. Above I quoted Still saying that the ministry of the Word solves so much in peoples lives. He continues, "It enables those who receive it and seek to live by it to understand and solve so much in other lives, that instead of becoming a liability on my time and energy, they become pastors themselves. Indeed, one of the features of such a radical and total ministry of the Word is that it thrusts so many into spiritual and social work that I can hardly keep a congregation together on account of their scattering throughout the land, and indeed, the earth" (p. 21). Now, I do not agree that the sheep become pastors -- there is a distinction to be made. But Still has a point. He suggests here that the ministry of the Word bears fruit nationally and globally. My point, and he makes it elsewhere in the book, is that the ministry of the Word ought to bear fruit ecclesiastically, i.e., in the church and for the sake of the church. While too much has been made of this in recent years by creating a whole theology of "one-anothering," there is a point to be made concerning Christ's people loving and caring for each another. As some sheep grow and mature through the means of grace, they are able to help other sheep at a more personal level. One sheep loves another, confronts another, prays for another, and the like. Now, we will miss the point entirely if we try to formalize this, or create a program for it. No, this is an informal reality in the church, which arises as a Spirit-born by-product of the full-orbed ministry of God's sufficient Word. So that just as the minister confirms privately and personally what he has declared in the ministry of the Word, so also Christ's sheep confirm the Word with and for each other.

While I have probably raised more questions than provided answers, my basic answer turns us again to what belongs not only at the center of the pastoral ministry, but what is the sum and substance of the pastoral ministry, viz., the public ministry of God's Word. Anything else we do as ministers only serves to confirm (or grow out of, or revolve around) that, and it must be our prayer that Christ by his Spirit does what only he can do in and for our churches, viz., powerfully and effectually apply the Word to each and every one of His beloved sheep.

New Books Dealing with The Federal Vision and the New Perspective on Paul

One of the advantages the internet affords is the ability to search for new or forthcoming books, which is best done by searching the individual publisher's site. Over the past several weeks I have stumbled across several volumes I had heard about previously from various sources, but which have only recently been (or are soon to be) made available. [Note: I hope to make such reviews/previews of new/forthcoming books a regular feature of the Confessionalist.]

First, Michael Horton has written an introduction to covenant theology entitled, God of Promise (Baker). This book is available, as of last month. Reformed Baptists like myself will not agree with all of Horton's conclusions, most notably concerning the practice of infant baptism; nevertheless, as my father and co-pastor, Don Lindblad, observed, the introduction is, by itself, a concise and cogent summary of this vital subject. Much that passes for 'covenant theology' in Reformed circles today is really a 20th century revision (or retarding) of classic covenant theology. Horton helpfully reverses that trajectory and introduces afresh historic covenant theology to the present generation.

With a similar subject (i.e., covenant theology), but a more polemic purpose is Guy Prentiss Waters's The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology: A comparative Analysis (P & R), due out sometime in May or June. If this volume lives up to its billing and title, then Waters's labors will go a long way to show that classic covenant theology and the Federal Vision are not different shades of gray, but are as different as white and black. Some (e.g. Presbyterians and Presbyterians Together) are contending that the basic contours of confessional Reformed theology can be expressed across a broad spectrum of theological formulations. The Federal Vision, however, is an altogether different theological system than confessional Reformed theology, despite what its proponents profess. It maintains a different view of election, of the covenant, of justification, and of the sacraments (to name but a few). Lord willing, Waters will make that crystal clear to the broader Reformed world.

Two other volumes dealing with recent challenges to the biblical and confessional doctrine of justification by faith alone are Cornelis P. Venema's Getting the Gospel Right: Assessing the Reformation and New Perspectives on Paul (Banner of Truth) and J. Ligon Duncan's Misunderstanding Paul?: Responding to the New Perspective (Crossway) are due out in May/June and October, respectively. Both appear to be written with both pastors and laymen in view, and should be of tremendous service to confessional Reformed Christianity.

Happy reading.

The Work of the Pastor

I realize I have posted very little here, and it is perhaps the case that very few are keeping up with what little I say. The ministry has been quite demanding of late, and I don't pretend that will stop any time soon. Nonetheless, it is my hope to post more theologically and ecclesiastically poignant material on this site -- in particular I have some thoughts on the doctrine of the covenant of works in relation to the ongoing controversies regarding the doctrine of justification, and I have some thoughts on preaching and the pastoral ministry as that relates to theological prolegomena (viz., the doctrine of the Word of God).

In the meantime, I give you a quote from William Still's fine volume The Work of the Pastor:

"It is to feed sheep on [the] truth that men are called to churches and congregations, whatever they may think they are called to do. If you think that you are called to keep a largely worldly organisation [sic], miscalled a church, going, with infinitesimal doses of innocuous sub-Christian drugs or stimulants, then the only help I can give you is to advise you to give up the hope of the ministry and go and be a street scavenger; a far healthier and more godly job, keeping the streets tidy, than cluttering the church with a lot of worldly claptrap in the delusion that you are doing a job for God. The pastor is called to feed the sheep, even if the sheep do not want to be fed. He is certainly not to become an entertainer of goats. Let goats entertain goats, and let them do it out in goatland. You will certainly not turn goats into sheep by pandering to the goatishness. Do we really believe that the Word of God, by his Spirit, changes, as well as maddens men? If we do, to be evangelists and pastors, feeders of sheep, we must be men of the Word of God."

I say, "Amen!"