Have I not madmen?

Republican Beatitudes

2009-09-20T19:14:00.001-07:00

The Republican National Committee recently released a set of revisions to the well-loved Christian beatitudes cleaning up the inchoate Communism in Jesus' statements:

Blessed are the materially wealthy, for they are the Elect of God.
Blessed are the poor, for they are not taxed to pay for other people's medicines.
Blessed are the belligerent, for they will subdue the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for vengeance, for they will find abundant enemies.
Blessed are the merciless, for in such ways they will earn respect.
Blessed are the pure in ideology, for they will be God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will confuse and delay our opponents.
Blessed are those who are persecuted by the liberal media elite, for they will strike back!
Blessed are you when people slander you on any account, for in the same way they slandered Genghis Khan and Caligula who were before you.

Tangling with TRs

2006-06-18T20:28:00.000-07:00

The following fictitious conversation captures the flavor of the last several discussions I've had with the "Truly Reformed":

Idealistic Young Man: I've been reading Dr. Y on topic W, and he has some good insights on how the Reformers could be improved upon in that area.

Defender Of Orthodoxy: Why do you have to contradict the Reformers? Don't you know that Dr. Y's stuff is heresy. Do you want to be drawn into heresy?

IYM: Wow! That's a rather strong claim you make. Could you explain why it's heresy?

DOO: Why do you have to turn everything into an argument? Why can't you just accept that it's heresy and repent of your involvement in it?

IYM: Do you know enough about the subject to give a two-sentence summary?

DOO: Look, I just read a book about it and decided I don't like it. Why isn't that good enough for you?

IYM: So, you're basing a charge of heresy and a call for repentance on your non-specific feelings on the subject. Do you see how someone might have a problem with you doing that?

DOO: It's arrogant of you to question my ethics. I don't have a problem with anybody besides you.

IYM: Is that because everyone else is afraid to differ with you?

DOO: The problem is that you're harboring bitterness because I called you to repentance.

IYM: Yes, I recall. You want me to repent of, uh, reading books. And that has made me bitter. Yes, very bitter. How about we not talk about this anymore?

DOO: Are you suggesting I'm unable to carry on a discussion about this?

IYM: No, I'm not suggesting anything. I'm stating plainly that as long as you react to things in a way that doesn't involve words, it is impossible, by definition, to have a conversation.

Answering Paedocommunion, Part IV: The Lord's Supper is About Something

2006-04-19T22:49:00.000-07:00

"Open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it." -Ps. 81:10, cited by Credenda/Agenda as concerning the Lord's Supper.

"What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in?" -I Cor. 11:18, written by the Apostle Paul concerning the Lord's Supper.

To judge from the front and back outer cover of the current issue of Credenda/Agenda, one would think the Lord's Supper is a non-specific feast, a celebration of the fatness of the land God has given to his people. The front cover, titled "That Wonderful Cup," contains a picture of a roughly 4-year-old boy holding up a plastic communion cup. The back cover, under a quotation from Ps. 81:10 (cited above), shows a picture of a young child, face smeared with melted ice cream. The picture-lesson one would get from this is that the Lord's Supper is modeled on Easter dinner, where everyone stuffs themselves full of food and then rests on the couch for the evening.

How hard this is to reconcile with the image of the Jewish Passover shown in Exodus 12, where participants ate the sparse offerings of the wilderness dressed as if to flee from danger, was discussed in Part III. There is, however, a Biblical feast that Credenda's cover pictures more closely resemble, and it is described in I Corinthians 11:20-22:

"When you come together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not."

The Corinthians had merged a pagan Agape (love-feast) into the Lord's Supper, and produced a result that was deplorable. But, notice that Paul does not simply condemn the contempt shown for the poor, he also makes it clear that the Lord's Supper is not the place where one fills his belly with food. People have houses for that sort of thing. To turn the Supper into such a spectacle not only "humiliated" the poor, it also "despised the church of God." Why this is so is because the Lord's Supper is not just eating; it is about something.

In Reformed churches, the Sacrament is never administered without a word of institution (WCF 29:3):

"For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, 'This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." -I Cor 11:23-26

The taking of the bread and the wine is a very potent spiritual act, not because of the bread and wine themselves, but because of the body and blood of the Lord. Those who have been Christians for a long time may lose sight of how astonishing this is: that we might really partake in the flesh and blood of the crucified God. Few adults even begin to comprehend this, and it is certain that infants do not. The understanding of this mystery is reserved to those of sufficient intellectual capacity to discern how the flesh and blood of another can be atonement for us all. In attempting to make the Supper accessible to children, paedocommunionists must (and do) dilute the significance of the sacrament until it becomes "Open your mouth wide, and I will fill it." The entire spiritual significance of this event disappears, and we are left with a modern Agape-feast that cannot do justice to such a ponderous invocation.

The Lord's Supper is, like Passover was, the merging of a spiritual mystery with a catechetical demonstration. Take either of these away, and a sacrament is no sacrament any longer ("it is not the Lord's supper that you eat."). Without the mystery, it is only homily. Without the doctrine, it is empty superstition. This is why the Confession excludes from the Supper those who do not both partake and understand rightly.

Answering Paedocommunion, Part III: Single-Word Exegesis

2006-04-16T17:17:00.000-07:00

Arguments rooted in the continuity of the Old and New Testaments have always carried weight in Reformed circles, so naturally paedocommunionists appeal to covenant continuity for support. If it can be shown that the Passover meal was given to infants, it could suggest that the Lord's Supper should likewise be given to infants. Peter Leithart attempts to prove this from Exodus 12.

"Tell all the congregation of Israel that on the tenth day of this month every man shall take a lamb according to their fathers' houses, a lamb for a household. And if the household is too small for a lamb, then he and his nearest neighbor shall take according to the number of persons; according to what each can eat you shall make your count for the lamb...They shall eat the flesh that night, roasted on the fire; with unleavened bread and bitter herbs they shall eat it. Do not eat any of it raw or boiled in water, but roasted, its head with its legs and its inner parts. And you shall let none of it remain until the morning; anything that remains until the morning you shall burn." (Exodus 12:3-4,8-10)

Leithart's argument from this passage (which he calls "conclusive") turns on the word "household," which he points out, in the Biblical context, includes children. If the Passover lamb "had to be at least big enough to feed a household," one must believe that children would participate. "If younger members of the household were not going to eat, why was the size of the lamb large enough to feed them? To taunt them?"

By this means, Leithart and Douglas Wilson cast the paedocommunion issue as one of the mean-spiritedness of the Reformed tradition. If only Presbyterians would open their hearts to their children (and stop "taunting" them with graces they can't have), they would admit them to the Table. The problem with this argument is that it digs so deeply into the word 'hosuehold' that it mangles most of the other details in the passage.

The Passover in Exodus is not a picture of superplenary abundance. All of the considerations in the text point to the lamb being just big enough to feed a family, not "at least big enough," as Leithart characterizes. There were no leftovers permitted (Ex. 12:10), and families were to group together to avoid having more meat than they could use for one meal (v4). The food would not have been appealing by the ordinary standards: there was no sauce for the meat (v9), the bread had no leaven, and it was served with "bitter herbs" (v8). The meal was eaten hurriedly and fully dressed for travel (v11). This is hardly a picture of a meal that young children would have been "taunted" by.

By emphasizing the "goodness" aspect of the covenant, Leithart has drawn attention away from the fact that Passover is about something, besides feeding. In a detail that John Calvin considers conclusive for refuting paedocommunion, those children taking part in Passover ask, "What do you mean by this service?" (v26) and are catechized by their parents (v27). This shows that the purpose of the Passover is to recollect and transmit the story of the Exodus, to ensure that every generation knew and remembered that God spared the Jews who ate, while striking the Egyptians around them. If Passover were about the enjoyment of abundance, the food would be its own explanation. The children present would have no reason to ask, "Why are we doing this?" Calvin's conclusion is that Passover "did not admit all kinds of guests promiscuously, but was duly eaten only by those who were of an age sufficient to ask the meaning of it." (Institutes 4:16:30) Without this doctrinal aspect, Passover becomes, in Calvin's words, "an unmeaning and useless spectacle." (Commentaries)

In spite of this, does the use of the word household "conclusively" show the inclusion of young children? One can think of many things that belong to "children," but not to childhood. The eldest son of a king is promised the throne, but a prince left fatherless is hardly ever crowned until he reaches adulthood. The right to ascension is still there, but it is conditioned upon other circumstances. The Biblical examples given by Leithart of 'household' including 'children' are seen to refer to grown children (Noah's married sons, etc.), except for circumcision, which is particularly reserved to infancy.

There are several different feasts in the Old Testament that could serve as predecessors for the Lord's Supper, and this prevents drawing detailed conclusions about the administration of the New Testament sacrament from the Pentateuch. So, proving the inclusion of infants in the Passover would still leave paedocommunion a hypothetical claim. Yet, as the Reformers discovered, the Biblical evidence shows that the second sacrament of the Old Testament, like the second sacrament of the New Testament, is reserved to those old enough to understand the meaning of it. There is one sacrament for marking the boundaries of the covenant (baptism), and there is another sacrament for reflection upon the privileges of the covenant.

Answering Paedocommunion, Part II: Unmerging the Sacraments

2006-04-11T20:31:00.000-07:00

When God instituted two Christian sacraments: Baptism and the Lord's Supper, did He indeed create two sacraments, or did He create two forms of administering what is essentially the same sacrament? The difference between the classical Reformed position on the sacraments and the positions of other traditions can be distinguished by this question. For the anabaptists, the rules of administration and significance of the Supper have come to be taken as the rules and significance of baptism; baptism becomes a rite restricted to adult believers only, like Communion. A new and man-made "sacrament," infant dedication, has to be added to give believers something to mark their children's place in the covenant. As baptism shifts from a landmark of covenant inclusion to a sustaining grace similar to Communion, a fourth "sacrament," the repetition of the "Sinner's Prayer" moves in to provide a conversion landmark for adult believers. Baptism, then, becomes a sort of "confirmation" of the "born again" experience and increases its depth, like Communion. Where the Presbyterian has the date of his baptismal certificate to mark his becoming part of the body of Christ, the Baptist has the date of his "born again" experience penciled somewhere in his Bible.

For the paedocommunion/Federal Vision side, the collapse of two sacraments into one goes in the opposite direction. For the Baptist, Communion eats up Baptism, but for the paedocommunionist, Baptism eats up Communion. The rules and form of administration of baptism come to be taken for the rules and form of the Lord's Supper, despite the extra distinctions the Bible makes concerning the second sacrament.

Peter Leithart wants the church to believe that refusing Communion to infants kicks them out of the covenant. Since, according to the Reformed faith, it is baptism that uniquely symbolizes inclusion in the covenant (WCF 28:1-"Baptism...for the solemn admission...into the visible Church...[is] a sign and seal...of his ingrafting into Christ"), it appears that Leithart is redefining the Table in the image of a continuing baptismal rite, taking away the distinctiveness of ths sacrament in the process. Compare what the Confession says about the Lord's Supper being distinctly for believers' "spiritual nourishment and growth in [Jesus and] their further engagement in and to all duties which they owe unto Him" (WCF 29:1) One also wonders how infants may be engaged in duties owed to God.

There are many things of a theological nature which rightly may be said about "the sacraments" on the whole: they symbolize the graces they represent (they "point to" grace), they give us an image of a spiritual reality (they "look like" grace), and they guarantee a benefit to those who are worthy to receive them (they "promise" grace) (WCF 27:1-3). But, there are many distinctions between the two sacraments: one is an image of washing away pollution, the other is an image of nourishment; one is administered only once, one is administered regularly; one uses water, one uses bread and wine; one is applied externally, one is taken internally; one is rooted in ancient Jewish water rituals (Num. 19; Eze. 36), one is rooted in the person of Christ; one is given to individuals, one is given to congregations.

If the Lord's Supper becomes a kind of continuing baptism, one can see how the questions Leithart asks could arise: "Does baptism merely express a hope that the baptized one day will enter the covenant in some other fashion?" If one's inclusion in the covenant is not completely settled in baptism, and needs to be completed or continued in Communion, then exclusion from Communion could be seen to negate baptism. But, the Reformed have never thought this way. Even in one suspended from the Table, there is no expectation that one's baptism has been canceled, nor is one expected to repeat their baptism if they are later restored from suspension or excommunication. A disfellowshipped brother is still a part of the covenant, even as they violate that covenant. The covenant continues to be in force regardless of whether Communion is kept. There is therefore no reason to believe that paedobaptism only joins one to the covenant where it is immediately followed by participation is the Lord's Supper.

Answering Paedocommunion, Part I: Forms and Substance

2006-04-07T16:34:00.000-07:00

On a much older blog entry about the 'Federal Vision,' I've been asked about the current (special) issue of Credenda on the subject of paedocommunion. Normally, I would leave such a topic to the experts, but since the question has been put to me, and since I will be mostly repeating the nearly unanimous position (singular) of the Reformers, I will dare to tread into these waters.

The sidebar paragraph for this issue of Credenda is, in it's entirety: "They're sitting there. You baptized them. You say Jesus loves them. Give 'em the bread, you lumpy anabaptist." Credenda's incisive (perhaps they would say 'serrated') style makes me smile on occasion, but I cannot give it the degree of credit they do in the advertisement on the inside back cover: "Laughter is War." Satire and ridicule are used as blunt tools by all forms of complainants. Any savage can mock (consult the Democratic Underground forums for proof); there is nothing uniquely Christian about it.

But it's the use of the epithet 'anabaptist' that surprises me, even in the 'literary' context of a Credenda publication. This term, like 'hypercalvinist,' is often used as an insult without much concern for its actual meaning. The anabaptists were separatists who rejected infant baptism. John Calvin, no enemy of paedobaptism, nonetheless claimed "the greatest difference between the two signs" (Institutes 4:16:30) If John Calvin is an anabaptist, then what's left of the Reformation is smaller than Mormonism.

The point I will address in this article is Peter Leithart's claim that "there simply is no covenant where there are no external forms." This is to say that by denying infants the Supper, we are throwing them out of communion with God. Leithart asks a number of questions at the beginning of the article, and by labeling certain possible answers 'antipaedocommunion,' buries within the questions the claim that one must either believe in paedocommunion or reject the covenant. Leaving aside the question of whether this position reduces the sacrament of baptism (which the Reformed do administer to infants) to a trifle, let's consider what the Confession says about the 'forms' and 'substance' of the Lord's Supper:

"Although ignorant and wicked men receive the outward elements in this sacrament: yet they receive not the thing signified thereby, but by their unworthy coming thereunto are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord to their own damnation. Wherefore, all ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with Him, so are they unworthy of the Lord's table; and cannot, without great sin against Christ while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted thereunto." (WCF 29:8)

It is the teaching of the Reformed tradition that the forms are closely connected to the substance, but sacramentally only, and not to the degree that having the form always guarantees the substance nor that lacking the form denies the substance. John 3:8-"The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit." Concerning the other sacrament, the Confession says:

"The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time." (WFC 28:7)

So, those who would claim we are "starving" infants of the grace of God by delaying their admittance to the Table are shown to have a very time-bound understanding of the operation of the grace of God.

Leithart offers the example of marital relations as the forms that underlie the covenant of marriage, saying, "Just as there is...no continuing marital relationship except through a set of bodily practices, so there simply is no covenant where there are no external forms." Yet, it may be the case, that due to the advanced age of the partners or other factors, a couple may choose not to engage in marital relations, and yet still be very much in covenant one with another. In fact, this example shows how a covenant commonly may continue unabated for an entire period of life without attestation by the usual physical forms. This parallels what the Confession says about the form of baptism sometimes long preceding the attestation of the substance. If the sincerity of marriage is not doubted due to the lack of marital relations near the end of life, why would the reality of one's connection to the church be doubted due to the lack of participation in the Supper at the beginning of life? The tight connection between forms and substance that Leithart wishes to establish is thereby loosened.

Thinking Towards a Christian Epistemology...

2006-01-21T13:54:00.000-08:00

What a Christian epistemology should consist in seems to me to be:

1. It should be continuous between childhood and adulthood. The basis of faith in a child should not have discontinuities with the basis of faith in an adult. If to become converted requires that we "become like children" (Matt 18:3), as Jesus said, then the faith of adults should be like the faith of children. In Presbyterianism, our "adult" modes of believing are often so philosophical and algebraic that they cannot be understood by children. Children grow up believing because they've been taught the Biblical narratives, and are expected to make a radical leap to some scholastic system (like presuppositionalism) upon reaching adulthood. Certainly, the faith of a child should mature in scope and depth as one approaches adulthood, but a profound leap makes inevitable the question, "Which basis is the 'real' one?" which denies the faith of a child the respect that Christ accords it.

2. It should respect the distinction between the Creator and the creature. Most conservative Presbyterians are conscientious about maintaining this distinction in the area of metaphysics, but hold no such distinction in the area of epistemology. Many seem to think that for something to be known true to a man requires that it be absolutely known to be true, which means that it must be known to be true by a man in the same way that it is known to be true by God. To have absolute knowledge requires exhaustive comprehension, because partial knowledge of an area could be misrepresentative of the whole. Only by knowing an area exhaustively can you ensure that the next fact you learn about it won't alter your interpretation. When the area of knowledge is the nature of God and the universe, the only absolute knowledge is omniscience. So, the dichotomy between absolute knowledge and ignorance would leave us without knowledge.

In most areas of daily life, less-than-absolute certainty is not seen as a problem. I do not know with certainty that I will live tomorrow, but that doesn't prevent me from acting in preparation for it, and it doesn't even take away my moral responsibility to plan for it. Thomas was expected by Jesus to believe even before Jesus increased his certainty in the resurrection by presenting Himself (John 20:29). Jesus insisted that the certainty Thomas already had from his experiences with Jesus was a sufficient basis for faith, even though it was not absolute, having been added to by Christ's personal appearance. Our certainty in God's promises will certainly increase when we see Him face-to-face, but that does not remove or diminish our moral obligations in this life.

3. It should be honest about human situatedness. Presuppositionalists rightly refer to the Calvinist doctrine of the total corruption of the mental faculties of man. One need only look to the human world around him to see that self-deception is the rule in human thinking. The presuppositionalist insists that the only way to be clear of mind is to abandon "autonomy," by which they mean understanding which originates in the self, and embrace God's view of the universe. So, they make a radical epistemological commitment to believing in the Bible as the word of God by definition (rather than for good reasons). But, it is clear that this does not escape "autonomy," for what is more an act of autonomous self-will than declaring a presupposition covering God and the entire universe? Declaring a presupposition is a way of saying, "I will sift the data reaching my senses (to distinguish evidence from deception) according to this construct in my head." But that means the self is interpreting the universe rather than the universe interpreting the self. I know that the universe was around before me and will be around after me, so I don't see this as being a sound position to take. Once I admit that my autonomy is inescapable, I am open to becoming self-aware of the fallenness of my intellect, and can take pains to ensure that I don't misrepresent the degree of confidence in any given proposition.

(With thanks to Chris Finnegan for editorial guidance.)

So this presuppositionalist walks into a bar...

2006-01-14T10:43:00.000-08:00

So this presuppositionalist walks into a bar and overhears a man ordering a beer.

He asks, "How do you know that beer really exists?"

The man says, "I know it exists the same way I know that the sky is blue. I look at it, and there it is."

Presup. replies, "Apart from belief in the Trinitarian God, the world is unintelligible, and all attempts at understanding are futile, so you can't know that."

"What does Trinitarian mean?"

"It means the one God exists in 3 persons."

"But I can't understand that until after I believe it?"

"Well, every man already believes it, but represses the knowledge."

"So, this 'repressed knowledge' lets me understand what '3' is, but not what 'blue' is?"

"Well, only when I'm using the '3' for evangelistic purposes."

(Not so) Great Moments in (Jewish) Apologetics

2005-04-21T17:53:00.000-07:00

I chanced upon the website Jews for Judaism, which is a response to the success of organizations like Jews for Jesus in converting Jews to Christianity by preserving a locus of Jewish cultural identity within the church. I've never understood the wide split between Christianity and Judaism. The apostolic period was a Jewish milieu, and all of its leaders were Jewish. Christianity is incomprehensible apart from its Jewish foundations. Edith Schaeffer's book Christianity is Jewish does a wonderful job of exploring this.

Jews for Judaism has a little FAQ laying out out their case that Jesus is not the Messiah. As I started to read it, I was overcome by laughter and incredulity at the first point:

Jesus cannot be the Messiah because he did not have a Jewish biological father.

Pursuing this line of thought creates a bit of a dilemma for our Jewish apologists. On the one hand, if one rejects the virgin birth, then Jesus was the biological son of Mary's fianceé Joseph, and the objection dissolves. On the other hand, if one embraces the virgin birth (which they seem to have done, at least hypothetically), then one is put in the impious position of rejecting a miracle from God (sorry, G-d) on the grounds of some fastidious interpretation of genealogical laws.

A further objection to Jesus is in the notion that God would never be incarnate as a man, which they claim even during exegesis of passages like Isaiah 7 (with its controversial "virgin birth" prophecy and Immanuel -- "God with us" -- figure). Then, they maintain that the Messiah must rebuild the Jerusalem temple, because in Ezekiel 37, God says that his "sanctuary" will be with His people forever. So, their rejection of an imminent God is coupled with an insistence on a very present material sanctuary (a spiritual God cannot have a spiritual sanctuary?). Their G-d may be distant, but their temple must be right here.

Rules for Theological Debating

2005-04-17T14:44:00.000-07:00

Strive to employ a tone that is more gracious than you expect/receive in response, because:
- You will usually overestimate your own graciousness and underestimate that of others.
- Being a peacemaker requires cranking the heat down a notch or two on each exchange.
- There are enough ambiguities in any discussion to create sufficient conflict.
Interpret other people's statements in the most charitable manner that fits.
- Other people use different words to say that same thing. Don't get into "violent agreement" with anybody.
- Most Christians are growing in their spiritual understanding. Allow for the possibility that their "errors" reflect progressive sanctification rather than progressive declension.
Do not publish anything you still have qualms of conscience about.
- Prayerfully review anything that your intuition flags as unsafe.
- Imagine how you will view what you've said 5 years from now or when the current controversy has cooled off.
Allow everyone the sincerity of his beliefs.
- Assume that each person is being honest about their motivations unless they give you specific reason to think otherwise.
- If someone is not convinced of your point, review the strength of your argument.
- Go into each discussion assuming that you will learn, rather than teach.
Never make a bald accusation (heresy, dishonesty, hypocrisy, etc.) against someone you do not have formal authority over.
- Humbly lay out the evidence that leads you to make the judgment.
- Let the reader draw his own conclusions.
Do not sin yourself in attempting to correct others.
- Be humble, not triumphalist in your posture.
- Give people the opportunity to concede points without losing face.
Trust in God's sovereignty and providence.
- Remember that you are not the instrument of God's salvation, only the messenger.
- Don't continue a discussion beyond the point where it is bearing fruit. God will work in his time.
- Do not begrudge a weaker brother his errors. Make his nurture your work.
Never give an adversary a damaging out-of-context quote.
- Review compositions for "loaded" words and phrases before publishing.
- Don't make strident remarks for effect -- they will come back to haunt you.
- Don't make excuses for a hasty response. Repent, reconcile, and move on.

Bible Versions and Reformed Subjectivism

2005-04-16T19:11:00.000-07:00

James White's excellent website has a retrospective on an old debate he had with Douglas Wilson of Credenda/Agenda and New St. Andrews concerning King James Onlyism. I remembered reading this several years ago when it was first published and being surprised to discover Reformed people being particular about Bible translations. Typically, the only people who insist upon the KJV are fringe fundamentalists who believe that the difference between the renderings "the Lord Jesus Christ" and "Christ Jesus our Lord" proves that all non-KJV Bible versions (including the New King James Version) are the work of a satanic conspiracy trying to undermine our faith in the scriptures.

Throughout the debate, Wilson insists that the forensics of the scripture text belongs to the church alone, and that the church acts with providential (near?) infallibility in its role as caretaker of the manuscript tradition. White brings up several instances where new manuscript evidence calls some of the traditional readings into question, as more ancient fragments and codices are discovered. Wilson won't take this at face value, insisting that this only represents the opinions of non-Christian scientists. For Wilson, there is no prima facie evidence concerning the text; there is only the "authority of the church" and the "authority of scientists."

This is superficially reminiscent of Roman Catholic rejections of sola scriptura. Catholic apologists claim that Scripture can't be authoritative apart from the institutional church, because without the institutional church, no one would know which texts the canon of scripture was composed of. This ignores the process the Council of Nicea used for determining the contents of the canon, which consisted largely in weighing the historical evidence for apostolic authorship of the various candidate documents and in examining the texts for consistency with the established canon of the Old Testament. It also invests the institutional church with the authority to declare or retract canonical teachings at any time, which is the death of the historic catholicity of the faith. How could the adherents to primitive Christianity share any fellowship with the followers of the ponderously complex religion modern Roman Catholicism has become?

Wilson's belief that the authority of the church is at stake over the authenticity of the Johannine Comma, etc. puts him in an intellectually awkward position. The Comma is unattested as canon in any source before the 4th century and poorly attested even in medieval manuscripts. All the evidence indicates that these dozen or so words were inserted into the text of 1 John long after it was written. Over and against this, Wilson is left defending the (misleadingly named) Received Text (TR) as axiomatic to the confessional church. The reliability of the TR turns into a sociological struggle for original authority between church and science.

Wilson may believe that there are no truly objective facts about ancient scripture manuscripts, owing to a presuppositional belief that man's noetic faculties are entirely corrupted by the Fall, and that I grant, but how far can one take this? Is a sinner incapable of distinguishing even the most trivial of facts? Is the observation that ancient manuscripts contain a slightly different rendering of a certain passage to be held as nothing but a damning deceit? Do we risk a return to a canonical geocentrism where every truth is relative to a social authority? Is giving the church this kind of ontological authority prudent in the light of WCF 25:5 [1]?

Wilson fears that if we allow new manuscript information to influence our view of the canon of scripture, there is no limit to how far the revisionism of the Bible can go. It is unclear where the impetus for this would come from. We have extensive documentation covering over 90% of the history of the transmission of the New Testament, and this history shows that the amount of corruption accumulated in the copies is vanishingly small, even miraculously small. We do not require artificial supports, such as an inspired Received Text, to support our trust in modern Bibles.

The authority of scriptural texts does not come from the imprimatur of the church, but from the supernaturally-invested infallible teaching authority of the prophetic and apostolic authors, attested by miraculous signs, and from the supernatural character of the texts themselves. The scriptures are robust to distortion through copying errors or faulty exegesis, containing great clarity of image and concept, extending through an intermeshing system of saving doctrine. It is the human heart and mind that are faulty. We should not rely on fallible church councils for that which God, in his providence, has enunciated and preserved.

[1] "5. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error: and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth, to worship God according to His will." Westminster Confession of Faith, Ch. 25.

Reformed Catholicism

2005-04-12T22:50:00.000-07:00

It's been a long time since I've given any serious thought to the topic of Roman Catholicism. As priorities go, it ranks down there with Scientology and Mormonism. But, even without the Pope's death, Catholicism is coming up on my radar screen with some in the Reformed camp taking a more-than-passing interest in it.

James White's website alerted me to the existence of a blog titled Reformed Catholicism which claims to be "Classically Protestant and Constructively catholic." There's something about that tagline that puts me off, partly because I've never considered the Reformed church as being incomplete or non-catholic apart from Rome any more than I think we need formal ties to Benny Hinn. The church is already catholic without someone trying to build a temporal empire.

Don't get me wrong, I'm entirely covenantal. I covet the unity of the church across the millennia in the word and sacrament, and believe that many minds are less likely to err than one. But, I don't believe that the body of Christ is only properly reified as a 501(c)3 corporation. No one has trouble with the notion of "academia" being a real and vital one, even if all Universities don't answer to single board of trustees. There is a lucid and compelling union of the churches found in the scriptural doctrine, shared history, and rich culture of Christianity. I'm not convinced that spooky theories concerning the mysteries of the sacraments (above and beyond what the scriptures and the Westminster Confession and Catechisms teach) add anything to faith, at least when viewed from a long perspective.

Anyway, I've been observing, and occasionally interacting with, Catholic apologists. Apparently, they have gotten annoyed at having lost so many converts to Protestant arguments from the scriptures, and have started to fight back. Catholic apologetics now ring with constant claims that Catholicism is "biblical." They even try to deal with specific Bible passages to make their claims. Fundamentally, though, they try to take exclusive control of the scriptures.

The primary claim of Rome vis-a-vis the scriptures is that, since "the church" ratified the canon of scripture at Nicea in AD 325, the Vatican now "owns" the scriptures, and to interpret them in a way incongruous with Rome's representations is not allowed. How recognition of the merit of scripture should be elevated above the generation of the text is unclear to me. My recognizing that Handel is a great composer does not make me a master musician. Rome may have the ability to discern the power of scripture (properly understood, the scripture testifies to its own glory), but this is a very different thing from being master over it.

Claiming sole authority over the scriptures allows people to get away with sloppy interpretation. To call some of the Catholic exegesis I've seen sloppy is too charitable. Some of it leaves the impression of listening for content to glossolalia -- one concentrates on the babble of syllables trying to pull out some content, and eventually gives up in frustration. It's as if all rules of logical inference and deductive reasoning were suspended, to be replaced by an alchemical ability to find core doctrines in the white space between words. Isaiah talks about his sins being purged with fire. The exegetical Catholic starts with this, and diving into a churning ocean of syntax, at some length, emerges on the other side with the doctrine of purgatory between his teeth.

I'm already finding this tedious. Presbyterian exegesis is challenging and worthwhile because it is an open process. Some parts of scripture are difficult to understand, but I know where I can go to learn about the archeology, culture, or systematics needed to properly compose them. If somebody with a greater grasp of the sweep of the Judeo-Christian narrative constructs an inference beyond my ability to construct, I can examine their conclusions using basic principles that can be explained and justified.

When the Catholic comes to scripture with his doctrines already ratified, and insists that his intuitions or magisterial traditions are conclusive, we're left without the ability to discuss anything. Not surprisingly, many Protestant-Catholic dialogs quickly become posturing contests: who can appear more authoritative, less petty, or better informed. I don't think there's any point to it until everybody involved is willing to accept what the text says on face value. Trying to discuss exegesis with a man who already has an "infallible" interpretation is like trying to teach a pig to sing; it only frustrates you and annoys the pig.

Thinking about the 'Federal Vision'

2005-02-21T15:01:00.000-08:00

A growing controversy in Reformed circles was set off by Douglas Wilson and associates who have been advocating a framework known as the "Federal Vision." The idea here is that young children of church members in good standing are properly regarded as Christians and accorded all the consequent rights and privileges, including the taking of the Lord's Supper.

Some of the things Wilson says resonate with me, as when he points out that the Scriptural and Confessional language concerning baptism is broader than our modern Protestant formulations ("baptism now saves us" - 1 Peter 3:21); but some things do not, for example, suggesting that denying a young child the Elements is denying their love for Christ or their salvation. Loving your 8-year-old son doesn't necessarily mean letting him drive your car--or share in the bread and wine before he has been substantially catechized.

Many Reformed people are freaking out about Wilson's perceived embrace of baptismal regeneration, which I do not believe he holds to. Some complain that, even if he is not teaching baptismal regeneration, the language he uses is so confusing as to be indistinguishable by the unschooled from Romanism. Yet, the Scriptures are not "easy," and believing them to be so provokes endless errors. Even the Apostle Peter acknowledged difficulties with some of the Apostle Paul's writings (2 Peter 3:16), which he warned "untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction." So, we cannot escape the fact that the teachings of Scripture are ultimately more complex than can be captured in simple creedal statements.

Ultimately, what I think Wilson is doing is creating a "foolish consistency." After the pattern of Reformed arguments for paedobaptism, drawing parallels between the New Testament initiatory rite and the Old Testament rite of circumcision, he tries to go further than any mainstream Christian author has in all church history. Several authors have pointed out that the Lord's Supper has no exact parallel with any Jewish feast or observance, of which there were several, all with unique practices, significations, and standards for admission. The Confessional standards of the Reformed tradition deny access to the Table to the "ignorant," meaning those who have not been instructed sufficiently in the Christian faith to diligently examine their own sincerity of heart prior to communing. Yet, Wilson claims conformity with these standards, saying that a young child can "discern the body of the Lord" just by feeling some affinity for the church. I haven't seen the word discern used in such a non-specific way since I left the charismatic movement. The Scriptures require that reflection and introspection that comes with a mature understanding of the Gospel (1 Cor. 11:28).

Wilson warns that denying children access to the Sacrament will leave them with lifelong doubts of their salvation, because the only conclusion they can draw from not getting to take bread and wine from the trays coming by is that they are not loved by God. Frankly, this warning sounds a bit manipulative to me--"agree with me, or cripple your children for life." Children are accustomed to gaining privileges in a stepwise manner as they mature, and parents are used to dealing with protests like, "if you really loved me, you would..." Wilson goes as far as to state that elders who refuse to give communion elements to young children should be suspended from the Table, which is ordinarily one of the strongest punishments in the church, second only to excommunication. Is Wilson really prepared to declare almost the entire Christian tradition heretical?

As was the case when Joseph Smith declared all the churches in error, and himself the only light, the man who tries to excommunicate the entire church only succeeds in excommunicating himself.

Questions about Creation

2005-01-29T01:37:00.000-08:00

For some years, I've had some misgivings about Genesis literalism. These don't stem from some closeted belief in Darwinism, but from a respect for the catholicity of the Christian faith among not only contemporary Christian movements, but the entire Christian tradition through history.

In response to religious liberalism, conservatism has tended to grow rigid. Many of the sensitive people have been pulled away from classical Christianity by the seeming appeal of non-specific religion, leaving behind many of the curmudgeons to defend the faith. It's good that these people are ready to fight for the faith. It's also bad.

It's come to the point where some Christians regard literal Genesis interpretation as the essense of the faith. I've seen churches split over this. It wasn't always like this. Church history exhibits a rather broad variety of creation concepts. Augustine believed in a generally instantaneous creation. This view was largely rejected by the Reformers, but I have a hard time viewing it as heretical.

My own view is that Genesis 1-3 does not provide a cookbook description of how God created the universe. I think it a bit importune to inquire of the details of exactly how God accomplished creation. After all, "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?" (Job 38:4a) Rather, I see it as an epic poem depicting God as not maker of only one part of the world, but of every part of it. In contrast to localized pagan gods of ancient times, the Judeo-Christian God is universal.

Genesis appears to contain two creation accounts, with the second one beginning in 2:4. The first account is the familiar "six days" account, the second account is less structural and more concrete.

The six days of creation seem to me to be topical, rather than chronological. There are two groups of three days, each of the three days corresponding to a domain of the world: the sky, the sea, and the earth. The first group of three days pertains to those things which are static (eternal light, sea, fixed land), the second group of three days describes things that move or change (day/night cycles, fish, animals). This interpretation seems within the conceptual framework of a primitive people, and also contains beautiful literary symmetry.

Calvin argues that God actually created the world in this categorical fashion as a lesson to man, but I see a parallel with other metaphors concerning the earth that no one interprets literally. (Ps. 75:3 "When the earth and all its people quake, it is I who hold its pillars firm.")

Literalism seems to work against plain meaning in Gen. 1:6-8, where some fundamentalists form fanciful speculations about what the "waters above the firmament" might be. Some have gone as far as to suggest a massive "water canopy" above the earth is implied here, which conveniently supplies the water for Noah's flood. It seems much simpler to suggest that the expanse of "sky" merely separates the sea ("waters below") from the clouds ("waters above"). The stratification of cloud layers caused by wind currents aloft gives the impression of a "firmanent."

The second creation account is introduced by the words, "This is the account of..." which is typically employed in Genesis at the beginning of narratives quoted from other sources. It describes the "day" (singular) of the creation of the earth and the heavens, which does not correspond to any single day of the six from the first account (and seems to negate the claim of some that the Hebrew "yom" always means 24 hours). Further, the second account begins by saying no plants yet had grown, effectively back-tracking over the activity of Day Six from the first account. Some try to "harmonize" the two accounts and claim the second follows the first sequentially, but I don't think that follows from letting the text speak for itself.

So, this makes me wonder, am I that far outside the conservative mainstream? Are my views "heretical"?

Some evolutionists try to reconcile Darwinism to Genesis by claiming Genesis as a broad "metaphor" for the beginning of Earth. This is clearly not tenable. Metaphors are validated through their resemblance of their antecedents. The Genesis account, with its speaking/thinking deity, does not in any sense resemble the unguided incrementalism of natural forces operating blindly over vast stretches of time. Thinking of Genesis 1 as "six categories" of creation does not open the narrative up to an infinite variety of "interpretations."

I wonder if my views would be less threatening to some if theistic evolutionists weren't abusing so badly the concept of metaphor.