Staying PCA: A Confessional's Counterpoint to Webb's 5 Reasons.

Recently, PCA pastor Andy Webb posted “5 Reasons it might be time to leave the PCA” over at his blog “Building Old School Churches.” [http://biblebased.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/5-reasons-it-might-be-time-to-leave-the-pca/] and it has been republished at Aquila Report at:  http://theaquilareport.com/5-reasons-it-might-be-time-to-leave-the-presbyterian-church-in-america/

  The issues Webb wrestles with are many I have wrestled with in my admittedly shorter time in the PCA. And as I have wrestled, I have written. Thus, I have a respect for Andy Webb and his perspective and this does not intend to be a debate, but merely a counterpoint – another perspective on the issues that he raises here and why I come to different conclusions.

This article is partly working through these issues for myself, but also to any friends I have that are PCA and looking over fences to "greener pastures." Below, I offer a brief interaction with each point, as well as some positive points about the PCA.  Before you jump, let me attempt to dissuade you from jumping ship.

I do so as one who is a Confessional Pastor in the PCA. I took no exceptions to the Confession, meaning: I am an exegetical 6 ordinary day Creationist, I believe in an historical Adam who probably didn’t have a belly button, and my favorite self-identifier is the same as Derek Thomas’ self-appellation: a plain vanilla Calvinist. I believe in applying the Regulative Principle, and in the ordinary means of grace. I am amillenial and neither a Theonomist/Reconstructionist nor a full throated Two Kingdoms (or R2K or whatever) guy. If you want to know what I believe about doctrine open up the Confession. There it is.

So I am one that would be a possible sympathizer with Webb’s document, and his trajectory. However, at this time: I am not. Not because I am never against leaving, but because the reasons cited do not rise to the level of leaving and writing the proverbial “Ichabod” above the PCA’s door post. [1 Samuel 4:21]

I will interact with Webb’s points in reverse order:

5. A Failure to Stand against Moral Compromise

This point seems vague enough that specific instances need to be cited to illustrate, and the specific instance cited is questionable. Of those close to the RUF Vanderbuilt situation, it appears the structure of RUF actually was not affected by the decision of the University. Other campus groups, which are actually less strong in their ecclesiology and do not use an ordained minister were effected in their student leadership, whereas RUF does not rely on student leadership. This fifth point seems to suggest that RUF should have given up local ministry to “make a statement” or stand in solidarity with other campus ministries. That's a judgment call, but the more I read about this situation, the more I am comfortable with RUF's decision here, and men I respect who worked with the details were also comfortable not abandoning the local ministry on this campus in order to make a statement.

4. Failure to Maintain the Teaching of Scripture Regarding Six-Day Creation

I classify myself as an “exegetical Six-Day Creationist” and am glad that the Creation Study Report of the PCA took a decisive stand against theistic evolution. The Study report did not, however, disallow various “Old Earth creation” stances, for instance Day-Age, Analogical Days, and Framework perspectives. In this area, the PCA followed, in large part, the approach of the OPC.

I would merely say this is not a “make or break” issue for me. The PCA has rejected theistic evolution both by declaration and in discipline cases before the Standing Judicial Commission. Leaving a denomination over this issue (allowing Young and Old Earth Creation) would need to mean that to have an Old Earth perspective so perverts the Scriptures in interpretation to the point that it effectively rejects the Scriptures as plainly true (in a similar way that ignoring Paul’s instruction on women being teachers in the church in 1 Timothy 2 would). Although interpretation of Old Earth Creationism runs into several interpretative problems (death before the fall, etc), most will acknowledge these as unresolved matters, as the PCA position paper does.

This area, it may be also noted, is one that a particular presbytery may enforce as narrow as Young Earth only or as broad as the position paper. If you don’t think Old Earth ministers should be ordained, stop voting for them at presbytery. Argue against it at presbytery. Ask the presbytery to adopt a position paper. On many issues, we should stop thinking upper level first, and focus on our local areas of influence. Think Global, Act Local.

Note: If this is a make or break issue for you, you will also have to pass up as a home the Orthodox Presbyterian Church which has a similar approach and latitude on this issue.

3. Failure to Safeguard the Sacraments

The practice of paedocommunion and intinction is disallowed by our Standards. However, both sides in each of these areas have falsely believed the arena for taking care of these infractions is to have the General Assembly talk a lot about it. If a minister knows of these practices taking place in their presbytery, they ought to go to those pastors and sessions first, gives some time for reformation and if it does not occur begin discipline at the presbytery level. This needs to start happening rather than having this discussion at General Assembly.

 I believe this being cited in this article reveals a confusion over process in the PCA. Some presbyteries have allowed paedocommunion as a conscience objection (the pastor personally believes it should be practiced), but not to be practiced by that pastor. Now, I see this as unwise and would not vote for someone taking exception in this area. Yet, if it is practiced in your presbytery by a church, see the previous paragraph. And if you want to see this exception no longer taken as an exception, vote against candidates who have it as an exception and encourage others to do so as well.

2. Anarchy in Worship

Worship practices except for the Lord's Supper and Baptism are not dictated in the PCA’s Constitution. The “Directory of Worship” is not constitutionally enforceable in the PCA's Constitution and this has been the case as far as I can tell since the founding of the PCA. I agree with those that say this is quite unfortunate, although to rectify this, it would also take a revision of the “Directory of Worship” since it seems to easily have things stuck in it for years because no one reads or follows it anyway. Instead, each congregation is allowed great deference in their worship, which can look anything from traditional Confessionally Reformed, to Anglican, to Contemporary, to whatever.

Yet, this has always been the case in the PCA and those getting in the PCA knew this on the outset. In the PCA, the case for ordering worship is made by persuasion and Scripture, but not enforceable by discipline. This being the case, RPW types (such as myself) need to do two things: 1) Worship God in such a manner within this principle 2) Write and persuade others to do the same, not as a matter of preference but conviction. Perhaps a 3^rd could be added in attempting to bring to constitutional enforcement the directory of worship.

Yet, again, we all knew in entering the PCA that worship is not a constitutional matter in the PCA, and thus this would be a reason for never becoming PCA rather than leaving. This is not an area that has changed, but has never been present. Semper Reformata. Let us reform it rather than abandon it.

1. A Failure to Exercise Discipline.

This is the one area that causes me more pause and internal conflict. I was involved in the early process of brainstorming a response to the horrendous Leithart decision (I have no qualms calling that, since the decision was a travesty of ecclesial justice, theology and simple logic). Let me say further, and make no qualms even as I say this about something written by men I otherwise respect: The 5 page decision in the Leithart trial is an embarrassment to the PCA , Reformed theology, and all ministers in the PCA. [I recommend the dissent in the case to understand the errors of the decision] It needs to be repented of, and our process needs to be changed to make sure this does not happen again.

Yet, the question is this: now that the PCA has failed to discipline Leithart (and lets be fair: at least 3 other alleged Federal Visionists, 2 of these 4 cases being men who have signed the FV Joint Declaration): Does this case of failure to discipline mean that the PCA has lost the “Third Mark” of the Church in discipline?

Let me ask this about another instance: Did the OPC cease to be an expression of the visible church when it failed to discipline Norman Shepherd who taught the same doctrines as Leithart (in a more proto-FV form)? [Some details are different, but at the presbytery level, Shepherd was acquitted and transferred out of the OPC to the CRC later]

Also, does the PCA through the presbytery of Illiana get any redeeming marks for disciplining Burke Shade, who was in some ways the first PCA Federal Visionist, even with the expert testimony of Peter Leithart and Jeff Meyers defending him? Does Illiana protecting the doctrine of justification and baptism give any counterweight to Pacific Northwest, Missouri Presbytery and others failing to do so? My question is: has discipline died, or has it failed in these circumstances?

Yet, if it has failed, what is the alternative? It is as if one cancer treatment failed and we call for euthanasia. Perhaps the right course of action is

1)      Correcting procedures.

2)      Protecting our presbyteries (in examinations or like Evangel Presbytery refusing to let Federal Visionist Peter Leithartminister with approval in their presbytery borders).

3)      Writing and teaching persuasively against these doctrines.

Conclusion:

                In all, of the 5 points, at least 3 I would also name as real problems within the PCA. Yet, is the diagnosis that the patient is

1)      well with a few minor problems,

2)      sick with major problems,

3)      perhaps terminally ill without intervention, or

4)      Dead?

I am alarmed enough especially by Reason 1: Failure to Discipline to sympathize with the diagnosis of a sick PCA (either option 2 or 3), but certainly not option 4. At least not yet.

The article about “5 reasons It may be Time to Leave the PCA” fails to convince on the particular reasons, but also fails to convince for me in providing principles to judge when to leave, or to acknowledge the positives of membership in the PCA.

I am happy to be in the PCA not merely because it’s not bad enough to leave, but because the PCA has positive qualities that attract me to it, and I find being within the PCA aids rather than hinders my ministry in connectional help, helpful oversight, and positive theology to offer a confused, sinful and dying world.

Let me offer then 10 brief positive Reasons that it may NOT be time to leave the PCA:

10 Brief Reasons that it may NOT be time to leave the PCA.

1.       The PCA is a largely faithful, Reformed, evangelizing denomination

Through PCA churches I have seen outreach, evangelism and a seriousness about the bible and theology. This is true in churches throughout the denomination. There are many encouraging things happening in the PCA, and we shouldn’t let the negative aspects discourage us from celebrating the work of missionaries, church planters, and faithful ministers and laypeople across the PCA.

2.       The grassroots nature of the PCA protects faithful congregations through every wind of new doctrine and fad.

Because the PCA in practice works from the ground up, with great latitude given to congregations, this curse can also be a blessing. Throughout fads and waves and winds of new doctrine, a local congregation can function in faithfulness until that wind passes.

The most important relationship of the local congregation, then, becomes not the relationship of the church to the General Assembly, but to the presbytery. This is truly the measure of whether one should stay or go. Is your church protected by faithful men at the presbytery level? Do you trust them in potential discipline cases? Will they reject unorthodox men heading towards your pulpit when you leave? If the answer to these questions is yes, known from years of relationships, then it very well not be time to risk a bad presbytery in a “good denomination” versus a good presbytery in a “bad denomination.”

3.       The PCA is much healthier than the PCUS it left in 1973.

The issues facing churches in the PCUS was a breakdown of fidelity to the Scriptures. This manifested itself in the debate over women’s ordination. This is a problem facing congregations even today in the RCA, CRC, and the EPC. Perhaps seeing other struggles in other denominations may put our debates over intinction and worship in perspective. Not to lessen the importance of fidelity to Scripture and God in all areas of life, but some areas must be admitted to be more black and white than others, and some issues are a matter of interpretation, and others over believing the bible. Are our issues over interpretation or over the authority of the Bible? I think more often than not, it is the former (interpretation), which is actually encouraging. I will take the controversies in the PCA over the controversies in the RCA or PCUSA or even the EPC any day of the week.

4.       The PCA has not sanctioned heresy or immorality

Although discipline has failed and will fail in a few instances, the PCA as a body does not endorse in position papers or generally accept: heretical views of the gospel, homosexuality, women’s ordination, fornication, errant views of the inerrancy of Scripture, or other gross errors.

5.       Non-confessionals burnout too.

Ligon Duncan’s chapter in “Risking the Truth,” ends with this advice for combatting error in the church: “We must out-live, out-rejoice, out-love, out-preach, out-serve and out-die the false teachers and errorists.” [Risking the Truth. Pg 202] The longer I see these debates, the more I grow to see this advice as supremely wise. What do you think of when you think of a conservative Presbyterian? Is it a loving, rejoicing, persevering, effective preaching, service oriented and boldly life giving person? If not, why not?

Yet, if we look around the PCA, less-than-confessional pastors often do not last long, in my observations. Conservatives are not the only ones who bolt a denomination, despite the common complaint: “We are always the ones that leave.” Quite a few pastors have left for the less restrictive EPC lately. Some have left the ministry. Those with really bad theology, as I have noticed, cannot help but have their heterodoxy produce immorality, and a few have left over moral reasons/failures.

It is not immediate, it is not sexy, but outlasting heterodox agitators may be one of the best ways to affect faithfulness in the PCA.    

6.       Liberals may not be as liberal as you think

Every progressive PCA Teaching Elder I have met would be too conservative to be ordained in the PCUSA.  Many “progressives” have ordinary means services like the conservatives. The theological range in the PCA is much smaller than some would imagine, and one should talk with those you may label as liberal to discover: What do we really disagree about? Perhaps it is like the Charles Hodge versus the New Schoolers: His problem was not so much with what they confessed but what they tolerated. Thus, perhaps the major conversation that needs to happen, one-on-one, is the necessity of discipline, and discipline as an act of love (Hebrews 12:5-6), and the lack of discipline as hate and violence against sheep and shepherds.  A major problem in the PCA may be a low view of discipline, which instruction and conviction in this one area could do much towards the health of the denomination.

7.       Leaving would make the PCA less healthy.

This should be obvious, and Andy Webb said as much in this earlier article: http://theaquilareport.com/an-open-letter-to-james-kessler-and-the-leaders-of-the-national-partnership/

8.       Lack of good alternatives

As a northerner and confessionalist, I find myself with great affinity for the OPC, but several of reasons Andy Webb cites would preclude joining the OPC, the next biggest conservative Presbyterian denomination, including creation and discipline issues. The other alternatives are either extremely small, premillennial, fundamentalist, exclusive psalmity or a capella, or have their own unique problems, or some combination of the above. That is, unless one is exclusive psalmody, there are few alternatives outside the PCA and OPC for a confessionalist to go, and if your reasons are problems within the OPC, then do you start a new denomination?

9.       Starting a new denomination is hard and expensive.

Study the history RIGHT AFTER the split of the PCA and the OPC from the mainlines. Note how many agencies worked to create momentum, publish books, publish curriculum, host meetings and general assembly and travel expenses, etc. This is not to say new denominations may not be necessary at certain times in history (i.e. the OPC and PCA thought so), but is this such a time?

Not to mention other questions with the founding of a new denomination: What new boundaries or mechanisms would stop trends that happen in the PCA? Would you be welcome in the new denomination another person wants? New denominations are necessarily strict in some areas and not in others. Who decides this time? Can you tolerate someone with other convictions in a new denomination in what you sing, how you interpret the OT law, or how certain elements of worship are done?

10.   Is leaving the easy way out?

Are the problems in the PCA worth leaving over, or are they worth attempting to be good churchmen and fixing over the period of years of not merely voting in GA, but working locally, taking in interns, faithful shepherding your congregation and working towards renewal and repentance and growth in your own local church and presbytery? Do we find it easier to write “Ichabod” above the PCA than to do the work of reformation and local ministry?

Prioritizing

If you are leaving, I think there may be no better resource for thinking through this than Kevin DeYoung. He is a minister facing many of these questions at present and gives good counsel about principles, grace in leaving and warmth in deciding:

For an individual member:

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2012/05/25/how-to-leave-your-old-church/

For a denomination:

I’d recommend listening to this, especially when DeYoung talks about life int he RCA or when the other minster talks about leaving the Episcopal church:

http://t4g.org/media/2014/04/denominations-your-grandfathers-oldsmobile/

All this is not to say that I aim to keep my head down and ignore these issues. I aim to go to every presbytery meeting possible and every General Assembly I can attend. I intend to make good and honest relationships with as many people in the denomination as possible and talk about being a confessional church. I intend to listen as well as speak about my positions, and read and keep learning. I intend to ask questions of ministerial candidates dealing with FV, creation, and their will to discipline.

 At the end of reading “Risking the Truth” by Martin Downes  about doctrinal controversies in the church, (an invaluable resource to any PCA minister) my conviction was this: It is better to be involved, dialogue, and work towards good ends rather than agitating to leave the denomination. The PCA is not at, or even extremely close to, a point where I am wanting to leave. This is not to predict the future that such a time may come in 5, 10, 20 or even 50 years. But that time is not now.
The PCA has the gospel, practices the two Christ-ordained Sacraments, and exercises discipline, though like all churches, ebbs and flows between “more or less pure” as the confession puts it. The PCA is my home, and it will take more than cited to make me leave. Now, if I get evicted…that’s another story…

Respectfully with much love in Christ,

Pastor Jared Nelson
New Life Presbyterian
Hopewell Township, PA

[update: Andy Webb has clarified a few of his points, I add them here without comment: http://biblebased.wordpress.com/2014/05/14/clarifying-addendum-to-5-reasons-it-might-be-time-to-leave-the-pca/  ]

A Good Friday Reflection

The Trial of Jesus calls for a judgment. - What is your judgment?

How do we evaluate the so-called “Son of God”? When he stands before us, do we take the judgment seat?

Pilate, we are told, “sat in the judgment seat.” He was asked to give a verdict, to give a sentence based on that verdict.

Pilate wasn’t the first to get a chance to sit in judgment over Jesus. The Gospels tell us that Religious leaders, Herod and the crowd also were giving their verdicts. Jesus was a very judged man. And in the end, everyone who sat in judgment over Christ, didn’t get what they wanted from Him.

Before Jesus got to Pilate, the Religious Leaders had judged Jesus guilty! They were tired of Jesus calling them, the most religious people in the whole society, Jesus was calling them: sinners along with everyone else! They not only followed the Law (as they understood it) and even new parts of the law they made up! How offensive is that to be told your piety isn’t good enough!

Before Jesus got to Pilate finally, Herod had judged Jesus guilty…of not being entertaining enough. Herod demanded a sign! He wanted signs and miracles just for him. He wanted a Santa Claus, giving him goodies. And when Jesus was silent to that request, when Jesus didn’t answer his prayer for goodies, Herod was done with Jesus.

Now, Finally, Pilate sat in judgment over Jesus, but didn’t really find a problem with Jesus, so it seemed. But everybody else seemed to. So Pilate says with his lips that he doesn’t find guilt with Jesus, and then Pilate does what to an innocent man? Pilate has Him tortured. Mocks Him, makes Him the center of ridicule. Which lied, his lips or his actions?

When the crowd, when everyone else wants to be rid of Jesus, when the world is found to cry for his death, when it might be costly and hard to declare the truth about Jesus…Pilate asks “What is truth?”

Pilate denies Truth itself, standing in front of him, Pilate has the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE in front of him, and sends him down the WAY of the Via Delarosa, he lies about the TRUTH, and he sentences LIFE to death.

The Neutrality and apathy of a Pilate, always finds itself crucifying Christ. The fence sitters, seem always to find themselves right along with the crowd when it comes down to the real choice that was before them. The choice was between the INNOCENCE of Jesus or their own INNOCENCE.

Pilate starts by saying “I see no crime in him! He seems innocent,” but ends with saying, “I am innocent of his blood! I wash my hands!” 

Pilate couldn’t be neutral. And neither can you. In the end: only one can be innocent. The Trial of Jesus calls for judgment. All men, in one way or another, attend the trial of Christ. They are asked, as Jesus did to his disciples: “Who do you say that I am?”

Your verdict on that question, is the most important question you will ever answer. Who do you say Jesus is?

Is He the Son of God? If not, the religious leaders were right to declare him guilty.

Is He supposed to be Santa Claus? If so, Herod is right to dismiss Him when he doesn’t get his every request.

Is He to be the popular King? The cool friend? If so, then Pilate is right to deliver him to the crowd, when the world rejects Christ.

Pilate sat in the judgment seat and made his verdict known. Pilate was more concerned to declare Pilate’s innocence. In fact, everyone there thought they were innocent!

That’s what makes an innocent verdict so hard to pronounce over Jesus. If Jesus is innocent, then what he says is true. When He says He came for sinners, and points to you, either you are a sinner He came for, or He is a lying sinner for saying: you are a sinner.

It comes down to this: Either Jesus was innocent or you are. Which is it?

Are we wrong when we sit in judgment over Jesus for not confirming us, telling us “Good job applying the law to others and not yourself! Good job following your own rules and not God’s!” Are we guilty for dismissing Jesus when he doesn’t do this, or is Jesus guilty?

Are we in the wrong when we sit in judgment over Jesus because he doesn’t give us a all WE want? Are we guilty for treating Jesus like Santa Claus, or is Jesus guilty for not being our personal Santa Claus?

Are we in the wrong for ignoring Christ, for saying we don’t find guilt in him, but in the end, not concerning ourselves with Christ crucified when the world is found to be against him? Are we guilty for going along with the world, or is Jesus guilty for not being what the world wants?

The trial of Jesus demands a judgment. What is yours? Do you sit in judgment over Jesus? Or does he stand in judgment FOR you?

Just know this: Jesus only stands in judgment for the guilty! The minute you say “I am innocent” is the minute you cry out “Jesus is the guilty one! Crucify Him!”

Is Christ’s rightful place on the cross, or is yours? Before the cross is what Christ took in your place, you must see your rightful place is on the cross.

The story of the trial and death of Jesus is not a tragedy. The story of the passion is not in order to parade before you the man Jesus to pity. It is the story of the God-man Jesus Christ having pity on you. It is the story of Jesus saying to the Father “Forgive them.” The Father saying “Only if I forsake you.” And Jesus saying, “Your Will be done.” It is the story of Jesus then saying to the penalty that hung over us: “It is finished.”

It is the story of what you deserved, and what Jesus took for you. Only then, can you see the good in Good Friday.

I’ll tell you the good I see in this Friday: In the cross of Christ, there is my judgment, as He takes my cross, the cross I earned, the cross I deserved, and He bares it in love for me and His Father.

The Trial of Jesus calls for a judgment. Who is the guilty one? My judgment: I AM guilty. What is your judgment?

Prayer: Father, for the sake of the Pure and Spotless Lamb of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Amen.

First half of Ephesians

Recently I have had the honor of opening up the book of Ephesians to the saints at New Life in Hopewell Pennsylvania. We reached the halfway point, a noticeable hinge of the book. To review, I thought I would post the links here:

If interested, click on the title to find the audio below:

Collected Sermons will be here:
http://www.newlifehopewell.com/Sermons.php


Ephesians 1:1-2 Introductions are in Order

Ephesians 1:3-6 - Blessing Father

Ephesians 1:7-12 - In Christ Alone

Ephesians 1:13-14 - Spirit Guaranteed

Ephesians 1:15-23 - Thanking God for the Church

Ephesians 2:1-7 - Dead in Sin...But God

Ephesians 2:8-10 - By Grace Alone, through Faith Alone

Ephesians 2:11-22 - Strangers No More

Ephesians 3:1-13 - A Mystery Revealed

Ephesians 3:14-21 - More Abundantly than all we Ask or Think.

If you are in the Pittsburgh area on the Northwest end, join us for worship:
http://www.newlifehopewell.com/Home_Page.php

Nashville "End Times" Conference

Covenant Presbyterian Church in Nashville will be hosting faculty from Westminster Theological Seminary and Dr. Harry Reeder (Westminster board member and Pastor of Briarwood Presbyterian Church in Birmingham) on February 28th and March 1st, a Friday night and Saturday. The conference is on the topic of eschatology, or a study of last things. They will address the popular theology called Dispensationalism (the theology behind the Left Behind series of books) and look carefully at what Scripture teaches about the "end times". 

Register here: http://www.eventbrite.com/e/a-seminar-on-the-last-days-registration-10166483225

Or for questions: Contact Pastor Matt Bradley (615) 383-2206, ext. 209 mattb@covenantpres.com

Ephesians: Trinitarian Prayer

I am currently preaching through the book of Ephesians, and have just finished what is most preachers' favorite section 1:3-14. A 202 word sentence in the Greek, these verses lay out the gospel as planned by the Father, accomplished by the Son and applied by the Spirit. Thus, I decided to spend 3 sermons focusing on the work of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. It is not exhaustive, but I pray it was faithful to the important points of the text. If interested, find the audio below:

Ephesians 1:3-6 - Blessing Father

Ephesians 1:7-12 - In Christ Alone

Ephesians 1:13-14 - Spirit Guaranteed

[Also also introduced the study with a sermon on Ephesians 1:1-2 called "Introductions are in Order"]

Collected Sermons will be here:
http://www.newlifehopewell.com/Sermons.php

Thornwell on Boards in Church Polity

This is only for the Presbyterian polity people. PCA Historical Center director Wayne Sparkman has a great selection today from Thornwell against the idea of Boards (which have similiarities to "Commissions" in PCA polity). For Churchmen, this is a must read!

http://www.thisday.pcahistory.org/2013/12/december-17/

Thornwell made this conclusion about the rise of Boards in Presbyterian polity: “It is not to be disguised, that our Church is becoming deplorably secular. She has degenerated from a spiritual body into a mere petty corporation. When we meet in our ecclesiastical courts, instead of attending to the spiritual interests of God’s kingdom, we scarcely do anything more than examine and audit accounts, and devise ways and means for raising money. We are for doing God’s work by human wisdom and human policy;"

The Calvinist

What is a Calvinist? A cynic? Frozen Chosen? A Debater?

Although it does focus on the person, I do like this poem by John Piper. What the Calvinist ought to be, or strive to be when observed, the godly man observed (Listen for the voices of D.A. Carson, R.C. Sproul, Alistair Begg, Thabiti Anyabwile, Matt Chandler, and Sinclair Ferguson.):

Martin Luther versus the "New" Perspective on Paul

Here I submit a passage from Martin Luther's Bondage of the Will, in which to my delight, Luther attacks (if I may be a bit anachronistic) the “New Perspective on Paul” (NPP), which apparently when apparently when Dunn and Sanders and Wright discovered it, was really nothing new under the sun. Luther here denies that Paul means “ceremonial laws” by works of the law, or a NPP advocates call it “covenant badges” like dietary laws and circumcision.

Martin Luther. Bondage of the Will pages 302-304. [Library of Christian Classics edition]

“But they are in the habit of trying to get round Paul here, by making out that what he calls works of the law are the ceremonial works, which sine the death of Christ are deadly. I reply that this is the ignorant error of Jerome, which in spite of Augustine's strenuous resistance – God having withdrawn and let Satan prevail – has spread out into the world and persisted to the present day. It has consequently become impossible to understand Paul, and the knowledge of Christ has been inevitably obscured. Even if there had never been any other error in the Church, this one alone was pestilent and potent enough to make havoc of the gospel, and unless a special sort of grace has intervened, Jerome has merited hell rather than heaven or it – so little would I dare to canonize him or call him a saint. It is, then, not true that Paul is speaking only about ceremonial laws: otherwise how can the argument be sustained by which he concludes that all mean are wicked and in need of grace? For someone could say: Granted we are not justified by ceremonial works, yet a person might be justified by the moral works of the Decalogue, so you have not proved by your syllogism that grace is necessary for these. Besides, what is the use of a grace liberates us only from ceremonial works which are the easiest of all, and which can at the lowest be exhorted from us by fear or self-love? It is, of course, also untrue that ceremonial laws are deadly and unlawful since the death of Christ; Paul never said that, but he says they do not justify and are of no advantage to a man in the sight of God as regards setting him free from ungodliness. Once this is accepted, anyone may do them without doing anything unlawful – just as eating and drinking are works that do not justify or commend us to God (1 Cor 8:8), yet a man does nothing unlawful when he eats and drinks.

They are also wrong in that the ceremonial works were as much commanded and required in the old law as was the Decalogue, so that the latter was neither more nor less important than the former. And as Paul is speaking primarily to Jews, as he says in Romans 1:16, no one need doubt that by works of the law he means all the works of the entire law. For it would be meaningless to call them works of the law if the law were abrogated and deadly, since an abrogated law is no longer a law, as Paul very well knew. He is therefore not speaking of an abrogated law when he speaks of the works of the law, bot of the law that is valid and authoritative. Otherwise, how easy it would have been for him to say: “The itself is now abrogated!” -then we should had a clear and unambiguous declaration.

But let us appeal to Paul himself as his own best interpreter, where he says in Galatians 3:!0: “All who rely on works of the law are under a curse, for it is written, 'Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.'” You see here, where Paul is making the same point in the same words as in the epistle to the Romans, that every time he mentions the works of the law he is speaking of all the laws written in the Book of the Law....”

Grace in Controversy. John Newton on Controversy

Controversy is nothing new. John Newton, author of the hymn Amazing Grace, wrote a now famous letter to a friend about to engage publicly on a controversy. The whole letter may be read here:

http://www.opc.org/nh.html?article_id=217

But I thought I would draw out a few of the highlights in this helpful piece:

1-Controversy can wound even the right and triumphant party

“I would have you more than a conqueror, and to triumph, not only over your adversary, but over yourself. If you cannot be vanquished, you may be wounded.”  

And

“And yet we find but very few writers of controversy who have not been manifestly hurt by it. Either they grow in a sense of their own importance, or imbibe an angry, contentious spirit, or they insensibly withdraw their attention from those things which are the food and immediate support of the life of faith, and spend their time and strength upon matters which are at most but of a secondary value.”

2-Before writing against someone, pray for them

“As to your opponent, I wish that before you set pen to paper against him, and during the whole time you are preparing your answer, you may commend him by earnest prayer to the Lord’s teaching and blessing.”

3-Calvinists should be the most gentle and moderate in controversy

“Of all people who engage in controversy, we, who are called Calvinists, are most expressly bound by our own principles to the exercise of gentleness and moderation.”

And 

“I readily believe that the leading points of Arminianism spring from and are nourished by the pride of the human heart; but I should be glad if the reverse were always true; and that to embrace what are called the Calvinistic doctrines was an infallible token of a humble mind.”

4-Speak not merely to the man to convince him, but to the public

“Though you have your eye upon one person chiefly, there are many like-minded with him; and the same reasoning will hold, whether as to one or to a million.”

5-One can be right and still sin in controversy

“Self-righteousness can feed upon doctrines as well as upon works; and a man may have the heart of a Pharisee, while his head is stored with orthodox notions of the unworthiness of the creature and the riches of free grace.”

6-Controversies are rarely conducted well

“Controversies, for the most part, are so managed as to indulge rather than to repress his wrong disposition; and therefore, generally speaking, they are productive of little good. They provoke those whom they should convince, and puff up those whom they should edify.”

7-Do not return insults in kind

“Be upon your guard against admitting anything personal into the debate. If you think you have been ill treated, you will have an opportunity of showing that you are a disciple of Jesus, who “when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not.”

8-Though Dangerous, engagement in a controversy may be necessary and honorable

“I hope you have a far nobler aim, and that, sensible of the solemn importance of gospel truths, and the compassion due to the souls of men, you would rather be a means of removing prejudices in a single instance, than obtain the empty applause of thousands. Go forth, therefore, in the name and strength of the Lord of hosts, speaking the truth in love; and may he give you a witness in many hearts that you are taught of God, and favored with the unction of his Holy Spirit.”

Sabbath Study Guide

About a year ago, I created a Study Guide for members who were asking questions about the Sabbath and the Biblical teaching of it. I put together this study guide to walk people through the Biblical Theological basis for Sabbath by reading text and asking critical questions about what each text is saying. I provide it here for those interested or who want to use it for their own study:

Sabbath Study Guide

This guide is meant to assist one reading through relevant Scriptures dealing with the subject of the Sabbath. Some of the questions are meant to help think through the facts of the passage, other questions the deeper meaning, and finally other questions are meant to think through our practical application of the passage.

Genesis 2:1-3
1) What is significant about the Sabbath starting in Creation?

2) If God did not "need" to rest, why did He?

3) If marriage (2:18-25) and Sabbath are creation ordinances, can either one be abolished before the new creation?

Exodus 16

1. Why would it be significant to see Sabbath keeping before the law is given at Sinai?

2. What implications does this passage have about the day before the Sabbath?

3. APPLICATION: Do we have to work at resting or prepare to rest on the Sabbath like the Israelites?

Exodus 20:8-11, Deuteronomy 5:12-15

1. One account of the 10 commandments roots Sabbath in Creation, the other in redemption: how is the Sabbath significant to how we understand creation? How does it help us understand Redemption?

2. In reading though the other 9 commandments, would you see these commands as always morally binding? Are these commandments arbitrary or rooted in something deeper?
   
   
3. APPLICATION: Name the imperative verbs (commands) in the section. Then think through any contemporary applications.

Exodus 31:13-18

1. How does God fulfill his promise: “Above all you shall keep my Sabbaths, for this is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I, the LORD, sanctify you.”

2. Read Exodus 31:16 – How long was the Sabbath to remain as a part of the covenant with God’s People?

3. Read Exodus 31:18 – What is referred to by the phrase “two tablets of stone”? In light of the establishment of a “covenant forever” what implication does this have for the validity of the “two tablets of stone”?

Isaiah 58:13-14

1. What is included in "your own pleasures"? If “our pleasures” are not necessarily wrong, what does this tell us about our pleasures on the Sabbath?

2. What is the blessing attached to Sabbath keeping?

3. APPLICATION: What blessings might we be missing out on by neglecting Sabbath?

4. APPLICATION: What personal pleasures may be appropriate on other days, that are not on the Sabbath?

Nehemiah 13:15-22

1. What was the violation that upset Nehemiah?

2. What was Nehemiah’s reaction (punishment) to Sabbath breaking?
   
   
3. APPLICATION: How, today, do we violate the Sabbath like those in Nehemiah 13?

4. APPLICATION: Why, today, do we not take the Sabbath as seriously (as worthy of physical beating for breaking!)?

Matthew 12:1-14

1. Read Deuteronomy 23:25 – Was it “unlawful” for the disciples to pick grain from the field in 12:1-2?

2. Read 1 Samuel 21:1-6 – The Westminster Confession will talk about works of mercy and necessity on the Sabbath – How do we see that in action in this episode from the life of David?

3. Jesus declares Himself “Lord of the Sabbath.” Read the lead in to Matthew 12, in Matthew 11:28-30. How is this a demonstration of Him being “Lord of the Sabbath”?

4. Jesus does a work of healing on the Sabbath. How does Jesus fulfill His role as “Lord of the Sabbath” in Matthew 12:9-16?

5. APPLICATION: How do we come to Jesus like the man with the withered hand on the Sabbath?

6. APPLICATION: Mark has a parallel account, but includes the observation “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” (Mark 2:27) In what ways does the Sabbath benefit man?

7. APPLICATION: In no place does Jesus condemn the principle of Sabbath-keeping. Yet, the Pharisees are condemned for the way they “kept” the Sabbath with no regard to doing works of mercy. How should we be mindful of that in our Sabbath-keeping today?

Hebrews 4:1-11

1. How does “there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God” align with Old Testament teaching on the Sabbath?

2. Hebrews 4:8 “For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken of another day later on.” In what ways have we still not fully entered into that promised rest?

3. APPLICATION: Reflect for a while on Hebrew 4:10. What is God’s role on the Sabbath? What is my role on the Sabbath?

4. APPLICATION: What efforts can we “strive” to do to enter the rest that Sabbath promises?

PRACTICAL APPLICATION QUESTIONS:

1. Do you believe that today in America, we are more like the Pharisees in Matthew 12 or the Israelites in Nehemiah 13 in our problem with the Sabbath?

2. What spiritual activities do you wish you had time to do? [Are there any spiritual books to read, songs to sing, time set aside for prayer, family worship, Bible Reading, listening to sermons?]

3. Record a schedule of your Sundays.
   1. How much of the time is used in preparation [to go somewhere, to make a meal, cleaning etc]?
   2. How much time is used for recreation and entertainment [watching or participating]?
   3. How much time is used in “holy” activities?
   4. After doing this, would you say that you are using the day as set apart to God?
   5. How might you change your schedule to keep the Sabbath holy? What might you have to start doing? What might you need to stop doing [or start doing on a different day]?

Further Studies in the Biblical Theology of Sabbath

These questions are meant to investigate issues or objections to the Sabbath that arise. These deal with deeper and more difficult subjects to think through regarding the Sabbath.

Abolished Law? Read Matthew 5:17-20

Some may cite Ephesians 2:14-16, saying Christ has abolished the law. [“having abolished the law of commandments expressed in ordinances”]

1. What is Christ referring to as the “law” in Matthew 5:17-20? How is that different from Ephesians 2:14-16?
2. Matthew Henry states: “By his sufferings in the flesh, to took away the binding power of the ceremonial law (so removing that cause of enmity and distance between them), which is here called the law of commandments contained in ordinances, because it enjoined a multitude of external rites and ceremonies, and consisted of many institutions and appointments about the outward parts of divine worship.”
   1. If Jesus was not abolishing the moral law (i.e. the 10 Commandments), what significance would that have for the Fourth Commandment? How would the writer of Hebrews 4:9 respond if he was asked if the Sabbath was a part of that which was done away with in the ceremonial law?
   2. Would the Jewish and Christian Sabbath have some differences? Some similarities?

No More Sabbath? (Col 2:16-17; Romans 14:6; Gal 4:10)

When Paul mentions “Sabbaths” in Col 2:16-17, there is more than one “Sabbath” in the Old Testament.

1. Read Leviticus 25:1-7.
   1. How does land have a Sabbath?
   2. Read Leviticus 26:40-45. What was the punishment for not keeping the Sabbath Year?
   3. Read Jeremiah 25:12, Daniel 9:2 and 2 Chronicles 36:20-21 //How did God fulfill his promised punishment in the exile?

2. Read Leviticus 23:1-8. What other days other than Saturday are called “sabbaths”?

3. With the Old Testament context, what then is Paul talking about with “festivals,” “new moons,” and “sabbaths”?
   1. Might we make a distinction between “sabbaths” and THE Sabbath?
   2. APPLICATION: What applications might this teaching have for modern “sabbaths” or Holidays?

Saturday (last day) or Sunday (First Day)?

We only have evidence of the church worshiping as the church on the first day (Sunday) not the seventh day:

• Scripture records worship on the first day:

Act 20:7 On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight.

1Co 16:2 On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that there will be no collecting when I come.

Also cf. Joh 20:19 On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you."

• The Universal Witness of the Apostles was to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ on the First Day of the Week. [Matt 26:17, Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1; John 20:1.]

• The early church testified to worship of the church on the first day, such as Justin Martyr, a Christian in the Second Century AD, in his First Apology, Chapter 67 – “And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things.”

1. When the Apostles worshiped on the first day, and the Sabbath was referred by the Lord as “my holy day” and “the holy day of the Lord” (Isaiah 58:13-14), and when John says he was “in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day,” (Rev 1:10) What good and necessary application do we have as Christians in the Apostolic Church?

2. If the first day of the week is when creation began, what might the change of the Lord’s Day to the first day have to teach us? [cf. 2 Cor 5:17, Gal 6:15]

Law? What is it good for?

The Westminster Confession of Faith 19.6 contains a helpful summary of why the law is of use, even to believers under the gospel, and allows us to see obedience as being natural under the gospel, rather than how it is used in American evangelicalism as a sign of "legalism" [improperly understood]. Here, I attempt to give an outline to help demonstrate this:

6. 
   a. Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned; [Romans 8:1]
   b. yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that,
   
   1. as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly;
      
   2. discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts, and lives;
      
   3. so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin,
      
   4. together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ,
      
   5. and the perfection of his obedience.
      
   6. It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin: and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve;
      
   7. and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law.
      
   8. The promises of it, in like manner, show them God's approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof: although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works.
      [POINT:] So as, a man's doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one, and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law; and, not under grace.
      

John Paton - Answering Objection to his Missionary Plan

On announcing that John Paton, a Reformed Presbyterian minister in Scotland, was going to go to an island of cannibals, the same group of islands where a team of missionaries were killed and eaten by cannibals:

A Mr. Dickson exploded, “The cannibals! You will be eaten by cannibals!” The memory of Williams and Harris on Erromanga was only 19 years old. 

But to this Paton responded:

"Mr. Dickson, you are advanced in years now, and your own prospect is soon to be laid in the grave, there to be eaten by worms; I confess to you, that if I can but live and die serving and honoring the Lord Jesus, it will make no difference to me whether I am eaten by Cannibals or by worms; and in the Great Day my Resurrection body will rise as fair as yours in the likeness of our risen Redeemer"