More Leithart, Confession and the SJC

It is being argued by some that a tactical error was made by the prosecution, that they argued from the Confession more than Scripture. I think arguing from the Confession was the right move.

Peter Leithart vowed to uphold the system of doctrine taught in the Confession. Accordingly, in many ways it is much more efficient (and effective) to argue from the Confession and not Scripture.
Consider, not all who embrace the Confession use the same verses as proof-texts to demonstrate particular confessional doctrines. Yet those doctrines the Confession teaches are to be upheld regardless how one arrives at them. Yet if one arrives at them in an unsatisfactory manner, it weakens his case. Consequently, tactically speaking it’s safer to reference the clear statements found in the Confession.

What became a slightly more tricky part of the case is that although the WLC Q&A 68 mentions common operations of the Spirit that unbelievers may have, the Confession does not say too much about it; yet the writings of the Federal Vision, including Leithart’s, use this slice of doctrine as a kind of launching pad for their confusion over union with Christ. Their tactic has been to weave into the Federal Vision fabric (i) equivocal statements regarding baptism, (ii) the blurring of the visible and invisible church distinction and (iii) the common operations of the Spirit in the life of unbelievers. Yet even with all that to deal with, the Confession is sufficient to argue against such sophistry because the Confession not only does not affirm what Leithart has written it unambiguously denies his writings on these matters. That’s why I think using the Confession as a primary standard in the case was not only acceptable but even the best course of action.

That brings me full circle. I think it’s disgraceful, this Monday morning quarterbacking regarding what the prosecution did not do. The reason being is that it's most of the same people who are blaming the SJC for not upholding for the prosecution. Yes, the whiners want to have it both ways. They want to find fault with the prosecution's case and with the SJC for not agreeing with the case the prosecution delivered. What's even worse is the SJC is not only being faulted for the outcome of the case, but in the process the committee members are being accused for not being confessional and even worse being dishonest for not siding with the prosecution.

I can only wonder if the SJC would have responded differently to another approach, one that didn’t put Leithart’s beliefs on trial (whether intentionally or unintentionally), but instead ended up prosecuting him for his writings. When Leithart interpreted his writings in a very selective way that was more agreeable with the Confession, it should have been argued that the literal interpretation of his writings do not comport with his exegesis of them. That, of course, would have led to an impasse of sorts, unless something extraordinary happened. Then it might have been established that his writings both presupposed and implied that he thought he had discovered or rediscovered something novel for the church, but given that he really hadn’t it could have been proved that he was, therefore, unaware what Reformed theology has affirmed all along, that the visible church is to be regarded as God’s people. So, either Peter Leithart never understood the Reformed faith to begin with or else his writings were not intended to have been in concert with the Reformed faith in the first place (yet he now interprets them as such.) Again, I only mention this Monday-morning approach to the case because I don’t think the SJC was handed Leithart on a silver platter by any stretch, but they are being accused as though he had been.

Finally, after reading the transcripts I can say that I would not have wanted to have been in Jason’s shoes (or on the stand either). I thought some of Jason’s statements were very good and downright clever at times. I have no hard feelings over how the case was prosecuted and I have nothing but respect for the SJC and all those who poured their hearts into this matter these past several years.

How The Leithart Case Might Have Been Argued

Here I first wrote these thoughts (below) on Federal Vision back in June of 2010 on Greenbaggins. I have inserted recent comments in [ ]. Everything else is from June of 2010. Every bit of what is below applies to the Peter Leithart trial, but this sort emphasis and pursuit was for some reason not employed by the prosecution. Rather, witnesses for the prosecution were allowed to get distracted, yielding to hobby horses like the nature of grace and works in the prelapsarian covenant; law-gospel confusion promulgated by Escondido;and the imputation of the "active obedience of Christ" verses Christ's (perfect) righteousness. Now for what might have been basic to the trial, all of which, again, applies to Peter Leithart's theology:

1. FV affirms “that God formally unites a person to Christ and to His covenant people through baptism into the triune Name” and that “Baptism formally engrafts a person into the Church”

2. FV affirms “ that through our union with Him we partake of the benefits of His death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and enthronement at the right hand of God the Father.”

From 1 and 2 we can discern that Baptism automatically yields in at least a “formal” sense all the benefits of Christ’s work through a union that automatically is transmitted through the washing of water.

3. Yet FV also denies “that baptism automatically guarantees that the baptized will share in the eschatological Church.”

Those statements might seem to imply that existential union occurs at baptism (by the working of the works) yet that existential union can be lost since baptism does not guarantee a place in the “eschatological Church”.

4.However, FV also denies “the common misunderstanding of baptismal regeneration—i.e. that an “effectual call” or rebirth is automatically wrought in the one baptized.”

Accordingly, for me to make sense of all of this (1, 2, 3 and 4), I might be inclined to think that what FV means by 1 and 2 is that through water baptism one is united to the visible Church (this being the “formal” union and engrafting to which they speak), but because baptism does not automatically bring forth the new birth (4), there can be those who only share in the outward administration of the covenant as portrayed in 1 and 2, and consequently not end up saved in this life (4) and the life after (3). [Those sentiments are what Peter Leithart basically affirmed on the stand.] If that is all the FV means, then why not say, as the WLC Q&A 31 teaches, that the CoG was made only with Christ as the second Adam and with all the elect who would be united to him in the new birth? In other words, why not conceive the promise of the covenant of grace as pertaining ONLY to the elect, although administered to the entire visible church? If that is what FV means, then what have they brought to the Reformed church other than confusion (at best)? If that is not what they mean, then what are they trying to say? [The prosecution indicated a sense of this when WCF expert Robert Letham was on the stand. Yet the prosecution never pursued the matter with Leithart, the man on trial.]

I think they mean more because (a) Federal Visionists believe they have more to offer the church beyond the confessions, and (b) they make much to do about the identical union that all have through baptism. One prominent Federal Visionist says that the “same sap” runs through all the branches of the Vine, whether elected unto final salvation or not.

[A key point that remained absent from the prosecution's questioning is that Peter Leithart along with Federal Vision thought they had new insights. After all, Reformed is not enough. Accordingly, if nothing in Leithart's testimony was new to Reformed thought, then either he was not being truthful or he did not understand basic Reformation, confessional-theology in the first place. Either way he his credentials would be suspect. Furthermore, the prosecution applied statements of Leithart's to the invisible church when Leithart claimed they applied to how we are to regard members of the visible church. (Such was even done  as late as yesterday on Greenbaggins by the prosecutor in the case.) Yet the incongruity of the plain meaning of words was not pressed to the point of two possible conclusions, perjury or unclear communication, again both unbecoming of officers in the church.

Yet the real point of contention in the case was the quality of "faith" the reprobate can have even though its "duration" was admittedly not unto glory. Leithart drew a proper distinction, teased out by a lawyer on his side of the case, but the workings of that theology and how it relates to other points of theology was left uncovered by the prosecution. The "common operations of the Spirit," the real crux of the matter, was not thoroughly dealt with. It wasn't even superficially dealth with, which I found odd given that the case boiled down to the manner or degree in which the unbeliever can be united to Christ and participate in kingdom life.]

Case in point – a pastor now associated with Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches candidated at my church prior to our considering and calling our existing pastor. While enjoying a cigar with this man on my porch on the Lord’s Day he preached to our congregation, I challenged him on some of his FV leanings. His position at that time was that there are those who are engrafted into Christ that share in the same operations of the Spirit as the elect. I challenged this man, asking him to elaborate on the elect’s assurance (even infallible assurance) of salvation given his view that some with the same measure of the Spirit can and will fall away from Christ. In other words, if those with the witness of the Spirit can fall away, then how can assurance of final salvation be obtained in this life? His response was concise and without ambiguity. Without pause he said that he took exception to the Confession’s chapter on assurance of grace and salvation. Although we finished the cigar and went back to evening service, I was confident at that very moment that this man would not receive the call. When I emailed the pastor to tell him my verdict and what my recommendation to the search committee and session would be, he responded by saying that he misspoke, went back and re-read the Confession and actually can affirm that men can be assured of their salvation. I was thrilled to hear that he came around on the matter but disheartened that he had such a fragile handle on the matter. That is just ONE reason why I don’t find most Federal Visionsists heretical but rather simply muddled. That man, BTW, was ordained in the OPC and actually at one time had pastored a church in the denomination.

“We affirm that there is only one true Church, and that this Church can legitimately be considered under various descriptions, including the aspects of visible and invisible."

This is one of the most troubling statements of the FV. [Though even that has been met with disagreement of late at Greenbaggins by two non-FV people citing Berkhof and Hodge. See recent post of mind of days ago, which addresses the matter.] The statement communicates that there is only one church, which can be described in terms of its being visible and invisible. The implication of such a construct is that the invisible church and the visible church are the same church. From that false premise comes much confusion and outright error. To make the point more clearly, consider the following modification of the statement: We affirm that there is only one true God, and that this God can legitimately be considered under various descriptions, including the aspects of transcendence and immanence. The modified statement, which uses the same construct of the FV statement, clearly communicates that the one transcendent God is the same God as the immanent God. That is true. Transcendence and immanence are simply two aspects of the one God. Is the FV statement true in this way? Is the visible church the same church as invisible church? The FV statement clearly implies that they are one and the same; for it states that there is “only one true Church” that can be described in various ways, like visible and invisible. How can they claim such a theology and also claim to be Reformed?

In contrast to FV theology, now consider Reformed theology: “The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of Him that fills all in all…The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.”

Note the difference. Within Reformed theology the invisible and visible churches are not the same church. The invisible church consists of the elect who will all possess Christ, whereas the visible church consists of those who profess Christ. On that basis alone, the FV may not be considered “Reformed” in any sense of the word.

It is not a matter of whether these men are muddled or ravenous wolves; their doctrines are at best confusing and at worst damnable. I also agree with Lane ["Greenbaggins"] when he intimated that this matter would not beep nearly as much on the reformed radar screen if the proponents of FV confined themselves to one locale, say the CREC. In the end, I do believe the fire has been well contained and that the ones who remain within the confines of the PCA are on a very short leash, under close watch and at best smoldering. They have been given a fair hearing in many quarters and consistently have been found wanting. For that we can all be grateful. June, 2010

Wet Dedications In Presbyterian Churches

“Timmy is joining the church this Sunday.” How often have we heard such a sentiment? A better question is “Why do we hear such a sentiment?” I am fully persuaded that the reason we hear such things is because evangelicalism is overtaking the church – even the Reformed church. In the minds of most Timmy is not joining the church upon baptism let alone birth but upon his confirmation of faith.

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church’s “Directory for the Public Worship of God” [DPWG] most clearly and decisively opposes evangelicalism in Chapter 4, Section B, Paragraph 2 where it instructs that “…Although our young children do not yet understand these things, they are nevertheless to be baptized. For the promise of the covenant is made to believers and to their seed, as God declared unto Abraham: ‘And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee.’ In the new dispensation no less than in the old, the seed of the faithful, born within the church, have, by virtue of their birth, interest in the covenant and right to the seal of it and to the outward privileges of the church… So the children of the covenant are by baptism distinguished from the world and solemnly received into the visible church.”

Before we proceed it should be noted that the official position of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church is that the “covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed.” (Westminster Larger Catechism (WLC), Q&A 31) The denomination also affirms that all within the visible church are not necessarily elect; therefore, there exists within the visible church those with whom God has not established His covenant of grace yet are to receive the outward administration of it. Assuming the denomination does not contradict itself in its doctrine, we may safely conclude that when the standards teach that children of professing believers are to be baptized – because the covenant is made with them – it is treating such children as elect in Christ. Accordingly, such children are to be “distinguished from the world and solemnly received into the visible church.” But what is it to be “distinguished form the world and solemnly received into the visible church”? According to the [Westminster] standards of the denomination, to be received into the visible church includes entering “into an open and professed engagement to be wholly and only the Lord’s,” which compliments how the denomination’s catechism instructs its members to regard “strangers from the covenant of promise” who are not to receive baptism until “they profess their faith in Christ…” Infants born of professing believers are not only to be treated among those with whom God has established his covenant; they are also to be regarded as already disciples in Christ, which is why they are to be baptized, as opposed to targets for evangelistic conversion. New Testament baptism, among other things, is a call to discipleship and fidelity, not conversion. It is a call to improve upon one's baptism in exercising the seed of faith by believing all Scripture teaches, and primarily in full reliance upon the grace of God trusting and resting solely in him as he is offered in the gospel.

The DPWG goes on to state in paragraph 4 of the same section “that, although our children are conceived and born in sin and therefore are subject to condemnation, they are holy in Christ, and as members of his church ought to be baptized…” [Emphasis mine] Parenthetically we can note that the official position of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church is that baptism does not make someone a member of the church but rather it is to be administered to those who are already "members of his church." The DPWG, possibly borrowing from 1 Corinthians 7:14, regards covenant children as “holy in Christ” and, therefore, among those who ought to be baptized. Moreover, paragraph 4, borrowing from Ephesians 6:4, instructs professing parents of children “to endeavor by all the means of God’s appointment to bring [children] up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” Just prior to the Apostle Paul’s instruction to parents he instructs the children in Ephesus to obey their parents “in the Lord.” These children without qualification are included in the number of all hearers in Ephesus who by the apostle are called “saints”, “faithful in Christ Jesus”, “blessed”, “chosen”, “accepted in the beloved”, “sealed with the Holy Spirit of Promise”, “quickened”, “saved”, “his workmanship created in Christ Jesus”, “fellowcitizens with the saints”, “of the household of God”, “partakers of his promise in Christ”, “forgiven”, “beloved children” and “children of light”. Does the average evangelical Protestant regard his children as the Apostle Paul would have us? Or do evangelicals, Reformed or not, regard their covenant offspring as those who must “join the church” after making a credible profession of faith? Does the Reformed Christian who embraces limited atonement tell his children that Jesus died for them? The Apostle Paul tells his hearers, even at Corinth where professions of faith were less credible, that Jesus died for their sins. (1Corinthians 15:3) Covenant children were not only regarded as being among the elect for whom Christ died; they, as part of the church, were regarded as already partaking of the purchased redemption, having been "sanctified in Christ Jesus, [and] called to be saints." (1Corinthians 1:2) The baptized were treated according to what the sign of baptism signified, namely union with Christ.

Indeed, children must “improve” upon their baptism – as do adults. The Confession draws no significant difference between the two. Question 167 of the WLC asks “How is our Baptism to be improved by us?” Answer: “The needful but much neglected duty of improving our Baptism, is to be performed by us all our life long... by serious and thankful consideration of the nature of it... by being humbled for our sinful defilement, our falling short of, and walking contrary to, the grace of baptism... by growing up to assurance of pardon of sin, and of all other blessings sealed to us in that sacrament; by drawing strength from the death and resurrection of Christ, into whom we are baptized... and by endeavoring to live by faith, to have our conversation in holiness and righteousness, as those that have therein given up their names to Christ; and to walk in brotherly love, as being baptized by the same Spirit into one body.” Both child and adult is to improve upon his baptism.

Note well that the WLC does not exhort those who have been baptized unto conversion. Such baptistic theology is contrary to Scripture. Rather, the Confession instructs that the baptized continue in faithfulness. The doctrine of the Bible, which the Orthodox Presbyterian Church follows in its standards, instructs all within the visible church to grow in the assurance of pardon and in brotherly love, as those who have already been baptized into one body by one Spirit. Even when we find severe warnings in Scripture pertaining to falling away from the faith, we find on the heels of such warnings encouragement in the Lord:

“Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near."

“Though we speak in this way, yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things—things that belong to salvation.”

“But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls.” 

It is often said that baptists engage in "dry baptism" in their practice of infant dedication. What I find more true is that Reformed paedobaptists engage in wet-dedication in the sacrament of baptism. For the most part, both deny the covenant status of their offspring. Neither treats his offspring as already alive and engrafted into the risen Christ. Note the wording of the Book of Church Order for the Presbyterian Church In America on the status of children:

“The children of believers are, through the covenant and by right of birth, non-communing members of the church. Hence they are entitled to Baptism, and to the pastoral oversight, instruction and government of the church, with a view to their embracing Christ and thus possessing personally all benefits of the covenant.”

Like her sister denomination, the PCA also recognizes that children are members of the church and, therefore, are to be baptized. In such cases membership precedes baptism. Yet one can find this on a renowned congregation's website within that (my) denomination: 

“A new Christian, or a child of the Covenant, unites with a Presbyterian church by making a profession of faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Those who become members of the church in this way appear before the session and answer satisfactorily five fundamental questions prescribed by the Book of Church Order. If they give evidence of sincerity and earnestness in their faith in Christ, the session votes to admit them to the ordinances of the church and to church membership. They ordinarily then appear before the congregation to repeat their public profession of faith in Christ, usually by answering again the five questions from the Book of Church Order. At that time they also receive Christian baptism, if they have not already been baptized in infancy.”

So, not birth or baptism but a profession of faith makes one a member of the church - contrary to the biblical, Reformed teachings of the denomination.

Not only are professing Christians to regard their children as disciples of Christ - they need not always qualify their biblical terminology with systematic language - another topic for another time. For now we might note that "There is, in every sacrament, a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other." With that in mind, how often will a Christian say that he is saved by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost? For that matter how often do we hear Christians acknowledge that they are truly eating (munching!) Christ's body and drinking his blood in the sacrament of communion? We hear all too often what the sacraments are not; yet the accent in Scripture falls upon what these sacraments actually confirm, namely interest in Christ. Accordingly, it is not hard to understand that as long as Christians regard their children as outside of Christ, the church will have a hard time reclaiming the sacramental language of Scripture. I say this as one who has no interest in jettisoning systematic theology and as one who has argued strenuously against Romanism and Federal Vision.

More Muddled Musings & Flip Wilson's Geraldine

{Click on the title to see what I'm talking about.}

Somewhat of a mantra (or at least a reoccurring theme) on this site has been “inclinations are never chosen” for if they were (and if choices are always according to inclinations) then it stands to reason that any choice would require an infinite regress of choices and inclinations. Paralyses would set in before anyone ever chose anything!

When Misty Irons states that “the homosexual orientation [is] a fallen and yet unchosen condition…” what distinction is she trying to draw? After all, are any of our fallen inclinations chosen? Does the married man, for instance, who is bent on lusting after strange women (or strange animals for that matter), choose such an inclination? Of course not for our inclinations are never chosen. Notwithstanding, most certainly our present inclinations and subsequent choices flow from the font of past inclinations acted upon. The man who acts in such a way as to sear his conscience will be able to act in that same manner with much less resistance the next time similar temptation comes to bear. Conversely, the man who exercises himself unto godliness, gaining increasingly greater mastery over his members, is able to resist the devil with less effort when temptation should come through the hand of divine providence moving the pawn-tempter. So, although we don’t choose our inclinations directly, our choices certainly impact our future inclinations and subsequent choices. There is something called will-formation after all. The world is rational and our choices do have consequences for which we are responsible.

So why is it that the sin of lusting after the same sex should gain some special status of consideration as opposed to the acts of thievery, serial killing or bestiality for that matter? All of these transgressions proceed from inclinations that are in accordance with a “fallen and yet unchosen condition” do they not? Now obviously lusting after the same sex is unnatural in a way that other sinful desires are not. Desiring shelter in a storm, for instance, is natural even though such a natural desire could become sinful when the shelter gained is against the owner’s wishes. So, at least in some sense, the inclination to lay down with the same sex is more deviant than otherwise lawful desires that are desired unlawfully. However, does even a severe step-change in abnormality give us occasion to question whether one is less culpable for his transgression, or give us any more occasion to pause and reconsider the simple remedy for sin, which is a persistence in heart felt confession, true repentance and genuine faith in God? Is the fact that our fallen nature is not chosen any reason at all to cause us to approach the more deviant behaviors with a different antidote, or more sympathetically than God does? (Even a non-nouthetic counselor should agree.)

Let me now substitute “axe murderers” for “gay men” and “homosexual” in Mrs. Irons’s quote:

“But it's not enough to present abstract doctrines and theological definitions. I also read from the testimonies of two axe murderers who were professing Christians who talked about what it was like to grow up with the dawning awareness that they were axe murderers. To me this was the centerpiece of the class, because if you haven't heard people describe it for themselves, you can never fully appreciate what people mean when they say, ‘I didn't choose this.’ I don't know how people in the class felt about those testimonies, but everyone listened in a respectful silence.”

Now I can almost hear the sound of well meaning Christians saying “Come on Ron. Certainly you see the difference between being an axe murderer and a homosexual.” Well, not really – at least not in any consequential sense when God’s word as opposed to autonomous reason becomes our standard. God does not draw a relevant distinction between the two transgressions, other than that the latter one is often a sign of reprobation! (Romans1:27, 28) Special revelation would have us believe that God’s abhorrence often precedes the abominable practice of homosexuality and not the reverse. God’s wrath already abides upon the homosexual and his sin is just a foretaste of what is to come if he doesn’t repent. The transgressions are indeed equal in that those who would engage in the abominable practices of murder and homosexuality are to be punished by death (Exodus. 21:12; Leviticus 20:13) and await God’s eternal damnation. (1 Corinthians 6:9; Galatians 5:19-21; Ephesians 5:5; Revelation 21:8) The fact of the matter remains, the acts of murder and homosexuality proceed from the very same “unchosen condition” that has not been buffeted and brought under subjection.

At the end of the day, Mrs. Irons is for some reason impressed by the lame testimonies of a certain category of transgressor that reduce to no more than Geraldine's quip “the devil made me do it.” That the human condition, whether fallen or remade, and its associated inclinations are not chosen is as irrelevant for the homosexual as it is for the common punk-thief, Flip Wilson's Geraldine (pictured above), and the sinner whose heart has been subdued by grace. Men are responsible for their inclinations and choices because God says so. Some men get justice and others get grace. Nobody gets injustice from the hand of God.

What is most terrifying is that Mrs. Irons is teaching in a PCA church, if I am to believe her Blog entry. What is more alarming is her observation that “No one [in her class] was hostile, everyone was trying to think and understand. Maybe the reason it all went so well was because our church is very young. The vast majority of members are in their 20's and 30's.” Would these 20 and 30 year old Christians sympathize with the testimony of a self-deceived axe murderer, rapist, thief, or whoremonger who would dare justify himself with: “I didn’t choose this..."?

What an insidious approach of Satan’s it is to use a former minister’s wife who claims to be Reformed to legitimize in any respect a practice that in then end will bring eternal torment to those who would indulge themselves, even according to an “unchosen condition.” To the secularist, Mrs. Irons appears more loving than your run of the mill Reformed Christian. Yet one need not be a profound exegete or an acute logician to navigate through the muddled musings of Mrs. Irons. One simply needs to be committed to Scripture over feelings, that’s all. But again, and with all sincerity, what should we expect from those whose primary form of revelation on such matters is “natural” and not “special”?

Ron