A Romanist's Fallacious Argument From Silence

 Bryan Cross recently wrote over at Greenbaggins:

"I make the claims and arguments I make about infallibility because I believe them to be true and sound. If you think something I have said is false or unsound, please show it to be false or unsound."

That Rome contradicts Scripture does not persuade Bryan Cross that he is wrong about infallibility. Yet I have a more fundamental problem with Bryan’s remark - namely his fallacious argument from silence.

Prove Bryan's "argument" about infallibility is unsound:

1. There is no OT precedent of infallibility. (From Scripture, which Bryan does not dispute)

2. The burden of proof is that Bryan proves infallibility in the NT church. (From 1 and def. of fallacious argument from silence)

3. Bryan has yet to put forth a proof for NT infallibility, only assertions. (Observation)

4. Bryan's shifting of onus to a demand that one must prove infallibility wrong is nothing more than a fallacious argument from silence and, therefore, to be considered invalid. (From 2 and 3)

5. Invalid arguments are always unsound. (def. of valid and sound arguments)

6. Bryan's argument is unsound. (From 4 and 5)

Q.E.D.

Bryan has been repeatedly asked to produce an argument that begins with Peter as the "the rock" and concludes with a perpetual, infallible magisterium located in Rome. Maybe one day he'll take up the challenge or else abandon the claim.

Sophistry and Confusion is Integral to Romanism

Bryan Cross from "Called to Communion" recently wrote this on Greenbaggins:

"But when a Catholic attempts to reason with a Protestant about, say, the gospel, and the Catholic appeals to the pope and the authority of Trent, etc., he begs the question, because the Protestant does not accept the authority to which the Catholic appeals. And likewise, when a Protestant attempts to reason with a Catholic about the gospel, and the Protestant appeals to his own personal interpretation of Romans 3, that begs the question, because the Catholic doesn’t accept the authority [i.e. personal interpretation] to which the Protestant appeals. That conversation isn’t going anywhere, because both persons are each appealing to paradigm-relative standards. So the conversation will go on for years, even five hundred years, or the communities will just turn their backs on each other and give up (and the back-turning isolation will remain for even five hundred years). To get over that hurdle, both sides have to recognize the paradigmatic nature of the disagreement."

I wrote to Bryan:

"1.  It’s interesting that when a Protestant points to God’s word you call it an appeal 'to his own own personal interpretation…' but when a Roman Catholic appeals to the pope and councils you don’t portray those appeals as reflecting mere opinion of the Roman Catholic, but rather you presuppose that what is inferred by the Roman Catholic is as equally true as the doctrinal pronouncement. In other words, nothing is lost in the translation for the Roman Catholic. And when it comes to the gospel, why there is perspicuity within Rome that cannot be found in Scripture is a curious thing, especially given that Rome was to have based her gospel upon Scripture.

2. You suggest the 'conversation isn’t going anywhere because…' of different authorities to which the Roman Catholic and Protestant appeal. But rarely, if ever, have I seen a Roman Catholic appeal to the pope or Trent to make his case. Rarely does one find a Roman Catholic assert 'the pope has said so and that settles it.' No, the Roman Catholic makes appeals to Scripture because Scripture, so it is claimed, is an authority for Rome, just not her only authority. Indeed, the faithful Catholic won’t interpret Scripture so as to undermine his understanding of Roman Catholic teaching, but notwithstanding he does attempt to reconcile James with Paul by the analogy of Scripture. That’s why I find it rather misleading to index the Catholic-Protestant impasse to a Protestant’s subjective understanding of Scripture versus a Roman Catholic’s appeal to the clear pronouncements of popes and councils. At the very least, doesn’t a Roman Catholic try to justify the very idea of the popes from Scripture? Or is his reasoning so circular that he would dare to justify the papacy from an appeal to the papacy?

Sundry implications

Can Rome produce an infallible tradition not found in Scripture that has its origins with the apostles? Of course not, which leads to the question – If Scripture does not inform the Roman Catholic magisterium about what Scripture has to say, then who or what does? To deny that the popes affirm the analogy of Scripture for the magisterium is to reduce Scripture to brute particulars that have no discernible coherence, which would mean that the magisterium with respect to interpreting Scripture must be making things up as they go along and that any appeal to Scripture is disingenuous at best. Therefore, it’s not so much that Rome denies the intelligibility and lucidity of Scripture. Rather, Rome would have us believe that Scripture is only intelligible and clear to the magisterium. Consequently, individual Roman Catholics should not, as they do, appeal to Scripture to justify the Roman Catholic communion and the church’s need for the popes. Rather, Roman Catholics should be consistent by simply pointing to the authority of the popes to defend the claims of the popes, and once they do that then yes, we will be at an impasse. That, however, would be an admission of being a blind follower of something other than Scripture, which is an embarrassment for Roman Catholics yet a necessary implication of their view of the church and Scripture.

In sum, as soon as a Roman Catholic argues from Scripture he denies the need for an infallible magisterium. Once he points to Rome apart from Scripture, he shows himself to be a blind follower of something in the face of Scripture."

~ End of my response to Bryan ~

Roman Catholics such as Bryan find themselves on the horns of an epistemological dilemma and in turn fall into a form of skepticism. By placing a mediator between God and men they render God’s living word inoperable. If their authority is Rome, then Scripture is rendered useless because any interpretation of any passage of Scripture must await adjudication for one to know what Scripture is saying.  Yet when a Roman Catholic reads Scripture they demonstrate that an infallible magisterium is unnecessary to know the truth. Roman Catholics live in a tension that they cannot reconcile. We all get that I think.

Roman Catholics pay lip service to the authority of Scripture, for given an apparent discrepancy between Scripture and tradition Scripture always loses. Whereas Protestants can become more Reformed and move toward the OPC! :) For instance, Scripture teaches that all miracles appeal to the mind through the senses. Now then, imagine that Jesus looked as though he were sinking in water yet claimed to be walking on it. Or imagine that the Israelites drowned in the Red Sea but that tradition said they crossed over on dry ground and only looked as though they drowned. Should we believe such testimony in the face of contrary truth? So it is with the hocus-pocus of the mass. We are told we must believe, lest we risk hell(!), that the bread and wine has changed into the body and blood of the Lord; yet the elements continue to manifest the physical properties of bread and wine. Not only is there no biblical precedence to accept such obviously false claims, in principle we are warned and commanded not to do so! Yet such blind, irrational faith is required for one to be a good Roman Catholic. Yes, the demands are high, maybe because the stakes are so high. The skepticism created by Romanism begets doctrinal infidelity. No, demands it!
 

Finally, Scripture has always taught that Scripture itself is to judge the teachers of God’s word. After all, if we were to allow the teachers to judge the Scriptures then the rejection of Christ by the religious leaders of his day would have been justified. There would be no Christianity! So it is with Rome. By placing herself above the Scriptures she too has fallen away - no less than the Jews. Or should we measure damnable heresies by degree? Roman Catholicism actually presents a bigger problem to true believers because she does hold to enough truth to be a more superior tempter.

John Robbins on 1st Table of The Law

 In Slavery & Christianity, John Robbins penned these words:

“In Romans 13 Paul makes it clear that the proper role of civil government is the enforcement of the so-called second table of the Ten Commandments: Romans 13:9 explicitly mentions adultery, murder, theft, false witness, and covetousness. Civil governments have no power over the mind, and so they have no authority to enforce the first table of the law.”

It’s often difficult to know where to begin untangling enthymemes due to the nature of unspoken premises. We can add to those difficulties the ambiguity of such phrases as “no power over the mind,” noting that whatever the phrase was intended to mean a consistent use of the phrase - the same meaning throughout the relevant context that is, may be demanded.

Robbins does not seem to be arguing:  “Romans 13 only teaches that government may enforce the second table of the law; therefore, government may only enforce the second table of the law.” That, of course, would be an argument from silence of the fallacious variety and to transfer the word "only" most improperly.

At the very least Robbins appears to be arguing that Romans 13 only teaches that government may enforce the second table of the law and since civil governments cannot extract what is in a man’s mind they cannot possibly enforce the first table of the law, nor can God expect them too.

A few observations are in order:

1. Although the second table reference pertains to all relationships, which would thereby include relationships with individuals who are to wield the sword, in verses 8-10 the persons in view are not qua state persons but merely all individuals without distinction. John Murray is correct that a transition occurs in verse eight of Romans 13, from whence man’s relationship to the state gives way to an imperative pertaining to all relationships. Verse seven brings a line of thought to its conclusion, underscored by the translation “therefore”.  In verses 8-10 the apostle moves on to address love toward neighbor as the fulfillment of the law (hence the reference to second-table law), and love for neighbor has little to do with the state’s responsibility to punish criminals, a prime import of verses 1-7.

2. Robbins seems either to base, or at least corroborate and bolster, the conclusion that civil governments have no authority to enforce the first table of the law upon the premise that civil governments have no power over the mind. Robbins: “Civil governments have no power over the mind, and so they have no authority to enforce the first table of the law.” [Bold emphasis mine.]

Yet if a lack of power over the mind (insert your own definition of what that means) is a sufficient condition to prohibit the enforcement of the first table of the law by civil governments, then either God was wrong to require Israel to enforce such laws, or else power over the mind was some sort of supernatural gift given under the Law that has now ceased in the newer economy.

Moreover, three of the four laws contained in the first table are not typically (and two can't be) confined strictly to the mind but are manifested in observable actions, not unlike second table tansgressions that demand civil sanctions. Therefore, it would be hasty to conclude that sins against the first table cannot be sanctioned because they are only confined to the mind - as if they do not entail observable displays of blasphemy and rebellion which, by the way, can be an immediate source of second table sins. (i.e. Erode the first table and the second goes with it.)

3. Robbins takes the references to second table sins as either establishing or at least corroborating his view that the civil magistrate is to be concerned with the second table. And although it is true that the civil magistrate is to be concerned with the sins contained in the second table, not all sins mentioned in verse 9 are punishable by civil magistrates, like covetousness. Covetousness is a sin of the mind, over which (Robbins informs) the government can have “no power” (again, whatever that means). Accordingly, the references to the sins from the second table cannot successfully be used to argue that sanctions are to be confined to the second table simply because covetousness is not a punishable sin, though its manifistation in action can be.

Robbins does footnote:

“They [civil governments] do have the obligation to obey the so-called first table of the law. God’s law governs all individuals and institutions. There are no exceptions for presidents and kings.  That means, for example, that no one should be permitted to take an oath – either in court or on being inaugurated into office – on any book other than the Bible. Swearing by Allah or Zeus is worse than useless: They are not the truth.”

Robbins does not merely state that no one should take an oath on any book other than the Bible. No, Robbins clearly states that not one should be permitted to take such an oath. But doesn’t that presuppose some form of enforcing the first table of the law, the very thing Robbins says governments may not do?!

Generally speaking, I find it rare to find such inconsistency within such close proximity of itself; yet it's my experience that such is common place when one tries to escape the civil demands of God’s law, whether first or second table. That is not intended to be a slight against John Robbins, to whom I am exceedingly grateful for having faithfully promoted the works of Gordon Clark. Rather, I would simply use Robbins as an illustration of the obvious inconsistency and arbitrariness that results from denying the authority of God's law over civil rulers.

Heidelberg Catechism

Question 100. Is then the profaning of God's name, by swearing and cursing, so heinous a sin, that his wrath is kindled against those who do not endeavour, as much as in them lies, to prevent and forbid such cursing and swearing?

Answer: It undoubtedly is, (a) for there is no sin greater or more provoking to God, than the profaning of his name; and therefore he has commanded this sin to be punished with death. (b)

(a) Prov.29:24 Whoso is partner with a thief hateth his own soul: he heareth cursing, and bewrayeth it not. Lev.5:1 And if a soul sin, and hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness, whether he hath seen or known of it; if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity. (b) Lev.24:15 And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin. Lev.24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death.

Westminster Larger Catechism

Question 108: What are the duties required in the second commandment?

Answer: The duties required in the second commandment are, the receiving, observing, and keeping pure and entire, all such religious worship and ordinances as God has instituted in his Word; particularly prayer and thanksgiving in the name of Christ; the reading, preaching, and hearing of the Word; the administration and receiving of the sacraments; church government and discipline; the ministry and maintenance thereof; religious fasting; swearing by the name of God, and vowing unto him: as also the disapproving, detesting, opposing, all false worship; and, according to each one's place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry.

Pope Boniface VIII & The Alleged "Change" of Vatican II

Lane over at Green Baggins has begun a discussion over what he calls a “fascinating book” that supposedly deals with question of change that came about at Vatican II. That discussion can be found here.

I don’t find anything Lane wrote in the original post objectionable, but it has been my experience that such discussions are riddled with confusion. Just a few thoughts on the matter..

From a true Roman Catholic perspective no doctrinal change was introduced at Vatican II (and no contradiction to the official teachings of that communion could have been made). If there appears to have been doctrinal change introduced at Vatican II then from a Roman Catholic perspective there must have been some pre-Vatican II doctrines that were concealed as mysteries until the official pronouncements of that later council gave sufficient clarity to them. We might say that there is an analogy of councils for the Roman communion whereby apparently unclear utterances are to be interpreted by clearer ones. The problem, of course, is that those pre-Vatican II pronouncements that are so repugnant to evangelicals are no less clear in their prima facie interpretation than those later pronouncements that are seemingly more palatable. Consequently, either Rome’s consistency in her clarity accuses her of outright doctrinal contradiction or else there is no perspicuity of Roman Catholic doctrine, a dilemma indeed.

Either Rome has changed some of her doctrines, which would undermine her battle cry of Semper Eadem, or else she hasn’t changed any of her doctrines and is thereby a living contradiction in what she has clearly stated, which, of course, would undermine her alleged infallibility. For instance, how does Rome reconcile the unambiguous pronouncement of papal bull Unam Sanctam with the equally clear language of Vatican II from which we are informed that Protestants are now to be regarded as “separated brethren”? Are we to believe that converted Protestants are in fellowship with the pope while denying the teachings of the Roman communion?

 

Sweeping Statements (by a fine man)

Carl Trueman recently wrote here that he is disturbed by the willingness of Christian groups to pay Christian leaders $10,000 and upwards for giving a single lecture. He even quotes another favorably, suggesting that a willingness to pay such a fee gives “Christianity in this country a bad name.” Trueman warns against the preparedness of some Christian organizations to pay such fees, noting that it is “horribly sleazy” when one is influenced by a speaker’s “ability to command serious media attention or simply fill that stadium”. He goes on to suggest that not to voice that a lecture fee of $10,000 is “distasteful or downright inappropriate” is to head into “televangelist and prosperity huckster” territory.

Is it immoral to choose any speaker based upon a degree of popularity even when accompanied by a motive to fill even a large auditorium? If a Christian organization desires to communicate a particular message to as many people possible in one single evening, would it necessarily be wrong to consider the notoriety and communication skills of potential candidates? Moreover, if proceeds for such an event were, say, in the tens of thousands, why would it be impermissible for a speaker to be compensated $10,000 or more?

Indeed, I don’t question that speakers are sometimes sought out by Christian organizations for less than pure motives. However, I am not prepared to paint with such a broad brush as to say that to pay a speaker half the proceeds for addressing an audience of 1250 people at 16 dollars per head is distasteful, let alone horribly sleazy. Imagine, for instance, a professor writing a book on the Trinity that required a lifetime of study and reflection, including a grueling year or two to organize it into manuscript form. Not much money can be made selling useful Christian books, even award winning ones. Accordingly, I would have no problem with a Christian author recouping some of his effort in the form of a 10K financial reward through the medium of a single conference engagement. I wouldn’t even have a problem with a minister who preached thirty five sermons per year in a large congregation in Luanda, Angola making $350,000 per year given that a fast food meal in that city cost over twenty dollars in 2011.

Much more can be said on this matter, like what we think regarding the perceived worth of something relative to supply and demand.

Revolution Replacing Reformation (in the church)

One of my neighbors was ordained years ago to the office of Elder in the Reformed denomination of which I'm a member. Thankfully, he has since time aligned himself with a non-denominational Bible church. While still in his former denomination I remember this man saying to me in my dining room how he was looking to spend the church’s money in the hiring of an extremely talented non-Christian electric guitarist who would be paid to critique the church’s corporate worship style. This “consultant” would help the church become more “cutting edge” in their worship so that they might attract the lost.

A few years before that I attended a Reformed church (same denomination) in San Diego while away on business. Before the first song the minister apologized to the congregation by saying that although they would be standing to sing "because we are Presbyterian," he assured them there was no need to stand. This amendment was not intended to accommodate the aged but rather it was intended to communicate a laid back approach to worship. The elementary school aged boy in front of me took the minister up on the offer (and then some). He sat comfortably sprawled out in his chair as he read a racing car magazine. As the pastor paced the stage with his Big Gulp in hand, he drew the analogy in his sermon that the Savior on the cross was like the pastor’s daughter who had been held down by force on a hospital bed by her father as the doctor administered a painful needle. After several other misleading word-pictures including defining justification as "a fancy word for having a new heart,” the minister ended the sermon by singing the benediction in a rock style genre while strumming a guitar. His parting words boasted “be a Christian but live like a golfer.”

Today I attended a church (same denomination) by invitation because of a baptism that was to take place. Amazingly in God’s plan I was used to persuade the parents of the biblical case for covenant baptism – all the more reason I felt a happy obligation to worship away from my home church. Out of twenty five minutes of singing, no song except for the offertory was familiar to anyone in my family. The only familiar tune was America the Beautiful. Contemporary is one thing. Sectarian and esoteric is something else. To be so far detached from not only the historic Christian church but the church of this present age so as to sing all unfamiliar tunes to the well churched ear is, I think, problematic.

In today’s worship we were told that biblical repentance always brings forth fruit, but a Christian can be one who has not yet repented. After the service was over and the Senior Minister was walking down the aisle, the atmosphere was so casual that a prominent member felt at liberty to yell to the Senior Minister that the congregation agrees to pray and look out for the baptized children even though the minister had forgotten to take a show of hands, apparently a tradition of theirs that was overlooked that Sunday. The Senior Minister was seemingly embarrassed.

Much can be said about the casual approach to worship that is pervasive in the church today and more often than not accompanied by a corrupted gospel message, which is no gospel at all. It is good to be reminded from time to time that Moses takes off his shoes when he encounters God; Isaiah is undone; Job puts his hand over his mouth and repents in dust and ashes; Peter asks the Lord to depart from him because he is a sinful man; and John falls down as a dead man. Does our adoption as sons in Christ somehow diminish the sacred and the holy? Or is it true that a God who is not perceived as transcendent, but only worshipped as our friend, is not the true and living God? If joy without reverence is not God-inspired joy, then it must be the work of the flesh.

I believe the unsaved have a better intuitive grasp of appropriate worship than professing Christians do sometimes, which is why it breaks my heart to see un-churched relatives attend such “worship” services. Casual “worship” becomes a stumbling block to the lost (and the saved) because it is not consistent with who God is and what he has done in his marvelous works of creation, providence and grace. It seems to me that evangelicals were more outraged by the inappropriateness of Michelle Obama touching the Queen in 2009 than they are with casual worship before a righteous and holy God.

Even in the Reformed church I’m afraid, Reformation is being replaced by Revolution. There seems to be a concerted effort to overthrow corporate confession of sin; assurance of pardon; historic Trinitarian creeds; OT and NT Scripture reading; Psalm singing; hymns written by theologians, sung by the one holy, catholic and apostolic church; and expository preaching. How can this be deemed an improvement?

I know there is no perfect church, and I don’t think I’m looking for one – far from it I think. I’m just looking for decency and order for my household. Thankfully, we have much more than that at my home church. By God's grace we enjoy the elements of Reformed, Trinitarian worship.

Lord willing, we’ll worship at our home church this coming Sunday.

"We're both part of the same hypocrisy, senator..."

Obama would use government to undermine what he considers the injustice (if not evil) of wealth disparity. Republicans believe in principle the same things, just more subtly and probably to a lesser degree. For instance, Republicans have no problem helping all people become educated through government schools funded by taxes. So why shouldn’t the government keep us healthy in the same way, through government "tax" dollars? It wasn’t Obama who ushered in the seeds of Socialism. Our progressive tax tables (originally aimed to fund the Civil War and later exasperated by the Great Depression and WWII); the new deal under FDR; and government education all preceded Obama’s birth. These are all means of “spreading the wealth” that are intrinsic to both parties. America has been on this road for a long, long time. One must either be a hypocrite or unthinking to accuse any particular party or candidate while giving a pass to others who do the same. (I'm not engaging in name calling here. I'm merely pointing out that those who accuse Obama and not the GOP are either ignorant of their own leanings or else unjust in their dealings.)

Moreover, Obama-socialism comports rather nicely with the recent bailouts of the Great Recession, supported by both parties. The bailouts were a difficult matter but only if predicated upon the question of defending our nation (the national security question). It could have been argued, I suppose, that an economic collapse would have put national security at risk, hence the need for a bailout. I don’t find that premise particularly persuasive, but that was the only possible rationale I could think of three to four years ago to justify the "loan" from a constitutional posture.

Reformed folk (whether R2K or stridently theonomic) have always grasped that the Bible doesn’t provide a blue print for economic theory, though it does speak in principle to questions pertaining to the three spheres of government - family, church and civil. Fathers and mothers are to discipline children and individuals are entrusted with feeding the poor. The church serves the Supper, and shows acts of mercy (along with individuals). The government wields the sword. Once we conflate those sorts of boundaries chaos sets in. That’s what we now have. People are to "render unto Caesar" taxes, but nowhere does God grant government the liberty to extort money at the end of a gun in the manner that both Republicans and Democrats have become so accustom. This is why I find the entire outrage over ObamaCare to be a mock horror. Sure ObamaCare is wrong; that’s obvious. But on what ground do we object to the theft of ObamaCare and not the laws and taxes regarding child education? How is nationalized health care any more insidious than national education? How is the “no child left behind act” constitutional and not a form of spreading the wealth? Faith based initiatives? Come now, Christian.

It is striking to me that both parties want to help their preferred classes of people who will indeed decide any election - the rich and the middle class. But God’s word would have us be concerned only for the financial betterment of the lowest income strata, who when at no fault of their own need financial aid. Even with Scripture's emphasis on  helping the (non-slothful) poor, the true privilege and obligation to extend financial charity always falls upon individuals and the church, not government. Yet Republicans, contrary to Scripture, foster the government-aid mentality, again – just to a lesser degree than Democrats. So again, both parties are of the same hypocrisy {no differently than Michael Corleone and Senator Patrick Geary (pictured above) were}; some are just more consistent than others.

Lastly, it is also my opinion that too many would find their hope in government, which is what true Communism would have, and it’s what Obama and Pelosi would have. But once again, I find Christians just as misguided here as they follow the GOP. Create a crisis and the people will run to government, or if I’m to believe the left – their guns and bibles. Christians, in their partisanship, too often do not think for themselves I'm afraid. They would sooner let Rush, Sean and Bill do their political thinking for them. Those men are far from conservative by my standards and certainly not intellectually honest, let alone biblically harnessed in their outlook and reasoning. They’re of the same hypocrisy as the community organizer from Chicago, just not as consistent as he. They are more selective in what socialistic, unbiblical laws suit them, but nonetheless they too want bigger government than what the framers intended and not substantially fewer programs than their opponents desire. Just look at RomneyCare. That he wants to contain it to his own state of Massachusetts is a distinction without a principled difference. (In this regard Romney reminds me of ficticious character Guiseppe Zaluchi who with his own irrelevant qualification wanted to keep drug trafficking "respectable" by restricting it in Detroit to a certain class of people that he thought were "animals anyway, so let them lose their souls.")

Every time you lick a stamp, ask yourself why the government is involved with delivering parcels. I remember a loyal Republican woman (also a Christian) who when presented this question replied in all sincerity, "Then who would deliver the mail?" (Remember Pork in Gone With the Wind? "Whose gonna milk that cow, Miss Scarlet? We's houseworkers.") Sadly, it never occurred to this dear saint that there could be private sector competition over serving the mail just like there is in picking up garbage from the curb.

Sure, Obama is the socialistic real-deal, which is why the thought of him for four more years terrifies so many, but how does Romney really differ?

In sum: I think what Obama stands for is deplorable. No equivocation there I trust. Now then, putting Romney's faith aside, I find his socialistic tendencies as misguided as his economic policies, and in principle he is no different than Obama. We can rightly consider ObamaCare a natural progression from what Romney, following the GOP, embraces. The two candidates might be at slightly different points along the trajectory, which only means that Obama is just slightly ahead of the curve, that's all.

"Obama" isn't just a candidate; it is an ideology that has been taught in public schools for years. It's in the culture and air we breathe. Everyone gets a trophy. All opinions are to be respected and, therefore, considered equally valid. There is no absolute truth, just better opinions possibly.  Romney is a disciple of that same secular philosophy. The difference between the two is Romney is not as good a student as the President. That is how Romney differs from Obama. He's not as far along as his opponent, but given time and the right providential circumstances he might just get there.

"Should five percent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman" George Harrison
(Written in response to the "supertax" with backing vocals' reference to Labour and Conservative Parties - Mr. Wilson and Mr. Heath - suggested by John Lennon to Harrison; though Wilson [Labour] was the real culprit I suppose.)

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.

Romney, Another Jefferson?

I've heard in the past week people trying to equate the Romney-scenario to that of President Thomas Jefferson, also a non-Christian. A few comments might be in order (and more are in the coms-box two posts ago). Jefferson was not a cult leader. And although he showed himself in the end to be apostate - Thomas Jefferson did not mistake Satan's voice for Christ's. That is the material point.

Mitt Romney not only rejects Christ's testimony of himself; he confuses Satan's testimony for it. When the presidential candidate reads the writings of false prophet Joseph Smith, Romney believes he is hearing the word of the Lord.

The point stands. These are indeed unchartered waters, completely
unprecedented in the history of the United States. (see two posts below)

More On Romney and Muddled Thinking

My last post has been the impetus for much discussion, which prompts me to voice additional observations.

1.  Many will vote for Romney as the lesser of evils because Obama, they believe, will run our country into the ground in the next four years. As far as the outcome of the election is concerned, I have it on good authority, the testimony of redemptive history, that the legitimizing of blasphemy has precedence for economic consequences and social turmoil, more than anything that might result from Obama-care and all the rest. That is something that should be considered by those who would make this election a matter of economics and social concern.  Pragmatism would seem to side with not voting for Romney, especially given his moderate tendencies that in principle are no different, just less consistent, than Obama's.

1a. It hasn’t occurred to many that the spiritual decay of this land has paved the way for the social decay we now find normal. Fixing our economic thinking and all the rest is a mere band aid at best. At the heart of the problem is the question, How might we provide a climate in which God is honored given the current state of affairs? Do we seek God's good pleasure by voting for Romney? Do we say no to a heretical, blaspheming candidate, or do we elect him as the savior of this land? Enough is enough, but unfortunately the conservative media and the GOP leadership have evangelicals so scared of Obama that the masses would sooner support a cult leader with the hope of him getting us out of the jam that spiritual infidelity got us into in the first place. The irony is killing me.

2. People are quick to claim the sovereignty of God and divine election as reason not to be terribly concerned with an attack on the gospel, but not so willing to take such a fatalistic, hyper-Calvinistic approach when dealing with socialistic / economic concerns. In other words, many think as though God will take care of protecting the elect but we humans must fight against the evils of social agendas that are un-American. What is obviously skewed in such thinking is the fact that God no less decrees salvation than he does societal decay. So any appeal to divine sovereignty begs the question of where one’s efforts and priorities should be.

3. There is a common sentiment regarding voting against one’s favorite candidate that when voiced is more manipulative than valid. That being, “A non-vote is a vote for Obama.”  During the last presidential election, if a person who was intending to vote for Obama was prevented from doing so by traffic on the freeway, he would not have voted. Would that non-vote have been a vote for Obama? Obviously not, for nothing would have been gained by Obama. In fact, something would have been lost - the vote of the hindered voter. Now if it is said that the non-vote would have been a vote for McCain, then in a sense that would be right, but such an observation would be based upon a premise pertaining to the intention of the voter. Indeed, McCain would have gained something by such a traffic-providence, for the hindrance of an Obama voter to vote would have closed the gap of the race by one vote in favor of McCain. The point should be apparent. For a non-vote in this election to be regarded as vote for Obama presupposes that the person not voting would have voted for Romney if he could, but that’s obviously false because the person in view would not be voting because he had no intention of voting for Romney (or anyone else). When the voter’s will and not some external providence prevents him from voting, it is mathematically absurd and philosophically fallacious to claim that the non-vote would have been cast in any direction.

4. We live in a pluralistic, non-Christian nation. Accordingly, voting for the lesser of perceived evils is permissible. My concern, as I wrote earlier, is what one will consider as data and how he evaluates that which he finds relevant.