You are currently browsing the monthly archive for August, 2008.
So apparently Barak Obama’s favorite Bible verse is Matt. 25:40- “And the King will answer them, ’Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’” When I heard Senator Obama make this comment at pseudo-pastor celebrity Rick Warren’s Saddleback church, I thought about how ironic all of this is. How does Barack Obama reconcile his favorite verse with his position on abortion? Physically speaking, who are “the least of these?” Are they not the unborn fetus’s being slaughtered everyday by abortion clinics who possess Obama’s unwavering support and sympathy? Can the genocidal slaughter of millions every year be reconciled with such an ethically demanding verse like Matt. 25:40? I think not. Barack Obama shouldn’t be able to emotionally manipulate conscious Christians aware of his murderous agendas and socialistic political platforms. May God change the heart of this hypocritical politician who twists such a precious verse for his own poisonous purposes.
I’ve been convicted throughout the past few months. Here’s what I’ve been thinking. I consider myself a conscious Reformed Christian in the tradition of Scottish Presbyterianism, hold to strict subscriptionist requirements for both pastors and laity, embrace the regulative principle as fundamentally Biblical and confessional (including exclusive Psalmody apart from musical accompaniment)- the list could go on and on. In these particular areas, I’d consider myself a covenanter or seceder, as theological and liturgical overlap certainly exists between these two groups. And on a side note, I’m not writing this post to start a debate over strict subscription, RPW, exclusive Psalmody, etc. etc.
Yet despite my convictions in these particular areas, I’ve basically come to the conclusion that my professed allegiance to Scottish formulations of confessional Presbyterianism fall profoundly short with respect to my Klinean views on the ethical responsibilities of the civil magistrate to uphold Christ’s crown and covenant through the application of Biblical law in society. In fact, I can’t even find one 17th century Reformed thinker who didn’t, to greater and lesser degrees, teach that the civil magistrate has the responsibility to enforce the law of God in society.
Just so my Klinean friends don’t get too frightened, I’m not writing this post to announce my newfound allegiance to establishmentarian thinking. I’m just curious as to why so many Reformed thinkers today push for strict confessionalism, when the writers of the confessions they fight for so fiercely condemned their loose views on the civil magistrate as antinomian and schismatic!. Isn’t it kind of ironic? I guess I’ve been a little hard on both theonomist’s and establishmentarians without really studying these issues thoroughly enough.
It seems to me that both establishmentarian thinking and theonomy (to a certain extent) do have a very rich heritage in the thinking of both the Reformers and Puritans. For that very reason, I think that my new theological project will be centered upon studying this particular issue with the intent of solidifying my stance on the role of the civil magistrate and its relationship to Biblical law and the advancement of Christ’s kingdom. I feel humbled when I read the old divines and then compare what I’ve read to some of the rhetoric thats being thrown around today. And I’m not immune from these problems, having thrown around this rhetoric myself. Feel free to learn along with me as I delve into these issues, praying that God would graciously grant me clarity of thought and study as I engage this very important subject. I don’t want anyone to think that I’m carelessly indecisive in my theological convictions, or that I somehow change my particular positions on a whim. Not in the least bit. I am a historically and confessionally conscious Presbyterian with a lot of learning to do. I’m still a student, and need desperately to listen to the voices of the past, especially those voices who framed the confession I’ve joyfully bound myself to.
I’ve been pretty harsh on the Baptist’s lately, but I would like to say that James White (a Particular Baptist) is perhaps one of the most skilled communicators and debaters alive today. Here’s a short clip from one of Dr. White’s closing statements in a debate over the doctrines of grace.
I was driving into town with my wife yesterday, and passed the brand new megachurch in our area with its huge electronic signboard flashing “Revival Services All Week Long!” Now it shouldn’t surprise me that an Assembly of God congregation would use the word “revival” synonymously with “service”, given the historical and theological roots of that particular group of churches. Nevertheless, I was again struck by how the word “revival” has undergone an evolution of sorts, from the more robustly Calvinistic use of the word in the 18th century, to the more explicitly Pelagian use in the mid 19th century with the onset of Finney’s new measures. For the 18th century Puritan divines, “revival” was seen as a surprising work of God carried out according to His sovereign purposes in election, redemption, and effectual calling. The modern use of the term, consistent with the tradition of Finney and his Pelagian allies, sees revival in terms of manipulation and methodology, entirely anthropological in both its source and extent.
Whereas before in my life, I would have read a little Edwards or Whitefield to strengthen myself further in my Calvinistic convictions, my mind didn’t turn to them or to that particular period of time at all. Even the First Great Awakening messed things up in some pretty serious ways.
“Revival” isn’t a service we attend on a Saturday night to re-awaken our affections. This concept of revival thrives on emotional manipulation and semi-Pelagian pre-suppositions, oftentimes carried out in the name of strict Calvinist orthodoxy. Nor is revival some elusive soteriological concept floating somewhere off in space, enacted in some periods of time, but generally not normative for every church in every era. This concept of revival ignores the ordinary and simple means through which God works in all times to strengthen, confirm, and “revive” his people in their faith. Revival, in its most basic Reformational and Biblical sense, is what happens every Sabbath day as the Scriptures are proclaimed and the holy sacraments administered. This concept of revival is grounded in a sense of God’s absolute sovereignty as He works through ordinary means. Itinerant preachers, manipulative sermons, introspective scraping of the soul for any experiential evidence of conversion- all of these things are counterproductive to the kind of genuine revival which God carries out every week as He renews his covenant with us in corporate worship. May our minds and hearts be “revived” as we concionably hear and see the precious word of the gospel through words, bread, and wine.
R. Scott Clark has graciously provided a link to a debate between Bob Strimple and Fred Malone over the “proper subjects of baptism”, recorded at WSC a few years ago. The audio file can be found here. When I was a newcomer to the Reformed faith and attended a Reformed Baptist church, Fred Malone’s book, The Baptism of Disciples Alone, was often recommended as the best covenantal defense of credobaptist thought and practice out there. Eager to get my hands on some strong anti-paedobaptist material, I read the book and found it theologically shallow and exegetically unconvincing. Malone’s book repeats the same old “Reformed Baptist” argumentation that falls on its head when examined in light of Scripture and the Reformed tradition. Ultimately, no Baptist can genuinely lay claim to a heritage within the bounds of historic Reformed orthodoxy. Every Baptist carries dispensational baggage which skews their views on the covenant of grace and its relationship to our children. It logically concludes in a warped ecclesiology with profound theological consequences. The exclusion of our children from the covenant community isn’t a trite theological matter of indifference. It’s not secondary, unimportant, or harmless. On the contrary, credobaptism presents historic orthodoxy with a serious threat that must be dealt with. Strimple masterfully refutes Malone’s errors, pointing out the problems, historical and theological, of credobaptist thinking. Enjoy!
