You are currently browsing the monthly archive for January, 2009.
Be sure to check out Kevin’s recent post on idolatrous prayers. It’s truly sad to witness how shallow our corporate and individual prayers have become, especially in light of the rich liturgical tradition of historic Protestantism. If there is one thing I’ve observed in visiting various parishes throughout the years, it’s been the profound inability to pray as Christ has commanded. Kevin does a great job examining the idolatry which we often times aren’t even aware of.
Thanks to Andrew Sandlin for directing us to this frightening news. Not very likely that the theologically anti-nomian views of the civil magistrate within evangelical and Reformed communions can in any way counter-act these heterox trends.
How Barack Obama Will Make Christ a Minister of Condemnation – John Piper
At Barack Obama’s request, tomorrow in the Lincoln Memorial, Gene Robinson, the first openly non-celibate homosexual bishop in the Episcopal Church, will deliver the invocation for the inauguration kick-off.
This is tragic not mainly because Obama is willing to hold up the legitimacy of homosexual intercourse, but because he is willing to get behind the church endorsement of sexual intercourse between men.
It is one thing to say: Two men may legally have sex. It is another to say: The Christian church acted acceptably in blessing Robinson’s sex with men.
The implications of this are serious.
It means that Barack Obama is willing, not just to tolerate, but to feature a person and a viewpoint that makes the church a minister of damnation. Again, the tragedy here is not that many people in public life hold views (like atheism) that lead to damnation, but that Obama is making the church the minister of damnation.
The apostle Paul says,
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, normen who practice homosexuality, nor thieves , nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)
What is Paul saying about things like adultery, greed, stealing, and homosexual practice? As J. I. Packer puts it, “They are ways of sin that, if not repented of and forsaken, will keep people out of God’s kingdom of salvation.” (Christianity Today, January 2003, p. 48).
In other words, to bless people in these sins, instead of offering them forgiveness and deliverance from them, is to minister damnation to them, not salvation.
The gospel, with its forgiveness and deliverance from homosexual practice, offers salvation. Gene Robinson, with his blessing and approval of homosexual practice, offers damnation. And he does it in the name of Christ.
It is as though Obama sought out a church which blessed stealing and adultery, and then chose its most well-known thief and adulterer, and asked him to pray.
One more time: The issue here is not that presidents may need to tolerate things they don’t approve of. The issue is this: In linking the Christian ministry to the approval of homosexual activity, Christ is made a minister of condemnation.
Thanks to Elder Hoss for directing me to this groundbreaking essay.
Against Dispensationalism has just put out a brand new dvd devoted to critiquing various aspects of the dispensational schema. For 420 minutes of solid covenantal material on dvd, $19.95 seems like a very reasonable price. I hope to pick up a copy sometime within the next week or so.
A new article examining “Progressive Dispensationalism” has been written by Kenneth Gentry, offering both due commendation and biblical critique. Progressive Dispensationalism is by far much more scholarly, exegetically nuanced, and, well, more Biblical than older forms of classic dispensationalism. Still, it possesses remnants of the old system which must be reckoned with. While the movement represents a step in the right direction, it nevertheless remains committed to many of the central pre-suppositions of classic dispensationalism.
Finally, I’ve posted this before, but if you haven’t read the 95 Theses Against Dispensationalism written by Rob Reymond and other scholars, I’d highly recommend looking through it. The truth is that classical forms of dispensationalism are dying quickly, if they aren’t already extinct in many circles. Greg Bahnsen and Ken Gentry observed this phenomena over 10 years ago in their excellent book House Divided. Still, dispensationalism holds sway within many evangelical circles and must be called out for what it is.
I don’t mean to make this Peter Leithart week, but as I’ve been reading through Baptized Body a second time, I’ve really enjoyed some of his insights into paedobaptist thought and practice which I merely hadn’t thought of before. I found this quote helpful in thinking about our often warped view of symbols and the pre-suppositions that often drive the dichotomization of signs and things signified. Leithart contends that symbols aren’t mere unnecessary addendums to the deeper realities of life, but the very substance which forge and maintain relationships, both divine and human. The implications of these thoughts are profound. If our relationship with God can’t be forged or maintained apart from the sacraments, then a much higher and more urgent emphasis upon the sacraments is necessary for cultivating a consistently Biblical piety and practice in our churches.
“If sacraments are signs and symbols in the sense suggested here, then they are (with the Word and through the Spirit) the matrix of personal communion with the Triune God. The symbolism involved in sacraments is the symbolism of action, less like the symbolism of a painting or a metaphor than the symbolism of a handshake or a wave or a kiss. They are symbols by and through and in which personal, covenantal relationships are forged and maintained. God Himself is invisible, and there are invisible aspects to our relationship with God. Of course, God is not locked out from a comatose human being who cannot sense or respond to any external signs or words. In all normal circumstances, however, the invisible features of our relation with God occur within the framework of visible signs, rites, and seals that constitute the covenant. Sacraments are not ’signs of an invisible relationship with Christ’, as if a relationship with Christ might occur without them. Rather, the intricate fabric of exchanged language, gesture, symbol, and action is our personal relationship with God. This is the fabric of ‘favors’ that expresses God’s personal ‘favor.’ These are the graces that exhibit God’s grace, the gifts that connect us again and again with the God who gives.”
-Peter Leithart, The Baptized Body p. 21
Do Baptists Talk to Their Babies? by Peter Leithart
Protestants have always insisted that the sacraments bring no benefit without a response of faith, but this seems to undermine infant baptism, since infants do not appear to be able to exercise faith. Luther and Calvin held together their insistence on faith with infant baptism by claiming that infants can believe. Baptists see this as the Achilles’ heel of the paedobaptist position, an example of how far paedobaptists have to go to defend an untenable practice.
Is infant faith absurd? As I indicated more fully in my lectures on baptism at the 1996 Biblical Horizons summer conference, our questions about sacraments often result from confusions about two things: grace and symbols. Through much of church history, there has been a tendency (and sometimes more than a tendency) to conceive of grace as some kind of impersonal substance, energy, or power that God delivers to man. Sacraments thus become, as is said even by many Reformed, “channels” by which grace flows to believers. This is just an image, but imagery has a way of shaping theology for good or ill. To call the sacraments “channels” of grace reinforced the mistaken view that grace is an impersonal substance or power. Grace, however, is God’s attitude of favor to sinners, manifested in His personal approach to establish fellowship, to cut or renew a covenant, with His people. There are not four things involved in sacraments (God, grace, sacrament, us) but only three (the gracious God, sacraments, and us). The Jews marveled at the confidence of Peter and John, and saw that it was a result of personal acquaintance and fellowship with Jesus (Acts 4:13). Our transformation has the same cause: We are renewed by personal fellowship encounter with the Lord who has become life-giving Spirit.
And as regards symbols: Frequently, we think of symbols as an addition to real life, as enhancements of the “literal.” In the personalist framework sketched above, however, symbols have a much more basic function in human life. Personal relationships among human beings exist, under normal circumstances, only by means of signs and symbols. Symbols communicate and mediate information and personal presence. We get to know another person by talking (using linguistic signs) and by gestures (handshake, kiss, hug, facial expressions, etc.). The only way for a man’s infatuation with a woman to move out of imagination into a real relationship of love is for the man to make his love “public” by speaking, writing love letters, sending flowers, and so on. Symbolic acts such as these do not picture a relationship that already exists; without the symbols, the personal relationship will not exist at all.
Likewise, our personal relationship with God takes place through mutual use of symbols: God speaks to us in His word, which takes the form of printed symbols on a page or audible sounds that carry meaning. We respond with words of prayer and praise. God “gestures” to us through the water of baptism and by spreading His table; we respond by accepting His invitation and feasting in His presence. The history of sacramental theology can be told as a dialectic between treating sacraments as magical and treating them as “mere symbols.” A personalist framework cuts through the whole debate: Symbols have power, but the power is the power of establishing and maintaining personal, covenanted relationships.
(Despite real differences between language and other symbolic actions, there are fundamental similarities: both speech [or writing] and gestures are physical actions; both uttering significant sounds and performing significant gestures are symbolic in that meanings are encoded within or “inhere” the physical actions. In fact, it is difficult to think of a human physical action in which meaning does not inhere: A pat on the back is different from swatting a fly but swatting a fly says something; speaking is different from belching, but, depending on circumstances, belching can mean either “I enjoyed the meal” or “I’m a mannerless pig.” Generating and deploying symbols is an inescapable human process, an aspect of our being made in the image of the Father who eternally generates His Word, His Image [John 1:1; Hebrew 1:1-3].)
Given this background, we can return to the question of infant faith. Here, “faith” is the human response trust to God in a personal relationship. The question of infant faith is not: “Are infants capable of receiving this jolt of divine power?” The question is: “Can infants respond to other persons? Do infants have personal relations?” And the answer to this question is obviously yes. Infants quickly (even in utero) learn to respond to mother’s voice; infants quickly manifest “trust” of their parents; infants quickly distinguish strangers from members of the family. If infants can trust and distrust human persons, why can’t they trust in God? Behind the denial of infant faith is, apparently, an assumption that God is less available to an infant than other humans. But this is entirely wrong; for no human being is nearer than God. And it is wrong because God’s presence is mediated through His people. When parents say to their newborn, “Jesus loves you and will care for you,” they are speaking God’s promises.
Parents, moreover, establish relationships with their infants through symbols. We talk to our infants, and we show our love through gestures � hugs and kisses. If there is nothing irrational or absurd about humans’ establishing personal relation ship with infants through symbols, there is nothing irrational about God’s doing the same. As we establish loving and trusting relations with our infants through symbols, so God speaks to infants and establishes a relation with them through the “visible word” of baptism. Thus, the question “Should we baptize babies?” is of a piece with the question “Should we talk to babies?” Paedobaptism is neither more nor less odd and miraculous that talking to a newborn. In fact, that is just what paedobaptism is: God speaking in water to a newborn child.
Let me take this a further step. If the child cannot understand what a parent is saying, is it rational for the parent to speak to him or her? Baptist parents as well as others speak to their infants, and do not expect the child to understand or to talk back for many months. They see nothing irrational in this. They speak to their children, that is, they employ symbols, not because they think the infant understands all that is being said or because they expect an immediate response. They speak to their children so that the child will learn to understand and talk back. So too, we baptize babies not because they can fully understand what is happening to them, nor because we expect them to undergo some kind of immediate moral transformation. We baptize them, and consistently remind them of their baptism and its implications, so that they will come to understanding and mature faith.
The sociologically consistent Baptist should, it seems to me, follow the Peekabo Street theory of child training. Peekaboo Street was the American Olympic skier, whose parents, as I recall the story, were so very trendy and liberal that they did not want to “impose” an identity on their little girl, so they allowed her to choose her own name, with obvious results. Karl Barth, who loudly protested the “violence” of imposing a Christian identity on a child through infant baptism, would undoubtedly be pleased. In fact, the Streets were not so liberal after all, for in spite of themselves they apparently did teach Peekaboo to speak English, rather than giving her the freedom to choose a language or make one up on her own. Baptist parents, so far as I know, are not consistent either; they do impose a language and a name on their children, a language and a name that cannot be religiously neutral; they do, in spite of themselves, often treat their children as Christians, teaching them to sing “Jesus loves me” and to pray the Lord’s Prayer. And if they do all this, what reason remains for resisting the imposition of the covenant sign?
Since having to commute 45 minutes to work, I’ve been attempting to find some good podcasts to put on my i-pod for the trip. Here are a few of my favorites.
Faith for All of Life- This podcast is put out by Chalcedon, the organization founded by the late R.J. Rushdoony. Chris Ortiz hosts the show, and it’s full of interesting lectures and interviews devoted to the application of our faith to all areas of life. Obviously Chalcedon is unashamedly theocratic in their political ideology. Now I’m certainly not a theonomist, nor do I agree with Rush and his disciples on a number of issues, but I still find this podcast incredibly helpful. I’m right there with Chalcedon in decrying secular humanism and fighting for the crown rights of Christ over all areas of life.
Christ the Center Podcast/Reformed Forum- This is probably one of my favorite podcasts devoted to investigating various aspects of Reformed thought and practice. If you could just listen to one episdode, I’d reccomend listening to the interview with Peter Lilback on the covenantal theology of John Calvin. Other episodes include interviews with such scholars as Lane Tipton, Carl Trueman, Darryl Hart, and Jeff Jue.
Renewing Your Mind with Dr. Sproul- While I’m a bit uneasy about some who view Dr. Sproul as the embodiment of Reformed theology and practice, I have no real beef with Sproul himself, except in the field of apologetics. Dr. Sproul’s ministry was profoundly influential in my theologically formative years. His lectures and sermons are always encouraging. This is a great podcast.
These are my three favorite podcasts. If any of you reading this post know of other good podcasts or free mp3 sermons or lectures, please let me know. I have about 150 GB left on my i-Pod right now and I’m looking to fill it with some good stuff.
The following is a quote taken from one of Schaeffer’s most important works. In context, he’s discussing Hegelian dialectical method, and its profound influence within philosophy, art, music, and general culture. Over and against Hegel stands the Christian concept of antithesis, namely that absolutes do exist as opposed to their not existing, that the project of metaphysics is legitimate, and that reality can only be explained rationally by appealing to the Christian worldview.
“Once we begin to slip over into the other methodology- a failure to hold on to an absolute which can be known by the whole man, including what is logical and rational in him- historic Christianity is destroyed, even if it seems like going for a time. We may not know it, but when this occurs, the marks of death are upon it, and it will soon be one more museum piece. To the extent that anyone gives up the mentality of antithesis, he has moved over to the other side, even if he still tries to defend orthodoxy or evangelicalism. If Christians are to take advantage of the death of romanticism, we must consciously build back the mentality and practice of antithesis among Christians in doctrine and life. We must do it by our teaching and by example in our attitude toward compromise, both ecclesiastically and in evangelism. To fail to exhibit that we take truth seriously at those points where there is a cost in our doing so, is to push the next generation into the relative, dialectical millstream that surrounds us.”
-Francis Schaeffer, The God Who Is There
I believe in the distinction between the law and the gospel as these doctrines are expressed and articulated in our Reformed confessional standards. Over the months I’ve noticed a trend in many Reformed circles which seeks to impose a more thoroughgoing Lutheran formulation of the law/gospel distinction upon the interpretation of holy Scripture. In saying this, I mean that the law of God is almost always discussed within the context of its second use, its negative use, its damning and condemning use, to the exclusion of the third use and any kind of theologically positive category in which to place it. Within these quarters, one rarely hears of the third use of the law, its centrality and necessity within the individual life of the Christian, and to use the language of the WCF “the sweet compliance of the law and the gospel.” Alongside this obsessive attention given to the second use of the law is an insistence, an almost dogmatically raging insistence that Lutheran and Calvinist formulations of the law and its uses are one and the same. To this flawed historical analysis, I object. The historical reality is that Luther and his proteges were extremely hesitant to affirm the third use of the law and the inseparability of justification and sanctification. And despite its inclusion in the Formula of Concord, Lutherans have consistently regarded the second use of the law as the most important and ultimate use over and against the third.
One need only listen to the White Horse Inn to recognize this pan-confessional tendency. Don’t get me wrong here. I appreciate the WHI and have consistently listened to the program for over 4 years. What I find troubling is the reductionistic definition of the gospel being thrown around by the hosts, and the almost quasi-gnostic dismissal of the application of God’s law to all areas of life. Cultural transformation, societal order under the Lordship of Christ, the importance of cultivating godly family life- all of these concepts I’ve heard negatively placed into the category of “law” in stark contradistinction from “gospel.”
As said before, I believe in the distinct nature of the law and the gospel. What I find sad is the almost entirely negative attitude often exuded when discussions of the law arise. The kind of mentality can and often does logically conclude in a functional and gnostic anti-nomianism wherein obedience, cultural engagement, the crown rights of Jesus in politics and society, the Lordship of Christ over all spheres of life, and other related issues become hermetically sealed off into the category of “law.” This attitude is often accompanied by pulling the moralistic card against anyone who wants to focus upon issues not related to justification by faith alone, the central soteriological dogma within this pan-confessional schema.
I recently listened to a lecture given by Peter Lilback in which he discussed some of these issues. Lilback concedes to the fact that for the unregenerate man, law and gospel are fundamentally and irrevocably antithetical. Lilback observed that when we examine the WCF, we see a different picture of the law and its uses for the regenerate man. While remaining distinct, the law and the gospel “sweetly comply” for those united to Christ.
