After Thought
Posted by TJH @ 5:29 pm on September 9th 2014

Confessionalism Type B: The Case of the RPCUS

The RPCUS provides an interesting case study for our view of the holy catholic church, for here we have a break-away denomination zealous for orthodoxy, which yet seems to have avoided at least two of the fatal errors made by groups like the FORC & CREC: namely, they have a confession with teeth, and they are not self-ordained. However, appearances can be deceptive.

The Origin

The magazine Counsel of Chalcedon wrote up what had just happened: Rev. Joe Morecraft’s congregation voted to secede from the PCA. It was 1983, plus or minus. The threat was that Presbytery was going to move in, expel the Session, and seize direct control of the church. It had already happened to another church, they said. It might could be resisted by appeal and complaint, but that would likely cost two years — and who has two years for stuff like that? Better just to part ways now.

Three decades later, I am bursting with questions.

  1. Did Presbytery have some valid concerns, even if mingled with impure elements?
  2. Did Chalcedon go to the mats defending the “other church” that was allegedly pirated? Did she enter negative votes into the minutes, and lodge complaints and appeals? Or was it just a tut-tutting on the sidelines? It seems like the people that were there have no idea what the answer is, nor any recollection of ever knowing: meaning this aspect was not considered important one way or the other.
  3. If the bad stuff could have been fended off for two years, possibly at the end of which time things would have been permanently settled for the good (and if not, the vote to secede could still have taken place), what is so bad about Presbyterian justice taking two years? What’s two years in the life of the church, if an important precedent can be set? Or even, if one might develop a little patience through the ordeal, while doing one’s duty as a churchman?
  4. Finally, was there no other denomination in Christendom that Chalcedon could have realigned with? For example: was the OPC so out of bounds?

The OPC itself might be criticized along similar lines, for not having attached to, say, the PCUS in 1936. However, there is also an important difference. Machen and those that stood alongside him for orthodoxy were kicked out; they did not leave. Since their consciences were clear before God, despite the earthly verdict, they could (and did) model their action as simply continuing the church they had always been in, rather than realigning. So one can think of the OPC as the northern Presbyterian church, continuing. It is not possible to think of Chalcedon as the southern Presbyterian church, continuing. You have to first act like a Presbyterian to get that consideration.

Perhaps the “issue” was that the OPC has history devolving from the northern church, while Chalcedon prides itself on its southern heritage. The RPCUS views itself as a “denomination in the great tradition of Southern Presbyterianism,”  it says on their webpage. Two comments should suffice here.

First, in a strange twist of history, the OPC follows an ecclesiology that is closer to Thornwell’s model, while the PCA one that is closer to Hodge’s. For example, the PCA has commissions; the OPC does not. So Chalcedon would have been “going south” by “going north” in that instance.

Second, the RPCUS is loudly, persistently, and prosecutorially anti-racist. This creates an embarrassment to their simultaneous extolling of Dabney and the rest of the Southern Presbyterians. Dabney opposed miscegenation. Dabney opposed predominantly white churches having negro elders. Today, some men in the RPCUS — perhaps all — say such views are, not just wrong, but a denial of the gospel.

Does this mean that they concede to his opponents that Dabney was an anti-Christ? Not exactly. They would not ordain him today if he still held those views. But with an audacity that is breath-taking, they think that Dabney, if today he came back from the dead, would be convicted by our enlightenment, and change his views! Whereas the reality is that that great sage would remind them that he predicted most of the debauchery that we see all around us — except that things are even worse than he predicted. In fact, in Dabney’s time there already existed well-dressed, articulate, religious men advocating the same racial philosophy extolled by the RPCUS: men known as the Abolitionists. Dabney was well aware of their philosophy, and opposed it self-consciously.

However, let’s keep on track. The point is, the RPCUS’s hysterical anti-racism would not be despised in the OPC, at least publicly. In at least one family of issues, RPCUS is closer to the northern view.

So far, I have shown that the origin of the RPCUS was un-Presbyterian, and the southern pretension is just that — a pretension. There was no good reason not to align with an existing denomination. Next, I will show that their specific, peculiar “zeal” for unity around orthodoxy paints the RPCUS into a corner from which there is no exit.

A Peculiar and Self-Defeating Concept of Being Confessional

In addition to the Westminster Confession (original form), all officer candidates must now affirm some half dozen additional postulates: rejection of public education, affirmation of theonomy, six day creation, post-millennialism, vantillianism, and maybe one or two other things such as nouthetic counseling. (Only four of these are discussed on the webpage; others have evidently been added since the webpage was updated.)

It should be mentioned in passing, that despite the conceit of “original confessionalism,” they are dogmatic that the Confession requires that it be permitted to sing hymns of human composition, if not that it requires them outright! A couple of psalm-singing pastors have grudgingly been admitted to the ranks of the RPCUS in the past, but they were kept in the basement with one leg shackled to the floor. Either this stance betrays willful ignorance of the Reformed Church’s position on this matter during the first two hundred years, or animus imponentis governs with a vengeance after all. The RPCUS are men that take their “original intent orthodoxy” very seriously, even when it is a figment of their own imagination.

However, let’s get back to the list of extras that elders must agree to.

Say I am a sheep overseen by five elders. One of them is not postmillennial. So the other four drive him off the Session. Now, how am I better off as a sheep?

I have yet to get an answer to that question that makes sense.

Same with vantillianism. I am of that school of thought. I’m even willing to say, that any pastor that is not vantillian today is either ignorant about modern philosophy, apathetic, or apostate. Naturally, we should give the judgment of charity and assume they are ignorant. But now, same question as above. By driving the non-vantillians off the Session, how am I better off as a sheep?

Mind you, I don’t argue for complete latitude here. Clarkians should be excluded from the eldership. I don’t regard Clarkism as a form of Christian thought. Its teaching can indeed do harm to the soul. It must be firmly resisted.

But the idea that a man following the epistemology of the successors of Rutherford and Gillespie cannot be ordained is simply going too far.

I leave it as an exercise for the reader to apply this form of criticism to all the other distinctives that the RPCUS has set out for itself. (Six 24-hour day creationism adds another wrinkle: a characteristically Reformed smug rationalism. They [like everyone else] don’t know what time is. Yet they “know” what it means for the timeless God to act in 24-hour intervals.)

So far, the only answer to these questions I have been able to coax out of one bright defender of RPCUS praxis was this: we can require affirming these distinctives because they are true.

At a gut level, I’m pretty sure he nailed it. There is something nearly irresistible for a band of brothers to find something new to rally around: here, to find a new distinctive that they agree is true, and turn it into a requirement. We should expect another one to be added to the list every five years or so.

When you combine this principle of maximal truth affirmation with the easy separationism of its origin, it can easily be seen that the RPCUS is predestined to splinter again and again.

Say all the ministers on earth at one moment had parity of insight into the Scriptures. Then one day, one of them sees a little farther. But he can’t convince anyone else right away. So he should separate his church.

Why would that be wrong, if it’s okay for any subgroup of men to establish their maximal conjunction of true beliefs as a standard for admission? Doing so establishes the principle that those that are one step behind in the penetration of their vision through the fog may not be admitted. How does that differ from separating, once your vision extends yet a few feet further yet?

Some Lessons

Perhaps it is worth backing up for a moment to reflect on what we can learn about proper confessionalism, using the evident errors of RPCUS as a foil. For, an a priori approach to such questions is not always necessary. Sometimes we “see” aspects of the truth by way of reaction from an empirical abuse.

1. Confessionalism makes but little sense for a single congregation. A single confessional congregation makes the same mistake as popery. Popery also has confessions. But no one need bother reading them, for the right way to interpret them will always ultimately come down from pope himself, unilaterally. Only in a “conciliar” context where free debate along historical-linguistic lines can take place is having a confession helpful.

2. Generally the promulgation of a confession has been either for the purpose of consolidating the de facto position of an existing settlement (as, the Augsburg, and the ecumenical creeds), or done for the purpose of authoritatively bringing about just such a consolidation (Westminster, though the intended consolidation failed). What confessionalism is decidedly not is simply some smart man hoisting a list of doctrines up the flagpole in the hope that individual congregations acting autonomously will flock over and attach for the sheer joy of seeing their already-formed opinions ratified. This model presupposes that the organic unity of the church is nominalistic because formed by acts of will of churches that were already properly constituted as floating individuals. The model suggests that organic connection is not essential, but simply “nice work if you can get it.”

3. The Confession should institutionalize a wide consensus that is already formed, in order to protect the boundaries, not give what some men find to be the best solution, in hopes the others will eventually come around. By separating themselves with an ever more comprehensive ring of pickets, the RPCUS cuts itself off from the ability to persuade others.

4. Ironically, the RPCUS high view of confessionalism ends up just as bankrupt, from the opposite direction, as that of the FORC & CREC, coming from a very low view. The main difference is that the founder of the RPCUS has a valid ordination, while that of the CREC does not. That is not a trivial difference of course. (There are additional defects of the CREC, both in their view of Confession and other matters, that do not apply to RPCUS.) However, our reflection leads us to yet another insight, namely, that ordination cannot be regarded as license to go off and form around oneself a new branch of the church. Ordination is (among other things) the organically-constituted church granting executive power to a man to speak and act in the name of the church so constituted. It is not the equivalent of getting an MBA, after which a man may either, as it suits him, join a corporation or start his own business.

Before leaving this last point, a quick comment on the RPCUS statement against Federal Vision is in order. In one sense, RPCUS should be praised for being the first to alert the world about the dangers of that heresy, as early as 2002. On the other hand, the very first thing they should have pointed out is that most of the men in that movement were not even part of the holy catholic church, let alone the “Reformed” branch thereof. Missing this point is further evidence that the RPCUS is not oriented toward thinking about such matters very prominently. The tendency is to simply jump to an abstract level, where doctrines are discussed amongst autonomous men of equal standing. For them, inclusion in the church is purely and solely determined by belief; there is no sacramental or signatory aspect that needs to be mentioned at all. The very rebuke of the FV heresy simultaneously reinforced those men in their adoption of an autonomy-principle that is outside the bounds of the catholic church.

What we learn from these insights is that confession-writing and confession-imposing only make sense in the context of the holy catholic church. (1) Write only that which the holy catholic church, in a legitimate settlement thereof, “ought” to subscribe to. This means that many hobby horses and idiosyncratic convictions should be left out, pending persuasion of the rest of the church, even if the current assembly could muster a majority vote to adopt. Doubtless, it takes great self-discipline to follow this when one has power. And one can always “have enough power” if one is allowed to reduce the circle of persuasion arbitrarily small — ultimately, a circle that includes only oneself. (2) Only write from the matrix of organic, pre-existing authority.

What is said about “writing” also applies to “adopting.” Adopting is a variant of writing.

The One and the Many

For these reasons also, it is utterly impossible even theoretically for the RPCUS to build up on a parish model. The constitutional principle is something other than “local Christians.” I understand that the OPC and indeed every denomination is vulnerable to this critique at some level. But there is a subtle yet looming difference. The OPC has always been hungry to establish principled fraternal relations to the maximum extent possible. The RPCUS has no such hunger. After all, they already have the maximal truth. The world should beat a path to their doorway. There is no reason to waste time looking around at all the stragglers.

A group like this will never be received into NAPARC, nor do they show the slightest bent of desire in that direction anyhow, despite the statement on ecumenicity on its web page.

I haven’t mentioned the fact that the congregation, drawn from such a large distance, will naturally tend to be drawn in terms of exactly the same distinctives required of officers, even if only officers must affirm them. Naturally, there will be exceptions. But they can only stay exceptions if either they are not very curious, or if there are other more powerful draws to compensate. The curious will eventually start making enquiries, and the distinctives will then either have to be covered up, or the member will need to start coming to terms with it; the ones that don’t accept the distinctives will start to feel the pressure to look elsewhere for something more in agreement, especially when they realize the distinctives are only shared by a half dozen other congregations, spread out across the continent. For others, family connections or friends or special interests (“I finally can trade notes with other home-schooling moms”) will trump the normal biographical development at this point.

I call this Confessionalism Type B. It is Confessionalism that has become anti-Confessionalism. I present it as my case example, as a scare-crow for the true church going forward.

A post-script for those in the RPCUS

None of these insights should be taken to lay a guilt trip on any current member. There is also something commendable about being drawn to a church that seems to “take a stand” for Jesus and the Bible. And in a nation of ecclesiastical scrambled eggs, the best thing for your soul, for a time, may be to be ministered to within a highly defective situation. There is a situational aspect even to churchmanship.

Likewise, nothing in this should be taken to offer shelter to anyone that might have left the RPCUS for improper reasons. Such persons (if there are any) might need to apologize and return, despite the problems outlined in this short essay.

There is culpability, but the degree of culpability varies widely from one individual to another, from zero to the maximum. Let everyone examine his own conscience!

Nevertheless, it also does not mean that things can go forward as they have been. The RPCUS needs to be disbanded, but not the congregations. Moreover, there is no need to realign “as a denomination.” The best solution may be different for different congregations. Instead, elders and laymen alike need to work on finding the best path back to a true church that is also well constituted. This will almost certainly require composing some kind of apology to the PCA for the manner of leaving, and also an apology to the OPC for not having tried in a humbler spirit to align with them before. Next, each congregation should vote, after doing proper diligence, on which denomination to align with.

The tendency, I know, is for men that have painted themselves into such a corner to become hopeless, and to let this hopelessness become masked by a cheerful martyr complex that justifies complacency. “They would never take us anyway.” Not even after a truthful exhibition of humility and teachableness? Of course, it also will do no one any good to go into another denomination with the full intent of behaving just as willfully as what led to the problem to begin with.

It won’t be easy nor something that happens overnight. It might be more like the two year process that was ducked out of at the beginning. This is the divine humor. We can’t really shirk, in the long run.

Posted by TJH @ 8:47 pm on November 17th 2013

The Federal Vision: Not Catholic At All

It seems clear that one of the motivations for the Federal Vision (FV) movement was the desire to be “more catholic.” They want to be thought of as Reformational Catholic (see recent post  by “Joint FV statement” signatory Peter Leithart). “Reformed Catholic” is also one of the rubrics of the FV Statement. Which word they wish the accent to be placed on — Reformational Catholic or Reformational Catholic — is unclear. However, a little analysis of the position they have staked out reveals that in fact they are neither reformational nor catholic.

The Preamble

Before getting to the heart of the matter, a few comments on the flagship statement itself may be made. There is first a claim that is a bit sneaky:

Many of us who have signed this statement are also confessionally bound to the Three Forms of Unity or to the Westminster Confession of Faith.

However, of the eleven signatories, none, apparently, are in churches that are bound to the Three Forms of Unity. Moreover, six of them sign as “ministers” of the CREC: but the CREC does not, qua presbytery, ordain ministers, nor are these men “bound” to any confession except at the local level, in whatever squishy way that might be enforced. So the statement is rather misleading. Then, they say,

In any place where statements here would constitute an exception to whatever confessional standards we are under, they are exceptions that have been noted and approved by our respective presbyteries or classes.

Again, why the gratuitous reference to “classes,” since none of them belong to a body using that term? More importantly, however,

1. They do not know that whatever constitutes exceptions to those standards “have been noted and approved.” It is only known that whatever they themselves have marked as exceptions have been. This is quite different from “in any place where,” or “whatever.”

2. It is not helpful to us readers, in any case, unless those alleged exceptions are disclosed publicly. If it is important for us to know they are confessionally bound “except as noted,” then it is important for us to know how it has been noted.

The CREC is … a confederation which welcomes convictions like these as being “within the Reformed pale.”

But the CREC is not established in succession with any Reformed church, which is a concrete and historical designation. It makes no more sense for them to rule on what is “within the Reformed pale” than it would for them to rule on what is “within the Roman Catholic” pale — say, if they had claimed to be “Roman Catholic,” but without joining communally with the Roman Catholic communion. Here, they can only speak as amateur church historians, as to what in their opinion is within the Reformed, or RC, or EO, or Methodist pale.

It should also be noted in passing: what gives these signatories the right to declare authoritatively what “convictions” the CREC “welcomes”? Only the CREC itself can do that.

But now to the matter which is the actual point of this post. I want to highlight a small number of topics which, however, are sufficient to show that the FV is not consistent with any known branch of the holy catholic church.

Grace and faith

Consider their statement,

Adam was created to progress from immature glory to mature glory, but that glorification too would have been a gift of grace, received by faith alone.

Here they are discussing the hypothetical situation that Adam had not fallen. Grace alone by faith alone is affirmed for this hypothetical case. But this indicates that the words grace and faith are being used differently than the Reformation fathers used them. For them, the gift of grace has to do with unearned favor that is positively demerited, not just a general quality of God’s attribute of goodness. Likewise, the content of the faith for the Reformers was the substitutionary finished work of Christ, not just some general attitude of complaisance that every creature owes his Creator.

This crucial qualification must be kept in mind in all the labyrinthine discussions that take place. If everything is grace, then nothing is grace. Said differently, by decoupling grace from demeriting sin, they eviscerate the notion as it has been held, not just by the Reformation, but by the entire Western church. By claiming to extol grace, they actually annihilate it.

The Church

This section is the crucial one to grasping what is wrong with the FV, especially if I am right in thinking that the desire for protestant catholicity is the major motive of the FV.

We affirm that membership in the one true Christian Church is visible and objective, and is the possession of everyone who has been baptized in the triune name and who has not been excommunicated by a lawful disciplinary action of the Church.

The statement is incomplete since it does not say “those and only those.” Is the conjunction “baptized and not excommunicated” both necessary and sufficient, or merely sufficient as the statement itself reads?

What about “churches” that virtually do not practice excommunication? It seems like it is far better in respect to being part of the “visible church” to be part of such a church, than to be part of one that does practice excommunication. The statement entails that tens of millions of men in England, Italy, Spain, and Mexico are “members of the visible church” even though invisible with regard to any tangible manifestation of it.

These invisible men constitute a plurality of the “visible church” as defined by FV. Moreover, these invisible men constitute “the true Church of Christ, and not an ‘approximate’ Church.”

In an amazing slight-of-hand, Federal Vision makes the Invisible Church visible, and the Visible Church invisible.

But why is the visible church such a pivotal point in the FV? One of the disadvantages of a manifesto like this, rather than being a theologically-argued or proof-texted treatise, is that the arguments and inter-relatedness of the doctrines are not displayed. For that, we have to go to the informal published assertions of the proponents. It becomes clear that the nub of the FV distinctives are based, not on a sacramental theory per se, but hinge on deductions made pertaining to the visible church. For it is in this nexus that the vine-metaphor and other premises of “union with Christ” gain traction.

In a recent posting, Douglas Wilson goes to the heart of the matter:

The question is this — does the visible church have union with Christ?

If it does, then we have to give an account of the non-elect members of the visible church. But if the visible church doesn’t have union with Christ, what is it? And what are we all doing on Sundays?

This quote reveals that the visible church is the pivot by which hypocrites are to be granted “union with Christ.” The argument is basically:

The [visible] church has union with Christ

There are non-believers in the [visible] church

Therefore, there are non-believers that have union with Christ

On the face of it, this argument commits the informal fallacy of division. If the visible church has union with Christ, then every member must have. If the ocean is blue, then each drop of ocean water is blue.

He quotes John 15:12, “I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.” To be purgeable, a branch must be a true part of the vine. And one cannot be part of the vine in any sense if inert, lifeless.

The argument is clear: certain properties (e.g. being in the vine) are affirmed of the church; the church must be the visible church; there are hypocrites in the visible church; therefore, those properties pertain to hypocrites.

My purpose at this point is not to show the exegetical mistake made at John 15 or other passages, but simply to drive home the architectonic place that the church has in the FV distinctive. It is not their theory of baptism which is the key move; instead, baptism is subordinate logically to their view of the church.


The key point of the FV view of baptism is that

God formally unites a person to Christ and to His covenant people through baptism into the triune Name, and that this baptism obligates such a one to lifelong covenant loyalty to the triune God, each baptized person repenting of his sins and trusting in Christ alone for his salvation. Baptism formally engrafts a person into the Church…

It must be emphasized that this assertion does not presuppose, nor entail, a view of baptism as regenerating, nor is it a concept of infusing grace. (This despite the rather confusing statement that follows:  “which means that baptism is into the Regeneration.” Who knows what they mean by “the Regeneration”? But baptismal regeneration is later explicitly denied.) Baptism is a “formal,” performative-word-based notion. Indeed, Wilson even identifies Leithart  as “high Zwinglian.”

Here we see exactly why church, not baptism is the key pivot of FV theology. Baptism is given renewed attention and focus just because it is the entryway to the church, and the analysis of the church is what leads them to attribute certain properties to all that are members of the church: at this locus, namely, the property of being united to Christ and to His convent people.

Immediately we can see how a fundamentally speculative method can lead one quickly into error. Notice that Scripture nowhere identifies baptism as the gateway to the church, or something that unites one to Christ. All of these are inferences. And they are fallacious inferences. We have from Scripture

if (x repents and is baptized) then (x is saved) (Acts 2:18)

It is also a reasonable inference from many passages that anyone that is saved ought to attach to the church. I am willing to go so far as to admit that any properly-constituted baptism entails entry into the church by the same act. However, this can only be the case if “properly-constituted” includes the notion of being administered under auspices that can claim to be the church.

Here we can see the first glaring mistake of the FV: baptism is everything as a gateway, yet all that is required for it is “into the Name.” Now if some guys get together in a friend’s kitchen and baptize his infant, there are only four possible ways to combine the concept of baptism and church in describing what happened:

1. The guys standing around in the kitchen constitute the visible church

2. The visible church is a purely formal concept, without any actuality let alone visibility

3. The ritual they perform is not in fact a baptism

4. Baptism is not sufficient to gain entry into the visible church

(1) is not tenable, because it would create unacceptable confusion. Then, “visible church” is just a way to label “any set of professing Christians.” The town’s Rotary Club might, for example, need to be regarded as the visible church in that case. Not even to mention that the succession of ordination would be lacking from the concept. (It is not coincidental that that aspect of the doctrine of the church is not touched at all by the statement — for the CREC very clearly lacks this succession. )

If (2), then all the plausibility whatsoever is taken out of the doctrinal modifications of the FV, for in bringing back the visible church, they make it invisible once again.

Thus, either (3) or (4) (or both) must be the case. If (3) is the case, the the FV’s definition of baptism is inadequate. If (4), then the FV’s assertion is false.


Though I have touched on some specific criticisms of the FV statement, my main burden has been merely to outline the architectonic as it pertains to grace, faith, church, and baptism. My conclusion is simply to show how the FV has painted itself into a corner that could not be accepted by any institutional claimant to being a branch (or trunk) of the holy catholic church — including (for this analysis) branches that do not even recognize each other as legitimate branches.

I won’t belabor that the Reformed church cannot accept this — this has been done amply at Green Baggins, Aquila Report, as well as explicit pronouncement of the PCA, OPC, RCUS, and URCNA. Wilson comes back (in the post linked above) to admit that the non-elect’s union is “different” from that of the elect’s “because he can lose it, and the elect cannot.” But this seems to trade on an external rather than internal property, akin to saying that a rock is changing because it stands in relation to a river that is changing. Are not John and Tom’s footballs identical, even though John will certainly not misplace his, and Tom certainly will?

Moreover, the two categories elect and non-elect, each in the church, do not exhaust the logical possibilities. What about the elect in the church whose regeneration is still future? The FV party would certainly have to say this category of person is united to Christ. While still a hypocrite, he is “united to Christ” by baptism. Then, after his conversion, he is also united to Christ. Has the “union” changed? It won’t do to say that it changed by going from “lose-able” to “unlose-able,” both because of the identity problem highlighted in previous paragraph, and also, because then you would be forced to say that some elect are united to Christ with the quality of “lose-able.”

For this reason, however, it also does no good to refute FV by appeal to the WCF’s definition of invisible church, for that definition is timeless, and includes elect that right now are unconverted and enemies of the church. An unthinking faction would be forced to suggest that Paul, while he was persecuting the church, was united to Christ because elect.

It is unfortunate that those discussions so often hinge everything on the doctrine of election. This is a mistake, I think. The FV thesis can be stated orthogonal to that topic: it asserts that faithless hypocrites can be united to Christ by joining a visible church. Why not simply ask whether hypocrites in the church are united to Christ, or only those with true faith? The advantage of putting it that way is that it shows that the question is broader than Reformed in-fighting: even Methodists could take an interest in the question put that way.

This embarrassment is not unrelated to the reworking of the notions of both grace and faith, summarized above. Once this is realized, it can be seen that FV should be rejected by all evangelicals — Methodist, Lutheran, low Anglicans, and every other kind.

Again, what needs to be hammered home more clearly is that FV is at odds with all evangelical Protestantism; highlighting the Reformed distinctives often blurs this point.

From time to time one sees ill-informed posters on those sites broach the idea that FV is not heretical, but simply a new branch of Lutheran thought. But faith is so central to Lutheranism that I think it is a serious mistake to count FV — which insists that faithless persons can be united to Christ — as a move toward Lutheranism. Nor have I ever seen a Lutheran make this claim. I have a quote ready to go from Quenstedt if anyone wants to pursue this further. It is generally Reformed holding a rather imperfect concept of Lutheranism that make this claim.

Lutherans sometimes come close to, or even land on baptismal regeneration. It is difficult for those of us outside that camp to understand how this is reconciled with sola fide. But for Lutherans, it is reconciled. They would not be able to affirm that faithless persons are united to Christ; instead, they say that the infant actually does have faith.

Plus, the FV does not affirm baptismal regeneration. So it is just a mistake all around to identify FV as “Lutheran.”

Nor can the sacramental bodies find common cause with the FV. As “high Zwinglians,” the FV does not teach an infusion of grace obtaining from baptism. It is a word/covenant thing. The key thing for FV is not something about the baptism as such, but rather that this is their gateway into the visible church. The formal thing is: do whatever is necessary to get into the visible church, where the passages treating the church as “elect,” “in the vine,” etc. become operative; they happen to think that that one thing is to be baptized. The sacramental aspect is an accidental connection so far as the nub of their thesis.

Thus, even sacramental bodies should reject FV — RC, EO, and high-Anglicans.

The irony is that these guys invented the FV in order to be “more catholic” as “Reformed thinkers,” but they actually painted themselves into a corner that could not be accepted by any branch of the church once the thesis is understood. They are neither Reformed nor catholic.

Posted by TJH @ 8:34 pm on November 13th 2013

The World Chess Championship

is happening right now in India.

It is of great interest — 22-year-old Norwegian Magnus Carlsen, having the highest rating in history, challenging Anand for the title.

Unfortunately, you will have to get up at around 5 or 6 AM (east coast) or even earlier (further west) to watch it live.

It can be done at chess.com, which hosts GM-level running commentary as the games are being played.

I am not good enough at chess to even understand, unaided, why champion-level players move what they do. But with the expert commentary, I can understand a lot. It really opens up what the game is like at the high level, and makes it very exciting. Try it out. Schedule is below


Chess schedule

Posted by TJH @ 10:08 pm on September 12th 2013

C. S. Lewis’ Second Argument for Purgatory

The introduction to Lewis on Purgatory, and discussion of his first argument, is here.

The second major argument is the soul’s “demand” for a Purgatory:

Our souls demand Purgatory, don’t they? Would it not break the heart if God said to us, “It is true, my son, that your breath smells and your rags drip with mud and slime, but we are charitable here and no one will upbraid you with these things, nor draw away from you. Enter into joy”? Should we not reply, “With submission, sir, and if there is no objection, I’d rather be cleansed first.” “It may hurt, you know”—”even so, sir.”

The audacity of this vignette is truly astounding.

1. Notice that God is willing for him to enter heaven; therefore, all violations of His Justice and even his divine “sense of propriety,” that would provide an impediment to a sinner entering heaven have been satisfied. But this is not good enough for Lewis’ pilgrim. His sense of Righteousness and Propriety exceeds that of God Himself.

2. Evidently, the idea of God saying, “we are charitable here and no one will upbraid you with these things,” is meant to be a spoof on the traditional Protestant position. But this is a simple mistake that could easily have been corrected. The Presbyterian confession, for example, says “after death … the souls of the righteous, being then made perfect in holiness, are received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God” (emphasis added). In other words, Protestants do not believe that God lets people into heaven while still dripping with mud and slime.

So Lewis is in two very serious respects already on very shaky ground with this pilgrim’s case: in danger of being more righteous than God Himself, and of attacking a caricature of the Protestant position that is the opposite of the case. Lewis is persuaded that, before a departed sinner would be ready to enter heaven, two elements will be needed to complete his sanctification: time, and suffering. Is this the case?

Here, we are examining a different aspect of time than was done in the earlier post. There, the question of comparative durations between worlds was examined. Here, we now ask whether subjective duration as such is needed to complete one’s sanctification prior to entering heaven. That is, even if the “process,” contrary to Lewis’ assumptions in the first argument, were instantaneous as measured from an earthly frame of reference, will it not require a duration of time subjectively in the frame of reference of the departed one?

The opposite view is that, even if a hot fire were needed to burn off our dross, could that transition not be a singular event, like a line going through a point, or death itself? Must it needs involve duration?

Obviously, Lewis thinks so, but unfortunately, it was so obvious to him that he did not see the need to state the premise that makes the necessity clear. It is an enthymeme. Thus, I will make two proposals for what the “missing premise” might be.

(a) To maintain identity of person through such a radical change, a step-wise sequence would be needed; otherwise, it would not be the same person. This would perhaps couple to Lewis’ neo-Kantian view of change that is at the basis of his essay Miracles. The idea is that to live in a coherent world, transition must be in incremental stages, rooted in causality. Otherwise, things could appear and disappear seemingly randomly, and we would be in a kaleidoscope, not a world. Thus, to the question, “how are miracles possible?” Lewis answers by pointing out that the miracle at Cana can be thought of as a mere “speeding up” of the ordinary process by which water is transformed into wine. Therefore, miracles need not entail a rejection of the Kantian principle. The application here, then, would be that to go from “dripping in mud and slime” to a saint fit for heaven might be more or less fast, but cannot be instantaneous in any case.

Note however that Kant’s theory had to do with the subjective experience of phenomena. But an identical object that is not continuously under observation can obviously “appear” to have changed suddenly. You go into the kitchen to make a cup of coffee, and when you come back, the cat is lying in an entirely different posture. In this world, presumably the cat underwent the change gradually “in principle,” but it is not experienced as such by an observer when a temporal gap has occurred. Thus, when Lewis emerges on the other side of Purgatory and greets his friends again, for them, whatever change he has undergone is just the same as if it had been instantaneous. Yet, we hope, he expects that they will still recognize him as “Lewis,” and not some different person. What I am getting at is that identity is somehow maintained even when change, as observed between two separate moments, appears instantaneous. There are thus two identity principles at work: Lewis as he changes gradually in Purgatory, and Lewis identified as the same man before and after by his loved-ones, that were not privy to the process. This duality — two identity principles that are heterogenous — should serve as a clue that, even on Kantian presuppositions, there is no contradiction in supposing that change is instantaneous upon being thrown from one world into another.

(b) If an argument based on identity through change fails, Lewis might change tack to this: To be meaningful personal change, change must involve the will, at least at the level of consent. But will cannot be coerced, by its very nature. Thus, a time of simmering under the influence of “persuasive measures” is needed. Moreover, in all cases except perhaps exceptional saints, a sequence of steps would be needed, each discrete. There is a structure to the healthy soul; it can no more be brought about in one fell swoop, than a roof can be installed on a building before the foundation is laid. So, for example, let us suppose a Christian at death is still full of murderous rage. But this rage is caused by excessive intoxication; this desire to be intoxicated is due to compulsive gambling (which environment conduces to drinking), which in turn is based on covetousness. So, it is not as simple as simply “overcoming his rage.” To become rid of his rage, he needs to first stop coveting, which will then allow him to overcome the urge to gamble, which will then allow him to overcome the excessive drinking, and only then will he be able to conquer his rage.

Two things need to be said in criticism of this model. The covetousness/gambling/drinking/rage nexus is like a tightly sprung complex of sins, but could they not all be released simultaneously by pulling the lynchpin out of the first in the chain? Why is a temporal sequence absolutely necessary?

The Protestant view of conversion is that a singular, miraculous change takes place in which the heart of stone is replaced with a heart of flesh. The nature of faith is inherently to be entirely directed to Christ as one’s Righteousness, by which his Righteousness really becomes ours by the “great exchange.” It is instantaneous. Yes, God has seen fit to allow us still to be beset by sins, but these sins are now of a different character than before the great transformation. Take the image of a runner who is caught in a mud patch. He slips, he falls, he gets back up, progress seems to be slow. But if that mud-patch were suddenly dried up, off the runner would go.

This is a mystery. The besetting sins are truly “ours,” they are not something imposed extraneously. Yet though “ours,” the Christian’s eye is on God, and if relieved of those sins instantaneously, his sanctification would be complete, without any sense of being a different person — that change already took place at regeneration. Instead, the new principle is relieved of those burdens under which he previously groaned. There is thus no contradiction in supposing that the relief-process could be instantaneous after death without violating some “structure of righteousness” that needed to be built up in stages.

On this view, then, since different saints are taken at different stages of sanctification, it cannot be that the purpose for continuing to dwell on earth burdened by besetting sins, was because time was needed to remove them. Our life on earth is then for other purposes. If that is not the purpose of life on earth, then it is also not necessary that an additional time of purgation is needed.

Posted by TJH @ 5:01 pm on May 26th 2013

C. S. Lewis on Purgatory

Some of his fan base may be unaware that C. S. Lewis believed in Purgatory (more…)

Posted by TJH @ 9:43 pm on April 11th 2013

Walküre on Met matinee broadcast Saturday 13 April 2013

Reminder to tune in to your NPR station that carries the Met broadcasts, starting at 11 AM. (more…)

Posted by TJH @ 6:37 pm on March 24th 2013

Preface to the Frank Schaeffer you-tubes

The son of the L’abri founder Francis, when he was an angry young man, went by “Franky” (more…)

Posted by TJH @ 8:20 pm on December 30th 2012

Pipa on The Lord’s Day

The sabbath principle is explained using the analogy of a beautiful park. (more…)

Posted by TJH @ 11:41 pm on December 2nd 2012

Book: T. David Gordon on Why Johnny Can’t Sing Hymns

The surprising thing about this contribution to the debate on worship is (more…)

Posted by TJH @ 6:14 pm on July 1st 2012

The Covenanters in America: A Brief History

This is a review of the mimeographed history by D. Carson (more…)

Posted by MRB @ 11:57 am on November 30th 2011

Gordon Clark on Music

Some people think music a primitive art because it has only a few notes and rhythms. But it is only simple on the surface; its substance on the other hand, which makes it possible to interpret this manifest content, has all the infinite complexity that’s suggested in the external forms of other arts and that music conceals. (more…)

Posted by MRB @ 9:28 pm on October 31st 2011

Book. Schaeffer: How Should We Then Live? Part 2.

We have considered Schaeffer the philosopher in part 1, now we will consider Schaeffer the historian. (more…)

Posted by MRB @ 12:14 pm on October 1st 2011

Book. Schaeffer: How Should We Then Live?

C.S. Lewis once said that marking good essays and bad essays is easy, it is the those that fall in between (more…)

Posted by TJH @ 1:39 pm on May 31st 2010

Robert Preus, Justification and Rome

This is a brief yet surprisingly thorough and lucid treatment of the issues (more…)

Posted by TJH @ 1:39 pm on January 1st 2010

The Proposed OPC Directory for Worship

The OPC (Orthodox Presbyterian Church) is in the process of ratifying a new “Directory for Worship.”  It is available on-line by clicking an appropriate link here. The purpose of this essay is to bring some arguments against the proposed revision to the church. (more…)

Posted by TJH @ 1:38 pm on November 24th 2009

Introductory criticism of Wilson’s “‘Reformed’ is Not Enough”

The book “Reformed” is Not Enough created quite a stir a few years back (more…)

Posted by TJH @ 1:35 pm on October 21st 2009

On Deacons Serving Communion

At issue here is a practice, reported in some quarters, of Deacons assisting in (more…)

Posted by TJH @ 1:34 pm on May 28th 2009

A WW2 story

Every war has a big story and thousands of little stories. The little stories are (more…)

Posted by TJH @ 1:32 pm on May 18th 2009

Keys of Church and Presbyterial Succession

Attached is an mp3 of a Sunday School on Heidelberg Catechism 83-85, (more…)

Posted by TJH @ 1:31 pm on May 11th 2009

Heidelberg Catechism and Paedo-communion

Attached is the mp3 of a Sunday School lesson I taught yesterday on Heidelberg Catechism 81-82, including a discussion of Wilson’s (and others’) paedo-communion doctrine (more…)

Posted by TJH @ 1:27 pm on December 27th 2008

The tip-o-meter

The American custom of tipping is like a dance that neither party really wishes (more…)

Posted by TJH @ 7:47 pm on October 21st 2008

The “human life amendment”

There is a lot of discussion in conservative circles of (more…)

Posted by MRB @ 3:58 pm on September 5th 2008

Comments on Lewis’s Perelandra

After writing a response to a question under another post, (more…)

Posted by TJH @ 11:15 pm on August 30th 2008

MacGregor on the Future of the Catholic Church Reformed (HCC #4)

The author was a prominent Church of Scotland man (more…)

Posted by TJH @ 11:25 pm on August 2nd 2008

The Slovak people continue five centuries to 1938

Continuing the brief history of the Slovak people from the narrative begun earlier, through the modern (more…)

Posted by TJH @ 10:25 pm on May 31st 2008

The Slovak people: original settlement

This report is based on a “target of opportunity” — an old beat up book from a co-worker; though held together with masking tape and rubber bands, (more…)

Posted by TJH @ 10:18 am on May 22nd 2008

Discussion of Wagner’s Ring: Rheingold

While only a few people will be interested in our philosophical podcasts, I hope many will give the operatic ones a try. Here, we discuss (more…)

Posted by TJH @ 9:16 pm on April 9th 2008

Westminster Seminary and Pete Enns: Ten Observations

It behooves us to take an opening stance on the volcano (more…)

Posted by TJH @ 9:51 am on April 5th 2008

La Bohème comes around again

Today, April 5 at 1:30 on your affiliated NPR station; or (more…)

Posted by TJH @ 8:21 pm on March 7th 2008

Wading into the Tractatus

The attached audio (or better: use this 16 kbps compressed version) is our beginning of a close reading of the early Wittgenstein. (more…)

Next Page »