Body of Divinity 3

In attempting to formulate a proper illustration that coalesce proper church government and a compulsory--and normative--obligation for church attendance, I was bemoaned to find one. However important it was for me to find a suitable illustration, Calvin's Geneva looked like a Republic, respectively. And that being the case I sought to find a political jeremiad, like the current state of the economy, and relate it to the current state of Christian theism and her view of the Church. Unfortunately, many imbibe a sort of existential view of the church in its current malaise. There are more citations of Sartre (in philosophy) and Kierkegaard (theology) than there is of Christ in the Church. Calvin, too, bemoans this in his Institutes; if it was found in his day, it most certainly will be found in ours. Christians think more of their outlook than their theology; and if they do think of their theology, it is bereft of a proper theology of God as a Covenant Lord—yes, I didn't misspell it by adding the article "a"—and the theology of the Church. In evaluating the current state of the Church, we then must churn (or postulate with the proper Biblical data) a proper view of those two ideas.

Christians today hardly have an acquired knowledge of philosophy, so I will have to do some defining without too long a respite (or taking too much time in defining all my terms and ideas).

Herman Bavinck, best known for his voluminous Gereformeerde Dogmatiek (Eng. "Reformed Dogmatics") in four volumes, wrote a compendium of that work in brief form. The title of that work is called Our Reasonable Faith which he published in 1909 under the title The Wonderful Works of God. The content of that work seems to be concentric to a Jesucentric theology, meaning it is surrounded around Christ and Redemption. Having browsed only in cursory detail, after he deals with the Christian doctrine of sanctification he outlines his doctrine of the church by which the Christian receives the benefits of Salvation and all that follows it. In his short volume, he surveys and properly shows that the Christian, to be called a Christian, must unite himself to her (the Church); in other words, one cannot be duly called a Christian without belonging to the Mother Church. He also notes that like a natural birth, one needs a father and a mother. In the same manner, the state of the Christian as a Christian (Christian qua Christian) contains anthropologic faculties, like the one stated above: God is Father and the Church is the Mother. My apparent dilemma surrounded not the benefits of salvation and the Church but the necessary binding of the Christian to its mother, the Church. However, in this climate of intellectual promiscuity—also called thus by me in a letter called "A Public Letter to the Christian Church: Intellectual Promiscuity"—the church has largely forgot her place in this present evil age (Gal. 1:4). This is the outline or preliminary course, the reason for writing this, of the beginning of my Body of Divinity. Many notables in theology have already taken this stand in the public arena, like Dr. M. Horton, professor of Systematic Theology at Westminster Seminary California, Professor R. Scott Clark who is author of Recovering the Reformed Confession. I only hope that this serves as a private attempt to correct many in the Christian community to forsake her existential philosophy in religion and begin thinking in more Reformed ways, that is, that a true and systematic theology is a biblical one. (In fact, Iwould treat the terms Reformed and biblical almost synonymous, since they imply each other.)

Francis Schaeffer wrote in his The God Who is There that existential philosophy entered into religious thought after the modernism of Immanuel Kant. How that affects the Church as a structure impacts many areas of theology, more specifically in the area of Justification and Law (see Horton, Christless Christianity, chapter 3). For instance, Horton notes that the idea of Law and gospel have become so equivocal that deeds are often mistaken for gospel, and vice-versa: All A is B and all B is A. This is just bad logic:

P1. All horses have four legs.

P2. Therefore, all four legged creatures are horses?

Is this really the thinking of contemporary theology (religion)? In similar parlance (or manner in speaking), people who belong or belonged to the church would think like this: All of life is worship; therefore going to church is similar to an everyday occurrence of worship. Though in some qualitative sense it is true that going to church is worship and that all days in the Christian life is worship, there is a difference. However, this same logic of equivocation is pervasive in the thinking of modern Christians. This equivocation has produced an amassed pessimism in the church and a call for existentialism. This pessimism is seen under a two-story approach; Schaeffer called it "the line of despair."

RATIONAL = CRITICAL (PESSIMISM)

SPIRITUAL EXISTENTIAL = LEAP OF FAITH (OPTIMISM)

Those who deny the Reformed view of the church typically fall under these two categories. Which really shocks me is that those who claim the upper story tend to lend their ears to a formal lower story: "I am the church; ergo, I don't need the church." Do you see the equivocation here? One affirms "the church in themselves" (step 1) and in effect denies the church (step 2) by the end of the syllogism. The Christian cannot even begin to define his or her "Christian-ness" without falling into the sea of skepticism, the upper story. So what does the Christian do? He falls into the sea of existential thought. Somewhere along the line we stopped doing Biblical-exegetical thinking. We have forgotten the Lord who instituted the Church, the sacraments, church discipline in Paul's writing, etc. These means of grace are now seen under this two-story approach, i.e., it is either a rational matter (critical pessimism) or an existential matter (naïve optimism).

Freedom, Liberty and Law

The Proper Use of Freedom

    What does it mean to be a "Free Christian?" Historically, theologians dubbed this issue Christian liberty; my confession (WCF) calls it Christian Liberty, Chapter XX. Does this mean that a Christian is free to act in the spirit of liberty, meaning he can sin with the afterthought of being forgiven? Could this be the proper doctrine of Christian liberty? Is liberty inherently antinomian, that is, against law?

    With this array of questions, many of which can be defined, I believe that the content of the Bible does not leave us with a "non-Law" view of Christian liberty. Schaeffer called this sort of freedom "Freedom in form." That means that freedom (politically) exists in forms or categories. For instance, within Box 1 there's content A and B. All that can and ever exist in Box 1 is contained in the categories of A and B. Anything else is not categorically non-Box 1; ergo, not freedom. It is purely a proper view of law and liberty. The Bible that was put out by Reformation Trust—R. C. Sproul's publishers—comments on the topic of liberty (p. 1700):

Salvation in Christ is liberation, and the Christian life is one of liberty—Christ has set us free (Gal. 5:1; cf. John 8:32, 36). Christ's liberating action is not basically social, political, or economic improvement, as is sometimes suggested today; it is liberation from the law as a means to salvation, from the power of sin, and from superstition.

The Westminster Confession puts it this way:

God alone is Lord of the conscience,¹⁰ and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship.¹¹ So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience:¹² and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.¹³

10. James 4:12; Rom. 14:4, 10; I Cor. 10:29

11. Acts 4:19, 5:29; I Cor. 7:22-23; Matt. 15:1-6, 9; 23:8-10; II Cor. 1:24

12. Col. 2:20-23; Gal. 1:10; 2:4-5; 4:9-10; 5:1

13. Rom. 10:17; Isa. 8:20; Acts 17:11; John 4:22; Rev. 13:12, 16-17; Jer. 8:9; I Peter 3:15

Freedom as defined by both R.C. Sproul and the Westminster Confession defines freedom from the commandments of men, not God's. After all, we must assume a deontological tenacity of the law, meaning that the law as coming from God must and shall remain perpetual. And since God cannot deny himself (2 Tim. 2:13), God's commands still remain intact with its general principles. Deontological ethics clearly defines all actions into two categories: bad and good duty. There is some established rule that defines actions that do not appeal to the general populace, unlike utilitarian ethics, which defines ethical decisions based on the "popular vote." We then have to conclude that all actions are still measured with the sacrum legem Dei (the holy Law of God). Therefore, Paul defines liberty not as a means or license for sin or bad behavior, but it is freedom from the Mosaic code as a means for salvation. That, however, does not cancel out the moral law that is seen in the Mosaic code, i.e., the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments).

 

 

 

The Scottish Confession

Chapter 16 - The Kirk

As we believe in one God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, so we firmly believe that from the beginning there has been, now is, and to the end of the world shall be, one Kirk, that is to say, one company and multitude of men chosen by God, who rightly worship and embrace him by true faith in Jesus Christ, who is the only Head of the Kirk, even as it is the body and spouse of Christ Jesus. This Kirk is catholic, that is, universal, because it contains the chosen of all ages, of all realms, nations, and tongues, be they of the Jews or be they of the Gentiles, who have communion and society with God the Father, and with his Son, Christ Jesus, through the sanctification of his Holy Spirit. It is therefore called the communion, not of profane persons, but of saints, who, as citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem, have the fruit of inestimable benefits, one God, one Lord Jesus, one faith, and one baptism. Out of this Kirk there is neither life nor eternal felicity. Therefore we utterly abhor the blasphemy of those who hold that men who live according to equity and justice shall be saved, no matter what religion they profess. For since there is neither life nor salvation without Christ Jesus; so shall none have part therein but those whom the Father has given unto his Son Christ Jesus, and those who in time come to him, avow his doctrine, and believe in him. (We include the children with the believing parents.) This Kirk is invisible, known only to God, who alone knows whom he has chosen, and includes both the chosen who are departed, the Kirk triumphant, those who yet live and fight against sin and Satan, and those who shall live hereafter.

Informal Outline in Ecclesiology, Part 1

I'm going to write an informal response for those who are interested in a Reformed view of the church (invisible/visible delineations). These are not structured notes but are proper outlines of theology. Having read Clowney's The Church: Contours of Christian Theology—or at least a majority of the book—I have reserved notions of a Reformed view, more properly a Presbyterian view. Having said that, here are my notes.

Notes: Two, "People of God"

1. Began with Adam
   
2. Continues with Abraham through an oath (Hebrews 6:17)
   
3. The story of the church begins with the Old Testament people.
   

The very foundations of a Reformed ecclesiology is covenant theology. People of God/ Covenant Oath/ Assembly of Israel at Sinai confirm the covenant/ New Covenant is the reality of the old covenant shadows. [Obviously this is a rough outline. There are some outlines that are not dealt with here. I will update the outline when I have more time and structure of historical theology.]

Rooted in the idea of "People of God." We cannot separate the idea of the old covenant in transition with the new. Strangely, some dispensationalists disconnect these outlines of theology for a practicalism in pietism. Similarly, I have encountered this kind of pietism at work, and even some random places, like Borders, Barnes & Noble, etc. People unclassed in theology (historical theology) tend toward this frame of reference. One particular case was with a girl at work. Her pietism was so reflexive of Pentecostalism/Pietism that encroachments against an intellectual faith become an affront to "true religious experience." [In fact, they try to do away with such terms like 'religion' or 'organized religion' for the sake of personalized faith, i.e., "personal relationship" language.] Apparently, this is almost seen as orthodox, though a more Reformed approach sees this as heterodox. I know I do.