Ron's Response to Dr. Taylor

My pastor recently published this new blog on Illegal Immigration and the PCA's stated clerk's, Dr. Roy Taylor, position. Here' a clip. Frankly I think that the PCA is touching an issue that it shouldn't be involved in. The NAE is notoriously known for it's liberal left-wing stance(s) on public policy.

From Ron's blog:

"Recently, I was made aware of a short article written by Dr. Roy Taylor, Stated Clerk of the PCA dealing with an immigration resolution from the National Association of Evangelicals. Let me state unequivocally that I have the utmost respect for Dr. Taylor and that he is an esteemed colleague and brother in the Lord. Therefore, what I will write is a sort of intramural debate, but it is a debate. A member of the OPC made me aware of the article, which appears on byFaithonline, which explains why I didn’t see it. One can go to that web site, however, and locate Dr. Taylor’s article entitled “Roy Taylor Elaborates on NAE Immigration Resolution." [To read the rest, click here.]

This Morning's Meditation

"Set a guard, O LORD, over my mouth; keep watch over the door of my lips! Do not let my heart incline to any evil, to busy myself with wicked deeds in company with men who work iniquity, and let me not eat of their delicacies! Let a righteous man strike me—it is a kindness; let him rebuke me—it is oil for my head; let my head not refuse it. Yet my prayer is continually against their evil deeds." Psalms 141:3-5 (ESV)

This has been today's meditation. As I was reading the Psalm this morning, it rang of intellectual comfort. But there were other things aside from the intellectual that really struck my heart's cord; it is the act of the heart. I recently posted a corrective of some of Van Til's critics who have written "glaringly against Van Til" (taken from my video blog). Part of my response was to note that Van Til's emphasis was to show that these reasonings are reasons from the heart and not merely "noetic" (=heady or cerebral) in nature. The reason it was such a blessing emotionally is that apologists and individual Christians tend to forget that personal piety has always been part of the apologetic task. Some so-called Calvinist claim to proclaim the gospel without personal piety. Calvin would have some words for these people. Personal piety should be the first task before the person goes out to witness at all! After all, isn't the task to go and make disciples? What sort of disciples are we making? Do we laud the way David did, or do we merely subject our lives to the intellectual? The intellectual is only half the battle. We need to pray the way David did: "…Do not let my heart incline to any evil…" and evil could disguise itself under the intellectual as well, in the name of piety.

NT Studies and Redaction Criticism

This is a short forum on NT studies. If any of you can point me to the right direction as to what books I should read, let me know. I need to read some stuff on the "Q Hypothesis" and "Redaction Criticism." If any of you have any other resources that I can use, please let me know. I could use some help. Thanks. Here's the forum I began on the subject:

I've been doing some research in the gospels; I'm trying to answer critics who hold to "Redaction criticism," whatever that is. I also came across some who hold to the Q Hypothesis. So here are my questions: What is Redaction Criticism? What is the Q Hypothesis? What books do you recommend on NT studies? (I need some good insight on this subject. Maybe this is also an extension of Jesus studies?) I appreciate all your insight.

To see the thread, go here.

Church Membership: An Extension of Ecclesiology

I found this neat thread on the PB about Church Membership and found an article/blog by Dr. R. Scott Clark. This is an awesome article! This is exactly at what I've been aiming at throughout all my blogs. He shows that book keeping is found in both testaments, founded on a covenant community in the Old Covenant and consequentially practiced in the New. Here's is part of the article:

Dr. R. Scott Clark wrote, Kevin DeYoung offers several practical reasons why church membership matters. At least one of the comments called for biblical proof for the idea of church membership. I offer these biblical considerations.  There is a widespread notion that a truly Spirit-led congregation would not keep anything so earthy as membership records. This is an unfounded and unbiblical assumption which does not square with biblical history and teaching. [Continue reading here]

Ecclesiology

I have been reading the book by McCrie and The Doctrine of the Church in Scottish Theology, and I've been having some trouble with some of the constructs of ecclesiology in history, vis-a-vis the Independents and Romish churches. I thought about posting this in Church Order, but since this has more to do with the theology of the church in history I thought it was more prudent to post it here. So my question has more to do with the difference with the visibility and invisibility of the church.

Here are some of Augustine's ideas in the book by McCrie,

In the same chapter Bellarmine, borrowing from Augustine, describes the Church as a living organism, made up of soul and body, the soul being the inward graces of the Spirit, the body an outward profession of faith and partaking of the sacraments. And he distinguishes three classes of members of the Church: (1) Those who are of the soul and of the body, members in the fullest sense; (2) those who are of the soul but not of the body, excommunicates and catechumens; (3) those are of the body but not of the soul, who have only a profession without any real faith.

In the first place, I know this (1) is the classical view of the protestants throughout Europe during the reformation. But for those who don't understand what I am saying here—in effect what the church has said throughout the centuries—I will explain and outline.

1. Presbyterian/Reformed view,

2. Separatist/Independence view (Baptist),

3. Papist externalism or formalism.

My problem is trying to make sense of (2) and (1). Some have stated that the church is not locally visible but merely invisible, much like the Separatist. My problem has a lot to do with the compulsory responsibility of "churchless" Christians to become members of a church (visible). It is my belief that one cannot be a true member of the church (invisible) without belonging to the visible church (WCF 25.2). (I would like the add that I am not making the similar mistakes that the Popish church makes when they say that joining the visible church is joining the invisible church, for the eternal Word is what gives birth. The reason I think that is because I, as a Presbyterian protestant, hold to the two-fold distinction of the church, as did St. Augustine. In fact, throughout the history of the church I do not believe that Roman Catholics ever held to this two-fold distinction, as noted by McCrie.)

Victorian Poetry

"Before the Victorian era there were very few famous female poets. In the early nineteenth century writing was still seen as a predominantly male preserve. However despite views such as this the Victorian period saw the emergence of many important female poets" (Taken from this site).

The Victorian period is definitely my favorite era, regardless of sexual prominence. I like that the poets were very promiscuous, as far as standardized methods of poetry. I like that they exploited different forms in order to find something authentic in their forms. Great stuff.

A Pre-reply to the Discussion in the PB

Quote:

Originally Posted by austinww  Quote: Originally Posted by Julio Martinez Jr  What are the grounds of leaving a church anyway? I know that as a Presbyterian I have such a high caution of people leaving a church. I remember reading Calvin's Institutes (book 4). He has such a high view the church, and a very cautious attitude about leaving a church. He even states that leaving a church should be well deliberative. So I would ask what then are those conditions, and where are those conditions found in the Bible? True, but I'm fairly certain he wouldn't have been caught dead in a denomination that has degenerated to this level. They should leave and either start a new denomination, or join the LCMS or the Association of Free Lutheran Churches or whatever else there is that's not like ELCA.

My question, however, is more specific. What are those conditions? I get that Calvin wouldn't "find himself dead" in a church that has degenerated to this level. I would like to know what are those conditions then? Obviously sexual orientation shouldn't be the rule. What then is "the rule?"

-----Added 10/7/2009 at 07:15:14 EST-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward  Quote: Originally Posted by Julio Martinez Jr  What are the grounds of leaving a church anyway? I know that as a Presbyterian I have such a high caution of people leaving a church. I remember reading Calvin's Institutes (book 4). He has such a high view the church, and a very cautious attitude about leaving a church. He even states that leaving a church should be well deliberative. So I would ask what then are those conditions, and where are those conditions found in the Bible? Have you read the statement of the founders of your denomination?  PCA Historical Center - Documents: Message to All Churches (7 December 1973)

Yes I have. But my question is for the opinion of those engaged in this forum.

[I read the letter and I think the PCA's reasons for leaving the PCUS were well founded.]

Another Forum Discussion in the PB

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dearly Bought  Quote: Originally Posted by Julio Martinez Jr  What are the grounds of leaving a church anyway? I know that as a Presbyterian I have such a high caution of people leaving a church. I remember reading Calvin's Institutes (book 4). He has such a high view the church, and a very cautious attitude about leaving a church. He even states that leaving a church should be well deliberative. So I would ask what then are those conditions, and where are those conditions found in the Bible? I would argue that there are three marks that identify the true church of Christ. We have no right to separate from any church which bears these marks, but we are responsible to separate from any body which fails to bear these marks. Quote: "The marks, by which the true Church is known, are these: if the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if she maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in punishing of sin: in short, if all things are managed according to the pure Word of God, all things contrary thereto rejected, and Jesus Christ acknowledged as the only Head of the Church. Hereby the true Church may certainly be known, from which no man has a right to separate himself." Article 29, The Belgic Confession The three marks are inextricably connected. As the visible Gospel, the sacraments cannot be corrupted without corrupting the church's presentation of the Gospel itself. Corruption of church discipline corrupts the sacraments, corrupting the Gospel. To practically illustrate, a congregation which does not fence the Lord's Table in any way is preaching an antinomian message by her administration of the sacraments, thus corrupting the Gospel itself. I would also add that churches do not preach a Gospel from the pulpit for long that contradicts the message of their sacramental practice. Most congregations that commune unrepentant sinners do not preach against their sins while so doing. Most will agree that preaching of a false gospel necessitates separation, but will then balk at the inclusion of the administration of the sacraments and church discipline. However, notice Paul's response to the imposition of circumcision in addition to baptism on Gentile believers. He believes the Gospel itself is at stake (Gal. 2:5)!

Very believable. Thanks. So say someone does leave the congregation or denomination. What then? What is the responsibility of the "leaving party?"

(This is the question I asked after a prolonged conversation on leaving and joining a church or denomination that has clearly departed from its confessional standards.)

PuritanBoard Response on Epistemology

Quote:

Originally Posted by amishrockstar Does a single epistemological view have to be ultimate in a person's life? I mean, we can know some things rationally, some things empirically, and some things "revelationally," right? When you're asked, "how do you know what you know?" what do you say? Thanks

Wow. Great question. This has been an unending struggle for me personally. Ever since this question has plagued me in my philosophy class, I have dug my nails in Van Til and some of Sproul. I'm currently reading Plantinga—when I have time, of course—and he has a lot of insights that I think clarifies a lot. I think that there is an ultimate starting point in epistemology, but it is an interplay of revelational and an incipient epistemology. For Van Til, all knowledge must and has to begin with God, but more specifically with the Trinity. His justification for that is that if we have just a general idea of God, much like the debate that took place between Bertrand Russell and the Jesuit priest, Frederick C. Copleston, there will be plenary problems with other formulations or causal problems in theology; and for Van Til, theology is very important before the apologist's task. Van Til called this the problem of the One and the Many. Since this problem is placated by the doctrine of the Trinity, then other causal problems will not ensue. However, the doctrine of the Trinity or a Transcendental proof cannot solve for me the doctrine of innerency. This is why I take an interplay view of epistemology. I don't think that I am violating anything Van Til said, but I definitely think that the ultimate starting point should be transcendental.

This, of course, is a hypothesis that I'm working with. Reading Plantinga could raise significant issues that I might have, like the problem of existence having properties, but I will see. Does existence have properties? If so, how does Plantinga solve this problem? These are just questions that I am concerned with. I don't want to stray from the general question of this thread.

RPW

I came across this article and thought it was interesting. It is an article by Dr. G. I. Williamson, who also wrote The Westminster Confession of Faith: A Study Guide, and it covers the Regulative Principle of Worship or RPW. Dr. R. Scott Clark also forumalted something similar in his book, Recovering the Reformed Confession. Both can be found at the Westminster Theological Seminary Bookstore online. Here's a short paragraph and summary of the RPW:

1. The Regulative Principle of Worship

What is the proper way to worship God? This is an age-old question, and historically there have been two divergent answers. (1) One of these is that of the Roman Catholic Church (followed in principle by Greek Orthodox, Lutheran and Anglican Churches) namely, that it is proper to worship God as we will so long as there is no direct statement in the Bible forbidding us. (2) The other is that of the Reformed Churches, which is, that it is proper to worship God only as He wills, and this means only in ways that He has commanded, instituted or prescribed in His Word. The contrast is plain: the one says, what is not forbidden is permitted; the other says, what is not commanded is forbidden.

A Polemical Debate on Church Discipline: Dress code

So I have a conundrum with this issue of church discipline. Firstly, I am a Presbyterian member of a local church, so I understand the issues of church discipline. I also have a "growing pain" with people who think that they can be called a Christian and not be part of a local church. This isn't my problem, though. My problem has to do with the dress code of women in the church and how they ought to conduct themselves in the church, i.e., dress code ethics. I've been in a debate with some people who claim the name of Christ but who do not attend nor are under the discipline of the church.
These are the loci of the debate:

1. Women should not be infringed based of what she wears in the church, e.g., high heels.
   
2. Individuals with a personal problem ought not to impose upon the women in the church their personal convictions.
   

OK. I'll deal with these two in contrast:

1. The church should force a woman to change her clothes if it stumbles a significant amount of men in the church.
   
2. The women in the church should be considerate about her brothers' purity with two corollaries in mind:
   
   1. That she is there to worship God in word and deed and should exhibit that worship in her dress; and
      
   2. She should shop for clothes with the intention that is without bombast (=showy, flaunt or scandalous).
      

Those were just the reasons or methods of going about correcting someone. Also, I wouldn't suggest that any member of the church practice the discipline. I had suggested that if there are at least three or more people with a significant problem with the same person—her dress—then the elders should be notified. At this point, the people who espouse this cavalier approach of ignoring those who have the problem suggested that we can't as a church appease everyone. I took that point at face value and said fine. Even if there is a minority of men who struggle, I would say that it is a personal problem and they should deal with it; however, if there are as much as three people, then I think there is a problem. I recognize that this issue is roughly diagnostic and hard to prescribe, especially since the elders' authority is limited to holy living, but I still think its members ought to obey the elders of the church (see HC 85):

Quote:

Question 85. How is the kingdom of heaven shut and opened by christian discipline? Answer: Thus, when according to the command of Christ, those, who under the name of christians, maintain doctrines, or practices inconsistent therewith, and will not, after having been often brotherly admonished, renounce their errors and wicked course of life, are complained of to the church, or to those, who are thereunto appointed by the church; and if they despise their admonition, are by them forbidden the use of the sacraments; whereby they are excluded from the christian church, and by God himself from the kingdom of Christ; and when they promise and show real amendment, are again received as members of Christ and his church (Heidelberg Catechism, 85).

I believe it's the underlying attitude of certain Christians that really bothers me. It is cavalier and frankly too bombastically clothed in mutiny. If you have any suggestions and/or opinions contrary to mine, please let me know. I am open to correction.

Horton Writes on the Question on Two Kingdoms

Dr. M. Horton wrote a very intriguing blog that I think should be read by both stripes of Reformed theology—either Baptist or Presbyterian Reconstruction. The reason I mention Christian Reconstruction is largely due to his reference (implicit) to the Anabaptists. Here is what he wrote: "Clearly, Luther drew the lines between the two kingdoms in clear, bold colors, but so did Calvin—and both did so especially over against the radical Anabaptists who were trying to take over cities in the name of Christ's millennial kingdom!" Anyone who is familiar with Bahnsen's work in theonomy or Rushdooney's Institutes of Biblical Law will note the obvious reference. But for those of you who do not know a rat's behind from Reconstruction, here is what Horton is saying: Reconstructionists are like Anabaptists. Ridiculous!

Horton's article

I've been peppered with questions lately, privately and publicly, regarding the doctrine of the "Two Kingdoms": namely, the distinction between Christ's heavenly kingdom and the kingdoms of this age. A lot of good questions have been raised. A lot of silly caricatures have also appeared, which is to be expected. My colleague at Westminster Seminary California, David VanDrunen has a full-length book that Crossway is set to release this winter, which will be a lot more helpful than these passing remarks. However, I want to respond briefly to a few of the dominant reactions to this concept. Christians of good will may still disagree over these issues, but it's important to deal with real positions rather than straw opponents. (…Read the rest)