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.

“A Brief Synopsis and Defense of the Reformed View of the Christian Sabbath”

By Mr. Julio Martinez, Jr.

    In recent days, I have given more than ample emphasis on the theology of the Sabbath. Even in some discussions that I have around the table with some relatives, I would have to fight tooth-in-nail to prove that the Sabbath is not a ceremonial law. They would even look at me like some legalistic, eccentric young zealot. In some sense, I am a zealot; I am zealot for God's Law, His moral law (yes, I am saying that the Sabbath is a morally divine referendum). Having considered all this, I have looked at some writers, especially Reformed theologians (being that I am a Reformed Presbyterian with the PCA, Presbyterian Church in American), to give me some kind of closure. Right here, right now, I want to mention only one Reformed theologian; his name is Johannes G. Vos. He wrote his famous The Westminster Larger Catechism: A Commentary (Ed. G.I. Williamson), but I want to focus specifically on Questions 115-121.

Synopsis

    The brevity of the debate, whether the Sabbath-keeping is at all viable in the New Covenant context, will determine how we will summarize and/or discursively analyze the content of the Lord's Day. There are roughly six questions in relation to the fourth commandment, so we will only look at Question 116 on the requirements of the fourth commandment.

    Question: What is
required in the fourth commandment?

Answer: The fourth commandment requires of all men the sanctifying or keeping holy to God such set times as he hath appointed in his word, expressly one whole day in seven; which was the seventh from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, and the first day of the week ever since, and so to continue to the end of the world; which is the Christian Sabbath,^[1] and in the New Testament called The Lord's Day.^[2]

^1. Deut. 5:12, 14, 18; Gen. 2:2-3; I Cor. 16:1-2; Acts 20:7; Matt. 5:17-18; Isa. 56:2, 4, 6-7

^2. Rev. 1:10

Vos here moves on to define moral laws, more specifically in relation to the fourth commandment:

1. The law of the Sabbath was instituted not with Moses but with creation.
   
2. Since the fourth commandment is found in the context of moral laws, it makes no sense to conclude that it is not a moral law.
   
3. Like the other laws (moral laws), the fourth was written with non-perishable elements, thus signifying the perpetual nature of the fourth commandment.
   
4. God's own finger instantiated the entire law, and the fourth is part of that law; therefore, the law en toto is therefore perpetually binding.
   

The Critique

Vos then moves the inference to another level: "On whom is the Sabbath commandment binding? Upon all men without exception. As Jesus said, 'the Sabbath was made for man'…" Now tell me this: if the law is purely ceremonial, why would Christ in the New Covenant, though it wasn't realized until his resurrection, say that the Sabbath was made for man, not only for Israel? That's because it is true that the Sabbath is binding on all men, even upon the Christian in the New Covenant context. The debate rests on the fact that the fourth commandment is binding solely on the basis that it is moral in se. Second, if the fourth commandment is be viewed as cultic, then we must assume that the commandments five through ten are also cultic, viz. applying only to the nation of Israel. Vos reminds us that the Ten Commandments form a unity. If the law begins morally and ends morally, logically then list must continue on moral grounds.

Michael Horton’s “Christless Christianity,” Ch.1: My Opinions on the Church

Diagnosing the problem:
The church has been going through a death that it herself is not noticing. In its attempts to become a relevant church, it has largely lost its aim and goal—the Great Commission. I would even say that the ultimate goal is found in the first question in the Westminster Catechisms (both short and large), i.e., enjoying and glorifying God in all of life. Horton is right; we don't need a life-coach. God is not here in my life to maximally make life better for me quantitatively but to 'kill me' daily and make me more like His Son. And what I found most appalling is the statistical 'error' George Barna scribes in The Second Coming of the Church: 86% of Americans claim some religious association or orientation, specifically in the Christian religion. How can America claim 86% of its populace when large churches like Joel Osteen's do not preach the gospel of Christ? Did I mention that Osteen's church is the largest in the country? (See the special on Joel Osteen on 60 Minutes. I have made it available on my Facebook at your, the reader, convenience.) My question here is—how in the world did we get here? And how is this bondage? Frankly, I think the churches, as Horton shows, is looking more like an American church rather than a Church in America. Nationalism is replacing piety; Commercialism is replacing the Word and Sacraments. The bondage is the turpitude of wanting to become like the world in place of looking like the historical Church. The problem is becoming relevant.

SCRF Retreat and Some Thoughts

The retreat, according to the Facebook forum of the SCRF, was a success. I don't think that it wasn't; I just wish it was a little different. Friday night, I got to meet most of the people that arrived that night. More arrived later, obviously—but the main one's that I talked to were Blake (who was consequently from Boise, Idaho) and Stephanie (I think that was her name). She was interesting…very cordial. Blake was chill. There was something very interesting about him. He was very quiet and, in a way, carried a melancholy with him. I would like to see how he interacts with his friends. As we began conversing about his hometown, he told me about the friends he has back at home. He categorized his social strata into categories of two: LDS or drugsters. Though it seems unfair for him, especially since his church should be considered a chapel (he goes to an old school Dutch church), he really doesn't have the luxury of meeting kids his own age, making really difficult to meet people.

Then there were the messages. Dr. Gary Johnson did most of the speaking. He was definitely an enthusiastic speaker, and he has a fervent heart for the gospel and theology (New Testament theology). I was able to get to know the man. He studied under Greg L. Bahnsen. He also said that it was Greg (he called him that) lead him to the Reformed faith. It seems that Bahnsen has that influence on people. I think God really has used Bahnsen to bring people to the faith, specifically the Reformed faith. Dr. Johnson told me that Greg took him to Westminster East to see Van Til. Van Til, I heard gave Dr. Johnson all his works when they went to see him in his study (Machen Hall). My pastor, Rev. Ronald Gleason Ph.D., had received something of a similar gratuitous cordiality when he met Van Til as well. I was actually in his study as I surveyed the voluminous works of Cornelius Van Til. I myself have been devoting myself to the study of the pioneer of the so-called Presuppositional approach to apologetics. But back the point. Dr. Johnson shared with me all the wonderful times he had with Greg. I thought it was amazing. He even complimented me in my learning of Reformed theologians. Though I wish I knew more and understood more, I thought that the compliment was honorary, since he himself is a graduate of a strenuously scholarly seminary. During dinner he also shared with me all the works he has published. He's done so much for Christian education that I'm almost willing to become a teacher for that sole cause. Amazing man!

The messages were all amazing. They were all based on the book of Galatians. The first night was purely diagnostic self-examination. The next morning we looked at how the cross of Christ exposes all the filth within the church. And I was sadly late to the Lord's Day sermon on the last day. I slept in—well, after the fact that I had to nap after lunch (or was it breakfast?). I'm going to try and post most of the sermons, at least the outlines, on here for people—my readers—to see.

Knowledge & Faith: The Epistemic Conjectures of Anselmian Proof

I think the title can be a bit misleading, so let me dispel some the connotations that possible arouse any suspicion about Anselmian logic and ontology. Most of the information I used was produced by the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, in particular with section 2.1 hic Anselm.

The particular phrase that I'm concerned with is his "faith seeking understanding."[1]

Problem 1 (hereafter P1): Anselm seeks to replace faith with understanding.
P2: These proofs, though intelligible for the faithful, are intended for the believer only, though they should be convincing for the non-believer as well.

P1 has the major flaw I think to say that all of faith is comprised in reason. Though I do think that this is true to an almost epistemic degree, I don't think that it is entirely the object of faith to replace reason. I think that the Biblical concept of faith carries in it an knowable attribute, theologically speaking. Categorically, it violates the separation of properties in categorical thought. It also seems to be tautological:
e.g., All faith is reason; All reason is faith. This is similar in common logical language, all A is B and all B is A. However, I do not that think reason and faith are completely devoid of one another. Therefore, my basic and ultimate contention with this form is that it belies the relationship with faith and reason.

P2, like P1, has an internal problem with reason. Anselm does seem to separate reason and faith, though they both carry the common goal of bringing anyone to the self-sufficient and self-happy nature of the Holy, i.e., God. Though I agree that these proofs do bring comfort to Christians (sound arguments often do), if often seeks to abstract faith. Faith is not an object of a virtue. It is a virtue in itself. I don't believe that's what Anselmian proofs do. They seek to analyze to nature of conceptual categories and its relationship to metaphysical realities (or realizations). part of that task is the knowledge of the perfect. I won't get into Gaunilo's critique about this "conceptual scheme," but the arguments typically have an object of conceptual reality: God is the greatest most perfect being; it is better to exist than not; therefore, God exist (roughly stated). Therefore, the problem I think with this interpretation of Anselm is that it abstracts faith in a way it should not be abstracted. Reason, I think, is conceptually abstract in these sorts of categories:

"If anyone does not know, either because he has not heard or because he does not believe, that there is one nature, supreme among all existing things, who alone is self-sufficient in his eternal happiness, who through his omnipotent goodness grants and brings it about that all other things exist or have any sort of well-being, and a great many other things that we must believe about God or his creation, I think he could at least convince himself of most of these things by reason alone, if he is even moderately intelligent." (M1)[2]

My ultimate conclusion I think would best characterize Anselm as a philosopher who utilizes faith alongside with reason, though he does not completely ignore their distinct roles in the mind. In other words, faith is not a substandard epistemic position, though reason and faith tend to work together that way.

[1] "fides quaerens intellectum."
[2] Monologion 1

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/anselm/#FaiSeeUndChaPurAnsThePro

Antestructural Theology

I have recently been working on a thesis that I hope to publish as a master's thesis. I don't know yet if I want to publish it at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, or whether I want to work on it at Westminster. However, this is not why I am writing this pithy explanation of the thesis I am working on. But as an update, I want my readers to note this work since it concerns the historic debate on what Calvinism is and is not. As a subject of method, it is called "Antestructural Theology" which is also derived by Calvin's idea found in Book I of his Institutes. The idea is basic: that men are flanked with God in the image of everyday life that it is almost impossible to doubt the theology of God. My influences here are obviously Calvin and the Reformers. However, the specific polemical work is influenced immensely by the works of Cornelius Van Til, Greg L. Bahnsen, and John M. Frame. The reason I called it antestructural is entirely based on the idea of "before thinking." Calvin calls it the sense of divinity. Van Til called it the presuppositional method. Why then do I write something that has already been propounded? This is an obvious question which deserves no answer, or so it seems. However I divert on the issues of Law and polemical doxology. There is a lot of loaded language I'm using here, but at the very outset, it is a method so similar to Dr. Van Til that one can almost see no difference. In the first, I deal with the influence of Reformed views of law, a primary witnesses, of course, being Bahnsen and R.J. Rushdoony. In the latter—that which I refer to as polemical doxology—is ecclesiastical in nature, namely dealing with the creedal aspect of Reformed thought. I call it the glory of the creeds, i.e., polemical doxology. I will be outlining my thesis as I work with it along with other Reformed theologians from various seminaries. I am not saying that I do not have a scope of the thesis; however, I am saying that I have my scope—with the flaws of current reformed orthodoxy—and am seeking to clarify it.