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.]