I make the news

I have been mentioned in the trial of Peter Leithart by the owner of the GreenBaggins Blog, Lane Keistner.  He claimed that my letter to his Stated Clerk, accusing him of hypocrisy regarding the Federal Vision because he himself is out of accord with his church’s confession on the key issue  of sola fide, resulted in complete exoneration.

This all came as a surprise to me as you can imagine.  I had not expected to be mentioned in Peter’s trial.

Having thought about it, I have a few questions I would like Lane Keistner to answer.

Lane:

1. What did they study? No-one contacted me, and since I am the one making the charge, that strikes me as odd.

2. You must have brought the case against yourself. That is quite a precedent. How many accused wish they could do that? What does that tell us about the quality of the evidence you brought against yourself?

3. You claim that you were completely exonerated. Exonerated from arguments you yourself brought? Were arguments made, or did you just say you are orthodox, and you all went out for coffee?

4. How would you answer to the accusation that this looks and smells like a deal done in advance? What does that say about your claim of total exoneration?

5. On that subject, three Presbyteries have ruled against you, and your friends, on these central issues. The tide has turned against you. Does that not give you pause to think that perhaps you may be mistaken? That so many of your peers and superiors disagree with you is telling.

Hooker demolishes the Puritans

Still working slowly through Hookers defence of the Church of England of his time.  He is brilliant, exceptionally clever and articulate.  His standard question to his opponents is to ask for their scriptural proofs, and necessary consequences of the same, which they are almost always unable to provide.  Some of the alleged proofs are hilarious.  He worked from the writings of leading Puritans of the age, so knew what he was facing.

The issues he faced are still alive and kicking.  Very much so, in fact.  The modern church service is pretty much a Puritan-friendly thing, not excluding the CoE of today, which has surrendered to a Puritan way of ordering it services, even when it is liturgical.

Private opinion subject to the wider Church

“And … men’s private fancies must give place to the higher judgment of that Church which is in authority a mother over them.”

“Thus by following the law of private reason, where the law of public should take place, they breed disturbance.”

Hooker says that if we wish to live in a society, private judgement must give way to the agreed laws of the community we live in, or common life is impossible.  Applying this to the church, private opinions about the way we regulate and govern it must submit to the judgement of the church community.

“Because except our own private and but probable resolutions be by the law of public determinations overruled, we take away all possibility of sociable life in the world.”

Hooker’s appeal to the Puritans

The best and safest way for you therefore, my dear brethren,

is, to call your deeds past to a new reckoning, to reexamine the cause ye have taken in

hand, and to try it even point by point, argument by argument, with all the diligent

exactness ye can;

to lay aside the gall of that bitterness wherein your minds have

hitherto over-abounded, and with meekness to search the truth.

Think ye are men, deem it not impossible for you to err; sift unpartially your own

hearts, whether it be force of reason or vehemency of affection, which hath bred and

still doth feed these opinions in you. If truth do any where manifest itself, seek not to

smother it with glosing delusions, acknowledge the greatness thereof, and think it

your best victory when the same doth prevail over you.

Richard Hooker

I have this week discovered Richard Hooker.  His Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, the title notwithstanding, is really an Anglican work of theology comparable to modern works that attempt to cover the whole body of divinity, albeit in the style of the sixteen hundreds.  It is really, really good, even excellent.

Hooker is not light reading.  It takes time to adjust to his style, and even then he gives the reader so much to think about that it is taking me a week to cover even a small amount – and I am not a slow reader.  His response to the Puritans’ objections to the BCP and vestments is eye-poppingly revelatory.  How I wish that I had read him earlier.

The immediate impact is to make me value the Anglican Reformation more than I already did.

Weakness of understanding

The WCF acknowledges the reality that Ministers have differing degrees of ability in their understanding of scripture.  Not everybody has a full, or indeed, a nearly full, grasp of the scriptures.  This means that there has to be some leeway given to Ministers of the Gospel doctrinally.  The essentials of soteriology, the sacraments, and the Trinity must be in place, but on many other issues freedom must be granted.

Anglicans in England

I heard via the grapevine that the new honcho at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, encountered much opposition from the faculty when he proposed a module on the 39 Articles.  Apparently they had not had so much as a mention in years.

This suggests to me that conservative Anglicans are not conservative.  At the very least they are not proper Anglicans if they disrespect their own teaching.

I hear that the Anglican Mission in England has been launched.  It is meant for orthodox members of the CoE.  What does orthodoxy mean today?  Is it orthodoxy proper, or orthodoxy according to some other criteria?  Are there any groups here in England who actually believe the 39 Articles in practice, not just in theory or on paper?

If you belong to such a group, please drop me a line.

Psalms and Hymns

There are things I like about the stubborn Scottish Continuers.  They will not modernise to accommodate the evangelical agenda.  I like their insistence on singing Psalms, and while I do not agree with their reading of the Bible that only Psalms may be sung, I prefer it to the Exclusive Hymnody that is everywhere else.   I would rather sing Psalms only than hymns only in a service, which is what you get these days.

I am sure that no-one takes the position that Psalms are out, but that is what happens Sunday after Sunday in non-liturgucal churches, and now, in too many once liturgical services.

At Farnham we are singing more and more Psalms, both chanted and paraphrased, not forgetting the singing of scripture , such as Magnificat.  I reckon that there are probably not more than twenty hymns that are worth singing.  I bought up a pile of hymn books a while ago, some from the nineteenth century, and was struck by their sentimentality, and the removal of all references to God’s fury at sinners.  They are song books for theological liberals, not believing Christians.

On that subject, the inventor and populariser of modern hymns was Isaac Watts, and he was personally offended by Psalms that spoke of retribution and wrath, thinking them un-Christian!  I have gone off him.

Jeff Meyers Exonerated

Jeff Meyers has been exonerated by the Missouri Presbytery. This is very bad news for those men who have a bigoted and unreasonable hatred of anything and anyone connected to the so-called FV. I choose my words carefully, because it is my view that there are many men who are incapable of reading the MOP Report in a fair way because of their strong emotions. Reading the responses to the MOP on Wes White’s blog, it is clear to me that they are really not going to give a fair hearing to anything that does not agree with their entrenched and limited views, no matter how reasonable.

I am impressed by the theological maturity demonstrated by the MOP, and their thorough treatment of the issues. There is a high standard of theological discourse demonstrated, and a high level of emotional maturity. They are an example to the Reformed churches.

Andy Webb says that the report left his head spinning. He represents the kind of opponent that I am speaking of. Mister Webb has a problem with the FV view of the sacraments, which is simply that of the Reformation. He openly admits that he disagrees with the Reformers here. That can only mean that he disagrees with the WCF on the sacraments, because it has the same teaching. When challenged to openly say so, he resorts to wriggling out of his own unconformity to the WCF by restating himself in words that obscure his difficulty.

Here is the rub: he one of the men going after Jeff Meyers for non-conformity to the WCF! Having spoken with some of the others in his group, it is clear that most, if not all, of them share his non-confessional view on the central issue of the sacraments, which are at the centre of the system of doctrine contained n the WCF, which they have sworn on oath to uphold.

I have spoken privately to him, exhorted him privately, and finally written to the Clerk of his presbytery, pointing out the hypocrisy of his actions. The said Clerk told me to mind my own business.

I want to make it clear that I have respected that decision. I did not challenge it or take it further – not that it is possible to do so since I am not within the PCA. I am content, because that decision is not mine to take, and my conscience is clear.

The Epitome of the Formula of Concord

XI. Election.

1] Concerning this article no public dissension has occurred among the theologians of the Augsburg Confession. But since it is a consolatory article, if treated properly, and lest offensive disputations concerning the same be instituted in the future, it is also explained in this writing.

Affirmative Theses.
The Pure and True Doctrine concerning This Article.

2] 1. To begin with [First of all], the distinction between praescientia et praedestinatio, that is, between God’s foreknowledge and His eternal election, ought to be accurately observed.

3] 2. For the foreknowledge of God is nothing else than that God knows all things before they happen, as it is writtenDan. 2:28: There is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets and maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days.

4] 3. This foreknowledge extends alike over the godly and the wicked, but it is not the cause of evil, neither of sin, namely, of doing what is wrong (which originally arises from the devil and the wicked, perverse will of man), nor of their ruin [that men perish], for which they themselves are responsible [which they must ascribe to themselves]; but it only regulates it, and fixes a limit to it [how far it should progress and] how long it should last, and all this to the end that it should serve His elect for their salvation, notwithstanding that it is evil in itself.

5] 4. The predestination or eternal election of God, however, extends only over the godly, beloved children of God, being a cause of their salvation, which He also provides, as well as disposes what belongs thereto. Upon this [predestination of God] our salvation is founded so firmly that the gates of hell cannot overcome it. John 10:28; Matt. 16:18.

6] 5. This [predestination of God] is not to be investigated in the secret counsel of God, but to be sought in the Word of God, where it is also revealed.

7] 6. But the Word of God leads us to Christ, who is the Book of Life, in whom all are written and elected that are to be saved in eternity, as it is written Eph. 1:4: He hath chosen us in Him [Christ] before the foundation of the world.

8] 7. This Christ calls to Himself all sinners and promises them rest, and He is in earnest [seriously wills] that all men should come to Him and suffer themselves to be helped, to whom He offers Himself in His Word, and wishes them to hear it and not to stop their ears or [neglect and] despise the Word. Moreover, He promises the power and working of the Holy Ghost, and divine assistance for perseverance and eternal salvation [that we may remain steadfast in the faith and attain eternal salvation].

9] 8. Therefore we should judge concerning this our election to eternal life neither from reason nor from the Law of God, which lead us either into a reckless, dissolute, Epicurean life or into despair, and excite pernicious thoughts in the hearts of men, for they cannot, as long as they follow their reason, successfully refrain from thinking: If God has elected me to salvation, I cannot be condemned, no matter what I do; and again: If I am not elected to eternal life, it is of no avail what good I do; it is all [all my efforts are] in vain anyway.

10] 9. But it [the true judgment concerning predestination] must be learned alone from the holy Gospel concerning Christ, in which it is clearly testified that God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that He might have mercy upon all, and that He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and believe in the Lord Christ.Rom. 11:32; Ezek. 18:23; 33:11; 2 Pet. 3:9; 1 John 2:2.

11] 10. Whoever, now, is thus concerned about the revealed will of God, and proceeds according to the order which St. Paul has observed in the Epistle to the Romans, who first directs men to repentance, to knowledge of sins, to faith in Christ, to divine obedience, before he speaks of the mystery of the eternal election of God, to him this doctrine [concerning God's predestination] is useful and consolatory.

12] 11. However, that many are called and few chosen, Matt. 22:14, does not mean that God is not willing to save everybody; but the reason is that they either do not at all hear God’s Word, but wilfully despise it, stop their ears and harden their hearts, and in this manner foreclose the ordinary way to the Holy Ghost, so that He cannot perform His work in them, or, when they have heard it, make light of it again and do not heed it, for which [that they perish] not God or His election, but their wickedness, is responsible. [2 Pet. 2:1ff ; Luke 11:49. 52; Heb. 12:25f.]

13] 12. Thus far a Christian should occupy himself [in meditation] with the article concerning the eternal election of God, as it has been revealed in God’s Word, which presents to us Christ as the Book of Life, which He opens and reveals to us by the preaching of the holy Gospel, as it is written Rom. 8:30: Whom He did predestinate, them He also called. In Him we are to seek the eternal election of the Father, who has determined in His eternal divine counsel that He would save no one except those who know His Son Christ and truly believe on Him. Other thoughts are to be [entirely] banished [from the minds of the godly], as they proceed not from God, but from the suggestion of the Evil Foe, whereby he attempts to weaken or entirely to remove from us the glorious consolation which we have in this salutary doctrine, namely, that we know [assuredly] that out of pure grace, without any merit of our own, we have been elected in Christ to eternal life, and that no one can pluck us out of His hand; as He has not only promised this gracious election with mere words, but has also certified it with an oath and sealed it with the holy Sacraments, which we can [ought to] call to mind in our most severe temptations, and take comfort in them, and therewith quench the fiery darts of the devil.

14] 13. Besides, we should use the greatest diligence to live according to the will of God, and, as St. Peter admonishes, 2 Pet. 1:10, make our calling sure, and especially adhere to [not recede a finger's breadth from] the revealed Word: that can and will not fail us.

15] 14. By this brief explanation of the eternal election of God His glory is entirely and fully given to God, that out of pure mercy alone, without all merit of ours, He saves us according to the purpose of His will; besides, also, no cause is given any one for despondency or a vulgar, wild life [no opportunity is afforded either for those more severe agitations of mind and faintheartedness or for Epicureanism].