Reformed Churchmen

We are Confessional Calvinists and a Prayer Book Church-people. In 2012, we remembered the 350th anniversary of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer; also, we remembered the 450th anniversary of John Jewel's sober, scholarly, and Reformed "An Apology of the Church of England." In 2013, we remembered the publication of the "Heidelberg Catechism" and the influence of Reformed theologians in England, including Heinrich Bullinger's Decades. For 2014: Tyndale's NT translation. For 2015, John Roger, Rowland Taylor and Bishop John Hooper's martyrdom, burned at the stakes. Books of the month. December 2014: Alan Jacob's "Book of Common Prayer" at: http://www.amazon.com/Book-Common-Prayer-Biography-Religious/dp/0691154813/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1417814005&sr=8-1&keywords=jacobs+book+of+common+prayer. January 2015: A.F. Pollard's "Thomas Cranmer and the English Reformation: 1489-1556" at: http://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Cranmer-English-Reformation-1489-1556/dp/1592448658/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1420055574&sr=8-1&keywords=A.F.+Pollard+Cranmer. February 2015: Jaspar Ridley's "Thomas Cranmer" at: http://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Cranmer-Jasper-Ridley/dp/0198212879/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1422892154&sr=8-1&keywords=jasper+ridley+cranmer&pebp=1422892151110&peasin=198212879

Thursday, March 8, 2012

Rick Warren: Double-Speak and Fibbing with Diluted Theology? Or Media Hype? Warren a Theological Pick-pocketter?


http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/newspaper-catches-rick-warren-fibbing/

WND EXCLUSIVE

Newspaper catches Rick Warren fibbing?

Says Saddleback confirmed its report on 'Chrislam' accurate

When an Orange County Register article about Rev. Rick Warren of Saddleback Church’s mission to heal differences between evangelical Christians and Muslims was published, some of the pastor’s critics saw it as more evidence of a blurry vision of “Chrislam,” a blending of Christianity and Islam, despite his repeated denials.


The Feb. 23 article cited Saddleback documents that see similarities between Christianity and Islam. One co-authored by Jihad Turk of the Christian-Muslim Consultative Group in Los Angeles and Abraham Meulenberg, pastor of Interfaith Outreach at Saddleback claims the two religions “worship the same God.”
While many supporters of Warren insist that claims in the article are false, the Register reporter and an editor at the paper told WND that Saddleback Church leadership confirmed that the article was “factually accurate.”

“Folks at Saddleback initially made but then withdrew a request for a clarification to the story’s first paragraph,” reporter Jim Hinch told WND in an email.


“Instead of the words ‘Muslims and Christians worship the same God’ they wanted the story to read ‘Muslims and Christians believe that God is one.’ The rest of the story, they said, is factually accurate.”


WND calls and emails to Warren were not returned.
Despite his staff’s acknowledgement to the Register that the article is factually accurate, Warren denied claims in the article by pointing the finger at the reporter for “getting it wrong.”


“This is an example of why I always doubt what I read in newspapers and blogs about ministries,” Warren said in a statement sent to church members.


“Secular reporters trying to cover churches and theological issues often get it wrong,” he said.


“But then Christian bloggers, instead of contacting the ministry, blindly believe, quote and repost the errors made by secular reporters. Then those errors become permanent, searchable, and global on the Internet,” he continued.


“I couldn’t count the number of times a secular reporter has gotten a story about Saddleback wrong but then it is perpetuated by Christians who never fact-check. And the three factors I mentioned about the Internet make it impossible to correct all the misperceptions, and outright lies that get repeated over and over.”


The Register’s Hinch, who has worked as a senior editor at Guideposts magazine, told WND that numerous pastors at Saddleback were contacted about his article, and each one of them told him Warren would not be made available for comment for the story.


One pastor even emailed Hinch to say that “leadership decided they don’t want the work of King’s Way to be published.”


“King’s Way” is a document that was a central focus of the Register story.


The document was unveiled at Saddleback Church in December to an interfaith audience of more than 300 Muslims and Christians. It reportedly was co-authored by Meulenberg and Turk.


The five-page document, which outlined similarities between the two religions, was introduced through a slide presentation at the event.


Under the heading “A Path to End the 1,400 Years of Misunderstanding Between Muslims and Christians,” the presentation included Bible verses and Quran verses side by side to make the case that the God for both religions are one in the same.


One example was titled “Who we believe in,” followed by

“God is the Creator – Genesis 1:1, Al Shura 42:11″

The two verses read:

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” – Genesis 1:1
“The originator of the heavens and the earth…” – Al Shura 42:11

Another example was titled “God is One,” followed by “Mark 12:29, Muhammed 47:19″

The verses say:
“And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear O’ Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord.” – Mark 12:29
“So know that there is no Diety except Allah” – Muhammed 47:19


Hinch told WND that he obtained a copy of the “King’s Way” document from a confidential source on the condition that it not be published in its entirety.


He said the document “outlines several areas of theological agreement between Christians and Muslims and commits members of both faiths to three goals: becoming friends; making peace; and sharing ‘the blessings of God’ with others.”


“The Register story based the phrases ‘same God’ and ‘one God’ on the phrasing in this document, which states that Christians and Muslims believe in one God,” Hinch said.
WND’s repeated requests to Saddleback for a copy of the document went unanswered.


After the Register article was published, Warren issued a statement through a Christian Post reporter in an interview format.


Warren said, “A few days ago, an article appeared in the Orange County Register that included some outrageous statements about Saddleback that were incorrect.


“Of course, the media rarely gets everything right, and there’s no way we could respond to every false statement made about us. But I felt this article created so many misperceptions that I agreed to do an interview in response.”


The interviewer also asked Warren if people of other religions worship the same God as Christians, to which Warren replied, “Of course not. Christians have a God that is unique.”


Steve McConkey, of bigworldwatch.com, a news gathering site, said of Warren’s response to the article: “A person should not say one thing one time and another thing later and then blame the reporter.


“The problem that we have is that he has a case of doublespeak. Warren denies the Orange County Register article’s contents, but the document he signed ‘A Common Word Between Us and You’ says differently,” said McConkey.


McConkey was referring to a much publicized 2007 document signed by Warren, among many other Christian leaders. Within the first few lines it says that “many Christians have been guilty of sinning against our Muslim neighbors.”


“Before we ‘shake your hand’ in responding to your letter, we ask forgiveness of the All-Merciful One and of the Muslim community around the world,” the document states.


The lengthy document then outlines how both Muslims and Christians serve “one God” and makes an argument that the two are one in the same, much like the “King’s Way” document unveiled in December at Saddleback Church.


It is that perspective that some Christians have called “Chrislam.”


Saddleback and Warren declined numerous WND attempts to speak about the issue. But in the Christian Post, he responded


The publication asked, “Are you promoting Chrislam?”
“Of course not. It’s the lie that won’t die,” he said.
Yet his staff has acknowledged the Register article is correct, he had a role in the “King’s Way” document and he signed “Common Word.”


The Register story mentions that both Turk and Gwynn Guibord serve an organization called Christian-Muslim Consultative Group.


WND reached Guibord regarding her interview with Hinch. In the interview she states that her group has avoided inviting evangelical churches to join their endeavor to “foster relationships between churches and mosques” but is now changing that opinion because “Saddleback’s effort is unprecedented.”

Sex Sells: Driscolls on "The View" with Barbara Waters Re: Mark's New Book "Real Marriage"

http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/03/08/the-driscolls-share-their-views-on-sex-in-marriage-on-the-view/


The Driscolls Share Their Views on SEX in Marriage on “The View”


Thu, Mar 08 2012
By
"But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” Acts 1:8 (NIV)

 


In case you haven't noticed, Mark and Grace Driscoll are taking their Sex Gospel to the ends of the earth as they wander around peddling their HOT off the press book – REAL MARRIAGE: THE TRUTH ABOUT SEX, FRIENDSHIP & LIFE TOGETHER. It is this blogger's staunch opinion that their efforts are not being inspired by the Holy Spirit. Yesterday the Driscolls pitched their provocative sex manual on The View.

Barbara Walters begins the interview with this introduction:

"It is a gospel you probably never thought you'd hear from a man of the church, but the Lord wants married couples to have great sex to have it often and even experiment in the bedroom, and that's what the pastor of Seattle's Mars Hill megachurch Mark Driscoll and his wife Grace claim in a book that's being called the most provocative work ever written by an evangelical. It is called Real Marriage: The Truth about Sex, Friends and so forth, and you may, if you have young kids, you may want them to go into the other room now, we'll give you a second or two. Bye kids!"

Barbara, your opening statement is exactly right, and we call it the Sex Gospel, not to be confused with the "Gender Gospel". Tragically, both are twisted views of Scripture.

By divine providence my younger daughter (who turns 20 this summer) is on Spring Break, and we watched The View together. I am so honored that she wants to spend her free time chillin' at home this week with her mom and dad. After the short interview concluded, we had an interesting conversation about the Driscolls. My daughter was NOT impressed! While I plan to keep the details of our discussion private, I will tell you that her take away from the interview was this – there is just ONE REASON why guys would be motivated to get hitched. If she's right that this is the message guys in her generation are getting from Real Marriage, then expect tremendous problems down the road with some of these young couples who are buying the Driscoll phony boloney hook, line, and sinker.



Now let's take a closer look at the interview…

Barbara Walters shares with the audience (both in the studio and on television) that the Driscolls have been married for twenty years and that according to their book they had sexual problems and learned how to correct them. She inquires about those problems and how the Driscolls fixed them.


Grace Driscoll explains: "Well, we started out with a lot of things wrong in our marriage, and so we needed to discuss more honestly the things from our past, and I had suffered from sexual assault and various issues in my past and because we weren't aware of those in our marriage it made it very difficult to have an honest marriage."


Did you catch what Grace said? "We weren't aware of those in our marriage…" Who wasn't aware of those issues? Who is "we"? Does anyone else find that statement extremely odd?


Barbara then asks: "Did you agree about sex?"


Mark jumps in and quickly answers her question by saying: "Yeah, we did when we got married, and I think we started as close friends and then as the work and the duties of life come in, the friendship started to wane and I think that affects all levels of intimacy."


Barbara then responds: "But I read the book and one of the things you say is that you thought of sex as god, and Grace you thought of sex as gross."


Mark deflects from Barbara's analysis by stating: "Yeah, we talk in the book that some people see sex as god – it's way too important to them, almost obsessive. For those that are overly religious or perhaps come from an abusive background, they tend to see it as very gross. Our view is that it's a gift. It's a gift that God gives us to enjoy and to steward well, and so it took some time for us to come to mutual agreement on that and to work that out."
Here's my question. Why does Mark believe he's qualified to coach others about sexual obsessions? Talk about someone being sex-obsessed!


When Joy Behar chimes in and asks what Mark has against homosexuals having fun, he retorts: 


"Yeah, well we are Bible-believing Christians and so we do hold to the teaching of scripture and that is that sex is reserved for a married couple, a heterosexual married couple, so even when we were dating and we were sexually active, we were wrong. And so we don't want to say that we're better or holier than anyone, but we were wrong as well and had to make some changes." 

 

What a feeble attempt at sharing the Gospel message with those who were watching. That's why I don't believe the Holy Spirit is empowering Mark Driscoll. As a pastor, he should have used the opportunity to talk about salvation, not sex – marital or not!


Next, Raven-Simone, who was filling in for Elisabeth Hasselbeck, timidly asks: "What does the Bible say about sex?"


Mark answers: "Yeah, the first half of the book is really about friendship, and we think that friendship is the foundation to marriage, and then the second half of the book is about sex in the context of a loving friendship. And the Bible does have quite a bit to say about sex, especially a whole book called the Song of Songs, and so I'm a Bible teacher, but it's in there. Most people haven't read it or they missed that part."


Now Mark Driscoll is onto the Bible topic that inspires him the most. David Kupelian of World Net Daily just wrote an article – The Church of Sex – that includes an excerpt from Driscoll's 2007 sermon called Sex, a Study of the Good Bits from Song of Solomon which drew the ire of John MacArthur and others. The way Driscoll suggested that a wife win her husband to Christ is so graphic that we decided not to include it here; however, Kupelian reveals Driscoll's suggested technique.


Sherri Shepard keeps Mark Driscoll on topic with her remark: "Well, let's get to the sex O.K. because I just got married." She brings up the most controversial chapter in the Real Marriage book, which is "Can We _______?" By this point, Mark is salivating as he addresses whether certain sex practices are biblical or not.


"We talk about the things that couples may do but not things they must do," Mark says. He likens this part of Real Marriage to a menu from which you can decide what suits your taste. I wouldn't be surprised if Mark has devised his own sex menu. Maybe he has a __ beside each items so he can check his preference(s). Since Mark "sees things", I can see him placing his instructions on Grace's pillow so she will know what he has ordered for their next romp in the sack. If Mark's list is alphabetized, we all know what tops the list, followed by a "job" that rhymes with snow. I'm sorry – but this is all just too much! My husband would appropriately label it TMI (too much information)!


As the interview comes to a close, Barbara Walters says: "O.K. pornography, which you also deal with. You say that pornography is sometimes in women's romance novels, even mainstream women's magazines, and they're sinful." Whoopi Goldberg adds: "Does that go for television as well?"
Grace responds: "Any form of lust that is not toward your affection toward your married marital spouse is a sin."


In the Brierley interview (which lasted the better part of an hour), Grace was only "allowed" to speak ONCE. On The View, she actually got to speak TWICE over the course of five minutes, so things are definitely improving…


For another review of the Driscolls' interview, we recommend The Christian Post.


After appearing on The View, Mark Driscoll posted this comment on his Facebook account:


"Grace and I really enjoyed being on The View and sharing God’s truth about sex & relationships and how God forgives and helps us in this area that we all deal with every day. If you want to learn more, we will be live in these cities talking more about marriage and relationships: Ft. Lauderdale, FL, Anderson, SC (sold out), Lynchburg, VA and St. Louis, MO. Sign up now…"

As you might imagine, the affirming responses poured in from Driscoll sycophants. However one negative response got through on Facebook which received these prompt responses:
Abraham Robledo "Hey Amber, chill out!!"
Justin Mohney ‎@Amber Womack-Kitavi, "if your statment above is implying that you in fact do know "about" God's love (or more than Mark and Grace) – you have a very ironic and oxymoronic way of stating such…interesting 'comment'…"
Jake Lynch "Hey how about instead of tearing into Amber for her remarks, we just allow her to have an opinion & pray for her?"

Here's the dilemma – I can't find Amber's comment
ANYWHERE! It was obviously deleted. I saved the three comments listed above, and just before publishing this post, I have scrolled through the comments one more time, and the three cited above are GONE! Isn't it incredible that someone is scrubbing Mark Driscoll's Facebook account? Why in the world would you trust someone who deletes any and all negative reactions?


Driscoll obviously believes his own press because only affirming commentary gets through; however, Driscoll and his Fan Boys have no control over the reviews posted on the Amazon website. In an effort to provide a public service announcement regarding what Mark Driscoll advocates, here is an important One Star comment left under the Driscoll's book Real Marriage.


Anal Sex, Cancer and You. A Guide for the Hipster Christian Community, January 26, 2012
"According to Mayo Clinic (and hundreds of other medical sites), anal sex dramatically increases the risk for anal cancer. Just because the bible doesn't spell out for the reader "Hey McFly, don't do that" doesn't mean the behavior is wise or permissible. No, you will not go to hell just because you have anal sex with your spouse. But you might get cancer. Oh, but wait! Silly me….I failed to take into account the porn-saturated culture we live in. And since that is the case, I guess I should just let the porn industry dictate my sex practices, right? Because after all, I reaalllyyz wanna be a cool christian. Never mind the fact that we're talking about a practice that might involve poo."
travel lover added a comment under this one-star review which states: ( Feb 2, 2012 4:31:16 PM PST)
"In addition to expressing my whole hearted agreement to your comments I would only like to add that there is apparently growing concerns that oral sex can contribute to a type of throat cancer. As for anal sex, what part of the verses condemning those who have abandoned the "natural" use of the woman does Driscoll and the MHC leadership not get?! Are we to believe that God only applies this standard to homosexual sex? I think not! Such practices are not only unnatural and questionably safe and sanitary but they are demonstratably demeaning to women. God help the young wives out there who now hope that their husbands also get Driscoll's admonition that such things are permissible if consensual and when they say "no" it is the end of discussion!"


Driscoll is escalating, and incredibly his buddies are just sitting by tight-lipped watching it happen… What will Mark Driscoll do for an encore? We cringe at the thought…


In the meantime, we believe countless young people (who are around the ages of our own children) are being hurt by Driscoll's cavalier attitude toward sex. Please, for the sake of your own health, listen to us! We have nothing to gain because we're not selling anything. The same cannot be said of the Driscolls. They know sex sells, and they are laughing all the way to the bank!

Telegraph: 600 UK Churches Adopt New 10 Commandments

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9123866/Churches-adopt-new-Ten-Commandments.html

Churches adopt new Ten Commandments

Hundreds of churches across the country are now preaching an updated version of the Ten Commandments, rewritten to reflect modern values.

The new DVD called “just10 for churches” Churches adopt new Ten Commandments
The new DVD called “just10 for churches”
The religious rules, which Christians believe were etched onto tablets by God and given to Moses, have been modified to use up-to-date language and principles.
Inspired by last year’s riots, the new vows include “manage your anger”, “know God” and “catch your breath” and are understood to be used in more than 600 churches in Britain.
The original “thou shalt not steal” has become “prosper with a clear conscience”, and the lengthy “thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain” becomes “take God seriously”.
The commandments, designed by popular evangelical preacher J John, have been praised by religious leaders for bringing practical advice to modern congregations.
Using short, simple language interspersed with slang, the new rules have now been released on a DVD called “just10 for churches”, aimed at providing guidance.
The tenth commandment, for example, has altered the Biblical “thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's” to just “find contentment.”

“Thou shalt not commit adultery” have been edited to “affair-proof your relationships”, and “honour thy father and thy mother” has altered to “keep the peace with your parents”.

J John claims his commandments enable "everyone to understand God's timeless principles on how we should live" and said he was inspired to write them by last summer’s riots.

For more irreverent loondom, the article drags on at:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9123866/Churches-adopt-new-Ten-Commandments.html

Horton: Church Membership Requires Affirmation of Covenant and Infant Baptism

Therefore we detest the error of the Anabaptists, who are not content with the one baptism they have once received, and moreover condemn the baptism of the infants of believers, who we believe ought to be baptized and sealed with the sign of the covenant, as the children in Israel formerly were circumcised upon the same promises which are made unto our children (Belgic Conf., Art. 34; cf. Heidelberg Catechism Q. 74).


We concur. Mike Horton offers his gracious but firm response to modern Anabaptists, Baptacostals, and other Revivalists.

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/03/05/membership-requires-affirmation-of-infant-baptism-a-presbyterian-and-reformed-response/?comments#comments

Membership Requires Affirmation of Infant Baptism: A Paedobaptist Response

Editors' Note: How do baptism and church membership relate? What are the biblical bounds? Baptists debate, "Must one be baptized as a believer in order to join a church?" Meanwhile, Presbyterians and other paedobaptists consider, "Should one who'd refuse to let his children be baptized be permitted to join?"

Our hope is that this three-day forum will, by God's grace, drive us all to consider Scripture's teaching anew and disagree charitably when necessary.
-------------------------

The renaissance of evangelical Calvinism today is a marvelous gift of God. Yet as many across widely varying denominations embrace the doctrines of grace, the tendency is often to downplay their distinctives as relatively unimportant. Especially as people move back and forth not only between local churches but denominations, often simply looking for a church that preaches the Word faithfully, there can be an impatience with honest scruples. It's often said that baptism is a "secondary issue." Traditionally, both sides in the debate have wrestled over whether they can even accept each other's profession of faith as valid for membership. That's hardly secondary.

Baptism itself has become so secondary in evangelical circles that the most outrageous view in many minds is one that makes this issue decisive in church membership. However, Baptists and paedobaptists are stuck. If our conscience is bound by Scripture, then we can hardly consider as indifferent something Christ' ordained as essential in the Great Commission. So I respect Baptist brothers who would not admit me into membership or to the Lord's Table. They are following what they believe Scripture to teach in this matter and for that submissiveness I respect them.

Historically, Reformed and Presbyterian churches have required professing members and their children to be baptized. In the former, arising from Continental Reformed sources, all church members confess the Three Forms of Unity (Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, Canons of Dort) as the faithful summary of Scripture. What this means is that in Reformed churches historically, only those who affirmed the inclusion of children in covenant baptism could be members. Especially in the U.S., Presbyterian churches came to require only officers to subscribe the Westminster Standards. In Presbyterian churches, it has meant that all of the children of members should be baptized. What to do if they're not is a matter of some debate and variation.
I affirm, on the basis of Scripture, the traditional Reformed and Presbyterian view that it is "a great sin to condemn or neglect" baptism (Westminster Confession, Ch. 28.5) and that "also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized" (Ch. 28.4; cf. Shorter Catechism, Q. 95). The Belgic Confession adds,

Therefore we detest the error of the Anabaptists, who are not content with the one baptism they have once received, and moreover condemn the baptism of the infants of believers, who we believe ought to be baptized and sealed with the sign of the covenant, as the children in Israel formerly were circumcised upon the same promises which are made unto our children (Belgic Conf., Art. 34; cf. Heidelberg Catechism Q. 74).

I'm a minister in the United Reformed Churches in North America. Our Church Order requires, "The consistory shall see to it that baptism is requested and administered as soon as feasible" (Art. 56).

All of this entails, of course, that those who wish to become members must at least be willing and ready to present unbaptized children for baptism. Any who refuse to do so are in violation of what we are convinced is the express command of our Lord. Church discipline always begins with gentle admonition and instruction, usually in private, leading hopefully to repentance. However, it would be unwise to admit into full communion believers who are already in principle unwilling to change their mind on the matter.
Some in our circles have suggested that this disciplinary action pertains only to those who are actually violating Christ's will. In this view, someone who remains convinced of adult-only baptism (but is not withholding the sacrament from his or her own children) may be a member (though not an officer). I have heard good arguments on both side of that difficult pastoral issue and remain open on the point. The crucial concern is to ensure that members recognize their children as the Lord's heritage and not withhold the sign and seal of his covenant blessings. Baptism is not just an interesting doctrine we discuss, but a practice that shapes our life---personally and corporately.

To some brothers and sisters (Reformed/Presbyterian as well as Baptist), all of this may sound somewhat jarring---and exclusionary. However, there are a few things to bear in mind:
  1. Baptism either is or is not to be administered to the children of the covenant; if it is, then it is a sin not to do something God has commanded. The Baptist position at least historically is to consider it a sin to baptize infants (and to practice an alternative to immersion). Presbyterian and Reformed churches confess that baptism is a means of grace and that it is a sin to withhold the sign and seal of the covenant of grace from our children. Of course, it is not a sin of intentional rebellion. Nevertheless, both sides have regarded the rival decision as a transgression of God's will. That follows inexorably from the conviction that God does clearly reveal what we are to do on this question. My Baptist friends believe that I am not only doctrinally in error but am doing something against God's will when I baptize covenant children. Although I disagree, I applaud their consistency. It's beyond the scope of your question to defend covenantal baptism here (though I do in various places, especially The Christian Faith). However, if there is truly a parallel between circumcision and baptism as the signs and seals of the same covenant of grace, then it is a serious sin to withhold it from our children (Gen 17:9-14).
  2. The consistent Baptist view is actually more exclusionary. We accept as valid all baptisms performed with the Word and the water (whatever the mode) in the Triune Name. Those from a Reformed or Presbyterian church who wish to change membership to a Baptist church are required ordinarily to renounce their baptism as invalid. To reject the validity of one's baptism---and, by extension, the validity of baptisms administered in another communion---strikes at the heart of the church's unity.
  3. Of course, many Baptists as well as Reformed and Presbyterians today downplay the significance of these arguments on both sides. Doing so allows for more flexibility in the movement back and forth between different communions. However, it cannot fail to impress upon the actual members themselves that their baptism (whether as adults or as infants) is of little consequence. At least from my reading of the New Testament, that would be the most tragic position of all.
Recommended Resources: G. W. Bromiley, Children of Promise (Eerdmans); Danny Hyde, Jesus Loves the Little Children (Reformed Fellowship); Bryan Chapell, Why Do We Baptize Infants? (P&R); John Murray, Christian Baptism (P&R); Edmund P. Clowney, The Church (IVP); Michael Brown and Danny Hyde, Called to Serve: Essays for Elders and Deacons (Reformed Fellowship).
-------------------------
Also in the series on baptism and church membership:

Michael Horton is the J. Gresham Machen professor of systematic theology and apologetics at Westminster Seminary California. His books include Putting Amazing Back into Grace, Christless Christianity, and The Gospel-Driven Life.

Francis Turretin: "Scriptural and Patristic Testimony to the Holy Spirit's Illumination and Scripture's Self-Authenticating Power

"The Thoughts of Francis Turretin," at: http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/ always posts sensible and thoughtful things.  On this specific post, we have a short, but useful sample of texts re: the Self-Authenticating power of Scripture by the Holy Spirit's illumination. Martin Chemnitz's Vol. 1 of the "Council of Trent," however, affords many more.  We recommend this blog to all our readers.
---------------------------------------

In the comment box of a previous post, Pastor David King provided the following Scriptural and patristic testimony to the Holy Spirit's inward illumination of believers and Scripture's self-authenticating character, to which I've made some minor edits:

The canon of Scripture is an artifact of revelation rather than an object of revelation. By "artifact" I mean something that is a feature not normally present but visible as a result of an external agent or action.

While the Romanist treats the canon as an object of revelation, it is the result (hence an "artifact") of revelation. In other words, the canonical list of the books of Holy Scripture are the result of God's revelatory work, and not the object of what God has revealed.

A Christian's recognition of these books is result of God's working in him to will and to believe.

I believe 1) Scripture's own witness of its inspiration, and 2) that God confirms that by the illuminating power of the Holy Spirit. I drawn a distinction (as the Reformers did before me) between the Spirit's revelatory work and his illuminating work.

In his work, Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental, Chapter 14, Augustine made this point.

Augustine (354-430) in response to Manichaeus:
You can find nothing better than to praise your own faith and ridicule mine. So, after having in my turn praised my belief and ridiculed yours, what result do you think we shall arrive at as regards our judgment and our conduct, but to part company with those who promise the knowledge of indubitable things, and then demand from us faith in doubtful things? while we shall follow those who invite us to begin with believing what we cannot yet fully perceive, that, strengthened by this very faith, we may come into a position to know what we believe by the inward illumination and confirmation of our minds, due no longer to men, but to God Himself.
Latin text:Nihil aliud elegisti, nisi laudare quod credis, et irridere quod credo. Cum igitur etiam ego vicissim laudavero quod credo, et quod credis irrisero; quid putas nobis esse judicandum, quidve faciendum, nisi ut eos relinquamus, qui nos invitant certa cognoscere, et postea imperant ut incerta credamus; et eos sequamur, qui nos invitant prius credere, quod nondum valemus intueri, ut ipsa fide valentiores facti, quod credimus intelligere mereamur, non jam hominibus, sed ipso Deo intrinsecus mentem nostram illuminante atque firmante?

Citation: Augustine, Contra Epistolam Manichaei Quam vocant Fundamenti, Liber Unus, Caput XIV, PL 42:183; translation in NPNF1: Vol. IV, Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental, Chapter 14.

We acknowledge with Augustine that the Church is most often the initial and outward means by which men are called to faith in Christ, but God brings us to the place (as Augustine put it) "to know what we believe by the inward illumination and confirmation of our minds, due no longer to men, but to God Himself."

Scripture itself furnishes us with clear illustration of this in the fourth chapter of John’s gospel. After having dealings with Christ, the woman of Samaria returns to her city, and there bears witness to Christ.

John 4:39-42
And many of the Samaritans of that city believed in Him because of the word of the woman who testified, “He told me all that I ever did.”
So when the Samaritans had come to Him, they urged Him to stay with them; and He stayed there two days. And many more believed because of His own word.
Then they said to the woman, “Now we believe, not because of what you said, for we ourselves have heard Him and we know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world.”

The point this passage illustrates is this - that though it was the woman’s witness which initially induced belief in Christ, nonetheless, the confirmation of their faith came to rest in the testimony of Christ’s own word. While the woman’s witness was true and sufficiently credible to move the inhabitants of the city, it does not follow that she became the infallible bulwark of their subsequent faith. The inhabitants of the city came to rest not in her word, but Christ’s own word.

Likewise, though the Church (or the witness of an individual Christian) is often the initial and outward means by which men are called to faith in Christ, it does not follow that this renders the church or the individual Christian with the attribute of infallibility.

God's own word is a spiritual reality which is sufficient to create faith in itself. No church or human being is able to accomplish that supernatural work.

The Apostle John wrote, “If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; for this is the witness of God which He has testified of His Son” (1 Jn. 5:9).

Needing no support, the witness of God stands by itself. God’s own testimony is decisive and inexpugnable. If Holy Scripture is in reality the God-breathed word, then it must be self-authenticating, and in need of no human sanction. It is nothing less than a compromise of the integrity of God’s own witness to presuppose Scripture to be anything other than the living oracles of the Creator and Redeemer of mankind. To hold in suspension, as it were, the question of God’s speaking in Scripture until some external, authoritative criterion outside of God himself is applied as the deliberative, decisive court of appeal is a de facto assault on the truth that “the witness of God is greater.”

Chrysostom (349-407): Besides, what benefit would there be in a homily when prayer has not been joined to it? Prayer stands in the first place; then comes the word of instruction. And that is what the apostles said: "Let us devote ourselves to prayer and the ministry of the word." Paul does this when he prays at the beginning of his epistles so that, like the light of a lamp, the light of prayer may prepare the way for the word. If you accustom yourselves to pray fervently, you will not need instruction from your fellow servants because God himself, with no intermediary, enlightens you mind.
Citation: John Chrysostom, FC, Vol. 72, On the Incomprehensible Nature of God, Homily 3.35, (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1984), pp. 111.

We have strong precedent in the some works of the Early Church Fathers (ECFs) that indicate there was also in their time a recognition of the fact that God's word is self-authenticating. Some examples of this precedent are shown below.

Nemesius of Emesa (around the end of the 4th century):
But for us the sufficient demonstration of the soul’s immortality is the teaching of Holy Scripture, which is self-authenticating because inspired of God.
Greek text:
ἡμῖν δὲ ἀρκεῖ, πρὸς ἀπόδειξιν τῆς ἀθανασίας αὐτῆς, ἡ τῶν θεῖων λογῖων διδασκαλία, τὸ πιστὸν ἀθ’ ἐαυτῆς ἔχουσα, διὰ τὸ θεόπνευστος εἶναι•
Citation: Nemesius of Emesa, De Natura Hominis, Caput II.18, Migne PG 40:589; translation in William Telfer, ed., The Library of Christian Classics, Vol. IV, Cyril of Jerusalem and Nemesius of Emesa: On the Nature of Man, Chapter 2 Of the Soul (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1955), p. 292. (It is believed that Nemesius of Emesa wrote this work sometime between A.D. 392-400.)

Salvian the Presbyter (5th century):
I need not prove by arguments what God Himself proves by His own words. When we read that God says He perpetually sees the entire earth, we prove thereby that He does see it because He Himself says He sees it. When we read that He rules all things He has created, we prove thereby that He rules, since He testifies that He rules. When we read that He ordains all things by His immediate judgment, it becomes evident by this very fact, since He confirms that He passes judgment. All other statements, said by men, require proofs and witnesses. God’s word is His own witness, because whatever uncorrupted Truth says must be the undefiled testimony to truth.
Latin text:
Neque enim necesse est ut argumentis a me probetur quod hoc ipso quia a Deo dicitur comprobatur. Itaque cum legimus dictum a Deo quia aspiciat jugiter omnem terram, hoc ipso probamus quod aspicit quia aspicere se dicit; cum legimus quod regat cuncta quae fecit, hoc ipso approbamus quod regit, quia se regere testatur; cum legimus quod praesenti judicio universa dispenset, hoc ipso est evidens quod judicat quia se judicare confirmat. Alia enim omnia, id est, humana dicta, argumentis ac testibus egent. Dei autem sermo ipse sibi testis est, quia necesse est quidquid incorrupta veritas loquitur, incorruptum sit testimonium veritatis.
Citation: Salvian the Presbyter, Sancti Salviani Massiliensis Presbyteri De Gubernatione Dei, Liber Tertius, I, PL 53:1567; translation in FC, Vol. 3, The Writings of Salvian, The Presbyter, The Governance of God, Book 3.1 (New York: CIMA Publishing Co., Inc., 1947), pp. 68-69.

Epiphanius of Salamis (310/320-403):
But the truth is always steadfast and needs no assistance. It is self-authenticating, and always established in the sight of the true God.
Greek text:
τῆς ἀληθείας ἀεὶ ἑδραίας οὔσης καὶ μὴ χρείαν ἐχούσης βοηθείας, ἀλλὰ αὐτοσυστάτου οὔσης καὶ παρὰ θεῷ τῷ ὄντως ὄντι ἀεὶ συνιστωμένης.
Citation: Epiphanius of Salamis, Adversus Haereses, Liber I, Tom. III, XLIV, §1, PG 41:821; translation by Frank Williams, trans., The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Book I (Sects 1-46) 44. Against Apelleans, 1,3 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), p. 340.

Epiphanius (310/320-403):
The truth is self-authenticating and cannot be overthrown even if wickedness shamelessly opposes the precept of truth.
Greek text:
αὐτοσυστάτης οὔσης τῆς ἀληθείας, καὶ μὴ δυναμένης καθαιρεῖσθαι, κἄν τε ἀντιπράττοι ἡ ἀνομία ἀναισχυντίᾳ φερομένη τῷ τῆς ἀληθείας θεσμῷ,
Citation: Epiphanius of Salamis, Adversus Haereses, Liber II, Tom. II, LXVI, §10, PG 42:44; translated by Frank Williams, trans., The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Books II and III (Sects 47-80, De Fide), 66. Against Manichaeans, 10,4 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), p. 230.

Clement of Alexandria (150 - c. 215):
It will naturally fall after these, after a cursory view of theology, to discuss the opinions handed down respecting prophecy; so that, having demonstrated that the Scriptures which we believe are valid from their omnipotent authority, we shall be able to go over them consecutively, and to show thence to all the heresies one God and Omnipotent Lord to be truly preached by the law and the prophets, and besides by the blessed Gospel.
Greek text:
Οἷς ἑπόμενον ἂν εἴη μετὰ τὴν ἐπιδρομὴν τῆς θεολογίας τὰ περὶ προφητείας παραδεδομένα διαλαβεῖν, ὡς καὶ τὰς γραφὰς αἷς πεπιστεύκαμεν κυρίας οὔσας ἐξ αὐθεντείας παντοκρατορικῆς ἐπιδείξαντας προϊέναι διʼ αὐτῶν εἱρμῷ δύνασθαι, καὶ ἁπάσαις ἐντεῦθεν ταῖς αἱρέσεσιν ἕνα δεικνύναι Θεὸν, καὶ Κύριον παντοκράτορα τὸν διὰ νόμου καὶ προφητῶν, πρὸς δὲ καὶ τοῦ μακαρίου εὐαγγελίου γνησίως κεκηρυγμένον.
Citation: Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Liber IV, Caput 1, PG 8:1216; translation in ANF: Vol. II, The Stromata, Book IV, Chapter 1.

Lactantius (260-330):
For it was not befitting that, when God was speaking to man, He should confirm His words by arguments, as though He would not otherwise be regarded with confidence: but, as it was right, He spoke as the mighty Judge of all things, to whom it belongs not to argue, but to pronounce sentence.
Latin text:
Nес enim decebat ut cum deus ad hominem loqueretur, argumentis adsereret suas voces, tamquam aliter fides ei non haberetur, sed ut oportuit locutus est tamquam rerum omnium maximus iudex, cuius est non argumentari, sed pronuntiare.
Citation: Lactantius, L. Caeli Firmiani Lactanti Opera omnia, Volume 19 (in Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Samuel Brandt Editor)(F. Tempsky, 1890), p. 197, lines 4-8; translation in ANF: Vol. VII, The Divine Institutes, Book III, Chapter I. See also FC, Vol. 49, The Divine Institutes, Book III, Chapter 1 (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University Press, 1963), pp. 165-166. Alternative translation:
... when God was addressing man, addition of arguments to his words, as if he would not otherwise be believed, was not appropriate; he spoke as the supreme judge of all creation ought to speak, his business being not discussion but declaration.
Citation: Lactantius: Divine institutes, Volume 40 of Translated Texts for Historians, Bowen et al. ed. (Liverpool University Press, 2003), p. 169 at 11

These ECFs, to name a few, are examples in the ancient church who (like us) believed Scripture to be self-authenticating.

Urban Pastor: Evangelicals in the Church of England & Fanatics

The Urban Pastor, a Church of England cleric, brings a few notes about the situation in the Church of England.  We do endorse the idea that old Prayer Book Churchmanship puts a clamp on enthusiasts, fanatics and wild-eyed revivalists so common to the United States.  See:  http://theurbanpastor.wordpress.com/2012/03/08/economical-with-the-truth/.  Here's Urban Pastor:


"Interesting article from the Economist here. It’s about the alleged rise of evangelicalism in the Church of England. It doesn’t really analyse the increased marginalization of class or ‘conservative’ evangelicals, but you wouldn’t expect them to be aware of the complexity of the situation in the Church of England. I’m not sure I am! Or anyone is. But evangelicalism has increasingly come to be understood as an umbrella term covering over all manner of, let’s say, positions.

"If what Peter Brierley and his statisticians say is right, then the future of Anglicanism in this country is of declining numbers of Anglicans but an increased proportion of both clergy and laity who would describe themselves as evangelical. Whether that leads to increased influence in the denomination, brought about by sheer weight of numbers or perhaps by financial clout, remains to be seen. I’m not holding my breath. The trajectory of the Church of England is unmistakably clear. It would take a complete change of direction if evangelicalism was to be regarded as mainstream. God can do it, if He wants. And so there’s hope. But humanly speaking, the writing’s been on the wall for a while now. We press on (at the margins) in CCB. But others are more involved and will stay until they’re ejected. They wouldn’t be the first good guys to be excluded from the established church.
But despite that, you’ve got to love an article that begins with the following paragraph; not so much for the accuracy of the observation but the beauty of expression!
EVER since the 18th century, England’s established church has harboured a suspicion of religious enthusiasm. Anglicanism’s cosy ubiquity as a reassuring, if vestigial, presence in every English suburb and village is regarded as a defence against the sort of fanaticism that leads to social or ethnic conflict. But every so often in English church history, compromise and emollience have triggered a countervailing reaction: an upsurge in faith of a more passionate kind. Such a change may be under way now."
 For Urban Pastor's less cheerful conclusion, see the rest at:
http://theurbanpastor.wordpress.com/2012/03/08/economical-with-the-truth/

Cranmer's Curate: Bp. of London Must Over-rule Dean of St. Paul's, London

BISHOP OF LONDON MUST OVER-RULE DEAN OF ST PAUL'S
The Bishop of London, Dr Richard Chartres, has a canonical responsibility to rule that the declared intention of the new Dean of St Paul's to conduct services of same-sex blessing runs contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England.

In a national press interview this week, Dr David Ison also declared that he conducted services of prayer and affirmation for couples in civil partnerships whilst he was Dean of Bradford.

The definitive liturgical expression of the doctrine of the Church of England, the Book of Common Prayer, is clear that sexual love is to be reserved exclusively for the God-created institution of heterosexual marriage, as blessed by the Lord Jesus Christ.

For more from Cranmer's Curate, see: 
http://cranmercurate.blogspot.com/2012/03/bishop-of-london-must-over-rule-dean-of.html

Thank God for the codified, registered and legal benchmark--that old, godly Prayer Book--"in writing"--that serves to illustrate the apostasy, heterodoxy, sin, wickedness and disorderliness of some modern clerics, e.g. Dr. Ison.

Church Campanologist: Review of Driscoll's "Real Marriage"

Church Campanologist offers a compelling review of Mark Driscoll's latest book, Real Marriage.  See http://churchmousec.wordpress.com/2012/03/07/mark-driscolls-real-marriage-wheres-the-sanctity/  Here's CC's post.

This post is for adults only.

Mark Driscoll‘s latest book, Real Marriage, is a frank exploration of human sexuality.

Written from a complementarian — male headship over women and children — perspective, it won’t please Christians who find this type of thinking unbiblical. It also won’t please those who are concerned about women being exploited in marriage.

Driscoll’s church members and admirers around the world will no doubt find it of value. What follows are a few excerpts of reviews from conservative and mainline pastors alike.

- Denny Burk, an Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at Boyce College, the undergraduate arm of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY, gives a good summary of the book’s contents and purpose. He points out that the Driscolls’ account of their own marriage is written from a Christian perspective. Chapter 10 of the book concerns sodomy, which Driscoll considers acceptable in the context of the sanctity of marriage. Please note that the book discusses Mrs Driscoll’s unfortunate sexual experiences earlier in life. Burk notes (emphases in bold are mine):

The bulk of the chapter gives an ethical assessment of a variety of sexual activities. The Driscolls invoke 1 Corinthians 6:12 as the basis for the evaluation, “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything.” From this text, the Driscolls propose a “taxonomy” of questions to assess the different activities: (1) Is it lawful? (2) Is it helpful? (3) Is it enslaving? If one judges a given behavior to be biblically lawful, relationally helpful, and non-addictive, then it is permissible for Christians to participate in that activity. Among the activities that the authors deem permissible within this taxonomy are masturbation, fel[l]atio/cunnilingus, sodomy (on both spouses), menstrual sex, role-playing, sex toys, birth control, cosmetic surgery, cybersex, and sexual medication. The Driscolls are careful to stipulate that these are activities spouses may participate in by mutual agreement, but not that they must participate in (p. 180). No spouse should be manipulated into doing anything that violates his or her conscience (p. 178). The only item in the list deemed impermissible in every circumstance is sexual assault.

Carl Trueman's new book: "Fools Rush In Where Monkeys Fear to Tread"

Todd Pruitt at 1517 gives an important notice of a book that may warrant a purchase.  Todd offers an excerpt from Carl Trueman's new book, "Fools Rush In where Monkeys Fear to Tread."  We are again reminded of non-liturgical worship with its unfortunate emphases.  Todd posts at http://toddpruitt.blogspot.com/2012/03/why-you-should-read-carl-trueman.html.  H/T to Todd on this provocation to purchase a modern book--a rare event at RA. 
-------------------- 

Why You Should Read Carl Trueman...
On losing the sense of God's holiness in the church:
When prayers become the equivalent of "Yo, how you doin'?!" then something has gone awry. Public prayers should lead people into the presence of God, and that should be a humbling, if not crushing experience. When was the last time a pulpit prayer left you in awe of the God who humbles himself so that you might worship him? What about sermons? How many of us sit in judgment on the sermon, grading it for quality, length, clarity, interest, as the minister brings to us the Word of God? If we have any grasp of God's holiness, and any inkling of the importance of the prophetic task of preaching, we won't be giving the minister a grade; rather, we will be sitting and listening to what he has to say, acutely conscious of our own unworthiness to hear God as he speaks to us. Then, when the songs we sing can be summarized by the phrase, "Jesus is my best boyfriend," we can be sure that something is seriously out of joint. The words we sing to God should reflect the gravity of the words of God first speaks to us. Then, when the church itself becomes a take-it-or-leave-it venture that we can turn up for a time that suits us, perhaps even sipping lattes from Starbucks as we take our seats, something is seriously missing. What is it? Well, the answer isn't rocket science: a sense of the deep holiness of God. The casual nature of the postmodern world, where all hierarchies are oppressive and the consumer is king, cannot even begin to understand the void that lies at the heart of such slapdash Christianity. Your doctrine can be as correct and confessional as possible; but if it is all just so much of a game, then it is no theology at all.

That passage is from Dr. Trueman's newest collection of essays entitled Fools Rush In Where Monkeys Fear To Tread (pp. 65-66). If you are familiar with Trueman's writing then the subtitle will make perfect sense: "Taking Aim At Everyone." One of the reasons I like reading Carl's essays is because he refuses to bow to the ever-changing standards of sentimental niceness. If you wear your feelings on your fingertips tread cautiously. But read none-the-less.


Trueman is a professor of church history and historical theology. But he is also a keen observer of the culture. So whether he is recalling a chance meeting with Joe Frazier, extolling the virtues of Mott The Hoople (don't ask), or skewering the latest banalities of contemporary evangelicalism you can count on plenty of theological reflection. He makes it look easy, but it ain't. So don't try this at home kids. Just pick up Fools Rush In Where Monkeys Fear To Tread and enjoy.

Incidentally, I rather like the cover illustration on this new book. But, and I will take this up with Carl personally, the illustrator gave him entirely too much hair.


You can check out some of Dr. Trueman's other titles HERE.

Dr. Trueman blogs regularly at Ref21.

Thursday, March 1, 2012

David Ould: Exodus and Archaeology


Exodus and Archaeology
Great lecture from James K. Hoffmeier, Professor of Old Testament and Near Eastern Archaeology at Trinity International University, Divinity School on the archaeological evidence that supports the Bible’s account of the Exodus.

Daniel's Place: Dr. Richard Muller's talks at WSC

"Daniel's Place" in reporting on lectures at WTS-CA.  A few observations.  (1)  Dr. Muller is a premier and respected writer on Reformation and Post-Reformation writers in the Reformed tradition.  (2)  The architecture, assuming this is the Chapel, surely, regrettably and severely lacks the Anglican approach.  Nevertheless, for the sake of the theology and lectures, an important post at:  http://puritanreformed.blogspot.com/2012/02/dr-richard-mullers-talks-at-wsc.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+puritanreformed+%28Daniel%27s+Place+-+%28Reformata+et+semper+reformanda%29%29

Dr. Richard Muller's talks at WSC






The last two days (Feb 28th and 29th 2012) saw Dr. Richard Muller gave lectures at Westminster Seminary California (WSC), which I was privileged to attend. The talks can now be heard in the resource center here:

  1. Was Calvin a Calvinist?
  2. Calvin and Beza on Practical Syllogism (Calvin on Assurance)

EVANSCHULTZICAL.

EVANSCHULTZICAL



EVANSCHULTZICAL [ee-van-shultz’-i-kuhl,

[evangelical: 1525–35; < Late Latin evangelicus (< Late Greek euangelikós; see evangel1 , -ic) + -al1] [Schultz, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hogan%27s_Heroes: Oberfeldwebel (Master Sergeant) Hans Georg Schultz, serial number 23781 (John Banner) is Klink's bumbling, highly unmilitary 300-pound Sergeant of the Guard. Schultz is a basically good-hearted man who, when confronted by evidence of the prisoners' covert activities, will simply look the other way, repeating "I hear nothing, I see nothing, I know nothing!" (or, more commonly as the series went on, simply "I see nothing–NOTHING!") to avoid being blamed for allowing things to have gotten as far as they already had—which might see him given a one-way trip to the Eastern Front. This eventually became a catchphrase of the series.]

For more, see: 
http://apprising.org/2012/02/29/evanschultzical/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+apprising%2F2+%28Apprising+Ministries%29

The applications apply to non-doctrinally oriented Leaders, e.g. Church-growthers, Seeker-sensitve types, and others.  It surely applies to Paul Crouch, Sr., at TBN.  Also, to non-Confessional and non-liturgical Leaders.  "I hear nothing, I see nothing, I know nothing!" exclaims EVANSCHULTZICAL.