[Hypothetical Universalism] betrays not just a few but several core features of Reformed soteriology, and cannot make good on its own claim upon the efficacy of Christ’s death for the elect. But why should that be surprising given the intricate nature and interdependence of Reformed Christian doctrines?

An entailment of the Reformed doctrine of limited atonement is p:
If Christ died for S, then S will be saved.
Therefore, if p is true, S’ salvation is guaranteed by Christ’s death on behalf of S. Which is to say, it is impossible that Christ’s death for S does not result in S’ salvation given p.
Davenant Hypothetical Universalism (HU) rejects p by affirming that (a) Christ died for all and (b) not all will be saved.
The force of the argument is, He who willed and ordained that Christ the Mediator should sustain the wrath of God due to the sins not of certain persons, but of the whole human race, He willed that this passion of Christ should be a remedy applicable to the human race, that is, to each and every man, and not only to certain individual persons; supreme power being nevertheless left to himself, and full liberty of dispensing and applying this infinite merit according to the secret good pleasure of his will.Death of Christ
Furthermore, HU alleges that it is truly possible that a non-elect adult freely (and savingly) believes:
The death of Christ is applicable to any man living, because the condition of faith and repentance is possible to any living person, the secret decree of predestination or preterition in no wise hindering or confining this power either on the part of God, or on the part of men. They act, therefore, with little consideration who endeavour, by the decrees of secret election and preterition, to overthrow the universality of the death of Christ, which pertains to any persons whatsoever according to the tenor of the evangelical covenant.Davenant, Loc. Cit.
If the only freedom that can account for moral responsibility and do justice to the Reformed doctrine of total depravity is compatibilist freedom, then it is not possible for a non-elect person to believe freely and responsibly unless it is also possible for God to incline a person’s will to Christ after he has determined not to do so. Consequently, unless God can deny himself by acting contrary to his decree, HU consigns itself to incompatibilist freedom, which entails an implicit denial of the need for effectual grace to cause one to believe freely.*
Philosophically speaking, incompatibilism, which is not a Reformed position, does allow for the possibility of a non-elect person to believe by exercising libertarian free will. Consequently, HU implies libertarian freedom given HU’s axiom that “the condition of faith and repentance is possible to any living person.”
An Ironic Twist:
Only incompatibilism makes room for the possibility of saving faith for the non-elect. Or as Davenant would have it, the decree of predestination “is in no wise hindering or confining this power either on the part of God, or on the part of men.”
What must be grasped is that libertarian freedom cuts two ways. If it is truly possible that a non-elect living person freely believes the gospel, then it is equally possible that an elect adult will forever freely reject the gospel. (In which case, saving faith is uncaused and according to resistible grace.) Consequently, HU cannot consistently maintain that Christ’s death is effectual for the elect given the possibility of an elect person not believing according to libertarian freedom. In other words, the libertarian freedom that is required for the possibility of the non-elect to believe and be saved ends up undermining the need for effectual grace upon the free will of anyone who would believe. Therefore, by establishing the possibility of a non-elect person believing, Christ’s death cannot be effectual for the elect when there is nothing left to causally guarantee the requisite faith that’s needed to appropriate the benefits of Christ’s death. Or, more generally stated, (a) the metaphysical assumptions entailed by the possibility of any living person freely believing undermines (b) the causal guarantee that any living person will certainly believe.
If we try to introduce the necessary condition of irresistible grace for any living person to believe, then the possibility of any non-elect living person freely believing is confounded along with HU! That’s because the non-elect, after having been passed over in the eternal decree, cannot possibly be the recipients of irresistible grace, which in Reformed theology is a particular bestowal upon the elect that is, also, necessary for the efficacy of the cross.
Read More
Related Posts:

If the intention of the American revision was to commend a biblical principle of pluralism, then it seems odd that non-pluralistic (theonomic) principles within the American standards were not reworked along with WCF 23.3.

Kevin DeYoung recently wrote that in 1788, American Presbyterians revised chapter 23 of the original Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) because many “grew wary of granting coercive powers to the civil magistrate and were drawn to more robust notions of religious liberty”. DeYoung reasons that by virtue of the revision, “Presbyterians in America rejected an older, European model of church-state relations whereby the magistrate was obligated to suppress heresies, reform the church, and provide for church establishments.” DeYoung goes on to say that “it’s important to recognize that the two versions of WCF 23:3 represent two different and irreconcilable views of the civil magistrate.”
DeYoung cites other changes to the American standards outside chapter 23 and observes that “[the] most significant change is in chapter 23, where the third article was almost completely rewritten, reflecting a new understanding of church and state that allowed for more toleration and gave much less power to the magistrate over the realm of religion.”
First, a clarification is in order, which is not a criticism per se. Given the religious nature of the Westminster standards and sound Presbyterian polity, the church’s subordinate standards neither grant nor deny coercive powers to the civil magistrate. Nor is it true that they “gave much less power to the magistrate over the realm of religion.”
By the nature of the case, confessions are not in a position to do either, though they may acknowledge civil power and declare that it comes from God.
Not to belabor the point but the purpose of the Confession is to put forth the system of doctrine taught in Scripture, which includes general principles pertaining to the duty and power of the civil magistrate. Consequently, whether the civil magistrate has certain dutiful powers over the church or not, such power is not transferred or taken back by the will of the church. The church may only declare the biblical boundaries of such power. If she tries to grant (or give) it because it is not hers, then it is not hers to give. (In other words, it would have already belonged to the civil magistrate and couldn’t be granted to it by the church.) Yet if the church tries to take it back because it is rightfully hers by divine appointment, then it never truly left her. (The church would merely need to recognize her power and act according to it.)
Consequently, we must be careful in saying that our Presbyterian forefathers “gave much less power to the magistrate over the realm of religion” and “grew wary of granting coercive powers to the civil magistrate and were drawn to more robust notions of religious liberty.” If “granting” and “gave” means allowing, permitting, bestowing etc., then hopefully they didn’t think they granted or gave coercive powers to the civil magistrate. If what was intended by “granting” and “gave” is that they got tired of acknowledging the civil magistrate’s coercive powers, then fine. (Again, this is merely intended to be point of clarification given the common confusion over the ministerial and declarative functions of the church.)
With that clarification aside, my focus as it relates to the article will be on the WCF’s revision that pertains to church and state, with particular attention given to the claim that the two versions (England’s and America’s) are irreconcilable on the matter of religious pluralism. That specific concern will be considered in the larger context of Westminster’s civil ethics. (For brevity sake, I won’t spend time on points of agreement or possible agreement as they relate to the principles of civil ethics.)
The American Revision:
The American revision confesses that Protestant denominations should be protected from being prevented to assemble and worship without violence or danger. The standards further state: “It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people… and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.”
Some have tried to maintain that “all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies” refers back to the duty of civil magistrates to protect only Christian denominations and, therefore, may not be applied to non-evangelical assemblies whether trinitarian or not. For instance, some have argued that the revision does not suggest in any context that public synagogue worship as well as the sacrilege of the Romish mass is to be protected under the law. It seems to me that such a reading of the revision is not only strained but would render the American emendation awkwardly superfluous. If so, then the Confession is stating now, by its revision, that false worship is to be protected under the law. Notwithstanding, if that contradicts the original standards, then it necessarily contradicts WCF 19.4 along with Westminster Larger Catechism 108 (WLC 108).
Before delving into the reason why the revision does not contradict the original with respect to religious pluralism, it might be helpful to consider those two portions of the standards (WCF 19.4 and WLC 108) in order to see how they complement both the original and the revision.
The duties required in the Second Commandment are…the disapproving, detesting, opposing, all false worship; and, according to each one’s place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry.WLC 108
Surprising to most, elders and deacons who subscribe to the Westminsters standards vow to disapprove of all false worship and seek its removal, even through the civil magistrate. Ordained servants also vow, according to WCF 29.4, to consider the mass a corruption of the Lord’s Supper. Consequently, faithful elders and deacons desire to see the centerpiece of Roman Catholic experience lawfully removed from the land. Consequently, faithful ordained servants are in this sense theonomic and do not advocate for a principle of religious pluralism. Accordingly, I find this troubling:
Gone from WCF 23:3 in the American revision are any references to the civil magistrate’s role in suppressing heresies and blasphemies, in reforming the church, in maintaining a church establishment, and in calling and providing for synods…. In its place, the American revision lists four basic functions for the civil magistrate relative to the church…(4) protect all people so no one is injured or maligned based on his or her religion or lack of religion.Kevin DeYoung
Given WLC 108 (along with WCF 19.4, which will be touched on momentarily), Christian citizens should do all within their influence to ensure that all heresies, blasphemies and false religions are suppressed. Consequently, if DeYoung is correct regarding the American standards, then not only does it contradict the original, it also contradicts itself!
Because of what WLC 108 clearly states, consistent antinomians who have taken up a similar position to DeYoung‘s have been constrained to limit the scope of WLC 108 to families and the Christian church in order to relieve any possible inconsistency between the alleged pluralism of chapter 23 and the theonomic import of WLC 108, which without qualification declares opposition to all false worship. In other words, in order not to allow the revised standards to contradict itself, WLC 108 has been reinterpreted to mean that only heads of family and presbyters may purge false worship in the home and Christian church respectively, but civil magistrates may not do so as WLC 108 plainly teaches when it speaks of removing all false worship and monuments of idolatry.
Additionally, WCF 19.4 must be reinterpreted as to now oppose its originally intended meaning.
To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.WCF 19.4
Ordained servants who subscribe to the Westminster standards have vowed to believe and teach that civil magistrates are obliged to apply Israel’s civil laws according to their general equity.
In order to reconcile WCF 19.4 with the alleged advocacy of the principle of pluralism found in WCF 23.3, the general equity of Israel’s civil sanctions can no longer apply to modern day civil sanctions. Instead, as Rick Phillips, representative of many ordained servants in the Reformed tradition, has unabashedly stated:
While there is an undisputed wisdom contained in this civil law it can not be made applicable to any nation today, since there are no biblically sanctioned theocracies now…They are transformed into the judicious application of church discipline.Rick Phillips
Such a rendering cannot be derived from the standards. The claim is exegetically preposterous and has suffered from philosophically dubious argumentation. The translation defies the plain meaning of words and the proof-texts, while cashing out as an outright abrogation of the civil law as opposed to preserving its general equity in the civil sphere. (See also discussion on William Perkins’ use of general equity, the epistemological conundrum and logical incoherence of R2K, and an overview of the disagreement.)
If the intention of the American revision was to commend a biblical principle of pluralism, then it seems odd that non-pluralistic (theonomic) principles within the American standards were not reworked along with WCF 23.3. It seems highly unlikely that the unambiguous requirement of the second commandment should no longer be applied to the civil sphere without a word of explanation by American Presbyterians. Moreover, if American Presbyterians sought to teach that the plain teaching of WCF 19.4 no longer applies to the civil magistrate but instead applies to the church, then it seems axiomatic that such a bald claim must be deduced from the standards and not just assumed and asserted. (Special Pleading: If x then y, but not when it hurts my position.) However, if revision 23.3 does not contradict the original, then we can continue to take WLC 108 and WCF 19.4 at face value without contradiction. That is the common sense approach, especially if it can be shown that the American revision does not oppose the original Confession on the subject of religious pluralism. However, if the revision denies the original, then the revision is inconsistent with other portions of the Westminster standards (given the plain and unaltered portions of WCF 19.4 and WLC 108).
Read More
Related Posts:

The impossibility of God being wrong is attributable to his infallible middle knowledge of what one would freely choose as opposed to could freely choose. Consequently, there is no surface mismatch of God’s beliefs about possible indeterminately free choices that could occur, if certain possibilities are infeasibilities that would not occur. Of course, from a Reformed perspective that’s a big if, and must be addressed in a precise philosophical manner that comports with an orthodox doctrine of God and the nature of undetermined yet eternally true-counterfactuals of creaturely freedom.

This is a sentiment I’ve seen put forth from skilled compatibilists:
While Molinists say agents can do otherwise in the same circumstances, no Molinist would say that it’s possible for an agent to act contrary to God’s actual foreknowledge.
Even if that were true, as the title of this latest entry suggests that I think Molinism as a philosophical system entails that it is indeed possible for an agent to act contrary to God’s actual foreknowledge. Whether any Molinist actually thinks that is not my concern, if, in fact, they should think that if they’re to be true to the philosophical implications of Molinism. However, what’s interesting is that the Molinist loses no ground on that concession with respect to God’s infallible foreknowledge, if he also maintains that: although it is possible for an agent to act contrary to God’s actual foreknowledge, an agent never would act contrary to God’s actual foreknowledge and God knows that! So, the question is, does Molinism entail that (a) it is possible for free agents to act contrary to God’s foreknowledge and (b) it is impossible that God could have a false believe about the future? I believe Molinism entails both a and b.
William Lane Craig at least affirms a, per 24 minute mark, which would seem to undermine the initial claim made by some skilled compatibilists:
Helm: “Why can’t they [i.e., human libertarian-free agents], as it were, go off in the other direction [i.e., than the direction God decreed]?”
Brierley [echoing Helm’s question]: “Why couldn’t they go off-script?”
Craig: “Well, they could! That’s the whole idea!”
However, my concern, as already stated, isn’t whether any Molinist affirms a and b but whether Molinism entails both a and b. (My suspicion is Craig also affirms b, given that his views seem indistinguishable from the position he champions.)
Points to consider: 

Theological determinists believe that it is possible under identical circumstances that I not to write this post. That’s because it is not a necessary truth or impossible that I would or would not write this post, which implies what I would do is a contingent truth (neither necessary nor impossible).

Once we introduce divine foreknowledge into the mix, it is no longer possible from a Reformed perspective for me to have done otherwise. That’s because from a theological determinist perspective, foreknowledge presupposes a determined free choice. More pointedly, once we move to the actual decreed world, we are no longer talking about mere abstract possibilities of what could occur (within God’s power) but rather which possibilities God has actually determined will occur. In other words, from a Reformed perspective God’s foreknowledge of contingent CCFs presupposes them being causally ensured by a decree that entails their determined truth values. But that’s not how Molinists see things, of course.
Read More
Related Posts:

That which keeps the believer in the grace of God includes the intercession of Christ and the believer drawing near to God through the one Mediator, Christ Jesus. So, although believers could fall away apart from the means of divine intercession, believers won’t fall away due to God’s gracious decree that secures the conditional-means of perseverance. 

Like a robust Christian worldview, a Reformed system of doctrine should be consistent, coherent and explanatory. What this means is: (a) the components of a sound theology may have mystery but not contradiction; (b) although theological constituent parts should be assessed discretely, they must be evaluated in light of the whole so that each ingredient does not undermine other elements of the one system they comprise; (c) such a unit of theology should provide a grid through which other texts of Scripture can be interpreted, reconciled, and practically applied. If there is paradox, it is in this. The Scriptures, from which our theology is derived, are to be interpreted through a theology we derive from the very same. That is to say, we inch our way to a reliable theological system while applying it as we go, even as we refine and improve upon it. Lastly, the Reformed tradition has uniquely produced reliable interpretative grids in her confessions and catechisms, if not also in the Systematic Theologies that complement them. In God’s kind providence, we needn’t re-invent the wheel!
A robust theology will include an ecclesiology and a soteriology (and much more). Whereas a Reformed doctrine of the church includes a visible-invisible distinction, a Reformed doctrine of salvation affirms a doctrine of perseverance of the saints. Muddled thinking about the former will result in grave misunderstanding of the latter. Apropos, Federal Vision (FV) theology typifies such confusion and equivocation with its lack of (a) covenant consistency, (b) intra-doctrinal coherence and (c) useful elucidation. Yet sadly, when it comes to theological antidotes to FV, the cures can be less than satisfying.
Because FV has been thoroughly debunked by the church (see PCA report), my interests lie elsewhere. Yet in order to grasp the inadequate responses to FV with respect to how warning passages comport with (even complement) the Reformed doctrine of perseverance, it would be helpful to grasp that the authors of Scripture were constrained to treat those within the visible church as if they were all united to Christ, (while appreciating some do not share in the salvific benefits of the Savior). Accordingly, the hermeneutical principle being advocated is the letters are principally intended for believers because they are written to believers. This common sense view avoids exegetical gymnastics by allowing the letters to be directed to their stated audience called: saints, beloved, chosen, predestined, household of God, etc.
Things begin to fall into place once we recognize that the letters are written to those in the church who are actually in Christ, and that false professions within the church’s pale cannot change that overarching principle. Given the reality of false professions in the church, the message to the saints was not diluted. It is crucial to grasp from the outset that the authors of Scripture were not responsible to accommodate unregenerate hypocrites in the church according to their unbelief but instead the authors treated them according to their ecclesiastical standing in the visible assembly. In other words, any member of the visible church is to be treated according to his or her baptism (then, when of age, profession), and not according to the indiscernible state of their soul. If unbelievers choose to deceive themselves and others about their Christianity, that’s on them. It cannot change Scripture’s intended target audience!
Mr. Postman, look and see…if there’s a letter in your bag for me:
The visible church is where the body of true believers assemble. Consequently, believers share the same physical mailing address as unbelievers in the church. Yet if Scripture’s principal audience are believers for whom Christ died, then from a Reformed perspective all members of the visible church cannot but be outwardly regarded as irreversibly redeemed and heaven-bound. This approach alleviates private judgments while making the indicatives and promises of Scripture acutely relevant to true believers. However, when apostasy occurs, the Scriptures do not teach that salvation is lost, or that the promise of salvation has somehow failed. Instead, when apostasy occurs another apostolic teaching takes precedence. When apostasy occurs, existential union with Christ is not severed but rather, latent unbelief finally comes to light.

They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.  (1 John 2:19)

The theological paradigm of treating all members within the church as irrevocably heaven-bound is readily established not only by the labels for church members such as “chosen” and “predestined” but, also, by the apostolic message of the surety of perseverance. The expressed confidence of the certainty of perseverance is to be communicated to all the church’s members without distinction, even upon the heels of the most severe warning passages in Scripture.

But, beloved, we are persuaded of better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak. (Hebrews 6:9)

But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls. (Hebrews 10:39)

The “beloved” whom the author was persuaded would not “shrink back” and be “destroyed” are none other than the “holy brothers” who were said elsewhere to have shared in the “heavenly calling”.

Therefore, holy brothers, you who share in a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession… (Hebrews 3:1)

In other words, the author of Hebrews addressed all struggling members as true believers (as opposed to potential unbelievers). We can be assured of this because the warnings of apostasy are accompanied with an expressed confidence of perseverance. But again, if and when apostasy was consummated, those deemed faithless would have been identified and declared according to what had always been the case, that they were never truly of us. (1 John 2:19) As we might expect, Scripture covers all the bases! Just because there are hypocrites in the church does not mean the apostolate would have shirked its responsibilities by diluting the message intended to warn true believers to make their calling and election sure. (2 Peter 1:10) Additionally, on the surety of God’s word we can know that although only true believers will overcome without fail, the promise of pardon and perseverance is to be outwardly extended and ministerially confirmed to all who are numbered in the church.

And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved. (Acts 2:47)

Why unbelievers are not in view:
In apostasy, at least one of two things occur. One either (a) overtly denies or will not affirm saving doctrine or else (b) the church member’s manner of life openly manifests the unbelieving heart that was once imperceptible. In contradistinction to apostasy, persevering faith entails staying the existing course and not turning back.
Read More
Related Posts:

Given the circumstances of no witness-accuser who possessed a desire for righteous judgment – the only one who could have put the woman to death and satisfied the intention of the law both in letter and spirit would have been God himself. Accordingly, one without sin may have thrown the first stone! By handling the difficult providence as he did, Jesus upheld the law pertaining to a proper accuser’s spirit, yet without compromising the law’s demand for justice.

To confuse absolution with civil justice is a menace to society and the church. Both must be maintained in their proper place, for the law is the backdrop for grace.* (Joshua 7:20,25; Galatians 2:1)
Antinomians and Roman Catholics can be quick to point to the woman caught in adultery (recorded for us in John 8) as “proof” that the general equity of Old Testament (OT) civil law for adultery (if not by extension the essential entailments of all OT civil laws) is no longer applicable today. In this context, my position is a modest one. If the equity of the laws’ demands have been abolished, we may not point to Jesus’ handling of the matter to prove the point. We must find abrogation elsewhere.**
Leviticus 20:10 and Deuteronomy 22:22 require that both guilty parties are to receive the same civil sanction for adultery. Although that is the requirement of the law, for some reason the mob was uninterested in following God’s prescription even on that essential point. Rather, the Jews substituted God’s law with their own standard by not bringing to Jesus the man who sinned. More than an unjust concealment of truth, John 8 explicitly states that the mob’s intention was to test Jesus in order to accuse him. Consequently, not only was the report false by the standard of the ninth commandant, it was malicious toward Jesus having not been accompanied by a sincere desire for justice. Therefore, had Jesus partaken of their misuse of the law, he would have violated God’s law:
You shall not bear a false report nor join your hand with a wicked man to be a malicious witness, nor follow the masses in doing evil nor pervert justice.
Exodus 23:1-2
In passing we might also observe that since the woman was caught in the act, it is probable that her habits were well known, making her an easy prey for entrapment. Such would only lend credence to the malicious intent of the scheme while also implicating the mob for not being lovingly concerned with the woman’s licentious behavior until such time that it could be used for evil rather than good. Yes, just penalties are intrinsically good but the design for good is eclipsed when not carried out by lawful and lowly servants.
Submission to God’s Providential Infliction of Unruly Government
Romans 13 teaches that we are not to take the law into our own hands but submit to God’s providentially ordained government, even when that government is pluralistic. This principle of lawful-order was to be followed during Jesus’ earthly ministry and the Jews knew it all too well: 
So Pilate said to them, ‘Take Him yourselves, and judge Him according to your law.’ The Jews said to him, ‘We are not permitted to put anyone to death’” 
John 18:31
Yet the Jews were not interested in obeying the precept of submitting to God ordained Roman rule when it did not suit them:
Is it lawful to pay a poll-tax to Caesar, or not? Shall we pay or shall we not pay?’ But He, knowing their hypocrisy, said to them, ‘Why are you testing Me? Bring Me a denarius to look at.’ They brought one. And He said to them, ‘Whose likeness and inscription is this?’ And they said to Him, ‘Caesar’s.’ And Jesus said to them, ‘Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.’ And they were amazed at Him.” 
Mark 12: 15-17
With respect to John 8, it was unlawful under those particular circumstances for the law of Moses to be implemented by the Jews; yet that would not seem to be the only impetus behind Jesus’ behavior not to call for immediate justice.
Applying Principles to the State of Affairs
The intention of the mob was the entrapment of Jesus and whether a life was callously taken in the process was of no consequence to these conspirators. Accordingly, had Jesus acquiesced to their plea by condemning the woman to death on their terms, he would have partaken in their scheming and wickedness according to Exodus 23:1-4.
Read More
Related Posts:

My confidence is not so much that most evangelicals will make the correct choice (though I believe they will), but that they will be fully persuaded over who they believe to be the correct choice. Again, when have we been offered two more polarizing candidates with glaringly antithetical agendas? And why have so little confidence in the ability of the brethren to develop individual and strong convictions by November?

Whether portraying spiritual closeness with Roman Catholic clergymen, or painting a picture of our need for a fresh polemic to refute them(!), Carl Trueman’s brush is often broad and his hues blurred.
Trueman’s latest masterpiece contrasts what he calls “Trumpite ‘evangelicalism’” with “Biden’s brand of ‘devout’ Catholicism.” He asks his readers to consider, “Which is more threatening” to the Christian? Trueman predicts “it will be a truly difficult {question} to answer with any great conviction when entering the voting booth.” I can’t but wonder, with whom does Trueman believe he shares his predictive undecidedness?
Assuming Trump and Biden are still on the ballot in seven months, I find no reason to doubt the voting convictions of my liberal and conservative friends, or that in November Christians will vote one way or another without much hesitation. After all, when have we been offered two more polarizing candidates with glaringly antithetical agendas?
A party whose leader confuses the biblical canon with the writings of Jefferson or a party that is legislating the very abolition of man and gloats about that in its election campaign?Trueman
Let’s run with that. Trueman is outraged by Trump promoting a Bible containing reprints of several of America’s documents, believing that Trump does not distinguish the canon from Thomas Jefferson’s writings. Whereas Biden “spits” on the sacred.
For what do we have? A candidate for the presidency who treats Christians as nothing more than promising marks for his hucksterism and an incumbent who spits on all they hold sacred.Trueman
By Trueman’s calculations, one party’s candidate is a huckster who hides behind a false religiosity, while another overtly desecrates all that Christians hold sacred. In passing we might note that an attack on the sacred is something that can be assessed objectively, whereas one’s private-intention to deceive to the level of huckster* is not so easily discerned.
Since we cannot discern motive, why not make it easier on ourselves and judge what can (and may) be judged? Rather than trying to discern which candidate has the blackest heart, what if we just assume that the light of nature has grown equally dim among the leading two candidates? As a clarifying exercise, let’s assume one candidate overtly seeks to destroy Christian and American values from a purely secular perspective, and the other candidate is toying covertly with Christians to advance his own MAGA agenda. With those sorts of cancelling-out variables off the table, is there anything left to evaluate that might keep us from flipping a coin on November 5?
Read More
Related Posts:

The institutional church is comprised of individuals who gather on the Lord’s Day and then scatter into the world to live out their respective callings before God. Consequently, the institutional church’s primary ministry on Sunday is not to reform the institutions of this world, or even reach the world for Christ, but to build up the saints in their worship of God. To that end, it is primarily on Sunday that the church’s members become equipped to fulfill their respective callings in the world, which includes (a) the mission work of the institutional church as well as (b) bringing biblical precepts to bear upon the ideologies of political, economic, and social institutions.

This interview conducted by Crossway caught my attention. It has to do with the institutional church, its spirituality, and Christian nationalism. My interest is limited to how the institutional church, which is made up of many members, is to relate to temporal yet lawful institutions in the world.
I find two quotes from the interview to be a bit puzzling.
“No other institution is called to go into all the world and preach the gospel. The family? No. The state? No. The university? No. The publisher isn’t called to go into all the world and preach the gospel. That call is given to the church. And if the church becomes chiefly a political, economic, or social institution, it becomes an institution that is just one more form of kind of shouted political slogans in the cacophony and all the noise of our very polarized politicized age. If the church just becomes that, it loses that voice. It loses its proper agency. It loses its grip and its grasp on the gospel. And if the church loses the gospel, who has it? Where is the gospel? The church is called to preach the gospel to the world.”
It is one thing for the institutional church to become a political mouthpiece from the pulpit, and quite another thing for the institutional church to posses a proper political zeal in the world. It seems somewhat obvious that one size doesn’t fit all.
A Christian congressman who spends fifty hours a week embroiled in the political battle for the life of the unborn, or defending the rights of the oppressed, can be running God’s errand. Yet it’s hard to apply the same balance of work and life to the institutional church’s pulpit ministry. Consequently, phrases like “the church becomes chiefly a political…”, and “the church is called to preach the gospel” should connote different meaning, with vastly different contextual demands, depending upon the respective callings of the many members of the one institutional church.
Back to Basics:
The institutional church is comprised of individuals who gather on the Lord’s Day and then scatter into the world to live out their respective callings before God. Consequently, the institutional church’s primary ministry on Sunday is not to reform the institutions of this world, or even reach the world for Christ, but to build up the saints in their worship of God. To that end, it is primarily on Sunday that the church’s members become equipped to fulfill their respective callings in the world, which includes (a) the mission work of the institutional church as well as (b) bringing biblical precepts to bear upon the ideologies of political, economic, and social institutions.
Institutional church members hardly can avoid interacting with, if not even being members of, other institutions such as family, civil government, and education. Accordingly, the institutional church’s members must be equipped to pull down the philosophical strongholds of the age lest they become (a) fideistic (b) impotently silent in her witness and / or (c) taken captive by the elementary principles of the world. To that end, there is a Christian duty to be able and willing to disarm the enemies of God, not just with kindness but a winsome word in season that has the power to tumble the institutional gods, if not at least silence their idolatrous worshippers.
Leaving aside how a minister of the gospel might train its congregation to think biblically in all areas of life (yet without hindering the church’s spirituality), as a general rule we might hope that the minister’s Sunday sermon would be heavier and more exhaustively focused on exegesis and indicatives, and perhaps lighter and more generally focused when it comes to personal application and imperatives regarding influencing the institutions of this world. That should be a given.
Admittedly, men like Jerry Falwell and D. James Kennedy likely lapsed into seasons of spiritual amnesia regarding their gospel-calling by turning their focus toward civil and political interests. Notwithstanding, such spiritual infidelity does not so neatly apply to the church’s members who on Monday morning scatter into the world in the service of the church militant. Indeed, when all is well, we can expect the church’s message on Sundays to look vastly different from its members’ message(s) the other six days of the week. Need it be even said that the minister who is preaching to his congregation the riches of the first fourteen verses of Ephesians has a different set of providential constraints and freedoms than the Christian plumber who is changing out a hot water tank, or the Christian businessman who accepts an invitation for a beer after work with his politically minded and irreligious colleagues?
Read More
Related Posts:

MacArthur redefines fiducia by turning the volitional component of justifying faith into something other than child like receiving and resting in Christ for salvation. For MacArthur fiducia is not the disposition of trust in Christ (or to believe into Christ) but rather the work of bringing our righteous to Christ in deeds of forsaking, commitment and surrender.

In this post I addressed the aberrant view that justifying faith is assent alone apart from trusting in Christ. Therein I made a passing reference to another extreme view of faith – the “Lordship Salvation” gospel whose advocates not only define justifying faith without reference to the Reformed view of trust, but also add forsaking oneself, commitment of life and surrender to justifying faith, which in turn eclipses the gospel by confusing how one might appropriate Christ as he is freely offered in the gospel.
It is notable that John MacArthur, the most significant proponent of this view, does not subscribe to historical Reformed theology. In that respect, MacArthur is unchecked with respect to confessional theology in the Reformed tradition. Aside from having a baptistic ecclesiology and a dispensational view of the covenants, MacArthur has gotten the doctrines of justification and justifying faith wrong. I address those errors here.
Saving Faith According to John MacArthur:
Forsaking oneself for Christ’s sake is not an optional step of discipleship subsequent to conversion; it is the sine qua non of saving faith. (The Gospel According to Jesus, p. 142)
By “saving faith” MacArthur means justifying faith. We may infer this because he is speaking of the faith that is tied to conversion. Accordingly, sanctifying or persevering faith is not in view. What is also noteworthy is MacArthur cites “forsaking oneself” as an essential element of justifying faith, which is radically different than how the Reformed tradition defines justifying faith:
Justifying faith is a saving grace wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and word of God, whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition, not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel, but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin, and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation. Westminster Larger Catechism, #72 What is justifying faith?
The most significant Confession in the history of the Protestant tradition defines the faith that justifies differently than MacArthur. At the heart of justifying faith is receiving and resting upon Christ, which is absent in MacArthur’s ordo salutis. Worse more, to add forsaking one’s life to the simplicity of faith is another gospel because it adds works to justifying faith. But not only does MacArthur add forsaking one’s life to faith, he also asserts that personal commitment is essential to justifying faith.
Commitment is the disputed element of faith around which the lordship controversy swirls. No-lordship theology denies that believing in Christ involves any element of personal commitment to Him. (Faith Works, The Gospel According To The Apostles, p. 43-44)
MacArthur contends that justifying faith, the faith that appropriates the benefits of Christ, entails “forsaking oneself” and “commitment.” It is not MacArthur but the Westminster Shorter Catechism that has it right when it states:
Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving grace, whereby we receive and rest upon him alone for salvation, he is offered in the gospel.” (Westminster Shorter Catechism, #86 What is faith in Jesus Christ?)
It escapes MacArthur that personal commitment and forsaking one’s life are works of righteousness, which if done in faith are fruits of sanctification and not elements (or principal acts) of justifying faith. MacArthur seems to miss that justifying faith is merely an instrument by which the unrighteous lay hold of Christ’s righteousness. (Westminster Shorter Catechism #73)
Read More
Related Posts:

If GRACE operated according to biblical precepts, they would not be as quick and confident to meddle with the peace and administrative functions of the church, or make inquiries that can become the occasion for the vulnerable an unlearned to violate the Ninth Commandment.

I found the GRACE report to be an abomination. It drudged up many past hurts and sins that were in the end dealt with biblically and in accordance with the gospel, even with censures issued by session and presbytery when appropriate.
Perhaps the most egregious part of the GRACE report is how GRACE suggests that the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper may be withheld from the penitent as a form of ongoing consequences for past sins. That is most telling of this sham ministry. Indeed, there can be severe consequences for sins after repentance and reconciliation, but those consequences are to come in the form of things like restitution, incarceration, and withholding restoration to specific service-privileges and responsibilities that may have been enjoyed prior to falling into sin. Notwithstanding, the sacraments are never to be used as a tool for dishing out further consequences to those the elders believe have repented. Of course, GRACE would understand this basic gospel tenet if they weren’t a Christian organization in name only. Furthermore, GRACE suggests that restoration to the Supper should not be too soon lest others who share in the communion meal aren’t given adequate time to heal. That’s a fencing of the table foreign to Scripture. Yet even allowing for it – it would seem that GRACE would not have wanted a particular repented sinner-saint they cited in the report, at the time he was restored to table fellowship, to have received Christ in the sacrament at any church of which he would have been a stranger. (It’s noteworthy that from a biblical perspective one is to be denied the Supper for his own spiritual protection, not the perceived emotional good of others.)
Read More
Related Posts:

It is not merely according to covenantal promise, forgiveness and imputed righteousness that we receive our inheritance in Christ but as justified sinners who by grace have been adopted in union with the Son. Believers are fitted for heaven because of all the entailments of union with the last and faithful Adam who as Son is very God of very God. Accordingly, it is in Christ we are justified and sons of the Most High.

Let’s consider afresh the relationship of pactum merit with respect to Adam in the covenant of works and how that relates to strict merit in redemption. With respect to Adam the reward of living forever would have been disproportionate to the finite work performed.
In other words, the justice of life-eternal would not have been according to strict justice but rather according to a sovereignly imposed covenantal compact to over reward Adam for obedience; a pact of sorts was at play. That is to say, the value of Adam’s obedience would not have been of intrinsic worth as it relates to the meritorious reward of unending life.
I do find, however, that in the economy of redemption our reward, though received by grace alone, is according to principles of strict justice. Where we might locate the appropriateness (or congruity) of the forever-reward is the question.
Framing the issue:
Let me try frame the dilemma and then try to offer a solution by drawing from the ordo salutis. In so doing, I’ll try to address the easier part first, having to do with strict justice as it relates to Christ’s passive obedience and our demerit.
The one time sacrifice of Christ was sufficient to satisfy God’s strict justice, render God propitious, and reconcile God to the elect in Christ. Although Christ is the kinsman redeemer, Christ’s divine nature was necessary for redemption accomplished and for there to be intrinsic worth as it relates to Christ’s mediatory work. Our demerit needed the incarnate Son of God to pay for our sins, for one thing to keep the human nature from sinking under the wrath of God. Christ could render God propitious and provide full satisfaction for the sins of many because Christ is both God and man. That’s the more obvious part. No issues there I trust.
The passive obedience part of redemption, which for our purposes narrowly deals with sinners’ demerit and payment for sins, is more obvious perhaps. Yet when it comes to what positively fits redeemed sinners for heaven, I find that to narrowly focus on Christ’s active obedience as a human being is to overlook the broader ground upon which the reward of everlasting life and inheritance can be found.
The dilemma:
The eternal Son eternally assumed the terms of the covenant of works that offered disproportionate reward of life for work done as a human being. So, regarding the active obedience part, pactum merit cannot be avoided and strict justice obtained if what fits us for glory is predicated solely on Christ fulfilling the original terms of the covenant and we grant that those original terms were according to pactum merit. That would appear to be the implication of a position that limits our standing before God to that which we receive only by the active and passive obedience of Christ. If the Son took on the terms of the original covenant of works and if those terms offered disproportionate reward via pactum, then it stands to reason that what fits us for glory is not according to what is strictly congruous but only according to pactum unless something beyond the merit gained through the last Adam’s obedience is included.
Read More
Related Posts: