DOH!

Earlier I posted a couple of tips on how one may determine the biblical orthodoxy or heresy of a particular website or blog, and among those tips was to look for a confession of faith or doctrinal statement of beliefs. Well, of course, this blog had neither. So I have included several links over on the nav-bar to doctrinal standards which I confess. The 1689 LBCF (original language), the Cambridge Declaration, and the Canons of Dort link to my website and contain the unedited language of the historic documents (or the English translation in the case of the Canons of Dort), and I also provide a plethora of supporting Scripture texts with the 1689 Confession and the Canons of Dort which also link to the online bible so that the passages can be read in context easily. These documents are also individually searchable at my website.

The Ordo Salutis is an originally worded presentation of the Calvinistic order of salvation written by myself with supporting scriptures.

The Modern Language Version of the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith links to that document as presented at the Founders Ministries website. It is faithful to the original.

At the top of the nav-bar, I have linked to a presentation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ compiled by myself at my website from the Canons of Dort, the 1689 LBCF, Spurgeon's All of Grace and the bible. It presents the gospel from these historic Christian documents and scripture from man's sinful condition and separation from God through his total inability to live up to God's standards of perfect obedience to the good news of Jesus Christ for righteousness to all who believe.

I hope these links prove edifying and fruitful.

A problem for Baptists

A while back I was participating in a certain Christian discussion forum when a Presbyterian brother (PCA) made a statement that astonished me. The question for discussion was something like

"Do you believe Arminianism is heresy?"

If you are a Calvinist and armchair apologist and theologian like myself, and have been around the internet block a few times, this question would pose no particular surprise or threat. We've seen it a hundered times, usually posted by disgruntled Christians who don't like the dogmatic way in which we defend the doctrines of sovereign grace.

But then my dear Presby friend, whom I am indebted to as one who was instrumental in bringing me to the realization that God is sovereign in the salvation of men, responded that "yes, but it is less of a heresy than the autonomous church government."

I was floored. I responded "are you really saying that congregationalism is a worse heresy than Arminianism? That Edwards, Spurgeon, Owen, Bunyan and more than I can think of are guilty of a worse error than those who deny biblical soteriology?"

He kind of blowed me off at first, perhaps sensing that I was sore about it and wishing to avoid a conflict, but I belabored the point until he finally responded in a very provocative way that made a point that I had not even considered.

He said "Joe, if you commit adultery against your wife and are disciplined at your church, all you have to do is go down the street to the next Baptist church."

I'm not sure why he made it personal against me (I have not committed adultery or been excommunicated) but I guess he was aggravated at my badgering him to qualify his original proposition. Nevertheless, he made a very valid point and one for which I had no response.

I still have no response. No matter how carefully we follow the biblical model of discipline in our own congregation, Baptists have no way to make it stick. Whether or not the local congregation should be concerned about this at all biblically is something I have not worked out (help here would be appreciated). But it seems to me at least on the face of it to be a legitimate concern.

I would propose that we Baptists can still keep our congregationalism and cooperate with other congregations in this matter. I see no need for ruling councils to be over the local churches to deal with this problem. Even as we may cooperate with one another, for example, in associations that affirm a common confession of faith or pool resources for educating our leaders, there should be a way that associated Baptist churches can cooperate in matters of discipline so that the above scenario can be avoided.

Perhaps we should not be so autonomous that we banish those who decay the unity and purity of our church only to have them infiltrate another church "down the street" with their destructive influence. Perhaps we should modify our governmental beliefs so that we don't simply say "he's somebody else's problem now".

Ironicalism

I find it ironic that just as I was getting tired enough of certain 0f my more learned and respectable paedo-baptist brothers refusing to allow Baptists to use the terms "Reformed" or "Covenant Theology" or even "Calvinist" to describe themselves and differentiate themselves from more mainline and popular Baptist churches (which are semi-pelagian and mostly dispensationalist), and just as I was pondering why they are not being challenged by anybody other than a few guys in the comments sections on the pertinent blogs, and just as I was about to (boy this sentence is becoming long, I feel like John Owen) start my own research as I believe from my limited knowledge that the phrase "Reformed Baptist" is a perfectly legitimate and historically accurate use of the word "Reformed" (I selected the address of this blog (thesectarian) in honor of what I believe to be an erroneous assertion)---

Just as all this was going on in my head, and just I was really feeling uncomfortable with paedo-baptism and the more I consider this the more I realize this is a serious divider between Credos and Paedos that has to do not only with mode and method but a really serious error concerning the Abrahamic covenant among the sprinkling elect brethren, and just as I was thinking that these things need to be addressed well with resources and footnotes and wondering how I do superscripts with this blog---

Then Mark Dever over at 9 Marks does a little blog post that seems to have really taken many Paedos aback. I mean, here we Reformed Baptists are wanting to be associated with their tradition, and being called "sectarian" and told that we cannot be "Reformed" or "Covenantal" or "Calvinist" and being called ugly names like "dispensationalist" because we believe what the New Testament says about the Abrahamic Covenant, and we lie down and no one says a word. But how dare Dr. Dever fence the table when celebrating the Lord's supper against non-baptised believers as per our own Baptist confession, not to mention the bible? How dare he say that to refuse to be baptised as a believer is a sin? How ironic considering how we have been so often shunned as second class citizens and told that to refuse to baptise infants is a sin. And is dispensationalist.

Read some of the backlash to Mark Dever's comments here, here, here, & here. Wow. You can dish it out but you can't take it? At least Dr. Scott Clark, who is a chief offender in belittling Reformed Baptists, understands that this is what Baptists believe and always have and accepts that this will always be a divider; we will not find a middle ground on this.

So let me clear this up so you infant baptising types won't be surprised again. We Calvinistic Sectarians believe that infant baptism is sinful and is not baptism at all, and as many as refuse to be immersed in water as believers united to Christ by faith are in disobedience to the biblical command. Just as you confessing Paedos believe that we are in sin in withholding the covenant sign and seal to our "covenant children", we confessing Baptists believe that you are in sin by including people in the covenant who are not united to Christ by faith.

I don't intend to throw away any of my books written by godly paedo baptist men who have heralded the gospel mightily throughout the ages. And although we are in serious disagreement, I don't want to overstate this disagreement and break fellowship with my Paedo baptist teachers and brethren.

The Problem of Evil?

I was listening today to a re-run broadcast of John MacArthur's Grace to You where Mac was addressing the famous alleged problem for christian philosophy, "the problem of evil". Basically the question goes like this:

"If God is all-powerful and all-knowing and absolutely Good, why does evil exist?"

This is an easy one for the Calvinist who upholds the biblical portrait of the Almighty God. God allows evil and even ordains that evil occur in order to show his attributes that could not otherwise be revealed. In other words, it is to glorify himself by revealing his character and attributes of grace, mercy, justice, judgement, wrath, holiness, benevolence and more, that could not be revealed without opposition to himself. Dr. MacArthur covered this fairly well, although more tentatively than perhaps I would have, because it is the clear revelation of scripture and thus truth we can rely on and be sure of. Romans 9 comes to mind as an explicit example of why God allows evil:

Romans 9:21-23 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory--

We see several things very clearly from this passage concerning the so-called "problem of evil". It tells us explicitly that God desires to make known his power and wrath and so patiently endures the vessels of wrath, which are evil men, in order to make known how rich is his glorious mercy for those he prepares for glory. So we see that God endures evil in order to put his glorious attributes of his omniscient power and righteous wrath and long suffering patience and glorious mercy.

God could not make known his wrath and power to carry out his righteous judgement without an object deserving of that wrath and judgement. We see also from this passage that God has sovereignly ordained that vessels of wrath would exist and that vessels of mercy would exist. So these things don't surprise God, he has decreed according to his own will in eternity that such things occur. Now, this might raise further questions, and I will try to address some of the objections that might occur to someone.

One might object that "if God could allow evil which produces suffering and in turn forces him to pour out his wrath in judgement on sinners than God must be a megalomaniac, a pathological egotist". This is in fact a logical impossibility as concerns God, as megalomania is defined as "a psychological state characterized by delusions of grandeur" (wordnet.princeton.edu). There are no delusions of grandeur with God; God is grand! He is all powerful and all knowing and eternal and transcendent and is present everywhere at once. God is the ultimate expression of, the source of, and the standard of, power and importance in the universe. God cannot overstate his infinite attributes.

A second objection might be, "if God decreed that evil occur, than God is the author of evil". To this objection I provide three answers. The first answer to this objection is the somewhat obvious one, that scripture will not allow it. From our passage in Romans 9, we see that God endures patiently with evil men. The evil acts of evil men are free volitional choices that God endures and does not cause. There is no passage of scripture anywhere that makes God the cause, author, or a party to evil.

The second answer is that God, being all powerful, uses secondary means in order to allow that evil exist. This requires a bit of explaining; I believe that the fact that God decrees or ordains everything that occurs can be logically deduced from the fact of his omnipotence. What I mean is, that God must decree all things that come to pass, else nothing would come to pass. In other words, since God is all powerful, nothing can or will happen unless God either allows it or causes it. That's what it means to be all-powerful and sovereign. From mondane occurances like the animation of electrons in the alpha centauri galaxy to the very thoughts in your head, God is sovereign over them all- that's what it means to be omnipotent. God cannot be omnipotent unless he is sovereign, and God cannot be sovereign unless he is omnipotent, and nothing can occur unless he either allows it or causes it.

So then God does not mearly decree a particular act, but everything that leads to that particular act, what we call secondary causes. Part one of the third chapter of the 1689 London Baptist Confession God's Decree provides clarity:

FROM all eternity God decreed all that should happen in time, and this He did freely and unalterably, consulting only His own wise and holy will. Yet in so doing He does not become in any sense the author of sin, nor does He share responsibility for sin with sinners. Neither, by reason of His decree, is the will of any creature whom He has made violated; nor is the free working of second causes put aside; rather is it established. In all these matters the divine wisdom appears, as also does God's power and faithfulness in effecting that which He has purposed. (emphasis added)

The third answer that I give for why God cannot be the author of evil is "because he is God". To explain; evil is in essence anything that deviates from God's character, which is revealed to us in scripture in his law as and covenants and especially his Son Jesus Christ. God is the ultimate and perfect expression of all that may be attributed to his own character, and this is in turn the standard by which evil is determined. So anything that is contained within God's character is good by default; evil being the deviation from God's character, evil within God is an impossibility. Everything God does or wills or creates is always good, because God is the standard of moral perfection.

The problem for those who see a "problem of evil" is a lack of understanding the truth about God and his attributes and character. Their god is too small and their heads are too big. They delve into things of which they are ignorant, and presume to be such a one that can pass judgement on God. It is hard for a sinful man to realize that he is not himself sovereign nor wise but very finite and foolish. Indeed I say that it is impossible, except by a miracle. The miracle of new birth and faith and renewal of mind that God works in the vessels of mercy that God has prepared beforehand to display his glory. Let us therefore glorify our incomprehensible God, with the words of his beloved servant Paul:

Romans 11:33-36 Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! "For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?" "Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?" For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.

Encouragement for a lonely Calvinist

Time Magazine's 10 Ideas Changing the World Right Now: #3 The New Calvinism

You could have knocked me over with a feather. Frankly, I had come to believe that the Reformed movement was really just a few mouthy types (like me) who opined on the Internet. And John Piper. I expected that if I attended the church of some of the Reformed pastors that I enjoy listening to I would see a congregation of 40-50 people.

As far as I know, myself and my family are the only Calvinistic confessional Baptists in the whole county where I live. The nearest Reformed Baptist church is an hour away on the highway. We have begun attending a Presbyterian church (PCA) and it is a fine fellowship of conservative Reformed confessional believers, but they aren't credo, and I'm not paedo, so there is always that element of strong disagreement that underlies everything.

But if Time Magazine has noticed, maybe there really is a Reformed Resurgence! Maybe it isn't all smoke and mirrors. Maybe in the near future, I will discover like minded believers in my community and we can form a new fellowship, a Reformed Baptist church, a dream come true.

I did notice a sad line in the Time story:

Indeed, some of today's enthusiasts imply that non-Calvinists may actually not be Christians.

That's the error so many make when coming to believe that their entire worldview is wrong. The tendency is to run headlong the other direction into equally or worse error than before. And that is sadly the case I've observed on the Internet among some of the Neo-Calvinists. Hyper Calvinism breaks the band of tension that the bible holds intact between God's sovereignty and man's responsibility, adopting a heretical fatalism concerning salvation and sin. The Hyper Calvinist says things that make a true Calvinist cringe. And making Calvinism the test of one's standing with God rather than repentance from sin and faith Christ alone for forgiveness of sins and entrance into the kingdom of God is one of the most distasteful teachings of this unorthodox sect.

Another fine example of breaking the tension that the bible upholds is the tendency among some who become disallusioned with their dispensational pre-trib rapture eschatology and spring all the way over to preterism, denying the second coming of Christ and the bodily resurrection of believers. And the second state has become worse than the first.

So I would encourage my Neo-Calvinist brothers and sisters to study the old paths and not use blogs and Internet sites as you're primary source for theology. There are many, many disguised wolves on the Internet. I've almost been eaten by a few. And study the Reformed creeds and confessions like the London Baptist 1689, Westminster, and the Three Forms of Unity (pdf). These old creeds serve as a buffer against the heretical tendencies of the unlearned.

And here's a couple of tips. When you run across a Hyper-Calvinist or otherwise questionable blog or Website, there won't be a neon flashing sign that says *HYPER CALVINIST* or *HERETIC*. The first thing to look for is a confession of faith. If they don't have one then use extreme caution. I've found many times people hide their beliefs for a reason. If they have any sort of other doctrinal statement such as a "statement of faith" or "beliefs" then read them carefully, and judge them against some of the clear and precise doctrinal confessions I listed above and of course scripture.

If their statement of faith is weak and ambiguous, that is cause for caution. I've seen statements of faith that were so vague that many cult groups would be comfortable with them.

Look for a curriculum vitae for those that claim a title such as "Dr." If they don't have plainly listed the schools they went to then be very suspicious. If they list the schools and they aren't immediately recognizable then Google them to see what comes up.

I pray that the resurgence of historical Reformation theology gains even more ground and strengthens God's people for tough times ahead, with a zeal for the lost and a heart that finds joy in the glory of God and the truth of his word.

Taking a hard line for life

Obama to reverse limits on stem cell work

This post is not going to be an exegetical, expositional biblical defense of my beliefs concerning the issue of abortion and embryonic stem cell research. Neither will it be a pragmatic analysis of stem cell research pointing out the stark lack of progress and results in the field of embryonic stem cell research compared with the fruitful field of adult stem cell research. Both of these would be worthy of blogging.

This post is simply a declaration.

1. Abortion is pre-natal infanticide. It is murder. From the moment sperm joins egg and creates a new and distinct human life that life has the same value as an adult human being. It is not pre-human, it is a living, distinct, personal human being.


2. There is never warrant for abortion. Not for the life of the mother, nor in cases of rape or incest. The mother's life is not more valuable than that of the unborn infant. The unborn infant is an innocent third party to crimes leading to an unwanted pregnancy. Ending the child's life because of medical complications that endanger the mother implies that the mother's life is more valuable or more human than that of the child.


3. Conception of new human beings for use in medical research (embryonic stem cell research) is murderous butchery and an incredible display of depraved selfishness that makes a person's own perceived quality of life more important than the life of another human being.


4. The use of aborted infants for embryonic stem cell research is to give approval of the murderous butchery that is abortion.


5. The creating of infants in order to be artificially implanted in infertile women, insofar as it is engaged in discarding "surplus" infants, is mass murder.


6. No one who has had an abortion or even many abortions should consider themselves disqualified as concerns salvation. They should be treated with compassion and be assured that forgiveness, reconciliation and eternal life await all who come to Christ in faith and repentance.


7. No one who has performed abortions should consider themselves or be considered by others as having been disqualified for salvation, provided they repent from their sins (including their murderous vocation) and accept Christ as their righteousness before God, they may enter into eternal life.


8. Christians should give no quarter nor compromise concerning the value of the unborn infant as a distinct person created in the image of God. Christians should view abortion as no less a crime than premeditated murder. Christians should avoid hypocrisy and make no distinctions between the value of the lives of infants conceived through consensual sexual activities and those conceived in sex crimes. Christians should likewise make no distinction as concerns the value of the life of an infant in early, mid and late stages of development


9. Christians should not return evil for evil, and should be compassionate towards those who have been blinded by the world and enslaved by Satan and sin, knowing we too were once blind slaves and had to be rescued from our hardness of heart by God.


10. We should not engage in violence, hateful rhetoric, or arrogant self righteousness towards those who perform abortions or those who obtain abortions, but rather, as sinners who have been given the free gift of righteousness by faith in Jesus Christ, proclaim this gospel in love to those in bondage to the sin of abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and artificial fertility clinics.

Here is where I stand, and I am certain that these views will label me a "radical" even among many Christians. But I would only ask that these issues be carefully, prayerfully, and biblically considered and that the truth to the glory of God be paramount in our drawn conclusions.