De Regnis Duobos

I recommend the blog of PCA pastor Jason J. Stellman, De Regnis Duobos: Concerning the Two Kingdoms. My first few encounters there have led me to believe that Pastor Stellman is charitable and like-minded in matters of ecuminicity. We would be a stronger Body of Christ if we could have sincere and charitable discussions about the matters that divide more often (me thinks)!

He has been taking up some themes that are common on this blog, like the canonicity of Scripture, and the authority of creeds, and he promises to take up others soon, like the visisble/invisible church. God speed!

Always-Church and Physical Manifestation

From the "So-Called Second Letter of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians" (ca. A.D. 150) (as provided in Jurgens' Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume 1, at 43):

"I presume that you are not ignorant of the fact that the living Church is the body of Christ. The Scripture says, "God made man male and female." The male is Christ, and the female is the Church. Moreover, the Books and the Apostles declare that the Church belongs not to the present, but has existed from the beginning. She was spiritual, just as was our Jesus; but He was manifested in the last days so that He might save us. And the Church, being spiritual, was manifested in the flesh of Christ."

The proposition that the always-Church was spiritual throughout history until the incarnation, when it was made physically manifest seems contrary to my Reformed paradigm.

The Westminster Confession of Faith tells us that the Church before Christ's incarnation ("as before under the law") was "visible" only in one nation. Since then, it has become visibly manifest in all those throughout the world who "profess the true religion." WCOF, Chapter XXV, Sec. 2. I take this manifestation by profession to be a spiritualized manifestation; we are spiritually members of Christ's body, not physical members. While membership in the Church was through genetic lineage, a manifestation by descent, it is now passed on through the spiritual condition of professing the true religion. In other words, there is no more physical manifestation of the visible Church, only a spiritual manifestation.

Thus the Reformed view seems to be that the always-Church was physical (with the Jews) throughout history until the incarnation, when it was spiritualized for all peoples.

But the letter I quoted, thought to be the oldest extant Christian homily, does raise an interesting point. It would be an unusual irony if Christ's appearing in the flesh put the Church out of its own.

Cross on Denominational Renewal

Bryan Cross and Todd Gwennap have engaged in a fantastic discussion here. I recommend that anyone considering conversion between a Protestant denomination and Roman Catholicism give it a read, especially those from (or inclined toward) a Reformed background.

Bryan, now a Roman Catholic, graduated from my denomination’s seminary, Covenant Theological Seminary. Todd is currently a student at that institution. I have relatives with strong ties, seminal even, to Covenant, so I have taken particular interest in Bryan’s story, and now this discussion between these two.

I will not spoil the plot, but Todd takes up some arguments on the nature of “church” with vigor. Bryan responds with aptitude. I hope to see the conversation continue. [Omitted.]

From what I've seen, I have developed a deep admiration of him. It is an exceedingly rare thing to see someone take Bryan up in learned dialogue. Bryan is logical and methodical in his approach, in a way that I surmise may intimidate the typical antagonists and Johnny-come-latelies of blogosphere spats. Todd is above that, and brave to boot. He enters the discussion graciously and thoughtfully. I continue to *hope* that these brothers (or brethren) will run the conversation to ground, as I stand to benefit. Besides being more theologically educated than I am, Todd has fuel to critique Catholicism that I depleted long ago.

A last substantive thought: Todd brings up an argument that has been central in my thoughts about how Christ has constituted His Church, and I believe its resolution would be meaningful to a great many seekers. To what extent is the parallel between the Old and New Testaments (Covenants) valid? Put another way, is the Church Era a recapitulation of the Jewish Era, or is it a whole novus ordo? Should we expect to see a division amongst Christ’s Covenant People as the Jewish people divided into a Northern and Southern Kingdom (see my post touching on this parallelism here)?

If the Church Era is a whole new order, such that the Holy Spirit would prevent such division, obviously the Reformation fails. If it is not so new (as human sinful nature may not have changed), and a recapitulation is possible then the Reformation could be proper (indeed, the Old Testament experience would serve as a “preview” warning to those of us in the New).

PCA Elder on Church as Family

I happened upon this post at "Butterfly House" from a few months ago, which touches on some issues recently discussed here, like church visible, election, infants in the family of God, and the like. It is written by a PCA (Reformed) ruling elder.

Here's a taste:

"In the New Covenant, the promised Holy Spirit helps to better define the boundaries of the Church, but He has not (apparently) chosen to make those boundaries crystal clear. Our knowledge of the Church, as with many things, is "through a glass, darkly.""

Would that the Lord could help me see how He has constituted His Church!

Federal Vision Fission

Big doings for the PCA. The highly controversial Auburn Avenue Church, along with its Pastor Steve Wilkins, has left the denomination to join the start-up "CREC". Wilkins has been a major player in the emerging "Federal Vision" movement, also called by his church's name, "Auburn Avenue Theology". This theology was recently found unacceptable by a PCA committee charged to investigate it. I discussed this church here and here, in the context of the use of Creeds.

The vote occurred just two days ago, and the CREC has already updated their church roster. I think they're thrilled to have them as a "mission church" under "oversight".

Here's an excellent critique of this move. I agree with the critique's spirit -- that eschewing your authorities while facing presbyterian discipline to carve out a new denomination that's a more comfortable fit is a dubious proposition. I do not agree with one conclusion, however, "I say give up on the denominational model and just be Christian for crying out loud!" It is impossible to "just be Christian". The word is not self-defining, and there is no authoritative agreement on what it means. See my critique here, noting that this view is its own creed (so arguably making a formless denomination of its adherents).

At any rate, I don't follow the Federal Vision debate too closely, but closely enough to know that this is big news to the people involved. Pray for Unity! At least they waited for the conclusion of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity; they missed it by two days.

Church Discipline

[I made a similar entry at CHNI, and received tremendous response. I recommend that website for anyone interested in learning more about Catholicism.]

My Presbyterian denomination, the PCA, has good rules on church discipline, contained in the Book of Church Order (BCO). The denomination appears to have great leeway in shepherding the flock, which is what a church ought to have. But I don't think they use nearly as much "rope" as they're given.

A PCA member can be brought under church discipline for committing an "offense". An offense is "anything in the doctrines or practice of a Church member professing faith in Christ which is contrary to the Word of God. (BCO, 29-1)" And, nothing "ought to be considered by any court as an offense... which cannot be proved to be such from Scripture." Heresy is included as an offense, so the definition is not limited to outward sinful conduct (29-3).

So I wonder, at what point is one who adopts the beliefs of other denominations susceptible to charges of committing an "offense"? I've known plenty of PCA parents who do not baptize their infants. The PCA's confessional standards, which are the "standard expositions of the teachings of Scripture" (29-1), state that believing parents shall baptize their children (WCOF, Ch. XXVIII, sec. 4). But these baptistic parents aren't charged with an "offense". The standard for "heresy" must be pretty high then. It's not clear to me that one believing in "baptismal regeneration" is that much different from the baptistic parent, but I suspect that one would be closer to toeing the "heresy" line.

If charges aren't brought for heresy until a PCA'er announces he intends to join the Orthodox or Catholic Church, would the denomination send a "letter of transfer" to his receiving Church?

BCO, 38-3(b) states, "When a member... shall attempt to withdraw from the communion of this branch of the visible Church by affiliating with a body judged [by his session] as failing to maintain the Word and Sacraments in their fundamental integrity (BCO 2-2), that member or minister shall be warned of his danger, and if he persists, his name shall be erased from the roll... (emphasis added)".

I doubt that each session would interpret "fundamental integrity" the same way. I imagine a member could transfer to an evangelical Baptist church upon moving, and still receive a letter of transfer (so still recognized as part of the Church Visible). But the baptists don't practice sacraments, but rather ordinances. I imagine too that a member could transfer to mainline Presbyterianism, even though many in that organization doubt the infallibility of Scripture, the Virginal Incarnation, etc. If these thoughts are right, then "fundamental integrity" is meant in a broad sense, more one of outward appearances.

But what of the Catholics? They teach the Word, and practice Sacraments in a way that is fundamental at least in an historical sense. So in one sense it would seem better to transfer to Catholicism than to an Evangelical Baptist or Mainline Presbyterian denomination. There's a rub though, that makes me doubt such a transfer would be allowed. Calvin, who formulated the Word-Sacrament litmus test of a True Church, believed that one who left the True Church was apostate (see Sect. III, here, citing Calvin's Institutes, Book IV, Ch. 1, Secs. 5 and 10). So under this BCO term of art, either Calvin meant to anathematize his Genevan movement, or the Catholic Church does not "maintain the Word and Sacraments in their fundamental integrity."

It is a difficult thing, to accept that branches of the True Church are fractured, and yet to have to decide which ones remain fundamentally integral.

Credo Epilogue: Anticredalism

All churches have Creeds. Creed, of course, is of the Latin word "Credo", or "I believe". I've said before that the non-denominational utterance "no creed but Christ, no book but the Bible" is itself a creed. Some churches believe that no one set of beliefs can be right; that too is a belief. The PCA has its own little creed. All churches have a set of beliefs, so all churches have Creeds.

Protestants necessarily teach that all statements of belief are valid (i.e., Truthful) only insofar as they agree with the Scriptures. [I will set aside for now the antecedent problem that this belief follows a priori a belief subject to untruthfulness.] If formulations of belief are only valid where they agree with the Bible, then their worth is as a forum for discussion, an opportunity to strive toward the Truths within the Bible.

Consequently, creeds should always be open to debate, handling, picking apart, and modifying. And that means that no one should be bound ever to subscribe to a belief in one system of theology as Truth. No one should be bound ever to submit to a particular form of ecclesial governance. These things can only be right insofar as they agree with the Bible, and whether they agree with the Bible needs to remain open for debate (for the individual's determination). To lock one into a particular fallible articulation of Truth locks one out of considering that that articulation may be inaccurate, which locks one into a belief that it is accurate, which conflicts with the protestant view that nothing but Scripture is infallible. Phew.

So, to the Protestant mind, no vows for church membership or officership should be taken, other than a vow to the Prior of Priors, that the Bible is God's only Authoritative Revelation. And how the Prior of Priors obtained to infallible status is (as I humbly see it) the great logical flaw of the Reformation.

Credo II: Athanasian Creed

It is interesting that Auburn Avenue PCA, a controversial church to say the least, expressly embraces the Athanasian Creed, where its parent denomination is less enthusiastic.

I can guess at why the Athanasian Creed is disfavored within the PCA. To my recollection, I've never heard it spoken in any Reformed Church. It says in part, "From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies; and shall give account of their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved."

At least on its face, this exposition on the Last Judgment is hard to reconcile with either a Lutheran or a Calvinistic-Reformed view. Certainly, the case is made more difficult in the context of Calvinists, who hold that God strictly predestined all of mankind to Salvation or Perdition, not based on some type of foreknowledge of one's deeds or heart, but by His Sovereign decree alone (what Calvin dubbed the 'Horrible Decree'). Such a view makes virtually senseless this line of the Athanasian Creed.

I imagine that the PCA would be hard-pressed to condemn the use of the Creed, but it's no surprise that it is not falling over to get the Creed recited in its churches. Those of the Auburn Ave Theology persuasion, on the other hand, are more comfortable admitting that works are in same antecedent way a necessary component of the calculus of salvation. It is fitting, then, that Auburn Ave PCA would choose to use the Athanasian Creed.

(to be continued...)

Credo I: Binding or Not?

On a recent visit to the website of Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church (PCA), I saw that they "embrace the ancient catholic creeds (the Nicene, Athanasian, and Apostles' creeds) as defining the doctrinal boundaries of the Christian faith."

The PCA website admits to no formal position on these three ancient creeds, but its Book of Church Order tells us "[i]t is proper for the congregation of God’s people publicly to confess their faith, using creeds or confessions that are true to the Word, such as, the Apostle’s Creed, the Nicene Creed, or the Westminster Standards."

The "such as" leaves much to be desired. It reminds me of the Congregationalist tendencies (where each particular church decides for itself what to believe) of the PCA. The Auburn Ave Controversy serves as a clear exemplar. Each church may make use of creeds that are "true to the Word", but who is to decide which are true?

Is the Athanasian Creed a proper interpretation of scripture or not? Are its expressions mandatorily binding on a Presbyterian, is this a matter of conscience, or are its expressions anathema to the Presbyterian interpretation of the Word of God?

The Presbyterian system binds no consciences, but merely attempts to filter what is taught. It narrows ecclesial discourse to be within its boundaries, but does not and cannot narrow belief to those same bounds. Its authority is strictly over the outward act of teaching, not over internal belief. Since I am saved strictly by right intellectual belief and not by overt acts, the role of the church in my salvation is thus made narrow. Unless its filter of teachings is set just right, it may not act to push me into the right intellectual camp.

(to be continued...)

Baptismal Regeneration

The title of this post is a dirty phrase in Reformed circles. Quite dirty. We are caught between the claims of our Western Catholic roots (that baptism washes away the guilt of original sin), and those of later Protestant bleachings of sacramentalism (that it is an entrance symbol for believing adults).

A tradition of disbelief in baptismal regeneration kept my wife and me from looking too far into the conservative branches of Anglicanism many years ago, before I could ever entertain Roman Catholic claims.

The Reformed view teaches that baptism is a type of entrance rite into the Visible Church, and that it is a real means of some grace, but that it does not effect a forgiveness of original sin nor guarantee membership in the church invisible on the part of the infant. Therefore, if a child dies before the age of determination (of faith), their state of salvation is known only to God in his divine and sovereign decree of election. Here, for me, is the rub. At the loss of a child in utero, I was starkly faced with this idea that the salvation or damnation of a child of the kingdom was a horrifying mystery, seemingly random to my pathetic perceptions.

No one in our church or family would tell us that the eternal disposition of our stillborn son was completely indeterminable by man. Stranger still, they would not have been willing to tell us that this child, had he died shortly after baptism, was any more assured of salvation than by his death in the womb. Double election/predestination does not work that way. To posit otherwise is to effectively embrace Baptismal Regeneration (or some effective baptismal regeneration by parental desire, in the case of our stillbirth).

Vows Of Submission

I was looking back to the vows I took when I joined a PCA church, when I came across L. Roy Taylor's article entitled PCA: A Hierarchical Church?. In it he describes the nature of authority within the PCA, and the weight of the fifth and final vow of membership. This vow reads, "Do you submit yoursel[f] to the government and discipline of the Church, and promise to study its purity and peace?"

I should set the table by noting how the PCA's Confession treats the taking of vows. Chapter XXII of the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCOF) states that oaths and vows are a swearing to solemnly call God to witness an assertion "to witness what he asserts, or promises, and to judge him according to the truth or falsehood of what he swears." Oaths are to be taken, it later says, in the plain and literal sense of the words.

In his article, Taylor says, "One of the major reasons for the formation of the PCA was to revert to a democratic Presbyterianism [from what is now the PCUSA]."

I admit that this has nothing to do with the Fifth Vow, the subject of this post. But I wanted to include this assertion that the PCA is democratic (as in, follows the will of the people). I've had people in PCA churches bitterly object to my making this assertion.

Taylor continues, "In recent court cases involving employment law, the PCA successfully argued that as a non-hierarchal denomination, local church pastors and local church staff members are not employees of a Presbytery or the General Assembly."

This gets closer to a point I'll get to -- for now, note that the particular 'church' at which I make vows is not, strictly speaking, the same being (i.e., entity) as the PCA.

"The PCA argued that the relationship of a PCA minister to a Presbytery is analogous to that of a lawyer with a bar association. The bar association examines the lawyer regarding expertise and character, but a law firm, not the bar, is the attorney’s employer."

Even further. The particular church at which I make vows is my representative (to follow the language of this analogy). I have no direct relationship to the PCA denomination, but only indirectly benefit from the order and structure it provides to my particular church.

"When a person joins a congregation he voluntarily takes a vow to submit himself to the government and discipline of the church (BCO 57-5.5)." And, "When members, ruling elders, deacons and ministers take such vows they voluntarily place themselves under the spiritual authority of the Church."

Now we're here: I voluntarily submitted myself to the government and discipline of the "church", that is, under the spiritual authority (there can be no higher kind of authority, by the way) of the "Church." My question is this: was this submission to the particular church, to the Presbyterian Church in America, or to Christ's Church with an unapologetic capital "C"? If Taylor's bar association analogy bears any weight, the middle option seems to be easily ruled out. But then, I am under the same authority as ministers (commonly called teaching elders in the PCA), and ministers are not members of particular churches, but of the Presbytery itself. So that seems to eliminate the particular church as the intended meaning of the vow. Finally, it doesn't seem that the vow can refer to the Capital "C" church, because we would disregard expressions of discipline from other sectors of Christianity out of hand (indeed, I think I know of one or more anathemas directed our way). I'm confused, but Taylor is good enough to flesh the meaning of the BCO's vows a little further.

"By taking the vows of membership or ordination one agrees to abide by the authority of the court of original jurisdiction and higher courts as well because of the spiritual connectionalism of the Church (BCO 11-3, 11-4). Once the higher court has handled the matter finally, there is, because of the vows they have taken and theological beliefs they have espoused, a moral responsibility (though not a legal obligation) to abide by the final disposition of the matter as long as they are members of the PCA. A person may think that he cannot in good conscience accept the final disposition of the matter after the complaint or appellate process is complete, in which case he may leave the PCA without coercion."

So it was the PCA to which I submitted? The client is bound by the dealings of the of bar association (to use his analogy) after all. Or is he bound at all? Taylor allows for (and his strikes me as a common view) departure from the denomination when the jurisdiction of the court, to which he vowed submission before God, renders a decision that conflicts with his own good conscience.

Perhaps we'd be better off to not vow at all than to scorn the submission we pledged when we believe a court acted out of line with Scripture?

Sola Scriptura is Dead

Dear friends,

I have been nagged by a feeling of slight disingenuity (which some of you have no doubt perceived) regarding the depth of my "Protestantism". I am a PCA member, and have made my doubts known to my Pastor, so that I can be properly under my elders' rule and discipline. However, the time has come where I must recognize, and admit to anyone reading my thoughts on this blog, that sola Scriptura has, to me, finally died.

My church teaches that, "The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God. (WCOF, Chapter 1, Section IV)"

Further, "The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly. (WCOF, Chapter 1, Section IX)"

Finally worth noting presently, "The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture. (WCOF, Chapter 1, Section X)"

I can no longer make these confessions. Taking these three sections in order:

1) Identifying which books are Holy Scripture is a prerequisite to obeying their inherent authority. I believe that we certainly rely on the testimony of the ancient church, and the testimony continuing through to the present, to know which books are Holy Scripture. While the spoken Word of God is authoritative because of its source, and without the approval of men, this Word is not self-authenticating. To say that the Holy Scriptures are self-authenticating is novel to the Reformation (later than Luther, even), and is an extra-biblical rule.

2) I believe that the rule of 'scripture interprets scripture; clear text interprets vague' has failed. It was a theory novel to the Reformation, to counter claims that a Church is needed to interpret Scripture. Who decides which passages are clear, and which are vague? Do the vague passages carry less truth than do the purportedly clear? Why would the God-breathed Word given to be our sole rule be so vague in the first place? The Holy Scriptures are no Constitution, and they are no Catechism. They are a collection of sacred and ancient writings. To interpret vague text by clear is an extra-biblical rule.

3) I do not believe that the Holy Spirit solely speaking in Scriptures is the sole judge of all councils, doctrines, and judgments of men. That the Holy Spirit can guide and judge in no other way is in clear tension with the practice of the early Church as noted in Holy Scriptures. Judas was replaced by the casting of lots, done in faith that the Holy Spirit would judge who was the most fit replacement. Paul was called on the Road to Damascus not by Scripture, but by Christ's immediate appearance. Peter called the Council of Jerusalem to set doctrine and settle dispute. That the Holy Spirit could teach in no way other than through the finite and particular word of Holy Scripture is to limit His ability to respond to prayer and work through the Sacraments of the Church. I believe that the Word is our ultimate authority, but the Word is bigger than the text of the words in Holy Scripture. That the Holy Spirit is so contained is a teaching novel to the time of the Reformation, and is an extra-Biblical rule.

I do confess that I don't know where to go from here. I'm in a ghastly no-man's land, truly a citizen neither of the World, nor of the Church. I do not mean in any way to disparage the Holy Scriptures, but only to point out that man's extra-biblical rules of interpretaion are no longer persuasive. If the Reformation was right, surely we can do better!

Federal Vision Convert

Do stop by here for an interesting account of how the Federal Vision (FV) movement made one of its proponents (an OPC member) into a Catholic. I've heard tell elsewhere that many of the guys at the ground level of the movement have already become Orthodox or Catholic... (hearsay, I know...)

For those of you unaware, the PCA just approved a committee paper condemning what they understand to be Federal Vision theology. It an interesting debate, since no one admits to believing the unorthodox (so can't be disciplined), but they sure write like they do...

Revivalism's Infection: Grapejuice

Robert Latham, an OPC minister, wrote an excellent little book entitled The Lord's Supper, in which he notes the bad habit of serving grape juice in lieu of wine at the sacrament by the same name.

The widespread use of this alternative drink in the Protestant (esp. the PCA) sacrament is telling. Biblical instruction is clear on this point; both the Gospels and an epistle of Paul tell us to use wine. The use of wine in the sacrament is not an inference from scripture, we are directly told that the Lord used wine. Apparently though temperance and revivalism are ready rivals for sola Scriptura's mandates.

I often get in this debate with my fellows in the PCA, and have attended congregational meetings on the subject. The most common objection is that we might offend those with an uncontrolled inclination for the bottle. I note that in scripture Christ's students were offended by His own teaching on the matter, exclaiming, "this is hard teaching, who can accept it? (John 6:60)" Offensive indeed.

Alternatively, I hear that some people are pregnant or for whatever reason would have to pass up on one of the two elements if we used wine. Yet, wine it is to be. Wine is not grapejuice. Wine creates a particular sensation, and grapejuice quite a different one. We are not addressing the difference between Coke and Pepsi, but between a drink that gives a warmth in the chest (as if you can feel the Grace of the Sacrament entering you) and a drink that makes your cheeks pucker and your head want to shake at its tartness. Did Christ choose wine only because it is the same color as blood? Could he have just as easily chosen tomato paste? The distinctives of wine are relevant, and the Biblical teaching is clear. Let the reins of tent revivalism be loosed!

Reformed Answers To Discernment Q's

As promised, this is what I believe to be the Reformed answer to the discernment questions posted below. I am most open to correction. WCOF is short for the Westminster Confession of Faith, the confessional standard of Presbyterian churches in this country, at least historically. I'm curious how Pentecostal, Baptistic and other denominational churches would answer these questions.

1) Is there authority or not within the church?
Christ has given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God to the visible church, which consists of all those throughout the world who confess the true religion, and their children. He gave this power for the gathering and perfecting of the saints. Outside the church visible there is no salvation. This church is under Christ alone, and not the Pope (WCOF, Ch. XXV).

Church officers are appointed by Christ to govern the church. To them are committed the keys of the kingdom; they can shut out those who do not belong. They can censure, discipline, and excommunicate to seek purity within the church (WCOF, Ch. XXX). The strongest authority exists within the church.

2) If so, who gave the church that authority? If not, where then lies the rule of faith?
That authority comes to the church officers from Christ, through the words of scripture (WCOF, Ch. XXX).

3) Was authority with the Apostles, and did they pass on this authority?
The Apostles were granted authority by Christ in the way that today’s church officers are granted authority. There's was not a continuing office, but a special foundational one. The apostles passed on no authority; all authority is with Christ.

4) If so, did they pass it to men or to their written words?
They did not have authority to pass on. Christ and the Holy Spirit hold Authority, and with authority God breathed the Scriptures through the Apostles, as well as other men, to be the Rule of Faith for those church officers who today are appointed by Christ to govern the church.

5) What authority permitted a definition of Canon, and why are the books therein contained beyond question?
No earthly authority was needed to permit the canon’s definition. Rather, the books in the Bible are beyond question because the Westminster Divines considered the matter and concluded that those 66 books in the Protestant bible are canonical. They noted that while the 66 books’ many perfections, excellencies and consistency are evidence enough, their "full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in [their] hearts” (WCOF Ch. I.5).

In questions of interpreting scripture, the infallible rule of interpreting scripture is scripture itself (WCOF Ch. I.9).

Calvin on the Church

I've enjoyed writing the blogger at the God Fearin' Fiddler today. He left the PCA to become a Roman Catholic. Below I've summarized some comments I made on his blog about some reading of Calvin I've done recently:

Book IV of Calvin's Institutes (The External Means Or Aids By Which God Invites Us Into The Society Of Christ And Holds Us Therein) is fascinating and prescient for me as I attempt to refute (or accept) Catholicism. It is clear that we have seen a tremendous drift from Calvin's vision, and equally clear that Calvin appreciated the Pandora's Box that the Reformers may have opened.

Calvin writes with incredible respect for the God-ordained role of "pastor" to preach the word (i.e., the preacher sets the normative standard for Scripture's meaning). He writes with boldness on the need for submission to whatever is a properly constituted church, which he defines as any one that preaches the word and attends to Christ's instituted sacraments.

In Calvin's view, the Catholic Church does not fit his two-part rule above as it: 1) is led by anti-Christ (a conclusion he reaches from Dan. 9:27 and II Thess. 2:24), and 2) practices transubstantiation, the "greatest sacrilege".

Regarding Christ's promise to sustain his church, Calvin reaches the conclusion that it was either in vain (if "Rome" is right because, as they had become contaminated with "idolatry, superstition, and ungodly doctrine", Christ's church has not been sustained), or else it is not in vain and true church must be viewed as what preaches the word and attends to the sacraments.

On the act of ordination, Calvin believed that the holy spirit worked a grace through it, but it was a ceremony only (and not a sacrament). He noted that the precept for the ceremony was unclear, but the biblical testimony of the practice by the apostles is so strong that it serves as justification for the practice IN LIEU OF a known precept. Calvin gives practical benefits of the act, but recognizes its origins or ultimate purpose to be obscure. I've heard similar talk of the James account of anointing the sick with oil (see my first post) - some PCA pastors will do it because it was done in Scripture, even though they have to admit we don't know the precept for it or its inner meaning.

Calvin determined that the selection of pastors was to be by the people, based on his reading of Acts 14:23. This verse uses the Greek verb ‘cheirotoneO’ (“hand-stretching”), which is usually translated in English as 'ordaining' or 'appointing', but was translated by Calvin as “voting” (see http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5500&Version=KJV). In this debate (whether the stretching of hands was up to vote, or out to ordain) hangs a major tenet of Presbyterianism polity. If the Presbyterian view is right, I note that it is not the perspicuous reading of the text. A persuasive Catholic comment on this exegesis holds that it would be odd for new believers, still ill formed and on spiritual milk to choose their leaders. Most odd to me, if I choose my authority, I am the authority. God has given clear examples of authorities in the divine nature whose selection is outside of our control. My children did not choose to be under my authority, and yet they are. The Jews of the Old Covenant did not choose to be under God through His prophets. When they demanded a King, a divine Prophet identified who would be the first. A force can act authoritatively only when it has a subject to act in submission. If I choose my leader, I can choose one with my beliefs, so am in submission to nothing but my own will. Voting on our ordained pastors seems to conflict with this principal.

Calvin works hard to hold the tension in his view of church between a flock that needs to be in submission to authority and the seeming impossibility that authority flows from the Apostles through their successors.