Vester Grundt

"Whosover Will Be Saved": What We Believe About the Trinity and Christ Matters

2012-02-05T20:45:00.000-06:00

The latest discussion about the Elephant Room 2 Conference and T D Jakes, is but a drop of water in an ocean of greater controversy. It is symptomatic of the mailaise of Christian doctrine in America. If you to asked fifty Christians from various backgrounds whether doctrine is important in the life of the church, you would probably get a variety of opinions, but I would be surprised if you got any real assertions.

What's going on? If you've studied any history of Christianity in America and know something about sociology in America, then you would know that democracy has taken over the Christian church in America. Concerning the historical aspect Phillip Schaff writes, "Tendencies, which had found no political room to unfold themselves in other lands, wrought here (America) without restraint...Every theological vagabond and peddler may drive here his bungling trade, without passport or license, and sell his false ware at pleasure. What is to come of such confusion is not now to be seen" (The Principle of Protestantism, 116). Nathan Hatch writes, "Christianity was effectively reshaped by common people who molded it in their own image and who threw themselves into expanding its influence. Increasingly assertive common people wanted their leaders unpretentious, their doctrines self-evident and down-to-earth, their music lively and singable, and their churches in local hands. It was this upsurge of democratic hope that characterized so many religious cultures in the early republic and brought Baptists, Methodists, Disciples of Christ, and a host of other insurgent groups to the fore" (The Democratization of American Christianity, 9).

Regarding the sociological aspect Alexis de Tocqueville wrote, "Equality begets in man the desire of judging of everything for himself: it gives him, in all things, a taste for the tangible and the real, a contempt for tradition and for forms" (Democracy in America, 553). Although, there is a principle of individuality in both Scripture and Reformed theology, it does not come at the expense of forms and tradition properly understood. Scripture and Reformed theology both assert that Scripture is not of "private interpretation" (2 Pet. 1:20). The desire of judging for yourself is granted so long as it does not lead to a total contempt for tradition and forms.

It is no wonder that after years and years of this demoncratization of American Christianity that going to church today is like going to a mall. You get to pick and choose what you want and don't want, and no one has the right to shove their beliefs down your throat. And it is certainly not right to tell you that if you don't believe a certain way you cannot be part of a church, or, worse, cannot inherit eternal life.

Let us go back, however, to earlier times in the Church, and we see a different picture. The Athanasian Creed begins and ends with a startling assertion. "Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; Which faith unless everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastinly." And, "This is the catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved" (The Three Forms of Unity: The Reformed Church in the United States Subordinate Doctrinal Standards, 14, 15). What was the "catholic faith" that the Creed spoke of? It is the truth of the divinty of the three Persons of the Trinity, and the belief that Christ was both God and Man, two natures in one person forever. Those who denied either of these claims, according to the Creed, cannot expect to have eternal life.

How many Christians would dare assert this today? Most hem and haw at this matter and try to weasel around it by claiming, "We don't really know what is going on in someone's heart," or, "We don't expect everybody to have all their theological ducks in a row," or, "God would never send anyone to hell for not having their doctine 100% correct." If someone in the church today denied that God is one God subsisting in three persons, or if they denied that Christ was two natures (divine and human) in one person, this would not necessarily condemn them to eternal perdition, nor would it necessarily mean sanction from their own church.

But the early church and the Reformed church have always seen these two doctrines as fundamental articles of the faith. Both articles were necessary to be believed in order to have membership in the church, as well as to be considered a true Christian. Concerning the doctrine of the Trinity the Belgic Confession says, "This doctrine of the Holy Trinity has always been affirmed and maintained by the true Church since the time of the apostles to this very day against the Jews, Mohammedans, and some false Christians and heretics" (57). Concerning the doctrine of Christ's incarnation it says, "We confess that He is very God and very man: very God by His power to conquer death; and very man that He might die for us according to the infirmity of His flesh" (62).

Some people try to get out of believing certain doctrines by claiming that it is not a "salvation issue. But, clearly, in Scirpture both doctrines are salvation issues. The doctrine of the Trinity is necessary to be believed because, first and foremost, we are to have no other gods before the one, true God. Secondly, because God revealed Himself for our salvation as one God in three persons (1 Pet. 1:2). And, third, because Jesus said that knowledge of God and of Himself is requisite for salvation (John 17:3).

Knowledge of the incarnation of Christ is necessary because Christ could not save us in any way except He be both God and man. His death would not have the power over our sins or over death if He was not God. And He could not die for us if He was not man. If we deny this doctrine, we deny the efficacy and truthfulness of His death and resurrection for our sins.

Furthermore, in this day, where the church is more and more making concessions to Judaism, Islam, and heretical Christianity, such as Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses, it is necessary that we maintain the truth of these doctrines over and against these errors. I was shocked to read that a person of such stature as Richard Mouw state that he expects to see unconverted Jews and Mormons in heaven. It is also shocking to me that a person who considers himself to be Reformed call other people in the Reformed crowd to repent for calling T D Jakes a "heretic." T D Jakes was a modalist. He may not be a modalist in the strict sense now, but his affirmation of the doctrine of the Trinity is anything but satisfactory. He still claims to have problems with the traditional formulation of the Trinity. He does not like the term "persons." He said that he prefers the "Pauline" terminology of "manifestations" (2 Tim 3:16). No one at the Elephant Room conference dared tell him that this term was referring to the doctrine of the incarnation and not the Trinity. No one also dared to tell him that modalists use the term "manifestations." But we should be asking why T D Jakes does not like the traditional terminology of the Trinity. As my father, Pastor Kevin Carr, pointed out in a discussion I had with him about this, a man who does not believe in the traditional formulation of the trinity has something to hide. I would also like to point out that the Socinians during the Reformation were trying to be "Pauline" rather than be Nicene. But, as history I think arguably shows, being Nicene is being Pauline.

In this democratic milieu we find ourselves in, we must always be on guard against populist and democratic theology if we want safety for our souls. We have a rich heritage delivered to us from the early Creeds and Reformed Confessions. The doctrines of the Apostles' Creed, which declares to us the Trinity, as well as the two nature of Christ, are not a bunch of popular opinions for us to jovially discuss over coffee. They are as, Caspar Olevianus proclaims, a "summary of the doctrine delivered by Christ the King to the apostles" (An Exposition of the Apostles' Creed, 9). The Church is not a democracy. It is a Monarchy ruled by Christ the King. Those who believe contrary to His teaching handed down to us by His apostles, do so to their eternal peril.

God Without Parts

2012-01-14T15:48:00.001-06:00

If you have an hour to spare, I would highly recommend watching this episode of Christ the Center. The subject under discussion is the simplicity of God. Cambden Bucey and Jeff Waddington interview James Dolezal on his dissertation, which recently has been published as God Without Parts: Divine Simplicity and the Metaphysics of God's Absoluteness.

Ivory Soap Logic

2011-11-29T23:41:00.000-06:00

In the past several weeks I have been driving past a billboard advertising Ivory Soap which reads, "When dirt changes its formula so will we." Rarely do I ponder billboards, but just today I was thinking about it and I realized that sound theology is being advertised. Ivory Soap has been around for many years. It was first sold in 1879. The world has seen many changes: technology and science has progressed significantly since 1879, but Proctor and Gamble have been standing by their old formula since day one. Why? The answer is simple: Dirt is fundamentally the same. We do not need to improve upon a formula that effectively cleanses the dirt off your body.

Friends, is it not the same with the message of the gospel? The very moment sin entered the world, God gave a simple yet powerful and effective remedy against sin. Science and technology, to be sure, have advanced considerably since the day Adam and Eve fell, but God has been standing by His old formula since day one. Why? The answer is simple: Sin is fundamentally the same. God does not need to improve upon a formula that effectively cleanses you from all unrighteousness and presents you unstained before His glorious presence with great joy. God does not ask us to be innovative with His Word. He does not need us to fill in the gaps with the latest findings of science and technology. His gospel does not need to change to fit the needs of modern man. His gospel continues to be the only power unto salvation. It continues to be the only powerful and effective remedy against sin.

Yet Another Federal Visionist Goes Free in the PCA (Updated)

2011-10-11T21:17:00.000-05:00

From the Aquila Report: "The PCA’s Pacific Northwest Presbytery, at its October 7, 2011 meeting, found Teaching Elder Peter Leithart not guilty of charges brought against him regarding holding and teaching views associated with Federal Vision. The vote of the Presbytery approved the findings of a judicial commission of the PNW which conducted a trial on June 3-4, 2011." You can read the rest here.

Lane Keister, who served as a witness in the case, has posted here and made his testimony available here.

Jason Stellman, himself a member of the PNW Presbytery, posted here.

Update: Trial documents are now available here.

Baptism, the Benefits of Christ, Calvin, and the Reformed Confessions

2011-10-10T23:48:00.000-05:00

What happens at baptism? This has of late been a vexing question to many because of the new perspectives on covenant theology disseminated by some in Reformed and Evangelical churches who claim adherance to the Reformed Confessions. There are some who want to over-objectify (if I may coin a phrase) baptism and claim that the actual benefits signified by baptism (i.e., the forgiveness of sins,regeneration, and union with Christ) are actually conferred, in some sense, upon the recipient of baptism whether he is elect or not. That means a reprobate can receive a temporary forgiveness of sins, a temporary regeneration, and a temporary union with Christ, in some sense.

Calvin and the Reformed Confessions are often cited as being in favor of this view, but are they? The Westminster Confession speaks of baptism as a "sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life." Do these benefits automatically happen to the recipient of baptism at the moment of baptism? The Westminster Confession says, "No." "Grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it; or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated." Again it says, "The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time." One might be tempted to read the phrase "the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred" and conclude that regeneration and forgiveness of sins are really conferred upon the recipient of baptism regardless of who he is. But the Confession is quick to point out that the grace promised is only conferred upon those "who it belongeth unto," i.e., the elect. There is no hint the Westminster Confession that the reprobate receive anything other than a wet forehead and judgment.

What about Calvin? Surely he must agree with the view that everyone, including the reprobate, gets forgiveness of sins and regeneration in baptism. Did he not write, "M: But do you attribute nothing more to the water that to be a mere symbol of ablution? C: I think it to be such a symbol that reality is attached to it. For God does not disappoint us when he promises us his gifts. Hence both pardon of sins and newness of life are certainly offered to us and received by us in Baptism." If this were all that Calvin said on the matter we could conclude that he advocated the new covenantal view. But, in fact, he doesn't, for he continues, "M: Is this grace bestowed on all indiscriminately? C: Many by their wickedness preclude its entry, and so render it empty for themselves. Thus its fruit reaches the faithful only. But thereby nothing is lost to the sacrament." And "M: How are these benefits conferred on us through Baptism? C: Because unless we render the promises unfruitful by rejecting them, we are fed with Christ and granted his Spirit." And "M:But what have we to do to use Baptism rightly? C: The right use of Baptism lies in faith and repentance. That is, we must first hold with a firm and hearty confidence that we, having been cleansed from all stains by the blood of Christ, are pleasing to God; then we are to feel his Spirit indwelling in us and declare this to others by our deeds, and so practise ourselves unceasingly in meditating on the mortification of the flesh and obedience unto the righteousness of God."

It is not a complicated matter. Calvin and the Reformed Confessions teach that Baptism is more than a bare and empty ceremony. There is a reality behind the sign and seal, but the benefits are not applied to all indiscriminately. Calvin says the faithful receive the benefits and the Westminster Confession asserts that it is the elect who receive them. The faithful and the elect are one and the same. There is no nuanced difference between Calvin and the Westminster Confession, for Calvin teaches that only the elect have faith. Both teach that faith and the Holy Spirit are necessary in order for the recipient of baptism to receive the promised benefits. Without them all that he receives is a wet forehead and judgment.

Two Key Documents in the Siouxlands Presbytery vs. TE Greg Lawrence Case (Updated)

2011-10-06T21:51:00.000-05:00

The first document is the prosecutions case against TE Greg Lawrence. It has all the charges and the evidences against him. The second is TE Lawrence's plea.

1. Case Against TE Lawrence
2. TE Lawrence's Plea

Update: Below are three more documents that are relevant to this case. The first is the brief for the defense. The second is the report of the work of the 1st committee to investigate TE Lawrence. The third is the final report of the committee to instruct TE Lawrence.

Defense Brief
Report of the Investigative Committee
Report of the Committee to Instruct TE Lawrence

Updated 10-06-11
Bob Mattes offers some good thoughts about the Lawrence Case here.

Note: I have been informed that these documents are in fact allowed to be made public.

Confederation of Reformed and Evangelical Churches General Council 2011 Meeting this Week in Minneapolis, MN

2011-10-05T23:27:00.003-05:00

The Confederation of Reformed and Evangelical Churches is having its Triennial General Council this week (Oct. 3-7) in Minneapolis, MN hosted by Christ Church--Twin Cities. No major issues appear to be on the agenda. One thing on the agenda that may be important for the CREC is the motion from the Athanasius Presbytery to change the denominations name from "Confederation of Reformed and Evangelical Churches" to "Communion of Reformed and Evangelical Churches". "Rationale: Churches in the Southern States are encountering significant difficulties due to a common identification of the word "confederation" with the word "confederacy" in the popular culture." The CREC is a body of Churches that hold to the historic Christian Creeds and affirm the evangelical tenets of Protestantism.

Council Agenda
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E

Farewell, Rob Bell

2011-09-29T12:38:00.003-05:00

Rob Bell (former) pastor of Mars Hill Church in Grandville, MI announced this past Sunday that he will be leaving to focus on a broader audience. His plan is to move to California and continue writing and speaking on national and international tours, but not to start a new church. Rather he is going to focus on "new ways" to share God's love.

Speaking of tours, Bell will begin his Fit to Smash Ice Tour this November. It's apparently time for a tour, Rob Bell says, because there are some things he has left unsaid. He explains, "Have I ever told you about the smoke machine at the wedding? Or the time I hit my head and had to be told who I was? Or the one about Eleazar and the elephant? I didn't think so. Which means it's time for a tour." Besides all this Bell plans to tell audiences across the US and Canada about "all the exhilarating ways we stumble and fumble and fail and bleed and limp along and just how good and sacred and thrilling it all is."

As Rob Bell ventures off into the great unknown, we ought to wonder to ourselves if this really is a good thing. I'm not here mentioning anything about the controversy surrounding his recent book Love Wins, in which he denies the traditional view of hell. Rather, I am talking about the removal of more restraints on an already loose cannon. Rick Warren, of all people, actually made an important point in a tweet he wrote regarding Rob Bell's announced departure. "Speaking tours feed the ego," he writes, "All applause&no responsibility.It's an unreal world. A church gives accountability&validity." And let me add my "Amen" to that.

However, and herein lies the problem, folks like Bell have already thrown off the restraints of any confessional fidelity. Bell's current church does not hold to any historic Confession. I am willing to guess that they believe in the minimals of Christianity, such as the bare bones of the Apostles' Creed, but beyond that, what do they really believe are the essentials of Christianity? Bell has already shown that he is willing to jump on trampolines with missing springs (read his Velvet Elvis). If he is willing to do that, what is he going to do now that he has sprouted wings?

Siouxlands Presbytery Finds TE Greg Lawarence Not Guilty

2011-09-28T00:43:00.001-05:00

The Aquila Report has the details of the trial here. I plan to add a few of my thoughts on the matter in a little while.

Calvin and the Belgic Confession on Baptism

2011-09-27T22:59:00.001-05:00

I will be beginning a Sunday School lesson this Lord's Day on the doctrine of infant baptism. Our textbook is the booklet, Why Do We Baptize Infants, which is part of the Basics of the Reformed Faith series, published by P&R. This class will not cover everything about baptism, but rather will focus on what is probably the most controversial aspect of the Reformed teaching on baptism today, vis., infant baptism. Before I begin with the biblical basis for the practice of infant baptism, it is good to be reminded about what Baptism actually means. The following quotes are representative of what the Reformed Churches teach concerning the meaning of baptism. The first is from John Calvin and the second from the Belgic Confession (BC).

"Baptism has been given to us by God, to help, first, our faith in him, and, secondly, our profession of faith before men. Faith looks at the promise through which the merciful Father offers us the communication of his Christ, in order that, being clothed with him, we may be participants in all his goods. Yet baptism represents particularly two things: The first is the purgation which we obtain in the blood of Christ; the second is the mortification of our flesh, which we have had through his death...Baptism serves likewise as our acknowledgment of faith in the sight of men; because it is a mark by which we publicly declare that we wish to be numbered among the people of God, to the end that we, together with all believers, may serve and honor, with one same religion, one God." (Instruction in Faith, 69)

"Therefore He has commanded all those who are His to be baptized with pure water, into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, thereby signifying to us, that as water washes away the filth of the body when poured upon it, and is seen on the body of the baptized when sprinkled upon him, so does the blood of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit internally sprinkle the soul, cleanse it from its sins, and regenerate us from children of wrath unto children of God. Not that this is effected effected by the external water, but by the sprinkling of the precious blood of the Son of God; who is our Red Sea, through which we pass to escape the tyranny of Pharaoh, that is, the devil, and to enter into the spiritual land of Canaan." (BC, Art. 34)

There are a couple of things to notice in these quotes. First of all, notice that both Calvin and the Belgic Confession place a distinction between the sign (baptism, water) and what is signified (the washing away of sin, the blood of Christ). Baptism in and of itself does not wash away our sins. What does wash away our sins is Christ's blood. Secondly, there is an emphasis on the need for faith by the one who has been baptized. If the baptized person does not believe in Christ his baptism cannot wash away his sins. It is only by faith in Christ does one obtain the benefits of Christ. A baptized person cannot claim to have his sins washed away if he does not believe in Christ. This argues then for the need of the work of the Holy Spirit in the one baptized. It is the Spirit who regenerates us from children of wrath unto children of God. The Spirit may or may not regenerate a person at the moment of baptism, but baptism in and of itself is nothing without the Spirit.

It is important to keep all this in mind as we move on to discuss how all of what Calvin and the BC say about baptism is not incompatible with the practice of infant baptism. But we will say more on this in the next post.

Paul Helm's Review of Horton's Systematic Theology

2011-09-25T21:18:00.019-05:00

I always appreciate anything Paul Helm has to say, so when I saw that he had written a review of Michael Horton's The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way, I had to pause and read it. In the main, Helm is appreciative of the work, but he offers three questions that were raised in his perusal of it.

1. He questions the citing of a wide range of modern theological authors. This approach, he notes has "strengths and weaknesses." "The dangers for the unwary or untutored are obvious," he writes. Furthermore, he says, "I suspect that the number of Horton's very contemporary citations will date the book sooner than if he had concentrated more exclusively on the classic, primary texts, catholic and reformed, those that are formative and have stood the test of time."

2. The second question regards the manner or voice in which Horton writes. He says, "I think it is fair to say that Horton writes in the same voice, in the same key and register, no matter what he is discussing. There is never a suggestion that he might be surer of the grounding and intelligibility of some doctrines rather than others, that some are clearer than others, more difficult than others, more puzzling, more speculative, harder to swallow, more inherently mysterious than others. But to adopt this uniform approach seems to depart from the normal patterns of human belief, in which some beliefs are more confidently held than others, some more central in the web of belief, some more peripheral." Helm is not the only one to notice this about Horton's writings. I have often complained to my friends and companions that I have a hard time reading Horton's works because his writing style is so mechanical. Perhaps Horton is aware of his own shortcomings in this matter. Helm finishes his thought, "If systematic theologians like Calvin and Horton are human too, ought not their products to be contoured in a more human way? If some doctrines are hard to be understood, and some hard to take, why not say this and why?"

3. Helm's final thought is the most provocative. Here it is in the whole:

A final general comment. Horton's systematic theology, like many another's, is very much an intramural product, consisting of lots of conversations among exclusively Christian theologians. The general features or movements of current culture only merit discussion insofar as they have been taken up by or unconsciously reflected in the published work of members of the guild. As far as I can see the numerous works in systematic theology recently produced among conservative theologians (Grudem, Frame, Reymond, Kelly and now Horton) all seem to play on the same field and in more or less the same way, so that while we all may have our favourite, there is, frankly, little to choose between them, except depth of pocket or size of shelf. Is this, a kind of Theological Correctness, what contributes to the feeling of many that systematic theology is inherently dull? I hazard the hope that when the present cycle of systematic theology writing has run its course, the next cycle, while thoroughly conservative in orientation, will be wider, broader, more expansive, allowing some genuine, substantive differences of opinion and so, if nothing else, widening consumer choice.

Perhaps such a change will be forced on new authors whether they like it or not. Ought not a modern systematic theology to engage with Islam? (The word is not in the index of Horton's book) 'Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God? 'Christian providence or Muslim fate?' I wonder how Michael Horton's overarching theme, the theme of covenant, would work when considered in the company of the other 'Abrahamic religions'?

I personally have not read through Horton's Systematic Theology in its entirety. I have read several sections, and eventually I plan to read it all the way through. I must say, however, that I agree with Helm's appreciative, though somewhat critical assessment. Horton's work is one of this century's most important writings, and I hope it will enjoy a wide audience, but I think that if Helm's criticisms are taken seriously by Horton in subsequent editions (if there will be any), then I think that it will be all the more a classic of this generation.

Conferences to Attend

2011-09-25T20:23:00.001-05:00

If you are in the Sioux Falls area, be sure to leave the weekend of October 7th and 8th open so that you may attend this conference on worship for all ages and backgrounds. Revs. Alan Strange of Mid America Reformed Seminary and Spencer Aalsburg of Sioux Falls URC will be presenting on this important topic. Details on the conference here.

Another conference worth considering is the Kingdom of God Conference, which will be held at St. John's Reformed Church (RCUS) in Lincoln, NE. Rev. David Van Drunnen, noted author and Robert B. Strimple professor of Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics at Westminster Seminary California, will be the presenter. It will be held the following weekend of October 14th and 15th. Details about this conference are here.