Investigation into R2K.

     The RCUS is a small continental reformed denomination. When I was visiting Nebraska, I visited a RCUS church, and I somehow got to talking with the pastor about R2K. 

      He generally told me that the RCUS is a "1K" denomination (and more kuyperian, as opposed to theonomic), although he suspected that there may be some closeted "R2K-ers". He also said that most ministers in the RCUS tend to be amill, while he specifically was post-mil. As a matter of fact, he got his MDIV from Bahnsen Theological Seminary, and studied under Bahnsen himself. 

     One of the classis (presbytery-equivalent) of the RCUS wrote a report on the doctrine of R2K, and it lays out a pretty good summary of the R2K doctrine as held by Meredith Kline (arguably the forefather of the R2K movement), and Van Drunen and Horton. I am a little surprised that RS Clark was not mentioned at all but I think that the essence of this erroneous doctrine was captured quite clearly by examining the other three men. 

     Pastor McAtee posted the relevant portion of the classis report on his blog, and the gist of the RCUS viewpoint is that the doctrine is quite a concern for its various theological points, and further study by the classis was recommended. 

     I find this to be step in the right direction. Although the RCUS is not as big as, say, the PCA, I still think that it should have enough influence that other presbyterian / reformed denominations would be able to take notice that this effort is going on (such as the URC). I doubt that the PCA will ever produce a report like this, given the fact that they can't even properly denounce aberrant doctrines of creationism (i.e. theistic evolution), or even something just as obvious as federal vision. \

     May the RCUS continue in this bold way and denounce it for the dangerous and cowardly doctrine that it is, while the PCA and sadly, even the OPC, have not only tolerated it but have fully accepted it in certain presbyteries. 

http://ironink.org/2013/08/rcus-classis-west-reports-on-r2k-is-the-noose-tightening-on-r2k/

Baptism, Church membership and Communion

     If you have been in a reformed/presbyterian church for any length of time, you may have noticed a fairly wide range of practices (unfortunately) of the administration of the Lord's supper.

     (1) Some reformed churches will require an interview from you (if you are a visitor) and then they hand you some sort of token coin so that you can show it and then you can then take communion during the service. 

     (2) Some churches will "fence" the table by declaring a solemn warning to those who partake by quoting 1 Cor 11:29 to ensure that those who take communion understand its significance lest they simply eat and drink judgment upon themselves. Along with this warning from 1 Cor 11:29, the minister will typically say something like... "if you have been baptized and are a member in good standing of a reformed or evangelical church, you may participate etc...".

     (3) And other reformed churches will simply say something like this: "If you are a Christian, this table is for you. There is nothing more required to come to the table."

     

      View (3) is probably the loosest and most careless approach to administering communion. There are absolutely no restrictions and the "requirements" are so broad that it can easy to fall into the trap of what Paul warns in 1 Cor 11:29. 

       View (1) is probably the strictest and **seemingly** the most biblically consistent, yet has great practical danger of preventing those to come to the table, say, for people who happened to come a little bit late to service at a reformed church and didnt get a chance to interview with the elders. And so it could possibly be argued that that church has now denied communion when it had no authority to do so. 

      View (2) attempts to strike a "middle ground" in that it gives the solemn warning of who can take communion, but for the most part, leaves it up to the individual. While the middle ground seems to be a good balance, this can be especially problematic for visitors who have not been baptized and are not members of any church, and yet willfully ignore the minister's warning and take communion. I have seen this happen before. I have even brought this up to the members themselves, and my admonishments were ignored. 

      View (3) does not make any attempt to do justice whatsoever to 1 Cor 11:29, and because of that, is clearly a practice that needs to be abandoned. 

      While view (1) and view (2) both have the same understanding of the theological reasons for communion and the requirements by the believer to come to the table, both have lent themselves to different practices that in certain situations can lead to certain practical difficulties. Those practical difficulties in and of themselves are not reasons for the validity of that particular practice, but it is something to be conscious of when attempting to administer communion. I personally would be comfortable worshipping at a church that holds to either view. 

      Regarding the outward practice of view (1) and view (2), they both presuppose that the member (or visitor) **must** be baptized and a member in good standing at a church before partaking in communion. Why is this significant? Why is this even necessary?

     We understand that baptism is now the New Covenant sign and seal of the covenant believer (replacing circumcision), and membership in the visible and local church is a natural extension and visible representation of your membership in the invisible church. Baptism is something that is implicitly understood as being required. 

     Membership is presupposed when the NT letters talk about submitting to your church leaders, and praying for them, and when Paul talks about church correction/discipline issues in other parts of 1 Cor. One cannot be corrected by the church leadership if he has not formally acknowledged and submitted to that leadership through the process that we now recognize as the church membership process. A session (or consistory) would not start the discipline process on a one-time church visitor. If that visitor simply started attending the church for the next several months, is there anything inherently different regarding his status in relation to the church session compared to him visiting that first time? No.. There is no difference. Hence, this is why the attender would need to formally take that step in acknowledging the session's leadership in his spiritual walk and through this acknowledgement, he is now a member of that church. 

      It is important to realize that the way that the NT understands baptism and membership is that both are presupposed for every Christian to undergo. Those two things are so basic that it is unthinkable for the NT to consider a Christian not to have undergone baptism or formally submitted to a body of presbyters at a local church. For a Christian to not have done these two things is in fact a grave sin. It is amazing to me that the wonderful sign and seal that God gives us today is willfully ignored by many evangelicals and its significance and the seriousness of being physically set apart is not properly understood. 

     This is a big reason as to why the warning is given before communion for the partaker to be baptized and member in good standing. 

     While all of this above is correct, is there anything analogous from the OT that we can draw to support from? 

     In fact, yes, there is. If we look at Exodus 12:48, the Lord gave Passover restrictions to Israel, here in particular talking about foreigners. 

     "A foreigner residing among you who wants to celebrate the Lord’s Passover must have all the males in his household circumcised; then he may take part like one born in the land. No uncircumcised male may eat it. The same law applies both to the native-born and to the foreigner residing among you.”

     For various theological reasons, I don't hold to the fact that the Passover is the OT "version" of the Lord's supper, although there are some parallels in terms of the foreshadowing of Christ in Passover and how Christ is fully revealed and celebrated in the supper. 

     However, what is clear is that the Passover was a religious ordinance that was commanded and the Supper is a religious ordinance that is commanded. 

     What was the requirement for one to participate in the Passover? If you notice in the passage, he must first be circumcised. And we understand that circumcision, in addition to being a sign and seal, also then meant visible entrance into the covenant community of Israel. This was a requirement for Passover for the native born as well as the foreigner who was not originally from the land. Notice that a foreigner was allowed to stay and participate in the cultural (civil) dimension and realm of Israel, and yet was not allowed to participate in the cultic (religious) dimension of Israel if he was not circumcised. (Among other things, this contradicts the false notion that "church" and "state" in Israel were merged.)

     I think that it should become clear as to the parallels between the requirements for Passover, and how this carries over into the NT as it applies to the Lord's supper. 

     For those who were from the land (and eventually those who came as foreigners), it was presupposed that they would all be circumcised. Therefore, they would have received the sign and seal, and by default, the physical reflection of their receiving the sign and seal and therefore being set apart is to be (a member) in the covenant community (visible). Passover was a cultic meal that was meant only for the (visible) covenant community to set Israel apart from the Egyptians (at the time) that they belonged to God (among other things). Those foreigners who were not circumcised did not perform this ceremony in order to enter into the (visible) covenant community, and therefore, were not privy to enter into the covenant meal ceremony for those in the covenant. 

     In the same way, we should see that this concept of entrance into the visible covenant community (local church) is through the ceremony of baptism initially, and declaration of membership (say, if someone moves somewhere else but is already baptized), exactly the same intent as circumcision was in the OT. 

     Therefore, the foreigner in Israel who was not circumcised did not have the sign and seal, and was not physically set apart. Because of his non-participation in circumcision, he is not part of the covenant community (visible) and therefore was not a member of the covenant community, and was not allowed to participate in the covenant meal of Passover. 

In the same way, a Christian who is not baptized does not have the sign and seal, and is not physically set apart. Because of his non-participation in baptism, he is not part of the covenant community (visible) and therefore, **should not** be a member of the covenant community (local church). So, he is not allowed to participate in the covenant meal of communion. 

   This understanding of the relation between baptism, church membership and communion is sadly not properly understood in light of what baptism and membership really mean, and more fundamentally, its OT basis. 

    Also just as sadly, there are many churches today who have no concept of baptism and have a weak view and sometimes flat out wrong understanding of what the requirements (faith AND baptism) are for membership. This leads to other practical, yet gravely theological at the same time, difficulties in which a Christian is a "member in good standing" at a church but has not actually been baptized. In this situation, the membership, while ***temporally*** valid with regards to that local church's membership requirements (simply a declaration of faith), is not ***theologically*** valid with regards to the biblical requirements of faith plus baptism. This Christian then moves to another city and starts taking communion at a church simply because he thinks that his membership is truly valid, when all this time, he is committing the sins in 1 Cor 11:29 that Paul so strongly warns us about. 

     May God continue to raise up godly churches that cherish and teach our sacraments and what exactly sacred church membership really requires. 

Before you plunk down $5 for a box of Girl Scout cookies...

     No doubt the blogosphere has lit up like a Christmas tree concerning the Boy Scouts acceptance of sodomy... What shouldn't go un-noticed is the Girl Scouts as well. Think about what is happening to the Girl Scouts before you buy a box of their fat pills...
     You will notice that in the article, once again, the authority of the parent is being undermined... all in the name of disgusting free sex for teenage girls. If you have daughters in Girl Scouts, get them out of that organization.
     After I found out about what the Girl Scouts are so willing to do to
our daughters, I made a strict stance against buying and eating any of their cookies.
     No way will my daughter ever be joining the Girl Scouts.
     
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/18/girl-scout-sex-guide/

Signing a petition.

This is very chilling. This should serve as a reminder for what we as Christians must do to educate ourselves and our children to be thinking members of society. This also serves to remind us how we should be reaching out to those around us.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/09/watch-and-weep-heres-a-video-of-people-signing-a-petition-to-repeal-the-bill-of-rights/

The thought police

The church has nothing to say about this issue to the police or in the public square. We must willingly let the state run over Christians and their faith. We must intentionally be cowardly and not bold, and not speak out for justice. The church cannot speak out against these kinds of acts against preachers. 

Christianity has not authority over politics. It is entirely acceptable for atheists to tell us how to think, yet it is entirely rude and unloving for Christians to tell others how to think, even though we have normative truth and a fully epistemologically consistent worldview while the atheists cannot account for their knowledge or ethics.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10159420/Christian-arrested-for-calling-homosexuality-a-sin-warns-of-real-life-thought-police.html

Fourth of July

This is a letter that I sent to my family. Hopefully, for the readers out there, you can do this as well:
------------------------------------------------
Hello Family,

As we go into the Fourth of July holiday, I hope that everyone has some good rest and relaxation.

A family tradition that my family will be starting this year is to read the Declaration of Independence on 4th of July.
It didn't work out so well last year for various logistical reasons.

http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/

I decided that this would be appropriate, obviously given the nature of the holiday.
But more than that, it will remind my family just what exactly were the issues that brought about the revolution that started our country officially as the united States (plural)... (as opposed to what we now call the United States (singular)).

As we read through the Declaration, we will be reminded of the strains and stresses that the British empire was putting on the colonies and how the role of something as seemingly mundane as taxes had played such a foundational motivation for our revolution. The colonists understood that the issue was not about taxes in and of itself, but the issue was about control, and what authority the British had over the colonists.

Even in Presbyterian churches of that day, there was debate on whether it was exactly biblical to be rebelling against the British government, when this issue is understood in light of Romans Ch 13, in which Paul calls the civil magistrate a minister of God.. (Hence, this is why for instance, in the British govt today, we still refer to top officials as ministers... or for instance, the prime minister. It is the borrowed Christian capital that Britain is still using...)

Ultimately, the presbyterians decided that it was, in this exceptional circumstance, appropriate to rebel given the fact that the magistrate rejected his implied obligation in accordance to Rom 13. 

I understand that there is some debate on whether the Declaration was actually signed on July 4 etc... But, for simplicity's sake, it seems easy to do it on July 4, since that is what is generally recognized today.

In any event, as citizens, and for those who are Christian on this list, may I encourage you to take this same practice of reading the Declaration of Independence on July 4? And through this reading, you can understand just how much of a principled stand our forefathers took, and it should hopefully help us examine our own current political context and how the war that happened several hundred years ago is relevant to us today.

Chris Lee

 

Being salt and light.

     In Matthew 5, our Lord commanded his disciples (and of course, by extension, us) to be salt and light of the world. In Matt. 5:13-16 -->

     "13 “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.

14 “You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven"

     Notice how Jesus says that we are to be the salt of the earth. Salt, before the days of refrigerators, was used as a preservative. In this case, we can see that Jesus was commanding his sheep to be a preservative, but this time, of a moral nature. 

     He goes on further to command us to be light. Light so that those around them (non-Christians) and they can turn and believe in God. This light was meant to be an example to others... An example in terms of moral uprightness and how through the gospel, we have that power to follow God. 

     This command to be light harkens back to Deut 4:5-8, in which God told Moses:

6 Observe them carefully, for this will show your wisdom and understanding to the nations, who will hear about all these decrees and say, “Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.” 7 What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the Lord our God is near us whenever we pray to him? 8 And what other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting before you today?

     Notice that God is commanding Israel to observe all the laws and statutes that they were given. And that Israel's loving obedience to the law of God is to be an example to other nations, so that they can marvel at Israel's faithfulness through the grace of God, and that through this marveling, those nations would come to repentance. The connection between Deut 4 and Matt 5 seems pretty obvious to me. 

     I have often wondered how those who refuse to act as salt and light in this world (individual Christians and churches) think of when they come to verses like this. And I have often wondered whether these Christians ever actually think of the implications (theological and practical) of their refusal (whether cowardice, "deep" theological convictions to not "confuse" the kingdoms, or just plain ignorance) to engage with culture. 

     For instance, because of the increasing decay of our society, and the church's inability and refusal to speak out in a loving yet bold manner, and to engage the culture in a meaningful and heartfelt way (media, evangelism, education of our kids, you name it etc...), we end up coming up with situation such as homosexual marriage being accepted, and in fact celebrated.

     For the church to continue to refuse to engage, we will eventually see more and more Christians actually thinking that homosexuality is acceptable. This will become even more of a problem also when we start having more and more Christians who think that it is OK and entering into churches that are "conservative" (I'm not talking about the PCUSA, they have been dead for many years now). Homosexuality, due to the SCOTUS decisions, will most likely be even more "commonplace".. How will those Christians who feel that homosexuality is acceptable properly evangelize to those that happen to be homosexual? How is telling someone that his homosexuality is acceptable pleasing to the Lord? If a homosexual happens to attend a church, and is denied membership, I could easily see situations in which his Christian friend (who thinks it is OK) would leave the church...What will the session or the church leadership do then? 

    This is already happening in a similar way. At a PCA church in Southern California, the pastor started talking about the sinfulness of homosexuality, and a good portion of the congregation simply got up and left! 

     Because of our lack of epistemogically consistent engagement in larger society, I could even foresee situations in which a homosexual could become "converted", through say, evidential apologetics (which is actually how I came to believe in Christ)  but still has no concept that homosexuality is wrong. He then goes to a church, or perhaps the church that has been working with him has never mentioned this issue to him because they dont want to "offend" him, and now, there is a really big problem on the leadership's hands... He is still a practicing homosexual and yet claims to be a Christian, and now is asking to be a member of the church..... 

    Another example, with the PCA being so big, you have a wide range of churches.. Some that are super conservative that you almost feel that the women should wear head coverings, and some that you are embarrased to tell you that they are in the PCA.. I could even foresee an issue in which a young man  who is a ministerial candidate who has been so indoctrinated into the American culture, that he feels that homosexuality is completely acceptable.. What does the presbytery do then? Well, of course they would't pass him... But, this really speaks to the larger issue of how this candidate could have even gotten that far and his socio-political views go unchecked.. I know a PCA pastor who listens to Eminem on a regular basis. Having a candidate think that homosexuality is acceptable is not that far of a stretch...  Even Lee Irons' wife (current elder in the PCA, former pastor in the OPC) is such a big homosexual marriage advocate, and yet he has never told her to take her website down, and in fact, most likely endorses it.

     I have seen a similar thing like this in several PCA churches that I have been a member of in the past. The member(s) was in a relationship with a non-Christian, and in two of those cases, the Lord was exceedingly gracious and the non-Christian love interests were converted. Yet, through out this "courtship", there was no attempt made by the ministers to lovingly rebuke the members' for their dangerous pursuit of that non-Christian love interest. I even brought this issue up one time, and ***I*** was the one that was being rebuked for not "understanding" that person's situation, and he simply doesnt't understand what he is doing is wrong, and that shouldnt be enough to bar him from communion. (!!!)

    Why do these churches let this happen? Because, those churches have been so bought into the culture of having a "boyfriend/girlfriend" and that having a boyfriend or girlfriend in the secular American sense is acceptable, when at best, it is highly unwise, and at worst, it is downright destructive to the Christian (and I am only referring to two Christians becoming "boyfriend/girlfriend.").. Or perhaps, it could be simply fear of offending the member because that member wouldnt "understand".. All the more reason to correct the member, if he doesnt understand!

     The point behind my bringing this up is that if we have churches failing to correct church members for something as obvious as those members being involved romantically with a non-Christian, and even still letting a member take communion (!!), if a minister cannot even bring up the issue of a non-Christian and a Christian being involved, it is only a matter of time before you will start hearing PCA churches start accepting openly and practicing homosexual people as members of the church... The PCUSA did it... Who is to say that the PCA is immune (or any other reformed denomination, for that matter)?

    This is what happens when we as the church fail to engage and have that mindset of being salt and light in the world. This is what happens when we don't confront people with the law of God (week in and week out) because we are so focused on this ridiculous hyper-grace redemptive historical preaching that is completely devoid of application for fear of being "moralistic" or "fundamentalist." If that were really true of preaching application, then 1 Cor, Proverbs and a good portion of James should never have been written. When we dont confront with the law of God in preaching, we dont do it in various situations for fear of offending or perhaps we are so used to not doing it, that it simply doesnt enter the mind. 

     May God continue to raise up strong men and women who understand the importance of law and gospel both.