Jonathan Edwards, The Westminster Standards, and Presbyterian Church Government

Jonathan Edwards pastored a congregational church in Northampton, Connecticut for many years. It would be easy to assume that Edwards was a congregationalist at heart or that he therefore did not hold the Westminster Standards in high esteem.

This would be a mistake. When it came to catechizing his children, says Samuel Hopkins, Edwards "diligently instructed his children in the Westminster Shorter Catechism." Elsewhere, in Edwards' letters he says that it is important to be "sound and clear in the great doctrines of the gospel." He then clarifies what he means: "we here intend those doctrines which are exhibited in our excellent Westminster Catechism and Confession of Faith." He then says that it is important to "boldly and impartially appear in the defense thereof" (Letters [Yale Edition], p.277).

Edwards also thought it was important, when he was living in Stockbridge, to not only teach the indians he was ministering to how to pray, but also to "teach 'em the Assembly's Catechism, and endeavor as far as may be to make 'em to understand it" (Letters, p.688). Elsewhere, he speaks of the Westminster Catechism "as containing an excellent system of divinity; and we purpose to preach agreeable to the doctrines of the Bible exhibited therein."

Finally, Edwards found himself presented with an opportunity to travel to Scotland and minister in a Presbyterian church. Although he, of course, did not eventually do so, his reply to the church in Scotland is perhaps most revealing:

“You are pleased, dear Sir, very kindly to ask me whether I could sign the Westminster Confession of Faith, and submit to the Presbyterian form of church government; and to offer to use your influence to procure a call for me to some congregation in Scotland. I should be very ungrateful if I were not thankful for such kindness and friendship.

"As to my subscribing to the substance of the Westminster Confession, there would be no difficulty: and as to the Presbyterian government, I have long been perfectly out of conceit with our unsettled, independent, confused way of church government in this land. And the Presbyterian way has ever appeared to me most agreeable to the Word of God, and the reason and nature of things, though I cannot say that I think that the Presbyterian government of the Church of Scotland is so perfect that it can't in some respects be mended" (Letters, p.355; my emphasis).

Some Presbyterians have suggested to me in the past that Edwards is not "one of us" because he was a congregationalist. It is worth remembering that each town often only had a single church, and the church in Northampton is where Edwards found himself and ministered faithfully until being removed in the course of the communion controversy. If this letter to the church in Scotland reflected Edwards' true feelings on the matter, then perhaps Edwards would have been a Presbyterian minister if the context had been different.

Defending Presbyterianism

Jason Stellman has a new series of posts defending the glories of Presbyterianism. The first one can be found here. I found his post helpful and biblical. His conclusion, posted below, is a good summary of our pilgrim journey in this age.

So to sum up, the Reformed understanding of the relationship between the church and Scripture is anything but pristine, but it does accurately reflect the nature of life in this age before the consummation. Indeed, on that Day all the loose ends will be tied up and all our questions will be answered. But until then, we who embrace our pilgrim status and are enabled to boast in seeming weakness and glory in seeming shame are content to labor, to learn, to grow, all the while knowing that God will guide his church into all truth.

Redeemer Church Jackson, MS

The church my wife and I attend, Redeemer Church PCA, has a new website, which can be found here. The new site is much improved. The information and resources are easier to locate and use. The sermons by our pastor, Mike Campbell (pictured to the left), can be found here and you can podcast them here. His current sermon series on James is outstanding! I highly recommend it.

Redeemer Blends Race and Cultures

The church I am a member at, Redeemer Church, PCA, was featured in a recent news paper article, which can be found here. The interesting thing about the article is that the reporter seemed to understand what Redeemer is trying to do as a multi-ethnic church, namely, be the church. As our pastor, Mike Campbell stated,

“We are a Bible-believing, Christ-centered church committed to living out the reality and diversity of the kingdom of God in our community and city. We believe the gospel of Jesus Christ reconciles us to God, but also to one another and because of this our goal is to embrace in Christ all who would believe in him regardless of ethnicity or socio-economic level.”

James White on the John 3:16 Conference

Our readers know that we are not a blog that just posts videos and links all the time, but when a good link or video presents itself, we like to post them. I think this video is one of the good examples.

On Bishops, Elders, and Deacons

I have been thinking since the PCA's last General Assembly about the number and nature of church offices in the New Covenant, and I'd like to throw something out there for your consideration. Let the record show that I am merely wrestling with these things and have by no means landed on terra firma yet. Still, I will argue as though I'm convinced of this position, if for no other reason than to see if the view can bear your scrutiny.

My (hypothetical) thesis is as follows: There are two ordinary and perpetual offices in the New Testament church, bishops and deacons. The bishop (or overseer, Greek episkopos) is the minister of the Word, and the deacon (Greek diakonos) is a servant-ruler, an office that combines what we today separate, i.e., the "ruling elder" and the "deacon." And the Greek word presbyteros ("elder") can refer to either bishops or deacons.

Calm down, I haven't even made my case yet....

Paul writes his Philippian epistle "to the church in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons" (1:1). The omission of "ruling elders" can be explained (1) By saying that this church unfortunately didn't have any, (2) By saying that they were included under the category of bishops, or (3) By saying that no such distinct office existed in the churches Paul planted, but the "ruling" and "serving" was done by the deacons.

Option #1 is pure speculation. Option #2 is unlikely given Paul's description of the responsibility of the bishop in Titus 1:9 and Acts 20:28, one that sounds a lot like a trained minister and not a layman. Option #3, however, is most consistent with Paul's instruction to Timothy concerning how to order the church. In I Tim. 3:1-7 and 3:8-13 he lists the qualifications for (drumroll please)... bishops and deacons. "Ruling elders" are, once again, omited.

But when we flip ahead to I Tim. 5:17 we come to what many see as the only real Scriptural support for the contemporary notion of "ruling elders." But given that Paul specifically lists "bishops and deacons" as the church officers in Philippi, and given the apostle's qualifications for bishops and deacons specifically a couple chapters earlier, it makes a lot of sense to let Scripture interpret Scripture by saying that in this verse, the "elder who labors in the Word" is the bishop, and the "elder who rules" is the deacon.

Finally, when we observe (1) That the qualifications in Acts 6:3-7 for members of "the diaconate" include things like being "filled with wisdom and the Holy Spirit" and the ability to, essentially, determine who is a church member and who is not, and (2) That the requirements for deacons listed in I Timothy 3:8-13 include "ruling" their own households well, it seems possible (and even probable) that the "deacon" in the churches Paul planted was responsible to do what we today assign to the diaconate and the session.

In a word, the bishop ministers the Word and sacraments, while the deacons both rule and serve.

Sacraments and the PCA GA

This year at the PCA general assembly there was a culoquium (an academic "get-together") on the Sacraments. The audio for all five sessions can be found here. All and all the papers that were given were good (a few points that I did not agree with, but they were addressed in the Q & A time) and the atmosphere was very Christ exulting.

During the Question and Answer section of the culoquium Dr. Ligon Duncan made a passing remark about the nature of the sacraments. He said that the sacraments, baptism and the Lord's supper, are not "justificational;" rather they should be understood as "sanctificational" (as a side note, one of the coolest things about theologians is the fact that they get to make up new words!). This language and understanding of the sacraments is a good way to understand the efficacy (the "working-ness") of the sacraments. However, some do not think the sacraments are "simply concerned with 'sanctification.'"

Those who want to understand the sacraments as more than sanctification agree that there is an aspect of justification to the sacraments.

Baptism does not just convey the message of “You are holy.” It does not only say, “You are set apart from the world.” It also says, “Your sins are forgiven.” So too with the Eucharist. “This is my body, broken for you.” “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for the remission of sins.”

Those are “justificational” ideas.

The problem, as I understand it, with this view is it misses the role of justification in our sanctification. If you notice in the argument that our "sins are forgiven." This is in the past. In other words, baptism reminds us, if we have faith and repent of our sins, that we are forgiven. This is not properly understood as justification, but rather as reminding us of our justification, which is sanctification. It seems to me to be misunderstanding that fact that part of sanctification is being reminded, daily, that we are justified. This is not the same thing as saying that sanctification has aspects of justification in it. It is right to say that these are "justificational" ideas, but it still remains that the the sacraments are dealing with sanctification, and not justification proper.

On the Road Again

I am done with my class in Washington D.C. and am heading home this afternoon—a 15 hour drive, yuk! The class was great. I learned a lot of useful things about exegesis. I am very thankful for Dr. Van Pelt: his wonderful teaching style and insights into the biblical languages. I look forward to working on the paper for this class (it is a paper on the way the New Testament uses the Old Testament, any thoughts on a good text to pick?).

Also, I have been thinking and starting to work on a few blog articles. I hope next week to catch up on the comment sections and to post a few new blogs. I am really excited about a few of the blogs I am working on. On of them, to give you a teaser, has to do with the PCA's general assembly. It should be good.

PCUSA...I Use to be One

For someone who was once in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., I could not resist finding the humor in this cartoon and passing it on to our readers. Incidentally, this is one of the reasons I am now in the PCA.

Federal Vision's Trajectory

I have been doing a lot of thinking over the past few months about the Federal Vision. One area in particular, namely, most in the Reformed camp believe that the FV is outside of the bounds of the Reformed tradition, while all those in the FV claim that they are clearly within it.

As I have been pondering this issue one reason seems to fit best with what is going on. I want to share this reason with our readers so we can discuss this point. I am not saying that this is how it must be, nor am I saying this is how it is, but rather, I am suggesting one possible way to explain this phenomenon within Reformed circles.

Many in the FV point back to John Murray as their theological root. That is, those in the FV believe that they are in the theological trajectory of John Murray. This may be the case. However, those in the FV have moved past Murray on issues of the Covenant and other key Reformed distinctives. Even though those in the FV can point back to Murray as their theological ancestor, they have moved far enough past him to put themselves outside of the camp.
Another example of this may be Lee Irons (I am not up on all the ins-and-outs of what happened with him, but I do know that the OPC saw fit to remove him from their denomination.), Irons stands in the theological trajectory of Meridith Kline, who is well within the Reformed tradition. Irons can point back and show who his thought is rooted in Kline, but, as the OPC decided, he is outside of the Reformed tradition.

I think something similar is going on with the Federal Vision. I think they can look back to Murray and pick out a few of his thoughts and "develop" them to the point that that are outside of the Reformed Camp. Those in the FV are unaware of this because they think they are just following Murray, but, what they do not understand is they have taken Murray in a direction that leads them outside of the Reformed tradition, a place Murray did not go.

Again, this is just a "theory" that I have about why the FV thinks they are within the Reformed camp, while the majority in that camp believe them to be out of it. I am trying to make sense of this "mess" and this has been helpful for me to understand what is going on.

Video on Indigenous African-American PCAs

The church my wife and I are members at, Redeemer Church PCA, is one of the churches featured in this short video about African-Americans in the PCA. It is very encouraging to see the PCA, and other Reformed denominations, reaching out to different sub-cultures. May God continue to bless the work he has begun.

Westminster on Resurrection

Westminster Larger Catechism 52

How was Christ exalted in his resurrection?

Christ was exalted in his resurrection, in that not having seen corruption in death (of which it was not possible for him to be held), and having the very same body in which he suffered, with the essential properties thereof, (but without mortality, and other common infirmities belonging to this life), really united to his soul, he rose again from the dead the third day by his own power; whereby he declared himself to be the Son of God, to have satisfied divine justice, to have vanquished death, and him that had the power of it, and to be Lord of quick and dead: all which he did as a public person, the head of his Church, for their justification, quickening in grace, support against enemies, and to assure them of their resurrection from the dead at the last day.

No One Gets Us

Last November at the PCA’s general assembly, the PCA passed the Ad Interim Study Committee’s paper on the Federal Vision, New Perspective, and Auburn Avenue Theologies. This paper, in essence, rejected the views of the Federal Vision, in all its forms, and the New Perspectives on Paul.

Since this paper came out those who are in the Federal Vision (FV) have set their guns against this document. They have leveled many charges against the paper and the Study Committee: the committee was stacked, they misrepresented our views, they did not contact us to get clarification or to see if we really held to the views they said we did.

This last charge is one I would like to discuss because to my mind it is the weakest of the charges, yet it is the one I hear most often. First, why does the Study Committee need to contact you about your views? As Steve Wilkins put it in his resent letter addressing why this Church (Auburn Ave. Presbyterian Church) left the PCA, “the PCA Study Committee, which had judged me to be out of accord with our confessional standards without asking for clarification or for a response on my part…” I do not understand why the committee needed to speak with those who are apart of the FV. They have written a book, many blogs and/or lectures on these issues. Are their writings that unclear? Are their lectures so muddy that a person cannot listen to them and understand their position on a given point? It seems, at times, as if the FVers are saying that you cannot understand a person’s views unless you speak to them. If this is the case, then we can know nothing about anyone’s views that is passed. This is simply untrue. I can, for example, read Calvin and know what he thought about a certain issue. I do not need to call him up on the phone and talk to him to clarify his views. Now, if I did not understand Calvin it would be good to seek clarity. So to, the Study Committee could, if they so desired, have spoken with those men who they were writing about, but there is no moral or intellectual necessity that they do so.

Secondly, it does seem that the FVers think, maybe subconsciously, that they are unclear. The reason I say this is two fold: first, because they want everyone to speak to them for clarity and second, to my knowledge, there is not a single FVer who states that a person on the other side understands their view. In other words, according to the FVers, they are the only ones who understand their position. To disagree with them is, in essence, to not understand them. This is most unfortunate. Writing and lectures are the best way to get your point across clearly and preciously. But the FVers seem to be unable to get their whole system out there for public view in a clear manner. The reason for this, I fear, is that their system is contradictory. That is, the Federal Vision, as a whole, has internal inconsistencies. This is most obvious by their views of a quasi baptismal regeneration and their understanding of justification by faith alone.

Regardless of the consistency of the Federal Vision, this charge that the PCA Study Committee needed to contact these men needs to be dropped. This is simply rhetoric that takes away from the main issues of the truthfulness and confessionalness of the Federal Vision.