Author: jetbrane

I am a Pastor of a small Church in Mid-Michigan who delights in my family, my congregation and my calling. I am postmillennial in my eschatology. Paedo-Calvinist Covenantal in my Christianity Reformed in my Soteriology Presuppositional in my apologetics Familialist in my family theology Agrarian in my regional community social order belief Christianity creates culture and so Christendom in my national social order belief Mythic-Poetic / Grammatical Historical in my Hermeneutic Pre-modern, Medieval, & Feudal before Enlightenment, modernity, & postmodern Reconstructionist / Theonomic in my Worldview One part paleo-conservative / one part micro Libertarian in my politics Systematic and Biblical theology need one another but Systematics has pride of place Some of my favorite authors, Augustine, Turretin, Calvin, Tolkien, Chesterton, Nock, Tozer, Dabney, Bavinck, Wodehouse, Rushdoony, Bahnsen, Schaeffer, C. Van Til, H. Van Til, G. H. Clark, C. Dawson, H. Berman, R. Nash, C. G. Singer, R. Kipling, G. North, J. Edwards, S. Foote, F. Hayek, O. Guiness, J. Witte, M. Rothbard, Clyde Wilson, Mencken, Lasch, Postman, Gatto, T. Boston, Thomas Brooks, Terry Brooks, C. Hodge, J. Calhoun, Llyod-Jones, T. Sowell, A. McClaren, M. Muggeridge, C. F. H. Henry, F. Swarz, M. Henry, G. Marten, P. Schaff, T. S. Elliott, K. Van Hoozer, K. Gentry, etc. My passion is to write in such a way that the Lord Christ might be pleased. It is my hope that people will be challenged to reconsider what are considered the givens of the current culture. Your biggest help to me dear reader will be to often remind me that God is Sovereign and that all that is, is because it pleases him.

A Conversation On Justification By Faith Alone

I’ve stuck my toe back into the justification – Federal Vision debate over at Doug Wilson’s place.

http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=6077&qdata=2314#posts37240

My conversation partner is Mr. Tim Enloe. Tim’s specialty is Medieval Church history and he is quite well read and extraordinarily intelligent. I can genuinely say that I would love for Tim to teach Church history to my children.

However, Tim is wrong on justification by faith alone. Tim is part of a burgeoning movement called “Reformed Catholicism” (a kind of step-child of Federal Vision). The problem with this movement is that it can be lauded or denigrated depending exactly on how one defines the movement. For Tim, Reformed Catholicism at least means no longer insisting on justification by faith alone as, as Calvin put it, “the hinge of the Reformation.” In this denial one is left wondering what is “Reformed” about “Reformed Catholicism.”

Tim has disavowed that justification by faith alone (jbfa) is the doctrine that is central, has primacy, and should be esteemed. Now, this doesn’t mean that Tim doesn’t believe in some form of jbfa but it does mean that in his reducing its importance to the point that it should no longer serve as a divider between orthodoxy and unorthodoxy Tim has left the Reformed reservation.

We need to understand that jbfa is a river in which all the tributaries of Reformed soteriology flow. Should we mess with jfba, by necessity we must also alter our thinking on other doctrinal issues like penal substitutionary atonement, total depravity, sanctification, perseverance of the saints, and others. Tim’s desire to altar jfba understandings will inevitably lead to altering Reformed theology as a whole.

Below is a reproduction, on my end, of the conversation with Tim at Mablog.

Come on Tim … just admit it … all your huffing and puffing is masquerade on your part seeking to hide your desire for a Kuhnian paradigm change. In all your denials of the centrality of jbfa and in all your bashing of “ossification” and “repristination,” and in all your lamenting about “dying in the doldrums of rote repetition, self-righteousness, and sheer fear of the unknown and different,” what we are seeing is merely the means of a bully who is trying to force and/or shame people into his preferred paradigm change.

By the time we buy what you are selling there is very little of the Reformed trademark left. Indeed, I would guess that the only reason that you maintain the word “Reformed,” (as in “Reformed Catholicism”) is that you hope that in doing so you can dupe Reformed people into thinking that they aren’t really leaving a set identifiable theology for a radically different set identifiable theology.

What we desperately need is people to nail their colors to the mast. What we desperately need is for people like Tim to admit, “Reformation theology has outlived its usefulness but that’s ok because I have thought of something better that will take its place.” At least then everyone would know that the notion of “Reformed” is being cast aside for something new and improved.

I never said there was no way to choose among competing psycho-history schools that will put us in the mind of the Reformers. That is you, once again, putting words in my mouth that will serve to advance your narrow minded intolerant cause. The point was that I’m not buying your revisionist school. Further, the point was that there are plenty of other schools out there that read the psycho-history differently that can be appealed to in defiance of your preferred interpretation.

Turning to the matter of corrections. Clearly when a movement is in error corrections are needed. However when a movement is not in error it would be error to embrace corrections. So all your whining about Reformed people not accepting corrections reduces down to the issue between us, which is … “Does the Reformed movement need to accept corrections.” You seem to suggest the affirmative in massive doses. While, I, on the issue of justification, have yet to see any corrections that are an improvement. I certainly don’t see them in the Federal Vision writings of which I’ve read a great deal. So, when you come up with some corrections that actually are beneficial let me know and I’ll be more than glad to consider them.

The really sad thing in the Reformed church today is that we are awash in a sea of innovative errors by factions on every side. There are the Federal Vision errors. There are the R2Kt virus errors. There are the New Perspective errors. There are the Peter Enns inspiration errors. Indeed, it is easier to accept some error of some sort then it is to return to the old paths.

And of course in the end to embrace any of the errors of the well intentioned people who are promulgating them will not bring us or them closer to what they say they want, but instead will usher in a new dark age.

You didn’t like the article by which the church stands or falls. How about Calvin’s words instead?

Justification by Faith Alone is the hinge of the Reformation.

If we get rid of the hinge then the door no longer works Tim.

In my estimation the whole work of Federal Vision, like the work of the New Perspective is a work dedicated to eliminating the barrier of jbfa that keeps Christendom from being rebuilt along the lines of some other kind of understanding of justification. Now, I’m a big believer in Christendom, but a Christendom that is refashioned at the cost of justification by faith alone is not a Christendom that I’m interested in simply because it wouldn’t really be Christendom.

So my advice is that has much as Federal Vision has to recommend it (and there really is much to recommend it) in the end Reformed people cannot build bridges to Federal Vision precisely because of its abandonment of justification by faith alone. It is a poison to Reformed thinking that is every bit as dangerous as R2Kt poison.

A different poison to be sure, but a poison all the same.

Answering Empiricism — For Anna

Last night I spent a few minutes, at the request of my daughter Anna, with a college student who was denying the existence of God. He was a Empiricist / Verificationist who was demanding physical sensory evidence for proof of God’s existence. He refused to accept the absurdity and self-defeating nature of his position. With that conversation still ringing in my head I thought I would quote Bahnsen on the problem of Empiricism / Verificationism.

“When the unbeliever contends that nothing in man’s temporal, limited, natural experience can provide knowledge of the metaphysical or supernatural, he is simply taking a roundabout way of saying that the Biblical account of God who makes Himself clearly known in the created order and Scripture is mistaken.

This begging of the question is sometimes veiled from the unbeliever by his tendency to recast the nature of theological truth as man-centered and rooted initially in human, empirical experience. However, the very point in contention between the believer and the unbeliever comes down to the claims that Christian teaching is rooted in God’s self-disclosure of the truth as found in the world around us and in the written word. There is no reason to think that theology would be intellectually required to be built upon the foundation of human sense experience, unless someone were presupposing in advance that all knowledge must ultimately derive from empirical procedures. But that is the very question at hand. The anti-metaphysical polemic is not a supporting reason for rejecting Christianity; it is simply a re-wording of that rejection itself.

PHILOSOPHICAL SELF-DECEPTION

We are brought, then, to number (1) above, the first and foundational step in the case against metaphysics. What are we to make of the assertion that ‘all significant knowledge about the objective world is empirical in nature.’? The most obvious and philosophically significant reply would be that if the preceding statement were true, then — on the basis of the claim — we could never know that it were true. Why? Simply because the statement in question is not itself known as the result of empirical testing and experience. Therefore, according to its own strict standards, the statement could not amount to significant knowledge about the objective world. It simply reflects the subjective (perhaps meaningless!) bias of the one who pronounces it. Hence the anti-metaphysician not only has his own preconceived conclusions (presuppositions), but it turns out that he cannot live according to them (Rom. 2:1). On the basis of his own assumptions he refutes himself (II Tim. 2:25). As Paul put it about those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness: ‘They become futile in their speculations (Rom. 1:21)!

FURTHER DIFFICULTIES

There are other difficulties with the position expressed by (1) as well. We can easily see that it amounts to a presupposition for the unbeliever. What rational basis or evidence is there for the position that all knowledge must be empirical in nature? That is not a conclusion supported by other reasoning, and the premise does not admit of empirical verification since it deals with what is universally or necessarily the case (not a historical or contingent truth). Moreover, the statement itself precludes any other type of verification or support other than empirical warrants or evidence. Thus the anti-metaphysical opponent of the Christian faith holds to this dogma in a presuppositional fashion — as something which controls inquiry, rather than being the result of inquiry.

That anti-metaphysical presupposition, however, has certain devastating results. Notice that if all knowledge must be empirical in nature, then the uniformity of nature cannot be known to be true. And without the knowledge and assurance that the future will be like the past (e.g., if salt dissolved in water on Wednesday, it will do likewise and not explode on Friday) we could not draw empirical generalizations and projections — in which case the whole enterprise of natural science would immediately be undermined.”

Dr. Greg Bahnsen
Always Ready — pg. 187-188

Postmodernism — Just one more option in the meta-narrative buffet

“But it is hard to discuss ‘post-modernism’ theory in any general way without recourse to the matter of historical deafness, an exasperating condition (provided you are aware of it) that determine a series of spasmodic and intermittent, but desperate, attempts at recuperation. Postmodernism theory is one of those attempts: the effort to take the temperature of the age without instruments and in a situation we are not even sure there is so coherent things as an “age,” or zeitgeist, or “system,” or “current situation” any longer.”

Fredric Jameson
Postmodernism, or, the Cultural Logic of Late Captialism

Postmodernism keeps decrying that no such coherent of a thing as an “age,” or zeitgeist, or “system,” or “current situation” when all the while it is providing the coherence, of an age, system and current situation.

Here is the way it works. Post-modernism putatively calls into question all meta-narratives (i.e. — age, system, zeitgeist, etc.) into question. But all the while it is doing so it is providing a meta-narrative to replace the meta-narratives that it is destroying. As we consider post-modernism’s project we have to realize that meta-narratives just can’t go away. If post-modernism is successful at being a meta-narrative destroying virus it is only because it is providing its own meta-narrative to function as a substitute for those it has destroyed.

This post-modern meta-narrative that is creating an age, system, and zeitgeist is a meta-narrative that teaches that all of reality is person variable. It is a meta-narrative of philosophical anarchy but all the same it is a narrative. It provides cultural unity by allowing all people to think they are eschewing meta-narratives when in point of fact the meta-narrative they are embracing is the one meta-narrative that teaches that all meta-narratives are fiction. Post-modernism while it negates all meta-narratives in the same move affirms the meta-narrative of negation and offers it as a means to positively construct cultural perceptions of reality — something which all successful meta-narratives are responsible to do.

So, post-modernism is only a meta-narrative virus in the sense that it eats up all other competing meta-narratives. It is not a meta-narrative virus in the sense that in its success if leaves us without an “age,” zeitgeist, system or meta-narrative.

People tend to think that post-modernism is much more sophisticated then it really is. If one keeps their eye on the fact that it is only using it meta-narrative destroying ability to subtly inject its own meta-narrative it becomes far less easier to be fooled by post-modern pretensions offered by guys like Jameson.

Update From Zimbabwe

A few of you have sent checks for a family in Zimbabwe. For those new to this the husband in this family holds a significant position in the Church in Zimbabwe. I attended Seminary with this man and his wife. We have stayed in contact over the years. About 17 years ago I spent some time in Zimbabwe learning about the Church there and doing just a little ministry while there.

As you will see from this letter your financial help contributed to literally keeping starvation at bay for this family. In the name of our mutual Lord Jesus Christ I thank you for your financial help.

If anybody desire to continue to contribute to this relief you can send checks to,

Charlotte Christian Reformed Church
421 State Street
Charlotte Michigan, 48813

Make sure and designate your checks “Zimbabwe.”

Dear Rev. McAtee

Special thanksgiving greetings from Zimbabwe.This note comes to you as a confirmation of our receipt of the special relief amount of $xxxx.xx.Indeed it was a true relief.You should have seen the joy on every face in the family at the breaking of the news.

May you please accept our deepest appreciation to the members of the church and also to your family in particular. May the Church’s efforts to share the love of Christ be greatly rewarded.

We received the funds with no problems at all.Personal funds are not generally scrutinized as would those for Non Governmental Organizations or such as may be deemed political in nature.As regards church funds for relief it is okay and Western Union has several outlets in the country.However I do understand and appreciate the church’s concern on the wisdom of transmitting funds to Zimbabwe and that must be respected.My advise would be that you continue to use your discretion every time you do it.As of now it is still safe.Our greatest challenge is on the economy.There is literary nothing in our grocery and clothing shops.So we do our shopping outside Zimbabwe such as Zambia, South Africa,Malawi, Botswana etc.A large chunk of the money is going towards food.We literally had nothing and have struggled the whole of this year.Then we will also commit some to family clothing as well. #1 daughter was supposed to go into 2nd year of college and she is doing Bachelor of Fine Art Honours Degree while Daughter #2 would have been freshman but to this day the universities have not opened yet.Only those in primary and Secondary school managed to attend some classes but mostly with no teachers Daughter # 3 girl wrote her levels this year and Daughter #4 wrote her Grade7 exams. But the prospects of the future look very dark.Thanks once again for raising our hope and faith in times like these.God bless you

your loving friends

Zimbabwe Family