Eternity, timelessness, never ending time and prayer

Is God timeless, or everlasting? Or, is God to be seen as someone who stands outside of time, or someone who interacts in time while not bound by its limitations?

Traditionally, God is seen as timeless, that is, God stands outside of time. In the sense that there cannot be any change in God, i.e. God is immutable, God in His essence must be timeless. But if we just say that God is timeless, and continue no further than that, such would pose the problem of how God can interact with people. Something that is outside of time, if it does not come into time, cannot interact with things in time. After all, interaction in time requires time to be shared between the subject and the object of an interaction, and a timeless being is unable to "share time."

It should come as no surprise when certain Baptist theologians in England in the 18th century decided to attempt consistency between their doctrine of God and their understanding of God's decrees. We call these theologians Hyper-Calvinists. Although it can be debated whether John Gill was a Hyper-Calvinist, what is common between any high Calvinist and the hyper-Calvinists of that era is their immenantization of God's decree. For since God is simple, God's will is one, and God is timeless, therefore God's decree must be ever present and ever true at all times. God decrees to justify the elect, therefore justification of the elect must be eternal as God's decree is eternal. One can call that kind of reasoning "Rationalism" if we so desire, but that tells us nothing about the path of reasoning the hyper-Calvinists take to reach the doctrine of eternal justification.

The decision to immenantize God's decree comes from viewing God as solely timeless, and then trying to resolve the tension between God's timelessness and God's decree which seems to be progressively executed, with the tension solved by denying the progressive execution of God's decree. Of course, one could say that their problem is trying to resolve a tension that should not be resolved, but my point in giving this example is to show that seeing God as merely timeless is not without its potential problems.

A greater problem for the issue of timelessness comes, ironically, in practice. Specifically, it concerns the doctrine of prayer. What exactly happens when we believers pray? If we say God hears our prayers and answers then, that implies that God interacts with us and works in time. But a timeless being cannot do that. A timeless being can institute "timed acts" to happen at best, so we can say that God through foreknowledge knows what and when I will pray and thus He instituted an act X to occur time Y after my prayer to give the illusion of an interaction. But this is not genuine personal interaction, but rather more akin to an automated scripted response, where a computer is told what to do and what responses to give when a certain command line or request is relayed to the system. Does the one true God who is portrayed in Scripture as being involved with His people and delighting in them sound like an automated response script to you? I hope not! But this is probably the best idea of God's "interactions" if God is indeed timeless in every respect.

If God in all three persons interact in time with us His creatures, then all three persons of the Trinity must interact in time, although they are certainly not bound to the limitations of time. It is only when we see God as interacting in time that the idea of prayer as being that of a creaturely petition to God in a genuine covenantal interaction makes any sense. But if God interacts in time, then we must say that God in His acts is not timeless. Rather, "eternity" in this case means "everlasting." God's works, which is to say God ad extra, is not timeless but rather everlasting.

Since God in His work is everlasting, that means that we can speak of "eternity past" and "eternity future." We can speak of the persons of the Trinity in a dynamic fashion, and thus the eternal Covenant of Redemption is constituted not in a timeless "now," but in the "eternal time" before time actually begun. While we must always maintain that God is outside of time in His essence, we must maintain that God in His works is situated in "eternal time," which is to say "time" as a series of progressions rather than created time t, the 4th dimension in space-time physics.

We must remember that the overwhelming imperative for this argument is to preserve the reality of prayer and real actual communion with God. These things are to be non-negotiable realities of the Christian faith, and any theology that cannot account for them is to be rejected immediately. If one were to preserve timelessness as being not only pertaining to God in His essence but to the persons of the Godhead, then the onus is on that party to tell us how prayer can be real if the persons of the Trinity are all timeless persons. In my opinion, it can never work, but I would certainly be interested in anyone who wants to attempt such a case!

The will of God and simplicity

In Christian orthodoxy, we believe that God is simple. To say that God is simple is to say that He is "without parts," not a composite being. Anything that is composite, being made up of parts, can be "dismantled" into parts. For example, a chair is not simple, for any part of the chair can be cut off to form 2 or more parts. A human being is not simple, since we can remove a hand and we have a person (without one hand) and a detached hand. Basically, almost anything that exists is composite, since it can be broken further. Even an atom can be broken up into electrons, protons and neutrons, and those can be broken up even further.

The point here when applied to God, other than to say that God is totally unlike the creation, is that God cannot be made deficient. One gets God, or one gets nothing. Also, since one cannot separate anything of God from God, God's being is His attribute, who is He is what He is described as in full. Or, to be more technical, God's essence is His attributes. Since God is indivisible, God's will is one. His will is His attributes is His being, and there is no plurality in His being.

Of course, God is triune, which means that in this one being there are three persons, all coequal and all fully God. It is a lofty truth which stretches our minds, and we can never fully comprehend this truth. But throughout the centuries, we have come up with theological concepts in order to safeguard our thinking about God from veering into heresy. God is both one and three, but obviously anything cannot be both one and three in the same way, so we come up with the language of essence and persons to safeguard the truth of the one and the three. We especially use the word "person" (προσωπον; personna) because there lies the closest analogue we can find in seeing how humans behave as persons. A person acts and interacts, and the different persons of the Trinity act and interact with the world and God's people just like how persons do. By definition, persons are individuals such that Person A is not Person B. If God the Father says to Jesus "This is my beloved Son," it is God the Father who is saying this, not God the Son or God the Holy Spirit. To say otherwise is to move towards Modalism, whereby the one God as the Father says "This is my beloved son" to himself as the Son, which is of course heretical.

If the persons of the Trinity are indeed persons, then they are persons. Persons in order to act and interact will, and then they act on that will to effect what they will should be done. In other words, a real person must have a real will of his own. To go back to that example, does God the Father will to say "This is my beloved son"? Yes, but does God the Son say that? No. God the Son did not say "This is my beloved Son," and therefore He did not will to say it, for if He willed to say it, He would have said it. Different persons necessitate distinct wills, for otherwise they are not real persons.

But one can object that my example comes from Jesus in His incarnation. Yes, so let's run with that. Are those who reject distinct wills of the person willing to therefore say, in line with their "exception" clause of the incarnation, that during the incarnation at least, Jesus actually have a distinct will from the Father? But oh, it is a human will. Yes, Jesus has both a human and a divine will, but that is besides the point. Whichever will is operative is the one acted on. When Jesus knew Nathanael even before He actually saw him (Jn. 1:48), that was the divine nature and divine will at work. When Jesus said, "I thirst," that was the human nature and will at work. So are we to suppose that Jesus' divine will would be wanting to say "This is my beloved son," (since there is one will) but the human will prohibited Jesus from saying the words? May it never be!

So yes, according to the doctrine of simplicity God has one will. Yet I hope it can be seen that, for the persons of the Trinity to be actual persons, each of them must have distinct wills. One will and three wills, and both are true? Yes, just as God is both three and one, His will is both three and one. God's will, as an attribute of God is identical to His being. But each persons must also have a distinct will in order to be persons. In explaining the Trinity, we say that God the Father is God, God the Son is God and God the Holy Spirit is God, but the Father is not the Son is not the Holy Spirit. Likewise, we should say that the will of the Father is the will of God, the will of the Son is the will of God, and the will of the Holy Spirit is the will of God, yet the will of the Father is not the will of the Son is not the will of the Holy Spirit.

To be sure, these are not separate autonomous wills, but rather they cohere and work together, for God is one. So as all are the will of God, so whatever God wills, the persons also will. There is therefore an objective similarity between the wills of the persons, but a subjective distinction between them based upon who they are as persons.

It has been said that Western theology tends towards collapsing the three persons into the one essence, while Eastern (Orthodox) theology tends towards over-emphasizing the three distinct persons. It seems perhaps plausible that the current rejection of any form of eternal submission (NOT subordination) of the Son stems from the same Western inclination towards the one essence at the expense of the three persons.

The immanent and economic Trinity, and roles and relations

Over at the Ref21 blog, Alastair Roberts has posted an update of the current debate within evangelical complementarian circles concerning the Trinity. My position seems to land me closer to Bruce Ware and Wayne Grudem, and against Liam Goligher and Carl Trueman. In fact, I wonder whether Goligher and Trueman actually accurately represented Ware's and Grudem's position, especially if they both deny what Goligher and Trueman are accusing them of.

It is to me extremely intemperate to use the word "subordination" when it comes to relations within the Trinity. To call Ware's and Grudem's position "Eternal Functional Subordination" seems to me to a misrepresentation of the issue. That said, I do not think the issues have been as clearly presented as it should have.

To begin, we need to understand the difference between the immanent and the economic Trinity. This is NOT speaking about two trinities, neither is it speaking about the Trinity undergoing changes between one mode and another. Rather, the immanent Trinity is the Trinity in His one essence, God ad intra, in Himself. The ecomonomic Trinity speaks about the one Triune God in His working, God ad extra. One is about being and the simplicity of essence, but in the other we are not speaking about being at all — not about what God is, but about what God does.

This distinction between the immanent and the economic Trinity is a distinction, NOT a separation. But this distinction must be at the forefront in this debate, because it seems to me that the critics of Ware and Grudem do not seem to make that distinction clearly. We must start with this distinction if we want any clarity from this debate.

As God in His being, God is simple, which is to say that He has "no parts." This means that God is not made up of different parts so that we can remove an attribute of God and He remains, perhaps deficient and perhaps "not" God, but still existing. No! The doctrine of simplicity, to put it simply, is that one gets God and eveything of who He is, or one gets nothing. It is, to use computing terms, a binary choice, 1 or 0. God has no parts so everything He is is taken as a whole package and cannot be removed.

The simplicity of God means that one cannot separate any aspect of God from another. But this does not imply that God's attributes cannot be distinguished, or that the various relations of the Trinity cannot be distinguished. Distinction is not separation!

Another thing that comes from the immanent Trinity is that the persons of the Trinity are equal in every respect. The Father is equal to the Son and is equal to the Spirit in all respects, in the very essence of God. To use the language of Westminster Shorter Catechism Answer 6, the three persons of the Trinity are "equal in power and glory." There is no subordination among the persons of the Trinity, and thus Subordinationism, the teaching that the Son and Spirit are inferior to the Father, is rightly regarded as heresy.

So there is one nature, one essence, of the Triune God. Does that mean that there is one will, or three wills? It seems that it is both, in different senses. There is the one will of God. Yet the one will of God is differentiated into three wills of the three persons, which are to be sure unified. But one cannot say that the Father's will is the Son's will, but one can say that the Father's will and the Son's will and the Spirit's will is the one will of God. If that sounds confusing, that is because this is the Trinity we are talking about, where God the Father is not God the Son and is not God the Holy Spirit, but the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is one God. So likewise when we talk about the will of God and the wills of the persons.

The reason we get into the issue of wills is because it figures very closely in this debate. If God is both one and three, and His will both one and three, then we can speak and distinguish between the will of the Father and the will of the Son and the will of the Spirit, all while believing that there is one will of God. One does not have to flatten the will of the Father into the will of the Son or vice versa in order to insist on the one will of God! And because there is one will of God, it is impossible for the the Son to contradict the Father, but that is not the same as saying that the will of the Son is the will of the Father in every respect. Being different persons, there is a subjective component in them that distinguishes the wills without separating them!

So far, we are still in the Immanant Trinity, God as He is in His being. But now we move on to the economic Trinity, which is God at work, God ad extra. God in Himself is necessarily timeless, for He is immutable and cannot change. God ad extra however is God at work, and God's work changes. So we see that there was a time when God the Son was not incarnate, and there is the time when God the Son is incarnate, and now there is the time when God the Son is incarnated and exalted. God in His work does "change," not in His being but in His working, "energies" not "essence."

One aspect of such working is God in His covenants. And here we come to the Covenant of Redemption, the pre-temporal covenant in eternity past that God the Father made with God the Son through God the Holy Spirit. It is a covenant made in eternity past, and is worked out in time and its effect goes to eternity future. For all extent and purposes, it is eternal. It is also a free act of God, because it is not necessary for God to make this covenant, but He did it anyway. In this Covenant of Redemption, or pactum salutis, God the Father covenanted with God the Son through God the Holy Spirit AS EQUALS to accomplish the salvation of God's elect. But also in this covenant, God the Son, being coequal with God the Father, submits Himself to the Father in order to come down to die for the sins of many. Equal yet submissive, for the two are not necessarily contradictory. This submission of course is most clearly expressed in the Incarnation as marveled in Philippians 2:6-11, but it is reductionistic not to see this submission as already present in the Son agreeing to take on the role of the Servant in this covenant.

In the immanent Trinity, the persons of the Trinity are coequal. Yet the relations between them have a certain ordering or taxis (ταξις). The Father is unbegotten, the Son begotten, and the Spirit proceeding. The relations do NOT indicate any superiority or inferiority between the persons of the Triune God. In the economic Trinity, the persons of the Trinity are also coequal, for there is no superiority or inferiority even as they enter into the pactum salutis. Yet here in this covenant, the Son took on the role of the servant, thus reflecting the order He took as the begotten Son. NOTE here, I said that the role of the servant reflected the relation of Him as begotten, not that the relation of Him as begotten is an inferior role of the servant.

If all these are true, and I don't see why they should not be true, then it follows that we must speak both of the equality of the persons, and also the inequality of the roles of the persons. The Servant of the Covenant is submitted to the Lord of the Covenant. Christ is of course both Lord and Servant of the Covenant of Grace, but exclusively the servant in the Covenant of Redemption. It is in this sense that we must speak of an eternal submission of the Son (again NOT subordination), not in the immanent Trinity but the economic Trinity; not concerning essence but works; not concerning status but service.

Therefore, it seems to me that Ware and Grudem seem to be more in the right than Goligher and Trueman. I do not say this lightly of course. It does strike me as odd how Goligher and Trueman do not seem to represent the position they are critiquing correctly. Perhaps there are some complementarians who do veer into outright Subordinationism, but if Ware and Grudem both deny that what Goligher and Trueman are critiquing are a correct representation of their own positions, perhaps it is time for Goligher and Trueman to pause and judge whether they have been too hasty in their denunciations? Of course, perhaps Goligher and Trueman are right, but then they should show us why, and try to represent their opponents' position in a way that Ware and Grudem agree is a correct representation of their position.

On the current buzz concerning Trinitarianism and Evangelical Complementarianism

Recently, there has been a buzz on the Internet over the issue of the Trinity as it regards Complementarianism and gender roles. This is interesting as, a few years back, about 4 years ago to be exact, I have responded to the "Evangelical Statement on the Trinity" and I guess it took 4 years for the issue to start a raging controversy.

After 4 years, I have of course had time to refine my position further but I still stand by my essential position on the topic as I have written 4 years ago.

Basically, my position is that there is a certain ordering within the persons of the Trinity in their relations with each other that does not however give rise to any superiority or inferiority in rank or hierarchy. The persons of the Trinity are coequal in honor and glory and one should not posit any form of disparity among them. Yet because of the ordering within the persons, there arise a functional submission of the Son to the Father (not subordination), and of the Spirit to the Son and the Father. The question is whether the submission is ontological, and it is not. The submission is the functional outworking of the difference in order in the ontological Trinity. Yet the submission, while functional, cannot be limited to the incarnation, for it is present also in the pactum salutis. In eternity, God the Son covenanted with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit to be the propitiation for the elect to save them from their sins. It is God the Son who "submitted" as the servant in this eternal covenant. As I have said, it is not as if we have three persons X1, X2, X3 who rolled the cosmic dice and whoever picked the side termed "Father" became the Father. No, God the Father is the Father by nature not by the roll of the cosmic dice. Ditto God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

Thus, while I do agree that submission of the Son to the Father is of the economic Trinity, I do not agree that such a submission is merely temporal. The Covenant of Redemption is made in eternity past, and its effect extends to eternity future. Also, while disagreeing with, as it seems, some complementarians like Bruce Ware concerning reading roles into the ontological Trinity, one should not deny that there is a difference in relations among the persons of the Trinity. The Father is always unbegotten, the Son is begotten, and the Spirit proceeded, and these three relations are immutable in the nature of the Triune God. The relations are not intercheangeable, and to read egalitarianism into the Godhead should be regarded as just as heretical as reading hierarchy into the ontological Trinity. If one wishes to condemn what one sees as a new strain of subordinationism, one should also condemn its opposite error in removing any real difference within the relations of the Godhead.

Christians and the Church: Extra ecclesiam nulla salus

[continued from here and here]

Application: How shall we think of church and those in non-Reformed churches

If, as we have said, a strong correlation between the visible and invisible church makes the best sense of the biblical data, then what does it inform us of the church? It means the Visible Church is very important. It is not a gathering of Christians to sing some songs, hear a motivational speech, and thus perform their "Sunday duty." It is not a place for one to exercise one's desire to serve, as if the church is a charity to help give you meaning and purpose in life through your service. No, the Visible Church is nothing more and nothing less than the Institution of God for His purpose and glory, as we see it. The Invisible church is the institution of God as God sees it. The difference between the invisible and the visible church is not qualitative, as in the non-denominational position that the invisible church pertains to salvation and the visible church is the gathering of those who are saved. Neither is it quantitative, as inclusivists would make it to be. Neither is it temporal, as the Federal Visionists would make it (the Visible as the present; invisible as eschatological). But it is "optical," as in they reflect the same reality from different points of view.

The divergence in viewpoints is what allows for the "exception," or the "extraordinary" cases whereby it is possible for true believers to not be in a Reformed church. Since the Reformed churches are made of sinful people, and true believers may have sin in their lives (including intellectual sins) that prevent them from joining a Reformed church, the Visible Church will not fully correlate with the Invisible Church. But since the two ought to correlate, this means it is a Christian imperative for anyone who calls himself Christian to join a Reformed church. To not do so is sin, whether by ignorance or by intention.

Church is important, and joining a biblical church is important, not for salvation, but because obedience to God is a necessary fruit of our salvation. The first application therefore is to ourselves, in that we ought to ensure we are members of a biblical Reformed church. Please note I did not say "activist," but "member." Unless you are called by God, no Christian should feel obligated to serve in the Church, as if the Church would die without your service! The whole purpose of Church is for Christ to feed his flock, not for them to serve Him!

The second application comes to how we ought to discern and treat those outside the Reformed churches, and this is where what I say would be regarded as uncharitable by many professing Christians, but the truth is the truth. If the strong correlation between the visible and the invisible church is correct, then the saying by Cyprian, as interpreted by the Reformed churches, stands true: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus — Outside the Church there is [ordinarily] no salvation. Nice to say perhaps by those who like to sound off the church fathers, but the implication is this: Ordinarily, those in non-Reformed churches should not be regarded as Christians. Let's repeat again for effect: Ordinarily, those in non-Reformed churches should not be regarded as Christians.

This does not mean that we should go around condemning any and every professing believer not in a Reformed church to hell. But this must be the starting baseline. Only from there then we can say that there appears to be many Christians who are not in a Reformed church, and thus we ought to invite them in. We ought to plant as many Reformed churches as possible, and strive to bring people in, converting unbelievers to be sure but also to "convert" evangelicals to join the Reformed church. Many evangelical churches do not exhibit the three marks of the church anyway (Sound preaching of the Word, right administration of the sacraments, proper exercise of church discipline), and they ought to either close down, or repent and become Reformed.

But in order to prevent misdirected zeal, let is be said that the Reformed tradition does not necessarily imply only strict Presbyterian and Reformed churches. The best of the Anglican tradition for example is that of an English Reformed church. There are churches more or less pure, and thus one shouldn't condemn another church merely for being less reformed. The issue is whether the church is Reformed, not how Reformed the church is. This requires wisdom to discern, but the most important thing here is to establish our principles. Does something make a professing Reformed church not Reformed? That depends, but certainly one should be able to say that any church that denies the Gospel is not Reformed, like all Federal Visionist churches.

Conclusion

Ecclesiology sounds abstract and thus appear very theoretical, yet it is actually immensely practical. We have looked at the biblical data and stated that only a strong correlation between the invisible and visible church meets all the biblical data. But if all that is true, then it has immense application for our view of church and church membership, and how we ought to discern other professing Christians. It should make us love the church more, for after all Christ loves the church, and treasure our membership in her. It should also make us desire for the growth of the Reformed church, and desire for all professing believers to believe in the Reformed doctrines and join Reformed churches

Christians and the Church: Res et signum

[continued from here]

The exact relationship between the Invisible Church and the Visible Church is not an easy one to answer. Before we look at a way to resolve this in a way that seems most biblical, let us look at how a few Christian traditions have answered this question.

Various responses in Christian traditions

We will start by looking at the non-Christian "Christian" traditions of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. In Roman Catholicism, there is only the visible church instituted by Christ and found in unity with the pope, the bishop of Rome. While the invisible church is not denied, it is minimized. While Vatican II has coined the term "separate brethren" as a cosmetic veneer to woo evangelicals, the status of everyone not in communion with the Roman pontiff is clear, in that they are at best not in a church, and at worst not believers. Eastern Orthodoxy is similar to Roman Catholicism, except the locus of authority is not in one supreme pontiff, but in the plurality of bishops of the Eastern Patriarchy.

At the opposite extreme of the spectrum lies the non-denominational churches of every kind including the "non-denominational" denominations like Calvary Chapel, the Christian and Missionary Alliance (CMA), and many independent churches and house churches. These churches either deny that Christ has in any way instituted his church, or see the invisible church as bearing no relation whatsoever to the visible church. At best, the invisible church is just code for the way of faith and salvation. Believers all join the invisible church by faith. Then they have to join the visible church, in a separate act of faith. The visible church is a voluntary association of believers coming together to worship God, at least as traditionally understood. In the modern period, even the purpose of the church is disputed, thus we see the idea of "social justice emergent gatherings," "disciple-making churches," "evangelistic churches," "healing ministry churches" and all manner of niche ministry churches being formed. As an aside, all of these ideas of "doing church" will only arise, but not necessarily, in congregations that follow the model of denying Church as institution, or denying any necessary relation between the Invisible and the Visible church.

Generally speaking, the traditional Anglican and Methodist model of churches is based on the parish model of doing church. In this, there is the tendency towards the model of Rome and Constantinople. Yet, because the Gospel is primary (or at least used to be primary) in these two church bodies, there is no strict one-to-one correlation as in Rome and Constantinople. Methodism, as originally conceived as a renewal movement within the Church of England, diverts even further from the strong correlation model, although since John Wesley did not set out to start a separate church, I don't think there is any one THE "Methodist" model. I am sure there are Anglicans and Methodists who have put more thought into this issue, but the general thrust of these two church bodies is to put forward some form of correlation without officially having a definitive view on the subject.

Lastly, we move to the Baptists, and that is basically almost impossible, since no one speaks for the Baptists. Yes, some can point to certain baptist confessions of faith, like the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, but that is only one faction of Baptists. Baptists run the gamut from higher church types that are similar to Presbyterians, to non-denominational types indistinguishable from "Churches of Christ." At least one strain of more traditional Baptist thought is to focus on the local visible church as that instituted by Christ, but of course one wonders how it can be said that Christ instituted the local visible church if it owes its existence merely to the voluntary association of believers.

A way forward: Res et signum

The general Reformed view is that all believers join the invisible Church by faith, and that all Christians ought to be in the Visible Church. The Reformed do not really distinguished much between the local and universal church, because with its understanding of connectonalism, all Christians in local churches are members of the Church universal, which is expressed in a denomination through its presbyteries, synods and general assemblies. Of course every Reformed church member has to be a member in a particular church, but then every member in a particular church belongs to the church as denomination, the denomination's best expression of the universal church in this fallen world.

But this is not clear enough, for this simple model is unable to deal with Christians not in the denomination or in a church body in communion with her. What is an American Reformed Christian for example ought to think of believers that are not situated in NAPARC churches? If the denominations of the Reformed churches are to earthly expressions of the universal church, what about those professing Christians outside the association of Reformed churches?

One could resolve this problem by moving towards the evangelical model, and thus the denomination is no more seen as an expression of the universal church, but as one denomination among many. Or one can resolve this by moving towards Rome, and thus see one's denomination as being more of a remnant among apostate Christendom. But both seem to be trying to resolve a tension in a way that denies some biblical truths, either that Christians ought to be united in the former, or that salvation is by faith alone, not faith and church membership, in the latter. On the former, if the denomination is just one among many, why not then have all churches in one united denomination? But they refused because they deny doctrine X or that denominations are biblical, you might say. Well then, are they schismatic for rejecting Reformed unity? If so, will you shift your position to the latter position, or move further away to deny connectionalism?

There are here a few biblical truths that one must juggle as all being true:

1. Salvation, and thus membership in the invisible church, is by faith alone
2. Christ instituted His Church
3. The Church is supposed to be connectional, therefore the denomination is supposed to be an expression of the universal church
4. Christians in the Bible are always found in a biblical church

The only way that seemed to be able to hold all these truths together is to posit a strong correlation between the visible and invisible church, while making clear that the correlation is not a strict correlation. Thus, all Christians should join Reformed churches, but since salvation is by faith alone, it is always possible for a Christian to not be a member in a Reformed church.

A similar problem arises in the dispute over baptism: Does baptism save a person (baptismal regeneration) or does baptism have nothing whatsoever to do with a person's salvation. Using the traditional language of sign (signum) and thing signified (res significata), we recognize that baptism does signify salvation (c.f. 1 Peter 3:21) but it does not necessarily result in or comes with salvation. The sign (water) does not confer the thing signified (salvation), but the correlation is such that whoever partakes of the sign ordinarily should also partake of the thing signified, not necessarily, but ordinarily.

This strong correlation view as seen on the practice of baptism is of help to how we should view the relation between Christians and the Church. Ordinarily, true Christians should join a Reformed church. But not necessarily. And therefore we see that true Christians might be found in non-Reformed contexts, but they are not supposed to be there. But you may ask, if most Christians are to be found outside the Reformed church, can we actually say that "ordinarily" true Christians should join a Reformed church? First, whether something is ordinary or not does not depend on the numbers. Second, if there are no biblical Reformed churches in the vicinity, then what is "ordinary" cannot happen. Thirdly, can we be sure that many supposed Christians are in fact, truly Christians? I think it is certainly legitimate to cast doubt on the salvation status of those who sit in churches who preach heresy regularly (e.g. New Creation and Joseph Prince) and who find no problem at all in the teaching.

[to be continued]

Christians and the Church: The Church as Local and Universal, Visible and Invisible

A Christian is one who puts his faith in Jesus Christ for salvation from his sins. Christians are part of the Church, which is the Bride of Christ. Christ purchased His Bride the Church and instituted it in history, from the proto-evangel (Gen. 3:15) to Christ's word to Peter (Mt. 16:18-19) and the explicit words of Ephesians 4:11 where Christ give gifts (offices) to His church, not give spiritual gifts to people who are the offices in the Church. The Church is thus both an institution, and an organism (note the mixed metaphor of Eph. 2:20-22).

As an institution, the Church exists regardless of the presence of believers, but as organism, the Church exists being made up of believers. The language of Scripture is "both/and," not "either/or." The main problem plaguing many a doctrine of the church is that we are being made to chose between the two, as if they are mutually exclusive. Those in the high-church traditions (e.g. Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism) tend towards seeing the Church as Institution, while the modern tendency even in some traditional high church circles (e.g. the focus on lay ministry in post Vatican II circles) is to see the Church as organism. Seeing it as both institution and organism helps us guard against radical egalitarianism and disrespect of the offices of the Church on the one hand, and a top-down hierarchicalism, spiritual apartheid and lay passivity on the other.

This view of the church goes contrary to the view of Evangelicalism, and the prevailing zeitgeist. The egalitarian impulse means that the Church as institution is being discarded and/or downplayed in recent times, and thus, while we ought to continue to teach on the Church as organism, we need a stronger emphasis on the Church as institution today.

It is when we embrace the Church as institutional that other questions come to the fore. Since Christ instituted His Church, that must mean that the Church Christ instituted must be in a sense "invisible," in the sense that Christ did not Himself institute any particular church (with the possible exception of the Church in 1st century Jerusalem). All local churches since then have been church plants, and thus derivative from the planting church. The early church thus came up with the simple notion of "apostolic succession," intially partly against the Gnostics but it has the benefit of showing in visible, concrete form the Church as instituted by Christ. Historically, this has proven untenable, although Rome continues to claim apostolic succession. After the East-West schism, and then the debacle of the Avignon papacy and the popes and counter-popes in the Medieval era, any claim of "apostolic succession" (even if we can prove that to be biblical) has no real basis in history. It is merely claimed thus by reason of papal fiat — the claims of his authority resting on "apostolic succession," and the claims of "apostolic succession" resting on papal authority. If that strikes you as arguing in a circle, it is because it is. Roman Catholicism has no real historical claim on "apostolic succession," and thus whatever one thinks of "apostolic succession," even if it is true Rome does not have it. On a historical basis, we cannot therefore say that we see any visible instituted body of Christ's churches today, for there is none today who fits that criteria.

Biblically, the instituted Church as being a visible body of all Christ's churches is not tenable. The Scripture everywhere proclaims the backdrop of the Covenant of Grace, and the Covenant of Redemption or the pactum salutis behind it. We do not and cannot see the covenant agreement between the Father and the Son praised in Psalms 110. The Covenant of Grace is invisible, election is invisible, and saving faith is invisible. What we do see are local churches that proclaim the Gospel and administer the sacraments to believers, and new believers joining these churches. Since it is the Word of God that brings about faith (Rom. 10:17), and thus the church is the creation of the Word (creatura verbi), thus the Church Christ instituted must be the invisible church that is manifested in the world in the visible churches, through the preaching of the Gospel. There is one (universal) church, the invisible church, that Christ has instituted.

All of these are the necessary backdrop to the next problem that has to be tacked: What is the nature of the relationship between the invisible church Christ has instituted, and the local, visible churches around the world? (Here we assume that we are speaking about Christian congregations that actually are Christian, since any church that is actually a true church has to be the creation of the Word.) Each local, visible church is a small manifestation of the invisible church that is true, but what is the manner of manifestation? Can we have a believer in the "invisible church" that is however not a member of the local, visible church, since the latter obviously need a conscious decision for a person to join as a member. Or should we say that all members of the local, visible church are members of the invisible church, at least until they apostatize (e.g. in Federal Vision, also Rome)?

[to be continued]

RAAN and "Christian" Critical Race Theory

It has been some time since the so-called Reformed organization RAAN (Reformed African-American Network) published a hit piece against Dr. James R. White falsely accusing him of racism. At that time, part of Dr. White's response to such slander was to talk about the racialist lens which RAAN possesses and thus their view of a "Christian" version of Critical Race Theory (CRT). At that time, I was focusing on how RAAN lied about Dr. White and how they are practically saying that blacks or African Americans do not have to obey God's moral law. While I did google critical race theory, being trained in the hard sciences, the entire concept of critical race theory struck me as being so ludicrous that it was hard for me to even conceive that sane people would actually hold to such nonsense.

Cue RAAN for being so kind as to show their hand for all the world to see. In a recent article by Jarvis Williams, critical race theory comes to the forefront, complete with a definite attack on the idea of color-blindness. It was so outrageous that I couldn't believe for a while what I was reading. Color-blindness is the position that one should not treat another person differently just because of the amount of melanin in their skin. So since RAAN is against color-blindness, I guess they are FOR treating people differently depending on the amount of melanin in their skin. What is different however is that they insist on being treated better because of their skin color, as opposed to worse as in 19th century American chattel slavery.

The entire piece has virtually nothing from Scripture in it, and basically is a liberal sociological rant. In the 4th point where the author attacks color-blindness, the author claims that color-blindness is discrimination against blacks, which is funny since the whole point of color-blindness is to NOT discriminate based upon skin melanin content. The author shifts from the issue of color to the issue of culture, which shows only that he is confusing and conflating categories. "Race" is NOT the same as culture! If a white guy had trouble communicating with a black guy, it might be an issue of culture, not "race." Perhaps the author Jarvis Williams might want to take a trip OUTSIDE the United States to realize that there are many cultures around the world and the differences between them are not due to "race"!

But then we might ask, is there such a thing as a "white culture" of sorts? I will not dispute that. But let's just ask a question: Is it fair for a member of the minority culture to demand the majority change their culture just because he doesn't like feeling like a minority? Since when do the rights of the minority override the rights of the majority? But then you might ask: how are we to get along? Perhaps the key to getting along is to begin by acknowledging that the minority has no right to demand the majority give up parts of their culture just to suit them! By all means, preserve your culture, but allow others to live with theirs too! Do not attempt to make them become you, but exists side by side and attempt to learn how to love each other despite cultural differences.

The problem of course is that RAAN and all those that hold to CRT do not want to live with the tension. Their demand for multi-ethnic churches is a demand for minority cultures to reign supreme while white cultures are discarded. That is the exact opposite of the definition of "multi-ethnicity." It is reverse racism against whites, which, even if some deserve it, is unjust, discriminatory, and wicked.

This RAAN article is better titled "How to create a church which embraces all cultures except white culture," for that is what it amounts to. It calls for inclusion of everyone, except whites who refuse to deny their own culture. It preaches love and tolerance, except for whites who want to preserve their culture who are not to be tolerated. The sad thing is that CRT is a self-perpetuating deception. One writes a hit piece promoting CRT, those who are called to deny their culture reject it, and their rejection is taken as proof of the vestiges of racism which CRT predicts. Nevermind that the original hit piece just insulted whites who are not ashamed of their own culture. Does anyone wonder why many whites have developed some level of antagonism towards minorities, even if they were not racist to begin with? CRT provokes backlash and creates division in society, which is then used to justify more CRT. In the meantime, true love and fellowship between believers of different ethnicities forever remain a mirage, for how can a theory that divides people according to "race" bring them together again?

So no, color-blindness is still the best way forward, the biblical ideal that all should strive towards. The way towards peace and fellowship is to stop demanding special treatment based upon CRT, and accept equality in all respects. And when a real racist situation presents itself, call the other party to repentance and the Gospel, not to bludgeon them with CRT and thus exacerbating the situation.

ADD: The article calls whites to learn how "non-white people view reality." I think I get what the author is saying, which is to understand their viewpoints. But we are not interested in how people view reality. Reality is reality, and not all viewpoints are correct. Just because non-whites see something differently does not mean they are necessarily right, even on matters of grievances.

Scholarship and submitted scholarship

Dr. James White did a Dividing Line podcast on the issue of scholarship, and how true Christian scholarship should be done in submission to the Lordship of Christ. You can watch it as below

Say no to liberal ecumenism

In recent years, we have discovered that the activities of some churches and organisations are harmful to us because these groups violate the laws and regulations of the Chinese government which is neither beneficial to themselves nor to churches in China. These activities range from sending missionaries, conducting training programs in clandestine fashion, setting up denominational churches and tempting Chinese Christians financially to join these churches. These practices destroy the unity of churches in China and generate misunderstandings, as their reports on churches in China can be misleading. [Gao Feng, "Co-operation and Partnership in the Mission of the Church in China," in Michael Nai-Chiu Poon, Church Partnerships in Asia: A Singapore Conversation (CSCA Christianity in Southeast Series; Singapore, Trinity Theological College, 2011), 63]

The emergence of many new denominations, parachurch organizations and Christian sects is challenging because it has created confusion and misunderstanding among churches about a common witness. It wii be imperative for MCC [Myanmar Council of Churches -DHC] to co-operate with Evangelicals, Pentecostals and other small mission bodies to find ways and means to resolve the situation. [Stephen Than Myint Oo, "The Life and Witness of the Church in Myanmar: Past, Present and Future," in Poon, 89]

If there is one thing that irks liberal ecumenists, it is when missionaries that are not approved by them enter into their country and their territory to do church planting. In China, the Three-Self Patriotic Movement (TSPM) churches, the "official" Protestant church, claims to speak for all Protestants in China. That there are millions of Chinese Christians in underground churches who refuse to submit to the TSPM undercuts their claim to ecumeneity of course, but liberal ecumenists, like liberals everywhere, are unconcerned about that inconvenient truth. In their minds, they are the only acceptable church and they represent ALL Christians in their region and/or country, consent of those they "represent" is not important at all!

In the case of Myanmar, evidently such a centralization of sorts (given the huge diversity in Myanmar) had occurred with the formation of the MCC. Just like the TSPM, they claim to speak for all Christians in their country regardless of what the normal people think.

All of such "ecumeneity" exists in most countries around the world. In Singapore, it is the NCCS (National Council of Churches in Singapore), which claims to speak for all Christians in Singapore. But of course, all they speak for are the mainstream denominations where the liberals hare ascendant, or where Evangelicals have capitulated in the matter of church governance and relations. The NCCS for example do not speak for me; I detest their very existence. The liberal ecumenical organizations tolerate at best and promote at worst a false gospel and a false Christ. Their very existence is to function as demonic counterfeits of true Christianity, to snare the unsuspecting and undiscerning away from God into a false religiosity in the name of true religion.

Since the TSPM and evidently the MCC represent the Antichrist in this time, they are not to be regarded as Christian institutions at all. They are irked by missionaries coming in unannounced to create trouble as it were. Well, as long as the missionaries are missionaries who believe in the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, I am all for them coming in and being "unhelpful" or "harmful" to these apostates! Let them "create misunderstanding," because the liberal ecumenical bodies have distorted the true biblical witness, so bringing in a true Christian witness is better than "uniting" around a false witness of heresy. For what has light to do with darkness, God to do with Satan?

Therefore, since the Southeast Asia region (and other regions too) has apostate liberal ecumenical bodies and churches around the region, Christian churches and missionaries should be interested in moving into these area and gain converts even through what those liberals would call "sheep stealing." Whoever attends those liberal churches may be a believer, but they need to be encouraged to attend a true church, while unbelievers within the liberal churches need to be called to repentance. The "churched" are to be targets for evangelism and discipleship as well. Since liberal theology does not save, those who follow it are just as lost as those from other religions. Believers in those churches are Christians despite them being in those churches, not because of it

So say no to liberal ecumenism, and liberalism in general. Have nothing to do with the false religion of liberalism. As John Gresham Machen shows in his book Christianity and Liberalism, Liberalism is another religion altogether, in contrast to biblical Christianity. While I cannot speak definitely of the status of Gao Feng and Stephen Than, both of them have to repent for their wickedness in promoting liberalism and liberal ecumeneity, or face the possibility of an eternity without Christ forever.

On Singapore Church History

I have compiled, edited and re-worked my articles on Singapore Church History. The full article can be read here: On Singapore Church History.

Pietism and Confessionalism

The sort of religion heralded by the revivals of the First Great Awakening is chiefly responsible for the triumph of a utilitarian view of faith. The itinerant evangelists of these revivals, as well as their successors, transformed Christianity from a churchly and routine affair into one that was intense and personal. The conversion experiences marked the beginning of this new form of Christian faith. But it was only the start. True converts were expected to prove the authenticity of their faith through lives that were visibly different from nonbelievers. Indeed, the demand for a clear distinction between the ways of the faithful and those of the world not only propelled many of the social reforms associated with evangelicalism but also provided the foundation for viewing Christianity in practical categories. If faith was supposed to make a difference in all areas of life, not just on Sunday but on every day of the week, it is no wonder that the emphasis in Protestant circles shifted from churchly forms of devotion to ones that should be seen in personal affairs, community life, and national purpose. In other words, the cycle of revivals throughout American religious history, inaugurated by the First Great Awakening, secured the victory of pietism within American Protestantism. Like it European antecedents, American pietism dismissed church creeds, structures, and ceremonies as merely formal or external manifestations of religion that went only skin deep. In contrast, pietists have insisted that genuine faith was one that transformed individuals, starting with their heart and seeping into all walks of life. (D.G. Hart, The Lost Soul of American Protestantism (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2002), pp. xvii-xviii)

Unlike pietist Protestantism, which attaches great religious significance to public life and everyday affairs, confessionalism situates the things of greatest religious meaning in the sacred sphere of the church and its ministry. (p. xviii)

Confessional Protestants resisted revivals in large part because the methods of evangelists and the piety expected of converts were generically Christian—sincerity, zeal, and a moral life. As a result, revivalism did not respect but in fact undermined the importance of creedal subscription, ordination, and liturgical order. In a word, confessionalists opposed revivalism because it spoke a different religious idiom, one that was individualistic, experiential, and perfectionistic, as opposed to the corporate, doctrinal, and liturgical idiom of historic Protestantism. (p. xxiv)

Neglecting the past: Indigenous "theologies" and the Singapore, Asian Context

Broadly speaking, for the past sixty years conservatives have been striving with the ecumenicists for global influence. For instance, the conservative International Council of Christian Churches pre-empted the World Council of Churches with its own gathering in Amsterdam a few months before WCC was inaugurated. Again, they waged a 'battle' against the ecumenicists in Bangkok in December 1949 by holding a conference on their own to counter the 'East Asian Christian Conference' that was taking place in the same time and same city. World Evangelical Fellowship convened a 'Theological Assistance Program' Consultation in Singapore in 1970 at the launch of the ecumenical Theological Education Fund Third Mandate, and evantually set up the Asia Theological Association as an alternative to the ecumenical ATESEA body. Despite well-meaning intents, these ecumenical-conservative conflicts, made possible by huge American financial investment, are destructive for world Christianity. They leave a legacy of rivalry and social polarisation especially among vulnerable churches around the world. [Michael Poon, "Introduction," in Michael Nai-Chiu Poon, ed., Church Partnerships in Asia: A Singapore Conversation (CSCA Christianity in Southeast Asia Series; Singapore, Trinity Theological College & Singapore, Armor Publishing, 2011), xviii]

Are Western theological conflicts alien to non-Westerners? Those into indigenious theologies (third-world theologies) evidently think so. They accuse Westerners of bringing their theological conflicts and inflicting it on non-Westerners, causing needless and sinful division of the Church in the non-Western countries. In this excerpt from a book intended to promote local "grassroots" Asian ecumenism, Michael Poon repeats the same charge of imperialism against essentially the Fundamentalists. According to him, such conflicts, "despite well-meaning intents," "are destructive for world Christianity," and "they leave a legacy of rivalry and social polarisation especially among vulnerable churches around the world." To say that Poon wishes for the Fundamentalist movement to stop being Fundamentalist is an obvious understatement, and in his view they are sinning and dividing the Church.

Christianity is a religion of truth. It claims, and proves itself to be, absolutely true. This is not an Enlightenment concept, but it can be found throughout the history of the Church in pre-modern times also. If Jesus is the only truth, that means that no falsehood should be tolerated by those who claim to follow Him, for to follow falsehood is to not follow the Christ who is the truth.

Thus, with regards to the divisions in Christendom, the question to be asked is not whether these divisions are created by the West, but whether the divisions are due to disputes over what is true. Does the amount of melanin in one's skin has any bearing on whether "1+1=2" is true, or whether "Socrates is a man" is a true proposition? Of course not! Does the truth value of the proposition matter if one were to say in English that "All humans will die" and to say the same thing in Chinese "每个人都会死"? Does the truth value changes if an Englishman say "There is one God" and a Japanese say the same thing "There is one God"? Most certainly not! The truth values of absolute truth propositions are independent of language, culture, ethnicity and nationality.

Similarly, to say that these issues and divisions have their beginnings in the West has absolutely no bearing on whether non-Westerners should or should not adopt the divisions and take sides in the conflicts in Western Christianity. The question remains: Are these issues and divisions disputes over truth? If they are, then non-Westerners should deal with them, and don't be intellectually lazy to discount them altogether. In fact, by doing so, "those who forget history are doomed to repeat it," as Lord Acton had indicated.

The Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy is very important, because liberals or modernists deny cardinal doctrines of the faith like the Virgin Birth, the Deity of Christ, and many others truths. By partnering with the Roman Catholic Church, it also indicates that it denies the importance of the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone. Before the modernists came into the scene, the church was not split over these issues, but once they came onto the scene sprouting heresy, they split the church with their heresies.

Thus, it is very telling that Poon accused the Fundamentalists as being divisive. No, the divisive ones are the liberals like those in the WCC who promote and teach lies about the Christian faith. What they teach is destructive for world Christianity. The Asian Liberals who are re-inventing the faith through "indigenous theologies" are promoting division with their heresies. They are the ones who are promoting heresies and schisms against the true universal Christian faith, and it is those whom Poon should be rightly accusing of causing division instead of the Fundamentalists.

True Christianity is defined as the religion that conforms to the truth as Jesus is the Truth. Anything else is in error and promote division of believers away from Christ. Thus, when we come to theological issues, who the parties are and the location where any controversy occurs should be irrelevant for deciding who is correct. The side which does not conform to scriptural truths is the divisive side, which is normally not the side that is most cantekerous but the "peaceful" side of any conflict, as the experience of church history has shown (e.g. Athanasius' Arian opponents, the "peaceful" Amyraldians, the "loving" moderates opposing J.G. Machen).

There is therefore nothing wrong with adopting and taking sides in "Western theological controversies." There is also nothing wrong with conducting theology in the same manner as theologians in "Western Christianity." In fact, there is something wrong in NOT doing so, for it is an attack on the catholicity of the Church. Somehow, the fact that Evangelical "Western theology" is not really Western at all passed them by. Augustine was hardly a white European, neither were most of the delegates at Nicea or Chalcedon either.

By rejecting the catholicity of the church, indigenous theologies are almost certainly wrong from the beginning. And we do not have to worry about the baseless accusations of division from the liberals. Those who are promoting heresy are the ones culpable, not us. Yes, there are many vulnerable churches around the word, as Poon says, so let's protect them from the liberals!

Liberalism in Trinity Theological College

How does one know whether there is still liberalism in Trinity Theological College (TTC)? Here are some questions to be answered:

1. Does TTC teach the Documentary Hypothesis (JEPD) as truth, and does not offer a sound and convincing case against said theory?

2. Does TTC teach that Isaiah did not write "Second Isaiah" and "Third Isaiah"? Is the prophet Isaiah taught not to be the author of "First Isaiah"? Does he not exist as he is described in Scripture?

3. Is the creation account in Genesis 1-3 taught to be a borrowing from pagan myths like the Enuma Elish? Are Genesis 1-11 to be considered as written in a mytho-poetic language and thus not history giving us literal facts of the past?

4. Is the notion of "Q" a valuable concept to find out the "true" teachings of Jesus, minus the accretions added by later church tradition?

5. Is the notion and practice of higher criticism valid in finding out the actual texts of Scripture?

6. Is one taught there is no one "Scripture," but multiple scriptures and the catholic party won and suppressed the other scriptures?

7. Is one taught that Roman Catholicism is a valid form of Christianity?

8. Is one taught that contemplative prayer, either as found in Eastern Orthodoxy or as mediated in Richard Foster's Celebration of Discipline, is a great spiritual exercise that Christians should be engaged in?

9. Are Roman Catholic mystics like Theresa of Avila, Ignatius of Loyola, Henri Nouwen and Thomas Merton held out as devout Christians? Is Roman Catholic mysticism held out as a great example of piety?

10. Is one encouraged to attend Taize-style "worship"?

11. Is the inerrancy of Scripture denied in class by any lecturers? Or is inerrancy defined to have many shades and colors (e.g. partial inerrancy), and so by obfuscation someone can pretend to believe in *some form* of inerrancy while rejecting its intended meaning?

If a "yes" answer is given to any of them, then we know liberalism is alive and well in TTC. I am here omitting other heresies like the New Perspective on Paul since these are not classical liberal heresies, but I think this list is enough to prove my point.

The Young Adopted Messiah

[last post on the topic here]

My last post on the movie "The Young Messiah" was based on the trailer of the movie. At the time I wrote that post, the movie was not yet out in the theaters. Since it was based on a trailer, I thought it best if I would look at the movie itself so that I would definitely not mislead anyone by mis-interpreting the movie based upon a short trailer.

So one afternoon I decided to watch the movie. The movie was not as gnostic as the trailer would have us believe. Jesus did not kill a boy; the Devil did, while it was resurrecting a dead bird, not creating a bird from mud, although both scenes were at the seashore and the actions of scooping up the mud and scooping up a dead bird are virtually identical. That said, such changes do not really mitigate against the Gnostic error, which is to creates myths about the "missing years of Jesus." And altering some parts of the Infancy Gospel does not in any way exonerate the charge of gnosticism, just that it is now gnosticism-lite instead.

My earlier critique of having an Adoptionist Christology still stands. In fact, the movie is even more explicit in its promotion of Adoptionism. Jesus did not know he was God, that he was the Son of God, or that he was born to die on the Cross, through most of the movie. In fact, Joseph and Mary hid the knowledge of events surrounding his birth from the boy "Jesus" of the movie. Jesus only came to realize his status later in the movie. The boy "Jesus" does not even know why he could perform miracles. All of these are proofs of Adoptinism. Even the kenotic theory will not have the young Jesus not knowing he is God!

Besides the major error of Adoptionism, one can add the ahistorical nonsense of James being Jesus' cousin rather than his brother (pandering to Roman Catholic superstition), and of course the ridiculous scenes of Roman soldiers on the temple grounds (that would have caused a riot immediately). Overall, this movie is as bad as I thought it would be, and certainly should not be promoted to Christians