Alienation of Affection

Brethren,

I do not think anything John is saying here contradicts the point I was
making, and which John Calvin made, namely that Satan's stategy with the woman in Eden was to undermine her faith in God. Accordingly, Paul's
dictum ". . . whatever does not proceed from faith is sin" (Rom. 14:23), is applicable to our understanding of prelapsarian Eden as well as the
Christian era.

John Piper, however, went too far in designating prelapsarian faith as "evangelical faith," for the term "evangelical" faith implies that Adam had heard the gospel at a point in which there was not yet any need for the remedy of the gospel. But I do think it is valid to speak of Adam's sin, not only as a transgression of a specific command, but as a breaking of faith, i.e., a violation of the covenant (Hosea 6:7) which violation began in the heart. It is important, as I see it, to underscore this aspect so that the impression is not conveyed by our use of the term "covenant of works" that there was nothing more than outward observance (Rom. 9:32) involved in the command of Genesis 2:17. Jesus, in highlighting the two greatest commandments, set forth
the essence of the law. It is always a matter of the engagement of the heart. The Fall is the original exhibit of alienation of affection.
Similarly, Jesus' active obedience in fulfilling the law, as the Second Adam, was infinitely more than mere external motions of meeting legal
requirements, as the Pharisees viewed things. For the law is spiritual (Rom. 7:14). It was rather the outpouring of His heart in obedience to the Father whom He loved with an everlasting love and whose will was His command (Psalm 40:8; Heb. 10:5-10; John 12:28). The law was the will of the Father and for God to be true to Himself, that law had to be upheld in keeping with Isaiah 42:21: "The LORD was pleased, for his righteousness sake, to magnify his law and make it glorious."

Dave Brand

The Gospel

Here is another interesting exhange between two CCCC members:

From: David Brand
Date: 4/13/2006

Dear Richard and others,

Your reflections on the meaning of faith are, I believe, quite valid.

Both Adam and Israel, in transgressing the covenant, broke faith with God (Hosea 6:7; Psalm 78:8-10,56-57). To be sure, sin by definition is "lawlessness" (1 John 3:4 ESV). John Calvin traced the Fall (the violation of a single command) to a weakening of faith. And that is exactly what Paul does in Romans 14:23: ". . . whatever does not proceed from faith is sin" (Rom. 14:23). The end and effect of Paul's gospel was "to bring about the obedience of faith" (Rom. 16:26) — the keeping of God's commandments (1 Cor. 7:20), i.e. to "uphold the law" (Rom. 3:31). This was totally in accord with Jesus' mission as stated in Matthew 5:17-18. Faith, accordingly, is never antinomian — and that is why I was just a bit bothered by your characterization of

Protestants as holding to "faith alone" as "/opposed to/ works." Faith is never /opposed to/ works. I would prefer to put it that Protestants hold that a person is justified by "faith alone" as "/distinct from/ works" or "/apart from/ works (Rom. 4:5-6; 11:6; Ephes. 2:8-10)."

Jonathan Edwards, in his treatise on /Justification by Faith/, stated,

God in the act of justification, which is passed on a sinner's first believing, has respect to perseverance, as being virtually contained in the first act of faith; and it is looked upon, and taken by him that justifies, as being a property in that faith. God has respect to the believer's continuance in faith, and he is justified by that, as though it already were, because by divine establishment it shall follow; and it being by divine constitution connected with that first faith, as much as if it were a property in it, it is then considered as such, and so justification is not suspended; but were it not for this, it would be needful that it should be suspended, till the sinner had actually persevered in faith (1879, 1:641 /Works/).

Faith is an issue of the heart, i.e. ". . . with the heart one believes and is justified" (Rom. 10:10). And faith is a matter of obedience, that is, we are commanded to believe (Acts 16:31) and told that "without faith we cannot please him [God]" (Heb. 11:6). The Latin word for faith is /fide/ which is also the root of English words like "feudal," "fidelity," and "federation." In these words you can clearly see the relationship between faith, faithfulness and the covenant. The same relationship is evident in our English word "trust" which can be a verb meaning "believe" or a noun meaning a "covenant." To break a trust is to violate the inner sanctity of a friendship or covenant. The gospel of Jesus Christ is designated "the word of faith" by Paul in Romans 10:8. That "word," according to Deuteronomy 30:14, which Paul cites, is said to be, "near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (Rom. 10:8).

The religion that Paul preached was the same religion that Jesus preached — a religion of the heart. Jesus characterized the Jewish leaders by quoting Isaiah 29:13: "These people honor me with their lips but their hearts are far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men" (Matt. 15:8).

But note the origin of faith. "Faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ" (Rom. 10:17). Christ is the Author and Finisher of faith (Heb. 12:1). Faith, therefore, is not our own doing.

As those who walk by faith, we are God's workmanship. Boasting is thereby excluded (Ephes. 2:8-10; Rom. 3:27; 1 Cor. 1:31).

The problem for the Jews was that this was too easy. God was just too accessible by the terms of the gospel. They wanted a righteousness for which they had to work and did not find it. The Gentiles did not even search for it but found it (Rom. 9:30-10:9). God is sovereign in the matter of justification saying "'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who has mercy" (Rom. 9:15).

I would underscore a fact being denied by my former adviser at Fuller Seminary, namely that Jesus fulfilled both the spirit and letter of the law as the Second Adam in keeping with Romans 5:12-21 — a section to which Dan Fuller makes no reference in his /Unity of the Bible/. Fuller has argued that Jesus simply lived by faith. He does not believe that through justification Jesus' active obedience (perfectly fulfilling the law) is imputed to us. Fuller has broken with Edwards, his favorite theologian, in this regard. Jonathan Edwards stated that justification simply in the sense of forgiveness without a righteous standing based on Jesus' active obedience would only place us back in Eden with no guarantee of anything but a second chance. It would only give us a half of salvation (1879, 1:636-638 /Works/). God's justification, however, is based not only on the atonement for sin but on Christ's obedience to the law on our behalf thereby securing a place in heaven for us! To God be the glory! Great things he has done! Christ did what the first Adam failed to do on our behalf. If we overlook or ignore Romans 5:12-21, we are apt to miss this important truth. John Bunyan demonstrated in his treatise on the Covenant of works that the original command given to Adam embodied the entire law by showing references to each of the Ten Commandments occurring in the Bible prior to the giving of the law at Sinai. What I am saying here is that the law had to be fulfilled by Jesus, both in an active and passive (dying for sin) sense, in order to effect our justification.

If I may, I would offer a couple more comments: (1) The judgment of which Jesus warned went beyond the physical destruction of the city of Jerusalem (Matt. 25:30, 46); and (2) Regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls, I recently read /The Dead Sea Scroll/s /Deception/ by Michael Bagient and Richard Leigh who certainly had an axe to grind on more than one count.

Following Robert Eisenman, they identified the Qumran community with the first century Jerusalem church, the "Teacher of Righteousness" with "James the Just, and "the Great Liar" with Paul. They claim that Paul was acquainted with the "Habbakuk Commentary" and chose to distance himself from James. They thereby set up a great antithesis between Paul and James, and claim that it was Paul whose writings turned Jesus into a god. This is just another fashionable version of 19th-century "quest for the historical Jesus" movement. Your reference to Paul's reading of the Qumran /Works of the Law/ fits in with this theory.

There is much divided opinion among Dead Sea Scroll scholars concerning the identity of the Qumran community and the dating of the scrolls within certain parameters, of course. If you have read the book to which I alluded, you may want to follow with Hershel Shanks' /Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls/ for a more balanced approach.

Though Balient and Leigh highly endorse the Biblical Arcehological Review for their own purposes in suggesting that the International Team, dominated by Roman Catholics, conspired to suppress the Scrolls for fear of discrediting the Christian faith, BAR Editor Hershel Shanks in the final chapter of his book summarizes Balient's and Leigh's conspiracy arguments and designates them "hogwash."

Dave Brand
-----------------------------
From: John Fanella
Date: 4/14/2006

Brethren:

David Brand's latest post highlights one of the crucial issues facing us as Congregationalists--maintaining Covenant theology (including the Covenant of Works) as outlined in our Savoy Declaration, and later developed by Edwards. It is crucial because this topic so dramatically affects the doctrines of justification and imputation (which is the heart of the gospel).

The trend to deny the covenant of works and replace it with Daniel Fuller's "continuum view" abounds. Fuller is a key influence of men such as John Piper, and also of many Reformed Baptists who hold to "New Covenant Theology." This includes men such as John Reisinger, Jon Zeus, Randy Seiver, Fred Zaspel, and Gary Long.

But our Savoy Declaration states that the covenant of works is, "The first covenant made with man…wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience." (1)

The covenant of works was a covenant of probation. If Adam (the federal head of the human race) remained obedient for the time God allotted to him, eternal life would have been granted to him and progeny. The covenant of works was not intended to be a permanent, never-ending relationship. By it's nature, it was designed to terminate, thus allowing Adam to graduate to eternal life without the fear of disobedience ever capturing his heart again. That was the reward. The probationary covenant was clearly confirmed by Jonathan Edwards as an integral part of God's first covenant with man. He said:

"We are no more justified by the voice of the law or of him that judges according to it by a mere pardon of sin, than Adam, our first surety, was justified by the law at the first point of his existence, before he had fulfilled the obedience to the law, or had so much as any trial whether he would fulfill it or not."(2)

Of course, the first Adam did not pass the works probation and was condemned to death with the entire human race. God in his grace, however, established a covenant of grace with Adam and humanity, through which He would send another federal head to fulfill the covenant of works and reverse the penalty of Adam's disobedience for all who would believe. Jesus Christ, the Second Adam, came not only to bear the punishment for humanity's violation of the covenant of works, but also to actually fulfill the covenant of works on behalf of the elect. Jesus' obedience was active in obedience, and passive in death.

The Holy Scriptures say, "For as by one man's disobedience, many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous" (Romans 5:19). This is the redemptive-historical summary of what Jesus' life accomplished — namely righteousness for many (lit."hoi polloi," "the many" referring to those given to Christ in the eternal covenant). This summary text positions both sides of federal imputation (Adam and Christ) in the obedience or lack thereof to the conditional promise of Genesis 2:17. For any person to be granted eternal life, there must not only be the absence of de-merit (sin) but the presence of positive and perfect merit (righteousness). The covenant of works is the process God established to fulfill this requirement.

The covenant of works was not abandoned in favor of the covenant of grace. Rather the covenant of grace was given in order to fulfill the covenant of works. Jesus Christ, the promised Redeemer, would intrude humanity to personally fulfill the covenant of works himself, then pay the wrathful penalty for the first Adam's violation of the covenant. God would then impute all of the Redeemer's work to the elect. This is the gospel! To abandon belief in the covenant of works is to completely misunderstand the nature of Jesus' work and the gospel itself. To eliminate the existence of the covenant of works is to minimize, if not eliminate altogether, the reality and necessity of the active obedience of Christ. Moreover, it is to minimize if not eliminate altogether one of the major transactions of imputation — namely the righteousness of Christ.

In other words, if there was no covenant of works whose fulfillment was required in order to procure eternal life (Gen. 2:17, Gal. 3:12), then what use or benefit or necessity was the life (as opposed to death) of Christ? If there was not the pending necessity for perfect obedience in order to secure eternal life for mankind, then the life of Christ was a non-issue in the work of redemption. And if the life of Christ was a non-issue in redemption, then you have a doctrine of justification that is merely atonement-oriented, without the need for the imputation of positive righteousness. This was Wesley's view and systematically is the view of anyone who discards of the covenant of works.

Further, the absence of a covenant of works forces man to be the object of justification, rather than Christ. Through his active obedience, Jesus merited justification, and God validated His justification through His resurrection (1 Tim. 3:16, Rom. 4:25). Therefore, it is not we who are justified, but Christ. We are justified only through our mystical union with Him. This is an aspect of justification almost totally overlooked in modern Reformed theologizing, due in large part to our outright neglect of the covenant of works. Jonathan Edwards spoke to the justification of Christ clearly in his day:"Christ, our second surety, (in whose justification all who believe in him, and whose surety he is, are virtually justified,) was not justified until he had done the work the Father had appointed him, and kept the Father's commandments through all trials; and then in his resurrection he was justified. When he that had been put to death in the flesh was quickened by the Spirit (1 Pet. 3:18), then he that was manifest in the flesh was justified in the spirit (1 Tim. 3:16)."(3)

Edwards also made a critical connection between Christ's justification and faith. He maintained that faith is the instrument by which we receive Christ, not justification. Because Jesus is the one who merited justification through obedience to the covenant of works, all the gifts of redemption are bestowed directly on Him. Therefore our faith attaches us to Christ, and we receive, through imputation, all the benefits of His justification. Here are Edwards words on this faith-Christ relationship:"Faith is not intended to be the instrument by which God justifies, but the instrument by which we receive justification; not the instrument by which the justifier acts in justifying, but by which the receiver of justification acts in accepting justification. But yet, it must be admitted, this is an obscure way of speaking, and there must certainly be some impropriety in calling faith an instrument by which we receive or accept justification; for the very persons who explain the matter this way speak of faith as being the reception or acceptance itself. And if so, how can it be the instrument of reception or acceptance? Certainly there is a difference between the act and the instrument. Besides, by their own descriptions of faith, Christ, the Mediator by whom, and His righteousness by which we are justified is more directly the object of this acceptance and justification, which is the benefit arising from it, more indirectly. Therefore if faith is an instrument it is more properly the instrument by which we receive Christ than the instrument by which we receive justification."(4)

I cite Edwards here to demonstrate the critical connection between the covenant of works and justification. To eliminate the covenant of works for either the first or second Adam is not simply a neglect of a hermeneutic; it is a serious gospel violation. Without the covenant of works, we have no hope of possessing positive, meritorious obedience. And without positive, meritorious obedience (holiness), "no one will see the Lord" (Heb.12:14). This is the danger of Calvinism without covenant. Even among those who affirm the covenant of works, there are some who yet see the covenant as one of grace, at least in part. For example, R.L. Dabney said:

"Nor would we attach any force to the argument, that if Christ made penal satisfaction for the sins of all, justice would forbid any to be punished... Christ's satisfaction is not a pecuniary equivalent, but only such a one as enables the Father, consistently with His attributes, to pardon, if in His Mercy He sees fit.... There would be no injustice to the man, if remaining an unbeliever, his guilt were punished twice over, first in his Savior, and then in Him."(5)

Dabney here maintains that at the end of the day, Christ's work was not meritorious, obligating God to pardon and/or impute. God's grace is still necessary, and he could decide not to forgive even after Christ fulfilled God's righteous requirements. He combines works and grace into a hybrid foreign to Scripture. Dabney's confusion on this point is common among people who either deny the covenant of works totally (Fuller/Piper) or want to mix the covenant of works with elements of grace (Dabney and countless other Presbyterians). The outcome is the same: grace is necessary even in a conditional works-covenant.

This confusion is serious because grace and works cannot be mixed. Adam would have obtained his reward by works or by grace; there is no middle ground. Romans 11:6 says exactly this regarding election according to God's grace: "And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace." God either elects by grace or according to works, never by a combination. God rewards according to grace or works, not some mixture. If Adam was to be received into eternal life by grace, then the covenant with him was all of grace. But if it was of works, it was not in any sense by grace, or work is no longer work. Adam would have earned his entry into heaven, just as Paul says: "Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt." (Romans 4:4). There can be no talk here of grace, even of God graciously offering the covenant when he didn't have to, or of offering more reward than was necessary. Then the wages are debt only because God has chosen to obligate himself (in which sense even our reward in Christ must be counted as debt and there is no longer any distinction between the method of entry into life offered to Adam and to us.)

Those who deny the covenant of works cannot possibly talk biblically about justification. They will speak about the justification of people, not Christ. Nor can they talk straight about imputation. They will talk about God imputing the righteousness of Christ, but they can't mean it. These are gospel matters that are not secondary.

Furthermore, a denial of covenant theology inevitably skews the way one reads and preaches the Bible. No longer is the Bible a history of the working out of God's promised redeemer made to Adam (the hermeneutic of Jonathan Edwards — see his History of the Work of Redemption), but a fragmented and confusing compilation of "different gospels." The very thing that Fuller and Piper argue for, Unity of the Bible, is the very thing they lack in their denial of covenant theology. I suspect that this train of thought regarding the covenant of works/covenant theology is what cased Machen to pen his famous line — "so thankful for the active obedience of Christ…no no hope without it."

-----------------------------
Notes
1. Savoy Declaration of Faith, VII, II.
2. Jonathan Edwards, Justification By Faith Alone.
3. Jonathan Edwards, Discourses on Various Important Subjects.
4. Jonathan Edwards, Justification By Faith Alone.
5. R.L. Dabney, Systematic Theology, Lecture XLIII.4.

---------------------------------------------------------------
John Fanella, Pastor
Beulah Congregational Church
CCCC Area Representative, Great Plains District
116 Third Avenue NW
Beulah, ND 58523
701-873-5979 (office)
701-873-5848 (home)
>johnfanella@yahoo.com

Congregationalist Conversations

An important conversation has been taking place via email that pertains to the CCCC, UCC and the Reformed Congregational Fellowship.

It began when David Brand sent this email:

Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 10:55:45 -0400

Dear Brethren,

I received a copy of of /The Witnness/, the news publication of the Biblical Witness Fellowship, and note that there will be a First National Gathering of "Faithful and Welcoming Churches of the UCC" under the rubric "Here I Stand! Proclaiming the Historic Faith in Turbulent Times," July 2-4, 2006, Grove City, Ohio (near Columbus). Three topics will be addressed: Reforming the Mainline Church, Responding to Pro-gay Theology, and Rallying Lay People for Renewal. The speakers have impressive credentials. For more information, go to <www.faithfulandwelcoming.org>.

My own thought is that we ought to stand with these brethren and let them know of our support. Also we ministers might do well to write articles about this meeting and send them to the editors of our local newspapers in Ohio, and throughout the nation for that matter, so that lay people and pastors within the UCC churches in our communities will learn about this National Gathering and participate rather than simply conceding to the status quo. Sometimes liberal pastors keep the lay people in the dark and the lay people have no idea where to turn for support. Certainly we can not expect liberal, timid, and weak-willed pastors to submit announcements of this First National Gathering to the local news even though they may be fully aware of it. We can offset such irresponsible leadership by helping to get the word out so that the faithful will have a rallying point. I think that by supporting our brethren in this way we will demonstrate our concern for the church at large. It just might be that down the road, they will need our further assistance. This will be more productive in the long run, I think, than sheep stealing, though certainly we should welcome any and all who desire to come our way out of frustration with their denominational leadership and direction..

Respectfully in Christ,

David Brand
-----------------

Although I sympathize with the Evangelicals within the UCC, my suggestion is
to get out. The UCC was formed by the merger of two Liberal-dominated
denominations, the General Council of Congregational and Christian churches
and the Evangelical and Reformed Church. Did any faithful evangelical then
think that the new denomination was not going to move even more
theologically left. The Second Law of Thermodynamics still holds true.
Even the name of the new denomination was an affront to biblical and
historic Congregationalists, i.e. the United Church of Christ. It is a
semi-presbyterian body with the local associations ordaining and
credentialing ministers.

J. Gresham Machen was on the mark when he said that Liberalism was another
religion and not Christianity. The worse thing that the CCCC could do is to
encourage "reform" within the UCC. Our CCCC founders were perceptive and
prophetic when they founded our denomination. The CCCC should stand as a
home for Biblical Congregationalists and leave the door open for those whom
wish to join us. We are not being loving nor Biblical to those Evangelicals
within the UCC by encouraging them to stay within that apostate
denomination.

David Williams
------------------

While I wish to affirm Dave Brand's inclination to encourage believing Christians of whatever stripe, I do agree with David Williams that the time is long overdue to be encouraging remaining evangelicals within the UCC...to come out from the unclean thing...it might even be fair to say that, if first century criteria for removal of self were applied today, all Christians within the UCC would have removed themselves years ago...not even first century Judaism, which rejected Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah, openly endorsed and advocated for: abortion on demand; ordination of sodomites into the ministry; homosexual "marriage," etc. The UCC even more than mormonism, the jehovah witnesses, the scientologists, and atheist university professors, the freemasons, etc., advocate "another gospel" shamelessly; in fact, they revel in the perversins they advocate. If separation not now, then when, and on what basis? How much worse should the apostacy go before departing? I mean, this is the organization of which the UUA several years ago said that it was "comfortable" with the UCC...now there's an endorsement of the devil's crowd if ever there was one!

Fraternally in Christ,

Marshall Pierson
------------------

Marshall is correct.

The UCC is functionally Unitarian and Universal, which puts it outside of the pale of Christianity by any definition -- Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox. The only real difference between the UCC and the UUA is that the UCC does not have the moral courage to openly confess its theology. It chooses to hide behind the language of some perceived "historical" Christian position it pays lip service to.

The UCC leadership is committed to their cause and perspective to the death. They understand the whole of the history of the world to have lead them to the place where they are, and that they are preparing the way for a "new world order" of biblical proportion.

Yet, it still deceptively speaks some Christian and Trinitarian language because it is afraid of loosing the majority of cowardly supporters who will not face the fact that their beloved tradition is rotten to the core. It's not a lot different from the common practice of cognitive dissonance that is practiced in the churches generally, except that it is an example of the power of extreme cognitive dissonance to blind people to the truth. If they haven't seen it by now, they are not likely to ever see it, save in the midst of great trial and tribulation.

The truth about the UCC is painful and ugly, and people don't like thinking about painful things or looking at ugly things. So, they turn a blind eye and "hope for the best." This is not a new phenomena, but I suspect that it precedes every period of national collapse.

Phil Ross
----------------

Brethren in Christ,

I can appreciate what has been spoke by Dave Williams and Marshall Pierson. An abomination is just that--an abomination, and Christians are called to separate themselves from such; and in trying to rescue others caught up in it, they are admonished to hate even the garment spotted by the flesh (Jude23). May I mention a few things that bear on Dave's and Marshall's comments.

First, that generation that crucified our Lord, while more "purist" than the UCC, was covering up a lot (John 8:7).

Second, Jesus made it clear that that Sodom and Gomorrah would receive greater tolerance in the Judgment than a community of Jews that rejected His message (Matt. 10:15).

Third, the separation that took place between the church which Jesus established and the corrupt institution of Judaism of His day was the natural result of rejection of Jesus and, in turn, His disciples and their message and the reinforcement of that rejection with persecutuon (Matt. 10:14; Acts 13:46; 28:28).

Third, the Faithful and Welcoming Churches' proposed First National Gathering, is to be a /standing apart/ (i.e., a separation) from the wickedness that has gotten a foothold in much of the leadership structure of the UCC.

Fourth, in some ways the confessional stance of the Faithful and Welcoming Churches is superior to our own. They affirm Jesus Christ as Lord. Our Statement of Faith does not specifically mention the name of Jesus--though, it could be argued, it is implied, and our Polity Statement affirms Jesus as Head of His body, the church. They affirm that God is the Creator and Sustainer of heaven and earth. Our Statement makes no mention of these marvelous truths. They affirm the Apostle's Creed which provides historic context for our faith mentioning the virgin's name and the name of Pontius Pilate. Our CCCC Statement provides no historic context for the truths that it sets forth. They affirm the great ecumenical creeds and the confessions of the Reformation. Our Statement, though affirming the triune nature of God and the deity of Christ, comes up a bit short with respect to affirming Christ's full humanity, and makes no reference to the historic creeds and confessions. They affirm Jesus Christ as Head of the Church. Our Statement of Faith not only makes no reference to Jesus--it makes no reference to the church--though our polity statement does! They clarify that there are two sacraments--baptism and the Lord's Supper.
Our Statement does not mention baptism and the Lord's Supper, and if our "essentials" are defined strictly in terms of our Statement, presumably someone could be received into the CCCC who does not believe that local congregations should administer water baptism or celebrate the Lord's Supper. Perhaps in separating from the parent body of congregationalists, the CCCC threw out some of the baby with the bathwater! I appreciate the fact that the Faithful and Welcoming Churches are intent on not letting that happen to themselves. I also appreciate their sense of catholicity and regard for the unity of Christ's body which, I am sure, we share as well.

Fifth, the Biblical Witness Fellowship which has posted the announcement concerning the First National Gathering must be doing something right, for they are incurring much alignment from the evil men who are desperate to maintain their control. The Faithful and Welcoming, after all are the legitimate group of the UCC--the wicked are the impostors.

Sixth, as I read the information on their website, I see that the Faithful and Welcoming Churches of the UCC are not blindly committed to remaining in the denomination at any cost. For them faithfulness to the Gospel is of a higher priority. They realize that this year could be the year they will have no choice but to withdraw.

Seventh, our own Congregational heritage is instructive for us. There were two groups of Congregationalists who settled in New England: the Plymouth Plantation and the Massacusetts Bay Colony. The former were Separating Congregationalists (the "come outers" from the Church of England). The latter were Non-Separating Congregationalists who, when visiting Old England, would worship in the Anglican churches. Was one group superior to the other? Let each of us be fully persuade in his own mind, but it is not an easy question. The Plymouth group's pastor, John Robinson, received some counsel in this matter from Williams Ames when they were all residing in the Netherlands, and apparently that had an impact on the congregation. preparing them for amiable relations with their Massachusetts Bay brethren. Otherwise the Plymouth Plantation brethren might have followed the example of Roger Williams who did noit make it at Plymouth, and later insisted that the Salem church withdraw from associating with the other churches of the Bay Colony because they would not break away from the Church of England.
Finally, it might be good for all of us to take another look at the following chapter from the historic Cambridge Platform, for it reminds us of the seriousness with which the Christian should take his departure from a local congregation, as well as the fact that in some cases it may be unavoidable, if he is to be true to his convictions:

*Chapter XIII. Of Church-Members, Their Removal from One Church to Another, and of Recommendation and Dismissio*n.

1. Church-Members may not remove or depart from the church, and so one from another as they please, nor without just and weighty cause, but ought to live and dwell together, (Heb. x. 25,) forasmuch as they are commanded not to forsake the assembling of themselves together. Such departure tends to the dissolution and ruin of the body, as the pulling of stones and pieces of timber from the building, and of members from the natural body, tend to the destruction of the whole.

2. It is, therefore, the duty of church-members, in such times and places, where counsel may be had, to consult with the church whereof they are members (Pro. xi. 16,) about their removal, that, accordingly, they having their approbation, may be encouraged, or otherwise desist They who are joined with consent, should not depart without consent, except forced thereunto.

<>3. If a member's departure be manifestly unsafe and sinful, the church may not consent thereunto; for in so doing, (Re. xiv.23,) they should not act in faith, and should partake with him in his sin. (I Tim. v. 22.) If the case be doubtful and the person not to be persuaded, (Acts xxi. 14,) it seems best to leave the matter unto God, and not forcibly to, detain him.
4. Just reasons for a member's removal of himself from the church, are--1, If a man cannot continue without partaking in sin. (Eph. v. 11.) 2, In case of personal persecution: (Acts ix. 25. 29, 30, and viii. 1,) so Paul departed from the disciples at Damascus; also, in case of general persecution, when all are scattered. In case of real, and not only pretended want of competent subsistence, a door being opened for better supply in another place, (Neh. xiii. 20,) together with the means of spiritual edification. In these or like cases, a member may lawfully remove, and the church cannot lawfully detain him.

5. To separate from a church, either out of contempt of their holy fellowship, (2 Tim. iv. 10,) or out of covetousness, or for greater enlargements, with just grief to the church, or out of schism, or want of love, and out of a spirit of contention in respect of some unkindness, of some evil only conceived or intended in the church, which might and should be tolerated and healed with a spirit of meekness, and of which evil the church is not yet convinced (though perhaps himself be) nor admonished; for these or the like reasons, to withdraw from public communion in word or seals, or censures, is unlawful and sinful.

6. Such members as have orderly moved their habitation, ought to join themselves unto the church in order (Isa. lvi. 8,) where they do inhabit., (Acts ix. 28,) if it may be; otherwise, they can neither perform the duties nor receive the privileges of members. Such an example, tolerated in some, is apt to corrupt others, which, if many should follow, would threaten the dissolution and confusion of churches, contrary to the Scripture. (1 Cor. xiv. 33.)

7. Order requires that a member thus removing, have letters testimonial and of dismission from the church (Act. xviii. 27,) whereof he yet is, unto the church whereunto he desires to be joined, lest the church should be deluded; that the church may receive him in faith, and not be corrupted in receiving deceivers and false brethren. Until the person dismissed be received unto another church, he ceases not by his letters of dismission to be a member of the church whereof he was. The church cannot make member no member but by excommunication.

8. If a member be called to remove only for a time where a church is, (Rom. xvi. 1, 2,) letters of recommendation are requisite and sufficient for communion with that church (2 Cor. iii. 1) in the ordinances and in their watch; as Phoebe, a servant of the church at Cenchrea, had a letter written for her to the church at Rome, that she might be received as becomes saints.

9. Such 1etters of recommendation and dismission (Acts xviii. 27) were written for Apollos, for Marcus to the Colossians, (Col. iv. 10,) for Phoebe to the Romans, (Rom. xvi. 1,) for sundry other churches. (2 Cor. iii. 5.) And the apostle tells us that some persons, not sufficiently known otherwise, have special need of such letters, though he, for his pert, had no need thereof. The use of them is to be a benefit and help to the party for whom they are written, and for the furthering of his receiving among the saints, in the place whereto he goes, and the due satisfaction of them in their receiving of him.

Respectfully in Christ,
Dave Brand

Where the Jews Went Wrong

David Brand has written an interesting article about works-righteousness.

Where the Jews Went Wrong

“Behold I set before you life and death; therefore, choose life.”

Paul in contrasting the Jews’ failure to obtain righteousness with the fact of the Gentiles’ obtaining it (Rom. 9:30-10:8), cited two quotations from the law of Moses. The first quotation by which he illustrated the Jewish pursuit of righteousness as though it were based on works was from Leviticus 18:5: “You shall therefore keep my statues and my rules: if a person does them, he shall live by them.”

To illustrate the Gentile attainment of righteousness by faith, Paul appealed to a passage in Deuteronomy 30:12-14:

For this commandment that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, “Who will ascend to heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, “Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?” But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it.

See, I set before you today life and good, death and evil. . .

To be sure, according to God’s administration of the covenant of grace even under the New Covenant, “the keeping of the commandments of God” (1 Cor. 7:19) was an indispensable condition, if by “condition,” we mean “a provision upon which the carrying out of an agreement depends” (Britannica-Webster). Even Abraham was commanded by God Almighty, “Walk before me and be blameless” (Gen. 17:2). The ultimate question, however, is how mortal human beings on this side of the Fall can expect to keep God’s commandments by their own efforts in order to attain that life that is indissolubly connected to the keeping of those commandments? Can this be accomplished without a Mediator to first make propitiation (satisfaction to God) offering perfect obedience by shedding His blood for the transgressions of Adam’s race thereby reconciling men to their Maker? The testimony of both the Old and New Testaments, of course, is that it cannot. And this is where the Jews missed the boat. They were spiritually blind but culpably so (John 9:39-41). It was a deliberate blindness and resistance to the truth–a covering of the eyes and ears (John 3:19-21; 5:39-40). When they read Moses a veil lay over their hearts (2 Cor. 3:15).

When a person turns to Christ, the veil is removed (2 Cor. 3:16). At that moment, for the first time, he no longer views the law as a means for his own personal effort to achieve eternal life or a righteous standing before God. For in that very instance of turning, he is aware of sins forgiven and life invading his own heart, and it comes as a glorious surprise simply by trusting Christ. The righteousness that is by faith does not demand that someone ascend to heaven to bring Christ down, nor to descend into the abyss to bring Christ up from the dead, Paul declares. “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is the word of faith that we proclaim)” (Rom. 10:6-8). In other words, the word of faith has already infused the sinner’s innermost being, and he stands ready to confess the Lord Jesus before he fully realizes what has happened to him. The word of the gospel presents a fully sufficient Christ who has completed his work, has risen from the dead, and is not in any need of our assistance.

The problem for the Jewish leaders was that in the person of Christ God was too accessible for them. He was standing on their doorstep and they did not recognize Him. The gospel was too simple for them. As Paul stated, “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart! (That is the word of faith that we proclaim)” They must certainly have concluded that it had to be harder than that! God surely could not be that accessible. This left no room for the pride of human achievement!-- no space for the tomes of religious tradition! Professionally they were ruined!

This is far different from the modern so-called “word of faith” movement which places an awful burden of positive confession on a person who by sheer determination and effort must forever maintain a positive confession of what is written. The moment the positive confessor fails or gets discouraged he is reprimanded by his instructor and encouraged in his “positive confession” which may be nothing more than a state of denial of his personal reality. This modern perversion of the “word of faith”which places the burden upon men is totally opposite the biblical version which places the burden upon Christ and pours grace into men’s hearts creating faith by the “implanted word” (James 1:21). Tragically, the modern “word of faith” movement is simply a “self-help” technique amounting to little more than the old Jewish error recast in the language of Christian faith.

Once a sinner turns and trusts in Christ, and even before he does so (by grace we are saved), there is set in motion a transforming process within him whereby he now takes delight in doing the will of God whose commandments and instruction in the Holy Scriptures are no longer regarded as burdensome to him. A brand new creation, he only wants to please and glorify his Savior who has redeemed him. The law of Christ is literally second nature to him and will bring victory in the midst of his many struggles in subduing the old nature. Christ is able to save to the uttermost accomplishing his purposes through the Holy Spirit who comes to indwell, teach, and guide the one who is born of the Spirit. The believer’s sanctification (growth in holiness and conformity to the image of Christ) will ultimately rise to the level of his justification. Certainly at the appearing of Christ it will be completed at the moment of glorification.

The human urge toward justification by works is very strong. In one sense the whole of the Old Testament is the story of the pervasiveness and power of that urge in human consciousness. The OT Jews could not divulge themselves of it even when it lead to the destruction of Jerusalem, the Temple and the nation of Israel for most of history since Christ.

We also saw the reemergence of that urge in Roman Catholicism. The Reformation of the church in the 1500s was an awakening from the continuing effects of that urge into the Christian era. Could it be that the human urge to justification by works is still with us today? What would make us think that it isn't?

Phil

Jesus, CEO

The Economist magazine has an article on churches as businesses, "Jesus, CEO." The Economist is not a Christian publication, but is quite influential, as I understand it. It discusses the pros and cons, and is worth a read.

From my perspective, it sees the problem but doesn't know what to do about it. The problem is that Jesus did not treat those who came to him as customers, employing the adage that the customer is always right. The problem with customer-driven Christianity is that people get what they want rather than what Christ wants for them. Samuel warned the ancient Israelites about this problem. They wanted a king like the other nations. God thought it was a bad idea, but gave them what they wanted for their edification.

You might also want to see my article, "Christian Marketing."

Comments?

Phil

Congregational Study Track at WTS Meets with CCCC Board Approval

by David Brand
At its July meeting, the CCCC Board of Directors of the CCCC approved in principal the Proposal for a Congregational Study Track at Westminster Theological Seminary. The board will now get back with Westminster Seminary to communicate its approval and to work out a few adjustments of some of the details For example, the Board prefers to stick with the terminology now in use with respect to Gordon-Conwell Seminary as a "seminary of choice" rather than move to another definition, such as "conference-related seminary."

David Brand presented a workshop at the annual Conference entitled "Westminster Theological Seminary—An Excellent Match for the Conservative Congregational Christian Conference." Copies of the actual proposal originally presented to Westminster Seminary were distributed, as well as the following summary outline of Brand's presentation:

Westminster Theological Seminary­An Excellent Match for the Conservative Congregational Christian Conference

A) Commitment to Biblical Conservatism

1. The CCCC was incorporated in 1949, and, as its name attests, represented a conservative response to the liberal theological direction being pursued by the General Council of Congregational Christian Churches. It is faced with the challenge of maintaining
that biblical conservatism as it receives ministers and congregations disenchanted with, but deeply influenced by, the extreme liberalism of the UCC.

2. WTS was founded in 1929 as a response to liberal developments at Princeton Seminary. It adheres to its scholarly,biblica l/ theological legacy that remains the evangelical standard of response to modern assaults on the Christian faith. The writings of WTS founding faculty, such as J. Greshem Machen, Robert Dick Wilson, and Oswald T. Allis, have been ignored, but never answered. Cornelius Van Til has greatly impacted the field of Christian apologetics subjecting human reason to biblical authority.

B) Congregational Roots

1) CCCC: Provision for a CCCC representive on the Westminster Seminary campus, and courses taught by him or his designee, will assure that Congregational polity is upheld in the Congregational study track at WTS. The doctrines of the Reformation and the prominence of the covenant in theology characterized historic Congregationalism in Old and New England and are the fabric of the Savoy Declaration, as well as the Westminster Confession.

2.WTS: Princeton, chartered in 1746 as the College of New Jersey, began classes in 1747 under the presidency of Jonathan Dickinson, a Yale graduate with strong affinities to New England Puritanism. The Congregationalists of New England emphasized the experiential religion of the heart in contrast to their strict subscriptionist Scottish Presbyterian brethren. Later presidents included Aaron Burr, son-in-law to Jonathan Edwards, and Jonathan Edwards himself. WTS Chancellor Samuel T. Logan, Jr., is an authority on Puritan New England, on Jonathan Edwards in particular, and highly regards the New England Congregational polity represented in the Cambridge Platform. Dr. Sinclair Ferguson is an authority on the 17th-century English Congregational leader John Owen. Two of his papers are published in the book entitled John Owen: The Man and His Theology. Dr. Peter Lillback was recently appointed WTS President. His superb doctoral thesis has been published under the title The Binding of God: Calvin’s Role in the Development of Covenant.

C) Respect for Christian Diversity

1. CCCC: “The Nature of Our Fellowship”: “There is freedom in the CCCC today to practice the strictest Reformed theology of our early fathers, as well as essentially Christian theology which differs in certain ways from the Reformed perspective. Should either be denied on a forced unity, contrary to the ecclesiology of the original founders, we would no longer be fully Congregational.”

2. WTS: The emphasis is emphatically Reformed, yet there is a remarkable diversity in the WTS student body which, according to the 2004-2005 catalogue, represents 91 ecclesiastical denominations and 39 countries. WTS faculty members over the years have spoken at evangelical gatherings, such as Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship. WTS’s response to the CCCC proposal attests to the Seminary’s openness.

D) Concern for Urban Ministry

1. CCCC: Statement on Racial Reconciliation: “The CCCC recognizes the need to evangelize the entire spectrum of American culture, including the fastest growing segment of our population in our urban centers.”

2. WTS: The Seminary is announcing Westminster in the City — a new program beginning Fall 2005. You can earn a certificate in Biblical and Urban Studies or a Masters of Arts (Urban Mission emphasis) degree in the evenings in the City of Philadelphia.

It is significant that Brand himself who was ordained in the UPUSA, and who served in that denomination for 10 years before pastoring an independent, charismatic Baptist church in New Jersey, became persuaded of the biblical superiority of the historic New England Congregational polity inscribed in the Cambridge Platform of 1648 while pursuing a Th.M. program at WTS in the 1980s.

Brand stated that there are already a sufficient number of courses in place at Westminster to make the Seminary a haven for any Congregationalist wanting to prepare for Christian ministry. Brand pointed out that evangelistic fervor mingled with scholarly excellence has been the hallmark of WTS from its very inception. Robert Dick Wilson was called by the Lord to give up a successful open-air evangelistic ministry to become a Christian scholar. He mastered 26 languages in order to refute the erroneous claims of the liberal higher critics who were assaulting the authority of the Old Testament. Machen, world renowned for his Christianity and Liberalism, Virgin Birth of Christ, and the Origin of St. Paul's Religion, similarly took on the liberal assault on the New Testament. Machen attended a couple of Billy Sunday's meetings in Philadelphia and was remarkably impressed with the evangelist's spell-binding communication of the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The impact of WTS presidents, Ed Clowney and Sam Logan, has prepared the Seminary for such a day as this, when the original Great Awakening influence which gave rise to the College of New Jersey (later Princeton) is once again being underscored as essential to ministry preparation.

Lake Avenue Church pastor resigns

By Marshall Allen , Staff Writer
PASADENA — Gordon Kirk, senior pastor of Lake Avenue Church, shocked members of his huge congregation when he resigned last weekend, citing "personal character attacks" and disrespect for his leadership from a vocal minority in the church.

Kirk delivered his formal resignation last Wednesday to the ministry council, the body that guides the 4,000-member congregation. The ministry council includes Kirk and other pastors and about a dozen elected members of the congregation. [Read the article]

Blog Insight Regarding Kirk Resignation

"I recently heard a good analogy. Imagine a medical practice run by a board made up of a pastor, a plumber, an electrician and a school teacher. They decide how diseases should be treated, what equipment should be purchased, what treatment plans should be implemented. This group is selected by the patients and is expected to respect their wishes. The doctor's role is to carry out the plans as formulated by the board.

I'm not sure that would be my choice of medical practice, but we run churches that way every day. I don't know why this pastor left this church, but I imagine he just gave up trying to steer a car with 4000 other people in the drivers seat." [Read the article]

Struggle for power led Calvary pastor to quit

The Rev. Clark Whitten says the decision to eliminate a friend's job prompted his departure.

By Mark I. Pinsky | Sentinel Staff Writer
Posted July 28, 2005

During more than 10 years in the pulpit at Calvary Assembly, the megachurch overlooking Interstate 4 in Winter Park, the Rev. Clark Whitten has been known for his plain speaking.

It surprised no one when he announced the contentious end of his ministry in a typically direct way, before thousands of worshippers at services Sunday.

Whitten said he was quitting because the church's board of elders, without his knowledge, had voted to eliminate the position of senior executive pastor, held by the Rev. David Smith. [Read the Article]

This kind of thing is of particular interest to me, in that I've been there ("resigned" from a pastorate more than once). Somewhere someone said something like, 'he who has made no enemies, has never done anything of value.'

The interesting thing about church conflict is that it is not new. Have you read the New Testament? Church conflict is inevitable, partly because the churches are full of sinners (thank God! There is no better place for them.); and partly because God uses theological struggle and conflict for the sanctification of His people.

I believe that church and theological struggles are on the increase because both the wheat and the tares continue to grow in anticipation of the great harvest. I even believe that the struggle will eventually produce a good result. Out of conflict and struggle will come greater resolution and clarity for the people of God, in God's time.

What we see in church after church is the adoption of a perverted form of Congregational polity knonwn as autonomy or self-rule -- regardless of the denomination or leadership structure. Why? Because Contemporary American culture teaches it.

The churches have been snookered. In short, they opened their doors to the world in the name of outreach and evangelism to the lost, only to find that the world has rushed in and now runs the organization.

Phil

Virtue

There is nothing more out of style in the contemporary world than virtue. The concept of virtue is so neglected that not one in a thousand people even knows what it means. At its root virtue is doing what is right and avoiding what is wrong. It is action and activity that is based upon a particular set of values. It requires knowing the difference between right and wrong. Sounds pretty basic, right?

The root of the word is vir (man), from which also comes the word virile, which means manly and often implies reproduction, and the biblical values related to reproduction (truth, honor, marriage, family, etc.). To be virtuous is to exhibit strength, courage, excellence, and good judgment — judgment that knows what is good and what is not. Again, it requires knowing the difference between right and wrong.

Virtue is the lost art of human maturity. Contemporary culture has gone out of its way to blur the difference between right and wrong, particularly contemporary media (TV, movies, radio, print, Internet and their use by the advertising industry)1. What is popular today would be considered to be trashy, in poor taste, and essentially evil during any previous era of American history. But people don't see it because they are blinded by the cultural bigotry that believes contemporary culture is superior to all others.

American social values have been turned inside out and upside down during the last 300 years, with significant acceleration during the last 50. The loss and recovery of virtue (human maturity) is decidedly a religious matter in spite of the fact that the enemies of virtue unanimously agree that it is not.

The central issue is knowing right from wrong. Christianity teaches that right and wrong cannot be understood apart from the Christ of Scripture. The determination of right and wrong apart from belief in and adherence to Scripture can only be done by subjecting God's wisdom to human wisdom. Either God informs human beings about right and wrong or human beings judge God's wisdom to be faulty, and put themselves in the place of God regarding this determination. There is no middle ground, no neutral position.

Morality is either Godly (biblical) or it is not. Yet, biblical morality is always a matter of growth and development and never a matter of perfect conformity. The essential character of biblical morality is improvement, not excellence. Biblical morality, then, is not a matter of moral excellence (which is beyond human ability), but of moral improvement — regular, on-going, incremental, concrete and actual improvement, of increasing conformity to God's biblical standards of morality.

Historically, the most successful companies in the world built their success on the Protestant Work Ethic, the application of biblical principles to business during a time in which those values were more widely accepted and practiced. It is not that greed, opportunism, fraud and dishonesty were not practiced, but that they were less prevalent, less common, not so much "in your face" as they are today.

Virtue, then, is moral growth, moral development, moral improvement, moral maturity. It is the reclamation of truth, honesty and integrity as the values of genuine success, and the repudiation of what mitigates against virtue, against moral immaturity — potty talk and the values of the gutter, dishonesty, deceit, greed, pride and arrogance — regardless of their packaging or popularity.

Virtue is the blossom of hope for a world of goodness, beauty, truth, justice and righteousness that is beyond our human ability to accomplish — or even to fully understand. It is the work of trusting in the One who has provided the vision (outline or plan) for such a world, and the only means of its accomplishment — Jesus Christ.

---

1. These things are bad or evil in and of themselves. Rather, they simply reflect and broadcast the values of those who control them. They are nothing more than modern pedagogical instruments in the hands of morally immature people. Advertisers work hard to set cultural trends and tend to aim at the lowest common denominator. They should aim higher.