Some Thoughts on Limited Atonement

I just finished up preparing a sermon on Colossians 2:6-15, which I will be preaching this coming Sunday. As I've been reflecting on this passage with its focus on "union with Christ," it struck me that this doctrine has implications for the doctrine of Limited (Definite) Atonement. This struck me like a mac truck as I had never thought about all of this before. As I continue to dive into the doctrine of "union with Christ," I am all the more struck in awe and wonder at the glory of God's divine plan in His Son, Jesus Christ, and what it presently means for me, a redeemed sinner. So here is my attempt at some theologizing about Union With Christ and Limited Atonement.

In verse 13-14 of this passage, Paul tells the Colossian believers that because they are "united with Christ" (literally "in Him" or "in whom"), God has forgiven all of their sins in Christ and made them alive in Christ. This forgiveness of sins and being alive in Christ involves God erasing the record/certificate of debt that stood against us (there is minor debate but I think this record of debt is the condemnatory/curse aspects of the Law as it stands accusing us of having broken God's holy law). This record/certificate of debt has been nailed to the cross (with an implied "in Christ"). In other words, the condemnation/curse of the Law which stood as our accuser was nailed "in Christ" to the cross--Christ having taken the punishment of the accuser upon Himself. So here is Paul's logic in a nutshell:
If you are "in Christ", then all of your sins were nailed to the cross and have been forgiven by God.

Now, in the Arminian system, Christ paid for the sins of the world (with perhaps the exception of the sin of unbelief) and all one has to do is accept that payment and receive it.  However, Paul's logic implies a definite connection between being "in Christ" and having one's sins forgiven. If the Arminian system on this point is the case, then all people in the world are in some way "in Christ" and have been "made alive in Christ." However, being "in Christ" means one receives all the benefits and blessings of Christ and His work (regeneration, justification, sanctification, perseverance, glorification). One cannot be partially "in Christ"; it is all or nothing. So in the Arminian system, all people would be "in Christ" [given Paul's argument here], in which case nobody will be in hell. Yet we know that is not the case. There are people in hell. So these people must not be united with Christ. Therefore, their sins were not nailed to the cross. Thus, Christ did not pay the penalty for the sins of those not "in Him."  The converse of which would be, Christ paid the penalty for the sins of those "in Him." Ergo, you wind up with the doctrine of Limited Atonement.

To put it in a simple syllogism: 
All the sins of those "in Christ" were nailed to the cross.
No unbeliever is "in Christ."
Therefore all of the sins of all unbelievers were not nailed to the cross "in Christ." QED

So, even if we set aside those verses that clearly support the doctrine of Limited Atonement, I believe we still have it through this passage in Colossians and the doctrine of Union With Christ.

Soli Deo Gloria

"Union With Christ" by Robert Letham

First, I just have to say up front that this book is amazing! Union with Christ was definitely an area that was weak in my thinking, which is one reason why I got this book. Letham writes in a clear and engaging style. While covering some heavy topics, I found it easy to read. The "academicness" of the book is contained in the footnotes, so the book has a nice blend of scholarly and lay level. My only complaint is that the book is too short! It clocks in at 141 pages, and you are left wanting more.

The book is divided into 6 chapters, each of which deal with Union with Christ and its relationship to various areas (creation, incarnation, pentecost, etc.). Chapter 2 on the Incarnation deals with early Christian heresies on the person of Christ (which is very helpful) and shows the necessity for the Incarnation. Chapter 5 (Union with Christ & Transformation) was very helpful in dealing with the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of theosis (another area where I am weak in my knowledge/understanding). The last section of this chapter, "Ten Theses on Union with Christ & Transformation," would be a good place to begin for developing a Sunday School lesson/series on this important doctrine. One other area where a light bulb went off for me was understanding faith as an instrument of justification. While I profess/confess/believe this, Letham's analogies really helped me grasp it more fully. In fact, he has many illustrations/analogies that I found helpful for understanding such a complex, deep, and to some degree, mysterious doctrine.

Here are a few quotes/paragraphs that stood out to me and highlight how wonderful and helpful I found this book to be.
"The Lord Christ, by his Spirit, taketh possession of them, and dwelleth in them; and Believers through faith of the operation of the Spirit, take hold of Christ, and get into him; and so they are knit together and become one." (p.51, quote comes from Rowland Stedman)

"At root, sanctification is a spatial concept. It entails being purchased by Christ and so being the property of God. We have been transferred from the domain of darkness to the kingdom of God's Beloved Son (Col 1:13). We have been redeemed--bought with a price--and so we are not our own (1 Cor. 6:19-20). Therefore, we have been separated from sin and the world and belong specifically and particularly to God (Rom. 6:1-23). We belong to God in Christ--all that he did and does is for us, and we are with him and in him. In this sense, sanctification is definitive; it has already taken place in Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. Because Christ died, we have died to sin in union with him. Since he rose from the dead, we have risen to newness of life in him. By the power of the Holy Spirit, this is a dynamic reality as well as an objective fact." (p.87)

This book truly sets forth the glories that are found in Christ and what He has done for His people. I pray that I may live the Christian life better in light of better understanding what Christ has accomplished for me. What He has done, I have done because of union with Him. Simply amazing.

Christless Christianity by Michael Horton

We just finished going through this book in our men's morning study and it is the subject of a lengthy critical review by Dr. John Frame (RTS-Orlando). This will not only review the most of the book and my thoughts on it, but also give some of my view of Dr. Frame's critique of it (found online at Dr. Frame's website and in his book "Escondido Theology").

 Chapter 1 (Christless Christianity): This chapter essentially describes what Horton means by the term "Christless Christianity." Horton writes, "Let me be a little more precise about what I am assuming to be the regular diet in many churches across America today: 'do more, try harder;" (p.17). Conservatives take this mantra as fundamentalistic legalism, while liberals take this mantra into their view of "social justice." Another set take this into the realm of self-help. "In this version, God isn't upset if you fail to pull it off. The stakes aren't as high: success or failure in this life, not heaven or hell. No longer commands, the content of these sermons, songs, and best-selling books are helpful suggestions" (p.17). Horton contends that the American church has not reached this point yet, but is well on her way. He paints in broad brush strokes and generalizations, while recognizing that this is not true of every single church in America. At the heart of it all is this, "The focus still seems to be on us and our activity rather than on God and his work in Jesus Christ. In all of these approaches, there is the tendency to make God a supporting character in our own life movie rather than to be rewritten as new characters in God's drama of redemption" (p.18). Christless Christianity is self-help wrapped up with "relevant" Scriptural support and wrapped in Christianized lingo, but it is no different than secular self-help you would get from Oprah, Dr. Phil, or other new age gurus. Horton sets out that this is a matter of emphasis. Is Christianity primarily about God first and us secondarily, or is it vice versa? Horton contends that Christless Christianity is the latter--Christianity is about us primarily and God secondarily. Jesus has become "corporate CEO, life coach, culture-warrior, political revolutionary, philosopher, copilot...in fulfilling our personal and social dreams" (p.25).

Chapter 2 (Naming Our Captivity): In this chapter, Horton first lays out some sociological and psychological studies done by secular scientists who study the evangelical movement. These secularists have concluded that the notion of "sin" is absent within evangelicalism. Also absent is any notion of being able to give the content of one's faith, even among those for whom it is very important. In other words, many evangelicals have a nebulous, undefined faith without any real Bible content. They don't know it and they can't talk about it beyond the label of "faith." Horton writes, "The key to my criticism, however, is that once you make your peace of mind rather than peace with God the main problem to be solved, the whole gospel becomes radically redefined" (p.39). In other words, much "preaching" in the American church today is nothing more than "moralistic, therapeutic deism." Here is how that phrase is defined by the one who coined it: 1.) God created the world; 2.) God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and most world religions; 3.) The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself; 4.) God does not need to be particularly involved in one's life except when needed to resolve a problem; 5.) Good people go to heaven when they die (p.41).  It is moralistic in that it is up to us to try harder to be good. We have to overcome our problems. It is therapeutic in that it is all about helping us to feel better about ourselves. It is deistic in that God is not needed except in emergency situations. Otherwise, He can just be absent. Horton labels this as the ancient heresy of Pelagianism (denying original sin, sin is just a choice we make with free will, therefore it is within our own power apart from God's help to not sin). Horton then shows the huge influence this had in Charles Finney's work in the 2nd Great Awakening which has had a huge impact upon the evangelical church as the product of the 2nd Great Awakening. Horton calls Pelagianism our "natural theology." We all tend to gravitate toward Pelagianism. It doesn't involve justification, grace, God's wrath, etc. It is all about us and how we feel and the power that is within us. We don't need the good news, we just need good advice. This transcends liberal and conservative, mainline and evangelical. They may define personal happiness and justice differently, but it is still moralistic, therapeutic deism focused on the self, personal experience, and trying harder to be a better, more stable and successful person.

Chapter 3 (Smooth Talking and Christless Christianity): In this chapter, Dr. Horton takes Joel Osteen (and by extension any prosperity gospel propounder) to task. Horton writes, "To the extent that it reflects any theology at all, his message represents a convergence of Pelagian self-help and Gnostic self-deification (68). Basically, God is there for you and your happiness (68)."Osteen can best be summed up as "do your best." God has given you everything you need to be happy, achieve success, and be a better you. Osteen's steps for this are: 1.) Keep pressing forward; 2.) Be positive toward yourself; 3.) Develop better relationships; 4.) Form better habits; 5.) Embrace the place where you are; 6.) Develop your inner life; 7.) Stay passionate about life.   Noticeably absent from Osteen's "preaching," books, and interviews are sin, God's justice and holiness, Christ's atoning work on the cross, etc. Any mention of sin loosens it from its Biblical moorings and sets it adrift in the sea of "magic." Sin is just a bad DNA you inherited and you have the power to overcome it by speaking blessings into your life. Horton (describing Osteen) writes, "Sin is not a condition of inherent corruption and guilt...rather, it is diseases and destructive patterns of behavior passed down through one's bloodline 'until somebody rises up and puts a stop to it.' Obviously, that somebody is you, not Christ (86)." Osteen's message is one of works-righteousness.

Chapter 4 (How We Turn Good News into Good Advice): In this chapter, Horton's main contention is that by distorting the Law-Gospel distinction, we change the story of salvation by faith alone in Christ alone into a story about us and our good deeds. The fire-and-brimstone legalism of the 1800s and 1900s has been replaced with an "easy listening legalsim." The seriousness of God's law has been lessened. Here, Horton takes on Brian McLaren and other emergent/emerging leaders. Horton writes, "Radically different from the narcissism and individualism of Joel Osteen's prosperity gospel, McLaren's message nevertheless shares important similarities. It translates sin and judgment into actions and attitudes that we can overcome with the right agenda in order to transform ourselves and the world" (p.114).

Chapter 5 (Your Own Personal Jesus): The basic point of this chapter is to demonstrate that American Religion/Spirituality is basically Gnostic at its core. American spirituality seeks inner knowledge and is totally focused on the subjective and internal with no recourse to anything that is objective and external. The American Church is not immune to this as it has been affected by this American spirit so that much of what one gets in the American Church can be called "Gnostic Lite." The American Christian is the one who is "God, the Bible, and Me."

My Thoughts
Chapter 1: One of Dr. Frame's critiques of Horton's book is that Horton is not precise in his terminology. In fact, Dr. Horton does not define his terms at all. Thus when Dr. Frame reads this statement written by Horton, "I think the church in America today is so obsessed with being practical, relevant, helpful, successful, and perhaps even well-liked that it nearly mirrors the world itself (p.16)," Dr Frame takes that to mean that Dr. Horton claims God's Word should not be preached as relevant or practical to people. While I agree with Dr. Frame that Dr. Horton is not precise in defining his terminology, I believe Dr. Frame fails to understand this and other statements in light of the context of the chapter. I certainly try to make my sermons practical and relevant to the people in the pews, but it must flow from the text and it must uphold the supremacy and greatness of Christ. God's Word is extremely practical and relevant for us today, but only because our King Jesus is alive and currently reigning and God's Spirit is currently active in the world. In 6000 years of human history, sin has not changed and salvation has not changed. The warnings, commands, promises, and encouragements of Scripture apply to us today (maybe with a little work in contextualizing) as they did to people 2000 and 4000 years ago. I certainly do not want to preach a sermon that does not help the people in the spiritual walk with Christ. However, I do not believe Dr. Horton's chapter lends to a downplaying of this type of relevancy. Dr. Horton is writing about those who place us as primary and Christ as secondary. In other words, when Dr. Horton says "relevant" or "practical," he means that to be, I believe from reading the context, those who define those terms according to culture in order to meet people's felt needs using Christ only as a way to "legitimize" their self-help speech, or perhaps Christ is not even mentioned. In that type of sermon, all it is is self-help for felt needs. There is no mention of sin, God's wrath, Christ's work on the Cross, forgiveness, etc. That type of relevancy in preaching is certainly wrong.

Chapter 2:  I find it hard to disagree with anything Horton says in this book. These studies are certainly dead on and I have found it to be much the same in my own experience of growing up in various churches of various denominations.

Chapter 3: Horton takes Osteen head on and shows how Osteen's message and the Bible's message are at odds with one another. I have a feeling that this part of Horton's book is preaching to the crowd. While it is good to point out all of the ways that Osteen ignores or reinterprets the Bible and fundamental Christian doctrine, I have a hard time seeing this chapter convincing somebody (if they would even pick up a book like this) who follows Osteen and believes in the prosperity Gospel.

Chapter 4: It was refreshing to see Horton take on somebody other than just Joel Osteen. I appreciated his showing of how McLaren and the "liberal" side of "evangelicalism" is fundamentally no different than modern liberalism as espoused by German critics in the 1800 and 1900s. Thus far Horton has been driving home the need for the Gospel, of justification by faith and Christ's imputed righteousness. It seems to me that he might be overemphasizing justification because much of modern Christianity focuses on sanctification (via our deeds and words). But is the corrective to overemphasizing a tension, to overemphasize the opposite end of the tension? We must hold justification and sanctification together in balance. Our sermons cannot be justification by faith all the time, or we would never live out the faith. We would end up with what James calls a "dead faith" (James 2:17). Just as Horton critiques the modern legalism as going too far to try to correct the older, harder, legalism, I believe Horton overemphasizes justification, while only paying lip service to sanctification.

Chapter 5: This chapter made me appreciate the church as an institution with creeds and sacraments.  The church is an institution created by God and the Body which Jesus loves and died for. I wonder if a recovery of teaching and preaching on the great doctrine of the church (ecclesiology) would help people no longer disparage the church.

At the end of the day, I think Dr. Frame has read Dr. Horton is the worst possible light (which is ironic since Dr. Frame accuses Dr. Horton of the same thing). What Horton perceives and critiques as "using God as a means to personal ends," Frame perceives as "applying God's word to everyday life." (cf Escondido Theology, pp.30-31).  Of course they are going to disagree if what they perceive they describe in two antithetical manners. In addition, I believe Dr. Frame and Dr. Horton are using different definitions for "personal happiness." While I still have a lot of respect for and enjoy reading much of what Dr. Frame has written, I have to disagree with him in this critique of Dr. Horton's book and would highly recommend "Christless Christianity."

Who Has Been Left Behind?

In my limited circles today, I see 2 main emphases--church planting and campus ministries. Both of these I see as profitable and good ministry foci. However, have we perhaps gone overboard? Is there some ministry or demographic in which we are not reaching? My answer is Yes! In our zeal to plant new churches and reach the college crowd (which is not wrong), we are leaving behind those established churches where the congregation is now comprised of a small and older generation of believers (which is wrong). In our zeal to reach the young and suburbia, we have left behind the old and the urban. Why is this a problem you may ask? If heaven is composed of people from every tribe, tongue, family, and nation, then shouldn't our local church reflect a little bit of heaven; not just in our worship, but in our demographic composition? If Paul assumes the existence of an older generation within the church (1 Tim 5; Titus 2), what does that say about our ignoring them? What are we saying when we focus on one demographic to the exclusion of another or other demographics? Do we believe that older people (or minority people) still are God's image-bearers? Do we believe that older believers (or minority believers) have giftings from God that can be used for the benefit of the church? Do not all people need the Gospel--young, old, black, white, rich, poor?

In terms of one called to ministry, the reality is that straight out of seminary, one is most likely not going to be called to a church that is similar to the one in which they interned and worshiped during their time in seminary. If the reality is that most churches are small to middle-sized and can only afford 1 pastor, then why not do an internship in such a church to understand the expectations and problems that arise from such a situation? It certainly will be different than the issues and problems that arise in a larger church or church that can afford multiple pastors.

In terms of a young family, we love for our kids to see their grandparents. Why would we not want them to have spiritual grandparents? Why do we want our kids to only interact with people like their mom and dad? Not only is this good social development for them, but more importantly it is also a demonstration of a robust ecclesiology. It is doctrine lived out. They get to get a glimpse of how the church reflects heaven to a degree. They get exposure to people from various walks of life and backgrounds.

A robust doctrine of the church (ecclesiology) must include a robust demographic. It must include people from every tribe, tongue, nation, and family. If not, we should make every effort that it does. This means that alongside church planting and college ministry, we need to have equal emphasis upon church revitalization and renewal.

What to do with "the call"?

The Chancellor of my seminary alma mater has written a book called "Leaving a Career to Follow a Call." In seminary, we learn to distinguish between the "inward call" and the "outward call" and the necessity of both. But what do we do with "the call" as it gets more specific? It is easy when "the call" is to ministry. Then you go through seminary and other seasons of life as you try to figure out if you're called to pastoral ministry, church planting, college ministry, youth ministry, the mission field, or some other avenue of ministry. So now you've narrowed down that you're called to a specific ministry. What next? Let's narrow down that specific ministry to a specific context. If you're called to do college ministry, do you go through RUF, Cru, Campus Outreach, or some other organization? If you're called to the mission field, to which field do you go and through which agency serving in the field do you go through? If you're called to pastoral ministry, which denomination do you go with and where in that denomination do you go? If you're called to church planting, again which denomination will you go through to plant that church and where will you plant that church?

Ok, so now you've got a pretty narrow call after much prayer, advice, time in seminary, and taking an inventory of your giftings. What happens if that narrowed calling isn't happening? For instance, I know that I am called to pastoral ministry in the ARP. Sure, I could fit in the OPC or the PCA, but I specifically believe I am called to the ARP. I love the ARP. I spent my seminary time in the ARP, going to presbytery and Synod, learning the ethos and meeting fellow seminarians and pastors in the denomination. I want to see her flourish and thrive as part of God's kingdom. I want to see her reaching out to unbelievers. I want to see her planting churches. I don't want to see her wither and perish. I want to serve her as the denomination to which God has led me. However, pastoral callings are scarce right now in the ARP. I have been tempted to and succumbed to impatience and frustration. I've even been tempted to question the call, both in general and as narrowed.

Now comes the big question. Do I stick with the narrow calling or do I move back up to a more general level and start again? Do I stick with the ARP, but begin to explore mission fields which at one point I was seriously considering? Do I pick back up with that serious consideration? Do I stick with the ARP or begin to search for a pastoral call in the PCA or OPC where there might be more opportunities? What about other denominations with whom I might have some issues? Do I stick with the ARP, but begin to explore church planting or college ministry? Or do I stay where I am and continue to pursue the call as it has been narrowed down over time, prayer, and experience?  Is this the talk of one who is panicking and frustrated instead of relying and waiting upon the Lord? Is finding a call in the general sense more important than finding a call in which it has been narrowed? Is it more important for me to be a minister somewhere, than a minister in the ARP?

I don't know if there's a right or wrong answer to this. Perhaps for some, they will need to re-evaluate and start over at the general level, while others should stick with the narrow call. Maybe there is some wisdom in biding one's time while waiting on the narrow call to materialize. I see all of these guys (and girls) come to seminary straight out of college, then they go straight into ministry without necessarily having a lot of life experience. Perhaps they should work secular vocations, get married, have kids, etc., and gain life lessons before ministering to others. Perhaps some in that time will realize that they are not truly called, or that where they thought God was leading them is not where He is leading them. Only God knows as we can make our plans, but he directs our steps (Prov 16:9).

As for myself, while I am waiting, my family and I have changed churches (from one richly blessed to one that is in need of revitalization) within our denomination (the ARP) to help her out. I am going to stick with my narrow call, but since it is not coming yet, I'm going to work within a context  that will provide experience, wisdom, and growth geared toward my narrow calling of pastoral ministry within the ARP. I'm going to pursue my calling as it has been narrowed until God makes it apparent that I should be pursuing "the call" in a different direction or fulfills "the call." Like Moses, perhaps this time is my 40 years in the wilderness for preparation. God knows I do not want to take things into my own hands. Yet, He also knows that I really don't want to be in the wilderness for 40 years. That would put me becoming an ordained minister at 72. :)

Soli Deo Gloria

"The Erosion of Calvinist Orthodoxy" by Ian Hamilton

In his book, Rev. Hamilton seeks to demonstrate how easing "full subscription to the Standards" has slowly lead to the drifting of Reformed orthodoxy amongst the Secession churches (and also the Free Church) in Scottish Presbyterian. He inductively attempts to demonstrate that only full subscription to a church's standards (in this case the Westminster Standards) can prevent a confessional church from doctrinal declension (p.7).

First some explanation for those who may not be familiar with some terms and names. "Full subscription" (aka strict subscription) means that a person coming into the presbytery with a view towards ordination and being a minister within the presbytery (students of theology, licentiates, transfers, etc.) hold to the standards of the denomination with no qualification or reservation. An "exception" means that the person under examination agrees with most of the standards, but has a disagreement (minor or major) with a particular section (or sections) of the standards be it the Confession (WCF), Larger Catechism (WLC), or Shorter Catechism (WSC) [3 parts of the Westminster Standards]. In Hamilton's book, the "Secession" Church refers to the Associate Presbytery which was formed in 1733 and the Relief Presbytery formed in 1761. Both of these were formed in breaking away from the national church, the Church of Scotland, hence the name "secession." The Associate Presbytery went through several splits, but eventually the majority re-joined together in 1820 to form the United Secession Church. They in turn joined together with the Relief Presbytery in 1847 to form the United Presbyterian Church. At that time, apart from the Free Church of Scotland (formed 1843) and the Reformed Presbytery (formed 1743), the United Presbyterian Church was the only other denomination apart from the national Church of Scotland and was the only one tracing its roots back to the original secession of 1733.

Chapter One introduces the need for this book (no such study exists) and its relevance for today (for confessional churches for whom there are differences of opinion on how strict to be in their subscription stance).

Chapter Two demonstrates the beginning of the cracks in full subscription. Hamilton begins by showing that the Secession church held to full subscription from its beginning and for many years thereafter. The first crack begins to appear in the 1790s when the General Associate Synod (Anti-Burgher)[one of the splits within the Associate Presbytery, it occurred in 1747] started to allow licentiates and ministers to take exception to the 3rd section of the WCF dealing with Church and State relationship issues.
The 1804 "Narrative and Testimony" caused a stir in that the Confessions were no longer used as a recourse for the examination of doctrine and practice. Instead, the "Narrative and Testimony" became the basis by which the Confession was to be examined. This was an historic changing of the relationship of the Church to her subordinate standards.
The 1820 union brought another change in that an article of the union added the phrase that the Confession contained the faith "expressive of the sense" in which you understand the Scriptures. The issue here was introducing an ambiguous phrase into the situation. Thus the door was opened for ministers, licentiates, and elders to question the scope of the Church's attachment to the Standards.
the 1847 union brought a major change in that candidates for ministry were no longer required to identify the Standards with their own personal confession of faith. In other words, they did not have to personally hold to what was taught in the Standards. 

Chapter Three focuses on the Atonement Controversy of 1841-1845. The parties involved were John Brown, Robert Balmer, and Andrew Marshall. Brown and Balmer asserted in their teaching, and seeking to use Confessional and Scriptural support, that Christ provided atonement for all men based on atonement preceding election. This position was known as "hypothetical universalism." While they did not deny that the application of the atonement was to the elect, they claimed the atonement had reference to all people. Thus, they could hold to both the universal offer of the Gospel and the doctrine of election. Dr. Marshall accused them of teaching going against the Confession and Scripture. Marshall held to "Limited Atonement" in the sense that both the provision and application of the Cross is to the elect alone (cf. WCF 3 and WCF 8). Brown and Balmer were acquitted of all charges. An important result of this, according to Hamilton, is that there was "the awareness in the Church that total subscription to the WCF was an unreasonable burden to impose on any of its ministers." (p.79) It also brought into the Church the acceptableness of multiple opinions on the Atonement and brought in a "moderateness" among some who saw the doctrine of Limited Atonement as too extreme.

Chapter Four focuses on the Union Controversy of 1863-1873. Union between the United Presbyterian Church and Free Church of Scotland was proposed. However, there was a vocal minority in the Free Church who believed the UPC did not hold to Biblical or Confessional orthodoxy in its public statements. Hamilton focuses on this to show that the erosion of Calvinist orthodoxy in the Secession church can be found not just by examining their own documents and minutes, but also those of another denomination with which union was proposed. 

Chapter Five focuses on the trial of Rev. Fergus Ferguson (an unfortunate name!) in the UPC in the 1870s. Ferguson was tried and found guilty of 5 counts of error/heresy:
1. Ferguson taught that Christ delivered all men from the penalty of sin as the annihilation of the creature, and ultimately from death to the body and darkness of soul.
2. Ferguson taught that to be justified means to we are one with God in the spirit and purpose of our lives.
3. Ferguson taught that God has only one Covenant with man, "Be true to thyself and thou art true to God."
4. Ferguson taught that there are no grounds of condemnation apart from rejecting Christ in the sigh of God; and that men are purified in the intermediate state.
5. Ferguson taught that the ultimate distinction in human destiny is that of Son and servant; the loss of sonship not necessarily meaning the loss of tolerable and useful existence. (p. 128)
In spite of the guilty verdict, the Secession Church sent him back to his congregation with a "brotherly admonition" (p.117). This, Hamilton contends, was the final straw in the erosion of Westminster orthodoxy in the Secession Church as she tolerated teachings that flatly contradicted the Standards of the Church.

Chapter Six focuses on the 1879 United Presbyterian Church Declaratory Act. This act basically codified a "conscience clause" for minister's, and allowed liberty in exceptions not touching the "substance of the faith" which Hamilton contends (rightly) is an undefined and indeterminate phrase. The Act also contained articles vaguely worded that could be interpreted equally by a Calvinist as by an Arminian.

Chapter Seven is a helpful summary of Hamilton's key points up to this point in his book. It is especially helpful if time has passed since picking up the book, or for a quick reference to refresh/review once one has read the entirety of the book.

Chapter Eight turns Hamilton's attention from the Secession Church and to the Free Church, particularly 1892 Declaratory Act and the factors that contributed to it (higher criticism, Arminian evangelism of D.L. Moody in Scotland, etc.) The effect of this Act was to prepare the Free Church to unite with the UPC [which was accomplished in 1900]. The Free Church had to relax her view of her relationship and understanding of the Standards to the level of the UPC if they were to be able to unite together.

Chapter Nine is Rev. Hamilton's conclusion to his book.

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book. The author has provided a great book on Scottish Presbyterian history and a book helpful in thinking through issues of subscription and the Standards. I would encourage every student preparing for ministry (especially Presbyterian students) to read this book as a helpful guide to think through where they stand on the subscription issue, to encourage study of the Standards so they can honestly answer the question of whether they have exceptions or not, and to see the importance of Confessions in the life of the Church. I encourage Presbyterian ministers to read this book as a warning of what can happen when we start re-interpreting and excepting the Standards. Current ministers are the ones who examine the students as to their subscription to the Standards. They need to think through this issue as much as a future minister does.

It is obvious that Rev. Hamilton has done extensive research, using primary sources. I'm thankful he did that, because I would not want to go through all of that Scottish parlance to try to figure out what they were saying! It is an easy read and quite quick, coming in at 218 pages. It also has quite a useful bibliography for further research and possible attainment for one's library.

One thing that was confusing to me, primarily due to my unfamiliarity, was all of the names of the different denominations. Therefore, I had to create a timeline [in an Excel spreadsheet] of when divisions and reunions took place. I could not find one in my books or on the Internet. It was a helpful exercise in retaining what the names meant and important dates in Scottish Presbyterian history. If you would like a copy of it, just contact me. 

This book provoked some questions in my mind as I was reading it. Chiefly:
1. Are all exceptions created equal?
2. Does the WCF allow for a "hypothetical universalism" understanding of the atonement?
3. Is the original WCF 23 and 30 Erastian [the state can interfere in the business of the church] in nature?

I don't have answers to the second and third as they require more reading on my part, but I pose them here for discussion. The answer to the first question seems to me a resounding "No."  In my denomination (the ARP which traces its origins back to the secession of 1733), students and ministers are allowed to take exceptions to the Standards. The 2 major exceptions I have witnessed are the Confession of Faith's exposition of the "Sabbath" (can one do anything recreational on the Sabbath?) and the ARP's additional chapters in the WCF on "Of the Holy Spirit" and "Of the Gospel" (chapters 34 and 35 respectively). I think taking an exception on Sabbath recreation is very different to taking an exception to the Sabbath as part of the Moral Law and abiding upon believers today with the change to the Lord's Day. I don't understand the nature of the exceptions to the added chapters. What is contained in them does not seem to conflict with anything else in the Confession. I would have major issues if someone took an exception to WCF3.1 (God ordains whatsoever comes to pass). Thus it seems to me that not all exceptions are created equal.

Hamilton's line of thought flows from the revision of the WCF on Church/State Relations to the changing of the relationship of the church to the standards in 1804, to the introduction of ambiguity in 1820, to the lack of requirement for the standards to be owned personally in 1847. These cracks (some more major than others) then usher in a flood of changes in the understanding of and relationship of the standards to the church in the next 50 years. I question whether the revision of the WCF in the 1790s can be attributed as what started it all. Certainly the changes made in 1804, 1820, and 1847 are significant. I think those would be the places to look to for the beginning of the drift. Revising of one's standards does not seem to directly relate to making a change from "strict subscriptionism" to "broad subscriptionism" or have any bearing upon the subscription question. Unless one wants to see taking exceptions to the Standards as implicitly creating one's own version of the Standards. It was via the Declaratory Acts that the church explained what she understood the Standards to teach and whether or not (and by how much) license could be taken to not agree with the Standards on a particular issue.

I am open to thoughts and discussion on all of this as I try to think through it myself.

Soli Deo Gloria

A Brief Review of "The Escondido Theology" by Dr. John Frame

My friend Daniel Wells has written a detailed review of John Frame's Escondido Theology here: http://danielfwells.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/a-young-preachers-thoughts-on-john-frames-escondido-theology/

While my review will not be as penetrating in analysis (or as long), I do want to share some of my thoughts after reading the book.

Format
I have a few frustrations regarding the book and its format. First, the editor at Whitefield Media Publishing needs to do a better job. There were countless times with the footnote numbers jumped. For example, on page 270, there is footnote 18; then on page 272, it jumps to footnote 282 instead of 19 (a significant difference in number!).   I don't expect a book to be perfectly edited. A book could go through 3-5 reviews and still have typos. However, when the typos are numerous enough to count and distract from the content of the book, then I have a problem (especially if I'm going to be $20 for the book!).

Next, the title of the book (The Escondido Theology) and the subtitle (A Reformed Response to Two Kingdom Theology) seem to be at odds with each other given the actual content of the book. What I mean is that Dr. Frame's book reviews seem to go beyond responding to Two-Kingdom Theology (2KT) specifically, and address such issues as worship, preaching, and strict confessionalism. These issues do not seem to directly (primarily) flow from holding to 2KT. I would side with Horton, et. al., on their view of music in worship, but that does not mean I hold to 2KT. In fact, on this issue I side with Dr. Frame.  As such, I felt there were a few chapters that were unneccesary in the book: Chapter 3, R. Scott Clark's "Recovering the Reformed Confession"; Chapter 6, Michael Horton's "Covenant and Eschatology"; and Chapter 8, Above the Battle: 3 Books on Worship. These chapters were especially unhelpful regarding understanding and critiquing 2KT specifically. The subtitle of the book implies this will be the focus of the book, but the title and content of the book make it seem that Dr. Frame is going after more elements of these author's theology than just 2KT. If Dr. Frame wanted to specifically focus on 2KT, then he should have removed those chapters and expanded his last 2 chapters of the book (Chapters 10 and 11) which are helpful in addressing 2KT, but are too brief. Expanding these chapters would allow for a more sustained critique.
I would also rearrange the chapters so that the critique of Kline's A Kingdom Prologue (Chapter 5!) came first since he is one of the primary sources on which the author authors draw their 2KT views.

Beyond these 2 things, the next thing I found frustrating about the book was its use of endnotes rather than footnotes. I hate endnotes. There's nothing more annoying than having to flip through pages to follow a reference rather than having it at the bottom of the same page.

Finally, I think the format of chapters of book reviews to offer a response fails. Dr. Frame has offered a detailed, sustained critique of Open Theism (No Other God) which is quite good and I highly recommend. I believe he should have done the same here, rather than reviewing specific books (some of which are irrelevant to 2KT specifically).

Content
The two main thrusts that I sense from Dr. Frame's book is that 2KT abhors evangelicalism because it is not Reformed, not confessional, too relevant, too much application driven in their preaching, and their worship is too influenced by the world. I suspect that this abhorrence of mainstream evangelicalism is a driving force to their 2KT as it provides them another avenue to critique mainstream evangelicalism and their large association with the Republican party/conservatism.
The other main thrust is that 2KT holds to a modified version of Covenant Theology (not the traditional Reformed version) which allows them to to make their cult/culture distinction and other key 2KT distinctions.

Although I am not a 2K person and strongly disagree with them, I also have a few quibbles with some things Dr. Frame said in the book. On page 6, Dr. Frame writes, "Amillennialists play down the possibility of Christian cultural influence before Christ's return." Only a couple of pages later, he writes, "Most professors [at WTS during Frame's time there as a student], to be sure, were amillennial rather than postmillennial. But it was taken for granted that Christ's lordship should be affirmed in every aspect of human life."  So which is it? Do amillennialists downplay Christian influence of culture or do they not? For someone who throughout the book critiques 2K theologians as being confused, unclear, and not precise enough, these is a glaring case of the same on Dr. Frame's part in just a few pages.

In a footnote on page 198, Dr. Frame asserts that the various authors in the book The Law Is Not of Faith are followers of Kline though differing on some matters of detail. I don't want to accuse Dr. Frame, but that seems to me to be a downright lie as I have specifically talked with my own professor Dr. Belcher about that book and his contribution to it. He specifically told me that he does not want to say the Mosaic Covenant is a republication of the covenant of works, but he does believe there is a works principle still present in that covenant.
Also, I do not believe Dr. Waters (for whom I TA and have had lunch with) would call himself a follower of Kline. I believe Dr. Frame has overstated his case in this footnote. It seems to me that there is a lot of "guilt by association" done with this book. If a 2K theologian holds to a particular issue, then it must flow out of his 2KT. If a few 2K authors contribute chapters to a book, then all of the authors of that book must be followers of Kline.

In the final analysis, I was disappointed by this book as I eagerly anticipated it and even had some advance chapters sent to me by Dr. Frame a couple of years ago. I believe a better formatted and traditional book-length response to 2KT still needs to be written, while certainly drawing upon some key points that Dr. Frame makes against 2KT (for a review of those points, refer to Daniel's excellent blog post linked at the top of this page).