Dr. Clark has done a service for us “fv boys”–as he refers to us in his touching paternal affection. Unfortunately, I can’t own any of the things he lists as they relate to motives, nor even to many of the actual acts he lists. But rather than see all that wonderful ministry go to waste, I thought I would write up an accurate apology for the crimes I have committed–something that gets to the root problem.

I repent of having read the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms as a reliable guide for Biblical doctrine.

I repent of learning that faith consists principally in “accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace” but also more generally faith “believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God himself speaking therein; and acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come.” This is obviously a “complex instrument” (Theses #38-40) and a denial of sola fide and solo Christo.

I repent of learning that repentance is necessary for pardon and that repentance includes endeavoring after new obedience. I renounce utterly the idea that three things are required for escaping the wrath and curse of God due to us by reason of our transgression of the law. Listing faith as a requirement with repentance and “he diligent use of the outward means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of his mediation” is obviously “another Gospel.” I renounce it all.

I renounce the decalogue given as part of the administration of the covenant of Grace. I hereby declare that no document which takes the Preface of the Decalogue as a type of the Christian Gospel covenant and does not even mention the Abrahamic covenant, can be a reliable guide to covenant theology. Never again will I teach a congregation to believe from the Ten Commandments “that he is a God in covenant, as with Israel of old, so with all his people; who, as he brought them out of their bondage in Egypt, so he delivereth us from our spiritual thraldom; and that therefore we are bound to take him for our God alone, and to keep all his commandments.”

I recant the definition of a sacrament as “an holy ordinance instituted by Christ; wherein, by sensible signs, Christ, and the benefits of the new covenant, are represented, sealed, and applied to believers.” I renounce all words like “apply” or “confer” in relation to the sacraments and now confess that all those words are misleading in the Westminster documents. Only undefined “signs and seals” may be our mantra if we believe the gospel, and perhaps the modern, anachronistic, and conveniently anemic definition of “exhibit.”

I renounce improving our baptism rather than our effectual calls. I repent of teaching the generality of professing Christians that we should all believe that “privileges and benefits” were “conferred and sealed” by baptism. I repent of preaching that we should be “growing up to assurance of pardon of sin, and of all other blessings sealed to us in that sacrament” and now will teach that we must gain those blessings which we never possessed by exercising faith. I repent of believing that Romans 6 refers to water baptism, that one improves one’s baptism by “drawing strength from the death and resurrection of Christ, into whom we are baptized, for the mortifying of sin, and quickening of grace.” And I most heartily condemn myself for thinking baptism appointed me “to walk in brotherly love, as being baptized by the same Spirit into one body.” (Here I must especially thank you for your consistent and faithful example of what real Christian behavior looks like in this regard! What a witness to the truth you are!)

I repent of looking to contemporary public confessional documents from the Westminster Assembly as a way to come to a more sure understanding of what they meant in the confession and catechisms. Specifically, I repent of reading the Westminster Assemblies instructions for baptism in their Directory of Public Worship as if it might have anything to do with the claim that “The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered,” as in when the minister is instructed to say:

That it is instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ:

That it is a seal of the covenant of grace, of our ingrafting into Christ, and of our union with him, of remission of sins, regeneration, adoption, and life eternal:

That the water, in baptism, representeth and signifieth both the blood of Christ, which taketh away all guilt of sin, original and actual; and the sanctifying virtue of the Spirit of Christ against the dominion of sin, and the corruption of our sinful nature:

That baptizing, or sprinkling and washing with water, signifieth the cleansing from sin by the blood and for the merit of Christ, together with the mortification of sin, and rising from sin to newness of life, by virtue of the death and resurrection of Christ:

That the promise is made to believers and their seed; and that the seed and posterity of the faithful, born within the church, have, by their birth, interest in the covenant, and right to the seal of it, and to the outward privileges of the church, under the gospel, no less than the children of Abraham in the time of the Old Testament; the covenant of grace, for substance, being the same; and the grace of God, and the consolation of believers, more plentiful than before:

That the Son of God admitted little children into his presence, embracing and blessing them, saying, For of such is the kingdom of God:

That children, by baptism, are solemnly received into the bosom of the visible church, distinguished from the world, and them that are without, and united with believers;

and that all who are baptized in the name of Christ, do renounce, and by their baptism are bound to fight against the devil, the world, and the flesh:

That they are Christians, and federally holy before baptism, and therefore are they baptized:

That the inward grace and virtue of baptism is not tied to that very moment of time wherein it is administered; and that the fruit and power thereof reacheth to the whole course of our life;

and that outward baptism is not so necessary, that, through the want thereof, the infant is in danger of damnation, or the parents guilty, if they do not contemn or neglect the ordinance of Christ, when and where it may be had.

I likewise repent of following the advice of Dr. Ligon Duncan and listening to Dr. Chad Van Dixhoorn regarding the imputation of the active obedience of Christ in reference to the original intent of the Westminster Confession.

There are many other such details I could add to this, but I will stop here.

I repent of repeatedly reading Zacharias Ursinus’ commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism.

Thus, I repent of agreeing with Ursinus about what the Heidelberg Catechism teaches about the imputation of the active obedience of Christ. There is no excuse for my poor judgment. Obviously Dr. Clark and the other many noble sages in Escondido know the meaning of the catechism better than Ursinus.

I repent of learning from Ursinus that “good works are necessary to salvation, not as a cause to an effect, or as if they merited a reward, but as a part of salvation itself, or as an antecedent to a consequent, or as a means without which we cannot obtain the end.” Or that the promises of the gospel are made upon the condition “of faith in Christ and the commencement of new obedience” (p. 3). I renounce Ursinus and all the other Reformers who taught of the Mosaic and Gospel covenants that they are one “In the condition in respect to ourselves. In each covenant, God requires from men faith and obedience. “Walk before me and be thou perfect.” “Repent and believe the Gospel.” (Gen. 17:1. Mark 1:15.) The new covenant, therefore, agrees with the old in that which relates to the principal conditions, both on the part of God, and on the part of man….” [p. 99].

I repent of reading the scholastics, the Presbyterians, Calvin, other church historians, even Kline! etc.

And time will fail if I go on line by line book by book and renounce all the other false teachers who have misled me about the Gospel and basic Reformed Theology 101: Francis Turretin, Benedict Pictet, A. A. Hodge, and all the rest. I should never have touched them. I should have known that the only true knowledge of Reformed theology comes from your pull quotes from Witsius, a couple of erudite works by the Reformed guru Meredith Kline, and your own class notes. (Of course, I really have to repent of reading Kline too. I started with Images of the Spirit, which was a pretty straightforward gateway drug that led to James B. Jordan)
I especially repent of reading John Calvin without your gentle wise guidance, and for having the horrible temerity to ever think that a church historian other than yourself might have some insight into Calvin’s covenant theology.

I repent of the Scriptures and Reformed Confessions and Reformed theologians who taught me that God’s grace is given to creatures nonsinful situations.

I repent of mucking up the new American sola fide by affirming the following heresies:

Although the sacraments are external means and instruments applying (on the part of God) the promise of grace and justification, this does not hinder faith from being called the internal instrument and means on the part of man for receiving this benefit offered in the word and sealed by the sacraments [16.7.20].The question is not whether faith alone justifies to the exclusion either of the grace of God or the righteousness of Christ or the word and sacraments (by which the blessing of justification is presented and sealed to us on the part of God), which we maintain are necessarily required here; but only to the exclusion of every other virtue and habit on our part…. For all these as they are mutually subordinated in a different class of cause, consist with each other in the highest degree [16.8.5].

…. although the other virtues do not justify with faith, still faith cannot justify in their absence, much less the opposite vices being present. For faith cannot be true except in connection with the virtues (which if they do not contribute to justification, still contribute to the existence and life of faith, which the presence of vices would destroy) [16.8.14].

Hence it is evident that the question [“Are Good Works Necessary to Salvation”] here does not concern the necessity of merit, causality, and efficiency–whether good works are necessary to effect salvation or to acquire it by right. (For this belongs to another controversy, of which hereafter). Rather the question concerns the necessity of means, of presence and of connection or order–Are they required as the means and way for possessing salvation? This we hold [17.3.3].

…although works may be said to contribute nothing to the acquisition of our salvation, still they should be considered necessary to the obtainment of it, so that no one can be saved without them–that thus our religion may be freed from those most foul calumnies everywhere cast mot unjustly upon it by the Romanists (as if it were the mistress of impiety and the cushion of carnal licentiousness and security)… [17.3.4].

I repent of agreeing with some guy named Hart about the lasting value to be found in the work and thought of John Williamson Nevin, rather than siding with your unresearched instincts condemning him.

I realize this only scratches the surface. Perhaps I can get into more specifics another time since it seems obvious that you will require many acts of penance.

Your humble supplicant.

Most Latino students spurn college loans

“My parents have always said, ‘If you don’t have the money to pay for it, then work for it,’ ” Fernandez said.

…

Educators and financial aid experts said the cultural aversion to loans — considered a sign of a strong work ethic — is common among Latino immigrants and their children. And it creates an odd dilemma in academia.

Financial aid experts worry that students who rely heavily on loans are taking on too much personal debt to pay for college, but educators are trying to convince Latinos that school loans, if used wisely, can lead to high-paying jobs later.

…

“The majority of Mexican clients we had, I noticed, liked to pay in cash,” said Coronel, 22. “They were insecure about credit or borrowing, as they thought fraud would be a possibility. I think we learned that from our parents.”

…

Researchers said the loan phobia isn’t limited to the Latino community but is a common apprehension among students from low-income, immigrant, or first-generation college backgrounds.

…

This sounds like fun. Here‘s an audio interview. She writes stories for games.

do you think anything can make him realize the bitter irony in this post?

Incidentally, I think Justin’s blog is really good at keeping up with items of interest to Reformed Evangelicals, and I appreciate many of his insights.

Posted here:

1. a. We affirm that justifying faith receives and rests upon Christ and his righteousness held forth in the Gospel for pardon of sin and for the accepting and account of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation (L 72).
1. b. We deny that justifying faith justifies a sinner because of any of those other graces that do always accompany it, or because of any act of justifying faith being imputed to him for his justification (L 73).
2. a. We affirm that justifying faith is an instrument by which a sinner receives and applies Christ and his righteousness (L 73).
2. b. Consequently, we deny that prelapsarian Adam or Christ could have had or did have this justifying faith and so be counted righteous by such a faith.

Fine. But the faith of prelapsarian Adam or of Christ could be counted as their righteousness. In other words, their trust in God would be pleasing to him and also be the motive cause of all their obedience to him. Their faith was not justifying in that they were relying on a substitute/representative and his alien righteousness, but they did have faith, that faith motivated their obedience, and it was the root of all other obedience which flowed from it.

Furthermore, the Westminster Confession is right to insist that faith is not the ground of our justification. However, “righteousness” is a term in the Bible sometimes use for meeting conditions of the covenant. Also, faith is that condition in the Covenant of Grace (i.e. as it is defined in Larger Catechism q&a #32). Thus, it is true by such definitions that, for all believers their faith is counted as righteousness (the condition of the covenant of grace). This would in no way deny that their faith is in no way the meritorious ground of their standing before God, which is only in the alien righteousness of Christ receive instrumentally by faith.

My only point in bringing this up is to show why I am concerned that this section lays out confusing grounds by which a person could be accused of saying something improper, merely for relaying common knowledge in Biblical studies. Again, at the very least this warrants some discussion. I can’t help but wonder here if innocent statements are being misconstrued.

Posted here:

1. a. We affirm that justification is an act of God’s grace whereby God pardons the sins of those he calls, and imputes the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ unto them (C 11.1 and L 70).
1. b. We deny that God imputes faith itself, the act of believing, or any other obedience as their righteousness (C 11.1).
1. c. We deny that justification is by anything done by or wrought in the believer. We affirm that Christ’s perfect obedience and full satisfaction is imputed or reckoned to the believer (L 70).

All good except 1c might need tweaking since it seems to imply that the preposition “by” cannot be used instrumentally but only in reference to ground. That can’t be right (i.e. “justification by faith”).

2. a. We affirm that those who are justified are justified perfectly in this life (L 77).
2. b. We affirm that those who are justified can never fall from the state of justification (C 11.5).
2. c. Consequently, we deny that any but the elect are justified (C 3.6).
2. d. Consequently, we deny any definition of justification that would extend it in any way whatsoever to the reprobate.

Nothing in what leads up to it provides any reason in 2.d. to “deny any definition of justification that would extend in any way whatsoever to the reprobate.” The Westminster divines knew that the word “justify” could apply to other situations beside what happens uniquely to declare the elect right with God. If there is an argument for this, I would like to see it. As it stands it is supported neither by Scripture, nor by the Reformed tradition, nor by our doctrinal standards.

Example: God told Moses that he was, in the Exodus, bringing judgment on Egypt. The Exodus was then an event that condemned Egypt and vindicated Israel. So there is, by some definition, and in some way, that justification can apply to a group that is both elect and reprobate, for some Israelites later died as unbelievers. The Apostle Paul, tellingly, uses this example to warn the Corinthian Church against idolatry (1 Cor 10.1-22).

3. We deny that justification has primary reference to membership of the Church; rather, it has primary reference to the acceptance of the individual sinner before God.

How can Reformed believers be force to choose here? If the Church is the house and family of God, how can one be reconciled with God, received into his favor, and not be received into his family? If we are right with God then we are right with God’s children as brothers and sisters. Can one posit a meaningful primacy in the parable of the prodigal son between being forgiven by the Father and being received by him into his household? I notice there is not citation from the Westminster documents here? Where could one go to justify these as mutually exclusive options? The very fact that the Westminster Divines made election coterminous with membership in the invisible Church would indicate a much closer relationship.

Having said all that, the statement may be right. I would like to pursue the issue with open Bibles. I appreciate that they Presbytery has not denied any reference to membership in the church in justification.

A lot of it depends on what is meant by “has primary reference to”–which is not obvious to me.

Another issue here is the suspicion raised whether certain parties are in fact arguing for what is denied. Are they? Or are they simply wanting to emphasize something not because it is “primary” in some universal sense, but because it has been woefully neglected in our own church culture.

4. We deny that any so-called reconstruction of Second Temple Judaism requires us to reformulate the above truths.

Agreed. But if this is supposed to be a way of dealing with PCA ministers who appreciate some things Tom Wright has to say, I think it is pretty much a complete misfire. No one is resting in the authority of noncanonical documents.

Posted here:

1. We affirm that all those whom God has predestined unto life, and those only, He calls effectually out of the state of sin and death unto grace and salvation by Jesus Christ (C 10.1).
2. a. We affirm that the reprobate may experience some common operations of the Spirit with the elect (C 10.4).
2. b. We deny that these common operations cause the reprobate, even those reprobate who are baptized, to truly come to Christ, be saved, effectually called, justified, adopted, or sanctified.

Yes. Fine. Great. Uncontroversial because tautological.

Posted here:

1. a. We affirm that God’s eternal purpose was to give a people to Christ as His seed who would be by him in time redeemed, effectually called, justified, and glorified (C 8.1).
2. b.We deny that Christ purchased any temporal saving benefits for the reprobate, even those that are members of the visible Church, such that they would be, for a certain time only, redeemed, effectually called, justified, or sanctified.

Sidenote: I’m not sure why “temporal” has replaced “temporary” in these sorts of statements (I’m not picking on one side or the other here). Sanctification in the elect occurs just as much in time as the temporary benefits that the non-elect enjoy.

More substantially, by definition no temporary benefits can be saving. The reason why effectual calling is indeed effectual is because it lasts in the elect through the special grace of God whereas the reprobate are temporarily called and are not given the faith that would lead them to persevere in their calling. Both here and under the Effectual Calling heading there is not much to add to my earlier comments about how all this is tautologically true.

2. a.We affirm that Christ did purchase not only reconciliation but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven for all those whom the Father gave to Him (C 8.5).
2. b.We deny that any for whom Christ purchased reconciliation will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.

Nothing wrong with any of this. Not sure why it was thought necessary to say.