– Guest blogger R. Jason Pickard –

In our day and age church membership seems to have been down played by most. In college all I had to do to join my church was walk down the aisle, assure them I had been baptized the proper way, sign a sheet of paper, and be introduced to the congregation. No one really even made sure my profession of faith was credible. No one explained to me the importance of the local church either. I guess most, in our anti-authoritarian culture, would say they have no right to give those who desire membership a more thorough examination. As long as I say I am a Christian that is good enough, right? If I am pressed to say more, well than I will just go down the street and join the other church that does not get too personal.

However, Church membership is no small thing. It is very important, in fact vital to Christianity. I believe this because the Church holds the keys to the Kingdom of God. Now, this is important because if you want entrance into a place that is locked, you must have the keys that unlock the door. If you want into the Kingdom of God, you better go to the Church because she holds the keys. What are these keys of the Kingdom? The Heidelberg Catechism, question 83, answers, “The preaching of the holy gospel and Christian discipline toward repentance (are the keys). Both preaching and discipline open the kingdom of heaven to believers and close it to unbelievers.” (For the sake of space I will not quote questions 84 and 85, but I refer you to there for further clarification of how preaching and discipline open and close the Kingdom.)
(Continue Reading…)

In our previous two posts (part I and part II), we have been examining the parallels (especially as they relate to the current Federal Vision debate) between contemporary conservative Presbyterianism and 19C Anglicanism by considering the polemical writing of J. C. Ryle.¹ As we have mentioned, Ryle was a representative of the evangelical wing of the Church of England and he was writing against what he labeled the ritualistic wing of his communion.

In the first installment of his treatise Evangelical Religion, Ryle outlined those principles and characteristics that distinguished the evangelical party from the ritualists. He suggested five leading features of evangelical Anglicanism:

(1) The absolute supremacy it assigns to Holy Scripture, as the only rule of faith and practice, the only test of truth, the only judge of controversy; (2) The depth and prominence it assigns to the doctrine of human sinfulness and corruption;Cf. especially this quote from Ryle with respect to the implication of this anthropological affirmation:

We dread fostering man’s favourite notion that a little church-going and sacrament-receiving, a little patching, and mending, and whitewashing, and gilding, and polishing, and varnishing, and painting the outside, is all that his case requires. Hence we protest with all our heart against formalism, sacramentalism, and every species of mere external or vicarious Christianity. We maintain that all such religion is founded on an inadequate view of man’s spiritual need. It requires far more than this to save, or satisfy, or sanctify, a soul. It requires nothing less than the blood of God the Son applied to the conscience, and the grace of God the Holy Ghost entirely renewing the heart. Man is radically diseased, and man needs a radical cure. I believe that ignorance of the extent of the fall, and of the whole doctrine of original sin, is one grand reason why many can neither understand, appreciate, nor receive Evangelical Religion. J. C. Ryle, Knot’s United, 10^th edition (London: William Hunt & Company, 1885), p. 5.

(3) The paramount importance it attaches to the work and office of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the nature of the salvation which He has wrought out for man;Cf. Ryle’s statements:

We hold that nothing whatever is needed between the soul of man the sinner and Christ the Saviour, but simple, childlike faith, and that all means, helps, ministers, and ordinances are useful just so far as they help this faith, but no further; but that rested in and relied on as ends and not as means, they become downright poison to the soul. Ibid., p. 5.

And also:

Not least, we hold most firmly that the true doctrine about Christ is precisely that which the natural heart most dislikes. The religion which man craves after is one of sight and sense, and not of faith. An external religion, of which the essence is “doing something,” and not an inward and spiritual one, of which the essence is “believing,” this is the religion that man naturally loves. Hence we maintain that people ought to be continually warned not to make a Christ of the Church, or of the ministry, or of the forms of worship, or of baptism, or of the Lord’s Supper. We say that life eternal is to know Christ, believe in Christ, abide in Christ, have daily heart communion with Christ, by simple personal faith, and that everything in religion is useful so far as it helps forward that life of faith, but no further. Ibid., p. 6.

(4) The high place which it assigns to the inward work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of man;Cf. Ryle’s statement:

We maintain that the things which need most to be pressed on men’s attention are those mighty works of the Holy Spirit, inward repentance, inward faith, inward hope, inward hatred of sin, and inward love to God’s law. And we say that to tell men to take comfort in their baptism or Church-membership, when these all-important graces are unknown, is not merely a mistake, but positive cruelty. Ibid., p. 6.

(5) The importance which it attaches to the outward and visible work of the Holy Ghost in the life of man. Cf. Ryle’s statement:

We hold that it is wrong to tell men that they are “children of God, and members of Christ, and heirs of the kingdom of heaven,” unless they really overcome the world, the flesh, and the devil. We maintain that to tell a man he is “born of God,” or regenerated, while he is living in carelessness or sin, is a dangerous delusion, and calculated to do infinite mischief to his soul. We affirm confidently that “fruit” is the only certain evidence of a man’s spiritual condition; that if we would know whose he is and whom he serves, we must look first at his life. Where there is the grace of the Spirit there will be always more or less fruit of the Spirit. Grace that cannot be seen is no grace at all, and nothing better than Antinomianism. In short, we believe that where there is nothing seen, there is nothing possessed. Ibid., p. 7.

(Continue Reading…)

1. In light of these developments, there seem to be some even more suggestive parallels between the concerns of 19C and 21C Anglicanism as well.↩

As we noted in our previous post, the FV debate currently taking place among conservative Presbyterians seems to have some suggestive parallels with a similar dispute that was waged among 19C Anglicans.¹ One can glean some of these similarities by examining the polemical literature written by the various disputants of that era.

In order to pursue this line of investigation, we noted that J. C. Ryle wrote his treatise Evangelical Religion as a polemic against the Ritualistic wing of his church, which he saw as a threat to the evangelical character of the Church of England.

In our previous post, Ryle outlined the characteristics of evangelical religion by describing what evangelical religion is. In that installment he emphasized the core beliefs and commitments of the Evangelical wing of the Church of England, especially in contrast to the Ritualististic wing of that church.

In this second installment of his treatise, Ryle turns his attention to what evangelical religion is not. He attempts to answer the criticism of his opponents who had suggested that evangelicals in the Church of England had an inadequate view of the church and sacraments.

Once again, the similarities between some of the charges made by 19C Anglicans (who were engaged in a similar type of debate) and contemporary Presbyterians seem rather conspicuous.
(Continue Reading…)

1. Apparently we struck a nerve among some of the more abrasive and reactionary elements of the FV camp, who don’t seem to appreciate the historical analogies we have observed in this respect. Although we appreciate Mr. Horne’s judgment that our educational background and alleged theological affinities are not to his personal liking, we’re not exactly sure how relevant his opinion is as it relates to this historical comparison. No doubt Mr. Horne’s emotions run high vis-à-vis the FV debate, but we still might suggest that he at least attempt to contribute something worthwhile to advance the current dialogue rather than sloppily prooftexting Calvin, Turretin, & Ursinus to no discernible effect.↩

As many are well aware, there has been a relatively high profile internal battle within conservative Presbyterianism with respect to the “Federal Vision” which has consumed so much bandwidth of the theological blogosphere.

We agree with Peter Leithart that the battle is primarily one of ecclesiastical self-identity, although we would align ourselves more with the evangelical party of the dispute, rather than Leithart’s high church Presbyterianism.¹

In any event, our intent is not to take Leithart’s post as an opportunity to join the fray,² but rather to use his characterization of the dispute (with which we agree) to observe that this type of battle within Presbyterianism seems to be one that was similarly waged among members of the Anglican communion in the 19^th century.
(Continue Reading…)

1. Admittedly, framing the debate in these terms reflects our own predispositions & convictions, which seems to be an unavoidable (and dare we say, universal) characteristic of our finite epistemological condition. Unavoidably, the nomenclature employed in these types of debates always reflects the dispositions of the one using such labels, highlighting certain perceived characteristics of an historical entity while neglecting others. Needless to say, we are employing them self-consciously aware of their limitations.↩
2. We should note in passing, however, that we find Leithart’s judgment “It [the FV] attempts to follow the lead of Scripture, even when that seems to conflict with Confessional formulae and seems closer to Luther than Reformed orthodoxy” to be decidedly unhelpful in this discussion. Presumably (i.e., granting the virtue of all of the disputants as interpretive agents), all of the respective partisans are attempting to “follow the lead of Scripture.” The significant question (i.e., vis-à-vis self-identity) seems to be whether certain confessional formulae do, in fact, provide the proper interpretive grid through which Scripture must be read. Addressing the identity question then - to be Reformed, in our opinion, involves affirming the propriety and primacy of those Reformed confessional formulae as the hermeneutical grid through which Scripture must be read. In other words, one is free to reject the propriety of these confessional formulae from a hermeneutical standpoint in certain areas (and to move closer to Lutheran orthodoxy for example), but one should probably realize that, in so doing, one is moving oneself away from self-identification with the Reformed tradition. Due primarily to this consideration, our opinion is that the FV does not have a viable future in the PCA or OPC and we suspect that the probable trajectory of this dispute will carry FV advocates outside of both bodies.↩

Reformed theology draws a distinction between a saving profession of faith and a credible profession of faith. A credible profession of faith is what is required for church membership—at least in the case of adults.

The members of the true church are limited to the elect or regenerate.

However, we don’t know who is elect or regenerate. So the condition for membership in the visible church is a credible profession of faith, in contradistinction to a saving profession of faith.

Back in the 19C, this issue came up with reference to the validity, or lack thereof, of Catholic baptism.

In the course of that debate, Charles Hodge said the following:
(Continue Reading…)