» News: New Books from PCA Pastors

Reformation Trust has published Jesus the Evangelist: Learning to Share the Gospel from the Book of John by Richard D. Phillips (PCA). The publisher's blurb reads:

"Rev. Richard D. Phillips digs into the early chapters of the Gospel of John to discover principles for Christian outreach that were modeled by witnesses for Jesus and by Jesus Himself. Phillips unfolds biblical principles for evangelism by examining the ministry of John the Baptist and the calling of the first of Jesus’ disciples. Then, through a brief study of the Lord's encounter with the Pharisee Nicodemus, he presents us with a theology of the gospel. Finally, he focuses in on Jesus' stirring encounter with the Samaritan woman to show exactly how Christ shared the good news. Phillips' clear and concise handling of these key stories will both motivate and instruct believers in their witness on behalf of Christ."

Phillips's book is available from the Reformation Trust. Phillips is Pastor of Second Presbyterian Church in Greenville, SC.



Canon Press has published The Baptized Body by Peter Leithart (PCA). The publisher's blurb reads:

"What does baptism do to the baptized? Nothing? Something? In this study, Peter Leithart examines this single question of baptismal efficacy. He challenges several common but false assumptions about God, man, the church, salvation, and more that confuse discussions about baptism. He aims to offer a careful and simple discussion of all the central biblical texts that speak to us about baptism, the nature of signs and rites, the character of the church as the body of Christ, and the possibility of apostasy. In the end, he urges us to face up to the wonderful conclusion that Scripture attributes an astonishing power to the initiation rite of baptism."

Leithart's book is available from Canon Press (and other retailers). Leithart is pastor of Trinity Reformed Church in Moscow, ID.

» News: Federal Vision Blog Zeitgeist

PCA FV/NPP study committee member Robert Mattes (Ruling Elder) has started a new blog wherein he discusses the FV controversy and engages in the online discussion concerning the FV. Mattes criticizes Douglas Wilson's book about slavery, drawing criticism from David Baly (PCA Pastor) and a response from Douglas Wilson. Mattes's followup is here.

In response to the passage of the Federal Vision study committee report's recommendations, Peter Leithart (PCA Pastor) drafted a letter to the Pacific Northwest Presbytery. Then, in a series of followup posts, Leithart has considered several related issues: infant baptism and saving benefits, infant baptism and the FV, paedocommunion and the FV, judgment according to works, academic freedom, the committee's procedures, justification by faith, the nature of what baptism confers, temporary salvation, sociology, judgment according to works (again), Charles Hodge on the same, Adamic merit, Gospel and judgment, Trinity and Judgment, Jesus as judge, justification and judgment, Leithart's own work on the topic of justification, freedom of inquiry, verdict and promise, sloganizing and controversy, faith and creaturehood, the covenant of life, assurance, promissary nature of baptism, a reading list of books influential to Leithart's thinking on these matters, catholicity and the PCA, and the theology of the cross.

In light of Leithart's letter and posts, accusations were made that implied he was "finally" expressing his true views on matters about which he previously dissembled - said R. Scott Clark (professor at Westminster Seminary California) "Here we have a clear indication that the FV/NPP committee was telling the truth and that, perhaps, like Arminius, some FV folk haven't been entirely forthcoming about what they actually believe." Another poster called Leithart's actions disingenuous. In response to these rumors, Leithart asked the Stated Clerk of the Pacific Northwest Presbytery, Robert Rayburn, to vouch for his honesty and plain dealing in their previous inquiries. Clark interpreted Leithart's letter as his "daring his presbytery to do something" - an interpretation he reiterated after being challenged by fellow members of the bbwarfield discussion group.

Leithart's letter is the first observable result of the passage of the Federal VIsision study committee's nine recommendations. We will report on any news concerning investigation by the Pacific Northwest Presbytery, or on any additional letters that may be published by pastors as a result of the study committee's recommendations.

Lane Keister (PCA pastor) has begun a series of responses to Leithart's work on justification here.

R. Scott Clark has posted several public letters (1, 2) calling upon elders, pastors, and laypeople in Reformed denominations to take action on the Federal Vision and against specific Federal Vision advocates. He writes, "GA has spoken and now the real work must begin."

Another noteworthy contribution to the current polemics of the FV issue is James Jordan's six-part essay "How to do Reformed Theology Nowadays". He writes, "So, the churches are miniature academies. People are not taught the Bible, but the confession of faith, over and over. When they go Back to Basics they study the book by that name and thereby get a course in systematic theology. I should have thought that the 'basics' were learning to chant all the psalms, getting a real practical knowledge of the laws of Exodus and Deuteronomy, and coming to be able to walk through every book of the Bible. But not for Calvinists. ... Now, what does this mean? It means that Calvinistic churches exist in a state of perpetual warfare. The Greek notion of truth as comparison and contrast reigns supreme. There is continual fighting over doctrine and continual suspicion of other Christians, especially those closest to us! The transformative purpose of the Church is virtually destroyed; hence pastoral counseling for damage control becomes an overwhelmingly large part of the church's effort."

One response to Federal Visioninsts that is easily observable on the internet is the alleging of a contradiction between the professed "high church" approach of the Federal Visionists and their not heeding the voice of many reformed denominations that have condemned the Federal Vision. A part of this argument concerns the CREC, the church to which many FV opponents call upon the FV men in their denominations to enter. It is alleged that the CREC is the creation of Douglas Wilson and that it represents a lack of catholicity and a further fragmentation within Protestantism. Douglas Wilson responds to these criticisms in a blog post, emphasizing the history of the CREC and its unique challenge of accommodating baptists and paedobaptists in the same church.

» Opinion: Denying the Gospel

by Peter Leithart, leithart@leithart.com

Every week, I confess the Nicene Creed, and I actually believe it.

I also confess that sinners are saved by trusting in Jesus, God's Son, who saves out of sheer grace.

Yet I, with many of my friends who confess the same things, are accused of denying the gospel. What's the sense of that?

We can only make sense of this charge if we recognize that for a certain kind of Reformed theology, the gospel is not gospel unless it comes second. For all the talk of the "primacy of the gospel," this version of Reformed theology actually believes in the secondary character of the gospel. For the gospel to be good news, it must be added to something more foundational, and it has to be set off in contrast to that more foundational something. Usually, this foundational something is law, or perhaps the contrast is one of nature and grace, or demand and promise.

Whatever the formulation, it is assumed that the gospel cannot be gospel unless it stands in a binary opposition to that foundation. To deny the opposition is to deny the gospel itself, because the gospel is defined by that opposition. The Yes of the gospel only makes sense on the basis of a preexisting No. To deny that there was a preexisting No is to blur the pure gratuity of the Yes.

This sounds plausible enough on the surface of things. After all, the gospel is good news to fallen Adam and his seed, and is a response to the situation of the fall. It is historically secondary. Before God promised a redeemer, He had issued a command. Law comes first.

While this is true from a certain perspective, it ignores the prior words of God in Genesis. God spoke the world into existence by the Word of His power: Was that a Word of demand or promise, law or gospel? It seems clear that it was both. God's first words of command were simultaneously life-giving good news: "Let there be light" was a command, yet it was a command that brought light into existence. Before God prohibited Adam from eating the tree of knowledge, the Eternal Word had already spoken Adam into existence. Before God's No He had already spoken a preexisting Yes, and the Yes set the context for the No. The sheer fact that there is something rather than nothing is testimony to God's prior Yes.

Every No from that time on is set within the context of God's Yes: God says Yes to Noah, and then commands him not to eat blood. God says Yes to Israel in bringing them out of Egypt, and then issues the Ten Words. Every command that God issues presupposes His preexisting Yes, because unless God was committed to preserving a people He would not warn them off the way of death.

For a certain brand of Reformed theology, such talk amounts to denying the gospel because it denies what is thought to be the sub-stratum on which the gratuity of the gospel depends.

The Federal Vision controversy is, from this angle, more about creation than about soteriology or sacramental theology. Far be it from me to accuse those who oppose the Federal Vision of "denying creation," but they are, in my view, failing to work through a fully creationist theology. Dare I say, they have failed to think through a fully evangelical theology of creation.

Note: Reprinted by Permission from Peter Leithart's blog, original post here. We welcome any responses; please send editorial proposals or responses to refnews@gmail.com. Views expressed in editorials are not necessarily the views of the editor or staff of Reformed News.