Communion is not Communism

Tomorrow, at Communion Presbyterian Church, during the Adult Sunday School class, we'll be talking about Chapter 26 of the Westminster Confession of Faith ("Of the Communion of the Saints"). David Dickson, in his excellent commentary on the Confession, writes this concerning the Communion of the Saints [emphases added]:

Doth not the communion of saints, which they have one with another, take away or infringe the title or property, which each man hath in his own goods and possessions?

No; Acts 5:4; Exod. 25:14; Eph. 5:28.

Well then, do not the Anabaptists err, who affirm, that the goods and possessions of the saints ought to be in common? 

Yes.
 

By what reasons are they confuted?

1st, Because in the time of the primitive church, no man was obliged out of necessity to deliver his goods. Neither did believers lose their right and property which they had to them, Acts 5:4.
 

2nd, Because the eighth command, which is of perpetual use to all men, supposeth a distinction and propriety of goods. For it all goods were common, it were impossible to steal.
 

3rd, Because there should be no giving of alms, there should be no hospitality, which is contrary to the apostle, Eph. 4:28; Heb. 13:2.

Mark Driscoll, the Trinity, and W. G. T. Shedd

Last week, Mark Driscoll "interviewed" TD Jakes during the Elephant Room 2 conference. Of course, one of the topics Driscoll asked Jakes about was Jakes' view of the Trinity. Driscoll has caught some heat for not asking better questions of Jakes, and Jakes has been both lauded as a convert to orthodox trinitarianism by some, and derided as heretical by others for not expressing the doctrine of the Trinity correctly. Most of my own concerns about Jakes' view hinge on his use of the word "manifestations" instead of "persons" to describe the three-in-one nature of the Godhead. I do believe that Jakes has not left his Oneness Pentecostal beliefs, and still holds to a dangerous, unbiblical view of the Trinity. But, today, I'd like to focus a little more on Mark Driscoll, the man who was asking Jakes the questions in the Elephant Room.

Driscoll may be a lot of things, but he's no idiot. He is edgy, controversial, bold at times, popular with a lot of folks, and...educated. The man has a graduate degree in exegetical theology from Western Seminary. In addition to his education, he has written several books. You can call him many things, but ignorant he is not. Which to me, begs the question: why didn't he ask harder questions of Jakes during the Elephant Room 2? A lot of folks (myself included) who read the transcript or saw videos of the interview immediately balked at the language of "manifestations" that Jakes used to define the Trinity and did a double take when Driscoll let him have a pass on that. Why not probe that language further? Why let Jakes get away with a "unity over doctrine" slight-of-hand trick? I believe the reason is, Driscoll's own theology of the Trinity is so underdeveloped that he was not prepared to counter Jakes on that issue. Here are Driscoll's own words from his book Doctrine:

The whole attempt to define the eternal relations in the immanent or ontological Trinity seems misguided. First, God has given us no revelation of the nature of their eternal relations. We should follow the command of the Bible: "The secret things belong to the Lord our God" and refuse to speculate. Second, the Apostles' Creed defines the Son as "begotten, not made." The point was that something begotten was of the same substance as the one who does the begetting. But the term "begotten" could never be defined with any clarity, so it was of little use. Third, begotten unavoidably implies a beginning of the one begotten. That would certainly lend support to the Arian heresy that the Son is a created being and not the Creator God. For these reasons it is best to omit the creedal terms "begotten" and "proceeds" from our definition of Trinity. Our authority is not in creeds but in Scripture.

(Mark Driscoll, Doctrine: What Christians Believe (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2010), 27-28)

Note that Driscoll rejects some important theology regarding the eternal generation of the Son, and the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son. He says these terms go beyond what Scripture teaches (and this, despite nearly 2000 years of theologians saying this is exactly what the Bible teaches). Without going into more detail about these specific mistakes about the Trinity by Driscoll, we can say Driscoll's theology regarding the Trinity is underdeveloped at best, and heretical at worst (but let's give him the benefit of the doubt and just say it's underdeveloped). What are the practical implications of these errors regarding the Trinity? Turn back the clock to the late nineteenth century and W. G. T. Shedd. Shedd, of course, was a Presbyterian professor of historical theology and systematic theology at Andover Seminary and Union Seminary, respectively. He was also a prolific writer and wrote several books that are still in use today. In addition to his books, Shedd also wrote an Introductory Essay to the third volume of Nicene and Post-Nicene Church Fathers. That volume contains Augustine's work On The Trinity, so of course, Shedd talks about the Trinity and the implications of that doctrine. It is during that discussion that Shedd writes:

In some sections of Christendom, it has been contended that the doctrine of the Trinity should be received without any attempt at all to establish its rationality and intrinsic necessity. In this case, the tenets of eternal generation and procession have been regarded as going beyond the Scripture data, and if not positively rejected, have been thought to hinder rather than assist faith in three divine persons and one God. But the history of opinions shows that such sections of the church have not proved to be the strongest defenders of the Scripture statement, nor the most successful in keeping clear of the Sabellian, Arian, or even Socinian departure from it. (emphasis added)

(W. G. T. Shedd, "Introductory Essary" in Nicene and Post-Nicene Church Fathers, vol 3, ed. Philip Schaff. Available online, here.)

Shedd says that those who make the claim that the attempt to define the relationship between the persons of the Trinity is misguided are not the strongest defenders of the Scriptural doctrine of the Trinity, nor have such men been the most successful in keeping clear of Sabellianism. Mark Driscoll is a man who thinks such definitions are misguided. He was interviewing a man who is a Sabellianist (Sabellius being the founder of Modalism which is the ancient form of the modern Oneness view of the Trinity). And guess what? Driscoll did not show himself to be a strong defender of the Scriptural doctrine of the Trinity! Shedd was right. 

But I must ask: Should this come as a surprise to anyone? As I said before, I do not think Driscoll is an idiot. He is an educated man. He has made an educated, informed decision to reject the historic, biblical definition of the relationship between the persons of the Trinity. As a result, he is ill-prepared to counter trinitarian errors, such as those espoused by TD Jakes. This is the problem facing modern American evangelicalism: a conscious decision on the part of our leaders to reject historical theology results in leaders of the church who are unable to defend her from false teaching and uneducated Christians in the pews who see nothing wrong with such false teaching. Blind leaders of the blind seems to be the motto of American Evangelicalism.

(My thanks to the blog Against Heresies for bringing the Shedd quote to my attention.)

Quicumque vult or "Why the Word 'Persons' Must Be Used When Describing the Trinity"

A dear older saint at Communion Presbyterian brought me something interesting this last Sunday. It is a church bulletin from a church in the area with some strange practices. He pointed me to the church's "Belief Statement" in the bulletin where the church states, "We believe in divine healing, communion, and foot washing." He thought the inclusion of foot washing was pretty funny (I agree, but also told him there are groups out there that view foot washing as another sacrament).

As I read through this bulletin, something else on their "Belief Statement" page caught my eye. Here it is:

• We believe in one God who is infinite in power, holy in nature, attributes and purposes, as well as omniscient and omnipresent.
• We believe that He was revealed to us as Father in creation, as Son in redemption, and as the Holy Spirit in His comforting grace that never leaves those who trust Him.

What I find interesting about those statements is this: it is clearly a heretical definition of the Trinity. God has not revealed Himself as Father at one point, Son at another, and Holy Spirit at yet another. Or, if I could rephrase that: God has not manifested Himself as Father at one point, then manifested himself as Son at another, then manifested himself as Holy Spirit at yet another. "Reveal" and "manifest" are not adequate words to describe the nature of the Godhead. "Persons" is. So, when someone says they believe in the Trinity, but they are uncomfortable with the word "person" and instead prefer the word "manifestation" they are espousing heresy. They have not affirmed the God of the Bible, and remain in danger of hell.

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.
27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

 The Athanasian Creed (aka "Quicumque vult")

The Original Westminster Confession of Faith on the Antichrist

Yesterday, during the Sunday School class at Communion Presbyterian, we discussed Chapter 25 of the Westminster Confession, having to do with "The Church". Now, there's lots of great biblical truth in that chapter, but, the American revisions to the Confession deviate from the original text on a pretty major point in Section 6. The original text of the Confession reads:

There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ.¹³ Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.¹⁴

13. COL 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. EPH 1:22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church.

14. MAT 23:8-10 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. 2TH 2:3-4, 8-9 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders. REV 13:6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.

The American revisions (such as the PCA, OPC, etc--with the exception of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church) read:

There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof.

And, lastly, the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church edition of the Confession reads:

There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can mere man in any sense be the head thereof.

Since one of the things I've tried to do in my Sunday School class is point out the differences between the ARP Confession and other versions of the Confession, I read the text of the original version to my class. I could tell that some folks in the class had no idea that the Reformers considered the Pope to be the Antichrist, the man of sin, etc. So, I told my class I would post some of the reasoning behind that conclusion. Below are the reasons and Scripture proofs David Dickson gives in Truth's Victory Over Error (the first commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith ever written). Read through what he has to say and judge for yourselves if the Reformers got it right.

Question IX. ―Is the Pope that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church of God against Christ, and all that is called God?

Yes; 2 Thess. 2:3-4, 8-9; Rev. 13:6; Matt. 23:8-10.

Though this be denied by the church of Rome, yet the true description of Antichrist agrees to him.

1st, Because he is not one single man, but an order and race of men, succeeding to one another, in that same state and office; which you will see, by comparing 1 John 4:3; 2 Thess. 2:7-8. together.

2nd, His coming in after the manner of Satan, 2 Thess. 2:9.

3rd, As to his name, he calls himself a Christian, but in very truth, an adversary to Christ; and by consequence, one that denies Jesus to be the Christ, Rev. 17:14; Rev. 19:19; 2 Thess. 2:7-8; 1 John 2:23.

4th, He sitteth in the temple of God as God, 2 Thess. 2:4.

5th, He ruleth in the great city, and exercises dominion over the kings of the earth.

6th, He deceiveth them that dwell on the earth, with lying wonders and miracles, 2 Thess. 2:9; Rev. 13:14-15.

7th, He causeth all sorts of persons to receive his mark on their right hand, or on their forehead, Rev. 13:16-17.

8th, To him agrees what Paul says, And now ye know what withholdeth (namely the roman emperor) that he might be revealed in his time, 2 Thess. 3:6-7.

TD Jakes, Trinitarianism, and Asking Hard Questions

There is a little bit of buzz around TD Jakes' appearance on (in?) the Elephant Room to answer questions and discuss theology with Mark Driscoll and James McDonald. Some have said that based on Jakes' answer to questions about the Trinity, we should now accept that he has given up his Pentecostal Oneness-ism and embraced orthodox Trinitarianism. I think none of the right questions were asked of Jakes, and a correct definition of the Trinity was entirely missing from the conversation (a transcript of which can be read here), thus making any affirmations of the Trinity meaningless.

Carl Trueman has posted some of his thoughts, which I agree with, here. Only he says them better than I can (and he says Frank Turk says things better than he can, which I guess makes Frank Turk two levels above me :) ). Trueman's conclusion is something we all need to remember: "It is not hateful to press the hard questions, and to do so with appropriate competence and in a suitable context; rather, it is appropriate and necessary."

What Does Your Church Believe About the Civil Magistrate?

After seeing my chart comparing the different version of Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 23 section 3, The Aquila Report contacted me and said that if I added a little bit of commentary to accompany the chart, they would like to run it as an article. I did as they asked, and it was the #2 article on The Aquila Report last night.

You can read it here: What Does Your Church Believe About The Civil Magistrate?

A New Blog: Cage Free Calvinist

My good friend Joe Young (who recent wrote a guest piece here about the Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus video) has started his own blog: Cage Free Calvinist. Go over and have a look. He's only got a couple of posts up, so far, but I'm guessing we'll see lots of commentary on philosophy, politics, religion, and the nature of discourse. Plus, he's a regular guest on the Apologetics.com Radio show, so I'm sure there will be posts related to the topics he discusses there.

Welcome to the blogosphere, Joe! You are now part of the problem!