Recovering The Reformed Communion (2)

from Alexander and Rufus: Dialogues on Church Communion by John Anderson (1820)
excerpted pp.4-6, 21 and edited by Gregory Baus

Here is stated in summary what we believe to be the truth according to the Scriptures concerning sacramental communion of the church, often called close communion, taught and practiced by the genuinely Reformed Church.

First, the visible communion of Christians in any particular church or local congregation consists in their declared agreement to adhere to one public profession of the Christian religion, and in their joint endeavors to maintain and propagate that profession.

Second, this profession is a profession of the whole Christian religion. We cannot warrantably decline the explicit profession of one jot or tittle of it; since the authority of the Divine Testimony, which binds us to receive any part, binds us equally to receive the whole.

Third, while the profession of the Christian religion attained by a particular church, as well as her practice, is imperfect; and while much of her profession is rejected by many bearing the Christian name; it is necessary that the articles of her public profession, which are the matter of her communion, be ascertained with precision.

Fourth, every person who joins in the public ordinances of a particular church, and especially in the Lord's Supper, declares that he has communion with her in her public profession and acknowledges it to be his own profession. For the public profession that is made in the participation of the public ordinances of Christianity can be only one; that is, the profession of the particular church in which these ordinances are administered.

Last, persons cannot reasonably pretend to have communion with a particular church in her public ordinances, and especially in the Lord's Supper, while they openly persist in an obstinate opposition to any article of her profession. Persons may indeed share in that communion who have but a small measure of knowledge, but obstinate opposers to any article can have no communion in it at all.

The visible communion of Christians is expressed in Scripture by the holding fast of their profession, one profession only, not many or different professions (Heb 4:14; 10:23), by glorifying God with one mind and one mouth, speaking the same thing, joined together in the same judgment (Rom 15:6, 1Cor 1:10), and serving him with one accord (Zeph 3:9). Their communion among themselves in the exercises of religious worship, and in all the other parts of Christian practice, belongs to the joint maintaining of one profession of the Christian religion.

As the agreement of a number of men to unite their efforts for the raising of a weight, or for the working of a ship, may be called a mechanical communion; so the agreement of a number of Christians to adhere to and maintain one profession of the Christian religion is church communion. In the common affairs of life, there can be no rational communion among any number of persons, unless the matter about which they are to have communion be exactly determined. Thus, if it be the raising of a heavy body, it is necessary in order to communion in that work to determine by what means it is to be raised; whether by a lever, for example, or by a pulley, or by an inclined plane.

So in order to the communion of persons in a particular church, it is necessary that the articles of the public profession which she has attained and which constitute the matter of her communion, be ascertained by her creed, by her confession, or by her declaration and testimony; and that it should be one important part of the work of her ministers in their public discourses to explain and vindicate that profession. When a church is honest and faithful in the use of these means, it is easy to know what is the matter of her communion. Faithfulness in this respect is one principle mark by which a reforming may be distinguished from a backsliding church.

Christians are “to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints,” (Jude 3) for every article of the faith at whatever time delivered, whether in the Old or in the New Testaments, whether in the personal ministry of Christ, or afterwards by the apostles. When a particular church refuses to communicate with opposers of some of her articles considered more essential to salvation, and yet agrees to communicate with the opposers of other articles considered non-essential, this is contrary to the duty of earnestly contending for the faith, and resents injury done to Divine truth when opposition is contrary to their own salvation, but not whenever it is contrary to the authority and glory of God.

For a particular church, or her members, to have sacramental communion with the obstinate opposers of any of the truths or ordinances of Christ, as professed to be agreeable to his word, is inconsistent with that Great Commission Christ gave his ministers at his ascension, that they should “teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever he had commanded them” (Matt 28:20). For what are the things in which Christians are to have sacramental communion? The answer is in all the things which the apostles and other ministers ought to teach as the things of Christ –and these are not only some things, or the most important things, but all things that he commands. All that truly belongs to the Christian religion was delivered by Christ as the Great Prophet of the church; and the Divine injunction is, “Him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you” (Acts 3:22).

Only such close communion is agreeable to the representation which the apostle gives of the partakers of the Lord's Supper. “We being many,” he says, “are one bread and one body, for we are all partakers of that one bread” (1Cor 10:17). According to these words our participation of one bread in this ordinance imports a joint profession of the Christian religion just as partaking of the sacrifices in the idol's temple imported a joint profession of idolatry. As Christians in receiving the Lord's Supper partake of one bread, so they make one profession of the Christian religion. The profession of receiving Christ as tendered in the Lord's Supper is a profession of the whole Christian religion. For it is a profession, not only that we rely on Christ as a Priest for pardon, but that we fully assent to all he teaches us as a Prophet, and that we cordially submit to all the laws and ordinances which he has delivered to us as our King.

The prominent scheme of sacramental communion that is not close communion differs from the apostle's communion in at least two respects. First, a public profession of the whole Christian religion is necessary to the sacramental communion of the apostle, for it implies a joint profession of receiving Christ as tendered to the partakers. Whereas the public profession of only those parts of the Christian religion that are termed essential is necessary to sacramental communion according to this non-close scheme. Second, the public profession of each communicant is the profession of all who partake of the same sacramental bread, according to the apostle. But according to this non-close scheme the public profession of some of the partakers may be different from, and in some respects opposite to, the profession of the rest.

The profession of religion which is made by the partakers of the Lord's Supper in any particular church is to be considered, either as a merely personal or as a joint profession. If it be considered as merely personal (the profession of each individual only), there may be as many different professions as there are partakers, and there will be no communion at all in the same profession. On this supposition the apostle could not have justly inferred from their partaking of that one bread that they are one body. But if the profession made in the act of communicating be a joint profession, then it must be the profession of the particular church by whose ministers this ordinance is dispensed. No other public profession of the Christian religion is or rightly can be made in the act of communicating in that particular church.

see also RECOVERING THE REFORMED COMMUNION part 1
and more about Rev. John Anderson

UPDATE: below is an outline of the first part of Alexander & Rufus, which I posted in a comment section discussion here.

DIALOGUE I.
1. The evil of divisions in the church
2. Some separations from particular churches unlawful
3. Secession from corrupt churches lawful
4. False methods of healing divisions
5. Scriptural church communion stated
6. An approbation of the public profession of a particular church implied in the partaking of her sacramental communion
7. The distinction between the essentials and the non-essentials of Christianity, considered.

DIALOGUE II.
8. The scheme of catholic communion now pleaded for, inconsistent with the regard due to all the truths of God
9. This scheme unwarrantable on account of the uncertainty of the grounds on which it proceeds
10. The evils tolerated by this catholic communion, not matters of mutual forbearance according to the Scriptures
11. Confessions of faith justly considered as terms of church communion
12. The catholic communion pleaded for, inconsistent with the due exercise of church discipline.

DIALOGUE III.
13. The character of a church with which we are to have sacramental communion
14. The import of Calling on the Name of the Lord Jesus.
15. Sacramental communion with what may, in some sense, be termed a true church of Christ, not always our duty
16. Sacramental communion with those with whom Christ has communion, in some cases, not warrantable
17. Nor, in some cases, with those that belong to the catholic church
18. Nor always with a particular church, on account of its duty to dispense the Lord’s supper
19. The Christian character which entitles to sacramental communion.

DIALOGUE IV.
20. The instances of sacramental communion recorded in the New Testament, no examples of the catholic communion in question
21. The charge of unchurching other churches, and of spiritual pride on account of our declining sacramental communion with those from whom we are in a state of secession, shown to be unjust
22. Declining to attend on the public administrations of ministers on account of their erroneous profession, lawful
23. The promotion of love to the brethren by this catholic communion, considered
24. Of the evils said to arise from our limiting sacramental communion to such as make the same public profession
25. The nature and tendency of this catholic communion inferred from what has been advanced in the preceding conversations.

DIALOGUE V.
26. The adoption of this scheme of catholic communion by the whole church, in any
period, incredible
27. What sort of instances are not to be admitted as examples of this catholic communion
28. No approved practice of such communion in the time of the apostles
29. Nor for some centuries after their decease shown,
first, from the designations of the truths which communicants professed to receive,
secondly, from the exclusion of some from sacramental communion who were
esteemed as true Christians,
thirdly, from the authority of the decrees of councils in the primitive church
fourthly, from the uniformity of public profession in the primitive church
30. The practice of this catholic communion not proved by the different usages that obtained in the ancient churches
31. Whether it was the sense of the ancients, that separation from a particular church, holding the essentials, is always separation from the catholic church
32. Whether the Fathers condemned the Novatians and Donatists simply on account of their separation from the churches of Rome and Africa
33. Errors of the Donatists; The principles and reasoning of these sects very different from those of many who now oppose the modern scheme of catholic communion
34. Whether it was the judgment of the Fathers, that by this very fact of separation from the churches of Rome and Africa, the Novatians and Donatists cast themselves out of the catholic church
35. Whether the different opinions expressed by the Fathers concerning church government, proves that they practiced the catholic communion in question
36. The practice of those witnesses who separated from the church of Rome, contrary to this catholic communion
37. The case of God’s people who continued within the pale of the church of Rome, no example of this catholic communion.

DIALOGUE VI.
38. Of the reformation from Popery
39. The principles on which our forefathers separated from the church of Rome, contrary to this scheme of catholic communion
40. The doctrine of the Reformed churches, concerning the marks of a true church, contrary to this scheme
41. How the expression true church is to be understood, as it is used in the Confessions of the Reformed churches
42. The design of the Confessions of the Reformed churches contrary to this scheme of catholic communion; Also, the harmony of these Confessions
43. An article of the Augsburgh Confession concerning the Lord’s Supper, considered
44. Some words of the Saxon Confession and Luther and Melancthon, considered
45. Several plans of union proposed among the Protestant churches different from this scheme of catholic communion in question
46. An account of Calvin’s proposal and of the agreement of the churches in Poland
47. The communion of the Reformed church of Holland with other Reformed churches, considered.

DIALOGUE VII.
48. The separation of the Puritans in the reign of Queen Elizabeth from the established church of England
49. The ground of their separation farther illustrated
50. The declared design of the meeting of the Westminster Assembly
51. The Solemn League and Covenant inconsistent with this catholic scheme of sacramental communion
52. The Westminster Confession designed to be a bond of church communion; connected with the Presbyterial form of church government
53. Such government is of Divine institution, required by the Scriptures
54. Worship, discipline, and doctrine included
55. And contrary to the opinions of the Independents
56. This scheme of catholic communion not consonant to the 26th chapter of that Confession
57. Christian communion distinguished from church communion
58. Of a harmony of the Reformed Confessions; of the Westminster Assembly’s letter to the Reformed churches; and of a passage in Neal’s History concerning the Anabaptists
59. Of a quotation from the preface of a book entitled, Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici
60. Of the Savoy Confession
61. Of Dr. Owen’s judgment concerning church communion
62. Of the sentiments of other divines on this subject.
63. The proper sense of certain common expressions
64. Of the non-conforming ministers in England
65. Of Mr. Claude’s position
66. Of a certain Act of the Church of Scotland’s General Assembly concerning strangers
67. Mr. Dunlap’s inconsistency
68. The witness of faithful churches
69. Of the proper zeal for truth, and the remedy for divisions

APPENDIX: criticism of the book by Robert Hall

Recent Miscellany

Back in January I visited my brother, Jeff, for a week at Clear Creek Monastery in Oklahoma. I posted their informational video (Ecce Fiat), so you can see a bit about life there. [ and see latest news article about them here ]

It was mostly below freezing, I had a cold the entire time, and I was only able to hang out and talk with "Br.Anthony" for about an hour a day.  But it was great to see him in person and get a firsthand sense of his environment and routine.  Here's a decent photo of him; he's sitting far left, face down towards book (as always).

I've now added the Epiphany season tune for Te Lucis Ante Terminum to a list of favorites. 

If you haven't checked out my & K's foodblog, give it a look.  We really enjoy documenting the cooking experience this way. For our recent entry I meant to have a photo of my taking a bite, but forgot, because the donuts tasted so good. We will probably include restaurant reviews at some point.

As of this past November, Owen and Lilly have a new baby brother, Daniel; and I'm an uncle a third time over. Love and thanks go out to my sister and bro-in-law for all their labor.

Some time ago, I posted Herman Dooyeweerd's online in-English bibliography.  If you fancy yourself Reformed and academic, and you haven't read any Dooyeweerd, you must.  I recommend beginning with The Secularization of Science.  His most accessible, book-length work is Roots of Western Culture.  In my bib, you'll find a link for the entire original publication of that book in PDF.

Four 2009 articles by Roy Clouser are also online.  [ See, too, Glenn Friesen's response to Clouser's essay on Dooyeweerd's transcendental critique ].  And, finally, a book of Robert Knudsen's * writings has been published.  Now, if only WTS would put his lectures online/iTunesU!

I was glad to see Robert Godfrey's pro-Kuyper/ian presentations in sessions 1 and 6 at Westminster Seminary California's conference Christ, Kingdom, and Culture.

Recently watched the UK independent sci-fi film Moon, and liked it quite a lot.  Hoping that Solomon Kane comes to the US.  I had fun discussing the weaponry with Aaron Larsen.

Happy St. Patrick's Day to you all, especially to brother Gary and Irish friends here and there.

Bowling For Calvin

Sub-Sabbatarian Myth-Busting
this essay first appeared in the Nicotine Theological Journal, Summer 2009 (volume 13, number 3)

Being a thrifty Calvinist, I couldn't justify the expense of attending the Calvin500 events in Geneva this past July. I wish I could have gone. Among the other things I would liked to have witnessed was the mass of Calvin enthusiasts gathering after Sunday morning worship for a jolly pétanque competition.

In reality, I suspect no such Calvin-inspired game of boules actually occurred. But I wonder how many of the Reformed churchmen who may have luxuriated in the cafés or otherwise recreated that Lordsday afternoon during the conference felt reassured of their orthodoxy in calling to mind the common anecdote about Calvin's habit of "lawn-bowling" on the Sabbath (typically to the consternation of Knox --that silly, overwrought zealot).

I've probably been told the story more times than I've heard the 4th commandment read in worship. In my experience, even among those who hesitate to labor at their regular employment, or to employ others in servicing them at stores and restaurants on Sundays, many bristle against abstaining from recreations. All I need do is turn down an invitation to watch a film, sport, or to play a game on the Lordsday. Without fail I will be told how we are able to fellowship with others and glorify God by enjoying these activities, and inevitably the godly example of Calvin on the public greens comes into it.

The main problem with citing Calvin's Sabbath bowling practice, other than it being used to contravene Presbyterian standards, is that it is entirely unsubstantiated and contradicts Calvin's own stated views on the matter. Over a decade ago, Chris Coldwell (now general editor of the Confessional Presbyterian Journal) researched the legend with some thoroughness. In his essay titled Calvin in the Hands of the Philistines: Or, Did Calvin Bowl on the Sabbath? Coldwell surveys the relevant literature and historical record on the question.

An unambiguous conclusion emerges as we are guided back from recent references through prominent sources of preceding centuries to Calvin's own time. Coldwell's essay deserves a read by sabbatarian, sub-sabbatarian, and anti-sabbatarian alike, if only because the story is so persistently popular. I must note, for example, this folklore found its way onto page 342 of R.C. Sproul's Truths We Confess, A Layman's Guide to the Westminster Confession of Faith, Vol. 2 (P&R 2007).

Is there a lesson here that we all should more critically assess received wisdom? Or is it that we should be more critical toward criticism of received wisdom? Or maybe the lesson is that formation of either doctrine or piety by anecdote is neither right nor safe. In any case, this is how Coldwell concludes:

“Calvin should be afforded the courtesy to speak for himself, and the tendency some have toward using the bowling myth to reinterpret him should be abandoned. While some evidence may be found in future to verify the tale, it seems unlikely. But, until such evidence is found, let us take the Reformer at his word that we should 'dedicate that day wholly unto Him so as we may be utterly withdrawn from the world.' 'If we spend the Lord’s day in making good cheer, and in playing and gaming, is that a good honoring of God? Nay, is it not a mockery, yea and a very unhallowing of his name?' ” 

Psalm 105: 1-12 / 1 Chronicles 16:8-19 in Common Meter

suggested tune: Tiverton by Joeseph Grigg (c.1765)

Oh thank the LORD, call on His name. Make known His deeds among
the people.  Sing praises to Him. His wonders tell in song.

And boast now in His holy name. Be glad the hearts of you
who seek the LORD; seek Him, His strength, always seek His face too.

Recall to mind again His works of wonder He has done;
Marvels and judgments from His mouth, His chosen, Jacob's sons.

Oh seed of Israel, His servant, He is the LORD our God;
know that His judgments reach to all the places one may trod.

Remember this: His covenant forever --a thousand
generations are subject to that word of His command.

For this He made with Abraham, an oath to Isaac sworn,
a statute to Jacob confirmed, our cov'nant evermore.

Saying, “To you I'll give the Land; as your inheritance,”
when you were small and very few and still strangers in it.

~ metrical version by Gregory Baus, MARCH 2010
[traditional 1650 version here]

Recovering The Reformed Communion

John Anderson (c.1748 - 1830) was born just south of Scotland's border near Tweed (perhaps the River Tweed, or Berwick-upon-Tweed).  He grew up in the "Associate" (1733 Secession) Church of Scotland (cf. Erskines).

Licensed and commissioned by the church in Scotland, Anderson arrived in Pennsylvania to assist the development of the Associate Presbytery of Pennsylvania (which was to form the Associate Synod of North America in 1801). He was ordained in 1788, serving as pastor for various congregations in the Beaver County area.

In 1794 Anderson was appointed to be the founding professor of the first Presbyterian seminary in the United States [the third theological seminary overall; the first being a Dutch Reformed seminary in New Brunswick, New Jersey in 1784, and the second being a Roman Catholic seminary in Baltimore, Maryland in 1791].  This Presbyterian seminary eventually became what is today known as Pittsburgh Theological.

Anderson was said to be only 5 feet tall with a poor voice for public speaking, but he was a godly, powerful intellect and influential church leader.  He served as pastor and professor until 1819, retiring for poor health. Anderson's tremendous work, Alexander and Rufus: Dialogues on Church Communion, was first published in 1820.

Part One (initial 200 pages or so) of this book ably articulates the old school, confessionally reformed & presbyterian doctrine of "close communion."  This biblical doctrine is contrasted with the contemporary, latitudinarian teaching which holds

"that there may be several articles in the public profession of a particular church, which, however clearly founded on the Holy Scriptures, are not essential or necessary to salvation, and therefore ought not to be terms of church communion. 'The obviously vital doctrines of the gospel,' say they, 'which whoever renounces cannot be a Christian, are a sufficient basis of sacramental communion.' This scheme... has too long prevailed in the protestant churches, and deprived them, in so great a measure, of their purity and true glory."

(from the author's Preface)

Alexander and Rufus is available online at googlebooks and internet archive in its two editions. It is also copy-reprinted in its original 1820 version by Kessinger Publishing [here, amazon]; and copy-reprinted in its 1862 version by Still Water Revival Books [here and here].

What Anderson writes in this book can help the reformed churches realize that "while corruption is the native consequence of latitudinarian schemes, scriptural order in sacramental communion tends to make the visible church a heaven upon earth to the faithful, terrible as an army with banners to her enemies, and to her King and Head for a name, for a praise and for glory."  This is the way forward for churches wanting to reform and to be reformed according to the Word of God; the way to recover the Reformed confession and communion.

An essay by Anderson addressing the same topic, Of the Church's Toleration of Any Thing Sinful (1780) is also now available online.

also see PART 2

End Of The Zeros

Before the year ends, I thought I should leave a new entry.

This will also serve to test whether blogger comments are now operative, since haloscan is done.

Year of our Lord two-thousand ten holds out the promise for new things, including more frequent content here.

All the best to you, dear reader.

The Past Half Year

Let me catch you up. 2009 started out with a party (at 2640 & the Windup), as my lifelong friend, Keenan, was married. Friends and family are all happy that Rebecca is his wife. The bestman's toast I gave went something like this:

I've heard it said there are two kinds of love: the love of delight and the love of goodwill. We find each other delightful, but when that delight wanes we are resolved to continue behaving in the other's best interest. And marriage, among other things, is a sworn commitment to that effect, to will the other's good, even when there's less to delight in. We love Keenan and Rebecca, and we wish them the best. So here's to their mutual delight & goodwill, and a future of more joy than sorrow, more health than sickness, more plenty than want, more 'better' than 'worse'.

photo credit

Slightly didactic, but concise --don't you think? I reproduce it here because I gave it a lot of thought, and by the time the bubbly was swallowed it is likely my composition was utterly forgotten by everyone.

Later in January my brother Jeffrey entered Clear Creek Monastery, near Tulsa, Oklahoma. This was a grievous occasion. Besides the fact that, being an old school Reformed Confessionalist, I believe Romanist doctrine and Monastic-ascetic piety are contrary to the gospel... besides all that, it's hard to lose contact with the person closest to me. From my vantage point, it's very similar to him serving a life sentence in prison. We write letters and I can visit him for a few hours once a year or so. But the shared experience of life is now over. I wasn't ready for that.


If you're a friend of Jeff, you can write him too:

Br. Anthony Baus
Clear Creek Monastery
5804 West Monastery Road
Hulbert OK 74441-5698

February offered some cheer. My librarian and I enjoyed a Valentinesday local café tour, including the Choc-O'-Latte in Millerstown and the Espresso Yourself in Newport. We had a good time at the combination Hunting Shop & Family Restaurant in Thompsontown, the name of which escapes me somehow. Middle Pennsylvania was made for day-tripping.

In March I attended a regional ETS conference, where James Skillen spoke about political responsibilities and social justice. The part that most stands out in my mind is when he implied that all a state's coercive actions must be legitimized by satisfying something like the criteria for Just War. This seems right to me, and the interesting thing about it is that such a view can hardly be squared with the idea that civil government has responsibility for "administrating" a broad 'public' sector. (This latter idea is already refuted on the basis of a properly conceived notion of societal sphere sovereignty, of course).

Perhaps Gideon Strauss will be in a position to take the CPJ in a new direction as its new President. One can only hope that he might read and be persuaded by the New York Time's Bestseller Meltdown by Tom Woods. Here's Woods on C-SPAN BookTV.

In other news, Darryl Hart, paradoxical Luddite that he is, now blogs at OldLife.org.

I enjoyed my 36th birthday in early May with dinner at Brasserie Louis (a fancy restaurant in Lewisburg) and a meditative stroll through Shamokin Cemetery (an exquisite graveyard on a sweeping hill, lying above a Tim Burton-esque coal mining town).

I'm leaving out a mention of an early Spring traffic citation incident. I have nothing redeeming to say about it, although I am certain that even suffering under tyranny is effectual unto my salvation.

G.K. Beale was recently hired by Westminster Philly. Listen to his lecture on Christology and Scriptural inerrancy here. View a video interview with Beale here.
And John Fesko was recently hired by Westminster California. Listen to an interview with him by the Reformed Forum on justification here.

25 Revelations
various things about my life and self

1. While riding a moped I was once hit by a car driven by a handicapped guy who had become paraplegic by being hit by a car while he was riding a moped.

2. As a kid I was strongly suspicious that I was adopted and had latent superpowers yet to manifest.

3. Regrettably, I still cannot read music.

4. I'm dating a librarian.

5. In late high school I often skipped classes to read philosophy in a file closet.

6. I once waterskied in the South China Sea off the east coast of Malaysia.

7. I strongly dislike in-house pets, watching or discussing sports, celebrity news, and hip-hop culture. I somewhat dislike pineapple on pizza.

8. My body weight has been consistent most of my adult life, except one year when I inexplicably gained 30 lbs and lost it the next year.

9. I first ate pimento cheese on a sweetbread sandwich in a county jail when I was 19.

10. The commute from my house to church is about an hour and a half.

11. As a Calvinist, I don't celebrate Christmas or any religious holidays except for the weekly Lordsday sabbath.

12. I have two younger brothers; one is a Benedictine monk in Oklahoma, the other is a jazz musician in Ireland.

13. As an adult (past 17 years) I've never had health insurance, I've never made more than 12k a year, and I've never taken government welfare.

14. During 2008 I became an anarchist (or an "anti- coercive monopoly, pro- polycentric public law order'ist," to be more specific).

15. Recently, one of my favorite authors is Frank Key.

16. I remember the 1979 Iranian Islamic Revolution and Iranian hostage crisis.

17. I'm working at a bank.

18. I admire mid-19th century facial hair styles, particularly walrusy mustaches.

19. I sued my high school.

20. When I first heard about the burning of the ancient Alexandrian library, I cried.

21. As a kid I had two uncles named Bob who both lived in Alaska.

22. I recently bought 100 one-ounce silver bullion coins in anticipation of eventual hyperinflation and destruction of the US dollar.

23. I have no excuse for not yet having a concealed carry permit.

24. The room temperature is usually lower than I'd prefer.

25. If you consider yourself a Reformed Christian or a Calvinist, I really want you to read Recovering the Reformed Confession by R.Scott Clark.

This meme was going around facebook, and I've been meaning to do something like this for a while. Just for kicks, leave a comment and tell me how many of these facts you knew (or didn't).

Dooyeweerd's New Critique Online

Thanks to the tireless efforts of K.J. Hollingsworth (and perhaps others at the Reformational Publishing Project & Paideia Books), A New Critique Of Theoretical Thought (3 vols) by Herman Dooyeweerd is no longer restricted to near-impossible to find, long out-of-print used editions, nor to insanely over-priced reprints.

Dooyeweerd's seminal 1953 work New Critique is now online in pdf.
Here are the first and second volumes, respectively entitled The Necessary Presuppositions of Philosophy and The General Theory of Modal Spheres.
Here is the third volume, entitled The Structures of Individuality of Temporal Reality, with the extensive index 'fourth' volume.

A New Critique is an English language translation and revision of Dooyeweerd's original (Dutch language) 1935 work entitled De Wijsbegeerte der Wetsidee (roughly, "philosophy of the law-idea" or cosmonomic philosophy). This original work is available online here, and can be accessed in pdf from The Association for Reformational Philosophy here.

Paul Robinson is developing a study guide for New Critique here.
Glenn Friesen offers some English notes on WdW here.

Dooyeweerd's work is a model for my own approach to Christian scholarship. Hopefully, Reformed/Calvinistic scholars in the English-speaking world will become increasingly familiar with his ideas, because they offer the most faithful and fruitful understanding for a distinctly Christian view of philosophy and all academic disciplines, or sciences.

One Among Ten Thousand

Extended quotations are always good for getting back in the groove of writing. The following is (as always) for those with ears to hear. Anyone?

" George Knight observes [as noted by Tim Keller] that the practice of the American Presbyterian church has 'always' been to distinguish between 'what was required in a confession of faith... for salvation and church membership and what was required in a confession of faith' for ordination to special ecclesiastical office. As a matter of history this seems to be the case in modern times, but it is also true that it has not always been the case. It is not obvious that establishing two levels of subscription, one for laity and another for ordained officers, is either biblical or consistent with the Reformation. From where in Scripture [or the Confessional documents] would one deduce that God expects one level of subscription for officers and another for laity? Certainly it is possible for one to be a Christian without affirming every proposition in the Reformed confession, but that is beside the point. On that rationale, why should we bother establishing Reformed congregations at all? If the Reformed confession defines what it is to be Reformed, then establishing two distinct relations to the same constitutional document would seem to be a recipe for confusion and effectively two churches within one.

...From 1647 to the beginning of the ambiguity in the American Presbyterian church in 1729 [and arguably even beyond that, into the 1890s in many congregations and presbyteries], the Westminster Confession was subscribed 'because' it is biblical [as opposed to only affirmed 'in so far as' it may be biblical]... in the European [continental] Reformed tradition, ministers and members alike have been expected to subscribe the confessions in the same way... Why should a church [hypocritically] adopt a 'confession' that some or even most of the church believes to be at least partly unbiblical? "

From R.Scott Clark's Recovering the Reformed Confession: our theology, piety, and practice; pages 179-180.