"Dual Citizens: Worship and Life between the Already and the Not Yet" is a book by Jason Stellman, pastor of Exile Presbyterian Church in Woodinville, WA. (You may read his blog here.) I was excited to hear that he had been published, because his church is in my backyard. The Bellevue Library was kind enough to buy a copy of "Dual Citzens" for me, so any locals out there may go reserve it there today, if you're interested in it.

This is Stellman's first book, and I appreciate how hard it is to write a book, especially your first book, so I have grace for him. Stellman has been a local celebrity lately due to his conflict with Peter Liethart. Stellman represents Two Kingdoms philosophy that has its bastion at Westminster West under its provost Michael Horton. Peter Liethart on the other hand represents the Federal Vision camp that has been hotly disputed in the PCA. Federal Vision is also espoused by Douglas Wilson, a recent celebrity theologian, whom has also written a negative review of Stellman's book (but this was expected). I do not have a strong predilection for either Federal Vision or Two Kingdoms, although I highly respect both camps and live in contradiction (aka Dualism). I live in a synthesis of both opposing view, and was hoping Stellman would persuade me towards the Two Kingdoms camp. I have fifty pages yet to read of Stellman's book, so he may possibly persuade me in those concluding remarks, but overall I've been disappointed by the book because of the potential it could have had, considering the amount of trouble Two Kingdoms has caused lately. Keep-in-mind, I am not picking sides yet.

"Dual Citizens: Worship and Life between the Already and the Not Yet" is only 200 pages including the preface.  I read Stellman's reply to Doug Wilson's criticism beforehand, and Stellman insists on a difference between a Christian citizen and the Christian Church; unfortunately, this distinction is not clearly developed in the book (maybe at the end.) So, if I change my mind by the end, then I'll write a part II to this review.

Overall, it's not clear who Stellman's audience is. The book assumes that there is a distinction between the "sacred and secular" and rigidly defines the Sabbath as entire day of Sunday, but does not defend these positions or lay a theological foundation for them. John Calvin and many ministers in the NW PCA take this exception. It's not clear if Stellman thinks his writing is the preaching of a church official or the opinions of a Christian individual. I assume that he makes these same statements from the pulpit. So far the book hasn't explained the distinction between an individual and the church, but has accepted that dichotomy as a presupposition.

The books foundation primarily uses criticisms of "baptized versions" of secular groups to justify the Church's withdrawal from any of these institutions. I am annoyed by the myriad of Christian products, that only exist to make a buck, but simply criticizing Christian bumper stickers, Christian Alcohol Recovery Groups, or ichthus fish eating Darwin fish, doesn't prove that all Christian programs should be abolished. Maybe they should be abolished, but this book just accepts the presupposition that they need to be eradicated from the church. This is confusing, since Stellman's book was printed by a Christian publisher. These "baptized publishers" provided a venue for his book to be published, where a secular publisher may not have faith to risk publishing a "yet-to-be-published author" (see his preface). Does Stellman prefer that Alcoholics Anonymous talk about a higher spiritual force rather than explicitly invoke the name of Jesus?

My understanding was that God ruled both kingdoms, not just the Church, and that the Church used the Government to accomplish things. Overall, this book implies that the Church only applies to Sunday, and has no purpose operating on any other day of the week. It also implies that the Church is not made up of living stones, or Christians, but it is purely the abstract institution. So I am basically only a member of the Church on Sundays, and its wrong for me to live a Godly way on any of the other days of the week. Maybe my conclusions are wrong, but like I said, the book doesn't define these critical doctrines.

So does this version of two kingdoms permit me to be a Nazi officer six days of a week, as long as I go to church on Sunday and participate in the sacraments? Or is there a dualism where I am fully authorized to be a Nazi officer that is obedient to Nazi Germany as long as I am fully obedient to the Church on Sunday? I believe Hitler argued this way. So maybe, I'm off base but it's hard not to have this conclusion, based on the ink of these pages. Granted Nazi's are a loaded term, but this dichotomy was used in Nazi Germany; I always though that this was the abuse of Luther's Two Kingdoms. I'm disappointed that this topic wasn't addressed, but there were many bombs over the wall at Left Behind and WWJD bracelets. Are the only alternates Constantinianism or Dualism? 

The book quotes long paragraphs of scripture, but I was often left wondering how the scripture was relevant to context. Again, I realize how hard it is to write a book, and writing a blog is hard enough.

So one example, on page 52, Stellman quotes the Presbyterian Church's 1819 General Assembly as an authority on the Sabbath. There have been so many splits in the Presbyterian Church over the Sabbath since then, that this can hardly be held as an authority. Stellman neglects Colossians 2:16 and Romans 14:5, which are clearly contrary to his position that the Sabbath must be held only on Sunday. If the continuum between the Old and New Testaments is so clear, then how were the early Christians justified in moving the day from Saturday to Sunday (Revelation 1:10). We live between the Already and Not Yet, I agree. Hebrews argues that God entered into his rest on the seventh day, and through Christ we are also able to enter God's rest, this is a huge argument of Hebrews 3-4. Jesus said that the father is working despite his rest John 5:17. So the implication is not a legalistic Sabbatarianism view. Jesus himself did not keep the Sabbath in this legalistic view, which is partly why he was crucified John 9:16. The whole creation was frustrated by the fall, but Jesus is delivering the whole creation from that frustration and toil, described in Genesis 3, by bringing about rest. As John Frame said, the OPC has such strong legalistic Sabbath rules that not even John Calvin would be permitted to be a minister in that denomination, because John Calvin said that we must have rest, but did not tie it to one day in seven only. Calvin believed it was more of a convenience that the church met on Sunday. I'm curious if Stellman takes a Sabbath day on another day of the week? According to this rigid interpretation, it was wrong for Stellman to have rest.   

Another issue was Chapter 8 is a commentary on Revelation 12. I have also read Robert Mounce's book, and agree with most of what he has said, but what is the purpose of Stellmen's interpretation of this chapter? Must we rely on a disputed interpretation of Revelation 12 to prove that Israel doesn't have a unique purpose apart from the Church. Again, how many dispensationalists live in the Northwest? I don't know any, especially not in the PCA. Westminster disassociated with DTS. So the Federal Vision people wouldn't like the dispensationalist interpretation of Revelation 12 either. So let's say Stellman's interpretation of Revelation 12 is wrong, and it only refers to say a group of people who lived in first century Palestine, for example. Does this disprove that the Church and Israel have distinct paths of salvation?

Stellman's eschatology is curious, because some of it seems to contradict itself (hand wave proof, so you'll have to read the book.) Maybe I read the section about Joseph's bones too fast, but part of the purpose of moving the bones was to demonstrate that God has a specific plan for the people to dwell in the land and that he would be resurrected into that future life, when evils will be purged, hence the coming out of Egypt. If we were Gnostic, then we wouldn't care about the bones or materialism, because those things are bad.

Most of Stellman's interpretation of the beatitudes in Luke seems to go this way too, suggesting that material wealth is evil. As Carson says, if we live life well, will we end up in hell? Joseph, Abraham were very wealthy at times, and Adam has all of his material blessings, and many of their promises were unilateral promises about the land. Most likely Theophilus was wealthy and bankrolled the creation of Luke's Gospel and Acts. The church is in exile now, waiting for the redemption of the land that is frustrated, Roman 8:22-23. It's not that we won't have a land or physical place to live in. Jesus himself came into material flesh and dwelt/tabernacled among us John 1:14. Stellman seems to prefer a dualism, where we live as aliens on the earth, and are not interested in what will happen to the kingdom of man. Remember, its the dispensationalists that want to be raptured off this earth so that it may burn.

As for the "sacred vs secular" dichotomy, I know that reformers hate to talk about the "priesthood of all believers" in 1 Peter 2:15-19, but its relevant here, that we are all in some regard priests, and there are offices, but the point of Jesus was that he abolished the alter that separates Man and God, which is why we are not Catholic. We don't believe that I need a sacrament to bridge the gap, or a priest to administer it, but I do need to be part of his body. This is John 17:11, (see John 17ff), how we are all brought into the presence of God. The veil is ripped, because we are not the living stones of the temple 1 Peter 2:5, so when I go into my secular whatever, I am the church going into that institution.

So as for infant baptism, the question stops being a matter of personal faith, but the matter of my parent's faith, or in-turn their parent's faith. Indeed, no one alive may actually have had faith for 1000 years, but I may be justified by taking the sacraments and being a member of the Church. Stellman  takes a reductio, and appeals to the word, which is much like the regulatory principle, which basically excludes infant baptism or two kingdoms thoughts, which are not clearly espoused in the new testament.

I admire Stellman's attempt to write a book, because I know how difficult it is, and grace is expected at the first attempt, but to make such strong claims about the Two Kingdoms, we need to be clear about our foundations and justifications. Reading this book, I haven't received a clear vision of the Two Kingdoms, and I'm still open to this Augustine/Luther tradition. 

In conclusion, remember that no one reads this blog, and I'm mostly ranting to no one, so my criticism are not meant to be harmful or destructive, but this is more of my attempt to sort through this important issue. So, if you are reading this blog, Jason Stellman, I hope you find my criticism helpful and I hope I get a chance to meet you in person someday and ask you some questions and run some ideas past you. I look forward to your next book.

Update: 2009/12/31

I finished the book yesterday. So I'm judging the book fairly considering its a theology book. It's a million times better than say "It's Your Time." The book spends too much time with witty comments and never clearly defines what are the Two Kingdoms or what aren't they. Sadly, I'll have to say it was a good attempt, but still not recommended.

(leave comment | printable version)

The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) (PDF) is the most well known and respected of all the Reformed Confessions, although whether it is the best is contested by the Heidelberg Catechism and others. The Westminster Confession (WCF) stands in the tradition of John Calvin's Institutes, and John Knox's Influence on Scotland, England and the Church of England (Anglican Communion). It is still used by most confessional reformed churches, but usually it has been slightly modified; for example, the PCA removed the WCF's statement about the Pope being the Anti-Christ and the Prohibition against marrying your wife's relatives after her death etc. (Here is the Presbyterian Church of America's statement on the WCF and their modifications.)

The Baptist London Confession of Faith (1644) was completed a few years before the WCF was finished, and is very similar to the WCF except for its insistence on credobaptism (believers baptism) instead of padeobaptism (infant baptism). The Mr. Spurgeon's Confession of Faith was not actually written by Charles Spurgeon but recommend by him as an alternate to the WCF; He was a Reformed Baptist and the first megachurch pastor.

So what do I think about the Westminster Confession?

Overall, I agree with the whole thing. Surprised? Well, I am writing a blog about it. There are a few things about it that I don't think are ideal but if interpreted correctly, then I agree with the whole thing. The WCF is also printed at the end of Wayne Grudem's "Systematic Theology" -- a contemporary book that may be regarded as a modern-day Reformed Baptist Confession and Catechism. Wayne Grudem also says that he agrees with the WCF and it summaries his overall position represented in his Systematic Theology.

I live in a contradiction, where I think its fine for other people to baptize their infants but I am waiting for my children to give a confession of faith, because its difficult for me to understand how I may baptize my children but not give them communion. Although I believe that John Calvin's arguments in Book IV of his Institutes may be the solution. So naturally, when I read the WCF Chapter 28, Section 6, I stumbled. Here it is in entirety:

WCF Chapter XXVIII Section VI. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;(John iii. 5, 8.) yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.(Gal. iii. 27; Tit. iii. 5; Eph. v. 25, 26; Acts ii. 38, 41.)

So I did some research and R.C. Sproul informed me that the WCF was written against the Roman Catholic's doctrine of baptism, which implied that baptism washed away original sin, and then had to be supplemented to maintain a state of justification. So if you read the scriptural proofs, its clear that the WCF divines were writing against the Roman Church. So basically, R.C. Sproul interprets baptism in the WCF as a one time event that applies to the entire life of the believer, not just to the moment when the Christian is baptized, such that the Christian's baptism doesnt wear off. So if you retrospectively apply this to infants, than the washing does cover their whole life. Some people have explained to me that baptism of infants doesn't mean anything until the child gives a confession of faith later in life, which seems to be against the testimony of scripture that baptism is a sign and seal of regeneration, or death and resurrection in Christ. So I don't know how you can be baptized and it doesn't symbolize new life. So I still have some questions.

Furthermore, I have some questions on the WCF's interpretation of the Law and Covenants. Although I agree with it, I do believe that there may be better ways of describing the relationship of Israel to the Church, the Old Testament to the New Testament, the Old Covenant to the New Covenant. I also think its a stretch to say that Adam had a covenant in the garden, even though Hosea 6:7 says that Adam broke the covenant. Also, the implications about Noah and David's covenants do not seem to perfectly fit in this model.

Over all to a complete confession of faith, I don't know of anything that is more accurate, especially as a whole to scripture than the Westminster Confession of Faith. If you haven't read it, go do it now!

(leave comment | printable version)

Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield (1851 - 1921) or commonly known as B. B. Warfield was an amazing American Presbyterian minister and prolific writer that you need to get to know better. I found four volumes of B. B. Warfield's "works" at half price books for $3 each, which is amazing deal. (Half Price Books apparently doesn't account for inflation, because these books were printed in 1948 and sold new for only $7). B.B. Warfield is particularly known for his defense of the Inspiration of the Bible, and for the scholasticism of his books. D. A. Carson complemented Warfield by saying that Warfield never said anything wrong (my paraphrase). Unfortunately, most people today latch onto a few statements that Warfield said that seems to support Darwinian evolution, but are usually out of context or against other things Warfield has wrote.

"Inspiration and Authority of Bible" by B.B. Warfield is a behemoth. I believe that a layperson could read the first half of the book but unless you have a basic understand of the Koine Greek language (biblical greek), Latin, some Hebrew, and a little background in Greek Philosophers, as well as Philo and some Judaisim, the second half of this book will be impossible to read. There are many untranslated paragraphs in Latin and Greek that I stared at for a long time just try to understand what Warfield was talking about. It was an amazing book overall, and by the last page, my respect for Warfield shot through the roof.

"Inspiration and Authority of Bible" divides revelation into three categories: Theophanies, Dreams & Visions, and Conscription. Warfield says that all three times of revelation occur throughout the entirety of the bible, but the age of the patriarchs were dominated by Theophanies, or appearances of God to Man. During the age of the prophets, dreams and visions were the primary way that God provided revelation to man, and then conscription was during the apostolic age, which included typologies and the use of the Old Testament by the Apostles. Warfield notes that the holiness of the man has no influence on the importancy of the prophecy. Something is not more important because Moses said it rather than Zephaniah, because ultimately it is not the man but God who has spoken both things, so we should not error by favoring Moses because he provided more numerous prophecies. This is also extremely relevant to church creeds and councils, but their publications are the result of man's deductions and not from God's direct revelation according to the three ways I listed: Theophanies, Dreams & Visions or Conscriptions.

In the second half of "Inspiration and Authority of Bible", Warfield goes to great lengths to demonstrate that Theopneustos in 2 Timothy 3:16 was correctly translated as of divine origin rather than spirit-filled, and the doctrine of biblical inspiration was held by all the apostles and Christ himself, and is not a new invention by fundamentalists. 2 Peter 1:20 is also discussed at great length.

2 Peter 1:20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation.

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

The other three books that I purchased are "Calvin and Augustine," "Perfectionism," and "The Plan of Salvation." I will probably read "The Plan of Salvation" next, because it is a shorter book that critiques different views on how salvation is obtained in different Christian denominations, ie. Calvinism, Catholicism, Orthodox, etc. I'm looking forward to it.

(leave comment | printable version)

I purchased and read the new Yale paperback edition of Jonathan Edward's The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Vol. 1: Freedom of the Will. Normally, each volume of the Yale Edition of Edward's Works costs over $100! but recently three of the volume were released as paper back editions. So I snatched up Vol1 for only $20! What a deal. It includes great footnotes and a long preface for the book's background. The full text of On The Freedom Of The Will is available online for free at the Yale Edwards Center.

Freedom of the Will is Edward's magnum opus, but despite of its huge influence, it is still very readable. Edward's sermons are the most accessible, but of his longer works, this is the easiest to follow along with deductions. This book is not a string of bible verses, but a long philosophical argument, so I was surprised how few times he quoted the bible. Edward's purpose is to show that by plain reason, Free Will (or Arminianism) is not a tenable position.

The book begins by defining Free Will and consider what various Arminians and Calvinists mean when they say that they have free will. Then Edwards begins to challenge the concept of a Free Will. What is it that caused you to choose what you chose? Is free will something that's different than the desire to choose? If your free will is truly free, do you have any choice over what you will do next? Basically Edwards practically discusses how is it that we have come to choose what we actually choose.

Towards the end of the book, Edwards answers several tough questions. For instance, he suggests that God himself doesn't have a free will, and must always choose what is most perfect by his nature. He is all powerful, unlike man, but he is bound to only do what is most holy and righteous in the end. Evil is described by God withholding his holiness, in the same way as if the sun were to stop shining than darkness would occur due to the nature of the things shined upon which have no light of their own.

Edwards also points out that Arminians are so insistent on free will, but they do so because of the presupposition that God is not evil, and if there was no-free will, then God would be the doer of evil... but consequently that view requires that God has no ability to do evil, and therefore does not have free will. So the only person in the arminian view who has free will is man. Edwards also notes that some people object to God not having a free will, but just because something is disagreeable doesn't mean its wrong.

Edwards also notes that if there is Free Will, then the future is not knowable or fixed. If God merely knows all the possible outcomes, then he cannot say for certain which of the outcomes will happen, so therefore God is unable to make promises to us about what will happen to us in the future. And when God makes prophecies, they are merely speculation or conjecture that could be thwarted by someone's free will. So if you accept that God could be thwarted, then you make Jesus out to be a liar, because Jesus promised exact things would happen, even saying that not one iota of his word would pass away, even though the whole world will pass away. The repercussions are mind blowing!

Overall an excellent book. I highly recommend it to anyone who has questions about predestination and election.

(leave comment | printable version)