Head-coverings and Paul’s Standards of Transcultural Ministry

March 2, 2026 at 11:00 am (1 Corinthians, Church, Women, Worship)

posted by R. Fowler White

What was going on in the public worship of the church at Corinth (1 Cor 11:2-16)? Why had some wives and husbands chosen to change what they wore on their heads in worship? And why was Paul so concerned about their choices? What follows is a brief attempt to answer those questions and to anticipate some of their implications. 

The problem: Influencers in the NT world were moving society away from long-accepted norms of honor, submission, modesty, and moderation, and a minority in the church at Corinth was moving with them. They had made dishonorable, immodest, and extravagant choices of headwear for worship, sending signals to society that the church was elitist, promiscuous, gender-confused, and even idolatrous. Those choices, however, exposed an even deeper issue. They expressed a careless indifference to the honor and submission owed to God (as the head of Christ and all creation too, 1 Cor 11:3, 12), to Christ (as the head of every Christian husband, 11:3; 3:23), and to husbands (as the head of their own wives, 11:3, 5, 8-9). It was, therefore, imperative that the wayward minority at Corinth admit that their attitude and choices were displeasing to God and contrary to the virtues of honor, submission, modesty, and moderation that ought to characterize His church.

The solution: Paul admonished the troublemakers at Corinth to follow his example (1 Cor 9:19-23; 10:32–11:1). They should, therefore, avoid any appearance in public worship that might put others’ spiritual well-being at risk. They should return to long-standing norms of honorable, modest, and circumspect appearance in worship that would commend Christ to their neighbors, regardless of their cultural background (9:20-22; 10:32). Only in this way would they live out the virtues that must characterize God’s church and thereby advance the Apostles’ gospel mission. Living their lives as Paul lived his, they could say with him, “I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with [others] in its blessings” (9:23).

A note on church history: We’re sometimes told that up until the mid-20th century, there was compliance in all churches with Paul’s requirement of head-coverings for women in public worship. This claim can be questioned for at least two reasons.

First, the claim does not reckon adequately with the fact that, independent of Paul’s teaching to the Corinthians, women’s headwear had been a social convention for centuries, with noticeable differences across time and place. It’s not clear, then, how we can be sure whether it was Paul’s teaching, existing customs, or a combination of the two that influenced women to cover their heads.

Second, the claim disregards the fact that after the Apostles, though women may have done what Paul said, men did not do so. For example, portraits of Reformed church leaders (as suitable for purposes of comparison as statuary from the Greco-Roman period) show a common disregard among men toward Paul’s teaching that long hair was a disgrace to them (1 Cor 11:14). From evidence like this, historians will tell us to seek an answer to why Paul’s rule for women was binding but his rule for men was not. Did the churches defend what appears to have been their double standard and, if so, on what basis?

The reasons discussed above push us to reconsider two questions. First, what exactly should we expect obedience to Paul’s teaching to look like? Second, how should we interpret the churches’ practice of heeding Paul’s rule for women but ignoring his rule for men? An answer to the second question may help us answer the first. Let us grant that when women obeyed Paul and men did not, churches conscientiously believed that both choices were principled and right. If churches believed otherwise, we would expect them not only to endorse obedience by both men and women but also to enforce their obedience through church discipline. Proof from Scripture or church history is lacking, however, that churches ever endorsed both directives or ever enforced either directive through discipline.

The point worth considering is this: the available evidence indicates that it was not Paul’s rules for the church at Corinth that the churches regarded as binding on them; it was Paul’s example. How could this be the case? Because Paul’s rules for Corinth were well suited to Corinth’s culture, but they do not account for the liberty Paul had to “become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some” (9:22b). The standards that shaped Paul for a ministry that transcended all cultures were the virtues of honor, submission, modesty, and moderation. Grounded in the headships that God had established, these were the virtues that had to be expressed through the norms of public propriety in the cultures where God placed him. These virtues would be the standards that gave the churches the liberty to adapt to the norms of public propriety in every culture where God placed them to win others to Christ (1 Tim 2:8-10; 3:14-15; 1 Pet 3:3-5). As those called to follow Paul’s example, then, the standards and the liberty that were his applied to the churches as well. Those same standards and that same liberty are ours too.

3 Comments

Thinking Through Christian Nationalism: Points to Percolate On

February 4, 2026 at 10:10 pm (1 Peter, Church and State, Civil Issues)

posted by R. Fowler White

Civic life for Christians, particularly in a highly partisan political environment, was in ancient times and is now a high stakes drama. Seeking to live peaceful, quiet, godly, and dignified lives under earthly government means living as God’s servants, free from sin’s bondage but never free to do wrong (1 Pet 2:16).

The New Testament shows us that Christ and His Apostles taught that there is no authority higher than His in heaven or on earth. His authority transcends all others. Consequently, the loyalties of Christ’s disciples transcend, and may challenge and influence, the loyalties of non-Christians (see Acts 19 for a case in point). When people embrace the Christian gospel and its moral vision, there is political and even cultural change, not least in civic life. Christ and His Apostles certainly knew that human government is always administered by sinners. They knew what it was like to live under earthly rulers who were non-Christians, God-fearers, or anti-Christians but God-fearers. They even knew what it was like to live under atheistic tyrants and barbarians. Nevertheless, against that backdrop, Christ declared His own universal authority and issued His Great Commission to the Apostles and, through them, to His church.  By establishing His church, Christ also established His holy nation. Of the church, the Apostle Peter declared, “you are … a holy nation … so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light” (1 Pet 2:9). United to Christ by faith, then, God has already constituted Christ’s church as His holy nation, and it is to that nation that Christ has given His Commission.

Well aware of their larger cultural context, Christ and His Apostles instructed the church that it is God Himself who raises up and brings down earthly magistrates, from higher to lower, for His glory and for the public good. Peter commands the church to take their place under human government to commend to others the ultimate authority of Christ and, with that, their accountability to Him. In no way did this command affirm that human authorities get to rule absolutely or lawlessly. Quite the contrary. Human rulers are not God, despite the claims of ancient or modern emperors; nor are they outside of His control. As sinful creatures, they are capable of contradicting God. If rulers command citizens to sin, they are to be resisted (cf. Acts 5:29) or replaced by rulers who do not command citizens to sin. The Christian’s voluntary subjection to earthly rulers, then, is to abide by magistrates’ commands when, but only when they are lawful and not in conflict with God’s laws. Such law-keeping is prescribed to shut up those who falsely accused Christians of unpatriotic insubordination or worse (1 Pet 2:15).

To live such a life, the Apostle Peter laid out four basic obligations for Christians in 1 Pet 2:17. First, Christ’s holy nation is to fear God, living in reverent and affectionate awe of their Father and avoiding actions that would grieve or dishonor Him. Second, Christ’s church is to love their member siblings. Since it is only with fellow Christians that we may engage in ministries of worship, discipleship, and evangelism, it follows that Christians will have a special, higher degree of devotion to one another. Third, Christ’s church is to honor all people. Let others be disrespectful. Christ’s disciples will respect their fellow citizens, because they too are created in God’s image. Even those with whom Christians disagree are to be treated with civility. As the Prophet Jeremiah told the exiles from Israel (Jer 29:7), believers are to pray for the prosperity of the communities in which they congregate, making every effort to be law-abiding citizens to silence faultfinders and mudslingers. Fourth, Christ’s holy nation is to honor governing authorities mentioned above, from higher to lower. Christ’s disciples are to be civil to magistrates and to pray for them, because the well-being of both magistrates and Christians in this world is ordinarily connected. Christians are to understand that though obedience to God transcends obedience to earthly rulers, they have no license to dishonor those rulers. To the contrary, it is a Christian’s obligation to respect God’s ordinance of civil government. Summarizing Peter’s commands, Christ’s disciples, by their conduct as good citizens and as God’s holy nation within the nations, are to commend to their rulers and their fellow citizens the ultimate authority of Christ and their accountability to Him.

Insofar as Christian Nationalism is still developing and articulating their views, they are arguing for their understanding of American history and government and presenting the U.S. with a template for its official national identity and culture. Because the means of achieving Christian Nationalism’s ends are still being debated as part of an ongoing conversation about the proper template for the U.S. (or any other nation), their offer is likely to be best received guardedly. If possible, interaction ought not to be shut down prematurely because there is no settled consensus on a number of key questions. Let me rehearse a smattering of those questions.

For one thing, there is no settled consensus yet among Christian Nationalists on how the term “Christian” is to be defined. Granted the need for a transcendental anchor for belief and behavior, the anchor for a Christian nation needs to be identified. The historic Protestant churches have proclaimed their Anchor to be the living and true God as He has made Himself and His will known in Holy Scripture (excluding the Apocrypha), and, at that, as Scripture has been interpreted by the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds and the confessions and catechisms of the Reformed churches. Will those creeds, confessions, and catechisms be too much or too little to function as the consensus that identifies the Anchor who defines a “Christian” nation? If not, what will do so?

Second, there is as yet no settled consensus among Christians on whether Scripture provides, or is even intended to provide, the basis for a template of official national identity and culture. So, as with any other proposal like this, questions have to be asked and answered. How will a Christian Nationalist agenda relate to the agenda that Christ set for His own holy nation, the church, in His Great Commission? What does God require of a nation that declares itself to be a Christian nation? Will it be understood that God has entered into covenant with a self-identified Christian nation, and that that nation has entered into covenant with God? Shifting gears a bit, is it the case in this world that any public square that is outside of a theocracy is unavoidably pluralistic, both religiously and morally? If so, how will a Christian nation, however Christian Nationalists define it, handle pluralism within its boundaries? Will a Christian nation adopt laws that give privileges to Christians and deny them to non-Christians? Why or why not? More narrowly, how will Christian Nationalists treat Christians who do not endorse Christian Nationalism? Will they be second-class citizens? That is, if Christian Nationalism is fully implemented, will all Americans have full religious liberty? If not, why not? Will the new powers conferred on a Christian Nationalist government ever be lawfully turned against Christians who do not hold to Christian Nationalism? Moving to one more point, in recent years, Christian Nationalists and other Christians have seen Christians increasingly marginalized socially and politically and persecuted by any means necessary, including force. Some in the Christian Nationalist orbit are beginning to argue that American Christians need to prepare to take up arms in order to preserve America’s identity as a Christian Nation. How will Christian Nationalism respond to this issue?

As I said, there is, as yet, no settled consensus among Christians, be they Christian Nationalists or not, on what the preferred cultural template for the U.S. (or other non-covenantal nations) should be. The conversation about Christian Nationalism should and will continue, and we will all need to stay tuned.

Leave a Comment

When It Is Not Over

January 14, 2026 at 3:11 pm (Baptism, Federal Vision, Heresy)
Tags: , , , ,

A friend of mine pointed out to me that there is a new player in the CREC scene who is definitely sounding like a Federal Vision proponent, and is vocal about it online. This was surprising to me. I thought that all FV proponents had stopped posting because the Reformed world had rejected their theology, and they wanted to go underground. I have never supposed the FV to be dead. Most of the main proponents are still propounding. But, by and large, they are doing so underground.

I had never heard of Paul Liberati before. But as I looked at some of his stuff, it seems clear that he is, at the very least, highly influenced by the FV. A few comments on this post will suffice to illustrate what I see. Important is his definition of regeneration, which, based on Matthew 19:28 and Titus 3:5, points not to an inner change, but to a cosmic one. Now, other FV guys have gone in this direction. But they will usually still tie this definition to a union with Christ that is losable. This is the exact same move that Liberati makes. The ordo salutis definition of regeneration is something Liberati ties to a Calvinistic definition of salvation, while the way he uses the cosmic definition leans in an Arminian direction. A person, in other words, can be united to Christ by baptism (always with the qualifier “in some sense”) and then lose that union. He adds John 15 into this mix, again, a move that many FV guys have made before. On John 15 and its relation to the FV, see this post.

Titus 3:5 should be understood in the following way: regeneration is a washing of the soul. Note the direction of the genitival construction. It does not say “the regeneration of washing,” but rather “the washing of regeneration.” There is no explicit reference to baptism here, though many commentators have said so in the past. I think baptism is in the side view mirror, but is certainly not the main attraction there. Baptism as a physical washing points to the regenerative washing, but does not, in itself, accomplish it.

He writes, “Baptism, then, is never a mere formality—it is a real grafting into Christ. This may or may not be (sic) accompanied faith in the person baptized. The inward and ongoing benefits of that graft depend on conversion of heart and persevering faith.” It is plain here that, for Liberati, baptism regenerates in the second sense (the cosmic sense), not in the ordo salutis sense. So, he does not teach baptismal regeneration in the way that it is usually taught. However, the benefits of salvation, which include a real grafting into Christ, are ascribed to baptism, a clear FV move. The Westminster Standards call baptism a sign and seal of our engrafting into Christ (based primarily, though not exclusively, on Romans 4), not the way in which that engrafting actually occurs.

According to Liberati, the entire ordo salutis definition of regeneration should be rejected because it doesn’t allow us to use the warning passages properly. This has been answered many times by critics of the FV. The difference between the outward administration and the inward essence of the covenant makes clear the slippage that allows us to make perfectly sound use of the warning passages.

It should be noted that the “cosmic” definition of “the regeneration” as noted in Matthew 19 does not require us to jettison the ordo salutis definition of regeneration, contrary to the ethos of Liberati’s post. He seems to be setting these two in tension with each other. Rather, the regeneration of an individual person’s soul is of a piece with “the regeneration,” the renewal of the entire cosmos. Parts of the cosmos are renewed before other parts, but it is all of a piece. Therefore, the use to which he puts the “cosmic” definition of regeneration does not work.

1 Comment

Christian Nationalism: A Summary in Examples and Traits

August 9, 2025 at 11:38 am (Church and State, Civil Issues)

posted by R. Fowler White

Though usage of the term Christian nationalism is relatively new in American public discourse, it is an ideology and movement that is both on the rise and not yet definitively or fully formed. Given that Christian nationalism is a still-developing phenomenon, it may be useful to survey the phenomenon as it has appeared in history in various times and degrees, both outside and inside the U.S. Several examples are cited below.

1. Ireland: From the late 19th century until the late 20th century when its government was made legally secular, the Roman Catholic Church was a defining and constitutional part of Irish national identity.

2. Korea: As leaders of Korea’s independence movement against Japanese occupation (1910–1945), Christians established a connection between Korean national identity and Christianity that in measure still exists today in South Korea.

3. South Vietnam: In the 1950s and early 1960s, South Vietnam’s president gave the Roman Catholic Church a privileged position while using force to control Buddhists and limit their freedom. The president’s position was a contributing factor to his eventual downfall.

4. Hungary: In 2010 the Hungarian Prime Minister’s party won two-thirds of the National Assembly seats. In 2011 that assembly passed a new constitution that included recognition of Christianity’s role in preserving its nationhood and a need for “spiritual and intellectual renewal.” During the Syrian refugee crisis, the Hungarian government opposed the resettlement of asylum seekers in Europe, based in part on religion. In December 2020 the National Assembly passed a constitutional amendment that restricted adoptions to heterosexual couples and mandated that children be raised with “values based on our Christian culture.”

5. The U.S. has a long history of Christian Nationalism phenomena in various expressions. For instance: 

a) In 1791 the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibited Congress from “making any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” By that amendment, Congress was prohibited from establishing a national church, such as the Church of England or the Church of Denmark. Interestingly, however, when the First Amendment was ratified, it did not forbid states from designating a denomination as their official church. In fact, nine of the thirteen states had formal ties with a Christian denomination. Two examples: Connecticut named the Congregational Church as its official church, a relationship that was not changed until the 1830s. Delaware had a constitutional provision requiring a Christian profession to hold public office.

b) In the 1930s through the 1950s, Christian Nationalism became prominent in a push by anti-New Deal business interests that wanted to link American capitalism to Christianity. In 1956, during the Cold War, Congress adopted the words “In God We Trust” as the national motto and added the words “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance. (The identity of “God” in these phrases was not defined, at least not beyond “Nature’s God” and the “Creator” mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.)

c) From the 1960s to the present: The rise of televangelism in the U.S., especially among Pentecostal-Charismatics, saw a new era of Christian Nationalism phenomena.

i) In 1979 Jerry Falwell founded The Moral Majority to oppose certain cultural trends, especially the women’s movement, the gay rights movement, and legalized abortion. It also lobbied for prayer in public schools, increased defense spending, a strong anti-communist foreign policy, and continued U.S. support for the State of Israel. The Moral Majority led a new generation of Christian fundamentalists and the so-called Christian Right to go beyond opposing selected cultural trends into engaging the political arena. The organization, having quickly grown to several million members, was credited with playing an important role in Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980. This election bonded Evangelicalism and American exceptionalism together, helping to cement the close relationship between Evangelicals and the Republican Party. 

ii) In 1989 The Christian Coalition was founded by Pentecostal televangelist Pat Robertson. Directed by Ralph Reed, it effectively replaced The Moral Majority as it promoted political action by Christians. The development of The Christian Coalition was followed in 1996 by the founding of The Center for Reclaiming America for Christ (CRAC) by D. James Kennedy, a founding board member of The Moral Majority. The purpose of CRAC was to encourage Christians to become involved in politics, guided by Kennedy’s belief that Christians needed to focus not only on the Great Commission through the church, but on the Cultural Mandate in the public square. The Center’s focus was on issues such as abortion, pornography, homosexuality, evolution, and religious liberty. Though CRAC closed after Kennedy’s death in 2007, it was relaunched in 2010 with permission from but no affiliation with D. James Kennedy Ministries (formerly known as Coral Ridge Ministries).

iii) In the first quarter of the 21st century, Christian Nationalism in the U.S. has reached new levels. Since the 2016 presidential election, it has been closely associated in public discussion with Donald Trump. After the 2020 presidential election, many in Christian Nationalism came to Washington, DC to take part in “Jericho Marches” in December 2020 and in the January 6, 2021 events at U.S. Capitol. There, they engaged in prayer, praise, speaking in tongues, and blowing rams’ horns following Israel’s example of marching around Jericho in Joshua 6. The prominent place that Pentecostals and Charismatics have in Christian Nationalism is again to be noted.

iv) Since 2020, Christian Nationalism has increasingly been the target of criticism, and the Christian Nationalism (-ist) label itself has been adopted by its thought leaders and supporters. According to reputable national surveys, in 2024, three in ten Americans identified as Christian Nationalism adherents (10%) or sympathizers (20%). Meanwhile, 53% of Republicans identified as either Christian Nationalism adherents (20%) or sympathizers (33%), compared with about two in ten or fewer Independents (6% adherents and 16% sympathizers) and Democrats (5% adherents and 11% sympathizers).

In light of the preceding historical survey of what has been generally labeled as Christian Nationalism in the U.S. and beyond, it might be helpful to summarize the prevailing traits of the Christian Nationalism phenomenon as it continues to take shape in a more definitive form.

1. Christian Nationalism affirms the U.S. is a Christian nation and also that the government should adopt a specifically Christian cultural template as the official culture of the U.S. In general, this means that, in contrast to secularism, Christian Nationalism affirms that human societies require an anchor that transcends all things in them to hold them together. Therefore, the U.S. should affirm that the required transcendent anchor is the God of the Christian faith, with the Christian faith ordinarily being defined in keeping with historic Protestantism.

2. Christian Nationalism affirms that Christianity should have a privileged position in the public square. It does not reject the First Amendment, and it argues that “the wall of separation between church and state” did not come about until the 1947 SCOTUS case Everson v. Board of Education. That case defined the First Amendment in terms of a “wall of separation between church and state” that applied to every level of government, not just to the national (federal) level. The Amendment was thus interpreted as effectively separating church and all levels of government.

3. Christian Nationalism affirms that the U.S. has been and must remain a Christian nation. This position is not merely Christian Nationalism’s interpretation of the U.S. past, but is also its prescription for the U.S. future. Given its predominantly Anglo-Protestant past, Christian Nationalism urges that the U.S. must preserve that heritage to keep its identity and its freedom.

4 Comments

The CREC, Neither Catholic Nor Reformed, Just Muddled (Special Attention Given to Paedo-communion)

July 2, 2025 at 8:35 pm (Church, Communion, Sacraments, Westminster Standards)

posted by R. Fowler White

Ron DiGiacomo at Philosophical Theology has articulated some concerns well worth our pondering about the doctrine and practice of the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC). The opening two paragraphs are provocative:

If a renegade Roman Catholic communion held to the Westminster standards, Roman Catholicism would still not be a Reformed communion. That’s because what defines Roman Catholicism is a blend of her official doctrine and practices the magisterium permits. So it is with The Communion of Reformed and Evangelical Churches (CREC).

Although the CREC would like to identify with Reformed theology and claims to be shaped by that tradition, the communion is not Reformed in any sense of the word. Rather, the CREC is a hodgepodge of religious traditions and disciplines that even include elements of Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Federal Vision. Its leaders are at best muddled.

To read the whole essay, follow the link below:

https://philosophical-theology.com/2025/05/31/the-crec-neither-catholic-nor-reformed-just-muddled-special-attention-given-to-paedo-communion/

Leave a Comment

Believers’ Children as Disciples: More Thoughts

June 28, 2025 at 12:15 pm (Baptism, children, Colossians, Discipleship, Ephesians, Matthew)

posted by R. Fowler White

In a Facebook post on 06-20-2025, Lane Keister, aka “greenbaggins,” wrote:

The word “disciple” is not equal in meaning to “Christian” or “believer” in at least several places in the New Testament. Judas Iscariot was a disciple, but not a Christian. In the Great Commission, we are commanded to make disciples. We cannot make people Christians. Therefore the word “disciple” does not mean “believer” or “Christian” there either. Instead, it means “learner.” How do we make people into disciples, according to the Great Commission? Baptism and teaching. This makes the Great Commission a rather strong argument for infant baptism. Infants are phenomenal learners, and they learn about trust and relationships. Baptize them, therefore, and teach them in age-appropriate ways.

Since I agree substantially with Lane, I’d like to add to his line of thinking. I do so because, as I read his comments, I realized that I had reached similar conclusions while considering Paul’s instructions to parents and children in Eph 6 and Col 3. I’d submit that it’s best to interpret the apostle’s instruction in those and similar texts as applying the Great Commission to professing parents and their children. Details follow.

First, leaving aside the baptism question for the moment, I’ll focus on the duty of Christian parents (obviously, fathers in particular) in Eph 6:4; Col 3:21. No doubt, in light of his commission from Christ, the Apostle counts parents in those texts as disciples of Jesus, and he elaborates on their duty as disciples to their children, saying “raise them in the training and instruction of the Lord.” If those parents wondered about the content of that training and instruction, the context of Paul’s words tells them that the content included (broadly) all that pleases the Lord and (specifically, at least) the fifth of the Lord’s Ten Commandments. Comparing Paul’s directive to Christ’s Great Commission, it’s more than credible to say that the Apostle expected parents to teach their children to obey all that Jesus commanded, covering His law of love (even in its particulars) and His gospel of forgiveness (doubtless in His specific calls for repentance and faith). From these considerations, I have warrant to conclude that if children are to be trained and taught to obey the commands of Jesus, believing parents would be following the Apostle’s lead and viewing their children as disciples of Jesus.

Second, as we might anticipate from the preceding discussion, the Apostle’s instruction to children is in harmony with his instruction to parents. Paul obliges children to learn and keep “the first commandment with [its] promise” of well-being and longevity on the earth. Once again, seeing the shared terms and concepts in Paul’s instruction and in Christ’s Commission, I’m constrained to infer that the Apostle is applying Christ’s Commission to believing parents and their children and, by doing so, treating both as Christ’s disciples.

Third and last, it is helpful to coordinate the observations above with the words of Jesus concerning the actions of parents who brought their children to Him. Jesus emphatically endorsed the actions of parents who brought their children to Him that they might submit them to His ministry of prayer and blessing. I find myself pushed to ask this: if Jesus endorsed such actions when He ministered on earth, what should deter me from believing that He does the same now as He ministers from heaven? I notice too that when Jesus received children under His ministry while on earth, He reasserted both the promise and the warning of God’s covenant. He told hearers that the kingdom would be granted to those who received it like a child, but that it would be withheld from those who did not so receive it. Today, as He receives children under His ministry while in heaven, He continues to promise the kingdom to all who receive it by faith and to warn those who turn away of the wrath to come.

In light with Lane’s thoughts, then, when I understand the apostles’ instruction to parents and children in the light of the Great Commission, it is clearer to me how Paul’s teaching applies Christ’s Great Commission and, more specifically, His teaching on discipleship. The children of believers are, then, disciples of the Lord Jesus. Yes, some of His disciples, whether parents or children, may turn away and be disavowed (Matt 7:21-23). Even so, they are subject to His ministry of discipleship, learning the obedience God requires, the judgment He imposes for disobedience, and the grace He provides in His Son. As Lane argued, children of professing parents are properly called disciples and are, if we were to keep going, even subjects of covenant baptism.

8 Comments

Acts 24, Jerusalem, and Rome: Some Musings

June 25, 2025 at 3:03 pm (Acts)

posted by R. Fowler White

While studying Acts 24, a couple of musings crossed my mind, musings that might bear fruit somewhere down the line.

One of those thoughts concerns the partnership of Jerusalem’s leaders with Rome’s leaders in their lawfare against the Apostle Paul. In briefer terms, it’s “Jerusalem and Rome vs. Christ’s Apostle” in Acts 24. First musing: does their cooperation not bear some striking resemblances to the warfare of the Harlot (= Jerusalem?) and Babylon (= imperial Rome?) against the Lamb and His church in the book of Revelation?

Another thought sprang up when reading Paul’s portrayal of himself in his defense in Acts 24:14-16. He identifies himself as a follower of the Way (14a). That candid admission is not contested by his accusers: it seems to be taken as a simple fact to which both prosecution and defendant stipulated. That self-description becomes weightier, however, when Paul elaborates on it in 24:14b-16. He accentuates the God whom he serves (14b), the Scriptures (canon)—the Law and … the Prophets—on which he bases his beliefs and practices (14c), and the hope he has in God for a resurrection (15). He urges that each of these is drawn from the covenant heritage he shares with his Jewish accusers (in particular, his Pharisee accusers). Clearly, Paul sees his life of Christian discipleship as one that is both continuous and discontinuous with the Jewish covenantal heritage that he shares with his accusers.

This second train of thought seems to fit neatly with a hypothesis that the Apostles initially received their commission from Christ as two-dimensional: 1) as bringing gospel blessing (reformation, cf. Heb 9:10) to the Abrahamic covenant community that had degenerated in Israel (cf. WCF 25.5), and 2) as bringing gospel blessing to the Gentile nations and, with that blessing, expanding the Abrahamic covenant community to all families of the earth. Hence, a second musing: might observations of this sort contribute to a conclusion that the Apostles saw their commission first as reformers among the degenerated covenant nation of Israel and then as disciple-makers among the degenerated Gentile nations? In any case, the Apostles’ commission can be credibly understood as one of reformation, making them ancestors of reformers to come.

Granted, the preceding observations may be pretty ‘old hat’ to students of NT history. Certainly, it is consistent with the to the Jew first and also to the Greek narrative in Acts and in Paul’s letters. It can also be seen, however, in the Gospels themselves, in Christ’s ministry as Malachi’s messianic Messenger of the Covenant among the synagogues of Israel, a ministry that persisted in Paul’s ministry among the synagogues of the Diaspora and then expanded to sites beyond the synagogues.

Leave a Comment

Index of my Review of Keith Mathison on Van Til

May 3, 2025 at 7:58 am (Indices)

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10, Part 11, Part 12, Part 13, Part 14

Leave a Comment

Review of Keith Mathison on Van Til, Part 14

May 3, 2025 at 7:52 am (Apologetics, Books (reviews and recommendations))
Tags: , , , ,

On the home stretch here, Mathison addresses some practical concerns about movement Van Tillians, the practical implications of whether Van Til’s method is workable in evangelism, and some final appeals.

Movement folk of any stripe are often unwilling to hear criticisms of their idol. I dare say there are movement Van Tillians who will defend absolutely everything Van Til ever said, no matter what other considerations might come into play, and this would be wrong. While I consider myself a Van Tillian, I am certainly not unwilling to consider the possibility that Van Til erred on occasion. I have noted two such areas in this series of reviews. I could point out that there are movement Sproulians, too (and I grew up on Sproul, and am very fond of most of his teaching). Sproul was wrong on the second and fourth commandments (quite obviously taking a different position than the Reformed traditionally take), and I am not comfortable with some of his Christological formulations, particularly on the person of Christ and His two natures.

On the issue of practical apologetics, I am puzzled by the critique (221-223). If someone from any apologetic methodology wants to engage with a Hindu, for example, wouldn’t it be a good idea for that person to have a basic grasp of Hinduism? Why is it only Van Tillians who have to become experts in every worldview? Is Mathison seriously suggesting that if a classical apologist wants to engage with an atheist, he should learn nothing about atheism? Van Til simplified things when it came to unbelieving worldviews because that would make it easier for people to see larger patterns of unbelief. And some patterns of unbelief are very similar across quite a few worldviews. Autonomy, for example, is characteristic of all forms of unbelief, and it is a central concern in any form of apologetics and evangelism.

I can certainly and heartily “amen” Mathison’s concern about the discussion concerning the method of apologetics distracting people from actually practicing apologetics and engaging with unbelievers. I have seen the phenomenon he is describing in all methodologies of apologetics, as he also notes. It is one reason I started a series of youtube videos called “What’s the Deal with Christians and Christianity?”

To conclude, while I certainly appreciate Mathison, and count him a friend and brother in Christ, and appreciate all his other books, I do not find this book convincing or compelling. I could wish he would find Richard Pratt and James Anderson more compelling as what mainline Van Tillians believe (neither of which get a mention in the book). From what I’ve seen, rank and file Van Tillians typically avoid most of the pitfalls Mathison mentions, and the vast majority of the OPC, for example, consists of Van Tillians.

Leave a Comment

Review of Keith Mathison on Van Til, Part 13

May 2, 2025 at 10:42 am (Apologetics, Books (reviews and recommendations))
Tags: , , , ,

The chapter on practical concerns deals primarily with VT’s influence, and whether it has been positive or negative. Some of his caveats need to be noted here. About the mutualism of Frame and Oliphint, he says, “I did not find anything in Van Til that would directly link him to such doctrines.” And again, “I am not blaming Van Til for anything any of his students taught. I am merely attempting to understand how one element of his thought might have unintentionally created an environment in which the prevalence of such strange theological moves make sense” (215). That being said, Mathison thinks it is possible that Van Til’s condemnation of the scholastics might have contributed to their development (215).

It is in this qualified context that Mathison asks questions about the Shepherd controversy, John Murray’s covenantal theology, and the mutualism of Frame and Oliphint. I am not sure I can agree with Mathison, however, that the attempts at recasting traditional Reformed doctrine are continual at WTS (215).

First up is Van Til’s “defense” of Norman Shepherd. I say it in quotation marks because Mathison is missing some significant context in that situation. First of all, Van Til was 81 years old when the controversy started heating up in 1976, and he was 86 years old when Shepherd left the seminary. Van Til framed the entire debate in terms of modern evangelicalism. He has been quoted as saying “Shepherd is right because Bill Bright is wrong.” Mathison quotes Muether’s biography, but fails to note the exculpatory comment “However, Van Til’s participation in the debate was minimal, and it is unclear to what extent his protest involved a close familiarity with the doctrinal issues. Robert Strimple, for example, recalled ‘that Van Til attended none of the faculty discussions about the controversy'” (222 of Muether’s biography on Van Til). Quite aside from the possibility that being elderly in such a context might make restraint a better way to go, it is quite doubtful whether Van Til can be said to have defended Shepherd’s aberrant views on justification and covenant theology. Frame likewise (though, I believe, errantly claiming that Van Til supported Shepherd’s justification doctrine) gives an exculpatory comment that is relevant to the point Mathison is trying to make when he (an avowed Shepherd supporter to this day, as one can see in his Systematic Theology on justification) said “About the Shepherd firing, I have little to say at this point except that it had little if anything to do with Shepherd’s adherence to Van Til’s principles…Beyond the fact that Van Til supported Shepherd, there was no significant connection between the controversy and Van Til’s legacy.” One could wish that these contextual factors had played any part whatsoever in Mathison’s treatment of the subject.

There have been three major theological controversies at WTS (which would hardly constitute “continual” given its 95 plus year history!): the Shepherd controversy, the Enns controversy, and the Oliphint controversy. Murray said he was recasting covenant theology. However, as several folk have noted, his treatment of the Adamic administration leaves in place the works principle. It is more a linguistic quibble that he had with the phrase “covenant of works” than a serious recasting of the structure of the covenant of works.

There is no attempt on Mathison’s part to connect the Enns controversy with Van Til, except that he mentions that the Enns controversy happened (216). One wonders why he mentions this controversy. Everything Van Til stood for on the doctrine of Scripture is against what Enns proposed. There can’t be even a tangential connection on this one. It should not even have been mentioned. Probably the reason it was is that the only way Mathison can use the term “continual” is if he included the Enns controversy.

Even on the mutualism controversy, it is difficult to see how Van Til would have contributed, even unintentionally. Van Til is completely orthodox on the attributes of God, and Mathison himself says nothing negative about Van Til’s doctrine of the attributes.

Mathison says “Based on what we find in Van Til’s books and class syllabi, it is clear that those who were his students had the idea drilled into their heads year after year that the traditional apologetics and the natural theology of the sixteenth and seventeenth century Reformed theologians led those theologians to compromise every major doctrine of Reformed theology” (216, emphasis added). I was quite shocked to read this, as it is quite grossly unfair. Van Til actively promoted confessionally Reformed theology. Mathison himself says that Van Til and he overlap on the vast majority of doctrines. Mathison seems to have forgotten that he is accusing Van Til here of rejecting the Westminster divines themselves, something Van Til never did, and if he wanted to correct any of them, it was only on apologetical methodology, not every major doctrine of Reformed theology.

Mathison also tries to connect the dots on the Federal Vision controversy to students of students of Van Til (217). He doesn’t seem to acknowledge here that many of the most vociferous enemies of the FV are also Van Tillians (myself, Richard Phillips, Guy Waters, and many in the RCUS). I might add that many defenses of the Federal Visionists appealed over and over again to the scholastic theologians (Wolfgang Musculus and Cornelius Burgess were especially frequent in my encounters, for their views on paedo-communion and baptism, respectively), especially in an effort to broaden the Reformed tradition beyond the confessions such that their errant views fit inside. Van Til would not have tolerated this broadening of the definition of Reformed theology. While Mathison does not go the route of John Robbins in blaming the entire FV controversy on Van Til, he does still seem to indicate that it falls within the stream of Van Til. I would demur. It falls within the stream of Klaas Schilder, a misreading of John Murray, Norman Shepherd, Peter Leithart, and James Jordan.

Leave a Comment

« Older entries

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started