Whilin' Away the Hours

What do you do on Christmas...
when your husband is sick and asleep all day? Read. I'm going to drive down to visit with my mom for a few hours leaving my poor, miserable hubby to fend for himself. I hope I won't be transporting germs to her. She is a few months shy of 80 so for her, flu is not to be trifled with.

I've been reading excerpts from John Flavel over the last few weeks. Here is a bit of argument from an excerpt :
A Reply to Baptist Hypercalvinism
from
Vindiciæ Legis et Fœderis
by
John Flavel

"Argument III.

If all the promises of the gospel be absolute and unconditional, requiring no restipulation from man, then they cannot properly and truly belong to the new covenant.

But they do properly and truly belong to the new covenant; therefore they are not all absolute and unconditional.

The sequel of the major is only liable to doubt or denial, namely, That the absoluteness of all the promises of the New Testament cuts off their relation to a covenant; but that it doth so, no man can deny, that understands the difference between a covenant and an absolute promise. A covenant is a mutual compact or agreement betwixt parties, in which they bind each other to the performance of what they respectively promise; so that there can be no other proper covenant where there is not a restipulation or re-obligation of one part, as well as a promise on the other; but an absolute promise binds only one party and leaves the other wholly free and unobliged to any thing in order to the enjoyment of the good promised. So then, if all the New Testament promises be unconditional and absolute, they are not part of a covenant, nor must that word be applied to them; they are absolute promises, binding no man to whom they are made to any duty, in order to the enjoyment of the mercies promised: But those persons that are under these absolute promises, must and shall enjoy the mercies of pardon and salvation, whether they repent or repent not, believe or believe not, obey or obey not. Now to what licentiousness this doctrine leads men, is obvious to every eye. Yet this absoluteness of the covenant (as you improperly call it) is by you asserted, p. 229, 230. There is (say you) no condition at all, it is wholly free and absolute, as the covenant with Abraham, Gen. 12.2,3. Gen. 17.2,3. Thank you, sir, for making them so; for by cutting off the first verses, where the duty required on Abraham's part is contained, you make them what God never intended them to be. And the same foul play is in Deut. 30. where you separate the plain condition contained in verses 1,2. from the promise, verse 6. Or if the condition, verses 1,2. be not plain enough, but you will make it part of the promise, I hope that after, in verse 10. is too plain to be denied. As to the other texts, more anon; mean time see how you destroy the nature of a covenant.

Objection. But say you, pag. 233. To impose new conditions, though never so mild, is a new covenant of works with some mercy, but not a covenant of grace, properly so called.

Solution. It is true, if those works or acts of ours, which God requires, be understood of meritorious works in our own strength and power to perform, it destroys the free grace of the covenant; but this we utterly reject, and speak only of faith wrought in us by the Spirit of God, which receives all from God, and gives the entire glory to God; Eph. 2.5,8.

Objection. But you will say, If faith be the condition, and that faith be not of ourselves, then both the promise and the condition are on God's part (if you will call faith a condition) and so still on our part the covenant is absolute.

Solution. This is a mistake, and the mistake in this leads you into all the rest; though faith (which we call the condition on our part) be the gift of God, and the power of believing be derived from God, yet the act of believing is properly our act, though the power by which we believe be of God; else it would follow, when we act any grace, as faith, repentance, or obedience, that God believes, repents, and obeys in us, and it is not we, but God that doth all these. This, I hope, you will not dare to assert; they are truly our works, though wrought in God's strength? Isa. 26.12. "Lord, thou hast wrought all our works in us;" i.e. though they be our works, yet they are wrought in us by thy grace or strength."

And in the same region there were shepherds out in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And an angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were filled with fear. And the angel said to them, “Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of a great joy that will be for all the people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. And this will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger.” And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying,

“Glory to God in the highest,
and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!”

Merry Christmas to All!

Bummer...
My husband just woke up (he sleeps days, works nights) sick! Chills, sore throat, cough. I have visions of our Christmas plans going up in smoke.

What's up with Rick and Rachel?
Did they elope to Brazil?

There must be something funny in Brazil's water. Here is a translation of the page:

NoNick Was Here.

To that it serves a friend?

Pra so much thing... is not? Pra crack the gasoline, lend the board, recommend a COMPACT DISK, give lift for party, pass bonds, walk in the mall, hold out. Everybody the alternatives are correct, however that not sufficiency to guard a left friend of interest of the chest. The
friendship is indispensable for the good operation from the memory and for the integrity of the own one I. A friend does not crack barely the gasoline: cracks remembrances, crises of crying, experiences. It cracks fault, cracks secrets. A friend does not lend barely the board.
It lends the verb, lends the shoulder, lends the time, lends the heat and the jacket. A friend does not recommend barely a compact disk.recommends caution, he recommends a job, he recommends a country. A friend does not give lift barely for party. You tappet for the world of
him and accept he know yours. A friend does not pass barely he bonds. It passes with you a pressure, passes joined the new year's eve. A to friend not little cot barely in the mall. Walk in silence in the pain, enters. A not dependable friend the bar, barely. Dependable the
hand, the absence, dependable a confession, dependable the jolt, the swearword, dependable the elevator. Two dúzias of friends like this does nobody have. If he will have a, amen!

Happy Christmas and a Prosperous New Year to everybody!

We' re: NoNick; C0d3_Bl4ck_NiNJA; Hualdo; _st3alth s0ld13r_; Kaioweb Greets: Pra everybody that enjoy the Shadow Boys; Kn0w; Ath; Dogm4. Site r0x: www.securebr.com
(Outside of the air in the moment) Contact: irc.brasnet.org channel: #Shadow_boys

Brazil Rules Matrix Rules too!

2nd Beta Edition
The more time I spend with the NET Bible, the more I like it. I downloaded it finally and I have it on my desktop. It's the only modern translation I know of that makes an effort to identify plural "yous" and that translates pistis Christou "the faithfulness of Christ."

FYI
I changed my AIM ID to possocat.

Fun with site trackers.
I enjoy my site trackers. I have 3 of them. Some denizens of the blogosphere think site meters are simply ego massagers and I'd be dissembling if I didn't admit that it's fun to know how often my blog is being visited or it's transcontinental reach. But it can also be quite humbling when I notice that the majority of my visitors spend about a nano-second perusing my blog and that of the 154 visitors I had on my birthday, only 7 wished me a happy one. 8-/

Besides ego massage/assault, I enjoy figuring out who is visiting. I don't mean the gentlebloggers who leave their card in the form of their URL but the shy visitors who nip in occasionally or, sometimes, several times a day. A lot of my sleuthing is guess work and the larger percentage of my shy visitors remain unknown to me but it's surprising how often I can figure it out. Sometimes it's tempting to call someone by name and give them a

and say, You there, in the trench coat, fedora, and shades! I know you're watching me from behind that shrub.

Another site meter game many of us play is "Weird Hits". We learn to misspell certain words such as newd to avoid unwelcome "Weird Hits" but most of us report some of the fun ones. I received a "Weird Hit" today. It was a google search for, "In order to adequately forecast dangers to democracy and to US. economic well-being, the intelligence community must track political, economic, social and military developments in those parts of the world where U.S. interests are most heavily engaged." The documents one turns up with this search are interesting but I have no idea what brought this person to my blog. I've never written anything remotely like this and I am not dangerous to U.S. democracy or economic well-being. Maybe I should be wearing a trench coat and fedora!

Woo Hoo
I got The Lord's Service by Jeff Meyers for my birthday! I'm looking forward to reading this because I'm on a session approved study group for music & liturgy at my church. Our service has already been organized around covenant renewal but I'm hoping we can continue to move forward. This book will be a valuable resource for our discussions.

All I want for Christmas...
I just learned that I will be making 6 upper front teeth for the senior pastor of one of my city's largest seeker style mega-churches. I've been told that I need to make them bright, white, and perfect. Hee hee!... The impact I could have on this man's career is going to my head even now. I could design them so that when the light refracts in his teeth just right, 666 would shine from them.

I'm a mean old lady!

Another plug:
Covenant, Predestination, and Dogmatic Method

Borrowed from A Better Country
and John Rabe

A loose paraphrase from the James White and George Bryson debate on Bible Answer Man:
begin paraphrase:
BRYSON: Calvinists believe that God is an evil potentate who causes sin and tyranically damns people for no good reason and causes babies to be raped.

WHITE: Yes, and here's why I believe that. Genesis 50 says...
end paraphrase

Yikes! With friends like this who needs enemies? This is the kind of blunder that is almost unavoidable for those of the stripe of Calvinism who are so zealous to defend God's sovereignty and decree that they virtually ignore the scriptural prominence of man's responsibility. The extreme Reformed and quasi-Reformed who ignore or deny God's benevolent will toward his creation, love for the reprobate, common grace, and the sincere offer of the gospel with the attendant responsibilty of man to respond to God's goodness wind up with a monstrous caricature instead and discussion of God's conditional dealings with man or the truth of contingencies is labeled Arminian. The Protestant Reformed Church is a classic example.

Like former Roman Catholics who are repulsed by anything that sounds remotely like syncretism and former Arminians who are on the lookout for any hint of contingency, I am a former cage-stage Calvinist so I find this kind of thing, even in it's lesser forms, to be disconcerting. Yes, I remain a double predestinarian but I am much more tempered these days. A real short coming exhibited by White was his inability to convincingly account for how God can decree evil yet call men accountable. I don't have the answer either. I am much less willing to speculate than I used to be and far more desirous of living as God commanded - in the relm of faithfulness.

The Biblical Perspective on Paul
The Real Test of "The New Perspective"
"As long as we subordinate soteriology to Christology, we are likely on firm ground."

Eyes on the sky
The B-2 Bomber will be doing a fly over of Wright Patterson Air Force Base today in honor of a dedication ceremony for the B-2 static display at the WPAFB Museum. That's just a few miles from our house so I may have a chance to see it. If I do, it will be the 3rd time I've seen one. They rumble in low and slow for fly-overs...it's like close encounters!
The B-2

What do you think...
Maybe I should do some redecorating? I just can't decide, you know. I keep changing my mind as I bustle about fussing with trifles, sampling sweets, and chatting with Officer O'Hara. I was thinking I should try a Victorian scheme with lots of frilly old lace and flowery pink roses with just a touch of teal green for contrast.

I'll spend my time blogging about icing cakes, teas, and window seats. Hmmm, I wish I could decide....

Oh! I almost forgot! Here is my recipe for Elderberry Wine:
1/2 ga Elderberry flower clusters
10 c Sugar
3 ga Lukewarm water
1 Cake yeast
3 lb Raisins
1 3-gallon container
3 1-gallon containers

Mix all ingredients except raisins and put into 3-gallon container. Let stand 10 days. Put 1 pound raisins in each of the 1-gallon containers. Strain the wine into each jug. Cap tightly. Store in a cool place for several months.

For a gallon of Elderberry wine, I take one teaspoon full of arsenic, then add half a teaspoon full of strychnine and then just a pinch of cyanide.

"I want to stress here and now and make very clear that eternal life is a gift in every sense of the word. It is not something that anyone can achieve or earn or merit or in any way deserve. Eternal life is a gift of sovereign grace. It is a gift given by God to whomsoever He wills according to His eternal plan." Norman Shepherd, Oct. 25, 2003.

Who said this?
"To draw all to a head, if the Gospel propound and promise pardon of sin and salvation without any condition at all, as this author tells us [the antagonist], required on our parts; and all conditions and qualifications which he is so oft girding at, destroy the freeness of grace: then neither John the Baptist, nor Christ, nor the Apostles of Christ, from the first, to the last, did any of them preach either Gospel or free grace: and if the Gospel and free grace, that this author and other his co-assertors of free grace, hold out to us, be such, as admits not, nor acknowledges any such conditions or qualifications as have been above-recited [repentance and obedience], then we may boldly conclude, that it is another Gospel, and another free grace, then ever John, or Christ, or his Apostles preached."

And who said this?
"Good works of all sorts are necessary to our continuance in the state of justification, and so to our final absolution, if God give opportunity: but they are not the cause of, but only a precedent qualification or condition to final forgiveness and eternal bliss."

Why we need the AAPC corrective
On a number of occasions, I've heard questions such as, Why do we need the correctives of "Auburn theology" or, What axe is Norman Shepherd grinding?

I recently read someone's comment that his Reformed church permitted both infant baptism and infant dedication, stating that in his congregation, credobaptists and paedobaptists co-existed in harmony because the paedobaptists considered the practice of dedication of infants to be essentially the same as baptism. Granted, the comment came from a New Englander whose congregation is likely influenced by the Puritan Congregationalists but that view was confirmed by another of the "Southern Presbyterian" persuasion. I am somewhat sheltered in my little Ohio OPC world, but this kind of thinking, if it is as pervasive as it sounds, is exactly why we need "Auburn" and Norman Shepherd.

Conversely, if, by God's grace, students of the scriptures begin to long for a communion that is not hamstrung by rationalism or devitalized by a form of dichotomy of spiritual and material, then we need the correctives of AAPC to counteract the attractive elements of Roman Catholicism.

""As the fathers under the Law, besides the reality of the sacrifices, had two chief sacraments, that is, circumcision and the Passover, and those who rejected these were not reckoned among God's people; so do we acknowledge and confess that now in the time of the gospel we have two chief sacraments, which alone were instituted by the Lord Jesus and commanded to be used by all who will be counted members of his body, that is, Baptism and the Supper or Table of the Lord Jesus, also called the Communion of His Body and Blood. These sacraments, both of the Old Testament and of the New, were instituted by God not only to make a visible distinction between his people and those who were without the Covenant, but also to exercise the faith of his children and, by participation of these sacraments, to seal in their hearts the assurance of his promise, and of that most blessed conjunction, union, and society, which the chosen have with their Head, Christ Jesus. And so we utterly condemn the vanity of those who affirm the sacraments to be nothing else than naked and bare signs. No, we assuredly believe that by Baptism we are engrafted into Christ Jesus, to be made partakers of his righteousness, by which our sins are covered and remitted, and also that in the Supper rightly used, Christ Jesus is so joined with us that he becomes the very nourishment and food for our souls." John Knox, The Scots Confession

Andy has a new poster child
Who needs O Foolish Galations Part Deux when you have a body to drag through the streets? It's so glaringly obvious to Andy that the destroyer of the faith once delivered is behind this move to Rome that he can ignore the words of the man himself: "For your information, we are pleased to join the communion of the Roman Church for the following brief reasons:...My personal disheartening over Protestantism’s continued splintering and ecclesiastical inability to labor together." "I cannot hold to Sola Fidei, or Sola Scripture anymore, in light of the Word of God."

"Auburn and Shepherd were catalysts, but not the primary straws or reasons as to why I joined the Roman Catholic Church."

"Of course, I could continue to seek doctrinal precision by perpetuating our assembly, but I would do so at the expense of a biblical ecumenicity and my enjoying the broader communion of my fellow brethren. This conclusion would lead to unnecessary loneliness and to being overly righteous..."

Why loneliness?
It doesn't occur to Andy to look a little deeper and see that the reason behind the catalyzing effect of Auburn and Shepherd for this man is his own instability and sin. No, it's much more expedient to gloat and point fingers. Maybe Andy has a low opinion of the effectiveness of church discipline? He must because I can think of no other reason why he refuses to see the truth of the matter: Andy's poster child is an excommunicated elder from the OPC. He was tried and found guilty of unrepentant lying and schism (yes, schism). He was, therefore, not a pastor of Christ's church, his little church was not a church at all. Just to be clear, the man was put out of the catholic church. He is to be considered a heathen. He has, over the last 4 years, attempted to gain credibility and acceptance by deception but without success. His joining with Rome is merely another manifestation of his evasion of discipline and his inability to function with integrity within established Reformed denominations. The exploitation of his sin is indeed a sad commentary but to be honest, I'm not at all surprised.

It's shameful that the apparent result of Mr. Tritle's sinful conduct has been exploited by as a platform for diatribe.

It seems to me...
that Andrew Webb and Mark Geragos have a lot in common.

"Strident New Perspectivalist?" ROTFLOL!

OK, ok. I confess. I kinda like N.T.Wright. [shuffling my feet] Dang, I was sorta hoping to keep my miscreant status a secret but since it's been announced on the Warfield list I'll just go ahead and admit that I'm a part of the conspiracy to overthrow the Reformation. Yep. I won't be happy until the Whore of Babylon is headquatered in Washington DC and the Anti-Christ himself is living in the Whitehouse.

Double Chocolate Stout
Mmmm...

Twits
Busted for driving while breastfeeding
I suppose if her husband asked her to run across the street in front of on-coming traffic in order to save time she would do it.

Van Til
I like this explanation:
"Relevant to this discussion is the distinction that must be made between God's will of decree and God's will of command. The former has regard to God's determination to do whatsoever pleases Him. The latter is described by Van Til in this way:

In His will of command God deals with man as a created person; He deals with him conditionally. God wants self-conscious covenant reaction to His will of command and promise. But the entire covenantal transaction takes place according to the counsel of God (Van Til 1972, 186-187)."

The Concepts of Conditionality and Apostasy In Relation To the Covenant by Dennis Bratcher

Ohhh... this explains a lot...
In this there are three things which he [Bavinck] immediately sets forth on the fore - placing him in direct conflict with the Heyns/ Schilder covenant position.

The first is an emphatic identification of the covenant with election: "After all," Bavinck writes, "when the covenant of grace is separated from election, it ceases to be a covenant of grace and becomes again a covenant of works. Election implies that God grants man freely and out of grace the salvation which man has forfeited and which he can never again achieve in his own strength ... So far from election and the covenant of grace forming a contrast of opposites, the election is the basis and guarantee, the heart and core, of the covenant of grace. And it is so indispensably important to cling to this close relationship because the least weakening of it not merely robs one of the true insight into the achieving and application of salvation, but also robs the believers of their only and sure comfort in the practice of their spiritual life." Clearly in Bavinck’s mind a separating of the covenant from election, as Schilder insists must be done, destroys the idea of the covenant completely, and makes it a covenant of works.

Accordingly, Bavinck has absolutely no place for a conditional covenant, as he says: "if this salvation is not the sheer gift of grace but in some way depends upon the conduct of men, then the covenant of grace is converted into a covenant of works. Man must then satisfy some condition in order to inherit eternal life. In this, grace and works stand at opposite poles from each other and are mutually exclusive. If salvation is by grace it is no longer by works, or otherwise grace is no longer grace. And if it is by works, it is not by grace, or otherwise works are not works (Rom. 11:6). ... But it can be recognized and maintained as such only if it is a free gift coming up out of the counsel of God alone."

And so he comes to what the Liberated so often present as the heart of the whole matter, the promise given centrally to Abraham, and which they are most insistent must be conditional in order to maintain the responsibility of man; but Bavinck writes: "The one, great, all-inclusive promise of the covenant of grace is: I will be thy God, and the God of thy people. ... this promise is not conditional, but is as positive and certain as anything can be. God does not say that He will be our God if we do this or that thing. But He says that He will put enmity, that He will be our God, and that in Christ He wilt grant us all things. The covenant of grace can throughout the centuries remain the same because it depends entirely upon God and because God is the Immutable One and the Faithful One."

Jude
Funny how things work. Just a day or two ago on a message board, I defended N.T. Wright against a very poorly done review of What Saint Paul Really Said by by Dr. Sidney D. Dyer of Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary by noting that just as the book of Jude doesn't present the fulness of the gospel, so WSPRS was never intended to present the fulness of Wright's teaching including his views on sin and the need for repentance. Today, Mark gives us this:

Are Wright's Critics Misreading Him?

Short answer: yes. Read the article and see how...I double dog dare you.

Active and passive justification
At the outset, I affirm that Christ truly bore the wrath and curse of God at the cross. I believe that he was made sin for us while remaining sinless himself. I affirm that God elects individuals to salvation from eternity and that election is in Christ, that is, elect individuals are foreknown (purposed) in union with Christ from eternity. I can look to scripture and easily find texts in support of these things.

In recent discussion, the point has been made that the elect are justified at the cross, that the justification of the individual elect is accomplished, all of their uncommitted specific sins are atoned for. They are free of the guilt of sin but it is yet unrealized. Bavinck is cited as supporting of this view.

The following quotes illustrate extremes that Bavinck wished to combat:
"Under the influence of Socinianism and Remonstrantism, Cartesianism and Amyraldianism, there developed the neonomiam representation of the order of redemption which made forgiveness of sins and eternal life dependent on faith and obedience which man had to perform in accordance with the new law of the gospel. ... As a reaction against this came the development of anti-neonomianism, which had justification precede faith, and antinomianism which reduced justification to God's eternal love and which dissolved sin and atonement into merely inadequate conceptions from which man had to liberate himself through the better insight of faith."

Now, Bavinck explains the remedy:
"Reformed theologians usually tried to avoid both extremes, and for that purpose soon made use of the distinction between "active" and "passive justification. ... But when nomism and antinomianism arose, the obligation was felt to analyse the conception, and the distinction was made between an active and a passive justification in order to avoid both errors. On the one hand nomism, which only recognized the benefit of forgiveness through faith, experience, or the conversion of man was rejected; but on the other hand, one was on guard against antinomianism and rejected virtually unanimously the doctrine of eternal justification. Consequently, it was generally accepted, that, if there was any ground at all to speak of justification in the decree of God, in the resurrection of Christ, or in the gospel, the active justification took place first in the "internal call" prior to and unto faith; but that the proclamation thereof, the intimation or insinuation in the consciousness, or in other words, the passive justification, occurred only through and by faith. Efforts were made to keep both elements as close together as possible, while accepting only a logical and not a temporal distinction."

"Yet there exists according to 2 Cor. 5:19 an intimate connection between the atonement in Christ and the non-imputation of the world's sin which has always been recognized in Reformed theology. Even J. van den Honert, who was a fierce opponent of Comrie, acknowledged freely that the justification of the elect had taken place at the resurrection of Christ, long before they were born, and this by virtue of the legal representation by their sponsor and covenantal head Jesus Christ. From his side, Comrie admitted that the elect are not fully, "actually," and as persons, justified in the resurrection of Christ, but only "virtually." In essence there is no difference. In the same way that the entire human race objectively fell and died in Adam when he transgressed the commandment of God, so also the entire body of Christ's congregation objectively died with him, rose, and was reconciled and justified in his death and resurrection."

So, on Bavinck's view, this "internal call" is a call to a justification (a declaration that an individual's sins are forgiven) which already exists, the individual has already been declared justified but the declaration isn't realized by the individual until the individual excercises faith.

Bavinck continues:
"Through his suffering and death Christ also obtained the application of all his benefits, including the forgiveness of sins, to his people personally and individually. Christ's purpose as Savior is not only objective atonement, but also the subjective redemption of his people from their sins. This does not come into existence through an objective justification in the decree of God or in the resurrection of Christ, but only comes to pass when man both in his being and consciousness is liberated from sin and is thus regenerated and justified. This is the justification of which Scripture speaks continually and it is of this justification that Comrie acknowledges that it is the "communication and actual participation."

I note with interest that Bavinck admits that the justification which scripture speaks of is justification by faith.

Bavinck:
" To avoid this nomism, the distinction between active and passive justification served a purpose. The former took place already in a certain sense in the proclamation of the gospel, in the external calling, but especially in the internal calling when God through his word and Spirit called the sinner efficaciously, convincing him of sin, driving him to Christ and causing him to find forgiveness and life with Him. In the logical sequence this active justification then precedes faith and is, as it were, the efficacious preaching through the Spirit of God that sins have been forgiven, so that man is persuaded in the innermost part of his soul, accepts the word of God in faith, and dares to accept and is able to accept Christ with all his benefits. And when that man first goes out to Christ so to speak ("direct act" of faith) and thereafter returns to himself with a "reflexive act of faith" and acknowledges thankfully as a child, that his sins have also been forgiven, then the passive justification takes place therein, whereby God acquits man also in his conscience, and man through the Spirit testifies with his own spirit that he is His child and an heir to eternal life."
"Against this distinction the objection is made from the nomistic point of view that then the active justification is not a justification by and through faith, as is expressed continually in Scripture, but unto faith, and also that this faith totally changes in character under this representation, since it is then no longer an activity with respect to the person of Christ but only an understanding acceptance of the sentence that the sins have been forgiven. However, these objections are easily countered. One should, namely, take into account, that the distinction mentioned has a logical but no temporal significance. There is here no "priority of order," but a "simultaneity of time." Concretely they coincide and are always coupled with each other. The active justification carries, so to speak, the tendency in itself to communicate itself in faith and to be accepted by faith."

"The terminology, that active justification takes place unto and passive justification by and through faith may have some value against nomism; but the Scriptural language is entirely adequate, provided it is understood Scripturally."

"The logical distinction between active and passive justification offers therefore various advantages which are neither to be despised from the perspective of the confession nor from that of experience. In the first place, it enables us to maintain, over against all nomism, the rich and joyous content of the gospel, that God is gracious and great in mercy, and that He has established a perfect righteousness in Christ in which we can rest both in life and death, and which is in no need whatsoever of supplement or addition on our part. The forgiveness of all our sins is granted to us as an unmerited gift; God himself establishes, voluntarily, out of undeserved mercy, a relation with us, accepts us through Christ into his fellowship, our transgressions notwithstanding, and assures us of his eternal and unchangeable favor. He establishes out of sheer mercy his covenant with us, in order that we should walk thereafter according to the demand of that covenant; religion becomes the foundation of morality. Secondly, it explains the basis on which the believer derives the right and the boldness to appropriate for himself this benefit."

"Thirdly, the distinction mentioned makes it possible for us to conceive of faith at the same time as a receptive organ and as an active force. If justification in every respect comes about after faith, faith becomes a condition, an activity, which must be performed by man beforehand, and it cannot be purely receptive. But if the righteousness, on the ground of which we are justified, lies wholly outside of us in Christ Jesus, then it can obviously only become ours through our childlike acceptance of it."

I'm still turning these things over in my mind, sorting and sifting the possible truths of Bavnick's position and considering the implications. Some questions are:

1. Is active and passive justification is an accurate description of Christ's work?

2. How do we account for the need of continuing forgiveness (WCF XI)?

3. Justification is only one aspect of the totality of salvation. If justification is virtually complete and guaranteed at the resurrection and prior to application, then there is no room for true consequent covenantal conditionality since salvation in it's totality is made to hinge on the past justification of the individual. Yes?

It would appear that John Murray makes an observation much like that of Bavinck:

"Hence we may never think of the work of redemption wrought once for all by Christ apart from the union with his people which was effected in the election of the Father before the foundation of the world. In other words, we may never think of redemption in abstraction from the mysterious arrangements of God’s love and wisdom and grace by which Christ was united to his people and his people were united to him when he died upon the accursed tree and rose again from the dead."

Richard Gaffin presents a possible solution to the active/passive perspective of Bavinck. In his book, Resurrection and Redemption, Gaffin, if I understand him correctly, suggests that each aspect of salvation is actually accomplished and possessed by Christ. In his person he was sanctified, justified, adopted, and glorified and it is his sanctification, his justification, his adoption, and his glorification that is ours as we are in union with him. According to Gaffin, as federal representative Christ was made sin, in his death he paid the penalty of the curse, and was justified by the Father in his resurrection. We participate in Christ's death and resurrection by the agent of the Holy Spirit who imparts saving faith and effects union with Christ.

I may add more questions as I think of them.