Whilin' Away the Hours

OK, this is weird.
I'm just an average schmoe. A regular, every day, middle [sputter...cough] aged lady. An ordinary lay person. My sphere of influence is quite small and insignificant. Can I stop castigating myself now? I mean, do you get the picture?

Well, friends and neighbors, here's where the weirdness comes in. I have now received email from a total stranger - someone whom I've never even heard of. Not email to the email link on the left (no, no, not there. down a little. yeah, there it is.). No, it came to my real email addy, the one only friends have. (s'cuse me while I look over my shoulder...) This Stranger's email had a "no subject" header. There was no attachment so the female in me had to open it. I had to know. (gasp...what was that sound? did you hear that?) So I opened it. Whew, nothing exploded.

It contained nothing but a link and a signature...the mark of the mystery man, the Stranger. What could this cryptic link title mean? "He Shines in All That's Fair (and Curses All That's Foul)." Why would the Stranger send me a link to...what? As the lyrics to "This Is My Father's World" ran through my nearly senile mind, I clicked the link. Again, a sigh of relief escaped my crepe paper lips. Ummm...where was I? Oh.

Anyway... What I found was a series of Editorials? From "The Standard Bearer"?

¿Que?

He Shines in All That's Fair (and Curses All That's Foul)
Aha! The Stranger wants me to repudiate Common Grace! But why? Why?

Why would the Stranger give a Leinenkugel's Doppelbock what I think about Common Grace? Hmmm...the mysteries of the internet. I love it.

I have a new favorite comedian!
His name is Ray. He works with a straight man named John.

pduggie suggested some reading
Evangelical Reunion by John Frame. No, I am not a student of Evelyn May Speed Reading but I read an appendix, Peacemakers by Dennis Johnson. I highly recommend it!

The closing paragraph is umm, somewhat ironic, but all the same, it's a valuable message.

James B. Jordan
recently had some thoughtful comments regarding the relevance of the New Perspective on Paul. He suggested that we could summarize the NPP by saying that the occasion for sin in Judaism was Nationalistic-Religious Idolotry. Examination of the history of Israel's Kingdom Era reveals repeated iconolatrous worship and superstition as the primary sin. Jordan believes this period of Israel's history is much like the politico-religious climate of the Middle Ages. The Reformers rightly found great value in Paul for combating the errors of their time but superimposed their own Kingdom Era battle onto Pauline theology.

Paul, in fact, was addressing an historically matured kind of sin typified by Israel during the Restoration Era in which Nationalistic Idolotry was the predominant sin. The Torah and the Temple were symbols of Jewish superiority and had become Nationalistic Religious Idols betraying a sinful exclusivism in the Jewish identity. Even though it was true that Israel had been given the oracles of God, that treasure was held with pride rather than humility.

In Daniel's day, the Jews fell into Nationalistic Religious Idolotry centered on the Temple."The Temple of the Lord! The Temple of the Lord!" They had not learned from Hezekiah so the Temple was broken up and a new, more invisible Temple-order established. By the time of Christ, Jordan says, the Jews had perverted Torah as their forefathers had perverted the Temple. Torah had become an idol. So, in Paul's day, National Religious Idolotry had moved from the Temple to Torah focusing on word and ideology. According to Jordan, the Restoration is much like the Protestant era including the breakup of Judaism into four denominations: "Evangelical Pharisees, Liberal Sadducees, Anabaptist Dropout Essenes, and Politicized Zealots. Overarching all four, however, is dogma-centered Nationalistic Religious Idolatry."

Jordan goes on to say, "...And consider how denominational traditions pridefully interact with one another (each putting the worst possible interpretation on what the others say). And why? Because each has his own Torah, his own confessional tradition, which is superior to all others. Well, some are superior indeed, but how do we hold these traditions? In pride or humility? The answer is pretty obvious, at least in general across the board. Just as each Restoration Jewish sect was unwilling to esteem the others better than himself and learn from the others -- let alone esteem the uncircumcised God-fearers better than themselves and learn from them -- so the churches despise one another. Do we joyfully confess that Calvinists are best at theology, Lutherans best at music, Catholics best at charity, Anabaptists best at community, Baptists best at evangelism, Orthodox best at glorification? Nope. By no means. Each never esteems the others better in any way!"

Instead, we choose to focus our attention on each other's flaws. Jordan concludes, "But what does Paul say? The weak and the strong must each esteem the other better. The Jew and the uncircumcised God-fearer must each esteem the other better (though that would continue only for the Apostolic Age). Paul attacks this corporate pride. All kinds of sin are always with us, but historical times and seasons bring some kinds of sin into focus for attention. Today more than ever, Pride in the Group reigns supreme. If ever we needed the NPP perspective, it is today!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't endorse blind ecumenism but I believe that we could all benefit by heeding Dr. Jordan's words.

"Assuredly a human profession is no more solid basis to build upon than a Divine promise."
B.B. Warfield.

Yea, verily, a Divine promise is the only solid basis to build upon. I was so struck by the words of Peter DeJong: "Both in the case of infants and adults the ground of baptism was not personal profession, as with the Anabaptists, but the covenant promises of God..." I cannot wait to read the full context of this quote.

What a treat!
Because of a recent message board discussion, I made a few inquiries* regarding the availability of actual records of Cornelius Van Til's legendary support and defense of Norman Shepherd. I am amazed at and thankful for the networking that exists among bloggers and the willingness of "strangers" to help!

My "informant" stated that Van Til was, from the beginning and all the way through, a supporter of Norman Shepherd as was the majority of the Westminster faculty including Richard Gaffin and John Frame. Shepherd's opponents included O. Palmer Robertson, Robert Godfrey, Jack Miller, who is now controversial in his own right for his "Sonship" program, Arthur Kuschke, the librarian, and Knudsen, the Dooyeweerdian Apologetics prof.

Van Til vigorously supported Shepherd and refuted the errors of those who opposed him, arguing that those opposing Shepherd were attempting to separate faith and works. Van Til maintained that faith and works (while distinguished) go together and cannot be pulled apart or abstracted. Shepherd's opponents, Van Til believed, were maintaining what sounded like a faith which is itself alone, which is itself not an act of obedience, a faith which is not a repenting from former suppressing of the truth in unrighteousness.

What follows is a transcribed excerpt from the OPC Presbytery of Philadelphia discussion of Shepherd's 34 Theses. I have it on good authority that the entire proceedings may be available in mp3 format in the near future.

Transcription of Cornelius Van Til in the discussion of the Fourth Thesis at the Justification Controversy meeting of the Committee of the Whole of the OPC Philadelphia Presbytery.

I think that when we begin with the idea of faith, we have to think first of all that the devils also believe and tremble. Now we have faith by which we need not to tremble because Christ on the cross said “my God my God why hast thou forsaken me?” so that His people might not be forsaken. It is finished! It was finished, once for all. Now that is, I think, beautifully expressed in this word of our Lord:
[begin discussion of John 6:22ff]
When the multitudes wanted to make him king because He had given them bread, and they thought it would be easy to have a handout, Jesus said, when they found the other side, ‘Rabbi, when did you get here?’ Jesus said ‘truly I say to you, ye seek me not because ye see signs but because you ate the loaves and were filled. (VT: “Now then comes the crucial point.”) Do not work for food which perishes but for food which endures to eternal life which the Son of Man shall give to you, for of him the father even God has been sealed. They therefore said, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye may believe on Him Whom He hath sent.’

Here faith and works are identical. Not similar but identical. The work is faith; faith is work. We believe in Jesus Christ and in His salvation, that’s why we do not tremble. He died for us, in our place, and the Scotsmen would say ‘in our room and stead,’ for that substitutionary atonement, on the basis of which we are forensically righteous with God and are now righteous in His sight and shall inherit the kingdom of heaven in which only the righteous shall dwell. And I’m going to ask John Frame if he will quote the Greek of this particular passage
[Frame works through it reading both the Greek and English]
VT: I thank you. Well now, you see faith alone is not alone. Faith is not alone. Faith always has an object. The faith, your act of believing, is pointed definitely to God in Jesus Christ, and by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit, and conversion, it’s all one, it’s not a “jaines pace” [not sure?**] proposition, but it is not possible to give exhaustive statements in human words, human concepts. And that’s why we have to be satisfied merely to do what the Scriptures and Confessions of faith say that they [i.e. we] ought to do, and that then we are on the way, and I think that Norman Shepherd is certainly in the line of direct descent of [i.e. on] faith. Thank you. (emphases noted are Van Til’s).

*Thank you Matt and Joel

**I received an email from Ian suggesting that the unknown " '- not a â€œjaines paceâ€? [not sure?] proposition,' - that you are looking for is 'Janus face.' " Thank you Ian. Janus faced ( having two contrasting aspects or two faced) fits perfectly.

Another good entry from Tim
Another AAPC-related note. When the conference was over, one of the charges levelled was that the speakers were importing works-righteousness into salvation, because they stressed covenant-keeping (faithfulness).

My response given on this blog was that the heart of faithfulness is faith itself, and that, while various sins may be the occasion of covenant-breaking, the center of the issue is always a matter of unbelief. Cf. Hebrews 3 and its interchange of disobedience, sin, and unbelief. (This of course will not satisfy those who see justifying faith as occurring in a millisecond, hence to be discarded. But I have no interest in defending that notion, since that is not what a genuine doctrine of sola fide is all about.)

Having listened to the tapes, I can now say with confidence that I was not putting an unwarranted "best possible spin" on the speakers. Douglas Wilson clearly and explicitly said virtually the same thing as I affirmed, viz. that covenant-keeping is not a matter of "achievement," but of faith. Wilson cited John 6:29: "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent." Consequently, it was very irresponsible for Andrew Webb and others to make a charge of legalism or works-righteousness in connection with the issue of covenant-keeping. The nature of covenant-keeping was made clear enough at the conference. It is unfortunate that people are so intent on charges that they refuse to actually listen to what they are ostensibly refuting.

I also often wonder about the implicit dichotomy. If we cannot grant that sin can be the occasion of covenant-breaking, then we have a serious disconnect between justification and the Church. Excommunication then becomes something oriented toward works-righteousness, or else a kind of "retroactive" reaching back into the decrees ("If you could do this, you were never really a Christian"). I see no hint of either of these angles in Scripture.

I'm happy to say
The Covenant Idea in New England Theology by Peter Y. DeJong will be winging it's way to my mailbox within the next week or so!

A response
Here is the first response I've encountered to Mark's piece, Is Pelagianism an Acceptable Price?

The unity of infant and adult baptism
I have been reading some excerpts from an out of print book which were posted on an OPC yahoo group (thanks Wayne). The Book is titled The Covenant Idea in New England Theology by Peter Y. DeJong: Eerdmans, 1945. What a book! It was endorsed by Van Til.

Just a few little snips:
"Much of the theological development among the Congregationalists can be explained in the light of a largely unconscious attempt on their part to fuse these two types of Protestantism. [Calvinism and Anabaptism]

. . . Calvin. . . repudiated the "pure church" ideal of the Anabaptists, which he termed a "pestilential opinion". These people, he insisted, had revived the ancient heresy of the Novatians. . . Calvin's view of church membership and the sacraments was entirely different from this. The sacrament of circumcision in the OT and of baptism in the New were to be given in infancy and admitted the individual to the privileges of the covenant. . . Thus the basis for the covenant was found in the good-will of God alone, for "the Lord calls his promises covenants and the sacraments seals of covenants.". . . Genesis 17: 7. . . [Calvin]: 'Whence it follows, that the children of believers are not baptized, that they may thereby be made the children of God, as if they had before been strangers to the Church; but on the contrary, they are received into the Church by a solemn sign, because they already belonged to the body of Christ by virtue of the promise.'

. . . Although the work of regeneration is not observed in its effects in the lives of little children, such is no proper ground for doubting its existence. . . . That he [Calvin] believed that elect children who entered the visible church by virtue of the covenant promise were regenerated is apparent from his writings. . . [Calvin]: 'The offspring of believers are born holy, because their children while yet in the womb, before they breathe the vital air, have been adopted into the covenant of eternal life. Nor are they brought into the church by baptism on any other ground than because they belonged to the body of the Church before they were born.'

Both in the case of infants and adults the ground of baptism was not personal profession, as with the Anabaptists, but the covenant promises of God. . . Only in this way could the unity of infant and adult baptism be maintained. Otherwise the ground for baptism in the case of infants would differ from that in the case of adults. . . [Kramer]: 'No, the Reformer [Calvin] declares, the only rule according to which, and the legal ground on which, the Church may administer baptism, is the covenant. This is true in the case of adults as well as in the case of children. That the former must first make a confession of faith and conversion, is due to the fact that they are outside of the covenant. In order to be admitted into the communion of the covenant, they must first learn the requirements of the covenant, and then faith and conversion open the way to the covenant.'

. . . the objective side was emphasized in such a way which allowed for the possibility of possessing grace in immaturity without being conscious of its presence. . . Although the child was considered prone to all manner of evil because of the presence of the principle of sin within him, he as a child of the covenant was also regarded as the recipient of divine grace. . . the doctrine of the Covenant of Grace in connection with the teaching on the place of children in the church was the basis upon which the Reformed believed in the continuity of the visible church. . . Thus the church was not regarded as the institution in which the child has a place in order that he may be considered a hopeful candidate for receiving God's grace. Rather, he has a place in the institution because he possesses that grace either by virtue of promise or presence."

Does this sound familiar? DeJong goes on to relay the history & the legacy of the Puritan Congregationalists.

"American church history manifests a development which, when compared with that of other parts of the Christian world, is both unique and well-defined. . . Increase of the churches, to a considerable extent through revivals of religion, rather than by natural growth of children in an establishment."

Our city is shut down
It's been snowing since Friday night. I have no idea how much snow we actually have but I'll guess a foot. Relatively speaking, that's not much but it was enough for a level 3 snow emergency and enough to cause a cancelation of church this morning. I hate when that happens. A perfectly good snow day on Sunday - when you really want to go somewhere - seems like such a waste. But, I wouldn't have gone to church anyway. I have a rotten cold.

So, I listened to 2 lectures by Norman Shepherd. As I listened, I was sketching Ronald Reagan from a Republican campaign flyer I saved from a few years ago. I thought sketching would be a good thing to do to keep my mind focused on the lecture. (Busy hands on automatic pilot help keep the mind from wandering) But, as much as I respect Norman Shepherd, and as much as I've learned from him, I must say, he is one of the most soporific speakers I've ever heard. I usually sleep with a fan running for white noise. If that should ever become ineffective, I shall seek recourse in Norman Shepherd. I listened to two of the lectures and I can barely recall what he said. Maybe it's the cold medication...

Yes, Kelly, it worked out.
The snow held off for awhile (it's snowing like crazy right now...8" by Sunday morning last I heard) so we had diner out with a group from church. There were two tables and it happened that the "mature" couples were at one table and the younger couples at another, but adjacent, ye ken? We were providentially seated with the 20 somethings (we are 50ish give or take a year) but we had a really fun time. It turns out that we reclassified our table as the "under 10s"...those married less than ten years. Since my husband & I have been married only 2½ years we were the youngest! lol.

After dinner we (the youngsters) went to one of the couples homes & played Cranium. The girls won...of course, in fact, I'm pleased to say that I won the game for us with my Leonardo DiCaprio imitation. We left around 12pm and slip-slided our way home. My 52 year old husband did doughnuts in the parking lot of the church on our block. ;-)

Now, as I type, I am aware that I am coming down with a yucky cold. :-( I hope I didn't spread the joy.

It's snowing again.
We have plans to go out tonight. Our church has a Valentine's Day restaurant night every year and it's a fun evening out. But the weather prognosticators are calling for 5-6 inches of snow today. It's just starting to really come down. I so hoped they'd be wrong this time.

My husband, who has a beautiful white beard that tickles delightfully, gave me 6 red roses this morning. They are gorgeous.* I also got a terrycloth Pooh with a red heart bearing my husbands initials on it's chest hand made by my mother-in-law and specially ordered by my husband. The bear made me cry. My husband received a bottle of Absolut Kurant Vodka**. He cried too. (LOL, just kidding.) My favorite is Peppar Vodka which is flavored with hot peppers but it's his gift, not mine.

Anyway, Happy Valentine's Day!

*Always cut rose stems under warm water with a sharp knife before putting them in a vase.
**Totally weird website.

Here is a question
A few friends have me thinking (ow..ouch). How would you answer the question, "What is a Christian?" Your answer must be understandable in broadly evangelical circles, but I'm particularly interested in answers from a covenantal paradigm and I'd prefer concise answers of only a few sentences. I've already formulated my answer and I have a witness who will keep me honest about admitting any revisions when I post it.

Ray Dunsworth, you are my hero today!
Thank you for this. My blood has been boiling since yesterday over John Robbins' shameful post.

Speaking of going Garver...
Joel's blog has 23,861 hits as of 2 seconds ago. That's an increase of 639 hits since Jan. 29th. Just thought everyone would like to know that...

Too cute not to tell
We had a baptism at church yesterday. The baby is about 8 wks. old. His dad was holding him before the congregation and our pastor was giving the instruction on the institution and nature of the sacrament of baptism. As our pastor spoke, the baby was intently studying his face and began to smile at him and even seemed to reach out to him with one arm. It was so cute. In my imagination, it was as if the baby knew what was happening and was joyful & anxious to get on with it!

Our pastor, as always, choked up as he said, "I baptize thee into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." He never quite gets it said without a catch in his voice.

Highly suspicious...
Sarah and Amanda have both gone Garver... What's going on here, anyway? What evil plot are they hatching?

An attempt to flesh out covenant ratification
Don't laugh, OK? Remember, I'm an OLP (ordinary lay person). Matt's February 01 2003 blog entry, linked below on my 2/7/2003 entry has left me a bit confused about the place of baptism. I've been mulling over how baptism might be understood if infants were regenerate prior to baptism. My "premise" (lol) is that baptism is objective and signifies the same things in all circumstances, i.e. whether applied to adult converts or infants.
Here's what I'm thinking:
A. Adult converts are already regenerate, already in union with Christ when they are baptized.
B. Elect infants may also be already regenerate, already in union with Christ when they are baptized.

So, what does baptism accomplish? I've used the Summary Statement of AAPC's Position on the Covenant, Baptism, and Salvation as a reference for my thoughts.

1. Individuals (infants & adults) formally enter the church upon baptism. It is within the church that the covenant is made manifest. It is the Church herself that is God's new creation and God's salvation (WCF 25.1,2) and it is the Church whose partialy realized goal in history will be brought to final fulfillment at the last day. So, baptism into the Church is God's ordinary means of achieving the historical outworking of creating a people for Himself and ushering in His Kingdom.

2. Baptism into the Church binds members to live faithfully, that is, repenting of their sins, believing in Christ, obeying His word, and persevering in the faith. Within the Church, God uses means by which His Spirit works out the salvation of His people: the preaching of the Word, the sacraments, and the communion of the saints. Apart from the Church, there is no ordinary means of salvation (WCF 25.2) So, baptism into the Church is God's ordinary means for the fruitful outworking of salvation.

3. By baptism, one is joined to Christ's body - the church - and united to Him covenantally, and given all the blessings and benefits of His work. Perhaps (a big perhaps - remember...strawbrains) it would be helpful to think of regeneration as the marriage proposal (binding as it was in Biblical days). Regeneration is like the Father, by the agency of the Spirit, seeking the hand of the bride. "Will you be the bride of My Son?" The Father speaks life & love into the heart of the bride. There is a spiritual union forged. The wedding day is the baptism, the legal binding into covenant union. In my scenario, the proposal (regeneration) is an authentic union but it is ordinarily made fruitful at the wedding (baptism). We then, through history, progress to the wedding feast at the consumation of time.

This may be froot loopiness supreme & I now await vociferous opposition.

Still stewing over Matt's February 01 2003 blog entry.
So are we to consider baptism to be a covenant ratification? That's all it could be, if regenerate conception is a fact for elect covenant children. If so, how do we reconcile baptismal ratification with salvific New Covenant terminology regarding baptism?

Matt's post is keeping me awake at night...

Sometimes I feel like such a dope.
I love theology. I love to think about it, talk about it, experiment with it... But, alas, I have no formal training so I say stupid things, I entertain dumb ideas, I regularly make ridiculous blunders. But, tonight I am comforted and encouraged by the words of N.T. Wright who says, "I am, to this extent, carrying on the noble tradition of continuing my theological education in public."*

Man, if that's true of Wright, then I shouldn't be embarrassed ....

I pleasant discovery to end a dismal day. :-)

*from a series of lectures at Westminster Abbey:
"Evil and the Justice of God" Thanks Theo.

I made the change!
I finally reached my fun-peak with Haloscan. I now have the Sensus Plenior comment system. Unfortunately, this means I've lost all of my previous comments. Well, not really. I can access them privately but they are not available on my blog. Small price to pay for a reliable comment system! Thanks Jon, for providing this service.

Speaking of Richard...
On his 2.5.2003 entry, he linked some audio lectures by Norman Shepherd. Sounds good!

Thanks Richard
I needed this reminder. Yesterday's unhappy state has been mitigated. What a tenuous grasp I have on these precious truths of the covenant. Oh well, at least this old dog is still learning.

Excedrin headache No. 3:3
See "February 01 2003 CONCEIVED REGENERATE? (REVISITED)"

I'm so confoozed. Maybe it's time for ol' Strawbrains to go back to the basics of the faith and leave the particulars for the big kids to play with. Just when I think I'm beginning to get a modicum of understanding...

A bit from N.T. Wright on prayer
From his seminary lectures at Calvin College regarding Paul's picture of new creation in Ro. 8:
"Here is this vision of creation renewed...Is it just a dream? Is it just something in the future? Does it break into the present? Of course. Of course it breaks into the present. And it must do so because it was inaugurated specifically with the resurrection of Jesus. When Jesus came out of the tomb on Easter morning, the new creation came to birth. It has already happened and it will be fulfilled. It's not just a dream. We live between Easter and that final moment. What then shall we do? Sit back and wait for the day when justice and mercy will embrace, when peace will flood the earth, when beauty will be all around and all ugliness be banished? We just have to wait for that? No, of course not..."

(Here, a story is interjected about a pastor's advice to a parishoner to live in inaugurated eschatology as a new creation in Christ - not waiting for the fulfillment of the new creation - living it now.)

"Now, God is going to remake heaven and earth and there will be a place where justice and righteousness live. Shall we not bring that forward into the present as well? "

"And the other point of inaugurated eschatology in regard to that new creation...is prayer. Quite mundane in one way and totally, inexhaustibly deep in another... Prayer is the anticipation in the present of that strange, sovereign stewardship over creation which humans were intended to have at the beginning and lost at the fall. In prayer, when we pray for God's world, we are standing mysteriously, strangely, groaningly, daring to stand at the point of being new human beings, under God and over the world."

Wright goes on to say that if we really understood that, it would energize our prayer in fresh ways. We would understand that the sufferings we go through are so that the Spirit can groan through us for the pain of the world.