Whilin' Away the Hours

Part of the reason
I posted the quote below is that I've been surfing Arabic news sites. One of the more disgusting is Al-Jazeera. This Arabic language site contains graphic pictures. It's where I saw photos of the living & executed POWs which caused such an outrage among officials in the U.S. As bad as those pictures were, the pictures of dead & wounded Iraqi children are far more disturbing. But the pictures make me angry as well. This site is a propaganda machine shouting the horrors caused by American aggressors while turning a blind eye to crimes perpetrated by the regime it apparently supports. Where are the photos of tortured soccer players and gassed Kurds? Why don't we see photos of political prisoners placed feet first into plastics shredders or acid baths? Why isn't there a photograph of the woman hanged by the Iraqi military for waving at coalition troops or of the fratricide at Basra?

I've been ambivalent regarding the justness of this war. But now that we are in, I'm driven by one consideration, one hope. The war isn't about the undoing of a brutal regime. If it were, we'd be fighting brutal regimes all over the globe. It's not about the hypocrisy of Islamic society. Hussein's Iraq is a secular Islamic society and comparisons could be rife between secular Christian United States and secular Islamic Iraq. The irony is not lost on me. But that does not change one simple, elemental fact: Islam is evil. Period. To quote Presbyterian pastor, James Alexander Bryan, as cited in The Blood of the Moon by George Grant, "Dost thou not know that the hosts of Cain and the minions of Babel, the legions of Saracene and the hordes of Arabia are set from eternity against the covenant people. Pray therefore. Night and day, pray. Moment by moment, pray. Pray for mercy, O dear souls, pray."

Grant goes on to write:
" Pray because the passion for Ji'had will not go away simply because we deploy troops in impressive and deadly array. Pray because the desire for Dhimmi* will continue to divide East and West despite our carefully constructed international coalitions and strategic alliances. Pray because it's never over till it's over."

My primary consideration in this war is the hope that it may be the beginning of the end for militant Islam - however small a beginning it might be. Historically, God used corrupt governments to advance His Kingdom. Pray that God would be pleased to use this war as an instrument for the judgment and fall of Islam.
Pray for the destruction of Islam

*Submission tax imposed on subject nations; property confiscation; an alternative to Ji'hjad

Right...
"In war, Islam forbids the destruction of homes, trees and places of worship and the killing of women, children and the elderly. It called for the humane treatment of the dead, the wounded and prisoners. “These are Islamic principles which the West in all its wars has never respected,” said Dr. Al-Thahhar. “The US, the country carrying the banner of human rights, is the first to disregard them when it comes to other people,” she added."

Islam Has Definite Guidelines on Rights of Combatants & Non-Combatants

Just walk away Renee
Don't Go Back to the U.N.
By Charles Krauthammer

Don't go back, Mr. President. You walked away from the United Nations at great cost and with great courage. Don't go back.

No one knows when this war will end. But when it does, you'll have to decide the terms. Yet in the past few days both you and Tony Blair have said you will seek a new U.N. resolution, postwar, providing for the governance of Iraq.

Why in God's name would we want to re-empower the French in deciding the postwar settlement? Why would we want to grant them influence over the terms, the powers, the duration of an occupation bought at the price of American and British blood? France, Germany and Russia did everything they could to sabotage your policy before the war. Will they want to see it succeed after the war?

The Frankfurter Allgemeine reports that on Feb. 21, Germany's U.N. ambassador, Gunter Pleuger, wrote his Foreign Ministry that the United States, blocked on a U.N. war resolution and fighting alone, would later "remorsefully return to the council" to seek help in rebuilding Iraq.

That is their game. Why should we play into it? And why return the issue to Kofi Annan, who had the audacity to declare the war illegitimate because it is supported by only 17 U.N. resolutions and not 18?

Mr. President, we lost at the United Nations. Badly. But that signal defeat had one significant side benefit. For the first time, Americans got to see what the United Nations truly is. The experience has been bracing. The result has been an enormous and salutary shift in American public opinion.

You've seen the polls: Seventy-five percent of Americans disapprove of how the United Nations handled the situation with Iraq. In December, polls showed a majority of Americans opposed to a war without U.N. backing. Today, after the U.N. debacle, 71 percent support the war regardless.

What happened? Americans finally had a look inside the sausage factory. Their image of the United Nations as a legitimating institution had always been deeply sentimental, based on the United Nations of their youth -- UNICEF, refugee help, earthquake assistance. A global Mother Teresa. That's what they thought of the United Nations, and that's why they held it in esteem and cared about what it said. Now they know that it is not UNICEF collection boxes but a committee of cynical, resentful, ex-imperial powers such as France and Russia serving their own national interests -- and delighting in frustrating America's -- without the slightest reference to the moral issues at stake. The American public understands that this is not a body with which to entrust American values or American security.

On Sept. 12, 2002, you gave the United Nations a fair test: Act like a real instrument for collective security or die like the League of Nations. The United Nations failed spectacularly. The American people saw it. And the American people are now with you in leaving the United Nations behind.

Why resurrect it after the war? When not destructive, as on Iraq, it is useless, as on North Korea. China has blocked the Security Council from even meeting to deal with North Korea's brazen nuclear breakout. On this one, the Security Council wants the United States to unilaterally engage North Korea -- this amid daily excoriations of the United States for "unilateralism."

The hypocrisy is stunning. But the deeper issue is that the principal purpose of the Security Council is not to restrain tyrants but to restrain the United States.

The Security Council is nothing more than the victory coalition of 1945. That was six decades ago. Let a new structure be born out of the Iraq coalition. Maybe it will acquire a name, maybe it won't. But it is this coalition of freedom -- led by the United States and Britain and about 30 other nations, including such moderate Arab states as Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar -- that should set and institutionalize the terms for postwar Iraq. Not the Security Council.

If we're going to negotiate terms, it should be with allies who helped us, who share our vision and our purposes. Not with France, Germany, Russia and China, which see us -- you -- as the threat, and whose singular purpose will be to subvert any victory.

There were wars and truces and treaties before the United Nations was created -- as there will be after its demise. No need to formally leave the organization, Mr. President. Just ignore it. Without us, it will wither away.

Fighting a war and rebuilding Iraq are tasks enough, I know. But serendipity -- and France -- have given you the opportunity to build new international structures without the albatross of this hopeless anachronism.

No act of commission is required. Just omission. Don't return, Mr. President. Don't give Ambassador Pleuger the satisfaction of seeing you crawl back.

Shhh...don't tell my husband*
Just ordered:
The Epistles of Paul to the Colossians and to Philemon: An Introduction and Commentary
The Lord and His Prayer
Resurrection and Redemption: A Study in Paul's Soteriology

*I'm teasing. One of my husband's maxims is, "A book worth reading is a book worth owning."

The little decade test below
caused me to ponder my nefarious past and so to be reminded of how precious God's covenantal relationship to His people really is. We've learned to be wowed by spectacular conversions and dramatically changed lives; not a bad thing of course and I am thankful that God continues to graft heathens and pagans into the Vine. But, what of the quiet growing up in the faith that I see all around me in the kids of family and friends? To me, this is truly spectacular, an awesome display to God's sovereign grace. It's not surprising that rebels, as they reap the consequences of their choices, should begin to search for meaning in life. It happens every day. It is much, much more surprising to me that God imparts saving faith covenantally - to the children's children. It's one more demonstration that God uses means: earthly, tangible means to accomplish His will.

I recently heard the opinion expressed that Presbyterians have a poor record for children continuing in the faith as adults. I'm not sure what the grounds were for that comment, in fact, no grounds were offered. But, I disagree. Granted, I don't have mountains of evidence since I have only 20 years of observation in covenantally oriented Reformed congregations. In these 20 years I think I could count on one hand the kids who've walked away from the Lord.

One of the best
news anchor comments I heard during the bombings:
"Kim Jong Il, I hope you're watching."

Googlism:
google is going bezerk
google is increasing its infrastructure as fast as it can
google is a careless custodian of private information
google is a harsh mistress
google is not going to do anything as a result of it

I"ll join the ranks of the annoyed bloggers. It seemed that Google wouldn't let me republish so I googled Google.

No big surprise here:

what decade does your personality live in?

quiz brought to you by lady interference, ltd

Snagged from Rick.

On the eve of war
The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord,
Like the rivers of water; He turns it wherever He wishes.
Proverbs 21:1

I've been reading a barrage of political debate over the last days, weeks, and months. Discussions such as these are no doubt valuable but I've grown weary of the partisanship. The course is set; it's time to refocus.

The coming days harbor secrets. I feel as though I'm holding my breath in anticipation of... what? Will there be a swift, decisive victory in Iraq? Will allied forces depose a global menace and liberate a people? Or, are we about to provoke a war the likes of which we have never seen. The uncertainties are difficult to wait upon.

But, one thing is certain: Christ Jesus is Lord! He reigns from heaven until His enemies are put under His feet. Regardless of our political persuasions, I think we can agree that God's ways are not our ways. Throughout redemptive history, God has used sinful men and corrupt empires to advance His kingdom. From Pharaoh to Caesar, all have served God's holy purpose. No one knows what we will face in the coming war but we have confidence that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church, that is to say, the Church will beat down the gates of hell and triumph! And that means whatever transpires in the coming war will serve to advance the Kingdom of our God.

The Lord said to my Lord,
"Sit at My right hand,
Till I make Your enemies Your footstool."
The Lord shall send the rod of Your strength out of Zion.
Rule in the midst of Your enemies!
Your people shall be volunteers
In the day of Your power;
In the beauties of holiness, from the womb of the morning,
You have the dew of Your youth.
The Lord has sworn
And will not relent,
"You are a priest forever
According to the order of Melchizedek."
The Lord is at Your right hand;
He shall execute kings in the day of His wrath.
He shall judge among the nations,
He shall fill the places with dead bodies,
He shall execute the heads of many countries.
He shall drink of the brook by the wayside;
Therefore He shall lift up the head.

Since there is so much fur flying
over John Armstrong, I think it's time for us to subscribe to Reformation and Revival as a show of support. Yesterday I found Justification by Faith Alone by Norman Shepherd stored as a file in a Yahoo group and today I see An Interview with N.T. Wright posted at Theologia both taken from R & R. If this is typical, I think I need to subscribe.

I forwarded an essay by Armstrong to my husband at work a month or so ago because I thought it was good but also because I noticed he attended Wheaton College. Since my husband and Dr. Armstrong looked to be about the same age I asked my husband if he knew him. He did! They went to college together and, if I remember correctly, they lived on the same dorm floor. I asked my husband what he was like and he said he would have made a good Santa. In the dark humor isle of my mind I hear Church Lady say, "Let's just rearrange those letters and see what we get. Could it beeeEEE..............SAYYY-TAN?!?"
I should start avoiding the Warfield list. It's warping me.

A reminder
As we pray for the safety of our troops and for a swift end to the coming war, please don't forget to pray for Iraqi Christians.
The Reformed Churches in Iraq

Evil kitty
We are most displeased with His Royal Catness.

After having cold temperatures and snow on the ground for months, the weather suddenly turned warm and with the change out came the wildlife. Robins are chasing each other in territorial disputes, rabbits & chipmunks are venturing out of their tunnels, and mice are running the fields once again.

Our evil kitty, Eleven (yes, that's his name. see pictures in the album if you'd like), has been house bound for an eternity. He passed the days sleeping, chasing Angus the dog around the house, and deviling our two parakeets. Deviling the 'keets is a particularly annoying habit of his. He sits interminably staring at the cage and just when I decide he's going to behave, he hurls himself bodily through the air latching onto the cage. It swings wildly as Merry & Pippin Parakeet flap and flutter in panic. He finds this amusing but intensely frustrating because he can't get to the birds. He can only hang from the cage and dream...

The first day that was decent for a Royal Outing, His Royal Catness brought a robin for my inspection. I discovered him happily plucking the poor creature at the foot of the basement stairs. I grabbed him and in a most undignified way, hurled him into an adjacent room. The poor robin was in shock but alive. I carried it outside where, within a few minutes, it flew away minus a handfull of feathers. One bird. The following day was a repeat. Same M.O. Two birds. The evil cat had proved he could count.

The next day there was a mouse. I discovered the Royal victory just as His Highness was decapitating it.

Then, Sunday morning in the wee hours, we were awakened by a commotion at the foot of the bed. That thumping & bounding about could only mean one thing: Eleven Had Something. My husband clicked on the lamp as I jumped out of bed expecting to find something bad on the floor. Nothing! Hmmm...I knew there was an animal in our bedroom somewhere. My husband caught sight of it as it ran into a corner behind the curtains. It was a chipmunk, unhurt and wanting badly to be somewhere else. My past experience with chipmunk rescue taught me they were unlikely to bite so I just scooped it up with my hands and carried it outside. Another happy ending.

Today, I heard odd noises just outside my lab at the foot of the stairs. Fearing the usual, I checked and there His Royal Catness was, looking up at me with a feathery grin. The robin looked spent. I was pretty sure it's wing was broken but I still tried to save it. I carried it outside to the deck and my husband & I watched for signs of recovery but when it tried to fly, it fell 20 ft. from the deck and we knew for sure that it's wing was broken. No happy ending today. My husband shot the bird rather than let it suffer a slow death.

I love our cat. I really do. He's affectionate & playful and he can be really funny sometimes. But oh, how I hate that he tortures and kills for fun. The cruelty of the animal kingdom is a compelling argument for a literal six day creation. If fossil records are interpreted through an old earth grid, it seems inevitable that there were carnivores long before man existed. Such suffering could not have been part of God's good creation.

Kline's besieged covenant
I'll be keeping my eye on Tim Gallant's Saturday March 15th 2003 blog entry dealing with Meredith Kline's Covenant Theology Under Attack. I appreciate what Tim has written and I hope to see some good discussion.

A harbinger of spring
Our home is situated on the edge of a natural wetlands. Between our backyard & the marsh is a prairie-like field. Every March, I await the return of the American Woodcock. It's distinctive call is heard only at dusk and I'm privileged to watch it's spectacular courtship flight from my deck. Tonight, the Woodcock arrived! Spring is near...

Why
does red wine make my nose red?

White wine doesn't. Beer doesn't. No other alcohol makes my nose red. But, after no more than two or three sips of red wine, I look like Bozo.

Why?

For Nick
I'll try to elaborate a bit on some of Rev. Wilson's points in the sermon I mentioned below. It'll be a bit rushed, so forgive me if it's jumbled.

But first, I've experienced singleness in the church from a variety of perspectives so I'm sensitive to this issue. My radar pings when I hear good things for singles from the pulpit. I came to the Reformed faith married to an unbeliever who resisted God at every point including willingness to have children. So, practically speaking, I was single in the church though in reality I had a husband. When he passed away unexpectedly, I was really single in the church - and not a kid. I was a 40 something single woman. Now I'm remarried to a Christian husband and I find I'm having to learn how to be a married person in the church! Life is strange. Anyway...

The observation that being a single in a family oriented church should be a benefit is true and in my case, it was experientially true. I was never excluded from activities, meals etc. For me, my attitude was the hinderance. For example, it was difficult to sit through a 3 month long sermon series on child rearing. In my better moments, I knew that I could take at least some of the principles from the sermons and apply them as I related to the children of others. More often than not, the sermons left me feeling empty; self-pity was my only child. Another example can be found in our natural propensity to forge friendships around common interests. In the church, the majority of adult women are stay-at-home moms and their friendships revolve almost exclusively around children and homeschooling. As a single working woman, I had very little to contribute to such friendships. Again, my attitude was the primary problem. These issues are rarely addressed in a formal way. Sure, singles can go to their elders for help but I think this is important enough that whole congregations need to be instructed. Our society is filled with adult singles who are finding what ever route they can to fill the emptiness of single-hood. To borrow a phrase from Jane, if we are allowed to grow into a "domestic fortress" mentality, we are loosing a desperately needed opportunity for ministry.

Oh, this was about the content of Doug Wilson's sermon! I almost forgot. ;-) He's been doing a series in which the rooms of a home play a role and this particular sermon was about the bedroom. I could imagine the collective sigh of the singles. But, to my surprise he began talking to the singles! So, a few quick, rather jumbled hilights:

The marriage bed undefiled: Lack of fidelity defiles the marriage bed. The root of infidelity is covetousness and discontent. (Heb. 13:1-5) The fountainhead of sexual immorality is discontent. Christians are told to be content with what they have. Contentment must be pervasive in all aspects of life...no raw deals from God.

In this series, the routine application is to marrieds because most are. But, there are some erroneous or harmful applications possible in that, for older singles in a church with a family orientation, it becomes easy to develop a 5th wheel mentality or a "what's the use" mindset. Head of household singles are typically tempted in two rooms: the dining room & the bedroom. No one with whom to share meals, no one to share the bed. Can suffer self-pity, laziness, lonliness, unfulfilled sexual desire. But the unmarried are called by God to establish healthy households just like everyone else. Obedient households.

The unmarried honor the marriage bed just as much as the married but they do so by different means. Obviously, abstaining from fornication is one way. Honoring the vows of others is another way. Others are in covenant with their spouses. The single should honor those vows. Women: dress modestly so as to not stumble husbands. Men: realize the sexes are different and women respond to different stimuli. Women can be stumbled by relationships. Very close, intimate male/female relationships (to which women are highly susceptible) which are only friendships are inherently dangerous. She is made to feel singled out by him, special but he has established a relationship with her that is not covenantally bounded. In a covenantal relationship, jealousy is good but in this situation, there is no ground for jealousy. When someone else comes into the picture - comes between this intimate friendship, all the feelings of jealousy will be there for the woman. What if he marries someone else? What if he then wants to continue the close relationship with the woman friend...long intimate chats, going out together, etc.? Will the wife allow her husband to give to his friend what is hers by right? So, if that right belongs to the spouse in the future marriage, it belongs to the future spouse now as well. Men, honor future vows. This is not legalism, it is charity. So, the unmarried are to honor the marriage bed by honoring the vows of others. And, don't let your behavior now to cause stumbling in the future.

A second way of honoring the marriage bed is to cultivate a sense of contentment with what God has given you now. It's not wrong to desire marriage but it is wrong to desire marriage because you are discontented. If you are discontent unmarried, you will be discontent married. Marriage will not change you from a grumbler. It won't fix sin, it will amplify it. Likewise, contentment will be amplified in marriage.

(As an aside) Marriage cannot fix sin. Ladies, how does he treat his mother? How does he speak to her? His propensities won't be changed by marriage. Living together makes everything worse apart from the contentment that comes from God.

Marrieds: don't adopt a patronizing attitude towards the unmarried head of household. Be careful about your speech and your treatment of singles. Don't honor married households over single households.

Well, there you have it. A quick overview of one segment of the sermon. I thought it was really cool that Wilson was sensitive to the adult singles in his congregation, even giving priority to them.

Working and listening...
As I worked today, I listened to 3 sermons from Christ Church. The juxtaposition of two of them was really weird. The first was "Reformed Catholicity" by Steve Wilkins. As I was listening, it occurred to me that perhaps God "tolerates" the multiplicity of denominations and church schism the same way he tolerated polygamy and divorce in Israel. Next, I listened to "Sanctified Satire." What a change of pace! But I'm glad I listened in light of the recent kerfluffle at Christ Church. Ecclesiastical obstinancy is a phrase I won't soon forget. The final sermon was "A Biblical Home VII." I was pleased by how much time Wilson spent on singles and the advice he had for them. I often feel that singles fall through the cracks in our family oriented churches.

Hmm...I'm out of words.

It's that time of year
Our thoughts turn toward egg hunts & baskets filled with jelly beans (ahem...this is tongue in cheek)

To honor the season of that delectable confection known as Peeps, Entropy Productions proudly presents...

Lord of the Peeps

At long last
Tim Gallant has posted his Affirmations on Justification and Covenant-Keeping.

This looks to be a useful outline for study & discussion. Thanks Tim.

Answers

The garverized Mark Horne has two articles up on Theologia addressing the N.T. Wright controversy.

The first is N. T. Wright on the Atonement, a concise and clear explanation of Wright's infamous views on atonement and imputation.

The second is an answer to a letter published on PCA News.Com: Answers to Public Questions Regarding N. T. Wright & Theologia

Finally, I'm going to add a few brief thoughts about a segment of Andrew Webb's piece in, The New Perspective is 'Another Gospel' but in an indirect way.

Regarding Webb's piece, his errors have been well documented by Daniel Kirk and by Mark's paper linked above. In an email, Andrew Webb cited another article, Tom Wright on Conversion by Brian Robinson as evidence for the following conclusion: "Paul then, according to Wright, was already a member of the Covenant Community and thus already Justified, on the Damascus road. What happened is that Paul's world was rocked with the realization that Jesus was Lord and King, and that now entry into the Covenant Community would involve believing in Jesus, it had been extended beyond just the borders of Israel. Thus while Paul's vocation was changed as a result of his encounter with Christ, this was not a conversion from sinner to saint. Rather, it was when Paul went from misguided saint, to saint with a mission" (from the PCANews article by Webb).

My comments are about both of these critiques:
1. Brian Robinson's diatribe against "national vindication vs heaven" is amusing. I've been taught from the pulpit of my OPC that the Jews had a poorly developed concept of "afterlife" and that going to heaven was a truth which was progressively revealed esp. in N.T. times. So, his critique of Wright on that point is based on an anachronism. In any case, New Testement Christians understand that "going to heaven when we die" is not our final destination but rather we look for a new creation.

2. Both authors seem to think that Wright considers Saul to be righteous and justified in his covenant standing. Again, this is a fiction; Wright has never suggested such an absurdly ridiculous notion. I believe Wright has a better grasp of Covenant Theology than either Webb or Robinson. I see Wright as saying that Saul, a member of the covenant, by all appearances, of the order of Esau, was converted from an erroneous and sinful understanding of the covenant and covenantal eschatology (hence not justified) to a true, Christocentric covenant and "initiated eschatology (now justified)."

3. Both authors seem to believe that Wright teaches that the Pharisees held the oracles of God in righteousness. N.T. Wright teaches nothing of the sort. From what I understand, Wright affirms that the sectarian atmosphere at the time of Jesus was an offense to God; an attempt by warring parties to set up God's kingdom in the exclusiveness of ethnic Judaism - a direct violation of God's command to Israel to be a light to the nations. Jesus did not criticize the Pharisees for their law keeping, He criticized them for their perversion of it.

But, that Christ criticized the Pharisees, is not to say that there were no saved Jews in Christ's time. Some did hold the oracles of God in righteousness. Witness Zacharias & Elizabeth:
"There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah. His wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless."
They were righteous before God. That's what N.T. Wright teaches...not that Pharisaical perversion was covenant keeping.

Andrew Webb has publicly called for a witch hunt on the BB Warfield list. I therefore publicly ask that he reconsider in light of the above information. I am amazed beyond words that he would put godly men out of the PCA while tolerating and even approving John Robbins.

I don't remember who it was...
but recently, a blogger noted that the ads at the top of Blogspot seemed to be thematic. I was just visiting Duane's blog and I noticed the banner at the top: "Antichrist Revealed."

Um, Duane? Is there something you haven't told us?

Get it from the horse's mouth
Gaffin's gaff regarding the NPP notwithstanding, this inaugural address for the Krahe Chair of Biblical and Systematic Theology at Westminster is an excellent overview of his position on the ordo salutis, or, Calvin's "modus salutis."

Oddly enough, this is the link included in Daniel Kirk's response to Douglas Kelly.

Yeah...
In Did Herman Bavinck Teach an “Ordo Salutis” in His Theology?, Ron Gleason cites Richard Gaffin:

"For the purposes of this dissertation Gaffin makes certain important statements regarding the doctrine of justification by faith. He says, “Not justification by faith but union with the resurrected Christ by faith (of which union, to be sure, the justifying aspect stands out perhaps most prominently) is the central motif of Pauline soteriology.” Moreover it is understood as a consequence “That the subjectively transforming elements of soteric experience are aspects of having been raised with Christ and flow from union with him is clear from passages like Ephesians 2:5f. and Romans 6:3ff. and needs no further argument.” This means that “According to Romans 8:34, justification depends not simply on an action in the past experience of the believer but on his present relation to the person of the resurrected Christ (cf. I Cor. 15:17).” [bold added]

And later he describes an aspect of Herman Bavinck's view of ordo:

"As the Holy Spirit leads the believers in the way of truth, the “new life” is not comprised of an immediate experience of grace and redemption, but in a firm decision and a committed act of obedience to God’s will. This is no legalis poenitentia, but one that flows forth from faith and is only possible in union with Christ. It is a poenitentia that is typified by mortificatio and vivificatio.

Poenitentia is another essential part of the Christian life. Without it, the Christian life does not exist. Its “ingredients” are mortification of sin (mortificatio) and coming to life in Christ (vivificatio). True poenitentia is expressed by the believer’s thankfulness to God for the gift of salvation."

The best personality quiz ever...

The Oracle of Starbucks

Funny how things happen
A few posts down, I was trying, with great difficulty, to express why I thought is was an error to say that any of the benefits of Christ are grounded on our status as justified. Then, last night I read Daniel Kirk's response to Douglas Kelly's critique of The New Perspective. He spent a few paragraphs presenting Richard Gaffin's ordo salutis - something with which I became familiar last year while listening to some Kerux Conference audio files by Gaffin on Ordo/Historia Salutis. Those paragraphs distill what I was trying to say far better than I could. So, even though some of you may have read Daniel's piece, this bears special attention.
"I begin with Gaffin: “The justifying aspect of being raised with Christ does not rest on the believer’s subjective enlivening and transformation … but on the resurrection-approved righteousness of Christ which is his (and is thus reckoned his) by virtue of the vital union established” (Resurrection and Redemption, 132).
In other words, a believer is righteous because he is united with Jesus Christ, the Righteous.
Gaffin continues: “If anything, this outlook which makes justification exponential of existential union with the resurrected Christ serves to keep clear what preoccupation with the idea of imputation can easily obscure, namely, that the justification of the ungodly is not arbitrary but according to truth: it is synthetic with respect to the believer only because it is analytic with respect to Christ (as resurrected). Not justification by faith but union with the resurrected Christ by faith (of which union, to be sure, the justifying aspect stands out perhaps most prominently) is the central motif of Paul’s applied soteriology” (ibid.).
This is a difficult paragraph, but what Gaffin is saying is that a believer, by faith, participates in Christ. Because the believer participates in Christ, who was justified, the believer is also justified. In other words, justification is derivative of being united to Christ by faith, it is a facet of our union with Christ (cf. Resurrection and Redemption, 127).
Recently, Gaffin has made it clear that he views this union with Christ soteriology as of a piece with the theology of John Calvin. In his recent lecture celebrating his appointment to the Krahe Chair of Biblical and Systematic Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary, Gaffin said the following about Calvin’s ordo salutis:
Calvin says we must climb higher and there consider the secret energy of the Spirit. Faith is Spirit-worked. The union is forged by the Spirit’s work of faith in us: faith that ‘puts on Christ’ (Gal 3). Faith is the bond of the union seen from our side. The Holy Spirit is the bond by which Christ binds us to himself. This is Calvin’s ordo: union with Christ by Spirit-worked faith.
The implication is that our justification, sanctification, adoption and other benefits of redemption are all aspects of our union with Christ. In the same lecture, Gaffin argues for a similar theological infrastructure beneath the Westminster Larger Catechism:
The Larger Catechism is saying that union and communion with Christ are most basic, encompassing all other benefits. 66: It’s being joined to Christ, union is effected spiritually/mystically. It is being drawn to Jesus (67), truly coming to Jesus Christ (68). In addressing the union in grace that believers have, Question and Answer 69 speaks of justification, adoption…and anything else that comes from union with Him. Union with Christ is not put in series with other benefits mentioned… In the Westminster Standards, the thing that underlies other benefits is union with Christ.
The claim here is that Gaffin’s own project in Resurrection and Redemption is a faithful witness to the union with Christ ordo salutis that undergirds the theology of Calvin and the Westminster Standards. In all three, justification is seen as one wonderful result of faith-union with Christ."

A Response to Douglas Kelly
I'm sure I'll be one of many but here it is, more food for thought: New Perspective on Reformed Tradition: A Response to Kelly

Time to revisit the world of Mad Max?
This is about the most depressing thing I've read regarding our current world situation:
The Other Imminent Danger

I think I live in a naive bubble, even after 9/11. The worst case scenario in this piece by Kurtz is almost inconceivable: instant global destabilization. Tribalism at it's most savage.

Lord, have mercy on us.

Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time...

Fun at work
I just got to do something I rarely get to do these days.

I'm a tooth tinker by trade, crown & bridge to be exact. I don't make dentures or partials, just teeth that are cemented into place permanently or "caps" if you are untutored in the lingo. I own my own little business operated out of my home and it's a nice situation albeit a little isolated.

I make teeth out of gold and porcelain. They're all hand crafted & custom designed - no prefab molds or any of that sort of schlock - and when I'm finished with them, they look real. I care about what I do. One of the best parts of my job is making a tooth or teeth with character. If I'm making 6 anterior incisors (yer front teeth), it is a joy to make them just slightly crooked and with some of the normal stains & hairline cracks that real teeth have. I can be creative.

But, over the last 5 years, things have changed. Everyone wants to look like Hollywood. No more slightly crooked teeth. And stains? Subtle characterizations of shade? Phooey! Everyone has their teeth bleached these days. So all I get are cases requiring bland, chalky, artificial looking white teeth. Bleh.

Except today. I made a gloriously discolored lower molar. The dentine was the color of caramel and the enamel was a lovely translucent pearl grey. The occlusal fissures were stained dark coffee and just for fun I added some white decalcified spots. Oh, joy. What nostalgia I feel for the good old days when teeth looked like teeth.

ROTFLOL!
Go see what's so funny!

Am I confused or...
I hear some among the Reformed speak as though justification were the ground of sanctification and glorification. I can't cite a specific instance at the moment, but it's been a growing suspicion that a scholastic approach to ordo salutis has yielded a layered ground something like: because one is justified, one will be sanctified and glorified. Doesn't this make one's justification the ground of sanctification & glorification? And isn't that contrary to being "in Christ" and receiving His benefits as a single act yet with differing aspects?

Or, am I a trifle mixed up and maybe I should take up knitting?

I've added a new link
to my Internet Lifelines category. It's called Grace Unknown, Adventures in Medieval Protestantism and it's owned by Tim Enloe, a contender for the faith. Check it out! Tim has some great stuff on his site.

I'm sorry,
It seems like so much of what I post is, "wow, I just read this and it's really cool." Well....I can't help myself!.

I'm slowly making my way through Dennis A. Bratcher's The Concepts of Conditionality and Apostasy in Relation to the Covenant

I just finished Chapter One: Metatheological Considerations and wow, it's really cool. That's about all I can say ay this point.

Thanks for putting me onto this Matt & Phil. (They each suggested it to me independently of the other. I got the hint.

In an effort to overcome my propensity to blog links to papers and since I realize many bloggers prefer personal anecdotes in their blog reading, here ya go:
I'm now going to make myself get up from this computer. Shortly, I will be going to the grocery store which will be a zoo because it's Saturday. I'm going to buy a cabbage and a bottle of Merlot. I'll stop at Blockbuster on the way home to see if they have "Band of Brothers" on DVD. When I get home, I'll put a corned beef on the stove to simmer and then vacuum. My husband will be asleep so I'll work in my lab for a few hours before a late dinner and a movie. Oh, while I work, I'll probably listen to the last in the series of lectures by Norman Shepherd from 2001 Christian Education Conf. Messiah's Congregation. Wow, they're really cool.
;-)