Whilin' Away the Hours

Ok, I'll be honest...
This kind of piggy-backs on the post below.

I've read Rich Lusk's Some Thoughts on the Means of Grace: A Few Proposals twice now and I'm pretty comfortable with it (don't 'cha hate that phrase?). But, I've come to the realization that I have to admit something. The foundation of this admission is the fact that Richard Gaffin has changed the way I look at salvation. Union with Christ is not among the benefits of salvation but rather it is that by which all the benefits of salvation come to us.

In his paper, Rev. Lusk proposes the following:

"1. Baptism unites us to Christ.

Scripture is clear: baptism is the means through which the Spirit unites us to Christ. No other means is said have this function; it is the peculiar grace attached to baptism.

This union with Christ as the living head of the new, redeemed humanity is deeply mysterious. We would not pretend to understand all the "mechanics" of it. But at the very least, we may insist that baptism puts the one baptized into a state of salvation. It grafts us into Christ's body that we may share in his life." [bold face added]

If, as Gaffin (and Paul) teaches, union with Christ is participating in all His benefits including justification and adoption then I must conclude that the one baptized receives all His benefits. I then must admit that not all who are baptized persevere in the faith, therefore, some are cut out of Christ and loose His benefits. IOW, there are some who are once justified but who do not continue in Christ and therefore forfeit justification. I do not, however, believe that election can be undone or lost. I believe all of this is by decree.

"Still, our redemption would be imperfect if he [that is, Christ] the Redeemer did not ever lead us onward to the final goal of salvation. Accordingly, the moment we turn away even slightly from him, our salvation, which rests firmly in him, gradually vanishes away. As a result, all those who do not repose in him voluntarily deprive themselves of all grace. . . we must earnestly ponder how he accomplishes salvation for us. This we must do not only to be persuaded that he is its author, but to gain a sufficient and stable support for our faith, rejecting whatever could draw us away in one direction or another." Calvin, In. II.8.18

Perseverance as a defining status in salvation
Why must this be such a stumbling block? What is perseverance other than enduring faith? These two things are true: (1) faith is a gift from God and (2) faith can be choked and killed by unbelief. Isn't this part of the paradox of God's sovereign decree and man's responsibility? When we exercise faith we say it is a gift of God. When we struggle with unbelief we don't accuse God but we own our personal responsibility. If we persevere in faith, it is because God decreed it. If we succumb to unbelief, it is because we turned away from God's gift. Couldn't it then be said that the constituent elements of saving faith and temporary faith are sometimes the same but differentiated in time by either God's sustaining grace or human sin? IOW, union with Christ is not a one time, external event but an ongoing relationship produced by the Holy Spirit through enduring faith.

Just thinking outloud...and probably getting into trouble.

Splash
It's been three months since I was given permission from the owner to post a transcript of the support speech made by Cornelius Van Til on behalf of Norman Shepherd. That entry has received hundreds of hits and continues to generate interest. But, given the continued interest, I thought I would repost a link to a more thorough treatment than my blog entry:

Caution and Respect in Controversy by Randy Booth.

The Internet is a strange place.
(I'm about to tell about what happened to me today. The story involves people who might read this...so, you-know-who, I hope you don't mind. It's just too oddly funny to keep to myself. Well, it's not that funny. If you want to be really entertained, go read Little Geneva.)

It's a weirdly connected world when I get an email from someone whom I've never met but have bumped into on blogs & message boards, giving me his phone number and asking if I would please get in touch with his brother (who happens to go to my church) because he can't reach him and has reason to be a bit concerned. I did - and everything was OK. So, today I called some folks halfway across the country to tell them their brother was fine.

Not long after I began reading blogs, I noticed a familiar last name signed on a comment on what used to be a blog. I visited the blog that belonged to the last name and, noting a few more "coincidental" things, decided that this person just might be related to a gentleman who had just recently begun attending my church after moving to Dayton. It was an uncommon last name and the location was right... Just for fun, I emailed the holder of the last name to ask if they might be related. There are no strangers in blogdom after all! And, yes! They were related. The young man I emailed was the nephew of the gentleman from my church. LOL! Small world. The following Sunday, I teased the gentleman at church with information gleaned from his nephew's blog which made it sound as though we knew each other. It was a good joke. As time went on, I began seeing the nephew's mom & dad commenting on other blogs & Yahoo groups and somehow we kind of became aware of each other's presence here & there. Today, it became a useful thing.

Pagan problems?
"They [Christians] are doing what (I suggest) all Christian confrontation of paganism must do. Instead of either assimilating or retreating into a dualistic ghetto, the church must seek to build shrines for the true god on ground at present occupied by paganism. Only so can the dehumanizing and distorting power of paganism be broken, and replaced with the healing and restoring love of the creator and redeemer god."

One God, One Lord, One People, N.T. Wright

A few blogroll udates
I've added Brian to my blogroll. Thanks for linking to me Brian! I've also added Josh because I see him around a lot and Remy because I think his blog title is cool. They don't link to me but...snif...I'll get over it.

Foal

My husband gave me a gift certificate from an art supply house for new brushes to replace my 30 year old worn out brushes. I want to start painting again but first I need to start drawing again. It's been years... I'm rusty and out of practice and afraid.

The article on which the church stands or falls...
"(speaking of historia salutis) If there is no transition from wrath to grace in history then there is no gospel... The gospel - salvation of sinners - stands or falls with the historical before and after of Christ's humiliation and exultation. That, as much as anything, is the article of a standing and falling church - on which the church stands and falls."
Richard Gaffin

What!?! Not justification?

Speaking of raccoons
This is me hand feeding a wild raccoon in my backyard... I had quite a number of raccoons coming every night to be fed for a few years. Mama coons would bring their babies too. Just about sunset, I could count on seeing the younger ones come bounding through the backyard to the deck for breakfast. They were such fun!

The quality is poor because I reduced the file size to facilitate quicker loading for you poor dial-up types. And, no, the red splotch is not blood, it's a flaw in the photo.

A lesson I learned on Mother's Day:
Don't ever trust your 79 year old mom when she says, "It's not loaded."

What a difference a URL makes...
I lurk on the Presbyterians-OPC Yahoo group and recently the participants have been involved in a pleasant, respectful, low-key discussion of the objectivity of the covenant. That's where I first encountered the essay I linked here. Beside the fact that I am pleased to see this being discussed in the OPC, I'm greatly encouraged by the demeanor of those participating in the discussion.

This is a prayer to follow baptism from the Reformed liturgy in Strasbourg that I copied from that board:
"Almighty God, Heavenly Father, we give you eternal praise and thanks, that you have granted and bestowed upon this child your fellowship, that you have born him again to yourself through your holy baptism, that he has been incorporated into your beloved Son, our only Savior, and is now your child and heir. Grant, most loving and faithful Father, that we in the whole course of our lives might prove our thankfulness for your great grace, faithfully bring up this child through all the situations of life and that we with this child as well, might more and more die unto the world, and joined to the life of your Son, our Lord Jesus, daily grow in grace, that we might ever praise you and be a blessing to our neighbor, through our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen." (from Hughes Oliphant Old, The Shaping of the Reformed Baptismal Rite in the Sixteenth Century, page 167).

Did'ja miss me?
I know I'm ill when I loose my desire to blog, read blogs, or participate on boards. Sigh...the things I miss. After reading several days' worth of Matt's blog, I think I need a nap. The clash of the Titans happening there is dizzying.

I believe the initiating language associated with baptism is true of all baptisms. But it is at this point that I am confused: aren't new [pagan] converts united to Christ by faith prior to baptism? In what sense are they ingrafted into Christ by baptism? If someone could explain this to me, it might be helpful in understanding what progression baptism provides for infants who are heirs of the promise.

Since the covenant contains conditions of membership, and receiving the sign & seal is one of those conditions, could it not be said that baptism is a step in the realization of the covenant promises? Covenantally speaking, it is correct to say we don't receive the promises except through the historical outworking of our faith so it seems reasonable to think that an infant born into the covenant would not receive the fullness of the promise by virtue of birth alone. But, an infant dying before baptism would receive the promise by virtue of the promise alone - just as in Zwingli's example of Esau but in reverse, that is, Jacob. If Jacob had died in infancy prior to circumcision, he would have died elect and would have inherited the promises. But, we have the account of his life which shows the inheritance of the promise played out in time.

I don't know if this makes a bit of sense... I'll just blame my fuzzy thinking on the fact that I'm still recovering from a bug. In the last two days, I've done nothing but sleep - which is what I think I'll go do now..

Trinitarian sacrifice
I've been reading through some of the old Rite Reasons newsletters and came across this from Peter Leithart:
"At the 1995 Biblical Horizons Summer Conference, Rev. Jeffrey Meyers suggested that the Reformed notion that "God does all things for His own glory" requires Trinitarian refinement. Referring to a number of passages in John’s Gospel, Meyers showed that each person of the Trinity, far from seeking His own glory, seeks the glory of the other two. The Father glorifes the Son (John 8:50, 54; 17:1), the Son glorifes the Father (7:18; 17:4), and the Spirit glorifes the Son who glorifed the Father (16:14). The Church is caught up in the mutual exchange of glory: The Son shares the glory that He receives from the Father with the Church (17:22), even as the persons given to the Son glorify Him (17:10). Thus, while it is true from one perspective that the creation is to glorify the Creator, it is also true that the Creator glorifes the creation, even as each person of the Godhead glorifies the others. As Meyers put it, God doesn’t suck glory from everything else; on the contrary, God (and each of the three persons) over flows in bestowing glory on others.
In discussions that followed Meyers’s lecture, it was suggested that his thesis gives us a Trinitarian prototype of sacrifice. Sacrifice is a universal category of culture, often taking a ritual form in animal sacrifice but in the modern world often taking a political form of individual sacrifice for the greater good of the nation or state. If sacrificial acts and language are so universal in human culture, it suggests that the phenomenon is central to the meaning of man made in the image of God. If man is a sacrificing creature, and if man is made in the image of God, God must be a sacrificing God. And this is what we find in the passages in John. Each of the persons of the Trinity effaces Himself before the others, seeking not His own glory but the glory of the other. If this is taken as the "primordial" and essential form of sacrifice, then sacrifice is not necessarily associated with death or violence at all. Death, pain, and violence is an aspect of sacrifice in a fallen world. In its original form, sacrifice takes the form of not seeking one’s own glory but the glory of another. Sacrifice has to do not essentially and originally with atonement, but with glorification of the other, with self-giving love."

What a wonderful meditation for the Lord's Day.

I love this quote..
"Christ doesn't make all new things, He makes all things new."
Don Stone, from Liturgical Prayer-Faith Working through Love.

Please join us in fond remembrance...

Of rabbits and wolves
In response to Peter Leithart's The Redeemer Nation and the Redeemer's Nation, Rick cites the following comment, "Let's say the community minded folks are rabbits. They know that if they try to live outside of the fellowship and support of community the wolves will eat them up and they won't be able to rightly train their offspring. When they diligently have and train their bunnies they prosper...Stay in your communities rabbits. In time you will overwhelm the wolves."

The rabbit advisor fails to comprehend the nature of wolves. History has proven that wolves, left to their wolfishness, quickly stuff the warren with dried grass, apply the Zippo, and enjoy rabbit stew for dinner.

To switch metaphors, if the Christian presence may be compared to a neoplasm in humanity, a cyst is easily removed but an infiltrating carcinoma is fatal.

I'll be adding this to my sidebar reading list:
THE PRESBYTERIAN DOCTRINES OF COVENANT CHILDREN, COVENANT NURTURE AND COVENANT SUCCESSION by Robert Rayburn

Wanted:
I'm looking for online papers, essays, or articles offering a study or an apologetic for liturgical Reformed worship. I'm particularly interested in work which highlights the dialogical nature of corporate worship. Also, I'd like to find some online material dealing with the celebratory aspect of the Lord's Supper (in opposition to the omphaloskepsis in which we Presbyterians are so fond of engaging).

I have a few ideas on where to begin looking but I thought some of you might know of a few especially good essays.

Anyone?

PS. Pastor, if you read this, bring extra note paper to our next Pastoral Visit.
Mwa ha ha ha....
;-)

I read the news today, oh boy...
Friends of Mark Horne will be pleased to know he's back.

For those of you who were following the story about my niece and the Lord's Supper (see April 21), her father had a talk with her and convinced her that she was a Christian inspite of the fact that she was not permitted at the Table. She now seems to delight in bragging about it and using it as a tool to manipulate her siblings but, most importantly, she is rejoicing in it.

Next Lord's day, there will be a mini blogger meeting when Richard, Megan, and their girls Geneva and Heidelberg, who will be traveling to visit family, join Mr. & Mrs. Scarecrow for worship. Though I'm very disappointed that the elegant dinner of lobster specially flown in from Maine I'd planned had to be cancelled due to a prior engagement, I'm still very much looking forward to meeting the Dangerous Ones. I've known Richard & Megan since pre-blog days due to message board participation. Richard was one of the first people to help me begin to understand the Crazy Canadian's* lecture, "Covenant and Election" from AAPC 2002.

*There is a reason I refer to John as "the crazy Canadian" dating back to my very first blog entry which has been lost. Having met John last January, I'll confirm my first impression was correct.

Plato!?!
[sputter, cough] This just doesn't look good. Plato? The father of Plotinus, Mr. Gnostic? Oh boy...

Snagged from Dawn:

What kind of thinker are you?

You are an Existential Thinker
Existential thinkers:
Like to spend time thinking about philosophical issues such as "What is the meaning of life?"
Try to see beyond the 'here and now', and understand deeper meanings
consider moral and ethical implications of problems as well as practical solutions

Like existential thinkers, Leonardo questioned man's role in the universe. Many of his paintings explored the relationship between man and God. Other Existential Thinkers include
The Buddha, Gandhi, Plato, Socrates, Martin Luther King

Careers which suit Existential Thinkers include
Philosopher, Religious leader, Head of state, Artist, Writer

Well, it's true that my ambition in high school was to be a starving artist living in Greenwich Village.

hupostasis
I listened to a very good lecture yesterday by Yong Kim: Biblical Theology and Hebrews 11. What a passionate man Rev. Kim is!

In his lecture he offered a critique of the NASV rendering of Hebrews 11:1 (and by proxy, the ESV).
"Now faith is assurance of [things] hoped for, a conviction of things not seen." Hupostasis, which the NASB translates "assurance" means real nature, being, reality, essence as found in Heb 1:3. In the context of Heb. 11:1 it would mean "giving substance [reality] to." The same word is found in Heb 3:14 and is again translated assurance but it is obvious here that the author is not exhorting his readers to subjective assurance as if that is where their hope is found. Rather, they are told to hold fast the objective reality of what Christ has accomplished for them.

Similarly, elenchos which the NASV translates "conviction" means objective proof or witness rather than the more subjective "conviction" (a word signifying personal source).

The "things hoped for" and "not seen" in Heb. 11:1 are the things of heaven. Using word substitution, Kim proposes this translation of Heb. 11:1, "Now faith is the reality of heaven and the witness of heaven." Or, faith is the witness of the reality of heaven. Faith is the channel by which He shows the reality of His world. All subjectivism is removed from the passage.