Whilin' Away the Hours

The evil bandaid monster
Two weekends ago my husband & I babysat our 6 nieces and nephews while their mom & dad attended a wedding & reception. Almost immediately upon arriving, 10 yr. old Jocelyn hustled me to her bedroom to see her rock collection leaving my fuzzy-faced jungle-gym of a husband buried under the remaining kids in the livingroom. I thought it would be ok. I'd go examine a few rocks and return to the livingroom. I didn't realize that toddlers come armed with stealth technology or that Jocelyn had a washtub sized container full of rocks each bearing a significance she sometimes had to think long to remember. (lol, I love these kids to pieces) But, Jocelyn's dissertation on the rocks of Ohio was interupted when she caught sight of baby brother Jack toddling out of his parents bedroom carrying dad's shaver! She jumped up to grab it from him and the inevitable happened. Three deep slices into his little finger from the triple edged shaver. It would be difficult to explain the following minutes. How do you still a screaming 15 month old who is waving his blood spurting hand wildly in an effort to keep Aunt Barb from touching his owie? The bathroom looked like a scene from The Shining.

After washing the cut and attempting to hold his hand still enough to apply pressure, I managed to get a bandaid on his finger. But it was soaked in blood almost immediately and he pulled it right off...wailing in pain the entire time. Aunt Barb suddenly realized this would take industrial strength bandaid application to keep them in place. While Jack continued to cry, squirt blood, and resist I taped his finger from tip to knuckle and, oh sweet relief, it stayed put. Jack stopped crying and flailing and I began mopping up blood and rinsing the clothing that could be used as evidence against me in a court of law.

During dinner, Jack used the blood oozing from the sodden bandaids to fingerpaint on his highchair tray...until the bandaids came off. After another round of screaming, squirting, and struggling, another mummy-like bandaid job was completed.

Just after dinner, Mom called to see how things were going. Jocelyn answered the phone and blurted, "Mom! You better come home right away!" before my husband grabbed the phone and assured Doris that all was, if not well, at least under control. That's when Doris told us we needed to put neosporin on the cuts. Sigh...the spector of yet another visit from the bandaid monster was raised. But, Jocelyn, my hero, came up with a plan. We peeled off just the tip bandaid, which involved only minimal screaming, squirting, and struggling, and pinched a glob of ointment into the bandaid tunnel and slapped the top bandaid back on. Whew.

Last Sunday at church (the morning after), Jack eyed me with grave suspicion written all over his cute little face. He seemed to be saying, "You there! Back away slowly and keep your hands up!" I'm relieved to report that yesterday at church, Jack jabbered happily when he saw me and seems to have forgotten the evil bandaid monster. Next time, Jocelyn will have to lug her rocks into the livingroom. What could possibly go wrong that way?

Oops! Would you look at that!
For any Wright-a-phobes who may stumble in...

As I noted earlier, I'm reading Wright's commentary on Colossians. On page 113, after supplying some background for Col. 2:14, Wright says that the context he has provided "safeguards this statement of what Luther called the 'wonderous exchange' (Christ takes our sins, we his righteousness, as in 2 Cor. 5:21)..."

Wow...the fact that Wright is interested in safeguarding double imputation will come as an embarrassing surprise to more than a few people.

Wowzers
Doesn't this look interesting?

The minutes of the Westminster Assembly’s formal debates over a span of nine years! Debates regarding theology, worship, sacraments, ecclesiology and pastoral care! Position papers! What a wealth of information. I'm sure the 5 volume set will be outrageously expensive but what a great thing for a pastor's library or the church library!

As a supplement to family devotions
I've been using N.T. Wright's little volume Colossians and Philemon. Formatted as verse by verse exegesis, it lends itself well to this sort of thing. Even if one rejects Wright's views as to the proper place of justification, he is a gold mine of incarnational theology.

On Colossians 1:22 ("yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and without blemish and unreproveable before him:") Wright says,

(a) Jesus, as Messiah, represents, and is fully identified with, his people. He shares their 'fleshly' existence [my note: flesh as earlier identified as humanness in it's opposition God], so that, though himself without sin, he takes sin's consequences on himself, becoming subject to death.
(b) Jesus is also fully identified with God (1:19; this identification is further described in 2:9 as somatikos, bodily).
(c) In Jesus, therefore, God identified himself with the sins of humanity. The cross is simply the outworking of this explosive meeting between the holy God and human sin.
(d) Those who are members of Jesus' 'body' thus find their sin already condemned in him, and themselves reconciled to God. Jesus has risen from the dead, as the first of a large family whose sins, having done their worst in producing his death, are left behind in his life beyond death (1:18, see Rom. 6:7-11, 8:29). It is this line of thought, I suggest, that Paul ha expressed compactly in the first half of verse 22.

In his discussion of Col. 2:12 ("having been buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.")Wright explains that having been buried with him in baptism, so that his death is counted as their death, the Colossians have been - also in baptism - raised with him through their faith. He says, "Faith itself is the first sign of this spiritual life: not that spiritual life is a reward for those who believe the gospel, but that true faith, expressed classically in the confession that Jesus is Lord, is the result of the secret life-giving work of God's own Spirit (see 1Cor. 12:3).

Now, back to Col 1:18 ("And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.") "It is to this Jesus Christ, none other, that the Colossians now belong in belonging to the church. This is the moment when, according to the careful structure of the poem [explained earlier in the book; vss. 15-20], the thought moves from creation to new creation. Paul starts where the Colossians are, as members of the one world-wide people of God. If God's people are the new humanity, the metaphor of a human body is utterly appropriate to express not only mutual interdependence (as in Rom. 12:5; 1Cor 12:12ff) but also, as here, an organic and dependent relation to Christ himself. Hence: and he is the head of the body, the church."

Am I confused or... redux
It seems like an error to use justification* as part of an "if, then" formula.

OK, I'll 'fess up. This is something that's been nagging at the edges for awhile. Yesterday, I found a paper written by Ron Gleason called Did Herman Bavinck Teach an "Ordo Salutis" in His Theology?. I haven't finished it yet but it seems to be endorsing the more Calvinistic view of union with Christ as contrasted with the scholastic ordo and it finally prompted me to post my question.

I may be wrong on all counts but it seems as though I hear a lot of "if, then" formulations: "if one is justified, one will _______ (fill in the blank: something like produce works fitting of repentance or persevere to the end etc.) This may not be an incorrect formula but is it misleading? Does it place justification in a superior position to all of the other benefits of union with Christ?

*Justification = imputation of Christ's righteousness as described in WCF XI

Laurel wrote a song for me!!!
Wow.

In church last Sunday
Our pastor had been on vacation for two weeks so it was good to have him back. We have communion weekly and I missed it in his absence. It was good to get back to our study of Acts as well. He is truly a gifted teacher and speaker; I'm amazed at the way he brings Acts to life and how theologically profound a book it is!

The big news is that Pastor came back with a goatee. Anyone who's seen a photo of my husband won't doubt me when I say I'm partial to facial hair. And it looks good but I know the real reason he grew a goatee during his vacation. It's camouflage for General Assembly! Now, the scuttlebutt is that no elder is worth a hill of beans without facial hair. In fact, I've heard rumors that men without facial hair must sit in the back and are compelled to be last in line for coffee and doughnuts! But, the truth of the matter is this: if an elder wants his thundering oratory and shoe-pounding disputation heard at GA, he must have facial hair. It's that simple.

Pray for the OPC GA this week. There are significant long-term issues to be decided.

Here's another translation:
My Greek & Latin teaching friend from church recommended the 1901 ASV. I've been dipping into it and so far, I like it. My friend told me that he's found it to be very literal and it seems to use the Alexandrian text type which I think I prefer (and definitely prefer over the Textus Receptus).

I like the fact that the ASV uses the old thee & ye because those words give me more information than "you" but it avoids the really archaic language of the AV like "bowels of mercies." Blech, that isn't a pretty word picture. Also, the ASV is the only translation I've seen that uses "into" instead of "in" here:
"Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:"

How cool is that?

Has anyone heard of this?
The Net Bible. I've been poking around in this translation for several days and, to my uneducated eye, it looks good. But honestly, and I'm revealing a bias here, I'm afraid of it because it seems to be a project of Dallas Theological Seminary. Still, I'm finding the translators notes to be helpful. I really wish I could find one translation and stick to it but I guess I'll have to accept that it ain't going to happen.

(In the following, the Greek is wrong because I don't know how to make the font work in this situation)

Today, I spent some time in Eph.1 using this translation & it's notes.
"1:1 From Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, to the saints [in Ephesus], the faithful(3) in Christ Jesus."
Note on (3): "Grk “and faithful.” The construction in Greek (as well as Paul’s style) suggests that the saints are identical to the faithful; hence, the kaiv (kai) is best left untranslated. See M. Barth, Ephesians (AB), 1:68 and D. B. Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 282."

My note: I like the sound of this. Two of the three translations I use (ESV, NASB) make "the faithful" sound like a qualifier of some kind as though there were the saints and the really faithful saints.

"1:5 He did this by predestining(13) us to adoption as his sons(15) through Jesus Christ, according to the pleasure16 of his will— "
Note on (15): "Adoption as his sons (Greek uiJoqesivan, Juioqesian) is different from spiritual birth as children. All true believers have been born as children of God and will be adopted as sons of God. The adoption is both a future reality, and in some sense, already true. To be adopted as a son means to have the full rights of an heir. Thus, although in the ancient world, only boys could be adopted as sons, in God’s family all children—both male and female—are adopted."

My note: Hmm, already/not yet. Good. But I wish the study note didn't say adoption is different from spiritual birth. I'd prefer to hear it described as an aspect of birth.

But, here is a note from vs. 5 (13): "Grk “by predestining.” Verse 5 begins with an aorist participle dependent on the main verb in v. 4 (“chose”).
By predestining. The aorist participle may be translated either causally (“because he predestined,” “having predestined”) or instrumentally (“by predestining”). A causal nuance would suggest that God’s predestination of certain individuals prompted his choice of them. An instrumental nuance would suggest that the means by which God’s choice was accomplished was by predestination. The instrumental view is somewhat more likely in light of normal Greek syntax (i.e., an aorist participle following an aorist main verb is more likely to be instrumental than causal). "

My note: I understand the difference between causal and instrumental but I can't sort out what it means in this context. It seems like hair splitting to me or, maybe this is an issue in the infra/supra question. I suspect it's over my head.

The Covenant Idea in New England Theology
I am continually amused by things that happen on the net. Yesterday, I received an email from Rev. Lynell Friesen saying that he'd stumbled upon my blog and noticed that I had The Covenant Idea in New England Theology on my reading list. He very kindly offered to send me the book on pdf. I had already been given a photocopy of the book by another net friend, Rev. Jack Bradley, but since I've had several inquiries about the book, I accepted his offer. Thank you, Rev. Friesen, I appreciate your thoughtfulness! The networking of Christians via the internet is amazing!

So, after confirming with Eerdmans Publishing that The Covenant Idea in New England Theology is public domain, I'd like to make the book available to anyone interested. Just email me and I'll send you the file. Or, you can go to Bookfinder.com and pay over $80 for a photocopy.

In review of this book, Cornelius Van Til wrote, "As the title indicates, we deal in Dr. De Jong's book with a study in the history of the covenant idea. . . The author has undoubtedly performed a good and useful piece of work. The reading of his work is well calculated to lead us to a 'deeper reflection on the covenant idea' for the churches of our day. For this purpose it provides excellent stimulation."

Here is a quote from the introduction to give you a sense of what the book is about:

"This aims at being a study in the history and development of some or the fundamental conceptions and theories current in the New England churches respecting the doctrine of the covenant. An attempt will be made to demonstrate in what way this doctrine was modified, especially in its application to the practices or the churches. Here indeed certain far-reaching changes were made which contributed not a little towards preparing for the final obscuring or this conception.

In order to evaluate and understand the loss of Calvinism in New England from this aspect, it will be necessary first of all to make a brief study of the doctrine of the covenant as developed in the Protestant circles in Europe, especially those of Calvinistic origin. Thereafter an attempt will be made to trace the manner in which this theory was taken over by the American Puritans and the development through which it passed during the first two centuries of Congregational history in New England (1620-1847). This includes the men and movements from the time of John Cotton to that of Horace Bushnell. Finally, an appraisal of the significance of the change is in order. In this criticism it will be necessary to demonstrate how this rejection of the covenant idea was accompanied by an entirely new conception of God and His gracious dealings with the sons of men."

In church today...
I haven't done an "in church today" for a few weeks. Many bloggers observe the Lord's Day by posting a Collect. I decided, some time back, to be less formal and blog about something specific to my Lord's Day observance...an anecdote or a thought regarding worship. I've let that slip for the past few weeks. So, without further adieu...

It is customary for my husband & me to hold hands when we pray. We naturally reach for the hand of the other whenever we pray together whether privately or in corporate worship. We're one flesh so it's only right, right?

It's also a sweet custom for all gathered to join hands in prayer such as in the blessing before a meal signifying the unity of the body of Christ. Our niece often sits with us during worship. So do her siblings for that matter but she always occupies the seat of choice: my husband's lap. Two Sundays ago, as my husband & I held hands during prayer, I noticed my niece's hand (usually occupied with a toy of some kind) laying quietly nearly touching our enfolded hands. It was an easy maneuver to open my hand and incorporate her little hand into our hands. To my amazement, this busy little 6 year old held hands with us through the entire [rather long] pastoral prayer. During the pastoral prayer this Sunday, our niece, safely ensconced in my husband's lap, gently slipped her hand into our hands. Voluntarily.

*Snif, dab*.

This looks good...
Titus 3:5
by The Rev. Dr. Curtis I. Crenshaw. I'm about a third of the way through but I'm going to save the rest for a nice afternoon read tomorrow.

I'm kind of cross-eyed from reading online today (when I should have been outside pulling weeds). I re-read Dr. Richard Pratt's Historical Contingencies and Biblical Predictions. I first read this address several years ago and, at the time, I was deeply troubled by it. It sounded as though Dr. Pratt had adopted Openness Theology. I realize now that we are given knowledge of God's eternal decree for our comfort and that we might give praise, reverence, and admiration to God but we can't live by that knowledge because it's simply not how God relates to us. Here is a short quote from the address:

"The Westminster Confession of Faith also displays a deep appreciation of divine providence. The fifth chapter speaks to the issue at hand.

Although in relation to the decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly, yet by the same providence he often orders them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes. WCF 5.2.

This passage acknowledges that all events are fixed by eternal decrees, but secondary causes play a vital role in the providential outworking of those decrees.

How do secondary causes interact? The Confession affirms that they work together “either necessarily (necessario), freely (libere), or contingently (contingenter).” It is important for our purposes to point out that contingencies are acknowledged as historical realities. The Westminster assembly did not view the universe as a gigantic machine in which each event mechanically necessitated the next. On the contrary, in the providence of God, events take place freely and contingently as well. In this sense, belief in God’s immutability does not negate the importance of historical contingencies, especially human choice. Under the sovereign control of God, the choices people make determine the directions history will take. If we make one choice, certain results will occur. If we choose another course, other events will follow. To be sure, God is “free to work without, above, and against [second causes] at his pleasure,” but “in his ordinary providence, [he] maketh use of means.” That is to say, human choice is one of the ordinary ways in which God works out his immutable decrees. In accordance with his all encompassing fixed plan, God often waits to see what his human subjects will do and directs the future on the basis of what they decide."

Looks like Barlow got hacked...
In one of his recent posts, he mentioned being under siege by a group of hackers...
Sensus Plenior comment system is down across the board as well as blogs hosted by Jon and I also hear some people have lost their email.

Hackers, grow up and do something beneficial with your skills rather than displaying your vacuous idiocy hunched drooling over your keyboards like skulking beetle-headed miscreants.

An almost new blog
Brandywine Books is a blog focusing on book publishing and writing news with a bit of imaginative writing and criticism added to the mix. In his latest entry, Phil presents the notably consistent Hillary...

Welcome to the blogosphere, Phil!

This will be good for me I suppose...
A contingent of friends from church is (are?) starting a discussion group and our first book is The New England Soul: Preaching and Religious Culture in Colonial New England by Harry S. Stout. I hate to be so black & white but recently I've developed quite a dislike for the Puritans. This book, I hope, will serve to give me some balance. And balance I need if I am to benefit from our October Reformation Conference... Leland Ryken will be speaking on the Puritans.

Has anyone read it?

Finally, we "Reloaded"
Saturday, we saw The Matrix: Reloaded. I posted a speculative question below. Since it contains a spoiler, I followed the master and made it necessary to hilight the blank area in order to read the content.
It's all about choice...
What a surprise revelation it is that Neo's Zion is a sixth manifestation and that Neo himself is the sixth "One!" And, even more shocking is the introduction of unbelief among the "believers" - is the prophecy a lie? I wonder, in Revolutions, will we find a syncretistic solution of Buddhist reincarnation and Gnostic Christian savior climaxing in a Nirvana-like existence? Or, have the brothers Wachowski something much more sublime up their sleeve? Is it possible that they will renounce their heresies and reveal a classic type/ante-type construction in which Neo is the fulfillment of the five previous "types" proving that, in fact, the prophecy is true? Will Zion reaffirm faith? Rather than ascending to a Buddhist or Gnostic non-material higher existence, will the Wachowskis allow Neo to usher in a new material creation?
Some things never change. And some things do.....

Warning, another dull blog entry!
;-)

The baptism discussion has moved to Matt's blog. Comments are good!

I really appreciated Laurel's article on hospitality It's always good to be reminded of the need to exercise hospitality and the practical advice is sorely needed! Modeling our gatherings after the principles of gathering with our Lord is a wonderful insight. I look forward to the forthcoming chapters.

Today, as I pulled weeds in my flowerbeds, a had an encounter with a silver dollar-sized spider. The rest of my weeding was quite suspenseful...

The rub is...
The problem I have with the post below is that many theologians, particularly those who stress union with Christ, say that our future "not yet" justification is based on & guaranteed by our current "already" justification. The guarantee is the forensic declaration that the one in union is righteous before God.

But is it? I haven't read much Augustine but a theme of Grace and Rebuke seems to be the guarantee of final salvation by God's gift of perseverance rather than forensic justification:

"Chapter 34.—The Aid Without Which a Thing Does Not Come to Pass, and the Aid with Which a Thing Comes to Pass.

Moreover, the aids themselves are to be distinguished. The aid without which a thing does not come to pass is one thing, and the aid by which a thing comes to pass is another. For without food we cannot live; and yet although food should be at hand, it would not cause a man to live who should will to die. Therefore the aid of food is that without which it does not come to pass that we live, not that by which it comes to pass that we live. But, indeed, when the blessedness which a man has not is given him, he becomes at once blessed. For the aid is not only that without which that does not happen, but also with which that does happen for the sake of which it is given. Wherefore this is an assistance both by which it comes to pass, and without which it does not come to pass; because, on the one hand, if blessedness should be given to a man, he becomes at once blessed; and, on the other, if it should never be given he will never be so. But food does not of necessity cause a man to live, and yet without it he cannot live. Therefore to the first man, who, in that good in which he had been made upright, had received the ability not to sin, the ability not to die, the ability not to forsake that good itself, was given the aid of perseverance,—not that by which it should be brought about that he should persevere, but that without which he could not of free will persevere. But now to the saints predestinated to the kingdom of God by God’s grace, the aid of perseverance that is given is not such as the former, but such that to them perseverance itself is bestowed; not only so that without that gift they cannot persevere, but, moreover, so that by means of this gift they cannot help persevering. For not only did He say, “Without me ye can do nothing,” but He also said, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain.” By which words He showed that He had given them not only righteousness, but perseverance therein. For when Christ thus ordained them that they should go and bring forth fruit, and that their fruit should remain, who would dare to say, It shall not remain? Who would dare to say, Perchance it will not remain? “For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance;”but the calling is of those who are called according to the purpose. When Christ intercedes, therefore, on behalf of these, that their faith should not fail, doubtless it will not fail unto the end. And thus it shall persevere even unto the end; nor shall the end of this life find it anything but continuing."

Why do I fill my blog with my questions? I'm sure lots of people are either bored silly with this sort of thing or driven mad by it. RC Sproul Jr. once referred to theologically inclined netizens as "amateur theology wonks." That's a fairly accurate description, insulting as it is. I do my reading in [snips]. I am untrained and I may be dangerous to myself and others. ;-)

I hope all will understand that my blog is an outlet of sorts. I love theology. This is my little place to talk about the things I think about. It's all just a tossing around of the things I'm learning. If I didn't do it here, I'd have no friends in real life!