Whilin' Away the Hours

A depraved mind
Maybe I should go back to being an amillennialist. I'm certainly not feeling very optimistic at the moment.

I came within a hair's breadth of watching the MTV Music Awards last night. But in the end, I didn't watch. I simply haven't acquired a taste for rap. In fact, it's a stretch for me to consider rap a valid music form. Since MTV video is now dominated by rap or it's retarded post-disco cousin, I didn't think I would be able to tolerate it. But, I wanted to take the temperature of the 15 year olds who sit at the philosophical feet of the music industry. As it turns out, it was mercifully unnecessary for me to watch the awards thanks to todays reports. By now, everyone has seen photos of Madonna and psuedo-Christian Britney Spears french kissing during the awards program.

I can't summon outrage over this degradation (it is, afterall, the legacy of my generation); I can only sit in stunned awe. The kiss was a cultural coupe d'oeil. Oh, there were the other clichéd and wearisome gestures & attitudes. But honestly, the crotch grabbing attitude of the boys appears to be an act of desperate posturing compared to the powerplay of the women's kiss. It was more than debauchery - it was like a manifesto. I don't think it's possible for the new generation to emerge from this tutelage with even a semblance of normalcy. I'm afraid I'm not feeling very optimistic about the future today.

Looking forward to this:
Excerpts from “Some Remarks on the Letter to the Romans" by Dr. H. J. Jager, translated by Bill DeJong.

In a similar vein (regarding Romans 4), I read Imputation or Union With Christ? A Response to John Piper by Dr. Don Garlington.

No comments yet...just reading, ruminating, reflecting, and roiling.

Updates
I've added five bloggers I recognize from forumizing Earth-Shattering Distinctives, Theognome's Thoughts, Arimus, Puritas, and 200 solemn faces.

Do you spend sleepless nights wondering who the antichrist is?
Well, wonder no more! According to some of the pundits at Left Behind Prophesy Club, the antichrist is likely a child prodigy named Greg. I don't know about you but I'm so relieved that Arnold Schwarzenegger has been ruled out.

Doesn't this look fun?
From Christianity Today.com:

Join the Left Behind Prophesy Club
Are we living in the End Times? Could events of today
signify that the Rapture and Tribulation could occur during
our generation? Find out now at the Left Behind Prophecy Club.
Interpreting the Signs.

Ooo...they even have a forum!

Luther
Here is the trailer. This looks good!

Congress shall make no law...
An excerpt from:
The Rule of Law
Must Be Upheld:
What the Constitution Really Says
About Establishment of Religion
by Alan Keyes

The fact that the Supreme Court affirms the Federal Judiciary's claim to jurisdiction over the state governments in matters pertaining to an establishment of religion does not, therefore, settle the issue. The Congress must review and oversee such a claim. Since the people choose the members of Congress, people at large, as they consider their election, are required to consider this claim as well. Our review thus far suggests that the Supreme Court's affirmation of this claim of jurisdiction is contrary to the plain text of the Constitution; it usurps the right of the people in their respective states to decide their government's stance on religion; it violates Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution by subverting the republican form of government with respect to this right; by aiming coercively to establish an agnostic regime of atheism at all levels of government, it destroys religious freedom for the people as a whole and dangerously subverts the Constitution's prudent handling of matters pertaining to religion.

The text of the Constitution easily allows us to see and understand the Federal Judiciary's abuse of power and its usurpation of the right of the people in religious matters. It also provides a remedy for this abuse. The Congress must pass legislation that, in order to assure proper respect for the first phrase of the first amendment, excepts from the appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Courts those matters which, by the conjoint effect of the first and tenth amendments, the Constitution reserves to the states respectively and to the people. (This language avoids a semantic difficulty, since Congressional legislation that explicitly mentioned matters pertaining to an establishment of religion would serve the intention but violate the terms of the first phrase of the first amendment.) This legislation would restore observance of the Constitution by preventing the Federal courts from addressing any issues related to religious establishment (as the First amendment requires), while leaving them free to deal with cases involving the free exercise of religion by individuals, since these do not fall under ban on Federal legislation. In this regard the only state actions that come under Federal jurisdiction are those involving coercive interference with individual choice in matters of religion. State action that involves no such individual coercion (such as the placement of a Ten Commandments monument in the rotunda of a State Supreme Court building) is outside the purview of the Federal Courts.

Westminster Shorter Catechism Project
A Scripture Catechism
in the Method of the Assembly's
by Matthew Henry

Q. 33. What is justification?
A. Justification is an act of God's free grace, wherein he pardons all our sins and accepts us as righteous in his sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone.

1. Have we all need to be justified? Yes: for we are all guilty before God, Rom. 3:19. Is it enough if we justify ourselves? No: If I justify myself my own mouth shall condemn me, Job 9:20. Is it enough if our neighbours justify us? No: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God, Luke 16:15. Must it be God's act then? Yes: It is God that justifieth, Rom. 8:33. And his only? Yes: for none can forgive sins but God only, Mark 2:7. And is it an act of free grace? Yes: we are justified freely by his grace, Rom. 3:24.

2. Are all that are justified discharged from the sentence of the law? Yes: for there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, Rom. 8:1. Have they their sins pardoned? Yes: we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, Eph. 1:7. Does God forgive them? Yes: I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions,, Isa. 43:25.

3. When God forgives sin does he forgive all? Yes: having forgiven all your trespasses, Col. 2:13. Does he forgive even great sins? Yes: though your sins have been as scarlet, they shall be white as snow, Isa. 1:18. Does he forgive many sins? Yes: he will abundantly pardon, Isa. 55:7. Does he forgive freely? Yes: I will be merciful to their unrighteousness. Does he forgive fully? Yes: their sins and their iniquities I will remember no more, Heb. 8:12. Is he forward to forgive? Yes: I said I will confess and thou forgavest, Ps. 32:5. Does he forgive and forget? Yes: thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea, Mic. 7:19.

4. Is forgiveness of sins offered to all upon gospel terms? Yes: for repentance and remission of sins is preached to all nations, Luke 24:47. Is it secured to all the chosen remnant? Yes: for Christ is exalted to be a Prince, and a Saviour, to give repentance and remission of sins, Acts 5:31. Have all believers their sins pardoned? Yes: through him all that believe are justified, Acts 13:39. Are they accepted in God's sight? Yes: he hath made us accepted in the Beloved, Eph. 1:6. Are they accepted as righteous? Yes: for we are made the righteousness of God in him, 2 Cor. 5:21.

5. Can we be justified by the covenant of innocency ? No: for who can say, I have made my heart clean? Prov. 20:9. Can we be justified by any thing in ourselves? No: How call men be justified with God? Job 25:4. If we know no ill by ourselves will that justify us? No: though I know nothing by myself, yet am I not thereby justified, 1 Cor. 4:4. Will the law of Moses justify us? No: we are justified from all those things from which we could not be justified by the law of Moses, Acts 13:39. Will our own works justify us? No: by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified, Rom. 3:20. Would the ceremonial sacrifices justify men? No: they could not make the comers thereunto perfect, Heb. 10:1. Are we justified for the righteousness of Christ? Yes: By the obedience of one shall many be made righteous, Rom. 5:19. And for that only? Yes: Not having my own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, Phil. 3:9.

6. Is the righteousness of Christ imputed to us for our justification? Yes: for he is made of God unto us righteousness, 1 Cor. 1:30. Did Christ die that it might be imputed? Yes: He shall justify many, for he shall bear their iniquities, Isa. 53:11. Do we owe our justification then to the death of Christ? Yes: the blood of Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin, 1 John 1:7. And does that lay the foundation of our salvation? Yes: being justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath, Rom. 5:9. Were we justified from eternity? No: for in due time Christ died for the ungodly, Rom. 5:9. If Christ had died, and not risen again, could he have justified us? No: for he was delivered for our offences, and raised again for our justification, Rom. 4:25. Is that then our plea for peace and pardon? Yes: for who then is he that shall condemn? Rom. 8:34. May we then depend upon Christ for righteousness? Yes: In the Lord I have righteousness and strength, Isa. 45:24. Is it become an act of justice in God to pardon sin upon the account of Christ's righteousness? Yes: for he is just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus, Rom. 3:26. 1 John 1:9.

7. Are we to receive the righteousness of Christ? Yes: We have now received the atonement, Rom. 5:11. Do we receive it by faith? Yes: through his name; whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins, Acts 10:43. And by faith only? Yes: for being justified by faith we have peace with God, Rom. 5:1. Did Christ's death satisfy the law? Yes: for Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, Gal. 3:13. Is that then our only righteousness in the law court? Yes: for we are reconciled to God by the death of his Son, Rom. 5:10. Do we by true faith come up to the terms of the gospel? Yes: Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shall be saved, Acts 16:31. Is that then our righteousness in the gospel court? Yes: for to him that believeth, his faith is counted for righteousness, Rom. 4:5. Is it therefore our life? Yes: for the just shall live by his faith, Hab.2:4. Is it so as it applies Christ's righteousness? Yes: This is the name whereby he shall be called, the Lord our righteousness, Jer. 23:6.

8. Is justifying faith a working faith Yes: for by works is faith made perfect, Jam. 2:22. And will that faith justify us which does not produce good works? No: for by works a man is justified, and not by faith only, Jam. 2:24. Is faith then dead without good works? Yes: for as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also, Jam. 2:26. And are good works dead without faith? Yes: for without faith it is impossible to please God, Heb. 11:6. Must they both act together then? Yes: for that which avails is faith, which works by love, Gal. 5:6. Do we then make void the law through faith? No: God forbid, yea, we establish the law, Rom. 3:31. Is our faith our own? No: it is not of ourselves, it is the gift of God, Eph. 2:8. Are our good works our own? No: for thou also hast wrought all our works in us, Isa. 26:12. Is any room left for boasting then? No: it is excluded by the law of faith, Rom. 3:27. Must God therefore have all the glory? Yes: for by the grace of God I am what I am, 1 Cor. 15:10.

Isn't this exactly what Norman Shepherd teaches?

Rerun
I found it at Just Mark but I know I have a few readers who don't read Mark (the uninitiated amateurs ;-), so I thought IT'S TIME TO PLAY, 'NAME THAT HERETIC'
MY FINAL THOUGHTS ON UNITY AND WISDOM IN REFORMEDVILLE By David L. Bahnsen was important enough to rerun here.

OK, not completely out of words...
I've been attempting to study the active obedience of Christ as it relates to soteriology. More specifically, I'm trying to sift through Norman Shepherd's assertion that Christ's active obedience is not imputed in justification. So, I'm not really out of words; I'm tired and more than a little frustrated.

In searching, I found the following paragraph which is only incidental to the paper in which it is contained:

"Perhaps the best known example is in the chapter on justification. The Thirty-Nine Articles asserted that the "whole obedience and satisfaction" of Christ was imputed to the believer in justification, but William Twisse, Richard Vines, and Thomas Gataker objected to this language being included in the new confession. They did not believe that the active obedience of Christ was included in justification, claiming that this was a part of sanctification instead. After some debate, the Assembly decided to use simply the language of "the obedience and satisfaction" of Christ, which could be interpreted either way. Twisse, Vines, and Gataker would understand this to refer solely to the passive obedience of Christ, while the majority would understand it to include both the active and the passive obedience of Christ.(2)"
Whose Meaning? The Question of Original Intent by Peter J. Wallace. [bold face added]

I am baffled by this! What does it mean to say that Christ's active obedience is part of sanctification? Could it have any relationship to Murray's difinitive sanctification (of which I have only a small understanding...). Could this be similar to what Shepherd is after when he says that justification is the forgiveness of sins and sanctification is the breaking of sin's power?
Or, am I simply having a Scarecrow moment...

I hope I don't have to wait until the Minutes and papers of the Westminster Assembly are available to learn what Twisse, Vines, and Gataker meant.

Speaking of The Westminster Project, you can lend your support by puchasing some of the "Westminster Designs" found on the fundraising page at the site. I'm certain my pastor would love a beer stein! And I can think of a long list of people who would benefit from drinking their morning java from the Edmund Calamy Mug! Go have a look...LOL!

Good grief!
I think I've run out of words!

Nice work Kevin!
N.T. Wright Page

Twist my arm...
Chicago is less than 6 hours away. Warrenville is about 5-10 miles from Wheaton College which is my husband's alma mater and he still has friends in the area.

Lord willing, I'm there!

National Conference on Gospel and Law in Chicago, March 11-13
P. Andrew Sandlin | Trust and Obey: An Examination of Gospel and Law in Covenantal Perspective

You are cordially invited to attend the National Conference on Law and Gospel (“Trust and Obey: An Examination of Gospel and Law in Covenantal Perspective”), co-sponsored by Reformation and Revival Ministries and the Center for Cultural Leadership. It will be held March 11-13 at Immanuel Presbyterian Church in Warrenville, Illinois.

Speakers and (tentative) topics:

“The Gospel is Good News”: Dr. John H. Armstrong

“The Gospel: A Roman Catholic Perspective”: Fr. Thomas Baima

“The Historia Salutis versus the Ordo Salutis”: Dr. John Frame

“The Contribution of the New Perspective on Paul”: Dr. Don Garlington

“Righteousness in Biblical Perspective”: Dr. Doug Green

“John Calvin & Karl Barth: Implications of the Law/Gospel Distinction”: Dr. I. John Hesselink

“Law & Gospel in Protestant Confessions: A Survey & Comparison”: Dr. Nelson Kloosterman

“Justification by Grace: The Perspective of Jonathan Edwards”: Dr. Gerald McDermott

“The Gospel: An Orthodox Perspective”: Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon

“The Grace of Law and the Obligations of the Gospel”: Rev. P. Andrew Sandlin

“Gospel & Law: The Unity of the Testaments”: Rev. Steve Schlissel

“Law & Gospel in Covenantal Perspective”: Rev. Norman Shepherd

“Preaching Gospel and Law Christocentrically”: Rev. Thomas N. Smith

A confession
I think Gods and Generals was Ted Turner's dastardly, insidious attack on Christians. The sly joke of a man who has too much money and power.

Merit at the Pearly Gates
A man appears before St. Peter at the pearly gates.
"Have you ever done anything of particular merit?" St. Peter asks.

"Well, I can think of one thing," the man offers.

"Once, on a trip to the Black Hills, out in South Dakota, I came upon a gang of high-testosterone bikers who were threatening a young woman. I directed them to leave her alone, but they wouldn't listen. So I approached the largest and most heavily tattooed biker. I smacked him on the head, kicked his bike over, ripped out his nose ring and threw it on the ground, and told him, 'Leave her alone now or you'll answer to me.'"

St. Peter was impressed. "When did this happen?"

"Just a couple of minutes ago."

Meritorious works righteousness
If we say that eternal life is something that man merits, then we have synergism which says that man contributes to his own salvation. If we combat that error by saying that Christ the man did the meriting, we are still left with eternal life that is fundamentally by achievement of merit and not by bestowal of grace.

Andrew Sandlin, in his SCCCS lecture Gospel and Law in Redemptive History says, "...It seems to me that this makes our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ something of an after thought in God's plan for man's gaining eternal life. Christ is no longer really the Lamb slain from before the world's foundation, He is rather an instrument to get something more ultimate than Him. Merit. ... Merit and justice, not Jesus, become more ultimate then. This I judge to be a very serious error. In the garden the man and woman would be granted life by grace, the unmerited favor of God."

Covenant Media
NOW AVAILABLE: SCCCS Summer Conference 2003 - Mp3s
Tapes Available Next Week
Contempory Perspectives on Covenant Theology
SCCCS Summer Conference 2003 - Mp3s

This is the honest truth
I just read this somewhere. I'm going to paraphrase but I promise my paraphrase is not a distortion:

*Can someone point me to the location of the serious doctrinal errors in Doug Wilson's book, 'Reformed' is Not Enough? It's in our church library and I've heard that it has errors but I need someone to tell where so I can maybe get the book out of our library.*

I won't tell what this person's vocation is...

I kid you not.

[sound of head beating monitor]

Looks like we're babysitting again Saturday night!
Arrrggghhh! It's The Return of the Evil Bandaid Monster: Part Deux!

Just when you thought it was a safety razor....

There are times
in life on internet discussion venues that I become so frustrated that I am a hair's breadth from swearing off and bowing out. If flash mobbing is an email phenomenon then it's mirror is the discussion board feeding frenzy. But sometimes, for me, good things are discovered in the midst of the blood & gore clouded water.

The most recent kerfluffle to which I've been witness has been over an old piece by Steve Schlissel : Yes, Christians Can Keep the Law. In the process of defending Schlissel's premise, I came across this wonderful passage from Matthew Henry:

On Matthew 19, regarding Jesus' use of the law:
"The end proposed is, entering into life. The young man, in his question, spoke of eternal life. Christ, in his answer, speaks of life; to teach us, that eternal life is the only true life. The words concerning that are the words of this life, Act_5:20. The present life scarcely deserves the name of life, for in the midst of life we are in death. Or into life, that spiritual life which is the beginning and earnest of eternal life. He desired to know how he might have eternal life; Christ tells him how he might enter into it; we have it by the merit of Christ, a mystery which was not as yet fully revealed, and therefore Christ waives that; but the way of entering into it, is, by obedience, and Christ directs us in that. By the former we make our title, by this, as by our evidence, we prove it; it is by adding to faith virtue, that an entrance (the word here used) is ministered to us into the everlasting kingdom, 2Pe_1:5, 2Pe_1:11. Christ, who is our Life, is the Way to the Father, and to the vision and fruition of him; he is the only Way, but duty, and the obedience of faith, are the way to Christ. There is an entrance into life hereafter, at death, at the great day, a complete entrance, and those only shall then enter into life, that do their duty; it is the diligent faithful servant that shall then enter into the joy of his Lord, and that joy will be his eternal life. There is an entrance into life now; we who have believed, do enter into rest, Heb_4:3. We have peace, and comfort, and joy, in the believing prospect of the glory to be revealed, and to this also sincere obedience is indispensably necessary.

[2.] The way prescribed is, keeping the commandments. Note, Keeping the commandments of God, according as they are revealed and made known to us, is the only way to life and salvation; and sincerity herein is accepted through Christ as our gospel perfection, provision being made of pardon, upon repentance, wherein we come short. Through Christ we are delivered from the condemning power of the law, but the commanding power of it is lodged in the hand of the Mediator, and under that, in that hand, we still are under the law to Christ (1Co_9:21), under it as a rule, though not as a covenant. Keeping the commandments includes faith in Jesus Christ, for that is the great commandment (1Jo_3:23), and it was one of the laws of Moses, that, when the great Prophet should be raised up, they should hear him. Observe, In order to our happiness here and for ever, it is not enough for us to know the commandments of God, but we must keep them, keep in them as our way, keep to them as our rule, keep them as our treasure, and with care, as the apple of our eye."

Internet discussions can be very frustrating...even infuriating, but they do push us and that's A Good Thing Man.

BTW, the Henry quote reminds me of this:
Gospel and Law Identical! The Coup De Grace to Calvinistic Dispensationalism by Daniel Fuller.