Whilin' Away the Hours

O come, O come, Emmanuel,
And ransom captive Israel,
That mourns in lonely exile here,
Until the Son of God appear.

Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel
Shall come to thee, O Israel.

O come, O come, thou Lord of might,
Who to thy tribes, on Sinai's height,
In ancient times didst give the law
In cloud and majesty and awe.

O come, thou Rod of Jesse, free
Thine own from Satan's tyranny;
From depths of hell thy people save,
And give them victory o'er the grave.

O come, thou Dayspring from on high
And cheer us by thy drawing nigh;
Disperse the gloomy clouds of night,
And death's dark shadows put to flight.

O come, thou Key of David, come
And open wide our heav'nly home;
Make safe the way that leads on high,
And close the path to misery.

It worked!
Ha! I was hoping that Alastair would be compelled to explore "pistis Christou" after reading my epochal blog entries on the subject. Well, as anyone can see, he fell for it. I am astounded by my powers of persuasion! Mwa ha ha ha!

What? What's that you say? He'd been planning to do this all along? This is merely one of those presbyterian coincidences?

oh well...

This essay nearly made me weep
well, almost. ;-)
Future Justification to the Doers of the Law by Rich Lusk.

Yes.

He lived a good life
but I don't think we can say he died old and full of years...at least I hope not. We will be roasting our first free range turkey tomorrow...er, today. We purchased the turkey from a local farm (which may be a Christian business judging by the slogans on the packaging of their products) which features free range, chemical free birds. Mr. Turkey has never been frozen and was likely dispatched only a few days ago. I'm hoping this will be akin to Alphonso the pig, Cock of the Walk Pheasant, and Bambi's Daddy...the three other freshly slaughtered animals I've eaten. But rest assured, if I had to kill them myself, I'd be eating vegetables, fruit, and pie.

Anyway, the cranberry salad is made, the stuffing is prepared and awaiting an early roll call, and the rest will happen in good order!

Aha...
Overture to the 71st (2004) General Assembly
Regarding the
70th (2003) General Assembly’s
Decision Concerning the Doctrine of Justification

Comment:
"The fact that Scripture shows that the good works of believers are
reasons why the Lord benefits them is to be so understood as to
allow what we have set forth before to stand unshaken: that the
efficient cause of our salvation consists in God the Father's
love; the material cause in God the Son's obedience; the
instrumental cause in the Spirit's illumination, that is, faith;
the final cause, in the glory of God's great generosity. These do
not prevent the Lord from embracing works as inferior causes. But
how does this come about? Those whom the Lord has destined by his
mercy for the inheritance of eternal life he leads into possession
of it, according to his ordinary dispensation, by means of good
works."
(Inst. III.14.21)

Cross pollenating
as Isaac would say...
I took the time to transcribe a few quotes from Norman Shepherd's Dabney Center Special Session lectures on justification for use elsewhere so I might as well maximize my labors. The following all pertain to James 2:14-26 on justification:

"James 2 does not teach salvation or justification by works apart from faith, or even justification by works in addition to faith. The bottom line is that justification is by faith. And, the faith that James is talking about, the faith that saves, the faith that justifies, is the same faith that Paul talks about when he says that justification is by faith and not by observing the law."

"James says more about this faith when he says justification is by works and not by faith alone. These words focus our attention on the kind of faith that justifies and saves. Justification is by faith but not by a faith that stands all alone devoid of action and unproductive of good works. Saving faith in Jesus Christ is a faith that works. It is a living and active faith and only a living active faith justifies and saves. That's the point James is making in vss. 14-26."

"The point is that the faith Abraham had when he believed the promise was the kind of faith that would issue in obedience."

"If Abraham had simply believed the promise without acting on it when his faith was tested, he would not have been justified in the judgment of God."

"James is saying that the person who believes God, who believes in his Son, and who believes the gospel with a living, active, and obedient faith - that man is a righteous man. He is in the right with God and he will be saved from condemnation in the day of judgment. He is justified now and he will be justified in the judgment of the last day."

"Verses 14-26 conclude by saying faith without works is dead. This again answers the question posed by vs. 14, "What good is faith that has no deeds?" The answer is that such faith is no good. Faith without works is dead (vs. 17). It is useless (vs. 20). James affirms very clearly that justification and salvation are by faith but not by a dead faith. Justification and salvation are by a living, active, and obedient faith. This is what James means when he says that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone."

Revisiting a fun diversion
Scarecrow's Day Off

I wish I had seven hands
to give thumbs up to Joel. Regarding an adult convert: Thus Baptism is the way in which a repenting sinner places his faith in Christ as the fruit and completion of being called through the ministry of the Word (quote may be found in comment box).

What could have been...
The story of Kate Adamson is truly amazing. I wonder what difference the love of a faithful husband might have made for Terri Schiavo. And I wonder, with a sense of deep dread, if Terri is "locked in" like Kate was. Her emotional display of frustration at being unable to repeat the words her mother was prompting her to say is obvious in the video linked at her website. I realize the respective injuries of Kate and Terri are different in nature and that it is likely that Terri's injury has compromised her cognitive abilities whereas Kate's did not but I still fear that Terri's awareness is underestimated. Wouldn't the benefit of the doubt be a better approach in this situation?

More information about Kate Adamson is available at her website.

Pistis Christou continued...
Special thanks to Alastair for providing the link to Justification and the Faith of Jesus
by D. W. B. Robinson

"All this means that the term pistis designates a quality of firmness or fixity or constancy which, as Paul discerns it, exists at three vital points in the scheme of salvation. First, there is the pistis of God himself, his eternal, immutable character, displayed in his word and his action, notably in his righteousness and salvation. Secondly, there is the pistis of Christ, seen in his unflinching obedience to the will of the Father, and in his faithfulness to the promise of blessing through the seed of Abraham and to the loving purposes of salvation even in suffering and death. We do not have to say that this is God's faithfulness in Christ; it is Christ's own pistis, peculiar to his role. Finally, there is the pistis of believers, evoked, no doubt, by the pistis of God and the pistis of Christ, yet a quality in the believer himself, and therefore properly distinct from God's and Christ's. The believer's "firmness" is expressed both in his trust in the word of God and in the work of Christ for him, and in the steadfastness with which he endures the trials of his life."

I would add only that the believer's pistis, a gift of grace, is expressed not only in trusting Christ alone for salvation but also in yielding obedience to the commands of God, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come.

The opposite extreme
of using pistis Christou to simply describe the source of faith is using it to defend universalism. The number of people advocating universalism based on "the faith of Christ" is alarming! For a prime example of muddled thinking: "Whose Faith Is It, Anyway?", Rev. Christine Chakoian. I wonder how Ms. Chakoian handles passages requiring faith, repentance, and obedience for salvation, not to mention the Westminster Standards?

Pistis Christou
I may be wrong, but it seems to me that, while making some valid points, Tony Warren misses the central point of pistis Christou in By the Faith of Christ, or our faith in Christ? I realize the essay is a polemic, presumably, against Arminianism and it does very well in that regard. But, "the faith (or faithfulness) of Christ means much, much more than the source of our faith. I would hardly know where to start in describing the fullness of what Christ's faith and covenant faithfulness mean but the following words of John Flavel struck me:

“Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

"Fifthly, and lastly, It was such a desertion as left him only to the supports of his faith. He had nothing else now but his Father's covenant and promise to hang upon. And indeed, as a judicious author pertinently observes, the faith of Christ did several ways act and manifest itself, in these very words of complaint in the text.
For though all comfortable sights of God and sense of love were obstructed, yet you see his soul cleaves fiducially to God for all that: My God, &c. Though sense and feeling speak as well as faith, yet faith speaks first, My God, before sense speaks a word of his forsaking. His faith presented the complaint of sense; and though sense comes in afterwards with a word of complaint, yet here are two words of faith to one of sense: it is, "My God, my God," and but one word of forsaking. As his faith spake first, so it spake twice, when sense and feeling spake but once: yea, and as faith spake first, and twice as much as sense, so it spake more confidently than sense did. He lays a confident claim to God as his God; "My God, my God," and only queries about his forsaking of him, "Why hast thou forsaken me?" This is spoken more dubiously, the former more confidently.
To be short, his faith laid hold on God, under a most suitable title, or attribute, Eli, Eli, "my strong One, my strong One," q. d. O thou, with whom is infinite and everlasting strength; thou that hast hitherto supported my manhood, and according to thy promise upheld thy servant; what! wilt thou now forsake me? My strong One, I lean upon thee. To these supports and refuges of faith this desertion shut up Christ: by these things he stood, when all other visible and sensible comforts shrunk away, both from his soul and body. This is the true, though brief account of the nature and quality of Christ's desertion....

Fifthly, Though God took from Christ all visible and sensible comforts, inward as well as outward; yet Christ subsisted, by faith, in the absence of them all: his desertion put him upon the acting of his faith. "My God, my God", are words of faith, the words of one that wholly depends upon his God: and is it not so with you too? Sense of love is gone, sweet sights of God shut up in a dark cloud? well, what then? Must thy hands presently hang down, and thy soul give up all its hopes? What! Is there no faith to relieve in this case? Yes, yes, and blessed be God for faith. "Who is among you that feareth the Lord, and obeyeth the voice of his servants, that walketh in darkness, and has no light; let him trust in the name of the Lord, and stay himself upon his God," Isa. 50: 10."

Dr. Leland Ryken,
Professor of Literature at Wheaton College, was the speaker for our annual Reformation Conference but the hilight of his visit was the Sunday School lecture he delivered the morning after the conference. How Imaginative Literature Can Be Spiritual is a very inspiring look at the place of fiction in the life of the Christian.

Have you been Googlewhacked?
I have. ;-)
Googlewhack

Part IV
Justification Unpacked by Alastair Roberts

Tantident and Idein
The Owen code has been cracked thanks to my code-cracking linguist brother-in-law, Theo. He felt the best explanation would be to see the words used in context. The scene is a NASCAR race...

Announcer 1: “Well y’all, ass lookin likesit bout ta rain!”

Announcer 2: “Yup, yurat. Dem cloud m lookin darker’n the clouds o’er Dale Sr’s. house rat bout na…”

Announcer 1: “Welp, I betcha Jeff Gordon’s bout ta goin ta da pits rat bout now ta get sum diffnt tars on for da rain wuts-a-comin' 'n maintainin his lead…”

Announcer 2: “Hey, IDEIN seem him make th’ pits! He aint changing his tars?”

Announcer 1: “Welp, TANTIDENT! Lookin like he’s goin’ wi’ da slicks and goin fer it!”

TRANSLATION:

Anouncer 1: “Well viewers, it appears as though it perhaps may rain on this event soon.”

Announcer 2: “Why, I believe you are correct! Those are very dark cumulous clouds that appear to be ready to shed precipitation forth-with! They are as dark as the abyss which hovers over the fans of the dearly departed Dale Earnhardt Sr.’s psyches…”

Announcer 1: “I agree! And I would presume that racer Jeff Gordon is soon to be making a pit-stop in order to change his tires from the slick-faced version to a type more conducive to wet surfaces in order to make his advance to win this match!”

Announcer 2: “Oh my! I DIDN’T see any intention of such action!”

Announcer 1: “Well sir! THAT HE DIDN'T! I am wonderstruck as to why he might be thinking so liberally! He might indeed be pursuing victory otherwise!”

In his segment on Paul
in the Dabney lectures, Shepherd says, "The Reformers were right in appealing to Paul and Ro. 3:28 to refute the doctrine embodied in the decrees and the doctrines of the Council of Trent. We are justified and saved not through the merit of our own works but by grace through faith in Jesus Christ." N.T.Wright made the same remark during his Preaching and Teaching From Romans series. This is interesting because, though I think Shepherd and Wright would disagree on the nature of 2nd Temple Judaism, they agree on the application of principles derived from some of the texts.

On the job...
As I work today, I'm making my way through Norman Shepherd's latest taped lectures:
Justification. The man is brilliant.

Congrats Kevin!
Your N.T. Wright Page got a thumbs up from Dr. George Grant as did some of my other favorites: Theologia, Peter Leithart, John Barach, Jeff Meyers, and Andrew Sandlin,

Snagged from the Discoshaman:
World Magazine has a blog...with comments.

Excellent stuff...
I can't recommend this series of essays by Alastair Roberts highly enough:
Justification and the Catholicity of the Church Part 1
Justification and the Catholicity of the Church Part 2
Justification and the Catholicity of the Church Part 3

Part 4 coming soon.

Good advice
The Confession of a Recovering Addict by Monte E. Wilson III

"On further thought: I think I will retrieve Watchman Nee from the trash can. I am going to place one of his books in some prominent place where I can be constantly reminded to tread softly on the assertions of others, to maintain a high degree of humility regarding my own assertions and to never be tempted again to the enticing drug of always being right."

If I were going to do this, I would choose Everybody Can Know by Francis and Edith Schaeffer. Schaeffer!?! Well, yes. You see, all I have left of the book is one chapter. In a hyper-zealous purge, launched from a soapbox long-forgotten, I decided the book was full of mush with the exception of one chapter. I cut the "acceptable" chapter from the book, shredded the rest of it & pitched it far, far Outside The Camp.

This and that
Our pastor preached an awesome sermon today. We are nearly finished with the book of Acts and this was the third sermon on Paul before Agrippa. He said, as he often does, that the gospel is in the law and that faithful Jews, like Simeon of Lk 2, were waiting for the consolation of Israel foretold in the law and the prophets.

Now lettest thou thy servant depart, Lord, According to thy word, in peace;
For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,
Which thou hast prepared before the face of all peoples;
A light for revelation to the Gentiles, And the glory of thy people Israel.

Earlier in the service, we heard Phil. 3:1-16 . What a contrast between Saul and Simeon! The righteousness which is in the law was of no avail for Saul without Christ. And it is on this ground that Paul pleads with Agrippa. "For the king knoweth of these things, unto whom also I speak freely: for I am persuaded that none of these things is hidden from him; for this hath not been done in a corner. King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest. And Agrippa said unto Paul, With but little persuasion thou wouldest fain make me a Christian."

At the close of the sermon, just before the Supper, he read Hebrews 11, the account of the faithful ones of old. Between the elements he read from Hebrews again:
Follow after peace with all men, and the sanctification without which no man shall see the Lord: looking carefully lest there be any man that falleth short of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby the many be defiled; lest there be any fornication, or profane person, as Esau, who for one mess of meat sold his own birthright. For ye know that even when he afterward desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected; for he found no place for a change of mind in his father, though he sought is diligently with tears. For ye are not come unto a mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, and unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest, and the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice they that heard entreated that no word more should be spoken unto them; for they could not endure that which was enjoined, If even a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned; and so fearful was the appearance, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake: but ye are come unto mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable hosts of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaketh better than that of Abel.

It was a good day in the assembly of the Saints.

(I was going to write a bit more about other things like going to see The Matrix: Revolutions Saturday and about dinner with family today but you know what? I think I'll do that another time.)

?
What in the sam hill do "tantident" and "idein" mean?

The key to Anselm's theory of the Atonement was the idea of "satisfaction." In justice to himself and to the creation, God, whose honor had suffered injury by man's sin, must react against it either by punishing men, or, since he was merciful, the death of the God-man, which will more than compensate for the injury to his honor, on the ground of which lie forgives sin. Incidental features of his theory are 1) sin as a violation of a private relation between God and man, 2) the interaction of the divine righteousness and grace, and 3) the necessity of a representative suffering. In the Reformed doctrine, sin and the Atonement took on more of a public character, the active obedience of Christ was also emphasized, and the representative relation of Christ to the law brought to the front. In the seventeenth century the forensic and penal justice of God came into prominence. Christ was conceived of as suffering the punishment of our sin,-a complete equivalent of the punishment which we must have suffered, -on the ground of which our guilt and punishment are pardoned. In the following century, Owen held that the sufferings of Christ for sinners were not tantident but idein. In more recent discussions along this line, Hodge maintains that Christ suffered neither the kind nor degree of that which sinners must have suffered, but any kind and degree of suffering which is judicially inflicted in satisfaction of justice and law.

This is funny...
Have you ever tried The Color Test? It's harder than you think. The first time I tried it, I got 75%. Let me know how you do! (I'd especially be interested in Dr. 80s score.)

Law/Gospel
If you ever find yourself in need of a quick reference tool or a synopsis of why the Mosaic administration was essentially gracious in character,
Why The Law/Gospel Paradigm Is Flawed, by Rich Lusk, is a good resource. It's also helpful for understanding why we say that it is possible to be faithfully obedient to the Law.

Cult of Self
Men Enter The Name Game
"The Shubert-Colemans decided to hyphenate because...neither wanted to give up their individual identity." So much for two becoming one flesh but even worse is the denial of Christ. Sadly, they would have no idea what I was talking about.

I've never been good with dates...
I missed A Momentous Event! Tuesday November 4th was my one year blogging anniversary! I never dreamed I had enough words to cover a year. I am a rather taciturn individual in real life. Unless I'm in close proximity to a group of giddy females. I know that's not a complete sentence but I don't care.

This has proven to be an enjoyable hobby. My husband always says that he would never, NEVER blog. He is a very private person and while he always has very good insights and opinions, he prefers to share them with selected people. In other words, he's not interested in blabbing his opinions to the whole universe. Me? Well, I have no such inhibition. I've made a fool of myself often enough. I usually just mope for a day or two, shrug, and march on in happy obliviousness (is that a word?). I own the fault of using my femaleness as an excuse for being an occasional airhead (or strawbrains as the case may be).

Some cool stuff has happened in my one year of blogging. My shining moment was when I posted Cornelius Van Til's defense of Norman Shepherd. Believe me, I had nothing to do with it. I just asked a few people a few questions and the next thing I knew, someone forwarded me a transcription of the taped testimony with permission to post it. That blog post traveled around the world. The transcription is now copyrighted by someone. That's probably a good thing as long as the original owner approved it but I suppose it might render me an outlaw. That's OK, I own being a miscreant too.

I have spies! Be careful you lurkers. One of my more notorious moments came when I had an unpleasant exchange with a certain individual in my comment system regarding the OPC's Kinnaird ruling. Yes, I got a little testy-the good Dr. was rude! My response to him was published on a well known members-only Yahoo-group for critique. I was not a member but I was contacted by several cyber-friends informing me of the discussion so I joined under a pseudonym and monitored the discussion. I own up to the satisfaction I felt as I read.

But the high points are not what interest me nor are they the impetuous to continue blogging. The most satisfying thing about blogging, and online interaction in general, is the unique opportunity to make friends with people I will never meet face to face. Non-bloggers, non-netizens don't get it. They see it as some sort of self-centered activity. But I stand firm in my conviction that bloggers rock. I've learned so much from my fellow bloggers and I believe that I've formed friendships that would never have been possible apart from the netisphere.

That's all I have to say about that. If you stop by, please say hi... and happy belated anniversary! And remember, faith is as faith does.

Here is another on Galatians
This one by Rich Lusk: The Galatian Heresy: Why We Need To Get It Right

Actually, Theologia has added 5 new essays by Rev. Lusk all of which are much needed correctives.

I can't wait to dig into The Problem With Moses! But, it will have to wait until tomorrow...we're going to the theater tonight to see Luther. ;-)

Signs in the heavens
Total Eclipse of the Moon

Were the Galatian Judaizers merit theologians?
No, they were not.

Doug Wilson
Is starting a series on Galatians. If the first sermon is any indication of what the whole series will be like... woohoo!
Galatians, says Wilson, is about cosmic liberty.

Everybody's talking
It's a topic in my family anyway...The Da Vinci Code.

I haven't read it yet but a glance through the Amazon reader's reviews is one more piece of evidence that we are truly living in a post-modern society. Combine holy grail mythology with Nag Hammadi documents, weave it into a plausible account, watch a television network "report" and presto chango! You've got a revised world history. There are people actually believing this stuff! Did you know that "the royal bloodline of Christ" has been "chronicled in exhaustive detail by scores of historians?" Did you know that the Crusades were an effort to destroy the evidence of it? Yes! Mary Magdalene is the true apostle, the one that Jesus commisioned to found the church through the bloodline of the mortal prophet Christ. The Church has suppressed this "knowledge of the Sacred Feminine" for centuries.

But this is nothing unique to TDVC. Vincent J. Romano gives a synopsis of a proponent of this view in Elaine Pagels on "Jesus and his Message in the Gnostic Gospels" which clearly reveals it's intent. For contrast, here is a brief article debunking the historical accuracy of the Gnostic gospels: The Historical Reliability of the Gnostic Gospels Compared to the Canonical Gospels. (There are probably better treatments out there but this one was handy.) I believe evidence suggests that the canonical books of the New Testament were all written prior to 70 AD. The Gnostic gospels, contrary to Ms. Pagel's estimates, date no earlier than second century. Dan Brown, author of TDVC claims that The Priory of Sion is an undisputed fact. What he doesn't mention is that it is a factual hoax.

This will be a movie, I'm certain of it. I just hope they title it Conspiracy Theory II.

More tapes...
I just had a nice chat with Miss Jackie, Auburn Avenue's secretary (and mother of a member of our church). What a warm-hearted lady she is. I could listen to that soft Louisiana accent all day. Anyway, I ordered The Dabney Center Special Session tapes as well as the morning & evening sermon tapes for Oct. 26 in which Norman Shepherd preached. Can't wait!

So close yet so far away...
I'd like to see this but not enough to drive to Cleveland. Guess I'll wait for the DVD!
BONHOEFFER.

Conditional Covenant
Why He should keep His promise, when we have broken His covenant? Yet when we reject His covenant, and set light by it through our wicked life, we may not look that He should be any longer bound to us. Why? For He has become our God upon this condition, that we also should be His people. And how shall we be His people? It is not by saying simply with our mouth, We are the people of God.... but we must show by our deeds that we are the people of God, in that we obey Him. -- John Calvin

[Sermons of the Master John Calvin upon the Fifthe Book of Moses called Deuteronomie, trans. Arthur Golding (London, 1583), 915b (serm. On Deut. 26:16-19).] Quote borrowed from Covenant Media Foundation

Why did James choose Rahab as an example of the obedience of faith?
"Why did he not rather choose some one from so large a number of illustrious fathers, and join him to Abraham? Why did he prefer a harlot to all others? he designedly put together two persons so different in their character, in order more clearly to shew, that no one... has ever been counted righteous without good works. He had named the patriarch, by far the most eminent of all; he now includes under the person of a harlot, all those who, being aliens, were joined to the Church. Whosoever, then, seeks to be counted righteous, though he may even be among the lowest, must yet shew that he is such by good works.

James, according to his manner of speaking, declares that Rahab was justified by works; and the Sophists hence conclude that we obtain righteousness by the merits of works. But we deny that the dispute here is concerning the mode of obtaining righteousness. We, indeed, allow that good works are required for righteousness; we only take away from them the power of conferring righteousness, because they cannot stand before the tribunal of God." John Calvin, Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles, James 2:25 **

**A small edit for clarity: The second Calvin quote struck me as absolutely hilarious because he takes pains to say that, while works are necessary, they are not instrumental. I suspect he's arguing against Rome. We jump forward nearly 500 years and this is exactly what Norman Shepherd takes pains to say: works are necessary though not instrumental but guess who he must defend himself against? Isn't that funny? Calvin's point here is to chide those [Rome] who would make an effect it's own cause. Effect can never be it's own cause. This is the same error many of Shepherd's opponents, with their 16th century hermaneutic, make in interpreting Shepherd. They are operating with a Roman mindset as they argue against a perceived Roman threat.

Because this is such a point of contention, I made a difficult, and I won't deny, painful decision today. I left a small, private forum in which I have been a participant for a long time. I can't argue with people whom I have counted as friends anymore- it grieves me to do so. Why leave? Why not just stay away from the troublesome topics? Because it is equally frustrating to stand down while sound doctrine and good theologians are tarred and feathered. But the primary reason is that I become frustrated to the point of anger; it's an occasion to sin. Maybe this will be a temporary leave...time will tell.

"And if thy hand or thy foot causeth thee to stumble, cut it off, and cast it from thee: it is good for thee to enter into life maimed or halt, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into the eternal fire."