Whilin' Away the Hours

An opinion
Greg Bahnsen, in the lecture series Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion , opines on the decline in the quality of seminary education citing the calibre of certain professors who replaced some of our contemporary luminaries. He goes on to say, "But then again, John Murray retires at Westminster and you have a man who was very competent who took his place, and because he was so competent and wrote in a way that didn't favor the mass--well, the opinions of men in influence--he was moved out of his position."
(transcribed by my annonymous friend ;-)

I read an account of Shepherd's dismissal by an OPC minister who was present when Dr. Clowney announced that Shepherd would be dismissed. He made it very clear that it was not for doctinal reasons but rather for financial reasons. Funding dried up due to a letter a few men circulated among the entire alumni and Reformed and Presbyterian sessions and evangelical schools around the world which employed small, decontextualized quotes from Shepherd painting him to be a virtual Roman Catholic on the doctrine of justification. It was a trial without judge, jury, or evidence. Clowney explained that Mr Shepherd's views had been found consonant with the Westminster Standards but the seminary could not afford to keep him on.

This OPC minister claims that when word was received about the dismissal of Shepherd, OPC congregations were outraged over a minister in good standing being pilloried for the actions of the signers of the letter. The fury resulted in a quick shift by the WTS board which concocted new reasons for his firing calling Shepherd's integrity into question. The OPC minister states that this does not change the reality of the event. The real reason was the one (and only) that he heard from the official spokesman with his own ears, just after the decision to offer up John Murray's successor on the altar seminary financial integrity was made.

From what I understand, Mr. Shepherd conducted himself as a godly Christian gentleman through the entire ordeal.

The review of The Passion of Christ
at PCANEWS.COM is quite favorable. I'm looking forward to, and dreading, this film.

It seems to me that this film should silence scoffers who use God's sovereign decree for the existence of evil as an excuse for unbelief. Christ, from eternity, covenanted to redeem creation by bearing evil & suffering to an infinite degree in his own fully human body. Yes, it is God's will for evil to exist but it is also true that it was his will to take it's inestimable weight unto himself.

Snow dog
I love my pup...

Picture taken through dirty glass...sorry. Angus loves cold weather & snow. We have a dog door so he is free to come & go as he pleases but he often spends long hours outside sleeping in the snow.

For my friend "The Tick"
I received permission to quote the following post written by Phil Hodson from the OPC yahoo group. It is a response to discussion of the following quote by Puritan Ezekiel Hopkins:
"Good works are absolutely necessary, to preserve the state of Justification when once obtained. It is impossible that we should maintain our Justification, without believing, repenting, mortifying the deeds of the body, and performing the duties of new obedience; all which are good works; and the reason is because as soon as they cease, their contraries, which are utterly inconsistent with a justified estate, succeed in the room of them. If faith, repentance, and mortification cease, it is impossible that Justification can be preserved; otherwise, a man might be a justified unbeliever, a justified impenitent, a justified slave to his lusts; which is a contradiction."

This Puritan quote generated discussion about justification and consequent conditions but the email speaks to a number of issues we've discussed regarding FV so Phil graciously gave me his permission to copy:

"Bottom line, I think the issue is this. The biblical paradigm is that we are to see Justification as received now by faith and not by sight. In other words, the appropriation
is from the Word already spoken and received by the person by trusting that promise. This is quite different than the presumption that "I once believed or had an experience therefore I will always believe and am safe." The latter is based in me and my experience. The former is grounded in the promise. One is by faith in the promise. The other is faith in my experience. The latter does not accord with the pattern of the soils which the entire Scripture continually and always presupposes.

What we have in view is an epistemological issue. Everyone agrees that no one can snatch God's individually elect out of His hand. That is fixed and unchangable. The question is whether profession, membership in the Church, or especially having had some experience guarantees our standing on the last day. I maintain that this is unbiblical to suggest. We have no revelation beyond the Word. The pattern of the Scripture gives priority to the covenant; to the realm of the Church, which is God's means to the end of saving those who are His individually elect. General election then is the means to the realization of individual election, not the reverse. The knowledge of individual election is through general election taken by faith, until the last day when it will be sight. The realm of our Christian experience NOW that we know by SIGHT is the realm of the covenant, of the Church, of the visible kingdom of God. This corporate membership is provisional according to the Scriptures. We have not had revealed to us "'John Doe' is individually elect and can't fall away." Quite the opposite. Today, John Doe, if you hear His voice, you are not to harden your heart as your forefathers did in the wilderness, so as to fall. This doesn't compromise assurance, but it does deny an individually appropriated assurance that is NOT through the covenant. In other words, it denies that I can individually say that I have had a revelation from God that I will never apostatize. I only have assurance of this sort by faith and not sight. It is part of the promise. I believe by faith that He will never leave or forsake me, that He Who began a good work, etc. These are promises that are to everyone who will take up their cross and follow- everyone in the covenant. But shrinking back to destruction is a theme of the Scripture as well, and we must not squash that. So what I am saying then is that the realm of our sight is the Church where we walk by faith in the finished revelation and promises of God which are to whosoever will heed the call and persevere. Those who come and then leave had the promises just as much as I did. Those who fall in the desert, as the Scripture puts it, were those who are said to be accountable for their fall because it was they who hardened their hearts. We must confess this even as we confess the absolute sovereignty of God over us as well. The question, again, is epistemological. Do I by faith take God at His Word that He Who calls me is faithful? Or do I suggest that my initial conversion is my assurance of never falling? The latter is the pattern in our day. I do hope that voices calling for a return to the biblical pattern will prevail. I also hope that it doesn't seem that I am attributing to you all here that I am arguing against. I do hope however that this is found helpful is some way. It's something that I think needs to be addressed in theological reflections of our day."

This quote is a much more eloquent description of what I meant when I said (in a comment on an earlier blog entry), "But, do any of the proponents actually say that all covenant children are "saved" in the traditional sense of the word, that is, elect to eschatological salvation? Or, are they rather saying that covenant children are grafted into "those who are being saved" and called to faithfulness?"

Those 15 seconds!
FOX News is on TV upstairs... I just heard Jon Barlow's "Yeeargh" mix used as segue way music. I know that he did the mix for fun but I would sure love to see Jon & Annie reap some financial benefit from it. They work so hard for their young family and for the needs of their austistic son, wouldn't it be wonderful if this little spoof provided a means of blessing for them?

Gal. 2:16-17
Which translation do you prefer? And for the Greek scholars, why do you prefer it?

Gal. 2:16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. 2:17 But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! (ESV)

Gal. 2:16 yet we know that no one is justified by the works of the law but by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ*. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by the faithfulness of Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified. 2:17 But if while seeking to be justified in Christ we ourselves have also been found to be sinners, is Christ then one who encourages sin? Absolutely not! (The NET Bible*)

I think I see a significant difference in thought conveyed by each translation. In brief, the ESV seems to imply that a person is not justified by doing works of the law but rather by doing faith. But The NET suggests to me that the works of the law, i.e., Torah, do not justify but rather the faithfulness of Christ is the ground of our justification.

* Pistis Christou and similar phrases in Paul (Rom 3:22, 26; Gal 2:16, 20; 3:22; Eph 3:12; Phil 3:9) involve a subjective genitive and mean “Christ’s faith” or “Christ’s faithfulness.”
Noteworthy among the arguments for the subjective genitive view is that when pistis takes a personal genitive it is almost never an objective genitive (cf. Matt 9:2, 22, 29; Mark 2:5; 5:34; 10:52; Luke 5:20; 7:50; 8:25, 48; 17:19; 18:42; 22:32; Rom 1:8; 12; 3:3; 4:5, 12, 16; 1 Cor 2:5; 15:14, 17; 2 Cor 10:15; Phil 2:17; Col 1:4; 2:5; 1 Thess 1:8; 3:2, 5, 10; 2 Thess 1:3; Titus 1:1; Phlm 6; 1 Pet 1:9, 21; 2 Pet 1:5)

Today in history...
The Anabaptists and their progeny are 479 years old today.
January 21, 1525 • Anabaptists Took a Baby Step.

New yahoos
A new yahoo group* is being promoted with the following blurb:
"In recent years a new movement has emerged, attacking justification by faith alone in new ways. Elements of this movement go by different names, including Shepherdism, the New Perspective on Paul, Auburn Avenue Theology, and Federal Vision theology. Although they differ on particulars, all deny or debilitate the doctrine of justification. They substitute a doctrine of salvation depending in whole or part on human works, not the finished work of Christ alone. This movement also spreads error regarding related doctrines including the covenants, the Church, baptism, sanctification, the last judgment, and glorification.

"Our purpose is to expose and refute these errors and to communicate sound doctrine by publishing links to books, articles, sermons, audio and video presentations on other sites, and also publishing original material. Posting does not necessarily constitute full endorsement of individuals or organizations. We also welcome your comments and suggestions."

To join this group or for more information, go to groups.yahoo.com/group/byfaithalone"

*Paul, for advertising your list, an Amazon gift certificate would be a nice "thank you." I promise to refrain from purchasing any FV or NPP material with it. ;-) *

Being the "strident new perspectivalist" and "dyed-in-the-wool Federal Visionist" that I am, I scurried over to the new list to peruse it's contents. There, I was directed to another site, Teaching the Word, where a number of essays, articles, and books have been catalogued which oppose FV/NPP. I found that I'd read much of the material linked there but I noticed something interesting...

In the net circles I travel, it's rare to hear John Robbins granted credibility. Oh, there are a few scattered people who bravely admit that they find useful material at The Trinity Foundation but they are usually quick to add that, even so, they still think Robbins is a frootloop. For my part, I take a wicked pleasure from Robbins' screeds and diatribes often thinking that the age of the internet has yielded some very entertaining characters. I call this a "wicked pleasure" because I know that Robbins' presence is, in reality, schismatic and destructive to the faith as a quick look through his archives and "horror files" will reveal. So, it was with a combination of amusement, sadness, and disgust that I noticed the heavy reliance on John Robbins and his Trinity Foundation on this new list. Of the 37 essays linked, 30% of them are written by John Robbins and 40.5% of them are from The Trinity Foundation. I hope, with all my heart, that the crusade to "save the gospel" has merely created some strange bedfellows and that it is not the intention of the crusaders to steer presbyterianism down Robbins' crooked path.

He's home!
And snoozing in his own bed. ;-)

Still short on time
I finally slotted some time to read Cal Beisner's critique of The Federal Vision. His first criticism, that of nontraditional use of terms, doesn't concern me. One could anachronistically say the same of Calvin. But from the next point on, I must say, he raises some difficult questions. I wonder if there is a response in the works?

My bionic husband
For family or friends interested: Clifford's hip replacement surgery went smoothly and all is well. He amazed his nurses by asking to stand up only hours after his surgery...something that 's not required until the day after surgery. He has pain, of course, but he's lived with pain for years so he's used to the G. Gordon Liddy Pain Management Technique. I expect him home by Saturday night which means I owe him a dollar. We had a bet on whether he'd be in the hospital 3 days or 4. I think he'll win and it's a dollar I'm happy to loose!

Still reading...
Joey Pipa criticizes John Barach for over-objectifying the covenant in the following quote: "But those who fall away will be cut off from the church. . . . And they will look back and discover that they were reprobate on that last day but they will also see that in history, and this is always God’s plan for them, that in history God did graciously, really bring them into his church, that he really made them a part of his chosen people, that he gave them genuine promises that are just as real, just as dependable, just as trustworthy as the promises he gave to people who do persevere to the end. He gave them real promises of salvation; he united them to Christ in whom alone is salvation. . . "

But John's scenario is similar to the argument John Murray made for the free offer of the gospel, i.e., it must be a genuine offer for the rejection of it to have consequence, and even more specifically, Murray's comments on the dire import of apostasy. So, if the promises weren't genuine, what were they? Psuedo-promises? Will someone be judged for unbelief of a non-genuine promise?

"We have spoken of this experience on the part of unregenerate men as that of the power and glory of the gospel. In the parable of the sower those who are compared to the rocky ground are those who hear the word and immediately with joy receive it. This implies some experience of its beauty and power. Yet they have no root and endure but for a while. When tribulation and persecution arise they just as immediately stumble and bring forth no fruit to perfection. The passages in Hebrews 6:4–8; 10:26–29 refer to experience that apparently surpasses that spoken of in the parable of the /p. 19/ sower. At least, the portraiture is very much more elaborate in its details and the issue much more tragic in its consequences. The persons concerned are described as “those who were once enlightened and tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come” (Heb. 6:4, 5), as those who had received the knowledge of the truth and had been sanctified by the blood of the covenant (Heb. 10:26, 29). We shudder at the terms in which the experience delineated is defined.23 Yet we cannot avoid its import, nor can we evade the acceptance of the inspired testimony that from such enlightenment, from such participation of the Holy Spirit and from such experience of the good word of God and the powers of the age to come men may fall away, crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, put him to an open shame, tread the Son of God under foot, count the sanctifying blood of the covenant an unholy thing and do despite to the Spirit of grace. Here is apostasy from which there is no repentance and for which there is nought but “a fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation which shall devour the adversaries”.

It is here that we find non-saving grace at its very apex. We cannot conceive of anything, that falls short of salvation, more exalted in its character. And we must not make void the reality of the blessing enjoyed and of the grace bestowed /p. 20/ out of consideration for the awful doom resultant upon renunciation and apostasy. As was pointed out already in other respects, it is precisely the grace bestowed in all its rich connotation as manifestation of the lovingkindness and goodness of God that gives ground for, and meaning to, the direful judgment that despite and rejection entail."
John Murray, Common Grace

The Colloquium
I've been too busy to read much of the Auburn Avenue Theology Colloquium but I read Rich Lusk's response to Morton Smith's The Biblical Plan of Salvation. In my opinion, the overview of covenant theology Rich presents is the heart and soul of Reformed theology in all of it's beauty.

A Response to “The Biblical Plan of Salvation” integrates much of what I've been reading over the last few years into one document. If you don't read anything else, read this! (But then, I haven't read the others so I may say the same of them)

I want to post this quote from the essay, not because it is a summary or a conclusion. It is really somewhat of a tangential observation drawn from the overall emphasis of the paper but it is so worth saying over and over and over again:

"A sad by-product of the covenant of works scheme is that it places even faithful works of obedience on the part of Christians under a bad light. Talk about obedience is always suspect because it smells of merit. How can I know my efforts to follow God’s will aren’t attempts to earn his blessing? The entire federalist theological construction creates massive dichotomies that make it virtually impossible to tie together faith and works, justification and Christian growth, grace and new obedience, and so on, in any organic, covenantal whole. We end up divorcing things God has joined together. Sanctification comes to fit only very awkwardly into our theological system and the pressure towards (theoretical, if not practical) antinomianism becomes greater and greater.

This is, in my view, a large reason for the controversy surrounding Shepherd. Opponents of Shepherd thought his insistence on the fruit of the Spirit as a requirement for eschatological justification was legalistic. But when one considers that Shepherd has totally purged his theological program of merit–and therefore of even the possibility of legalism–it becomes obvious how absurd this kind of objection is. Shepherd’s insistence on a working, loving, obedient faith for salvation has to be seen in the light of the demands of covenant life, not a potentially meritorious program of works righteousness."

In order to understand the fullness of Rich's meaning, I commend his paper to you.

The Lord's Day
Today, we started a study of the book of Ephesians. In the sermon, our pastor gave a bit of introduction to the book and then began his verse by verse exegesis with Ephesians 1: 1-2.

After declaring that the church is "God's new humanity," expounding the amazing grace given to gentiles in their inclusion among "the holy ones," and asking us to consider how truly shocking this was for first century Jews to hear, he looked at us - the whole congregation - and said, You are the saints! You are the holy ones of God!

After the service I teased him saying that his sermon was very Wrightian with a note of Barach. He said, "I'm not part of any movement; I'm just being Biblical." I said, "Yeah..." and smiled at him.

A new blogger!
I'm happy to announce the entry of Dr. Keith Mathison to the blogosphere! Out of the Miry Clay is a bit skeletal right now but you can bet your exploding Scottish cow it won't stay that way! Welcome Keith!

Starbucks and I
Whew. I worked all night last night and today, after 3 hours of sleep, I have another full day's work to do. On top of that, our Women's Guild meeting is tomorrow morning at my house which means that after I do my day's work, I'll need to clean the house, go to the grocery, and make food for the meeting. Then, I get to work all weekend too. Next week, my husband is in the hospital for hip replacement surgery.

Sigh. If you think of it, pray for me. I'm tired.

Working late tonight...
...listening to the music of my younger years... now known as classic rock.
[snork]
Station6070S Classic Rock Radio

Just facilitating circulation
Mark put this up yesterday afternoon, but just in case I have a few visitors who don't read Mark, I'll provide a link too:

Auburn Avenue Theology Colloquium

"Here you can read papers exchanged and discussed by seven proponents of the Auburn Avenue Theology/Federal Vision and seven of its critics and judge for yourself. The papers were prepared for the 2003 Knox Theological Seminary Colloquium on the Federal Vision and are published for the first time here."

If you'd prefer, Mark has linked a zip file for off line reading.

It will be a few days before I have time to read these essays but it looks like a valuable contribution to The Discussion. I'll probably put it on my side bar at some point.

Law & Gospel Conference
Here is a link to the latest info including fees & schedule. I'm so looking forward to this!
Trust and Obey, A Symposium on Law and Gospel

~~Are any other bloggers planning to attend?~~

Is anyone planning to attend?

A muzzle for the heresy hounds
Rutherford House, Edinburgh
10th Edinburgh Dogmatics Conference: 25–28 August 2003
New Perspectives on Paul
N. T. Wright, Bishop of Durham

Excellent! If you've been listening to Wright hecklers, this lecture is for you.

"What then is ‘justification’, if it is not conversion itself, not the establishment of a
‘relationship’ between a person and God, but something which is, at least logically,
consequent upon it? This is where confusion inevitably creeps in. I have argued again
and again that Paul uses dikaioo and its cognates to denote something other than
conversion itself; but several critics have not listened to this, but have imagined that
what I say about Paul’s use of the dikaioo word-group is my proposed description of
his theology of conversion; and they have then charged me with all kinds of
interesting heresies. "

"My proposal has been, and still is, that Paul uses ‘vindication’ language, i.e. the
dikaioo word-group, when he is describing, not the moment when, or the process by
which, someone comes from idolatry, sin and death to God, Christ and life, but rather
the verdict which God pronounces consequent upon that event. dikaioo is after all a
declarative word, declaring that something is the case, rather than a word for making
something happen or changing the way something is."

"And we now discover that this declaration, this vindication, occurs twice. It occurs
in the future, as we have seen, on the basis of the entire life a person has led in the
power of the Spirit – that is, it occurs on the basis of ‘works’ in Paul’s redefined sense.
And, near the heart of Paul’s theology, it occurs in the present as an anticipation of
that future verdict, when someone, responding in believing obedience to the ‘call’ of
the gospel, believes that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead. This is
the point about justification by faith – to revert to the familiar terminology: it is the
anticipation in the present of the verdict which will be reaffirmed in the future.
Justification is not ‘how someone becomes a Christian’. It is God’s declaration about
the person who has just become a Christian. And, just as the final declaration will
consist, not of words so much as of an event, namely, the resurrection of the person
concerned into a glorious body like that of the risen Jesus, so the present declaration
consists, not so much of words, though words there may be, but of an event, the event in which one dies with the Messiah and rises to new life with him, anticipating that final resurrection. In other words, baptism. I was delighted yesterday to discover that not only Chrysostom and Augustine but also Luther would here have agreed with me.

First, Paul’s doctrine of what is true of those who are in the Messiah does the job, within his scheme of thought, that the traditional protestant emphasis on the imputation of Christ’s righteousness did within that scheme. In other words, that which imputed righteousness was trying to insist upon is, I think, fully taken care of in (for instance) Romans 6, where Paul declares that what is true of the Messiah is true of all his people. Jesus was vindicated by God as Messiah after his penal death; I am in the Messiah; therefore I too have died and been raised. According to Romans 6, when God looks at the baptised Christian he sees him or her in Christ. But Paul does not say that he sees us clothed with the earned merits of Christ. That would of course be the wrong meaning of ‘righteous’ or ‘righteousness’. He sees us within the vindication of Christ, that is, as having died with Christ and risen again with him."

And this last quote, lest it be deemed unorthodox, is precisely what Richard Gaffin, PhD, Department Coordinator of Systematics, WTS PA
states in Resurrection and Redemption: A Study in Paul's Soteriology
and elsewhere.

Q & A
Bishop N.T. Wright is taking a few questions submitted by the Wrightsaid list each month. Kevin, a list moderator and owner of the N.T. Wright Page, has kindly made Wright's responses available to the public. Thanks Kevin!

A critique
Douglas J. Green, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Old Testament, Westminster Theological Seminary PA has written a critique of N.T. Wright. If you'd like to read it, email me and I'll send you a copy. In your email, please tell me why you are interested in the critique. I'm curious about your thoughts!

**Update: Mark has posted Dr. Green's original email on his blog so it will be much easier for everyone if you will just surf over to Just Mark! Of course, I can send you the file as a Word Document! ;-) (thanks Dr. Green)

Who said this...
and the funny part: where was it said?
"When I meet people with the lines of their theology clearly and neatly demarcated, I try to avoid them."

For Those About To Rock...
We've been using Welch..... er, um..... Manischewitz Concord Grape wine for communion for some time now. I've never been satisfied with it as a suitable communion wine because it could be easily passed off as grape juice. Next Sunday will be fun. I've substituted (with the session's approval) a strong but sweet Port for the wimpy stuff. Mwa ha ha ha...

Shudder
In about 25 minutes we will be on our way to see ROTK.

Sh, She, Shelob.....whimper.

On Controversy
Thanks to Keith M. for reminding me of this letter. Newton's words are perhaps more relevant today than they were 200 years ago.

"And yet we find but very few writers of controversy who have not been manifestly hurt by it. Either they grow in a sense of their own importance, or imbibe an angry, contentious spirit, or they insensibly withdraw their attention from those things which are the food and immediate support of the life of faith, and spend their time and strength upon matters which are at most but of a secondary value. This shows, that if the service is honorable, it is dangerous. What will it profit a man if he gains his cause and silences his adversary, if at the same time he loses that humble, tender frame of spirit in which the Lord delights, and to which the promise of his presence is made?

Your aim, I doubt not, is good; but you have need to watch and pray for you will find Satan at your right hand to resist you; he will try to debase your views; and though you set out in defense of the cause of God, if you are not continually looking to the Lord to keep you, it may become your own cause, and awaken in you those tempers which are inconsistent with true peace of mind, and will surely obstruct communion with God."

I know a little about awakened tempers. On New Years Eve, I made the hard decision to pull the plug on my long time involvement with several close-knit internet message board communities. Theological differences were creating personal tensions and divisions that were becoming difficult to bear so that when the final punch was delivered, the decision to move on seemed simple. Painful but simple. As a friend has said, I've gone west to the Valar, to rest and heal. Thanks friend, I like the sound of that.

To my friends in Christ at A Better Country, I pray:
"Finally, brothers, rejoice. Aim for restoration, comfort one another, agree with one another, live in peace; and the God of love and peace will be with you.

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all."