Whilin' Away the Hours

This and that...
just stuff, chit chat.

I spent 45 minutes chasing a chipmunk around the house today. His Royal Catness brought the hapless critter in during the night Tuesday and it was our guest until around 5pm today. I'll tell you, chipmunks are cute but they are dumber than coal buckets. The silly little thing ran past two open doors over and over and over again today.
Finally, in what must have been a stunning flash of genius, the chippy realized he could actually go through the door to the great outdoors. I did a victory jig.

I'm still awfully busy but things are finally winding down a bit. I am very much looking forward to the Symposium on Law and Gospel in two weeks. (Tomorrow is the last day to register at a discounted fee...) This should be a very good conference and aside from that it will be a relief to get away for a few days plus meet a few cyber-friends for the first time.

I suppose most bloggers know, but it's amazing who you discover reading your blog. I recently had a very interesting email urging me to go outside the camp... The only benefit I can discern from relocating is that it would still be permissible to make fun of John Robbins. One event tops this comedic referal: Seven years ago, when I found myself unexpectedly "middle-aged" & single, I was "hooked up" with a potential spouse who, I just learned, is a fan of John Robbins. LOL! I discovered this "quirk" when, just lately, Robbins actually quoted the gentleman on his site. Thank God for His mercy in sparing me.

We will be seeing The Passion of The Christ Saturday if there are tickets available. I was apprehensive about the level of violence but Jon's review helped mitigate my fears. I don't like gore but I've seen & appreciated movies such as Saving Private Ryan, When We Were Soldiers, and Platoon, all of which were pretty intense. I've heard criticisms that Christ's worst sufferings were in His separartion from God the Father and I fully agree but the critics seem dismissive of Christ's physical suffering. But, Christ's physical suffering was a demonstration we can understand. Who among us can understand the grief of His separation from His Father? His physical suffering displays the intensity of the suffering sin causes and the vehement hatred unregenerate man has for God. His physical suffering is part of His incarnation which permanently seals the corporeal to the spiritual. And His physical suffering left Him bereft of everything, at His most vunerable; His only strength was faith...the faith that God would vindicate Him.

Pictures of Christ
Jeff Meyers' paper dealing with images of Christ is now available in pdf: Vere Homo: The Case For Pictures of Jesus. Just about, ohhhh...two weeks after I bought it from Biblical Horizons.
;-)

Hey Dave!
Sunday, you were asking about Peter Leithart's article on justification and I said wait because a revision was on it's way? Well, it's here!

For a few readers
who may not visit Sacra Doctrina, now would be a good time to make it a regular stop. Joel is doing a survey of the early Scots Reformed on baptism.

Hey!
Do you all remember Tom Cruciformity? Well, not only does he have a long overdue update, including an excellent summary of what it means to be a member of the church, BUT I'm pleased to point you to several online sermons. I think Tom's future congregation is pretty lucky (in a Presbyterian sort of way). Good work, Tom! God's speed in your studies.

Has anyone read
Thoughts on Sovereign Grace and Regeneration by James Jordan? The thesis of this paper is that "the Bible does not teach that some people receive incorruptible new hearts, that some people are as individuals "regenerated," i.e., changed metaphysically. And further, that "the doctrine [of metaphysical regeneration] is problematic at the very least, in that it locates perseverance not in the ongoing and mysterious wrestling of the Spirit but in a change in the being of those elected to heaven." He doesn't claim his paper is the final word on the subject but calls it a tentative exploration. I should note that he does not deny the 5 points of Calvinism, the effectual call, or predestination. Rather, he affirms them.

Jordan exegetes some familiar passages, such as Ez. 36, Jn 3, and 1 Jn 3 which have been used to support the idea that a regenerated person has sustained a metaphysical change. Jordan's forte is Old Testament imagery and he uses it skillfully to open the meaning of these passages reorienting the locus in Christ rather than the believer.

Thoughts on Sovereign Grace is provocative and compelling. Read it ... if you enjoy having some long held presuppositions challenged.

Great quote
from N.T. Wright on Danger Blog. It makes me shake my head and ask, "what is the problem with this? But then I remember. Not long ago, in a message board debate over Wright, a PCA elder flatly stated that salvation is justification. Kuyper's view on eternal justification, or some variation thereof, is the only way this statement can be made sense of and the WCF explicitly denies that doctrine.

Chapter XI
IV. God did, from all eternity, decree to justify the elect; and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins and rise again for their justification; nevertheless they are not justified until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.

To make justification the hinge on which salvation turns or the sum of salvation is a category error. Union with Christ is salvation. Justification and sanctification are coordinate and simultaneously received benefits of union with Christ. One cannot exist without the other.

A baptism today
Our Orthodox Presbyterian pastor uses the old CRC baptismal form when he baptizes infants. I love the detail of this liturgical form and especially it's emphasis on assurance. The following is an excerpt:

FORM FOR THE BAPTISM OF INFANTS

Beloved congregation in the Lord Jesus Christ:

The principal parts of the doctrine of holy baptism are these three:

First: That we with our children are conceived and born in sin, and therefore are children of wrath, so that we cannot enter into the kingdom of God, except we are born again. This, the dipping in or sprinkling with water teaches us, whereby the impurity of our souls is signified, that we may be admonished to loathe ourselves, humble ourselves before God, and seek for our purification and salvation apart from ourselves.

Second: Holy baptism witnesses and seals unto us the washing away of our sins through Jesus Christ. Therefore we are baptized into the Name of God, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. For when we are baptized into the Name of the Father, God the Father witnesses and seals unto us that He makes an eternal covenant of grace with us and adopts us for His children and heirs, and therefore will provide us with every good thing and avert all evil or turn it to our profit. And when we are baptized into the Name of the Son, the Son seals unto us that He washes us in His blood from all our sins, incorporating us into the fellowship of His death and resurrection, so that we are freed from our sins and accounted righteous before God. Likewise, when we are baptized into the Name of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit assures us by this holy sacrament that He will dwell in us, and sanctify us to he members of Christ, imparting to us that which we have in Christ, namely, the washing away of our sins and the daily renewing of our lives, till we shall finally be presented without spot among the assembly of the elect in life eternal.

Third: Whereas in all covenants there are contained two parts, therefore are we by God, through baptism, admonished of and obliged unto new obedience, namely, that we cleave to this one God. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; that we trust in Him. and love Him with all our heart, with all our soul, with all our mind, and with all our strength; that we forsake the world, crucify our old nature, and walk in a godly life. And if we sometimes through weakness fall into sins, we must not therefore despair of God’s mercy, nor continue in sin, since baptism is a seal and indubitable testimony that we have an eternal covenant with God.

Not long ago, I heard someone say that looking to baptism for assurance was unbiblical. I think Calvin would disagree with him.

"But we are not to think that baptism was conferred upon us only for past time, so that for newly committed sins into which we fall after baptism we must seek new remedies of expiation in some other sacraments, as if the force of the former one were spent. ... But we must realize that at whatever time we are baptized, we are once for all washed and purged for our whole life. Therefore, as often as we fall away, we ought to recall the memory of our baptism and fortify our mind with it, that we may always be sure and confident of the forgiveness of sins. For, though baptism, administered only once, seemed to have passed, it was still not destroyed by subsequent sins. For Christ’s purity has been offered us in it; his purity ever flourishes; it is defiled by no spots, but buries and cleanses away all
our defilement’s." Inst. 4.15.3

The Geneva Catechism
316. But what assurance of grace can the Sacraments give, seeing that good and bad both receive them?
Although the unbelievers and the wicked make of none effect the grace offered them through the Sacraments, yet it does not follow that the proper nature of the Sacraments is also made of non effect.

317. How, then, and when do the Sacraments produce this effect?
When we receive them in faith, seeking Jesus Christ alone and His grace in them.

318. Why do you say that we must seek Jesus Christ in them?
I mean that we are not to be taken up with the earthly sign so as to seek our salvation in it, nor are we to imagine that it has a peculiar power enclosed within it. On the contrary, we are to employ the sign as a help, to lead us directly to the Lord Jesus, that we may find in Him our salvation and all our well-being.

319. Seeing that faith is required, why do you say that they are given to confirm us in faith, to assure us of the promises of God?
It is not sufficient for faith once to be generated in us. It must be nourished and sustained, that it may grow day by day and be increased within us. To nourish, strengthen, and increase it, God gives us the Sacraments. This is what Paul indicates when he says that they are used to seal the promises of God in our hearts (Rom. 4:11).

320. But is it not a sign of unbelief when the promises of God are not firm enough for us, without support?
It is a sign of the smallness and weakness of faith, and such is indeed the faith of the children of God, who do not, however, cease to be faithful, although their faith is still imperfect. As long as we live in this world some elements of unfaithfulness remain in our flesh, and therefore we must always advance and grow in faith.

Instruction in Christian Doctrine for Young Children
Teacher: My child, are you a Christian in fact as well as in name?
Child: Yes, my father.
Teacher: How is this known to you?
Child: Because I am baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Happy Birthday!
We celebrated our little nephew's birthday today. I saw him enter the world 2 years ago; what a cutie. On several occasions today, I saw this little child of the Kingdom react with a sweet smile and obedience when told "no." It was almost as if he found joy in obeying...

My husband took this picture at the dinner table.

Another book
Received today from BiblicalBooks.com: American Secession Theologians on Covenant and Baptism & Extra-Scriptural Binding: A New Danger by Jelle Faber and Klaas Schilder, respectively.

Looks good...

Who killed Jesus
From Townhall.com, an excerpt from a commentary by Chuck Colson :
"He [YHWH] sent His only begotten Son to die on the cross so that the sins of mankind might be forgiven. And those who take Scripture seriously have always known who killed Jesus: You and I and all other sinful human beings did so.

Mel Gibson understands this. In his movie, The Passion of the Christ, the hand holding the spike being nailed through Christ's wrist is Gibson's. Who killed Jesus? Mel Gibson knows."

In his decantation of Gibson's moving personal statement, Chuck Colson makes a true enough observation yet I am concerned that this sort of simplification, if over-emphasized, will unintentionally blur the historical truths surrounding the crucifixion and indeed, the history of Israel. The work of Israel's Messiah, so often decontextualized by political correctness, is reduced in significance to a strictly individual level which is the plague of modern evangelicalism. In truth, Jesus is the seed of Abraham whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time.

A stark example among those striving to distance history from reality, The Anti-Defamation League and it's director, Abraham Foxman, belie any shred of critical credibility by their agenda driven hypocrisy. Foxman's Folly, by Matt C. Abbott, exposes the heart of Foxman's protest. Here's a clue: it isn't love for the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Thanks Matt, for sending me your editorial.

BT & ST
Among the robe-ripping, dust-flinging prophets of doom, N.T. Wright's views on justification have engendered the greatest frenzy. But, how is it that the ululant mob has failed to surround Alister McGrath?

"The concept of justification and the doctrine of justification must be carefully distinguished. The concept of justification is one of many employed within the Old and New Testaments, particularly the Pauline corpus, to describe God's saving action towards his people. It cannot lay claim to exhaust, nor adequately characterise in itself, the richness of the biblical understanding of salvation in Christ. The doctrine of justification has come to develop a meaning quite independent of its biblical origins, and concerns the means by which man's relationship with God is established. The church has chosen to subsume its discussion of reconciliation of man to God under the aegis of justification, thereby giving the concept an emphasis quite absent form the New Testament. The doctrine of justification' has come to bear a meaning within dogmatic theology which is quite independent of its Pauline origins, so that even if it could be shown that it plays a minimal role in Pauline soteriology, or that its origins lie in an anti-Judaising polemic quite inappropriate to the theological circumstances of today, its signficance would not be diminished as a result. That it was justifcation, rather than some other soteriological metaphor, which was singled out in this manner may be regarded as an accident of history, linked to several developments." Iustitia Dei: A History
of the Christian Doctrine of Justification by Alister McGrath

Mondo Bizarro
If you are enjoying the Quizno's commercials, here is some vital information: The creator, Joel Veitch, has a blog****. This is too good to miss but be sure to wear your Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie while visiting. Not for protection, of course, but to blend with the indigenous dwellers of that land.

My personal favorite is "We Like The Moon" on January 23***

****Language warning, content warning, etc, etc.

Part two
Here is Mark Horne's continuing critique of the Presbytery of Philadelphia Overture regarding the OPC's 70th GA.

Infants
This turn of the 20th century man, R.A. Webb, Professor of Systematic Theology, Southwestern Presbyterian University, Clarksville, TN, presents an interesting argument for the salvation of all infants:

"There is a passage in eschatology which indirectly teaches that infants dying in infancy are saved by grace because they are incompetent to stand the only sort of judgment which is revealed in Scripture--a judgment according to works. In the Sermon on the Mount our Lord prophesied that he would say to the damned in the day of judgment, 'Depart from me, ye that work iniquity' (Matt. vii. 23). . . 'Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels' (Matt. xxv. 41), and gives as the ground of this rejection, the fact that they had not ministered unto him. Paul in enumerating classes of persons who would be excluded from the kingdom of God, says: 'Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God' (I Cor. vi. 9,10). Infants cannot do, nor be, any of these things. Then this apostle lays down the general principle upon which the last judgment is to be conducted: 'For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad' (II Cor. v. 10). But the infant dies before it can be a doer of either 'good' or 'bad,' and so cannot be arraigned upon the ground of its personal deeds. In the Apocalypse, ten verses from the end of God's communication to men, John represents Christ as saying: 'Behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his works shall be' (Rev. xvii. 12). It appears from these, and a multitude of similar statements that future and final retribution will be graduated according to 'the deeds done in the body;' but dead infants have been prevented by the providence of God from committing any responsible deeds of any sort in the body, and consequently infants are not damnable upon these premises; and there is no account in Scripture of any other judgment based upon any other grounds. I think therefore that a study of the final judgment entitles us to infer that actual condemnation is always predicated upon actual sin. Original sin renders all the race--adults and infants--damnable; but the judgment scene shows us that damnability is converted into damnation only upon the ground of actual, personal, and conscious sin--a kind of sin which no infant dying in infancy could commit."

Of course Jacob & Esau spring immediately to mind but the fact remains that Esau lived to sin. The argument above raises a myriad of questions! Maybe more later...