By the way, I am realizing I need to start blogging for those who are not presently trying to board down their windows in the teacup or this blogs readership isn’t going to take up enough space to even spill over into the saucer.
I will try. I promise.
Thanks to Chris I now know this:
12:00 AM, 22-SEPTEMBER-06
Buffy Lives–In Comics
Dark Horse Comics will publish a new series of Buffy the Vampire Slayer comics that will pick up the story of the cult TV show and act as a de facto eighth season, Comics Continuum reported.
The new Buffy series is targeted for a March launch, and the first story arc will be a four-part series that will chronicle events after the Buffy television series’ finale, which aired in 2003. Buffy creator Joss Whedon will write, with art by Georges Jeanty.
I actually picked up an old Buffy comic for free a few years ago and was not impressed at all. But with Joss doing an “official” story line, I think I will actually want to see this.
Of course, my enthusiasm is somewhat subdued due to the excessive shark-jumping in season 7, as well as the unforgivable decision to dose up on Angel/Buffy nostalgia to the expense of the whole Spike/Buffy arc (Spike was 3/4 the reason I became a Buffy fan), and the way she did not make an appearance in Season 5 of Angel (not Joss’ fault, I assume, but it hurt the story).
Still, I’m interested.
This made me smile.
I assume everyone has seen the obnoxious and/or funny Mac ads where a rather talented comedien plays the PC.
Well, they sort of inspired me. I point out that the Puritans don’t exist today so there is no one who is directly being targeted here. I do think there are some bad tendencies in the Reformed world that we would be wise to outgrow and this is hopefully a humorous encouragement to do so. However, I continually meet people who 1) believe things that I don’t agree with and 2) are devoid of the attitudinal problems I have observed in connection with them, and are in fact 3) exemplary models of Christian character that I myself come short of and aspire to. (In other words, I can’t read what I wrote without feeling convicted about past words and attitudes myself–and some all too recently).
So with those caveats in mind…
Here is one of the many Leithatisms I missed when first minted:
Based on a student’s questioning, I’m wondering whether “presuppositionalism” is the best term to describe what Vantillians are after. We don’t, after all, come up with some kind of set of axioms or theological idea “prior” to receiving revelation. We can talk about making the Triune God our “starting point” as much as we want, but faith in the Triune God is not in fact the “starting point” of our thinking (in either a chronological or logical sense). I like Frame’s revisionist view that “presuppositions” are really “basic commitments,” but that still seems to individualistic to me. I’d rather think of how we can ecclesiologize Van Til: Instead of saying that “all our thinking is grounded in the presupposition of the Triune God of Scripture,” we might say “as Christians we think and act from within the Church, which is the body of Christ and the community of worshipers of the Triune God.” This moves Van Til in the direction of postliberals and postmoderns, but that’s not a bad move in this case I think.
I’m wondering if it would be helpful to say that Van Til needs some help from Wittgenstein (spoiling Egypt and all that). Having read a ton and a half of “book-length material” (an appropriate phrase since many of these books gave notice on the title page that they were not books) by Van Til, I thought I had special insight into W’s On Certainty. But now I’m pretty sure I fundamentally misunderstood W. I equated “language game” with something close to “ultimate presupposition.” But I don’t think W. is often thinking of a self-conscious proposition held in one’s mind. I think his point was that humans have ingrained postures in every (including the most literal) sense of the word. What makes you instinctively bow your head is as much a part of W’s language games as what ideas you never question.
Whenever we think about knowledge, we need to remember what it means to know how to play chess. Does one know by having the rules memorized? Or is something else meant?
Presuppositions must be embodied to be presuppositions.
In my view, this is a watershed issue. For America to sanction torture is to embrace a new level of barbarism. For this to come from the administration of a President who openly names himsel a Christian hurts all the more. So much for the “culture of life.” But just as concerning to me is this question: Where is the evangelical Christian opposition to torture? Our silence on this issue undermines our status as defenders of biblical morality and surrenders the moral high ground to the liberals at the worst possible moment.
Rick has a military background and can hardly be accused of a “soft” disposition on these issues. In fact, many times I’ve thought he sounded far too hawkish (which probably reveals more about me and my problematic politics then it does about him). But it certainly gives him credibility on this issue with me.
I do think this is going to land us in a maze of issues of trying to come up with clear boundaries so that we avoid this sort of thing. But dealing with the maze is what we’re called to do.
You should feel grateful for the things you have
when you see others lack them.
You should be thankful for protection
when you see others’ foes attack them.
You should share and sympathize with those in need.
You should forget your problems and do the deed.
But always know this much is true:
No one needs God more than you.
I suppose I should explain this uncharacteristic descent into Hallmark self-expressivism. It was shock. I was praying about some stuff that is bothering me when I suddenly thought of someone I had just helped in a rather superficial way but who had desperate needs. I actually committed blasphemy in my heart and said in prayer, “he needs you more than I do.” Yikes! So the next thing I was doing was asking God to forgive a heap load of patronizing arrogance. The rhyme, such as it is, just sort of just came out of me in the process. I suppose displaying it publicly will raise suspicions that I have bought into a doctrine of penance. Oh well.
Zacharias Ursinus, the principal author of the Heidelberg Catechism, lectured on this catechism in his Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism. Though the catechism says very little about the covenant, Ursinus includes a section on the covenant when discussing Christ’s work as mediator. He explains a covenant thus: “This agreement, or reconciliation, is called a Covenant, because God promises to us certain blessings and demands from us in return our obedience” (p. 97). We will have more to say about Ursinus in an excursus below, for now let’s skip to Turretin (volume 2 of his Institutes of Elenctic Theology) and see how he developed this idea.
In explaining “The Nature of the Covenant of Grace” (14.2), Turretin insists the covenant is “mutual” (14.2.26; p. 183), and involves “a mutual exchange of benefits and duties so that if God is our husband, we should be his chaste and faithful spouse” (Ibid). This mutuality is described in Jeremiah 31.33: “I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” Thus, “as all God’s blessings towards us are comprehended in this one promise alone, so all man’s duties are prescribed in this single condition (which indicates together and at once both what they ought to be and what they are bound to do).” Turretin next explains that single condition by saying, in part:
To be the people of God is not only to be subjected to his dominion and to depend upon and be governed by him (for thus all men universally are his people), but to cleave to him in worship and obedience, so as to be nothing, to have nothing, to be capable of and do nothing which is not of God, i.e., which may not be referred to his glory (14.2.27; p. 183).
Turretin goes on to describe this condition as being wholehearted devotion. Especially relevant to our investigation is his claim:
In vain do we hope that God will be our God, unless in turn we are his people and bear witness to the love of the Father, unless we give the obedience of children to him. In vain do we hope that he will bestow the promised blessings, unless we perform the duties required of us (14.2.38; p. 184).
Moving from his Second to his Third Question, Turretin addresses whether the Covenant of Grace is either conditional or unconditional. He answers that it depends on one’s perspective:
It may be taken either broadly and improperly (for all that man is bound to afford in the covenant of grace) or strictly and properly (for that which has some causality in reference to life and on which not only antecedently, but also causally, eternal life in its own manner depends). If in the latter sense, faith is the sole condition of the covenant because under this condition alone pardon of sins and salvation as well as eternal life are promised (Jn. 3:16; Rom. 10:9). There is no other which could perform that office because there is no other which is receptive of Christ and capable of applying his righteousness. But in the former, there is nothing to hinder repentance and the obedience of the new life from being called a condition because they are reckoned among the duties of the covenant (Jn. 13:17; 2 Cor. 5:17; Rom. 8:13) [p. 189; emphasis added].
While Turretin’s position is nuanced according to various possible perspectives, he plainly affirms that conditions are laid down in the Bible. For he also writes that it “cannot be denied that the covenant is conditional.”
(a) It is proposed with an express condition (John 3.16, 36; Romans 10.9; Acts 8.37; Mark 16.16 and frequently elsewhere). (b) Unless it was conditional, there would be no place for the threatenings in the gospel (which could not be denounced except against those who had neglected the prescribed condition)—for the neglect of faith and obedience cannot be culpable, if not required. (c) Otherwise it would follow that God is bound in this covenant to man and not man to God (which is perfectly absurd and contrary to the nature of all covenants, in which there always is a mutual agreement and a reciprocal obligation because the contracting parties are bound on both sides—as between a husband and wife, a king and his subjects, etc.)… [I]f the promises of the covenant are understood concerning the end, no one can deny that they are conditional because they are always made under the condition of faith and repentance (12.3.3, 13.3.4; p. 185).
In the thir volume of his work, Turretin also addresses the question “Are good works necessary to salvation?” Here, again, Turretin refers to the nature of the covenant of grace, saying,
And as to the covenant, everyone knows that it consists of two parts: on the one hand the promise on the part of God; on the other the stipulation of obedience on the part of man. For as God promises in it to be our God, he wishes that we also in turn should be his people. And as that promise includes every blessing of God, so the obligation denotes the duties of all kinds owed by man to God (as was seen when we treated of the clauses of the covenant). Although God by his special grace wishes these duties of man to be his blessings (which he carries out in them), still the believer does not cease to be bound to observe it, if he wishes to be a partaker of the blessings of the covenant (17.3.7; emphasis added).
Turretin’s comments fit well with the answer to question #30 in the Westminster Larger Catechism:
The grace of God is manifested in the second covenant, in that he freely provideth and offereth to sinners a Mediator, and life and salvation by him; and requiring faith as the condition to interest them in him, promiseth and giveth his Holy Spirit to all his elect, to work in them that faith, with all other saving graces; and to enable them unto all holy obedience, as the evidence of the truth of their faith and thankfulness to God, and as the way which he hath appointed them to salvation (Emphasis added).
This way of thinking and speaking goes back to the early Reformed Tradition. Heinrich Bullinger makes this quite clear in his A Brief Exposition of the One and Eternal Testament or Covenant of God. Early in his work he discusses the relationship between grace and responsibility in the covenant:
And indeed one may easily get in trouble here unless one proceeds on the royal highway. For those people who consider only the conditions of the covenant and in fact disregard the grace and promise of God exclude infants from the covenant. It is true that children not only do not observe the terms of the covenant but also do not even understand these terms. But those who view only the sacrament, ceremony, or sign of the covenant count some in the covenant who are really excluded. But if you consider each one separately, one at a time, not only according to the conditions of the covenant but also in terms of the promise or the mercy of God, and the age and reason of a person, then you will realize that all those who believe from among the Jews and the Gentiles are the descendants of Abraham with whom the Lord made the covenant. In the meantime, however, their offspring, that is, their children, have by no means been excluded from the covenant. They are excluded, however, if having reached the age of reason they neglect the conditions of the covenant.
In the same way, we consider children of parents to be children and indeed heirs even though they, in their early years, do not know that they are either children or heirs of their parents. They are, however, disowned if, after they have reached the age of reason, they neglect the commands of their parents. In that case, the parent no longer calls them children and heirs but worthless profligates. They are mistaken who boast about their prerogatives as sons of the family by virtue of birth. For he who violates the laws of piety toward parents is no different from a slave; indeed, he is lower than a slave, because even by the law of nature itself he owes more to his parents. Truly this debate about the seed of Abraham has been settled for us by the prophets and the apostles, specifically that not everyone who is born of Abraham is the seed of Abraham, but only he who is a son of the promise, that is, who is faithful, whether Jew or Gentile. For the Jews have already neglected the basic conditions of the covenant, while at the same time they glorified themselves as the people of God, relying on circumcision and the fact that they were born from the parent Abraham. Indeed, this error is denied and attacked not only by Christ along with the apostles but also by the entire body of the prophets (in Charles S. McCoy and J. Wayne Baker, Fountainhead of Federalism: Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenantal Tradition [Louisville, KY: W/JKP, 1991], 106).
It is possible to speak of the covenant of grace being given under condition of faith alone rather than faith and repentance. However, it is equally possible to speak of the covenant as being strictly unconditional. Again, it depends on one’s perspective. As Turretin notes:
If the covenant be viewed in relation to the first sanction in Christ, it has no previous condition, but rests upon the grace of God and the merit of Christ alone. But if it is considered in relation to its acceptance and application to the believer, it has faith as a condition (uniting man to Christ and so bringing him into the fellowship of the covenant). If, however, in relation to its consummation with faith (obedience and the desire of holiness), it has the relation of condition and means because without them no one shall see God (12.3.5; p. 185).
This perspectival analysis on the part of Turretin works well with Norman Shepherd’s teaching that one can look at election from the standpoint of the covenant and at the covenant from the standpoint of election. Shepherd’s pastoral concern is that we not do the latter at the expense of the former. Otherwise, we will depart from Turretin’s wisdom and end up denying indeed that the covenant is conditional despite the fact that “It is proposed with an express condition (John 3.16, 36; Romans 10.9; Acts 8.37; Mark 16.16 and frequently elsewhere).” Turretin takes his conditionality so seriously that he realizes he is open to the charge of confusing the Covenant of Works with the Covenant of Grace. He replies to this objection, writing, “Although the covenant of grace be conditional, the promises of the law and the gospel are not therefore to be confounded” (12.3.6; p. 186). Denying the conditionality of the covenant of grace because it allegedly confuses law and Gospel is explicitly addressed by this father in the faith, and is rejected.
This perspectival analysis of whether or not the covenant of grace is conditional deserves some serious thought on the part of those who boldly declare that Norman Shepherd teaches that we must meet the conditions of the covenant rather than trust in Christ to have met the conditions of the covenant. Such a claim twists Shepherd’s meaning and engages in equivocation. He has clearly stated that the “reason or cause why sinners are justified is in no sense to be found in themselves or in what they do, but is to be found wholly and exclusively in Jesus Christ and in his mediatorial accomplishment on their behalf” (Thesis #5).
By the way, for a great resource on John Calvin’s thinking in relation to all of this, see Peter Lillback’s study, The Binding of God