In Romans 10.16, Paul writes, “But they have not all obeyed the gospel.”

This strikes some as an odd way of speaking. Obey the Gospel? Isn’t Paul concerned to emphasize belief as an alternative to obedience?

Of course, there is plenty of evidence in Romans that Paul is just fine with describing the saving response to the Gospel as obedience (Romans 1.5; 6.17; 15.18; 16.26). But yesterday the more immediate context struck me for the first time. Paul has just used Deuternomy 30 to refer to the Gospel:

And the righteousness of faith says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) or “‘Who will descend into the abyss?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved (10.6-9).

And what does Deuteronomy 30 repeat four times?

• return to the LORD your God, you and your children, and obey his voice in all that I command you today, with all your heart and with all your soul (v. 2)
• And you shall again obey the voice of the the LORD and keep all his commandments that I command you today (v. 8).
• If you obey the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you today, by loving the LORD your God, by walking in his ways, and by keeping his commandments and his statutes and his rules, then you shall live and multiply, and the LORD your God will bless you in the land that you are entering to take possession of it (v. 16).
• Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live, loving the LORD your God, obeying his voice and holding fast to him, for he is your life and length of days, that you may dwell in the land that the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them (19b, 20).

I think that last reference is especially Pauline in insisting the Israelites can only inherit the blessings promised to Abraham if they trust God the way Abraham did.

That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”–in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist. In hope he believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations, as he had been told, “So shall your offspring be.” He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was as good as dead (since he was about a hundred years old), or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah’s womb. No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. That is why his faith was “counted to him as righteousness.” But the words “it was counted to him” were not written for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.

This cracked me up. An excerpt:

You ask me why we don’t celebrate Halloween, Timmy? Because we’re superstitious, reactionary, gullible, and we refuse to check things out for ourselves. Now, let me finish signing this petition so we can stop Madalyn Murray O’Hair from taking “Touched By an Angel” off the air. Why don’t you take your mind off the fact that your friends are out having fun by reading one of your Left Behind: The Kids books?

And since we’re approaching the season, it’s time to remind everyone that Christians are allowed to be sane if they want to be.

I’m ashamed to say that some of the most obvious things in the world simply never occured to me until I read Jordan’s piece. For example:

the jack-o’-lantern’s origins are unknown. Hollowing out a gourd or some other vegetable, carving a face, and putting a lamp inside it is something that no doubt has occured quite independently to tens of thousands of ordinary people in hundreds of cultures worldwide over the centuries. Since people lit their homes with candles, decorating the candles and the candle-holders was a routine part of life designed to make the home attractive or interesting. Potatoes, turnips, beets, and any number of other items were used.

In the words of the first (movie) Buffy Summers, “Does the word, ‘Duh,’ mean anything to you?” Why on earth would anyone think that a Jack’o’Lantern requres some special explanation? What else would people do with their time before light bulbs or the internet?

Charis not only cooperated with my washing her hair, but she did so cheerfully.

Great waves of paranoia and fear are, of course, washing over me.

Watch us closely. If we start acting nice you’ll know that we have all been replaced.

Somehow, soft tissue can survive seventy million years. Pretty amazing. Or is it? They only found it because they were forced to break a T-Rex thighbone. Normally they try to keep everything intact.

Hat tip: Adam Naranjo

I thought this was interesting:

Buffy writers were routinely asked if the show was animated, or if it was a kid’s show, or even just told “never heard of it.” And that was pretty much the MOST well-known show I’ve worked for. When I mentioned Battlestar Galactica recently, I actually got a, “Oh, is that a magazine?” So… I guess… chin up, it doesn’t get much better.

I’ve lately noticed myself comparing varying parts of the Power Rangers saga to Buffy/Angel….

I have somehow messed up my title command so that, if you go into the archives, my title no longer serves as a link back to the main page.

I’m afraid I’m going to have to ask for a new template and completely start over. Ugh.

I just destroyed my entire website by somehow accidentally deleting 90% of it and saving it that way, then found an archive which hadn’t been republished yet, and cut and pasted my template back together from the source code.

Someday soon I will learn what I am doing.

So now my drop down menu links don’t work anymore. I don’t know what I did.

Tangential to this: my popularized knowledge of Nietzsche involves the idea that he taught that the lower people envy and impute guilt to the higher.

But, if that is true, I think that Nietzsche understimated how needy the aristocratic types can be. No one wants to admit that forces beyond their control dropped them on the top of the bell curve; everyone wants to pretend they climbed up from the lower slopes.

Did Isaac merely prefer the game Esau hunted for him? Or did he say to Jacob, “If you would try harder you could make me happy too.” Did Rebekah spend years trying to get Jacob to behave like Esau before she gave up?

Take homosexuality. Not everyone is tempted by the same sex. Not everyone needs to resist that temptation. And why would not that be true in other areas? We all seem to assume universally identical impulses with various degrees of self-control. But couldn’t it be true that most people have the same self-control and widely varying impulses to certain behaviors?

Understand, this doesn’t justify anything that is wrong. But it ought to make us think twice before making judgments about people’s character. If one person struggles with a drug problem and another doesn’t, is that mean that the latter is better or that the former wasn’t protected by his parents?

The Bible sets up a moral order in which certain sins (not all!) are punished. But it also shows us time and again that those who are on top of the moral order (or seem to be) are in fact worse than those who fall short of it. Jephthah, the son of a prostitute, has to rescue the tribe that exiled him because of his parentage. David welcome’s people who take up a life of fighting in order to escape their creditors.

Jacob is not nearly as disreputable as others, but he fits the type in other ways. He was certainly regarded as disreputable by those in a position to say who counted as such. All the evidence in Genesis tells us that the patriarchs were already following much of the law code given in Exodus-Deuteronomy. According to the law of primogenitor the firstborn got twice the inheritance of the rest. So Esau should have received two thirds and Jacob one. Jacob deceives his father and get’s the older brother’s blessing (just as God had commanded, but Isaac wasn’t listening to God on this). But when Esau finds out what Jacob has done, he expects there to be more left over. “Bless me too, Father!” If the Heel Grabber (Jacob literally) took his inheritance, well than he should get the Heel Grabber’s. But no. There is nothing left over. Isaac had tried to rob Jacob of his inheritance and give everything to Esau. This happens again later to Jacob when Laban hunts him down. Even when God is firmly on the side of Jacob Laban cannot cease to make ludicrous claims on Jacob. He claims that Jacob’s wives still belong to him because that he is their father, and that even the grandchildren belong to him. (Even in the Bible patriarcy can be a bad thing.)

I consider it a lingering effect of the consciousness of a corrupt Christendom that scholars continually want to side with the establishment against Jacob. Isaacc and Laban are obvious crooks expoiting the less powerful to give presents to their favorites and using false accusations against those who are not so favored. But somehow the fact that Jacob managed to prosper anyway and foil many of the plans against him is read, not as a heroes tale, but as a record of sin.

Jesus likes to topple those sitting comfortable on top of the bell curve, using those who are beneath it. But he perpetually warns them not to set up a throne for themselves on that apex.

do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off.

For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom and our righteousness and sanctification and redemption. Therefore, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

The first is on John Williamson Nevin and the second on “pietists v. confessionalists.”

This is both great stuff for its own sake, but also shows, in my opinion, how recent controversialists have vastly simplified the theological landscape make a certain agenda look plausible.

Someone just emailed me about this entry from my former blogsite because of the marriage analogy. Originally I wrote it to defend Peter and his excellent book Against Chritianity (see sidebar at left) from what I thought were some unfair accusations and characterizations. I’ve stripped out the link to the (long dead) blogpost I was responding to and replaced it with boldface.

I think I’ve decided that I was never married. The truth is, my mind was wondering. I wasn’t listening all that attentively to George’s solemn pronouncement. I certainly was not actively engaged in consciously receiving his declaration with faith. [Explanatory Note: George married us.]

So, obviously, I am not really married. Of course, that doesn’t mean the marriage ritual was unimportant. Oh no. Perhaps someday God will change me by the Spirit, make me a husband inwardly, make me married in my heart, in my heart, Lord. Wedding ceremonies are, obviously, outward signs of inward grace–grace with no connection to the ceremony at the time but to be hoped for in the future.

Jennifer should be praying for that day to come. But instead she just gets mad at me when I bring up these important concepts. I don’t know where a former Baptist girl could get such sacradotalist ideas, but she acts as if we were married by virtue of the ceremony. How strange is that? The Bible is clear that when a man and woman are married, it is God who has joined them together by covenant. Obviously God’s work is immediate in our souls. We should know that weddings don’t actually accomplish anything. We’re not ritualists, after all!

Peter Leithart has often been a great help to me. He gave me pastoral advice when I was a layman, and we have stayed in touch. I got to see him fairly often when I was in the Pacific Northwest Presbytery. But I must say his recent counsel to me has been rather disappointing!

Peter has basically taken my wife’s side. He says I’m married whether or not I consciously received the declaration that I was a husband. He says that George’s declaration was a “performative utterance.” He makes it sound like mere symbols have the power to change things! What is going on?

I accused him of denying God’s sovereignty, the need for a monergistic work of God in the heart. I must say that his reply was rather crafty. I do think Calvinists might need to rethink the idea that God ordains the means as well as the ends. B. B. Warfield’s wonderful book, The Plan of Salvation lays out a path to much needed extension of the Reformation insights. He allows us to see that the real essence of Calvinism (he might have improved the book some by explaining why Calvin himself never realized this) is that God works “immediately” on the soul without any instrumentalities involved.

And while I’m thinking of it, we seriously need to question terminology such as “means of grace” or (worse) “effectual means of salvation.” John Murray has tried to help by insisting on formulations such as, The sacraments are a means of grace but not a means of conferring grace, but such paradoxical statements only work with those of us who know the true Gospel. Among other folk they are simply sneered at as self-contradictions. Sadly, the Westminster Assembly explicitly uses not only the terminology of “means” but also of grace being “conferred.” I think we need to bite the bullet and reform our constitutional documents. After all, we know that the Westminster Assembly was trying to grope toward the pinnacle of all Christendom, late-nineteenth-century American Southern Presbyterianism. By clarifying their language (through a process of pure subtraction, admittedly) I think we would be doing these men a favor by purging their legacy.

But back to Peter Leithart: He insisted that I was a husband simply by being a lawful participant in a marriage. When I say that only God can change the heart, he promptly told me that he hoped God would change mine to believe in my God-given identity as a husband, lest I be condemned as an unfaithful husband. Peter treated faith as if it simply involved trusting God’s promises and actions in the world (which, of course, he alleges can take place through human means) rather than experiencing some sort of crisis work of God in the heart. When I pointed out to him that his warning made it sound as if a real husband could fall under judgment, he responded that believing in my God-given status as a husband conferred upon me at the wedding involved “trembling at the threatenings” that God had made against spouses who committed infidelity. He even had the nerve, despite being a Presbyterian minister, to warn me by using Hebrews 4.1. (This was when I started thinking about our need to clarify our doctrinal standards: When I said what any good sola fide-propositioning Presbyterian should say to such nonsense, he pointed out I was attacking the Westminster Confession of Faith’s language describing saving faith with the prooftext from Hebrews 4.1. This was quite embarrassing.)

Thankfully, I now have at least one pastor’s bald assertion of what the problem is. Peter must be an Anglo-Catholic. He must be a liberal mainliner. Somehow he must be both things at once and the contradiction, of course, has to be Peter’s own confusion, not a sign that anyone is grasping at straws and saying whatever will come into his head to destroy a PCA minister’s reputation.

Reading a bit on the web I now realize I was wrong to engage in doctrinal discussion with Peter. If I follow his way I’ll have to say my children are not bastards simply because of some ceremony I did as a young man too distracted to be engaged in true discernment and faith. What I should have done is immediately asked loaded questions, like “Peter, why haven’t you transferred to the PCUSA?” or “When are you going to take your vows to enter the priesthood?” (Remember both these questions are fine because Peter is obviously guilty of everything at once).

I think the key to dealing with this problem is to try to put as many characterizations on the internet as possible. I don’t mean disagreements in detail. I mean ruinous assaults on his reputation and gratuitous false assertions like, “Where is faith in Christ in all this?” I think a few ostensibly different sources might get all conversation shut down, which is the only way this is going to go away (unless we can start amending the Westminster Confession and Catechisms as suggested above). I got this idea for strategy by analogy from some place in Deuteronomy. Think of this as an attempt to set fire in brambles around Peter’s wheat field. A spark here, and a torch there, and we’ll have sealed off our communion from rational discourse in very little time.

In the meantime, since God hasn’t been please yet to marry me to Jennifer in my heart, I’ve been thinking about adopting my children so they won’t simply be bastards. But the problem is that Charis, being a baby, can’t possibly receive the word of her adoption by faith yet. She has no understanding.

And how am I to relate to Jennifer? Shouldn’t we sleep in separate rooms? Since I’ve allowed my children to pray the Lord’s Prayer from the time they could talk, that seems sort of inconsistent. But maybe I need to repent in both ways: sleep in the couch and tell my children they are no longer permitted to address God as father until they prove they possess a new heart.

This is all total sarcasm and was done without Peter’s knowledge, consent, or input. Or my wife’s–who is really married to me even if my mind did wonder a bit.