Let the clear, convincing language of the Confession of Faith, touching the counterpart subject of justification, illustrate this statement. Chap. XI., Sec. 4: “God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all 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.” By parity of reasoning, we hold that God did, from all eternity, decree to condemn all men descended from Adam by ordinary generation; and that Adam did, some time after his creation in holiness, sin and fall for them as well as for himself; nevertheless, individual fallen men are not condemned in him until such time as their existence doth actually unite them to Adam. And then it is a corrupted Adam to whom they are united.

OK, I know it’s Christmas and all, but this is on my mind. Oh wait. This is about christology…. so Christmas is entirely appropriate.

I’d love to read Garcia’s article if someone wants to send it my way. Right now, I can only comment on this blog post on its own merit. And it is entirely misleading and wrongheaded. Here’s the giveaway:

Calvin attacks Osiander’s doctrine of justification because he makes justification to be grounded upon an essential union between the believer and Christ (particularly, with his righteousness in its divine essence).

Yes, this was exactly Calvin’s problem with Osiander and it could not have less to do with Lusk. Union with Christ and justification in Lusk is union with Christ as justified by the Spirit by being raised from the dead (1 Tim 3.16, etc). The righteousness of Christ here, is the righteousness he has as a human being–the nature that was raised from the dead. We can talk all day long of how the divine nature must also be involved by virtue of the hypostatic union, but that is not anything Lusk bothers with.

For Lusk, union with Christ is parallel to union with Adam. He commonly frames his whole discussion as involving the question of the first and second Adam. So there is no reason to bring questions about the nature of the hypostatic union into this. It is simply an unnecessary detour into confusion for anyone who is concerned about what Lusk actually wrote.

While it contains some great insights, I don’t think I agree with the thesis of this post. Not having time to get into it, I’ll repost something that gave my own take on what is happening.

In April of 2004 I originally entitled this “Not just a conference”—meaning lets get beyond the excuse that has been used for attack.

But what if we consider what lies ahead if we ignore distractions? Here are my ideas.

1. Our present trajectory brings the full resources of Presbyterian theology to bear against the onslaught of Free-Will Theism. The basic attack of FWT is to claim a contradiction between Evangelical piety and Evangelical theology and/or between God’s action in history and his soveriegn control (and eternal plan) over history. What Reformed covenantalism allows for is a truly lived apologetic for full-blown absolute unconditioned fore-ordination of all things and monergism in salvation which shows it is perfectly compatible with human life as it ought to be lived before God. The “paradox” is fully maintained (in quotations marks because I’m not committed to the idea that it is a true paradox, though I’m not threatened if it is).
2. Victory over the hemorrhage to Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy is now in view. The basic argument has been that in order to honor what the Bible (and the Reformed heritage!) actually teaches one must also embrace mechanical theories, synergism, Papal succession, a shapeless tradition that is somehow more understandable than the Scriptures (hah!), prayers for the dead, prayers to the dead, denigrations of sex (Mary ever-virgin because Joseph’s respect for her would be “heightened”), etc. The main weapon in the RC/EO arsenal has been fundamentalism’s lack of respect for what the Bible actually says. But now that people are recovering the resources of the Reformed Faith and digging into their Bibles that all-or-nothing sales pitch is going to be less and less plausible. Instead, the superstitions of the Mass and the weirdness of merit-theology is going to be undeniable since sacramental instrumentalism, the real presence in the Lord’s Supper, and the requirement of sanctification for vindication at the last day are no longer hidden secrets within Protestantism.
3. The Reformed Faith can now actually promote the regulative principle of worship among Evangelicals. For too long the Regulative Principle of Worship has simply not been used for its true potential. Instead of allowing the Bible to actually regulate worship, the principle has been a defacto dispensationalist tool for justifying whatever austerity was extreme enough to satisfy the advocate of the principle. Where is there a specific command for a preacher to preach a sermon at every Lord’s Day worship service? There is no such explicit command, but the Reformed (rightly) found principles to indicate that there should be a sermon. But then, whenever, some other denomination does something that is not favored by the Reformed, they are accused of not worshiping as the Bible commands because they are lacking explicit direction. We are told they believe that whatever is not prohibited is allowed, even though we all know perfectly well that these Churches would never consider trading stock or spouses making love in worship on Sunday morning. Those following the late Robert Rayburn and others (like John Calvin for what it is worth) call for a more whole-Bible approach that holds the promise of giving us some objective guidelines. As the situation stood until recently, people were simply not going to listen to a “regulative principle of worship” that made great demands with little or no actual justification from Scripture. It is no surprise that some (R. J. Gore, Steve Schlissel) are getting so fed up as to eject the RPW altogether. But right now is a time of great liturgical chaos and we need more than ever a clear and sensible presentation of how the Bible directs us to worship. Otherwise, either worship will descend more and more into multimedia celebration Sheol, or else raw tradition will be invoked (see defeat of RC/EO above).
4. We have a path to Lordship without legalism. During the whole Lordship controversy the “grace” side (antinomian) pointed out that no one could know, on Lordship principles, how much “fruit” was enough to constitute sure evidence of regeneration. One’s standing before God was always in question. But with Reformed theology we can deal seriously with the warnings in Scripture without spreading doubts about our standing before God. We can exhort people not to throw away their confidence, rather than undermining their confidence so they are more prone to regard it as worthless.
5. We can bring the Baptist children back home from where we drove them away. Modern baptist Evangelicals do not come from the anabaptists of the Reformation era. They are not descended from that theological tradition. Rather, they are the offshoot of one form of experiential pietism within the Reformed Tradition. The trajectory of that form of Puritanism is now evident for all to see. You only need to walk in to First Baptist Church on Sunday morning to experience it. There are a few paedobaptist Banner-of-Truth-type stalwarts who have held the line. But the natural progression was from English dissenters to American Baptists. In both “Awakenings” the Baptist Churches grew explosively while Presbyterianism declined. But now lines are becoming more clear and the Reformed heritage more thoroughly known. TULIP plus wet babies was never a great draw or even a great method of keeping Presbyterians from becoming baptists. But modern Reformed Biblical theology and the recovery of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Reformation theology is changing the landscape and presenting a more clear choice.
6. And so on… Time fails

So what am I talking about? Am I talking about The Auburn Avenue Pastors’ Conference? Of course not. I’m talking about the pot boiling, not a single bubble therein. And none of it is some sort of widespread set agenda: Michael Horton’s work on worship and the sacraments, Preston Graham’s book on baptism, Peter Lillback’s research on Calvin’s covenant theology, Jeff Meyer’s work on worship/sacraments/ecclesiology/trinitarianism/etc, the popularity of Touchstone magazine among Reformed Pastors, the popularity of Leslie Newbigin among Reformed Pastors, the awesome books put out by Keith Matthison, Robert Rayburn’s teaching on worship and sacraments and preaching etc, Jill Raitt’s work on Beza, the publication of Francis Turretin’s Institutes of Elenctic Theology, the renaissance in Calvin studies, the widespread rejection of Kline’s neo-dispensationalism, John Piper’s Future Grace, Richard Gaffin’s Resurrection & Redemption, the popularity of studies in Mercersberg Theology, the overwhelming admission that Charles Hodge was completely wrong about Calvin and the Lord’s Supper, Peter Leithart’s work on ritual theory and the Church, the interest in “Radical Orthodoxy” as evidence by the symposium at Calvin College, G. I. Williamson on paedocommunion, Peter Wallace’s historical work and Church work…. ad infinitum. The Auburn Avenue Pastor’s Conference gets points for publicity, mainly because of personal and public relationships that the speakers have with others who took offense. But the idea that there are four people out there spreading this, or seven Federal Visionaries, or this or that trend is simply not realistic. Look at the list above. Michael Horton is as far apart from Norman Shepherd as a person can be. Except that on baptism they actually seem quite close. Horton’s view of Covenant theology is quite opposite that of Jeff Meyers, but their books on worship dovetail quite nicely. They both share a respect, again for John Nevin and for Luther. Peter Lillback was on the same study committee as G. I. Williamson and, presumably, still opposes him on paedocommunion. Williamson, on the other hand, probably disagrees with much of Lillback’s perspective. My point is precisely that there is no common ground and yet there are a family of ideas and practices and explanations and historical sketches floating out there that can no more be stopped than smoke can be put back into a burning log by pouring water on it. Seminary students are not going to be impressed with “he’s just a Barthian” cliches in response to real arguments. Pastor’s are not going to tolerate statements that impressed the last generation (i.e. “The sacraments are a means of grace but not a means of conferring grace”) when they can open up their Westminster Confession and see is states exactly the opposite. People who have read Benedict Pictet on the Justification of the Righteous Man are not going to accept from a self-styled authority what it is that he really meant to say. (The same people accusing others of “at least being unclear” are themselves pushers of a hermeneutic that renders the Westminster Assembly and many Reformed writers before and after as the most ineffectual and misleading communicators in all Western history). What we’re witnessing is the birth pangs of a renaissance of the Reformed Faith in North America. In the Seventies a “Reformed bookstore” was a store that had one shelf with a few Banner of Truth titles. No longer. We are growing and spreading like never before. It is not about one Pastor’s conference. It is not about any identifiable movement at all. It is simply the growth and development and recovery of the Reformed Faith. For reasons listed above, at least, I think it has a great deal of promise.

I wish I had time to update and add links, but I don’t

Did Beverly Lahaye actually play this?

Hat tip: the tavern