The second installment.

….but I don’t want to run afoul of the asterisk-as-fig-leaf brigade.

A family is turned away by a local pediatrician, they say because of the way they look.

The doctor said he is just following his beliefs, creating a Christian atmosphere for his patients….

For Dr. Gary Merrill of Christian Medical Services, that means no tattoos, body piercings, and a host of other requirements—all standards Merrill has set based upon his Christian faith.
[SOURCE]

Hat tip: Chris. I’m praying this is an inaccurate story, but if not…

Isn’t it great amid such trivialities as Christian counselors and doctors fighting for the right to follow their consciences regarding abortion or homosexuality that we have this hero taking a stand against porn culture.

But then, there seems to be many professing Christians right now who have nothing better to do than inflict imaginary standards on others.

I’ll leave you all with a little song someone sent to me. It goes to the tune of Gilbert and Sullivan’s “I am the Captain of the Pinafore“

(song cont’d)
. . . Then give three cheers, and one big kiss,
For the hardy captain of the Warfield List!

ANDY:
I do my best to satisfy you all–

ALL.
And with you we’re quite content.

ANDY:
You’re confession-al-ly strict,
And I think we’ve got them licked
‘Cause their blogs are full of ex-cree-ment.

ALL:
We’re confession-al-ly strict,
And he thinks we’ve got them licked
‘Cause their blogs are full of ex-cree-ment.

ANDY:
Bible language or abuse,
I never, never use,
Whatever I do confess;
Though “Heretic!” I may
Continually say,
I never use a Big, Bee Ess—-

ALL.
What, never?

ANDY:
No, never!

ALL.
What, never?

ANDY:
Hardly ever!

ALL.
Hardly ever swears a Big, Bee Ess–
Then give three cheers, and one big kiss,
For the well-bred captain of the Warfield List!

Addendum: One should bear in mind that this entry covers two different issues (though related in my mind) and the categories are not meant to include both at once.  Some with one and some the other.

I think this is a pretty insightful post, but I think it has reasonable answers.

Point 1 about Joseph Conrad is totally outside my expertise. I’ve read Conrad some and would have known he was post-colonial, but that’s about it. Thanks to Paul Duggan for addressing the issue.

Point 2: Dawkins is definitely counter-evidence. But even though he sells I don’t think modern atheism is a serious option for many people. I suspect it is more “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Those religious folks with their totalizing narratives need to be put down. On medical dramas, I simply don’t see them emphasizing science as much as Trueman perceives.

Point 3: This is an emergent church thing, I think. Youth culture and postmodernism should not be conflated. I’m betting Trueman’s book does that. I guess the theory would be that youth will tend to be more postmodern than older people, but I’m not sure that is really true either.

Point 4 reminds me of NT Wright, whose emphasis on story surely sounds postmodern. And yet Wright is not claiming that this is new. His claim is that all cultures hold their worldviews together with stories. Stories won’t exist without propositions, of course. But the emphasis on propositions in the modern period as the ultimate tool of analysis seems to have misunderstood human nature. In this sense, postmodernism is claiming to have found something that has always been true.

R. Scott Clark, a respected teacher in some places, writes about the Heidelberg Catechism:

According to the Protestant view, Jesus has propitiated God’s wrath and expiated our sins. He has satisfied for “all my sins.” He has reconciled God to me and all believers. Rome says, “It is begun.” Jesus says: “It is finished.” He has redeemed me from all the power of the devil. It isn’t just “underway.” It’s done. God is not propitiated, he is not reconciled, and I am not redeemed in any way by anything the Spirit does within me or anything I do in cooperation with grace. It’s done for me. The only “condition,” (instrument really) is this: “if only I accept such benefit with a believing heart” (HC 60). The whole Reformation can be said to have turned on the difference between two prepositions. When it comes to being right before God the Roman preposition is “in” and the Protestant preposition is “for.” Thank God for that little preposition “for!”

Clark is right (which is why this might sound persuasive) about a great divide between Rome and the Reformation. But he is simply wrong about the idea that the difference was Jesus work “in” believers and Jesus’ work “for” believers. According to Medieval pre-Reformation theology Jesus had done a great deal for believers: He had provided them with merits. Now they just had to use them appropriately.

But for the Reformers there was no partial apprehension of Christ, not continuum to travel down. If one possessed Christ by (and only by) trusting in him, then one had complete propitiation. His worthiness covered your unworthiness. There was nothing more to do.

Which brings us to the problem of faith. The paragraph I’ve quoted above, contains what looks like a contradiction. If God’s wrath is satisfied in regard to my sin, then I am right with God whether or not I believe. You can’t have it both ways. If we are going to claim that there is nothing more to say than that Christ has done it all for his elect 2000 years ago, then all the elect (at the very least since then) are conceived in the womb not under the wrath of God, but justified in his sight, even if they grow up outside the covenant as unbelievers.

But this simply isn’t the case. Elect and non-elect alike, who are born outside God’s covenant, are by nature, under his wrath and curse. The elect are not justified until they believe.

Furthermore, receiving a verdict by faith in order for it to be effective makes very little sense. If I’m given a drug that makes me hallucinate in the courtroom when a judge declares me not guilty for a crime, so that I think he has declared me guilty, how does my unbelief in the judge’s verdict nullify the legal standing that is bestowed? If I am justified, I am justified whether I receive the verdict by faith or not.

But that has never been the full story of Reformed soteriology. We are justified by faith and receive imputed righteousness by faith, precisely because we receive a person by faith: Jesus the righteous and vindicated one is our justification. This is the soteriology of Calvin and the Westminster Divines. We join with people by entrusting ourselves to them and Jesus is no different. All who trust in him will never be put to shame.
So, while it is emphatically true, “God is not propitiated, he is not reconciled … in any way by anything the Spirit does within me or anything I do in cooperation with grace,” it is emphatically false to say that “I am not redeemed in any way by anything the Spirit does within me.” If redeemed means personally released, freed, from the wrath of God, then the Spirit is not merely an after-effect–a gift to those already justified–but a true and real medium of salvation. As John Calvin wrote of the Holy Spirit in the Institutes:

In like manner, by means of Him we become partakers of the divine nature, so as in a manner to feel his quickening energy within us. Our justification is His work; from Him is power, sanctification, truth, grace, and every good thought, since it is from the Spirit alone that all good gifts proceed (Institutes, Beveridge, tr., 1.13. 14).

To deny this is either to go back to pelagianism, or else to embrace a hyper-calvinist doctrine that we are actually justified apart from and without faith. Eternal justification has some pedigree in the Continental Reformed tradition sadly (Kuyper), but it is declared erroneous by Presbyterians:

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.

Christ is not divided. We do not have a piece or aspect of him while being outside of him. Only in Christ are justification and sanctification and eternal life. While making propitiation was a necessary condition for him to be our salvation, is is not his work in the past, but he himself having done that work who is our savior.

In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek (Hebrews 5.7-10).

From Post Tenbras Lux:

The controversy among conservative presbyterians concerning what is usually called “Federal Vision” theology shows no signs of abating any time in the near future. But as the debate rages on, it behaves like any other and winds through several layers of formulations on both sides. Terms, definitions, and doctrines are brought up, discussed, and put back down again to be brought up again later, each time ending up slightly different from the process. Furthermore, there are several people on each side of this discussion, and so for both critics and defenders of the Federal Vision there are now several different interpretations of which particular issues are the most important in this debate as well as how best to formulate those issues. In other words, it is not just that the defenders and critics of the Federal Vision are engaged in a disagreement, but that in a number of important ways the defenders and critics differ among themselves as well, at least in emphasis if not in substance.

As the two sides discuss these issues, then, it should not be surprising that FV’s defenders often find themselves having to argue in different ways against these different kinds of criticisms, and vice versa, and that this should quickly make the debate confusing for the layman who is not able to follow all these discussions closely in real time. It is hard to dispute, therefore, that some sort of layman’s guide to these issues would be helpful. Such a guide is what Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church (PCA) (near Greenville, SC) has attempted to provide with its one-day conference on the FV (held February 10, 2007). Unfortunately, this conference fails to live up to its stated purpose and is thus incomplete as a layman’s guide to FV issues. Regardless of the intentions of the men involved, a layman might still be plenty perplexed coming out of this conference. Or, if he is not, this is probably because the talks contained some pretty serious misrepresentations of FV writers as well as errors in argumentation that were at times rather subtle, and the layman might not have picked up on these problems (being a layman and all). This conference goes wrong in the two worst ways a guide can go wrong, then. To some, it may make things even more confusing than they were before, and to others it may appear to be very ‘clear’ but is all the more dangerous because of that apparent clarity. A map that puts you in the wrong part of town without knowing it is not a good map, no matter how easy it is to read. To others it will probably not seem easy to read in the first place.

But, dear Layman, have no fear. A Virgil has arrived to show you around. This is not a “ground-up” presentation of these issues from an FV perspective, but is rather a play-by-play of the presentation the Woodruff Road Conference has already given. This is a useful way to organize this guide for a couple of reasons. By discussing the various issues as they are brought up at the Woodruff Road conference, we will be able to better understand the positions and arguments that have been made by various FV writers and thinkers. In addition to this, though, we will be able to gain a feel for the kinds of misrepresentations that often take place in this debate on the anti-FV side. This is an assertion often made by FV thinkers, that their critics have failed to properly represent their position before giving their criticism. This response has frustrated many anti-FVers to no end, but nonetheless it remains an appropriate response. Nearly five years into this discussion, and still FV advocates have a legitimate beef that their positions are not being fairly represented by the other side. Our method here will help make it clear that this is still the case.

[READ THE REST]

PART TWO: Guy Waters, “Just What is a Christian Anyway?” 

There seems to be some confusion here.

People are unconditionally chosen (elected) by God to belong to His Church, the body of His incarnate Son. They are not chosen on the basis of anything foreseen or anything else.

Not all people predestined to belong to the Church or even respond to the Gospel message are predestined to remain in the Church. Some are given perseverance by a true faith, some are not given perseverance having only received a temporary faith of some sort.

So, if the Church is God’s chosen people, then those who leave her no longer have the status of “chosen,” in that sense. But the fact remains that God’s decree for them to be in covenant for a time was not conditional.

What people mean when they speak of “conditional election” is that God has revealed who are the people who belong to him. When you read about the fact that God has chosen a people marked out in certain ways, you can adopt these marks and thus know you are among those people. You meet the conditions and are now known as one of the elect.

But that doesn’t change the fact that the only reason you would do this is because God chose you beforehand and drew you either effectually or by an operation of the Spirit in common with the elect but not effectually (i.e. effectual unto final salvation). Election remains unconditional.

From here back in 2004

Imagine someone from another world trying to learn to live in our society according to our customs. What if someone gave him a check for a hundred dollars for his birthday–the first check he had ever seen in his life? Would he immediately understand how a check was used?

Perhaps he would go to a store and try to use the check as if it were a hundred dollar bill. He might take a shirt to the cashier and simply hand the check to him expecting to get change back. Obviously, this wouldn’t work. A check is not money in that sense. It is not identical to a bill for the same amount.

But what if someone came to our confused friend to help him by explaining how checks really work? He teaches our friend: “Checks are signs and seals. To understand this is to understand the check’s essential nature. But what is a sign? It is, in simplest terms, a picture, or symbol.” The gift of a check for a hundred dollars pictured or signified the giver’s giving of a hundred real dollars to someone at some time, but it wasn’t the same as a hundred dollars. The check is merely paper and ink, not money.

That explanation would lead our friend to think he had received nothing for his birthday. He would probably tear up the check in disgust and throw it away.

But in fact, even though a check for a hundred dollars is not the same as a hundred dollar bill, because it represents a promise, faith can treat the symbol as being as good as the reality. If I write a clerk a check for the price of a shirt, and then walk away with the shirt, I have truly paid for the item even though, at the moment, my bank account still has the money. The symbol is a promise for the future that counts as reality now.

In Genesis 15 we are told of how Abram needed assurance not to fear after having engaged in a military struggle against a great empire. God comes to him and assures him that he will protect him. But this raises some related issues in Abram’s mind. Even though Abram has already been promised land and offspring through whom the world will be saved (Genesis 12.1-3), and even though Abram has had faith in God from at least that point on (Hebrews 11.8), he still was uncertain of how God was treating him. He pointed out to God that he had no offspring and that his servant was named as his heir. He asked God for proof.

God responded to this request favorably. He made a covenant with Abram, using a ritual, promising to give him the land to his own offspring. What is notable about this is that, after the ritual, Abram was still a childless wonderer in a land he did not yet own. But a covenant was like a check in the ancient world. God put himself under oath to fulfill the promise he had originally made to Abram when he called him to leave his hometown. Abram’s faith was able to rest on that oath and consider what was promised to be as good as his.

Imagine someone you trust first promising to give you a hundred dollars and then later giving you a check for a hundred dollars. Finally, you actually cash the check and receive the money. That is more or less what happened to Abram. First God made a promised and then he wrote Abram a check to be cashed in the future. Abram’s faith had a firm resting place. He received the sign as the future promise in the present.

All of this might help us understand baptism better. Peter and Paul say remarkable things about what baptism accomplishes and many modern Protestants attempt to claim that “faith alone” entails that these passages must not mean what they say. We are told that the “baptism” in these passages is actually the unmediated work of the Holy Spirit being described metaphorically.

But baptism is not in conflict with faith. As the Protestant theologian Francis Turretin wrote: “The question is not whether faith alone justifies to the exclusion … of … the word and sacraments (by which the blessing of justification is presented and sealed to us on the part of God), which we maintain are necessarily required here; but only to the exclusion of every other virtue and habit on our part (Institutes 16.8.5). Since Baptism is a promise of God’s action it supports justification only by faith rather than undermines it.

Thus Martin Luther wrote of some “ultra” Protestants:

But these leaders of the blind are unwilling to see that faith must have something to believe–something to which it may cling and upon which it may stand… These people are so foolish as to separate faith from its object to which faith is attached and bound on the ground that the object is something external. Yes, it must be external so that it can be perceived and grasped by the senses and thus brought into the heart, just as the entire Gospel is an external, oral proclamation. In short, whatever God effects in us, he does through such external ordinances (“Larger Catechism,” p. 440 in The Book of Concord [trans. and ed. T. G. Tappert; Philadelphia: fortress, 1959]).

In baptism we are promised grace and salvation. Faith does not save us of its own power, but rather believes what God says to us through the symbol. God doesn’t write bad checks. We should continue in what he has given us, trusting in Him. If we fail to inherit the promises, it is because we have refused to believe.