Monthly Archives: January 2010

Better Xian Story than Sound of Music? No doubt.

4 Replies

I’m not Anglican Catholic, but I thought this post was a pretty good (and humorous) use of Tolkien.

It may not seem fair at first since Julie Andrews’ character goes into a crisis after her first song among the live hills (and that is something of a Tolkienish emphasis).

But Tolkien’s epic is a much better portrayal of the Christian life. The writer is correct to point out that Christian portrayals of following Jesus should not make it sound like a Musical.

The contrast between the stories is really stark when you think about their different endings.  The Grey Havens and the wound that never heals are far from the way the musical concludes.

Truthfully, the way the LOTR ends is probably the greatest thing about it, if any one element can be singled out (of course, no one element probably can be singled out).

Channeling my inner Buffy

1 Reply

Particularly S5E1. Remember how Dracula said her power was rooted in darkness and she had this addiction to go preying in the middle of the night? I can’t be the slayer and as much as the internet is like a haunted graveyard, this blog can’t be my patrol.

Sorry.

If you don’t know what any of this means, then I don’t want you to.

Westminster Confession and internal, external, and covenant

1 Reply

This may not interest many of my Christian readers, but the Westminster Confession and Catechisms (two, Larger and Shorter) from the mid 1600s are the doctrinal statement adopted by my denomination. I was thinking about them because I recently remarked (offweb now) that it was OK to resort to Romans 2 and the internal/external division to explain the difference between sincere Christians who persevere in their faith and inherit eternal life and members of the Church who do not to so in “the covenant of grace.”

I stand by that, but something has been bothering me.  I may be wrong but I don’t think that such a distinction is obvious from the Westminster Confession.  In my post I talked about what happens when someone never truly comes to Christ.  But what would we think of the covenant specifically?

Well, let me start with the chapter on the Church:

1. The catholic or universal church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all.

2. The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

3. Unto this catholic visible church Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and doth, by his own presence and Spirit, according to his promise, make them effectual thereunto.

Would it be natural to refer to someone as “only externally” a member of the visible church?  I don’t see how.

It wouldn’t make much more sense to say that members of the “invisible church” are so “internally” because the members include people who do not exist and who have not been regenerated yet.  If they have not been effectually called, then there is no “internal” about it.

So compare the visible church to what the Confession says about the Covenant (chapter 7):

3. Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.

5. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law, it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the old testament.

6. Under the gospel, when Christ, the substance, was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper: which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory, yet, in them, it is held forth in more fullness, evidence and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the new testament. There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.

If there was a time to introduce the allegedly essential and universal internal/external distinction, this would be it.  But I don’t see it.  It looks to me me like the members of the covenant of grace are the members of the visible church.  The Westminster divines made the distinction between elect and reprobate by other means–for example, the terms “elect,” and “reprobate.”

So while distinctions like “internal” and “external” can be used by Protestants, they also seem to be able to deal with the data without them.

Trying to navigate the Romans road

1 Reply

“Honey, are you sure you know where you are going.”  Abe hated asking his wife this, because he knew he would get quite defensive if he had been driving and she asked the same question.

“I don’t see how I can be lost,” replied Sara.  “I looked at the map and it shows the restaurant is near Soter Way. “

“True,” admitted Abe.  “And you even asked directions at that church on Straight Street and the pastor told you the same thing.”

“Right!” said Sara.  “So why don’t we see any sign for Roma’s?  I want to eat!”

“I guess we need to pull over and look at that map more closely.  It is hard for me to study it while driving.”

They pulled into the parking lot of the Berea Apartment complex and both looked at the map together.  With some work they realized that even thought they were close, they had missed a few key details they needed to see if they were going to actually arrive at Roma’s.  They were in the right area and they knew the important streets, but there were still some important turns they needed to make to get all the way there.

Ironically, it was their familiarity with the area that had led them to assume they knew all they needed to know in order to reach their destination.

The Federal Vision in the PCA in one lesson

2 Replies

Simple: only a minority in the PCA are really comfortable with this:

Q. 76. What is repentance unto life?
A. Repentance unto life is a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and Word of God, whereby, out of the sight and sense, not only of the danger, but also of the filthiness and odiousness of his sins, and upon the apprehension of God’s mercy in Christ to such as are penitent, he so grieves for and hates his sins, as that he turns from them all to God, purposing and endeavoring constantly to walk with him in all the ways of new obedience.

Q. 101. What is the preface to the Ten Commandments?
A. The preface to the Ten Commandments is contained in these words, I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Wherein God manifesteth his sovereignty, as being JEHOVAH, the eternal, immutable, and almighty God; having his being in and of himself, and giving being to all his words and works: and that he is a God in covenant, as with Israel of old, so with all his people; who, as he brought them out of their bondage in Egypt, so he delivereth us from our spiritual thraldom; and that therefore we are bound to take him for our God alone, and to keep all his commandments.

Q. 153. What doth God require of us, that we may escape his wrath and curse due to us by reason of the transgression of the law?
A. That we may escape the wrath and curse of God due to us by reason of the transgression of the law, he requireth of us repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ, and the diligent use of the outward means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of his mediation.

Q. 167. How is baptism to be improved by us?
A. The needful but much neglected duty of improving our baptism, is to be performed by us all our life long, especially in the time of temptation, and when we are present at the administration of it to others; by serious and thankful consideration of the nature of it, and of the ends for which Christ instituted it, the privileges and benefits conferred and sealed thereby, and our solemn vow made therein; by being humbled for our sinful defilement, our falling short of, and walking contrary to, the grace of baptism, and our engagements; by growing up to assurance of pardon of sin, and of all other blessings sealed to us in that sacrament; by drawing strength from the death and resurrection of Christ, into whom we are baptized, for the mortifying of sin, and quickening of grace; and by endeavoring to live by faith, to have our conversation in holiness and righteousness, as those that have therein given up their names to Christ; and to walk in brotherly love, as being baptized by the same Spirit into one body.

So, because the majority are uncomfortable with this, a few–who have managed to rationalize a concept of the Reformed Faith that does not really allow for those statements–have the opportunity to portray the minority who believe the above as heretics.

Those four questions and answers. That is all.

Everything else is strategy.  You can read the document linked in the sidebar, but it won’t add that much, I don’t think.

The intellectuals’ conceit

3 Replies

The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. —The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money

If by “practical men,” Keynes means men with power over others, then he is flattering himself and all other economists–including those who opposed his views.  Just as George Bush went out and found a someone who claimed he didn’t believe there was a housing bubble to be his Federal Reserve Chairmen, those in power choose apologists not influences.

The reason why economists become defunct is because they don’t provide justifications for people with power to do what they already want to do.

Is it only that simple?  No. Any person, powerful or not, can come under all sorts of influences for good or ill.  We can try to influence people, as long as we don’t get frustrated by unrealistic expectations.  But the fact is that “the ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are weaker than is commonly understood” and the economists who are less likely to offer justifications for power are both more likely to be right and less likely to rule the world.  And the powerful can as easily be influenced by superstitions like Ouija boards or astrology as by economists or philosophers.

Why Paul wrote Romans to defend God’s character

1 Reply

With Romans:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Without Romans:

For God so loved the world, that he waited four thousand years while many generations perished, and then he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Reading Adam and Israel as our body of sin/death

2 Replies

Here is an experiment: let’s read Romans 5.12-6.6 with the man Adam for the singular anthropos.

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through the one Adam, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one ‘s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one Adam Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if, because of the one Adam’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one Adam Jesus Christ.

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one  Adan’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one Adam’s obedience the many will be made righteous. Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old Adam was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin.

And what about Romans 7.21-24?

So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inner Adam, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched Adam that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?

I think this is worth contemplating….

Ways Paul restates the same truth?

Leave a reply

Paul’s frustration:

  • Romans 7.28: “Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?”
  • Romans 9.1-3: “I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit—that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh.

How God brought about a propitiation in the death of Christ:

  • Romans 3.22b-25: “For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, through faithfulness.”
  • Romans 8.3: “For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh”
  • Romans 9.22-24: “What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?”