Horton’s main point is that there are two types of covenants that run concurrently throughout Scripture, one type is that of a suzerainty treaty and the other is a covenant of grant. Into the former category falls the Sinaitic covenant (which in some sense is a republication of the Edenic covenant of works), while the Abrahamic, Davidic, and New covenants fall into the latter category. It is under this rubric that Scripture gives expression to the categories of “law” and “gospel.” In other words, the Reformed, following Scripture and Paul in particular, have always couched their law/gospel language and antithesis in the covenantal language of “do this and live” equaling law, and “it is finished” equaling gospel.

via Covenant and Justification: Horton vs. Piper and Wright.

The two covenants Paul contrasts in Romans and Galatians is a covenant that promises all nations will be blessed in Abraham’s seed and a covenant that establishes Israel as a special nation separate from the rest.

But Horton doesn’t want this contrast. Rather, he wants to prove a contrast between “earning” and “receiving as a gift through faith.” [Note: not denying the contrast but denying that God ever gave an “earning” covenant, or that “earning” issues are the same as the question of conditions]

But, among other problems, his exegetical argument is incoherent.

Nicholas Thomas Wright . . . is a remarkable blend of weighty academic scholarship, ecclesiastical leadership, ecumenical involvement, prophetic social engagement, popular Christian advocacy, musical talent, and family commitment. . . . I am thankful for his strong commitment to Scripture as his final authority, his defense and celebration of the resurrection of the Son of God, his vindication of the deity of Christ, his belief in the virgin birth of Jesus, his biblical disapproval of homosexual conduct, and the consistent way he presses us to see the big picture of God’s universal purpose for all peoples through the covenant with Abraham—and more. (pp. 15-16)

via Appreciating N. T. Wright – Desiring God.

I’ve got my disagreements with Piper on Wright, but I think it is great that he doesn’t assault his character or his faith the way some have done. It vindicates all the positive regard I have held for Dr. Piper.

Dave Ramsey is probably injecting a lot of wisdom when he discourages loans among friends and family (and he is definitely right about co-signing). But I think he’s wrong to claim that it is always wrong to loan to someone in need.

Here’s the law from Exodus 22:

If you lend money to any of my people with you who is poor, you shall not be like a moneylender to him, and you shall not exact interest from him. If ever you take your neighbor’s cloak in pledge, you shall return it to him before the sun goes down, for that is his only covering, and it is his cloak for his body; in what else shall he sleep? And if he cries to me, I will hear, for I am compassionate.

And then from Deuteronomy 24:

When you make your neighbor a loan of any sort, you shall not go into his house to collect his pledge. You shall stand outside, and the man to whom you make the loan shall bring the pledge out to you. And if he is a poor man, you shall not sleep in his pledge. You shall restore to him the pledge as the sun sets, that he may sleep in his cloak and bless you. And it shall be righteousness for you before the Lord your God.

So God envisions a world in which it is helpful to the poor man to make a loan to him. I think the reason for this is that, in the Bible, temporary slavery is seen as a way of re-starting one’s life (six years and then freedom with some initial capital).

Notice the qualifications though.

1. Only one loaner. If you offer up your only cloak as pledge you can’t offer it again as collateral for another loan. No plurality of credit card companies.
2. You know your loaner. He’s your neighbor who can take your pledge in the morning and give it back at night.No help from multinational corporations and their millions of stockholders.
3. No one gets to grope into your pants house (sorry, TSA moment). The loaner has to wait outside. He is not an absolute master. Your home is your own land and your castle even when you owe money.
4. Emergency loans for the poor do not go out at a massive interest rate to cover the risk. Save that for business loans. Once again Credit Card companies offering checks for financial “emergencies” are evil.
5. The concept of unsecured debt is simply unthinkable.

President Obama’s new book, Of Thee I Sing, praises Sitting Bull, whose warriors are responsible for the death of General George Custer.

The royalties from the book will benefit a scholarship fund for the children of American service members who were killed or disabled in battle. Does Obama really not get it that children grieving the loss of a father or mother on the field of battle are not going to be interested in celebrating an historical figure who killed a soldier on the field of battle, and slaughtered his men before scalping and mutilating their bodies? Does he think these kids are going to want the royalties from such a book?

via Of Thee I WHAT?.

Pretty interesting instincts that Christian Conservatives or Conservative Christians display.  Here’s some history to chew on.

From the Westminster Confession of Faith:

Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts, and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin, together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of his obedience. It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin: and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve; and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner, show them God’s approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof: although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works. So as, a man’s doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one, and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law; and, not under grace.

I’ve always sneered at health and wealth type stuff because there is a lot that deserves sneering at. But I’ve also noticed that it is on a spectrum from deeply stupid and deeply heretical to a much more orthodox side. Recently, I was listening to Sarah Palin’s Going Rogue audiobook and was interested in how she adapted to the news when she learned she was about to give birth to a Down’s Syndrome baby. She was honestly surprised at God and had to think through what it must mean.

True confession: my first impulse was to judge her for being so shocked something that bad could happen in her life.

But then I decided maybe I am the one with the problem.

Are we really supposed to go around without any expectation that God will bless us?

Yes I know God gives us trials, but we are supposed to pray that he doesn’t (“lead us not into temptation”). It can hardly be right to pray that prayer in the expectation that God will not agree to it.

Weirdly, at about the same time I listened to a Dave Ramsey lecture. Some of the stuff he says about “Murphy” and how an emergency fund seems to work as “Murphy repellent,” and about how God seems to prosper those taking steps to get out of debt and budget also sound close to “health and wealth” preaching.

But maybe I’ve got too broad a category. Does God or does he not say that he will give more responsibility to those who are faithful with the little bit that they have? Is the book of Proverbs true or not?

No it doesn’t happen every time for every one, but what should our normal expectations be.

If God never does anything above and beyond the statistical probabilities then how are we not atheists. If God doesn’t ever change our circumstances then why ask Him to change them when we pray?

At that time I will search Jerusalem with lamps,
and I will punish the men
who are complacent,
those who say in their hearts,
“The LORD will not do good,
nor will he do ill.”
Their goods shall be plundered,
and their houses laid waste.
Though they build houses,
they shall not inhabit them;
though they plant vineyards,
they shall not drink wine from them.

via Passage: Zephaniah 1-3 (ESV Bible Online).

Notice that God is angry at those who think that God is not in the business of blessing people. Expecting God to stay uninvolved in daily economics means that one attributes economic blessings to one’s own efforts.

Because discipleship is essential for salvation and baptism officially initiates discipleship, much as a marriage ceremony does for marriage. There are marginal cases where a marriage might exist without an initiating ceremony but that doesn’t make us preach against weddings. Likewise, if ignorance or some other crisis prevents a disciple from being baptized this does not make baptism normally extraneous.

Because faith is essential to salvation and faith must believe a message as offered. So when the message is, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins…” submitting to baptism is not an addition to faith, but an expression of faith. Refusing baptism in such circumstances is unbelief, and unbelievers remain under God’s wrath.

Thus Francis Turretin:

Although the sacraments are external means and instruments applying (on the part of God) the promise of grace and justification, this does not hinder faith from being called the internal instrument and means on the part of man for receiving this benefit offered in the word and sealed by the sacraments [16.7.20].

The question is not whether faith alone justifies to the exclusion either of the grace of God or the righteousness of Christ or 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…. For all these as they are mutually subordinated in a different class of cause, consist with each other in the highest degree [16.8.5].