Though I’ve seen it several times, I think it may be time to watch it again when I have a few moments. Season one of Angel was not nearly as dark as it got in later seasons. It was a great balance of humor and seriousness, fantasy and grittiness. And the internal and external conflicts also balanced really well. The story arc definitely takes a back seat to episodes (except to the extent that they want the characters to develop and grow on you). It is classic superhero stuff. Tim Powers for television (there is an episode involving Las Vegas in Season Four that is so much like Last Call).

And there is just something about the eternal champion and the eternal battle that can encourage a man.

(By the way, I’m not endorsing the episodes where Buffy appears. Those so overdose on melodrama no diabetic is safe from insulin-shock when viewing them. Except for the one where Faith is there to compensate, those should be locked in a casket and sunk into the sea too far away for Wesley to rescue them–and he would know better than to try.)

I don’t expect anyone will want to pay for this, but if you have an interest in the history of the Westminster Assembly, and want to read a non-hagiographic account, see if you can get Assembly of the Lord: Politics and Religion in the Westminster Assembly from a library system near you. R. S. Paul does a great job!

I would say more, but, frankly, need to re-read the book to refresh my memory. It has been awhile.

You can find it here:

As a result of our study, we recommend that the PCA continue the practice defined in our standards and administer the Lord’s Supper “only to such as are of years and ability to examine themselves.”

That the Committee on Paedocommunion prepare an annotated bibliography of sources both for and against the practice, and that resources be collected by the Committee for distribution to those who request them (at the requesters’ cost) to study this matter further.

So, the official decision is that A) no one on either side get accused of heresy, B) that the practice of the PCA remain credocommunionist, and C) that the denomination’s committee provide materials for both side of the debate so that anyone in the PCA or out of it can continue to study the matter.

What this means is that attacks on the integrity of PCA churches who practice credocommunion because their pastor or session wishes that the PCA would Reform its practice, and attempt to promote study of the matter, are attacks on the majority report and the decision of the whole denomination.

Doug Wilson’s post is wise. I’m posting the second half:

The need of the hour is this. Every person who has been following this Federal Vision thing at all needs to make a point of following this particular segment of it, and really should read through these answers that Steve has given. Because of how everything has fallen out, it looks as though Steve gets to be the cause celebre of this whole thing, at least within the PCA. But this is what that means. When you look at the claims in the memorial against Steve from the Central Carolina Presbytery, and you look at Steve’s orthodox answers, there are only a few possible explanations for what could happen here. The first (and greatly to be desired) possibility is that honest and conscientious TRs will see that whatever differences they might have with Steve, they do not rise to the level of requiring any kind of censure or discipline. Steve is well within confessional bounds. I pray that this will happen with many honest TRs who love Christ and the Westminster Standards, and who do so in that order.

But what if strident opposition continues despite these answers? This creates several possibilities also. One of them, sadly, is that it might be driven by a high level of theological ignorance. Certain men are being asked to follow arguments that they are simply not equipped to follow. Another possibility is simply old-fashioned hostility and malice. The facts don’t matter to them, and they will do whatever they do to Steve simply because they think they can. And yet another possibility is that they have been persuaded somehow that because Steve’s answers are orthodox, they must be dishonest. And so they want to convict him for the heresy they know he must harbor somewhere deep in his heart.

So as I see it, the ideal situation would be for ten thousand Reformed believers to read through Steve’s answers now, and then turn and patiently wait for the standing judicial committee to make their determination. As I see it, given this clear confession of faith, any negative assessment of Steve is only possible if the judges are 1. clearly in over their heads 2. simply vindictive or 3. prepared to admit spectral evidence. If a conviction of heterodoxy happens through any combination of these three factors, I think it needs to happen in the bright light of day, with all sorts of checked out people looking at them as they do whatever they do. This must not be a back-room deal. It is an examination of a public minister’s public teaching. That teaching is out on the table. We can all read it. And we can witness for ourselves whether or not the standing judicial committee is reading the same things we are.

[Source, sort of]

Listening to an interview by Mark Dever with Thabiti Anyabwile, I heard Mark use an illustration that I found tremendously helpful. It relates to the question whether Muslims and Christians worship the same God under different names.

He said that we should picture two old classmates from college discussing a common friend from thirty years ago. They begin to wonder if they are talking about the same person. One of them is convinced they are, and the other keeps thinking this is not quite the way he remembers the friend. Finally, they decide to dig out an old yearbook and settle the issue. They open the book, and as soon as they see the picture of their classmate, one says, “No, that’s not who I am talking about.” So it was not the same person after all.

Mark said that Jesus, as he is revealed in the Bible, is the picture in the yearbook. When a Muslim and a Christian, who have been discussing whether they are worshiping the same God, look at God in the yearbook, it settles the matter: “No,” says the Muslim, “that’s not who I am talking about.”

But that is who the Christian is talking about. John 1:18 says, “No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.” Jesus makes known the invisible God for us to see. In John 14:8, Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” To this Jesus responded, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’” And Paul said in 2 Corinthians 4:6, “God, who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.”

In other words, Jesus is the yearbook picture that settles the issue of who is worshiping the true God and who is not. If a worshiper of God does not see in Jesus Christ the person of his God, he does not worship God. This is the resounding testimony of Jesus and the apostles as we see in the following texts.

• Mark 9:37, “Whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me.” (See also Matthew 10: 40; Luke 9:48; John 13:20.)

• John 5:23, “Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.”

• 1 John 2:23, “No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also.”

• Luke 12:9, “The one who denies me before men will be denied before the angels of God.”

• John 15:23, “Whoever hates me hates my Father also.”

• 2 John 1:9, “Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.”

Now, if we take this question back several thousand years and turn a Muslim-Christian question into a Pharaoh-Moses-follower question, the same thing emerges. Was Pharoah worshiping the same God that the followers of Moses were worshiping? I don’t mean to imply that every Egyptian was the same. For example, the mixed multitude that followed Israel out of Egypt (John 3:1ff.) did not seem to be of the same spirit with most (though even they show no evidence of understanding the place of regeneration in the ordo salutis). In asking this question, I am simply referring to the group of Pharaoh-followers in general as Moses saw them. Did Pharaoh worship the same God as the followers of Moses?

This question is even more striking than the Muslim-Christian question, because Pharaoh and followers of Moses had the same heritage of past salvation in Joseph. Why would the question even come up about whether Pharaoh and the followers of Moses worshiped the same God?

Because Moses brought it up. And the way he brought it up and talked about it, makes it hard to believe some of the things that the New Perspective on Moses (NPM) says about the Egyptian leaders of Moses’ day. E. P. Sanders is the main spokesman for the way Pharaoh is reinterpreted by the New Perspective. Here is the way N. T. Wright summarizes it:

[Sanders’] major point, to which all else is subservient, can be quite simply stated. Egyptianism in Paul’s day was not, as has regularly been supposed, a religion of legalistic works-righteousness.

Wright agrees with this main thesis of the New Perspective: “Sanders . . . dominates the landscape, and, until a major refutation of his central thesis is produced, honesty compels one to do business with him. I do not myself believe such a refutation can or will be offered; serious modifications are required, but I regard his basic point as established” (Ibid, p. 20).

For example, Wright says that the boasting which Moses opposed was not what we usually think it is.

This boasting which Moses opposed is not the boasting of the successful moralist; it is the racial boast of the pagan Egyptian royalty, which claimed that Pharaoh had the right of life and death over all people because of the powerful gods backing him. Moses has no thought of warding off a proto-Pelagianism, of which in any case his contemporaries were not guilty.

Wright’s statements are baffling in several ways. One way is that the Pharaoh is accused of boasting in his status as an Egyptian while doing things Egyptians out not do. How Wright can use this paragraph to distinguish moral boasting from racial boasting escapes me (as does the distinction itself).

Then, there is Wright’s affirmation of Sanders’ claim that the religion of Pharaoh was not the “religion of legalistic works-righteousness,” and that the “The Egyptian [of Moses’ day] obeys false gods out of gratitude, as the proper response to their favor.” The only explanation I can find for such amazing statements is that the testimony of Moses is denied or obscured. It is my impression that evangelicals enamored by the NPP have not reckoned seriously enough with the fact that the origination of the NPP seems to have taken place in the halls of such denial or obscuring.

When Moses addressed the Egyptian leaders of his day his resounding conclusion was they do not even know God. And, not knowing God, their lived-out religion (the kind Jesus is concerned with) is not “out of gratitude,” to their gods, nor is it a “proper response to grace.”

Continue reading →

But, while your waiting for this book, you should be aware that there is a great book of impressive scholarship that teaches the Reformation doctrine of justification and is well worth reading:
Continue reading →

Sometimes John Calvin speaks back.

Here.

This is mostly silly, but the watchblogger is hysterical. Also, the final statement with the ending credits and Michael W. Smith song is well worth waiting for! And, that I think that someone should do an N. T. Wright version of that interview with the Wildflower Pastor.
Hat Tip

(Of course, if I end up working part-time at Border’s or Barnes&Noble, the watchblogger won’t be so funny.  At least I have a wife and four kids instead of living with my mother.)