Thanks go to David Ponter for this neat quotation from Charles Hodge on First John 2.2:

In answer to this question, it may be remarked in the first place that Augustinians do not deny that Christ died for all men. What they deny is that he died equally, and with the same design, for all men. He died for all, that He might arrest the immediate execution of the penalty of the law upon the whole of our apostate race; that He might secure for men the innumnerable blessings attending their state on earth, which, in one important sense, is a state of probation; and that He might lay the foundation for the offer of pardon and reconciliation with God, on condition of faith and repentance.

These are the universally admitted consequences of his satisfaction, and therefore they all come within its design. By this dispensation it is rendered manifest to every intelligent mind in heaven and upon earth, and to the finally impenitent themselves, that the perdition of those that perish is their own fault. They will not come to Christ that they may have life. They refuse to have Him to reign over them. He calls but they will not answer. He says, “Him that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out.” Every human being who does come is saved.

This is what is meant when it is said, or implied in Scripture, that Christ gave Himself as a propitiation, not for our sins only, but for the sins of the whole world. He was a propitiation effectually for the sins of his people, and sufficiently for the sins of the whole world. Augustinians have no need to wrest the Scriptures. They are under no necessity of departing from their fundamental principle that it is the duty of the theologian to subordinate his theories to the Bible, and teach not what seems to him to be true or reasonable, but simply what the Bible teaches. Charles Hodge, Systematic, vol, 2, pp558-9.

This is really important. Calvinists don’t believe in a God who is more stingy than Arminians say he is.

Thinking about Jeff’s post on “covenant succession” raised some thoughts of my own. In First Samuel we read about Eli and his sons. This first comes up in chapter two:

12 Now the sons of Eli were worthless men. They did not know the Lord. 13 The custom of the priests with the people was that when any man offered sacrifice, the priest’s servant [5] would come, while the meat was boiling, with a three-pronged fork in his hand, 14 and he would thrust it into the pan or kettle or cauldron or pot. All that the fork brought up the priest would take for himself. This is what they did at Shiloh to all the Israelites who came there. 15 Moreover, before the fat was burned, the priest’s servant would come and say to the man who was sacrificing, “Give meat for the priest to roast, for he will not accept boiled meat from you but only raw.” 16 And if the man said to him, “Let them burn the fat first, and then take as much as you wish,” he would say, “No, you must give it now, and if not, I will take it by force.” 17 Thus the sin of the young men was very great in the sight of the Lord, for the men treated the offering of the Lord with contempt…

22 Now Eli was very old, and he kept hearing all that his sons were doing to all Israel, and how they lay with the women who were serving at the entrance to the tent of meeting. 23 And he said to them, “Why do you do such things? For I hear of your evil dealings from all the people. 24 No, my sons; it is no good report that I hear the people of the Lord spreading abroad. 25 If someone sins against a man, God will mediate for him, but if someone sins against the Lord, who can intercede for him?” But they would not listen to the voice of their father, for it was the will of the Lord to put them to death…

27 And there came a man of God to Eli and said to him, “Thus the Lord has said, ‘Did I indeed reveal myself to the house of your father when they were in Egypt subject to the house of Pharaoh? 28 Did I choose him out of all the tribes of Israel to be my priest, to go up to my altar, to burn incense, to wear an ephod before me? I gave to the house of your father all my offerings by fire from the people of Israel. 29 Why then do you scorn my sacrifices and my offerings that I commanded, and honor your sons above me by fattening yourselves on the choicest parts of every offering of my people Israel?’ 30 Therefore the Lord the God of Israel declares: ‘I promised that your house and the house of your father should go in and out before me forever,’ but now the Lord declares: ‘Far be it from me, for those who honor me I will honor, and those who despise me shall be lightly esteemed. 31 Behold, the days are coming when I will cut off your strength and the strength of your father’s house, so that there will not be an old man in your house. 32 Then in distress you will look with envious eye on all the prosperity that shall be bestowed on Israel, and there shall not be an old man in your house forever. 33 The only one of you whom I shall not cut off from my altar shall be spared to weep his eyes out to grieve his heart, and all the descendants of your house shall die by the sword of men. 34 And this that shall come upon your two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, shall be the sign to you: both of them shall die on the same day. 35 And I will raise up for myself a faithful priest, who shall do according to what is in my heart and in my mind. And I will build him a sure house, and he shall go in and out before my anointed forever. 36 And everyone who is left in your house shall come to implore him for a piece of silver or a loaf of bread and shall say, “Please put me in one of the priests’ places, that I may eat a morsel of bread.”’”

Finally, Yahweh gives Samuel the same message in chapter three:

11 Then the Lord said to Samuel, “Behold, I am about to do a thing in Israel at which the two ears of everyone who hears it will tingle. 12 On that day I will fulfill against Eli all that I have spoken concerning his house, from beginning to end. 13 And I declare to him that I am about to punish his house forever, for the iniquity that he knew, because his sons were blaspheming God, [10] and he did not restrain them. 14 Therefore I swear to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever.”

There is no question in my mind that the problem of raising faithful sons is a theme in Samuel so it may well be that we are to blame Eli to some extent for how his sons turned out. But, even so, it is also clear that Eli was not judged for the fact that his children were wicked unbelievers but because he practiced nepotism by covering for them rather than deposing and executing him. By insisting this was merely a situation for “fatherly rebuke” rather than civil law, Eli was sponsoring rapacious abuse of office and the outrageous denial of God’s authority and property. He was also doing nothing to protect the women who were under the authority of these men from there depradations.

When God’s son Adam grabbed at forbidden food and abused his wife (she was deceived and he let her eat first) God judged him and cast him out of the sanctuary. Eli allowed his sons to continue to serve in the sanctuary, knowing that they were seizing forbidden “fruit” in more than one sense.

Eli stands as a lesson to pastors not to cover for others and allow them to get away with things simply because they are related to us. And, since none of us ever wants to be in this situation with a child, meditating on Eli does give us powerful motivation to pray for our children and repent of any negligence on our part in raising them. But there is nothing in the text that suggests that Eli was judged unfit for office because his children were unregenerate. It is not there.

I mean, the struggle of Darwinism to survive. This is a fascinating post from the Pearcey Report.

I guess I still haven’t properly phrased it though: I mean, the struggle of Darwinists to make a living and keep their prestige.

I try not to talk about it, and I expect no one to agree with me (at best!), but I pretty much disagree with our current administration’s foreign policies (as well as related domestic ones). I have nothing but sympathy, for example, for many “anti-American” statements coming from the Bishop of Durham. Of course, at one level I think life would be easier in some areas if he would keep his mouth shut. But it is not Wright’s job to make my life easier. And, at another level, if we live in a culture where rationality has been replaced by guilt-by-association reactions, then I figure it is God’s judgment on us that we can’t understand him, just as the natives of Jerusalem only heard drunken speech on day of Pentecost.

But sympathy is not the same as agreement.

Say what you will about our current occupation of Iraq. I don’t think it would be preferable to give the country over the the US-taxpayer sponsored International Association of Rapists, Pimps, and Slavers who have never proven themselves good for anything except disarming populations so they could be controlled or killed by aggressors.

Why yes, as a matter of fact I have been proofreading a book about the UN and gun control. What made you ask?

By the way, the UN has never presided over genocide. The administration has always been able to somehow avoid “genocide” even in the midst of mass exterminations based on race. If they did ever have to deal with genocide then their priority in getting rid of “light weapons” would be a direct violation of their own international law and itself genocide. Good thing they’ve never had to deal with genocide! Otherwise, they might have to pull back on their disarm-all-civilians agenda.

Jeff gave part one of a lecture on postmodernism last night which I really appreciated. His use of power point allowed him to show examples from art and architecture instead of simply reducing everything to philosophy and words.

In my more general exposure, I’m not real happy with pomo discussions because I think the term itself maximizes the difficulty in figuring out what you are trying to describe. I covered much of the same ground in the eighties in discussions of “the sociology of knowledge,” and then later when I read Theology After Wittgenstein in a philosophical miliue. In fact Jeff summary of the “postmodern turn” in regard to language sounded like a summary statement regarding the difference between W’s Tractaetus and Philosophical Investigations.

Reading Kerr was, in the words of a friend, “following the white rabbit our of the matrix.” Last night reminded me that I am due for another reading. I think one of the problems with the interest in post-modernism is that people expect to discover it from reading about books and articles that use the term “post-modernism.” But Kerr’s book is every bit as much an expose of how the Church has been in the grip of Cartesian delusions and also a pointer to a more accurate understanding of how language works.

More about this. Here is a statement from the preface to the Missourri Presbytery report:

The members of the study committee recognize that some of the current tension in the PCA is connected to the tension between biblical theology and systematic theology. We affirm that biblical theology done within the church and in its confessional heritage, under the structure of sola scriptura, is no threat to systematic theology, but rather is the proper watchman over a systematic understanding of biblical doctrine. We further affirm the priority of exegesis over all theological reflection.

Committee members further recognize that we are heirs of a theological tradition that has come to use words in precise ways – words such as “justification,” “election,” and “regeneration.” This precision reflects the need we have in our particular context to define, prescribe, and defend theological constructs. We are far from claiming, however, that biblical passages that use the equivalent Hebrew and Greek words are necessarily speaking to the same topics as our theological conventions, or that they are speaking with the same level of precision (since these passages may be addressing other needs in their audience than those for which theological language is best suited). For example, a passage that mentions “the elect people of God” need not be saying that God has appointed each member of that people for everlasting life. For this reason we have labored to define the theological terms we have used. In light of our common commitment to “sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith and the Catechisms of this Church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures,” we have aimed to let the definitions assumed in the Westminster Standards govern our usage.

Two cautions arise from this: First, we recognize that we must not confuse our doctrine of, say, election, with the lexical semantics of Hebrew and Greek words. Second, we must be careful when reading the Bible, not to read our theological definitions back into every use of the relevant biblical words.

And thus the report can do careful analysis and protect what needs to be protected. For example:

We affirm that the biblical word group for “to justify” (the dikaio-word group) has a broader range of usage than the term justification as employed in the Westminster Standards; we deny that this fact calls for a redefinition of the classic Reformed doctrine of justification.

This all makes complete sense and is well within the mainstream of Reformed theology. There should be nothing remotely controversial about it. Vern Poythress and John Frame may be well-known for careful thinkng in this area, but the distinction between Biblical terminology and theological terminology is widely recognized apart from them. Notice in the report quoted above that this issue never came up in the affirmations and denials as something worth special investigation as a unique proposal from the so-called “Federal Vision.” Rather, it was simply put in the introductory matter as a needed understanding if one was going to make any headway in understanding the issues.

Then there is this:

1. We reject the FV use of a separate theological language concurrent with, but separate from traditional systematic theology. Whether the FV supporters realize it or not, this dual language methodology is inherently deceptive. When the FV proponents speak, in what they call, their “decretal” language, they speak in the realm of the confession. When they speak, in what they call, their “covenantal” language, they communicate in their own created alternate theological sphere or paradigm. As will be seen in the following points, this alternate theological sphere allows them to affirm the words of the Westminster Standards when speaking “decretally,” all the while rendering its content meaningless when speaking “covenantally,” especially as it relates to everyday life.

Such teaching creates confusion in the flock. Words given opposing meanings in parallel spheres cannot but do otherwise. God is not the author of confusion. It is detrimental to the Truth and contrary to God’s Word. Thus confusion creates division. And we deplore what this teaching has done to the flock by setting brother against brother, producing division where there was once peace (1 Co 14.33).

2. We reject the FV redefinition and misuse of theological terminology. Much of the content of this point is an unpacking of the previous point; however it is crucial in the discussion of FV. Because of the dual languages used in FV theology, the definitions of some technical theological terms, which many orthodox men had fought and died for in the Church’s history, are radically changed and made to mean what is essentially, theologically, the opposite of their established usage.

For instance, the standard Reformed view rightly sees justification as an instantaneous and complete legal/forensic act in which the sinner is declared righteous. However, when speaking “covenantally,” the FV introduces the concept of a period of time or incompleteness into the definition, which, in turn, introduces works righteousness into salvation. They do this by referring to a justification that is not finalized, or complete, until the last judgment. FV defenders teach that those who profess Christ will be judged at that time on the basis of their works. This perceived injection of works righteousness is only reenforced by many of their proponents’ hesitancy to affirm salvation sola fide (“by faith alone”).

Of course, the key point is put in the most negative way possible, one that simply doesn’t apply to the targets. But that sort of inaccuracy is not worth mentioning in comparison to other more serious inaccuracies the report includes. The fact remains that, despite a barrage of serious charges made without evidence, the key point about theology and language is highly idiosyncratic and is not required by Presbyterian doctrinal commitments. The burden of proof lies on proponants of such a novelty to make an argument as to why the church must conform to their personal convictions on this matter.

Right now there are a few major points being asserted by the anti-“federal vision” movement in the PCA. One of the major ones is this:

The terms of systematic theology are the real meaning of the words as they are used in Scripture and anyone who uses terms differently is being dangerous.

One of the fascinating aspects of this plank is that it would require a majority of the PCA ministers and a majority of the presbyteries to walk it. But I will elucidate that point some other time. Right now I simply want to simply take as an example the terms call and election.

Then the king said to the attendants, “Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” For many are called, but few are elect (Matthew 22.13-14).

Did I not elect you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil (John 6.70).

I am not speaking of all of you; I know whom I have elected. But the Scripture will be fulfilled, “He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me” (John 13.18).

And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified (Romans 8.30).

So there’s some of the data. This is the way God speaks. Is anyone going to dare claim that it is wrong to speak like God does? Obviously, we have chosen certain terms to stand for certain ideas. We get these ideas from Scripture. But God, just as obviously, communicated these ideas without restricting himself to this terminology. Nor is there any obligation for Presbyterians to refuse to use the word elect the way Jesus does as recorded in John 6.70.

Far from preserving the doctrine of eternal election, these sorts of baseless taboos just make us look like we are both stupid and afraid of the Bible. Pastorally, it is the easiest thing in the world to show people how ordinary language works in Scripture and how the doctrines of what is commonly called “calvinism” are clearly revealed by these various passages using words in different ways. Look at those four passages above again. Do they not make a powerful case for the doctrine of God’s sovereignty and divine monergism in salvation? Does the fact that they use the terms call and elect in different and even contrary ways distract one iota from the truth they present?

But what if I claimed that some passages needed to be discounted for people to arrive at proper belief? Would anyone who respected Scripture as God’s word give me the time of day? My pastoral ministry would be restricted only tho those who held to a prior loyalty to a human tradition irrespective of what the Bible actually says. I would be making Presbyterianism look suspicious.

But people in our churches need to know that we read and submit to the whole Bible. They need to know that we don’t restrict our reading to our favorite passages and claim they are “more inspired” than the favorite prooftexts of the Arminians. If we aren’t willing to show a love for all the words the Spirit has given to us, every jot and tittle, then we can’t expect those whom the Spirit is calling to find anything of value in us.

Christ’s sheep hear his voice. They don’t accuse him of speaking improperly.

Great stuff from Paul Duggan.

Safari, for the mac-unabled, is the name of my browser. Here are some bookmarks I’ve added to my list:

• Lowe’s Home Improvement How-To Library
• Home Depot’s Know How
• Extreme How-To

Finally, I need to add one more site I’m having fun with but which doesn’t work with Safari. Zillow.com is the reason I allow Firefox to eat up space on my hard drive.

I’ve been meaning to add links in the sidebar to the blog of various members of my church, but never got around to it. Tonight my laziness paid off and I just cut and pasted all Jon’s hard work.

There has been a death to someone close. I hesitate to post details without explict permission. Please pray for my extended family in this time of grief.

Jennifer and I closed on our first house ever today. We move in next weekend. I can’t believe it.