Dark truth (really more like an amber truth): I’m getting tired of this blog. It wearies me. So, for the time being, if you have bookmarks or RSS feeds aimed here, you might want to change them to:
No dire predictions about when or if this might change. Don’t really care. Just trying this out. My twitter and friendfeed should both channel through the new site.
So there it is.
2 Comments »
Filed under: Tumble
I somehow messed this up so that my tumblr comments and this blogs comments were all on one page. Not knowing how to undo the problem, I decided to disable the plugin.
I’m not sure what to do with Tumblr anyway. I rarely use it if ever. I like it a lot, but others have to get on board or that doesn’t matter. Friendfeed and twitter are the winners right now, and Friendfeed thought up stuff that Tumbr should have done already
No Comments »
Filed under: Tumble
Therefore welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you into the glory of God.
– Romans 15.7
Note that my translation of the Greek is slightly different than that of the common English Bibles. In my opinion, this exhortation has a eucharistic overtone since it is the climax of an argument beginning in Romans 14.1 about not judging or despising fellow believers over dietary matters at meals. The argument is that, if God has welcomed Christians to His table, so should we (14.3).
So what if God “graciously invites us” to grovel before him on our knees while he puts a morsel on out tongues? What sort of hospitality would we tend to demonstrate to others in that case? Or, closer to my personal home, how about if God gave us a fraction of a snack and told us to hold it and try to drudge up enough contemplation of our sin and Christ’s sacrifice because if we didn’t do so long enough (how long? no guidance) the crumb would either do us no good or actually poison us?
Of course, God being God and we being both creaturs and sinners, there is a place for confession and even self-condemnation when one meets with God. But, if in the case of actual theophanies, God quickly raises up those he meets, how much more should we be confident that we have moved beyond such considerations after a brief confession of sin and a promise of absolution?
How does Luke 14 read to you? Does Jesus say, “When you give a dinner or a banquet, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return and you be repaid. But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and give them a tiny crumb and make them pray and meditate on their sinfulness and Christ’s death for a long, long time before they partake.”? No, Jesus freely reclined with others, including his disciples when he instituted the Lord’s Supper.
Sure, you’re a sinner. And God has raised you up to sit at his table. If he forgets your sins what business is it of yours to remember them? Have a full glass of wine (by which I mean, wine, not grape juice) and know that God loves you. Then maybe you can learn how to treat other people as guests at your table.
No Comments »
Filed under: Bible & Theology
If you don’t have vivid memories of reading this book, this post will be pretty much useless. And I can’t recommend the book due to content issues, though I also can’t deny I read it more than once.
But for anyone out there that read the graphic novel, Elektra Assassin, by Frank Miller: When you hear some of the Obama commercials that are coming out, don’t you suddenly get flashbacks about another presidential candidate? Remember Ken Wind?
I’m not claiming this proves anything. I’m just saying that the pretentious commercials naturally bring to mind the rather extreme slogans of a fictional candidate.
No Comments »
Filed under: Tumble
Reading without unbiblical chapter divisions can really bring things to light:
Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.
The “Romans 13 passage” (to use the common fiction of passages) is not some anomaly in the Gospel ethic of love and self-giving. It is essential to it. Christians are supposed to submit and obey the civil magistrate because God promises to use him or her to bring about justice. And Christians can be at peace with their neighbors because God has means that they can pray for which will rectify injustice.
We see this in Acts. Sometimes the powers persecute the Church, but Paul is always respectful (less so with the Israelites, interestingly). And several times the magistrates vindicate the Church against her attackers. Luke obviously doesn’t see this as some regrettable barbarism, but as God’s salvation in history.
Thanks to Derrick for pointing this out to me.
2 Comments »
Filed under: Bible & Theology, political-economy
I totally missed something when it happened that is ancient history in blog years.
This is a totally brilliant post.
Steve has some disagreements, and I like some of his observations. The sexual and the economic are one in an important way.
But I still think Doug’s arguments can stand even if we account for this. I also think in the context of the culture war that the difference between us and the Bible is stark.
Of course, Romans 1.18ff can explain why we might make sexual sins the focus of analyzing our culture, but that hardly covers the distance between our ethos and the Bible’s. The other reason for the discrepancy might be that, in the Pentateuch, when one looks at severe penalties imposed, sexual sins stand out.
But in confronting the nations we have to look at the places where the Bible directly confronts the nations. And I think Jones is quite right that economic sins are paramount.
Like I said, this is all ancient history. Sorry for the distraction.
15 Comments »
Filed under: Bible & Theology, Tumble
I can think of only one. I have no wisdom on how much weight to give it in the decision making process. Here it is:
In a mainline liberal denomination you will be in a perpetual war against unbelievers who deny essential doctrines like the deity of Christ or his resurrection, etc. But by some iron law of human depravity, all the evidence indicates that moving into an orthodox denomination means engaging in a perpetual war over petty disagreements as if the Gospel were at stake and the opposition were unbelievers.
4 Comments »
Filed under: Bible & Theology, Tumble
(BTW, I love the substantial interaction on Hebrews, monergism, etc, but I’m not at the point where I can offer substance. I just have resources for quickie posts like this one.)
First: Why does wisdom boast so much? I doubt it is because she’s inviting the test that, if you embrace her, you’ll see everything she promises in the way you expect it (riches, long life, power, etc). I think it is because you need to believe no matter how you are experiencing life, you are in fact wealthier with wisdom than a billion billionaire fools. Wisdom’s value is higher than anything that you can gain with wisdom or without it.
Second: Why was this chapter involved in Christology debates? The femininity of wisdom would point to some sort of Spirit/Church personification. Perhaps the glory cloud hovering over the deep in Genesis 1.2–the first theophany which is the Spirit–constitutes Wisdom. This relates to Christ who inhabits the glory cloud, carried by the angels within, but I don’t think that should be our first thought in Proverbs 8. Christ was wisdom to us because he grew up reading and obeying Proverbs 8 by embracing another–the Spirit and the Spirit’s people….
No Comments »
Filed under: Bible & Theology, Tumble
Life has not let up. Still as tense and anxiety-prone as ever. There’s been plenty of manna in the wilderness, for which we are thankful, but none yet with a promise of a regular weekly cycle.
3 Comments »
Filed under: Tumble, What's going on, social media
In a rejoinder to this post I wrote, a blogger writes:
The eternally elect persevere to the end and inherit eternal life, but not all regenerate, justified, and adopted Christians are eternally elect; therefore, non-eternally-elect Christians always fall away.
But I never said that these who fall away were truly regenerate, justified, or adopted. I often use these three terms often (take regenerated as “effectually called”) in the way the Westminster Confession uses the terms. In this sense they cannot be claimed of the non-elect. It is true that I sometimes find the Bible’s language is more elastic than the way we use our terms (Does diakonos mean Minister of the Gospel, the special office of Deacon, or a more generic “servant” so that it can be applied to a woman without violating other Scriptures? Just because the Bible uses the word in these many ways does not mean that there can be no need and permission to use the word for the office of Deacon.)
In short, I don’t believe that the non-elect have received all the same benefits as the elect except that they are not upheld in perseverance. No, the only thing necessary for my post to work, is that the elect and non-elect have some identical gifts described by the author of Hebrews. This is not some new view, as I tried to point out, but is what the Westminster Assembly declared to be “common operations of the Spirit” (which I take to mean common to elect and non-elect) using Hebrews 6 as a prooftext for these common works of God’s Holy Spirit.
This doesn’t mean that the writer is wrong in declaring that we disagree. Looking at his use of Biblical texts I think there is room for some discussion. But I do not, in point of fact, believe or teach that “not all regenerate, justified, and adopted Christians are eternally elect.” They all are. On that point we agree.
2 Comments »
Filed under: Bible & Theology
According to Chad Van Dixhoorn’s excellent lecture on the debates over imputation at the Westminster Assembly, Vines made a statement that was closer to Roman Catholicism than Protestantism. Vines, in opposing the need for the imputation of the active obedience of Christ claimed that the difference between being restored to the state of innocence, and being admitted into glory, was more properly covered by sanctification rather than justification.
I don’t agree with Vines’ statement as summarized or quoted by Van Dixhoorn, but I do think this represents another point where it seems like current PCA intellectual leadership, or popular PCA teaching, is smoothing and correcting the actual faith we find articulated in the documents that are supposed to be our doctrinal standards.
Consider: Benedict Pictet was translated and published by the Presbyterian Sunday School Board in the 1800s for the edification of readers. While some portions were expurgated and some rated a footnote of disagreement, this was allowed to stand as Presbyterian teaching:
As to the necessity of good works, it is clearly established from the express commands of God–from the necessity of our worshipping and serving God–from the nature of the covenant of grace, in which God promises every kind of blessing, but at the same time requires obedience–from the favors received at his hands, which are so many motives to good works–from the future glory which is promised, and to which good works stand related, as the means to the end, as the road to the goal, as seed-time to the harvest, as first-fruits to the whole gathering, and as the contest to the victory…
So good works are instrumentally related to entering into eternal glory. It is hard to imagine this being published today. Yet it sounds quite like what we find in the Westminster Confession on good works, as well as in Scripture.
These good works, done in obedience to God’s commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith: and by them believers manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their assurance, edify their brethren, adorn the profession of the gospel, stop the mouths of the adversaries, and glorify God, whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto, that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal life.
The Confession is translating the contemporary English translation of First Corinthians 6.22. Here it is in context:
20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. 21 But what fruit were you getting at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. 22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
The Westminster Confession teaches that personal holiness (sanctification) is the means to the end, which is eternal life. That sounds somewhat similar to what I understand Van Dixhoorn to be claiming that Vines said.
So while I’m not willing to endorse what Vines may have said, it does strike me that Vines and others who agreed with him to some extent had more influence on the Westminster Confession and Catechisms than people today would be fully comfortable with. Yet how can one use words correctly and criticize the Westminster Standards for not being Protestant enough? I don’t see how. The Westminster Assembly was a council that defined Reformed Protestantism, at least officially. It is Protestant by definition.
But read the Westminster Confession some time, and both Catechisms, and ask yourself if it does not, in places, seem more Roman Catholic than Protestant by the standard of modern Evangelical expectations. Perhaps it is time to have a new council and purify the documents of what we now see as Roman Catholic tendencies. Or maybe the documents contain wisdom that might pull us back from false and unnecessary polarizations in doctrine that were never the teaching the Protestant Reformation in the first place..
