Mark Horne

Originally I wrote this to defend Peter Leithart and his excellent book Against Chritianity from what I thought were some unfair accusations and characterizations. I’ve stripped out the link to the (long dead) blogpost I was responding to and replaced it with boldface.

I think I’ve decided that I was never married. The truth is, my mind was wondering. I wasn’t listening all that attentively to George’s solemn pronouncement. I certainly was not actively engaged in consciously receiving his declaration with faith. [Explanatory Note: George married us.]

So, obviously, I am not really married. Of course, that doesn’t mean the marriage ritual was unimportant. Oh no. Perhaps someday God will change me by the Spirit, make me a husband inwardly, make me married in my heart, in my heart, Lord. Wedding ceremonies are, obviously, outward signs of inward grace–grace with no connection to the ceremony at the time but to be hoped for in the future.

Jennifer should be praying for that day to come. But instead she just gets mad at me when I bring up these important concepts. I don’t know where a former Baptist girl could get such sacradotalist ideas, but she acts as if we were married by virtue of the ceremony. How strange is that? The Bible is clear that when a man and woman are married, it is God who has joined them together by covenant. Obviously God’s work is immediate in our souls. We should know that weddings don’t actually accomplish anything. We’re not ritualists, after all!

Peter Leithart has often been a great help to me. He gave me pastoral advice when I was a layman, and we have stayed in touch. I got to see him fairly often when I was in the Pacific Northwest Presbytery. But I must say his recent counsel to me has been rather disappointing!

Peter has basically taken my wife’s side. He says I’m married whether or not I consciously received the declaration that I was a husband. He says that George’s declaration was a “performative utterance.” He makes it sound like mere symbols have the power to change things! What is going on?

I accused him of denying God’s sovereignty, the need for a monergistic work of God in the heart. I must say that his reply was rather crafty. I do think Calvinists might need to rethink the idea that God ordains the means as well as the ends. B. B. Warfield’s wonderful book, The Plan of Salvation lays out a path to much needed extension of the Reformation insights. He allows us to see that the real essence of Calvinism (he might have improved the book some by explaining why Calvin himself never realized this) is that God works “immediately” on the soul without any instrumentalities involved.

And while I’m thinking of it, we seriously need to question terminology such as “means of grace” or (worse) “effectual means of salvation.” John Murray has tried to help by insisting on formulations such as, The sacraments are a means of grace but not a means of conferring grace, but such paradoxical statements only work with those of us who know the true Gospel. Among other folk they are simply sneered at as self-contradictions. Sadly, the Westminster Assembly explicitly uses not only the terminology of “means” but also of grace being “conferred.” I think we need to bite the bullet and reform our constitutional documents. After all, we know that the Westminster Assembly was trying to grope toward the pinnacle of all Christendom, late-nineteenth-century American Southern Presbyterianism. By clarifying their language (through a process of pure subtraction, admittedly) I think we would be doing these men a favor by purging their legacy.

But back to Peter Leithart: He insisted that I was a husband simply by being a lawful participant in a marriage. When I say that only God can change the heart, he promptly told me that he hoped God would change mine to believe in my God-given identity as a husband, lest I be condemned as an unfaithful husband. Peter treated faith as if it simply involved trusting God’s promises and actions in the world (which, of course, he alleges can take place through human means) rather than experiencing some sort of crisis work of God in the heart. When I pointed out to him that his warning made it sound as if a real husband could fall under judgment, he responded that believing in my God-given status as a husband conferred upon me at the wedding involved “trembling at the threatenings” that God had made against spouses who committed infidelity. He even had the nerve, despite being a Presbyterian minister, to warn me by using Hebrews 4.1. (This was when I started thinking about our need to clarify our doctrinal standards: When I said what any good sola fide-propositioning Presbyterian should say to such nonsense, he pointed out I was attacking the Westminster Confession of Faith’s language describing saving faith with the prooftext from Hebrews 4.1. This was quite embarrassing.)

Thankfully, I now have at least one pastor’s bald assertion of what the problem is. Peter must be an Anglo-Catholic. He must be a liberal mainliner. Somehow he must be both things at once and the contradiction, of course, has to be Peter’s own confusion, not a sign that anyone is grasping at straws and saying whatever will come into his head to destroy a PCA minister’s reputation.

Reading a bit on the web I now realize I was wrong to engage in doctrinal discussion with Peter. If I follow his way I’ll have to say my children are not bastards simply because of some ceremony I did as a young man too distracted to be engaged in true discernment and faith. What I should have done is immediately asked loaded questions, like “Peter, why haven’t you transferred to the PCUSA?” or “When are you going to take your vows to enter the priesthood?” (Remember both these questions are fine because Peter is obviously guilty of everything at once).

I think the key to dealing with this problem is to try to put as many characterizations on the internet as possible. I don’t mean disagreements in detail. I mean ruinous assaults on his reputation and gratuitous false assertions like, “Where is faith in Christ in all this?” I think a few ostensibly different sources might get all conversation shut down, which is the only way this is going to go away (unless we can start amending the Westminster Confession and Catechisms as suggested above). I got this idea for strategy by analogy from some place in Deuteronomy. Think of this as an attempt to set fire in brambles around Peter’s wheat field. A spark here, and a torch there, and we’ll have sealed off our communion from rational discourse in very little time.

In the meantime, since God hasn’t been please yet to marry me to Jennifer in my heart, I’ve been thinking about adopting my children so they won’t simply be bastards. But the problem is that Charis, being a baby, can’t possibly receive the word of her adoption by faith yet. She has no understanding.

And how am I to relate to Jennifer? Shouldn’t we sleep in separate rooms? Since I’ve allowed my children to pray the Lord’s Prayer from the time they could talk, that seems sort of inconsistent. But maybe I need to repent in both ways: sleep in the couch and tell my children they are no longer permitted to address God as father until they prove they possess a new heart.

This is all total sarcasm and was done without Peter’s knowledge, consent, or input. Or my wife’s–who is really married to me even if my mind did wonder a bit.

The New Testament describes a covenant made between Jesus Christ and His people. That covenant is conditional.[5] Those who persevere in this covenant by continued faith, repentance, the means of Grace and all other ordinances will be confirmed as children of God on the Last Day.[6] Those that fall away will be consigned to Hell forever, and spend eternity wishing that they had never heard the Gospel. This is the plain and repeated teaching of the New Testament, and it cites the example of the old to make its point. Thus, the old and New Covenants are the same in substance — one Covenant of Grace. Let’s consider some representative passages:

Romans 11.17-24

But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; for if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will He spare you. Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.

From chapter nine onwards Paul has been explaining the apostasy of Israel, that “they are not all Israel, who are from Israel.” Not all were regenerated by the Spirit so that they would continually live by faith, and demonstrate this by recognizing Jesus the Messiah. Nevertheless, all were objectively members of God’s covenant people, “to whom belongs the adoption as sons and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers” (Rom 9.4-5). This picks up a train of though begun in chapter three: “Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? Great in every respect.. .”

But the covenant is conditional upon perseverance in faith: “For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision” (Rom 2.26). Thus, only those truly regenerated by the Spirit so that they are faithful to the end show themselves to be true Israelites.

Likewise, before Christ, Gentiles who demonstrated persevering faith were never excluded from eternal life (Rom 2.27). This had always been recognized in the Scriptures: Gentiles had the same access to the Tabernacle and Temple as the Jews (Lev 22.17-25; Num 15.14-16). God heard their prayers (1 Kin 8.41-43; 2 Chr 6.32-33). They worshipped with Israel (Psa 115.11, 13; 118.4; 135.20; c.f. Act 13.16, 26). Their worship outside of Israel’s borders was accepted by God (2 Kin 5.17). Gentiles who feared and worshipped the true God showed themselves to be among the elect.

Thus, the rhetorical question: “Or is God the God of the Jews only? Is He not the God of the Gentiles also?” (Rom 3.29) Paul has to remind the Jews of this Old Testament teaching so that they will realize that it is not so surprising that God would eventually end the special privileges which the Jews possessed over against the God-fearing Gentiles. In the New Covenant, just as the distinction between Levite and lay-Israelite has been demolished, so has that between circumcised and uncircumcised.

Amid all these discontinuities between the old covenants and the New, Paul insists especially on one continuity between them. He is concerned that the Gentile converts might become presumptuous and arrogant because of Jewish apostasy. Thus, he presents them with a severe warning: An initial profession of faith [7] is not enough. Just because you “were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree” (Rom 11.17b) does not mean that you have no need to fear God’s covenant curse. On the contrary, you will only inherit eternal life “if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off” (Rom 11.22b).

Again, this is the structure of God’s one covenant of grace, whether before or after Christ:

But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that a wicked man does, will he live? All his righteous deeds which he has done will not be remembered for his treachery which he has committed and his sin which he has committed; for them he will die (Eze 18.24).

All of us, who have faith in Christ, whether we are older converts from unbelief who can actually remember the time when we were lost in our sins, or believers raised to have faith in Christ from our mother’s womb who cannot remember any other state, have been grafted into “the same rich root of the olive tree.” We have ” the adoption as sons and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law [all of Scripture, in our case] and the [heavenly] service and the promises.” But if we drift away into sin, refusing to repent, until our hearts are hardened in apostasy, then we too will be cut off and be assigned a place with the unbelievers.

“Do not be conceited, but fear!”

I Corinthians 9.24-10.13

Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win. And everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things. They then do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air; but I buffet my body and make it my slave, lest possibly, after I have preached to others, I myself should be disqualified. For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and all ate the same spiritual food; and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ. Nevertheless, with most of them God was not well-pleased; for they were laid low in the wilderness. Now these things happened as examples for us, that we should not crave evil things, as they also craved. And do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink, and stood up to play.” Nor let us act immorally, as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in one day. Nor let us try the Lord, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the serpents. Nor grumble, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the destroyer. Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall. No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, Who will not allow you to be tempted beyond that which you are able to bear, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, that you may be able to endure it. Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry.

Here we have a warning given to the Corinthians based on the negative example of the Israelites in the wilderness. Notice, Paul does not deny that the Israelites who died in their sins were members of the Mosaic covenant. On the contrary, they were baptized into Moses, ate spiritual food, and drank spiritual water from Christ Himself. But the Israelites did not persevere in what they had been given. Rather they apostatized and fell under the wrath of God.

The New Covenant of which the Corinthians are a part is like the old. Paul does not contrast the possibility of apostasy under Moses with the impossibility under Christ. Quite the contrary, the entire point of the passage is that we must be cognizant of the possibility from the Old Testament example and make sure we persevere in the faith, lest we likewise perish as covenant-breakers.

Furthermore, Paul postulates no distinction between an identifiable class of “nominal believers” who are supposed to heed the warning of the Old Testament by being “truly converted” and a class of “true believers” who can simply assume they are never in danger of becoming apostate. On the contrary, Paul concludes with a general rule for all, “let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall” after beginning with the example of himself: “I buffet my body and make it my slave, lest possibly, after I have preached to others, I myself should be disqualified.” Paul makes it clear that he, no less than the Corinthians, must heed the warning of the Old Testament.

Is there then no discontinuity mentioned in this passage between the old covenants and the New? Though it is not explicitly spelled out, I do think one is alluded to in 1 Corinthians 10.13: “No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, Who will not allow you to be tempted beyond that which you are able to bear, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, that you may be able to endure it.” Now, God obviously must have offered this sort of assistance before Christ, but I do think that we can all agree that entrance and endurance in the Covenant of Grace became much simpler and easier in the New Age ushered in by Christ. I especially think this because the above verse seems to play the sam part in the passage as vv. 14-16 have in concluding Hebrews 3-4 (see below).

Whatever the case regarding continuity or discontinuity, 1 Corinthians 10.13 only serves to heighten the seriousness of our sin if we give in to temptation. This heightened responsibility is Paul’s whole point, for he concludes: “Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry.”

II Corinthians 11.1-4

I wish that you would bear with me in a little foolishness; but indeed you are bearing with me. For I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy; for I betrothed you to one husband, that to Christ I might present you as a pure virgin. But I am afraid, lest as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds should be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.

Here there is no direct reference to the Covenant of Grace preceding the Incarnation, but rather to the Covenant of Creation (a.k.a. “The Covenant of Works”). However, the theme of jealousy (also mentioned with our previous passage in 1 Cor 10.22) is worth some moments of thought in our discussion. For it is written:

You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me (Exo 20.4-5; emphasis added).

Here we have the most severe warning in the Decalogue, and it is premised on God’s jealousy. When people in covenant with God apostatize by going after idols God becomes enraged as a spurned lover, or more to the point, a cuckolded husband. For again it is written:

” And I passed by you and saw you, and behold, you were at the time for love; so I spread My skirt over you and covered your nakedness. I also swore to you and entered into a covenant with you so that you became Mine,” declares the Lord God. “Then I bathed you with water, washed off your blood from you, and anointed you with oil. I also clothed you with embroidered cloth, and put sandals of porpoise skin on your feet; and I wrapped you with fine linen and covered you with silk. And I adorned you with ornaments, put bracelets on your hands, and a necklace around you neck. I also put a ring in your nostril, earrings in your ears, and a beautiful crown on your head. Thus you were adorned with gold and silver, and your dress was of fine linen, silk, and embroidered cloth. You ate fine flour, honey, and oil; so you were exceedingly beautiful and advanced to royalty. Then your fame went forth among the nations on account of your beauty, for it was perfect because of My splendor which I bestowed on you,” declares the Lord God (Eze 16.8-14).

Thus the Lord had declared His love and bestowed His gracious glory upon Israel in putting them in covenant with Him. But Ezekiel goes on to describe how all the above blessings were used in idolatry — for “harlotries.”

Therefore, O harlot, hear the word of the Lord. Thus says the Lord God, “Because your lewdness was poured out and your nakedness uncovered through your harlotries with your lovers and with all your detestable idols, and because of the blood of your sons which you gave to idols, therefore, behold, I shall gather all your lovers with whom you took pleasure, even all those whom you loved and all those whom you hated. So I shall gather them against you from every direction and expose your nakedness to them that they may see all your nakedness. Thus I shall judge you, like women who commit adultery or shed blood are judged; and I shall bring on you the blood of wrath and jealousy” (Eze 16.35-38; emphasis added).

The charge of adultery makes no sense apart from the reality of the covenant mentioned in Ezekiel 16.8. Nor is this some sort of merely “outward” legal arrangement which is unmatched by any real relationship between God and His people. The whole premise of God’s eternal burning wrath is His sincere covenantal love. “For love is as strong as death, jealousy is as severe as Sheol; its flashes are flashes of fire, the very flame of the Lord” (Cant 8.6b). Just as we dare not treat God’s wrath as some sort of pretense, so we cannot doubt God’s real relationship with those who provoke Him to jealousy. His rage is caused by His spurned love. “For the Lord your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God” (Deu 4.24).

If anyone has problem imagining how God could possibly love those He predestined to perish, perhaps we should think about God’s covenant with Adam and Eve. Were Adam and Eve elect or reprobate? With regards to the original covenant they were unquestionably reprobate. They were predestined to fail to persevere in the Covenant of Creation. Not only that, they were told by God that such reprobation was an actual possibility. When God told them what would happen if they ate the forbidden fruit, it was given as a possibility that they might indeed be predestined to eat of it. Furthermore, they knew that, if they did not persevere, instead transgressing the Covenant by eating the forbidden fruit, then they would be punished according to the seriousness of the sin, and the seriousness of the sin would be greater according to the degree of grace they received from God. In other words, Adam and Eve knew that, if they were predestined to Fall, then every good and perfect gift coming to them from God was decreed to bring about greater punishment.

So the question arises: Did God love Adam and Eve? Were His good gifts to them a revelation of His love for them, or were they snares meant to hurt them?

The answer must be that, though God foreordains whatsoever comes to pass, and ultimately causes all things, God’s gifts and offers of future reward are all genuine expressions of a genuine love. It may be difficult to conceive of how this objective revelation in history is to be reconciled with God’s eternal decrees, [8] yet it is perverse to use the decrees to deny that God’s gifts and promises are motivated by love. The fact is, just as without God’s love there is no ground for God’s jealousy, so without God’s good gifts there is no ground for holding ingrates accountable for how they abuse and pervert these gifts. It was Satan’s strategy, after all, to deny that God loved Adam and Eve. If our inferences from God’s decrees put us in Satan’s camp, we need to rethink our position.

Adam was God’s son (Luk 3.38). He and Eve were put in covenant with God — a genuine relationship of love. When Eve was seduced by Satan, God became jealous and put the world under a curse, disinheriting His son, divorcing His bride. His jealousy continues to be aroused by the natural man:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened (Rom 1.18-21; emphasis added).

God shows His love for man by showering blessings on him, and man responds by worshipping the gifts and spurning the Giver. The doctrine of reprobation does not conflict with God’s love, but presupposes it. Reprobation is God’s decree that sinners will continue to refuse His love and arouse His jealousy.

What is true of men in general, is much more true for reprobates in God’s Covenant of Grace in the Old Testament. They have been restored to Eden, and wedded to God in a new covenant, only to again be seduced by Satan. As Hosea puts it, “like Adam they have transgressed My covenant” (6.7). Indeed, Israel is guilty of doing with God’s special gifts of love, what all men in general are guilty of doing with his general gifts as described in Romans 1.18ff: “For she does not know that it was I who gave her the grain, the new wine, and the oil, and lavished on her silver and gold, which they used for Baal” (Hos 2.8). How much more is God’s jealousy aroused by such treachery in response to such special love!

All of this is background to Paul’s language in 2 Corinthians 11.1-4. Paul doesn’t say that the New Covenant means that God’s jealous wrath is no longer a factor. Far from it.

Colossians 1.21-23a

And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach — if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard

Here we have the plainest statement possible that the New Covenant is a conditional covenant. If one is to be confirmed in Christ’s imputed righteousness on the Day of Judgment, one must persevere in the Faith. The strongest language conceivable is used to describe Christ’s covenant relationship with the Colossians, but any thought that the Colossians can continue to be confident of their eternal salvation apart from continuing in faith is forcefully removed. Nor is there any desire on Paul’s part, to somehow throw doubt on the reality of their initiation in the Covenant of Grace. He doesn’t throw doubt on the grace they have objectively received but only exhorts them to continue in it.

Hebrews 3-4

Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the Apostle and High Priest of our confession. He was faithful to Him who appointed Him, as Moses also was in all His house. For He has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses, by just so much as the builder of the house has more honor than the house. For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God. Now Moses was faithful in all His house as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken later; but Christ was faithful as a Son over His house whose house we are, if we hold fast our confidence and the boast of our hope firm until the end. Therefore, just as the Holy Spirit says, “Today if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts as when they provoked Me, as in the day of trial in the wilderness, where your fathers tried Me by testing Me, and saw My works for forty years. Therefore I was angry with this generation, and said, ‘They always go astray in their heart; and they did not know My ways’; as I swore in my wrath, ‘They shall not enter My rest.’” Take care, brethren, lest there should be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart, in falling away from the living God. But encourage one another day after day, as long as it is called “Today,” lest any one of you be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end; while it is said, “Today if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts, as when they provoked Me.” For who provoked Him when they had heard? Indeed, did not all those who came out of Egypt led by Moses? And with whom was He angry for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness? And to whom did He swear that they should not enter His rest, but to those who were disobedient? And so we see that they were not able to enter because of unbelief. Therefore, let us fear lest, while a promise remains of entering His rest, any one of you should seem to have come short of it. For indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they also; but the word they heard did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard. For we who have believed enter that rest, just as He has said, “As I swore in My wrath, they shall not enter My rest,” although His works were finished from the foundation of the world. For He has thus said somewhere concerning the seventh day, “And God rested on the seventh day from all His works”; and again in this passage, “They shall not enter My rest.” Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly had good news preached to them failed to enter because of disobedience, He again fixes a certain day, “Today,” saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before, “Today if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts.” For if Joshua had given them rest, He would not have spoken of another day after that. There remains therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of God. For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His. Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall through following the same example of disobedience. For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do. Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and may find grace to help in time of need.

The author of Hebrews here addresses “holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling” (3.1). Furthermore, he includes himself in the exhortations (“Let us therefore be diligent…” [4.11]). His entire message is parallel to 1 Corinthians 10.1-13, for he compares the Christians receiving the letter to those with whom God made a covenant in the wilderness but who failed to enter the Land because of unbelief. They have been initiated in the Covenant of Grace and now they must continue in it.

Notice, that just as Paul exhorted the Corinthians to flee temptation on the grounds that God would provide a way of escape (10.13-14), so the author of Hebrews exhorts his readers to endure because they have Christ as a sympathetic high priest (Heb 4.14-16). Obviously, if they do not endure, the fault is all the more with them, because they have spurned such a gracious God. The author doesn’t say that some have access to this Priest but that others don’t. No, it is perfectly plain — and made even more and more evident, if that were possible, by almost every other chapter in Hebrews — that those who fall away are guilty of having spurned their high priest and have refused to “draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and may find grace to help in time of need” (4.16).

Furthermore, while I certainly think the author of Hebrews believed in a qualitative difference between the faith of those whose faith was predestined to endure and the faith of those who were going to fall away, he doesn’t seem to think it is worth mentioning. He simply exhorts all professing Christians to “hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end” (3.14), to “hold fast our confession” (4.14). On the contrary, “unbelief” (3.19) is identified with “disobedience” (4.6; 3.18) on the part of those who have been engrafted into the Covenant of Grace. The objective standing of the readers in Christ’s New Covenant is not any more in doubt than the membership of the wilderness generation in the Mosaic covenant. What is in doubt is whether they are going to enter God’s rest. This will not happen unless they persevere. If they become “hardened by the deceitfulness of sin” (3.13) then they will provoke God to wrath. No matter what sort of belief they once possessed, it will only count as unbelief if they fall away from the living God (c.f. Eze 18.24).

Remember, “falling away from the living God” (3.12) presupposes standing in Covenant relation with Him.

Hebrews 10.4-39

For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, “Sacrifice and offering Thou hast not desired, but a body Thou hast prepared for me; in whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin Thou hast taken no pleasure. “Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come (in the roll of the book it is written of Me) to do Thy will, O God.’” After saying above, “Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin Thou hast not desired, nor hast Thou taken pleasure in them” (which are offered according to the Law), then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Thy will.” He takes away the first in order to establish the second. By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, “sat down at the right hand of God,” waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet. For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying, “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws upon their heart, and upon their mind I will write them,” He then says, “And their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin. Since therefore, brethren, we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful; and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging [one another]; and all the more, as you see the day drawing near. For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain terrifying expectation of judgment, and “the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries.” Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God. But remember the former days, when, after being enlightened, you endured a great conflict of sufferings, partly, by being made a public spectacle through reproaches and tribulations, and partly by becoming sharers with those who were so treated. For you showed sympathy to the prisoners, and accepted joyfully the seizure of your property, knowing that you have for yourselves a better possession and an abiding one. Therefore, do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God, you may receive what was promised. For yet in a very little while, “He Who is coming will come, and will not delay. But My righteous one shall live by faith; and if he shrinks back, My soul has no pleasure in him.” But we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul.

Here we find the author of Hebrews presenting huge contrasts, significant discontinuities, between the Mosaic covenant and the New Covenant. But again, there is a particular continuity between the periods in the Covenant of Grace both preceding and following Christ. Under both administrations of the Covenant some do not persevere but rebel against God despite His great blessings. As covenant-breakers, such people fall under God’s covenantal wrath.

Even here, we do find a significant discontinuity: Those who break the New Covenant are to be much more severely punished than those who merely broke the Mosaic covenant.

Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? (10.28-29)

If there is some sort of unconditional guarantee for all members of the New Covenant that they need never fear God’s covenantal jealousy, then the above verse simply makes no sense whatsoever. To posit this sort of discontinuity is to eviscerate the true discontinuity which the author of Hebrews declares to us — that the sanctions facing covenant breakers in the New Covenant are substantially greater than those facing covenant breakers in the old covenants.

Furthermore, the author of Hebrews could not be more explicit that he is addressing a singular group of people, members of the New Covenant, who all need to continue in what they have been given if they would be saved. “By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (10.10). And again, “For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified” (10.14) This same language begins and ends Hebrews: “For both He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all from one Father, for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren” (2.11). And again: “Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people through His own blood, suffered outside the gate” (13.12). This is exactly the same gift which makes the treason of apostasy such a high-handed sin: “How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has … regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified?” (10.29)

Additionally, the writer of Hebrews, makes it clear that all whom he is writing have privileges — privileges which were purchased at a great price and the despising of which will bring great wrath:

Since therefore, brethren, we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water (10.19-22).

All the intended readers share in the same confidence, the same priest, their hearts are all sprinkled and their bodies all washed so that all must draw near, holding fast their “confession of hope without wavering” (10.23), lest any one of them come under the fearful wrath of God.

Again, verses 32 and following make it clear that the intended audience consists of people who have made a good start in accepting “joyfully the seizure of your property” (10.34) but who must “not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward” (10.35). The Pauline prooftext for justification by faith alone is used to demonstrate that “endurance” in faith is required for us to “receive what was promised” (10.36). The writer of Hebrews expresses confidence that his readers will endure in such faith “to the preserving of the soul” (10.39).

A defense of paedobaptism contra Greg Welty.

I wrote this in 1996 during my second year of seminary. Recently a Reformed baptist thanked me for helping him become Presbyterian and reminded me of this paper.

I wrote it to defend Reformed Theology and Practice. If you’ve heard anything about the “FV controversy,” you might find it interesting.

Is Calvinism a Dead Letter?.

For the record, as someone who has the “FV” label, here is what I believe in 8 paragraphs.

1. God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

2. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions, yet hath he not decreed anything because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.

3. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.

4. These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.

5. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto; and all to the praise of his glorious grace.

6. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by his Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power, through faith, unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.

7. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.

8. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men, attending the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.

Dr. Davis appears to interpret a concern that calvinism not be (mis!) used as an excuse to not take warnings seriously as a criticism of calvinism itself for leading adherents to ignore God’s commands.

Passage: Proverbs 31 (ESV Bible Online).

Everyone seems to divide this into two sections: The words of King Lemuel that he was taught by his mother (vv 1-9), and then the description of a godly woman which has been taken as written for women.

Well, women can learn from it, and should, but it doesn’t read that way to me. Rather, the whole thing reads like the words of King Lumel that his mother taught him.

Charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain,
but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised.

That’s what a mother says in Hebrew for, “Stop staring at her…”

I hear people claim that the Westminster Standards insist that only the “invisible Church” is “the body of Christ.”

In the Book of Church Order, here is preliminary principle #3:

Our blessed Saviour, for the edification of the visible Church, which is His body, has appointed officers not only to preach the Gospel and administer the Sacraments, but also to exercise discipline for the preservation both of truth and duty (emphasis added).

If anyone really thinks that the Westminster Confession contradicts this, they need to get it amended to say:

Our blessed Saviour, for the edification of the visible Church, which is not His body because only the invisible church may be described in this way, has appointed officers not only to preach the Gospel and administer the Sacraments, but also to exercise discipline for the preservation both of truth and duty.

Likewise, the beginning of the preface about Jesus being “THE KING AND HEAD OF THE CHURCH” would need to be rewritten so that it no longer included the emphasized words:

Jesus Christ, upon whose shoulders the government rests, whose name is called Wonderful, Counselor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace; of the increase of whose government and peace there shall be no end; who sits upon the throne of David, and upon His kingdom to order it and to establish it with judgment and justice from henceforth, even forever (Isaiah 9:6-7); having all power given unto Him in heaven and in earth by the Father, who raised Him from the dead and set Him at His own right hand, far above all principality and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come, and has put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be the Head over all things to the Church, which is His body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all (Ephesians 1:20-23); He, being ascended up far above all heavens, that He might fill all things, received gifts for His Church, and gave all offices necessary for the edification of His Church and the perfecting of His saints (Ephesians 4:10-13).

After all, this too makes the “body of Christ” the church with offices–offices that are visible.

Of course, if we are to make these revisions to the BCO, we would need to edit the Scriptures on which it is founded. Actually, I can’t see any way to edit First Corinthians 12.12-30. It would need to be completely expunged from the Bible:

For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

For the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. If all were a single member, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, yet one body.

The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.

Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But earnestly desire the higher gifts.

All of this editing and expunging is necessary if the Westminster Confession teaches that only the invisible Church is the body of Christ and that the visible Church is not the body of Christ. What I find odd, however, is that I don’t see anywhere in the Westminster Standards that make that precise claim. I see that the Westminster Confession affirms that the invisible Church is the body of Christ, but I don’t see them excluding the visible Church from being the body of Christ. In fact, chapter 25 of the Westminster Confession goes on to use First Corinthians 12.28 as a source for describing the visible Church:

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.

So I don’t see a reason to insist that the Westminster Confession contradicts the PCA’s Book of Church Order or First Corinthians 12.12-30.

Remembering Marx… or not – Reformation21 Blog.

Derek is someone I think of as above the Anti-FV blog meme, but he seems to be slipping down into it.

So what was Marx’s spiritual state? According to the Bible, he was someone who was delivered from “Egypt” but instead of following God to the Promised Land he stubbornly resisted God’s call in disbelief so that his “last state” became “worse… than the first” (2 Peter 2.20). This is not “Federal Vision.” It is the Apostle Paul:

For I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness. Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did. Do not be idolaters as some of them were; as it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play.” We must not indulge in sexual immorality as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in a single day. We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents, nor grumble, as some of them did and were destroyed by the Destroyer. Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come. Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall. No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it. Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry.

Marx (who, by the way, was not only baptized but had, as far as anyone can tell, a quite convincing profession of faith in his youth), did not flee from idolatry. He embraced it. He invented a new form of it. So he died in the wilderness.

We should consider Marx a warning in history.

The aristocrats saw no conflict of interest using public office to enrich themselves. As society’s natural leaders, they reasoned, they should be entrusted with economic stewardship as well. This outlook, the merging of the private and public roles of the elite, was the essence of mercantilism, in which the state empowered private parties to carry out activities thought to serve the public interest. The standard reward for such an undertaking was a monopoly–just what Chancellor Livingston sought when he offered to meed a most pressing public need, the need for steamboats.

Of course, the NY state landed gentry were displaced, but almost every subsequent inheritor of the wealth expected the same privilege. And corporations only more so.

This mistake is the result of confusing the session interview with St. Peter’s interview at the Pearlies. It demands of preschoolers that they show their high school diploma as a condition for admittance into preschool. It confuses the end from the beginning, and the beginning from the end. It muddles baptism and the eschaton. It reverses the order of the Great Commission — teach them obedience to all that the Lord commanded, and then bring them in. It is theological dyslexia.

via An Interview At the Pearlies.

Former Sen. Alan Simpson needed only a few ill-chosen words to udderly infuriate a lot of Americans.

He compared Social Security to “a milk cow with 310 million t-ts.”

The barnyard boo-boo by the cochairman of President Obama’s fiscal commission outraged feminists, Social Security recipients and many liberal Democrats.

Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Peter DeFazio, a Democrat, called the comments “beyond comprehension” and asked the President to remove Simpson from the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.

The National Organization for Women said Simpson was unfit to lead the reform effort.

Simpson, 78, quickly apologized for his not so bons mots.

via Ex-Sen. Alan Simpson, an Obama adviser, likens Social Security to ‘a milk cow with 310 million t-ts’.

Of course the only reason I’m posting this is because it gives me a reason to re-post this video clip. Get’s especially interesting at the 3 minute mark:

YouTube – Scene from Shenandoah (1965).

You might also notice that many Americans cannot speak back to “Johnson” the way Mr. Anderson does. The state has given out a spare and so if the state wants to cart them off across the ocean as soldiers it argues that it has ownership rights to do so.

By making a conscious decision to leave your child in the car, even to pay for gas, you are putting your child in harm’s way. Car thieves and child abductors lurk; your child could unbuckle them self and get caught in the power window or move to the front and put the car into gear.

via What Could Happen to Your Kid in the Car While You Pay For Gas? « FreeRangeKids.

In Oklahoma one was not permitted to take one’s child into a liquor store–and these were the only places where the wise and judicious legislators of Oklahoma would permit residents to purchase wine. Jennifer and I found it convenient that most of these stores were small storefronts with big windows so we could park and get in and get back while keeping an eye on our (then much younger) kiddos.

Anyway, looking at this hysterical response, I have to ask: Do real parents believe this stuff?

My inclination is to assume this comes from people without children and the fact that it is taken seriously is a reflex of the fact that legislative interns and many lobbyists are young unmarrieds. What do you think?

(Of course, the other factor is that the P-Class [Political/Predator/Parasite] is populated by people who delegate their children to servants and have no idea what real responsibility even smells like among the hoypolloy.)

For the record, Paul does write about a “righteousness from God” in Phillipians 3.9. And tellingly it takes him three words to do so, with ek for “from.” The same is true of First Corinthians 1.30. But the new defensiveness orthodoxy is to insist that the exegetical basis must be found in Romans 1-3 and anyone who says otherwise is a dangerous heretic.

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it God’s righteousness is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith” (Romans 1.16-17).

Only the ESV chooses to use the term “the righteousness of God” instead of God’s righteousness. OK. Nothing wrong with that.

But if our unrighteousness serves to show God’s righteousness, what shall we say? (Romans 3.5a)

And now the punchline:

But now the God’s righteousness has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—God’s righteousness through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe. 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. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who is of the faithfulness of Jesus.

This is how the Protestant “tradition” is maintained in the absence of Biblical evidence. When people want to use the same term in two entirely different ways they make the term different by choosing different English conventions to translate the exact same Greek phrase. This causes unwary English readers to think that there are two different terms that provide two different meanings: on the one had a “righteousness from God” imputed to believer and “God’s righteousness” that is his own character revealed by his righteous actions.

(This also affects how one considers whether one should translate another phrase as “faith in Jesus Christ” or “the faith(fulness) of Jesus Christ.”)

Of course, when I write “Protestant ‘tradition,’” I’m talking about the exegetical and mythical tradition–the exegesis being the interpretation of a single passage and the myth being the solemn recounting of the existential crisis of Luther so that anyone who finds another option that he didn’t consider can be accused of blasphemy against the ancestors we worship. The theological tradition is just fine.

We should defend it on the basis of better texts.

Practicing medicine at the orphanage was one of the highlights of my time in Vietnam. I found that basic hygiene and soap could often do as much to improve the quality of life for many as advanced drugs… Using my knowledge to do a little good in the midst of much death and misery, I became convinced of the direction my life should take. If I made it back home and could get into a university and then into a medical school, I would practice medicine in the developing world. But sitting outside of Da Nang in 1968, after barely graduationg from high school four years earlier, the very acts of surviving the war and going home seemed distant, let alone attending a university. (p. 41)

My grades were so dismal that they threatened to sabotage not only my eligibility for the swim team but my graduation. Fortunately, I wrote a glowing paper about the presidential bid of the extreme Republican Barry Goldwater, whose slogan was “In your heart, you know he’s right.” The teacher who marked my paper seemed to be a Goldwater conservative and was sufficiently impressed to give me a D minus instead of an F, which would have ended my chance of graduating. (p. 17)

I think that one reason I was able to become a successful scientist was that my natural curiosity was not driven out of me by the educational system. (p. 7)

SEE ALSO: Mark Horne » Blog Archive » The education background of one person of note.

Dr. Collins suggested that it was his unusual upbringing that imparted such a thirst for knowledge. His father has a Ph.D. in English, but has wide-ranging interests, including collecting folk music and staging medieval plays. His mother is a playwright. When Dr. Collins was growing up, his parents raised sheep on a farm in rural Virginia. “It was a hard life,” he said, and his mother, distrusting the education provided in the rural schools and “not about to relegate the early learning of her sons” to them, decided to teach her children at home.

Dr. Collins is the youngest of four boys. The two oldest brothers, 18 and 16 years older than Dr. Collins, were taught at home until they went to college. Dr. Collins and a brother who was a year older than he were taught at home through sixth grade.

“It was a bit disorganized,” Dr. Collins said. “I’m sure it would not have been deemed appropriate by today’s standards.” The Collins boys and their mother would explore a topic, like the origins of words, for a week or two, doing nothing else, then move on to another subject, like mathematics. As a result, Dr. Collins said, he grew up with an unquenchable curiosity and love of learning.

When Dr. Collins entered high school, in Staunton, Va., he discovered chemistry. He recalls that his teacher made the subject come alive and that he was drawn to its intellectual rigor. He ended up majoring in chemistry at the University of Virginia and then earning a Ph.D. in physical chemistry at Yale University, using theory and mathematics to discover the behavior of atoms and molecules. Discovery of Cystic Fibrosis Gene

via SCIENTIST AT WORK – Francis S. Collins – Unlocking the Secrets of the Genome – Biography – NYTimes.com.

PS. Here is the educational background of another genome scientist.

Does a student who get 100% right on a test merit an A? Yes, because an A grade is defined so that it includes a grade of 100%.

Likewise, if Adam and Eve had continue to live righteous lives and not fall into sin, they would have merited the verdict from God that they were righteous in his sight. God would have been dishonest and unfaithful to claim that they were not righteous–which is impossible.

So that is a definition of merit that I think everyone can agree with.

FOR FURTHER READING:

• Which is the proper interpretation of the Eden situation?
• Works, Moses, Grace
• The Grace of the Law
• When Legal Stops Meaning Legal
• God has always been gracious in his covenants with humanity

Their faces were different in all ways but similar in one: They looked oddly incomplete, like pictures with holes for eyes or a jigsaw puzzle with a minor piece missing. it was the lack of desperation, Richards thought. No wolves howled in these bellies. These minds were not filled with rotted, crazed dreams or mad hopes.

These people were on the right side of the road, the side that faced the combination marina and country club they were just passing.

On the other side, the left, were the poor people. Red noses with burst veins. Flattened, sagging breasts. Stringy hair. White socks. Cold sores. Pimples. The blank and hanging mouths of idiocy…

Here on the right, folks, we have the summer people, Richards thought. Fat and sloppy but heavy with armor [i.e. police protection]. On the left, weighing in at only a hundred and thirty–but a scrappy contender with a mean and rolling eyeball–we have the Hungry Honkies. Theirs are the politics of starvation; they’d roll Christ himself for a pound of salami. Polarization comes to West Sticksville. Watch out for these two contenders, though. They don’t stay in the ring; they have a tendency to fight in the ten-dollar seats. Can we find a goat to hang up for both of them?

Slowly, rolling at thirty, Ben Richards passed between them.

Stephen King, originally writing as Richard Bachman, The Running Man, pages 223 & 224 (bold added).

Rene Girard is all over that book.

For more see:

Mark Horne » Blog Archive » Run, Freeman, Run.

State capitalism inevitably creates all sorts of problems which become insoluble; as Mises again has pointed out, one intervention into the system to try to solve problems only creates other problems, which then demand further interventions, etc., and so the whole process keeps snowballing until you have a completely collectivist, totalitarian system.

via A Future of Peace and Capitalism – Murray N. Rothbard – Mises Daily.

This reminds me of an interesting point on “greed” that cuts across the usual “Left-Right” continuum. I remember when Russell Kirk first launched the contemporary conservative movement in this country, in the mid-l950s. One of the leading young conservatives of that era addressed a rally, and opined that the whole trouble with the world, and the reason for the growth of the Left, is that everyone is “greedy,” the masses of Asia are “greedy,” and so on. Here was a person who owned half of Montana, attacking the mass of the world population, who were trying to rise above the subsistence level, to better their lot a bit. And yet they were “greedy.”

via A Future of Peace and Capitalism – Murray N. Rothbard – Mises Daily.

Former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said nine U.S. banks would have to accept $125 billion in government investments or be forced to by regulators, according to a memo prepared for a meeting with the lenders’ chief executive officers in October.

“If a capital infusion is not appealing, you should be aware that your regulator will require it in any circumstance,” the one-page list of talking points said. “We don’t believe it is tenable to opt out because doing so would leave you vulnerable and exposed.”

Mr. Paulson’s plan to invest directly in the banks was a shift for the Bush administration, which had proposed buying troubled assets with $700 billion Congress approved 10 days earlier. The memo was among Treasury Department documents providing details about the Oct. 13 meeting.

“Most Americans are going to be uncomfortable with the government forcing the banks into this arrangement,” said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, a nonprofit research group in Washington that obtained the documents under a Freedom of Information Act request. “This is, in many ways, thuggery.”

Andrew Williams, a spokesman for the Treasury, didn’t return calls seeking comment.

Banks worldwide have taken almost $1.5 trillion in writedowns and losses during the worst credit crisis since the Great Depression.

In his memo, Mr. Paulson said the government would buy preferred stock in the banks.

“Your nine firms represent a significant part of our financial system. Therefore, in our view, you must be central to any solution,” the memo said.

via Bankers Told By Paulson To Accept Aid Or Be ‘Vulnerable’ – The Philadelphia Bulletin Archives.

Until Paulson is condemned and punished in a court of law, this never goes away.

If I told you that you had to get all your shoes from one corporation and nowhere else. And that this would be OK because all the “customers” of this monopoly would be permitted to elect a new CEO every four years, you wouldn’t think that is a rational plan.

But it is totally rational to use roughly the same system to give a guy control of nuclear weapons and the military. That makes complete sense.

PS. Of course, you can’t do the two things the same way. But extolling democratic process as the key to good government and free society (that must be spread all over the world) seems questionable.