7/31/04:  Let's Back Up the Truck
     OK, I'm getting the message loud and clear: massive confusion over-load in blog land.  Perhaps this isn't even the medium in which to attempt to address these things, I don't know.  In talking with folks in channel and in person I am coming to the conclusion that I am obviously incapable of expressing point #1 on the topic of the myriad of issues regarding justification and imputation.  I take full responsibility and apologize if I have engendered confusion through a lack of clarity. 
     Just a couple things as I have little time this weekend: the most common source of confusion comes from people assuming that there is some coherent, consistent "group" out there against whom I am writing or reacting.  Wrong.  The sudden appearance in print and dialogue of a multitude of variations on a theme is creating quite a large amount of confusion, to be sure.  You have conservative denials of elements of what we thought  we all agreed on, and you have non-conservative denials as well.  Sometimes the conclusions look the same so people tend to commit a logical fallacy and assume that since the conclusions are similar the belief systems that spawned them must be the same.  Wrong.  Doesn't work that way.  Further, we face the problem of being exact: some are denying imputation en toto, some are denying only the active obedience of Christ in His incarnate life is part of the righteousness imputed to the believer.  Some of what I have said might be relevant to the entirety of a group's views at one point, but not another.  Please, do not read into my words anything that is not there to begin with.  If I'm reviewing Seifrid, I'm not reviewing Wright.  What I say about one may be relevant to the other, or it may not.  But a lot of the confusion is coming from assuming that what I say about viewpoint K is relevant to viewpoint T as well, etc. 
     So let me take some time to back up and define not only the different views (everyone wants to throw everything into one big pot, and that just doesn't work here), but define terms as well.  Evidently that is another major area of confusion.  Then maybe we can at the very least express our own position and why we believe it.
     One last comment.  I am not going to rush this.  We have a major conference coming up in November, but even then, that will not be the last word.  I truly believe this sudden onslaught of divergent opinions will, in the end, be good, even if it is difficult to work through now.  If we take a "long-term" view, we can see that the constant call to examine one's faith (often prompted by such controversies) results in a deepening of understanding when we hold firmly to God's revealed truth in the process.  So let's resist two of the common themes of our modern culture: first, the rush to deal with everything in a nanosecond, resulting in what might be best called "microwave theology," and secondly, to use Dr. Bahnsen's phrase, let us avoid the spirit that seeks detente rather than antithesis.  Balance is always key.

7/30/04:  The Abstract of Principles on Justification
     We noted a few days ago that the London Baptist Confession of Faith (LBCF) of 1689 very clearly asserts the unified righteousness of Christ.  What I mean by this phrase is that one cannot cut the righteousness of Christ our divine substitute into sub-parts while maintaining the whole: while everyone can and should distinguish between the active and passive obedience of Christ (obviously, His perfect life can be distinguished from his perfect death, but not separated therefrom), if our union with Christ by the electing decree of God is complete so that we have His unified righteousness not just a part of it.  Just as we must distinguish between the divine and the human in Christ, we are precluded by the unity of His person from dividing them up so as to make two persons.  The Incarnation creates one divine Person with two natures; likewise it produced one perfect righteousness which cannot be divided up into “that which only Christ has and the elect do not receive” and “the portion given to believers.”  There is no question of our union with Him in His death, but if our union is only in His death then whence is our life?  Does this not make our union with Christ an almost temporary addition rather than a true union?  So, when I speak of the unified righteousness of Christ, I am referring to His righteousness in the fulness expressed by the entirety of His incarnate life and death, echoing the emphasis found in Paul in the Carmen Christi:

And having entered into human existence,
He humbled Himself
     By becoming obedient to the point of death,
     Even the death one dies on a cross!

Is the obedience Christ showed up to the point of death irrelevant or unnecessary?   Or was it merely preparatory? 
     Well, we noted the LBCF affirms, explicitly, the unified righteousness of Christ as that which is imputed to the believer.  We have been looking at Mark Seifrid’s comments in his book, Christ, Our Righteousness.  Yes, Seifrid has made further comments on this issue in the newly released work, Justification: What's at Stake in the Current Debates (Husbands/Treier, IVP 2004), and we will get to those, but we have to start with the fuller treatment before discussing the follow-ups.  At one point Seifrid writes,

It is better to say with Paul that our righteousness is found, not in us, but in Christ crucified and risen.  The Westminster Confession (and that of my own institution) puts the matter nicely when it speaks of ‘receiving and resting on [Christ] and his righteousness by faith’.  (175)

 What caught my attention was the statement concerning the WCF and that of Seifrid’s own institution, that being Southern Seminary.  The doctrinal norm for Southern is the Abstract of Principles (see it here on the Southern Seminary website).  Here is what it says about justification:

Justification is God's gracious and full acquittal of sinners, who believe in Christ, from all sin, through the satisfaction that Christ has made; not for anything wrought in them or done by them; but on account of the obedience and satisfaction of Christ, they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith.

Now, did both the WCF and the Abstract have in mind the imputation of the unified righteousness of Christ (i.e., active and passive obedience)?  It surely seems to be the case.  The Westminster Longer Catechism says,

WLC 70  What is justification? A. Justification is an act of God's free grace unto sinners, in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faith alone.

And,

WLC 71  How is justification an act of God's free grace? A. Although Christ, by his obedience and death, did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to God's justice in the behalf of them that are justified, yet in as much as God accepteth the satisfaction from a surety, which he might have demanded of them and did provide this surety, his own only Son, imputing his righteousness to them, and requiring nothing of them for their justification but faith, which also is his gift, their justification is to them of free grace.

But in the case of the Abstract of Principles, we have the clear words of one of those most responsible for them.  James Petigru Boyce was one of the founding professors of Southern Seminary.  His Abstract of Systematic Theology (1887) is still a very useful resource.  He discusses justification in chapter 35.  There, on page 399, we read,

(b) Our justification is due also to the active obedience of Christ, and not to passive obedience only.

1.  Righteousness involves character, conduct and action, even more than suffering endured as penalty.  The sinlessness of Christ is therefore plainly taught, and especially in connection with imputation.  2 Cor. 5:21.

2.  The gracious salvation he brings is said to establish the law.

3.  He assures us, that he came to fulfill the law.  Matt. 5:17.

4.  The obedience of Christ is not only contrasted with the disobedience of Adam, but is declared to be the means by which many shall be made righteous.  Rom. 5:19.

It thus appears, that the ground of justification is the whole meritorious work of Christ.  Not his sufferings and death only, but his obedience to, and conformity with the divine law are involved in the justification, which is attained by the believer.  The question is here sometimes asked, how the active obedience of Christ can avail to us, when he was himself a man and under the law, and owed obedience personally on his own behalf.  The answer to this is twofold, in each case depending upon the doctrine of the incarnation of the Son of God.  On the one hand, the position was one voluntarily assumed by the Son of God.  He was under no obligation to become man.  He was not, and could not be made man without his own consent.  In thus voluntarily coming under the law, his obedience would have merit to secure all the blessings connected to the covenant, under which he assumed such relation.  But besides this, the fulfilment of the law would not simply be that fulfilment due by a mere man, which is all the law could demand of him on his own behalf, so that the merit secured is that due to the Son of God, thus as man rendering obedience to the law.  That merit is immeasurable and is available  for all for whom he was the substitute.

It seems, then, that what the Abstract of Principles meant by “receiving and resting on [Christ] and his righteousness by faith” was significantly fuller than Seifrid’s suggested understanding.

7/29/04:  Steve Camp on the Dividing Line Tonight!
     My good friend Steve Camp will be joining me on the DL this  evening.  Why, you might ask?  Well, we have three things to discuss: 1) The Phillips, Craig & Dean Controversy (can we abbreviate that as the PC&D-C?) 2) Justification and the decline of sound theology in evangelicalism  3) the upcoming cruise which will feature both Steve's music as well as his teaching.  So join us at 4PM PDT/7PM EDT on the Dividing Line (if you haven't listened before, click here) tonight.  There will not be anything on TV to be watching at that time, that's for sure.  Remember, our toll-free number to participate is 877-753-3341.

Today's Fractal (Click to See)
This is a simple 5th Order Newton M-set with the color tweaked out a good bit.  Looks like neon lights behind the alien mother ship.  :-)  Or something, like that, sorta...I will have to talk about fractals sometime.  Not only are they gorgeous, but I find some great theology in them as well. 

7/27/04:  An Interesting Expansion in the LBCF, 1689
     As I am continuing my commentary on Professor Seifrid's comments on justification (thought I had forgotten that, didn't you?), I was doing some reading and ran across an interesting "expansion" in the London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) that is not found in the Westminster Confession of Faith (1648).  Seemingly it comes from the Savoy Declaration, but I haven't had time to follow that out.  Compare the two statements in chapter Eleven, section 1, of each confession:

The expansion, as you can see, is most relevant to today's situation. Samuel Waldron in his wonderfully useful work, A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith wrote,

Paragraph 1 of the Confession enunciates the classic Protestant distinction between the active and passive obedience of Christ.  This distinction has been popularly understood to entail a division of Christ's work into two divisions or parts.  The perfect life of obedience to the law of God up to, but not including the cross, has been viewed as Christ's active obedience.  Such an understanding, however, has no biblical support.  The active and passive obedience of Christ are not two separate parts of Christ's work, but his one work looked at in two ways.  Philippians 2:8, for instance, describes Christ as "becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross'.  In many places the cross is viewed as the culminating activity in Christ's obedience to the Father's will (John 14:31; 15:10; Rom. 5:17-19; Heb. 5:8-9; 10:5-10).
     If there is no division of Christ's obedience into two separate parts in the Bible, why is this distinction necessary?  The answer is that we had a twofold need if we were to inherit eternal life.  We needed, firstly, the forgiveness of the guilt of our sins.  This is provided by Christ's passive obedience, his suffering the penalty of the law.  Secondly, we needed the gift of a positive righteousness. This is provided by Christ's active obedience, his obedience to the precepts of God's law and all the other dimensions of the preceptive will of the Father for him.

One can see why Reformed Baptists, especially, have no basis upon which to waffle on this point, at least confessionally.  What this has to do with our review of Seifrid's position will come out in our next installment. 

7/26/04:  Galatians 5 and Justification, Part 4

Gal. 5:3  And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.

Not only will Christ not allow himself to be joined to human self-righteousness, but the Apostle makes sure everyone understands that there is no such thing as partial righteousness in the law: one either follows the whole of the law (leading inevitably to condemnation) or one does not head down that path at all.  The path of grace is 180 degrees separated from the path of law: one cannot travel down both very far.  But again, if the error of the Judaizers in Galatia was, in fact, that they were denying Christ's role as suffering Messiah, and insisting upon fulfillment of the law as the means of righteousness, why would Paul speak as he does here?  Obviously, his opponents were not presenting a "pure law" perspective, but were instead, as we see by comparing the statements of verses two and three, presenting a synergistic combination of the work of Christ and the fulfillment of legal requirements.  Paul's point is simple: it is either one or the other, there can be no mixture.  If you choose the path of grace in Christ, you cannot join anything to that path; if you choose the path of legal fulfillment, you must stay that course.  Grace allows for no meritorious fulfillment of law, and law allows for no relaxation of its standards by grace.  The two are mutually exclusive concepts, as Paul makes clear. 

Gal. 5:4  You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

Once again the Apostle's words make sense only if we recognize what has come before: if these Judaizers had denied the centrality of the sacrifice of Christ and were simply promoting a works-fulfillment scheme, whether you see this as involving signs of national identity or works of meritorious righteousness in the law, Paul's words are nonsensical if they were not in fact speaking of the centrality of Christ and the necessity of grace.  He speaks of being severed from Christ: why would this matter to one who sees Christ as an auxiliary, secondary aspect?  Obviously, the Judaizers were claiming to be in Him, so that to be severed from Him would be a strong rebuke.  They were obviously likewise claiming to rely upon grace in some form, for if they were not, why tell them they were fallen from it?  When Paul speaks of those seeking to be justified by law, he is not repeating their own phraseology, he is giving his own evaluation of their synergistic joining of law fulfillment (circumcision) with their proclaimed faith in Christ.  Someone who would openly advocate legal fulfillment of the law as the means of a right standing before God would find Paul's rebuttal humorous, for it would only have impact upon someone claiming to be in Christ and to be dependent upon grace. 

Too Important to Scroll So Fast
     I've been hitting a lot of topics quickly this weekend, but one needs to stay "current" through Monday (when a lot of folks catch up on the blog).  That is the Phillips, Craig & Dean controversy.  If you didn't see it, here's the entire article.

Nothing More Amazing in Sport
     Between May 5, 1993, and November of 1998, I rode right at 29,000 miles on a bicycle.  I rode my first century race (100 plus miles) less than six months after starting, and finished in less than six hours.  At one point I owned a Bianchi ELOS with Campy Record components, and a Nishiki carbon fiber with Dura-ace components.  I had Campy Ventoux rims on the Bianchi.  In June of 1994 I did my longest solo ride, just under 126 miles, at an average speed of 19.2 mph, and in the summer of 1995 did a 24 mile run at an average speed of 25.67mph.  Why mention this?  Because anyone who has the foggiest idea what any of that means knows that what Lance Armstrong has done in winning six consecutive Tours (Le Tour de France) is without a doubt the most amazing sporting accomplishment of our generation.  For those who have never "bonked," or never ridden a hard grade for miles, or descended the other side above 40mph, or drafted, or pulled, or flatted at 24mph, or burned their legs to the core just to keep a 22mph avg. speed over a metric century, what Lance has done over the past six years just cannot seem all that special.  But for the cyclist (or in my case, the former cyclist turned weight lifter), hearing about time trials up l'Alpe d'Huez where he laps his closest competitor (8% grades are just shy of climbing a wall) or flat time trials where, after 18 stages in 22 days, including the Pyrenees and Alps, he holds a 31 mph pace for an hour and again crushes his closest opponents, or a sprint in which he goes to his top gear and catches Kloden at the line after a six hour run, I know what that takes, and it is simply amazing.  Even if he had not won his first Tour like 18 months after cancer treatment, what he has done would be utterly without parallel, but throw the cancer survival in, and you can't help but stare in awe.  I just pray God will be merciful and reveal to Lance the true source of his incredible gifts.

Who is Visiting Your Church This Sunday?
     Recently we have all heard about Barry Lynn’s group, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, seeking to silence pastors from preaching in the pulpit on the moral stands of candidates for political office (story/follow up) and our duties as citizens in light of the Lordship of Christ.  Our readers will remember that Lynn did not want the video of the debate between us on homosexuality distributed (a video in which he himself admitted in his closing statements he did not fare well), and threatened to sue us to keep people from seeing it. 
     Obviously, the thinking that underlies such radical left thinking (the local Democratic party supports the investigation requested by Lynn) should be clear:  in Lynn’s America “separation of church and state” has no connection whatsoever to what that phrase meant when Jefferson wrote it to a Baptist Church, seeking to assure them that the US Government would not establish an official Christian denomination so as to suppress their rights to gather and worship.  No indeed.  The original intent of the author of those words is, like the original intent of the writers of the Constitution in the halls of the courts of our land, a quaint but now utterly irrelevant fact of history.  Instead, in Lynn’s America, the church is bound and gagged, and the “separation” he longs for is much better described as “suppression.”  His desire is to see a completely secular government in which there is no room whatsoever for any consideration of religious morality or divine precept.  And given the inarguably Christian origins of the Constitution, his vision is nothing more than a complete overthrow of the intended form of government found therein.  Barry Lynn wants pastors to have to think, “Is there a spy in the congregation today?” not only before he might speak the name of a particular candidate, but even when he is in the study preparing a sermon.  “Should I speak on the value of human life?  But if I do, I must address abortion.  But what if we are sued?”  And, “I am addressing God’s right to define marriage.  But that means I must address homosexuality as well.  What if someone is in the congregation and they bring legal action?”  This is the America envisioned by the radical left in the US.

Today's Fractal (Click Image)

7/25/04:  Galatians 5 and Justification, Part 3

Gal. 5:2:  Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you.

Here is the outward manifestation of the yoke of slavery, circumcision.  But here we see clearly the relationship that is being missed by many today.  Why would Paul say to anyone, "Christ will be of no benefit to you" if, in fact, those he is warning are not claiming to believe in Christ and to rely upon Christ for salvation?  Some are asserting today that the error of the Judaizers in Galatia involved a complete rejection of Christ's atoning death; that in fact they were denying faith in Christ as important, and that they were not simply adding something to faith in Christ, but denying that Christ's death was relevant to their salvation en toto.  But not only is such a view almost without precedent in the exegesis of the text of Galatians itself, standing firmly against a wide realm of scholarly, conservative exegesis, but it simply has no meaningful basis in the text itself.  Obviously, the false teachers of chapter two were baptized individuals who had made an outward profession of faith (and who, in fact, obviously had been baptized upon that profession of faith).  There is no evidence whatsoever that they had renounced that profession.  Instead, they were seeking to enslave believers from inside the fellowship itself.  They were claiming that true faith in Christ included receiving circumcision.  They were claiming faith in Christ was vital and central, for obviously they believed they were receiving a "benefit" from Him.  Somehow they needed some profit, some advantage from Christ, that circumcision alone could not provide, and Christ, seemingly, provided it.  But Paul denies that there can be any benefit from Christ for one who joins to Christ anything, even something found in God's law, like circumcision.  Christ's work has done away with this, and Christ cannot, and will not, be joined in some synergistic fashion to the works of men.
     Notice as well that another argument that is often put forward falters upon consideration of the text.  Paul never directly refers to the false teachers in Galatia.  He talks about them, but he never addresses them directly.  He is speaking to the Galatians who are in danger of falling under their spell.  The conditionality of this verse bears this out.  "If you do this..., then this" is the form he uses.  They had not yet followed the Judaizers down that path, but they were being tempted to do so.  But this again substantiates what was said above: obviously the Judaizers were not saying "abandon your professed faith in Christ and become a Jew."  Nowhere do you have Paul offering the same kind of defense of the supremacy of Christ that you find in Hebrews, for example (where that was the very issue being faced).  Instead, obviously, these teachers were adding circumcision to a pre-existing claimed faith in Christ, as the context will bear out.  [continued in part 4]

7/24/04:  Today's Fractal (Click Image)

A Wise Voice from the Past (update below/further comments 7/25)
     I was rummaging through some old---and I do mean OLD---files yesterday looking for a letter, when I ran across some old Penpoints.  Penpoint was the monthly update from Dr. Greg Bahnsen of the SCCCS (Southern California Center for Christian Studies).  My eyes happened to fall upon the issue from just over a decade ago, June, 1994, which carried the title, "Highlighting the Reformation While Pondering a Supposed Protestant-Romanist 'Truce'".  Well, that sorta caught my attention, in light of what has happened since then.  I mean, seeing "Romanist" is enough to catch anyone's attention today.  The graphic on the front contained a quote from Calvin's Antidote to ... the Council of Trent (1547), which reads,

They contend that a Council cannot err....Whether the Spirit of God presided over the Council must be decided by this test: Did they condemn their own and their fathers' abominations, and turn to true repentance?...Let anyone who will compare our writings with theirs, and then let him turn his eye and survey the reality.  I say nothing more than that it will at once be plain how just our grounds  are for bewailing the destruction of the Church, and calling for the restitution of its fallen state....But when, falsely assuming the name of the Church, they seize upon the spoils of which they have robbed it, what else can else can we do but protest?"

Of course, I immediately had to chuckle in light of the rC's running about the landscape singing the praises of Mother Church.  So I started to read Dr. Bahnsen's comments, prompted by the publication of the first ECT document.  Here are some of the gems that only shine the brighter in light of what has taken place since he left this world:

The pledge to reduce theological infighting and aggressive proselytizing of one another surely breathes the spirit of our times -- a spirit of detente rather than antithesis, a spirit which accentuates commonality and cooperation, a spirit which seeks compromise rather than confrontation.  Representative of the response given by many Protestant laymen, a member of the First Baptist Church in Columbia, South Carolina, was quoted by the Associated Press as saying: "I'm not so narrow that I cannot accept the fact that there are other very good Christian people in other denominations  I think we're all working toward the same goal; we're just taking different routes to get there."

The spirit of our times indeed!  How that spirit has increased its audience and following in the past decade!  Now men who call themselves "Reformed" have not only imbibed that spirit but are actively promoting it as the hallmark of "Reformed" theology.  He continued:

Similarly, the Christian Research Institute recently assessed Romanism to be a Christian denomination, not a body which -- to use the words of the Westminster Confession -- has "so degenerated as to become no church of Christ." Within the past decade we have even seen a few Presbyterian ministers willing to go over to the Roman Catholic communion. Are we really just taking different routes to the same goal after all?

This was written before my first encounters with Roman Catholic apologists on BAM, back when Norman Geisler and others were writing for the Journal and providing a view of Rome significantly less robust than is proper.  The ministers to which Dr. Bahnsen referred include Scott Hahn and Gerry Matatics.  Indeed, less than two years prior to this Dr. Bahnsen had contacted me and asked me to take his place in debating Matatics in Omaha, Nebraska, due to a schedule conflict (which I did).  Dr. Bahnsen continued:

The signers of the recently unveiled peace treaty confessed "our sins against the unity that Christ intends for all his disciples" and called for trust of one another, rather than continuing suspicion. Indeed, in attempting to evangelize members of the other group, explained Charles Colson, it would actually be wrong for an Evangelical to criticize the Roman Catholic church (and vice verse). But are we truly one?

Are we truly one?  Well, rC's say we are due to our trinitarian baptism.  Bahnsen didn't believe that.   This audio proves it.

The Reformers also realized that, in their devotion to the Lord Jesus Christ who had saved them by His grace as declared in the gospel, they had to beware of grievous wolves among the flock of Christ who, speaking perverse things, would draw away the disciples (Acts 20:29). Out of love for the Lord and for the Lord's people, they were compelled to "mark those who cause divisions... contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and turn aside from them" (Rom. 16:17). Those who preach "another gospel," a message which perverts the good news declared by the Apostles, must be deemed "accursed," not as brothers in the true faith (Gal. 1:7-9). Their love for Christ caused them to "contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3).

Hmm, where have I heard that before?  Oh, yes, that's right...right here, at aomin.org, and on the Dividing Line.  :-)

Accordingly the Reformers warned God's people against the soul-destroying errors of Rome. To take but one crucial illustration (of many which could be mentioned): consider the Romanist error of taking justification to be God's making a person just by inner spiritual renewal, infusing him with righteousness -- thus confounding justification and sanctification. The Council of Trent (1547) declared that "in new birth there is bestowed upon them... the grace whereby they are made just."

Goodness, it does seem Greg Bahnsen believed not only in the imputed righteousness of Christ, but he seemed to believe the Bible was clear enough, perspicuous enough, to actually communicate that belief to us with enough force and power for us to say "This is the truth, its denial is an error."  Ah, the good old days when Reformed folks were focused on the gospel and actually believed the Word spoke with power...!  I sure don't see the rC's speaking like this, do you?

The Reformers likewise renounced the Roman Catholic idea that man's will can "cooperate toward disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of justification" (to use the words of Trent) -- which implies synergism, rather than salvation by grace alone.

Synergism?  Condemned?  And...and...it looks like Dr. Bahnsen knew what Warfield was talking about after all!  Sola gratia can't be applied to Rome's sacerdotalism!  Goodness!    
     Well, running across this somewhat yellowing Penpoint from more than a decade ago was actually very encouraging to me, it really was.  It reminds me that these struggles are all under the sovereign hand of God, and He is still on His throne.  He brought Greg Bahnsen safely home, and He will see us through as well.

Update:  l0g0s Takes Exception
     Within a few hours after posting these words from Greg Bahnsen, l0g0s came unglued on his blog.  How dare I quote Bahnsen's own words directly on the subject of the Roman Catholic Church, and those who would prefer "a spirit of detente rather than antithesis"!  How dare I post his own voice taking the opposite position of the rC's, or quote him directly contradicting their own viewpoints!  How anachronistic of me!  How could Bahnsen have been truly aware of the glories of Mother Rome only ten years ago, before the great modern blog-driven rC movement showed us all the way?  That would be like quoting Warfield and saying...oh, wait, nix that idea.
     The simple fact is, Bahnsen did not view Rome as "Mother."  He referred to "Romanists," opposed ECT, debated Matatics (I do not recall him attempting to grab Mr. Matatics by his baptism, either), and denied the very thing rC's promote with the fervor of an Amway salesman: let me quote him directly, those who preach another gospel (and he said Rome was doing so) do so "not as brothers in the true faith."  Not.  That's an English word meaning, "not."  Not brothers.  As in, not.  Really.  Not brothers.  That should not be read as "true brothers, but not, sorta," but "not brothers." 
     If the rC's have the courage of their convictions they will do what they must do: they have said I am wrong to say everything Greg Bahnsen said about Rome.  Now, will they just have the temerity to come out openly and say, "Bahnsen, too, was wrong.  He cooperated too closely with Baptists, and hence was part of the problem, just like those Presbyterians who cooperate with Baptists today.  He clearly refused to give Mother Church the deference and honor she is due, so as to bring the blessings of God."  Or is there division in the rC camp?

And briefly...
In the comments section on l0g0s' blog a number of folks (including Roman Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong) have taken him to task for asserting the citations offered above are "out of context."  l0g0s has been utterly unable to back up his claims outside of saying Bahnsen and I would not have agreed on other subjects, a glowing canard to anyone familiar with logical argumentation.  The fact is, Bahnsen said about Rome then what I say about Rome today.  He did not call l0g0s to debate Gerry Matatics in 1992, less than 18 months prior to writing the quoted article--he called me.  I believe today about Rome what I believed then.  And in the greatest of ironies, l0g0s has been reduced to saying that I should make biblical arguments rather than quoting Bahnsen.  Well goodness, it never crossed my mind....  I'll have to try that. 

Jimmy Akin Says "Yeah, OK, That was Goofy, But..."
     Someone came in channel last night and gave me the URL to a brief article by Jimmy Akin where, finally, after many years, he addresses the error he made in attempting to explain away John 6:37-44 in our debate.  I had noted this, yet again, in my blog entries for 5/1 and 5/2/04.  Here it is.  I quote the most interesting part:

When I looked up that passage and compared what I wrote with the Greek text, my response was to ask, “What the heck was I thinking? That analysis is unsupportable! That translation is horrendous! I would never accept something like that from one of my Greek students. Was I severely sleep deprived when I wrote that or something?”

I'll take that as an acknowledgement of the propriety of my response.  However, of course, he couldn't let it stand that simply: though we are not told what the passage does mean (and since this was central to his position in our only moderated debate, does that mean...?), we are told that I made other errors (that do not get named), but the article ends with the assertion that I made a mistake about the passage in describing the present and aorist tenses.  Of course, Akin is correct that there are punctiliar presents and non-punctiliar aorists (it is a matter of syntax and lexical meaning); however, I was referring to the Johannine usage in Drawn by the Father, and the application I made is quite correct.  So I guess if the best Akin can come up with (he claims to be teaching Greek now: I'd be interested in knowing more about that) is that he feels my comments were too broad, yet properly applied in the text, while admitting that his entire explanation of John 6:37 and 44 was....wacked, well, that's not too bad. 

7/23/04:  The Phillips, Craig & Dean Controversy Revisited…Again
     It comes up every few years.  Ever since I noted something that had appeared in Charisma magazine regarding the singing group Phillips, Craig, and Dean, namely, that they are ministers in Oneness or non-Trinitarian churches, in the context of writing an article on loving the Trinity, we have received inquiries, and once in a while, disturbingly accusatory correspondence regarding the issue.  It seems PC&D’s management is quick to claim that 1) PC&D believe “in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” and 2) their critics (me, by name), have never contacted them and are simply wrong.
     First, one will note that the article I wrote for CRI contained footnotes that, at the time, provided accurate links to the websites of the relevant churches, providing direct citations from their statements of faith regarding the issue at hand.  Of course, it requires that a person have an understanding of both Trinitarian theology and Oneness teaching to be able to detect the terminological issues (one of the main problems in having concert promoters assuring churches about theological issues), but for anyone who actually knows the subject, the information was quite plain.  [too long for the blog: continued here]

Shaking of the Head: Volume MCLXXI
     Lessons learned this AM: 
     Respond to one rC, and another will say you are misrepresenting him.  Lesson: rC's are allowed to differ, but you aren't allowed to criticize.
     rC's can go ballistic and lose all balance on rC blogs, without rebuke (at least, public rebuke).
     If you say, "This position trumps soteriology with sacramentalism" rC's will say, "No, you are wrong, sacramentalism trumps soteriology."
     You can repeat the WCF word-for-word on election, predestination, justification, and the atonement, and not be Reformed; but you can deny what the WCF says on all those things (as Rome does) and still it is better to be in a Roman church than a Reformed Baptist one (yeah, sorry, unless you take over the reigns of government and drown us for being heretics, we aren't going away). 
     Also, it seems very important to some rC's to affirm that the Apostles Creed is somehow a sufficient summary of the gospel.  If that is so, why do we have Romans?  Galatians?  Of course it is not a sufficient summary of the gospel for all purposes.  That is like asking, "Isn't the abstract of an article sufficient for all purposes?"  If it was, you would not need to bother with the rest of the article, would you?  Indeed, if one were to press this issue, would it not follow that there would be no need for any further creedal statements?  Wasn't the Apostles Creed enough for the Arians?  Of course, we all know the Arians could affirm that confession, since it was not designed to refute their errors.  Hence the need for greater clarity on the nature of the gospel itself, and yes, even the dreaded (it seems, from the language of the rC's, anyway) solas. 
     And I will gladly affirm and state openly: if you do not believe that your sole standing before the throne of the Holy God is the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ which is yours by faith and faith alone without a stitch of human merit (even that claimed to be prompted by grace!) then you are no more Reformed than the Pope in Rome. 

Another Neat Fractal
     I had over a thousand visits to one of my fractal pages last week after I noted one I had made a few days ago (I'm making fractal backgrounds to go with various Object Desktop Suites I have on my system).  Here is one of today's efforts.  I've added it to the same page but I have a previous page of my older fractals that you can access here.  If you like colorful backgrounds for your desktop, well, so do I.  :-)

Get Your Own Term: Reformed Is Taken
     As our kind readers have undoubtedly noticed of late, I am spending a lot of time thinking about, and responding to, those who have decided that to be Reformed no longer means we have a clear, compelling knowledge of the gospel itself. While these men continue to call themselves "Reformed," some cannot even any longer affirm the imputation of Christ's righteousness, or the forensic nature of justification, as part and parcel of the gospel. It is hardly surprising, then, that the other issues most associated with "Reformed theology" (TULIP, for example), are hardly on the radar screen. It seems fairly obvious that if you can't give a clear definition of what justification is or is not, that it follows that you are probably not in a good position to argue for particular redemption, as an example. Indeed, many of the arguments used within the various modern counter-reformation movements so strongly undercut the clarity and perspicuity of Scripture (resulting, inevitably, in the diminishment of its ultimate authority and the need to look to some kind of "tradition") that one wonders how one holding those views can consistently argue for almost any distinctive theological position. Of course, the key word there is "consistently."
     Of course, those who seek to hi-jack the term "Reformed" while moving so far from its heart and soul reject the phrase "counter-reformation." They selectively pull quotes from sources so as to make it appear they have a leg to stand on, when, in fact, it is painfully obvious that the Reformation brought clarity to the gospel. How anyone who seeks to deny that clarity can even desire to use the term is truly beyond me. Let them get their own term. This one is taken. :-)
     What happens when the gospel no longer defines the faith? Here is a glowing example from Dr. Paul Owen:

What I am saying is that Evangelicalism appears to be on the verge of collapse, and I suspect that one of the reasons God is not blessing us is because we have contributed to the schism of Christendom in our words and deeds. I include Presbyterians in this charge, because we have thrown our lot in with the children of the Radical Reformation who call the shots in our Evangelical culture. The best thing Presbyterians could do is to begin to distance themselves from cultural Evangelicalism, and return to their Reformational Catholic roots. If we do that, maybe God will bless us again. I guess I am calling upon Reformed people to come out from the midst of the Evangelical Babylon (Rev. 18:4-5).

In the article that prompted this comment, Owen had indicated that the ease with which some Presbyterians get along with Baptists is evidence of a problem in the church. Hence, "Evangelicalism" = Baptists = Anabaptist radicals, at least in his thinking. He has likewise said he would rather counsel a person to attend a Roman Catholic parish than a Baptist Church. Obviously, then, Rome's gospel, for Paul Owen, is not only just as valid as that preached in a Baptist Church, but more so (unless he is fully consistent and it really doesn't matter what is preached soteriologically in a church, as long as it is Trinitarian).
     Consider for a moment what this means. While the London Baptist Confession of Faith is almost word-for-word identical to the WCF on soteriological issues, for some reason (related, as we have seen often, to sacramental theories), it is better to be in a place where you are taught that the death of Christ is re-presented in the "sacrifice of the altar"; where men who claim to be an "alter Christus" via sacramental ordination disseminate God's grace and forgiveness through a penitential system including the concept of priestly confession; where justification and sanctification are made one so that one can grow in justification, or lose that justification, depending upon one's actions; where one is taught to pray for, and to, the dead, to seek indulgences, pray for Mary's mediation, and fear the spectre of a future purgatorial cleansing. Does this not strike the reader as just a bit odd?
     And yet, once you replace the centrality of the gospel with the centrality of sacramentalism and tradition, this kind of thinking makes perfect sense.  And this is what we are facing today.

7/22/04:  Galatians 5 and Justification, Part 2
     In the midst of the battle the text of Scripture suffers at the hands of those who seek to mold it to their theology.  Recently Paul’s words in Galatians 5 have suffered egregiously.  Let’s remind ourselves of what Paul actually said:

Galatians 5:1 It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love. You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth?

Before moving on, how did the citation end?  “You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth?”  Whatever Paul is saying, it is about the truth.  His opponents in Galatia (Paul never addresses them directly) are seeking to pervert the gospel: that is his direct statement (1:7).  They did not just have a “different tradition,” they had a different gospel.  Oh, sure, they wanted it to look like the real thing, and they used the same terminology, but they twisted the message so as to bring men under their spiritual power and control.  But it is the nature of this perversion that is at stake in the current discussions.  But keep in mind that for Paul, this was not a matter of opinion; it was not a matter of being open to a wider variety of views.  It was a matter of truth; truth that was to be obeyed, and falsehood that hindered that obedience.

Verse 1
It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.

 To what does Paul refer?  How have we been set free by Christ?  Some today suggest that this is only in reference to freedom from symbols of Jewish nationalism, but surely this is but a small portion of the truth.  The key is found in the phrase "subject again to a yoke of slavery."  We know what Paul is referring to because he already explained himself.  Recall Galatians 2:4-5:

But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage. 5 But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you.

The language of liberty, bondage, yielding in subjection, etc., are all directly related to our text in Gal. 5:1.  These false teachers were seeking to bring believers into bondage, and this bondage is somehow directly related to the truth of the gospel (note the parallel to 5:7) and to the work of Christ.  Christ "set us free" so that we might have freedom.  Freedom from what?  Nationalism?  Or all concepts of merit and works righteousness?  Unlike those who refuse to hear the Scriptures in fully defining their view of the Judaism that forms the background of Paul's writings (Sanders, Dunn, Wright), the Jews, by Paul's own testimony, did believe their actions in accordance with God's law were relevant to their standing before God.  By focusing the entire work of God in salvation in Christ, God has cut off all grounds of boasting, making faith, and faith alone, the instrument by which one stands righteous before God.  To be subject once again, through circumcision, to the law is to be under a "yoke of slavery."  Christ set us free; our freedom is precious, and we are to "keep standing firm" for it is the consistent effort of unregenerate men to seek to enslave men to religious systems of falsehood and merit.  [continued]

7/21/04:  You Have to Read It, To Believe It.
     Don't blame me.  I didn't write it.

Galatians 5 and Justification, Part 1
     Every generation is called to “agonize” for the “once for all delivered to the saints faith” (Jude 3), and ours is no exception.  Indeed, it seems like those who wish to obscure the clarity of the gospel have become “legion” indeed in our day.  No text of Holy Writ, no matter how clear or compelling, and no matter how often discussed in the history of sound theology, is beyond “reconsideration” and “adjustment.”
     The battles over justification and especially the issue of the various new perspectives and their resultant redefinition of the gospel itself are raging far and wide.  In the midst of this we likewise have the phenomenon of “Reformed Catholicism,” which really is nothing new—every generation experiences it.  But the fact that the battles have been fought before cannot keep us from seeing that, for our day and our generation, we must fight them again.  But these battles are often most distasteful.  The redefinition of terms, sophistry, and claims of “scholarly acumen” are endless.  As John Owen once commented in a similar situation:

Now it is no easy task to state just what the actual viewpoint of these men is on the value and perfection of the Bible. Not only do they contradict each other, and all babble on most foolishly and spitefully in explaining their own thoughts and opinions, but also they, to a man, play and toy with words and their meanings and definitions, and they invent totally new and unheard-of expressions in order to impress or overawe unlearned men. The result is that there is little left as a residue of firm meaning which a sound intellect might grapple with. It is far easier to overthrow their opinions than to understand them in the first place! In fact, once the layers of tricks and deceit are peeled away, and the remainder is set forth in plain daylight and unoramented, then it will at once be seen to be so shameful, so disgraceful, as to be immediately self-destructive in the minds of any who are not equally incorrigibly wicked themselves! This is because their teachings are deliberately stitched and patched together so as to deceive. They can mean either anything at all, or nothing at all, at will, and their whole skill and art lies in speaking so laboriously and convolutedly as to prevent all possibility of the accident of being understood! John Owen, Biblical Theology, trans. Stephen P. Westcott (Morgan: Soli Deo Gloria Publications), 1994, pp. 821-822.

 Indeed, I could not help but gasp as I read the response offered by one “Reformed Catholic” who is very, very concerned that everyone know how insightful and scholarly he is to the documentation offered him concerning Warfield’s view of Rome’s sacralism.  The rC thinks that sola gratia can be stretched to cover any system that says, “Anything we do is prompted by grace.”  Hence, as long as you say grace is necessary, then you believe in sola gratia.  Of course, I have said for many years that the issue at the Reformation, and today, has never been the necessity of grace (who outside of the most hardened Pelagian thinks otherwise?), but the sufficiency thereof.  Even Joseph Smith paid lip-service to grace (2 Nephi 25:23), but would anyone seriously argue that the Mormon concept can qualify as sola gratia?  Evidently, some can.  (Of course, that same rC believes it better to be in a Roman parish than a Baptist church, takes the fact that some Presbyterians can get along with Baptists as evidence of a problem in the body of Christ, and suggests that deference and honor for Rome as our “Mother” will bring God’s blessing).  [continued]

7/20/04:  Just a Few More Days
     Mike O'Fallon tells me we have been able to extend the super low rates on our cruise through August 8th, if they are paid in full up front.  Remember, this still costs less than visiting a theme park for a week, and though the thrill of a roller coaster is not included, this has far better food, and something called sound theology and teaching as well as Christian fellowship. 

l0g0s Provides Crippling Reply!
     Upon reading l0g0s' denial that the gospel itself is included in the truth vouchsafed to the Church and protected by the Spirit on his blog, my comments on today's DL, and the blog entry below, I knew an in-depth response would be forthcoming.  Well, here it is:

Listen to the latest Dividing Line by James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries as he continues to elaborate on just how wrong my take of 2 John 1-7 is.

Yeah, go ahead, click the link.  It's so cute!  Shall we see or hear a meaningful defense of his assertion that the truth of the gospel will not abide with the church?  Will we hear a re-adjustment of his claims so that maybe at least a part of the gospel (let me guess--baptism--but surely not justification or anything that could be prefixed with the term "sola") can be protected and said to be part of the truth that will abide with us?  Who knows? 

T.A. McMahon and Tim Staples
     I was forwarded a commentary from T.A. McMahon (Dave Hunt's co-laborer) in which he wrote,

Mary has played a key role in the conversion to Catholicism of some of that Church's leading apologists such as former Reformed theologian Tim Staples and Scott Hahn, a graduate of the evangelical Gordon-Conwell Seminary and former Presbyterian minister.

Just a correction for brother McMahon: Tim Staples was an Assemblies of God youth minister, not a "Reformed theologian."  In fact, Mr. Staples' knowledge of Reformed theology is pretty much nil.  Staples said, in his tape series "Infallibility vs. Impeccability" from St. Joseph Communications, Tape 1, second  side, "You do have some Protestants who tend toward that sort of schizophrenic understanding of the human person. You know,  it's not me that sins, its my body. If you have ever heard of the hyper-Calvinist movement, or the once-saved, always saved  people that will say, 'Oh, I'm saved, my body, over there, just messes up, but I'm fine.' <laughs> You know, that's NOT biblical folks, there's no biblical thing for that, it's a misinterpretation of Romans chapter 7, but that's another story...."  So perhaps McMahon meant "Reformed theologian" to refer to Hahn alone?  It is hard to say. 

Jason Wallace on Mormonism
     Our great friend Jason Wallace, OPC pastor up in Salt Lake, and the master-mind behind the debates we have done up there over the past number of years, has an article in the current OPC magazine.  Here's the URL. 

NEWS FLASH!  VITALLY IMPORTANT REVELATION PROVIDED TODAY!  MUST READ!
     If you are one of those who thought that the self-glorifying work of the Trinity, the Father, Son, and Spirit, in redeeming a people to the praise of His glorious grace through the gospel, was part of the truth of God that He has promised to safe-guard to His people throughout the pilgrimage of the church on earth, you have been deceived.  Yes, if you had been fooled into believing in the coherence of the Triune work of God in the gospel, so that the promise of 2 John 2 that the truth would abide in us forever includes the truth of the gospel itself, you can now abandon that ecumenically-stultifying concept, embrace all the various models of justification out there (just make sure you don't claim any particular one is actually true), and embrace as your brothers in the Lord anyone who has experienced a trinitarian baptism no matter what they believe about the gospel itself.  This soul-freeing revelation (which will result in a tremendous renewal of ecumenical activity and the writing of books and seminars and social gatherings and the printing of t-shirts with quotes from folks like Chesterton and de Sales) came about just today as l0g0s informed us:

The truth is not an idea about how we are justified, the truth here in 2nd John is the "the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning". The truth is all-encompassing. It is the person of Christ, his abiding in us and remaining with us forever--it is the commandment to love and to obey just as we have always been taught. Not anything new. Not anything about the imputed righteousness of Christ as defined by Luther and others some fifteen hundred years later. Only the work of God in Christ through His Holy Spirit to recognize who Christ is, what He has done, and how he continues to work in our lives. That is expressed in living a life of loving one another, not in properly confessing our belief in the doctrines of sola this and that. The gospel includes doctrine but it is not only doctrine and the "teaching" of 2 John referenced here is quite clearly the teaching about who Christ is, not something like forensic justification.

So there you have it, folks.  The truth that abides in the church by the Spirit can be sliced and diced, cut up into various parts; if it is Christological or Trinitarian truth, well, that's clear, perspicuous, and unquestionable.  But, if it is soteriological truth, even regarding the very heart of the gospel itself, it is not included in that truth protected by the Spirit of God in the church.  Those generations of people who believed God would protect the truth of the gospel were simply benighted souls who were living in a fantasy: and if they had just embraced the objectivity of the covenant and trinitarian baptism, they would have understood this. 
     Just for clarity, anyone reading my comments below (which prompted the above citation) knows I was simply stating the promise of God that His truth would abide in the Church, no matter how often controversies rack her and call us to the defense of the once-for-all-delivered-to-the-saints-faith.  I did not suggest that John was addressing forensic justification: I did, and do, suggest that the truth that is safeguarded by the Spirit in the church did, does, and always will, include that truth, however, for it is a biblical truth, and without it, you are left with nothing but man's religion stapled to a bad caricature of the Christian faith.  And for those wondering why there is so much discussion of the "Federal Vision" or "New Perspectivism," here you have an excellent example, for our author is deeply influenced by both.

7/19/04:  Warfield and Rome on Sola Gratia
     Here is a glowing example of "common sense reading of the language" trumps "I'm a scholar and I decree it to be so" on the topic of sola gratia.  [click here]  If you can read Warfield's full presentation and say, "Oh, yeah, he was surely affirming that Rome believes in sola gratia" then once again we prove that for some folks language and context just doesn't have a lot of meaning.  One thing is for sure: when I say sola gratia I do not mean what rC's mean: I mean grace alone, grace at the start, grace to the end, grace in the middle, grace without fail, grace without mixture, grace without addition, grace that allows no boasting, grace that precludes all glorying but in the Lord.  But that is not what Rome teaches, and all the twisting and sophistry of rC's and others cannot change that simple fact.

A&O's Index Prohibitorum
     For some reason l0g0s hopped back on the "rip and shred on Reformed folks" bandwagon today (I haven't the foggiest what prompted it this time---perhaps the fractal below looks too...Calvinistic or something?  Maybe it is "promote your local Anglican Day"?).  In any case, he launched off:

The reason I ask is because C.S. Lewis--that master writer and theologian among the Anglicans--believed in purgatory and prayers for the dead! That obviously means he denied at least one or two of the sacrosanct solas! Sola gratia no more! Anyone who prays for the dead is obviously outside the bounds of Reformed orthodoxy!

Now, I don't know, but do those sound like the words of one who finds sola gratia and sola fide to be a passionate expression of the truth?  I could see reading that kind of sarcasm on Dave Armstrong's blog, I suppose...but then again, this is the same blog that still quotes Chesterton and de Sales, so I guess it fits.  I'm sorry, but I find both concepts deeply offensive.  I do not find such things to be worthy material for such humor.  I will explain more below, for l0g0s' continued comments lay a great foundation:

I guess this means all of his books go on the Alpha & Omega Ministries Banned Books List--a list that from beginning to end is filled with heretical turned-to-and-fro wind of doctrine wishy-washyness (don't forget to include the relevant videos as well!). I mean, after all, if we can't see some idea of sola gratia in Roman Catholic doctrine (even though Benjamin Warfield had no problem seeing it) we certainly can't see it in these clear statements by C.S. Lewis:

Before we bring Lewis' comments to the bar of God's Word, I can only assume that by demonstrating de Sales' hatred of the truth that we have, by default, created this fictional index prohibitorum.  Outside of that past discussion, I cannot imagine the context of this odd statement.  But I am quite thankful A&O is known for speaking clearly on matters of truth, and for standing firmly for the only meaningful definition of sola gratia one can produce, one that rejects the admixture of human merit and sacerdotalism (to use Warfield's term).  Speaking of that, the link l0g0s inserted was the one that prompted the full refutation linked above regarding Warfield.  Now, what did Lewis say that l0g0s finds so wonderful and insightful?

Our souls demand Purgatory, don't they? Would it not break the heart if God said to us, "It is true, my son, that your breath smells and your rags drip with mud and slime, but we are charitable here and no one will upbraid you with these things, nor draw away from you. Enter into the joy"? Should we not reply, "With submission, sir, and if there is no objection, I'd rather be cleaned first." "It may hurt, you know"--"Even so, sir."

I assume that the process of purification will normally involve suffering. Partly from tradition; partly because most real good that has been done in this life has involved it. But I don't think suffering is the purpose of the purgation. I can well believe that people neither much worse nor much better than I will suffer less than I or more. "No nonsense about merit." The treatment given will be the one required, whether it hurts little or much.  (C.S. Lewis, Letters to Malcolm, Chiefly on Prayer, pp. 108-109)

Do our souls demand purgatory?  If you deny the imputation of the righteousness of Christ so that we stand in a righteousness of our own making, yes, of course it does.  That's why Rome teaches it.  And I suppose if you don't believe in that kind of thing anymore, then you would have no problem with such words, especially when they are clothed in the greatness of a name like Lewis.  But, if by some chance, your heart beats for that truth because you have had that soul-shattering experience of realizing your utter bankruptcy, your utter corruption, and the impossibility that anything you do could ever be added to what Christ has done, then you cannot help but recoil at such doctrines as purgatory and its associated beliefs.  Evidently Lewis did not understand his standing before God and its perfect ground; perhaps he did not understand Hebrews chapter ten and its glorious proclamation that Christ, by His offering, wrought perfection.  That is a shame.  We surely do not want to follow him in such an error, one you could hope came from ignorance and tradition.  It is nice to note Lewis rejected the concept of merit (Rome, however, does not....but she still believes in sola gratia, right?  Hardly!); but that only slightly ameliorates the fundamental error in his thinking. 
     Of course, one is once again left wondering why anyone who would even bother to use the term "Reformed" of themselves in any fashion would delight in such doctrines of purgatory or prayers for the dead, or even make reference to such beliefs as evidence of how "broad" one is in one's ecumenism.  I wonder, would l0g0s likewise show this broad spirit in embracing T.D. Jakes' modalism?  If not, why not?  What makes Trinitarian theology sacrosanct while the gospel is placed on the "negotiables" list?  Is there any logical or rational reason why someone who can find purgatory so unoffensive so as to quote the above from Lewis could not likewise rejoice at seeing Pinnock's openness to Mormon scholarship on the doctrine of God as well?  Let's all be so open minded!
     In days like these, it is good to be reminded....

The elder to the chosen lady and her children, whom I love in truth; and not only I, but also all who know the truth, for the sake of the truth which abides in us and will be with us forever: (2 John 1-2)

I rejoice in God's promise: His people will always have His truth with them, even when that truth comes under attack from all sides.

I Love Mistakes
     I was indulging my love of creating fractal art when I messed up saving a file; I set the size too large, and in the process "zoomed in" on one part of an image while saving it.  And the result was considerably nicer than what I had tried to save in the first place.  Don't you love when that happens?  This little jpeg hardly does it justice (it's 1280x1024 in real life).  The real thing makes a really cool background.  I've added it to one of my fractal collections. 

7/18/04:  Broken Arrow!
     “We Were Soldiers” is one of the best films on the Vietnam war, starring Mel Gibson as Colonel Hal Moore.  It is the story of the first great encounter between American troops and the regular army of North Vietnam, a battle that took place in November, 1965 in the Ia Drang Valley.  At one point the American forces were being overwhelmed by vastly superior numbers.  In the real battle, Lieutenant Charlie Hastings, forward air controller, sent out the call “Broken Arrow,” a code-word meaning an American position was in danger of being over-run.  This brought every American aircraft in the theater to the rescue.  In the film they had Hal Moore (Gibson) make the call, with stunning special effects coming soon thereafter.  What made the situation tremendously difficult was that once the lines were entangled, it becomes next to impossible to tell, from the air, who is friend, and who is foe.  Friendly fire incidents skyrocket.
     That is the theological situation today.  As you survey the battlefield you are tempted to give the “Broken Arrow!” code, for it is next to impossible to tell where the “lines” are anymore, and who is friend, and who is foe.  What’s worse, the folks you thought  were on your side earlier in the battle have now turned their guns your direction, and the fire is coming in hot and heavy.
     Want an example?  There is a book review on the F.A.R.M.S. website (F.A.R.M.S. is the primary LDS apologetics organization based at BYU) written by David Paulsen and Matthew Fisher (click here).  It is a review of Clark Pinnock’s Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God’s Openness published by Baker/Paternoster (yes, that Baker).  It will hardly surprise our fine readers that Mormon scholars are overjoyed to be joined by the likes of Pinnock in claiming the historic doctrines of the Christian faith regarding God’s omniscience, omnipresence, and most especially, His immutability and perfection, are actually Greek perversions of the “biblical model.”  As we noted earlier on this blog, Pinnock and others joined LDS scholars in Utah this Spring to discuss their respective theologies.  As the book review noted:

Pinnock has opened the door for Latter-day Saints and openness thinkers to engage in cooperative work. In a cordial letter to David Paulsen, Pinnock recently wrote: "Your work has gotten me interested in knowing more about the 'Mormon/evangelical dialogue,' how to measure it and even how to bridge it. Are we (in your opinion) co-belligerents as it were in the struggle against pagan influences in classical theism? Can we benefit each other? My sense is that we are closer to each other than process theists are to either of us. . . . Clearly we have much in common. I have always hoped with respect to your faith that Mormon thinking might draw closer to Christian thinking (or ours to yours) and not drift farther away."

 Ponder for a moment that last line in light of the foundational nature of such things as monotheism and God’s eternal nature, and note as well that this review began with the quotation of Joseph Smith,

It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for
a certainty the Character of God.

Ironically, as most of our readers know, that’s not where Joseph Smith ended that statement.  What he said more fully was:

"It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible.”

     Those who know Mormonism know the King Follett Funeral Discourse quite well, and hence to see Pinnock, once a mainstream evangelical, and still one allowed membership in the Evangelical Theological Society and allowed a voice as an “evangelical,” speaking in such a fashion to one who would believe as Joseph Smith did in that sermon is truly an amazing testimony.  But it is a testimony to the utter apostasy of Clark Pinnock, the utter lack of discernment of modern evangelicalism, and the fact that on a battlefield where “Broken Arrow!” is crackling over the radio waves with regularity, it is good to remember that unlike the fallible pilots of the USAF who turned the tide that day in the Ia Drang Valley, our Commander in Chief is infallible, and He knows perfectly well His own.  We need not fear any friendly fire in the battle for the “once for all delivered to the saints faith.”

7/14/04:  Rome Believes in Sola Gratia?  Only When You Think Like a Reformed Catholic
     I have suggested often over the past nearly decade and a half that whenever you hear a starry-eyed Protestant talking about Rome's high view of grace, that the single best means of bringing them back down to earth and reality (if they are open to truth, anyway) is to get them to read Indulgentiarum Doctrina, the Apostolic Constitution on the Revision of Indulgences from January 1, 1967.  Few things illustrate the simple fact that anyone who thinks Rome believes in sola gratia either 1) does not know what the phrase means, or 2) is simply ignorant of the facts.  If you can read that document and say, "Yes, well, that means that Roman Catholics do not teach that we can derive righteousness from any other source but the grace of God found in Jesus Christ alone" then your idea of the very meaning of grace and its exclusivity in Christ is very, very different than mine.

7/13/04:  On the Road Again...Literally
     Did you know it is 827 miles from the Dollar rental car location near Sky Harbor Airport in Phoenix to Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary in Mill Valley, California?  What a trip.  Long story, I won't go into it.  It did put me way behind in proofing the galleys of Scripure Alone, but hopefully I'll get caught up.  I am staying in the faculty complex this time, and you have to love the view of the Bay.  And it gets so cool at night (50s) that I sorta wish this was a two week class instead of a one-week version, since the monsoon has hit Phoenix and it is...well, the Chamber of Commerce asks us not to honestly tell folks what it is like in Phoenix right now.  I may be unable to blog much while teaching up here, but we will see.  Proofing comes first so we can get this book out in October. 

7/12/04:  Cultural Decay
     The stories about the debauchery of the New York fund raiser for Democratic candidates Kerry and Edwards are all over the net (not nearly as much on televised sources). Combine that with this story and you simply have to wonder.

7/11/04:  Continuing Review of Mark Seifrid's Views on the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness
     I have been examining the claims of Southern Seminary professor Mark Seifrid from his book, Christ, Our Righteousness, wherein he claims the Protestant belief in the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is an “addition” to Paul’s teaching on the subject of justification that is without basis in the text itself, and that, in fact, such a belief is in error.  I had not commented on the entirety of the last quotation, so I repeat it:

Likewise, the further distinction which some Protestants made between the imputation of Christ’s active righteousness (in fulfilling the law) and his passive obedience (in dying on the cross) is unnecessary and misleading. This view, too, arose from a failure to grasp that Christ’s work represents the prolepsis of the final judgment and the entrance of the age to come.’ His ‘passive obedience’ was the fulfilment of the law which condemned us! In Christ and in hope, the triumph over sin and death is ours here and now. Yet it is not ours: we possess it only in faith. In this way, and only in this way, the grace of God and the demand for obedience meet. In reducing ‘justification’ to a present possession of ‘Christ’s imputed righteousness’, Protestant divines inadvertently bruised the nerve which runs between justification and obedience (175).

 I have provided my exegesis of Romans 4:4-8, which clearly indicates the propriety of speaking of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.  I likewise raised the issue, presented in 4:6-8, of how Paul say the forgiveness of sins in the LXX citation in the positive light of the imputation of righteousness as well, a vitally important fact.  Seifrid goes on in the above citation to join the many today (from those writing on the basis of some facet of the “new perspectives” on Paul, to some New Covenant writers, to some dispensationalists) who find the imputed righteousness of Christ, and especially that aspect of that doctrine that sees a positive nature of the fulfillment of God’s law in Christ as part of that righteousness, to involve a fundamental “failure” on the part of later Protestant dogmaticians.  Why does the positive righteousness of Christ as the One to whom the people of God are joined in union involve any fundamental denial of “the prolepsis of the final judgment and the entrance of the age to come”?  We are not told.  Seeing the certainty of the final judgment and our vindication because of Christ does not change the fact that we continue to live in this “present evil age” and as such need to have a foundation upon which to stand in grace.  Is the “peace” we have with God, having been justified by faith, created merely by the pondering of the future and final vindication?  Or is it grounded in the forensic nature of the verdict of justification, seen so powerfully in Romans 8:31ff? 
     What is Seifrid’s point in saying Christ’s “passive obedience” was the fulfillment of the law which condemned us?  While that is quite true, how does this substantiate the assertion being made?  “In Christ and in hope, the triumph over sin and death is ours here and now.”  Quite true again, but the issue is how is it ours here and now, and not merely in view of a future, eschatological vindication?  Why can’t that triumph be seen in the fact that in the here and now I stand clothed in the perfect, seamless robe of Christ’s righteousness?  Evidently because, if that righteousness is imputed to us, then it is “ours,” but then it would not be of faith.  “Yet it is not ours: we possess it only in faith.”  If by this is only meant “it is not intrinsically ours but only by faith” then yes, of course; but if it means “it cannot be imputed to me the believer because it must only be by faith” then surely not.  Why would true, saving faith exclude the imputation of Christ’s righteousness?  We are not told.  Evidently it has something to do with the assertion, “In this way, and only in this way, the grace of God and the demand for obedience meet.”  Once again it is hard not to start seeing a style of “covenant nomism” lurking in the shadows.  Demand for obedience on the part of whom, the Savior (He fulfilled the demand!) or the sinner (100% failure rate)?  The grace of God and the demand for obedience are, in fact, perfectly fulfilled in refusing to separate (not distinguish, which we must, but separate) the righteousness of Christ into separate categories so as to be able to deny one aspect of it (His positive righteousness) and reduce justification to a synonym for forgiveness.  But this is exactly where Seifrid is going: “In reducing ‘justification’ to a present possession of ‘Christ’s imputed righteousness’, Protestant divines inadvertently bruised the nerve which runs between justification and obedience.”  Why?  Again, we are not told.  Is it being suggested that if we indeed possess, by imputation, the righteousness of Christ, that we will not obey?  Does it then follow that full justification is held out as a goal to be obtained only upon conditions of fulfilled obedience?  Surely not.  So how does providing the perfect ground of peace with God do anything other than ground our obedience firmly in the realm of grace, thanksgiving, and appreciation?  Indeed, without the imputed righteousness of Christ, what is the ground for one’s obedience to God?  Again, we are not told.  But it is surely something to be considered when a professor at Southern Seminary, viewed by many as a Reformed school, would publish a work in which the imputed righteousness of Christ (and I will argue later this is exactly what is intended by the statement of faith of Southern Seminary) is identified as an “addition” to the biblical message, one that “bruises” the nerve that runs between justification and obedience (whatever that means, specifically), and is in fact a simple error.  Indeed, the next section we will examine begins, “It is not so much wrong to use the expression ‘the imputed righteousness of Christ’ as it is deficient.” 
     I confess, reading this coming from “inside” the camp makes one feel very much like Mel Gibson’s character in We Were Soldiers when he sent out the “broken arrow” notification: the lines had collapsed and it was no longer possible to tell friend from foe.  However, carrying that analogy out a bit, they won the battle anyway.  It was just a struggle (Jude 3-4).  To be continued….

7/10/04:  Offices Closed Next Week
     I will be teaching in Mill Valley and Rich Pierce will be on vacation (I looked that word up: what a fascinating concept!), so the offices of A&O will be closed for a week.  That also means the next Dividing Line will be Tuesday, July 20th. 

More in Response to Southern Seminary Professor's Denial of Imputed Righteousness
     I continue examining the claims of Southern Seminary professor Mark Seifrid on the issue of justification and the imputed righteousness of Christ.  Seifrid writes,

By virtue of their extrinsic character and finality, Christ’s cross and resurrection exclude the notions of an inherent righteousness and progress in justification which Protestant divines were concerned to avoid. As a result, there is no need to multiply entities within ‘justification’, as Protestant orthodoxy did when it added the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the forgiveness of sins (175).

While I would agree that the cross and the resurrection are extrinsic and final, the issue is how that external act interfaces with me, the believer.  Rome has had many years to find ways of connecting the extrinsic and final to the internal and incomplete (it is highly doubtful Dr. Seifrid has ever listened to Scott Hahn spin Hebrews’ testimony to the finality of the crucifixion), and the mere observation that the cross and resurrection are final and extrinsic does not even begin to speak to the sacramentalism Rome has imposed upon the message.  Such a dismissal of Rome’s theology, while it may be based upon a true observation, shows little interaction with those who most aggressively promote it. 
     But more problematic is the assertion that, in essence, the theology of the Westminster Confession, the London Baptist Confession, etc., is guilty of “multiply(ing) entities within justification,” with specific reference to “adding” the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the forgiveness of sins.  One could wish these words were not being written “within the camp,” but such is the situation we face today.  It is important to clearly understand what is being said here.  The belief that justification is a full, rich term that, due to the truth of the union of the elect with Christ in His death includes the imputation of the very righteousness of Christ (positively and negatively, as we will see later) to the believer as the grounds of their relationship through life to God, the grounds of the peace we have with Him by faith (Romans 5:1), is here styled an addition to the biblical truth, which seemingly is that justification is the forgiveness of sins alone and not the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.  It is hard to know how to read this without understanding it to be clearly saying that the concept of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is an unbiblical addition without support in the text of Scripture.  This is exactly what Seifrid is saying:

When Paul speaks of ‘justification’ as the forgiveness of sins, he has in view the whole of justification, the resurrection from the dead, not merely an erasure of our failures which must be supplemented by an ‘imputed’ righteousness (Rom. 4:6-8, 25). Likewise, the further distinction which some Protestants made between the imputation of Christ’s active righteousness (in fulfilling the law) and his passive obedience (in dying on the cross) is unnecessary and misleading. This view, too, arose from a failure to grasp that Christ’s work represents the prolepsis of the final judgment and the entrance of the age to come.’

But does Paul only speak of justification as the forgiveness of sins?  Surely not!  And the passage that is cited militates directly against Seifrid’s position!  As the text is far too large for a blog entry, I here offer as an excursus the exegesis of Romans 4:4-8 that appears in The God Who Justifies. 
     To summarize, there is most clearly in these verses a plain teaching of the concept of imputation that is not a Protestant “addition” to the forgiveness of sins, but is part and parcel of the rich work of Christ envisioned in the biblical text itself.  We must reject Seifrid’s mischaracterization of both the biblical evidence and the theology of the Reformation.
    I will continue my response to Seifrid’s position in future blog entries.

7/9/04:  Dr. Seifrid on Imputation
     As the implications of the major shift in sections of academia regarding the history and background of the New Testament, and in particular, regarding the proper reading of Paul and the specifics of his conflict with the Jews, filters down out of the ethereal realms into the pulpits and therefore into the churches (aka, the various “new perspectives” on Paul, those of Sanders, Dunn, and especially NT Wright), responses from a number of authors are appearing not so much on book shelves in the “mainstream” but on book listings in the more academic quarters.  Among the small (but growing) number of responses interacting with the entrance of the general “New Perspectives” viewpoint into the conservative mainstream is Mark Seifrid’s 2000 book, Christ, Our Righteousness, a part of the New Studies in Biblical Theology series.  Seifrid is a professor at Southern Seminary who did his doctoral work at Princeton.  The editor of the series is D.A. Carson.
     Many are recommending this as a “response” to NPism, but the book ends with a troubling section that seems to hand the case back to Wright and others on one of the most important areas of dispute: does the biblical doctrine of justification involve the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the believer?  Is this the ground of the peace we have with God (Romans 5:1), or is this a traditional extrapolation without foundation in the text itself?  Seifrid’s comments are troubling to many:

It is fair to say that something of the ‘Christ-centred’ understanding of justification which Luther and Calvin grasped was lost in subsequent Protestant thought, where justification came to be defined in terms of the believer and not in terms of Christ. It is worth observing that Paul never speaks of Christ’s righteousness as imputed to believers, as became standard in Protestantism (173-174).

At first glance one is taken aback by such a statement.  It is surely common place for “subsequent” generations to be accused of adding to or taking away from the thought of earlier generations, and surely there is a natural “formalization” process that may or may not produce a more balanced viewpoint of any particular theological formulation.  But I find it hard to understand how a recognition of the centrality of the divine act of justification in the life of the believer (this is the realm in which we all encounter the work of Christ, is it not, on the most personal, self-shattering level?) is tantamount to defining justification “in terms of the believer and not in terms of Christ” (emphasis added).  Must not justification be defined first and foremost as the divine action of the Father based upon the work of the Son?  But how can the term be understood aright without recognizing that it is God’s intention to justify the ungodly through Christ’s work?  And given the constant temptation of man to insert himself into the work of God, is it not natural that we would have to defend the truth at that very point?  I cannot follow Seifrid’s perspective at this point.  What is more, what is the purpose of the final sentence?  If by stating this we are saying nothing more than what is said when we say, “The creedal formulation of the Trinity does not appear in those exact words in Scripture,” then surely no one can argue otherwise.  But that does not seem to be the intention here, in light of what comes after.

The common Protestant formulation of justification as the ‘non­imputation of sin and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness’ is understandable as a way of setting forth justification as a forensic reality, in distinction from the Tridentine claim that an infused, imparted or inherent righteousness had to be added to the grace of forgiveness. It nevertheless treats the justifying verdict of God as an immediate and isolated gift. The justification of the believer is thereby separated from the justification of God in his wrath against us. Salvation is then portioned out, so that one possesses it piecemeal. It is held together as a series of ideas (justification, sanctification, glorification), rather than being grasped — by faith — as the comprehensive act of God in Christ. The insistence that the sanctification of the believer always accompanies justification does not fully overcome this deficiency. Indeed, Protestant confessions sometimes take on the appearance of unreality at this point because they speak of believers in themselves.* Once one shifts away from Paul’s frame of reference in Christ to one located in the believer, the continuing demand of faith, hope and love is obscured (174-175).

One is again left wondering at the assertion that the recognition of the fundamental error of Rome regarding the nature of justification, and emphasizing those elements of the truth denied by Rome, results in justification being treated “as an immediate and isolated gift.”  Immediate, yes, in the sense that Paul himself places justification as a past tense reality that brings peace with God (Romans 5:1), but why would this require it to be “isolated”?  When we focus upon the proclamation or defense of the deity of Christ, does this mean we are viewing that truth in isolation from all the other truths of the Trinity?  Surely not.  So unless we are going to adopt the methodology of many in academia today that involves, in essence, a post-modern rejection of the propriety or usefulness of systematic theology, upon what basis are we to accept this assertion that to view justification in the “imputation/non-imputation” (forced upon us, we do believe, by Paul’s own argumentation) is to make it “isolated” from all other divine truths?  Why is God’s justification in His wrath against us “separated” from the justification of the believing sinner whose sins are imputed to Christ and Christ’s righteousness imputed to him?  We are not told.  Is it wrong to see justification as a rich, full, divine truth that is placed like the perfect diamond at the center of the entire work of God in Jesus Christ?  If so, why?  Why do we have to flatten out the doctrine just to do “justice” to one aspect or another?
     I confess I do not understand why Dr. Seifrid says salvation is “portioned out” in historic Protestant theology.  Is the recognition of various aspects of soteriology wrong?  If the Word differentiates between, for example, differing uses of “sanctify,” should we not as well?  If a false teacher introduces a novelty into the church’s teaching on the means by which God glorifies Himself in the salvation of His people, are we precluded from correctly relating the relationship between elements of that work, such as calling, justification, sanctification, and glorification?  Did not the Apostle Paul himself write,

Romans 8:29-30   29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;  30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

Did Paul fail to grasp the “comprehensive act of God in Christ” by distinguishing these divine actions?  Surely not.  So why one must abandon the recognition of distinct elements in the work of God in Christ so as to hold only to a “comprehensive act of God in Christ” is not explained.  A hint as to the reasoning is found in the assertion that the constant, consistent insistence of Reformed theology that those who are justified will also be sanctified “does not fully overcome this deficiency.”  That is, even in the old systematic schemes of the modern era there was clearly a self-professed cohesion, a consistency that showed that in fact the over-all “comprehensive act of God in Christ” was not being overlooked, even if in the heat of battle the beauty of the forest might be obscured by the individual trees.
            Next we are told that some confessions (the specific citation given is to the Heidelberg Catechism, Answer to Question 60) “take on the appearance of unreality at this point because they speak of believers in themselves.”  The citation given is, “God ... imputes to me the perfect satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ, as if I had never committed nor had any sin, and had myself accomplished all the obedience which Christ has fulfilled for me.”  Again, it hardly seems fair to the framers of the catechism to think that they were contemplating this separately from the over-arching work of God in Christ.  Is there no place for the believer to consider the interface of that glorious work and my own personal standing before God?  Has anyone ever suggested, in the history of Protestant thought, that such a divine truth should be separated from its Christological foundations and made a truth unto itself, focused solely upon the believer?  Surely not.  Whether the catechism’s statement is true should not be evaluated as to whether it carries the proper “emphasis” as interpreted by a particular scholar, but whether it reflects the reality of biblical teaching.  And I believe firmly that it does.
     We can appreciate the need to exhort believers to “faith, hope, and love,” but it is once again hard to understand what he means by “demand” and why we must believe that to properly recognize that I am the object of Christ’s work of redemption in a personal fashion (not individualistically, as if separated from the people of God, but personally, as a whole person, united with Christ, justified, forgiven, adopted) is to in some way lose focus upon the centrality and glory of Christ in redemption. 
     As time allows, I wish to continue reviewing these comments and considering this form or presentation which questions, and ultimately rejects, the Reformed teaching on the imputation of the righteousness of Jesus Christ.

7/8/04:  Irrelevant RB's
     Odd how some folks say, "He's so mean, he's picking on me!" while lobbing bombs right and left.  So let it be.  RS posted only his e-mails to me on his blog (along with an apology---how odd to both post his personal e-mails, with their attendant materials, at the same time).  Reading his summaries of my e-mails is simply frightening, it really is.  But fascinating, too.  Since he has now posted it in his own words, I can now repeat one of his lines I found very interesting---I almost said something about it, but didn't, publicly, at the time.  But since it is out there now:

You are obviously concerned to fight for tradition. Great. Go have that fight. We won't join you. Reformed Baptists are becoming so irrelevant that who cares?!

I noted Mr. Schläpfer does not say "some Reformed Baptists" but instead uses a very generic term.  I had pondered this assertion often since it was first sent to me by Rob on June 10th.  I reject, of course, that I am fighting for tradition.  I reject Wright's exegesis of 2 Cor. 5:21.  I'm not sure who "we" is, but that sounds rather magisterial.  But all of that comes back to this claim that Reformed Baptists, as a group, are "becoming so irrelevant" that RS and whoever he claims to be representing doesn't even need to care (though subsequent events have indicated otherwise).  What does this mean?
     I suspect that "irrelevant" here means "not keeping up with the changes in the culture so as to look increasingly odd and peculiar."  That is quite true.  Then again, I suspect the early Christians looked pretty odd in their day.  Silly people, eschewing the cultural norms around them so as to live in holiness of life; refusing the sexual promiscuity of their day, the rampant homosexuality (even preaching against it!), the abandonment of children (the nutty Christians even took the kids in); they even dressed modestly and controlled their tongues!  I guess in that way we RB's are definitely "irrelevant."  Our services do not seek to pander to the whims of men; they do not seek to obscure the plain and clear proclamation of the truth with all sorts of trappings.  We tend to be very focused upon the ministry of the Word.  Quite out of step, we know, with all the major "trends" in "Christendom."  Goodness, we still sing stuff like "How Sweet and Aweful is the Place" and "Hallelujah, Praise Jehovah!"  You really have to trust the Spirit to build a church like that. 
     Well, as I said, I did find the claim of "irrelevance" quite fascinating.  I don't think it is the first time that allegation has been made in such a context, and it won't be the last.  Eternity will tell.

Oh, and one other thing...I was way, way off...like somewhere in the bullrushes of Egypt...in my thinking about RS' age.  He's about four years older than I am.  Again, we had barely communicated, so I simply had no idea.  I assumed DR and associated organizations/ websites represented young (well, younger) Reformed folks (you know, Calvinists) and that we were "on the same page" so to speak.  Mea culpa for having completely missed the boat on the age issue, and on the page issue. 

7/7/04:  The Newness of the New Covenant in the RBTR
     The genitive of the decalogue (don't ask, it's secret) let me know today that a partial portion of my article on the New Covenant has been posted at the RBTR website.  There is still time to subscribe (can you tell I really would like to see this publication take off?), not just for yourself, but for your elders, too!  This article will appear in two parts, the first half in the edition about to be mailed (1:2) and the second in the edition slated for January (2:1).  Here are all the samples, not just mine.  I would like to suggest that just as we Reformed Baptists have benefited greatly from the writings of our Presbyterian brothers over the years, our more conservative Presbyterian brothers might find benefit in obtaining and reading the RBTR as well.  As they say, "iron sharpens iron," etc. 

Rob Schläpfer and Discerning Reader
     I was just sent the following note by a participant in #prosapologian and I want to clarify things which seem to be going out of control.  The correspondence reads:

We still recommend James' books, Curt. BUt this is something James has prosecuted... not us. We took him off the front page of our site, at least temporarily, because he is going around telling people that we have abandoned the faith. Until he chills, it is hard for us to justify (no pun intended) placing his work in such a prominent place.

Please note that you will not find any mention of any issues with James White on our various Web offerings. I only made some comments on my (very) private blog page because I have been featured on the front page of A&O for the past week. And that was so I did not have to respond to each threatening email I have gotten.

As I posted there . . . we'd like to move on. As Paul says, "All things are ours . . . " whether James Wight or Tom Wright, discerning readers should look at the issues themselves and THEN make up there own minds.

James has a right to his opinions. But, in my estimation, he is merely being divisive.

rob schlapfer
the discerning reader
http://www.discerningreader.com

Factual response:
     1)  I was removed from the recommended author list weeks before I said anything publicly concerning Rob Schläpfer's e-mails and his personal attacks therein.  Hence, the first paragraph above is simply untrue and shows a serious lack of perspective.
     2)  We have not "prosecuted" anything.  I have never said "don't buy from DR" or anything of the kind.  We have simply noted RS's stand which he publicly posted on his own web-board (before shutting it down) and his own blog (he sent me the URL to it just so I'd know).  We are the ones getting all the people contacting us going, "What on earth happened?"  Mr. Schläpfer chose to take what had been a private correspondence and put the insults he had sent my way in the public realm (I do not believe anyone has any problem seeing that paralleling me to Dave Hunt's misrepresentations of Calvinism is meant to be a personal insult).  When he did so, I contacted him privately and asked him to refrain.  He replied by using the same language documented below.  I still refrained from going public with it.  Then, when I blogged the topic of last Thursday's DL, and he again chose to take the initiative and contact me with an insulting e-mail, I finally replied publicly.  One of us showed much restraint, one did not.  And if I have to post every single e-mail that has gone back and forth to prove these facts, I will do so. 
     3)  The blog entry below is dated four days ago, not a week ago.  I have sent no threatening e-mails, and though I have no idea what "threatening" indicates (I assume he means people threatening to take their business elsewhere), I have not encouraged anyone in such behavior, and would not do so. 
     4)  I have no idea how it is divisive to address NT Wright; yet, when I did just that (and Mr. Schläpfer has yet to show me he has even fairly listened to last Thursday's program, let alone the comments I made on Tuesday), Mr. Schläpfer chose to write to me as documented below.  That is not divisive?  Let's be clear here: Wright is saying that no one on either side of the Reformation had a clue as to the real issues regarding justification, and hence both sides are deeply in error.  This is not a minor issue.  It impacts the very nature and proclamation of the gospel itself.  I believe Wright's formulations produce a monochromatic, unidimensional view of justification that is not nearly robust or full enough to answer to the biblical revelation.  I truly believe that in the not-too-distant future many who today are all excited about Wright will see these facts and his viewpoint will fade into the theological history books.  But we cannot just sit by and wait for that to happen.  A person who is passionate about the gospel does not sit by while the heart of that truth is under attack, if even by someone who professes to be its biggest champion.
     As I wrote this, Rob Schläpfer wrote to myself and Rich Pierce, the President of A&O, and apologized for the use of language he has utilized and defended.  He likewise added these corrections:

For the record, I have never "loved" the Reformed faith. I am grateful for its profound influence. But I do not "love" it and never have. My position has been quite clear on the Web since 1999.

I do not defend the Reformed Faith as the Biblical faith. I defend it from the likes of those who would willingly distort it (like Dave Hunt). All distortions of others' views should be avoided in my book.

I do not fully understand the sentiment expressed here.  I love the Reformed faith because I believe it to be the Biblical faith.  If it is not the Biblical faith, it should not be loved.  Forgive my rather black and white thinking, but how else can it be viewed?  But I stand corrected, for I had assumed, wrongly, that Rob loved the Reformed faith.  Evidently, he had held to very different views before this happened, and hence my comments on that issue were incorrect, and I stand corrected therein.
     Mr. Schläpfer has said in a couple of his e-mails, "This is not about you, James."  I agree.  Nor is it about you, Rob.  It is about the gospel, about exegesis, about the Reformation, about apologetics.  It is about the message of the church, about eternal verities.  If you choose to be a proponent of a viewpoint that involves the direct, bald denial of the heart of the gospel's message about how I stand clothed in the righteousness of Christ, that is your choice: I am not being divisive to say, "No, that is untrue, and here is why."  So I invite Mr. Schläpfer to get about his work, and I'll stay focused on mine, and let's leave all the personal observations about others to the peanut gallery.  :-)

7/6/04:  IPCONFIG/RENEW  "What do you mean you can't find the DHCP server???"
     I love computers.  But I hate computers.  Know what I mean?  When they work, they are a joy.  When they don't, they simply drive me nuts.  I really lose a lot of progress in sanctification when a machine that should act in a precise and logical fashion seemingly doesn't.  But anyway, I managed to beat the network problem after a lot of work.  And now that I know far more about Windows networking than I ever wanted to know, I realize that I probably will not have to use that knowledge again for such a long period of time that either 1) I will forget it by then, or 2) technology will have advanced and left me in the dust anyway.  I am so thankful we will not have computers in heaven.

Dividing Line on Wright, Schläpfer, and some phone calls.  Catch the archive here.

7/3/04:  I Sure am Glad Mary Has NO Idea This Kind of Stuff Happens in Her Name
     Pro-Abortion Catholics Seek Mary's Intercession

Wright's Fans "Respond"
     Thursday night I spent about 35 to 40 minutes discussing a particular lecture by Tom Wright, bishop of Durham, author extraordinaire.  Those who actually listened know that it was sort of a basic introduction, since many are not familiar with Wright and his books.  I mean, I sat here and just went through some major titles from the past decade or so, gave a little bit of background, and then most of what I did involved reading Wright himself and making some very brief comments as we went along.  During those comments I mentioned the fact that many before me have noted the difficulty of nailing down a very specific definition of where Wright stands on specific issues since, quite simply, he at times says "yes" and at times says "no."  And I noted that Wright's most vocal supporters and promoters are quick to say, "You simply misunderstand him," seemingly as if you have to be a fan to fully enter into the discussion or gain the proper amount of "enlightenment."
     Predictably, one particularly vocal proponent sent us an e-mail criticizing me for not understanding Wright's epistemology.  I was expecting that one, actually, since my comments at that point included material from a discussion with a leading scholar regarding a forthcoming book on that very subject.  I appreciated, at least, the fact that the writer was irenic, in general, in his criticisms, but those criticisms were almost "template" like as I have seen them coming from devotees of Wright's theological position.
     As I walked into my office this morning to do a quick check of my e-mail, however, I noted that my mail program was displaying a little icon next to one of my e-mails which indicates it might contain strong or offensive language.  My eyes traveled over to the "from" column, and I knew why.  Here's the e-mail:

"Today's Dividing Line Will be Live at 7pm EDT
     Topic: Ruminations on N.T. Wright (aka, "Tom" to those who love and adore him so!).  Just a quote to warm you up:

God forgive us, within modernity, when often we as Christians thought that the way to use the Bible to address the world was to abstract large chunky doctrines from the Bible and hurl them at the heads of people who believed large chunky modernist doctrines. You have to deconstruct the Bible in order to do that. Much better to let the Bible be what it is, which is a story, and stories are far more subversive and damaging to other alternative worldviews than large chunky doctrines ever were, which are basically shorthand versions of stories."

There's just no other word for it, James. You are an ass.

rob schläpfer
The Christian Counterculture Project
http://www.christiancounterculture.org

Now, someone might question the wisdom of posting this e-mail.  If I had not already encouraged Mr. Schläpfer to repent and look to his language and attitude, I would not let others see in the open what he does in secret.  But this is not the first e-mail like this I have gotten from him.  Since my preceding attempts have been ignored, and he insists, over the name and URL of his ministry, to behave in such a fashion, I think others need to be aware of it.  Up until barely a month ago I thought Schläpfer was a really neat guy.  I didn't know him well.  We had only exchanged e-mails, but I had no reason to suspect that he engaged in such behavior.  At one point he had even offered to help webcast the Dividing Line (which was very encouraging), and he and the others at The Discerning Reader had always been kind to me, and even posted a great picture of me on my motorcycle on the page that featured my books.  Indeed, around Christmas I even received a gift certificate to their bookstore (I was not completely certain who sent it, but I assumed it was from him).  But then in late May I received an e-mail from him recommending I use Wright's materials to prepare for the debate against Doug Wilson in November.  I wrote back indicating that such would not be possible since I disagree so strongly with Wright on his formulations regarding dikaiosune theou and many other related issues.  Well, my breath was taken away at the speed at which I went from "recommended author" and good buddy to a bumbling writer who is worthy of personal insult.  There was no transition period.  There was no discussion.  Wright is right, anyone who says otherwise is wrong, ignorant, unlearned, etc. and etc.  And, if you do not accept that instantaneous condemnation, you are...well, you can read the above for yourself.  When Mr. Schläpfer first used that line, I invited him to repent and to seek the assistance of his elders.  Evidently, my admonishment went unheeded.
     One will note this morning's e-mail is not exactly intended to be a compelling argument.  I have yet to receive from Schläpfer such compelling arguments.  When I sought to raise particular issues, such as Wright's interpretation of 2 Cor. 5:21, I received nothing but insults and condescension in response, no exegesis.  When I referred him to the work of someone like J. Ligon Duncan (such as this article), he dismissed such sources without offering the first word of interaction or rebuttal.  Wright is right.  It is axiomatic.
     It is possible that the other folks at Discerning Reader and christiancounterculture.org do not stand with Schläpfer in his views and his behavior.  I sure hope so.  I have sent many folks their direction over the years.  At one point Schläpfer said he intended to overhaul the website so as to make available the full spectrum of Wright's materials, which I could only interpret to mean he intends to use his full weight to promote New Perspectivism, in whatever form that most pleases him, via those ministry websites.  The truly discerning reader would want to know that.
     I continue to pray for Rob.  I have given him the best direction I can, not on the Wright issue, but on how he treats folks he once promoted and applauded and appreciated who labor in the ministry.  I somehow do not think Tom Wright would appreciate Schläpfer's approach, either.  Maybe someone else, who has not already been dismissed as, well, as irrelevant, can give him counsel?  Let's hope so.

7/2/04:  How to Rip Folks off for $15
     I can't believe this.  I was told yesterday that "Lou Rugg--as he is known in that pit of despond, that concentrated mass of theological ignorance called PalTalk ("Don't have anything meaningful to say?  Come on over!")---has been playing an edited version of our "debate" (talk about using a term loosely) in various rooms in PalTalk.  Evidently he has inserted his own commentary into the discussion.  Folks, it was bad enough the first time around ("Proverbs 1:29!  That refutes you!  Ha!"), but when you have to edit it and insert your own commentary, well, how about just tattooing your forehead with a huge "L"?  (At least that would do double duty, I guess).  But what is utterly amazing is Lou is selling the CD of his edited version for $15 on his website!  I could see him giving folks $5 to take the CDs off his hands, but asking people to give him $15 for that debacle is simply reprehensible (let alone downright hilarious).  Another "can you believe that" story for the old archives.  Oh, btw, if you'd like to hear the actual debate, without post-mortem commentary, and for free, please, let us save you $15....click here.

Update, Update, Update!
     Only an hour or so after posting the story on the imaging of pre-born children below, Pastor John Samson, affectionately known as SillyBrit2, dropped me a story from London on the impact those images have had in causing folks to rethink abortion laws (!!!).  It also contained the link to the on-line videos themselves.  Here they are.  Enjoy, and share with our many fellow citizens who have been completely brain-washed by the pro-abortion industry.  Oh, and here's the story John sent me.  Update on the Update: here are more of the videos available on line, thanks Steve (and everyone else who sent me URL's).

A Must Read
     If you have ever wondered how it is conservatives are told they can't address issues of "politics" while liberals can stand in certain churches with impunity, you are not alone.  Here is a must-read article on the continued efforts to deny free speech based upon conservative religious belief.

If the Womb Had a Window, Abortion Would End
     I do not remember where I read that about fifteen years ago or more, but in essence, the womb now has a window, and I saw the impact of it just yesterday.  I happened to be grabbing a bite to eat and flipped on the telly (my way of keeping our British readers happy).  "Good Day Live" was on out of Los Angeles.  They were talking about the new three-dimensional imaging abilities that have given us views of the developing child in the womb that are simply beyond words, children smiling and yawning and doing all those human things that "blobs of protoplasm" just don't do, and that at twelve weeks (most abortions take place around ten weeks).  When they came back to the panel, the male host (sorry, I don't pay attention to names very much in those contexts) blew me away by saying, "I've always been pro-choice in my views, but images like that really make you wonder."  And one of the female co-hosts then dropped the bomb, "That doesn't look like a choice to me, that looks like a child."  She even mentioned she had been reading the Bible lately!  I about choked with joy.  Abortion is so utterly indefensible in the face of basic facts and human reason, its sycophants must survive by keeping those facts in the darkness.  Jimmy Akin had linked to the web version of the story about the imaging technology, but I have not been able to find the source they used that actually had the video I saw on the television.  In any case, it was fascinating to see the instant impact of these images upon folks who otherwise are so perfectly attuned to the Hollywood/left wing agenda.  Let's hope more of these images become available so that we can spread them around.  Can you imagine the not too distant future?  Your baby videos will start with incredibly clear images at twelve weeks development!  Amazing.

7/1/04:  Eric Svendsen Replies to Paul Owen
     Eric Svendsen has replied to comments by Paul Owen on Galatians 5:2.  I would still like to find time to interact with Owen's claims on exegetical grounds, but have two publishing deadlines to wrestle with as well.  We will see.

Today's Dividing Line Will be Live at 7pm EDT
     Topic: Ruminations on N.T. Wright (aka, "Tom" to those who love and adore him so!).  Just a quote to warm you up:

God forgive us, within modernity, when often we as Christians thought that the way to use the Bible to address the world was to abstract large chunky doctrines from the Bible and hurl them at the heads of people who believed large chunky modernist doctrines. You have to deconstruct the Bible in order to do that. Much better to let the Bible be what it is, which is a story, and stories are far more subversive and damaging to other alternative worldviews than large chunky doctrines ever were, which are basically shorthand versions of stories.

Excuse me as I dodge that large chunky doctrine that just flew past my head.  See you at 7pm....

Reformed Baptist Theological Review
     A note from this morning's Reformed Baptist Discussion List:

May God Grant You an Interview
     I used to use that as a tagline on my old BBS posts (if you know what a BBS is/was, well, you are older than my kids).  It was followed by a reference:

"Behold, I am insignificant; what can I reply to You? I lay my hand on my mouth."  (Job 40:4)

The context was in reference, back then, to Mormonism.  The idea was that in the final analysis, until God granted an "interview" to a member of the LDS Church, they would continue to worship an exalted man instead of the eternal creator of all things.  Job had questioned God, and His response was to ask a series of rhetorical questions that all pointed to one simple truth: God is God, man isn't.
     Yesterday morning in #prosapologian a discussion was taking place regarding worldviews.  I had posted some material from N.T. Wright (I hope to blog it eventually) and we were talking about how to interact with people in our culture today.  At one point I commented:

The Bible tells us we are indeed to relate to God: but it never mixes up the order: you first know who the true God is; you objectively hear His commands and His truth; you repent of your self-centered sinfulness, and you bow to His right to define reality; THEN you can relate to Him, but only as He defines, not as WE define.

I then took this back to Job and the "interview" God granted to him.  In the final analysis, no matter what the obstacles between ourselves and those to whom we proclaim the gospel, it is God and God alone who must work by His Spirit to bring spiritual life.  When God moves in sovereign grace to bring one of His elect unto Himself, He reveals His truth in such a fashion as to lay the groundwork for the building of that Christian worldview in the mind of the redeemed.  It may not "come together" all at once, but one thing is for certain: God's sovereign grace is not constrained or hindered by even the most ungodly and sinful worldview: regeneration gets a person past any false theories about knowledge, since part and parcel of that work involves the revelation of the truth of who Jesus Christ truly is (2 Cor. 4:6, 8:7, Eph. 1:17, 4:13, Phil 1:9, Col. 2:2, etc.). I am very thankful the Spirit accomplishes His purpose perfectly in that matter, for if it were up to us to get folks through all the minute details of competing epistemological theories, well, the task of evangelism in the modern day would be nigh unto hopeless.