Posts from — January 2004

From the NSA website:

sniffle there’s my old neighbors…..

There is one song that I can say with absolute certainty would be on my ‘top five songs of all time’ list. That song is by Andrew Peterson, and it is called Canaan Bound. Below are the lyrics.
This guy doesn’t get enough attention. I don’t hear enough of my friends talking about him and his beautiful music. So I’m just going to keep talking about him til he’s a regular household name.

And sorry about the lack of comments. Something must have happened to ‘ol Kris’s server.

The words ‘faith’ and ‘belief’ in our day are increasingly becoming (to use a word that is quickly becoming over used, but still quite accurate) abstractions. They are thought of as concepts that exist in our heads, and have little to no relation to the physical world. Our own private little credos.

I think ‘trust’ is a word that means the same thing, but which has not lost that connection to the real world. When we speak of trust, it pretty much always has to do with some decision or action we make. I trust that you won’t steal from me, so I let you in my house. I trust that you won’t gossip, so I open myself intimately to you. I trust that you will catch me, so I fall into your arms. Etc.

Without the doing of something, trusting is pretty much meaningless. I think the same can be said of faith. Without our submission to God in obedience, faith doesn’t mean anything. There may be a situation where faith can be spoken of as separate from our actions, but it is those situations which need to be highly qualified. Not the other way around, which is the norm in most reformed circles today. We can’t talk about the presence of works in our life being required in order to be justified, unless with qualify it a thousand times. But, as James says, what is faith without works? It is dead, and does nothing.

I’ve got the following in my meta tags, but I still get occasional hits from google and other search engines.
META NAME=”ROBOTS” CONTENT=”NOINDEX, NOFOLLOW”

What gives?

I’m taking the plunge into palm computing.

My old friend (who I’ve yet to actually meet, despite having known him for at least four years) Phil bought himself a newer and better handheld device, and was left with his old one. I offered the brilliant solution of buying it from him, and he gave me what I consider to be a great deal. I don’t even know all the specs on it. I think it’s a handspring visor deluxe. That’s all the info I got on it… except that he’s had it for a while now and it’s been good to him. And I will probably need a new screen protector for it. But as far as RAM, processor, applications, and all that…. I’m ignorant.

So, I suppose this would be a good place to make a request for any good (and free!) palm os applications. If there’s anything you use often or depend upon, let me know because I probably will too.

So anyhow. That’s exciting. Phil shipped it priority yesterday, so I’m hoping to get it by Saturday. Phil rules.

Lucy brings up a good point in her most recent post. She is the head of her household, and as such attends the HoH meetings for her church. And people often refer to those meetings as ‘men’s meetings’, when they aren’t such a thing.

At my church, the same thing happens. We don’t have any female head of households, so it really isn’t a big issue. But I’ve often wondered whether we should call the head of household meeting the ‘men’s meeting’. Or, when we pray corporately for the heads of households, whether we should pray for the HoH to lead their wives and children. Should we avoid this language because of the few exceptions (as Lucy said, she’s the only female HoH in her parrish…), or should we just use it as a generalization? Generalizations aren’t bad.

So anyhow… that’s just something I’ve contemplated a time or two.

sometimes I wish I were wealthy, so that I could buy things for the various bloggers that I know (and don’t know).

It seems my poor blog is being neglected. Sorry blog.

This week I’ve relistened to AAPC 2003. I realized that much of Pipa’s colloquium general critique is actually the same material from his critique of Steve Wilkins from the ’03 conference. That’s disappointing.

Anyhow… Doug Wilson’s summary of the ‘Federal Vision’ perspective was simply fantastic. A few weeks ago I was debating with a gentleman on a webboard about the presence of faith and/or conversion in covenant children. My argument is that we make such judgements by covenant, and since baptized children are in the covenant, we are to believe that they are indeed regenerate (in the theologically precise understanding). We are to believe they have saving faith, are converted, and are of God’s elect.

I had trouble expressing myself on one point, and I think Mr. Wilson did a fantastic job in that paper in getting across what I was trying to. He says that we make this judgement about our children based on their position in the covenant. He says we do not make a dogmatic, absolute claim about their faith and/or election, but because they are in the covenant, we treat them as though they do believe, and are elect. And then he says that, at the same time, we really do believe these things. We really believe that they are elect. To paraphrase John Barach, we aren’t just making a judgment of charity. We aren’t saying, well, they might or they might not really be elect, so we’ll just be charitable, and treat them like they are elect. No, that’s not what we do. We don’t doubt their salvation… we don’t doubt their faith. We really and truly believe that they trust in God for their salvation, to the capacity that their frames allow.
My household, including my one and two year old children, trust the Lord for their salvation. That is what I believe. If you were to ask me if my daughter Geneva is a Christian, I will answer with an unqualified ‘Yes’. She is a Christian. If you ask me if she trust in Christ, my answer will be the same. And I will also give the same answer if one were to ask me if she is elect. Yes, yes, yes. She is. And if I doubt that, recognizing her position of good standing in the covenant, I am doubting what God has said, and as such I am sinning. I believe God, and therefore trust that my girls are among that number which will be with Christ at the end, for eternity.

Does that mean, though, that if my girls do not remain faithful to the covenant; if they do not continue in God’s goodness to them, and trust in Christ alone for their salvation, that they will still end up in the same place? That nothing further is required of them in this life? Absolutly not. They need to obey God, and be faithful to what He has required of them. If they break covenant with Him, and refuse to repent, then they will be cut off. The danger is real.

So, in summary, be sure to read Doug Wilson’s ‘Federal Vision’ summary article from the AAPC Colloquium.

Oooo… Can’t miss this: Out of the Miry Clay, the weblog of Dr. Keith Mathison.

Now he just needs to get to work writing stuff!

I just read Dr. Pipa’s summary critique of ‘Federal Visionism’, and my reaction, I’m afraid, is a bit less than it should be. He gave a lot of quotes, mostly of Wilson and Wilkins… but the trouble is that that’s about all he did. He qouted them, and then went on, assuming (I think) that his point was proven. You can almost hear him shouting “Aha! Get around that, sucker!” after some of the quotes, while you’re just looking at him, sort of embarassed for him, thinking ‘um… where’s the problem?’. Here’s one example:

A further methodological problem is in the area of definitions. The imbalanced formulations with respect to covenant and church have led Federal Vision proponents to redefine or ambiguously define election, regeneration, justification, adoption. For example, when Wilson attempts to apply his construct to the issue of election, it leads to serious confusion. Consider this statement: “This does not mean the elect can loose their salvation, they cannot.” Thus far he seems to be using the term as it has been historically used. But he continues, “But it does mean that branches can lose their position on the tree. You can be on the tree, someone can be on the tree right next to you and he is as much on the tree as you are, he’s as much a partaker of Christ as you are, he is as much a member of Christ as you are and he is cut away and you are not and you stand by faith, so don’t be haughty, but fear.” What we have said with respect to election is true as well in the redefinition of regeneration.

So, what’s the problem? He appears to think that Wilson has contradicted himself by saying ‘the elect can’t lose their salvation and the elect can lose their salvation’. But where does he get that idea? Why does he think Wilson said that? How does Pipa come to believe that Wilson is monkeying around with the definition of election here? Wilson says that the elect cannot lose their salvation, but there are people that are really and truly connected to Christ that can be cut off from Him (or, put another way, he just paraphrased a bit of Romans 11). How does that deny the ‘traditional’ understanding of election that Pipa is using?

A page or so later, he writes, “Their [the Federal Vision proponents] maintaining that a baptized person should think of himself as elect and justified until he apostatizes hinders a true assurance.” My first reaction was to be shocked that he would say the FVers teach that one can lose their election, especially so shortly after quoting Wilson above, where it is made obvious this is not the case. But upon further reflection, I was wrong about that. I don’t think Pipa is saying that’s what FVers believe. But then I’m still left somewhat shocked, because I don’t know what in the world he’s trying to say. Does he think doubting our election is the way to secure assurance? The statement seems like a real oxymoron.

Auburn Avenue Theology Colloquium

Have you noticed people nearly paralyzed in their Christian lives because, try as they might, they get no assurance of their salvation?

Or, at the opposite extreme, are you troubled by the rampant antinomianism in American Christianity?

As you’ve puzzled over these issues, you’ve heard that some Christian leaders, speaking at the 2002 and 2003 Auburn Avenue Pastors’ Conferences, have come up with ideas about covenant theology, the objectivity of the covenant, the sacraments, and the relationship of faith and obedience that they believe will address both errors, afflicting the presumptuous and comforting the afflicted.

But you’ve also heard that other Christian leaders have charged those men with errors about the gospel, justification by faith, and fidelity to their denominational confessions.

What are you to think?

Here you can read papers exchanged and discussed by seven proponents of the Auburn Avenue Theology/Federal Vision and seven of its critics and judge for yourself. The papers were prepared for the 2003 Knox Theological Seminary Colloquium on the Federal Vision and are published for the first time here.