Posts from — February 2006

I just discovered, via the Krazy Celtic, that Gregory Soderberg has a blog.

Good times.

Mark Horne gives a clarifying post on Paul’s use of ‘works of the law’.

I’m quoting the three options he gives because Mark’s blogs have been known to be raptured on occasion. I don’t want to lose the clarity of these three simple options. But be sure to read the whole post

1. THE TRADITIONAL VIEW This is the view held by Norman Shepherd, Daniel Fuller and many others. It holds that those attempting to be justified by works were Jews (and heretical Christians who adopted that teaching) who believed that one would be pronounced righteous by God on the basis of one’s own meritorious works. Romans 9.30ff basically says that the the Jews insisted on viewing the law as a means of earning or meriting salvation rather than as a description of what faith looks like in covenantal life. The Law as an administration of the covenant of grace rather than a covenant of works simply commanded faith in Christ alone
2. THE “NEW PERSPECTIVE” This is the view held by N. T. Wright and Don Garlington. It holds that those attempting to be justified by works were Jews who believed that their graciously-given standing God’s preChristian covnenants (Abrahamic/Mosaic), and their continuation in that covenant, guarranteed they were accepted and would be accepted as righteous in God’s sight. If one is liberal or non-evangelical, this “continuation” can take on virtually pelagian overtones. But among Evangelical exponents, this is simply a matter of living by faith to fruitfulness (e.g. John 15.1ff). The “works” Paul opposes then, is loyalty to the law that demands one become Jewish to be a true covenant member. Uncircumcised believers are at best second-class citizens in the Kingdom. Paul considers this a denial of the Gospel which asserts that believers are one in Christ and that the Jewish particularism–which the Law of Moses and the covenant of circumcision created–has served its purpose and now must give way to the new creation in Christ.
3. THE ASSENT VIEW This view is a modern aberration. It claims that faith is nothing more than affirming certain propositions in one’s mind. By “works,” Paul means all other actions other than assenting to the proper facts of the Gospel.

I just watched a clip from the Ellen show, where she called Quiznos CEO Rick Shaden. Here’s a brief bit of dialogue..

Receptionist: Good Afternoon, Rick Shaden’s office. This is Lucy, may I help you?
Ellen: Hi Lucy! It’s Ellen DeGeneres calling.
Lucy: Excuse me, who is this?
Ellen: It’s Ellen DeGeneres.
Lucy: The Ellen Degeneres?
Ellen: Yes. Sometimes when I refer to myself, I don’t put the ‘The’ in front of it.
Lucy: [chuckle] I couldn’t help myself.
Ellen: And this is The Lucy?
Lucy: Yes, this is.
Ellen: The Lucy, is The Rick there?

I laughed heartily. The clip on on Quizno’s website, if you want to watch.

Anyone familiar with a response Steve Schlissel made to this article by Richard Phillips (about his son’s conversion)? I just heard a lecture where Phillips said Schlissel said something in that reply that I don’t think Schlissel would ever say; that faith is not a condition of the covenant.

I don’t know how many of you know me in real life, but I figure it would be interesting anyhow…

Johari Window

Andrew Peterson’s long awaited (I can say that, right?) cd of bootlegs and b-sides is now available for preorder. $10.99 and free shipping.

I was Dugg.

No, really. Calvin’s Institutes. Okay… not quite that old. But Pretty close!

A 1667 edition of John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Relgion. Pretty amazing.

Just this, from Remy Wilkins,

Josh Gibbs recently said to me, “I’m incapable of seeing in movies any worldview but Christianity,” a comment similar in tone to something GK Chesterton once said, “The more you know of truth the more you see it everywhere.”

I have read the reviews talking about Hero’s dramatic use of color and lushness, but each Christian reviewer has begged off criticism with a scant charge of Buddhism. My imagination is too lacking to find that and the reviews too cursory to convince me, but what I did see was a short history of the Gospel.

The conflict in the movie is of a King conquering the seven kingdoms of ancient China with the story centered on a warrior’s tale of killing three of the king’s most dangerous enemies. The warrior, known as Nameless, describes how he went to Broken Sword, the king’s enemy, under the guise of learning calligraphy because it held the secret to a swordsman’s skills. The warrior requests to see the most complex character for sword, an ideogram to be decoded like a symbolists painting. This trophy is later presented to the king who, at the climax of the film, interprets it.

The first stage of the warrior the sword is in his hand. Man and sword become interchangeable, here even a blade of grass is a lethal weapon. The second stage of the warrior the sword is in his heart, even without a weapon the warrior can slay from one hundred paces. The third stage the sword disappears and peace fills the land for the ultimate ideal for a warrior is to lay down his sword.

The story is persuasive because this is the history of the people of God. Under the Old Covenant Yahweh was known as the Lord of Hosts, a War God, and Israel conquered with the sword. With the New Covenant came a new sword, the Word of God, the Prince of Peace. This new sword was written on our hearts and we conquered through other means. David slew his ten thousand, but Christ slew more than the stars in the sky and sand in the sea. The third stage is the New Jerusalem, where every knee is bowed, where every tear is wiped away; where the sword becomes a plow.

Luther’s ‘Flood Prayer’.

Almighty eternal God, who according to your righteous judgment did condemn the unbelieving world through the flood and in your great mercy did preserve believing Noah and his family, and who did drown hardhearted Pharaoh with all his host in the Red Sea and did lead your people Israel through the same sea on dry ground, thereby prefiguring this bath of holy baptism, and who through the baptism of your dear Child, our Lord Jesus Christ, have consecrated and set apart the Jordan and all water as a salutary flood and a rich and full washing away of sins: We pray through your same unbounded mercy that you will graciously behold _____ _____ _____ and bless him with true faith in the Spirit so that by means of this saving flood all that has been born in him from Adam and which he himself has added thereto may be drowned in him and engulfed, and that he may be sundered from the number of the unbelieving, preserved dry and secure in the holy ark of your Church, serve your Name at all times fervent in spirit and joyful in hope, so that with all believers he may attain eternal life according to your promise; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

HT: barlow

Christ Church has setup their own, official podcast. The feed URI is: http://feeds.feedburner.com/christchurchmoscow

If you are subscribed to the one I was maintaining, be sure to update the feed.

Well, I suppose it’s public enough that I really won’t be breaking the news to anyone. Dr. RC Sproul, jr, has been defrocked by Westminster Presbytery of the RPCGA.

I don’t really have any comments on the whole thing… I’d prefer to just stay out of it entirely.

But that’s just my problem now, isn’t it? I got an email Monday night from a friend, informing me that on page 9 of the Declaratory Judgment, I am quoted. They used a portion of this post. I was not asked or notified about this.

I sent an email to Dr. Kenneth Gary Talbot, Moderator fo Westminster Prebytery of the RPCGA, Tuesday morning around 10 o’clock. I still haven’t heard from him. Here’s my letter:

Dr. Talbot,

Greetings.

I am writing to you regarding the Declaratory Judgment against the session of St. Peter Presbyterian Church dated January 26, 2006. I was notified last night that I am referenced in this judgment on page nine. I have just a few comments about my quotes in the Judgment.

Let me preface my remarks with a request to remove my name and comments from this judgment. It is my preference to stay out of this ordeal entirely. In addition, my comments do not supply any necessary evidence to support your case, and are therefore superfluous. Half of the subject matter is in regard to something not even in view in this Judgment (the pastoral oversight to a congregation outside the RPCGA, and ordination of officers to said congregation), and the other half deals with a topic (paedocommunion) which is admitted by the session of St. Peter Presbyterian Church. I see no need for my name and words to be included in this Judgment.

About the actual quotes, first, let me point out that there is an error. My comments are dated in the Judgment as 11/24/2004. That actual date is 11/24/2003.

Next, I did not mention it in my post, but Laurence Windham announced, before the service began, that there was some question about the admittance of young children to the Table. I do not recall his exact words, nor do I recall everything that he said, but what I do remember is that he said if a child had been brought to the Table by the session that had authority over him/her, then the session of St. Peter did not have the authority to deny their access to the Table. Since my session had judged my daughter as qualified to come to the Lord’s Table, I allowed her to come. Laurence Windham (or anyone else, for that matter) did not speak one way or the other about the qualification of my child.

Let me again make known my request in no uncertain terms. I wish to have nothing to do with this Judgment one way or the other. I am not associated with St. Peter Presbyterian Church, or even particularly friendly with them. I ask that my name and comments be stricken from the Judgment as well as any other record of this trial, and not be associated with this Judgment in any way.

Peace of Christ,
Richard Okimoto

What’s more, one must ask why they even use an internet blog post in an official document like this. What credibility do I have? Who am I? Am I really who I say I am? Do I really do all the things I say I do? One thing is for sure… Westminster Presbytery of the RPCGA doesn’t know the answer.

If you think anyone would care to know what I’ve said here, please share with them.