Simply Hilarious

DaFedSez:

Dear Mark,

How many times are we going to have to explain this to you on this so-called blog of yours?

(Incidentally, speaking of your inability to figure out how to blog properly, I have it on good authority that “Schism” might be a Latin word. If that is true all you need to do is change the word “Federal” in the blog title to “Foedero” and your blog will be on its way to being worthy. As for not agreeing with the Foedero Visum as I prefer to call it — you don’t have to change your existing content; all you need to do is to begin strenuously maintaining that you do in fact agree with the FV. Apparent contradiction is the mark of theological genius, and the greater the contradiction, the greater the genius. Please study our Magister Contradictus, Jacobus Jordanius, for details on how this works. I like to call him “big river” or “flumen magnus” because, as the philosopher sez, you can never step in the same river twice.)

Dougus . . . sorry I’m getting carried away — but O! to have been a medieval monk when things were really Reformed before the dread Baptist Plato and one and all were in unum pactus vespering the Latin of scripture . . . English is so banal and unsanctified, don’t you agree? But back to Doug, he patiently explained at length in this tape how the check you mentioned was not a payment it was a gift given by his church to repay a debt owed to a person who just happened to have run a gambling operation and NOT, NOT, NOT, a payment to a gambling house. I can understand how you may have become confused. You see in FV theology “gift” and “payment” are synonyms. For instance, salvation is a gift we earn by our works of obedience. Note well that we do not merit a gift, or strictly speaking earn it, a gift is graciously obtained in return for works performed. Understand? It’s all quite biblical and the key to understanding James and Paul and checking.

In fact, there is a salvation analogy here somewhere — a parallel or parallelogram or something — person D was owed a gambling debt by persons A, B, & C. Then organization W said persons A, B, & C are like sons to us, but they can never pay the debt they owe, but we can, so because they are members of the covenant we will give a gift that will set them free from bondage to D after which the gift will be paid for by them. The sign and seal of this transaction that rendered real satisfaction was called “the check.” This check was not merely imputed to the account of the guilty. It was delivered directly to D. Call it the new ransom theory.

There you have it. If you have problems remember, W has never been found guilty by himself, that is to say, the church court that duly oversees him. He is therefore “not guiltifiable.”

So given the lack of guiltafiability, how about ending this unjustifiable attack?

I am speechless.

Thank you.