Glory!

The voice of the LORD makes the deer give birth,
And strips the forests bare;
And in His temple everyone says, “Glory!” — Psalm 29:9

Taking a few moments away from fully documenting the full-time corruption you know where, and continuing with our Open-line Tuesday, a friend sends this over. If you look closely, that doe is nursing two fawns; you can tell by the two bushy tails pointing upwards and the eight or ten legs down below. Either that or he Photoshopped it:



Glory, indeed.

Thank you.

Neoslavery

A friend sent me these links regarding a very disturbing story about neoslavery in America. Douglas A. Blackmon wrote a book titled Slavery by Another Name: The Re-Enslavement of Black People in America from the Civil War to World War II that documents an era of horrible injustice in the South, here in the land of the free:

Under laws enacted specifically to intimidate blacks, tens of thousands of African Americans were arbitrarily arrested, hit with outrageous fines, and charged for the costs of their own arrests. With no means to pay these ostensible “debts,” prisoners were sold as forced laborers to coal mines, lumber camps, brickyards, railroads, quarries and farm plantations. Thousands of other African Americans were simply seized by southern landowners and compelled into years of involuntary servitude. Government officials leased falsely imprisoned blacks to small-town entrepreneurs, provincial farmers, and dozens of corporations — including U.S. Steel Corp. — looking for cheap and abundant labor. Armies of “free” black men labored without compensation, were repeatedly bought and sold, and were forced through beatings and physical torture to do the bidding of white masters for decades after the official abolition of American slavery.

You can hear the author interviewed on NPR and the book’s website has a blog as well. Spurgeon once wrote, “Every time I see a man kick a horse, I want to kick him.” How much more when you see men abuse power to oppress an entire race of men, stripping them of their freedom and their dignity, for no other reasons than greed and hate. Indeed, every time I see a man oppress another man, I want to go Billy Jack on him.

Don’t miss the Photo Gallery; it’ll make you sick. And I’ll bet that Wilson and Wilkins are just twisted enough to gloat that maybe the slaves had it better on the plantation.



Thank you.

On Blogging

I was no blogger, neither was I a blogger’s son. I’m a stiff, and the discipline of writing is very difficult for me. I used to shoot for posts of 600 words and they usually ended up about 750–800 words, taking me about an hour to write. Now I shoot for 600 words and end up with 2,000, but it takes me about 90 minutes (sometimes longer) per 600 words, which I spread over a couple-days’ period. It takes me longer because I really am trying to limit the word count. Currently, I have two posts queued up, each almost 3,000 words, and I don’t know how to shrink them.

That said, there’s still a massive HIGH over Moscow and the Kult elders cannot explain it.

Thank you.

Weather Update

There’s a huge HIGH over Moscow and the Kult leaders can’t figure it out.



Thank you.

PLAYING WITH A LOADED GUN

A couple of SOS Grammar Nazis pounded me for daring to criticize the incomplete sentences and childish arguments on the save our seminary website. But I press on. Why should I care what they think of my unorthodox style? At least it’s grammatically correct.

In the spirit of pressing on, however, an anonymous commenter on my fully documented anonymous attack blog just left this fully documented comment in response to a blog post written by one of my SOS Grammar Nazi critics. You can find the post in question in the comments; I will not link to it for obvious reasons:

PLAYING WITH A LOADED GUN (Children shouldn’t)

Snubbie:

You’ve obviously been breeding these pet quotes for some time, but you’ve groomed them too close. For the sake of my time and Mark’s bandwidth, let’s deal with just one:

“[The Scriptures] are written in human languages, whose words, inflections, constructions and idioms bear everywhere indelible traces of error. The record itself furnishes evidence that the writers were in large measure dependent for their knowledge upon sources and methods in themselves fallible, and that their personal knowledge and judgments were in many matters hesitating and defective, or even wrong.” (B.B. Warfield & A.A. Hodge, Inspiration, pp. 73–82)

If the Warfield quote, which originally appeared in Truth, 9 (1883) 124–29, was served to you in such incomplete fashion in course syllabi, then that is quite damning. However, if you edited it to leave a false impression, that is evil. We’ll ignore the fact that you cited the full pagination of Appendixes 1 and 2, rather than the specific page where the quote appears in Baker’s reprint (p. 78), though that does seem to suggest you were spoon fed and haven’t done this research yourself (please don’t say you were just trying to provide context).

Following the quote above that you provided, Warfield continues:

“Nevertheless, the historical faith of the Church has always been that all the affirmations of Scripture of all kinds, whether of spiritual doctrine or duty, or of physical or historical fact, or of psychological or philosophical principle, are without any error, when the ipsissima verba of the original autographs are ascertained and interpreted in their natural and intended sense.”

It goes on, but the point is that you omitted a critical portion of Warfield’s statement. Take heart, for you’re not alone; Warfield notes:

“The italicized portion of this section [the very portion you cited], the Truth [a periodical of that era] singles out for attack as being rash, untrue and hopelessly inconsistent with the infallibility and divine inspiration of the Scriptures.”

Now Snubs, please note Warfield’s next statement:

“The careful reader who will glance at it in its context may be trusted to take another view of it. It is to be observed that it is a portion of a rejoinder to the rather common objection to verbal inspiration, that it makes the human authors of the Bible omniscient. No, it says, verbal inspiration only supposes errorlessness in what is actually said. However much they did not know, however wrong they may have been in their notions on many points — whatever they set down in their books, and thus actually teach, is found to be absolute fact. In fine, however human they may have been in other respects, so far forth as they affirm anything, every statement accurately corresponds to truth. This is what verbal inspiration means; it does not hold that what the sacred writers do not affirm is infallibly true, but only that what they do affirm is infallibly true.”

You, Snub, like most of the other SOS supporters, are obviously quite young. Your arrogance shows. You’ve learned a lot, but you are still incompetent in handling the mysteries of God. You are like a child playing with a loaded gun. You’re going to hurt someone. You are going to mislead God’s people if you teach on these matters while holding these views. Please bridle your tongue until you have learned some humility and a good deal more of what Warfield and Old Princeton actually taught.

Before I say thank you, you have to check out Dude, where’s my seminary? Methinks I see the handiwork if not the syntax of DaFedSez.

Thank you.

Dude!

There’s a new website named Dude, where’s my seminary? which some pretty bright folks apparently uploaded in response to save our seminary, a pathetic website appealing to Westminster Theological Seminary’s graduates to sign a petition that urges WTS’s administration to reconsider its philosophical direction. I called it pathetic because the author of the petition exhibits the literary talent of a teenage girl lamenting the existence of smog in the atmosphere. The third paragraph alone strings five incomplete sentences back to back. Like, wow, go back to school.

So take a look at Dude, where’s my seminary? especially the comments.

Thank you.

NECM and the Number of the Elect

Bob Mattes of Reformed Musings has posted another justification of Christian orthodoxy on Green Bagginses, which he titled “Reprobate in the Visible Church . . . Again.” And as is his custom, he states his proposition, presents biblical and confessional proofs for his proposition, and concludes his essay. In this instance, Bob addresses the Federal Visonists’ use of the phrase “non-elect covenant member” to substitute for the word “reprobate” and he establishes the FVists’ inconsistency with Reformed theology for over half a millennium, concluding:

Unless, of course, a handful of clever men in the later 20th and early 21st century have discovered what our learned forefathers have missed for 2000 years, including orthodox Reformed theologians for almost 500 years. But I don’t think so.

This got me to thinking. The first time and place the words “non-elect covenant member” appear is in the book Auburn Avenue Theology: Pros and Cons, in a chapter titled “Covenant and Election” by John Barach, who wrote, “Using our traditional theological language, we would say that these were non-elect members of the covenant.” Of course, Barach pulls a fast one here because, as Bob demonstrates, this is not “traditional theological language.” Far from it.

But the most striking thing about this is that Barach’s statement appears on page 154 of Auburn Avenue Theology. This is arresting because some church fathers held that the 153 fishes caught by St. Peter in the Gospel of John signify the fixed number of the elect: “Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great fishes, and hundred and fifty and three” (John 21:11). Obviously St. Peter used a covenantal net that represented the covenant, which means that the fish represent the elect — hence “fishers of men” (Matt. 4:19). So if you take the number representing the foreordained number of the elect (153) and add one (1), which signifies Barach, the Federal Vision, and all the other “non-elect covenant members,” we get 154, which is the page number where the Federal Visionists first floated the words NECM. The equation looks like this:

153 + 1 = 154.

But that’s not all. This principle of factoring the number one (1) to the elect works by subtraction as well. If you take the number of the twelve (12) disciples and subtract one (1) for Judas, who was never elect, you get eleven (11); and if you take the number of the twelve (12) and add one (1) for St. Paul and one (1) for St. James Jordan the Magnificent, you get fourteen (14), which is really the sum total of all the tribes of Israel. And if you multiply eleven (11) times fourteen (14) you get 154:

11 × 14 = 154

So it all adds up. The number of the elect is fixed and Scripture reveals that we can add the NECM to that number, as long as we subtract them in the end.

Thank you.

News Flash for Barlow

I was working this into another post, but Jimmy Jordan’s recent worldwide meltdown took precedence and that post will probably go the way of all flesh. Therefore:

The Federal Vision Nimrods have opened up another blog, this one called Biblical Horizons. It appears that this blog will be an ecumenical effort within the schismatic camp, where they all get to blow and pontificate on whatever enters their minds at any given time. Jeffrey “Braveheart” Meyers wrote their first post on January 17 and today they gave the helm to the one and only James Jordan. You have to read his “analysis” of Psalms 23–29; it looks like a cross between the DaVinci Code and an LSD flashback, which may account for his recent hallucinations. This is too rich. And it only costs $25.

Attention DaFedSez: If you are out there, your pupil needs you. This is beyond me.

Thank you.

Baptized Hypocrites

I don’t pretend that my fully documented anonymous attack blog can compete with the academic caliber of such blogs as Pastor Lane’s Green Bagginses; nevertheless it’s pretty clear to me that I have some fairly bright readers. Take this comment, for example, which someone just left in response to my award-winning post “Bag o’ Snakes”:

Anonymous said. . .

If you are ashamed of your baptized name for posting anonymously, wouldn’t it follow that these men, who hid their conversation from the general public, are ashamed of their baptized message? . . .

That’s a pretty good argument if you ask me.

Thank you.

Greetings!

I want to thank Prince Blog for sending more folks to my fully documented anonymous attack blog and I want to encourage all you first timers to read the following three posts to help you understand the nature of the Beast:

• “Worst Lot of All”


• “Snakes in the Covenant”


• “Cursed”

And if anonymity concerns you as much as it does the Fearless Leader, I urge you to search for the word “anonymity” on this blog. I also encourage you to peruse the category “Fœdero Accountability”, and you absolute must visit Pope Doug; you’ll read facts he refuses to acknowledge.

Thank you.

Another Anniversary

“So they hanged Haman on the gallows that he had prepared for Mordecai. Then was the king’s wrath pacified.” — Esther 7:10

I almost let this wonderful anniversary pass. One year ago today Saddam Hussein was hanged after the Iraqi Special Tribunal found him guilty of crimes against humanity. That same day the Fearless Leader was seen celebrating the demise of his sole competition to rule the world, by randomly shooting his shotgun at his congregation from the rooftop of Anselm House.

Thank you.

Excellent Comment

Someone left me an excellent comment about Dr. Clark’s post that deserves front-page coverage:

Finished reading the piece by Dr. Clark and I have to say I was struck but this insight:

Along with this package the FV movement also offers paedocommunion (infant communion) which enticed Baptists newly converted to paedobaptism (infant baptism) who do not yet see the Reformed distinction between baptism as a sign/seal of initiation into the visible covenant community and the Supper as a sign/seal of covenant renewal, i.e. taking up the promises of the covenant by grace alone, through faith alone.

I have myself noticed this same thing among many who have taken up with the FV. These folks are simply reversing their previous Baptistic assumptions about the nature of the Church. I think this may also actually be the case with the whole “NECM/ECM” problem in FV. To reduce it a bit, Baptists think that only those who have faith should be admitted to the Church, and therefore infants are not the be baptized; FV reverses this logic and says infants are to be admitted to the Church through baptism, therefore infants who have been baptized have faith. The problem is a fundamental rejection of the visible/invisible distinction.

Thank you.

Saptists

I posted this on Green Bagginses earlier today and am thankful it made the cut:

Regarding the whole “sap” issue, Dr. Beisner wrote this on page xxii of his Introduction to Auburn Ave. Theology: Pros and Cons:

There is no better justification for an appeal to “sap” as a sign that the fruitless branches had a “vital” union with Christ than there would be for an appeal to “bark” as a sign that all the branches enjoyed the immunity to disease and pests provided by bark and therefore none could apostatize. The parable mentions neither sap — much less “gracious sap” — nor bark. It is dangerous enough to draw doctrines from parables; it is more dangerous to draw doctrines from details within parables; it is exegetically fatal to draw doctrines from details that are not even there!

Dr. Beisner’s argument should have ended this particular thread of the so-called Federal Vision “conversation,” because to my knowledge no one has refuted it. Nevertheless, I believe that Pastor Stellman may be on to something when he suggested that the “FV’ists simply coin some new term to denote membership in the visible church.” After all, these men have spawned a great deal of confusion as they have replaced the precise language of Reformed theology with all sorts of sappy words, such as “non-decretal,” “Bapteryian,” “Federal Vision,” etc., which probably fall into Churchill’s category of “terminological inexactitude.”

Therefore, to help the conversation along, I have coined the term “saptistic” to denote the “functional union [from baptism] between Christ and the fruitless branch,” to use the lead FVist’s words. Obviously this word joins the unbiblical word “sap” with the biblical word “baptism,” and answers that vexing question raised by the non-existent “sap” of Holy Scripture. The Federal Visionists are “Saptists.”

Thank you.

Feliz Navidad

Heres’s another excellent comment from Dr. Johnson, which is worthy of front-page exposure:

GLW Johnson said,
December 24, 2007 at 9:11 am

Roger:

I find your reply completely and totally unconvincing and your take on Calvin is just spin and nothing more. Furthermore your defense of the FV and the “outrage” they feel when dealing with critics like yours truly is highly ironic, and I’ll tell you why. We have heard ad nauseam the refrain from the FV that we “constantly” misinterpret, misrepresent, misread and so end up distorting them. Here the rich irony — I, and a great many others, see the FV doing this very thing when they appeal to Calvin and others in the Reformed tradition to substantiate their views!

Equally egregious is the way that many in the FV have throw distain on anyone and everyone who dares to raise questions over their claims that they are recovering the REAL Reformed tradition. I sat on the sidelines when this controversy first erupted. I made no public comments and, as stated here before, I attempted to resolve the concerns that I had with the FV in general and with Doug Wilson in particular, by direct correspondence — which, as I have also rehearsed here, proved fruitless. However, after watching the assault on my friend Guy Waters (for his book on the Federal Vision) and the abuse he was subjected to — including having the wrath of God invoked against him for daring to write such a book — I entered the fray.

May I point out that at no time during this controversy have I singled out for criticism (here or elsewhere) Peter Leithart, who all would consider one of the more prominent names associated with the FV. Why, you ask? Peter and I graduated in 1987 from WTS (Phil.) with our ThM degrees. Peter went on to Cambridge and I entered the PhD program at WTS. I have over the years read with much appreciation Peter’s writings in Credenda/Agenda and even though I didn’t always agree with what he was saying I appreciate his tone and the matter in which he wrote. He didn’t make snide or inflammatory remarks about those with whom he disagreed (he was the only FVer who acknowledged that Waters had indeed correctly represented his views and interacted with Guy’s book in a fair and courteous fashion). He didn’t insult them and call them names and he most certainly did not suggest that his views were the only ones that really were true to the Reformed tradition. As such I respect Peter. In this way, and in so many others he stands in sharp contrast to his colleague Doug Wilson, who revels in ridiculing his opponents and delights in heaping derision on any who would dare disagree with him (don’t take my word for it — just pick up practically any past issue of C/A and see for yourself or read his recent response to Andy Webb on his blog where he, the preeminent presbyterian, relishes calling the FV critics “Baptyrians”). Regrettably, Wilson has had far more influence of the FV peanut gallery than has Leithart.

Witness the way Stellman, Kline, and Piper were recently vilified as hopeless nominalists by a greenbehind-the-ears seminary student (when Wilson declared that this was “a battle for the hearts and minds of second-year seminary students” then he has at least one recruit he can claim). In particular the late Meredith Kline, one of my most cherished professors at WTS, has been subjected personal abuse — being called, among other things, “hateful” on this blog by one of the more scurrilous defenders of the FV. Kline was one of the most significant OT scholars of the 20th century and for him to be treated this way is positively contemptible — but he isn’t the only one to be on the receiving end of the FV scorn. Go back and read the nasty assessments the FV threw at the study committees of both the OPC and the PCA, as well as the faculties of MARS and Westminster Seminary, Calif. But I have come to expect this from the FV — since they take their cue from their fearless leader who had the hubris to denigrate one of the most significant Reformed theologians of all time — BB Warfield — as falling into “refried Gnosticism” because BBW clearly saw the difference between sacramentalism and sacredotalism — something that DW lacks the ability to see, which should not come as any big surprise since DW’s formal theological training could be listed on the back of a postage stamp.

I share Pastor Reed’s perspective — I am weary of dealing with this and I see no use in constantly having to restate the obvious over and over again. The FV and their sympathizers are convinced, despite being overwhelmingly rejected by multiple Reformed denominations, that they will prevail and that their enemies (which is the language Wilson uses to describe his critics) will be routed in due time (they are after all rabid postmils). It does not matter to them one bit that among their critics are men of great theological stature and deserving respect. They will disregard them simply because they are not sympathetic to the FV and only people who are sympathetic to the claims of the FV are true scholars. This is the mindset of sects. Adios.

Merry Christmas!

PNG

The Federal Visionists are quick to say that they are teachable and open to correction. Unfortunately, none of them, to a man, has ever allowed their critics to instruct them nor have any of them conceded any error of significance. Perhaps they could learn a lesson from Dr. Gary Johnson, who admitted the other day that I actually “improved” his excellent comment from Green Bagginsess.

Unfortunately for Dr. Johnson, he must now pay the price for defying the Fearless Leader’s holy decree to ignore my fully documented anonymous attack blog. Thankfully, though, he counted the cost beforehand and has braced himself for the Kult’s automatic punishment against all those who dare resist Beelzeblog’s papal bulls — shunning.

GLW Johnson said,
December 22, 2007 at 8:43 am

I am going to submit all future comments for editoral review to “Mark T.” He did a really nice job of making my extended comment (#97) much improved. However, I am somewhat worried that my association with “Mark T.” might render me “persona non grata” at the next Trinity Fest.

Nevertheless, I encourage all you Federal Visionists who are reading this to take a lesson from Dr. Johnson’s example. Admit your mistake, incur the wrath of the Perfect One, and show a little gratitude — learn to say “Thank you.”

FV in One Paragraph

The brothers on the Warfield list picked up the question of how to describe the Federal Vision in one paragraph. Pastor Andrew Webb offered his thoughts and at the same time threw his hat in with the “Dead Rats Behind the Fridge Club” (DRBFC) by invoking the name of an evil anonymous attack blogger who thoroughly documents his posts as much as possible with credible sources and grounds his opinions in those well-documented facts.

RE: [bbwarfield] Can you define FV in one paragraph?

Hi Ken,

I’m tempted to simply quote JC Ryle’s summary of the version of the FV he was dealing with:

Religion is a mere corporate business. You are to belong to a certain body of people. By virtue of your membership of this body, vast privileges, both for time and eternity, are conferred upon you. It matters little what you are and what you feel. You are not to try yourself by your feelings. You are a member of a great ecclesiastical corporation. Then all its privileges and immunities are your own. Do you belong to the one true visible ecclesiastical corporation? That is the grand question.

But the definition is far too general and misses several of the charmingly post-modern features of modern FV theology such as:

Federal Vision Theology is constantly developing and that development occurs in the context of individual teaching. In the FV, as in the modern world, doctrine follows and attempts to explain practice. FV theology is not subject to peer review. It is thought up and immediately preached to a congregation, taught at a conference, and/or put into print. The purpose of Confessional Statements and the writings of Reformed theologians in the FV is purely to provide a few cherry-picked quotations to support what is already being taught, even if the use of those quotations in support of the FV author’s claims contradicts what that confession or theologian clearly teaches elsewhere. Apparent contradictions or paradoxes are not considered a problem within Federal Vision theology and precision is not desirable, so that while historic Reformed theology spoke it terms of doctrines, affirmations, and denials, FV theology speaks with an intentional vagueness that supposedly “reflects Scripture” rather than dogmatizing. Hence in FV theology it is possible to speak of people as being saved “in some sense.” It denies the deniability of its teachings. FV theology is also either uncomfortable with or openly scornful of an internal and subjective and necessary experience of the working of the Holy Spirit in regenerating individuals, or in regenerating large groups in the most scorned of all events — a revival. (In the FV a revival is an unnecessary, tedious, and boorishly uncultured event easily explained as some form of mass hysteria or ridiculous enthusiasm.) The FV welcomes ecclesiastical authority, but only if it concurs with or protects the teaching of the particular FV advocate in question, as such it would be useful as a means of silencing FV critics, but so far it has not been working properly. Consequently ecclesiastical authority must always be considered subordinate to the individual autonomy of the FV theologian and of limited usefulness at best. All FV theologians must be free to find more light in the Scriptures and immediately teach what they have found. Thus the FV maintains a delicious synthesis of high church liturgy with thoroughly Anabaptist, or more correctly Emerging, ecclesiology. The restraints on ecclesiastical authority, however, do not apply to individual congregations where the authority, and occasional inerrancy of the senior FV pastor (for life), should be considered almost absolute. Please note this is the senior FV pastor. Congregants under non-FV pastors have the same freedoms accorded to all FV theologians. Additionally, no one but an enthusiastic advocate of the FV may define the FV, until he leaves the FV (usually for the Roman Catholic church) at which point it is made clear to everyone that he never really was FV and thus is no longer able to define it. When FV advocates speak to one another at conferences called “The Federal Vision” or publish books under that title it is THE FEDERAL VISION (say it loud, say it proud) when they speak to those outside the camp it is “The So-Called ‘Federal Vision’” (pronounced with curled lip*).

* Thus creating a situation reminiscent of discussions of the La Cosa Nostra in the 1970s. Members of the organization coined the term and felt free to use it amongst friends, and everyone knew it existed, but in public discourse its very existence was denied as a hallucination on the part of those biased against people of Italian heritage (even when the people in question had names indicating their own roots were Italian).

Anyway, the above is obviously too large to work as a definition, but the truth is that while the movement has certain common features and goals, it is constantly in a state of flux adapting every day. For instance, now the current buzz is “temporary justification,” this doctrine will be incorporated and the movement will continue to adapt. The bizarre thing is that it has been up to observers rather than proponents to systematize the movement by observation, and every time they do the proponents deny the system has any relation to the theology. At this point we should be forced to conclude:

1. Attempting to interact with the system is not just pointless, it’s for all practical purposes impossible.


2. A review of history of the FV movement to this point, should lead us to the conclusion (and I know this is going to be unpopular) that the problem is not the FV system, which is less of a system and something closer to a Lego creation constantly being added to by its “designers.” At this point we should realize the problem is the FV people and work to insulate orthodox denominations from them. I’m no fan of working anonymously (then again I don’t have to live in Moscow) and wish he’d identify himself, but I think this point that Mark T. has been harping on at Fœdero Schism is worth considering. After all, the Bible doesn’t direct us to interact with and cast out “false prophecies” and “false teachings,” it warns us away from their sources, i.e. “false prophets” and “false teachers.”

I know at this point everyone will say, “No, we must tolerate them, that’s all they want us to do,” rather than “rending the body!” To which I would answer:

1. Since when is maintaining a false peace more important than true purity?


2. Where are we instructed to accommodate theological error and heresy?


3. What kind of communion do we have when we consider one another to be in error and freely contradict one another’s teaching?


4. As Presbyterian history shows, “tolerance” is a tool used to manipulate moderates into allowing errorists to remain in the tent until they can gain ascendancy. Then the much vaunted tolerance disappears and the conservatives are told to conform or leave. I just spoke with a former PCUSA pastor who was shocked when his own past willingness to tolerate men who believed in women as elders was not repaid in kind when he declined to adopt the position in his own church.


5. Tolerance will have the inevitable effect of entrenching the FV in Reformed Denominations and Seminaries so that it will be impossible to remove it regardless of how odd the ever-changing FV theology becomes. This in turn will make it almost impossible to address any form of theological declension. A little leaven leavens the lump.


6. From a pragmatic viewpoint, this amounts to an entrenching of nominalism, which is a death sentence for evangelicalism in denominations.

Your Servant in Christ,

Andy Webb

Thank you.

Greatest Christmas Album of All Time

This post has been in the back of my head since Thanksgiving, but one thing after another pushed it aside. Regardless, A Charlie Brown Christmas: The Original Sound Track Recording of the CBS Television Special is hands down the best Christmas album I’ve ever heard. Don’t let the cartoon fool you. The Vince Guaraldi Trio puts a smooth jazz edge on each track that does no insult to the original, including “What Child Is This?” and “Hark the Herald the Angels Sing.” Check out the reviews on Amazon — 210 total with a well-deserved 5 stars.

The second-greatest Christmas album of all time is Portraits of Christmas by Wind Machine. We play it whenever we have company during the holidays and without exception it always captures their attention: “Who is that?” But good luck trying to find it, it’s out of print.

Thank you.

Give me a break

By far and away Green Bagginses has the finest commentators on his blog, and Pastor Gary Johnson is one of them. This morning he had an excellent comment that moved someone to request that he insert a few paragraph breaks in his posts. You see, Pastor Johnson has a tendency to type one complete thought en masse — typos, punctuation errors, et al — and hit “Submit Comment.”

Therefore, with the hope of encouraging Pastor Johnson to insert paragraph breaks in his comments, I have re-posted his comment without permission, though with corrections and appropriate paragraph breaks:

I want to commend Norman Shepherd for his straightforward admission that the Westminster Standards (WS) are really not in harmony with his views. It would be refreshing if his disciples in the Federal Vision would follow suit.

Shepherd, for example, readily acknowledges that the bi-covenantal structure of the WS, especially the centrality the divines placed on the Covenant of Works (CoW), clearly leads to a pronounced emphasis on the imputation of the active obedience of Christ (IoAOC). No CoW, no IoAOC. Instead [for him] the first covenant is entirely a gracious covenant. But, as has been observed many times, there really is a bi-covenantal structure embedded in this view after all — because the end result is that a covenant of works now surfaces in the Gospel in terms of “covenantal faithfulness” that now constitutes the condition for final justification.

Why just recently Doug Wilson, in his overview of Piper’s critique of NT Wright, said that he was very sympathetic to Wright’s contention that “justification is on the basis of the completed life lived.” Now Wilson is quick to add, “This is not the same thing as affirming justification by works, and is fully consistent with sola fide.” No, it is not, Doug, and your saying so does not make it so. Why even Trent affirmed that justification in their system was entirely of grace and gave “faith” THE place of prominence — going so far as to declare that anyone who would seek to be justified by works deserves an anathema. Wilson, however, ends up following a very similar path as did Trent by appealing to Rom. 2:5–7 ala Wright and confidently declares, “This is consistent with ‘sola fide’ because we receive everything God gives by faith from first to last. The righteousness of God is revealed ‘from’ faith ‘to’ faith (Rom. 1:17), and the just shall ‘live’ by faith (Rom. 1:17), not the ‘just shall make a good start by faith.’”

It should be noted that NONE of the Reformers or the Westminster divines interpreted Rom.2:5–7 the way that Wilson is suggesting. I also want you to note what this amounts to in the final analysis. A distinctive covenant of works is now imported into the scheme of how one goes about securing one’s final justification. You can jump up and down and stomp your feet and howl at the top of your lungs, “Sola Fide all the way Baby!” But it ceased to be what the Reformers and the Westminster divines meant by that when you introduced a conditional final justification that has any reference to “the totality of the life lead.” Please see Calvin’s indignant response to the 6th session where he again and again repudiates any notion that justification is in the slightest contingent on the life lived after one embraces the Gospel, declaring — “as if God, after justifying us once freely IN A SINGLE MOMENT, left us to procure righteousness for ourselves by the observance of the law during the whole of life” (my emphasis).

Clearly Calvin rejected outright the “covenantal nomism” that the New Perspective on Paul advocates like NT Wright are proposing, and to his credit Wright openly admits that he does not follow the Reformers in their understanding of justification, but as it turns out this is the path that Norman Shepherd and the FV is traveling as well.

You see, it looks cleaner, reads easier, and an excellent comment just got better.

Thank you.

The Puritan Board

Every now and then I scan the Puritan Board; I admit that at times the archives seem difficult to navigate, but that’s probably operator error. Anyway, they have three interesting threads going on right now:

1. “Why did Bahnsen shave his beard?” Good question.


2. “Describe FV in one paragraph” I like the sentence on my sidebar: “A small faction of self-professed ‘medieval Trinitarians’ bent on modernizing the Westminster Confession of Faith to conform to their contemporary standards, which they have yet to define.”


3. “Bob Dylan!” The only reason I threw Dylan in there is because it gives me an excuse to plug Weird Al Yankovic. This video is hilarious:

The Moscow Declaration

When you read all the propaganda the Kirk produced during the Southern Slavery scandal, as well as Wilson’s equivocating fingerprints all over “A Joint Federal Vision Statement,” it’s easy to see how Robert K. could ask a FV sympathizer, “Have you made any headway on the Moscow Declaration?”