Julie's Webjournal - Rantings and Ponderings

2003-01-28T14:12:00.000-05:00

Roman Catholics and Church History

From a message board post:

"Many of these people (Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, etc.) aren't as interested in the facts of church history as they are in the denomination of church history. In other words, they begin with a philosophical preference for one denomination that's existed throughout church history, then they go looking for support for that preference in the historical record. If the facts don't support the preference, then so much the worse for the facts. When they tell somebody to read the Webster/King series, what they mean is that they can't refute the series, so they want to leave it to other people to read it and find mistakes in it. These are the same people who, for years, kept telling us how great Robert Sungenis' research was."

My comment: All too true.

In His Grip,

Julie <><

2003-01-28T10:26:00.000-05:00

An Email of Interest

From a Reformed Baptist email list that I belong to. The respondant echoes a lot of my frustration on this matter, with what seems to be a lot of purposefully vague vocabulary, double talk, equivocation, and obfuscation on the part of the "Auburn 4".

From the discussion list:

Original comment: "I don't understand this. In the very book to which you point us, Wilson devotes an entire appendix to his views on the New Perspective on Paul. He goes so far as to say that "the foundational tenets of the New Perspective are off-base. Those things of value that can be found there are not unique to the movement, and those things which distinguish the school of thought are erroneous" (pp. 199-200). Indeed, "the New Perspective tends to present us with a false dilemma" (p. 204). His argument is almost entirely from Stuhlmacher, a noted critic of the New Perspective.

How can you reconcile Wilson's clear statements with your first claim
above?"

The respondant answers:"Good question. I had primed myself to think his NP statement commendable; but then I read through the footnotes. The second footnote of the appendix on page 200 has this comment: "at the same time, I agree with Rich Lusk's exhortation to give Wright a sympathetic hearing." IMHO, this undermines the entire appendix because Lusk ( http://www.hornes.org/theologia/content/rich_lusk/a_short_note_on_n_t_wright_his_reformed_critics.htm ) doesn't merely give Wright a sympathetic hearing even as he calls for evangelicals to do so. Lusk outright endorses Wright... he finishes his essay with "The sixteenth century reformers made great headway in understanding Paul. But we have several more centuries of preaching, exegesis, and scholarship behind us and should not be afraid to move forward, albeit with due caution. Plus, we should recognize the questions facing us are quite different today and cannot but force us to look at Paul from different angles. I am confident that in the long run, Wright's work on the NT will come be treasured by the Reformed tradition as the "next step" in our growing understanding of God's revelation in Christ. Accepting Wright need not mean rejecting the Reformation."

Notice how Wright is set over against "several more centuries" (among other things). The above line of thinking is the same line of thinking as Wilson uses in his premise for "Reformed is not Enough". Wilson cannot genuinely critique the NP and then endorse Lusk, IMHO, just like he cannot affirm both hyper-covenantalism and sola fide. This is more of the double-sided speaking that has come to frustrate the critics of the Monroe 4. Lusk deserves a firm rebuttal from one who is not sympathetic with the NP, not a commendation, which does nothing but further the NP agenda.

I'll grant this: I used to be one who gave Wilson the benefit of the doubt when these kinds of contradictory statements/positions are made/affirmed. For my own self, those days are over. I've read enough Wilson in the past few weeks and months to think while he might not be duplicitous in his doublespeak, he is not a Bahnsen.

Of course, I'm not a Bahnsen either. :-)"

In last night's covenant discussion the comment was made by an AAPC proponent to the effect that people were getting irritated because the "Auburn 4" were shaking up the status quo with their new vocabulary. In somewhat of a sarcastic tone he said, "I'm sorry... you're not using the language of traditional Presbyterian systematic theology...I don't understand what you are saying!" In essense, trying to poke at the complains of critics.

I answered, "Why doesn't someone translate it for the traditional Presbyterian systematic theologian so they can understand it too. That has been one thing that has bugged me about this. It seems like there's a secret language going on that everyone's afraid to clearly define... not saying that in a mean or sarcastic manner, but this has been my frustration in trying to ascertain the truth in this situation." Of course, I really didn't get much of a response to my statement, but to give the proponent the benefit of the doubt, perhaps he was distracted with the larger conversation going on. Nevertheless, I have thought from the beginning that they are insisting upon their own language for terms and their own definitions, but when we ask for clarification it seems that they perhaps get defensive (?) and reply in a sarcastic manner, 'Oh forgive me, I'm not using your language. So sorry that I'm not entrenched in the faulty language that has developed over these theological issues in the last several hundred years.' Then they leave it at that. This is where someone like me sits there blinking and wondering when the Auburn Avenue dictionary will be released. Ok, so you think that the language and use of terms of the Reformed church is faulty and needs to redefined. Explain your ideas to us in a way we can understand, and then help bridge the gap between what I'm saying and what you are so we can understand where you're coming from. If you're not heretics, then help us understand that you're not by demonstrating to us, in a way we can understand, just what it is you are espousing.

Or, maybe we understand perfectly what they're saying... and we just don't want to believe they're saying it. Whatever the case, the more I see the debates start to emerge and play out, the less I like what I see coming from that camp. I am genuinely worried for them.

In His Grip,

Julie <><

2003-01-28T09:50:00.000-05:00

A Report From Deep in the Trenches

Well, things on the AAPC front seem to keep escalating, at least with regards to the talks we're having with AAPC advocates in #prosapologian. For instance, last night there was a scuffle regarding justification and the covenant which went on for quite a while. A friend who was involved in the discussion summed it up best:

"They are utterly misunderstanding and/or mischaracterizing the nature of the covenants"

I think she was dead on about that, and it shows me that perhaps to get to the root of the issues, what needs to be investigated more closely are their covenantal stances. I've been more intrigued as of late with the outcome of those stances in the form of what looks so close to new perspectivism, but now I suppose I need to give the other avenue a lot more thought, as indeed what they are most often charged with is hypercovenantalism. Not to say I didn't see this before, but my focus keeps shifting over to the outworking of their views on the covenant - in the form of their new perspectivist leanings. And as new perspectivists like Wright and Shepherd are often hailed by AAPC proponents (whose new perspectivism seems to take form from their views on the covenants), then further investigation on what they say about the covenants will be very helpful in determining why the theology is working itself out in these odd views concerning election and justification.

Stay tuned for more details. :-)

In His Grip,

Julie <><

2003-01-19T23:31:00.000-05:00

Roman Catholics and Their Objections to Sola Scriptura

Recently, on a Yahoo group, I witnessed the exegetical follies of a few Roman Catholic 'e-pologists'. Basically, when asked to give a full exegesis of 2 Timothy 3:16-17, they danced around the issue. I wrote some food for thought for the Roman Catholics, but, alas, procrastinated in sending it off to the list. So, I figured I'd just post it here for prosterity.

Roman Catholic John said:

"I have presented the error of confounding
"profitable" with sufficient."

John,

Then could you properly exegete 2Tim 3:16-17 for us by noting the context of the passage and the use of the Greek by Paul in those verses? It would be beneficial for those of us who are confused as to the proper exegesis of the passage. You're questioning "profitable" in verse 16, which is the Greek word wfelimos (ophelimos in case the Greek font doesn't display. Pardon the Greek faux pas with the sigma at the end, I still haven't figured out how to do the proper ending sigma on my English keyboard using the Mounce font). To be of assistance, the Bauer, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich Greek Lexicon (BDAG) has ophelimos listed on p. 1108 of the third edition.

I would recommend, in your exegesis, giving us your interpretation of artios (artios) as well. especially in light of what Paul is saying about the qeopneustos grafe (theopneustos graphe), and how those things which Scripture is being listed as being ophelimos for leave room for insufficiency. We Protestants contend that the reason the Scriptures are sufficient are due to their being theopneustos, btw, but maybe you can shed some light as to what Paul is really saying in 2 Tim. 3:16-17.
Oh, while you're at it, can you also shed some light on where Paul calls tradition theopneustos? I don't seem to find a reference to theopneustos in the BDAG anywhere but 2 Tim. 3:16, (pp.449-450) but admit I could be wrong as I'm just an amateur Greek student. I'm also looking for where Paul says tradition is able to do the things which Scripture is listed as ophelimos for: "teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness" (NASB), and where he says that tradition can make the "theou anthropos" (man of God) artios and exertismenos (equipped) for every good work? (In the GNT, this phrase is pros pan ergon)

Thanks for your help!

In His Grip,

Julie <><

I have yet to see a Roman Catholic exegete this passage of Scripture to this level of exegesis. Usually, the denial of Sola Scriptura starts backing away from exegesis at this point, instead reverting to 2 Thes 2:15 to try to prove that 2 Tim. 3:16-17 is not advocating Scriptural sufficiency. However, they once again shoot themselves in the foot, as 2 Thes 2:15 in no way supports the Roman Catholic concept of "Tradition". The Roman Catholic apologist would be hard pressed to establish that what Paul spoke was in any way different from what he wrote, or that any of the things which he spoke are still known today.

Sola Scriptura, Baby!

Julie <><

2003-01-19T23:13:00.000-05:00

A couple of quotes from Norman Shepherd:

"Because faith which is not obedient faith is dead faith, and because repentance is necessary for the pardon of sin included in justification, and because abiding in Christ by keeping his commandments are all necessary for continuing in the state of justification, good works, works done from true faith, according to the law of God are nevertheless necessary for salvation from eternal condemnation and therefore for justification."

“The righteousness of Jesus Christ ever remains the exclusive ground of the believer's justification, but the personal godliness of the believer is also necessary for his justification in the judgment of the last day...”

2003-01-19T21:39:00.000-05:00

http://www.credoquarterly.com/evang1.htm

Another good article on New Perspectivism which also touches on the AAPC controversy.

Quote:

"A Summary of The New Perspective on Paul

The New Perspective on Paul movement began with E.P. Sanders in 1977 when he wrote a book titled Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion. In it, he taught that Paul essentially agreed with the Jew's 1st Century understanding of the law of God, and justification. According to the New Perspective, the Jews of Paul's day were not works righteousness based, but were simply mistaken as to who the Messiah was. A heavy emphasis is placed on an intertestimental Jewish idea which taught that Adam was a “type” of Israel, and that covenant acceptance would one day be found by an Adamic representative (Wright 18). According to the New Perspective architects, the “Last Adam” (Jesus) represented Israel as the collective Adam, standing in the place of unfaithful national Israel. N.T Wright insists, “Adam-theology, where it occurs in the Old Testament and intertestimental writings, fulfils a specific purpose” (Wright 21). The purpose being that collective Adam (Israel), “is, or is to become, God's true humanity”(21). Consequently, Christ as the Last Adam stands in place of the “whole eschatological people of God” (21) and inaugurates a new and broader Israel, which includes converted Gentiles. Christ's propitiation then is first a national (covenantal) representation, and then an individual one (personal election). The subtly here is almost unnoticeable, until we remind ourselves that Christ in his death was not primarily representing a nation that would maintain their status of covenant people, but rather the elect throughout all time who would become spiritual Israel. “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel”(Romans 9:6). Here then in the New Perspective, the idea of Covenant has superseded the doctrine of election.

Furthermore, the New Perspective teaches that both 1st Century Jews and Christians understood that salvation is by grace through faith, and that good works are merely the outworking of loving obedience toward God. The difference between the two groups is found in their approach to Jesus Christ. The 1st Century Jew rejected Jesus as the Messiah and claimed an exclusively Jewish covenant, furnished with the badges of circumcision, the Sabbath, and the moral/ceremonial law. The Christian, on the other hand, believed Jesus was the Messiah who (as the collective Adamic symbol) brings the promised vindication of God's people to fruition by establishing the one sacrifice, and rendering the old covenant requirements unnecessary. Justification therefore was not believed to be a forensic imputation, but rather a declaration pertaining to someone who has already received mercy, and who is already a member of the improved- covenant community. In other words, if you are in the covenant by baptism, salvation belongs to you as much as the saint in heaven. Subsequently, obedience to the law is then required to maintain that state of justification. Neither the New Testament Jew nor Gentile thought that the law brought about salvation, but maintained the salvation already given graciously in the Covenant. The only problem with the Jew then, in Paul's mind, is their rejection of Christ. The two views were very similar in that they both believed that justification was inherent in the covenant and mere maintenance was required to be finally justified.

This is a summary of the New Perspective doctrine. "

Sounds oddly familiar.

In His Grip,

Julie <><

2003-01-19T20:57:00.000-05:00

Well, yesterday marked day number 3 that me and several friends have listened to sermons from the 2002 Auburn Avenue Pastor's Conference. I must say what we've heard so far doesn't give me a lot of hope for the gentlemen who presented their thoughts at this conference, and leaves the listener often with a host of unanswered questions.

My thoughts on the matter have circled around these questions:

1. Why was Norman Shepherd, who has been "kicked out" (for the lack of a better term) from Westminster for denial of sola fide, supposed to have spoken at this conference? (Note: Shepherd didn't speak at 2002, but I have heard he was at the 2003 AAPC)

2. Why do the advocates of the "Auburn Four" (as they are often dubbed) seem to like Shepherd and NT Wright. (Wright being a New Perspectivist)

3. And, along the same lines, why do the "Auburn Four" deny they are new perspectivist when they seem to use a lot of the same language? For instance, the emphasis on the concept that most reformed people have a "western", Hellenistic reading of Scripture, influenced by Luther's misreading of Scripture.

At the very least, they are indeed hypercovenantalist. The Law/Gospel distinction seems to get blurred in favor of a form of baptismal regeneration, and grace-infused works. Sorta like Roman Catholicism, only dressed up differently. The "Auburn Four" use different language, so I hesitate to say, "they advocate this doctrine or that", and they don't stop often to define their terms for us simple-minded people. ;-) But, when I boil down the things I hear in these sermons, so far I've heard Steve Schlissel say that the reading of Romans 3:10 that most Reformed Protestants employ, which says, "There is none righteous" is in error, for the Bible says, according to him, that there were many who are righteous, and Paul is just using hyperbole. This seems to indicate that somehow man has an inherent righteousness when they enter into the church through Baptism (remember, Schlissel is a paedobaptist). I've heard Schlissel and Wilkins state that baptism unites us with Christ, and thus puts us under the covenant. From there God's grace works with the believer for them to fulfill the Law. But, in essence, it seems as though they have the same sort of present/eschatological justification concept going as the Roman Catholics do, for they emphasize that covenant members can fall away from the faith and have their branch from the vine cut off. So far, however, I haven't heard a clear definition of justification yet from the speakers. But I'm left to wonder where the cross of Christ comes into play and what they feel about imputed righteousness.

I have heard it said by new perspectivists that they do affirm a present justification. Roman Catholicism does believe that justification is present as well, in that it enters us into a state of grace which then makes our works meritorious, and through works and observance of the sacraments, man continues to abide in the faith. The difference I see right now is that the Auburn Four seem not to indicate that works are meritorious, or that somehow the grace of God is insufficient to bring about and accomplish salvation, but they do add several nuances which could, when worked out logically, indicate a default denial of the sufficiency of grace. But the Auburn Four do indicate that baptism enters one into the covenant, which them joins them with Christ as full covenant members with full covenant member priviledges. This seems to be in the effort to justify their stance on paedocommunion. (Random thought: Is a form of New Perspectivism the only way one could come to a positive stance on paedocommunion?) Where I see a lot of the similarities between the A4 and Roman Catholics seems to be this indication of an eschatological church. Some of what the A4 and proponents advocate seem to lead one to an eschatological justification as well - which in Roman Catholicism is the belief that man is not justified once-for-all until death or when all of their sins have been atoned for through purgatory and indulgences. The A4 say that the covenant member can fall away from the faith (a branch being cut from the vine as belonging on the vine in the first place as a true branch), hence if this is the case, that covenant member has no final security in their salvation until death - when there is no chance they could apostatize and be cut from the vine. Eschatological justification, in a nutshell.

Now, what makes this even odder is that they use this, actually to promote the idea that we are far more secure in our salvation under their ideas. They create a straw man by pointing to the Puritans as the alternative, and then setting up the Puritans as being "navel gazers" with a list of things which should accompany the person who has a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. Thus, they say, the person under a works-examination system is not secure in their salvation. The alternative: Resting on one's baptism as being their union with Christ. But, if this be the case, and a covenant member can fall away from the faith, then I don't see how they can avoid a form of works-righteousness. And in one of Schlissel's sermons, he seems to indicate as such when he constantly emphasizes the Law in his sermon as being something accomplishable.

In any event, I still have a lot to listen to, and these ideas in no way are my final conclusions. Just some thoughts I need to work through on this. I intend to listen more to these sermons and try to discern if there is something that I'm missing in listening. Perhaps my blind "Hellenism" is in the way, as I follow Luther's over-active conscience in my definitions of justification and imputed righteousness. ;-) But, I do remember, in the course of listening to the sermons I've listened to thus far, thinking of Galatians 3:1-3. Andrew Webb has some ideas on the subject written in an article (he was at the 2003 AAPC) at http://www.credoquarterly.com/aapc1.htm and I encourage anyone who might read this to read his article. I know there are pieces to this puzzle that I'm missing, and important points and clues that have slipped out of my mind already. Stay tuned for further thoughts.

In His Grip,

Julie <><

2002-12-31T15:26:00.000-05:00

Ever have one of those days? Well, when one of those days happens to fall on New Year's Eve, it doesn't seem to bode well. ;-)

Besides the rough night that I had with Kerry... (I didn't get to bed until 2:30 am and he decided to wake up screaming at 6 am).. I woke up this morning to discover that my message board's popularity has led to me needed to fork out money for 12 gig of bandwidth. Then I tried to make a pizza, and messed up the crust such that the whole pizza then tasted terrible. 2 hours of work down the drain. :-(

*sigh* Just feel like crawling under a rock. But I suppose I have to look at this in a different light. Rom. 8:28 is a promise that God works all things for the good of those who love Him, and Rom 5:3-5 states:
"Romans 5:3 And not only this, but we also exult in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance; 4 and perseverance, proven character; and proven character, hope; 5 and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us."

God, create in me a clean heart, and give me the grace to be able to praise you even in these small trials and tribulations, knowing that you are building character and perseverence in me.

In His Grip,
Julie <><

2002-12-26T15:59:00.000-05:00

Visited this website today. A memorable quote:

"While it is certainly not the place of myself nor my staff to lay condemnation upon this unholy lot of HELLBOUND homosexual non-KJV reading liberal wussies it is clearly within our discretion to allow them to wallow in their sin as well as of course their imminent eternal damnation so bring it on bad boys and show Papa Satan what obedient little stewards of evil you all are. Amen. I just hope for your sakes he rewards you in hell by allowing you to hang with him in his lava jacuzzi which of course he will be unable to do as he will be bound in chains for eternity with his crew of fallen angels but that's another subject entirely. Amen."

We talked about this site in #Prosapologian a while ago as well... laughed so hard, I could barely breathe. We're still taking bets as to if this is a real site and not just a parody one.

If it's real... then man... talk about someone who needs to learn about a word: "grace"

So, if you're in the mood to see KJV-Only fundamentalism at its worst, have fun.

In His Grip,
Julie <><

2002-12-26T15:47:00.000-05:00

Well, here it is, the day after Christmas... and as we approach 2003 one can't help but wonder where the time goes. Seems like only yesterday we were toasting a glass of wine as 2002 dawned, but I've noticed that after one gets married and starts having children, time flies so quickly. Cassidy just turned 4 and continues to get so big and so smart. I'll be 23 in March. Kerry turns 3 in February. It's astonishing just how fast they grow.

Well, today finds me in a lazy mood. I slept in and have been having trouble getting back into the daily grind since then. I'm hoping that working on a journal entry will help get these mental juices flowing, although, depending on who you ask, they may have already ruled me a mentally lost cause. ;-) Not that the fact that as a believer in Christ I have the awesome adminition and privilege to declare the Gospel of Jesus Christ shouldn't be enough of a motivator - but alas, today has been a real battle of the flesh.

Been working on the website lately, and I'm not quite seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. Still seems like there's so much to do, and so little time to do it in. Not to mention that on the 11th of January, I must submit my opening statement in a debate on Justification with Roman Catholic Jon-Peter Thomas. I'm certainly hoping this debate goes much better than the Sola Scriptura debate, and am basing this hope on the fact the Jon-Peter is NO Apolonio, praise be to God. Hopefully we'll have some good interaction on the subject. But it brings with it the feeling that, once again, I am attempting to defend such an incredible and awesome doctrine of God. Really instills a feeling of gravity with one, keeping in mind that these are such awesome eternal truths. But the preparation is really teaching me a lot. I've been reading through a commentary on Romans and John Piper's "Counted Righteous in Christ" to prepare, and will soon be moving on to "The God Who Justifies" by James White (second reading... one can never grow tired of reading his passion for the subject of justification by faith alone) and William Webster's "Salvation, the Bible, and Roman Catholicism". I hope this lazy flesh doesn't get the best of me, and I am able to finish those works in time for the opening statement. Well, if I believe that the glorious riches I have in Christ Jesus are inexhaustible, and that indeed through Christ I have all that I need to triumph over my flesh, then I certainly am not in bondage to the leanings of my flesh, but often my faith is so short-sighted and I am prone to wander. *sigh*

Praise be to the Lord that He is not done working on me, and that one day He will clothe me in glory and free me from this body of decay.

So, here comes 2003. Reminds me once again how we are but shadows and dust, and how only the impact we make for Christ truly has any value. We'll be here today and gone tomorrow, but those things that are eternal will never perish. Lord, I pray that through your grace and mercy we who are called by you, regenerated by the Spirit, given the gift of faith, imputed the righteousness of Christ, and declared righteous by the Father, and then set free from the bondage of sin to be conformed to the image of Christ... that we who are sealed with the Spirit, given the grace to show outward the inner workings of regeneration, imputation, and justification, and preserved to the end... Lord, that we can bring you glory. Help us to focus on the eternal things, and not to be wooed by the things of this world.

Justified by grace alone through faith alone,
Julie <><

2002-12-26T15:15:00.000-05:00

Grrrr.... lost an entire post I was working on. This'll teach me for not copying my work before pressing the submit button...

2002-11-12T00:39:00.000-05:00

Well, let me take this opportunity, now that I think I have the kinks worked out, to introduce you to my "Blog". (Boy, that's a funny word). I was really afraid of doing this, in the fear that someone would come across it and think me just wanting to wax eloquent over the Internet as though I'm anything worth paying attention to.
I created this with the express purpose not only of working through some thoughts, but also in the hopes that these random musings would somehow work to the glory of the Lord, or that maybe in some way I could edify or challenge someone else, and have them do the same to me.

So, here we have it... a journal of sorts....

*waves* O/

Julie <><

2002-11-12T00:30:00.000-05:00

Hmm... well this is an attempt by me to see if I can get this thing working or not. I'm usually somewhat of a tech savvy type of person, but this interface is somewhat funny.
So, please disregard this... :-)

Julie <><