OK... I might as well make it official

For no reason other than the fact that I like the template better, I'm going back to Blogger. I'm sorry for the inconvenience.

Visit me at:

Whilin Away the Hours

Posted by barb at 4:43 pm ~ There are 14 notes [ View ~ Add ]

For the time being...

I'll be down the road at Blogger. I haven't moved officially, but I'll let you know if I do.

Changing blog urls is a lot like changing email addresses... a pain in the posterior.

Posted by barb at 11:30 am ~ There is zero note [ Add ]

A duplicate entry

Since several people asked about the failed comment system with regard to the entry on Rev. Shepherd's response to the OPC report, I've re-entered it on Blogger... just to see how it goes.

Whilin' Away the Hours (Blogger)

Posted by barb at 12:59 am ~ There is zero note [ Add ]

An additional response to the OPC Report on justification

SOME COMMENTS ON THE OPC JUSTIFICATION REPORT, by Rev. Norman Shepherd

Posted by barb at 10:20 pm ~ There is zero note [ Add ]

Stumbled upon an interesting quote today

Regarding 1 Peter 3:20-22, according to Dr. Kline: "with respect to the interpretation of the deluge-`baptism' as a judicial ordeal, we should observe that that understanding of it opens the way for a satisfactory carrying through of what would seem the most straightforward approach to these difficult verses. For the most natural assumption is certainly that Peter was led to bring the deluge [the flood] and the rite of baptism together because of the common element of the waters. And surely, then, that exegesis will most commend itself which succeeds in maintaining a genuine parallel between the role played by the waters in the two cases. Since, therefore, a saving function is predicated of the waters of baptism (v. 21), the waters should also figure as a means of salvation in the deluge episode (v. 20). That is, the problematic [di hudatos-- through water] should be construed in the instrumental sense [i.e. salvation is though the instrumentality of the waters]. This can be done without the torturous explanations required by the usual forms of approach, once it is recognized that the flood waters were the ordeal instrument by which God justified Noah [this is seen in the Book of Hebrews, cf. Hebrews 11:7]. It may be natural to think of the flood waters as merely destructive, as something from which to be saved. But those waters may in precisely the same and obvious sense be the means of the condemnation-destruction or of justification-salvation, if they are seen to be waters of a judicial ordeal with its potential of dual divine verdicts [i.e., blessing or curse]" [Kline, By Oath Consigned, 65, 66]

Salvation/justification through the instrumentality of baptism.

Posted by barb at 12:20 am ~ There is zero note [ Add ]

Joel Garver examines

his views as presented by Guy Waters in The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology HERE.

Posted by barb at 5:03 pm ~ There is one note [ View ~ Add ]

I'm sure everyone knows

Doug Wilson has begun a critique of The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology: A Comparative Analysis by Guy Waters. I sometimes don't appreciate Wilson's rhetorical style, but I do hope he continues his critique in the same vein as yesterday's installment. The few Beisner quotes cited in the entry are eminently worthy of "The Full Wilson."

Posted by barb at 1:43 pm ~ There is zero note [ Add ]

Inspired by a slam

May women exercise authority over men?

In Scripture, women are forbidden to hold the ordained office of elder (and therefore they are forbidden to lead worship services or to teach/preach in the worship service.) In this sphere women may not usurp male authority. Likewise, in a normal family structure, the husband is the head of his wife, and the wife is to submit to her husband. She is not to submit to any man other than her husband except in the sphere of the church where she is to submit to her elders (as are all laity) unless her conscience is bound by Scripture. A woman is not required to submit to her male neighbor - ever, except in Christian love as one preferring another over one's self, a calling common to all believers.

But what about women in authority? First, God commanded both Adam & Eve to subdue and have dominion of the earth (Gen 1:27f). They were equally commissioned to rule creation. Second, God honors and prospers female prophets in Scripture such as Huldah (2 Kings 22:14ff.; 2 Chron. 23:22ff.) who gave orders to a king and Anna (Lk 2:36f) who served in the Temple, or Deborah, who was a prophetess as well as a judge over Israel, and the military advisor of men (Judg. 4). Barak is commended (Heb 11:32) for his faith in following her into battle. These few examples certify that women may hold positions of authority over men in society and government, even within a typological theocracy.

While OPC committee reports are not binding, nor are they the official position of the OPC, they are valid as an accepted opinion within the denomination. I find support for my position in the opinion of the committee members who submitted the Report of the Committee on Women in Church Office

II. FOUNDATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
C. The Order of Authority and Subordination to Which Men and Women are Subject
2. Is the relationship of man and woman in marriage paradigmatic of the relationships in general?

Clearly since they speak of the one man and of the One woman, the first two chapters of Genesis focus attention on the marriage bond. Are the relationships that pertain there typical of an order that holds between man and woman in general, or are they restricted to marriage? This is by no means an easy question to answer. But we remember that God called man and woman, individually, to do more than enter into marriage, procreate, and fill the earth. God gave the dominion over the earth to both man and woman, individually, and called them to subdue it. That the terms of the cultural mandate extend beyond marriage gives us warrant to believe that there is a broad terrain of society on which man and woman relate to each other in such a way that the order between them is determined only by their individual ability and training, and not by a typical relationship of authority and subordination, as in the family. Their relationship as man and woman in other connections, such as that of the church, would then depend on whether this particular grouping is characterized by a typical authority/subordination relation between men and women, or whether it is composed of a free association in which men and women relate as individuals.

Posted by barb at 4:41 pm ~ There are 4 notes [ View ~ Add ]

Inspiring!

419 Eater is a site dedicated to scambaiting. What a concept! The baits are priceless.

HT: Re4med

Posted by barb at 12:00 am ~ There is zero note [ Add ]

Out for Chinese

with friends, and then Pirates!

ARRR!

Posted by barb at 3:17 pm ~ There are 3 notes [ View ~ Add ]

Review of Guy Waters' new book:

Meribah: A Review of Guy Waters _Federal Vision and Covenant Theology_

While some will hail this as the death knell for FV sympathizers, it will only appeal to those who are already pre-disposed to Waters’ conclusions. Those who are able to recognize poor argumentation will find no lack of it in this book. Waters is unable to argue with those he critiques from their point of view.

Posted by barb at 3:42 pm ~ There are 6 notes [ View ~ Add ]

Sermon recommendation:

The Big Story (Romans 11) by Jack Collins.

"We draw our life from the People of God."

Posted by barb at 3:39 pm ~ There is zero note [ Add ]

What are friends for,

if not to send great quotes.

The Westminster standards sought to place due emphasis on the importance of the promise of redemption in Genesis 3:15 by putting forth a two-covenant view of history, a covenant of works and a covenant of grace.


II. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.


III. Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.


This two-covenant view has been debated hotly within Reformed and Presbyterian circles. Opponents deem it a systematic distinction that lacks a clear biblical foundation. It may also give the unfortunate impression that God's covenant relationship with man before the fall was a strictly legal relationship devoid of grace and that his covenant relationship with man after the fall was a strictly gracious arrangement without reference to law or obligation.


While these concerns are valid, there is also much to commend the Westminster distinction. First, it appropriately recognizes that Adam and Eve lived within a covenant with God before the fall. Second, it rightly acknowledges the mediatorial role of Adam in the covenant, something which Paul makes much of in Romans 5:12-19. Finally, the distinction affirms that the fall so affects man's relationship to God that, in order for it to be restored, God must redeem man from sin. Thus, the Westminster language of the two covenants "highlights the sinfulness of sin and the amazing character of God's free grace."


Nevertheless, the Westminster construction, throughout the history of the Reformed tradition, has suggested to many theologians that Adam's relationship to God before the fall was a strictly meritorious arrangement. The Confession says that "life was promised to Adam; and in him and his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience." Given what we have already seen of God's gracious initiative in creation, as well as what we will see that the Bible says about the relationship of law and grace, it is dangerously misleading to describe Adam's relationship as merit-based.


Adam's obedience was a necessary condition but not the sufficient condition for life in God's favor. Adam was required to obey the covenant instruction not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and Adam's failure to obey would bring sin and death. But the sufficient condition for the covenant and Adam's life within it was the fatherly and kingly favor of God. What I am suggesting here is that life in covenant relationship with God was something that Adam enjoyed by God's grace. He possessed it as a gift. He could lose that gift by the misapplication of his responsible freedom, his disobedience, but he could not earn or merit it.

--Michael D. Williams, Professor of Systematic Theology, CTS Far As the Curse is Found, page 71-72

Posted by barb at 10:14 am ~ There are 25 notes [ View ~ Add ]

I Will Remember

© Jamie Soles Sept 17, 2004

I have smelled that pleasing scent again
Of your offering; I’ll hold back the rain
Go out Noah, fill the earth once more
I will not do as I did before
When the flood came
And the creatures of the earth were washed away
But not again…

I establish my covenant with you
With your offspring and all creatures too
I will never end all flesh again
With a flood to destroy all things
And this is the sign
That I make between Me and you
And every generation to come
I have set My bow in the cloud
And when I bring a cloud upon the earth
I will see My bow
And when My bow is seen

I will remember (My covenant with you)
I will remember (My covenant with you)
I will remember
And you can remember too
( Jamie Soles, I Will Remember )


Who knows if this is the real deal, but it's kinda cool...

Noah's Ark? For Real (scroll down for the story)

HT: BHT

Posted by barb at 1:01 pm ~ There is one note [ View ~ Add ]