Phillip: Your Disney articles on W6 were interesting. I’d like to offer to fill in a few of the unknowns for you:

Atlantis: The Lost Empire
Atlantis: Milo’s Return

Besides being incredibly uninteresting films and steeped in typical new-age mythology, Princess Kida (Milo’s girlfriend) is a single-parent child with a father (who eventually dies). I’d give them both negatives.

Monsters, Inc.

I, for one, would argue for a negative. Boo spends most of the film as the de facto child of Sully, and since it’s what’s on the screen that matters…

Mulan

Mulan does have 2 parents (and an ornery grandmother). Both parents survive the film, and her actions in the movie are all done to save her father and bring her family honor, through somewhat dubious means. I’d still give this one a positive.

Pokemon

The Pokemon animated storyline involves a boy who’s raised by his mother. No father in sight. He leaves mom at the ripe old age of 10 or so to go become a trainer of fighting animals. Kinda like cock-fighting, but cute. Negatives all around.

The Rescuers Down Under

The boy at the center of this movie (Cody) does not appear to have a father. One of the few good Disney sequels.

Robin Hood

Yes, there was a wedding between Marian and Robin Hood at the end.

I’d also add in a few more that weren’t on the list…

Song of the South

Seems to involve kids raised by their grandmother. Parents were absent to the best of my recollection.

Alice in Wonderland

Uh… OK. I only remember one parent. Can anyone confirm?

The Black Cauldron

I seem to remember this one involving orphans.

The Many Adventures of Winnie-the-Pooh

Christopher Robin’s parents are no-shows, and Kanga and Roo are a single-parent family.

Oliver and Company

Based on Oliver Twist. All about Orphans, although someone does eventually get 2 parents.

Sword in the Stone

No parents that I’m aware of, other than a couple of fathers.

I’ve not seen either Treasure Planet or Brother Bear.

Josh/Jim: I agree, Josh, I think Jim misrepresented Calvinism on point one, and would instead phrase it just as you did. In fact, I suspect the Arminian (add it to your spell-check dictionary, Jim! (JN)) would object to how his is phrased, too. Maybe these:

Calvinism: God wants everyone to be saved, and is capable of saving everyone, but saves only some for reasons unclear to us.
Arminianism: God wants everyone to be saved, and we are all capable of being saved, but only some respond to God’s call for reasons unclear to us.
Universalism: God wants everyone to be saved, therefore everyone is eventually saved, via methods unclear to us.

More or less? And I think that given this wording, Lutherans would sign up with definition #1, if you removed the “Calvinism” label.

On a personal note, I’m on vacation this week, so posting will be light indeed as I travel. Happy Thanksgiving, everybody!

You forgot one:

~God wants to save everyone, but he doesn’t, despite the fact it is in his power. Why is something of a mystery.

Phil: To say that God desires all men to be saved, but that he chooses to withhold salvation from some, is simply to say that he desires A and not A. The two statements are complete contradictions; you have God basically doing something contrary to his will. You also seem to be unfamiliar with the Dutch Reformed and supralapsarianism, which quite emphatically affirms that God created man with the specific intent of causing the damnation of the majority of them. I’ve also never heard a Calvinist say that the unsaved resist the Holy Spirit. Also, if the atonement isn’t universal, but grace is, then you essentially have grace of God outside of Christ, which is nowhere supported in Scripture.

Alex: What do you make of Stephen’s charge to the Pharisees? Were they only ignoring the “outward call?” Is there an “inward Holy Spirit” and an “outward Holy Spirit?” For what its worth, there’s no distinction between “inward” and “outward” grace in Lutheran theology, since the Bible never really speaks of two kinds of grace, one which can be resisted, and one which can’t. There’s just “grace.”

Bill: No man can choose to “lower” or “not resist.” According to the Formula of Concord, man’s “non-resistance” is not a cause of his conversion or election. Basically, God overcomes man’s natural resistance in the elect, but not in the reprobate. Every Calvinist I know would say that’s because he doesn’t even try in the case of the reprobate, since his grace is irresistable. The Lutheran leaves it a mystery. And if you’re going to call the sacraments acts of obedience, then faith is an act of obedience as well. Galatians 3:27 mentions baptism and grace in the same sentence. Or do you not believe that being clothed with Christ is the essence of grace?

Michael: Luther rejected the authority of the papacy, the temporal power of bishops, the system of seven sacraments, merit, indulgences, purgatory, and free-will. He was a pretty bad Catholic.

Ok, this Lutheran thing is way too long for me to follow, so at the risk of raising the iMonk’s ire at a trivial response, let me just put it as plain and as simple as I can: If God can do anything He wants (after all, He’s God), and He says He wants everyone to be saved, then how come everyone isn’t saved?

All the answers I’ve ever gotten on this fall into three basic categories:

• God doesn’t really want to save everyone, thus only those He wants to save are saved.( (Grossly simplified, this is Calvinism.)
• God wants to save everyone but He can’t, because He somehow managed to make creatures who are autonomous enough to reject Him. (Grossly simplified, this is Armenianism)
• God does save everyone, so shut up and sit quiet. (Grossly simplified, this is Quakerism.)

Each perspective requires some form of hermeneutic gymnastics that selects passages that favor the answer chosen while de-emphasizing problem verses. Watch a Calvinist explain “He is not willing that any should perish” sometime, it’s entertaining. Or an Armenian deal with “He who the Father gives me I will in no wise cast out.” Quakers, of course, solve their problem by simply ignoring most of the NT, and reading Ben Franklin instead.

As for my self, well, I refer to Rule #35. And I note with some satisfaction that the iMonk has adopted pretty much the entirety of my suggested revision to Rule #9 verbatim. It’s like the new phone books in The Jerk; I’m somebody!

Who is the man that’ll help his brother man? It’s….

The Chick Tract Translator
That’s right, gentle souls… today, we turn aside from faith healers, goofy televangelists, and militant vegetarians, and we return to the wondrous world of the Chickiverse. Today’s heaping helping of pre-Thanksgiving love is the 1994 Billboard of Goodness, “Trust Me”. I know that, by this point, you all must be thinking to yourself, “Jack Chick certainly can’t have more good ideas than he’s already published.” Oh, how wrong you are. Jack Chick has a total of 2 good ideas, and they’ve already published them. The rest he’s already published is poop.

“Trust Me” is a cautionary tale that opens with some mystery kid who we’ll call “Democratic Presidential Candidate Howard Dean”. Democratic Presidential Candidate Howard Dean is walking down the road through the safe streets provided by the Clinton administration, complete with people shooting holes in fences and hanging their babies upside down out of windows. In a related note, Michael Jackson is now suing Jack Chick for copying his actions from 2002 back in 1994. Details as they become available.

So Democratic Presidential Candidate Howard Dean sneaks behind a fence and encounters the Addams family. Fester offers Democratic Presidential Candidate Howard Dean a pill – which, of course, is how all drug addictions start – and, being the intelligent doctor that he is, Democratic Presidential Candidate Howard Dean tosses it down his throat. Over the next 7 months, Democratic Presidential Candidate Howard Dean sees planets and stars that don’t exist, probably explaining most of his stances. Uncle Fester, though, is quick on the ball. He provides Howie with more pills, but tells him that it’s gonna cost him next time, and that he should go out and steal.

So, Democratic Presidential Candidate Howard Dean is seen toting a TV out a window down to the local pawn shop. As a reward, Uncle Fester provides Howie with a needle. Ooooooo…. just what Democratic Presidential Candidate Howard Dean always wanted. So, on we go until finally Democratic Presidential Candidate Howard Dean is selling dope to hippies in parks and back alleys. Eventually, he decides to make a deal with the dude from “Raising Arizona”... you know the one… Biker Guy… blows up bunnies with hand grenades… Well, turns out that he’s a cop.

So now, Democratic Presidential Candidate Howard Dean is in trouble. He’s carted off to court, where the jury gives him the big “Thumbs Down”, which is a little odd. Most juries I’ve seen write down their answers on a piece of paper and hand it to the judge. They don’t actually look the criminal in the eye and give him the thumbs down, or any other appendage in any other direction. But nope, the judge joins them in the big thumbs down, and off Democratic Presidential Candidate Howard Dean heads to prison, where Rollo, doing 3-5 years for tax evasion, takes Howie off for some good old-fashioned prison lovin’.

Now, I gotta say… I have read many a Chick Tract, but this is the first one, I believe this is the first one that directly addresses prison rape – always an appropriate subject for tracts. Anywho, Democratic Presidential Candidate Howard Dean’s encounter with Rollo gives him a raving case of AIDS, which leads to the perfect opportunity for the Independent Baptist Prison Minister to palm off a Chick Tract…. you know… instead of talking to the guy…. Sure enough, dying of AIDS has Democratic Presidential Candidate Howard Dean scared enough to convert and join the Independent Baptists, before he dies 2 days later.

So, boys and girls… what did we learn from this Chick Tract? I don’t know about you, but I learned that Democratic Presidential Candidates sneaking through dangerous neighborhoods and ducking behind fences to find the Addams family and popping pills and then stealing stuff to pay for them and dealing drugs will eventually get you sent to prison where you can get loved, saved, and infected, all before you die in your cell. But then, maybe I missed something…

Michael: I agree, the invitation is as nearly a sacrament in the Baptist church as anything.
As to grace imparted through Baptism or the LS. It seems the argument is “God could do this”, or, “Where does it say that grace isn’t imparted through the sacraments?” God could do a lot of things, but I’d like to see it a little plainer. As far as I can tell, grace and baptism never even appear in the same sentence together in the NT. (I could be wrong, I just did a quick search)

Baptism and LS are not just symbols, they are acts of obedience. If obedience allows us to acquire grace, then I’m all for it, although it sounds like a contradiction to me. I’m sure I’m not understanding sacramentalism correctly but to me they seem like doctrines in search of prooftexts. Occam’s Razor.

Couple of notes on the Lutheran thing:

-If Baptists think it’s absurd to say grace comes through a sacrament, someone tell me what is going on with about 90% of the invitationalism in Baptist Churches? If that’s not sacramentalism, I’m a nun.

-All of this gets much clearer when you understand the history of the reformation and some historical theology.

-In general, evangelicals have tried to make Luther into a Calvinist. He’s much more of a Roman Catholic. Luther never rejected Roman Catholicism, just the abuses he saw that had taken hold of the papacy. Even I had to be reminded of Luther’s views on Mary.

-I do not think the every Baptist enthusiastically believes baptism and the Lord’s Supper are JUST symbols. It’s the “just” that is the problem. Is saying something is “the Gospel as a sign” going too far?

-Some of you probably think Josh is saying The LS and Baptism have saving power apart from faith. I.E. that if you could get an atheist to submit to baptism, he would be a Christian. I don’t think that is at all what’s being said.

I have been avoiding jumping into the Lutheran / Calvinism fray because I wasn’t sure if I was knowledgable enough about Lutheranism (most of what I knew about Lutheranism comes from listening to Garrison Keillor). But then I thought, when has that ever stopped me?

A few points: I think the bible is clear that God desires all to be saved. It is a gross misrepresentation of Calvinism to state otherwise. But God has not decreed that all will be saved. Desire is not the same as decree. People resist the Holy Spirit. No question. No Calvinist that I know of believes otherwise. The Calvinist believes that God can and does overcome that resistance in the elect. It seems from what has been posted that Lutherans believe that God is either unable or unwilling to overcome that resistance. It also seems that Lutherans believe that all people can decide to lower that resistance. I’m teachable on this so correct me if I’m misreading that.

MODERATOR ANNOUNCEMENT: Yes, ladies and germs, it is the semi-annual participation of the BHT in that pagan ritual known as CHRISTMAS, not to be confused with the Christian celebration of Advent. This little holiday is all about getting the goodies, because we all know that most BHTers live lives of quiet desperation, having to spend their substance on their college loans and the welfare of others.

Into this darkness falls the light of the BHT Christmas, an annual attempt to enliven our dreariness with a cheap gift from someone who understands us. The directions are all on the link, honorary elf Scott Ward is in charge, and if we get the ball rolling before Thanksgiving there is hope the darned things might be mailed before December 15.

So it’s time to feel the love and share end-of-the-year cheer with someone doomed to get socks and underwear again if you don’t help them. Let the BHT CHRISTMAS BEGIN!!

Maybe I’ll be accused of using “Western logic” (JN), but I think that when one asks the question “Is God’s grace universal?” the answer is “depends what you mean by ‘God’s grace.”

Grace is unmerited favor, so in a very basic sense, since we merit nothing from our Creator, and since He is not bound by anything but Himself to give us life and breath, one could say that the natural human life is an instance of grace. Theologians call it “common grace.” Paul refers to particular instances of it (i.e., rain for crops, living, moving) when he talks to the philosophers in Act 17.

Then there is special grace, which I think can be divided into two categories: outward and inward grace. This is where the so-called “ordo salutis” comes into play. What is the sole cause of salvation? It is God’s grace working in the Word (outward grace) and the Holy Spirit (inward grace). Whereas outward grace is available to all, inward grace only proceeds to the elect. Outward grace can be resisted. Inward grace cannot be resisted, at least ultimately, for the Lord will accomplish His purpose (Proverbs 19:21, Psalm 138:8, Isaiah 14:24, 46:10 and especially 55:11). It is an absurd notion to say that the inward grace of God is resistable, given what these verses say.

To get back to the ordo salutis, the Reformed view has always been that 1) God sovereignly chooses whom He will save (cf. Romans 9), 2) God predestines those whom He chooses (cf. Romans 8), 3) The gospel goes out to all the world (Romans 10, The Great Commission and Isaiah 55:11 too), 4) A man hears the gospel and it gets “processed” via an inward call that resonates with God’s predestination and election; this results in faith, 5) The man, awakened to his sin, repents, places his faith in the work of Christ, is justified 6) Then he (the new man) struggles against the old man and the sinful nature, which is still present, but on the retreat. Then, there is glorification.

It is incorrect, in my view to say that God’s Spirit can be effectively resisted, and that the inward call can be ignored.

I’m too caught up in real life to post something lengthy, and I hope I don’t give offense to Josh when I say that I understand Michael’s post about Lutheran theology, and I’m still not sure I understand Josh, even when read through the filter of Michael’s post!

So to point 12, I say “I agree,” rejecting synergism of any kind. On point 13, I do believe that the Lutherans have misunderstood Calvinism, or else I have. I have never heard any Calvinist say anything remotely approaching the idea that “God does not desire to convert and save all hearers of the Word, but only a portion of them,” and so I believe that to be a misrepresentation of Calvinism. I certainly reject the blatantly unscriptural idea that God does not desire the salvation of all, and I find it inconceivable that anybody — Calvinist and Calvin included — could hold such a view in light of Scriptural evidence to the contrary. Both the monergist and synergist alike, regardless of anything else, must admit that God’s desire is not fully carried out in action, for whatever reason and by whatever mechanism that is so. That is, God earnestly desires to save all, but He clearly does not. Desire does not, in this case, translate into action on God’s part. And so the Calvinist and the Lutheran are in complete agreement on this point: Though God earnestly desires the salvation of all, not all are saved. The fault rests entirely with the unsaved, as they stubbornly resist the Holy Spirit.

The Lutheran appears to stop at this point, stating that he cannot reconcile the idea that God desires all men to be saved with the fact that God doesn’t save all men. The Calvinist goes one step further, stating that within the monergist framework on which Lutherans and Calvinists agree, there can be only one reason why someone is not saved: God has not chosen to save him. Indeed, the Lutheran can think of no alternative explanation, and so leaves the question unanswered, even deeming it unanswerable. At least that is how I read the phrase, “we confess that we cannot answer it.”

So if the Lutheran is presented with the evidence that the Calvinist does affirm God does desire the salvation of all, and further with the assurance that the Calvinist does affirm that the blame for the unsaved rests solely on the unsaved as God’s judgment is just, does that help to resolve what seems like a false dichotomy? I don’t know. Since I have never believed for one second that God does not desire to save all, I cannot imagine what new evidence might be required to assist someone hung up on that point.

One last point, and on this one I am truly ignorant and realize that I have need of more study. Point 16 states that the Calvinist denies the universality of grace. I have not understood this to be so, though I can see how it might be considered the logical extension of the ‘I’ in TULIP. Instead, I had understood the non-universal element to be “election” or “atonement.” I do not look to the Lutheran to answer this question, since he has stated clearly that he cannot answer it, but to the more well-versed Calvinist I ask, Is God’s grace universal?

Phillip Winn has a whirlwind tour of the book of Judges on his site. I used it in an overview of the book of Judges this morning. It makes the point that Judges is a movie waiting to be made! Good stuff to pass along to anyone who thinks Christians shouldn’t read or watch anything “violent.” Oh my!

duh…...uh…..................uh….............................this is….....uh…......what?........????

OK – I’ve received the first few BHT Christmas requests in my e-mail this morning. My only question so far is: Which one of you promised to enlarge my pe… Nah.

Material by which to evaluate the claim that Calvinists aren’t really Calvinists. Or, that Reformed people aren’t really Calvinists. Or something like that.

A Look at “Calvin against the Calvinists

By Joel E. Kim

Did Calvin’s Successors Distort His Doctrine of Predestination?

From a Lutheran Theology Site. I think it is helpful for understanding some differences between Calvinists and Lutherans. It’s very well stated.

Of Conversion

10. We teach that conversion consists in this, that a man, having learned from the Law of God that he is a lost and condemned sinner, is brought to faith in the Gospel, which offers him forgiveness of sins and eternal salvation for the sake of Christ’s vicarious satisfaction, Acts 11:21; Luke 24:46, 47; Acts 26:18. 11. All men, since the Fall, are dead in sins, Ephesians 2:1-3, and inclined only to evil, Genesis 6:5; 8:21; Romans 8:7. For this reason, and particularly because men regard the Gospel of Christ, crucified for the sins of the world, as foolishness, I Corinthians 2:14, faith in the Gospel, or conversion to God, is neither wholly nor in the least part the work of man, but the work of God’s grace and almighty power alone, Philippians 1:29; Ephesians 2:8; 1:19; Jeremiah 31:18. Hence Scripture call the faith of men, or his conversion, a raising from the dead, Ephesians 1:20; Colossians 2:12, a being born of God, John 1:12-13, a new birth by the Gospel, I Peter 1:23-25, a work of God like the creation of light at the creation of the world, II Corinthians 4:6. 12. On the basis of these clear statements of the Holy Scriptures we reject every kind of synergism, that is, the doctrine that conversion is wrought not by the grace and power of God alone, but in part also by the co-operation of man himself, by man’s right conduct, his right attitude, his right self-determination, his lesser guilt or less evil conduct as compared with others, his refraining from willful resistance, or anything else whereby man’s conversion and salvation is taken out of the gracious hands of God and made to depend on what man does or leaves undone. For this refraining from willful resistance or from any kind of resistance is also solely a work of grace, which “changes unwilling into willing men,” Ezekiel 36:26; Philippians 2:13. We reject also the doctrine that man is able to decide for conversion through “powers imparted by grace,” since this doctrine presupposes that before conversion man still possesses spiritual powers by which he can make the right use of such “powers imparted by grace.” 13. On the other hand, we reject also the Calvinistic perversion of the doctrine of conversion, that is, the doctrine that God does not desire to convert and save all hearers of the Word, but only a portion of them. Many hearers of the Word indeed remain unconverted and are not saved, not because God does not earnestly desire their conversion and salvation, but solely because they stubbornly resist the gracious operation of the Holy Ghost, as Scripture teaches, Acts 7:51; Matthew 23:37; Acts 13:46. 14. As to the question why not all men are converted and saved, seeing that God’s grace is universal and all men are equally and utterly corrupt, we confess that we cannot answer it. From Scripture we know only this: A man owes his conversion and salvation, not to any lesser guilt or better conduct on his part, but solely to the grace of God. But any man’s non-conversion is due to himself alone; it is the result of his obstinate resistance against the converting operation of the Holy Ghost, Hosea 13:9. 15. Our refusal to go beyond what is revealed in these two Scriptural truths is not “masked Calvinism” [Crypto-Calvinism] but precisely the Scriptural teaching of the Lutheran Church as it is presented in detail in the Formula of Concord (Triglot, p. 1081, 57-59, 60b, 62, 63; Mueller p. 716ff.): “That one is hardened, blinded, given over to a reprobate mind, while another, who is indeed in the same guilt, is converted again, etc.—in these and similar questions Paul fixes a certain limit to us how far we should go, namely, that in the one part we should recognize God’s judgment. For they are well-deserved penalties of sins when God so punished a land or nation for despising His Word that the punishment extends also to their posterity, as is to be seen in the Jews. And thereby God in some lands and persons exhibits His severity to those that are His in order to indicate what we all would have well deserved and would be worthy and worth, since we act wickedly in opposition to God’s Word and often grieve the Holy Ghost sorely; in order that we may live in the fear of God and acknowledge and praise God’s goodness, to the exclusion of, and contrary to, our merit in and with us, to whom He gives His Word and with whom He leaves it and whom He does not harden and reject …And this His righteous, well-deserved judgment He displays in some countries, nations and persons in order that, when we are placed alongside of them and compared with them [quam simillimi illis deprehensi, i.e., and found to be most similar to them], we may learn the more diligently to recognize and praise God’s pure, unmerited grace in the vessels of mercy …When we proceed thus far in this article, we remain on the right way, as it is written, Hosea 13:9: “O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in Me is thy help.” However, as regards these things in this disputation which would soar too high and beyond these limits, we should with Paul place the finger upon our lips and remember and say, Romans 9:20: “O man, who art thou that repliest against God?” The Formula of Concord describes the mystery which confronts us here not as a mystery in man’s heart (a “psychological” mystery), but teaches that, when we try to understand why “one is hardened, blinded, given over to a reprobate mind, while another, who is indeed in the same guilt, is converted again,” we enter the domain of the unsearchable judgments of God and ways past finding out, which are not revealed to us in His Word, but which we shall know in eternal life, I Corinthians 13:12. 16. Calvinists solve this mystery, which God has not revealed in His Word, by denying the universality of grace; synergists, by denying that salvation is by grace alone. Both solutions are utterly vicious, since they contradict Scripture and since every poor sinner stands in need of, and must cling to, both the unrestricted universal grace and the unrestricted “by grace alone,” lest he despair and perish.

I’ve posted some links about the assassination of Pulaski County Sheriff Sam Catron. This article talks about the life of the man who shot Sheriff Catron- Danny Shelly- and how drugs turned him into the killer. A sad story that describes a lot that is going on in rural Kentucky right now.

The NY Times published this tribute to C. S. Lewis today More »« Less

The word says “Give drink to those who are thirsty, and feed the hungry”; how about dinner?

You don’t have an accountability partner? Me neither.

You want to come over and watch the 10 commandments tonight?

Is it a sin that you stole my heart?

Would you happen to know a Christian man/woman that I could love with all my heart and wait on hand and foot?

Nice bracelet. What would Jesus date? I mean “do”.

Do you believe in Divine appointment?

Have you ever tried praying at a drive in movie before?

(For the ladies) Excuse me; I believe one of your ribs belongs to me.

My friend told me to come and meet you; he said that you are a really nice person. I think you know him. Jesus, yeah, that’s his name.

You know they say that you have never really dated, until you have dated a Christian.

Yeah, I predicted David over Goliath.

What? Friends listen to Amazing Grace in the dark.

I’ve had a great time listening to Issues, etc. programs from KFUO. I’ve like to suggest some of the programs. They are good, and you’ll pick up some understanding of Lutheranism at the same time. (Let me say this is an impressive radio program. The best daily Christian radio talk show I’ve heard.)

All posted links are MP3’s. Each link has Windows Media as well.

The Teachings of Joyce Meyer. (This features info from a St. Louis Post-Dispatch Newspaper series.) Part 1, Part 2
The future of the Church Growth Movement
Martin Luther: A biography
Greg Koukl: The Book of Romans and Homosexuality.
Fundamentalism, Evangelicalism and Lutheranism. (This would be helpful for the BHT I think.)
Theology of Glory vs. Theology of the Cross
Review of Purpose Driven Life: Part One, Part Two
Historic vs Contemporary Worship
The Idol of Relevance: Os Guinness interview.
The Solas: Rod Rosenblatt
Tom Oden on Liberalism Part One, Part Two

Just a sample. I’m enjoying these programs. There are many others on many different topics.

JOSH: On one of the programs recently, a caller asked the following question: “If someone came to you and said “The Holy Spirit has been dealing with me, and I would like to become a Christian.” What would you say to them?”

The answer was from Acts 2. “Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins.” Your comments?

Alex: The specific form of Western logic I was criticizing are certain lines of syllogistic reasoning, e.g. “God alone saves, not all men are saved, therefore God withholds salvation from some people simply because of his own sovereign will.” That seems like an obvious chain of logic to those of us in America, but, for example, African Christians do not see the obviousness of this line of thought.

Warfield and Hodge basically ran along Zwinglian lines of thought, where in order for salvation to be truly monergistic, no sacrament, visible means, or human being can mediate or proffer it. Hodge often speaks in a self-contradictory manner (Commentary on Ephesians), but then, he often categorizes things in a nearly indecipherable manner (his definition of “baptismal regeneration” is one that no known tradition actually uses). Most notable is his strong opposition to JW Nevin on the issue of the Lord’s Supper. Everything is about an “immediate” (meaning not mediated) act of “grace” on the “heart” (taken from Warfield’s “Plan of Salvation”).

Calvin ran along these lines early in life, but after more and more contact with Strasbourg, he quite emphatically affirmed that salvation is given and received in Baptism and the Lord’s Supper (perhaps with slight inconsistencies). As his theology matured, he saw no conflict between saying “sola gratia” and saying that God bestows grace on people through the actions of the ministry; namely preaching, absolution, baptism, and the word. See, for example, his catechism on baptism, which, if it were published today by a Reformed theologian, would quickly win him the labels of “heretic,” “synergist,” “sacerdotalist,” and “Romanist.”

You’ve all noticed the BHT Christmas link over on the left and I want to encourage you to participate because it’s a ton of fun. I’m probably setting myself up for disappointment with my excitement because last year I had the best partner ever and got a great gift I refer to often. I’m hoping that my streak continues ;-) It’s a blast, really, so think about participating. Just a word of warning, though: last year Michael’s partner got a tape set titled “The Best of Michael Spencer’s Sermons—1998-2001.”

Just a quick gripe:

I noticed that Josh took a quick jab at “Western logic” in opposition to Scripture. That kind of bothers me because I’ve never heard of “Western logic.” If he means that things like the law of non-contradiction, the law of identity, causality and tha various logical fallacies do not obtain because they are “Western” inventions, and by that nature are not applicable universally of all rational beings, then I would have to disagree. If anything, Scripture implicitly admits of so-called “Western logic” (which I prefer to call “logic” simpliciter). For instance, Scripture says “God cannot lie.” It seems that the law of non-contradiction obtains, because God cannot not lie AND cannot lie. Nor can God exist AND not exist.

Feel free to criticize Aristotelian categories of substance, form and matter as being unbiblical, but don’t criticize people for using “Western logic.” It stinks of relativism and pietism. And certainly don’t think that Scripture teaches anything in opposition to so-called “Western logic.”

Another question for Josh: What is your interpretation of Warfield and Hodge’s definition of monergistic salvation? And what do you think Calvin’s is? And how are we disagreeing at all? What is wrong with this statement:

“Salvation is of the Lord only. Man is justified by faith, and this faith, though man’s own, comes by the grace of God given in the sovereign workings of the Holy Spirit through whatever means: the sacraments, the preaching of the Word, etc. This grace is irresistible in the ultimate sense, since though a man might resist it for a time, he will ultimately surrender himself to the sovereign love of God.”

Phillip:

Josh: Okay, let me try again, in the revised order I suggested last.

2a. Think about it. Faith means trust, right? I mean, we should all at least be able to agree with that, being that we’re not medieval scholastics. It makes no sense to say “I trust in something” and “I am not assured of the reliability of that something.” Further, note that in Hebrews 10:19-22, “assurance” has the Gospel in view, not the status of the individual. The question “but what is my status?” is a question that in Scripture is always answered with the Gospel, not with “well, you live a very holy life,” or “do you not remember when you were regenerated?”

2b. Obviously faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God, but my question is more directly about whether the faith springs from God or man. Your question would be answered if you’d ask the following to question: With whom does the Gospel originate?

Faith clearly does not always come by hearing the Word of God, since some resist the Holy Spirit. What makes the difference?

Beats me. Unbelief is the fault of sin, and sin does NOT come from God. Faith comes from the Gospel alone. If you’re looking for symmetric causality, you won’t find it. The whole dilemma really is an artifact of Western logic, not of Scripture.

2c. Does faith doubt the words of the Gospel and remain outside the Most Holy Place, or does it enter in, assured that Jesus Christ opened the way?

4. All you need to be saved is Christ. You don’t get 1/3 of the Christ in each of the various means, nor 1/2, nor 2/3, nor any other portion. Faith receives all of Christ and all his benefits. The entire Gospel is contained in each sacrament, and the Gospel contains all three sacraments. That God has provided for our salvation in multiple ways shouldn’t be a cause of complaint, but of rejoicing. You sound like a man who is complaining to a physician that he knows too many ways to cure his illness! “Also, how does the reliance on your belief and participation in the two major sacraments differ from synergism?” Hey, if you want to think that justification by faith is synergistic, call me a synergist. The Bible is quite clear that we appropriate salvation through faith. When I was a Calvinist I used to wince every time Jesus told someone “Your faith has made you well,” because it didn’t sound monergistic enough. Same with when Peter told the jailer, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.” Well, the fact is, I had a faulty definition of monergism that had little to do with the Reformation understanding and everything to do with 19th-century rationalism. If Hodge or Warfield had discussed theology with Calvin near the end of his life, they probably would have called him a synergist and a sacerdotalist. I tend to work with a more reformational understanding of what monergism is, rather than with the definition developed by the Princeton dogmaticians in the 18th and 19th centuries.

3. The important point is that it seems that you believe that God’s grace is always present in the gospel, and is therefore clearly ineffectual in the face of human sinful resistance, at least in some cases (such as the Pharisees). True? False. Just because something is ineffective doesn’t mean it is ineffectual as well. Otherwise, the Holy Spirit wouldn’t be God, based on the Acts passage.

5. How do the sacraments relate to salvation in light of what seem to be Biblical examples of salvation without sacraments? I suggested that there are people in the Bible who were saved with the sacraments (baptism and communion), not without Christ. Clearly none are saved without Christ, and just as clearly some are saved without baptism or communion. It seems, however, that you’re saying that today we should seek Christ only through those two sacraments and the preaching of the gospel, so that those who were saved without the sacraments were not an example for us except in the most general sense. Is that right?

Basically correct. Those who are saved without those two sacraments are simply proof that faith justifies, wherever, whenever, and however God chooses to manifest his grace. Since he (as I would argue) has chosen to manifest his grace in the Word and Sacraments to us Christians, the faith of those means justifies. For instance, in the Old Testament, there are clearly people who were saved outside of the Torah-community of Israel. This did not, however, give the Jews license to then quit practicing circumcision or the various other rites that God had provided to administer the Gospel to them until Christ arrived.

1. The “new man” is Jesus Christ. Regeneration is an act of joining us to Jesus, who is our new life. We aren’t free of original sin until we die, not in body, soul, or spirit, however you wish to divide up the various faculties of a human being. It’s not a matter of something inside of us being changed in its essense, but a matter of us being joined to something outside of us. Christ, then shines through our lives (sanctification), but not because we have somehow become “less” sinful. If you put a pan on the stove and turn it on, that pan quickly becomes very hot, even though it generates no heat on its own, so hot that you can cook things in it. Take it off the stove, and the pan quickly becomes cold.

Michael,

Just a note to let you know that I still enjoy perusing the Boar’s Head
every now and then :O).

I also desired to share a blessed irony with you. After reading about Ken Lester and his conversion on the BHT bio page (“What??? An Evangelical Convert? What?) and your link to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I got myself a thinkin’... and then reading actually reading the CCC. I went on a search, hence my cessation of posting. I just was too nervous to say anything.

And then I read Chesterton, Newman, Thomas Howard, David Currie, and Scott Hahn. I then moved onto St. Thomas’ “Summa” and dived in to the Early Church Fathers (oH! the Taboo!) and not just St. Augustine when I “wanted” to agree with him. I wasn’t trying to argue away any of it, just listening and learning.

Then really sat and looked hard at myself, tried to read my bible through Catholic eyes (particularly regarding Romans and Hebrews) and found myself in a crazy position. I cried about it, well actually bawled, prayed about it and got an answer.

I’m jumping in the boat.

I thought you just might be amused that the BHT aided this fiesty mother of five (Wow! Speaking of mother of five, how about St.Elisabeth Seton [first American-born saint, convert from Church of England] to be your patron saint, she could give you all a good whippin’ when you need it) and her conversion to the Catholic Faith. Have a good laugh on me. I find it hillarious!

Blessings to You and Denise,

Jenny (Bluett)

My mother sends those things around constantly. I had to break a few commandments and virtually yell at her to get her to stop. She needs help.

What I can’t stand are those anonymous sentimental emails that go around, with some tripe attached to them about how if you don’t send it back, forward it to everybody, etc. you aren’t their friend, and you don’t love God, etc.

BLEECCHHH.

Unfortunately, several of my closest Christian friends circulate these around.

Oh well- they put up with ME!

I like music that bemoans the sinful condition of humanity

I think Country music REFLECTS the sinful condition of humanity. (5%JN)

I won’t tell you what went through my mind when I first read the phrase “gracious endowments”. I’ll just say I wish mine was more gracious (JN).

Of course you’ll meet your loved ones in heaven, provided they went there. If I were Capon or one of the universalists, I would not even qualify that statement with the phrase “provided they went there.” I even think, although I have nothing in the Bible to back this up, that your beloved dog might be there to greet you too. (Not your cat, that would be going too far!! JN)

I apologize if I offended anyone about my tirade againt “sentimentalist tripe.” Hey, I cried when I saw “Titanic,” so I’m definitely not above that kind of thing, even though I try to take the “intellectual” route. It’s just that some things bring up some interesting theological questions in my mind. For example, I went to a funeral once where the preacher said the deceased was probably up in heaven duck hunting, since that was his favorite thing to do. Well, duck hunting requires killing. And there is no death in heaven, right? See, I think too much.

Judd: Point well made. I get it.

The Morphing of Michael

If the point of a new heaven and a new earth is to rip us away from all our gracious endowments, like loved ones, then you can have that heaven. I’ll be down here with my “idols”.

Sometimes I think us Reformed folk wouldn’t know common grace if it walked up and bit us on the posterior.

This talk about mother and heaven sentiments reminds me of an old hymnal I found once in the church where I grew up. It had a song called “Meet Mother in the Skies.” I just remember the first two lines and then the tag line…”Out in a churchyard many miles away, lies your dear old mother ‘neath the cold, cold clay” and the tag was “If you love your mother, meet her in the skies.” Even at that young age I thought it was ridiculous to have a song like that in a hymnal for people to sing in church (even though this was a hymnal from the 1930’s or so) because, 1. What if your dear old mother was still alive?, 2. What if your dear old mother was a heathen and likely burning in hell?, and 3. Isn’t the point of going to heaven being with God and not your mother anyway? I’ll guarantee you I’d take the most vapid, shallow modern worship song today over that old chestnut any day.

The reason those songs are so popular is because mamas are the most tangible piece of grace that a lot of those people ever get to experience. You’ve seen the squalor- you ought to know.

Folk religion has its problems. Syncretism, etc. But I don’t begrudge its sentimentalism. What I do dislike is the superstition that some—not all—attach to it.

I like music that bemoans the sinful condition of humanity, because even as a Christian I feel the same way. A lot.

Judson: The mama and heaven songs I have in mind are a particular Appalachian specialty. In these songs, the glory of heaven is that mama is there and the great thing about heaven is getting to see mama again. That’s often placed alongside verses about how longsuffering mama was as I ran the roads drinking and causing her to spend most of her free time praying for the salvation of her wayward sonny boy. I believe that mountain religion has mama in a higher place than Roman Catholics have Mary, and she definately gets better press than either of the first two members of the Trinity.

Luke 13:34

Damn sentimental tripe.

Sentimentalism is such a part of my background and culture, and especially the mindset of the people I preach to, that I have developed a large tolerance for most of it. (Songs about mama and heaven are the exceptions.) I realized a long time ago that being too hard on sentimentalism didn’t get me anywhere, so I try to see the value in some sentimental lyrics, and I will even cite them as an illustration if it’s appropriate.

I don’t want my comments about Merton, Manning, Capon or Brown to turn anyone off these excellent authors. They are enormously needed in these legalistic times of ours. I especially appreciate Steve Brown, and my debt to Merton is incalculable. But I’ve found that theology REALLY affects me in my real life in ways it may not affect other people. That’s probably why I benefit from Al Martin whereas other people find him to be too much. Let’s just say if I were the prodigal, I would have taken the party and then started planning my next trip into town. That’s my own heart wandering, and living with it is a major part of my spirituality. After years of “victorious life” teaching, and more years of Charismatic promises of deliverance, I found the Reformed doctrines of Justification, sanctification and then perseverance. They did me good. Then I found the “grace guys.” Especially Capon. I LOVE what they say, but my own mind takes their message and undermines the Biblical doctrine of perseverance. So it’s my problem, not theirs.

Listening to a lot of LCMS radio programs trying to come to a better understanding of Lutheranism, especially Issues, etc. Maybe Josh can help me:

I do not hear anything on any of the programs I am listening to about sanctification and perseverance other than much needed reactions against evangelical mishandling of those doctrines. Could you help me understand how Lutherans would apply a verse like Romans 8:13 for if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live.

Sorry for the misspelling. The same Mr. Manning I’m sure.

Thanks for the lyric, Judson. That’s actually a Southern Gospel Song somewhere.

OK, someone else buys that violin and it sounds like crap because the old man is the only one who can play it, so the analogy of that sentimentalist tripe breaks down (sorry, I’ve heard that song before, and it’s definite “Footprints in the Sand” material. GAG.)

Now it all becomes clear to me. Here is the difference between Pentecostals and Calvinists (admitted oversimplification): Pentecostals can only have fun in the church service but not outside the church service, and Calvinists can only have fun outside the church service but not in the church service. Which leaves the rest of us who have no problem with fun inside and outside the church service. Unless we’re of the small minority that CAN’T HAVE FUN ANYWHERE.

Can my Oklahoma Sooners continue their march to the national championship? Very dangerous opponent today in Texas Tech. Plus there is the distraction of possibly losing #1 assistant and defensive co-coordinator Mike Stoops, the head coach’s brother, to the head coacing position at Arizona. But if my boys keep their head in the game in hostile Lubbock, TX, they should win handily 59-21.
Other predictions for today:
Kansas State 31 Missouri 21
Michigan 24 Ohio State 13
USC 38 UCLA 14
Ole Miss 33 LSU 21 (upset)

BTW, is Brandon Manning any relation to Brennan Manning?

The words to a song which makes the rounds in traditional circles. Thought you all might appreciate them.
——————
The Touch Of The Master’s Hand,
Myra B. Welch

‘Twas battered and scarred, and the auctioneer
Thought it scarcely worth his while
To waste much time on the old violin,
But held it up with a smile.
What am I bidden, good folks!” he cried,
“Who?ll start the bidding for me?
A dollar, a dollar, then, two! Only two?
Two dollars, and who?ll make it three?
Three dollars, once; three dollars, twice;
Going for three .. .” But no,
From the room, far back, a grey-haired man
Came forward and picked up the bow;
Then, wiping the dust from the old violin,
And tightening the loose strings,
He played a melody pure and sweet
As a caroling angel sings.
The music ceased, and the auctioneer,
With a voice that was quiet and low,
Said: “What am I bid for the old violin?”
And he held it up with the bow.
“A thousand dollars, and who?ll make it two?
Two thousand! And who?ll make it three?
Three thousand, once; three thousand, twice;
And going and gone” said he.
The people cheered, but some of them cried,
“We do not quite understand
What changed its worth?” Swift came the reply:
“The touch of a master’s hand.”
And many a man with life out of tune,
And battered and scarred with sin,
Is auctioned cheap to the thoughtless crowd,
Much like the old violin.
A mess of potage a glass of wine;
A game—and he travels on.
He is going once, and going twice,
He’s going and almost gone.
But the Master comes and the foolish crowd
Never can quite understand
The worth of a soul and the change that’s wrought
By the touch of the Master’s hand.

Like Larknews? Well, you’re gonna love The Holy Observer. Thanks to Marcus Crosby for the link.

Brent Bozell likes “Joan of Arcadia.”

Here’s Ken Ham’s Ky Creation Museum. It’s moderately close to the Reds. Maybe I can hop all those field trip buses and take in a game or two?

Wheaton breaks the dance barrier, leaving good old OBI behind.

The rest of the ETS story. The Openness Boys are going to be left alone.

Josh: Okay, let me try again, in the revised order I suggested last.

2a. Can I safely say that we are saved by God’s grace through assurance? I based the question on your statement that “Assurance and faith are essentially the same thing.” I was trying to determine what you meant by that. However, based on your latest answer, it is clear that you do not intend them as synonyms, but rather that you are saying that assurance is part of faith. I’ve always understood that passage to mean that faith is the basis for our assurance, not the other way around, but I’ll reexamine it in light of your statement.

2b. Whose assurance is it? That is, what is the source of that assurance? Perhaps I’m being overly semantic here, but this is somewhat of an important point to me. Since I was thinking before that you were describing assurance as a synonym for faith, that flavored the phrasing of this question. Even so, I could safely state that the gospel is the basis for my faith and the foundation of my assurance, but when I asked about the “source,” I was thinking that it pretty much needs to be either man or God. That is, the faith originates from somewhere specifically for me. That is the monergism/synergism questions, is it not? Obviously faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God, but my question is more directly about whether the faith springs from God or man. The reason for this distinction is probably clear. Given the verse I just quoted, faith clearly does not always come by hearing the Word of God, since some resist the Holy Spirit. What makes the difference?

2c. How does what you’re calling assurance relate to “the mental state of being sure of something”? A thesaurus links words that are related, but not necessarily identical. Identical words don’t generally exist, because if one word perfectly describes something, why create a second? So I don’t think that anyone is saying that they aren’t related, the question is what is the nature of that relationship. I think I’ll stick with the question of a mental state as being perfectly reasonable. Assurance means “freedom from doubt, certainty” or “self-confidence.” All of those terms describe a mental state, which is why I asked the question. The dictionary supports the view of assurance as a mental state, to what are you pointing that suggests something different? It is possible that Hebrews 10:22 is your answer, but I have to reexamine that in more detail to see if I can parse that out. Is there another answer as well?

4. How are you saying that we can know that we are saved exactly? I’m having trouble following you here. It sounds like what you are saying is that you know that you are saved (in contrast to an unsaved person) because you have taken communion and been baptized and believe in the gospel. If that is a correct statement of your views, is the reverse then true? That is, if someone has not taken communion but has been baptized and does believe, can that person know that he is saved? Are all three required, or just two, or just one, and is any one of the three more important than the others? Also, how does the reliance on your belief and participation in the two major sacraments differ from synergism? From my perspective, I’m used to thinking of any action at all, even one commanded by God as these are, as being the sort of thing which is counted as human effort, so can you explain how this doesn’t apply in this case?

6. Please describe the process of life before, during, and after salvation. I think I must not have phrased this well enough, but I’ll drop it for now to take a look at the other answers.

3. I asked this, you answered it, and I’m trying very hard to keep from responding on this since you have stated that you know the reformed position, so there is no need for me to spell it out here. The important point is that it seems that you believe that God’s grace is always present in the gospel, and is therefore clearly ineffectual in the face of human sinful resistance, at least in some cases (such as the Pharisees). True?

5. How do the sacraments relate to salvation in light of what seem to be Biblical examples of salvation without sacraments? I suggested that there are people in the Bible who were saved with the sacraments (baptism and communion), not without Christ. Clearly none are saved without Christ, and just as clearly some are saved without baptism or communion. It seems, however, that you’re saying that today we should seek Christ only through those two sacraments and the preaching of the gospel, so that those who were saved without the sacraments were not an example for us except in the most general sense. Is that right?

1. Is it “renewing your mind” that Lutherans deny occurs? I ask this because I still don’t understand what you meant by your earlier statement: “We deny that such a transformation [an unmediated act of soul-transformation] (in the Reformed understanding) actually occurs.” and I still don’t understand what you mean by “an unmediated act of soul-transformation,” if not “renewing your mind.” I’ve had lunch now and re-read your answer, and I still don’t get it. I guess I’m even more thick than I thought! I knew I should have had that last beer with lunch, but I figured eggs and beer would make a bad combination.

Anyway, the moment of salvation (using that shorthand again) is something you describe as the old man dying, but reject the notion that this represents the end of “original sin”’s claim on our souls. Is that right? I explained my belief that the transformation is actually one of the spirit, with the responsibility for transforming the soul left to us as we renew our minds. Is that more in line with Lutheran theology, or still way off base?

Ack, my head hurts!

Josh, thanks for being patient with me. I know some others in the bar are watching as well, and I guess I’ve appointed myself as the quizzer because I figure I’m the stupidest, so if you can explain it so that I can understand it, everybody else will have gotten it long before!

But the weekend approaches, so kick back and relax a little. Pour yourself a frosty one and take a load off. Don’t let me chase you away with my questions, it’s after 5!

Of course, when you do feel like answering my revised questions, I’ll be happy to hear them. ;-)

Daddy’s hands were soft and kind when I was crying

Daddy’s hands were hard as steel when I’d done wrong

(sorry for the country music, Bill)

Okay, give me a minute. I’ve got to extract this skewer from my vital organs. Okay, that’s better. Pass me some of those napkins on the bar willya?

There is a balance to be had, between being close enough to our heavenly Father through Christ’s blood, that we can bury our faces in his lap and cry, yet never forgetting that He is God and that His name is hallowed. I do not believe that the two are exclusive. After typing up a post and deleting it, I’m going to mull this for a while. I do not think, though, that exalting God and diminishing ourselves puts any distance between God and man.

I do want to remark on the second thing Jim said, though, after he was done playing with cutlery. The work of the kingdom does indeed lie before us and we can debate theology all day, but if all we do is talk, what have we accomplished? While not wanting to become pragmatic, I do think that all we undertake should have, at its end, the purpose of benefitting and encouraging each other that we can better approach the task before us. And while I find great value in the discussion of doctrine, it should be a means to an end and not an end in itself.

PW: Instrumentation per se is irrelevant to the essence of worship. It’s not irrelevant to an number of other considerations, and certainly the way instruments are used bears on things that cultural appropriateness and one of my main considerations, unity.

JimN: First, let me honestly say that my personal journey with Merton, Manning, Campolo, Capon and Brown is an inescapable part of my thinking on these matters. These men have blessed me very much. On the subject of grace, they are much needed balance in the body of Christ. But each, in my opinion, runs toward the antinomian side of the Christian family (not across the line, except perhaps Capon) and when I go with them to that place, I lose it. I ccut and run across that fence. I mean, I lose my grip on what it means for me to follow Christ and I start thinking things and worse, doing things that hurt me and those I love. So this particular group of writers, who have been a blessing to me in many, many ways, are not a dispassionate subject for me.

There is a reason that my soul is nutured more by Knowing God than Ragamuffin Gospel. And I can’t talk about it on the blog, but trust me, it was a bloody rotten mess, and I will blog till the cows come home about the difference between Merton and Piper, Al Martin and Brandon Manning in my own life. Some of what you are talking about in your earlier post about being “mad” at all of us hits right at the core of my ability to follow Christ every day. That’s no one else’s life and no one else’s journey, so forgive me on that one.

As to your post itself, I would say that “Jesus is God” isn’t really it for me. Jesus is Yahweh; Jesus is the incarnation of the Covenant God of Abraham, the God of Sinai, the God of Isaiah, the God of the Psalmist and so on. I also find many rich indicators of the Holiness of God, Otherness of God and other “Old Testament” attributes of God in the Gospels. In fact, I am personally uncomfortable with what seems to be a suggestion on your part that the New Covenant is somehow oppositional to the Old. The NC is better than the OC, but both are part of how one three-personal God has revealed and related to human beings. Hebrews 1:1-5 comes to mind, as does so much of the rest of scripture that says everything in the Old was pointing to and yearning for the new. The Holiness of God isn’t eclipsed in Jesus, it is fulfilled in the highest degree. (This is where I sometimes feel many good brothers of the Manning/Merton side really need more of that dreaded systematic theology. The cross, and all that substitutionary atonement stuff, really does render a basis for relationship with God that exceeds any comparisons with, let’s say the Father of the Prodigal.)

I am going to assume-perhaps wrongly- that you would object to the use of the reading of the law and the traditional congrgational confession of sin in worship, since this clearly sets the stage for “distance” in NT worship- a distance bridged by the cross and preceding the comfortable words of assurance. For me, these are very important parts of worship, and I never feel more helped than in confessing with others that I am a miserable sinner. I want to feel the love of God, and the freedom of those forgiven and adopted. But I must feel my estrangement and rebellion. And for me, I must feel it again and again. I must come to the cross over and over.

I have in my office a print of Rembrandt’s Return of the Prodigal. I aspire to nothing more than the Father’s embrace. But that embrace comes to a prodigal on his knees. I cannot live at the party. I know the party is there. I must live at that moment of self-recognition as fallen, broken, foolish and a “miserable worm.” And at that very moment, being loved by Christ into the Father’s embrace.

Jim: Analogies prove nothing; they only describe. Hence deconstructing an analogy disproves nothing. If you have a problem with including assurance in the definition of faith, I would complain to the authors of Hebrews, the Lutheran Confessions, and the Heidelberg Catechism to start with. The idea that faith is fundamentally an state of mind is an artifact of medieval scholasticism’s concept of fides formata and has little to do with the language of the Bible, which places faith more in the category of “trust.” If trust and assurance aren’t fundamentally related, I’ll eat my hat.

Josh wrote: Huh? When an infant nurses at its mothers breast, it does so in the assurance that here is nutrition and life. I don’t really see what “mental state” has to do with anything.

As someone who has directly witnessed the incredibly difficult, painful and frustrating struggle of a mother to get a newborn infant to nurse for the first time on four occasions, I think this analogy is bizarre. Whatever the infant experiences when fed, I don’t think it’s fair or accurate to attribute any of it to “assurance” of any kind. The infant’s “mental state” is typically one of shock and withdrawal; for months, it has not experienced hunger or need, and existed in the warm shelter of the womb. It is then suddenly and violently removed, separated from its mother, and forced to deal with a whole range of sensations (cold, pain, hunger, frustration, anger, fear) that it has until now been protected from. Maybe you meant to describe the experience of an older infant who has become accustom to nursing, but the image you drew on had definitely a different connotation for me.

Also, did you mean to say “mother’s breast”, or are you trying to bring up gay adoption again? [grin]

1. Is it “renewing your mind” that Lutherans deny occurs?
We don’t deny anything that Scripture says. Kind of a silly question, isn’t it?

2a. Can I safely say that we are saved by God’s grace through assurance?
You’re saved through faith. Hebrews 10:22 describes the assurance that the throne of grace is open to us as a fundamental part of faith.

2b. Whose assurance is it? That is, what is the source of that assurance?
The source is the Gospel.

2c. How does what you’re calling assurance relate to “the mental state of being sure of something”?
Huh? When an infant nurses at its mothers breast, it does so in the assurance that here is nutrition and life. I don’t really see what “mental state” has to do with anything.

3. Is it the Lutheran view that the Word speaks to everybody, but that God’s grace is resistible, or ineffectual to overcome natural human sinful resistance in some cases?
The former, if by “the Word speaks to everybody,” you mean “it is presented to all hearers.” The Gospel of grace was directed at the Pharisees in Acts 7, was it not? They resisted it, did they not?

4. How are you saying that we can know that we are saved exactly?
By the Gospel. I know that I am saved because Jesus died for my sins. I know that my sins are included among those for which he died because of the Lord’s Supper, “This is My body which is given for you.” I know I belong to this company of the redeemed because of my baptism (Galatians 3:27). I believe in those things. Those who believe in this salvation have it, those who do not believe in it do not (John 3:18)

5. How do the sacraments relate to salvation in light of what seem to be Biblical examples of salvation without sacraments?
Salvation is through Christ, and Christ alone. You simply will not find examples of people who were saved in the Bible apart from Christ. Christ is present in the sacraments, therefore the sacraments proffer salvation to us. God is not required to limit his presence in the Gospel to Baptism, the Supper, or even the preaching of the Church (Acts 9:3-5), but that hardly implies that we should then enjoin each other to seek him outside of those places. For instance, if you knew that you could meet a certain person every 12:00 Wednesday at Texas Roadhouse for a free steak and beer, you’d be foolish to show up at 3:00 on Thursday and ignore Wednesday entirely, even though you had heard that your benefactor had bought steaks and beer for all the patrons on a Thursday back in 1999.

6. Please describe the process of life before, during, and after salvation.
Before: Dead in trespasses, heart, mind, soul, and body given to sin and rebellion against God.

During: The new man and the old man wage war against each other (Romans 7), but the believer continually looks to Christ as the source of God’s free grace for the confidence to persevere in life (Hebrews 10), because he knows the old man, as far as God is concerned, is reckoned as dead (Romans 6), as crucified with Christ.

After: Eternal bliss in heaven, the marriae feast of the Lamb (Revelation 21).

Michael, my response would be that the attributes that you appeal to all evoke Old Testament imagery, and do so in a way that (to my mind) lack the mediation of Christ. If I’m guilty of missing some of the majesty of God (I don’t think I am, but I’ll go along for a while), it’s because I have accepted Jesus as God, and have formed my image of God based on Christ’s person and work. Yes, there is truth to the idea that God is to be treated with reverence (the Lord’s Prayer is a good example), but there’s also the truth that we can cry out to our Father in our times of need (think of Jesus’ prayer in the garden before he was betrayed), and further there are a multitude of examples of approaching God in ways that involve ecstasy and joy (again, the Psalms) or the assured petition of a loved child to a loving Father (I’m thinking of Jesus’ prayer in the upper room as John records it.)

Moses had to remove his sandals. Elijah covered his face with his cloak. But when I approach God, it’s with my head lifted and my arms raised – not because I’m better than them on my own, but because Christ (who is in me in a way they never experienced) closes the gap that kept God unapproachable by them. I personally can’t abide any practice or liturgy (whether traditional or contemporary) that reopens that gap. I would see Jesus, and sometimes that means going to a big party where he brings the wine.

And yes, I’ll admit to Manning’s influence on my thinking here, as well as the influence of Merton, and Steve Brown (and probably a little of Tony Campolo too… from before he went all DNC on us.)

Phillip, my short answer is, God cares far more about the heart of those who worship Him than the way that they do it. In fact, I believe that part of the Holy Spirit’s intercessory roll is to take our pitiful attempts to glorify God and turn them into something acceptable.

Oh, and if Bill Clinton says he likes Thomas a Kempis, then like most folks he probably hasn’t read anything by him.

Bill:

Michael/Jim: I just want to stir a little something “extra” into the pot, since I’m in a learning mode with Josh and not allowing myself to respond lest it interfere with my learning. Can the musical portion of a service by respectful of the majesty of God and still involve drums and amped guitars? Can that portion full of hymns or acapella singing failing to show proper respect for the Creator of the universe? I’m reasonably certain that the answer to both questions is Yes, and that I’ve seen examples of each.

Overall, I would tend to side with Michael on this one, but Jim and Jesse, don’t get me wrong. I’m all for exuberant worship, so long as it is mixed with solemnity. But all in all, it is worship, and the fact that we can approach God as our Holy Daddy by spiritual adoption is fantastic, but I’m not sure it really should define ascribing glory and worth to God. Certainly one of the aspect of God’s magnificence is that He has made us able to approach him directly, but it’s not the only thing. You know what I mean?

Bill Clinton’s Favorite Books, released today for some inexplicable reason, by the Clinton Library.

“I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings,” Maya Angelou.
“Meditations,” Marcus Aurelius.
“The Denial of Death,” Ernest Becker.
“Parting the Waters: America in the King Years 1954-1963,” Taylor Branch.
“Living History,” Hillary Rodham Clinton.
“Lincoln,” David Herbert Donald.
“The Four Quartets,” T.S. Eliot.
“Invisible Man,” Ralph Ellison.
“The Way of the World: From the Dawn of Civilizations to the Eve