What the Thunder Said...

My better half and I took a walk in the woods recently. You can view the pictures from the beautiful scenery, and elsewhere, by viewing our Photo Album (link at right). Enjoy!

Labels: Art | Culture, bio, WtTS Stuff

Describing the problems law enforcement had with Halloween partiers at last years Halloween bash at the University of Wisconsin-Lacrosse, a police chief commented that far too many of the partiers were "overly-intoxicated."

Labels: Events, WtTS Stuff

Labels: Technology

God willing, over the weekend and into next week three posts will appear, dealing with a range of subjects. And unlike the post on Mrs. Parks & Miers, this post will not attempt to weave threads together that do not exist. No, they are all separate subjects.

First, I hope to continue the Parsing Justification thread. Earlier, I argued that we are justified by Christ meritoriously. This is in lieu of my arguing that

In all seriousness, to be thoroughly biblical and Reformed, we need to get specific. To take in the whole counsel of God as revealed in Scripture, as well as the breadth of Reformed confessions, we must believe, teach, and preach that we are justified by Christ meritoriously, we are justified by faith instrumentally, and we are justified by works evidentially.

In the coming post, I hope to cogently argue for justification by faith alone, and what this doctrine fully entails. You, the reader (both of you) will judge if I have done so faithfully.

Secondly, I would like to begin a series of posts on the doctrine of the last things, known as "eschatology." The early Church Father Irenaeus' best known published work that we still have is entitled Contra Haerasis, or "Against the Heresies." I hope my first post to be Contra Rapturii, against the rapture.

The title is slightly misleading, because I do believe in the rapture. The thing is, what I mean when I say "rapture" (and the Scriptures, for that matter) is completely different from what nearly all of American Evangellyfishism means when they say "rapture." I think the difference needs to be examined, especially by the sharp sword of Scripture.

Some naturally bristle at any polemics over eschatology. Far too much schism happens because of pre-/post-trib debates. There was a time not long ago that I would have agreed with this sentiment, and thought there were other hills to die on. There is an extant to which I still think that way: I will never allow eschatology to determine hostility or comfort in any church that I help shepherd. But, there are, I think, crucial reasons why the current, "pop" notion of rapture ought to be discussed.

1. The rapture that is discussed in current church circles leads to other bad theology. Most of us know of people or institutions that have emotionally cajoled others into some sort of decision theology or crisis-sanctification because of the immanent threat of a secret rapture that would rob planet Earth of millions of believers. Proper teaching on the rapture would not have people scared of being "Left Behind," and properly trembling before the face of the Sovereign and Lord.
2. Other bad theology that gets propagated by secret rapture theology is much less well defined, but even more pervasive in the sub-conscious of the average Christian. Since the rapture removes us from Earth and all of its problems, we tend to have an escapist mentality. The Earth can "go to hell in a handbasket" while we Christians are confident of being whisked away. "I'll Fly Away, O Glory" is our confidence when the neighborhood is crumbling, the school systems deteriorate, and culture at large looks like it just got out of a bar fight. Rather, we ought to pursue the cultural mandate God gave Adam and Eve - to subdue and have dominion over the Earth. However, we do not pursue it like the liberals. Rather, we understand the cultural mandate through the lens of the Great Commission: we subdue the Earth through the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ - the power of God for salvation (even salvation for the Earth; Romans 8:18 - 24).
3. Finally, taking "rapture theology" captive with every sound argument slowly chips away at the clay-footed idol Dispensationalism. This crass system has given the American church enough trouble, and the popularity of certain books is ridiculous in their abiblical approach to fiction. This pesky gnat has buzzed in our ears long enough. Darby & Scofield's death grip on American theology should be finished.

Finally, the last project I'd like to work on is a consideration of Psalm 73:25 -26 and marriage.

Whom have I in heaven but you? And there is nothing on earth that I desire besides you. My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever.

How does this hold true for our spouses, or for that matter, anything that is earthly that we truly value (baseball, family fellowship, etc.)? Must we resort to a neo-Gnosticism. I hope to answer this question and more like it in the negative.

Same thunder-time, same thunder-channel.

Labels: blogging, theology, WtTS Stuff

Reading: VanHoozer, Kevin First Theology
Enjoying: White grape juice
Listening: Dave's iPAQ Podcast #39

Rosa Parks, the iconic leader of the civil rights movement, died at the age of 92 the other day. At a wholly different scenario of time, ethos, and position, Harriet Miers resigned her candidacy for the SCOTUS seat President George W. Bush had nominated her for.

The differences between the two women are quite obvious: an African-American woman in a completely different America, quietly obeying the law by refusing to submit to poor readings of it. The other woman - white, educated, a close aid to the President - caught between political megaliths too big for any one person to handle. And yet, I wonder if there are several poetic similarities between these two Southern ladies.

Both women saw suffering that wasn't theirs to endure. Mrs. Parks suffering due to the racism and bigotry that was part and parcel of the zeigeist of Southern America in those days forced her, and all African-Americans with her, to endure a pressure and degradation that was both unfair, unfounded, and sinful. Unique to herself, though was the additional weight of incarceration, public scorn, and the trauma only known to her own soul of what those nights alone in jail must have been like. After the situation had calmed, she was unable to find work in the area due to her reputation and infamy, and she and her husband were forced to find work elsewhere - namely Detroit, Michigan.

Ms. Miers became the shibboleth of a divided political party, and the crystallized error of one man's administration. Unable to give her own personal defense before the Senate committee, she was publicly carried about in conversations that often paraded any and every fault to be found, and forced scrutiny on her that most would not wish on their enemies. President Bush's idiosyncracies and failures became hers; her career and life became a public antitype for all the present Administration's flaws. (As an aside, it was particularly difficult for What the Thunder Said to see the ruthless knifing performed on a woman. Perhaps this is unenlightened chauvinism, but after the gauntlet Ms. Miers endured, we would prefer not having to see anyone, though especially a woman, have to go through something similar ever again.)

Parks got herself into trouble for sitting down where society thought she wasn't allowed to sit. Society kept Miers from sitting on the bench she was nominated for. It was a good thing that Parks sat for, and good came from it. Providence has yet to reveal whether Miers dismissal will be a boon or a bane.

I am thankful for each of these women, and sorry for the public ordeals each had to surmount. May we faithfully study history, to learn the mistakes and successes encapsulated in each, that we would not burden other sons and daughters with our haughty pride.

Rosa Lee Parks on why she wasn't afraid of being arrested in Montgomery, Alabama

"I don't know why I wasn't, but I didn't feel afraid. I had decided that I would have to know once and for all what rights I had as a human being and a citizen, even in Montgomery, Alabama."

Harriet Ellan Miers in her letter designating her intention to remove herself

Dear Mr. President,
I write to withdraw as a nominee to serve as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. I have been greatly honored and humbled by the confidence that you have shown in me, and have appreciated immensely your support and the support of many others... I am most grateful for the opportunity to have served your Administration and this country.

Labels: City of Man, Events, Philosophy

The church in Uzbekistan needs the prayers of believers everywhere. This church deeply loves the Lord Jesus Christ, and has several wonderful, faithful men & women of God ministering among its people.

Pray that the church would not become dependent on human strength, but would savor Christ alone as its strength to accomplish and supply their mission and needs. Take time to pray for her leaders, that they would be strengthened, and they would conform more and more to the qualifications and lifestyle portrayed in I Timothy and Titus. Pray that their marriages would hold firm and deepen in love for spouses.

Take a moment to pray, please.

VOM blog.

I hear about a phenomenon of growing intensity from many angles, without necessarily coagulating them together in my neural firings of a brain. Listening to the radio (typically, Todd Friel) I hear the constant (unsubstantiated) truth proclaimed that youth, and typically "our kids," are turning more and more to Wicca. A different angle cites the popularity of Harry Potter and The (insert some mythic, Norse object/paranormal activity here) and its intrinsic evil, as well as use of real satanic spells and incantations to brainwash our children. With the Halloween season already upon us, Christians fire up various arguments for/against celebrating the "holi"day and to what extent we dress our children up. What if its a white witch? A converted elf? Does that help?

Basically, it seems to me that there is a fair amount of suspicion, skepticism, and perhaps even fear about some of the things that go bump in the night, and their ability to steal away our covenant children.

What brings this a bit closer to home is that I was always attracted to "power" and "magic" rituals, stories, et cetera. If I was growing up these days, there is little doubt in my mind that I would be getting mixed up in some of this mystical mumbo-jumbo.

Which isn't to say I'd be a raging heathen, either. My parents, in their God-given wisdom, did an amazing job steering me through my formative years despite my penchant for the occult and Satan. And amazingly enough, I think I can confidently say it was good for me. I absolutely love Greek mythology. I love it. I can still recite to you vast archives of it. I know how the gods are related, what their sacred animals and symbols are, where they reign, and what their quarrels and intimate relationships consisted of. In fact, I was this way with all mythology. I can remember checking out a book on Egyptian mythology in the fourth grade. I had memorized their pantheon shortly after.

I was this way about everything. While I loved playing with my G.I. Joes, nothing quite compared to He-Man and The Masters of the Universe, a theme wrought with occultic image and theology. (I can still remember when some righteous evangellyfish published a book exposing the utter paganism inherent to He-Man, resulting in my not being allowed to watch the cartoon anymore.) A few years later, I had to "have a talking to" because I wanted to pray like the Japanese ninja's prayed to their ancestors (only in form; it never occured to me to pray to anyone other than Jesus, even when I was seven or eight). As I grew older, I learned to love the Albion Trilogy by Stephen R. Lawhead, and C. S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia and J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings had already been near memorized. So fantasy, other gods, and magic were very much a part of my upbringing.

And as I mentioned, my parents beautifully brought me through those years in a way so that I never became too embroiled in some deep magic, nor resentful that they did not allow me a path that piqued my curiosity. Rather, they lovingly and wisely ushered me through that corridor, to where I now have a deep love and appreciation for fantasy and myth, and I feel that compliments my rigors in dogmatics and symbolic theology.

What frustrates me, however, concerning the fracas currently expressing itself in the modern Evangellyfish scene, is that (unfortunately) I doubt many children have the benefit of having parents as wise or as terrific as mine. So instead, they must wander the dark mazes alone, and without near as steady guides as I had to guide them.

I am convinced that at least one reason so many Christians struggle so much with their children getting a taste of supernatural power is that they are afraid they will be swayed by it, and in truth, the parents themselves are a bit afraid of unknown sources of energy and presence undetected by modernity's precarious scalpel. This is, unfortunately, the fault of the Church, which has never shown Her people the power of God. We are all a bunch of sheep scared of shadows and the howling of wolves when Aslan is our Shepherd. Our dearest comfort is the scariest thing in the universe. Christ commands us not to fear men (and by extension here, any man-made myths about Wicca or the occult), but rather fear God.

I think the place we have failed at this the most is in our worship. Our worship should be clearly seen as "power encounters." It is in corporate worship, when we gather with the saints under the Name of Jesus, that we taste of the powers of the age to come. The author of Hebrews describes the terror that accompanied Old Covenant worship, noting the smoke, the fear, and the terror. But then, he turns and examines what our New Covenant worship ought to be like:

But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel. At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, "Yet once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens." Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire.
Hebrews 12:22 - 29

So in NC worship, the same sense of fear isn't present in the same way, since we have so much a better covenant and a better High Priest, Jesus, who brings us in royal procession to the Father. Therefore we do not fear in the same way. But the power, Oh! the power that is present when we worship. We we gather under the invocation, God Almighty Himself calls His chosen servants into His house. The sky is rolled back, the roof of whatever building you are worshipping is thrown off, and the baptized are brought, by faith, into the courtroom of heaven. Notice who the author of Hebrews describes us amongst: angels in festal robes, the firstborn, the martyrs, God Himself, and Jesus Christ the Righteous. We are in heaven. Every time Christ's church gathers to worship, we get a foretaste of "the powers of the age to come" (Hebrews 6:5).

So little boys like myself should not be afraid to play with Egyptian gods if they know that come Sunday morning they are entering the presence of the Almighty. He is God, and there is no other. When we enter into the glory of the Triune God week after week, the pitiful excuses of the idols of the nations don't look as threatening as they once did. We must help our children - who are tempted by Wicca, the occult, and all manner of silliness - to see the glory laid before them in Christo-centric worship. And we must help their parents - who are afraid of the unknown and have never themselves tasted the weight of glory - to see the glory laid before them in Christo-centric worship. God help us all.

Sola Gratia.Org, a site devoted to "Reformed Theology, Articles, Audio, and Books," looks like a very promising website. While they include several articles and audio sermons on a variety of topics (as most Reformed sites in the Reformed websphere do), they also include podcasts and links in keeping with the Reformed tradition.

Sola Gratia.Org has one of the better spectrums of perspectives within the Reformed corpus that I have seen. Here you'll find from Van Til to Piper, John MacArthur to Joel Beeke, David Powlison to Greg Bahnsen. It looks like most of it for the technologically naive, and is set up for the average internet surfer to benefit from and download from. Best, of course, is that it is largely free.

In the near future, hopefully I'll post my blogroll and podcast subscriptions, so that you can see what What the Thunder Said has been reading and listening to.

Doug Wilson, in his usual Protestant wit and reductivism, has fun play with recent advocates of the "emergent" church. Dealing with a desperate need to shed "propositional truth," emergent folks make it easy to get whacked by a stick of any hue or size. Wilson is, of course, happy to oblige. Here's a great line:

"The confusion is so widespread, and yet so simplistic, it is worth asking what on earth the emergent folks are reacting to. For it must be a reaction, and clearly does not represent a well-thought out position. When they reject propositional theology in favor of story, what do they think they are rejecting?"

But just in case some of the readers of What the Thunder Said don't actually believe there could be people foolish enough to argue as Wilson portrays, have no fear. Wilson is not forging a straw man, and the proof is the first responder to the scene. After reading Wilson's article, read the first comment, by a certain Mike. If you can make heads or tails of what he is saying without your eyes glazing over, check yourself - you may be a postmodern.

Reading: JOwen's Works and WSJ
Enjoying: the beautiful fall trees
Listening: the White Horse Inn with Brian Godawa. Terrific...

In complete addict fashion, once having posted of my sin of informationism, I'd like to bring a technology update...

A New Mozilla Is Coming
Mozilla is releasing highly anticipated releases for Mozilla Firefox and Thunderbird on Friday, the 28th of 2005. Currently, both applications are in 1.5 Beta 2 version, which means that they are in the final stage before release. The way open source programs work (and both Firefox and Thunderbird are instances of open source coding) is that the community offers program and bugging to support the main app. Since both of these are in Beta 2 stage, the end is in sight for the release of 1.5. Not only will there be several security holes drawn even tighter (reestablishing the simple, a priori, fact that Firefox is more secure, than, say, er, well, all the other browsers ever created in any universe ever, and especially IE) but several extra features will be added in as well. New themes/extensions will be created for the update, as well as several other new functions.

Syncing Mozilla and Microsoft Windows Mobile 2003 SE
If you, like me, would desperately like to sync your HP iPAQ 5550 (or really, any Pocket PC device running Windows Mobile) with Mozilla Sunbird, now you can. Of course, its taken for granted that you already surf the net with Mozilla MiniMo and sync your email with Mozilla Thunderbird. The final obstacle to "complete the trifecta" was Sunbird. Thankfully, there are a few ways to accomplish this now. This page lists all the various options. I have experimented with KCal and with Finch Sync. Currently, KCal is a bit easier, though Finch is more thorough and advanced. Usually, it is a time saving issue that determines which one I use.

Mozilla Lightning, et al.
In a similar vein, Mozilla Lightning continues to plod along, though it seems as a real, honest to goodness release may be scheduled for November. That would be a good thing, making KCal and Finch more temporary fill-ins than permanent solutions. However, the situation may soon flip-flop if Lightning does not live up to its job.

What if you don't like Firefox? Or what if you work on a Mac (and don't wish to use Firefox, which renders just fine on Apples)? If you work on a Steve Jobs job - a Mac - then try using Mozilla's Camino, a Mac natural browser. It'll put your Safari web-safari's to rest. Or, try Mozilla Suite, the original Mozilla browser, email app, and calendar. Though not as customizable, it still works great.

Finally, Mozilla Firemonger 1.0.7 is released. Easy as shooting fish in a barrel. Download a CD's worth of information, and have Firefox and Thunderbird running with all the necessary themes/extensions. This is great for spreading Mozilla. The CD emphasizes on user friendliness, in case you give the CD out to people who are not so computer savvy. This should prove an excellent tool for Mozilla.

Update: Opera has announced work on a mobile sized browser for Pocket PC devices. Also, here is a screenshot of using Mozilla Thunderbird and Sunbird.

Quentin Schultze's recent book, Habits of the High-Tech Heart, is more and more on my radar lately. An excellent man of God (and equally good blogger - "The Normal Christian Life"), David Griffiths recently reviewed the book, noting his own proneness toward the sin of passive information imbibing (a vice I too often am affected by). A newer, though terrific, blog that I've stumbled upon - "Prosthesis" - often works with a view of informationism and Schultze's philosophy inherent in its warp and woof. So I'm becoming more familiar with the book and its concepts. And as I become more familiar, I find nagging notion that I think I need to read it growing stronger by the nanosecond.

Informationism, as defined by Schultze, is "a non-discerning, vacuous faith in the collection and dissemination of information as a route to social progress and personal happiness." Staring at these black lines forming the words of the definition, it seems ludicrous to me. Yet I know, that every time I power on my HP iPAQ 5550, deep down some where I think myself growing, expanding, becoming wiser, and more potent a presence than I was before. I truly believe the faith of informationism, if I can bring myself to admit it.

If you were to look at my family's residence, this would be confirmed to you. The place that I spend the vast majority of my time is one room - a small study, easily 5% of the entire place. The other 95% is our bedroom, kitchen, living room, et cetera et cetera. This nintey-five percent is dominated by my wife: she has picked out the furnishings, has the final say in the decorating, and generally reflects her presence and taste (which I love and am grateful for, by the way). However, if you retreat back to the five percent in which I inhabit, there is barely any "space;" it is dominated by books, clutter, and (for our purposes here) gadgetry, tech, and wires. These are my interests, and this is what I have "decorated" with.

Now what may be either ingenious or just shocking, is that What the Thunder Said is actually meant to combat my diagnosis of informationism(as well as Thunder Speak). Rather than passively sit in front of a screen, receiving whatever the internet gods force down my information-gorged retinas, this blog is an attempt for me to actively meditate and chew over reflections and ponderings, to coherently and engagingly interact with the networking world beyond my ego. Technology is, after all, not inherently corrupted. Nature is meant to be redeemed. Rather, it is sin-weakened flesh, corroborating with sin-stained law (Romans 8:2-3) that have caused problems as humans; and this sphere must be declared as sovereignly owned and ruled by Christ the Lord. May What the Thunder Said serve as the herald of the announcement of this evangelion to the internet and her meaning-deprived world.

The choicest saints have been afraid and amazed at the beauty of an angel; and the stoutest sinners have trembled at the glory of one of those creatures in a low appearance, representing but the back parts of their glory, who yet themselves, in their highest advancement, do cover their faces at the presence of our Beloved, as conscious to themselves of their utter disability
to bear the rays of his glory, Isaiah 6:2; John 12:39-41.

He is “the fellow of the Lord, of hosts,” Zechariah 13:7. And though he once appeared in the form of a servant, yet then “he thought it not robbery to be equal with God,” Philippians 2:6. In the glory of this majesty he dwells in light inaccessible. We “cannot by searching find out the Almighty unto perfection: it is as high as heaven; what can we do? deeper than hell; what can we
know? the measure thereof is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea,” Job 11:7-9.

We may all say one to another of this,

“Surely we are more brutish than any man, and have not the
understanding of a man. We neither learned wisdom, nor have the
knowledge of the holy. Who has ascended up into heaven, or
descended? who has gathered the wind in his fists? who has bound
the waters in a garment? who has established all the ends of the
earth? what is his name, and what is his Son’s name, if ye can tell,”

If any one should ask, now, with them in the Canticles, what is in the Lord Jesus, our beloved, more than in other beloveds, that should make him so desirable, and amiable, and worthy of acceptation? what is he more than others? I ask, What is a king more than a beggar? Much every way. Alas! this is nothing; they were born alike, must die alike, and after that is the
judgement. What is an angel more than a worm? A worm is a creature, and an angel is no more; he has made the one to creep in the earth, — made also the other to dwell in heaven.

There is still a proportion between these, they agree in something; but what are all the nothings of the world to the God infinitely blessed for evermore? Shall the dust of the balance, or the drop of the bucket be laid in the scale against him? This is he of whom the sinners in Zion are afraid, and cry, “Who amongst us shall dwell with thedevouring fire, who amongst us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?”

The Works of John Owen III.2.iii.76-77

A few thoughts by Reformed extraordinaire Louis Berkhof, Francis Turretin, and John Owen. First, the most recent, and most systematic:

"Scripture clearly teaches that the good works of believers are not meritorious in the proper sense of the word. We should bear in mind, however, that the word ‘merit’ is employed in a twofold sense, the one strict and proper, the other loose. Strictly speaking, a meritorious work is one to which, on account of its intrinsic value and dignity, the reward is justly due from commutative justice. Loosely speaking, however, a work that is deserving of approval and to which a reward is somehow attached (by promise, agreement, or otherwise) is also sometimes called meritorious. Such works are praiseworthy and are rewarded by God. But, however this may be, they are surely not meritorious in the strict sense of the word. They do not, by their own intrinsic moral value, make God a debtor to him who performs them. In strict justice the good works of believers merit nothing."(1)

Turretin uses the same distinctions within the term "merit," and argues that the covenant of works does not involve the kind of merit that creates an independent claim to reward apart from the promise of God. He writes that God’s obligation to "reward" Adam’s obedience with eternal life

"...Was gratuitous, as depending upon a pact of gratuitous promise (by which God was bound not to man, but to himself and to his own goodness, fidelity and truth, Rom. 3:3; 2 Tim. 2:13). Therefore there was no debt (properly so called) from which man could derive a right, but only a debt of fidelity, arising out of the promise by which God demonstrated his infallible and immutable constancy of truth. If the apostle seems to acknowledge this right or debt (Rom. 4:4), it must be understood in no other than a respective sense; not as to the proportion and condignity of the duty rendered to God by man (Rom. 8:18; Lk. 17:10), but to the pact of God and justice (i.e., the fidelity of him making it).

"If therefore upright man in that state had obtained this merit, it must not be understood properly and rigorously. Since man has all things from and owes all to God, he can seek from him nothing as his own by right, nor can God be a debtor to him--not by condignity of work and from its intrinsic value (because whatever that may be, it can bear no proportion to the infinite reward of life), but from the pact and the liberal promise of God (according to which man has the right of demanding the reward to which God had of his own accord bound himself) and in comparison with the covenant of grace (which rests upon the sole merit of Christ, by which he acquired for us the right to life)."(2)

And finally, from the Theologian par excellance, John Owen:

"Such merit as ariseth from an equality and proportion between works and reward, by the rule of commutative justice, would not have been in the works of the first covenant." (3)
__________________________________________________

(1) Berkhof, Louis Systematic Theology (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth, 1998 reprint), p. 542.

(2) Turretin, Francis Institutes of Elenctic Theology (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 1994) p. 578.

(3) Owen, John The Works of John Owen Vol. V "The Doctrine of Justification by Faith" (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1998) p. 277.

Just past the section I dealt with in an earlier post, Horton says this about the Mosaic Covenant (p. 133ff.):

In contrast, the Mosaic covenant is dependant on Israel's obedience. Like the covenant servant in Eden, Israel must resist the temptatoin of autonomy and serve only the living God. But the prophets are sent as attorneys for the prosecution, with such ominous courtroom announcements as, "Hear the word of the Lord, O people of Israel; for the Lord has an indictment against the inhabitants of the land" (Hosea 4:1). They bring this word, sometimes reluctantly, when the covenant is being violated or when Yahweh insists on extending the ethnic boundaries (as in the case of the prophet Jonah). Jesus also appropriates this prophetic stance, invoking the covenant curses (Matt. 21:18 - 22; Luke 11:37 - 54; Rev. 2 - 3) and blessings (Matt 5:1 - 12222; John 20:29; Rev. 2 - 3)."

Horton clearly affirms the Mosaic covenant as a type of the CoW in which there is a conditional clause on the obedience of the people. What is more, he places the CoW at Eden. I especially liked how he tied Christ's prophetic ministry into the CoW and His relationship to Israel.

This is the subtitle of a section in Michael Horton's Covenant & Eschatology.

Horton argues that divine speech is limited to the context of the covenant, in which the superior party (superior in strength, worth, might, or wealth) - the suzerain - determines the terms and conditions for the inferior party, the vassal. Such agreements can never be emended, and secretaries or other parties may not renege for their representative. New covenants may be attached, but never at the expense or absolution of the original. From a treaty at the time of the Near East Ancient Semitic: "Whoever... changes but one word of this tablet... may the thousand gods of this tablet root that man's descendants out of the land of Hatti." This is incredibly similar to the similar threat issued by God in Deuteronomy 4:2 to the covenant-forming Israelites. Also congruent is the covenantal judgment found in Revelation 22:18 - 19.

We may ask, however, if these verses constitute covenant language in both the Old and New Testaments, where is the response of the Israelite and Christian Church? What is the response of the vassal? G. Von Rad is helpful here:

Complete freedom of action, and therefore the freedomto decide, that is, to take the oath or not, is in this case possessed only by the superior - the lesser is simply a recipient. This arrangement is to be understood on the assumption that the recipient will certainly notact against his own interest, for by rejecting the covenant he would only exchange a protection which was to his advantage for an extremely hazardous legal insecurity.

So the suzerain alone acts, not (only) because He has the freedom to do so, but because it is an enthymematic given that dwelling outside of the covenant is suicidal.

Horton notes, "Thus even from the beginning, while 'the nations' gathered around their deities who *manifested* themselves in creaturlely forms, Israel gathered around Yahweh whenever and wherever Yahweh *addressed* theassembly in judgment and mercy. In other words, Israel's covenant theology is is intrinsically discourse-oriented as a mediated encounted between the covenant lord and the servant people."

Horton gives an initial summary of all of this by juxtaposing ideas that we often hold in opposite ends to each other. He concludes, "This meant, among other things, that this union [the covenant between YHWH and Israel] that this uion was legal *and* relational (contrary to modern tendencies to see these in antithesis), not ontological and natural; historical and mediated, rather than ecstatic and direct."

Covenant theology, just like Reformed theology, helps to lay the foundations necessary for Christians to understand the radical graciousness of grace. Every step issued in the logical dance of covenant theology undergirds texts like Ephesians 2:8. Unlike the marriage covenant, where each partner must agree to and pledge themselves, we resonate with the criminal who is read his rights: no response is awaited by the coersive officers, as to reject the rights would be foolhardy at best.

Similarly, the absolute freedom of God, the "I will be gracious to whom *I* choose!" emphasis, is protected in the covenantal structure.

Batman Begins, the highly acclaimed release directed by Christopher Nolan and starring Christopher Bale, is released today on DVD in two categorical options: a single and double disc release.

What the Thunder Said has expressed its appreciation for the Batman in other posts, and we look forward to seeing it again. My wife, however, will not be looking forward to it. I will definitely not be forcing her to sit through it again, due to the fact it was devoted and concentrated love for myself that gave her the strength to struggle through the time we watched it together.

Nevetheless, I will be looking forward to watching it again.

I will not judge a person to be spiritually dead whom I have judged formerly to have had spiritual life, though I see him at present in a swoon (faint) as to all evidences of the spiritual life. And the reason why I will not judge him so is this -- because if you judge a person dead, you neglect him, you leave him; but if you judge him in a swoon, (faint) though never so dangerous, you use all means for the retrieving of his life.

John Owen

This weekend is Desiring God's third annual national conference. The topic is coping with suffering in an age of the already/not yet. How does suffering coexist with the "supremacy of God in all things?" I will be working at the conference, as well as enjoying it with friends and family. I'll also try to live blog from the conference, so you can be sure to get a feel for what its like, even if you're not there. Be praying for the conference, the speakers, and those attending.

Two books that I am working through that both deal with Old Testament theology are one I'd like to highly recommend. Both books come at the Old Testament with a biblical theology stance. While all theology tries to be biblical (at least, all good theology tries to be biblical), biblical theology is an attempt to deal with the text in a certain way.

The first book to consider is Dominion and Dynasty by Stephen G. Dempster. A review at Beginning With Moses reads,

Christian theologians rarely study the Old Testament in its final Hebrew canonical form, even though this was very likely the Bible used by Jesus and the early church. However, once read as a whole, the larger structure of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) provides a wide-angle lens' through which its contents can be viewed. In this stimulating exposition, Stephen Dempster argues that, despite its undoubted literary diversity, the Hebrew Bible possesses a remarkable structural and conceptual unity. The various genres and books are place within a comprehensive narrative framework which provides and overarching literary and historical context. The many texts contribute to this larger text, and find their meaning and significance within its story of 'dominion and dynasty', which ranges from Adam to the Son of Man to David, and to a coming Davidic king.

I agree with this idea. Dempster's strenths lie in familiarity with Near-Eastern context and ancient Semitic textual interests. Weaknesses include a large debt to the current scholastic ethos. All in all, an excellent read.

The other work is entitled, A House For My Name, and is authored by Peter Leithart. Leithart is a PCA pastor in Idaho. This books strength is seeing a continuity and typology even within the Old Testament that brooks the pattern established between the Testaments. Therefore, Elijah is a type of Moses and a foreshadowing of Christ, while all the while both Moses and Elijah seek to establish the precedent that is Jesus, the final Word and revelation of God in the New Testament.

While there are few weaknesses in the book, it may be appropriate to guard cautiously against some of Leithart's other work when it comes to justification or soteriology. While I have not found anything yet in his corpus to think him heterodox, Leithart has not always kept the best theological company. Also, I admit that I have not read Leithart where he has the tendency to be the most volatile, namely, on Federal Theology. However, this reading is - as far as I can tell - highly orthodox and faithful to the Scriptures.

While it is recommended by the author as for junior high in an education setting, I found the read enjoyable and helpful, especially with questions and review at the end of each chapter. While not advanced seminary reading, many families and serious students of the Word will find this helpful.

At the elder council

Today, the blogosphere and the radio were synced over the idea of Christians practicing yoga. One mother in particular was singled out; as she coped with single-parenting of two children as well as her job by engaging in Christian yoga. Quotes from the mother often regard her taking deep comfort and rejuvenation from her yoga practice.

The practice is run by fellow Christians who encourage participees to meditate on soothing sayings such as "And now, to the Father... and now, to the Son..." The yogitees (a What the Thunder Said term) practice traditional stretches and other physical activities unique to yoga.

Response to the new evangellyfish fad is mixed, but volatile. Many fellow Christians argue that it is merely a physical activity set to Christian meditation. (Some of these argue strenuously that this practice must find a different name.) Others, equally as strenous, find no compatibility between anything that smacks of Eastern religion/mysticism and Christianity. These have opposed ther terminology, the practice, and basically anything else they canget their grimy mits on. Finally, the last, and most interesting group, is represented by a swami from New Jersey. As the representative/orthodox Hindu, he maintained that yoga is an initiating and elemental practice to Hindu on an order that baptism or Eucharist would be to Christianity. He politely insisted (in the interview I listened to) that all Christians "practicing" yoga to stop.

I would like to critique the position from, what I feel like, is a completely different vantage point. I think all of life is divided into the spheres of cult and culture. Two principles apply separately to each: for cult, the Regulative Principle of Worship, and to culture, I Corinthians 10:31.

The Regulative Principle will be no doubt less familiar to most people. This Principle states that God is to be worshipped in ways only that He commands. This prohibits man from coming to God in ways that man has devised. Confessionally, Lutherans allow anything that is not expressly condemned in Scripture. Roman Catholics allow anything expressly advocated by tradition and papal authority. The Reformed, on the other hand, only allow into worship what the Bible explicitly commands. Thus, since a puppet show isn't condemned in the Scriptures, it theoretically could be approved in a Lutheran church. However, it would be barred from both Catholic and Reformed churches. The crucial difference, though, is that the Reformed defer due to exegetical merit.

Exegetically, the Regulative Principle of Worship is revealed most clearly in the Decalogue, commandment #2. We are not to worship God through a graven image, or any created thing. The positive way of saying that is to worship God ONLY in ways He has expressly provided. This is displayed more fully in God's wrathful display against Nadab and Abihu, who offered strange fire on the altar of the Lord. The lesson derived here is not what is the strange fire, but rather that this was not how God commanded He be approached.

Thus, anything that is cultic, that is - worshipful, is governed by the Regulative Principle. Therefore, IF Christian yoga is under the cultic sphere, then it is clearly forbidden, as God has not commanded His covenant bride to approach Him in that way.

Culture, while it never fully escapes the long shadow cast by the cultic, is governed by I Corinthians 10:31; "Whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do all to the glory of God." Under this principle, all of life is subject to the believer, by grace in the power of the Holy Spirit through faith, is charged to attempt to live all of life as glorifying Christ.

So the defining question is, "Does Christian yoga fall under the cultic or culture sphere?" While there may be disagreements, it seems that at least the mother held up as example is using Christian yoga as form of devotion or worship. She is using it similarly to prayer. Therefore, I think it clearly is a case of cultic, thus not being sanctioned by the Regulative Principle; viz., God has not commanded us to approach Him through yoga.

Case closed.

This post is to give a quick layout of Horton's methodology as displayed in his introduction, "Before the Curtain Rises."

We must view reality through a lens, argues Michael Horton, author of Covenant & Eschatology (Westminster John Knox, 2004). This is true of all humanity, and we already do it, whether we realize it or not. Where it gets sticky is which lens we will employ. Horton is quite clear: his methodology consists of viewing reality and the biblical text through an eschatological lens, subsumed in redemptive history. His mode is analogical, his model is dramatic, and his context is the covenant.

BeginningWithMoses.Org's blog highlights this upcoming conference and book by Dr. Sidney Greidanus.

What the The Thunder Said is a big supporter of Mozilla, an online, open source community that has produced such gems as Firefox and Thunderbird. I use many of their products: besides those two listed, Sunbird, Bugzilla, Mozilla Suite, Greasemonkey, Mozilla Minimo, and Lightning. I think they make fantastic products. For instance, Firefox is a web browser, similar to Internet Explorer. However, Mozilla Firefox takes up less space on your computer, is easier to use, has many functions yet to be developed by Microsoft (IE's creator), is much safer from viruses and pop-ups. and is free. Thunderbird is an email client, that is far superior to Microsoft's Outlook.

So here's an announcement to let you know that Firefox 1.0.7 and Thunderbird 1.0.7 have been released. They are protected against the most recent internet security leaks, and have updated user functions as well. Click either of the banners on the side of What the Thunder Said to get these programs for free.

The second thing to do is sign a petition for Firefox dominance. eBay, the popular online auction, has never been quite as good when being viewed by Firefox, as compared to Internet Explorer. Now, someone has begun a petition that eBay update their programming to support Firefox fully. I signed, and I was #1194 (I think). If you would like to sign the petition, go here.

Reading: C. H. Spurgeon's Lectures To My Students
Enjoying: Virginia #7 on briar
Listening: Our AC unit. I pray for rain, 'cause man, is it muggy

Harriet Miers was nominated for Supreme Court justice today by President Bush to fill the seat soon to be vacated by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. And that is why you keep coming back to What the Thunder Said, because of our fast-breaking news and up-to-the-minute reporting.

Reactions around the web and blogosphere seem to be mixed. For instance, Justin Taylor at Between Two Worlds is "disappointed, depressed, and demoralized."

I'm disappointed because I expected President Bush to nominate someone with a visible and distinguished constitutionalist track record... I'm depressed... her selection will unavoidably be judged as reflecting a combination of cronyism and capitulation on the part of the president. I'm demoralized. Surely this is a pick from weakness.

However, not everyone thinks that such is the case. Hugh Hewitt, for one, thinks Miers will be great. (Jay Sekulow, of the ACLJ, highly touts her and asks for more support, citing "this is the battle we've been waiting to fight" rhetoric. Ughh. I'll deal with this elsewhere.) Olasky, in what I consider a wise and fine piece of journalism/blogging, went to her pastor (why don't more think to do this!). While he supports her as a fine church member and a seemingly committed Christian, the article is definitely inconclusive.

While I tend to be less enthusiastic than either Hewitt, Sekulow, or Olasky, I don't think Taylor's disappointment is warranted, either. I honestly didn't think so highly of Bush as to get these seats correct according to my standards. I think Bush has just the nominations he wishes. I think, by his standards, he's been successful. But why should I be suprised, given his position on big, centralized government, national debt, and abortion?

May God bless Miers, and give her eyes to exegete the Constitution as she ought. May He protect her from zeal, give her the grace to see Jesus Christ as her only Savior. May God give us all eyes to see Christ, and not the state or Bush, as our only Savior.

Reading: "Prophet, Priest, King" Tabletalk
Enjoying: Nothing, and I'm starved!
Listening: discussion concerning a move of opinion on baptism and membership at my church

The Red Sox are down by five. Stinkin' A-Rod. Everyone get behind Wakefield to make some magic.

Tomorrow, I have the opportunity to preach at Elm Creek Church in Maple Grove, MN. My sermon title is "Trust the Anointed Messiah Who Brings the Year of Jubilee" from Luke 4:15 - 30. I want to examine how Christ is the Anointed One as prophet, priest, and king. Also, I want to examine why Jesus did not perform miracles where there was little faith among the people. Is faith necessary for Jesus to do miracles? Finally, I hope to analyze Jubilee, and how it should mark us a people devoted unto the Lord.

Its tough only doing pulpit supply, because there's about twenty other things that need to be pulled from this text, but I simply do not have the time in one sermon. Therefore, I need to preach across several Sundays to do justice to a text like this one. Oh well, in God's providence.

Please pray that Christ would be lifted up in the hearts of the people, that I would be faithful to the Scriptures, and that faith working through love would accomplish the many good deeds God has prepared in advance for us to do, bringing honor and glory to Him and His Gospel.