• Robinson, The Church of God as an Essential Element of the Gospel // Excellent.
• Hart, A Secular Faith // Worth reading, typical Hart.
• Clark, Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry // Very helpful, highly recommended.

September

• Marshall, The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification. // Classic.
• Poythress, Symphonic Theology // Not sure what to do with this one…

October

• Hart, John Williamson Nevin : High Church Calvinist // Very thought-provoking, enjoyable read.
• Sproul, The Truth of the Cross // Very helpful, bathroom-sized book.
• Boice, Renewing Your Mind in a Mindless World // So-so.
• Nevin, The Anxious Bench / Antichrist / Catholic Unity // Follow-up, to-the-source, after Hart’s bio. Worth reading for many reasons.

November

• Hart, From Billy Graham to Sarah Palin : The Evangelical Betrayal of American Conservatism // Not as similar to Secular Faith as I’d expected. Last few chapters especially good.

December

• Kirk, The Conservative Mind // Listened to audio 2x on commute. Classic.
• Hofstadter, The Paranoid Style of American Politics // Frankfurt School influence. Not sure why I read it. Hope to read Buckley’s Up From Liberalism to counteract the taint.
• Trueman, Republocrat // Interesting, good points.
• Piper & Carson, Pastor as Scholar & Scholar as Pastor // Confession: read this just for the ‘notch’. (Joel, I blame you.)
• Miller, A Praying Life // Very devotional. Worth reading. Would like to read Beeke’s to compare.
• Fischer, Marrow of Modern Divinity // Best of year! Absolutely great read. Highly recommended.

From Chapter 3:

Unlike [Finney's] system of the [anxious] bench that made the conversion experience “the all in all of the gospel economy,” the [system of the] catechism was designed to care for believers over the entire course of their lives, from birth to death. Nevin’s theory of the catechism did not hide the significant stylistic differences between the bench and the catechism, which involved contrasts such as number of converts versus greater spiritual maturity or mechanical techniques for attracting converts versus natural and organic means of generating faithful devotion. “It is in the kingdom of grace,” he explained, “as in the kingdom of nature; the greatest, deepest, most comprehensive and lasting changes are effected constantly not by special, sudden, vast explosions of power, but by processes that are gentle, and silent, and so minute and common as hardly to attract the notice of the world.” Or to put it another way, “The extraordinary,” in the case of the catechetical system, “is found ever to stand in the ordinary, and grows forth from it without violence so as to bear the same character of natural and free power.” As such, the catechism was not opposed to revivals. Rather, the system of catechetical religion involved a different notion of revival, one where the church enjoyed “special showers of grace” through the regular ministrations of the pastoral office.

- Darryl Hart,  John Williamson Nevin : High Church Calvinist (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2005), p. 99.

Nevin and Hart use the term ‘catechism’ as symbolic of an altogether different view of piety, church life, conversion, etc. This view, established (ordained?) long before Finney’s day, revolves largely around the family, pastoral visitation, catechesis, and Word and Sacrament ministry.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. (Rom. 1:18-21, ESV)

I recently read an interpretation of this passage which, in my opinion, starts off right-on, but then goes too far:

Of central relevance is the key phrase, “who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.” Here “suppress” means to hold in restraints, to hold under. The phrase “the truth” (with the article) refers to all that is really true, to the inner essence of things—not simply to truth about God, but to all truth, in every area and in every respect, especially in its essential interrelatedness. The phrase “by unrighteousness” suggests that various forms of unrighteousness are used to enwrap and smother the truth, to push it down, so that people do not come to know the inner essence of things. (Nelson Kloosterman. “A Biblical Case for Natural Law : A Response Essay.” Ordained Servant 16 [2007].)

This verse does not say that unbelievers suppress the truth about “..all that is really true…all truth, in every area and in every respect…” Unbelievers do not suppress the truth that 2+2=4. They do suppress the fact that 2+2=4 inherently and essentially reveals a providential ordering of the universe which the one, true Creator established of nothing and maintains of his own will. The fact that 2+2=4 is true is not separable from the fact that 2+2=4 reveals God. The revelation of a Creator is not the result of a deductive reasoning process that happens after realizing the truth of 2+2=4. There is no “pre-critical” truth and “post-critical” conclusion: 2+2-4 inherently reveals God at the very moment one sees it. The sin of the unbeliever is involves both separating the fact of 2+2=4 from what it reveals about God, then in his embrace of the former while denying the latter. Yes, it truly is somewhat lunatic to embrace a fact and reject it at the same time: the unbelieving mind is truly fractured. He wants the kingdom, but he doesn’t want God in it. The eyes of the believer work the same as the eyes of an unbeliever. The difference is that believers accept and embrace what is clearly revealed.

There is an ethic of seeing.

Excursus: I am intentionally teaching my son to see in a certain way: to see the hand of God in all things.

Recently, we were standing near the edge of a parking lot after sunset, waiting for my wife to finish up in a department store. It was dark, and the sound of frogs and birds and bugs in the neighboring forest was quite loud. He was, shall we say, “concerned” about the situation, this combination of darkness and loud, strange noises. I wanted him to see it (and hear it) differently. “Ethan, do you hear that?” “Yeah.” “Do you know what that sound is? Those are bugs and birds and frogs. Do you know what they’re doing?” He looked into the darkness with wide eyes and said “Yeah” (which he says to all questions he doesn’t quite understand yet). I said, “they’re singing. They’re singing to God, just like you do at night.” He kept looking intently and said “dey singin’ Desus woves me?” “Yep, something like that. And they’re praying – do you know what they’re praying?” “Yeah.” “They’re praying, ‘thank you, God, for this place to sleep; and for feeding us today; and for keeping us safe; and for our families; we love you, God. Good night.” “Yeah.” Ever since then, when he grows ‘concerned’ about the darkness and the night-noises, he now reminds me: “dey singin to God, wight Dada? dey singin Desus woves me.’” “Yes, they are bud. Just like we do. Nothing to be afraid of.” (And yes, that’s really what they’re doing.)

Another time we built a toy fire truck together – a gift from my mom. I said, “Ethan, do you know what that is?” “Issa Fie Twuck.” “That’s right. Do you see what it means?” “Yeah.” “Men built that truck. Do you see that one, small basket at the top of the crane – big enough for only a person or two? Men built this machine, all this engineering and design, they made improvement over improvement, they chose certain materials over others, they made measurements and poured out sweat to build this thing – all to save a single human life. Men saw a problem – lives lost in tragic fires – and a desire welled up within them to somehow right this wrong. They knew they could reach people in danger on the first or second floor. But they wanted to get there faster, so they put it on wheels, and they wanted to reach people all the way up, so they made the ladder super high. All to save a life. This compassion and nobility conspired with their genius to construct a device of amazing precision and even poetic beauty. They did it because we’re all like God: we create, we value life, and we express love for those in danger by rescuing them – even risking our own lives to do so.” Seeing the image of God in man, the creative ingenuity mixed with great compassion – this is how I want him to “see” a simple thing like a fire truck. Even it reveals God.

When you look out the window, are you annoyed at the clouds, or do you think “my town’s gardens and trees must need watering today. Without those gardens and trees, God’s creatures couldn’t eat, and we wouldn’t have air to breathe. Bring on the rain, then. We’ll see a cloudless sky again soon enough.”

(End of excursus.)

Romans 1 exposes the fractured, broken, rebellious, and anxious mind of the unbeliever, who is confronted by the inescapable reality that everything without, and everything within, reveals God. Revelation of God is as inescapable as the presence of God: we’re submerged in it, and we are a revelation of God (“made in His image”). The unbeliever attempts to embrace facts like 2+2=4 while rejecting what it essentially reveals: God is, and He is not silent. This does not at all mean that he suppresses mathematics. We can even trust him about mathematics – I’m quite certain that many of my math teachers must have been pagans – enough to grade our exams and show us how to do math better than we do. Where he is completely untrustworthy, however, is when he begins to speak about the meaning of math, the origin of math, the implications of math, etc. Then his lunacy surfaces. But he has no reason to suppress that 2+2=4 – after he has wrongfully separated the fact from its ultimate meaning. All this to say, I think Kloosterman reads something into the text that isn’t there. There is an ethic of seeing, but it’s not quite as extensive as he suggests: there is such a thing as common grace.

not so good

Here is, I think, a better one:

better

The (one) church is ruled by (all) its elders.

The local assembly of elders is called the “Session”, the regional assembly of elders is called the “Presbytery” and the national assembly is called “General Assembly” – but none of these is an entity per se, and none are ‘higher’ than the other per se. The larger assemblies of elders have greater authority simply because they are what they are - larger assemblies of elders. Or, if you like, they are higher only because they are broader.

My diagram is better because the regional  ’presbytery’ and national ‘general assembly’ have no essentially different kind power than any local session – they are simply greater assemblies of elders. It is a difference of degree, not kind: there are more of them meeting together. They’re simply elders whether meeting locally, regionally, or nationally. And, my diagram is better, I suggest, because I start with the one church, instead of with the many, particular churches.

Thoughts and questions are most welcome.

From The Presbyterian Guardian. 31.1 (1962) : 11.

January:

• K. Scott Oliphint, The Battle Belongs to the Lord
• Various, Justified : Modern Reformation Essays on the Doctrine of Justification
• Darryl G. Hart, Deconstructing Evangelicalism
• David VanDrunen, Living in God’s Two Kingdoms
• Bruce Metzger, Tell the Truth : The Whole Gospel to the Whole Person by Whole People

February:

• Russell Moore, Adopted for Life
• Mark Noll, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind
• Dorothy Sayers, Letters to a Diminished Church: Passionate Arguments for the Relevance of Christian Doctrine
• N. D. Wilson, Notes from the Tilt-a-Whirl

March:

• Joseph Ellis, Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation
  
• John Piper, God is the Gospel
• Richard Hofstadter, Anti-Intellectualism in American Life
  
• Noll / Hatch / Marsden, The Search for Christian America
  

April:

• Nathan Hatch, The Democratization of American Christianity
  
• J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism

May:

• Michael Horton, The Gospel Commission
• Michael Cromartie, No Longer Exiles: The Religious New Right in American Politics
  
• Mark Noll, The Civil War as a Theological Crisis

June:

• George Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture
• Darrly G. Hart & John Muether, Seeking a Better Country : 300 Years of American Presbyterianism
• Danny Hyde, In Defense of the Descent

…both Wright and Piper fail. Piper’s failure is due to plucking his TULIP from its native covenant soil and thus planting justification and imputation in mid-air, and Wright’s is due to his insistence upon a kind of covenantal nomism which may have faithfully described Israel’s typological situation under Moses in the land, but falls woefully short of capturing the believer’s situation under the new covenant.

(source)

The two-covenant / two Adams hermeneutic of redemptive history, perhaps even better than the three-fold Creation, Fall, Redemption hermeneutic, is the better solution to this whole shebang. (See WCF vii.)

As the resurrection of Jesus anticipates and secures the general resurrection, so the death of Christ, usually represented by Paul as an atonement, occasionally appears as securing and embodying in advance the judgment and destruction of the spiritual powers opposed to God, thus bringing the other great eschatological transaction within the scope of the present activity of Christ and the present experience of believers, Rom. viii. 3; I Cor. ii. 6 (where notice the present participle …: “who are already coming to nought “).

From the article “The Eschatological Aspect of the Pauline Conception of the Spirit”, by Geerhardus Vos, found in Biblical and Theological Studies, collected essays from the faculty of Princeton Theological Seminary. (Available for free on Google Books!)

I’m familiar with the idea that the resurrection of Christ is the first fruits of our own resurrection, and that there is a kind of organic solidarity between the Head (Christ) and His body (the Church) – that, to quote Scripture, “because He lives, we also shall live.” But I had never thought about how the judgement of the Cross (which He took on Himself in our stead, Isa. 53) is also a ‘down payment’ or first fruits of the cosmic judgment that awaits the rest of the old creation – unbelievers included. As surely as he was raised, so shall we be raised. As surely as he was judged (in our place), so shall the enemies of God be judged. Just as our resurrection has already begun, so also has their judgement.

That’s a scary thought, if one isn’t in Christ. God’s wrath is still pending – and dare I say – growing full, looming ominously, intensifying fiercely – until that day of full consummation which he has appointed. Let us check ourselves. See whether we are in the faith. For there is therefore now no condemnation for all those who are in Christ – but for those who aren’t? The day of their ferocious (though just) judgement, has already begun. The clouds, dark and heavy with justice, have already started to gather…