Sandlin, Clark, Jordan, Bahnsen & Federal Vision

Sorting out the truth amidst theological controversy is often near impossible. I offer the following from Sandlin at least to clarify some of the issues. For the record I do not embrace the Federal Vision theology and as a, what I would call, Post-Theonomist, I still have sympathies for those who are former theonomists or currently embrace it. Also, as for Justification, I agree wholeheartedly with Sandlin when he states, I embrace the doctrine of justification precisely as it appears in the Westminster Confession of Faith. The exclusive instrumental cause of justification is faith. That faith rests entirely on the redemptive work of Jesus on the Cross and from the empty tomb and grasps hard on Jesus as Savior and Lord. The issue is not sola fide, which Scott and I both heartily affirm, but the nature of saving faith. Scott, like his colleague Mike Horton, has made clear his position that justifying faith is exclusively passive (trusting in and resting on Jesus) and never active (submitting to Jesus as Lord and as his disciple). I affirm that it is both simultaneously (in the distinct senses I have stated), and that a faith that is merely active is moralistic while a faith that is merely passive is antinomian. On this point, I dissent from Clark and Horton and I agree with J. I. Packer ...Read the whole article here.

Christmas Reality Check

Today’s secular attacks on the Christmas season (the ACLU’s legal challenges to manger scenes on “public” property, and so on) would have been less successful had the church of the last century been more vigilant in linking Jesus’ death and resurrection with His incarnation. The problem here is not chiefly the myth and commercialization into which the season has fallen: Santa Claus and debt spending. No, the root problem is that for decades now, Christmas for the church has been all about the Babe Jesus in His incarnational humiliation and peace on earth and the human charity that such tender scenes engender. Not for a moment should we diminish those scenes, but if we propagate them apart from their redemptive-historical context, we present to the church — and the world — an emasculated, dilute Christian Faith, and it’s hard to detect any deep, weighty rationale for the incarnation. We overcome this soft-core Christmas celebration if we stress that the Faith — and the incarnation — is at its very root redemptive-historical. - Andrew Sandlin. Read the whole post here.

Another perspective on tattooing

Some good observations by Andrew Sandlin on tattoos can be found here. In answer to his last question, The Biblical issue, it seems, therefore, is not NT discontinuity with the OT, but whether Lev. 19:28 parallels today’s tattooing practice, I would argue that Lev. 19:28 does not mirror or parallel today's modern practice of tattooing and even if it did I believe this falls under the ceremonial law which has been abrogated.

I Have to Agree

I have to agree with Andrew Sandlin's position on the war. He writes, I am a foreign policy hawk, and the Center for Cultural Leadership does not oppose what it deems justifiable war. War is Hell, but some Hells are worse than others. A permanent global Hell governed by fanatical Muslims and other political fascists is worse than the temporary Hell of grief and bloodshed that inhere in a war to prevent or overthrow those fascists. I don't like the thought of myself or my children or grandchildren or any of us being under Muslim rule & I don't think this threat is taken seriously. Nevertheless, this war is needed. We must all trust God's Providence but do what is prudent. Read the rest of Sandlin's post here.