A meeting of a Presbyterian conclave (actually a standing committee of the OPC General Assembly) back the capital of American Presbyterianism (actually a suburb) has afforded (all about) me the opportunity to catch up on the media. The flights from Detroit to Philadelphia were either too expensive or too long so I decided to drive. On the trip East I listened to a discussion of the papacy on On Point that gave voice to Roman Catholics in the U.S. seldom heard at the Callers. On the drive back I listened to a great interview with Scott Manetsch about his new book on the Company of Pastors in Geneva.
The trip tonight placed (all about) me in a town outside Cleveland. The Cavs’ game against the Heat was televised locally. This was a contest that gave the Cleveland franchise a chance to pay back Lebron James if the lowly Cavs could rise up and end the Heat’s winning streak. I don’t watch televised sports much anymore but I warmed up to the idea of watching an upset. When the Cavs went up by 27 in the first half, I thought my joy might be complete.
And then I saw Chris Anderson with all his tats and hair. He is to the NBA what Fawn Knudsen was to the Big Lebowski. He also represents a form of physical exhibitionism that must be comparable to what you — I guess — see at a strip club.
With the Division II season finished, that leaves March Madness with its own hype and all those commercials to fill the void. I am not sure it will ever be full for a guy who grew up with only sixteen teams making it to the tournament and who had to wait for the morning news to find out what happened to the Sweet Sixteen and the Elite Eight since none of the games were televised. This is the same guy who listens to podcasts on a Walkman (which I hear brings me up to date with the Second Iraq War).
Maybe the only remedy is the NIT.
Old Life 
Not all NBA games are equal. I watched the okc thunder and the memphis grizzlies on the nba channel last night, at least the end and the overtime. Good game, probably much better than most games from this first weekend of the NCAA. The only good thing which can happen in the NCAA this week is a team like Louisville or North Carolina losing.
I am pretty sure that the Cleveland Cavs could beat any team in the NCAA tourney.
LikeLike
“By the time the grouchiest first-place team in NBA history left the AT&T Center with a 104-93 victory over Golden State, it was fair to ask the question:
Are we having fun yet?
With Duncan again anchoring the show — to the tune of 25 points, 13 rebounds, six assists and four blocks — the Spurs sent the Warriors to their 29th consecutive loss in San Antonio, a string of futility dating to Valentine’s Day 1997”
“Nobody is Happy, we don’t do happy”
LikeLike
Emminently watchable btw.
LikeLike
Old Alexian Bob’s Musings— Am I changing the sports subject? Commentators drastically changing original subject is not rare @ OLT! Darryl’s recent post: “Defining Morality Up” had some comments on off-the-subject stuff. Maybe I started it? Then “What A Difference A Day Makes”— 203 comments (Wow!) and counting, I guess: Sports and dozens of other forks in the road there! Darryl and some of his co-thinkers are pretty mean! “Can’t teach an old dog (Bob) new tricks” Translation: “Bob Morris is behind the times, even pretty stupid”. Darryl, you could have been even meaner— “No fool like an OLD fool”! Then there is Jed P. — Old Bob has trouble making distinctions: Translation “I can’t believe Bob has had 4 years at a great Seminary, WTS, 2 years as pastor of an OPC church, grad degree in Math, 5 years as Training Director, RCA Computer Systems Division, 31 years in the classroom including 16 years as MathProf, University System of Georgia” Grandpa to 25, happy husband of 60 years. OK. This doesn’t make me smart or an able servant of God. My musings as I take time from trying to befriend and witness to some of the 400+ “Old Dogs”? “Fools”? here at Alexian Brothers. Do Darryl’s new “tricks” include fads (came in recently or some time back) like Modernism, New Modernism, New Age, Darwinism, etc.) Wasn’t the Reformation new at one time? So— new could be good or very bad! Maybe it is sometimes really good to refuse to learn “New Tricks”! How about “fool”? The openings of Psalms 14 and 53 say that fools are those who say that there is no God. Paul says he is a fool for Christ’s sake. Confusing! Darryl, am I wrong that you have shown pictures of your young and handsome face quite frequently? More musings— I still think it is sad to ignore all the “wolves” out there in our NEW U.S.A. They are mentioned often by SOME Reformed folks. Sad, too, to fuss about terms some great Christians use, like “Worldviews” and “Christian Schools”. Oh me, Now it is back to the real world for this Old guy. Love in Jesus. BM (More fun with my initials for some of you meaner folks!)
LikeLike
Bob, you’re wrong about the photos (maybe you spend a lot of time googling me) and more.
LikeLike
I remember the days when (at worst) the 3rd best team in the country, Maryland, couldn’t make the NCAA tourney because only 1 team could rep the ACC, the winner of the Conference Championship game.
LikeLike
What is a “Walkman”?
LikeLike
Watch MLB much?
LikeLike
So are you guys saying you would frown on my half sleve of tatoos consisting of quotes from Keller sermons?
LikeLike
Jed,
Keller is so yesterday. It’s all Pope Francis quotes these days. Never mind weanie tattoos, have Nate pull a lung out, and do a reverse bowl cut so that everyone may know your commitment to and sacrifice for the church.
Speaking of romish humility, whatever happened to secrecy in your works of charity?
LikeLike
Jed Paschall: So are you guys saying you would frown on my half sleve of tatoos consisting of quotes from Keller sermons?
RS: At times reading posts here can give one nausea.
LikeLike
BM: Wasn’t the Reformation new at one time? So— new could be good or very bad!
RS: Roman Catholicism also had a Reformation of sorts just after the Protestant Reformation. There is a guy out there now who is calling for a new Reformation too, but he is wanting a Reformation of how churches deal with homosexuals. As you say, new can be good or can be very bad.
BM: Maybe it is sometimes really good to refuse to learn “New Tricks”! How about “fool”? The openings of Psalms 14 and 53 say that fools are those who say that there is no God. Paul says he is a fool for Christ’s sake. Confusing!
RS: Perhaps the words are used in two different ways, so not really. The fools in Psalms 14 and 53 are true fools because they deny Christ, but Paul was willing to be thought of as a fool in the eyes of the world in order to proclaim the truth. It is interesting, however, that in today’s world that Christians are thought to be fools and those who push certain things on certain websites are called fools.
BM: Darryl, am I wrong that you have shown pictures of your young and handsome face quite frequently?
RS: Bob, remember what Proverbs says about flattering tongues.
BM: More musings— I still think it is sad to ignore all the “wolves” out there in our NEW U.S.A. They are mentioned often by SOME Reformed folks.
RS: There are many wolves. Do you have some in mind that you would care to bring up?
BM: Sad, too, to fuss about terms some great Christians use, like “Worldviews” and “Christian Schools”.
RS: Maybe it is not really a fuss, but more of a discussion. When one person’s worldview is that there are no worldviews, it is interesting to read about that person’s worldview as s/he writes against worldviews. I John says that we cannot have a love of the world and the love of God in our hearts, but he did not say that we couldn’t have a worldview and a love of God in our hearts.
LikeLike
So Chris Anderson is The Reason the NBA is unwatchable? Did you give up on the NBA with the advent of Dennis Rodman?
I’d say the NBA is unwatchable because they’re just pros out there doing their job; and the playoffs are now neverending (best-of-7 even in the the first round? really?)
In the NCAA tournament there are tons of kids for whom every game might be the last game of their life. And it shows in how they play.
LikeLike
Lots of fertile ground here.
The NBA is an acquired taste. Playing fantasy basketball helps one’s appreciation. Playing a lot of basketball also helps. It’s good to DVR games and have them on in the background while doing other things. Andersen is an outlier. You probably remember the 72-73 Lakers. The playoffs, especially the Conference championships, are where it gets interesting and where you watch whole games and whole series.
That’s Bunny La Joya to you.
The end of those NCAA tournament games when an upset is possible are great.
LikeLike
Sean: Speaking of romish humility, whatever happened to secrecy in your works of charity?
RS: Secrecy should be thought of in relative terms. Sure people think of it as less than secretive if the glare of the TV lights are on, but then think of how many people might not see that particular TV spot and then of all those without televisions. You are looking at this through an inaccurate paradigm.
LikeLike
Detroit to Philadelphia by car.
I spent yesterday at Mall of America and this morning at Ikea in Minneapolis. I have some kind of condition where I literally start to get physically sick after spending more than about a half an hour in a mall setting. Way too much sensory stimulation or something. I spent several hours yesterday and this morning in the Barnes & Noble Starbucks cafe and the Ikea cafe reading.
Yesterday I read a great article in the always interesting University of Chicago Magazine about a young PhD couple who drove — yes, drove — from Austria to India in the 1950s. Fascinating story.
http://mag.uchicago.edu/law-policy-society/passage-india
Today I got half way through “Westminster Seminary California: A New Old School” by Hart & Godfrey on the Kindle (only $4.99 from Amazon). I’m enjoying it a lot. Here’s some info and an interview on the book.
http://wscal.edu/resource-center/resource/a-new-old-school
LikeLike
Mark & Sean,
The Grizzlies & Spurs are examples of teams who play old-school and are successful because of it.
LikeLike
How exactly do you listen to a podcast on a walkman? Seems like an oxymoron. I had to give up on the cassette walkmans when they quit learning how to make them so the cassette player doesn’t break in a week.
LikeLike
You gotta join Jed’s challenge, Erik. It’s not too late! Jed, we gotta publicize earlier next year. Darryl’s Gonzaga vs. my Syracuse…this could get ugly 😉
LikeLike
Thank you, Richard, for reading my long comment and then spending a lot of time replying to many of my musings. I think you are right about how Paul meant “fool”. Saved my life! Thanks, too, to Darryl for reading a small part. (About your many pushings of your perfect picture.) When I asked the computer to get “old life t” (that is all it took.) Your picture, and year of birth 1950 came right up! Made me more curious about your denials of showing your good looks to all who visit OLT. Maybe elsewhere? Also, I have my doubts about your admiration for politically aware AND Christian, Larry Arnn, Hillsdale Prez. Even with your addition of “arguablly (sp?). Also thanks to DGH and other sports fans, who refused to wander from the sports posting, and didn’t joke about my unfortunate initials: BM! Love, OB
LikeLike
Andrew,
Thanks. I’ll try.
LikeLike
I’m in. Group motto: “Scotch Cigars and Theology”
Nice.
I’m in the lead. Some of you are off to a rough start.
LikeLike
That goes for all of you. Are you really going to pass up an opportunity to take down king Darryl? Bragging rights people. I’m telling you, more brackets and golf, make for more happy old lifers 🙂 insert YouTube link from shining, all work and no play…
LikeLike
Hey Erik C. You have long commented copiously on all other DGH posts: Why not my musings? Hey, Darryl, I think ( greatdarrylghart1950@gmail.com ) would be great 4 U. Love, OB
LikeLike
Old Bob,
Did you cross paths with any of the founders of Westminster Seminary California when you were at Westminter Philadelphia? I was reading Hart & Godfrey’s new book this morning and they mentioned Robert Strimple. I think he was a 1959 grad of Westminster Philadelphia.
Nothing against your posts, I’m just more interested in Reformed theology and history than politics these days, although I do comment on politics occasionally if the mood is right.
I don’t think Hart was born in 1950. I am pretty sure he is still in his 50s.
LikeLike
D.G,
Was the Dennison who helped put the original Westminster Seminary California library together related to Charles Dennison?
Is the Rev. Venema who is referred to Cornel Venema’s dad?
Enjoying the book a lot.
When one listens to your interviews and reads your books one gets ingrained in several recurring topics and themes. All conservative P&R churchmen should work through this stuff. Very beneficial.
One negative of the Two Kingdoms debate is that some might dismiss your work because they disagree with you on that issue. There is a lot of other valuable work that you have done that can benefit all conservative P&R folks.
LikeLike
Last pitch – the less you know about NCAA, the more fun it is! At least that has been the experience of this NCAA dunce. Alright, enough from me. Oh, and Erik, the tournament is still young…a lot can happen!
LikeLike
Whoops, no sandbagging allowed
LikeLike
RS,
What if I started getting Richard quotables inked on my forearm to make the sleeve complete?
sean,
I smoked too much in college for the Pope to want my lungs, but I did have a bowl cut in middle school.
LikeLike
Nothing like an Ol’ Bob bio to let you know you are still at Old Life!
LikeLike
Sean and Jed, I’ll up the ante. I have a tat of Keller in a speedo.
LikeLike
Erik, you watch if you don’t get up at 5:00 to feed the cats and write. (Now how will Old Bob construe that?)
LikeLike
Erik, see that’s where you’re wrong. Walkmans have upgraded and you can get 16gb with something like 15 hours of play time.
LikeLike
Bob, here is what I get when I search images at Google for “old life t” https://www.google.com/search?q=old+life+t&hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS247&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=H7tLUfPFJbH7yAG2yYHwDw&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1920&bih=955
And my birthday is not 1950. So I don’t know where you’re getting your info from. But I do notice how you like to come by and fuss about others fussing.
Whatever Larry Arnn’s politics are, I still think he is one of the best college presidents in the U.S. Politics is not everything. As a Christian I’d have thought you would understand that.
LikeLike
Erik,
Jim Dennison is Charlie’s older brother.
I’m pretty sure Rev. Venema is Cornel’s dad.
And the felines agree with you about not identifying me narrowly with 2k. They prefer 2cans.
LikeLike
Ah, Walkman a.k.a. MP-3 Player.
I’ll not think of you when I am sleeping at 5:00 a.m.
When I was young and psycho I would wake up at 3:00 a.m. and sell books on ebay. I paid off my first house that way. Now I get up at 8:00 and don’t get enough listed because I comment on Oldlife. Sigh…
LikeLike
Hart is like Trollope, writing early in the morning before going to work as a civil servant. You don’t publish 20 books (or so) by being lazy.
LikeLike
Erik, for the record I vividly remember the 72-73 Lakers, however they lost to the Knicks that year. I was a freshman in high school that year. The Lakers won year before, in 71-72 where they set the 52 game winning streak. The Lakers also won 69 games that year, which was the record until Chicago broke it in 96.
This is all off memory, but I know it’s true! (I used to play everyday in my younger years, so we have that in common. I got to see Jerry West’s last game in Oakland in December of 73, and stood next to him when Bill King (the warriors old anouncer) interviewed him into a casset recorder. Jerry called it quits after a month or so of the 73-74 season. I remember that night very well because Rick Barry hit 50 points. And I only got to see Rick Barry in person that one time.
LikeLike
when I search images at Google for “old life t” I get this:
http://cheezburger.com/5336734976
(you have to click one one of the “old life t” image links)
Is this some kind of subtle works righteousness push?
LikeLike
Oops, I thought I typed 32 game win streak, not 52
LikeLike
DGH, while my English is no where near a polished as yours, you keep using “jive” instead of jibe.
LikeLike
David, that strikes me as a push for plain honesty. It’s the only reason I floss. I’ve long said that dental hygienists would make great revivalists. Does that make a rabid anti-dentite?
LikeLike
But, Doug, for all intensive purposes flushing things out is golden. Irregardless, the principal here is not to get two disorientated when reading your posts, even as one is champing at the bit and waiting with bated breath for them.
LikeLike
A tat of keller in a speedo. I’m pretty sure my seeing that(lower back stamp, I’m sure) and you sporting one, are not conducive to my human flourishing. Still, after seeing the Southern Comfort commercial, I’m pretty sure I have a new role model. Btw, I’m just now putting together Keller’s talks of human flourishing and RC’ social conscience and dignity of life mantra. That combined with Manhattan declaration, and FV style PCA’s under bishop Tim, I’m starting to put the pieces together. Amazing how a speedo ties the whole room together.
LikeLike
Zrim, now you went and said irregardless? And you’re supposed to be a teacher? The word is regardless! The *ir* isnt doing anything but making you look ignorant.
That mistake is one of my pet peeves, since I used to butcher that word myself about twenty years ago. My cousin, who is a teacher quietly took my aside, and I haven’t said that since 93.
LikeLike
Doug, can we have your cousin talk to you about the errors of theonomy. I’ll pay money.
LikeLike
And don’t get mad. You throw that underhanded water soaked softball over this plate, it’s going yard.
LikeLike
Doug, wow. That whole comment was intentionally riddled with barbarisms. It’s a device called irony. Speaking of teachers, though, I once had an English Comp prof who took a whole letter grade off for each barbarism. May the Lord bless and keep him (though if theonomists had their way for his effeminacy, the small section of the world he blessed would never have been).
LikeLike
Sean, I have sat under a large number of teachers through the years. And have changed my perspectives accordingly. I would be happy to be disabused of theonomy, but if anything Old Life has confirmed it. Zrim and DGH don’t understand theonomy because they never read it, and I suspect the same is true concerning you
. VanDrunen and Gordon are two caustic teachers who leaned on Meredith Kline, who was off his rocker when it came to his intrusion ethic. How about trying to read Theonomy in Christian Ethics? It’s just a matter of time before you come over to my side 😉
Just watching DGH comment of *why* he’s not for “gay marriage” is priceless. You guys are bumbling around like the “three stooges”, since you refuse to look at God’s written revelation.
LikeLike
Zrim, your attempt at irony is says more about you, than me. I am the first one to admit my writing prose is not up to DGH’s standard, but I have appreciated Erik, and others helping me out when I butcher a word, here and there. But if I were Darryl, who has repeated the use of “jive” rather than the actual word jibe, I would be happy to be corrected. Aren’t we supposed to be humble servants?
So your attempt at irony is just you being a smart aleck. So you deserve a good slap up side your head. Plus, your not funny.
LikeLike
So Doug is giving grammar lessons and OB is telling folks not to complain. Pretty soon Richard will be warning about depending too much on our emotions, Sean will be joining ECT, and Zrim will be organizing a revolutionary militia in North Dakota.
LikeLike
Doug, it’s “you’re not funny.” That brings your C- to a D-.
PS Erik might show you grace with your prose, but I’m theonomic, as in all law.
LikeLike
M&M, is it a grammar issue, when one uses the wrong word? He didn’t miss-spell the word.
Zrim, you’re showing your ignorance again, theonomy is God’s law. Is there anything ungracious about God’s law? This is where you stick your foot in your mouth. You *think* theonomy is harsh, when in reality God knows better than you how to define true justice. Quit kicking against the goads.
LikeLike
“So Doug is giving grammar lessons and OB is telling folks not to complain. Pretty soon Richard will be warning about depending too much on our emotions, Sean will be joining ECT, and Zrim will be organizing a revolutionary militia in North Dakota.”
And Darryl will be leading the praise band at New Life Community Church
LikeLike
MM, gotta keep it on the DL brau. I’m gonna go all PTSD inspired ambassador for CTC styled RC. I’ll get Scott Hahn installed as Pope and Cross will head up the CDF. I’ll have that communion presiding over a bunch of anglo-catholics and sketchy FV protestants in no time. Then they can all Latin mass their way into divine participation with the four non sexually ambiguous, or not, priests that are still left.
LikeLike
Doug, interesting. That remark makes it sound like 2kers actually have a higher, more robust view of law than theos. And by golly, you’re right. More irony.
A+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
LikeLike
Todd, proudly sporting my tat.
LikeLike
Doug, have you read any 2k writings?
LikeLike
Sean, beware talking about SoCom in front of Old Bob.
LikeLike
Doug,
“Is there anything ungracious about God’s law?”
Really?
There is no grace in God’s law. That’s why Jesus came.
LikeLike
Nate, apparently you don’t read your bible.
Darryl, I’m actively recruiting BM to write the next encyclical and supervise the Ciao Curia. He’s also gonna rewrite the statutes for The Network and join them on a new bus tour called; Nuns on the Bus plus one Old Male from the A.V. We’re gonna set this $#@! off . I get all giddy just thinking about it.
LikeLike
“Oh Stewardess, I speak jive.”
Julie Hagerty – “Airplane!” and “What About Bob?” in the same career. Quite a legacy.
LikeLike
Also in Albert Brooks’ “Lost in America”
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089504/
LikeLike
Sean, you have to line up Pete Lillback as driver.
LikeLike
Nate, the whole ceremonial law was the gospel in figures. It showed the true way of salvation, by grace through faith. Hebrews says they received the gospel just like us! So what was there problem? They lacked faith!
So Nate, you couldn’t be more upside down on this. Which is a problem with many of these new breed of 2Kers. (Zrim especially!) It’s true the law couldn’t save, but it pointed to the one who promised them he would. Moreover David said, I will faithfully seek your law and walk in all your commandments, when you enlarge my heart.”
Nuff said!
LikeLike
I should’ve known better than to invite a Harvard guy into the bracket challenge, sheesh Darryl. Harvard just nearly collapsed my entire West Division. Good thing the papists over at Gonzaga bailed me out. I don’t know if it is your Harvard ties, or your Keller tat that messed me up worse.
LikeLike
Yes Darryl, I have read 2K writings, and when I read them, it’s even worse than I feared.
LikeLike
Darryl, we have some team driving going on with Logan and Lillback anchoring the rotation and Ratzinger coming in for late night relief.
LikeLike
mikelmann: So Doug is giving grammar lessons and OB is telling folks not to complain. Pretty soon Richard will be warning about depending too much on our emotions, Sean will be joining ECT, and Zrim will be organizing a revolutionary militia in North Dakota.
RS: I would argue that you should not depend or trust in your emotions at all. I would warn you and others very strongly about depending or trusting in your emotions. I know that is not the paradigm you have developed and have interpreted me through, but it may be an emotional thing with you to deal with the fact that I do warn people of the great dangers of the emotions.
LikeLike
todd: And Darryl will be leading the praise band at New Life Community Church
RS: Dr. Hart expresses a dislike for Edwards because he (Dr. Hart) is afraid of his own suppressed feelings. At some point they may break out and it wouldn’t be a terrible surprise to see him leading a praise band. After all, those who love cats do have another side to them.
LikeLike
Sean, perfect.
LikeLike
Jed, after picking the papists, I went with religious schools. You know, Harvard and the Puritans? Temple and Russell Conwell?
LikeLike
Zrim: bated breath
Sheesh, vry1 nos it’s “baited”, as in “with tuna for the cats.” Get ur barbarisms write Dood.
LikeLike
Doug,
Maybe you’re forgetting that the Law was added 400 years after Abraham.
LikeLike
Doug: It’s true the law couldn’t save, but it pointed to the one who promised them he would. Moreover David said, I will faithfully seek your law and walk in all your commandments, when you enlarge my heart.”
So did God save us by enlarging our hearts?
LikeLike
Jeff, riting skillz R the 1st kashulty in the lectronix age.
LikeLike
Nate adds Maybe you’re forgetting that the Law was added 400 years after Abraham.
Not at all Nate. My point is that the law was gracious. The law was not against Christ. Moreover seen through eyes of faith, the law pointed to Christ.
LikeLike
Looks like the idea of pickin’ these papist schools in the bracket was a good one. That Creighton-Cincy game that just ended was down to the wire! It sure would be nice to see Iowa State clobber ND tonight, though, but I doubt that’ll happen.
It occurs to me that the NCAA, whatever else has been said about it, is the opportunity for main stream kids who came up through in-district public schools to get even with those papist high schools who can recruit all over any given major metropolitan area as though it were college level sports.
LikeLike
Jeff asks So did God save us by enlarging our hearts?
No, by circumcising them. so they his people would be able to trust his promise. Faith has always been the key, in both testaments.
“And the just shall live by faith.”
That’s an old testament quote!
LikeLike
DGH asks Doug, have you read any 2k writings?
Darryl, do your books jive with Scripture? LOL! Are your books full of jive talk? 😉
LikeLike
Darryl, are you the Norm Crosby of theology?
LikeLike
Hart faring well in NCAA pool with picks of alma maters Harvard & Temple. Not doing so well with write-ins of Johns Hopkins (Division III), Hillsdale (Division II), and Westminster Seminary “Fighting Machens” (no athletic program).
LikeLike
Jed,
The West is playing right into Iowa State’s hands. Really looking forward to the game tonight. While they battle Notre Dame I will be battling to stay awake past 10 p.m.
LikeLike
Eric,
The only game I will watch today is the San Diego St/Oklahoma game. The NCAA wrestling tourney is in full swing, Kyle Dake out of Cornell is shooting to be the first wrestler to be a 4x champ in 4 weight classes. Pretty remarkable, and CA wrestler Jason Welch is in the hunt (Northwestern), semi’s on tonight, finals tomorrow. DVR is working overtime in the Paschall house. I am thinking about throwing on my old singlet I am so excited, if things get really out of hand my headgear will go on as well.
LikeLike
Doug, the law was gracious? The Reformed know nothing of golawspol.
Edward Fisher (c.1601-1655). “Now, the law is a doctrine partly known by nature, teaching us that there is a God, and what God is, and what he requires us to do, binding all reasonable creatures to perfect obedience, both internal and external, promising the favour of God, and everlasting life to all those who yield perfect obedience thereunto, and denouncing the curse of God and everlasting damnation to all those who are not perfectly correspondent thereunto. But the gospel is a doctrine revealed from heaven by the Son of God, presently after the fall of mankind into sin and death, and afterwards manifested more clearly and fully to the patriarchs and prophets, to the evangelists and apostles, and by them spread abroad to others; wherein freedom from sin, from the curse of the law, the wrath of God, death, and hell, is freely promised for Christ’s sake unto all who truly believe on his name” (The Marrow of Modern Divinity; 1645, repr. 1978, 337-38. NB: The author of the Marrow was designated only as E.F. Therefore some scholars doubt whether Edward Fisher was actually the author).
William Twisse (1578-1646). “How many ways does the Word of God teach us to come to the Kingdom of heaven? Two. Which are they? The Law and the Gospel. What says the Law? Do this and live. What says the Gospel? Believe in Jesus Christ and you shall be saved. Can we come to the Kingdom of God by the way of God’s Law? No.Why so? Because we cannot do it. Why can we not do it? Because we are all born in sin. What is it to be none in sin? To be naturally prone to evil and …that that which is good. How did it come to pass that we are all borne in sin? By reason of our first father Adam. Which way then do you hope to come to the Kingdom of Heaven? By the Gospel? What is the Gospel? The glad tidings of salvation by Jesus Christ. To whom is the glad tidings brought: to the righteousness? No. Why so? For two reasons. What is the first? Because there is none that is righteous and sin not. What is the other reason? Because if we were righteous, i.e., without sin we should have no need of Christ Jesus. To whom then is this glad tiding brought? To sinners. What, to all sinners? To whom then? To such as believe and repent. This is the first lesson, to know the right way to the Kingdom of Heaven.: and this consists in knowing the difference between the Law and the Gospel. What does the Law require? That we should be without sin. What does the Gospel require? That we should confess our sins, amend our lives, and then through faith in Christ we shall be saved. The Law requires what? Perfect obedience. The Gospel what? Faith and true repentance.” (A Brief Catechetical Exposition of Christian Doctrine, 1633).
J.C. Ryle (1816-1900). “To be unable to see any difference between law and gospel, truth an error, Protestantism and Popery, the doctrine of Christ and the doctrine of man, is a sure proof that we are yet dead in heart, and need conversion.” (Expository Thoughts on John, 2:198-199).
J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937). “A new and more powerful proclamation of law is perhaps the most pressing need of the hour; men would have little difficulty with the gospel if they had only learned the lesson of the law. As it is, they are turning aside from the Christian pathway; they are turning to the village of Morality, and to the house of Mr. Legality, who is reported to be very skillful in relieving men of their burdens… ‘Making Christ Master’ in the life, putting into practice ‘the principles of Christ’ by one’s own efforts-these are merely new ways of earning salvation by one’s obedience to God’s commands” (What Is Faith?, 1925).
Louis Berkhof (1873-1957). “The Churches of the Reformation from the very beginning distinguished between the law and the gospel as the two parts of the Word of God as a means of grace. This distinction was not understood to be identical with that between the Old and the New Testament, but was regarded as a distinction that applies to both Testaments. There is law and gospel in the Old Testament, and there is law and gospel in the New. The law comprises everything in Scripture which is a revelation of God’s will in the form of command or prohibition, while the gospel embraces everything, whether it be in the Old Testament or in the New, that pertains to the work of reconciliation and that proclaims the seeking and redeeming love o God in Christ Jesus” (Systematic Theology, [Grand Rapids, 4th edn. 1941], 612).
LikeLike
Doug: No, by circumcising them. so they his people would be able to trust his promise.
Just pointing out that you have sanctification preceding justification in your ordo salutis. That’s worth thinking about for what it might reveal.
LikeLike
Go Eagles! You old lifers don’t know the fun you are missing. Hoyas goin’ down!
LikeLike
Jed,
Yes, that’s going on in Des Moines. Quite a home mat advantage for Iowa & Iowa State.
I remember going to the NCAA Meet in Ames in the early 80s. My best friend’s dad was the AD at Iowa State so we had great seats.
I also remember being a waiter at Perkins in high school when Ames hosted the meet again in the mid to late 80s. A lot of the wrestlers and their families ate there. Of course the management had no clue it was in town the first night so we were way short staffed.
LikeLike
Eric,
You would be glad to know that 2 of the brothers Paschall had a genuine wrestle-off last weekend. Jed was coaching me while I was getting beat. To my own demise I didn’t heed Jed’s coaching skills (as usual) and I lost out.
I showed up to church the next day with rug burns on my face, pretty classic. My wife was shaking her head…
LikeLike
Nate,
There’s no shame in that. Bear those burns proudly, my friend.
Jed,
You can look out the windows of the business park that my URC meets in and see the Wells Fargo Arena where the NCAA Wrestling Tournament is being held.
LikeLike
If anyone is watching the ISU/Notre Dame game I played against one of the guys on the ISU bench last Monday. He’s a walk on/ practice player so he doesn’t have to worry about getting hurt. Him and 3 other young guys played against 5 of us old guys. We played three games to 35 and they won all three by about 35-20. It was an embarrassing beating, but a good workout. There is no answer in basketball for a deficiency in speed and quickness.
LikeLike
As Notre Dame is learning. Lumbering giants are no match for guys that can run and shoot 3’s.
LikeLike
Sorry Jeff, I meant circumscing their hearts; as in regeneration. Taking away their stony heart and giving them a heart of flesh. I see these all alluding to regeneration, or the ability to have saving faith and repentance. Not all Israel was Israel, and only those with faith were circumscised by the Holy Spirit.
LikeLike
Zrim, you are unconvincing; not only are you taking these excellent scholars (and me) out of context, you are a nit wit if you’re seriously trying to argue that our reformers didn’t see the ceremonial law as the gospel in figures. THEY DID! Either you’re purposely trying to miss-lead people, or you’re a dunce.
There are three uses of the law! I was talking about the ceremonial aspect called the gospel in figures. Not all of the law was redemptive or restorative. Those quotes you just posted were not talking about the ceremonial law. The penal sanctions,on the other hand, were not redemptive, you confuse all thee uses of the law, and argue each one against each other. Stop it!
LikeLike
To make it clearer for you Zrim; those men you just quoted were talking about the first use of the law in that it shows man his hopelessness and sin. Everybody and his brother knows that! But there are other uses of the law! For you to argue each use of the law against each other is reprehensible. Are you really that shallow? Why take the time to quote these men, as if they had nothing to say about the ceremonial and third use of the law?
The law taken in the whole, presupposed that Israel couldn’t keep the law. This is why God *graciously* gave them sacrifices,ordinances, and festivals (all prefiguring Christ) so their sins could be forgiven, when apprehended by faith, and they could be right with God. If you omit the other two aspects of the law, and pretend they are not there, then how are debating in good faith?
Let me answer my own question: You’re not! Finally if you are to be taken seriously, then Machen, and the rest of those theologians contradicted King David who was thankful for the law when he said.
vs 18 “Open my eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of your law.”
Are you attempting to say that those theologians are in direct opposition to Psalms 119:18? Are you saying King David was off his rocker, because he was thankful for something you think was only bad news?
Please tell me it ain’t so!
LikeLike
The fascinating thing about 6-8 junior Doug McDermott (the coach’s son) is that he played on the same Ames, Iowa, school that produced the much heralded Harrison Barnes. While the UNC-bound Barnes was rated the No. 1 player in the class and was the object of an intense recruiting war between Duke and UNC, nobody paid McDermott much attention. He was all set to attend Northern Iowa, until his father – until then an assistant at Iowa State – got the Creighton job.
Yet, from day one in college, the unheralded McDermott proved to be the better player than the heralded Barnes – much better at the college level. He averaged 15 points and more than seven rebounds as a freshman, while shooting 52.5 percent from the floor and 40.5 percent from 3-point range. He upped those figures to 22.9 points and 8.2 rebounds as a sophomore, improving his shooting to 60.1 percent from the floor and 48.6 percent from 3-point range.
As a junior, McDermott is up to 23.1 points a game. His overall shooting is down to 56.1 percent, but his 3-point shooting is up to 49.7 percent. Those are numbers his ex-teammate never dreamed of – Barnes averaged 43.7 percent from the field in his two seasons at UNC and just 36.3 percent from 3-point range, while scoring less points and grabbing less rebounds.
LikeLike
Doug, you had suggested that the law was gracious. My response had nothing to do with the three uses. It had to do with suggesting that the law and gospel are inherently and diametrically opposed to each other, as in law relentlessly demands but gospel relentlessly forgives. Your mixed view actually dresses law down and makes gospel less than sweet.
LikeLike
Doug, why is that every post here (now the NBA) turns into a discussion of the law?
LikeLike
Doug reminds me of MM’s son’s experience with Upwards Basketball. During a halftime speech the coaches explained that fouls were akin to sins…
LikeLike
Mark,
As an Ames High grad I was excited to buy a pair of McDermott’s shoes at his family’s garage sale a few years ago. I asked his mom if he would sign them for me. He was home so he did.
The test for McDermott will be playing against NBA talent every night vs. Missouri Valley Conference talent. He is a smart player, though. When I watched him play on those great AHS teams with Barnes I swear he shot about 75%. I think he’ll have a solid NBA career — somewhat of a combination of Kyle Korver and Nick Collison.
LikeLike
We need to post a sign:
“DON’T FEED THE THEONOMIST!”
LikeLike
Don’t forget, all, we are the kind that hang out and post comments on theology blogs. Much of our rhetoric is undoubedtly par for the course, and I’m sure my goal of getting more of us to play fantasy baseball or something similar is probably just condescending, or at least, annoying. Hey, the issues are real, and we all care, that’s why we do what we do. But when Hart writes a post on the NBA, you don’t think the goofy golfer isn’t going to lend you all some of his immense wisdom, given the topic of sports and having fun suits me quite well? He can only blame himself 🙂 Anyway, back to lurkers corner for me, thanks for the good reading, all, now onto the post about the good ol ‘ PCA
LikeLike
AB – Send me your e-mail address & I’ll invite you to my NL only league that drafts next Saturday.
LikeLike
I’m now a follower of your blog, Erik. That should do the trick. And I even get your posts now too 🙂 I’d be happy to join. Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming. What was the topic, WCF 19.4, no?
LikeLike
Zrim: Doug, you had suggested that the law was gracious. My response had nothing to do with the three uses. It had to do with suggesting that the law and gospel are inherently and diametrically opposed to each other, as in law relentlessly demands but gospel relentlessly forgives. Your mixed view actually dresses law down and makes gospel less than sweet.
RS: Perhaps some equivocation is raising its head here. The Gospel is opposed to the law only when the law is viewed as a means or way of salvation. On the other hand, those who have eternal life (promise of the Gospel) are the only ones that can love and so keep the law to any degree at all. Christ died to do away with sin (which is lawlessness) so His people could obey His law of love which is keeping His commandments.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Doug, why is that every post here (now the NBA) turns into a discussion of the law?
RS: Maybe it is because the law applies in some way in all that is done.
LikeLike
RS: Or, because we are constitutionally allergic to keeping boudaries. It’s a fundamental feature of the universe: stuff spreads out. Boundaries leak.
LikeLike
Erik: and Westminster Seminary “Fighting Machens” (no athletic program).
Pshaw. They play on an unseen court.
LikeLike
Doug: Sorry Jeff, I meant circumscing their hearts; as in regeneration. Taking away their stony heart and giving them a heart of flesh.
OK, but you need to be very careful here. The circumcision of hearts is parallel in the passage to writing the law on the heart; it encompasses both regeneration and sanctification. Ditto for the giving a heart of flesh.
One of the reasons that it’s problematic to use “faith” in a non-precise way is that it begins to blur the boundary between sola fide and that other thing, neo-nomianism.
Is “faith” a receptive instrument, or a generative? If receptive, then by grace; if generative, then by grace-enabled works.
LikeLike
Richard, the law is the means of salvation, as in do it and live, don’t and die. We put faith in the one who did the former and are counted like him and so live.
As far as the other hand you propose, I tend to think in terms of may instead of can. In other words, permission instead of ability, which is to say believers are now permitted to gratefully do the law without fear of what happens when they inevitably don’t keep it wholly. Yes, the Spirit does indwell and enables, but emphasis on ability instead of permission seems to breed pride and self-righteousness. Emphasis on permission breeds gratitude and an easy yoke.
LikeLike
Zrim, the law was an administration of grace! Only when men used the law, in an unlawful way was there a problem. When King David looked at the law, (the way we all need to see it) he praised God for all his righteous rules, for they are all right! David knew the only way he could keep the law, was when God enlarged his heart, similar to us today. All our good works done in faith, are in his strength, led by the Holy Spirit.
So instead of you quoting other men, how about dealing with King David’s testimony regarding the law? Scratch your head, and ask yourself, why does King David contradict your view that the law is antithetical to grace? Would you dare accuse the man after God’s own heart of teaching Golawspel? It’s becoming apparent that you are the guy who doesn’t understand the gospel at all.
LikeLike
Doug: the law was an administration of grace!
This is another area that requires much more care and precision.
True: “The Mosaic Covenant was an administration of the covenant of grace.”
False: “The law was an administration of grace.”
LikeLike
Zrim suggests: Richard, the law is the means of salvation, as in do it and live, don’t and die.
Balderdash!
Surely God was teaching them, they needed to depend on God for forgiveness of sins; ie ceremonial sacrifices that God graciously instituted when he said: “And your sins shall be forgiven.” That’s was included in what God meant when he said “do this and live”.
That was in the law! Was that not gracious of God? Was the forgiveness of sins antithetical to grace? Repent and wash your mouth out with soap!
Zrim, you need to go back to the drawing board, and repent for every book you’ve read by VanDrunen and Gordon, because it’s you, who has no idea what the law was about. It offered forgiveness of sins, when appropriated by faith, because the law pointed to Christ. The Mosaic Law was the shadow of Christ.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, the law is the means of salvation, as in do it and live, don’t and die. We put faith in the one who did the former and are counted like him and so live.
As far as the other hand you propose, I tend to think in terms of may instead of can. In other words, permission instead of ability, which is to say believers are now permitted to gratefully do the law without fear of what happens when they inevitably don’t keep it wholly. Yes, the Spirit does indwell and enables, but emphasis on ability instead of permission seems to breed pride and self-righteousness. Emphasis on permission breeds gratitude and an easy yoke.
RS: But apart from ability permission is impotent. Believers are now free to keep the law and indeed the life of Christ in them by His Spirit works in them to keep the law. Christ died to purchase a people and buy them from the slavery of sin and the deeds of sin, but He also died to have a people zealous for good deeds. His death, then, purchased for them the ability to keep the law apart from which there are no good deeds (law of liberty, royal law, law of love, Great Commandments).
Titus 2:14 who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.
LikeLike
Thanks Jeff 🙂
The Mosaic Law was an administration of the covenant of grace. It was NOT a different way of salvation from the New Covenant. They taught the same way of salvation, by grace through faith. They were both all about Christ, through and through.
LikeLike
Office Bracket Politics:
http://whotv.com/2013/03/17/bugging-andy-office-bracket-politics/
LikeLike
RS: Perhaps some equivocation is raising its head here. The Gospel is opposed to the law only when the law is viewed as a means or way of salvation. On the other hand, those who have eternal life (promise of the Gospel) are the only ones that can love and so keep the law to any degree at all. Christ died to do away with sin (which is lawlessness) so His people could obey His law of love which is keeping His commandments.
Amen and amen! Only those who are born of God can join with David and say: “Oh how I love your law! It’s my meditation all through the day and night.”
Why can’t Zrim echo King David?
LikeLike
RS, why is it that Edwards in you eventually sides with theonomy?
LikeLike
Update from the NBA portion of the post;
* Tim Duncan extended the best stretch of his 16th season with his fourth straight double-double — 19 points, 16 rebounds, five assists and two blocked shots. He’s averaging 25.5 points, 15 rebounds, 4.3 assists and 3.0 blocks in that span. He also moved past long-time rival Shaquille O’Neal for 13th on the NBA career rebound list, a feat that impressed even the stoic Kawhi Leonard. ”Just his greatness,” he said when asked to comment on the achievement.
“Having grumbled before tipoff that the prospect of winning his 900th game meant “nothing” to him, it wasn’t surprising to hear what Gregg Popovich did with the celebratory cake his players presented. He smashed it in Stephen Jackson’s face.”
LikeLike
Sean, I will agree with you that Tim Duncan is a special player. And if my Warriors can’t win the title, (which I seriously doubt) I’m secretly rooting for the Spurs. I enjoy their brand of ball, and think a lot of Greg Popovich as a coach.
LikeLike
Sean, shouldn’t you be following high school football?
LikeLike
Darryl, this is the time of year when we’re gifting money to the parents of very large eighth grade boys, for groceries of course, and adopting the children of underprivileged and racially unrepresented families and moving them into our respective districts so that they might have like opportunities. It’s always high school football time.
LikeLike
Doug, when you say things like the law “…offered forgiveness of sins, when appropriated by faith, because the law pointed to Christ,” I don’t see what place the person and work of Christ really has, except as pious after thought. It sounds an awful lot like the Judaic folly of Christ plus works. The law didn’t offer forgiveness of sins, it only commanded and judged. That’s fine so long as a person has the capability to perform. But no OT or NT saint has that, so it becomes nothing but a means for condemnation.
Can you echo Paul:
Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.
So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.
But since you show more biblical sentimentality than apprehension, maybe better to ask whether you can add understanding to your echoing?
LikeLike
Zrim – you may be wasting your time and electronic ink. My experience has been that this simul justus et peccator business is something evangelicals will never get/accept.
Meanwhile, back to watching Michigan State possibly throwing away an early lead (by a sizable margin) to a dauntless Memphis team.
LikeLike
Pop. If he’s not leaving most of the team at home while almost beating the Heat with a team of role players he’s putting a cake in Steven Jackson’s face (and living to tell about it). I like that guy. I wish they had the horses to hang with Miami in a seven game series, but they’re a bit too old.
LikeLike
Sean,
I’ve seen “Friday Night Lights” (the whole series) and know about those two 6’4″ 280 lb. defensive ends you and your semi-new bride have adopted. Just so you raise them to be good Presbyterians.
LikeLike
Sean, glad to hear it. I would not want to think that Friday Night Lights is wrong.
LikeLike
Here in our little town we have a number of evangelicals who have taken up the cause of adopting young boys from Africa. These are great little boys and I am really looking forward to watching them grow up. I’m advising the high school coach to install the wishbone offense a la Barry Switzer circa 1978 so we are ready when they all get to high school.
LikeLike
Erik, beware, I’m going to go Hollywood on you. I’ve conversed over birthday cake with the creator of Friday Night Lights. Sha-friggin-zam!
LikeLike
George, my motives are entirely self-serving. The flat spot on my forehead needs some evening to rest my beer when sofa and channeling surfing. But don’t tell Richard.
LikeLike
Buzz Bissinger?
LikeLike
Zrim says: Doug, when you say things like the law “…offered forgiveness of sins, when appropriated by faith, because the law pointed to Christ,” I don’t see what place the person and work of Christ really has, except as pious after thought.
Zrim, let’s listen to the law. Leviticus 5:27
“If he brings a lamb as his offering for a sin offering, he shall bring a female without blemish and lay his hand on the head of the sin offering and kill it for a sin offering in the place where they kill the burnt offering Then the priest shall take some of the blood of the sin offering with his finger and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering and pour out all the rest of its blood at the base of the altar. And all its fat he shall remove as the fat of the lamb is removed from the sacrifice of peace offerings, and the priest shall burn it on the altar, on top of the LORD’s food offerings. And the priest shall make atonement for him for the sin which he has committed, and he shall be forgiven.”
If that’s not grace, then what is?
Zrim, this is the law, and it contains the gospel! It prefigured Christ’s atoning and Priestly work. Today Jesus is our both our sin offering, and our Great High Priest, so we no longer offer animal sacrifices, BUT these sacrifices offered in FAITH were efficacious to forgive sins. Because God said so!!! Moreover, Leviticus gives us the theological understanding for Christ’s saving work to come. How you say? Well, Jesus sacrifice was soooo awesome that he covered the faithful retroactively, imho. Much like baptism must be apprehended by faith, its the same with those animal sacrifices offered in faith; which were sufficient for the time, until Christ could deal with sin, once for all.
So later in Leviticus 18: 10 when God says do this and live, he was surely speaking of the provisions he gave his people for sin. God never expected Israel to approach the law, “as if it were by works” God forbid! They were to walk by faith, knowing that God himself would one day make their redemption complete. So Daivd’s faith was looking ahead to the cross, knowing one day Jesus would cry out, “it is finished”! And by that Jesus meant that he had accomplished redemption for his people, so that we could be pleasing in his sight.
LikeLike
Hey Guys and the very few Gals @ OLT, please see my comment @ the PCA post. Many Christian brothers should find it more essential than sports. See, Darryl I don’t always call attention to my old age, although Scripture does give some honor to this stage of life. Love, BM
LikeLike
Zrim, by the way, this is where Gordon and VanDurnen are at there worst. They use, ‘do this and live” as if God is commanding perfect obedience, yet they both unwittingly forget that God had already made provisions for sin, earlier in the Leviticus!!! How could they blow it so bad?!
Neither one of these slip shod “theologians” understand that Leviticus presupposed that Israel could never walk in sinless perfection, and yet we don’t hear of word from either of them on this obvious fact. They are so off base it would be comical if this wasn’t so serious. This is why I beseech you to reconsider their work. They have completely miss-understood the law.
FWIW: The Romans passage in chapter 7 is one of the hardest chapters in the Bible to understand. Read the wrong way, it can be construed to contradict God grace, in giving the law. But when Paul is using *I* throughout chapter 7 he is referring to Israel, and why Israel failed to obtain the promise. Paul was not speaking about his personal position in Christ. He was talking about corporate Israel.
In other words Zrim, Paul was showing us why unfaithful Israel struggled with the law, not the faithful. King David loved the law, and so should any Christian who is born of God.
LikeLike
Darryl, Erik, I’ve actually never watched Friday Night Lights, but if it’s based off Odessa Permian then you only know the sanitized version.
Erik, we’ve got to get by OKC. If we can figure that riddle( My vote is for cap’n Jack to clip Durant) then we beat Miami in 6
LikeLike
Zrim, like Richard said earlier; once you are resting in Christ’s completed work, we no longer fear the penalty of failing to meet the laws demands, now in Christ’s strength we look to the law as our standard of righteousness. Since all of his commandments are right!
Jesus said, “if you love me, you will keep my commandments”. So much like David, lets look at the law with new eyes, gazing at the perfect reflection of God’s character and say: “I will run in the way of your commandments, when you enlarge my heart”! After all, God said humble yourself under the mighty hand of God, and I will exalt you in due time.
LikeLike
Erik,
Our adoption policy is based on Keller’s wide funnel approach to church growth in the city. If it just so happens to benefit the local high school football program, well, praise the lord and go Chargers.
LikeLike
Erik, the Spurs have been too old for a few years, “supposedly”. Only time will tell.
LikeLike
Doug: The Mosaic Law was an administration of the covenant of grace. It was NOT a different way of salvation from the New Covenant. They taught the same way of salvation, by grace through faith. They were both all about Christ, through and through.
OK, good. Now we ask, what were the functions of the Law in the Mosaic economy?
* The moral law, as revealed in the decalogue, brought condemnation for sin. No grace there.
* The judicial law, as revealed in the case law, brought punishment for sin. No grace there.
* The ceremonial law, as given in the commands for worship and sacrifice, brought a requirement for absolution. Still no grace in the command.
But the sacrifices were gracious and pointed to Christ? Yes. And this was the part of the Mosaic economy that really was gracious. Not the commands to bring sacrifice, but the sacrifices themselves were gracious.
Why am I splitting that hair? Because the commands brought condemnation, ceremonial uncleanness, on all who transgressed. The commands (together with the judicial and moral) still operated on the same principle: Obey and live; disobey and die.
But the sacrifices pointed to a different and opposite principle: I the Lord will reckon your disobedience as if not disobedience, IF you will believe the promise.
These principles are antithetical. The first is the covenant of works principle, whether one wants to call it “republication” or not. The second is the covenant of grace principle.
So yes, I agree with Zrim that the law brought death. And it’s not because I’ve read a lot of Gordon and van Drunen, but because I’ve read a lot of Corinthians and Hebrews.
—
So: Why does David speak well of the Law? I delight in your Law, O Lord!
And I would join him, and Zrim probably does to, though he’s being coy about that.
It’s simple: For those who are offered life through the gospel, death is not a bad thing. What did the law do in David’s life? It brought condemnation of his sin, so that he might find life outside himself. Ps. 51 is not a repudiation of Ps. 119, but its complement. God’s word brings light to our feet because our feet are in darkness.
LikeLike
Erik, bingo.
LikeLike
Sean, the movie is worth seeing. I haven’t seen the show.
LikeLike
Doug, most of this is a sustained effort in tail chasing. But if what you want is an affirmation of the inherent goodness of the law then in echoing Paul it is there–“For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being…” But his larger point has to do with abiding sin and the fact that when those two realities meet, law is only and ever very bad news and it is never ever good news.
And when you say “…this is the law, and it contains the gospel…” you muddy things terribly. It’s one thing to say that the law and gospel are both in the OT and NT, but quite another to say there is gospel in law and law in gospel. The difference is as substantial as that between confessional Reformed orthodoxy and medieval Roman Catholicism.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: RS, why is it that Edwards in you eventually sides with theonomy?
RS: Because I have religious affections for the law?
LikeLike
RS, right, you’re a neo-nomian. That’s how I read Edwards on affections. It’s another law.
LikeLike
Jeff says: * The moral law, as revealed in the decalogue, brought condemnation for sin. No grace there.
Me: The moral law is blessing to God’s people, (that means grace) and part of our sanctification. Even if only the minority were saved, it was still a gracious blessing. We should want to walk in God’s will. This is why King David woke up at midnight to praise God for all his righteous rules, for they are all right! The moral law was a blessing to David, as it should be any of God’s people. And it was very gracious of God to write down his moral will for us to meditate on. The moral law is not redemptive, but it’s our standard, and rule of life. We are truly living when we walk in God’s commandments. That’s the purpose for which God created us, for good works that he predestined for us to walk in.
Jeff says * The judicial law, as revealed in the case law, brought punishment for sin. No grace there.
I disagree! The judicial law gave an eye for and eye, or perfect socio political justice. It was gracious of God to know how we should punish crime in a socio political setting, that is a gracious blessing! God showed mankind how He views sin/crime, and what’s an appropriate punishment for many important crimes. If all men are commanded to repent and bend the knee to Christ our King, it’s only fitting when God sanctifies nations ,that they collectively submit to God’s will for socio political ethics.
Jeff says: * The ceremonial law, as given in the commands for worship and sacrifice, brought a requirement for absolution. Still no grace in the command.
Jeff, that’s like saying there is no grace in baptism. The ceremonial law including circumscion was much like baptizing our children. How can you not see grace? God says “and your sins shall be forgiven”. Using your logic, baptism isn’t a gracious blessing since not all children will apprehend their baptism in saving faith. But is that a biblical outlook? But Paul said in Romans 3:1
“The what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By not means!”
Jeff, Paul says Israel was blessed in every way! If Israel had an advantage, then that means God was gracious, since he didn’t give that advantage to other nations.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: RS, right, you’re a neo-nomian. That’s how I read Edwards on affections. It’s another law.
RS: Which, I suppose, makes you an antinomian of sorts. The Great Commandment of God, which is the highest law, commands us to love Him with all of our hearts, minds, souls, and strength. Surely that includes the affections. Edwards does not set out another law, but simply shows the spiritual nature of the law of love and how it involves the whole heart. So the law that governs the affections and demands all the affections is simply the Great Commandment. It is not another law at all, but simply an aspect of the Great Commandment. The denial of any aspect of the Great Commandment is a form of antimonianism, ao a denial that the Great Command governs the affections is a form of antinomianism.
The Great Commandment is not love God by making all your choices for Him, but it is to love Him. It does not work well in marriages for people to simply make choices for each other, but they must love each other. So when Paul sets out an anathema on those who don’t love the Lord Jesus, is he simply telling people to make the right choices? No, Christ is to be our first (in priority) love and not just our first choice.
LikeLike
Richard, you’re sounding like Bryan Cross — no tensions, no problems, just Outback’s menu. I’ll take Romans 7 over Edwards. Sorry.
LikeLike
DGH, who says there are no tensions? What I can say, is that the Mosaic law is not antithetical to grace. The Mosaic law contained the gospel in figures. How can having your sins forgiven not be gracious? The author of Hebrews says we received the same good news they did. Good news means the gospel Darryl. It’s only when the law is used as a means of self justification when it becomes an evil thing. Something we are all capable of doing! So the problem is your wooden understanding of the bible. VanDrunen and Gordon have led you into a conceptual contradiction, as if Paul is contradicting Daivd, which is not just a tension. It turns the bible into a bunch of double talking nonsense. Stop it!
LikeLike
Stop it!
Doug, your nouthetic counseling always remind me of Bob Newhart:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYLMTvxOaeE
See, it’s funny because it’s so stupid.
LikeLike
Zrim, that was funny! 🙂
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, you’re sounding like Bryan Cross — no tensions, no problems, just Outback’s menu.
RS: Bryan is a nice guy and follows logic.
D. G. Hart: I’ll take Romans 7 over Edwards. Sorry.
RS: It is a sorry thing that you think that Romans 7 contradicts Edwards. By the way, don’t forget about Romans 13 and I Cor 13 either.
Romans 7:12 So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.
Romans 7:14 For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin.
Romans 7:16 But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good.
Romans 7:22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man,
Romans 13:8 Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. 9 For this, “YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT COVET,” and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.”
10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
LikeLike
Good work Richard!
DGH, have you read Edwards on Romans? If no, then why would you say that?
LikeLike
Jeff listen to Paul in Romans 6:15
“What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? Bu no means! Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves,you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to DEATH,or of obedience which leads to righteousness?”
You see Jeff? As Christians we can still either walk in death or life. Anything that is not of faith is death. Exactly like a Saint during the law! Paul is speaking in human terms to drive the point home, but the analogy is stark. Choose this day who you will serve! Either death or life! Do this and live! Paul is saying look to your baptism in faith, and walk as a salve to Christ, which is life, or get ready for walking in death.
Wasn’t Moses saying the same thing? Choose this day who you will serve? Either death or life?
This is why later in Hebrews 4:2 the author (Paul?) could say
“For good new came to us just as to them, but the message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened.”
Okay Jeff, they had the “gospel” preached to them just like us! What was Israel’s problem? Was the Law sending a mixed message as VanDrunen tried to claim? God forbid! They lacked faith! It’s the same issue we face today in the new covenant! Anything that is not of faith, is sin, or walking in death! Sure we have advantages now that Christ has conquered sin and death, BUT according to Paul if we aren’t walking as a slave to Christ ,we are walking in death. I see a strong parallel; don’t you? After all Jeff, the WCF calls the Mosaic covenant “the same covenant in substance”. If that is true, then we must conclude that the Law was indeed gracious.
LikeLike
Hi Doug,
Hope you’re having a good Sabbath.
Your analysis needs tightening up. The first problem is that you are equivocating on the word “grace.”
As you have analyzed it, you count any instance of God’s blessings to us as “grace.”
So you point out that the moral law is a standard and a rule for life. This is very true. And you state further that God condescends to have this written down, which is also very true. So you say, “Look, grace!”
And that’s fine. Certainly, Scripture uses the term “grace” in that way at times. So let’s call this use of the word “grace” by the term “Murray-grace”, to denote the theologian who popularized this way of using the word.
But when the Confession uses the term “grace”, it means something different. Specifically, the word “grace” in “The Covenant of Grace” means that the ground of our justification is Christ’s righteousness and not our obedience.
Here is the exact wording:
— WCoF 7.
Notice the difference between the CoW and the CoG. It is the ground of eternal life: Obedience in the first case, Jesus Christ in the second. Now before you object that faith is the ground in the second, make sure you’ve carefully read 15.1!
Notice also that there condescension on God’s part in both covenants (“Murray-grace”), yet only one is the covenant of grace. Notice further that there are commands in both covenants, yet only one is the covenant of works.
Why? Because the mere existence of condescencion or command is not the deciding factor. The deciding factor is the ground. Does God grant eternal life as a reward for or on the ground of belief? No (WCoF 15.1). He grants eternal life for the sake of Christ, with faith as the instrument of appropriating Christ.
So. The point is that you are equivocating when you say that the law is “gracious.” Is the law a condescension on the part of God to man? Yes. Is it a blessing? When properly used, yes. Is it gracious in the sense of the Covenant of Grace? No. And you admit as much when you rightly say that the law did not grant salvation. By definition, this means that the law was not gracious in the sense of the term “Covenant of Grace.”
You say, But the Mosaic Covenant was an administration of the Covenant of Grace, so the law must be included under the umbrella of grace. Nope. Look again:
Notice what is missing from the list: the Law. The sacrifices and symbols were a part of the covenant of grace, but the commands themselves were not.
So where does the Law fit?
We notice that, quite literally, God published at Sinai the decalogue, which was the same law given to Adam as a covenant of works.
So the republication theory has at least Confessional grounding. And more than that, at no point whatsoever, to my knowledge, does the Scripture and hence not the Confession teach that “the law was gracious.”
The only reason for such a claim is the mistaken belief that since the Mosaic Covenant was an administration of the CoG (True), therefore that the Law is included in grace (False).
Simply put, you are using “grace” in a way that is different from the Confession, then trying to shoe-horn your meaning into the Confessional wording. That doesn’t work.
LikeLike
As a friendly encouragement, I suggest balancing out Murray with some A.A. Hodge. He gives a generally fantastic systematic overview without lapsing into Latin as Chuck tends to do.
LikeLike
Doug, if Jerusalem is a type of the New Jerusalem, and if keeping the law is a way that you stay in Jerusalem, then the Israelites could have well be confused (as you are) about keeping the law and forgiveness. That would explain Jesus’ reception by the Pharisees, and Paul’s interactions with the Judaizers. For you it is easypeasy.
LikeLike
Doug and RS, pietists and theonomists together. Make my joy complete.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Doug and RS, pietists and theonomists together. Make my joy complete.
RS: I take it that your phrase came from I John 1:4, though perhaps not. However, I will use it as if it did. But first, look at Romans 8:3-5.
3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
RS: God sent His Son as an offering for sin so that (one purpose) the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us. Notice, however, that the context is those who are according to the things of the Spirit. So Christ died so that the Law would be fulfilled in His people which is the work of the Spirit.
1 John 1:4 “These things we write, so that our joy may be made complete.” Now what things did John write about so that “our joy may be made complete” in the context of the book?
I John 1: 6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; 7 but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.
RS: I guess it is pietism in some way to have fellowship with God, but that is one reason that John wrote this book.
I John 2:3 By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments.
4 The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him;
RS: The person that does not keep His commandments (at least including the Law) does not have the truth in him.
I John 3:21 Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God; 22 and whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do the things that are pleasing in His sight. 23 This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us. 24 The one who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. We know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.
RS: Keeping the commandments of God and the work of the Spirit are once again spoken of in the same context. But also, read closely, there is also the teaching of abiding in Christ and Christ in the believer. In fact, John tells us that the the Spirit and keeping the commandments is how we know that He abides in us. So we have the law, the internal abiding and work of the Spirit, which means both the law and pietism or sorts.
Romans 13:8 Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
I John 4:12 No one has seen God at any time; if we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us. 13 By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit. 14 We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world. 15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. 16 We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.
RS: Once again we see the truths of pietism (inward dwelling and working of God) joined with the law and love. Dr. Hart, your joy should be complete.
LikeLike
Jeff, my brother; do you need a remedial reading class? You better re-read this!
“This covenant was differently administered in the time of the
law, and in the time of the gospel:i under the law, it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb,”
The: “it was administered” was the gospel.
Me: The Gospel was administered (“through the ceremonial law”) through promise, type, ordinance, the paschal lamb for the Jews. That was in the Law! It all pointed to Christ when apprehended by faith, just like baptism does today! So this is totally refuting you not seeing law. It says just the opposite.
LikeLike
Jeff, You better re-read this!
“This covenant was differently administered in the time of the
law, and in the time of the gospel:i under the law, it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb,”
The: “it was administered” was the gospel.
Me: The Gospel was administered (“through the ceremonial law”) through promise, type, ordinance, the paschal lamb for the Jews. That was in the Law! It all pointed to Christ when apprehended by faith, just like baptism does today! So this is totally refuting you not seeing law. It says just the opposite. The law pointed too ‘Christ.
LikeLike
Jeff, I hope you know I really respect, and love you “in Christ”. So don’t take me as disrespecting you 😉
LikeLike
Doug, I don’t take a bit of offense. I hope that’s mututal.
I just take exception. 🙂
The “it was administered” refers (grammatically speaking) to the covenant of grace.
Now you say, “That was in the Law! It all pointed to Christ when apprehended by faith, just like baptism does today! So this is totally refuting you not seeing law. It says just the opposite. The law pointed too ‘Christ.”
In order to understand what I’m saying, you’ll need to distinguish between commands and the objects of those commands.
For example: we agree that we are commanded to believe, yes? But the command is not the believing. We are justified by faith as the instrument, not by obedience to the command. We are likewise commanded to observe Communion. But the benefit comes through the grace exhibited and received by faith, not by (or “as a reward for”) obedience to the command.
Likewise here, the signs and symbols themselves are the administration of the covenant of grace. They point to Christ. But the command to observe them is Law. It came with a sanction: disobey and be unclean.
You look at the two occurring together, signs and commands, and conclude that they are all the same thing: Gospel *and* Law both.
But I’m saying that Gospel and Law lived side-by-side in the Mosaic covenant, but one was not the other. How could it be? The command offered cleanness on the ground of obedience. The signs and symbols pointed to cleanness on the ground of Christ’s obedience.
But don’t take my word for it. Listen to Charles Hodge:
— C. Hodge, Systematic Theology III.2.7 “The Third Dispensation”
Note how Hodge splits out the signs and symbols from the command. The former belongs to the Mosaic administration of the covenant of grace. The latter belongs to a national covenant that operates on the principle “Do this and live.”
LikeLike
What it’s like watching a theonomy debate at oldlife:
LikeLike
Jeff and Doug, no more smiley faces. This is not a PCA blog.
LikeLike
Hear hear! If there were a Robert’s Rules for 2k blogs, smiley emoticons would be out of order.
LikeLike
DG, glad to see you finally policing you blog’s comments.
LikeLike
Doug,
I tried to catch up on the discussion but I think you keep circling back to the point that God’s “giving of the law” is gracious. Maybe Zrim or Jeff would disagree with me here (I’m open to counter-points), but I would agree that his giving of the Law was gracious, meaning, that sinners did not deserve or earn God’s favor to have him reveal the full Law. But by no means would I agree with you that the law itself was gracious.
I think your equating the giving of the law (the three forms – moral, judicial, ceremonial) with the law itself. The law demands perfect obedience for the reward (i.e., eternal life) – there is no grace in reward based on obedience. Grace is precisely the giving of eternal life (in Christ) to those who have not earned/merited it. That’s why Grace is opposed to Law (all of it) because Law (hence the name) is stipulations required to be obeyed in order to receive the blessing. If you failed to keep the law (even in the offering of sacrifices) you revoked your right to the reward. That’s why the grace of Christ is held in opposition to the demands of the law.
LikeLike
Nate, what can I say, I’m a libertarian.
LikeLike
Nate, precisely. And God’s “graciousness” == “condescension” in giving the law is not the same “grace” == ” by Christ” of the CoG.
DGH: I can’t help it. My phone auto-corrects sarcasm with smileys. 🙂
LikeLike
Alright just started reading my first book on my Ipad. I hate to say it, but the minute they get the note taking figured out to where you can use a stylus, there may be no more paperbacks or hardcovers. Jus sayin. Yes, I’m sure I’m at least 5 years late to this party.
LikeLike
Can we just limit grace to favor in the face of demerit? It would really just make it all easier. We could call the rest God’s goodness.
LikeLike
So Nate and Jeff, is it gracious to baptize your babies?
LikeLike
Nate says:. The law demands perfect obedience for the reward (i.e., eternal life) – there is no grace in reward based on obedience.
Wrong! The law never offered eternal life for perfect obedience! The law said just the opposite! The law presupposed fallen man needed a sacrifice. The law taught Israel, that they needed a vicarious sacrifice. The law never taught Israel they could keep the law, in there own strength. The law taught that obedience came by gift, through the Holy Spirit. The law looked to the promise. David saw the law aright! David knew he could only walk in God’s commands when God enlarged his heart. The law taught grace by faith. Just read King David in Psalms 119 where he makes it clear. The law didn’t send a double message. Only reprobates read the law, and *thought* it could be accomplished in their own strength. David never did, which negates your whole point.
LikeLike
Jeff and Nate, I challenge you guys to come up with one verse where David supports your view that God expected perfect obedience. That is absurd on the face of it. If God expect *perfect* obedience, then why did he give them sacrifices for when they sinned? He even instructed the Priests to pray for unintentional sins. How is that not gracious? Here we have Priests making sacrifices for the people’s sins they arent even aware of!
That is gracious! And that was in the law!
LikeLike
Nate, was it gracious to circumcise your son during the law?
Nate, is it gracious to baptize your child today?
What’s the difference?
LikeLike
Jeff and Nate, answer this question; is it gracious to have Priests making intercession?
Guess what, that was in the law! How is that not gracious?
LikeLike
Jeff and Nate, come up with one verse in the law where God expects sinless perfection.
I say it’s not there!
LikeLike
Nate says: there is no grace in reward based on obedience.
Wrong Nate! Fallen man is incapable of doing anything that is not sin. So your whole premise is flawed. God must first do a work in mans heart before he can do one thing that pleases God. It’s all grace Nate! Even our ability to worship God in Spirit and truth, is grace. Unregenerate man lacks the ability to do one thing good. Therefore, the law never demanded what is impossible. Therefore your whole premise is faulty.
LikeLike
Doug
1) Doug says : The law never offered eternal life for perfect obedience!
Leviticus 18:5
You shall therefore keep my statutes and my rules; if a person does them, he shall live by them: I am the Lord.
Romans 10:5
For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them.
Romans 2:13
For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
James 2:10
For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.
Plain as day…
2) Doug says: If God expect(ed) *perfect* obedience, then why did he give them sacrifices for when they sinned? He even instructed the Priests to pray for unintentional sins. How is that not gracious? Here we have Priests making sacrifices for the people’s sins they arent even aware of!
That is gracious! And that was in the law!
Nate: Now, I’m pretty sure David wrote this one. I’m no Hebrew scholar…
Psalm 51: 16-17
For you will not delight in sacrifice, or I would give it;
you will not be pleased with a burnt offering.
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;
a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.
Point: David knew that there was no grace (i.e., Justification) to be found in obedience to the law (offering sacrifices). That’s why the writer of Hebrews says:
For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. (Hebrews 9:13-14, ESV)
and
For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. (Hebrews 10:1-4, ESV)
And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. (Hebrews 10:11, ESV) You should read all of chapter 10 for a full refutation of your view of the graciousness of God’s law.
3) Doug: Is it gracious to apply the sign of the covenant to it’s members?
No. It’s required and necessary. What the sign points to is grace. The sign itself is not grace. If it were, no one would get into heaven unless they were baptized/circumcised, which would be terrible news for the thief on the cross.
You are muddying law and gospel (as Zrim so nicely pointed out).
Law = this is what you must do
Gospel = This is what God has done
LikeLike
Jeff, your phone must be on the “Strategic Plan”. Watch out, the play-nice crowd can turn passive/aggressive.
LikeLike
I showed up at a basketball thread and a theological hockey brawl broke out.
LikeLike
Nate, not one verse you provided teaches sinless perfection. I still waiting……..
David is proof positive, that God must do a work in our heart BEFORE we can do anything pleasing in his sight. So it stands to reason, if there is nothing we can do that is good, how can one obey the law?
LikeLike
Nate,
Excellent! Don’t forget Gal. 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them’”
LikeLike
Psalm 51: 16-17
For you will not delight in sacrifice, or I would give it;
you will not be pleased with a burnt offering.
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;
a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.
Nate, David negates your whole premise! There is nothing we can do that is pleasing in God’s sight, other than have a broken and contrite heart, which is the result of the Holy Spirit doing a work in our heart.
Thanks for making my point!
LikeLike
Todd your missing it! There is NOTHING anyone can do that is good or pleasing to God. No one can keep one law, let alone the whole law. That was Paul’s point.
The law never taught sinless perfection!
LikeLike
Doug, you’re all over the map. Slow down and focus on one point at a time.
For my part, I think the most theologically perilous point you’ve raised is concerning the perfect obedience required by the Law. You are currently making the Catholic argument, which suggests to me that you haven’t read much from the 16th or 17th centuries. Am I right? I mean, no-one who has read Heidelberg Qn 8 and 12 and 60-62 could ever say these things.
For example, you argue that
The law never taught Israel they could keep the law, in [their] own strength. The law taught that obedience came by gift, through the Holy Spirit.
Neither one of these was the primary teaching of the Law. The primary teaching of the Law was that justification had to be apart from the Law, through faith (Rom 3.21 – chap. 4). If you believe that the teaching of the Law was that we needed Christ to help us keep the Law, then you have a solid foot in Roman Catholic soteriology. In which case you need to ask, “Where have I been hearing this stuff?”
Now, you ask, If God expect *perfect* obedience, then why did he give them sacrifices for when they sinned?
Precisely because He required perfect obedience. If sins were not accounted, there would be no need for sacrifice. If He required something less than perfect obedience, then sacrifices would be pointless.
But the phrase “expect perfect obedience” is imprecise. It is more precise to say that the Law operated on a principle of blessing and cursing: Obey and be blessed, disobey and be cursed. This principle is articulated in Deuteronomy 30.
It is articulated again in Josh 1: “Do not turn from [the Law] to the left or to the right.”
This principle is not incompatible with inability, as you insinuate. In fact, Joshua is explicit: “You are not able to serve the Lord. He is a holy God; he is a jealous God. He will not forgive your rebellion and your sins.” (Josh 24.19).
Doug, you need to sharpen up on your soteriology before you go arguing about the Law and its role in civil society. Put away the 20th century authors and go read Hodge and Turretin and Calvin. Read Heidelberg and Belgic and commentaries on those. I don’t say this to be rude, but out of serious alarm.
LikeLike
Nate, far from refuting the law, Hebrews ten proves it was always Christ who forgave sins. The animal sacrifices only pointed to Chirst. Why were their sins forgiven? Through Christ, retroactively. The law was all about Christ when viewed through eyes of faith.
LikeLike
Doug: There is NOTHING anyone can do that is good or pleasing to God. No one can keep one law, let alone the whole law. That was Paul’s point.
The law never taught sinless perfection!
Listen to yourself. Why cannot anyone do anything pleasing to God? Because the only thing pleasing to God is sinless perfection — that is, Jesus himself.
You just need to connect your own dots.
LikeLike
Kent, maybe you can take a charge and get us back to basketball.
LikeLike
Jeff, the curses and blessings for sin and obedience are still in operation. If you think you can just go on sinning, and God will do nothing, you’re kidding yourself. God will judge you in real time. Just read Jesus’s warnings to the 7 churches.
He threatened to kill some of them! And why? For sexual immorality and for losing their first love. Jeff, in that sense, God’s sanctions have become more intense. You are confusing eternal salvation, with God’s temporal chastisement’s for sin and unbelief. Just as with Israel, God will come down on his people like a ton of bricks for disobedience. Like any good parent, he’ll spank us silly if we are unfaithful. That is, if we’re really born of God.
LikeLike
Brad and Kent I’d update on the Spurs but they lost to the beard last night and since they don’t pay me millions to soften the blow I don’t do empathy
LikeLike
What is pleasing to God? A broken and contrite heart! That is a work of God, true, but that is pleasing to God. When we humble ourselves, God is pleased. Was God pleased with King David? Was God pleased with Daniel? Was God pleased with Abraham?
Why? Because they had a broken and contrite heart! How can we please God?
Same way, by grace through faith. When we are walking by faith God is well pleased with us. It’s the very reason God created us, “for good works that he predestined for us to walk in”.
God and do likewise.
LikeLike
Ahem, that’s “go and do likewise”.
I’ve got to run, I’ll read you later tonight.
LikeLike
Spurs lost? Seemed in control when I turned it off.
Must be a sweet time as a fan watching that machine roll for over a decade now.
LikeLike
The Bird years coincided with my later high school and undergrad time, what a privilege to watch that on TV as a Celtics fan.
Then Jordan’s time took up my postgrad and early work years. Never cheered for him but was in full awe and respect for his game.
LikeLike
As the son of a high school coach I used to say that I was raised Southern Baptist but real religion of the household was Bobby Knight-style man-to-man defense.
LikeLike
Jeff, that’s sad.
LikeLike
Sean, between the Spurs and technology, I’m worried about you.
LikeLike
Darryl, on the Spurs front I’m OK. I don’t imagine Pop had much empathy for them either. On the technology front, I feel my soul slipping away.
Kent, it’s been fun. My brother and I actually bought season tickets after they got Tim Duncan. Got to see two of the championships in person. The other tickets we gave away. 44 home games is silly, but it’s good for retaining customers. Being in the arena during playoffs is unreal. TV is for regular season, playoffs and championships you actually have to be in the arena to get a real sense of it. However, there were few moments better than watching TD school Shaq in LA in ’99 and close down the Forum.
LikeLike
Thanks Sean. That’s a great set of memories to have attended.
Can’t say the same up here with my Raptors season tickets… best times over the last 5 years was the whole crowd yelling
“GET UP YOU (expletive deleted) (word to describe a cat)”
when Vince Carter rolled on the ground milking a bogus injury.
I’ve heard the Spurs home crowd is the closest to the players and the loudest of all arenas.
LikeLike
Kent, could be. The first championship was in the Alamodome, which was like playing basketball in the Astrodome. Cavernous. But even then, during the playoffs, you couldn’t hear the person next to you. I played collegiate sports and I never thought much of being a fan, but there were entire games during the playoffs you didn’t sit down and it was just electric. Kinda trips you out. It’s a lot of fun but you also get a first hand experience of what it might be like if an excited mob were to turn ugly. We had friends from overseas who flew us over to see the FA cup at Wembley, and it was a lower division Welsh team vs. Wolverhampton, I think. That was funny. Nothing like listening to a bunch of Gaelic’s proclaim that they’re not english but british, and boo God save the Queen
LikeLike
Kent, the problem is that nobody cares about professional surfing, otherwise I would have lots to say. I mean, DG said it himself – the NBA is unwatchable.
LikeLike
Sean, the NBA had a fear of fan/player problems until the Pacers solved that once for all in Detroit.
Seeing J.O. clock that rather sizable Pistons fan should be warning enough for the next century.
The other live hi-lites as a Toronto hoops fan was watching McAdoo during his decent run with the Braves back in the 70s. A few times a year they played in Toronto.
LikeLike
Nate, please…. anything new and refreshing would be most welcome on here…
LikeLike
Jeff, maybe you missed this most crucial verse:
Romans 9:32
What shall was say then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, BUT AS IF IT WERE BASED ON WORKS.
This nukes your whole theory! Paul says the purpose of the Mosaic Law was never based on works! Faith was always the key to be pleasing in God’s sight! The law *should* have led Israel to righteousness but failed. Why? They pursued it exactly like you say it was to be pursued; as if it were by works. Paul disagrees with you.
Paul says the Law was never offered as a works/righteousness deal. It was always by grace through faith. The law taught you not to trust in the law! The law seen through eyes of faith pointed to Christ! The law seen correctly caused you to have a broken and contrite heart, which is pleasing to God. Is God pleased today when we approach him with a broken and contrite heart?
Yes and amen! When we approach the gospel and law with the right heart attitude, it’s God that lifts us up! Only in His strength are we able to do anything that is pleasing in his sight. When we walk in Christ we fulfill the law.
Do you find it a bit odd, that you are arguing exactly like apostate Israel, when it comes to the Mosaic law? They *thought* it was by works. Paul says it never was! Yet you pull out a Scripture here and there, when Paul is using irony, and take him literally. Romans 9:32 makes it obvious that I am right, and that you and Nate are wrong.
The law seen aright, looked ahead to Christ! What is RC about that position?
LikeLike
Well, I would say that anyone should watch professional surfing this year because Kelly Slater, who I consider to be the best athlete in any sport of all time, just won the season opening event and could very well go on to win his 12th world title.
At 41 years old, Slater has dominated surfing for 2 1/2 decades, winning 11 world titles. In a sport-by-sport comparison, Slater is better than Woods or Jordan. It’s kind of like watching an over-the-hill bald guy dismantle a bunch of eager youngsters.
Somewhat like reading DG’s comments to Doug, Richard and Bryan Cross (although DG isn’t bald, unless he has a really nice Toupée)
LikeLike
One thing Doug is helping to show is how law-gospel confusion informs theonomy (soft and hard), which makes it the ecclesiastical version of soteriological chaos.
LikeLike
Okay Zrim, easy for you to say. How about you explaining Romans 9:32?
Sean, who sees things like you, hates that verse! He thinks my ESV mistranslated Romans 9:32 because it blows a big hole in your specious law/grace divide. Paul says the Mosaic law was never offered “as if it were by works”. Would you accuse Paul of confusing the law and the gospel?
LikeLike
Nate, but doesn’t that show that it’s really not a sport, like professional bowling-think Jesus and the Dude, or maybe they just aren’t really athletic. Doh! It’s a joke Brau. Surfing that is. Double Doh! No I kid Nate. I just really mean it.
LikeLike
Doug,
You’ve been smoking too much Federal Vision peyote to miss the law-gospel distinction. There is rehab for that – classic reformed theology.
“Ignorance of this distinction between Law and Gospel, is one of the principal sources of the abuses which corrupted and still corrupt Christianity.” (Theodore Beza)
“Consequently, this Gospel does not impose any commands, but rather reveals God’s goodness, his mercy and his benefits…All who deny this turn the whole of the Gospel upside down; they utterly bury Christ, and destroy all true worship of God.” (John Calvin)
“There is no point on which men make greater mistakes than on the relation which exists between the law and the gospel. Some men put the law instead of the gospel; others put gospel instead of the law. A certain class maintains that the law and the gospel are mixed…These men understand not the truth and are false teachers.” (Charles Spurgeon)
LikeLike
Doug, I’ve tried Romans 7 on you. But an even better prescription for law-gospel confusion may be the Galatian epistle designed for just that very problem.
To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.
Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one.
Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.
So who has bewitched you that, like the Judaizers, you not see Paul’s opposing of law and gospel here?
LikeLike
Nate, feel free to explain why Paul said that Israel’s problem with the law, was that they lacked faith, and pursued the law, “as if it were by works”.
This verse proves my point!
If the law is antithetical to grace, like some are contending, then how could Paul make such a statement? This verse puts a stick in the spokes of the law is not of faith theory.
LikeLike
Zrim, you’re all over the board, get a grip and stop it!
Focus on Romans 9:32 which cuts to the heart of the issue. What was Israel’s problem?
They pursued the law, AS IF IT WERE BY WORKS.
They looked at the law, just like you! They lacked faith, and tried to live up to the law in there own strength, and tripped over the Jesus, the stumbling stone. Paul says the law should have pointed them to Christ, but they lacked faith! That was the problem!
LikeLike
Thanks Nate, I’ll keep any eye out for Slater viewing opportunities.
Always good to learn about new things around here.
Sort of settled all that law/gospel stuff when I converted to the Reformed faith 3 years ago, there are a few things to read into through, which I do a lot less than I wish I did.
LikeLike
Doug, or what, you’ll bury me alive in a box? But the onus is on you when Paul says the law is not of faith and you deny it.
LikeLike
Well Todd, I agree with all of those theologians, and I think they would be on my side of the law gospel debate. You think the Mosaic Law was against the gospel in some way, Calvin didn’t and neither do I. The Jews problem with the law, was that they lacked faith, period end of story.
Perhaps you could interact with Romans 9:32 and tell me how I’m miss-interpreting this passage. Let’s look at one Scripture at a time. This Scripture is very clear; talk to me exeget!
I have yet to hear one person from this “the law is not of faith” mentality be able to explain Romans 9:32
If I am really wrong then please show me Todd.
LikeLike
Doug,
I’ve given you Gordon’s exegesis, at least twice. You need to do more at this point than say “nuh uh”. You need to refute the exegesis on Rom 9:32, by providing an alternate exegesis that disproves Gordon’s, which means going point by point through his exegesis and offering your contrary take. It’s a PIB, I’ll grant, but at this point that’s what you need to offer. There’s one out there, but admittedly, then you’re going to have to grapple with the whole RC soteriology bit.
LikeLike
Doug, how do you think Spurgeon agrees with you? You say law and gospel are mixed and he says they are not. What’s the matter, you can’t disagree with a stalwart the ways 2kers disagree with theocratic Calvin?
LikeLike
Zrim, Paul is crystal clear in Romans 9:32 which helps us understand “the law is not of faith” in it’s true context. Paul’s testimony in Romans 9:32 tells us WHY Israel didn’t succeed in reaching Christ, because they pursued the law, AS IF IT WERE BY WORKS.
In other words, in never was offered that way!
One of the Reformed creeds is to let the more explicit Scripture set the context for the less clear. When we look at Romans 9:32 Paul tells us the purpose of the law, was not a works for salvation proposition. Therefore, we *know* he had to be talking about about (the miss-use of the law,) in Galatians when he said “the law is not of faith”. Lest he be guilty of hopelessly contradicting himself. God forbid!!
VanDrunen and Gordon have made a monumental blunder, that even a layman like me can expose with relative ease. Shame on them both! Now I need to tell them to; stop it!
LikeLike
At least North Carolina is out. Another year of bad coaching from Roy Williams.
Law is not only a tutor that “reveals” sin or makes people aware of sin. Romans 5:20 says that the law entered that sin would increase, not simply knowledge about sin would increase. The main way that the law kills is that it is used by idolaters (all of us by nature) to try to justify ourselves before God. We think–I did it, or I did enough of it. The law kills, leads to death, and if no gospel, only that. But the elect while still under the law are taught by the gospel to SEE that they are dead.
Romans 7 verse 9: “I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died.” We were dead by nature, and already sinners. This “I died” is something besides the death we were born with under the law.
It’s life to see that you are dead and to see that any and all righteousness found BY US in the law (Phil 3:9) is insufficient to stand before God. Only Christ by Has death for the elect has satisfied the requirements of law and found a righteousness for the elect, so that the law now demands that the elect be given every blessing of salvation.
LikeLike
Zrim, I am not saying the law IS the gospel. I am saying the Mosaic law contained the gospel in figures when appropriated by faith. Those ordinances for sins and sanctification and worship were prefiguring Christ’s saving work, and when they were offered in faith they were efficacious for salvation. I see a difference between the law and the gospel, but I don’t think the Mosaic law was against the gospel. Only apostate Israel looked at the Mosaic law, “AS IF IT WERE BY WORKS”.
LikeLike
Paul’s point in Romans 9:32 is NOT that the Gentiles didn’t “misappropriate” the law (like apostate jews) in pursuing righteousness. The point is not a better use of law. Rather, God’s mercy gives what is not even pursued.”
Those who say “we cause the death of Jesus to save us, and we do it the right way, with faith and not works”, these people do not understand the gospel.
We don’t do the law ANY way. God satisfied the law at the cross, for the elect. God imputes that cross-work to the elect, and the elect believe this gospel. Their faith is not in their faith or in their obedience, nor in their being enabled to do the law.
LikeLike
Hi MacMark:
Why is it, no one wants to address Romans 9:32?
What was Israel’s problem with the law? Huh?! I can’t hear you!!
What shall was say then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, BUT AS IF IT WERE BASED ON WORKS.
What do you make of this verse Mark?
LikeLike
Mark, I didn’t ask you what Paul wasn’t saying, I asked you what Paul said in Romans 9:32? What was Israel’s problem with the law? Was there problem, that they lacked faith, and looked at the law, as if it were by works?
Isn’t that what Paul said?
LikeLike
Sean-bro, bowling is the 2nd best sport on earth, next to shuffleboard (duh!).
Btw, if you’re gonna use the lingo, it’s “Bro” or “Bru” (as the South Africans would say).
If you think this is more athletic than this, then I’m totally lost.
LikeLike
Doug, I really can’t make heads or tails of what you want to say. First you say law is within the gospel (mixed), then you say the law isn’t the gospel (distinct). And yet you rail against those who want make clear distinctions between law and gospel. Well, what’s at stake by making resolute distinctions? To conflate them is to pave the way out of the Reformation, but what is the risk in making sharp distinctions? What are you so afraid of?
LikeLike
Doug,
Concerning Romans 9: 32, the offer of salvation through the law is what theologians call a hypothetical offer – to be rejected because we cannot fulfill it as sinners, nonetheless the law’s requirement was perfect obedience or curse.
That was the Lord’s point to the rich young ruler when he asked what he must “do” to inherit eternal life. Jesus quoted the commandments – obey the law (if you want to “do” enough to inherit eternal life). Jesus exposed the man’s love for riches, thus breaking the first commandment and not being able to keep the law. So Paul is criticizing the Jews for approaching the law (as sinners) as something they could keep to inherit eternal life. Nevertheless the Lord’s offer to the rich young ruler was a true offer – if he, hypothetically, could keep the law perfectly – he could inherit eternal life. Jesus wasn’t lying or exaggerating.
LikeLike
Todd,
Thanks for the added reference – I was one of those kids that only had 5 rewards on his hat in Sunday school since I was more absorbed in the girls than memorizing verses. I’m only so good at using the ESV search tool…
Doug,
I don’t have much else to say beyond Zrim’s comment:
https://oldlife.org/2013/03/why-the-nba-is-unwatchable/comment-page-5/#comment-78472
LikeLike
Todd, salvation was offered in the various ceremonial law, through promise, type, and various ordinances. True Israel’s true was saved, ‘while apostate Israel lacked faith, and approached the law, as if it were by works”. The elect like David saw the law aright! He looked at the law through eyes of faith, just like we should.
Finally Todd, the law taught you not to trust in the law. If seen through eyes of faith, they were looking to the promise. Here is Psalms 119
#41: “Let your steadfast love come to me, O LORD, your salvation according to your promise;
Notice Todd, David knew that salvation was going to come through Christ. David didn’t trust in his own law keeping, his hope was looking ahead.
LikeLike
And, Doug, just to add to Todd’s point, that’s also what’s going on in the parable of the Good Samaritan. The lawyer also wants to know how to gain eternal life. Jesus asks him how he reads the law and he answers with the two greatest commandments, which Jesus affirms. After the story, he’s essentially told to go and do like the Samaritan, which is to say love your neighbor, which is to say fulfill the law.
PS it’s not about helping people out.
LikeLike
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/highschool-prep-rally/texas-senior-sets-bench-press-record-astonishing-700-101340413.html
Here’s how we get ready for high school football in Texas. What what. It’s all brisket, wonder white, potato salad, beans and some tea.
LikeLike
Doug,
So Jesus was lying to the rich young ruler?
LikeLike
Todd, if the rich young ruler understood the law, he would known, there is none good except God. Next, like David he would have been waiting for the promise. The rich young ruler was the quintessential example of “Romans 9:32 they pursued the law “as if it were by works”. These men thought they had no need a savior.
Jesus came for the sick, not those who thought they had it all together. If the rich young ruler really thought he had kept all the commandments, then what was the point of telling him the gospel? He had already missed Christ, who was the *aim* of the law. The ruler would have just continued to stumble on the stumbling stone. (And Jesus knew that) Jesus words was trying to break him out of his stupor! Think in the right direction.
Remember God gives grace to the humble but he opposes the proud. This rich young ruler didn’t know the first thing about loving the LORD with all his heart, soul, mind, and strength, or loving his neighbor as himself, This is why Jesus was so grieved at the hardness of his heart. The ruler was the quintessential example of Israel.
LikeLike
Wow, Doug, you hit the Old Life buzz-saw.
But your reading of Rom 9 is ungrammatical. The “it” that they Jews pursued was righteousness and not the law. Here’s why this matters.
The Pharisees said that righteousness was by the law and strove to keep it.
The Protestant says that righteousness through the Law would require perfect obedience, so there must be a righteousness apart from the law, a righteousness by faith.
The Catholic says that righteousness comes through Spirit-enabled keeping of the law of love.
Which are you saying? You sound like you are saying that righteous comes by faith-enabled lawkeeping.
LikeLike
Sean,
Now that your married with kids presumably on the way you can kiss those days goodbye. You’ll be lucky to see Sponge Bob on the tube, let alone a live Spurs playoff game. At least you’ll have the memories of your extended bachelorhood.
Not bitter,
Erik
LikeLike
Doug,
You still didn’t answer my question. Was Jesus telling the truth when he told him he could inherit eternal life by keeping the commandments?
LikeLike
Galatians 3:10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” 12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.”
Why attempt to do the law by faith when the law is not of faith?
LikeLike
Romans 10: 5 For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them. 6 But the righteousness based on faith says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 “or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); 9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Christ is not a mere exegete of Moses. Confessing that Jesus is Lord and believing that God raised him from the dead is not satisfaction of the law. The gospel is about Christ and what Christ did (up and down).
LikeLike
Todd says: Concerning Romans 9: 32, the offer of salvation through the law is what theologians call a hypothetical offer – to be rejected because we cannot fulfill it as sinners, nonetheless the law’s requirement was perfect obedience or curse.
Balderdash! Todd, the law gave provisions for sin! How can you say it required perfect obedience? It gave provisions for worship knowing full well that Israel was in a fallen state. It gave provisions for unintentional sin as well.
Todd, this has nothing to do with an offer! Paul asks rhetorically, why did the Gentiles get righteousness, (Christ) with no law, and Israel who had the law that pointed to (Christ), fail to get his righteousness? Because they lacked faith! Not that it was impossible! Both Jew and Gentile were both sinners (Psssst, the righteousness was always Christ in both testaments!)
Because they lacked faith, and pursued the law AS IF IT WERE BY WORKS.
The Mosaic law was designed to be apprehended by faith, just like our baptism; the preached word; and the Lord’s table. What happens when we look at our baptism, in a faithless manner? Same bad results! God wants a broken and contrite heart, (regeneration) as the only approach, that is pleasing in his sight. With that heart attitude, God is pleased to work in and through us for his good pleasure.
It was a heart issue with Israel.
LikeLike
All this law/gospel stuff was resolved by reading the Bible and WCF and 3 Forms, taking a dozen or so hours of adult catechism, and leisure reading of 1,000s of pages of Reformed theology, then facing about 6 hours of questioning before Elders and welcoming into membership in the URC.
It’s not something to dither around with for decades, or to attack people because they have it figured out and you don’t….
Just sayin…
LikeLike
Nate, I put rock climbing and surfing in the same category. In both ‘sports’ consuming/smoking copious amounts of weed seemed to be part of the activity and was apparently used as an PED. Thus being lumped in with bowling, where drinking and smoking enhance the sport. That video of Slater was impressive, but it begs the question; “if it’s about athletic prowess, where are the twenty somethings who should be displacing Slater by now?” Either, Surfing isn’t attracting top drawer athletes or it’s not so much about athleticism, right? Football, soccer, basketball, tennis, baseball, cycling, boxing et al. When athleticism is at a premium, you don’t have 40 somethings dominating the sport. Now, in my world where everybody would be managing their PED’s like they would manage their diet or sleep, we can start talking about older athletes dominating their sport. In my world, weenie sport orgs and journalists looking to feed the 24/7 news beast don’t get to determine your value or useful life.
LikeLike
Todd, that’s sort of a silly question. Of course if the ruler was keeping the law, that would mean he was walking by faith, and trusting in the promise and he would immediately fall at Jesus feet, since Jesus was the *aim* of the law. The law taught the elect to trust in Christ, not their law keeping. So anything that is not of faith was sin, just like with us today.
So yes, Jesus was telling him the truth, the law taught the elect to trust in the promise!
LikeLike
Erik,
Never mind the kids, I spent my saturday afternoon looking at flooring. I finally decided it was some sort of endurance sport, with my wife doing her best interpretation of a Kenyan marathoner while I was some poor imitation of a sponsor for her efforts and the floor guy was her manager convincing her she needed to get her sponsor to increase her budget. The only good thing about being the sponsor is you get to fire managers.
LikeLike
Doug,
Well, I’ll stand with the Protestants on the Rich Young Ruler, as with Calvin (see below), while you stand with the new RC Jason Stellman http://www.creedcodecult.com/did-the-rich-young-ruler-hear-the-gospel/
(Calvin) “We have no right, therefore, to deny that the keeping of the law is righteousness, by which any man who kept the law perfectly — if there were such a man — would obtain life for himself. But as we are all destitute of the glory of God, (Romans 3:23,) nothing but cursing will be found in the law; and nothing remains for us but to betake ourselves to the undeserved gift of righteousness. And therefore Paul lays down a twofold righteousness, the righteousness of the law, (Romans 10:5,) and the righteousness of faith, (Romans 10:6.) He makes the first to consist in works, and the second, in the free grace of Christ.
Hence we infer, that this reply of Christ is legal, because it was proper that the young man who inquired about the righteousness of works should first be taught that no man is accounted righteous before God unless he has fulfilled the law, “unless he has fulfilled all the law in every point.” (which is impossible,) that, convinced of his weakness, he might betake himself to the assistance of faith. I acknowledge, therefore, that, as God has promised the reward of eternal life to those who keep his law, we ought to hold by this way, if the weakness of our flesh did not prevent; but Scripture teaches us, that it is through our own fault that it becomes necessary for us to receive as a gift what we cannot obtain by works. If it be objected, that it is in vain to hold out to us the righteousness which is in the law, (Romans 10:5,) which no man will ever be able to reach, I reply, since it is the first part of instruction, by which we are led to the righteousness which is obtained by prayer, it is far from being superfluous; and, therefore, when Paul says, that the doers of the law are justified, (Romans 2:13,) he excludes all from the righteousness of the law.”
LikeLike
Doug: Because they lacked faith, and pursued the law AS IF IT WERE BY WORKS.
I’ll say it again, you are reading this ungrammatically.
Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν; ὅτι ἔθνη τὰ μὴ διώκοντα δικαιοσύνην κατέλαβεν δικαιοσύνην, δικαιοσύνην δὲ τὴν ἐκ πίστεως· 31 Ἰσραὴλ δὲ διώκων νόμον δικαιοσύνης εἰς [l]νόμον οὐκ ἔφθασεν. 32 διὰ τί; ὅτι οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως ἀλλ’ ὡς ἐξ [m]ἔργων·
“What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, the ones not pursuing righteousness, have received righteousness, and the righteousness of faith. But Israel pursued a law of righteousness into the law did not receive. According to what? [Why?] Because not out of faith but as out of works.”
The meaning is relatively clear: Jews sought righteousness in the law and did not receive it. The Gentiles did not pursue righteousness, but received it by faith.
On your reading, the Jews pursued the *law* wrongly. But Paul is clear about what is being pursued: righteousness. If you pursue righteousness by the Law, and not by faith, you will not receive it.
There is no room here to say, “Pursue righteousness by the law, and fulfill the law by faith.” The text simply does not mean this.
Hence Calvin:
— Calv Comm Rom 9.30.
You certainly seem to suggest that God justifies us by giving us the Spirit of regeneration, do you not?
LikeLike
But why can not righteousness not come by the Law? Is it because the Law does not offer righteousness? No.
Calvin again:
There’s your sinless perfection required; there’s your reason that righteousness cannot come by the law.
Again I ask: do you want a Protestant soteriology or a Catholic? The belief that justification comes about by fulfilling the Law by faith is a Catholic soteriology.
LikeLike
Okay Mr. Smarty pants Kent!
Perhaps you can help your Old Life buddies untangle themselves in Romans 9:32
What was Israel’s problem with keeping the law? Why did they fail to reach Christ, where the Gentiles without the law, reached Christ?
LikeLike
Jeff, do you understand Calvin? He’s saying if you take the moral commands apart from the grace of the ordinances which pointed to Christ, (in the abstract) it was opposed to Christ.
Anything that is not of faith is sin. That is just as true today for me and you, as it was for the Jews during the law. The law apart from faith, is death! Surely we can agree on that, amen?
LikeLike
Sean, did you watch the past 3 Olympics? Michael Phelps might throw a bit of a wrench in your pothead theory… Unless of course you don’t consider a young man annihilating every record known in to man in the annals of swimming history athleticism (or a sport for that matter).
And your stereotypical response about the nature of professional surfing betrays your ignorance. Not sure where you hail from but out here we have surf teams in high-school and colleges as well (you know, just like all the other “real” sports, where people don’t smoke or do drugs…). The professional surf world is a far-cry from what it was even 8 years ago when it became a popular phenomenon even among surfers (web-casts of all major surf contests). I have friends that work as surf-trainers for youth and semi-pro surfers. Nearly every professional surfer has their own personal trainer. It’s not all booze, babes, and boards like it was back in the 80s.
The surf industry doesn’t have the billions of $ behind it like Football, et, al. and is concentrated around coastal areas (and some select areas on the Great Lakes of all places) so it’s ability to draw participants isn’t the same as going to a big field and throwing a ball.
Also, not sure if you ever heard of a guy named Nolan Ryan but he was throwing consistently in the high 90s, threw 2 no-hitters and even took down Robin Ventura in a fist fight
– all when he was in his 40s. Talk about domination…
LikeLike
Jeff, anything that is not of faith in sin; amen?
That was just as true for Israel as it is today in the new covenant. So when Israel tried to attain a righteousness as if it were by works, they were DOA. Think about it Jeff! We are born of sin! We sin before we’re even aware of our own sin. It’s preposterous to think anyone could hypothetically try to keep all the law for even twenty minutes, let alone as a way of salvation. We aren’t even on the playing field.
And the law never expected Israel to walk in sinless perfection, which is why God graciously made provisions for sin. How you can say that the law expected sinless perfection is beyond me. Here God knows full well that Israel is a stiff necked people, so he lovingly gives them a way to have their sins forgiven, by placing there hands of the pascal lamb imputing the sin to the animal.
If that isn’t pointing to Christ, then what is?
LikeLike
Doug: The law apart from faith, is death! Surely we can agree on that, amen?
Yes, we can.
But “life” is not “the law with faith.” Life is found on an entirely different principle.
You want to take the law, add faith, and get life. This is not the gospel. Instead, life comes on a completely different principle. As Calvin says: it was based on a gratuitous reconciliation
And yes, I *can* read Calvin — have been for a couple of decades.
On a very serious note: I don’t think we can help you here, for the simple reason that you don’t trust our judgment. No offense taken with that, I completely understand. But I strongly recommend going back and reading Hodge. He’s clear, presents the mainstream Reformed position (except on communion), and is knowledgeable and acknowledged to be reliable. After that, tackle Fisher’s commentary on the Shorter Catechism.
The soteriology you’re espousing is outside of the Reformed faith. I don’t say that as a polemic or a way to score points, but simply as a matter of comparing apples and oranges.
LikeLike
Sean sez: “…Here’s how we get ready for high school football in Texas. What what. It’s all brisket, wonder white, potato salad, beans and some tea…
Man, does that statement ever bring back some memories. It was during the few years that I lived in North Texas that I learned how to BBQ properly and appreciate good SW cooking. Back up here in the frozen North it’s “grilling”, at best, unless you visit a bone fide BBQ joint and even then they dumb down the spices way too much to accommodate the local tastes.
LikeLike
Jeff, thanks for trying to walk Doug away from this non-Protestant cliff? If done through faith, you are storing up a crown.
LikeLike
Nate, sorry If I hit a nerve. It wasn’t my intent to provoke you to anything more than some banter. I would think Phelps and particularly his sport(swimming) would go to proving my point of youth being served in top level athletic competition. Nolan Ryan is a decent case in point, but he was playing a position that is mainly a single tool kind of component, though I’ll give you that if you don’t have legs that are elite, you aren’t throwing heat like that. I haven’t followed surfing since the early 90’s in San Diego, so maybe the culture has changed dramatically, which is good. It’s harder to judge the athleticism of a sport where the dynamic or explosive aspect is provided by the element engaged(wave) but maybe you can slot Slater into the Nolan Ryan exception, but it would seem to be just that; the exception. But still, it wasn’t my intent to go about slamming surfing, I was just needling you a bit.
LikeLike
Jeff, are you willing to agree that the ceremonial law was all about Christ?
Yes or no
Would you agree that the Pascal Lamb was a type of Christ?
Rather than run to Calvin, how do you understand this sacrament? How did the old testament saint get his sins forgiven in the ordinance? Flush out your understanding of this ceremonial law.
LikeLike
DGH: Team effort. The “Old-Life Buzzsaw.”
Doug: Jeff, are you willing to agree that the ceremonial law was all about Christ?
Yes or no
Would you agree that the Pascal Lamb was a type of Christ?
Yes and yes. And thus:
Doug: How did the old testament saint get his sins forgiven in the ordinance?
He didn’t.
Hebrews 10 For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. 2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? 3 But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
Forgiveness simply was not had in the sacrifices. Instead, sacramentally, the sacrifices pointed to the sacrifice that was to come.
Good so far?
The grace offered in the sacrament was therefore not received ex opere operato. Instead, it was received by faith.
Obedience to the command to offer the sacrifice was beside the point. The person offering the sacrifice was not forgiven because he had obeyed a command by faith! He was forgiven because he trusted in Christ.
Think on this: Abraham was justified by faith, before he was circumcised. He did not obey the command by faith, and then receive grace. He believed, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.
So let’s recap: The sacraments offer grace because they direct the partaker’s gaze to Christ. The offered grace is not related to obedience to the command, but to what the sacraments figure.
How are we so far? If you doubt what I’m saying, take a quick look at WCoF, WSC, and WLC on sacraments, and then compare to the parts on obedience and good works.
LikeLike
Jeff says: The grace offered in the sacrament was therefore not received ex opere operato. Instead, it was received by faith.
Jeff, this is what I have been saying all along! These ordinances were types of Christ where forgiveness was truly offered, when received by faith! Not in the animal itself, but by Christ through promise that he would one day pay the price.
You’ve just admitted what I have been stressing! The Mosaic law was to be apprehended by faith, just like the our baptism. There is nothing magic in the water, it’s the Holy Spirit working in the ordinance. Right?
It sounds like we’re mostly on the same page. You seem have a hard time admitting those ordinances offered in faith were efficacious. The Confession says they were. Not in the value of the lamb, but what the lamb pointed to.
LikeLike
Sean, my bad. No hard feelings here, sometimes I get a little carried away. Either way though, you’re totally wrong and surfing is definitely a sport, even if some smoke bowls before our surf sessions. In fact, I remember paddling out for a surf while smoking a cigarette at one point. Pretty much one of the dumbest yet coolest things I’ve done in my life. Talk about getting my cardio in…
LikeLike
Doug: You seem have a hard time admitting those ordinances offered in faith were efficacious.
No problem there, as long as we understand that the forgiveness was found in the promise and not found in the sacrifice itself, which is what you said at first.
But…
Doug previously: The Mosaic law was designed to be apprehended by faith, just like our baptism; the preached word; and the Lord’s table.
Here, you’re off the rails. You’re arguing by analogy: since the sacrifices were commanded, and they were efficacious by faith (true), then all of the Mosaic Law was to be apprehended by faith (not exactly). And what’s particularly odd is the stress you lay on ps. 51 about a broken and contrite heart being pleasing to God. Doesn’t a contrite heart presuppose exposure of sin? And what is sin?
If you said “any transgression of or want of conformity to God’s Law”, then you get a gold star.
As you enjoy your star, consider what that means. It means that any failure, in the slightest, to keep the law is sin. The logical contrapositive is, to not sin means to not transgress the Law.
In short: the Law requires perfect obedience.
You used the confusing word “expect”, and then took that word to mean “anticipate.” And you argued that the sacrifices prove that God anticipated that Israel would sin. Well yes, yes He did. But He *required* them not to sin.
Good so far?
LikeLike
How dare anyone question these guys’ athleticism:
LikeLike
Jeff says: You’re arguing by analogy: since the sacrifices were commanded,
No more of a command than for us to pray for our sins to be forgiven in 1st John. In fact, it’s the same kind of command. If you want to call it a command since it was discretionary.
Jeff says: and they were efficacious by faith (true), then all of the Mosaic Law was to be apprehended by faith (not exactly).
Primarily the ceremonial law with it’s sacrifices for sin and worship. I wouldn’t say the law against kidnapping and murder had to be apprehended by faith. But the part of the law that foreshadowed the work of Christ surely had to be seen through eyes of faith, no?
Jeff says: And what’s particularly odd is the stress you lay on ps. 51 about a broken and contrite heart being pleasing to God. Doesn’t a contrite heart presuppose exposure of sin? And what is sin?
Sin is anything that is not of faith! It was true in Israel, and it’s true today! Sin is a heart attitude first and foremost. It’s why Cain’s sacrifice was despised by God, and faithful Able’s sacrifice was accepted. Faith and works, right there.
A broken and contrite heart presupposes regeneration and God wrought repentance in all humility. Esau cried by he couldn’t repent. It’s how we approach a Holy God in a way that is pleasing to him. And it takes a work of God to get us to that place. So a broken and contrite heart is the response of the elect. It shows true faith and humility.
Moreover, anything that is not of faith was sin, just like now, no? Which is why when we sin today, we STILL need an advocate who is faithful and just to forgive our sins. Jesus even prays for our unintentional sins that we commit! So we still need our Great High Priest today.
BTW Jeff, these sacrifices for sin were up to the person. These were not commandments per se. They were left up to the individual, “when you sin” was left to the discretion of the Israelite. The ceremonial law was a blessing! It was a way the man of could be made right in God’s eyes, until Christ dealt with sin once and for all.
These ceremonial laws needed to be apprehended by faith because they foreshadowed Christ in his saving work. And yes, they needed to be apprehended by faith, just like your baptism. Circumcision was similar to baptism is today. I know you see the analogy, yes?
So Jeff, are you willing to admit the ceremonial law was a great blessing to Israel? If yes, then it’s in that sense that the ceremonial law was gracious through and through.
LikeLike
JRC: And what is sin?
Doug: Sin is anything that is not of faith!
Do you then take exception to the Catechism on this point? Flesh out your understanding of the relationship between WSC 14 and Rom 14.23.
Doug: So Jeff, are you willing to admit the ceremonial law was a great blessing to Israel? If yes, then it’s in that sense that the ceremonial law was gracious through and through.
Two problems:
(1) “Blessing” is not “grace” in the sense of “The Covenant of Grace.”
Your continued interchange of blessing and grace is confusing to all, including perhaps yourself.
(2) You are failing to distinguish between command and thing commanded.
By way of example: When I command my children to drink their milk, I do so because the milk is nutritious. If they obey the command, they get the nutrition.
But this does not mean that the command is nutritious. The nutrition comes from the milk, not from the command. If they drank milk without the command, it would still be nutritious. By way of analogy, Abraham did this. He worshiped without the Mosaic Law.
Likewise here, the sacrifices themselves were sacraments. But the commands concerning the sacrifices were requirements: The sacrifice must be unblemished, etc.
Furthermore, the large majority of the ceremonial law was not sacramental. There is no grace offered in the command to not mix fabric types. There is no grace offered in the command to avoid pork.
To repeat myself obnoxiously: Until you can acknowledge a difference between the commands and the sacrifices, we remain apart.
LikeLike
Jeff, let’s set the command question aside. Do you agree that the ordinance in Leviticus 4:22 was the gospel? Of course it must be offered in faith to be efficacious to forgive sin; right? We both know, that the animal in and of itself had no power to forgive sin, but the ordinance was holy, and God meets his people in his sacraments, when apprehended in faith. right?
LikeLike
Doug: Do you agree that the ordinance in Leviticus 4:22 was the gospel?
Pointed to the gospel, yes.
Doug: Of course it must be offered in faith to be efficacious to forgive sin; right? We both know, that the animal in and of itself had no power to forgive sin, but the ordinance was holy, and God meets his people in his sacraments, when apprehended in faith. right?
Yes.
LikeLike
In return: By “whatever is not of faith is sin”, are you taking exception to WSC 14? (Not saying you are — obviously, you’re quoting Rom 14 — but I want to precisely understand what you understand sin to be.)
LikeLike
But let’s make sure that we’re actually on the same page with the sacrifices. Do you agree that in God’s eyes, the OT saints were justified once-for-all by faith? When I speak of sacrifices and forgiveness, I don’t mean that the believer goes from “not forgiven” to “forgiven” in the eyes of God, but rather that he receives the forgiveness that was granted at the moment of faith.
So if David had been hit by a truck before repenting to Nathan, he would still be numbered among the elect, yes?
LikeLike
Yes, although all the Saint’s had to wait for Jesus to accomplish redemption before they could be in Christ. I recall Saints prior to the cross having to go to a place called Abraham’s bossum, to wait for Christ to say, “it is finished”!
The Saints of old were justified by the promise, through faith.
LikeLike
Anybody but dwayne wade. First championship a gift from the refs, second from lebron.
Anybody but pitino.
The levitical sacrifices kept being done, again and again, because they never worked?
Or they kept being done, again and again, because they worked for the purpose given, which was never to take away sin?
LikeLike
Bosom of Abraham? Let’s leave that aside.
OK. So I think we’re on the same page, mostly, with OT sacrifices being gracious. We agree that
* The sacrifices were sacraments,
* They obtained, by faith, the experience of forgiveness.
* The sacrifices were commanded in the ceremonial Law.
Before going on, can we have a definite statement about WSC 14 and Romans 14?
LikeLike
Jeff, what’s with you being so fixated on the ceremonial law being “commanded”? They were graciously offered, to God’s people, when they felt they sinned. They were offered on the people’s own volition; they displayed God’s mercy; why do you call that a command? The sin offering was completely left up to the person’s own conscience. The sin offering was no more a command, than 1 John saying “if we sin we have an advocate with the Father, who is faithful and just to forgive us our sin, if we confess them in Jesus name.
What is the WSC 14 and Romans 14? Fill me in, my WCF work book written by Williamson omitted 14 and 15, so I really don’t know what you’re talking about.
LikeLike
Mark Mcculley wonders aloud: the levitical sacrifices kept being done, again and again, because they never worked?
Me: Nope, they worked when offered in faith. After all, it was God who said, “and your sin shall be forgiven.”
MacMark: Or they kept being done, again and again, because they worked for the purpose given, which was never to take away sin?
Me: Nope, they taught God’s people that the Christ still needed to come and deal with sin once and for all. This is why David didn’t put his trust in the animal sacrifices. His faith looked ahead to the promise! David saw the animal sacrifices as a type, his faith looked too Christ.
LikeLike
Moreover, the old testament sacrifice offerings were the gospel, like reading a comic book for children. It taught the good news in pictures all pointing to Christ. These offerings were perfect for God’s people in their immaturity. Once they grew up, you put down comic books, and move on to a more mature way of understanding. The old testament was the same message, (gospel) salvation by vicarious sacrifice, but the daily repetition was more than they could bear. Yet, it was necessary to teach the elect how God feels about sin. These sacrifices displayed God’s mercy through and through, which is why the Mosaic law taken in it’s whole, is same covenant of grace, albeit a different administration.
LikeLike
Jeff, I take Romans 14 at face value, anything that is not done from a heart of faith is sin. That means anything and everything. What other interpretation could there be?
LikeLike
Jeff, that means you could be doing something, (like drinking) which in and of itself is not sinful; but because you *think* it’s sinful, for you do drink, is in fact sin. It’s a heart issue.
LikeLike
Let me see if I get the math. The law is not a command but an “offer”. And the offer is that if you offer?
That makes two “offers”.
I am not too sure about what God “offered” Adam before Adam sinned, (The covenant of works).
But I am sure about God gave to Christ after Christ’s offering of Himself in death. Christ was then dead to the law.
Romans 6: 7 For one who has died has been justified from sin… 9 We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. 10 For the death he died he died to sin, once for all… 14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.
LikeLike
NBA update, well Spurs update, no one else matters;
Tim Duncan scored 23 points to go with 14 rebounds and five blocks, and Danny Green threw in six first-half 3-pointers. Parker added 18 points and 11 assists — shaking off a new finger injury suffered in the third quarter — as the Spurs started the most rugged portion of their season on the right foot.
Tim Duncan: 5th game with 20-Pts, 10-Reb, 5-blocks this season (nobody else has more than 1 such game this season)
DPOY.
LikeLike
The Heat/Bulls game last night was very watchable — even Chris Anderson.
LikeLike
Doug: What is the WSC 14 and Romans 14? Fill me in, my WCF work book written by Williamson omitted 14 and 15, so I really don’t know what you’re talking about… I take Romans 14 at face value, anything that is not done from a heart of faith is sin. That means anything and everything. What other interpretation could there be? Jeff, that means you could be doing something, (like drinking) which in and of itself is not sinful; but because you *think* it’s sinful, for you do drink, is in fact sin. It’s a heart issue.
The WSC is available here.
Q. 14 defines sin in one way; you define it in another. Those two ways are not necessarily in conflict, but I want to understand how you relate the two together.
LikeLike
MacMark, let’s see if you can see a pattern.
1 John 1:9
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
or 2:1
But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.
Now we find the exact language in the Leviticus 5:27
If anyone of the common people sins unintentionally in doing any one of the things:
In Both testaments we are commanded to repent of our sins! God graciously forgave the elect either directly in Christ, or through type pointing to Christ. In both testaments God graciously forgave their sins..Why is this so hard to understand? God’s people were graciously forgiven in both testaments!
LikeLike
Spurs update;
The NBA has been waiting for Tim Duncan to get old, to slow down, to stop putting up monster lines straight out of his 20-something prime.
If Duncan’s 34-point, 11-rebound, hit-the-game-winner opus in the Spurs’ 104-102 victory over the Los Angeles Clippers showed anything Friday night, it’s that the league can keep waiting.
Those banking on the day Father Time finally catches up to the Spurs’ soon-to-be-37-year-old All-Star can take consolation in a moment late in the second quarter at the AT&T Center, when Duncan stepped to referee Eli Roe and officially became a grumpy old man.
“You could see it, he was in a mood,” Spurs guard Danny Green said. “It’s a mood you don’t want him to be in if you’re the opposing team.”
Incensed at what he felt was a no-call on contact during a putback basket, Duncan barked at Roe, who moments earlier had whistled Spurs coach Gregg Popovich for a technical.
For an instant, Duncan was sure Roe would whistle him next.
“If he did, I deserved it,” Duncan said.
Instead, Duncan heaped his “get off my lawn” frustration onto the Clippers, scoring 10 of the next 12 points for the Spurs over a span of 2:55, helping them claw back from a nine-point deficit.
At game’s end, Duncan supplied more heroics, absorbing a foul from the Clippers’ Willie Green while rolling in a go-ahead 17-footer with 2.2 seconds left.
“There was a stretch where they put the whistle away and it gave me a little energy to play a little harder through it,” said Duncan, who is averaging 25.1 points, 13.1 rebounds and three blocks in the past seven games.
“It snowballed from there.”
Parker had 24 points and eight assists, and for the second straight meeting outplayed Paul. The Clippers’ All-Star was solid, but hardly spectacular in a 14-point, 12-assist night that included a 5-of-14 showing from the floor.
Next up; the Heat.
LikeLike
Sean, I hope you’re ready for opening day. In the MLB, most of the tats are covered.
LikeLike
This was the one Duke was supposed to lose. At least that’s what I heard all week – and even before, when the pairings were announced. ESPN’s talking heads were almost unanimous that No. 3 seed Michigan State was going to beat No. 2 Duke. Even Jay Bilas picked Michigan State. “Dukie” Vitale picked Michigan State. Digger Phelps, fired coach Seth Greenberg, caught cheating Doug Gottlieb … the near unanimous opinion was that the Spartans were too physical and tough for the Blue Devils.
LikeLike
If Duke makes 3’s they can beat anybody. If they miss 3’s they can lose to anybody.
LikeLike
Darryl, as long as I can listen to Vin Scully I’ll be ready. Though if my Spurs keep on keeping on, my attention will be divided.
LikeLike
did anybody see Mason Plumlee block Lebron’s shot last night?
sitting and watching on earth in front of the tv
LikeLike