Before I say what I am going to say about Israel and Hamas, let me start with a few preliminaries.

First, I am a Christian and this means that I believe that Jesus Christ is the only hope of every nation, and this includes Israel. This means that Muslims and Israelis both are summoned by the gospel to surrender to Jesus Christ, and until that happens, there will never be peace between them. How could there be?

Second, I acknowledge that this particular mess in the Middle East would not be occurring if not for the misbegotten policies of the Zionism of yesteryear. Israel had no peculiar divine right to that territory, but they went there anyway, and bad things started to happen because Zionism as a doctrine is false. But in just the same way, Manifest Destiny was a piece of impudence cooked up by Americans during our "look at us go" stage. I object to the doctrine of Manifest Destiny, along with the assumptions that were underneath it. So I don't hold to Manifest Destiny at all, and yet, there my house is, ensconced in Idaho. I own that house, have a legitimate right to it, and would object in quite forceful terms if Nez Perce Indians were shooting rockets at it.

No international policy that demands that every people group return to their original homeland of, say, three thousand years ago, can lay any claim to moral seriousness at all. And ironically, if we began making that kind of demand, the Israelis would suddenly have a much stronger claim on their land . . . until the Amalekites showed up anyway.

But with all that said, this is why Israel has every right to do what they are currently doing. In order to make this observation, it is not necessary to enter into the inner counsels of whichever conspirators you believe are actually running the world. All you have to do is look at what the two sides are publicly doing or saying, and think about it carefully for a minute. First, Hamas, hopelessly outgunned and outnumbered, has nevertheless successfully provoked Israel into a military response. No response on the part of Israel would clearly be impossible, and yet a military response puts them into the role, on the international stage, of kicking puppies. This is because Hamas has positioned themselves in such a way as to make it impossible for a military response to not hit civilians, and a lot of them. In this case, military weakness is PR strength, just so long as you have sentimentalists there with cameras. So if you want to understand what is going on, you have to know how to look past the spin war. I can see on camera which side is shooting rockets, and which side is driving the tanks. But which side is pointing the cameras? Christians should be a little more suspicious of the direction the media is pushing them. Which leads to the second point.

Second, the true nature of this set-up should be clear at a glance. According to the new conventional wisdom, Israel has become tyrannical, forgetting their own experience with the Nazis, and they have become what they once fled from. In this new narrative, the Palestinian people have been provoked into choosing a leadership that is on the fighting, radical end of things, but this is understandable, root causes, so forth and etc. But just yesterday, I heard a spokesman for Hamas outlining their demands. What is one of the central things they want? They want the border crossings into Israel opened so that inhabitants of Gaza can get into Israel freely. Huh? How does that fit with the narrative? When Jews escaped from the Nazis, did they form enclaves outside the Nazi borders, demanding to be let back in? No, because the Nazis really were . . . Nazis. There was genuine tyranny there, not just agitprop tyranny projected for the cameras.

Book I/Chapter 2

Piety (section 1)

1. What is a necessary prerequisite to knowledge of God?

2. Would natural revelation be possible in an unfallen world?

3. Is it possible in our fallen condition?

4. What is the distinction Calvin makes between having right notions about God and "embracing the grace of reconciliation?"

5. How does God reveal Himself in the universe? How does He reveal Himself in Christ?

6. What are the ramifications of Calvin's "no drop of wisdom and light which does not flow from God" for any allowances of neutrality?

7. What is the definition of piety?

Trust and Reverence (section 2)

1. What is the first thing a knowledge of God should bring to us?

2. The second thing?

3. What is a life that is not disposed to the service of God?

4. Can any good be traced to a fountainhead other than God?5. Which God does piety worship?

6. Does piety shrink from acknowledging God's justice?

7. What is pure and real religion?

8. What is the difference between a general veneration for God and true reverence?

9. What is generally inconsistent with true sincerity of heart?

These questions are for the readings for January 8, 2009, day 8, can be found here.

I have linked here before, but please allow me do so again. My daughter Bekah has a business named Amoretti, and she has just rolled out a new web site for it. Even if you clicked all through the old web site, check out all the nooks and crannies of this one. There will be some surprises, I think. Simply a lot of fun just waiting there for you to join in on it. You can click through the picture.

I haven't been posting much because I am on the road, visiting the Auburn Avenue Pastors' Conference. But just a quick note -- on the plane ride here, I finished David Wells' latest book, The Courage to Be Protestant. Magnificent book, and I love that man. Pretension after evangelical pretension is mercilessly dissected. Over against the marketers and emergents, Wells sets the truth of God, whole and unvarnished.

And yet, one discordant thought did strike me in the course of reading the book. This point is not about Wells or his book, but rather about the behavior of those who read his book, and respond to it in difference ways. The subtitle refers to three groups of people -- truth-lovers, marketers and emergents. And yet, in my experience, out of these three groups (the first group being marked by their acceptance of Wells' important point that the truth is fixed, objective, and not for sale), which group has been responsible for telling the most lies about me and what I believe? That's right, and the contest is not even close. The ones misrepresenting me in the most enthusiastic ways have been drawn almost exclusively from the first group. The truth-lovers.

When you abandon the concept of truth, everything turns to mush, and you lose the ability even to tell an old-fashioned lie. If you retain the idea of objective truth, this means that you live in a world in which truth-telling is possible. But that doesn't mean the truth-telling necessarily happens.

One important qualification. Not everyone who differs or who misunderstands is lying.

Knowledge of Self (section 1)

1. In what sense can we say that Calvin's epistemology has dual starting points?

2. Does Calvin argue for God's existence, or does he assume it?

3. Would Calvin agree that in order to know God a man must know himself as knowing?

4. Would Calvin agree that this means that a man should start his epistemological journey by trying to come to a knowledge of himself?

5. What is the motive a man should have in turning from knowledge of himself to knowing God?

Knowledge of God (section 2)

1. What does knowledge of God reveal to a man?

2. Who is the sole standard of all judgment of man?

3. Why is man easily satisfied with counterfeit righteousness?

4. What is the relation between that which is "less vile" and that which is "most pure?"

5. What is Calvin's view of autonomous ethics?

6. What will a vision of God do to our view of the study of philosophy?

Fearing God (section 3)

1. How does Scripture commonly represent saints who have felt the presence of God?

2. What is necessary before a man rightly understands his own lowly state?

3. What powerful argument overwhelms men?

4. Although the knowledge of God and self are intertwined, what does right teaching require us to discuss first?

5. What can we do in our corporate worship to cultivate a right view of God?

The daily readings can be found here.

Prefatory Address to King Francis 1 of France

Tumults Alleged to Result from Reformation Preaching (7)

1. When the Word of God is active, what is the response of Satan?

2. What did Satan try first to oppose the Reformation? What was his second move?

3. What examples from Scripture does Calvin produce with regard to the same charge? List three.

4. In the New Testament, when the apostles saw that the gospel was resulting in tumults, what ought they to have done?

Prefatory Address to King Francis 1 of France

Let the King Beware of Acting on False Charges: The Innocent Await Divine Vindication (8)

1. How does Calvin address the charge that the Reformers were seditious?

2. Even though they are on the run, what do the Protestants continue to pray for?

3. What does Calvin believe should be done with those who "deck out" their vices in the liberty of God's grace?

4. If the king determines not to listen, how does Calvin warn him?

5. What is Calvin's final prayer for the king?

The reading guide is here.

Lane does a good job summarizing my views on law/gospel applications, and my rejection of a law/gospel hermeneutic. Now I have no problem in accepting that the historic Reformed, particularly in early years, accepted the law/gospel distinction. As do I. But where is the distinction? In my view, it is not to be found in the texts themselves, in a Lutheran sense.

Turn this around for a moment. According to Lane, or Scott Clark, what have the Lutherans gotten wrong about the law/gospel issue? What don't they get right? What is the difference between the Reformed and the Lutherans on this issue?

Lane has a little fun at my expense with "golawspel," as though I were the one confounding these categories. Well, let me have a little fun in return. Who would best be described as a golawspel preacher? The man who says that the Mosaic economy was administration of the covenant of grace, with him maintaining this robustly, just like the Westminster Confession of Faith tells him to, or the fellow who says yes, that may be true in some sense, but the Mosaic economy must also be understood as a recapitulation of the covenant of works? Who is the hot golawspeler now?

The Westminster Confession says that the administration under Moses was gracious, and that it was administration of the covenant of grace. So I take this (since me and the Westminster divines, we're like that), wrap it around my neck, and go walking down the road like a two-year-old with his chin up and his chest out.

This means, incidentally, that if there really were a law/gospel hermeneutic, then the Westminster Confession requires us to take everything from the pen of Moses as an example of the latter, not the former. We are confessionally bound to say that our hermeneutical approach to all of Moses must be that the text before us offers grace. But of course, a hermeneutic that says that each verse is both, because of that handy-dandy recapitulation business, is what theologians of another era would have called "hopelessly confused."

But regardless, some people want to say that this administration of grace is tightly woven in with a covenant of works, like a Scandanavian shield-maidens blonde braids, sheer law woven together with free grace, and there you go. What's so hard to understand about that? And, then, to crown all these discussions, the people who want to intertwine this two covenants, one of grace and the other of works, want to accuse me of coming up with some kind of mutant golawspel. Heh. And, as Paul might say, were he here, again I say heh.

To reiterate my view. For the regenerate heart, it is all grace, nothing but grace, grace from top to bottom. All God's words, all God's intentions, all God's promises. For the unregenerate, it is all demand, all law, all "do this and live." Now, who understands God and His Word rightly? And who distorts it? Correct, the regenerate man understands it all correctly. But God anticipates and uses the incorrect understanding, and He uses it to bring people to Himself. The Law works them over, and Christ saves them.

There are a couple other things that need to be addressed. Lane says this:

"On the one hand, there is no condemnation for the believer who is in Christ. On the other hand, outside of Christ he is still condemned. As Q 97 of the WLC specifically states, the first use of the law is common to the regenerate as well as to the unregenerate."

What kind of sense does this make? "On the one hand, there is no drowning for the one who has been hauled out of the pool by the lifeguard. On the other hand, back on the bottom of the pool, he is still drowning." One problem though -- he is no longer on the bottom of the pool. That is where this argument seems to fail, at least as I see it, though I could be wrong. The WCF application of the law this way to the believer makes sense only as a hypothetical. I know that if I were outside of Christ, if I were left to my own devices, I would be condemned. I was, by nature, an object of wrath, just like the rest. I was, before having been rescued, on the bottom of the pool. But I am not there now, and it is sheer unbelief to talk as though I were.

Lane wants me to respond to this, and I shall in a moment. But let's hear him out first:

"Let Doug respond to this argument (as a test case for one of the saving benefits) that so far has gone unanswered by any FV'er: 1. Forgiveness of sins requires the forgiveness of all sins. 2. Original sin is part of all sin. 3. Therefore the forgiveness of sins requires the forgiveness of original sin. The two are inseparable. 4. Forgiveness of original sin implies regeneration. 5. Therefore forgiveness of sins implies regeneration. 6. Therefore, anyone who has their sins forgiven is also regenerated. 7. Therefore, anyone who is not regenerated does not have their sins forgiven. 8. The non-decretally-elect are never regenerated. 9. Therefore the non-decretally-elect never have their sins forgiven, even temporarily. Thus, there are no temporary forgiveness benefits for the non-decretally-elect. They never have their sins forgiven in any sense of the word. What more important benefit is there of Christ's death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and enthronement than forgiveness?"

And I respond to it this way -- the reprobate covenant member is unforgiven. He does not have the root of the matter in him. He is a tare, not wheat. He is a cleaned-up pig, not a lamb. He is son of Belial and the devil too, not in that order. He is damned and going to hell. His baptism places greater covenantal condemnation on him, not lesser. The only kind of forgivenness he could possibly have is a forgiveness that is consistent with the common operations of the Spirit, whatever those are.

Last issue. Lane asks:

"The question that is still unanswered is this: how come the first paragraph seems to affirm the IAOC (which is more specific than imputation in general), while the second paragraph and the "Some Points of Intramural Disagreement" seems to disaffirm the IAOC? It feels a bit like doubletalk here."

The disconnect that Lane is struggling with is, I believe, this. I believe that it is fair to say that all FVers affirm the heart of imputation, and the substance of what is aimed at with the IAOC. Where we have our intramural disagreements and discussions is over the mechanisms by which this forensic reality might be accomplished. What we all agree on is that the mechanism is not God infusing righteousness into us, and then pronouncing that He finds that it has been infused to adequate levels.

Prefatory Address to King Francis I of France

The Appeal to "Custom" Against Truth (5)

1. Why does Calvin not wish to be bound by custom?

2. What is the alternative to completely despairing of human affairs?

3. What does the Lord do when many ages agree on a particular impiety?

Prefatory Address to King Francis I of France

Errors About the Nature of the Church (6)

1. According to Calvin, upon what is the Church's existence based?

2. What are the two claims about the Church that Rome makes?

3. According to Calvin, does the existence of the Church depend upon a particular outward form?

4. What are the two marks of the Church that Calvin gives here?

5. To what effect does Calvin quote Hilary against the outward pretensions of Rome?

6. How does Calvin answer the argument for the Church from "pomp" and influence?

The reading schedule for the Institutes is found here. Remember there are no assigned readings for the Lord's Day.

Our Lord was fond of a fortiori, "how much more" arguments. Not a sparrow falls to the ground apart from the will of the Father. That being the case, He urged, His disciples ought not to fret over whether they were going to be cared for.

We can reason the same way here, at this Table. The Lord feeds all His creatures, the Scriptures say. "He giveth to the beast his food, and  to the young ravens which cry" (Ps. 147:9). That being true, we ought not to worry about whether He will feed us. He clothes the lily of the field, and so why would He not clothe us? We are worth more than ten million lilies.

But let's take it a step beyond that. If God gives the beasts of the field their physical food, and if He gives us our daily bread, the why would He then neglect to offer us food for our souls, food to nourish the inner man?

The answer of course is that He does not neglect to offer us this food. He spreads the Table, and sends His Spirit out into the world to issue the invitation. Come, the Spirit says. But not only does the Spirit invite everyone to this rich meal, so does the Bride. The Spirit and the Bride both say, come.

We can say that the offer is frequently neglected by those who hear it. But we cannot say that the offer is neglected by the one who makes it, by the one who holds out His hands to a disobedient people.

The provision is here, and more than enough. The Lord has told us to preach the gospel to every creature, and to establish churches, centers of worship, in every part of the globe. When this is finally done, there will be a Table like this, within walking distance of every sinner in the world.

"Mom, you told me once that I didn't have to be friends with Susan, right?"

"Actually," her mother replied, "I told you that I would rather you not be friends with Susan. But basically, yes."

"Well, in the last couple weeks she has asked me to two different events. A get together at her place this week, and then to a skating party next weekend. I put her off, but I owe her an answer tomorrow."

"And you don't want to go, I take it."

"I am desperate to not go. And she is sure to ask me why . . . she is acting like she really wants to be friends."

"Well," her mother said, "it seems to me that you should tell her the reasons."

"Tell that the rest of her friends dress like skanks? That the movies they watch are foul? That her stepdad tries to flirt with me?"

"Yes, that's what I mean."

"But Dad told me once that I didn't owe anybody explanations for when I say no to things."

"That is right . . . you don't. But he was talking about people who would just want to argue with your reasons, and especially boys who would just try to get over them. From what you are saying, it seems like Susan is acting like she really cares what you think."

"I think you're right. But I am afraid that if I tell her straight out, she will just think I am being horrible, and self-righteous, and all the rest of it."

"In order to tell her the truth, you don't have to be unkind. And you might be surprised . . . she might be doing this in order to be able to talk to someone. She might see everything you do, and not know what to do."

"But what if she just gets mad?"

"That might happen. And, if it does, you have at least solved the problem presented by the invitations."

"You know, of course," her daughter said, "that being a teenager is no fun."

"Ha," her mother said.

Prefatory Address to King Francis I of France

Charges of Antogonists Refuted: Newness, Uncertainty, the Value of Miracles (3)

1. How does Calvin respond to the charge that the teaching of the Protestants is a novelty?

2. If it is new, in what way is it new?

3. In response to the charge that this teaching is uncertain or doubtful, how does Calvin turn the tables?

4. In what way did miracles confirm the Protestant teaching? In what way not?

5. How did Calvin respond to the miracles that were purported to have established the teaching of Rome?

Prefatory Address to King Francis I of France

Misleading Claim That the Church Fathers Oppose the Reformation Teaching (4)

1. If the contest between the forces of Reformation and those opposed to it were to be decided through an appeal to the church fathers alone, which way would it go?

2. Were the church fathers without fault in what they taught? And what did the Roman church do with those faults? What illustration does Calvin use to portray this?

3. Does Calvin sidestep the teaching of the fathers, or does he cite them to support his teaching?

4. If the fathers were alive in Calvin's day, what is the last thing they would suppose the "sophists" of Rome were discussing?

The Old Testament prophecies of the glories of the new covenant era teach us to look forward in faith to a stupendous pileup of grace at the culmination of human history. God's goodness to us has already been overwhelming, and much more is on the way.

But in order not to get tangled up in more confusions about the relationship between the Old Testament and New, we have to grasp three things about all this. First, we have to understand that the glory of the new covenant builds gradually and inexorably throughout the new covenant era. Second, we have to recognize that we do not know exactly when in the new covenant era we have been privileged to live. And third, we have to understand that this is promise, not law.

But before considering those things in turn, we should refresh ourselves (in both senses of that word) by looking at just a couple of the promises.

"And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: And they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more" (Is. 2:1-4).

"The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: And the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: For the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea. And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, Which shall stand for an ensign of the people; To it shall the Gentiles seek: And his rest shall be glorious" (Is. 11:6-10).

Just in passing, we know that these prophecies are about the new covenant era, and not, say, about life after the Second Coming, because the apostle Paul quotes this last section from Isaiah 11 in Romans, using it to justify his proclamation of the gospel to the Gentiles two thousand years ago. So we know that all this glory is for us -- but how?

The Bible teaches in multiple places and ways that the kingdom of God arrives quietly, silently, unobtrusively. It does not arrive like the 82nd Airborne, wham. The rock grows to become a mountain that fills the earth (Dan. 2:35). The mustard seed grows from a tiny beginning into a great plant (Matt. 13:31). The yeast works its way through the entire loaf gradually, slowly, and how did that happen (Matt. 13:33)? Who saw that coming?

And this means that the kind of person who could tell a difference between the old covenant era and new covenant era by reading the newspapers in 50 B.C. and 50 A.D. respectively is the kind of person of faith who, like Abraham, could already see the city whose maker and builder is God. The progress of the gospel is such that there will come a time when everyone will be able to see it all with our eyes, and read in the newspapers about how West Point has been turned into a plowshare manufacturing factory. But before that happy day, there have been many periods of new covenant history, surrounded by smoke and ruin, when it was most necessary to cling to these promises by means of an Abrahamic faith. The kingdom of God comes in a slow build. The kingdom of God is a pot on the stove coming to a full boil, and each bubble is a century.

Why is this important? If it is not understood, then there will be a tendency to poke the eschaton in the ribs and tell it to get a move on, which relates to the second point. Suppose for example that God has determined that the new covenant era will last for 25,000 years. Now, for the next phase of our thought experiment, suppose that He has determined that the time will be 2,500 years. In the first scenario, we are still part of the early church -- living as we do in the first eight percent of the whole shebang. But if we are in the year of Lord 2009, and the whole thing will be over just 491 years from now, and it ain't gonna be that long, it makes more sense for us to put the shoulder down and push a good deal harder. But we do not and cannot know which one it is.

A woman in her ninth month having contractions should be at least thinking about how she is going to push. But if a woman starts doing that halfway through the first trimester, she is fixing no problems and creating many.

Those who would immanentize the eschaton in a comparable way will make us suckers for every other utopian scheme, and they will do to us what utopians, dreamers, and sectarians consistently do, which is to create bloodbaths. Pacifism is a sectarian way of overrealizing our eschatology. The pacifist tells the woman that "if you are pregnant, you should be pushing," and it hard to imagine a more pernicious approach. There will come a time when the need to push will become obvious and, past a certain point, inevitable and beyond debate. Which leads to the third point.

We understand that a promise is fulfilled when it fulfilled. We are not to look at promises that have not yet manifested themselvesin fulfillment, turn them into a law, and then try to make them true. The promise is that our children will one day play with cobras, and not that we are in sin if we don't send them out to play with snakes this afternoon. When will we do this? Gloriously, we will do it when it safe to do. When will the wolf and lamb lie down together? When they both want to, that's when. This is promise, not law.

One of our natural temptations is that of turning indicatives into imperatives. God tells us what He is going to do, and so then we try to figure out ways to do it for Him. Whenever we act like this, we consistently gum it up.

So when will we shut down West Point and Annapolis, and study war no more? When the promise is given into our hand. It will happen when the defenders of keeping the academies open are embarrassed by the fact that we haven't had a war for three hundred years, and the best argument for continuing is that of not wanting to abandon the honored and sacred tradition of the Army/Navy football game.

Prefatory Address to King Francis I of France

Circumstances in Which the Book Was First Written (1)

1. What was Calvin's first intention in writing the first edition of the Institutes?

2. What made it necessary to expand the work so that it also became a defense to the king on behalf of the Protestants?

3. If a mere accusation is all that is necessary to convict someone of wrong-doing, then what is necessarily threatened with extinction?

4. What was the central slander directed against the Protestants?

5. If all the slanders were in fact true, what does Calvin allow to be just?

Prefatory Address to King Francis I of France

Plea for the Persecuted Evangelicals (2)

1. What is Calvin's attitude toward France, his native land?

2. Since it was not the king's idea, the persecution of the Protestants was the result of tyranny from what kind of individual?

3. What, according to Calvin, constitutes true kingship?

4. What were Calvin's adversaries unable to bear the thought of?

5. The persecutors insisted on maintaining at least one of two things. What were they?

69. God is a Warrior/Longman, Reid/really fine

70. The Easter Answer/Kingsley/quite good

71. Memory Mechanics/De Mar/good

"Dad, what is a parable anyhow?" the young fellow asked.

His father, who had fortunately read something about this just recently, answered him on this wise.

"Well, kid, let me tell you."

"Well, dad, tell me. That's why I asked."

"The word parable comes from two Greek words, which together mean to 'cast or throw alongside.' That help any?"

The young fellow, who was old enough to know that his father was in one of his moods, said no, why would it? Any particular reason why it should?

So his father cleared his throat and continued. "When you want to shed light on one situation, you throw another situation alongside it to help the understanding along."

"Oh. Like a metaphor."

"Yes, like a metaphor with a little more meat on the bones. But the same principle. Metaphors are condensed parables. Parables are extended metaphors. This is that. Or this is like that. A metaphor is like a similie, making it a similie, if you say it the other way, making it a metaphor. You know." His father trailed off.

"Is this kind of lesson the reason we gave up homeschooling?"

"Yes. No. Not exactly. But you have to hear me out . . ."

"Okay. Here am I."

"Jesus told a particular kind of parable, but there are many examples of other ways of throwing something alongside something else to make a point."

"Like what? Would Aesop's fables be pagan parables?"

"Yes. There are no examples of that particular sort of parable in Scripture, but those fit the general description of what a parable is and does. You are putting one story alongside another in order to make a point."

"So allegories are parables too?"
"Yep. Ask your mother. She'll back me on this."

"Right, but she always backs you. I think she thinks the Bible says she has to. So Jesus did not give us the only way to tell a parable?"

"Not at all, not at all." Here the father took down a book from the shelf, and flipped it open casually. "Here, let me give you some examples. Balaam called a vision of his a parable (Num. 23:7). Job called his poetic complaint a parable (Job 27:1). The psalmist calls the lyrics of his songs a parable (Ps. 49:4; 78:2). A proverb is a parable (Prov. 26:7, 9; Hab. 2:6). An allegorical riddle is a parable (Ez. 17:2). And of course, stories of judgment leveled against Israel were parables (Matt. 13:3)."

"So the moralistic story that our babysitter used to tell us about what happened to those unfortunate children who played in the traffic once, but only once, was a parable?"

"Yes. A heavy-handed parable perhaps. Not great art, certainly. But a story from one realm that made a point in another fits the description of a parable. And as I remember, it was quite an effective parable. Really did the trick. You kids wouldn't go near the sidewalk for years."

"So this story that we're in, is it a parable too?"

"Well, yes, after a fashion."

"Does it have a point, a moral? More importantly, does it have a conclusion? I am getting a little bit hungry."

"Yes, but it is not a point that can be readily derived from the contents of the parable. That has to be imported from outside context, like the one about the prodigal son being in exile like Israel."

"So what is it?"

"Martin Luther once said that he would rather be governed by a wiseacre Turk than by a foolish Christian. Or something like that, I am pretty sure that's the point . . . you can ask your mother about it at dinner."

This new year, 2009, marks the 500th anniversary of John Calvin's birth. This milestone is being marked in many different ways, by different institutions and organizations the world over. For just one example, over the course of this next year, New St. Andrews is planning a series of lectures on all things Calvin, and other institutions are doing the same kind of thing.

Princeton Seminary has taken the interesting step of publishing a reading program to take someone through Calvin's Institutes in the course of the year, a reading guide which can be found here. Now some critics might think this seems a little bit too much like a "devotional" reading for all those theological fanboys who have asked Calvin into their hearts. So, point taken, don't be like that.

At the same time, Lord willing, this I would like to publish a series of discussion questions or study questions that are in sync with and keep pace with the Princeton readings. And so, every day, I hope to post questions here to go with each section for that day. And the first questions are below.

John Calvin to the Reader (1559)

1. Did Calvin expect the first edition of the Institutes to be as successful as it was?

2. In what way did Calvin maintain that he had been maligned?

3. What was the basic purpose in ministerial preparation that Calvin had in mind for the Institutes?

4. In what way were his commentaries linked to the Institutes?

Subject Matter of the Present Work (1560)

1. Why did Calvin translate the Institutes into French?

2. What value did Calvin place on this work?

3. The reading of the Institutes was meant to be an introduction to the study of what?

4. What did Calvin want the reader of the Institutes to do in evaluating the teaching that was offered there?

In discussions of violence and the nature of God, one of the biggest issues before us is that of sorting out the relationship of the Old Testament to the New. Also, as it happens, sorting out that relationship is critical to a host of other issues as well -- from baptism to church government, from church government to sabbath keeping, from sabbath keeping to military service. Not only so, but as a general rule, the Church at large has not really done a superb job in understanding this relationship between the Mosaic administration and the reign of Christ. That means that many if not most of our controversies and perplexities go back to this one issue.

No Christian can say there is no difference between the covenants -- the whole point of being a Christian is to affirm that Christ's coming was the advent and promise of real glory, a coming that put everything that came before into the shade. That much should be a fixed given in all our discussions. But we still need direction; we still need to sort out what that glory actually means in a Christian era. In a Christian era, now that Christ has come, the glory far surpasses the glory that was. So much we know. But what does that glory look like exactly?

If someone died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses under the law of Moses (Heb. 10:28), how much more, the author of Hebrews urges, will certain offenses incur punishment under the new (Heb. 10:29-31)? So why do we tend to assume that while a murderer was executed without mercy under Moses, now that Christ has come, murderers will be reconciled to everyone in the world in one great Ophrified group hug? Might not the glory of the new covenant ethic mean that in a Christian republic a serial murderer will be caught faster, tried more justly, and hanged from a higher tree?

Our problem is that we glibly assume that we know what the greater glory of the new covenant means. But we need to establish these assumptions from the text of Scripture. Many years ago, I had an instructor at a secular university who was putting the class through its paces when it came to his application of a basic anabaptist catechism, although he didn't know that this is what he was doing. "The God of the Old Testament was basically a god of what, class?" "Wrath!" the answer was supposed to be. "The God of the New Testament is basically a god of what, class?" "Love!" was the expected chorus. Somewhere between Malachi and Matthew, somebody successfully got YHWH to start taking His meds. No more divine mood swings, and general indulgence for our sinful ways is supposed to now prevail.

But of course the Bible teaches nothing like this, not even close. The New is concealed in the Old, and the Old is revealed in the New, as Augustine taught us. But there is full and complete consistency between the two. When the New arrives, we should expect everything to ramp up, but it does so harmoniously. And this is just what we find.

This means that the mercy and lovingkindness that is typified and foreshadowed throughout the Old comes to a full and everlasting fruition in the New. In the same way, the violence throughout the Old that typifies and foreshadows the ultimate violence of everlasting hellfire is, comparatively, chump change violence. "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire" (Jude 7).

All ye residents of the new covenant era! Look at Sodom, and look at Gomorrha, and do what? Anyone who who looks at texts like this and concludes that we should be glad that this kind of thing can't happen anymore is someone who simply is not paying attention. In the Old, the mercies are smaller, although they are true mercies. In the Old, the judgments are smaller, although they are true judgments. The terrifying doctrine of eternal judgment that Jesus taught means that if we make comparisons, as we should, the God of the New Testament is more violent than the God of the Old. Of course, we are talking about the same God -- if we are faithful believers -- but He is a God who revealed Himself progressively throughout the centuries. But this progressive revelation does not mean that He reveals one part of Himself in the Old, and completely different part of Himself in the New. No, He reveals every aspect of His being in the Old, although no completely, and much more of every aspect of His nature in the New, although even now not completely. We still look through a glass darkly, and when Christ comes again, we will know even as we have been known. But at every stage of this self-revelation, God is giving us every aspect of Himself.

So He did not reveal the unity of His being in the Old, and His threeness in the New. He did not reveal His wrath in the Old, and His mercy in the New. He did not reveal His law in the Old, and His grace in the New. Persistence in believing nonsense like this is at the root of many of our doctrainal troubles.

The doctrine of the Trinity is plainly taught throughout the Old Testament, although the full glory of Trinitarian revelation had to wait for Christ to come. The Old Testament is no more Unitarian, even comparatively, than it is comparatively "polytheistic." The implicit glory of Trinitarianism is not Unitarianism. The revelation of God's wrath and His mercy in the Old Testament is overshadowed by the full revelation of His wrath and mercy in the New. It is overshadowed, not contradicted. Everything we see about God in the Old Testament grows to maturity in the New.

The destruction of the cities of the plain occurred in the first book of the Bible. By the time we get to the last book of the Bible, is the violence all gone away, in quiet deference to our sentimentalist sensibilities? Not even close -- it is here we learn about the lake of fire. And keep in mind that this is a lake that can hold the devil and all his angels, and multitudes of godless empires, not to mention all the claptrap ever written about the wrathful "God of the Old Testament."

Green Baggins continues our discussion, for which I am grateful. This installment, at least from me, will not be very long. Just a few comments. First, the FV statement on "Union with Christ and Imputation" does affirm the central Protestant view of imputation, as opposed to justification by infusion. The second part of the statement distances us as a group only from "particular doctrinal formulations" of that doctrine. Some of us, like me, are comfortable with those formulations, while others, as we point out in the section on intramural disagreements, don't want to affirm that doctrine "in its classic form." But we all actually do affirm the doctrine in one form or another. We don't affirm the infusionist view.

On "union," the word refers both to salvific union, only for those with true evangelical faith, and covenant union, for those who merely belong to the visible church.

And last, I thank Lane for answering my questions about signs and seals. I think we are pretty close there. I do believe that condemnation is sealed for those who do not believe, but I also want to say that the salvation sealed in the seal is only for the elect. The cup of blessing is a curse for those who don't believe, but the intent of the cup of blessing, obviously, is to be a blessing.

Nancy posted this picture of our wedding on her blog, along with an account of the proceedings. This was thirty-three years ago today, and I continue to be as grateful as a man is allowed to get. I got married at the tender age of 22, and have been married, therefore, for sixty percent of my life, which is the way it ought to be. I am diligently working on 75 percent, and when I get there all the current trends indicate that I will be even more pleased with the arrangement than ever.