Cynic

working on my end of the discussion

I was gonna try to get the graffiti off the walls.... someone painted "Wright sucks" there in a solemn font, but I think I'll just leave it there.

To further define my original post, which seemed clear enough to me, and still does, here's my idea for a thread:

Reading is good for learning. I'd like to propose a novel concept: read the article, and see if you can understand what the author is saying. Really. Then agree/disagree/discuss.

I'll probably do what I damn well please.

By the way,

What N. T. Wright is promoting is referred to as the "New Perspective on Paul,” or, in deference to variations that exist among NPP proponents, as one of the “New Perspectives on Paul.”

I don’t have time to get into a conversation in here, but N. T. Wright’s influence (an influence that was possibly somewhat indirect through my former pastor’s friendship and theological involvement with a fellow named John Armstrong) was one of the factors that led to my decision to depart from a church I formerly attended.

A somewhat robust (and critical) critique of N. T. Wright’s teachings appears at http://www.opc.org/GA/justification.pdf (you can use the “find” feature in Adobe Reader to search for the word Wright, and note particularly the critique that appears in pages 47-55).

Also, there are numerous Wright-related links (pro and con) at http://www.thepaulpage.com , whose webmaster I take for some fellow-traveler of Anthony Buzzard.

What is N. T. Wright about? I don’t have time to do the rereading and honing necessary (I have read a bit both by Wright and about Wright) to produce much of a critique, but in short, IIRC:

1. Wright redefines Pauline references to the “righteousness of God” as God’s covenantal faithfulness;

2. Wright denies that the righteousness of the Christian is constituted in Christ’s active obedience being imputed to the Christian;

3. Wright is not a flaming Christ-denier, and carries himself rather well when he’s set off against some rankly unbelieving Jesus Seminar-type.

4. Wright has (unfortunately) gained a degree of influence in Reformed circles, which, according to Peter Lillback, have historically been prone here and there to neo-nomianism (a form of works-righteousness), similarly as Lutheranism has in places and times experienced some antinomian tendencies.

In my solemn opinion, if the teaching of a purportedly Reformed church does not unequivocally recognize that the active obedience of Christ is imputed to the Christian (constituting the Christian’s positive righteousness) as well as affirming that Christ’s suffering on the cross made satisfaction for the wrath of God due the Christian for the Christian’s sin, that church should be deemed doctrinally suspect by others in the Reformed community.

---------------------

"N. T. Wright rejects the imputation of active obedience on the grounds that 'it gives the impression of a legal transaction, a cold piece of business, almost a trick of thought performed by a God who is logical and correct but hardly one we would want to worship'" - R. Scott Clark, Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry, pg. 241.

Disclaimer: I never heard my former pastor deny or question that justification involves the imputation of Christ's active obedience. My problem was that his friend and theological buddy was questioning it, and that imputed righteousness ceased to be preached, while a conditional eschatological justification came to be stressed from the pulpit.

P.S. To add to the above -- If free-will does not exist then you can't judge someone who chooses not to believe in God. Such a person had no choice because God had preordained that such a man would not believe.

That is the basis for the objection against unconditional election that is anticipated by Paul in Romans 9:19 and dismissed (without any philosophical explanation) in Romans 9:20-21.

(see http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...ion=8;49;47;15; )

The following is excerpted from The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination by Lorrain Boettner.

[From http://www.lgmarshall.org/Boettner/boettner_rdp17.html ]

A further important proof that Paul taught the doctrine which Calvinists have understood him to teach is found in the objections which he put in the mouths of his opponents, that it represented God as unrighteous: "Is there unrighteousness with God?" Rom. 9:14; and, that it destroyed man's responsibility: "Thou wilt then say unto me, Why doth He still find fault? For who withistandeth His will?" Rom. 9:19. These are the very objections which today, on first thought, spring into men's minds, in opposition to the Calvinistic doctrine of Predestination; but they have not even the least plausibility when directed against the Arminian doctrine. A doctrine which does not afford the least grounds for these objections cannot have been the one that the Apostle taught.

Reformed resources:

Boettner’s Reformed Doctrine of Predestination is online at several sites (see http://www.lgmarshall.org/Boettner/boettner_rdp00.html )

A rather comprehensive site for Reformed theological resources is http://www.monergism.com .

I came across http://www.lgmarshall.org/authorindex.html this evening. Its author list and resource links are impressive.

For a discussion about the tension between God’s unconditional predestination of only the elect to salvation and God’s desire that all men be saved, see John Piper’s “Are There Two Wills in God? (Divine Election and God’s Desire for All to Be Saved) at http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary...o_Wills_in_God/ . Piper shows that Scripture indicates God wills some things in one way that he does not will in another way.

Note to Sunesis:

In addition to Geer, both John Schoenheit and John Lynn (I don’t know about the other fellow) have promoted a claim that God lacks complete foreknowledge.

Note to all:

I have several commitments that will be increasingly demanding of my thoughts and time, and I probably will not (after this post) be involved in discussions at GSC for a while.

... then you should have no trouble giving a successful rebuttal to the valid (and documented) points I or Sky4it raised that challenge Calvin; the man or his theology.

Note I said successful. Ie., infantile ad hominum derisions about heretics or remarks that involve skinning dogs is not going to cut it.

What a HYPOCRITE!

By the way, where sky4it's "points " have involved something other than fanciful allegations, I do not remember them constituting something more than assertions based on the dictionary definition of perseverance and the supposed licentious outcome of sovereign grace theology.

What a rabid and blindly raging little hack!

Cynic,

Yes, it is noteworthy, isn't it? Very observant, young grasshopper.

When you have a deity blatantly illustrated such as Calvin portrays? ... Uhh yeah, I would have contempt for such a critter. Kinda like my equal contempt for the deity portrayed by the 9-11 terrorists.

Well then, you are correct. ... I would find it worse.

Actually, it portrays a good deal about the applied side of the particular theology of people like Calvin (as Sky4it aptly illustrated earlier), particularly in relation to how cruel he behaved towards others of a different religious view. Ie., it shows about the same type of cruelty as skinning the aforementioned dog. Therefore I wouldn't find it that much of a stretch to believe that Calvin would do such a despicable action towards our 4 legged friend. (I mean, the Bible in the OT does use the term 'dog' often in derogaratory terms.)

I kinda have to wonder if he didn't insist on the city of Geneva setting up and enforcing a 'No pets' regulation, complete with dire consequences for the violators thereof. ... Perhaps a further search of the internet would be more informative. ;)

Ahhh, the wonders of the 'Net. :B)

Garth,

I have debated atheists and heretics here and on IRC, and you are the most unprincipled and shameless fellow I have come across, and I have well-exposed you in the past for lying and chucking blood libel.

YOU PROBABLY KNOW DAMNED WELL WHAT THE TONGUE-IN-CHEEK COMMENT ABOUT THE DOG WAS ABOUT, AND ARE MALEVOLENTLY DISTORTING IT.

P_I_S_S OFF, PUNK!

Sky,

You mentioned that you are Lutheran. As I understand it, Luther and Lutheranism view a few things differently. I’m not a big fan of Luther or Lutheranism (due to some Christological issues), but Luther probably asserted at least as high a view of God’s sovereignty as Calvin did. Luther wrote his famous The Bondage of the Will in response to the Dutch humanist Erasmus’s Diatribe on Free Will, and even embraced “double predestination,” which Luther accepted as the teaching of Scripture, despite referring to reprobation as “the horrible decree.”

Historical Reformed theology (aka: Calvinism) does not make justification (i.e. being declared righteous) contingent upon obedience, though there are some Reformed folks involved in the Federal Vision movement who possibly do so. Reformed theology (at least the historic Presbyterian version of it) holds that faith alone is the instrument of justification, but that real faith is not a faith which is alone, but a faith that is accompanied by repentance and, ultimately, by sanctification. Another way of saying this perhaps is that although a man is not saved by works, a man is not saved without works. A central point in the Reformed view is Scripture's covenantal promise that God will put his laws into the hearts and minds of his people. It is God who originates and completes the salvation of his people. Those who are saved by God become keepers of his laws and observers of his will because God has worked and continues to work in them to make them that way (see Hebrews 8:10).

P. S.

Up to the point of your previous post, your contempt for Calvin and his (sovereign grace) theology seems to have expressed itself concerning election, predestination, and perseverance. It seems rather odd you seem to be somewhat involving contempt for Calvin’s entangling of church and state in a call for me to reexamine my opinion about Calvin’s theology. An aversion to theonomy (there are some Reformed folks who are possibly more extreme theonomists than Calvin was) is not going to spill over to my views on sovereign grace. There is no necessary connection between Calvin’s views on the role of the state and Calvin’s views on sovereign grace.

And, although I have not studied Calvin’s writings to any significant extent, I figure I know a good bit more about Calvin, about Calvinism(s), about sovereign grace soteriology, and about the underpinnings of theonomic thought than you or Garth do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Bondage_of_the_Will

Update: Cynic's latest post also helps illustrate the kind of man Calvin was, and the theology that Cynic undyingly believes in, ... and the emptiness thereof. ... I mean, if that's the best he can come back with to successfully dispute the challenges to Calvinism posted earlier, ..... ((snickers)).

Yah! Right!

P.S., Cynic, you're losing it, man. I treat dogs a helluva lot better than that. Apparently you're projecting yourself onto me, ... which makes me wonder how staunch Reformed Church members treat their pets. :unsure:

Garth,

The metaphor was that you would find being mistaken for me worse than finding your dog skinned. It did not involve a suggestion about your treatment of canines, and it reveals nothing about theology or about Calvin.

Though I haven’t studied Calvin’s own writings to any significant extent, I expect his views on statecraft were somewhat intensely theonomic .

It is noteworthy, however, that, in citing a quote about Calvin’s high view of God along with a quote about Calvin’s view of the role of the state as something indicating that Calvin was “sick!,” Garth displays as much contempt for the biblical notion of God’s sovereignty over his creatures as he does for the church exercising influence over the sword of the state.

cynic:

I missed your SN above and thought it was Garth's (Arghhhh)

Sky,

I’m in a good mood. I'm not upset at your mistaking me for Garth.

The bad news, however, is that making such a mistake is doing something worse to Garth than making a belt and a pair of shorts out of the carcass of his dog. Garth’s uncle, Guido, is possibly heading your way.

Sky4it,

Is "horseshead" your sock puppet?

By the way,

I missed the free “Unconditonal ceremony” involving a “night of total depravity” that you say is held for initiated Calvinists that perform the “trick”.

I need to find some 32nd degree Calvinist I can talk to about this. I WAS ROBBED!!!

Cynic, thanks for pointing out the link between the Isaiah citation and the one in John. That's pretty nifty.

Evan,

I should give credit. The wording of my post is completely my own, but I came across the John/Isaiah comparison in White’s book, The Forgotten Trinity.

I’m unsure when I’ll now have time for significant posting between some conditioning and coursework requirements, but my restraint feature is now turned off with respect to this little fellow.

Abigail,

Anthony Buzzard tried to push a Masoretic markup of Psalm 110:1 as Scripture in what appears to be an attempt to come up with something that might contraindicate the deity of Christ. White and his caller effectively refuted Buzzard’s claim that there is an inferior alternative to the word Adonai used in Psalm 110:1 to refer to Christ.

As for your question:

I’m no Hebrew or Greek scholar, but remember reading that the use of the word Adonai is not restricted to God. The use of divine name, Yahweh, however, is another matter. Granted, that divine name is not used in Psalm 110:1 to refer to Christ.

Following, however, is Isaiah 6:1-10 from the American Standard Version of the Bible (ASV).

1In the year that king Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and his train filled the temple. 2Above him stood the seraphim: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. 3And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is Jehovah of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory. 4And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke. 5Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, Jehovah of hosts. 6Then flew one of the seraphim unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar: 7and he touched my mouth with it, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips; and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin forgiven. 8And I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then I said, Here am I; send me. 9And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. 10Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they sea [sic]with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn again, and be healed.

Pay particular attention to Isaiah’s claim to have seen one whom Isaiah identifies as “Jehovah of hosts.” (I am quoting from the ASV because it uses the name Jehovah where textually indicated).

The apostle John identifies the one whom Isaiah saw as Christ. Following is John 12:37-41

37But though he had done so many signs before them, yet they believed not on him: 38 that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? And to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? 39For this cause they could not believe, for that Isaiah said again, 40He hath blinded their eyes, and he hardened their heart; Lest they should see with their eyes, and perceive with their heart, And should turn, And I should heal them. 41These things said Isaiah, because he saw his glory; and he spake of him.

John, in part, is referring to Isaiah 53:1, which he quotes. John also, however, is referring to Isaiah 6:10, which he also quotes. Isaiah identifies who he saw in the Chapter 6 vision as Jehovah of hosts. John connects what is said in that vision to the glory seen in that vision, and reports it as Isaiah's seeing of Christ’s glory. A comparison of Isaiah 6 and John 12 shows apostolic recognition of Christ as Jehovah of Isaiah's vision. Identification of Christ by the single divine name is utterly compelling indication that he is fully God.

I am bumping this thread to the top. The subject audio segment is now accessible at http://www.aomin.org/ra/dl012406.ram . The segment is located approximately from 8:13 through 30:09 in the webcast.

And look up the definition of gregarious. I think you might mean egregious.

Sky also needs to look up the definition of buggery -- especially before again posting about having it in himself.

(It doesn't mean irritation or anger.)

Does God want gratitude from a willing sinner? ( I speak only if you mean sin caused the guilt) Well thats pretty clear in this passage: Hebrews 10:26 "For if we sin willfully after that we have recieved a knowledge of the truth there remainth no more sacrifice for sins" and the punishment for the "willful person" Hebrews 10:29 YOU WANT TO SEE HOW BARBARIC CALVINISTIC THOUGHT IS?

They dont like that one, it takes the steering wheel out of there car. So what do they do? They say man doesnt have a free will on the topic. They degrade "the will" to degrade the message of the bible.

Typical of sky4it's posts: Petulant but unsubstantiated accusations.

Some more of Calvin's views in his own words:

Further, that repentance is a singular gift of God I believe to be so clear from the above teaching that there is no need of a long discourse to explain

it. Accordingly, the church praises God’s benefit, and marvels that he “granted repentance to the Gentiles unto salvation” (Acts 11:18, cf. 2 Corinthians 7:10). And Paul bids Timothy be forbearing and gentle toward unbelievers: If at any time, he says, God may give them repentance to recover from the snares of the devil (2 Timothy 2:25-26). Indeed, God declares that he wills the conversion of all, and he directs exhortations to all in common. Yet the efficacy of this depends upon the

Spirit of regeneration. For it would be easier for us to create men than for us of our own power to put on a more excellent nature. Accordingly, in the

whole course of regeneration, we are with good reason called “God’s handiwork, created… for good works, which God prepared beforehand,

that we should walk in them” (Ephesians 2:10, cf. Vg.). Whomsoever God wills to snatch from death, he quickens by the Spirit of

regeneration. Not that repentance, properly speaking, is the cause of salvation, but because it is already seen to be inseparable from faith and

from God’s mercy, when, as Isaiah testifies, “a redeemer will come to Zion, and to those in Jacob who turn back from iniquity” (Isaiah

59:20).

This fact indeed stands firm: wherever the fear of God flourishes, the Spirit has worked toward the salvation of man. Therefore, believers,

according to Isaiah, while they complain and grieve that they have been forsaken by God, set this as a sort of sign of reprobation, that their hearts

have been hardened by him (Isaiah 63:17). The apostle, also wishing to exclude apostates from the hope of salvation, gives the reason

that “it is impossible to restore them to repentance” (Hebrews 6:4-6 p.). For obviously God, renewing those he wills not to perish, shows the

sign of his fatherly favor and, so to speak, draws them to himself with the rays of his calm and joyous countenance. On the other hand, he hardens

and he thunders against the reprobate, whose impiety is unforgivable.

With this sort of vengeance the apostle threatens willful apostates who, while they fall away from faith in the gospel, mock God, scornfully

despise his grace, profane and trample Christ’s blood (Hebrews 10:29), yea, as much as it lies in their power, crucify him again

(Hebrews 6:6). For Paul does not, as certain austere folk would preposterously have it, cut off hope of pardon from all voluntary sins.

But he teaches that apostasy deserves no excuse, so that it is no wonder God avenges such sacrilegious contempt of himself with inexorable rigor.

“For,” he teaches, “it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, have

become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, since

they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt.” (Hebrews 6:4-6.) Another passage: “If we sin

willfully,” he says, “after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there remains no longer a sacrifice for sins, but a certain dreadful expectation of

judgment,” etc. (Hebrews 10:26).

These are, also, the passages from the wrong understanding of which the Novatianists long ago found occasion for their ravings. Offended by the

harshness in these passages, certain good men believed this to be a spurious letter, even though in every part it breathes an apostolic

spirit. But since we are contending only against those who accept this letter, it is easy to show how these statements do not at all support their

error. First, it is necessary for the apostle to agree with his Master, who declares that “every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven…but the sin

against the Holy Spirit,” which is forgiven “neither in this age nor in the age to come” (Matthew 12:31-32; Mark 3:28-29; Luke 12:10). It is certain, I say, that the apostle was content with this exception, unless we would make him an opponent of the grace of Christ. From this it follows that pardon is not denied to any individual

sins except one, which, arising out of desperate madness, cannot be ascribed to weakness, and clearly demonstrates that a man is possessed by the devil.

Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 3, Chapter 3, Section 21

Following are some statements by Calvin by which readers in this forum can assess sky4it’s characterization of Calvin’s views.

To prove the first point—that God justifies not only by pardoning but by

regenerating—he [Osiander]asks whether God leaves as they were by nature those

whom he justifies, changing none of their vices. This is exceedingly easy to

answer: as Christ cannot be tom into parts, so these two which we

perceive in him together and conjointly are inseparable—namely,

righteousness and sanctification. Whomever, therefore, God receives into

grace, on them he at the same time bestows the spirit of adoption

(Romans 8:15), by whose power he remakes them to his own

image. But if the brightness of the sun cannot be separated from its heat,

shall we therefore say that the earth is warmed by its light, or lighted by

its heat? Is there anything more applicable to the present matter than this

comparison? The sun, by its heat, quickens and fructifies the earth, by its

beams brightens and illumines it. Here is a mutual and indivisible

connection. Yet reason itself forbids us to transfer the peculiar qualities of

the one to the other. In this confusion of the two kinds of grace that

Osiander forces upon us there is a like absurdity. For since God, for the preservation of righteousness, renews those whom he freely reckons as righteous, Osiander mixes that gift of regeneration with this free acceptance and contends that they are one and the same. Yet Scripture, even though it joins them, still lists them separately in order that God’s

manifold grace may better appear to us. For Paul’s statement is not redundant: that Christ was given to us for our righteousness and sanctification (1 Corinthians 1:30). And whenever he reasons—from the salvation purchased for us, from God’s fatherly love, and from Christs grace—that we are called to holiness and cleanness, he clearly

indicates that to be justified means something different from being made

new creatures.

Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 3, Chapter 11, Section 6 (Battles Translation)

Calvin’s main point is that justification (imputed righteousness) and sanctification (in the sense of experiential righteousness) are distinct but inseparable.

I forbear to say what sort of zealots for good works they are who thus

carp at us. Let them rail with impunity even as they wantonly infect the

whole world with their own foul lives! They pretend to be grieved that,

when faith is so gloriously extolled, works are degraded. What if, rather,

these were encouraged and strengthened? For we dream neither of a faith

devoid of good works nor of a justification that stands without them. This

alone is of importance: having admitted that faith and good works must

cleave together, we still lodge justification in faith, not in works. We have a

ready explanation for doing this, provided we turn to Christ to whom our

faith is directed and from whom it receives its full strength.

Why, then, are we justified by faith? Because by faith we grasp Christ’s

righteousness, by which alone we are reconciled to God. Yet you could not

grasp this without at the same time grasping sanctification also. For he

“is given unto us for righteousness, wisdom, sanctification, and redemption” (1 Corinthians 1:30). Therefore Christ justifies no one whom he does not at the same time sanctify. These benefits are joined together by an everlasting and indissoluble bond, so that those whom he illumines by his wisdom, he redeems; those whom he redeems, he justifies; those whom he justifies, he sanctifies.

But, since the question concerns only righteousness and sanctification, let us dwell upon these. Although we may distinguish them, Christ contains both of them inseparably in himself. Do you wish, then, to attain righteousness in Christ? You must first possess Christ; but you cannot possess him without being made partaker in his sanctification, because he cannot be divided into pieces (1 Corinthians 1:13). Since, therefore,

it is solely by expending himself that the Lord gives us these benefits to enjoy, he bestows both of them at the same time, the one never without the other. Thus it is clear how true it is that we are justified not without works yet not through works, since in our sharing in Christ, which justifies us, sanctification is just as much included as righteousness.

Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 3, Chapter 16, Section 1

sky4it:

You seem to despise the Calvinistic teaching that God’s predestining of his elect to salvation is wholly without respect to foresight of faith. You despise that it is said by us Calvinists that it is God, not men, who is sovereign over the salvation and faith of all men. What you rail against, however, is not something of our contrivance. You rail against the testimony of Scripture

Scripture (Acts 13:48) indicates the Gentiles of Antioch of Pisidia who believed Paul and Barnabas’s preaching were those who had been ordained to eternal life. Scripture -- unapologetically -- declares (Romans 9 ) that God has mercy on whom he will, that God hardens whom he will, that God has a right within himself to take one person out of humanity for a vessel unto honor and another out of the same humanity for a vessel unto dishonor. There is a general call to faith in the declaration of the Gospel, but it is those whom God has appointed to be recipients of his mercy who receive and respond in faith.

You falsely accuse Calvin of pitting election against faith, yet the doctrine of unconditional election holds faith as something brought about (through effectual calling) in those God has appointed to life. It is you, not Calvin, who has pitted election and faith against one other.

I had come across free audio course lectures from Reformed Theological Seminary shortly before finding this thread. I don’t own an iPod, and I’m not wild about having to use iTunes to access files, but I did manage, after downloading a few files through iTunes, to copy and paste them into a folder from which they would upload to my Creative Labs audio player.

RTS ( http://www.rts.edu ) has put up an impressive offering (e.g. Old Testament, New Testament, Systematic Theology, an overview of the history of philosophy by John Frame) of free lectures, as Covenant Theological Seminary ( http://www.covenantseminary.edu ) has been doing (without going through iTunes) for some time. Now, if only Westminster Theological Seminary ( http://wts.edu , http://www.wscal.edu ) would follow suit.

Recommendations for ex-Wayfers:

The Pilgrim’s Progress, by John Bunyan

The Belgic Confession of Faith

http://www.prca.org/bc_index.html

The Westminster Confession of Faith

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm

The London Baptist Confession of 1689

http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc00.html

(Note: The LBC seems largely to have incorporated the WCF, but, IMO, the LBC section on the Trinity is notably more articulate.)

The Moody Handbook of Theology, Paul Enns

Other worthwhile reading:

The Forgotten Trinity by James R. White

The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination by Lorraine Boettner

Redemption Accomplished and Applied by John Murray

Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments by Geerhardus Vos

The Pauline Eschatology by Geerhardus Vos

Christianity and Liberalism by J. Gresham Machen

Apologetics to the Glory of God by John M. Frame

Counted Righteous in Christ: Should We Abandon the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness by John Piper

Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry: Essays by the Faulty of Westminster Seminary California edited by R. Scott Clark

(The last two books might be particularly useful for folks who have been playing around with the likes of N. T. Wright, the New Perspective on Paul, and/or the Federal Vision.)

For what it’s worth:

http://reports.internic.net/cgi/whois?whoi...amp;type=domain

http://www.geocities.com/grace_research_fe...p/akribos2.html

Disclaimer: I just came across the Geocities site, and have not adequately assessed its content.

Sometimes the baby is worse than the bathwater.

Happy Birthday, BB!