Items tagged westminster

Bruce Waltke on Righteousness in Proverbs

Sat, 15 Mar 2008 09:29:30 GMT

Bruce Waltke was recently at Westminster and he gave the chapel message. Here's the link to the audio. Also they recently had a forum on social justice. Here's a link to the archive where you'll find the MP3s from the...

Westminster Assembly Project

Sun, 02 Mar 2008 06:02:32 GMT

Website worth your time:

Westminster Assembly Project

The Westminster Assembly Project exists to make the writings of the Westminster Assembly and its members available to scholars and to the general public. It is the umbrella title for several subprojects, one of which seeks to publish the minutes and papers of the Westminster Assembly. We hope that as this site develops it will prove useful for researchers focusing on Puritanism, the English civil-war, post-Reformation theology, or the history of Presbyterianism and Congregationalism.

Westminster Shorter Catechism Project

Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:25:51 GMT

James Grant passed along a link to a site that looks very helpful: The Westminster Shorter Catechism Project.

It includes the catechism, along with links to works and commentary by John Flavel, Thomas Watson, Thomas Boston, James Fisher, John Whitecross, and others.

Save Our Seminary?

Sun, 27 Jan 2008 08:14:59 GMT

Posted by Lane Keister

It is difficult for me to write concerning my alma mater at a time like this. In so writing, I do not wish to steal the thunder from Gary Johnson, who will be writing shortly on the particulars of this website. Instead, consider this post as a shot across the bow, as a preparatory post, a prelude. I have many friends among the students who have signed this document, and I count Enns, Kelly, Green, and Taylor my friends. I count them as brothers in Christ certainly.

My question for the folks who have signed this document is this: what do you suppose is the motivation behind those faculty members who have been disturbed by Enns’s book? If all one read was the website referenced above, one would think that anyone concerned about some of the things in Enns’s book was a witch-hunter. The website advocates that the seminary be saved from such faculty. That is not explicit in the text of the document, which does not name names. However, the “villains” have been clearly identified for anyone who has ears to hear.

Let me say right here and now that I will put my entire reputation, integrity, and everything else on the line and vouch for the faculty that those who have concerns about Enns’s book have them because they want a confessional seminary. And, I would add, anyone who wishes to suggest that a confessional seminary cannot be creative needs to go jump in the lake. Would anyone accuse Gaffin and Poythress, for instance, of being uncreative? Look at their writings. And some, I suppose, might accuse them of being non-confessional. I would not, and would contest anyone who would.

I do not wish to sound like I know better. But let me say this: if three entire departments told me that I had said something wrong in my book, I would hope (I have an ego, too, so I don’t know for sure) that I might reconsider what I said in the book. Proverbs 9:8 is very important here: “Do not reprove a scoffer, for he will hate you. Rebuke a wise man, for he will love you.” I do not regard Enns as a scoffer, mind you. I was primarily thinking of the last half of the verse. Enns has a lot of wisdom. I am the better for his wisdom. So, as a wise man, he should be humble. The fear of the Lord and great humility are some of the signal marks of wisdom. I can well imagine that the prospect of rejecting some of one’s published writings would make one think that he has been humiliated, attacked, etc. His own precious infant had been attacked. That’s probably how I would feel. So, I can imagine that the thought of any kind of recantation is hateful to him. So, in asking him to reconsider his book, I know that I am not asking of him something easy. It is terribly difficult to admit error, especially if one has a Ph.D. from Harvard. Nor do I ask him to recant everything in the book. I found many helpful things in the book. The Christological implications of the incarnational analogy in the form that he presents are what trouble me. Let him not think that the faculty hates him. Let him rather think that this discipline is actually part of love. If I were going astray, I would hope that my fellow presbyters would corral me back into the fold. I would love them for it. Otherwise am I an illegitimate child, and no true son of the King.

I will say one more thing. I had lunch with Enns once. It was a very enjoyable experience. We talked about creativity. I told the story about my music composition professor in college who told me that boundaries spur creativity far more than the lack thereof. If I were to sit down and say, “I’m going to write a piece of music,” I would be absolutely stymied. I have no conception of what I could do. But if I say, “I’m going to write a theme and variations for organ pedal solo” (which I did), the piece practically leaped out of me. The question then became: what can I do within those boundaries? The more rigid the boundaries (and feet are a bit rigid!), the more creative I became. The analogy here is this: one does not find truly biblical creativity by escaping the boundaries of confessional orthodoxy. The boundaries establish the prerequisites for creativity. Modern theology needs to recover this insight, or the entire theological enterprise is completely and utterly doomed.

Westminster Preaching Conference

Thu, 08 Nov 2007 01:41:40 GMT

The audio for the 2007 Westminster Theological Seminary Preaching Conference has just been posted.

An Exposition of a Biblical Narrative
Dr. Dan Doriani
Tuesday, October 23, 7:30 PM
The Theory and Practice of Preaching Biblical Narrative
Dr. Dan Doriani
Wednesday, October 24, 9:00 AM
The Preacher’s Story and the Quest for Godliness
Dr. Dan Doriani
Wednesday, October 24, 10:30 AM
Princeton Portrait - Archibald Alexander
Dr. James Garretson
Wednesday, October 24, 3:30 PM
What Do You Preach The Day After the King Is Executed?
Dr. Carl Trueman
Wednesday, October 24, 2:00 PM
Narrative Preaching
Dr. Tuck Bartholomew
Wednesday, October 24, 2:00 PM
Beyond the Sacred Page: When The Story Doesn’t Quite Say What You Wish
Dr. Dan Doriani
Wednesday, October 24, 10:30 AM
They also point to Dr. Doriani’s Putting the Truth to Work: The Theory and Practice of Biblical Application.

Doriani at Westminster

Fri, 26 Oct 2007 04:05:37 GMT

New Testament scholar and Bible teacher Dan Doriani was here in Philadelphia this week for Westminster Seminary's annual preaching conference. Dr. Doriani, who serves as Senior Minister at Central Presbyterian Church in St. Louis, makes a major contribution to the Reformed Expository Commentary as New Testament Editor.

I was able to make it over for only of his lectures, but it was well worth it. His thesis was that a quest for godliness will make someone a better interpreter of Scripture, that exegesis is a matter of the heart as well as the mind.

The talk included several memorable lines. Dr. Doriani quoted R. L. Dabney to the effect that "Eloquence may dazzle and please, but holiness convinces." He also observed that a preacher is like "a cardiologist with a heart murmur." That is to say, the fallen condition that he helps to diagnose and treat in his ministry of the word also describes his own spiritual conditin.

New Westminster Seminary California Podcast!

Thu, 18 Oct 2007 09:05:14 GMT

WSC is now podcasting our morning chapel messages on iTunes.

Here is what Matt Haeck (WSC student and employee) says:

Members of the faculty and guest pastors preach for about 20-30 minutes twice a week, bringing the Word of God to the WSC community in a way that is very applicable and exemplary to students of the Word.
Typically Tuesday morning devotions are brought by Dr. Hywel Jones, a Welshman whose passionately Gospel-centered preaching is sure to stir up faith in and affection for Christ in any true believer. Dr. Jones has had a faithful and distinguished Gospel ministry and served in the past as assistant to the late D. Martin Lloyd-Jones. This semester he is preaching a series on "Our Lord's Sayings from the Cross."
Thursday morning devotions are given by a different faculty member each week and are very helpful as they preach Christ from all the Scriptures. This semester the faculty is preaching through 1 & 2 Kings.

There will be a direct link early next week on the WSC home page for the podcast.

Machen’s Warrior Children

Tue, 02 Oct 2007 20:35:57 GMT

by John M. Frame

Frame’s Creative Children

Sat, 22 Sep 2007 15:53:57 GMT

The more I read here, the more I’m reminded of John Frame’s case for biblicism and critique of traditionalism. The way FV stands in relation to the Reformed tradtiion calls to mind Frame’s defense of biblicisim, which included the following paragraphs:

One might also raise questions concerning the relative absence at Westminster (again, I think mainly of the early ’60s when I was a student) of a confessional or traditional focus. I must be careful here in my formulation. But I felt as a student that we were being stimulated to originality more than we were being indoctrinated into a tradition. That may be a surprising comment, and I must immediately qualify it. All professors subscribed ex animo to the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, and the subscription formula was more detailed and forceful than most ordination vows in Presbyterian denominations. Our professors loved the great teachers of past ages: Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and the many others since their time. But Westminster was independent of denominational control, and students came from many denominational backgrounds, Reformed and non-Reformed. Students were not expected to subscribe to Reformed doctrine in order to matriculate or to graduate. There was, in my experience, an atmosphere of openness. We were encouraged to ask hard questions, and our professors generally sympathized with the questions, if not with our answers.

During my student years, I was never asked to read any of the Reformed confessions, or Calvin’s Institutes, except in small bits. I never read any official standards of church government or discipline, not to mention Robert’s Rules of Order. We used Hodge and Berkhof in our systematics classes, but for the most part we were graded not on our reading but on our knowledge of Murray’s lectures. After graduation I became ordained in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and I confess I was rather surprised at the seriousness with which my fellow ministers took the Confessional Standards and Presbyterian traditions. Eventually I became more like my fellow Orthodox Presbyterian (and later Presbyterian Church in America) elders, but not without some nostalgia for the openness of theological discussion during my seminary years.

It is legitimate to criticize this openness in some respects. In my own theology courses, I always assign relevant portions of the confessions, and I try to make sure that every student understands the traditional formulations, even when I seek to improve upon them. Surely one important function of a seminary is to perpetuate and recommend the confessional traditions. Students seeking to be ordained in Reformed churches must understand fully what they are being asked to subscribe to. The Westminster of the early 1960s did not do a thorough enough job in that aspect of its teaching; I do believe it has improved since that time.

But as an academic theological community, seeking to encourage students how to do careful and hard thinking about theological issues, Westminster of the early 1960s was superb. I was not entirely ready for the Orthodox Presbyterian Church after study at Yale. Some students, I think, responded to this combination of freedom and orthodoxy in the wrong way: by taking the original insights of, say, Van Til, Kline, or Adams and trying to make them tests of orthodoxy. [xx] But that was, I think, more the fault of the students than of the professors. Clearly, at any rate, Westminster’s particular understanding of sola Scriptura did not lead to a stagnant traditionalism, but to a flourishing of original and impressive theological thought. [end of quote]

I wonder what the FV folks make of this analysis. I sense that the Reformed tradition rests on them the way it lights on Frame, and that the talk of tradition is really on the way to stagnation.

Truths We Confess: A Layman's Guide to the Westminster Confession of Faith

Sun, 16 Sep 2007 08:29:39 GMT

R. C. Sproul's trilogy on the Westminster Confession of Faith is now complete.

Volume 1 is on The Triune God; volume 2 is on Salvation and the Christian Life; volume 3 is on the State, the Family, the Church, and Last Things.

Some sample chapters are available; you can read Sproul on the holy Scripture (ch. 1 of WCF), free will (ch. 9 of WCF), the civil magistrate (ch. 23 of WCF).

A Brief Response to Lee Irons

Sun, 09 Sep 2007 23:05:19 GMT

Lee Irons has here critiqued my statement about the Confession and the Scriptures. His point is that the Confessions are not exhaustive of the Scripture, nor is confession equal to Scripture. According to Lee, my position entails the relinquishment of any possibility of amending the Confession according to the Scriptures once one takes the vow.

I am not going to make a big long post about this. My position is this: the WS are always amendable. There is a procedure in place for doing so, according to the BCO. We follow that procedure when we want to amend it (as the American Presbyterian Church has done with regard to the pope as the Antichrist). It is and should be difficult to amend the constitution of the church. I don’t believe that my position implies that we cannot do that. Scripture is always the primary, infallible, un-normed norming norm, whereas the Confession is the normed norm. All I am saying here is that the Confessions summarize Scripture. Just as we regard a sermon that is in accord with Scripture as the Word of God in some sense (not in every sense), so also the Confession, inasmuch as it is in accord with Scriptural teaching, summarizes the Word of God. The parallel is not exact. However, it is still helpful for us. My point was that in studying the Confession, we are studying the Scripture’s teaching, however indirectly. I am saying we cannot drive a wedge between the Confession and the Scriptures, just as we cannot drive a wedge between systematic theology and biblical theology. With the proper qualifications (the Confession is not infallible, and is subject to the final arbiter, Scripture), we can then say that the Confession is what we believe the Bible to be saying on these matters (primarily the doctrine of salvation). I never actually made the equation Scripture equals Confession.

Seminary and Apologetics

Mon, 04 Jun 2007 17:50:08 GMT

I was going to post this on the AOMin Blog, but decided to do it here instead…

I wanted to follow up on a phone call James White received last week on the Dividing Line. The caller was basically asking if James could recommend a seminary that has a solid apologetics program. You can listen to James’ answer here.

In my humble opinion (and it is my own), I believe those looking for the best apologetics program will find it at Westminster Theological Seminary (East). That is not a blanket endorsement of all the departments at the seminary, I’m only addressing the particular question asked. At WTS (East) you will have the opportunity to sit under Lane Tipton, Scott Oliphant and William Edgar - all three of these men are Van Tillian in their apologetic approach. I’ll let the reader search for the body of literature these men (along with others) have and are producing. You will no doubt have the opportunity to read opposing literature (i.e. non-Christian, in various forms) and have the chance to interact with it.

Along the same lines one my favorites is John Frame at Reformed Theological Seminary. Always on the cutting edge, always thinking through his theology and apologetic and how it applies.

Some of you know that I am heading to Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary in the Fall. At Greenville, you will receive a solid education (from all departments) and presuppositionalism is the apologetic approach they teach. The focus of GPTS is to train pastors, so they do not offer a host of apologetic courses. But, if you are looking for a seminary where you don’t have to look over your doctrinal shoulder for heresy or the latest fad, GPTS might be for you. There might be only three of these types of seminaries left, in the US.

RE: The Problem With Westminster’s Two Kingdoms

Fri, 25 May 2007 00:45:09 GMT

Darryl Hart admits that Christendom was far better then the Roman Empire, but asks whether America did anything significant. How America fits in post-apostolic redemptive history is a good question to consider. (I think a case can be made that redemptive history continued after New Testament times. Think of the A.D. 70 Judgment, the conversion of Constantine, the rise of the Papacy, etc.) The following may be suggested for America’s role: America was colonized to begin Christendom afresh in the New World. Its establishment meant the end of heathen barbarism, at least in North America. The U.S. has been preserved an an unofficial Christian nation (Lincoln’s “almost chosen people”) with the resolve to oppose some of the great evils of recent times: Nazism, communism, and Jihadist Islam. America has one of the best track records for promoting human rights, national self-determination, economic prosperity and governmental stability all over the world, especially after World War II through the Cold War. The Cold War was truly a contest between an evil empire and a God-blessed nation. So, I do not accept that God’s will is equally accomplished through the rule of George W. Bush and Saddam Hussein.

Since the Church is not exhausted by its ecclesiastical institutions but ecompasses families (and by extension–nations), I see no necessity in preferring the “Pilgrim” metaphor to the “Crusader” metaphor. The NT contains plenty of martial imagery describing the activity of Christians in the present age. This warfare is primarily “spiritual” in the sense that the Gospel addresses the root problem: sin and the demonic oppression that results. St. Boniface was acting in a capacity beyond “wayaring pilgrim” when he cut down Thor’s Oak in Geismar and converted the tribes of Germany. Of course it has been the lot of the Reformed to inherit lands already purged of the demonic.

According to a 2007 Princeton survey poll conducted for Newsweek, 82% of Americans identify themselves as Christian or of Christian heritage. A supermajority of Americans are probably covenantally Christian (i.e., baptized). Can Darryl explain why Americans shouldn’t have a polity and culture that reflects their actual heritage? Why should Americans be happy with the sorry alternative of secular progressivism that virtually guarantees the ascendancy of antichrist in our culture?

But since it can’t be a pleasant experience being accused of cosmic misanthropy, I welcome Darryl to provide an alternate account of W2K than the one I’ve attempted. My critique capitalizes on W2K’s rejection of the abiding validity of the cultural mandate and the substitution in its place of an unstable culture that has no other intrinsic purpose than to gratify men’s needs and wants. Darryl is welcome to explain how this down-grading of humanity’s task glorifies God. Does he hold that God is equally glorified in Constantine and Tony Blair, in Michelangelo and Jackson Pollock, in the Hagia Sophia and Las Vegas’ Bellagio?

Darryl says that “transformationalists” ascribe ultimate significance to culture & politics, and that this was crucial to Rome’s error. I am persuaded he is wrong on both counts. Megapolis is not Metapolis. Megapolis is penultimate rather than eschatologically ultimate. However, this does not mean that the human race should not cultivate the world to its full potential in anticipation of the consummating work only God is able to perform. And I don’t believe Rome ever considered secular (as opposed to ecclesiastical) culture to be an ultimate good.

Darryl affirms the inherent goodness of creation and counter-charges that the “constant need to redeem creation” implies the opposite. My own counter to this is that just as human nature is corrupted but still retains its essential goodness, that is, its purpose to conform and be glorified in the Image of God, so creation has been diverted from its original purpose, subjected to “futility.” Just as believers receive God’s forgiveness anew when they confess their sins and brought back into the joy of their salvation, so things of this life can be removed from service to idolatrous futility and consecrated to serve the Lord.

Since humanity is ontologically related to the rest of creation, as its summit and capstone, all of creation was affected by the Fall. It is consequently the work of God’s grace through the agency of the theanthropic Person of Jesus to restore creation and re-orient it to its original purpose. This is an on-going ministry of reconciliation that the Church performs on the basis of the once-and-for-all sacrifice of our Incarnate Lord. In asserting this basic biblical teaching, I believe I justly claim that W2K is a degraded expression of our catholic and apostolic faith.

Pipa on Full Subscription

Tue, 22 May 2007 06:40:07 GMT

Joseph A. Pipa, in his The Practice of Subscription, argues that "full subscription is the historical position of Scottish and American Presbyterianism," and that "system subscription has invariably led to liberalism and subjectivism in the church. In other words, system subscription is in effect no subscription."

Makes sense, right?

Why bother to adopt the Westminster Confession and Catechisms as the doctrinal standards of a denomination if candidates for gospel ministry can simply pick and choose which parts to believe and which to deny (with presbyteries determining whether the exception is "essential to the system")?

But then again, the Westminster Standards are pretty detailed, making it rather difficult to be able to affirm every single one of their propositions. Plus, there has been some significant theological advancement since the confessional canon (supposedly) closed in 1648.

Hmmm....

Is full subscription really as simple and beneficial an idea as it sounds? Is there some sense in which the nature of a particular confession should determine the nature of our subscription to it?

What say you?

Dialogue on Justification

Thu, 17 May 2007 01:25:11 GMT

We often refer to the "dialogue" that takes place between an author and the readers of a book. Here is a chance to engage in just that:

In the interest of promoting dialogue on the important topic of justification, Westminster Bookstore, with the gracious cooperation of Justified in Christ editor K. Scott Oliphint, is providing you with a unique opportunity to engage this book's authors.

From now until May 31, 2007, we invite you to submit questions that arise as you read Justified in Christ, things you would love to ask the authors if you could sit down with them in person. We will collect these questions and pass them on to the Westminster faculty contributors to this book, who will prepare written answers. Some time in June 2007 we will post those answers online.

Sounds like fun to me. GO HERE for instructions on how to participate.

Like a Man Dragging a Rope [Topic: Auburn Avenue Stuff]

Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:14:46 GMT

I am afraid that Westminster West is disgracing itself. I finally had a chance to begin reading Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry, edited by R. Scott Clark, and released by Presbyterian and Reformed, proud publishers of Norman Shepherd's Call of Grace.

The first essay in this new bucket of fruit is by Clark, and is set up to answer the question "how we got here?" "Here" would be that controversial point where we have two sides within the Reformed camp, each claiming to be orthodox. Here is Scott Clark's summary of the points at issue.

"One side tends to argue that genuinely Reformed doctrine teaches one covenant before and after the fall, the imputation of Jesus' passive obedience only, and faith that justifies because it obeys. The other side in contrast holds that the Reformed doctrine denies those very things. Without equivocating, both sides cannot be correct" (p. 5).

Here it is in a slightly different form.

"To conclude that in justification faith justifies because it obeys or that Christ did not perform vicarious active obedience or that Paul's doctrine of justification was not primarily about right standing before God has the most serious implications for the historic (and confessional) doctrine of justification" (p 4).

A slight difficulty arises because, as readers of this blog know full well, I hold that there are two covenants, one before the fall and one after. I hold to the imputation of the active obedience of Christ, and I do so with robust gesticulations. And I deny that faith justifies because of any boy scout qualities it may have. Strike three. At this point, Clark needs to hand his bat to the bat boy and respectfully take his seat in the dugout. But he does nothing of the kind. He just assumes the stance again, and looks at the pitcher with a steely gaze. "That all you got? Three pitches? I'll hit one eventually. C'mon." Okay. I also affirm that justication is primarily about right standing before God. Strike four.

Observers of this debacle, who are sympathetic to the concerns of Westminster West, but who are clear-headed enough to see what's going on, will no doubt say, "Yeah, but you're an anomaly, Wilson. Shepherd does deny the imputation of the active obedience of Christ, and rumor has it that some of your friends are squishy on the other two." But denying the active obedience of Christ wouldn't have prevented Shepherd from being a delegate to the Westminster Assembly, would it? And neither would the "squishiness" of insisting that God's dealings with man are always gracious, or the view that faith has to be living and not dead. And faith is living because it obeys the command to rise and walk. All these positions were found participating in the work at Westminster.

But in my case, that dodge won't work anyway. Here is how I fit into this scheme, according to this book. I show up, for starters in a footnote in the second essay (p.52).

"For a summary of the convictions of the federal vision by one of its most vocal advocates, see Douglas Wilson, "Union with Christ: An Overview of the Federal Vision," in The Auburn Avenue Theology, Pros and Cons: Debating the Federal Vision (ed. E. Calvin Beisner; Ft. Lauderdale, FL: Knox Theological Seminary, 2004), 1-8.

I am one of the most vocal advocates of the federal vision, and I deny all four of the characteristics of that vision as kinda assigned by Clark. These are strange doings. Somebody doesn't know what he is talking about. Either I am not in the federal vision at all, or the federal vision is not what its opponents claim, or it is not monolithic as its opponents claim. In any case, this book is out of line.

One of the criticisms that I have had to field is that we have an innovating spirit about us, fiddling around with the Reformed heritage that our fathers bequeathed to us. "Why mess with the fathers?" the cry goes up. "We must hold mindlessly to the tradition of rejecting mindless papist traditions." But that is a subject for another time.

We are considered impudent movers of ancient landmarks. But I learned a bunch of this stuff from these fathers. I became a Calvinist in 1988, and began reading stacks of books published by Banner of Truth, P & R, Soli Deo Gloria, and so on. And a bunch of the current controversy was already in print, in those books, and circulating peacefully in Reformed circles -- almost as though these issues were an intramural set of differences within the bounds of Reformed orthodoxy. But now, becoming aware of this problem, Clark is preparing himself for a purge of the history books.

He appears to be preparing us to say that John Murray was at the headwaters of this mischief (p. 6). Cornelius Van Til, despite his stalwart support for Norman Shepherd, is still considered a good guy (p. 7), but we can put this down as another manifestation of the tombs of the prophets phenomenon. It would be impolitic to touch Van Til just yet, or Richard Gaffin for that matter -- for blurbing Shepherd's book. But Clark is ready to throw Melancthon under the bus because at least for a time he thought that good works were necessary for justification (p. 13). And we also have to rid ourselves of Richard Baxter because he "taught quite clearly that faith justifies because it obeys" (p. 15). So when is Banner of Truth going to repent of publishing The Reformed Pastor?

The intent is apparently to bury the truth under a rock pile of footnotes.

"These essays are not intended to be popular. The faculty held a conference in 2003 in which we presented some of this material in a way that is accessible to Christian laity. Those lectures are available from the Westminster Seminary California. Some of the essays in this collection do arise from that conference, but they have been significantly revised to speak to a more academic audience" (p. 23)

You betcher. This is the kind of book that has footnotes like this in it:

Seeberg, History of Doctrines, 2.364. See also Robert Kolb, "Georg Major as Controversialist: Polemics in the Late Reformation," Church History 45 (1976): 455-68; idem, Nikolaus von Amsdorf (1483-1565): Popular Polemics in the Preservation of Luther's Legacy (Nieuwkoop: DeGraaf, 1978), 123-71.

I for one find myself almost persuaded. You would think that with all this firepower they would be able to get the basic facts of the case right. But they have not. I responded to the Westminster West conference referred to above, and I did so back at the time. This means there is no excuse for not getting the basic positions right. Robert E. Lee was not a Yankee. The Dutch have not conquered Holland. Maybe referring to a series of blog posts entitled "Yelling at my Windshield" would not have enough of a scholarly patina to be included in these footnotes.

One last thing for now. Clark objects that the "word Reformed has come to mean predestinarian" (p. 11). The problem here is that if you believe in heaven and hell, as all of us in the federal vision do, and if you are predestinarian, as all of us are, and as Clark acknowledges, then all five points of Calvinism follow from this, inexorably, like a man dragging a rope. Not only so, but sola gratia and sola fide also follow, like a second rope. This is something we all know, acknowledge, and affirm. He who says A must say B. We know that. So, Dr. Clark, for the record, again, "B."

Westminster Assembly Project

Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:57:45 GMT

Important news from the Westminster Assembly Project.

January 2007 - The Westminster Assembly Project has launched the Bibliography Project. The project aims to catalogue all works pertaining to the Westminster Assembly, its history, its texts and its members. The current bibliographies are significant, but only preliminary, bringing together the combined title-lists of the bibliography�s editors, Dr Chad Van Dixhoorn and Dr J. Ligon Duncan III. We hope that authors and readers will actively participate by sending new titles and corrected information to the managing editor, Mr Billy McMillan at First Presbyterian Church in Jackson, Mississippi.

This project is made possible by First Presbyterian Church and the Westminster Assembly Project. For more information, see the Bibliography Project.

HT: Ligon Duncan

In Memoriam: J. Alan Groves

Tue, 06 Feb 2007 12:47:17 GMT

Yesterday, J. Alan Groves entered into the glory of his Lord after a long struggle with cancer. Al was professor of Old Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary, a fervent and humble disciple of Jesus Christ, and a warm friend to all who knew him. We mourn with his wife, Libbie, and his family, but rejoice at his deliverance from the trials of this world. We further rejoice at the glory Al gave to God during his illness and the help his ministry gave to many others who face death. Libbie's beautiful announcement of Al's homegoing can be read here.

Please pray for Libbie and their four children, and also for the grieving community of Westminster Theological Seminary. The Westminster notice is found here, along with information regarding memorial gifts in thanks to God for Al's life and ministry and in honor of his Savior, Jesus Christ.

"Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints" (Ps. 116:15).