The Omnitemporality of God, by Joel Parkinson

“How old is God? One popular answer is to say that God is infinitely old. However that is incorrect. God does not have an age as such, not even an infinite age. What time is it for God? There are 24 time zones in the world. Which one does He dwell in? To specify an exact time is to misunderstand what God is like. An atheist, no doubt, would exploit such conundrums about God and time and assert that God cannot exist. Some believers might dismiss such questions as esoteric or trite. However, God’s relationship to time is an important theological issue that Christians have wrestled with since the days of the early church.”

Read this helpful article here: The Trinity Foundation – The Omnitemporality of God.

Advertisement

Horatius Bonar on Assurance of Salvation

(PDF can be found here.)

Editor’s Note: This essay is taken from Chapter 9 of Horatius Bonar’s The Everlasting Righteousness, originally published in 1874. The Trinity Foundation is now publishing a revised edition of the book.

Assurance of Salvation
”Christ for us,” the obedient in the place of the disobedient, is the first part of our message. His assumption of the legal claims, which otherwise would have been made good against us, is the security for our deliverance. That deliverance becomes an actual thing to us immediately upon our consenting to allow him to undertake our case.

“Christ in us” is the second part of our Gospel. This second is of mighty moment, and yet is not to be confounded with the first. That which is done for us is not the same as that which is done in us. By the former we are constituted righteous, by the latter we are made holy. The one is properly the Gospel, in the belief of which we are saved; the other, the carrying out of that Gospel in the soul. Christ “for us” is our justification. “Christ in us, and we in Christ,” is our holiness. The former is the external substitution; the latter, the internal energy or operation, taking its rise from the former, yet not to be confounded with it, or substituted for it. Christ the substitute, giving his life for ours upon the cross, is specially the object of faith. The message concerning this sacrificial work is the Gospel, the belief which brings pardon to the guilty. God has given us this Gospel not merely for the purpose of securing to us life hereafter, but of making us sure of this life even now. It is a true and sure Gospel; so that he who believes it is made sure of being saved. If it could not make us sure, it would make us miserable; for to be told of such a salvation and such a glory, yet kept in doubt as to whether they are to be ours or not, must render us truly wretched. What a poor Gospel it must be, which leaves the man who believes it still in doubt as to whether he is a child of God, an unpardoned or a pardoned sinner! Till we have found forgiveness, we cannot be happy; we cannot serve God gladly or lovingly; but must be in sore bondage and gloom. This is the view of the matter which Scripture sets before us; telling us that salvation is a free, a sure, and a present gift. “He that believes is justified” (Acts 13:39). “He that believes has everlasting life” (John 3:36). The Bible gives no quarter to unbelief or doubting. It does not call it humility. It does not teach us to think better of ourselves for doubting. It does not countenance uncertainty or darkness.

“Peter Leithart and the PCA’s Failure to Deal with the Federal Vision,” by Sean Gerety

The following material was originally published in the April 2009 edition of the Trinity Review. Since this publication, there have been several significant developments in the course of events surrounding Peter Leithart, who is currently scheduled to stand trial in the Pacific Northwest Presbytery of the PCA. For more information, visit godshammer.wordpress.com.

Editor’s note: the following is taken from the forthcoming book Can the Presbyterian Church in America Be Saved? by Sean Gerety, which will be available later this year.The life span of denominations that stay true to Biblical Christianity is growing shorter and shorter in this present day. Despite strong statements against the Federal Vision in the PCA’s report by the Ad Interim Study Committee on Federal Vision, New Perspective, and Auburn Avenue Theologies, the PCA has still not effectively dealt with the problem of the Federal Vision within its own ranks. In the same report Federal Visionists are referred to as “brothers.” Since the report’s near unanimous adoption by the PCA’s general assembly in 2007, two presbyteries have approved the teaching of FV men, the latest being Peter Leithart by the Pacific Northwest Presbytery. No Federal Visionist has been convicted of teaching heresy by any court of the PCA.

On Friday, October 3, 2008 the Pacific Northwest Presbytery (PNW) exonerated Federal Visionist and PCA pastor, Peter Leithart, stating that his teaching, specifically in the areas where he took issue with all nine declarations found in the PCA’s committee report, “is in complete conformity with the Westminster Confession of Faith.” Once again a major court in the PCA has affirmed the Federal Vision as an acceptable scheme of salvation that can be taught with impunity within the PCA. The PNW issued both a majority (1) and minority (2) report in light of their examination of Leithart. Thankfully, the minority report offered some hope that there are still a couple of Christians left in the PNW who understand the Gospel, even if they’re not the majority.

Here is a brief rundown of Leithart’s rejection of the nine declarations and the PNW’s majority ruling in each case:

1. Regarding Bi-covenantal Structure

Leithart rejects the idea of a Covenant of Works in contrast with the Covenant of Grace and contends that “the differences between Adamic and post-lapsarian covenants are not at a ‘soteriological’ level…but at the level of covenant administration.”(3)

According to the Westminster Confession 8:2 the Covenant of Works promised life “to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.” Whereas, the Covenant of Grace offers to sinners “life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved; and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.” You’ll notice that in both cases, and in opposition to Leithart, both the “Adamic and post-lapsarian covenants” differ greatly and precisely at the “soteriological level.” One promises life to Adam and his posterity on the basis of Adam’s perfect and personal obedience, whereas the other promises life as the result of belief in the perfect and personal obedience of Jesus Christ alone.

Elsewhere the Minority Report makes clear Leithart’s rejection of the Confessional bi-covenantal structure where he writes:

Yes, we do have the same obligation that Adam (and Abraham, and Moses, and David, and Jesus) had, namely, the obedience of faith. And, yes, covenant faithfulness is the way to salvation, for the “doers of the law will be justified” at the final judgment. But this is all done in union with Christ, so that “our” covenant faithfulness is dependent on the work of the Spirit of Christ in us, and our covenant faithfulness is about faith, trusting the Spirit to will and to do according to His good pleasure.

First, the phrase “the obedience of faith” does not mean what Leithart seems to think. It does not mean “covenant faithfulness,” nor does it mean that “the ‘doers of the law will be justified’ at the final judgment.” In spite of Leithart’s clear misapplication of Romans 2:13 teaching a form of works righteousness and his rejection of the bi-covenantal structure taught in the Confession (along with an unambiguous rejection of the doctrine of justification which is by faith alone and not “covenant faithfulness”), the PNW committee ruled that it “does not find his views out of accord with the WCF.”

“The Christian and the Law,” by Gordon H. Clark

[You can find this and many other excellent articles at The Trinity Foundation.]

Not only do denominations differ over their interpretations of various Biblical doctrines, but also within each denomination individual members have their personal peculiarities. Therefore when ministers assemble for a sedate colloquium or college students get together for a friendly bull session, and a question on Biblical doctrine arises, the discussion is bound to be interesting.

Within the past year two such meetings took place-one almost exclusively of ministers and professors, the other almost exclusively of students. It may not be so surprising that the subject of divine guidance and right conduct was taken up at both meetings, but it is worthy of note that in the first meeting a minister from a liturgical and rather formal denomination and in the second meeting some students from much more informal groups, expressed similar sentiments on the Christian’s relation to the law of God. It may also be worthy to note that few of the ministers agreed with the minister, while most of the students agreed with the students.