Busy Reading

It's been a while since I could post due to a number of things, mostly a certain book. Actually, it's a certain stack of books (albeit a small stack). I'm trying to finish a course in my seminary studies, an apologetics course, to graduate with a Masters of Biblical Studies. I'm not giving up on my Master of Divinity (which I'm about 70% through). But since it's taken me so much longer than I had hoped, I decided I wanted to get something to show for what I have done. I'm doing this partly for my own motivation, but also to possibly open up some doors of opportunity. So, all that to say, I've had my nose buried in the first of four books, a rather enjoyable comparison of apologetical methods, edited by one of my seminary profs, (Dr. Steve Cowan). The book is Five Views on Apologetics. I won't get much into the book here (I'll save that for later), but I will say that as much as I have been in the classical camp for as long as I've studied apologetics, I am really enjoying the writing of John Frame. I haven't finished and am not nailing down any stakes, but so far I really like what Frame is saying and the way he is saying it.

The special committee of the PCA's General Assembly to study "Federal Vision" has released their report. And as far as I have scanned over it, I'm pleased. It's available here. The heart of their work can be found in the nine declarations they made:

In light of the controversy surrounding the NPP and FV, and after many months of careful study, the committee unanimously makes the following declarations:

The view that rejects the bi-covenantal structure of Scripture as represented in the Westminster Standards (i.e., views which do not merely take issue with the terminology, but the essence of the first/second covenant framework) is contrary to those Standards.
The view that an individual is “elect” by virtue of his membership in the visible church; and that this “election” includes justification, adoption and sanctification; but that this individual could lose his “election” if he forsakes the visible church, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
The view that Christ does not stand as a representative head whose perfect obedience and satisfaction is imputed to individuals who believe in him is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
The view that strikes the language of “merit” from our theological vocabulary so that the claim is made that Christ’s merits are not imputed to his people is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
The view that “union with Christ” renders imputation redundant because it subsumes all of Christ’s benefits (including justification) under this doctrinal heading is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
The view that water baptism effects a “covenantal union” with Christ through which each baptized person receives the saving benefits of Christ’s mediation, including regeneration, justification, and sanctification, thus creating a parallel soteriological system to the decretal system of the Westminster Standards, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
The view that one can be “united to Christ” and not receive all the benefits of Christ’s mediation, including perseverance, in that effectual union is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
The view that some can receive saving benefits of Christ’s mediation, such as regeneration and justification, and yet not persevere in those benefits is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
The view that justification is in any way based on our works, or that the so-called “final verdict of justification” is based on anything other than the perfect obedience and satisfaction of Christ received through faith alone, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

Derek Webb has a new album coming out this week entitled The Ringing Bell. I always enjoy Derek's music and his lyrics.