Thanks

sye@proofthatgodexists.org

And forget, please, “conservatism.” It has been, operationally, de facto, Godless and therefore irrelevant. Secular conservatism will not defeat secular liberalism because to God both are two atheistic peas-in-a-pod and thus predestined to failure. As Stonewall Jackson’s Chief of Staff R.L. Dabney said of such a humanistic belief more than 100 years ago:

“[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today .one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth.”

Our country is collapsing because we have turned our back on God (Psalm 9:17) and refused to kiss His Son (Psalm 2).

John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com

Amen. Good clarification. I’m enjoying your site!

Blessings,
Derek

Thanks for the comment.

2 Corinthians 5:9 (New International Version)
9So we make it our goal to please him, whether we are at home in the body or away from it.

Maybe, I should have stated things a bit differently as I do believe that it does please God when ‘good’ things are done from a proper motivation. My meaning was more as to earn his favor towards our justification.

So yes I do believe that we strive to please him and it comes about from our sanctification, as you say God is already pleased with us through Christ. Further, I believe that the yoke is easy because serving one we love is easy, not because there is nothing for us to do.

I like your blog. I am at a similar place in my study of Reformed theology. I pray God will bless your pursuit of Him.

Grace & peace,
Derek Ashton

I read this book a few years ago, it is wonderful! Everything you said about it is true. Horatius Bonar also wrote some powerful hymns.

I wonder, in light of your final paragraph, how does 2 Cor. 5:9 fit in? Aren’t we to strive to please God out of our sense of gratitude and wonder over HIs grace? I suppose it may be a matter of semantics, but that last paragraph brought this verse to mind. I do see your point, that our holy living must be rooted in an appreciation of justification – that it must be grace-motivated obedience, not self-righteous works done in order to make God “happy.” He is already pleased with us in Christ. But, paradoxically, we still strive to please Him, don’t we?

He partially bases his case on 3:11 saying that ‘wives’ in that verse could be translated as ‘women’. Yet he admits that this verse alone cannot make the case for deaconesses. The main thrust of his case are NT examples (Dorcas – Acts 9:36/Lydia – Phil 16:11-15/Tryphena and Tryphos – Rom 16:12). Outside of the Bible he cites Clement of Alexandria and B.B. Warfield.

Ron Gleason – http://www.rongleason.blogspot.com/ has several postings on the subject of deaconesses, especially as it relates to the PCA.

Looks like we sometimes run with the same crowd. It’s been a while for me since I took a few month break from the blog world. So, I thought I’d stop by, see what was going on here and say “Hi.”

Regarding your post, this is very interesting. I’m not sure how he would deal with the following when trying to support deaconesses:

1 Timothy 3:11-12
11 Likewise, their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

I hope it isn’t something lame like “this verse isn’t speaking to deaconesses, just deacons.” I don’t know how a female deacon could be the ‘husband’ of one wife, unless she lived in Massachusetts I guess.

Kazoo

Thanks for stopping. I’ve been listening to the American View podcast for a couple of weeks now and find it informative.