This morning, I decided to run a few simple numbers looking at the number of per capita visitors to reformedforum.org for each U.S. state. I’ve looked at the numbers by state before, but it’s hard to know if the figures simply reflect the respective populations of those areas. The adjusted data, however, yield some interesting results. Here are the per capita rankings since January 1, 2011:

1. Pennsylvania
2. Mississippi
3. Massachusetts
4. Rhode Island
5. South Carolina
6. California
7. North Carolina
8. Washington
9. Kentucky
10. Alabama
11. Virginia
12. Tennessee
13. Georgia
14. New Jersey
15. New Mexico
16. Nebraska
17. Michigan
18. Illinois
19. Missouri
20. Maryland
21. Indiana
22. Texas
23. Maine
24. Florida
25. Oklahoma
26. Oregon
27. Iowa
28. Ohio
29. Delaware
30. Colorado
31. Kansas
32. Minnesota
33. Alaska
34. Wisconsin
35. Arizona
36. South Dakota
37. Montana
38. Louisiana
39. New York
40. Idaho
41. New Hampshire
42. Vermont
43. Arkansas
44. Wyoming
45. North Dakota
46. Nevada
47. Hawaii
48. West Virginia
49. Connecticut
50. Utah

* The District of Columbia is the number one region in the U.S., but I gather much of the web traffic is generated by people that do not actually live in D.C. Hence, the figure is not representative.

I have one small quibble, however. And that is the requirement of the evening service. He says its not biblically mandated. Well . . . yes, . . . and no.

It is true there is no Bible passage that that says “thou shall attend the evening service.” True enough. But there also is no Bible passage that says “thou shall attend the morning service” either. So, why does every one regard the first service as necessary, but the second service optional?

And here is where we get to why I believe the second service IS mandatory and biblically commanded (IF your church holds one). And I’d like to take the argument in two steps. First, the Bible does require the people of God to gather on the first day of the week to worship and observe the Sabbath. I won’t get into the particulars of the biblical nature of that argument, but simply direct you to the appropriate proof texts in documents like the Westminster Standards. Second, the Bible does not command when or for how long or how often we are to meet on the Lord’s Day. However, the Bible does tell us not to forsake the gathering of ourselves together (Heb 10:25). God has left it to the wisdom and liberty of the local elders to determine when, for how long, and how often the church is to gather for worship. Here they are to follow the general guidelines of Christian love and prudence. For instance, in our church we used to meet – years ago – in the AM and then again at 8 PM. That was because this used to be a farming community and cows had to me milked and animals fed. Today, however, that is no longer a factor. So, for various local considerations, we’ve moved the second service to 5. That’s OK, we can do that. The elders can change the times to whatever they believe is prudent within these general guidelines. But once those times are set, the people in obedience to their elders (Heb 13:17) are biblically required to come and not forsake the gathering.

So, that’s just a small quibble. Otherwise, everything else Kevin said was right!

1. Is it a biblical model?
2. Is it a covenantal model?
3. Is it a redemptive-historical model?
4. Is it an eschatological model?
5. Is it a Christo-centric model?

The full lecture focuses on the neglected topic of sonship and adoption and is well worth listening to here.

(Edit: Nick Batzig has helpfully pointed out a text version here of the audio lecture I’ve linked to. Thanks, Nick!)

Mr. Snyder submitted a biographical essay on the life and death of Samuel Rutherford. The end of the essay was especially moving as it recounted the final says and words of this man of God who on his death bed defied a king!

Congrats to Mr. Snyder!

One of the special features about this new edition is the introduction offered by Guy Richard. His insights and analysis of the preaching of the Scottish Commissioners are alone worth the price of the volume.

The volume has been beautifully type-set and bound by Chris Coldwell in a way that gives the appearance of enduring value and quality. The true lover of books will be drawn to pick it up even quite independent of its contents! But, to be sure, the contents add a value all their own for both historical and devotional purposes. Grab your copy today!

“The Gospel and Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutics” by Lane G. Tipton in Confident of Better Things, eds. Meuther and Olinger.

“For Our Sakes Also: Christ in the Old Testament in the New Testament” by Richard B. Gaffin, in The Hope Fulfilled.

And of course, many parts of Beale’s new volume, A New Testament Biblical Theology.

These should prove quite a nice tonic for all that nonsense that is out there wanting to advocate the idea that Christ is in the OT only retroactively in the mind of the community of faith.

“In case any Reformed confessionalists actually wondered, Justin Taylor has made it official that he is a credo-baptist and by implication that credo-baptism is the default position of the Gospel Co-Allies (despite the presence of Presbyterians in the Coalition). Have any of the Reformed Co-Allies actually raised a finger and applied it to a keyboard to protest?”

Whether the author knows it or not, he is making a couple of arguments. The first is something like

• By posting an interview that advocates for a credo-baptist view, Justin Taylor has “made it official” that he is a credo-baptist.

It’s not exactly clear how or why a blog post makes a view on baptism official or why it wasn’t “officially” his position prior to the blog post (despite a link directly under his name in every blog post to the church where Justin is an elder; you can find the church’s constitution here).

The second argument goes something like

• Because Justin Taylor is a credo-baptist, the default position of the Gospel Coalition (here referred to as “the Gospel Co-Allies”) is also credo-baptist.

Again, it’s not clear why it is the case that Justin’s position is the default position of TGC, especially in light of the blog author’s own recognition that there are Presbyterians (paedo-baptists) in the coalition. What, specifically, makes Justin’s view of baptism the default position for TGC, and why does it override the other differing views represented at TGC? Justin never makes this claim, nor does anyone else at TGC. There must be other factors or missing evidence we’re not aware of that would warrant such a claim, but we’re not told what they are. The position is just stated.

The third argument is a little hazy, but we can see what is at least implied.

• “Reformed Co-Allies” (the term here referring to confessional paedo-baptists who are part of TGC) are expected to write a post that protests Justin’s post/interview.

It isn’t exactly clear why a TGC blogger should write a protest post to Justin, the position is just assumed (or to be fair, asked in a pointed way). I’m not saying there wouldn’t be good reasons, but either way those specific, potentially articulated reasons are taken for granted.

Let’s take a look at a section from a second post:

“In my ongoing search for historical evidence to prove that union with Christ is crucial to Reformed Protestantism and distinguishes the Reformed tradition from Lutheranism, I did a word search in the Canons of Dort. Lo and behold, I discovered that the patriarchs of the Dutch Reformed tradition (from whence Gerheerdus Vos cometh) did not use the word “union” once (or at least their translators found no reason to use the term).

This is fairly remarkable since the Third and Fourth headings in Dort address specifically the nature of conversion, regeneration, and the role of faith. If union were going to be an important piece of Reformed orthodoxy in understanding the ordo salutis, Dort would be the place to find it since the Synod took place at a time when Reformed scholastics were beginning to engage in high level polemics. And yet, we can’t find Waldo in Dort.”

We see that the author has been searching for historical evidence for why the concept of union with Christ is crucial to the Reformed tradition and how it distinguishes that tradition from Lutheranism. The recent effort in that search for historical effort uses a specific strategy: a word search. The argument here reads like

• If union with Christ is crucial to the Reformed tradition, the Canons of Dort should include the word “union” along with other important words like conversion, regeneration, and faith.

(As an aside, the word “role” isn’t in the Canons of Dort, so you also won’t find any results if you do a word search for “role of faith”, which is mentioned by the author as something that Dort specifically addresses.) What a word search accomplishes in every case is, obviously, whether a word is found in a document. However, it does not determine whether a concept is found within a document. One of the most used examples to illustrate this is the concept of the Trinity in the Bible. If you do a word search for “Trinity” in the Bible, you come up with zero results, but the concept of the Trinity is foundational, integral, and crucial to Christian orthodoxy. To be clear, this example here isn’t meant to equate the value of Scripture to confessions, nor is it meant to equate the value of union with Christ to the Trinity, but it is meant to serve as an example of the word/concept distinction. In short, simply because the word “union” isn’t in the Canons of Dort doesn’t mean the concept isn’t there. Something of an argument is needed to show that both the word and the concept is absent in Dort, but the reader was only given the results of the word search with the implications of both a word search and a conceptual analysis.

Readers expect specific, careful arguments when discussing these issues. Doing so in a way that retains the style and voice of the author is, I believe, still very possible with a little effort. It matters whether we agree with an author’s conclusion, but it also matters whether we agree with how he or she came to the conclusions. Method and argument can be just as important as content. Those who have a voice in the church owe readers their expression of clear thinking, precise details, and cogent arguments.

But this will not be by grace, but by works! This is what I mean:

All you have to do is send in a short essay on a first or second generation Reformer (like John Knox) within the next month (you have until December 20th). When I say short, I mean UP TO five pages (12 pt, double space). Any more than that will disqualify the piece from the competition.

What I will be looking for is an original idea about the Reformer of choice – whether some aspect of his life or theology – supported by relevant facts. Again, its to be brief and to the point, and thus the essay will be woefully underdeveloped. But that’s OK! You can do that another time. For now, we’re just looking for something short and sweet. The piece will be judged on the basis of originality, clarity of expression, and validity of the argument.

You can send in your work to my e-mail address cassidy.1@opc.org.

Revelation, therefore, is not something that comes directly to man. Revelation is man knowing that he cannot know God. In this way, revelation is indirect. So when Paul says in Romans 1 that God has made himself known to man through the things which have been made, what is in view is that man who looks at the things that have been made sees no God. When he recognizes that there is no God here, only then can it be said that he knows the God who is other. Not directly, but precisely in an indirect way.

In fact, in so much as man thinks that he knows God, that much he is actually casting himself into greater ignorance. Its like finger cuffs. The more you try to get loss, the tighter the cuffs get and the further you get from your goal. Likewise, the way to knowing God is precisely by knowing that you cannot know God. Rather, grace in revelation means that God knows us, but we don’t know him. And only when we know that, can we know God in his unknownness. In this way, for Barth, God is like a black hole. With a black hole, you cannot see the hole itself since it swallows up all the light. What you can see, however, or the indirect manifestations of the hole. Only when we know that we can’t see it, but only its effects, can we say that we know the black hole. In a similar way, we can only know God by recognizing the fact that we cannot know him. By grace, in this way, our ignorance is true knowledge.