Sports This Weekend

I would just like to mention three things in sports I saw this weekend. The most important I'll mention first. The Patriots won! My son seems to like this fact.



During the Chargers/Colts game, a girl wearing a Patriots jersey was booed. These people must have no class. The Colts lost, so no revenge is needed by the Patriot fans.

Friday night had an interesting college hockey game that was either thrown or had a referee that should be wearing glasses. Wisconsin was playing Denver. Wisconsin was down by one goal. Denver had goofed and iced the puck. This caused a new face-off in front of the Denver net with 3.7 seconds on the game clock. Wisconsin wins the face-off and shoots a goal with .7 seconds left. Watch Here.


Now I recorded this badly but here is a slow motion review.



What was interesting is that the sports channel this was being shown on did not show a replay of this goal. It was the only replay of the night that they did not show. Makes one wonder why.

If you watch carefully above the Pepsi sign on the boards to the right of the net, there are two lights. Notice at about .4 seconds, one of them comes on. This is the light that is controlled by a person behind the net. When he sees a goal, he manually turns on the light. If he turns on his light before the "End of the Game Light", then there is only one logical conclusion. It must be a goal. He could be late (causing the light to not be able to come on!), but not early.

After the referee reviewed the video, he concluded that this was not a goal and Wisconsin lost. Now perhaps this call would have worked a few years ago, but Americans that are watching TV have this thing where we may record video (I have a DVR). There is no doubt that this was a goal. Wisconsin clearly got the shaft.

Not to worry though. The next day, Wisconsin beat Denver. There was no doubt after that game.

In this life we may see all kinds of injustices. We must keep in mind that there is a Judge, who judges with wisdom and righteousness. We must do what is right. This coach did. He led his team to a victory that truly meant something.

McCain Is Not a Conservative

Just in case everyone thinks I am full of hate for Huckabee I thought it would be wise to make a few comments on McCain. Mark Levin has written a piece for National Review Online in which he states, “McCain’s stated opposition to the Bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts was largely based on socialist, class-warfare rhetoric…” How is using class-warfare rhetoric conservative? Basically, is this not supporting the notion that citizens must have the power of government to overcome their problems?

Government’s role according to historic Baptist and Presbyterian roots is summed up in the LBCF 1689:

“1. God the [Supreme] Lord, and King of all the World, hath ordained Civil (a) Magistrates to be under him, over the people for his own glory, and the publick good; and to this end hath armed them with the power of the Sword, for defence and encouragement of them that do good, and for the punishment of evil doers.”

McCain, like Huckabee, are not thorough conservatives. In fact, I still have yet to figure out how McCain won over Jerry Falwell prior to his passing. The problems of church and politics I suppose often become confused. The church is not the state and the state is not the church. The duty of the State as summed up by the Confession is to maintain peace by the power of the sword. Kim Riddlebarger sums up his views in this post when he says,

“I want to hear talk about budget cuts, tax cuts, size of government cuts, etc. I want to hear a candidate tell me how he will protect my civil liberties and not mortgage the future of my children by taxing and spending. Furthermore, I will not support a candidate for president who wants the nanny state to protect me by keeping me from smoking--Huckabee supported a national "no smoking" initiative. By the way, other than a very occasional cigar, I don't smoke. I happen to think the nanny state can be as dangerous to my health as a two-pack a day habit.”

Another problem with McCain is he needs to remember what the First Amendment says:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Congress shall make no law. The McCain-Feingold Act is certainly a law restricting political speech. Most thought the law would be struck down by the High Court. It was not. Yet I know of no Act that destroys political speech in the manner it does.

Rush had this to say yesterday:

McCain-Feingold alone. This isn't Republican, to limit free speech. This is the Incumbent Protection Act, and, of course, the amnesty program, McCain loves to say (McCain impression), "It's not amnesty! You hear me, sailor? It's not...amnesty!" But it's amnesty. It was amnesty, and that's why it went down to a scorching, blazing defeat. It's not amnesty? McCain's "stated opposition to Bush's tax cuts in 2001-2003, largely based on...class warfare rhetoric." He said (McCain impression), "We can't do this, it's tax cuts for the rich. I'm not going to do tax cuts for the rich!" "The public record is full of statements like these. Today he recalls only his insistence on accompanying spending cuts," and they didn't want any spending cuts in there so he wouldn't support tax cuts. But people have forgotten, in 2001 McCain was still steaming over 2000 and the South Carolina primary after the contretemps regarding Bob Jones University, the religion and so forth. He had it in for Bush. In 2003, his anger hadn't dwindled much. So he was opposing Bush's tax cut, using class warfare rhetoric. "As chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation..." I know people are asking, "Rush, why are you doing this? I'll tell you why I'm doing it -- because no Republican in the debate last night did it."

Levin ends his post

"My fingers are crossed that at the next debate, either Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney will find a way to address McCain’s record. (Mike Huckabee won’t, as he is apparently in the tank for him.)"

There are other problems with McCain (Remember the Gang of Fourteen that voted against the President's ability to have conservative judges appointed to the Bench). I have yet to understand how men who claim to be conservative be so far from it. McCain is no conservative. Therefore I publicly do not stand with either Huckabee or McCain. Yet, at the end of the day, we must not allow the the press to determine who is conservative. I am just wondering if Thompson will do this. The last debate showed some effort. Perhaps next time he won't cower out of challenging McCain.

Is there any Conservative that wants to be President? Please!

Teaching the Laws of Logic and Scientific Method

The scientific method is being taught in my son’s science class. The beauty of home-schooling is that I get to relearn all of those wonderful things that one forgets the farther one lives from Graduation. The science project is about submarines. We have been attempting to work through what it is we need to do to have a good science project.

While watching Myth Busters last night we discovered how applicable education is. The program had all of the essentials. The “problem” or “question” being, “Do cars get better gas mileage with the windows up and the air-conditioning on or with the windows down and air-conditioning off.

Information was then gathered and a hypothesis formed. Adam said windows up and Jamie said windows down.

The hypothesis was tested and data was recorded and analyzed. My son and I realized that there were too many variables. They were using two cars. Even though they were the same kind of car, eliminating to one constant car would give more reliable evidence for the hypothesis. This they did not do. They also used a computer instead of actually driving the distance. “So, according to the computer, it's better to use A/C with windows up.”

“This was too quick and easy for TV, so they decided to stage a seven hour marathon, race-til-you're-empty duel, with Jamie driving an SUV with A/C on and Adam driving an SUV with windows down.”

It turns out that actually driving the cars gave the opposite conclusion.

The show was a great real life lesson of the scientific method.

Another show that my son and I watched was Get Smart

This is a show that teaches the Laws of Logic in the most comical way. In the episode Hoo Done It? There is one scene that has Steven just chuckling. A murder has occurred. There were two cigarettes burning in the ashtray. That means there were two smokers in the room. But the Asian detective gets Smart to conclude that there may have been up to 50 nonsmokers in the room with the two smokers when the murder was committed. When they turned their backs, two other detectives picked up their cigarettes on their way out of the room.

The Laws of Logic are indispensable along with sound reason and sound assumptions. Having good Cable shows seems to be a great way to see these things in action.

:-)

Who Is Endorsing Huckabee?

While listeing to Rush's show, several callers defending Huckabee called. One in particular attacked Clubforgrowth as being deceptive. The caller went on to say that HSLDA was supporting Huckabee. This supposed fact is of great interest to me since I am a member of the Homeschool Legal Defense Association. I do homeschool my children.

I immediately attempted to find out if this was true. For if they were supporting Huckabee, then I ought to perhaps take a step back and see why. Sure enough, I found this link that shows HSLDA endorsing Huckabee as a true conservative.

Now I get their newsletter, but I don't always read every one of them and mostly I peruse them. So this information totally slipped by me. There is one big problem with this claim. The National Education Association (NEA) also endorses Huckabee. Isn't it odd that Huckabee could get both the NEA and HSLDA to endorse him?

Here is an article written several years ago ('99) arguing that in Arkansas, Homeschoolers were losing ground due to laws passed by Huckabee. Again, what is the deal?

The Spunkyhomeschool mom wrote,

Ned Ryun the former director of the PAC alleges that this endorsement was done unilaterally and for all intents and purposes was a Farris endorsement. He was not told of the endorsement until after the fact.

I went to Ned Ryun's Blog site and read these words:

"...eventhough I was PAC Director at the time, I was informed of the decision after it had been made; I was not involved in the discussions of endorsing Huckabee at all, and honestly, I doubt anyone else really was, accept for sitting there and just nodding yes at whatever was said"

If this is the case, that would explain why both the NEA and HSLDA are endorsing Huckabee. His record is truly a "mixed bag".

Church Is Pillar and Foundation of the Truth

If you have been following the discussion between myself and TOA, it is obvious that we speak past each other at times. This is what Dr. Walter Martin called the "language barrier". It just so happens that I am reading the current issue of the Reformed Baptist Theological Review, an article entitled The Second London Confession on the Doctrine of Scripture by Robert P. Martin. On page 79 there is a long footnote that may shed some light as to what Reformed people in general and Reformed Baptists in particular believe. Although I am sure the language barrier will still cause problems, perhaps this may help.

Martin says,

"Note the Confession speaks of God's Word as declared to the church, not to the world. This should not be construed to mean that God's word has no relevance for the world or that the world is excused from receiving it or that the church has no duty to proclaim it to the world. It means that the Bible is the church's book, and that the church has a duty regarding it. At 1 Tim 3:15, Paul calls the church 'the pillar and foundation of the truth.' He does not mean, of course, that the church is the author of the truth or the authority by which it is established. God did not give to the church or to its officers the power to rule the consciences of his people. Arguing from this text, Rome says that when her councils or Popes speak (as representatives or rulers of the church), then the doctrines which they dictate must be received as the oracles of God because the church is 'the pillar and foundation of the truth,' and, therefore, cannot err. Protestants affirm that in this sense (ie, as the author of truth and the authority by which it is established) God alone, speaking now only through the Bible (which is His inerrant, infallible inscripturated Word), is the sole foundation of the truth, and that the Bible is the sole [infallible] authority from which we derive our doctrine and practice. What then does Paul mean by calling the church 'the pillar and foundation of the truth'? He means that the church is an institution designed and purposed by God to preserve the truth pure, to defend it against error, to preach it in the world, and to commit it unaltered and undiluted to future generations. As was true of Israel under the Old Covenant, so also of the church under the New Covenant, God has created a divinely ordered and regulated human society for the propagation and maintenance in the world of revealed truth. This, of course, makes the church indispensable-as indispensable as the pillar or foundation of a house. God never designed His truth to stand in the world without the church as its supporting pillar and foundation. "

It might help to understand that Reformed Baptist believe that Confessions are authoritative, but their authority is derived from the Bible. We believe that Pastors have authority, but they derive their authority from the Bible in the manner in which it describes. Preaching is also another way in which God speaks to His people. Yet it is the Scriptures or the Apostolic Teaching that is proclaimed that is the voice of God speaking to His people.

None of this denies Sola Scriptura, but we must grasp what Sola Scriptura is. The church is how we know what is Scripture. The meaning of those terms is where we differ greatly.

In other words, God's Word is God's Word when written. The question is in reality how do we in God's Providence come to know what it is. This is a work done by God in His church. Just as in the Old Testament era the church came to recognize Scripture, so also in the New.

Boston Globe On global Warming

My wife pointed me to an interesting article on Global Warming (I rarely ever do my own research :-) ). According to the Boston Globe, you better "Stock up on fur coats and felt boots!"

This article is more evidence that Global Warming is a hoax meant to destroy Capitalism and give the power of taxation to the powers that be (IMHO). The article states:

"Carbon dioxide is not to blame for global climate change," Sorokhtin writes in an essay for Novosti. "Solar activity is many times more powerful than the energy produced by the whole of humankind."

Then it states:

The record set in 1998 has not been surpassed. For nearly a decade now, there has been no global warming. Even though atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to accumulate - it's up about 4 percent since 1998 - the global mean temperature has remained flat. That raises some obvious questions about the theory that CO₂ is the cause of climate change.

The article concludes:

Climate science isn't a religion, and those who dispute its leading theory are not heretics. Much remains to be learned about how and why climate changes, and there is neither virtue nor wisdom in an emotional rush to counter global warming - especially if what's coming is a global Big Chill.

Although I agree climate science is not a religion, it is certainly guided by world views. But to think Al Gore's rampage is anything short of total religious zealotry is simply living in denial.

Islam a Religion of Peace?

Sam Shamoun scores 95 while Nadir Ahmed scores only 5. At least that is this guy's opinion. Hopefully they will have MP3 links soon.

Is Huckabee a Populist?

I see that Gov. Huckabee has done well in Iowa, but I just don't see why. There are no conservatives among the Republican nominees, yet Huckabee along with the others are all calling themselves conservatives. I guess when conservatism is redefined to mean whatever each candidate's position is then...

In an interview with Stephanopoulos Huckabee addressed the immigration issue. Stephanopoulos questioned Huckabee's prior "KKK" statement to which Huckabee responded:

"We shouldn't have amnesty where we just say, "Fine, everybody's good, we're going to let it go." We should have a process where people can pay the penalties, step up and accept responsibility for not being here legally. But here's the point. The objective is not to be punitive. The objective is to make things right. Right for us. Right for them. And what I have objected to in the past is when we are punishing the children for the laws that maybe their parents have broken. I do have a problem with that."

I have a problem with Politicians saying they are conservative and then giving the above statement. I guess conservatives are just too dumb to know that making Mexicans "pay the penalities" is nothing but pure amnesty and all of the political pontificating will never change that. This is repeated by McCain and others, so it is not just Huckabee. Yet, Huckabee's answers are just what he thinks people want to hear.

Huckabee's view on taxes is reported by Clubforgrowth. They reported:

Immediately upon taking office, Governor Huckabee signed a sales tax hike in 1996 to fund the Games and Fishing Commission and the Department of Parks and Tourism (Cato Policy Analysis No. 315, 09/03/98).

He supported an internet sales tax in 2001 (Americans for Tax Reform 01/07/07).

He publicly opposed the repeal of a sales tax on groceries and medicine in 2002 (Arkansas News Bureau 08/30/02).

He signed bills raising taxes on gasoline (1999), cigarettes (2003) (Americans for Tax Reform 01/07/07), and a $5.25 per day bed-tax on private nursing home patients in 2001 (Arkansas New Bureau 03/01/01).

He proposed another sales take hike in 2002 to fund education improvements (Arkansas News Bureau 12/05/02).

He opposed a congressional measure to ban internet taxes in 2003 (Arkansas News Bureau 11/21/03).

In 2004, he allowed a 17% sales tax increase to become law (The Gurdon Times 03/02/04).

• 
  

Club for Growth also looked at Huckabee's other position from school choice to Social security and Regulation and concluded:

"Governor Huckabee's record on pro-growth, free-market policies is a mixed bag"

I agree. I just don't see a conservative who, along with McCain and others, is an actual conservative.

Rush Limbaugh makes an interesting observation. A caller asked:

CALLER: Longtime listener. I'd like to see you tell us, on a regular basis, in non-emotional terms, the difference between a conservative and a populist. I think especially since Huckabee got elected in Iowa, I think it's important that people know not just what a populist is. I know that you say that he speaks to the individual and wants to solve the individual's problems and let 'em bring government to do that, but I think if you could characterize a populist in terms what they would do in government, what do they back, what do they want to happen, what would they oppose and so forth and how a populist can be so very different from a conservative. I think that would be very helpful, and over and over for people who only listen occasionally. There are a whole host of differences between the two.

Rush Responds:

Now, the modern interpretation of populist, as I use it today, is not complimentary. A populist in this sense of "seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people," this is what people who employ populism want the ordinary people to think: that they are "one of them"; in fact, that they are from them; that they understand the ordinary, and that the ordinary are being shafted, and that the ordinary are being creamed, and the ordinary are being ignored.

So the populist comes along and says, "Not only am I for you, I'm of you, and I am going to go to Washington and I'm going to make sure that we ordinary people kick butt and we're going to kick the butts of the elites and we're going to kick the butt of the establishment! We're going to do this and we're going to do that." Most of them who do this are already from the establishment! They're elected governors. They're senators, or what have you. So it becomes a technique to relate to people on an emotional basis with a false promise, and that is that any one individual can solve all the problems of the ordinary. The ordinary would love their problems to be solved! I myself, not a member of the ordinary in my own definition, would love for my problems to be solved. But I'll tell you damn what: There is not a single politician on the face of the Earth that can solve one problem I've got. Now, I have complaints as well as problems. I don't like high taxation. That is something an elected official can do something about, but with a realistic proposal. But I've got problems with my cat. I have problems with doors that don't fit. I have problems with ants running around portions of the house, but I fix it!

In the last paragraph of his answer Rush concludes:

So the populist is actually a big-government person in disguise. The populist is somebody who wants to grow government to take problem-solving and sadness and all these things, out of your daily life and replace them with whatever government can do so you will become dependent. John Edwards is a populist, for example. Mrs. Clinton is a populist.

What is not said in this paragraph is that Rush is also calling Huckabee a populist. In all of Huckabee's answers, I couldn't agree more. Identity Politics, there certainly doesn't seem to be much of substance.

Full Justification Must Precede Sanctification

In the previous clip of Sungenis’ interview on the White Horse Inn, Sungenis argues that James uses Genesis 15:6 in the manner according infusion and not imputation. At one point in the program he argued that when David sinned, he needed to be justified again. David seemed to be considered lost during his mortal sin of murder and adultery.

In The God Who Justifies, James White demonstrates that the Old Testament’s usage of justification, especially in the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament), most certainly used the term in a forensic manner. One example used on page 79 is from Proverbs 17:15.

"He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous, Both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD."

"Here again, ‘justify’ and ‘ condemn’ are placed in contrast. Now if ‘justify’ meant ‘to change a person inwardly so as to make him holy or good,’ this passage would make no sense at all…It is not viewing this act of justifying as changing the person; instead, the writer is clearly speaking of the sinfulness of declaring a person who is evil to be just, as well as the outrage of declaring an innocent person to be guilty. Both are abhorrent to God, and both are clearly declarations relative to law.”

White then argues for the consistency of the text. Paul must be using justification in the forensic sense. The scope of Paul’s argument is more than demonstrated. He says on page 84:

“The righteousness that is imputed to the believer comes from outside himself: it is something given to him, not something done within him. The free character of this justification is further demonstrated by pointing out that Abraham was justified before he received the sign of circumcision: no acts of obedience to God figured in the imputation to him of righteousness based on free and nondemanding faith.”

This argument is key. In order to be consistent with what comes before and what follows, justification must be imputed or declared upon the sinner freely. Now Sungenis argued that King David would have lost his justification while he was living during his time when he had murdered Bathsheba’s husband.

This is where Roman Catholic apologetics derails. In the next chapter, Paul argues for Christ’s righteousness alone is the basis of our righteous standing before God. It not piece-mealed out to us. It is fully ours by Faith Alone. If we allow the understanding that David had lost his justification, then David under Rome’s theology would have to do something to merit it back (though they will argue by faith and grace). He was actually lost and then saved again. How many times could a person be lost and saved again? A thousand? What if he died while in that particular sin? Do we really think God would have sent David to hell?

If we reject that Christ’s life is our life by faith, an external life given to us, then we reject Christ Alone as the basis for salvation. We may never have peace with God (Romans 5:1). We may never be the “Blessed Man” of Romans 4. We may never be righteous before a Holy God. We will simply have the same view of Christ’s work on the cross as Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses and all of the others who deny Christ’s righteous life as the sufficient basis for our own standing before God.

The question is always, “What about our sinful lives?”, ignoring our wickedness even while saved. So many ignore the Descriptive or Indicative passages as the basis for the Imperative or Commands throughout the New Testament. Roman Catholics are simply backwards at this point. Roman Catholics point to James 2:23. After much exegesis, White comments that one must precede the other:

“James connects the demonstration of faith in the offering of Isaac upon the altar with the fulfillment of Genesis 15:6. How so? Again, his consistency is striking: Abraham’s confession of faith is recorded in Genesis 15:6. God justified Abraham upon exercise of that faith. The reality of the faith Abraham had, upon which he was justified, is demonstrated in the offering of Isaac. Hence, Genesis 15:6 is fulfilled in that act not through the addition of something to faith as the means of justification, but by the demonstration that Abraham truly did believe in genesis 15.”

I must conclude that justification is not some word that one may run to the dictionary and pick one meaning and use that in every instance. It would overthrow the arguments used throughout the New Testament, in particular, Paul’s argument in Romans 4 and 5. Contexts determine the usage of a term. Paul is clearly using it to explain that Christ’s life and Christ’s life alone is our righteousness.

Sungenis On Declared Righteous

I would like to interact with Sungenis’ interview on the White Horse Inn. He made the claim to Michael Horton that the word groups of dikaio and logizomai never mean to be declared righteous in the forensic and soteriological sense (listen here to short clip of that conversation). When I first heard this I was amazed at the idea that someone would make such a claim when both conservative and liberal and even Roman Catholic Scholars have argued strongly and evidentially otherwise.

Now when it comes to Roman Catholic Scholars like Reymond Brown, Sungenis dismisses him as not representing the RC Church. Yet does he? Has Rome approved of his authority to speak in her behalf? Brown and Fitzmier, to my knowledge, have never been told by the Pope they are not Roman Catholics. Rome seems to put up with such.

Back to Morris’ book, since I have recently finished it, if just one passage shows that a man may be declared righteous before God, then Sungenis is wrong. On page 263 Morris writes about the Old Testament’s view of being declared righteous:

“d. Imputed Righteousness

In view of the importance of the concept of imputed righteousness for the New Testament doctrine we must notice its occurrence in the Old Testament, although it cannot be thought of as a leading Old Testament idea. It is recorded that Abram ‘believed in the Lord; and He counted it to him for righteousness’ (Gen 15:6). Again, Phinehas stood up, ‘and executed judgment: and so the plague was stayed. And that was counted unto him for righteousness unto all generations for evermore’ (Ps. 106:30). Both men are brought into right relationship with God: they are given the status of being ‘right’ with Him. In the case of Phinehas there is an action that is applauded, but the motive is important, as we see from Numbers 25:11: ‘he was zealous for my sake among them.’ These two examples, and especially that of Abram, are important as showing that men might be reckoned as righteous before God on grounds other than that of having lived meritorious lives.”

On pages 274-275 Morris writes concerning the NT's usage of Justification:

“The whole idea of righteousness has been modified for New Testament writers because Jesus Christ has come into the world. ‘He that doeth righteousness is righteous even as He is righteous’ (1 Jn 3:7) brings the very conception of righteousness into the closest of relationships to the life of the incarnate Lord. This again is a thought which recurs, and it underlies many passages where it is not explicit. For the early Christians all things were made new, their standards of righteousness included, because the Son of God had come into the world. Accordingly, there are many passages which exhort believers to lives of righteousness. Indeed, it is just as characteristic of the New Testament that righteousness in the ethical sense should be a distinguishing mark of those who are Christ’s, as it is that it is not their own righteousness that brings them salvation, but the righteousness of God. (Compare the aim of an upright life in Phil 3:10 with the express disclaimer of the value if any ‘righteousness of my own’ in verse 9.)

But although there is this clamant demand for right living, and although the righteousness terminology is used in part to express it, yet it remains true that this is not the characteristic nor distinctive use of this terminology. As in the Old Testament and in Judaism generally, the forensic basis of this word-group is the really important thing.

We see this in such a passage as Romans 9:30-32….The forensic idea is very strong here. The Gentiles did not seek before God that righteous standing which the Jews sought by the way of the works of merit. Nevertheless they attained to righteousness, namely the righteousness that is of faith.”

I realize that TOA and other RCs would argue the works issue is different. I will deal with that in another post. Two more examples from the text of scripture should suffice.

Rom 5:18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.

Just as Adam’s act was sufficient to bring about the death of all men, so Christ’s one act is sufficient to bring about all those in union with Him to Life. This act is clearly imputed to the believing ones. They possess the righteousness of God in Christ.

Again,

2Co 5:21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

The reason RCs may sound like Reformed Protestants while meaning something totally different is the simple reason that the Death of Christ is not of the Substitutionary nature. The Penal Substitutionary Atonement is rejected.

For Sungenis to say there are no passages that show that believers are declared righteous is simply absurd.

In my next post I will cite from White’s book, The God Who Justifies, in order to deal more specifically with the Genesis 15 issue raised by Sungenis.