A Parenthetic Note To New Readers

Much to my surprise, apparently Semper Reformanda has been added to the blog roll over at The Declassified Adoptee. To say I’m shocked would be an understatement. And now I’m starting to receive a respectable amount of traffic from the aforementioned blog, so I thought that at least a “Howdy” was in order, and perhaps a wee bit more.

Secrecy and Lies: Mutual Consent?

A well known facet of my personality, especially to those that know me well, is my zero-tolerance policy where stupidity is concerned. I despise stupidity in all forms – it makes me very angry.

But of all of the adoption related stupidity that make my blood tip past the boiling point, mutual consent registries for adoption reunions are very close to the top of the list.

For the uninitiated, mutual consent registries (also known as passive reunion registries), are a ruse used by the anti-open records crowd; since such registries exist, they can say that they aren’t opposed to contact between the members of the adoption triad, while knowing full well the massive flaws in mutual consent registries, which are numerous.

Secrecy and Lies: Government Bureaucracy

I got a lovely letter today from the Depart of Social Services. I’ve been watching the mail like a hawk ever since I sent in my request for my non-identifying information.

So, here I am, standing in my kitchen and trembling with rage, all over a simple 8.5 x 11 sheet of paper, which reads:

Dear Mr. X,

We have received your completed application, notarized affidavit, and fee…

Please be aware that due to the substantial number of requests, budged constraints and staff shortage, it will take approximately thirty-six to forty-eight weeks for you to receive your information…

No, you didn’t misread that. No I’m not making this up. It is really going to take between nine and twelve months for me to receive my non-identifying information.

Antinomianism and the “Tertius Usus Legis” (Part 3)

John Agricola – Luther's opponent in the original antinomian controversy.

Having summarized the first use of the law (usus primus – the evangelical use), we turn now to a summary of the second use of the law (usus secondus).

The second use of the law is its function in public life as a guide to the civil magistrate in the prosecution of his task as the minister of God in all things pertaining to the state. The magistrate is required by God to reward good and punish evil (Rom. 13:3-4). Nothing could be more essential to this sort of work than a reliable guide to right and wrong, good and evil. And no better guide can be found than the law of God.

Antinomianism and the “Tertius Usus Legis” (Part 2)

So now let’s summarize the first two uses of the law in order to examine its third use in its proper context, which is sanctification, which necessarily involves grateful obedience to God for His full-orbed salvation in Jesus Christ. The believer who is justified sola fide, and adheres to sola scriptura, will thankfully and wholeheartedly trust and obey the Lord. All of this enables us to draw some significant conclusions about the Christian in his relationship to the third use of the law.

Antinomianism and the “Tertius Usus Legis” (A Belated Preface)

John Agricola – The "Original" Antinomian

I should have made it a point to put this up prior to the first post in this series – but in my haste I scheduled the first post to go up while I was still drafting this one. There is some information that is necessary in order for what I’ll be writing about to make sense. So, in no particular order of importance, here’s what you really do need to know:

1. I intend to begin by giving a brief overview of the 3 uses of the law. This will primarily be historical; we’ll take a look at the formulation of the third use of the law, in particular, in the works of Luther, Melanchthon, and finally, John Calvin. This is to show the history of the tertius usus legis in Reformation thought and theology.
2. From there we’ll turn to dealing with the abiding validity of the Law in exhaustive detail. This work will primarily be exegetical in nature.
3. This will be followed by an examination of the alleged “negative passages” regarding the Law of God, particularly in Paul, although I don’t currently intend to restrict myself solely to those.
4. Also, please understand that this will likely be an occasional series; by that I mean that I doubt I’ll be posting daily, or even weekly for that matter. I’m in the middle of studying for exams, prepping multiple sermons, and studying for my licensure exams as well. I have limited time available to me, and blogging isn’t my highest priority right now.

Now for some other notes regarding the series; I believe the most dangerous man in the world is the one who honestly believes that he has no presuppositions. For that reason, let me lay mine on the table:

1. I believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and that it does not ever contradict itself. Any perceived contradiction is because we haven’t understood the text correctly.
2. I also believe that the original texts of Scripture, written in Hebrew (OT) and Greek (NT) are the final court of appeal for our understanding of the texts in question, not the English translations thereof.
3. Finally, you should note that Greek is my thing. One post in particular is going to involve some heavy Greek work, and I am expecting my readers to be acquainted with at least some intermediate Greek grammar. If you aren’t, following along might be difficult. (I’d recommend reading Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics by Dr. Daniel Wallace.)

Finally, comments are welcome – but as I’ve stated in the comments policy, I expect any disagreeing comments must disagree in a substantive manner. Simply quoting Scripture, quoting Scripture out of context, or engaging in ad hominem argumentation will get you banned. Frankly, I don’t expect this to be a problem, but on the other hand, it’s always when I don’t expect a problem that one crops up.

Antinomianism and the “Tertius Usus Legis”

I wouldn’t have thought just a couple of years ago that a post like this would have been needed; after all, I came to Christ from such a legalistic background that the very concept of antinomianism was completely foreign to me.

But more and more I am coming across posts like this one, which misunderstands the Christian’s relation to the Law so badly that I feel compelled to correct the misconceptions that are so rampant amongst those whom are antinomians (whether they be doctrinal antinomians or practical antinomians). Actually correcting such misconceptions is easier said than done, however, since the problem runs deeper than just a misunderstanding of the Christian’s relation to the Law; it includes a misunderstanding of God’s covenants with man, and a deeply defective and unbiblical view of sanctification.

Secrecy and Lies: Know Your Enemy

Have any of you ever heard of the Uniform Adoption Act? I’m willing to wager large quantities of money that the vast majority of you haven’t. It was a lovely little concept that got tossed around starting back in 1994. It was drafted by the NCCUSL, and like all of the work it produces, it was intended to standardize practices (in this case adoption practices) across the nation. The proposals that the NCCUSL introduces to state legislatures can be adopted in whole or in part. This one was one of the most boneheaded I have ever heard of. Here’s some of its most interesting stipulations:

Secrecy and Lies: Mom? Where Are You?

Here's another lie for you...

As I told another adoptee tonight in a chat room, it’s funny how what the rest of the world sees as so amazing can blast such a gaping hole straight through us. I compare to what people say when they find out I’m a combat veteran: “I bet you feel so lucky to be home.” My usual response (at least mentally), is along the lines of, “Yep. But I’d feel even luckier if those jerks hadn’t been shooting at me to start with.”

Adoption, even the best adoption, can cause some strange aftershocks. It certainly did for me. Like many adoptees, I had (and still have) one fear that just consumes me. For years it controlled my every move; then if finally went and got help from a fantastic counselor who specialized in attachment disorders. Reactive Attachment Disorder isn’t something you want to hear at 25 years old. But he was right, and it’s taken a lot of work and a lot of grace to get to a place where I can even regulate the issue. It will never go away.

Secrecy and Lies: The “Talking” Problem

Again, I have to say, it’s a little interesting delving back into some of these topics after 6 years of somewhat being somewhat silent on all adoption related issues. From 2003-2007, when I look back, it seems like adoption was all I talked about. For my regular readers, I was the adoptee equivalent of the dreaded “cage Calvinist”.  Every conversation ended up being about the injustice of closed adoption. Then…well, I think things got better. The rage wasn’t as hot. The pain wasn’t so sharp. Back then, I couldn’t stop talking about adoption. Now, on those rare occasions when adoption does come up, I don’t really say much. Not because I don’t have anything to say, but because I’ve learned that there is a “talking problem” where adoption is concerned. I’m sure your wondering what exactly I mean when I say that there is a talking problem when adoption comes up, so let me explain. Maybe it will help.

Secrecy and Lies: A Personal Reflection

Oct. 14, 1980: The Rebel gets adopted...

It’s funny…I hadn’t thought about so much of this adoption related stuff in years. I spent 2 years seeing a counselor who specialized in attachment disorders; to this day I still do work daily to regulate my responses to attachment related stuff. In fact, I do it hourly, and I do it without thinking about it. It’s just become a part of me.

You see, back in 1980 no one was telling adoptive parents about things like Reactive Attachment Disorder. My folks never new such a beast existed. After a year of working with RH, we came to a place where we realized that I was never going to be “fixed” (whatever that might have looked like) because, in effect, too much time had passed. If he had gotten to me at five-years-old, who knows what might have been possible. Instead, the best I could, and still can, hope for is to regulate the problem.