B.C. Askins

The Man With the Golden Gun

Archive for the month “April, 2012”

WOD Recap: Anti-Hero Times

Design Diversion 05 January 2009

The Punisher: Classic Anti-hero

So I’ve been out of town the last few weeks and unable to post. Here’s a little recap of how things have been going:

I took almost a full week off from PT April 8-14 because I was attending the Together for the Gospel conference. It was possibly the most impactful conference I’ve ever attended. I’d recommend listening to any/all of the messages; however, Ligon Duncan’s sermon hit me directly between the eyes and I expect to re-visit it many times in the years to come. I can’t recommend it highly enough.

The following week I had to travel for work and had planned some pretty intense workouts, but after a week of restaurants and PT-lessness I wound up getting in more excuses than exercises. On Monday I attempted the Hero WOD “Badger”:

Complete three rounds for time of:
95 pound Squat clean, 30 reps
30 Pull-ups
Run 800 meter

But I had to scale it 30-20-10 each round because I was weak. Even with the scaling I finished in a pathetic 40-ish minutes. I remember thinking that if I had been caught in a life-or-death struggle that morning, I would likely now be “less than alive.” So I berated myself mentally for a few days for that. In the meanwhile I was up late every night and up early every morning writing an exegetical paper on 1 Peter 3:13-17 for class. It’s my first attempt at a full-blown exegetical paper, so it required an awful lot of attention; I wrote the first three pages in about four-and-a-half hours. I’ll probably post it up here in a few days, if I get a chance.

So I didn’t hit the gym again until Thursday morning, 0500. I was still feeling weak and slow, but decided to try the classic “300” workout:

300 (film)

300 (film) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Pullups – 25 reps
Barbell Deadlift with 135 lbs. – 50 reps
Pushups – 50 reps
24-inch Box Jumps – 50 reps
Floor Wipers – 50 reps (sometimes I substitute GHD situps to hit the core harder)
Single-Arm Clean-and-Press with 36 lbs Kettlebell – 50 reps
Pullups – 25 reps

And I surprised myself by hitting a PR (Personal Record) at just over 17 min. (old PR was around 21 min.). I was pretty excited when I hit the stopwatch, especially since I’ve gained 15-20 lbs since my last attempt at 300. Then I was not so excited when I found myself dry heaving in the shower and spending an extended time on the throne (I don’t remember eating a raw porcupine smothered in jalapenos – but this Paleo diet can be pretty crazy sometimes).

It just reminded me of how truly amazing and almost paradoxical the human body is – so resilient at times and simultaneously so fragile. Maybe some people feel invincible after a PR; I was struck by my own mortality and grateful to God for sustaining a sinner like me for one more day.

The next week I was on active duty for some post-mobilization training and got to do PT with some buddies from my recent tour in Iraq. I was glad for the extra motivation they brought, helping me push when I wanted to slack off. As an NCO, it’s my job to set the standard – but it’s also the expectations of my Soldiers that helps me to be a better leader.

So we started the week with “Forrest”:

Three rounds for time of:
20 L-pull-ups (we substituted kipping pullups)
30 Toes to bar
40 Burpees
Run 800 meters

SPC Ray came in a minute or so ahead of me on this one, at about 51 min. – however, we started the WOD with six participants and only three survived to the end. It probably didn’t help that half of our 800m run was completely uphill, ha ha. We drank a protein shake for our “fallen comrades.”

Two evenings later I PR’d with a 440lb. deadlift (my grip gave out on 450). I was feeling so good after that, I decided the next day’s WOD would be “Double Murph“… That’s right – DOUBLE:

With a 20lb weight vest, for time:
1 mile Run
100 Pull-ups
200 Push-ups
300 Squats
1 mile Run
Your reward for completing that is doing it all over again. Took me a little over 2:30 (that’s hours).

Photo Illustration commemorating the Medal of ...

Photo Illustration commemorating the Medal of Honor presented posthumously to Lt. Michael P. Murphy (SEAL). (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

My compatriots all completed one Murph and called it a day. One of my goals this year is to accomplish a Triple Murph – but I think I need to severely reduce my Murph time before that would be a non-injurious endeavor. Anyway, I was pretty sore for the next few days, so I just did some light exercises to try to move the lactic acid along.

Today I just did a few sets of some complex heavy lifts: clean and jerks, high pulls, deadlift, back squat, dumbbell bench, pullups, weighted chin-ups, tricep presses, 110lb farmers walk and 50 GHD situps to ensure total body annihilation.


Erasmus’ Principles on How to Be Strong While Remaining Virtuous in a Dangerous World: 2


Even if you must undergo the loss of everything

Hero WOD: “Pheezy”

U.S. Marine Corps Lance Corporal Philip P. Clark, 19, of Gainesville, Florida, assigned to 1st Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, based in Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, died on May 18, 2010, while supporting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan. He is survived by his wife, Ashton, father Mike and stepmother Tammy, mother Rosmari Kruger, and brothers Tyler, Kyle and Ryan Nordyke.

Three rounds for time of:
165 pound Front squat, 5 reps
18 Pull-ups
225 pound Deadlift, 5 reps
18 Toes-to-bar
165 pound Push jerk, 5 reps
18 Hand-release push-ups

Took me 23:00 – was hoping for sub-20. I attribute the slower time to too much toxic sugar from Easter.

Erasmus’ Principles on How to Be Strong While Remaining Virtuous in a Dangerous World: 1


Even if the entire world appears mad

The Divine Decree

The Fall depicted in the Sistine Chapel by Mic...

The Fall depicted in the Sistine Chapel by Michelangelo (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

There is an intramural debate among Reformed theologians regarding some of the specifics of God’s eternal decree which results in the creation-fall-redemption-restoration of the universe (the “lapsarian debate” or the debate over the “order of the divine decrees”).

Essentially, God’s decree is what determines the course of history, down to the finest of details. I won’t be touching on the issue of whether or not the decree is compatible with contingency, human responsibility, secondary causality, etc. in this post.

You’ll notice that I’ve been referring to God’s decree (singular) not God’s decrees (plural). This is because it is biblical to say that God is eternal (timeless, “outside-of-time”, the Creator of time, pre-temporal, transcendent, something to that effect, etc.), which tends to constrain us to believe that God made a single decree which resulted in everything, not several successive decrees. Several successive decrees implies a sequence of thought or actions, which is inconsistent with eternal timelessness. There may be many intentions in the decree (and therefore many results from the decree in space and time), but there is only one, single, eternal decree of God.

It is a common theological misnomer in the intramural debate I mentioned above for some to speak of the “order of the decrees” of God in creation, redemption, predestination, etc. The fact is that all sides of the debate agree that God’s decree is singular, because God is one and eternal. This is not controversial.

The language of plural decrees sneaks into the discussion because the debate centers around questions regarding the “logical order” of events in the mind of God in decreeing all things which come to pass. (Note: Using the plural term “decrees” is not always inaccurate or something to be avoided in all circumstances. Indeed, Scripture often uses the plural term, but more often
as a synonym for God’s purposes, plans or intentions, rather than as a technical theological term for His divine ordination.)

There are generally three positions given in this regard: supralapsarian, infralapsarian and post-redemptionist. I will be foregoing any discussion of the history or evolution of these positions at this time. A brief synopsis of each position will be offered below, with my (humble) analysis following.

(Note: The suffix “-lapsarian” refers specifically to God’s ordaining of The Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden, when sin entered creation. “To lapse” into something is used as synonymous with “to fall.” So one’s view of the logical place of The Fall in relation to God’s other decrees largely determines whether one “falls into” the supra- or infra- camp (pun intended). More will be said on this shortly.)


One of the “7 Habits of Highly Effective People” is to begin a project with the end in mind. It could be said that this is the driving principle behind the supralapsarian’s view of the order of the divine decrees. The supra position states that a rational mind begins with an intended end and works back from that end through the means to the beginning. It is a telelogical or purpose-driven view of the order of the decrees. The supra contention is that God is a supremely rational being (or *chuckle* one could say the “most
highly effective person”) and therefore the logical order of the decrees, beginning with the end in mind, is most commonly formulated as:

1.) The decree to elect some creatable people for salvation and blessing (and the reprobation of others).
2.) The decree to create.
3.) The decree that all men would fall.
4.) The decree to redeem the elect, who are now sinners, by the cross work of Christ.
5.) The decree to apply Christ’s redemptive benefits to the elect.
6.) The decree to glorify the elect.

This formulation is (obviously) inconsistent with its first principle of working from the end backwards, and this has been recognized by many theologians who have offered a more consistent supralapsarian framework. However, the above formulation remains the most common supralapsarian view point, so it is what I will use as the standard for the supra position. Also, I’m not interested (in this particular post) in explicating an intramural debate within an intramural debate within a particular theological tradition within historical Protestantism.


Infralapsarianism, in contrast to the supra position above, takes chronology as its central principle, rather than teleology. God is said to logically progress in his decrees from the beginning to the end, reasoning from cause to effect. The order of the decrees reflects the order of the historical events which they produce. The infra position presents the order of the decrees as:

1.) The decree to create.
2.) The decree that all men would fall.
3.) The decree to elect some creatable people for salvation and blessing (and the reprobation of others).
4.) The decree to redeem the elect, who are now sinners, by the cross work of Christ.
5.) The decree to apply Christ’s redemptive benefits to the elect.
6.) The decree to glorify the elect.

It should be recognized at this point that the supra and infra positions are not in the kind of opposition that they are often thought to be. They are answering the question of the order of the decrees with a different conception of order: one telelogical (purpose-driven), one chronological (history-driven), both still logical. Much (though not all) of the disagreement between the two groups has to do with an unarticulated equivocation regarding the term “order.”


The third, and least popular, view of the divine decrees is post-redemptionism (sometimes called ante-applicationism).
Post-redemptionists are rarely welcome to sit at the same cafeteria table with the supras and infras at the theological academy. Post-redemptionism is the view of the decrees most commonly associated with Amyraldianism (a view commonly, though mistakenly, called “4-point Calvinism”). The post-redemptionists hold to a view of the decrees which reflects their convictions regarding both universal and particular aspects of the atonement of Christ and the conditional and unconditional nature of divine covenants. The post-redemptionist view of the order of the decrees is:

1.) The decree to create.
2.) The decree that all men would fall.
3.) The decree to redeem all men by the cross work of Christ.
4.) The decree to elect some creatable people for salvation and blessing (and the reprobation of others).
5.) The decree to apply Christ’s redemptive benefits to the elect.
6.) The decree to glorify the elect.

This view is called “post-redemptionist” because it places the decree to elect after the decree to redeem, in contradistinction with the other two positions.

Some Thoughts on the Divine Decree

All sides of the debate agree that God’s decree is, in itself, singular (as I mentioned early in this post). This is the testimony of both Scripture and reason and is not debated by any of the three positions above.

Let me then raise the questions: what warrant do we have for going any further in the discussion? What warrant is there for going beyond the testimony of Scripture and reason in an effort at applying our own logical intuitions and inferences to the mind of God?

“For who has known the mind of the Lord or who has been His counselor?” (Romans 11:34)

“The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.” (Deuteronomy 29:29)

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord.” (Isaiah 55:8)

It is my contention that there are at least four problems with the debate over the “logical order of the divine decrees”:

1.) As mentioned above, the debate largely rests on an unarticulated equivocation over the term “order,” since both telelogical and chronological orders are logical in their own way.

2.) Practically-speaking, the debate itself seems to center less on the actual question under investigation and tends to locate itself more readily on the issue of The Fall or the Problem of Evil. When viewed from this perspective, the debate between the supra and infra positions tends to merely be over a difference of emphasis rather than difference of content. One tends to emphasize a logical place for evil in God’s plan (supra), the other emphasizes the heinous nature of sin (infra). But the one abstracted from the other can be problematic. The supra might present sin and evil as merely one link in a logical chain to God’s glory, while the infra might not make clear the wisdom and harmony of God’s eternal plan.

3.) All of the above positions tend to exert an inordinate amount of influence over one’s biblical interpretations. It is not proper hermeneutics for an extra-biblical discussion of the logical order of the divine decrees to be the controlling influence of one’s understanding of the Scripture. Scripture must be our sole infallible authority, and all other secondary authorities must bow the knee to it (including, and I might say especially, our own intuitions regarding the logical inner workings of God’s mind). It becomes far too easy to implicitly and almost unconsciously make supralapsarianism into the filter through which all of Scripture must be viewed.

4.) There is no warrant for exceeding the revelation of Scripture in seeking to “read God’s mind,” prying into the “secret things (which) belong to the Lord our God,” seeking to apply our thoughts to His thoughts. In fact, Scripture explicitly warns against such things. It seems that the debate as it is most commonly framed is condemned as unethical by Scripture. Therefore, I advocate a fourth position regarding the “logical order of the divine decrees in the mind of God”: agnosticism.

The debate itself seems to be a strange sort of rationalistic mysticism. The ancient mystics sought to contemplate, think and meditate until they gained insights into the divine nature (but largely appear from their own writings to only gain greater insight into their own thoughts and feelings, then project them onto God). The lapsarian debate is largely indistinct from those activities, apart from the deep commitment to rational investigation rather than the more common emotional mysticism. But, to paraphrase Martin Luther on the matter, when one seeks to find the “hidden God” (Deus absconditus) apart from His self-revelation, one will only find the “naked God” (Deus nudus). And a naked God is always an angry God.

So, it is my contention that the lapsarian debate is essentially akin to attempting to catch a glimpse of God’s “secrets” while He is “getting dressed”. Some will no doubt find this statement irreverent, but it is in fact merely an accurate analogy for the starkly inappropriate nature of the lapsarian debate. One would do well not to go beyond what one’s Father has revealed to us.

Post Navigation

%d bloggers like this: