Spurgeon laments the abandonment of the truth and Scriptures among Christians. He talks about how they preach doubt, not faith, how there is no doctrine left unquestioned. Once again, post-modernism isn't "post" at all. Spurgeon's Lament
Manata reviews Clark's book, Recovering the Reformed Confessions. It is an 'in-house' cleaning book aimed at recovering the theology, piety and practice in the Reformed churches, primarily; by recovering the Reformed Confessions. Basically, he thinks that the loss of these confessions has caused the Reformed churches to drift from their moorings. "Clark’s aim, then, is to present a way back to home base and to provide some kind of corrective for the “inkling” that some of us have that there’s “something just not right” in Reformed churches." With respect to tradition, "there’s “the single exegetical tradition” which is more apropos as a characterization of the Reformed view that “controlled tradition with the Scriptures but did not reject tradition as such”" We read and understand Scripture in community, and this was understood in the confessions. "Clark finds that a cause for either the rejection of Reformed confessional teachings, or an elevation of non-confessional teaching to the status “Reformed,” is due to a kind of narcissism - all to characteristic of our contemporary, rugged individualistic American society of consumers. Clark says this reasoning goes something like this: “I am Reformed. I think p, and therefore p must be Reformed”". Clark goes after 'biblicism,' using Frame as his fodder - although Manata thinks Clark has misunderstood Frame. "One problem, though, is that Clark gives the impression that Frame claims that there is no extra biblical knowledge, period. But it seems Frame admits to extra biblical knowledge." It would appear that generally Clark actually agrees with Frame, but doesn't know it! "It’s hard not to think that Clark couldn’t resist using this book to take some shots from the trees at those positions and persons he disagrees with most. The problem is that when he does this, that’s when he overreaches." "Clark finds that “Some Reformed people seem to be reacting to the uncertainty of the age by grasping for this illegitimate sort of certainty” (p.39). This “reacting” is a reaction to the “‘liquidity’ or prevailing sense that nothing is fixed, certain, or reliable any longer” (p.42). Rather than turn “to the Reformed confession, however, many Reformed folk have turned to a kind of rationalism in an attempt to find certainty by elevating a particular interpretation, application, or use of Scripture above the Reformed faith itself. These folk then use their interpretation of Scripture as a mark of orthodoxy and/or sort of prophylaxis against enemies foreign and domestic, real and perceived”" ... "Clark argues that part of what gives rise to a particular 'Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty (QIRC)' is a desire to “flatten out tensions and difficulties” that seem to arise in Scripture." Manata points out that the contrary approach can result in QITH (quest for illegitimate tension holding)! Moreover, he points out that things like a framework view seek to remove tension in themselves, ironically. Clark basically argues that the Reformed identity is something inherited, and we have to recover this identity by recovering the confessions. Recovering The Reformed Confession- Reviewed
Hays takes further issue with the notion in Clark's writing that you can't change the confession from the inside (that is, you can't 'subscribe' to it AND critique part of it). As to Clark's desire to fix a reformed identity in history, Hays points out that history is fluid. "In the end, there’s no substitute for truth. Truth is the only criterion that counts. If our identity is at variance with the truth, then so much the worse for our identity. Our fidelity to sola scriptura must be a living commitment, not a perfunctory buzzword. " With respect to 6/24 creation, "I think that, at this point, Clark is guilty of special pleading. He wants to treat the Reformed confessions as definitive for Reformed identity where they happen to coincide with his own views." "I’d like to see more honesty on their part. Clark is too much like the guy who, as soon as he squeezes through the entrance, slams the door behind the next guy in line." Semper reformanda
Hays discusses the usefulness of time travel as a hypothetical for thinking things through, and whether its acceptable for a Calvinist to use the genre. "I think that’s one reason God endowed human beings with an imagination. It’s a precondition of moral deliberation." Some stories are not so much about the possibility of time-travel itself, but about the possibilities which time-travel creates. So they don’t focus on the mechanics of time-travel, beyond a perfunctory explanation to make it seem a bit more realistic." He also says about prophecy: "The potential problem is this: if a prophecy is too detailed, it generates a dilemma. For it thereby invites its own failure." Time-travel in Calvinism
Hays comments on some of the objections against Engwer's historical material in support of Christ's life, etc. Now, this is all that the objectors have. For this reason, it is worth a read. Christmas evidence
Hays points out the circularity intrinsic to Orthodox argumentation for what identifies an ecumenical council: They claim it is that upon which all Christians agree - which severely begs the question. Who's a heretic-
Manata review Boyd's book Myth. "And it is statements like this that make Boyd’s book dangerous. The subtitle of the book is, “How the Quest for Political Power is Destroying the Church.” But it is Boyd’s teaching that will destroy the church far more efficiently than misguided Christians exhibiting a zeal without knowledge. As should have been self-evident from the above, Boyd is teaching a works-based gospel. Confusing law and gospel. The kingdom expands and people are transformed by what we do, not by what they believe Christ did for them." "Lastly, Boyd makes self-refuting claims. Given that it is obvious that he’s “judging” a certain segment of the church, and given the plausible assumption that Boyd is a sinner, then he removes the foundations upon which he seeks to judge these Christians: “If you want to judge someone else, you first have to be sinless.” Boyd says that “Jesus never judged Gentile sinners,” and Paul never did either." Ironically, Boyd has just changed one form of moralism for another. The Myth of a Christian Nation- Book Review
Hays comments on the use of 'hypercalvinist' as a pejorative by non-Calvinists, and points out that the Reformed confessions have no well-meant-offer required in them. Moreover, "The logical objection is illogical. The only thing that makes an offer genuine is if it’s true. The offer of the gospel is a conditional offer. If you do what it says (repent and believe), you will get what God promised." He also points out that the objection cuts those who put it forward, for the only thing consistent with the notion that God loves the reprobate and wants to save them is universalism - or to reject the presupposition. "On a final note, I find it odd when some Christians think it’s absolutely essential that God suffer from frustrated desires. They act as though we’re in mortal peril of losing some fundamental feature of Christian theism unless we insist on the fact that God is schizophrenic." Why doesn't God save everyone? The only logical objectives are that God is not omnipotent or not omnibenevolant. The free offer of the gospel
Engwer responds to a news article. If you're looking for an example of what I think borders on illiteracy, this one is good. As Engwer replies: "Miller's reasoning could also be applied, in part or in whole, to polygamy, incestuous marriage, marriage between adults and children, marriage between humans and animals, etc. As I said above, though, I don't want to analyze all of Miller's arguments or respond to her line-by-line. These issues have already been addressed in the archives of this blog and elsewhere." Engwer then points to historical evidence Aristides and Justin Martyr as a starting point to showing the bankruptcy of this article's claims. Newsweek Misrepresents Homosexuality And Polygamy In Judaism And Christianity
Hays has some fascinating comments and quotes about time and our perception of it. For example, the distinction between our precision clocked time, versus a time marked by sunrise, sunset, harvest, etc. Time, like an ever-rolling stream
White points to more examples of the continuing nonsense of the 'hypercalvinist' thing. Being A Calvinist Does Not Make You Think Logically
Mathis quotes Carson to the effect that although in a non-fallen world there would be no suffering, it does not follow that there is no innocent suffering. Innocent Suffering
Piper prays that a glimpse of a pain-free life in the presence of God will have a transforming effect upon us in the here and now to be the most anxiety-free, regret-free, grumbling-free, selfishness-free witnesses to the greatness of Christ the world has ever known. A Glimpse of a Pain-Free Life
Brutal. Rick Warren says, Give Jesus a 60 day trial, or your money back. Give Jesus a 60-Day Trial-
This is hilarious. Seriously. http://www.challies.com/archives/general-news/ramblings/the-silence-at-the-t4g-blog.php
Challies gives a quick review on Signs of the Spirit, Sam Storms' interpretation of Jonathan Edwards' The Religious Affections. Book Review - Signs of the Spirit
From Justin Taylor: "Rob Bowman gives us a good example of that, responding to the bad reasoning of Tony Jones on same-sex marriage. Bowman identifies in Jones's arguments invalid euphemisms, equivocations, non sequiturs, straw-men, appeals to modernity and appeals to antiquity, chronological snobbery, and misplace of the burden of proof." Fallacies of Same-Sex Marriage Polemics
This is just plain weird. Do You Believe in Santa Claus-
Beale's logic of inerrancy: "God is true and trustworthy, and he never lies, deceives, or makes mistakes. The Bible is God’s revelation of himself. Therefore the Bible never lies, deceives, or makes mistakes." Beale on the Biblical Logic of Inerrancy
JT links to Bullmore's message on what we should do with our money. Cf. C. S. Lewis: “I do not believe one can settle how much we ought to give. I am afraid the only safe rule is to give more than we can spare. In other words, if our expenditure on comforts, luxuries, amusement, etc., is up to the standard common among those with the same income as our own, we are probably giving away too little. If our giving does not at all pinch or hamper us, I should say it is too small. There ought to be things we should like to do and cannot because our commitment to giving excludes them.” Mike Bullmore- What We Should Do with Our Money
Twenty books to read in your twenties. http://www.buzzardblog.com/buzzard_blog/2008/12/20-books-to-rea.html
Bayly continues with his critique of Keller and his advocacy of female deacons: "Keller suggests the trajectory of the RPCES immediately prior to her union with the PCA was towards lifting her own restrictions against woman deacons, and therefore this same trajectory should lead the PCA now, thirty years later, to change our polity... For Keller's argument to work, though, his version of history has to be right. Its not." Critique of Pastor Keller's promotion of woman deacons, part 6- RPCES decisively rejected woman
Ten reasons to advance musical opinions with humility. 1. Being a self-appointed music critic can reveal pride. 2. Music doesn’t define us. 3. Great songs don’t always sound great the first time through. 4. The introduction to a song isn’t the same thing as the song. 5. Listening to music the masses have never heard of doesn’t make us better. 6. Listening to music that is massively popular doesn’t make us better. 7. Learning to appreciate unfamiliar music is one way to prefer others. 8. Learning to like other kinds of music can open my eyes to God’s creativity. 9. We may have to eat our words. 10. We might be missing an opportunity to be grateful for God’s gifts. Ten Reasons to Share Musical Opinions Humbly
No comments:
Post a Comment