2009-07-16

This post continues a key history of Calvin. When he father died, he was growing disallusioned with humanism, etc. while studying law, and so  he returned to Paris to pursue theological studies. He wrote a commentary on Seneca's De Clementia but it didn’t sell like he wanted. In 1533 his friend delivered an All Saints’ Day convocation address heralding Christ as the sole mediator, which meant him and Calvin had to flee town. Still in exile in 1535, he published his first edition of the Institutes. De Clementia, Conversion, and Cop- Life of Calvin, Part 3

Creation.com notes research at Oxford, (where Dawkin’s worked) etc. indicating that children, even in a culture like Japan, with (a) Shinto, which has no Creator-God, and (b) which discourages speculation into the metaphysical, identify natural and man-made objects as being made by God. Evolutionists pass this off as a useful evolutionary skill (makes one wonder why they try to disprove it??). This also indicates that the indoctrination hypothesis has little ground. http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed

Phillips reposts a blog on the question that Jesus asked the lame man in John 5: Do you wish to become well? It’s not a dumb question. Phillips takes the question as challenging the man’s identity in victimhood. People can become wrapped up in their suffering. “You see, it's an axiom of human nature that we do what we think works for us. The most maladaptive person, who chooses to careen from one horrid relationship or situation or choice to another, persists in doing so because he is getting something out of it.” Do they want to become healthy? Do they want freedom? Jesus' dumb question that wasn't (and isn't) [requested classic re-post]

Creation.com connects the relentless rise of youth suicide rates to evolution in the west. If you tell people that there is no ultimate meaning/purpose, that you’re born, you suffer, and die, is it any surprise that when the going gets tough that many people, having lost the fear of judgment after death (Heb. 9:27), would take the obvious ‘escape route’ of death? Recently, however, Australia’s public broadcaster aired a testimony which not only starkly highlighted this issue, it added another bizarre dimension—the postulate, by a sufferer, that depression leading to suicide might be an evolutionary ‘good’.

Shepherd’s Fellowship writes that elders should do all they can to work toward unity regarding the nautre and function of the local church body. This practically means that principled decisions which are achieved by proper and sound exegesis can and do reflect affirmations in unanimity because the Elders are submitting their wills to Holy Scripture, ensuring the Holy Spirit’s illumining role in the church’s male leadership, and thus securing a healthy course of action for the strengthening of the corporate body (Ephesians 4:4-16). On matters of preference (areas which have no explicit or implicit mandate for leadership unanimity), these should be permitted, and not allowed to divide the eldership. Principle versus Preference

DeYoung has some comments on Wright’s new book, Justification. i) He notes humourously that years ago at seminary, he hit an apple with a wiffle bat in the hallway, and nearly hit NT Wright, which he notes may have ended the NPP and his own seminary career that day. Wright was a gentleman about it. ii) Wright’s tone isn’t harsh, but exasperated. iii) Piper and Wright both refreshingly give reasons for their positions, rather than emoting. iv) Wright is right more often than wrong: his work on the resurrection, his view that lawkeeping is supposed to be a gracious response (DeYoung notes that’s not how it always plays out in reality), his defense of marriage, etc. is good. N.T. Wright, Justification- God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision

Hays compares the weathered Christian to an old oak tree with broken branches, looking disfigured, having been through wind and fire. The reality is that the old oak has an extensive and secure root system. Taproot

Hays comments on Dever’s note that pastors who require millennial views in the statement of faith for their church are sinning. i) What does ‘require’ mean? Can someone disagree in conscience? ii) It’s not wrong for like-minded Christians to associate formally. iii) Why can’t a statement of faith contain something that individual Christians don’t agree upon if it’s not required for church membership? The pastor is trying to convince people of his views, after all. iv) Why can’t people express a common conviction? We need to the extreme of disfellowshiping other Christians over differences of opinion which are not a sufficient basis for excommunication, and the extreme of being so worried about offending/hurting people that we can’t say what we believe. One for all and all for one

T-fan quotes Gregory of Nyssa making statements consistent with sola fide (with the caveat that he might contradict this elsewhere). Sola Fide in Gregory of Nyssa

Poythress continues with some comments on the gender debate and the Trinity, who would like to see more study. i) Regarding the compatibility of the subordination of the Son in the incarnation to who the Son always is in relation to the Father: While there is certainly mystery in the incarnation, the Son is one person, both man and God, acting as both man and God (the implication being that what Jesus does as man is not in contradiction to what He does as God, and the incarnate Son submitting is indicative of a broader relation). More study is needed on this point. ii) Contra those who see nothing familial in them (and so deny the son’s subordination), God’s use of ‘father’ and ‘son’ in revealing himself indicates a genuine analogy with human relations that cannot be ignored, though it must be treated with humility, since it is analogical. A Steady Path Forward- Some Direction for the Gender Debate, Part 3 - the Trinity

White briefly comments on Romanist Mark Shea’s claim that Protestants are using Romanist tradition percolated to them through Protestant tradition by believing that marriage is monogamous and the Holy Spirit is person. i) It’s true that many Protestants follow traditions – but that doesn’t mean we can’t distinguish primary from secondary authorities. ii) Shea attacks the perspicuity and sufficiency of Scripture by claiming we need the extrabiblical authority of Rome to sort things out. iii) Let the reader compare Reformed theological works on the Trinity to the man-centred chatter of Rome. iv) Romanists can’t answer how the believing Jew knew Isaiah and 2 Chronicles were Scripture fifty years before Jesus was born. Thus they assume what they need to prove. v) Matthew 19:3-9 is clear: Marriage is monogomous. A Classic Attack upon the Perspicuity of Scripture