Fides et Ratio

Great Stuff

2005-10-05T10:10:00.000-07:00

She Must and Shall Go Free(words by william gadsby, music by derek webb & sandra mccracken)

mercy speaks by Jesus’ blood
hear and sing, ye sons of God
justice satisfied indeed
Christ has full atonement made

Jesus’ blood speaks loud and sweet
here all Deity can meet
and, without a jarring voice
welcome Zion to rejoice

(chorus)
“all her debts were cast on me,
and she must and shall go free”

peace of conscience, peace with God
we obtain through Jesus’ blood
Jesus’ blood speaks solid rest
we believe, and we are blest

(chorus)

(bridge)
should the law against her roar
Jesus’ blood still speaks with power
“all her debts were cast on me,
and she must and shall go free”

(chorus)

I'M BACK!

2005-09-29T16:23:00.000-07:00

After a much needed hiatus (and a trip to xanga), I am back and going to be using my blogspot address again! I am going to be posting the same thing on both blogs, so if you read my xanga, then you don't have to worry about this one. My first posts are going to be old xanga posts anyway. I know no one probably reads this thing anymore, but I did miss my blogger account. May the Lord bless and keep you!

P.S. I can't deny that part of the reason that I decided to come back is that today is my birthday, and I am now 22 years old.

Ergazomai!

2005-03-01T05:49:00.000-08:00

I have been working an incredible amount of hours recently, attributing to the fact that I haven't posted much lately (thanks to Adam Naranjo's encouraging comments for me to keep up posting). I worked 57 hours last week. I work the niught shift at a gas station, and yesterday was my first day off in two weeks. I also noticed that Adam linked two of one of my mentors and heroes' papers, Dr. David Naugle. I have so much to attribute for my growth as a Christian thniker. His introduction to Philosophy class my Freshman year of college rocked my world, as did his Philosophy of Religion class. DBU needs him, and he does a terrific job of shaping the school's view on education.

I am thankful that I can call him a mentor of mine (as was my other Philosohpy professor, Todd Kappelman). It is pretty funny that both Philosophy professors at a Baptist school were both Calvinists. I am thankful to God that I can call Dr. Naugle a friend and a fellow co-laborer for the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We still communicate often, and will probably get back together often when I return to the Dallas Metroplex in the Fall (though, just not at DBU. I will be going to the University of Texas at Arlington and majoring in English and Philosophy; which will mean that I will graduate a yr and a half late or so.). Thanks once again to Adam for the encouragement, because I certainly need it. I am going to find some essays by Professor Kappelmann for him to post, because they are high quality just like Dr. Naugle's are. Kyrie Eleison en hymin. Amen.

De Trinitate

2005-02-28T05:46:00.000-08:00

The doctrine of the Trinity is the essential doctrine of the Christian faith which we confess. The Trinity is what all other doctrines are built off of. Unfortunately, Evangelicals have not been so good at centering their theology around the doctrine of the Trinity. In the 20th century the doctrine was "recovered" by the likes of Karl Barth, Karl Rahner, Jurgen Moltmann and T.F. Torrance, none of which lay claim to the title "Evangelical".

It is important when considering the Trinity to put "equal ultimacy" on the, to use Cappodocian language, one ousia (being) and the three hypostases (persons). The West, following Augustine, has placed the one being of God at the center of thought. This has led to many problems with Modalistic tendencies. We must confess,with Calvin (though he never said the Holy Spirit was autotheos, I think we can glean this from his insistance on calling the Son such), that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all three autotheos.

We also have to center our theology on the Patristic idea of Perichoresis (although John of Damascus was the first to use the term; T.F. Torrance is one of the best modern theologians to shape his doctrine around Perichoresis). Perichoresis is the doctrine that says that the three persons mutually indwell one another in the one being of God, which is why that Gregory of Nanzianzus can say that (and Calvin later):

"..the infinite conjuction of three infinite ones, each God when considered in Himself; as the Father, so the Son; as the Son, so the Holy Spirit; the three one God when contemplated together; each God because consubstantiall one God because of the monarchia. No sooner do I conceive of the one than I am illumined by the splendor of the three; no sooner do I distinguish them than I am carried back to the one. When I think of any one of the three I think of him as the whole, and my eyes are filled, and the greater part of what I am thinking escapes me. I cannot grasp the greatness of the one so as to attribute a greater greatness to the rest. When I contemplate the three together, I see but one torch, and cannot divine or measure out the undivided light (Gregory Nanzianzen "Orations 40.41)."

This is one thing that I absolutely love about the Eastern Orthodox Church. They place the doctrine of the Trinity at the forefront of their theology (see John Zizioulas' Being As Communion for an example). Of course, I do have questions for Eastern Trinitarianism. I am not an adherent to absolute simplicity as Aquinas was. I, like the East, would aknowledge that there is more to God's essence than his existence. The energeiai, I would have no problem affirming. However, I wonder whether or not the emphasis on the energies (in the language of Karl Rahner the "Economic Trinity") and not also on the essence (in the language of Rahner the "Immanent Trinity") of God causes confusion.

I would agree with the so-called Rahner's rule (though not how he probably meant it), that the "The 'economic' Trinity is the 'immanent' Trinity and the 'immanent' Trinity is the 'economic' Trinity. Though, Rahner collapses the economic Trinity into the immanent Trinity and, thus, has panentheistic tendencies. However, I would see this as meaning that the Economic Trinity is a sufficient revelation for being Epistemically Justified knowledge for the Immanent Trinity, or God as He is in Himself.

This is a topic that is much neglected in much Evangelical Dogmatic Theology, and it needs to be corrected. May we see the Triune God in all of His slendor and glory. Amen.

The Christian Being-in-the-World

2005-02-23T04:03:00.000-08:00

Only the Christian account of Being-in-the-world (using Heidegger's in der Welt Sein) can take seriously claims of embodiment and materiality. All other forms of Being-in-the-World may leave one temporally gratified, but in the end leave one with little more than Nihislistic Materialism. While seemingly concerned with "this-worldly" immanent desires, they are in all reality seeking "other-worldly" transcendant matters, namely the meaning of life.

The Christian Being-in-the-world, on the other hand, can account for both immanence and transcendance, unlike the other non-Christian systems. In the Christian account, the two are in balance and are not mutually exclusive (granted that many Christians, and unfortunately many Evangelicals, have succumbed to a form of Gnosticism by seeking to be purely "other-wordly", but that is not my concern or part of my argument here). In the Christian account, the Triune God is the Wholly Other Trascendant One, but He has also acted in history, therefore giving immanence. He became flesh and put on matter. Therefore, any downplay of matter and embodiment is not a Christian view of things. If matter were inherently evil, then the eternal, life-giving Son of God could not have put on flesh. This is the death blow to all forms of other systems.

With the advent of Postmodernism, in our apologetical confrontations we must show that our system is inherently the best one (because of these previous reasons), and not trying to confront the "secular" realm with their own autunomous reason, for such a thing does not exist. We can only do this through our love. This only comes about through the Grace of God. Kyrie Eleison en hymin. Amen.

Hermeneutics

2005-02-13T23:52:00.001-08:00

I have been silent on here for over a month on purpose (which some of you know; others may not). I do not intend to stay that way anymore, though :). I hope to post every other day as I had been doing. Here is soemthing I wrote on a forum that were some thoughts I was having:

I think we should steer clear of saying taht anything is "clear". This is a fairly naive Epistemology (I say this, b/c my primary field of study is in Philosophical Theology). This is more of a Modernist (read Foundationalist or Correspondance/Coherentist theory of truth), and has been thoroughly Deconstructed by Postmodernism. We all come to the text with Presuppositions, so just because the text is "clear" to you doesn't mean it is to me. This is because there is no neutrality (I am following the trajectories of particular Dutch Reformed thinkers, i.e. Abraham Kuyper, Herman Dooyeweerd and Cornelius van Til). This is why that I am confessional and argue vehemently against "private judgment". Only in side the context of the koinwnia are we able to interpret scripture (this is not exactly but similar to Stanley Hauweras' argument in Unleashing Scripture, although Hauerwas uses Stanley Fish to say that the text means NOTHING until interpreted by the community of faith, with which I vehemently disagree with).

There is no such thing as a presuppositionless "interpretation". As Derrida put it, "there is nothing outside the text" This has been interpreted in many ways, but I take it to mean that there is nothing outside of our particular perview. We cannot escape our presuppositions, and this is what Derrida is saying. All of life is a "text" and all of life is "interpretation". We personally cannot come to the meaning of the text without the particular community of faith. This is a twist on a Wittgensteinian view of language.

Thus, the community of faith can only come to meaning in so far as it participates in God (building off of the chief theme of Radical Orthodoxy, where my name comes from, that something only *is* insofar as it participates in the God, which guards against any sort of autonomy). How do we participate in God? I would argue for three ways in which we participate in God: through divine liturgy and the aesthetics thereof, through the eucharist, and through baptism. Hence, all of our knowledge and interpretation is predicated through the community of faith by participating in the divine.

These were just some thoughts that I was having.

Conference

2005-01-06T18:58:00.000-08:00

The conference in Monroe was a blast! I got to meet some wonderful people from the internet among others. I met Barb Harvey, Daniel Harper, Andrew Fulford, Pastor Doug Wilson (I find it incredibly interesting about his charges of heresy; I wouldn't be a paedobaptist if not for the Federal Vision), Pastor Tim Gallant, Rev. Norman Shepard (who is one of the most wonderful men of God I have ever met, especially considering the things that are said about him), Dr. Doug Green, Dr. Peter Enns, Dr. Dan McCartney, Dr. Steve Taylor, Dr. Peter Wallace, Pastor Rich Lusk, Pastor Steve Wilkins, Pastor Steve Schlissel, Pastor Randy Booth, Pastor Roger Wagner, Dr. Richard Gaffin, and Bishop N.T. Wright. That is all that I can remember right now off hand. I also have pictures with Norman Shepard, Richard Gaffin and N.T. Wright :).

I already pretty much knew where Dr. Gaffin would be going (if you have read Geerhardus Vos and Herman Ridderbos at all, then you will know). Bishop Wright really didn't say anything new, either. However, the dialogue during the Q & A was quite helpful. Wright showed that he really is very similar to the Redemptive-Historical school of thought in Reformed Theology. Of course, they have different emphases, but I thought they were saying some very similar things. Their Eschatology is incredibly similar. It is funny that Ligon Duncan critisizes Wright for having an over "Realized Eschatology" when Gaffin's emphasis is quite similar, especially concerning Christ's resurrection and that ushering in the "new age".

During the dinner with Bishop Wright, I discussed some Philosophy with him (since that my chief area). I have seen him mention Martin Heidegger a few times, and those if you who know me know that I eat him up (this is attributable to Professor Todd Kappleman from DBU). I told him that I liekd the area in which Radical Orthodoxy was going, and he said that the one area that he didn't like about them was that they didn't know what to do with the Bible (he especially cited Catherine Pickstock here).

I purchased four new books while there. I got The Federal Vision, The Second Adam and the New Birth, Paradox and Truth and Rediscovering the Triune God. Dr. Naugle has asked me to present a paper for the Paideia College Society at DBU. Os Guiness is going to be coming and I am going to write on the Trinitarian basis for all of theology (I really need to get a hold of Pastor Jeff Myers for this). Well, this is all for now. I must go do some reserach on recent Trinitarian theology. I might post some more later.

Brief Thoughts on Introducing Radical Orthodoxy

2004-12-18T23:10:00.000-08:00

am almost done with Introducing Radical Orthodoxy by Smith, who is a professor of Philosophy at Calvin College. This is an excellent introduction for anyone wanting to understand just who or what the heck Radical Orthodoxy is. It is a very diverse movement with different things being stressed. However, in many aspects the movement is very promising. Their view of "participation" is quite good, however, I wouldn't go as far as they do.

They almost represent a reversion back to Kant. They say that there is no "thing-in-itself". Kant said that there was, but that we couldn't get to it, because it was in the so-called noumenal realm of knowing, and it is impossible to know anything in the noumenal realm. So, how creation gets anywhere is by participation in the creator (according to RO). I don't agree that all of creation participates in the divine. I think that it is only the ekklesia that truly participates in the divine by virtue of the Eucharist. So, I would do some modifying there. Of course, I am merely doing an updated version of Calvin's view of the Eucharist.

Another problematic aspect is that Pickstock totally views the Eucharist as an Ontological phenomena (which is why she defends transubstantiation in After Writing), rather than being a true exercise in devotion and discipleship. She wants to defend the thesis that all of life is doxological, yet misses this fundamental point (I agree with her thesis that all of life is doxological and hence religious. See Calvin's Insitutes Book I for the doctrine of the Knowledge of God and you will see that there are striking similarities).

These are my only thoughts for now. I just got off of work and am sort of tired, but this is an excellent book (especially with its interaction with the Reformed tradition).

Advent Pondering

2004-12-14T16:35:00.000-08:00

Sin smells bad. I do not understand why that God still accepts us with the sins that we sin. Why? How could He? Every day I spit in the grace of God and make it void, yet He still accepts me as His. He bought me and paid for my sins. This is something that goes way beyond any human logic and thinking. When people sin against me the way I sin against God, I hate them. Why is God so forgiving? Why does He accept such a sinner as me? Why, Why, Why God?

The answer is simple, yet incredibly profound and all meaning is found in this one Word: Christ (for all you Deconstructionists out there, without Christ there is no meaning in a text at all, because it is Christ and only Him who gives meaning to a text). It is only on account of the righteousness of Christ that I am accepted by God. Without this righteousness, I am a wreck A ship without a rudder, for sure. Thank you God for Christ and His resurrection power.

Thoughts on Nature/Grace Part II, John Calvin

2004-12-12T01:43:00.000-08:00

While I was at work today I was thinkingabout the Nature/grace distinction. I was thinking about the nature/grace distinction because I was discussing with a Roman Catholic whether or not John Calvin was an Augustinian. He said that he wasn't a consistant Augustinian, because he confused the nature/grace distinction. However, as I hope to show this might not be the best portrayal of Calvin's view.

Calvin was not a Medieval Scholastics scholar (which is where the debate over nature/grace arose with the Thomists reacting to the Scotists, see Henri de Lubac), he was a humanist and knew the patristics very well for his time. It was Luther who was the Scholastics scholar (see his Disputation Against Scholastic Theology for a good scholastic rebuttal), because luther was trained in the schools. Calvin was trained to be a lawyer, not a theologian. He got many insights from Guillame Farel from his early stay in Geneva and Martin Bucer during the "exile years" in Strasbourg to form his full-orbed theological system.

Scholars are not decided on Augustine's relation to nature/grace, either. Of course the pioneering work of the Nouvelle Theologie, i.e. Henri de Lubac revolutionized Augustinian studies, I just don't know if you can pigeonhole Calvin in such a nice way that many do in this area.

For instance, Book I of the Institutes on man's "scientia divinitatis" or knowledge of God, you have Calvin's view of "Common Grace", which later divines came to refer to it as. It is my view that Calvin's view of Common Grace goes quite well with what people like de Lubac and Millbank are doing with Augustine and Aquinas, respectively.

The nature/grace distinction is a very good topic in Philosophical Theology and I am going to study it more. These are just preliminary thoughts on Calvin's relation thereto.

Life

2004-12-10T01:15:00.000-08:00

Thank you all for your very kind comments in repons to my last post. I promise to post much more frequently on my blog. I am a night owl anyway, and should start doing it more often :). More and more I have realized recently just how futile life is without God, as Qoheleth proclaims.

Even the rabbid (ex)Atheist Antony Flew had to come to realize that there is some higher being that "the Philosophers" call God. Of course, that gets into Onto-Theology, and I don't care to go into that right now, but it is amazing what man (forgive me feminists) can come to know of God.

I was thinking earlier about the nature of Revelation. The whole Bible is Redemptive by its very nature. The pinnacle of this Redemption is Christ and His redeeming work on the cross. All scripture looks forward to His work (as in the Old Covenant) and looks back to this work (New Covenant). God sent the eternal logos to the earth to redeem a hopeless people to be called out (hence ekklesia) unto Himself. Christ is this very revelation.

Of course, I also believe very strongly in general revelation. Every man knows not only outwardly, but inwardly that God exists. But until Christ is revealed (He is mediated through scripture), one cannot "know God".

These were some thought that I had. I am an inerrantist, if anyone is wondering but this is some nuancing that I have been thinking about recently.

Leaving

2004-12-08T18:27:00.000-08:00

For those of you who know some of the things that I have been going through lately, and those of you who don't, I am probably going to be moving back to my hometown of Longview and living with my family. This means that I will no longer be going to Dallas Baptist University, and be a Philosophy major. This hurts me, because it was my main Philosophy professor who got me into Postmodern Philosophy and the Postmodern Theologies (like Marion, Westphal and others). He is also who got me into loving Martin Heidegger. I will forever be thankful to Todd Kappelman for his help in my growth as a person.

My other Philosophy professor Dr. David Naugle has shaped my thinking as much as any other human being. His emphasis on worldview and education is distinctly Kuyperian, but he also is shaped by the liturgical traditions. I will also be forever greatful to him for his work at DBU to change the focus to a more historic faith.

I would ask that all who read my blog would keep me in your prayers. I have waited to say this for a long time, but my wife has left me to pursue her own thing. She left in the beginning of November. She is also pregnant, and honestly, I do not even know if the baby is mine. She already has another boyfriend, and will not listen to the fact that she is disobeying God. She will be filing for divorce as soon as the child is born. It is a very hard situation for me, because I did really love her (and we were just married on August 14, 2004). I pray that God would grant repentance to her and her family, for they are encouraging her to leave me. Thanks you for all of your continued support.

Modernist historicism at its best

2004-12-06T13:21:00.000-08:00

This link from MSNBC should show Christians how much Modernism is utterly opposed to Christianity. They try to base their theorizing on value-neutral historicism, which is impoosible. All of our knowledge is value-laden (this is Van Til at his best, although I am borrowing Kuhn's language). As I have always said, Van Til was a Continental thinker, and therefore should be taken as part of that tradition, not the Analytic tradition (which most of his followers are).

Happiness amongst Hard Time

2004-12-03T11:24:00.000-08:00

As many of you know, I am going through a fairly rough time right now, so I could use your prayers. I just got through Read Theonomy: A Reformed Critique and it had some good articles and some not so good articles.

The thing that makes me happy is that Introducing Radical Orthodoxy came in today! I am really looking forward to reading this book, because it connects Radical Orthodoxy with the Reformed tradition, which I thik is a good thing. Radical Orthodoxy is an exciting new move in Contemporary Theology and I look forward to it being compared with the Reformed Tradition (particularly the Dutch Reformed tradition).

Thanksgiving

2004-11-24T23:28:00.000-08:00

Happy Thanksgiving to all who read my blog!

Tomorrow is the big game. THE University of Texas versus the Texas A&M Aggies. This will be a good game and will determine whether we will go to a BCS bowl or not. If Cedric Benson doesn't have a good game on the ground, we are most assuredly not going to win. While Vince Young has a good arm, he does not read defenses too well. He throws too many interceptions to be an elite quarterback. However, there aren't many better than he is when running the option with pure speed. I think he runs like a 4.3 or 4.4 in the 40, and he shows it when running the football.

Also, Dr. Garver has a terrific post on the use of the Bible in the Medieval period. Enjoy it, because it is tremendous (as is all of his stuff).

Thoughts on Nature/Grace

2004-11-22T21:42:00.000-08:00

Sorry to everyone who reads my blog that I have not posted regular. I am going to try and start posting every day or other day.

I have been thinking about some interesting stuff here as of late. Thomas Aquinas is one of my very favorite thinkers of all time. One thing is he is (in)famous for is his nature/grace distinction.

He has been heavily critisized for this view by many different thinkers (especially Reformed). They say that he says that nature is an autonomous sphere and has no real need for grace, and that grace is superfluous.

Contrary to this view, you have the view of Abraham Kuyper and Cornelius Van Til on Common Grace. They say that anything the reprobate can do is a product of common grace, and that they all know innately that God exists. However, they all suppress the truth in unrighteousness. This was the foundation for the Vantillian approach to Apologetics and the Kuyperian notion of sphere sovereignty.

However, the (mis)interpretation of Aquinas is devastating. Aquinas did not hold what was being atrributed to him by many people. This is (wrongly) attributed to him, because of his subsequent commentators who obscured his teachings. They adopted the view described above over disputes with Scotism and Nominalism.

So what was St. Thomas' view, and how can it be applied to a Vantillian doctrine of common grace and how can it be applied to the Covenant of Works? Basically he said that nature was insufficient of itself. It required grace to continue to exist. So, everything that man does is because of grace.

This is very much a "Reformed" view, if you will. According to the Reformed view, everything that man accomplishes (hence the "nature") is because of God's grace. One reason I think for the difference of terminology would be the different philosophical categories. Although, I could be very wrong.

How does this apply to the so-called Covenant of Works? Well, there are some who say that the Covenant of Works was pure a "legal" Covenant and that it was totally based on Adam's merit and obedience. So, basically Adam's works were applied to him meritoriously. This is to abstain from anyform of "legalism" with regards to the Covenant of Grace. But, I think one think that it misses is the nature/grace distinction. I think when applied to the Covenant of Works (I prefer Murray's "Covenant of Creation"), we see that Adam had a nature. So, what I am arguing is that the Covenant of Works was gracious by means of God's grace added to the nature, because nature by itself is not sufficient. Any thoughts?

Defense

2004-11-16T23:37:00.000-08:00

I wrote this as a defense of Tim Enloe that he was Derridean on a Roman Catholic apologists blog:

This is in reponse to Jared's comments that Tim sounds lol Jacques Derrida (sic):

To say that Tim sounds like Jacques Derrida is an absurd notion. So, now anyone who rejects a modernist (read Correspondance or Foundationalist, and according to Rorty, that would be Epistemology period) theory of truth is now Derridean? I guess that makes Alvin Plantinga (who is a Philosopcial realist and externalist) a Derridean, but how can this be since Derrida is basically an idealist and an internalist?

Obviously, Jared is mistaken about Tim. Derrida continues the critique of Kant, but radicalizes his claims. Merold Westphal in Overcoming Onto-Theology suggests that we should use Kant as a weapon for an argument for Christianity (of which I fundamentally agree, and I think Cornelius Van Til's writings would convey that, though he wouldn't admit it). Descartes and Kant are the fountainheads for modern day Phenomenology (hence Husserl's Cartesian Meditations).

The only Correspondance theory of truth that will "work" is the one set forth by Aquinas, as read by Pickstock and Milbank. That truth corresponds to the eternal logos, because the "ideas" are in the mind of God eternally. This is fundamentally Augustinian, and hence, Plotinian.

In modernist Correspondance theories, truth becomes an autonomous sphere and can be gained by anyone, and ontology becomes relegated to nothing, hence Heidegger's "destuktion" of classical ontology (the French Roman Catholic Jean-Luc Marion would say this is from Suarez to Kant, see his essay in the Postmodern God on Phenomenology and Theology).

Derrida and the Postmoderns are also carrying Heidegger on their shoulders. Heidegger is the greatest of all 20th century Philosophers, in my opinion. His critique of Onto-Theology, and hence Hegel is phenomenal. Sein un Zeit is a phenomenal , though misinterpreted by Sartre and the French Existentialists.

I firmly believe in incorporating the best things from Postmodernism into the Christian faith (like Marion, Westphal, etc.), and I love Radical Orthodoxy. To equate Tim with Derrida, however is a mistake not of genus, but of species.

Great Quote

2004-10-19T23:52:00.000-07:00

Merold Westphal is one of my favorite Philosophers. He is a very good Continental Philosopher. His book Suspicion and Faith: The Religious Uses of Modern Atheism is a very good work. He talks about the hermeneutics of suspicion of Frued, Marx and Nietzsche. It is a very well written and lucid work and should be read by anyone interested in Philosophy. It is not a tough text, either. Here is the quote:

"But while Marx has sought to show how ugly religion can be among the rich and powerful, Nietzsche completes the picture by showing how ugly religion can be among their victims." (Merold Westphal, Suspicion and Faith: The Religious Uses of Modern Atheism (New York: Fordham University Press, 1998), 230)

Jacques Derrida

2004-10-10T00:14:00.000-07:00

On this day, Jacques Derrida, one of the pioneers of 20th century Philosophy passed from life to death. I really like some of his insights and think that he is a very insightful thinker who really needs to be listened to. He was a wonderful thinker and had a brilliant mind, agree or disagree with his conclusions. Let us realize that this life without God is futile as Qoheleth so poignantly proclaims.

Naive Views of Language

2004-10-06T15:51:00.000-07:00

Many people who call themselves apologists on the internet have very naive views of how language works. For instance James White has been chidded for not reading Ludwig Wittgenstein. This is a good thing for his Philosopical Investigations have some good analyses on the nature of language (plus he negates his earlier Tractatus-Logico Philosophicus, which was the grounding for the later Logical Positivists). Whilst agreeing that White should read Wittgenstein, I also believe that he should read some of the Postmodern Philosophers.

Jacques Derrida in particular has some very helpful things that can be used for people who like to consider themselves "Reformed". He chides Plato for putting Philosophy over Literature, and for saying that the "logic" of Philosophy is different from the "rhetoric" of literature. This can be seen in many contemporary Reformed debates about the nature of whether an argument is cogent or not. For instance, why does White see that when others disagree with him, they are not "content with the 'truth'", because his "logic" is so much better than theirs?

First of all, what is truth? He needs to define what he means by truth. Is 'truth' something that is just out there, and to be discovered by the senses via a posteriori? Or is 'truth' imbedded in an analytic statement via a priori? White obviously chides others for not being content with truth, because he reads his own interpretations into what others have to say, hence a 'hermeneutics of suspicion'.

White also claims that we should not be taken in by "vain Philosophy" but shoul rely on the text of Holy Writ for our Epistemology. I agree with this, but we must examine our epistemology while exegeting the text, because our presuppositions always will get in the way. Since White does not know Philosophy, he does not know which Epistemological view he holds to. He claims to be a presuppositionalist, yet when examined upon what historical precedants than Van Til used, he backs away and only quotes scripture. This is a absurd. At the Areopagus Paul used Greek Philosophy against the Stoics and the Epicureans. I think 1 Corinthinas 15 is a very cogent argument for not only Christ's resurrection, but also our past and future resurrection.

The "authors of suspicion", i.e. Frued, Marx and Nietzsche, are also quite helpful on many things. I am reading Merold Westphal's Suspicion and Faith: The Religious Uses of Modern Atheism right now, and it is helpful in seeing how much they actuallyknew about Christianity. This would also be helpful for White to see why things are the way they are.

Michel Foucault, Lyotard, Martin Heidegger, Emmanuel Levinas, and many others should be listened to. He always wants to lay something on "Postmodernism", then why doesn't he know what the Postmoderns have to say?

White supposedly uses cogent logic. However, if we take Derrida's critique of Philosophy seriously (as we should), then we would realize that White's so-called logic is nothing but pure literary devices.

Foundationalism

2004-07-28T22:36:00.000-07:00

I have become convinced that many of today's pop-apologists are nothing but what Alvin Plantinga calls "Classical Foundationalists". Why do I say this? Well, it is simple: Foundationalism is where you take a belief or set of beliefs and this becomes the foundation for all of your other beliefs. The foundation or "core" beliefs has to be indubitable, evident to the senses and self-evident.

To these pop-apologists "the truth" of propositions represents the foundation and core of what they base all of their other beliefs on. And, if you disagree with them, then you are just not content with truth, because it is so indubitable and everyone can "see it" with the senses. This is very odd, because the ones who should be the biggest opponents of foundationalism seem to be some of the biggest adheres to the very thing that attacks our faith on many levels! They see knowledge as being so objective and attainable to the "pure senses" that any old person can come to the truth. However, this denies any sort of Presuppoositional thinking whatsoever, as well as the antithesis.

The old adage from Protagoras "Man is the measure of all things" comes to mind right about now. Plato spent a good amount of time refutting this claim in his Theaetetus. The reason I bring this up is that the senses can deceive us, which is why I reject any and all forms of empricistic and/or positivistic philosophies. While I do not deny that there is an objective truth out there, I do deny that man through his "objective" lenses can come to it. As Polanyi states, "all knowledge is tacit and personal". And the presuppositions we have when we come to a text determine how we will read the text and interpret all reality.

New Blog Template

2004-07-28T22:22:00.000-07:00

As everyone can see, I got a new blog template. I was going to just get rid of the blog all together, because I was tired of the old one and couldn't figure out how to work this template. However, thanks to Puritas who did the html for me (thanks buddy :) ), I got to keep my blog. So now all of you who do read my ramblings and babblings get more of me :).

I am really enjoying "Reformed" Is Not Enough by Douglas Wilson. It is very similar to the lectures he presented to the AAPC conference in 2002. I will be done with it tonight and will post my review of it at Amazon.com, and then post it on here. I am really learning a lot from Wilson, and think everyone who calls themselves Reformed needs to imbibe this book and its teaching. For historical surveys of the similar vein see Lyle Bierma's German Calvinism in the Confessional Age and Peter Lillback's The Binding of God. They both do a great job showing that Covenant was the over-arching factor in the theology of Caspar Olevianus and John Calvin. They both show that apostasy from the New Covenant has historical precedent and is not something that the "Auburn Four" are making up.

Sola Fide

2004-07-06T20:47:00.000-07:00

I read Faith Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification by R.C. Sproul last night. I am including my review of the book here:

R.C. Sproul is an excellent writer and I have come to expect no less from him, but I think he misses the mark on what the "Gospel" is. First to the positives: Sproul has a good overview of the debates which raged on during the Reformation. He has a good assesment of quotes from the two central figures of the Reformation, and an excellent summary of the Protestant position on Sola Fide. He also is right in critisizing people for not giving the historic Protestant doctrine its rightful place.

Now to the negatives: As noted above, Sproul has a very narrow definition of what the "Gospel" is. He seems to hold to justification by faith by believing in justification by faith (contra his assertions concerning Packer), because he asserts that Sola Fide is an essential truth of the Gospel, and if you deny this, you deny the Gospel. The Gospel is that Jesus is risen, and by means of the resurrection, Christ is Lord (see Richard Gaffin, Resurrection and Redemption). I am including quotes from the great German Theologians Zacharius Ursinus and Caspar Olevianus from the Heidelberg Catechism of 1553 to prove that this is not historic Reformed teaching:

Question 22. What is then necessary for a christian to believe?

Answer: All things promised us in the gospel, which the articles of our catholic undoubted christian faith briefly teach us.

Question 23. What are these articles?

Answer: 1. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth: 2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord: 3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary: 4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead, and buried: He descended into hell: 5. The third day he rose again from the dead: 6. He ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty: 7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead: 8. I believe in the Holy Ghost: 9. I believe a holy catholic church: the communion of saints: 10. The forgiveness of sins: 11. The resurrection of the body: 12. And the life everlasting.

As is obvious, 1/3's of the great Three Forms of Unity does not see fit to include Sola Fide as what must be believed by Christians.

Another problem is that Sproul is content to only quote the Council of Trent, and has nothing to say of Vatican II whatsoever. This is disturbing, because Vatican II "modernized" Trent's medieval Catholicism.

Happy Belated Fourth of July everyone, I am at Stephanie's and didn't get to post.

Great article on Hermeneutics

2004-06-29T21:45:00.000-07:00

This is an excellent article on the area of Hermeneutics. It has changed the way I think about the way I come to the scriptures. We have to realize that a "pure" grammatico-historical method of interpreting the Bible is not possible. It supposedly helps you to "put yourself in the shoes" of the author. Is this actually possible, however? I think not. Going from 21st century America to 1st century 2nd Temple Judaism just isn't entirely possible.

There are some modern day exegetes, however, that are hoping to get of this purely modern philosophical garb. We need to realize that Christ is the end of all of Scripture. Not the supposed "plain meaning" which you hear so many people speak of. If there was a "plain meaning", then why are there so many interpretations? Could it be that we have a pure metanarrative when we come to scripture (This should negate the charge of a form of Derridaian Deconstructionism/Postmodernism)?

As Romans 10:4 states, "Christ is the end of the law to everyone who believes." Since the Old Testament is the law, then this means that when we come to an Old Testament passage, we must view it in light of Christ's finished work. If we do not see it this way, then we will fall into the area of seeing it "wie es eigentlich gewesen" (as it actually happened), or similarly "sitz im leben" (setting in life). These are both purely brainchilds of Modernism's Historical-Critical Methodology.

I do find it quite interesting that conversative Christian who "claim" inerrancy use these same tactics (especially those who claim to espouse a Vantillian Epistemology). We need to realize that they is an 'antithesis' between believing and unbelieving scholarship. Until we start engaging unbelieving scholarship on our terms (with our worldviews pitted against theirs), and not theirs, they will have the forefront in scholarship.

I pray that a generation of Reformed scholars will rise up and challenge the accepted norms of Evangelical hermeneutics (for a Redemptive-Historical in addition to a more nuanced Grammatico-Historical Hermeneutic which does not rest on Modern Epistemology) and also the Worldview of unbelieving scholarship.

Hiatus

2004-06-24T20:02:00.000-07:00

I have taken a needed hiatus from posting to gather thoughts and examine things in my life. Now that that is over, I will come back to posting :). First, thank you Al, Josh and Adam for defending my thesis. Adam, thank you for your comments concerning Calvin and Baptists who claim him. You are in a unique situation having gone to SBTS, their best seminary.

Secondly, I have been reading Summa of the Summa by Aquinas (great book, I really enjoy St. Thomas, by the way) and 20th Century Theology. I borrowed 20th Century Theology from a professor here at DBU, and I haven't read Aquinas much here lately so I could try and hurry up and finish 20th Century Theology to give it back to the loaner.

A few thoughts on the scope of 20th Century Theology. Much of the theology of this century is a reaction to the classical liberalism of Albrecht Ritschl and Adolf Von Harnack. If you really want to have a deep understanding of them, read Machen's Christianity and Liberalism, as this is what he was attacking.

The classical liberal thinkers are more focused on Ethics than anything. They are opossed to any sort of speculative reasoning at all. This oposses the 'New Gnosis' which man containes. This trend started with Frederick Schleiermacher, and his experiential Christianity.

The Neo-Orthodox thinkers (mainly Karl Barth, Emil Brunner and Reinhold Niebuhr) critiqued liberalism for its vain and pure humanism. They totally denied any sort of revelation. To the liberals, revelation opossed reason, therefore it necessarily followed that it was wrong. The Neo-Orthodox (of which Cornelius Van Til calls 'New Modernism') set up a Dialectical Theology. They claimed that while it was opossed to reason, it must still be accepted (hence Barth being called a Fideist by many). They rejected verbal, plenary inspiration, and instead opted that the ideas were inspired. This seems like an implicit Kantian fact/value distinction. Although Kant's fact/value dichotomy related to the field of Ethics, I think it can be applied here, b/c of their explicit denial of the facts (phenomenal realm) and acceptance of the value behind it (the noumenal realm of where God is, yet he is knowable through Christ).

Barth is to be applauded for his Christocentric theology, but he goes way too far. He states that election is grounded in Christ (of which I firmly agree), but that Christ is the elect and the reprobate one. Many have interpreted this to be a Universalism.

The moves of Paul Tillich (the notion of 'God above God'), Process Theology (with its Di-Polar, 'god' who is between the platonic poles of being (finite) and becomming (infinite), Secular Theology (Christian Atheism) and Liberation Theology (Socialism/Marxism) are bores to me. They did not really interest me too much.

I have not finished the book. I just finished reading on Wolfhart Pannenberg and Jurgen Moltmann. I will soon read on Karl Rahner and Hans Kung, and these I cannot wait to read about. I definitely prefer Pannenberg to Moltmann.

One of the guys I work with in the library did his dissertation on Moltmann, and I was looking forward to reading on him. He is probably the most interesting character I have read about. I like his notion of the Theology of Hope, and I think some of it is very good (i.e. can be applied to a Postmillennial and Eschatology of Victory for the future of the Kingdom of God). He quotes Rahner's famous quote, "The immanent Trinity is the economic trinity, and the economic trinity is the immanent Trinity", but seems to deny it. He pretty much states that Jesus became Lord by means of the resurrection. By the resurrection, Jesus was DECLARED Lord, but he did not BECOME Lord.

Moltmann also calls himself a "Eschatological, Trinitarian Panentheist". But, he is a universalist, so this is not suprising to me. His focus on the Eschatological nature of the Scriptures is definitely inline with much of present day scholarship, whether liberal or conservative (for conservatives see Richard Gaffin and N.T. Wright). I hope to soon do a post on why I see a "Covenental Union" with Christ and an "Eschatological Union" with Christ.

The Good thing I found in Pannenberg is his nation that Christianity must be reasonable and needs to be defended in the secular arena. Although, he is far more liberal than me (denying verbal, plenary inspiration), this is still laudable.

I am almost finished reading on Liberation Theology (thank GOD!), and soon will get to Rahner and Kung. This is an enjoyable book, but much of it is very disagreeable. Hope this overview helps anyone :).

Election: Individual, Corporate or Both?

2004-05-26T18:32:00.000-07:00

It always amuses me when people come to the doctrine of election that they do not even mention the corporate elements of election. They purely analyze the individual elements. This is what the big controversy is over right now over the Auburn stuff. Are the concepts of the covenant and election equated or is the covenant a conditional promise of an unconditional election? Baptists and any other Calvinists with revivalistic and rationalistic categories will go with the former while the historic Reformed (because of the concept of apostasy) go with the latter. I am including an excellent assesment by Tim Gallant on the issue.

Someone who used to be a friend of mine took a pot shot at me today, of course not mentioning me by name. Here is the substance of what they say:

Wednesday, May 26, 2004

I found this great hymn in the Baptist Hymnal Sunday and copied down the words to it as well as added two new veses of my own. I guess I was kind of disappointed that it was only a two verse hymn. Jason actually found this hymn first and told me about it last week. I think we are both just so overjoyed to find this jewl of a hymn in the Baptist Hymnal. It's number 289 for anyone with access to this hymnal. Here it is:

My Lord, I Did Not Choose You
Josiah Conder 1789-1855

My Lord, I did not choose You,
For that could never be;
My heart would still refuse You,
Had You not chosen me.
You took the sin that stained me,
You cleansed me, made me new;
Of old You have ordained me,
That I should live in You.

Unless your grace had called me
And taught my opening mind,
The world would have enthralled me,
To heavenly glories blind.
My heart knows none above you;
For Your rich grace I thirst.
I know that if I love You,
You must have loved me first.
------------------------------------------

Here are the verses I added:
If you did not save me
And call me to Your side,
Satan would have seduced me
In flesh only to abide
Christ’s atonement was so perfect
Saving sinners such as I
In life Your Spirit You connect
And the gift of glory when I die.

Thank you for the grace you give me
You bestow it day to day
Teach me, Oh God, to fear thee
And keep all sin far away.
For I know that Thou art drawing
Wretched Sinners to Your Son
Until Your whole church is singing
Christ’s victory that’s been won.

---------------------------------------

Ugh, why must Xanga double space that?!? errrrr!! Anyway, I've always said that I suck at poetry. I don't know how these words came to me last night. It must be something about hymns about election in the Baptist Hymnal and awesome prayer and fellowship at Faith Baptist last night.

Whoever thinks that being Baptist and being Calvinist are mutually exclusive (I think most of my readers know better) should really read that hymn again.

Grace and peace,

Kacy S.S.

This is an obvious pot shot at myself since I do not believe that Baptists can be Reformed, however, I never denied the fact that they are SOTERIOLOGICALLY Calvinists. Once again, it comes down the the question of Calvinism. Are they five abstract points that are unconnected to the rest of life? Or are the five points actually part of an entire system and worldview. The fundamental question of Calvinism is this: Why is there a covenant instead of nothing at all (a play on Heidegger's fundamental question of Metaphysics from his Introduction to Metaphysics), since the covenant and election are the same?

Our 1 Year Anniversary!

2004-05-25T18:54:00.000-07:00

Today is Stephanie's and my 1 year anniversary! This has been the greatest year of my entire life. I thank God everyday for her and her example upon my life.

On to other issues. It seems that Westminster West and its good ol' law/gospel Hermeneutic has made a statement on Justification. James White showed his obvious love for the law/gospel hermeneutic by posting an applaud for this article with a quote by Calvin and a personal attack on Doug Wilson (although Wilson was not mentioned). Here is the substance of his reply:

5/24/04: Westminster Escondido Speaks to the Truth of Justification

I am thrilled to link to the statement on justification by the faculty of Westminster Seminary in Escondido. I truly believe over the next decade we will need to continue to epagonizomai in defense of the "once for all delivered to the saints faith" (Jude 3) and that it will be this very area that will be at the center of the battle. And as with preceding generations, the lines of battle will shift and change, for the enemies of truth are always busy redefining themselves and their position so as to create as much confusion as possible in the hearts and minds of others. As Calvin said in the sermon linked below, "His meaning then is that there were Cozeners [deceivers, frauds] which intermeddled themselves underminingly with the faithful, and yet all was no more but to cause the truth of the Gospel to be corrupted....Furthermore let us fight against such dogs, knowing that they be deadly plagues, and do much more harm then they that leap quite out of their sockets, and show themselves manifestly to be despisers of the Gospel. Those then that are intermeddled among us are the worser sort, and it standeth us on hand to resist them manfully. For if we shrink from them in the battle, surely we shall have so much the greater confusion, and men shall not be able anymore to put a difference between white and black." Goodness, yes, I know his phraseology is politically incorrect these days, and what is worse, he seemingly forgot to just grab these "frauds" by their baptism, they being false-but-still-true-in-a-sense brothers who are just like unfaithful husbands but are still husbands.

He always speaks of his "meaningful interaction", which is very subjective anyway (who determines what is meaningful?), but he is quoting Calvin, and not offering any "meaningful interaction" with Dennis Bratcher's Master's Thesis. Bratcher devoted an entire chapter(!) of his Master's Thesis to the concept of apostasy in Calvin. If White wants to talk about "meaningful interaction" then he ought to stop taking a few quotes here and there and do it his self.

If the original Westminster had put something out on justification, White probably wouldn't think twice about it, because Norman Shepard was there (and supported by notables such as Cornelius Van Til, Greg Bahnsen and Richard Gaffin). However, since "Reformed" Baptists have their "school" at Westminster West, White is quick to put it on his website.

White seems to put a very large emphasis on what he perceives the central tenet of Pauline Soteriology to be (at least from what I have gleaned from his writings): namely, justification by faith. I would have to disagree, however, and agree with the Reformed view (cf. Richard Gaffin, Resurrection and Redemption: A Study in Paul's Soteriology) that the ressurection is THE key tenet of Paul's thought not justification by faith.

N.T. Wright has even stated that he is a reaction to LUTHERAN understandings of Paul (that the central tenet is Justification by faith), and that if the REFORMED understanding were the dominant view, there would be no need for a New Perspective. I find this interesting since White is such a critic of Wright. Once again we see White's utter inability to live up to his own standards of "meaningful interaction".

DBU schedule

2004-05-25T08:25:00.000-07:00

I found out yesterday that DBU posted the schedule for the fall online. I am excited about the fall. I had a rough spring, and will get only a minor break this summer. I will be taking New Testament I and World Literature I this summer. But, my schedule looks good for the fall.

At 9:30-10:45 on TTh I will have Dr. William Bell for Greek Exegesis I (Third Year). I disagree with Dr. Bell on many things, but I love him to death. He is an amazing teacher who knows his stuff. He got his Th.M. from DTS back in the 60's and wound up rejecting Dispensationalism all together. In fact, he wrote his Doctoral Dissertation critiquing Dispensationalism (although, not Progressive Dispensationalism. Keith Mathison mentions him in his book Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God?). However, in the Fall of 2003, I took his Eschatology class, and he still has Dispensational interpretation of many passages, but he just has changed his millenial view to Historic Premillennialism. He doesn't really like Biblical Theology, either, so he didn't incorporate the Vosian notion that Eschatology starts in Genesis and the fact that it preceds Soteriology. But, that is to be expected :). But, he really knows Greek really well, and I am blessed to study under him.

At 11:00-12:15 on TTh I will be taking a Contemporary Theology class. This should be an interesting class. We will be investigating the Theology of Karl Barth, Emil Brunner, Jurgen Moltmann, Wolfhart Pannenberg, Paul Tillich, Hans Kung, Karl Rahner, Feminist Theology, Liberation Theology, Narrative Theology, etc. This will be a great class for me to see where contemporary Theology is going.

At 12:30-1:45 on TTh I will be taking Ethics with Professor Kappelman. I have already taken Metaphysics and Epistemology with Professor Kappelman (I should have taken History Phil I and II before those two, but it always conflicts with something else!). Professor Kappelman is something of an anamoly. He is a Heideggerian Calvinist(!). He is ther funniest professor I have ever had, too.

At 3:30-4:45 on TTh I will have Advanced Written Communication. This class is for my English minor, and is a required class for English majors. Here is the course description from the DBU website: "Study of rhetorical situation, audience analysis, and discourse analysis theories will provide a basis for ascertaining appropriate and ethical strategies for both personal and professional discourse opportunities and for evaluating existing texts." I am lookign forward to taking this class, too.

At 1:00-1:50 on MWF I will be taking Research and Writing for Biblical Studies. This will be a good class on how to write well and how to use Turabian.

And finally I will be taking Ancient History on Fridays (every other Friday) from 5:30-10:30. I am looking forward to this class, too (I am also a History minor).

That will be my schedule for the Fall semester. My TThs will be packed for the third straight semester, but that's fine. I am looking forward to the fall also, because when I start that semester, I will be married as well!

Calvin's Relations to Baptists

2004-05-23T00:57:00.000-07:00

For some excellent Calvin sources (primary and secondary), Dennis Bratcher's excellent Master's Thesis:

"Baptism means covenant to Calvin, and covenant means almost everything else! To preserve the Calvinian system, paedo-baptism is not an option but a prerequisite. It is thus clear that Calvin's answer to the Anabaptist perspective on baptism was that they failed to understand this foundational doctrine of the covenant between God and his people and their children" (Lillback 1982, 232).

This destroys the constant nagging of Baptists to always address the issue of baptism, and not address the real issue, namely the Covenants, and the real apostasy therein. I also like the fact that he states that to preserve the system, paedobaptism is essential. The tital "Reformed" needs to come off of churches, because it is not so.

Auburn Stuff

2004-05-23T00:46:00.000-07:00

Here are some great quotes I got from Covenant Media Foundation (anti-Auburnites beware):

"All who are baptized into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, recognizing the Trinity of Persons in the Godhead, the incarnation of the Son and his priestly sacrifice, whether they be Greeks, or Arminians, or Romanists, or Lutherans, or Calvinists, or the simple souls who do not know what to call themselves, are our brethren. Baptism is our common countersign. It is the common rallying standard at the head of our several columns."

[A.A. Hodge, Evangelical Theology (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth: 1976), p. 338.]

"…the covenant is just as real as a cow in the pasture and a child in a crib, and a bench in the church, and the cloth this chair is upholstered with; the bond is created by God and is therefore real and genuine."
[Klaus Schilder, "The Main Points of the Doctrine of the Covenant," A speech given in the Waalsche Kerk in Delft, the Netherlands on August 31, 1944, (Translated by T. vanLaar, 1992), printed in Canada.]

"Before baptism, the minister is to use some words of instruction, touching the institution, nature, use, and ends of this sacrament, shewing . . . that they [children] are Christians, and federally holy before baptism, and therefore are they baptized."
"Almighty God, heavenly Father, we give you eternal praise and thanks, that you have granted and bestowed upon this child your fellowship, that you have born him again to yourself through holy baptism, that he has been incorporated into your beloved son, our only savior, and is now your child and heir..."
[Martin Bucer's 1537 liturgy for infant baptism.]

"It cannot be too insistently stressed that circumcision was and baptism is the sign and seal of the covenant in the highest reaches and deepest significance of its soteric and spiritual meaning. In a word, they are signs and seals of the covenant of grace, not of certain external blessings accruing from or following upon the covenant of grace. And this is so even though many who bear the sign and seal do not possess and may never possess the blessings of the covenant itself.
…What is being contended for is that baptism may never properly be said to be the sign and seal of the external relationship rather than of the covenant itself in its richest and deepest blessing. There is not the slightest warrant from Scripture for the notion that baptism or, for that matter, circumcision is simply the sign and seal of external privilege." (p. 55).

"To conclude: these two assertions: (1) that little children belong to the kingdom of God; (2) that they are to be received in Christ's name do not offer stringent proof of infant baptism and they do not provide us with an express command to baptize infants. They do, however, supply us with certain principles which lie close to the argument for infant baptism and without which the ordinance of infant baptism would be meaningless. These principles are: (1) that little children, even infants, are among, Christ's people and are members of his body; (2) that they are members of his kingdom and therefore have been regenerated; (3) that they belong to the church, in that they are to be received as belonging to Christ, that is to say, received into the fellowship of the saints." (p. 65).

[John Murray, Christian Baptism, (Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Company: 1970), pp. 55, 65.]

"What is the Reformed view of the efficacy of the sacraments? The sacraments are efficacious through the work of the Holy Spirit, and they are always efficacious, not in virtue of the church, not in virtue of man's non-resistance, but in virtue of the power of the Spirit. And they are always efficacious to either bless or curse their recipients. The Holy Spirit is present in the sacrament. And so if you have unworthy people being baptized, children who rebel or adults that are hypocrites, or you have unworthy people taking the Lord's Supper, the sacrament is still efficacious to curse you in the power of the Holy Spirit. What proof do we have of that? What comes to your mind? 1 Corinthians where Paul says some of you are sick and even have died because you were taking the Lord's Supper in an unworthy way. Okay, well, here on the top of page 1286, Calvin says, 'The Spirit confirms it when, by engraving this confirmation in our minds, he makes it effective.' According to the Calvinist approach, the Holy Spirit makes the sacraments efficacious."

[Greg L. Bahnsen, Lecture on Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, tape #GB1125]

"The covenant of grace curses people who have the privilege of being among God's people on earth, distinguished from the world, and yet don't live up to what He teaches. That's why the church sometimes has to intervene, lest the church profane God's covenant and its seals."
[Greg L. Bahnsen, Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 7, Sections 1-3, audio tape of lecture presented in Calif., 1994.]

"The New Testament and Covenant continue the same demand for obedience. Entrance to the kingdom is dependent upon attesting obedience (Matt. 7:21), and the kingdom itself is synonymous with righteousness; the kingdom (and its commandments) is not solely future, but absolutely demands that everything be subjected to it in this current age.…Continued blessing for Adam in paradise, Israel in the promised land, and the Christian in the kingdom has been seen to be dependent upon persevering obedience to God's will as expressed in His law. There is complete covenantal unity with reference to the law of God as the standard of moral obligation throughout the diverse ages of human history."

[Greg L. Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics, (pp. 201-2.]

"I think that when we begin with the idea of faith, we have to think first of all that the devils also believe and tremble. Now we have faith by which we need not to tremble because Christ on the cross said "my God my God which hast thou forsaken me?" so that His people might not be forsaken. It is finished! It was finished, once for all. Now that is, I think, beautifully expressed in this word of our Lord. [Begin discussion of John 6:22ff]

When the multitudes wanted to make him king because He had given them bread, and they thought it would be easy to have a handout, Jesus said, when they found the other side, 'Rabbi, when did you get here?' Jesus said 'truly I say to you, ye seek me not because ye see signs but because you ate the loaves and were filled. (VT: "Now then comes the crucial point.") Do not work for food which perishes but for food which endures to eternal life which the Son of Man shall give to you, for of him the father even God has been sealed. They therefore said, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye may believe on Him Whom He hath sent.' Here faith and works are identical. Not similar but identical. The work is faith; faith is work."

[Transcription of a speech by Cornelius Van Til at the Justification Controversy meeting of the Committee of the Whole of the OPC Philadelphia Presbytery.]

"The Westminster Confession, one of the great documents of the Christian faith, has at one point been rightly criticized over the years. Its concept of a covenant of works is not only wrong but shows a misunderstanding of the nature of the covenant...

Having said all this, it must now, be added, in defense of the Westminster Divines, that they never intended the covenant of works to be seen as a covenant of merit. However, in view of the common Protestant hostility to Rome for its ostensible doctrine of works, any talk of a covenant of works carried a like connotation. Both Rome and Westminster could justly plead that their doctrine did not assert a salvation by works, but both could be justly charged with opening the door to such a concept, although Westminster limited it to the time of Eden. The term "covenant of works" was also thought of as a covenant of "Nature." [John H. Leith: Assemble at Westminster, (Richmond, Virginia: John Knox Press, 1973). p. 91.]...

The judgment is particular and personal. The covenant is always and only instituted by God's grace. It always is a covenant of law, because covenants are a form of law, and therefore it always requires works. This, however, does not make it a covenant of works."

[R. J. Rushdoony on "The Covenant of Works", Systematic Theology, Vol. 1, (Ross House Books, Vallecito, CA: 1994), pp. 376-379.]

Homosexual Marriage and Anabaptism

2004-05-17T22:42:00.000-07:00

Since the rise of American Baptist Culture, this country has gone into the pots. But, this is the logical conclusion of American Baptist Culture. It is correct that modern day Baptists did NOT come from the Anabaptists. They are the fundamental failure of the English Puritans and Separatists. However, their rigid dichotomy of separation of church/state and Ecclesiology is fundamentally Anabaptistic in origin. This is a good expose, The Failure of American Baptist Culture of the topic.

The Anabaptists totally ended the Societas Christiana of the Medieval period. Their Ideaology is also what is prevalent in modern day church (Believer's only baptistism, memorial view of the Eucharist, strong dichotomy between church/state, etc.). Of course, you did have the extreme radicals like Karlstadt at the Munster rebellion, but these were limited. They were totally interested in "New Testament" Christianity, which is totally what Anabaptism is about. All of the Magisterial reformers rejected outright their heretical doctrines.

The problem didn't come until the English Puritans (as great as they were) bought (unknowingly, to be sure) into their false vision of autonomy. How is it possible to be Reformed Soteriologically, yet be an Arminian Ecclesiologically (as baptists are)? Yet, they say they are "Reformed" (I do highly respect the Baptist churches in the CRE, because they are willing to come under admonishment of a more bbilical Presbyterian church goverment)? Has the term "Reformed" become so watered down as to only symboloize five abstract points that to them, are Platonic forms ontologically? Is the notion of "Reformed" some Heideiggerian 'Dasein'? This is not the grand vision of Calvin, Bucer, Bullinger, etc. They had a grand vision that REFORMED was a total world and life view. I guess we could see this as another vision of the Realism/Nominalism controvery of the Medieval ages. The "Reformed" Baptists take the five points of Calvinism to be universals extended somewhere in space. However, I do not see this position. If this makes one Reformed, becuase there is a universal "Reformed" extended in space, then I do not want to be "Reformed". They would say that the form of "Reformed" exists outside of our minds. I will have to side with the Nominalist side, and state that the "idea" of Reformed is a result of the the classification by the human beings (i.e. The Protestant Reformation), and not some universal outside of the human mind.

The Legalization of homosexual marriage is where all of this was leading up to. Before the rise of American Baptist Culture (pre-Revivalism), America was (for the most part, anyway) a Societas Christiana. But, with the populazation of the Anabaptistic views, America has rapidly declined. The ultimate cause would be the Anabaptists. However, when you progress forward, it would be attributable to the Puritans, then Revivalists and finally the Baptists. We need to wake up, and see the failure which has resulted because of this. There are many breakthroughs in the church today, and many people in the Evanjellyical world do not even see. This is why I refuse to classify myself as an Evangelical, and consider myself a sacramentarian and would gladly side with a Lutheran or Anglican (High-Church), anyday. The sarcraments fundamentally DO accomplish something, as all the Magisterial Reformers (except for maybe Zwingli) affirmed. If we do not rapidly change something, the secularists will take over. It is time to realize that Anabaptism is not the way out. We need something more. We need the entire world and life view centered on Christ, His church and theSacraments that only TRUE-blue historic Reformed Theology can and will offer.

New Books

2004-05-04T18:46:00.000-07:00

Stephanie is here in Dallas, and we are having an amazing time. She really is a true gift of God. I am not going to be able to post the Redemptive-Historical essay on the Baptisms of Acts until this weekend. I have started working on it, but with exams and such coming up, I will not be able to do it during the week.

I have my Renaissance/Reformation final on Thursday. It shouldn't be very hard at all. It will be over John Calvin, the Counter-Reformation (or Catholic Reformation) and the English Reformation. My other test grades have been really well in there, so I am hoping for a trifecta.

I went to Half-Priced books here in Dallas last night and got some really cool books. I got Ford Lewis Battles' Interpreting John Calvin, which is a collection of essaysthat he wrote. It should be really excellent, considering he was a terrific Calvin scholar, and translated the Institutes in the Library of Christian Classics series. I got Leland Ryken's The Word of God in English where he is arguing for essentially literal translations of the Bible. I am very interested by Bible translations issues, and I heartily agree with Ryken's standpoint. What is the best about it, is that he is arguing from a literary standpoint. I got two old issues from Bibliotecha Sacra, which is the quarterly journal of Dallas Theological Seminary. They are a very good, conservative school, and I got the issues for $1.98 a piece, and I cannot pass up a good deal like that (I can look past the Dispensationalism for that good of a deal). I have gotten about 10 others there before.

I bought another book on John Calvin. It is called John Calvin: Student of the Church Fathers by Anthony N. S. Lane. I love to have secondary sources on Calvin, and hope to have many by the time I am finished. However, I am also interested in the Patristics, and figure this to be a good resource to combine the two. I also got Old Testament Textual Criticism by Ellis Brotzman. I must admit that I have not studied Hebrew, but my knowledge of Greek textual Criticism has gotten me interested in all forms of textual criticism. I also got No Place for Truth by David Wells. I am interested in the empact (or lack there of) that Christianity has had on the culture, and the affect which evanjellycallism has had on life. I purchased a book by John Cooper, from Calvin Seminary entitled Our Father in Heaven. It is on inclusive language for God. Although, he believes in women ministers (which I think he is wrong on that issue), he still defends the thesis that God fundamentally cannot be relagated to the kind of language feminists wish to use for God. Of course, this gets into the Philosophical question of 'how can we speak adequately of God'? This is a very interesting topic, which I do not know anything about. The last book I purchased was William Cunningham's The Reformer's and the Theology of the Reformation. I really liked looking through his book on Historical Theology, and figured tht this would be a good book, too.

Tim (Enloe) has really gotten me interested in the Nominalism vs. Realism controversy over the later Middle Ages. I plan on doing much reading in William of Okham this summer. I read a little introduction to him today, and I found it quite interesting. In the introduction it described his breakaway from the Philosophy and Theology of St. Thomas and Duns Scotus and, how he rejected the rationalisim which was the common view of his time period. It was also interesting that he had to go visit the Pope in Avignon, rather than Rome. I actually asked a Catholic Priest, which Pope was infallible during the time period of the Papal Schism. He didn't answer my question, but I wonder what a Catholic would say. That is an interesting question to ponder.

Everyone Else is Doing This, So I Might as Well

2004-05-02T22:46:00.000-07:00

Everyone else is doing this, so I might as well:

"The only certain and the only really important point about Thales' doctrine is that he conceived "things" as varying forms of one primary and ultimate element." (Taken from Frederick Copleston, A History of Philosophy, Volume 1: Greece and Rome)

Instructions:

1. Grab the nearest book.
2. Open the book to page 23.
3. Find the fifth sentence.
4. Post the text of the sentence in your blog along with these instructions.

Paedobaptism

2004-05-01T21:04:00.000-07:00

I haven't posted in a long time, because I have been incredibly busy with school, work, life, et al. But, in this post, I am going to give a post by my fiancee, Stephanie, because it is an amazing post on something that "Reformed" Baptists do not think of. I have done a little editing to the post (uncapatalized the all the capital letters, removed excessive punctuation, etc.). Here is the link to her blog Songs of a Sinner's Heart if you wish to read it. She is an amazing woman of God, and I love her more than anything :).

How Can an Infant Have Faith?

What is the relationship between faith and baptism? Those who advocate “believers only” baptism understand baptism as an outward sign of an inward faith that is in existence prior to coming to baptism. With this view emphasis falls upon both baptism and faith as man’s act. The individual is qualified and able to receive baptism only after regeneration and faith have taken place in their life. Then they are ready and qualified to receive baptism.

So, how can an infant have faith? I answer this question with a question; How can an adult have faith? The reformed sacrament of paedobaptism is in no way similar to the Roman Catholic teaching of baptismal regeneration. Baptism does not save the infant or give them faith. Instead, it vividly captures the offense and scandal of the Gospel as it demonstrates God’s unmerited gift given freely to a helpless, ignorant, needy soul. Infant baptism bears a living testimony that each of us are Christians only because of what God has come to us and done. He alone makes us family members at a point in our lives when we have done absolutely nothing to deserve that adoption. No knowledge, age, or understanding was conditioned upon our position and place with Christ. We are all totally ignorant and totally helpless no matter how old we are. How can anyone have faith? While we were yet helpless captives of sin God reached out in His grace to embrace us. The motion of redemption and all of God’s work is always from God toward helpless humanity.

So long as it is God who is the “actor” in baptism, and so long as salvation is by grace alone, any question of age or intellectual qualifications on the part of the persons baptized will inevitably compromise the Scriptural doctrine of salvation by grace alone and lead to a form of theological synergism. But to affirm the validity of the baptism of helpless, ignorant, incapable of faith infants is to acknowledge the objective nature of saving grace. The Gospel Word connected to the waters of baptism loudly proclaims God as the seeker and actor.

When an infant is presented to God at the baptismal font, a mighty sermon is being visualized to all of us who behold that baptism. It reminds us that we as sinners are exactly as helpless as the infant. Baptism acknowledges our continual, desperate need, whether as infants or adults, to be connected to Jesus Christ and to be cleansed. Baptism signifies our deep need for a spiritual change that we in our spiritual death and slavery could never produce. It is a testimony: a declaration that something more is needed.

Infant baptism does not guarantee inward cleansing of the heart, just like outward circumcision did not guarantee inward circumcision of the heart, nor does it guarantee that an infant will later receive the spiritual reality symbolized through the sacrament. “The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will punish all who are circumcised only in the flesh- and all who live in the desert in distant places. For these nations are really uncircumcised, and even the whole house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart” [Jer. 9:25-26]. Can you imagine how shocking these words would have been for an Israelite boy to hear? For him to be grouped among the unclean Gentiles. But only if he never understood that circumcision was a sign pointing to his heart’s need for cleansing and the external surgery brings no blessing or favor from God [Romans 2:25-29].

Circumcision symbolized the righteousness that believers receive by faith, and the cleaning and renewal of the heart by the Holy Spirit. Yet God commanded that it be administered to Israelite boys at 8 days old, before anyone could tell whether God would change their hearts by His spirit or whether He would enable them to trust His promises.

My Addition Part 1

That is an amazing thing to say by an amazing woman. I do have some things to add to the post which she said. I do not focus on the same thing she does, however. I focus on the concept of the covenant. I became a paedobaptist after Stephanie did. I wanted to be a "Reformed" Baptist more than anything. But, I started studying the concept of the New Covenant. I started to really take seriously the warning passages in the book of Hebrews (afterall, Hebrews is about the New Covenant "not made with hands"). I did not take the warning passages in the book of Hebrews seriously before. I was like every other Baptist and said that they just reffered people who were part of the visible church and not the invisible church (simplified of course). But, this does not adequately deal with the text.

Hebrews 6 is dealing with the people of the New Covenant. The author of Hebrews is contrasting the truly Covenant keeper verses the Covenant breaker. He is also telling us to press on in the faith leaving behind elementary doctrines to more mature things (6:1; cf. 12:1-3). He then goes on to tell us what to do. We are not to, "lay again a foundation from dead works and of faith toward God, of instruction about washings of feet and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment. And this we will do if God permits." (Hebrews 6:1-3, NASB).

Verse 3 is a third class condition used witht he particle 'eanper'. The third class condition represents that it might or might not happen in the future. What the author is stating is that God may or may not permit us to "press on..". Our pressing on is contingent upon God's allowance (which no "Reformed" Baptist would disagree with). But, the next verse is the dividing verse.

It goes to on to say that people have partaken of the Heavenly gift, yet they still fell away. There are debates about what the heavenly gift is, but I do not have the time to discuss this. Being a part of the people of God is a gift of God. Partaking of the sacarments of baptism and the eucharist are heavenly gifts. Hearing the Word preached is a heavenly gift. All of these things could be said to be the heavenly gift. These people partook of the heavenly gift and yet the fell away. How can this be? In the baptistic system (this includes many Presbyterians, too), the visible church and the invisible church are obscured. Church membership is limited to "regenerate" people who have made a "credible" profession of faith.

Now, my question is this: is this what this passage teaches (cf. Matthew 7:21-23)? We do not know who's profession is "credible" and who's isn't. And, what happens when someone apostasizes in the baptistic system? "Well, they were just not saved in the first place." While, this is true, it doesn't take into account the fact that they "tasted of the heavenly gift". They were members of the Body of Christ, yet not regenerate.

In this instance (and in others of course) baptistic Ecclesiology is inconsistent. We do not know who will be be truly regenerate and who will not. If we do not persevere until the end and the Eschaton, then we will not be saved. And, this passage plainly teaches it. So, the baptistic system of the Covenant ultimately fails. In my next post, I will tackle the question of the baptisms in the book of acts, and show how only from a redemptive-historical standpoint can they be understood.

Introduction and Venting

2004-02-27T21:52:00.000-08:00

For those of you who do not know me (and for those who do), I am Junior at Dallas Baptist University. I am a Philosophy and Biblical Studies major. I am no longer a Baptist (which is why I came to DBU), because I am a Presbyterian and accepted Paedo-Baptism (which was not an easy thing to do). I think the two things that hinder people most from accepting this (to use James White's phrase against him) are tradition and unfamiliarity. I am 20 years old, and I aspire to go to Westminster Theological Seminary in Dallas for my M.Div. when I graduate from DBU (I also hope to go to The Univeristy of Dallas for an M.A. in Philosophy simultaneously). I am engaged to the most beautiful woman in the world (I love you, Stephanie)! We will be getting married on August 14, 2004. If you want to know anymore personal information, just e-mail me.

I have been intrigued by blogs for a while now. I have a lot of things that I could speak of on here that otherwise wouldn't be said. This is a very good thing for me!

I got interested in the blogs because I started reading the wars going on between James White and Tim Enloe. I must say, that I took Enloe's side on this matter. I used to be really fond of James White, when I was a Reformed Baptist (which I now believe to be an oxymoron). I really like White's arguments for Calvinism. He does a very good job of defending God's sovereignty. However, there is something that I also have noticed in him, namely if you disagree with him you offer no "meaningful interaction". This was more on a corporate level. On a more personal note, I used to go into his chatroom to talk to him, because I had the utmost respect for him, and thought he was the greatest defender of orthodoxy ever (and I told his as much). He made me feel very unloved, because he would talk with all of these other people, and pretty much ignored every thing I had to say. Needless to say, I do not have as much respect for the man, James White, as I used to. However, I still think he has been used for the proliferation of the Kingdom of God.

I used to be under the auspicion that the Catholic church was the "whore of babylon" and the Pope was the Anti-Christ. However, that opinion of mine has since changed. There are a plethora of believers in the Catholic church who show the fruit of the spirit. I still disagree with them on doctrinal issues that do have importance. I love the way they emphasize church history. Church history is something that Protestants are very unfamiliar with, unfortunately. I think this is part of what I would call the "Anabaptistic error", which is that every individual is his own interpreter, and church history makes no difference, and we do no have any presuppositions when we come into the text. This is absurd reasoning.

Another problem with modern day protestants is how pejorative we are to one another. We have to resort to ad hominems rather than addressing the issue at hand (I am very guilty of this). I have gotten this often at a Baptist school being one of the few paedobaptists here. This is really quite sad. We can (and should) disagree with error, however, we should be loving about it.

Following in the same vein of the "Anabaptistic error" is that everyone wants to be non-denominational now, and have all of these little "local churches". This has been room for many heresies and/or bad theology (i.e. Word-of-Faith being a heresy; Chiliasm, or Premillennialism being bad Theology). And, we as Protestants do not even care that these are not historic beliefs (although, Premillennialism has had a few historical precendents). But, the idea of the "local church" as foreign to the scriptures as it is, is being tauted by many Christian leaders today.

It is my dire opinion that the Church, the Body of Christ is in dire need of Reformation. The gospel is flourishing in other continents (Africa and Asia), but they are not being taught where they came from! How can this be? I think much of the problem stems from the Modern Education system. Classical Education was thrown out the window, while we have dumbed our culture down. It seems that the more dumbed down we get, the more anti-Christian we get (of course, the enlightenment was a period of much learning and skepticism, but the majority of Christians did not follow the Anabaptistic error at that time).

Well, that is enough venting for the night!