May
13

Broghton Knox and the Signing of the Cross

Categories:

by

Here’s an interesting little fact from Marcia Cameron’s biography of Broughton Knox (p.310):

When Broughton Knox was involved with the writing of the 1992 Prayer Book for the Church of England in South Africa, he insisted that ‘signing with the sign of the cross’ should be included in the baptism service.  Now, that’s pretty stock-standard, except that there was a quite a little debate over it within the C.E.S.A.  Yet Broughton insisted upon it.  Interesting little fact, considering that Knox is often (wrongly) credited in making Sydney less Anglican!

My guess is that since Knox and Robinson saw C.E.S.A as not being Anglican enough (remember that they all sought unity such that the CESA could be included in the Anglican Communion), this little inclusion could be part of the well recognised effort Broughton made to shape CESA in a more liturgical manner.

Interesting little fact nonetheless!

Tags: , ,

Leave comment

May
05

Interesting article from the latest Themelios on ecclesiology

Categories:

by

In this article, which analyses Colin Gunton’s ecclesiology, there are some good thoughts on the doctrine of church.

What’s interesting for my 4th year project, is that it confirms the sort of direction I want to take to resolve the problem of the ‘pneumatological location’ of the nexus between the Opus Dei and Opus Hominum.  Gunton (more correctly, Owen) will be a key player in how this ‘location’ is found.  Have a read:

http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/publications/36-1/the-trinitarian-ecclesiology-of-colin-gunton

Tags: , ,

Leave comment

May
03

Broughton Knox on Karl Barth

Categories:

by

Interestingly, I came across this paper written by D.B. Knox which is a review of Karl Barth’s pamphlet, Christ and Adam.

“6/- stg. is a lot to pay for a 45 page pamphlet but when it is by Karl Barth the reader can be sure that if he perseveres with the verbose and sometimes obscure style he will be sure to obtain some stimulating thoughts.  This booklet is an exposition of some verses in Romans 5 from which Barth concludes that Christ, not Adam, is the true representative of humanity.  This thought is not new but Paul puts it plain language when he puts it that Adam was the type of Him who was to come, and it is easily gathered, for example, from a collation of Romans 8, Genesis 1 and Hebrews 2.  Barth however has interesting things to say when he establishes the doctrine of Romans 5-12 and following.  Nevertheless though interesting some of his sayings are hard to square with the Biblical way of thought. Barth appears to have abandoned Particular Predestination in favour of Universalism.  As a consequence he revises some Biblical ways of speaking.  He is, for example, compelled to call Christ the first man (with Philo!) but the significant fact is that St. Paul in spite of Philo calls Christ the second man.  Similarly on page 28 Barth argues that the result of God’s grace is the multiplication of sin and points to the history of the Jewish rejection of Christ, but he has in fact reversed the language of St. Paul who says that sin leads to the abundance of grace and who always reminds his readers that no true Jew has rejected Christ.  He is not a Jew who is not one outwardly.

Barth is stimulating always as in this pamphlet but having abandoned a foundation doctrine of scripture, Particular Election, he is an unsafe guide in doctrines which come close to this centre, and all the more so for his immense intellect.”

What an interesting little read! I’d be interested to hear of any other interaction between Knox and Barth… Email me if you know of any!

Tags: ,

Leave comment

Apr
29

My Fourth Year Project Proposal….

Categories:

by

…. if anyone is interested! …. I’ll be blogging through bits and pieces of it as I go! Hopefully it’ll be interesting, and even somewhat helpful.  Here it is:

“What is the ‘pneumatalogical location’ of the nexus between the Opus Dei and Opus Hominum in a theological description of church?”

When Karl Barth finds fault with Calvin’s ecclesiology due to his ambiguity on the relation between the Opus Dei and Opus Hominum, and the consequent possibility of historicizing tendencies, he proposes an alternative ecclesiological model: the visibility of the church is no more than a crater formed by the explosion of a shell.  In other words, in Calvin’s ecclesiology the Opus Dei and Opus Hominum are ambiguously close together, and in Barth’s ecclesiology the Opus Dei and Opus Hominum never come together at all in the earthly life of the community.  This is chiefly illustrated by their respective sacramental theologies, and in particular Barth’s replacement of the means of grace by the means of gratitude.

We will attempt to navigate between the Scylla and Charbydis of these twin errors, by retrieving John Owen’s Christological insights to bring the Opus Dei and Opus Hominum together by reference to the perfecting work of the Holy Spirit.  As the immediate operator of the Opus Dei with Opus Hominum, the Holy Spirit affords a way of construing the visibility and the invisibility of the church without distorting the integrity of, or the relation between the divine and human elements in the church.  We will conclude our study with a sketch of how such a Christology might be able to undergird a more robust ecclesiological model, illustrated by a sacramental theology utilising the means of grace.”

Tags: , , ,

3 comments

Sep
06

Moore College Open Day – 25 September 2010

Categories:

by

Moore College rocks the suburbs. If you’re interested in Full-Time, Part-Time or External Study to better equipped for ministry and mission come along to the 2010 Open Day & Spring Carnival – Sat 25 September. The day starts with morning tea at 10am and continues through to 2.30pm. BBQ lunch included. 1 King Street Newtown 2042.

Pass this on to others who should be thinking about studying at Moore. Blog it, Tweet it, Facebook it, ‘Like’ it on Facebook.

(h/t: Dave Miers)

Tags:

Leave comment

Aug
30

The Moore College Filing Cabinet

Categories:

by

Complimenting the successful Catechist production by Steve McGuinness, there is the MTC Filing Cabinet by Jason Au.

The Filing Cabinet is a place where different student essays get uploaded and given for public consumption.  It’s quite brilliant – Jas has organised the essays into: Doctrine, History, New Testament and Old Testament.  They cover topics from the English reformation, to Middle Knowledge, to Psalms and Sovereignty, to Apocalypticism and History.

Check it out: http://www.earngey.info/collegeblog/

I’ve got three essays up there:

Risk, Middle Knowledge and Providence.
How did official religious policy change with the Glorious Revolution of 1688?
Calvin’s Ecclesiology: Word and Sacrament

Enjoy!

Tags: ,

4 comments

Aug
30

Pilgrim’s Podcast #35: Richard MaeGraith, Jazz, Church Plant in Marrickville, and Good Times

Categories:

by

Well, we’re back! Season 3 is officially here, and there’s plenty of shnouncements to kick the episode off with!

Steve and I head up to the Moore College Podcast room and chew the fat with none other than the brilliant jazz saxophonist, Richard MaeGraith!

Richard’s a great guy, and a fella who Steve and I had the privilege of studying with at Moore College.  Now he’s headed over to SMBC to correct all the mistakes he learnt with us ;)

In this interview, Steve and I hear all about Richard’s background: how he grew in love for Jesus, how he navigated between a professional career with jazz music and his love for Christian ministry, and how he’s now kicking off a church plant for muso’s in Marrickville! His website is over here if you’re keen to check it out: http://www.richardmaegraith.com/

Plenty of gold here – especially hearing how a love for music has transpired into service for God with music.  And of course, plenty (and I mean plenty) of rambling banter from your favourite larrikins, us.

Get it into you:
 

Download this episode of the Pilgrim's Podcast!

Tags: , ,

Leave comment

Jul
31

What is Faith? Fiducia, Notitia, and Assensus.

Categories:

by

In our doctrine classes, Michael Jensen has been teaching us about the doctrine of the Christian life via the ordo salutis.  Thus far, we’ve looked at effectual calling, regeneration, and faith itself.  One of the interesting things about faith is in defining what it actually is.  Michael called our attention to the scholastic distinctions of fiducia, notitia, and assensus.  So I thought I’d resume my blogging with Muller’s definitions of these important components of faith (from his Dictionary of Latin and Greek theological terms):

Fides: “faith; the firm persuasion of the truth of God’s revelation or that truth itself considered as the object of belief; most frequently the former, as it is manifest in Christians.

Saving faith is usually explained as having three components, the first two belonging to the intellect and comprising the category of cognitio certa, certain cognition, the latter one belonging to the will: (1) notitia, knowledge, the actual content of the gospel and the promises of God; (2) assensus, assent, by which the intellect acknowledges the truth of notitia, apart from any personal trust or saving appropriation of that knowledge; (3) fiducia, trust or appreheniso fiducialis, faithful apprehension, which appropriates savingly, by an act of the will, the true knowledge of the promises of God in Christ. Saving faith, therefore, cannot be merely intellectual; it must also be volitional.”

Fiducia: “trust; the essense of fides; note that in English the etymological relation between fides (faith) and fiducia is lost; in the older theology faith and trust are intimately related. Fiducia, as the crown of faith, is also called apprehensio fiducialis, or faithful apprehension.”

Notitia: “knowledge; synonymous with cognitio.”

Assensus: “assent, spiritual acknowledgement, or agreement; a necessary component of fides. Used without modifiation, a simple assent to a truth by the intellect. The scholastics distinguish three degrees of assent: firmitas, certitudo and evidentia. Assent with firmitas, or firmness, is full assent without hesitation to something accepted purely on authority. Assent with certitude, or certainty, is full assent founded firmly upon a solid ground of accepted testimony. Assent to evidentia, or evidence, rests not on testimony, but on proof drawn either from sense-experience or reason. The Protestant scholastics will argue that the assensus theoreticus of faith is assent with firmitas and certitudo only. Evidentia, by way of constrast, belongs to a science.”

So glad that the Reformers thought through this stuff!

Tags: , ,

2 comments

Jun
27

Katharine Jefferts Schori invited to preach in Brisbane?

Categories:

by

As reported by the Episcopal Life website, and ACL news site, it seems that the liberal revisionist, Katharine Jefferts Schori has been invited to preach at a church in Brisbane as part of her Australia-New Zealand two week tour.

Mark Thompson has written an excellent and short statement which calls for her invitation to preach to be recalled.  Here’s a snippet:

“We note with profound sadness that the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church, Katherine Jefferts Schori, has been invited to preach in a Brisbane church in early July. This invitation shows an appalling lack of judgment and contempt for those who have suffered at the hands of the revisionists in The Episcopal Church.”

and

“Katherine Jefferts Schori bears a great deal of responsibility for the current turmoil, division and anguish in the Anglican Communion. It is entirely inappropriate that she should be welcomed into any diocese in the Anglican Church of Australia.”

Read the whole statement here at the ACL website.

Tags: ,

Leave comment

Jun
23

Blocher, D.B. Hart, and the Will of God

Categories:

by

The cannon ball that fires a devastating blow through the hull of David Bentley Hart’s Doors of the Sea surfaces in one of the questions for our 3rd year Philosophy exam.  Hart’s vitriolic reading of the Reformed tradition simply falls over due to this important plank of Reformed theology.

In Henri Blocher’s Evil and the Cross (p99, 1994), a paragraph is given to the topic of the decretive and preceptive will of God (which I’ve blogged about before).  It’s worth quoting in full, especially if you’re sitting the exam and want the context of the quote for our question!

“Theologians distinguish between the decretive and preceptive will of God, or the will of eurestia (ie. what God is pleased to have his creatures do).  When we read ‘God wills’ or ‘God wishes’, it is not always with the same meaning.  The wicked sons of Eli did not repent ‘for it was the Lord’s will to put them to death’ (1 Sa. 2.25), and yet we read that God takes ‘no pleasure in the death of the wicked’ (Ezk. 33:11).  In the first case, God willed in the sense that he has written the deed in his book (Ps. 139.16), that he has included it in the programme of everything that happens, in his universal plan or decree.  In the second case, we are dealing with his desire that all should be saved, and it also involves his call, commandment or precept that they should turn and be converted.  We should note carefully that, even at the heart of the decree, if evil is willed in a certain manner, it is not willed as something good.  God wills what is good directly, simply, for himself; he wills evil only in a different manner, while hating it at the same time. It is, to be sure, sovereign, but it is also a permissive will that is being referred to.  Divine causality with respect to good is efficient (i.e. God acts efficaciously, every grace and good gift comes down from the Father of lights, Jas. 1:17).  With respect to evil, it is deficient (i.e. God is content not to act, as if he failed to assist; he did not bring forth the will to do good, nor the deed).  Whereas God himself works good by making it work, evil is always the deed of one or of several created beings, exclusively.“

I might add, that I do very much appreciate D.B. Hart’s theology – especially since he’s a theologian of the classical variety.  But I did find his ridiculous misrepresentation of the Reformed tradition quite frustrating!  Blocher sets out the key nuance very well. If Hart had recognised this, I’m sure his Doors of the Sea would have been much more convincing!  After all, what he’s proposing in primary and secondary levels of causality (p83ff) already exists within the Reformed tradition.

Tags: , , ,

Leave comment

Older posts «

» Newer posts