seeing in a mirror dimly

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.

This looks fantastic! From Mark Thompson’s blog:

“Over two days, on 16–17 September, guests from around the world and all over Australia will come together at Moore College to engage afresh with the great Genevan Reformer and his theological legacy. Paul Helm of Regent College, Vancouver will speak about Calvin and philosophy. Oliver Crisp of the University of Bristol will explore Calvin’s understanding of Prayer. Ashley Null, world expert in the the theology of the English Reformation, will uncover Calvin’s impact on Tudor Anglicanism. Peter Adam, Principal of Ridley College, Melbourne will address the subject of Calvin and preaching. And Peter Jensen, Archbishop of Sydney, will speak about the role of Calvin’s theology in theological education today.

Martin Foord from Trinity College in Perth will locate Calvin’s treatment of 1 Timothy 2:4 against the exegetical tradition he inherited. John Maclean from the Presbyterian Theological Centre in Sydney will engage with Calvin’s treatment of the sacraments.”

Looks awesome – be there! I hear there’s 2 streams: 1) aimed more at the upper theological level, and 2) one aimed more at the layperson’s level.  Both streams look fantastic, and I hope it’ll be a privilege to hear from these great Calvin scholars.  Having recently read Paul Helm‘s Calvin and the Calvinists, I’m looking forward to hearing him on Calvin!

The latest Themelios is out now…. In case you haven’t heard of it, it’s a theological journal sponsored by the Gospel Coalition.  And as a theological student – it’s a great resource!  This issues articles include:

Editorial | D. A. Carson
Minority Report: A Lesson from Peter the Barber | Carl Trueman
The Embattled Bible: Four More Books | Robert W. Yarbrough
How Far Beyond Chicago? Assessing Recent Attempts to Reframe the Inerrancy Debate | Jason S. Sexton
Divine Retribution: A Forgotten Doctrine? | Andrew Atherstone
Calvinism and Missions: The Contested Relationship Revisited | Kenneth J. Stewart
Pastoral Pensées: Power in Preaching: Decide (1 Corinthians 2:1–5), Part 1 of 3 | Raymond C. Ortlund Jr.
Book Reviews | 38 reviews
Old Testament | 5 reviews
New Testament | 10 reviews
history and historical theology | 6 reviews
systematic theology and bioethics | 10 reviews
ethics and pastoralia | 2 reviews
missions and culture | 5 reviews

Check it out – it comes in PDF and HTML format.

“If Mark Driscoll presented himself for membership in St Peter’s in Calvin’s Geneva, he would have been rejected. Why? He doesn’t believe the faith confessed by the church. He would have been rejected by the consistories and synods in the Netherlands, France, and by the sessions in Scotland. They would not have recognized his confession as Reformed.

The ugly truth is that too many Reformed folk are too excited that a prominent leader in evangelicalism, someone with increasing visibility in the media, identifies himself as Reformed. Pastor Driscoll feels comfortable co-opting the adjective “Calvinist” because real Calvinists, those who actually believe and practice what Calvin believed and practiced, let him use it.“

Just came across this wonderful interview in which John Frame gives brief thoughts on topics like: blogging, systematic theology, Kevin Vanhoozer’s work, Inerrancy, classical music, and Scripture.  Check this one out for sure!

Douglas R. Groothuis reviews two recent Schaeffer biographies (which I haven’t yet read) and provides an interesting commentary on how Schaeffer speaks to contemporary society as it looks for “authenticity”:

“I fear that the younger generation of evangelicals do not know enough about the remarkable life and achievements of Francis Schaefer; instead they are opting for the trendy but intellectually barren hype of much of the emergent church movement-which claims to be “authentic.” (“Authentic” often means little more than emotional, unconventional, and obsessively autobiographical.) Many older evangelicals may have forgotten many of the salient lessons from his life and teachings as well. Reading these two new biographies can help rectify this problem.”

http://www.denverseminary.edu/news/francis-schaeffer-and-the-shaping-of-evangelical-america-and-francis-schaeffer-an-authentic-life/

This is a letter from Francis A. Schaeffer to Eleanore, she was a radical student in the 1960′s.  She has moved from drugs, to free sex, to terrorist politics, to Eastern religion.  She tried everything before coming to Christ, and now her past ideas and actions are giving her a sense of grief and guilt.  This is a beautiful reminder of a) the application of the cleansing blood of Christ, and b) how to lovingly write a letter!

A couple of weeks ago I engaged in a comparison of Daniel 7-12 and 1 Enoch. It was an amazing journey into the world of academic scholarship. So many interesting views flying around, yet so little voice from the conservative corner. I wondered what happened to the reformed evangelical voice…?

Well, tonight I read something encouraging from EJ Young from an old Themelios journal in 1963 entitled: “Some Thoughts on Old Testament Scholarship”. Here’s a really, really interesting and encouraging passage:

“One cannot take too seriously the claims of Scripture to be the Word of God. Hence, the exegete must always take into consideration the biblical theological significance of the passage which he is studying. Now, Biblical theology is a term that is bandied about quite frequently these days; there is good biblical theology and there is bad, and the bad, of course, is not really biblical theology at all. True biblical theology is concerned with the study of divine revelation in the various epochs or periods of redemptive history. It is this basic point which must be kept in proper emphasis. Even some conservatives seem principally concerned to find Christ everywhere in the Old Testament. In a certain sense, of course, Christ is everywhere, but we must certainly be on guard against a reversion to allegorical interpretation. Concern for biblical theology in biblical proportions, however, will prove a great asset for interpretation of the Scriptures.

Not only is concern for biblical theory essential, but it is also essential that we consider in our interpretation each verse in the wider context of the entire Scripture. In true study of Scripture the analogy of Scripture must ever be brought into play. To state this in slightly different terms, we must study and know systematic theology. With the advent of the neo-orthodox emphases genuine systematic theology has fallen into disrepute in some circles. This, of course, is to be expected, for in its very nature systematic theology presupposes that the entire Bible is the Word of God, and that is a position which neo-orthodox, despite its frequent assertions, does not really take seriously. Possibly systematic theology has fallen into disrepute because it is not really understood by many. We are not concerned in the true study of systematic theology merely to state that a certain doctrine was held by Calvin and Luther – but to discover what the Bible has to say about these doctrines. What, for example, is the teaching of the Bible on the doctrine of justification by faith? To answer that question is to engage in the study of systematic theology. Systematic theology is no less biblical than is biblical theology. It is, indeed, the queen of the sciences, and if our exposition is truly to to justice to the Scriptures, we must know what the doctrines of the Bible are. This is certainly one of the reasons why Calvin’s commentaries have so greatly excelled. The same can be said for Luther’s Commentaries and for those of Charles Hodge. These men were theologians, and they knew what the Word of God taught. A knowledge of systematic theology will protect one from going astray doctrinally, for when isolated parts of the Bible are studied apart from the context of the entirety of Scripture, error is likely to creep in. We tend to emphasise one aspect of truth at the expense of others, and when we emphasise one verse or section of Scripture to the neglect of others, our exposition is likely to be faulty. Systematic theology can keep us from falling into this error.”

He says earlier: “Nor need we really be afraid of the term fundamentalist. Better to be called a fundamentalist than to be found in the ranks of those who deny the Bible. In the long run the truth will prevail, and if Christian scholarship continues in devotion to God’s Word, it need not fear what man can say. Its purpose in the last analysis is the glory of God, and in seeking to accomplish this purpose it may well expect opprobrium.”

Praise God for men like this. I’m praying tonight that I can have the same guts in my studies.