seeing in a mirror dimly » reformed

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

Mark — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 02:31:52 +0000

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.

Moore College’s Calvin Conference

Mark — Mon, 18 May 2009 04:32:22 +0000

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!

New Themelios Out Now!

Mark — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 03:53:00 +0000

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.

Jelly and the New Calvinism

Mark — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 02:51:00 +0000

There’s a certain slipperiness and jelly-like quality to what’s being called The New Calvinism. Terms like Reformed and Calvinist are wobbling around like they’ve been served up for dessert. But is this a bad thing?

Even Brian McLaren’s getting in on the act and calling out the Calvinists (there must be some low-flying pigs – he’s even citing John Frame!). Why?

Well it seems that with the growth in the Young, Restless and Reformed types, there’s an umbrella-like movement rising with seismic results – just ask Time magazine. Embracing Baptists, Presbyterians, Dutch Reformed types, other traditions, and even Anglicans (yep, that’s me) – this movement seems to have a fairly large theological scope. The main bounds are the 5 points of Calvinism (Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistable Grace, and Perserverance of the Saints). So, the main ingredients are the same for these types, but it wobbles around a bit depending on things like baptism etc.

Others, like R. Scott Clark, have preferred the more stable dessert of Calvinism. It’s a solid jelly (and no, I wouldn’t go as far as to say a frozen chosen jelly!), a one size and colour fits all jelly. In the above-linked article, Clark says:

“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.“

So, should the New Calvinism be a hard or soft jelly? A wobbly, yet palatable dessert for many – or a harder and more refined treat? Or bluntly, must one go beyond TULIP and sign up to a certain bunch of confessions in order to use the word Calvinist or Reformed?

Personally, I like John Frame’s (as usualy, such a helpful and gracious theologian!) stance towards these sorts of issues:

“I look forward to the time when God will equip his church to write new confessions. The Reformed confessions of the 16th and 17th centuries are wonderful documents that have served the church well. But we need confessions that speak to the issues of our own time: abortion, postmodern ideology, egalitarianism, new spiritualities, ecumenism, the gifts of the Spirit, common grace, the precise role of the Mosaic law the status of non-Christian religions, the obligation of Christians to the poor, the nature of worship, biblical standards for missions and evangelism, and, indeed, the nature of confessional subscription. We need confessions also that can state the old Reformed and biblical doctrines in contemporary language and support those doctrines with the biblical scholarship that has developed over the last 400 years. Perhaps we are not ready yet to write new confessions, granted the spiritual immaturity of the contemporary church and the proliferation of denominational division. But if we are ever to reach the point at which new confessions can be written, we need to train pastors and teachers for the church who are able to develop doctrinal formulations from the Word of God itself. And we need to graduate students who understand that the 16th and 17th century confessions are not the final word, that there is much more that God calls us to say to the church and to the world.”

Perhaps we can settle for a slowly hardening jelly?

Exiled Preacher: An Interview with John Frame

Mark — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 05:06:00 +0000

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!

He’s a great and humble theologian, whose book on the Doctrine of the Knowledge of God has been really helpful for me this year at Bible college.

Here’s a few small quotes to get you started, and I’ve bolded out a few things which I found interesting:

“GD: Why should pastors be interested in systematic theology?

JF: As I said, systematics, rightly understood, deals with the real questions about thought and life that pastors have to deal with. This includes questions about theological controversies, but also about ethics, evangelism, church order, contemporary religions and ideologies, social order, and so on. Now of course if you understand systematics as a more abstract and academic discipline, its connection to the pastorate is less direct. But even then the pastor should be able to draw on the writings of traditional systematicians to draw applications for his own ministry and his own people.”

“GD: In both Peter Enns’ Inspiration and Incarnation and Andrew McGowan’s The Divine Spiration of Scripture, serious Reformed theologians have called into question the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. Is the inerrancy of Scripture still worth fighting for?

JF: I would not live or die for the term “inerrancy,” which is an extra-biblical term and is often used in confusing ways today. But as I understand it, the main idea behind the term is that Scripture, being God’s word, is completely true in everything it teaches. Scripture explicitly affirms that it is true (as in Ps. 119:160, John 17:17). So when God speaks to us, we dare not find fault with anything he says. Our responsibility is simply to believe what he says and to do what he tells us to do. That principle is still worth fighting for. In fact it is the watershed issue of our time: will we believe God, or will we follow human wisdom? This is nothing less than the question of whether God in Jesus Christ is Lord.”

The Eyes of Your Heart

Mark — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 02:15:00 +0000

“that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened so that you may know” Eph 1:18

In preparation for the sermon I’m preaching at St. Anne’s this Sunday, I’ve been struck again by the way that God’s word speaks of heart-knowledge. The phrase “eyes of your heart” is an Old Testament way of referring to the seat of your whole person. And for you to experientally know things – and Ephesians 1:15-23 certainly speaks of incredible things to know.

Have a look at what Jonathan Edwards has to say in his A Divine and Supernatural Light sermon:

“There is a difference between having a rational judgment that honey is sweet, and having a sense of its sweetness. A man may have the former that knows not how honey tastes; but a man cannot have the latter unless he has an idea of the taste of honey in his mind. So there is a difference between believing that a person is beautiful, and having a sense of his beauty. The former may be obtained by hearsay, but the latter only by seeing the countenance. When the heart is sensible of the beauty and amiableness of a thing, it necessarily feels pleasure in the apprehension. It is implied in a person’s being heartily sensible of the loveliness of a thing, that the idea of it is pleasant to his soul; which is a far different thing from having a rational opinion that it is excellent.”

And later in the sermon: “As for instance, the notion that there is a Christ, and that Christ is holy and gracious, is conveyed to the mind by the word of God; but the sense of the excellency of Christ by reason of that holiness and grace, is nevertheless immediately the work of the Holy Spirit.”

And this work of the Holy Spirit is what Paul is praying for – that the saints in Ephesus might know God with the eyes of their heart.

Dr. John Frame – Going to Seminary

Mark — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 03:50:00 +0000

Well, at the start of 2009, I had another watch of John Frame’s thoughts on studying at college. This is just a small portion of the full video. And here are some more of Frame’s thoughts on Bible college at: http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/2003Learning.htm

To my mates at Bible college – I hope this is really helpful and strengthening. And for everyone else, enjoy the thoughts of a truly brilliant servant of the Lord Jesus.

Doug Groothuis on Schaeffer

Mark — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 16:18:00 +0000

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/

Do Not Be Afraid of Past Sins Remembered

Mark — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 03:35:00 +0000

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!

January, 1975.

Dear Eleanore:

Thank you for your recent letter. I am glad that my previous letter was helpful to you. I cannot write a long letter this time as i just got back from the State and I am drowning in correspondence, but I did want to to write to you without too long a gap.

I do want you to know that I read your letter with much interest, and I was touched by it. I am so glad that the Lord has led you along as He has. You are so right that when we get started in non-Christian framework, whether it is in our thought form or in our life form, we rapidly get into very deep waters.

The sixties was a hard time, and of course we here at L’Abri have seen so many who have been wiped out through drugs, through Easter religious thought forms, and through the promiscuous sex life. Yet we have seen many here whom the Lord has touched and healed, and we can only be thankful.

On the other hand, it seems to me that with many young people it is even worse now, with apathy ruling everywhere and then not even having the hope of answers.

Coming back to your letter, I do want to say again that it deeply touched me, and I am glad that you felt like writing your history to me. The Lord really is so gentle to us. He certainly makes His promise more than true – that when we ask Him, He is gracious in putting His hand upon us.

Do not be afraid because these things regurgitate in your mind. (I wonder if you have read my book True Spirituality? If you have not, I would urge you to do so.) Each time these things come into your mind, bring the specific thing under the blood of Christ and know that, because His death has infinite value, you have a new beginning and can begin again. I too understand your sentence about “willing that you have faith.” I really understand that, and I would just say, do not be afraid. On the othe hand, be sure to do what I have said – and this is in each case to bring these things udner the work of Christ that, on the basis of His finished work, He might forgive you for what is wrong. Then you can have a quiet mind, knowing that whatever [temptation] is left over is a matter of weakness, and by claiming the Lord’s promise that He understands because Christ was tempted in every point like as we are, yet without sin.

You are totally right that the greatest test of faith is not the acceptance of Christ for justification, but living like this moment by moment throughout our lives (As I say, if you have not read True Spirituality, please get hold of a copy and read it.) . . .

I am glad you do feel free to write as you did, and would especially say that I will be glad if you would pray for me and for Edith in the midst of our work.

With warm personal greetings in the Lamb,

Francis A. Schaeffer.

Some Thoughts on Old Testament Scholarship

Mark — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 04:31:00 +0000

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.