Review of T. David Gordon’s Tome in The Law is Not of Faith

I've been doing some reading on the current debate centered on natural law and theonomic ethics. I don't see why these two schools are so polarized, but I definitely think that they are capable of reconciliatory relations. I think it's the purported antagonism that is found in the literature of Michael Horton and other Westminster Seminary theologians (T. David Gordon, David VanDrunen, etc., The Law is not of Faith, 2009) that leads to this sort of paleo-remonstrance against theonomists, aside from the theology. The sad thing is that most of Dr. Gordon's tone against a contributor to the founding of Westminster Seminary, John Murray, is unduly demonstrated. He castigates and berates the theology of John Murray, and may I say, in such an unchristian manner. There should have been a stipulation to the editors' provisions against that sort of thing. I found his (Gordon's) tone so unwelcoming, even though I am not a reader of all of Murray's cherished writings. I find a lot of comfort in Murray's lectures in systematic theology. Now I want to qualify something that I think is screaming "Don't beg the question!": I am a very vehement believer in correcting bad theology, and maybe even in ways that are not conventional. But I also think that there are attitudes which should not even be named among Christians. These attitudes are usually found among the unregenerate and should not be characterized by Christians, especially its doctors and elders. Paul wrote to the Ephesians, "but immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints" (Ephesians 5:3 NASB). This sort of thing should be shunned and rebuked. Michael Horton, who is trying to unite the Reformed world via Modern Reformation and The White Horse Inn, should be more solicitous about these scruples, or the lack thereof, that are being characteristic of the scholarship in "modern reformation." This really isn't an argument against those who hold a view known as "Doctrine of Republication" which a definition can be found on page six in The Law is Not of Faith. My only worry is that this view may only be the allowed view of Reformed fellowships. This is patently a monopoly of ideas and ethically wrong! I think that theonomic brothers should and ought to be allowed to the table of discussion so that the covenant believers of Reformed communities—and non-Reformed communities for those who want to know about the Reformed faith—ought to be allowed to the banquet(s) instead of being ousted by other Reformed believers, whose desire is piety and orthodoxy, isn't it?

Ethics

Proverbs 21:15 "The exercise of justice is joy for the righteous, But is terror to the workers of iniquity." A monopolizing of the forum is a perversion of Biblical ethics. We shouldn't be afraid of letting those with whom we disagree with to speak.

Calvin on the Church

Well, considering that I am not going to be working as much as I used to, I think I will be posting occasionally—particularly along with the materials I am reading. I've been doing some studies in Reformed ecclesiology, mostly by John Calvin. John Calvin, like most of the Reformed theologians of his day, sought to cleanse the church from corruption, but that doesn't mean that the church is going to be, to use Calvin's words, without spot or blemish. Many people that I know tend to see that the Reformed doctrine of ecclesiology calls for radical purging. Other critiques, which aren't critiques but rather complaints, embellish a sort of individualism in Christian piety over against a corporate piety of the church at large. They seek to remove the theology of the church (corpus) and propagate a theology of the individual. Others would even complain that the church is too corrupt to be inhabited; Calvin himself provides reasons for seceding when the church becomes corrupt. Fortunately enough, Calvin deals with cessation in the same chapter where he deals with significant import on the sin of schism or the sin of breaking away from the visible church. So it's not mistaken, there are logical reason to leave the church. However, those reasons which I usually deal with are largely unfounded and unbiblical. I would even venture to say that those reasons tend to be in the majority, which comes from ignorance of the Reformed doctrine of the church or even a simple history of the church.

New Book by Joel R. Beeke

This is an interesting topic, I'd like to think. Though this has some theological import for polemics, I think that the subject of Calvinism provides us with good philosophical discussion. For instance, the determinative versus the free will debate is one topic. One way in which one will look at the debate could be somewhat related to the problem of evil. However, I think my purpose here is to note the Biblical doctrine that describes the Christian God, which could also have more broadly philosophical discussions, like issues in epistemology, or "general ontology" — to borrow from James Porter Moreland.

The book that I've been reading on the subject is Dr. Beeke's "Living for God's Glory." Dr. Beeke's credentials are public and are known. So my attempt to make him a credible source would be overstressed, and frankly a waste of time.

In chapter one, he begins to outline the contours that capitulated the reformation of the 16th century. I will post more about the topic as I read more. Check back soon.

Cornelius Van Til, Predilection, and Reason

I just about finished editing a new video for my blog. Unfortunately it's still being finished by YouTube, so all I do is post the link here. There are some prepatory remarks that I think are helpful here before you click the link I'm about to post. Think about information and knowledge for a second. If one has knowledge—and everyone does—how sound is that knowledge? How does it become knowledge from belief (the classic definition of epistemological knowledge)? And if it is true knowledge, does God know the same amount, or is it significantly different? If they (knowledge claims) are univocal (=different), do they at some point—like parallel lines—meet? Or are they so similar that there is absolutely no difference, to the point that God only knows more? These are the very foundations of belief (=epistemology) in the debate between Van Til and Clark. However, my opinion is more broad, dealing with the notion of unbelievers' knowledge claims and the way in which they condemn Christian belief as "warrented Christian belief" (see Faith and Rationality, A. Plantinga & N. Wolsterstorff).

Here's the link

Exegetical Calvinism & Presuppositionalism

Lane G. Tipton and K. Scott Oliphint co-edited a great book called Revelation and Reason: New Essays in Reformed Apologetics. In the first essay, Richard Gaffin begins by giving some exegetical insights to a Vantillian interpretation of Scripture in order to give the Christian a plausible—notwithstanding Van Til's language of "certain proof"—substantive apparatus to defend the faith delivered once and for all (Jude 3). Here's the problem I have with using the term "Vantillian interpretation" because it tends to look like a system-laden, to say nothing of extra-biblical, formula. But we know from the New Covenant Scriptures (2 Peter 1:20) that this is not the case. Much like the previous debates that flanked most of Reformed orthodoxy in the past (I'm referring to the Clark-Van Til debates), biblical theologians have come to Van Til's defense. Dr. Gaffin would further assist the venerable Van Til by aghast to Van Til's concessions of certain remarks about his defense of the faith. For instance, G. C. Berkouwer decried Van Til's dogmatic assertions that his presuppositionalism carries exegetical insights—plenary insights—but without qualification. Van Til quickly conceded. But as I read in Dr. Gaffin's essay, that concession was premature on Van Til's part. Dr. Gaffin goes on to defend Van Til and shows great scholarly insights as to how Van Til could make such an assertion and remain qualified without the need to exegete a single passage. In the following pages, Dr. Gaffin goes on the fray and exegetes pertinent texts that would further expunge Van Til from incrimination—the incriminations of Dr. Berkouwer. This was an amazing first essay. I can't wait to read the sections on epistemology.

Book Cited

Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. "Epistemological Reflections on 1 Corinthians 2:6-16." Revelation and Reason: Essays in Reformed Theology (Ed. K. Scott Oliphint & Lane G. Tipon), 13-40.

June 11 2009—Obama and King Solomon

I am so not feeling well. On top of losing my job at Starbucks—the gayest job in this world's existence—I have this sickness of a stifling nose. I'm schlepping to my bed. Ha! What a word. It was this morning's word-of-the-day in The Free Dictionary website. It's a verb and it means to carry clumsily or with difficulty, in this case, my own body. Ugh! I hate being sick. Every time I turn on this stupid fan, my nose gets this way—every single time! On a different note, I read in the Old Covenant Scriptures about the wisdom of Solomon—no, not the book—and how he dealt with issues, issues he explicated, dialogues he gave. Everyone in the text seemed—no, they did—to come to hear him speak at every occasion. There was something that clearly smacked me in my proverbial face: President Barack Obama. Now I'm not going to equivocate the wisdom of Solomon with that of the current president, but there is correlative significance with the media's incessant accolade of Obama's rhetoric and the Old Covenant community's adoration to hear Solomon speak.

I honestly believe that people today would, if they are Christians or idealists, would see Obama in this light. I can't remember how many articles I leaf through that exude this attitude in Newsweek and the LA Times daily news—the quipped "news that's fit to print."

June 6th, 2009—Musings and Devotion

Something had occurred to me as I was reading Scripture—I love writing that as if I do it all the time. I noticed the times that Old Testament saints and the not-so-saintly, when they sacrificed offerings of whatever kind it was always in connection to the res significado (I think that's the right word)—the thing signified. Even in the times that God revealed through the prophets his will to the people he made it explicitly clear that the heart in connection with the thing is desired more for proper piety. This occurred to me as I was reading the story of David's last days in 1 Kings 1:1-53, found in the ESV One Year Bible, June 6.

---

On another note, these past two days were on "what's in a name" theology. Joel McDurmon, a writer for American Vision, has recently published an article called Blasphemy and Freedom. And in that article the author describes what can only be described as a proper delineation of name-ology. However in this article I think the author really just intends to outline a Christian attitude in invoking the name of God. He writes, "At the bottom of all, is the foundation of allegiance to God; and the commandment does not forbid swearing period, but swearing in vain. Bearing God's name in truth—not in vain, but in truth—is the bedrock of religion and therefore of social health." I was really surprised to read that last part. How could bearing God's name be the bedrock of social health? Musing over this issue, I began to see its reality as I remembered today's reading in 1 Kings. But before I scribe down everything I read this morning, I found the dialog between Romeo and Juliet—a dialog that Mr. McDurmon duly notes in relation to God's name—appropriate.

O Romeo, Romeo! wherefore art thou Romeo?

Deny thy father and refuse thy name;

Or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love,

And I’ll no longer be a Capulet.

…which was her surname. Romeo mumbles to himself, listens on; Juliet continues:

‘Tis but thy name that is my enemy;

Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.

What’s a Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,

Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part

Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!

What’s in a name? that which we call a rose

This short dialog, I think, properly notes the nimbleness of extolling the vacuity of names. Even at certain times I would find this a valid expression, but, of course, this is due to the current situation in post-modernity. Much is given sway to the meaningfulness of anything, including names. However, in the Scriptures, a lot is given to the dutiful lauding—and duly rueful deprecation—of names. To give one example, God in his New Covenant had throughout eternity decided to judge men under the name Jesus. I think the primary reason for doing that is largely due to God's insistence of meaning behind names. The author again writes, "The concept of 'God's name' so closely pertains to His Being and Nature that any affront to any of God’s attributes is subsumed under the very mention of His name." So closely related to are the designations and imaginations of names subsumed under a person's character, office, piety, justice, etc., that no characterization can be made apart from the name. On any note, such were the musings of this morning. Blessing in the Trinity.