Monthly Archives: August 2009

Why criticism of the Westminster Standards does not mean you are failing to use the Wesminster standards (a problem with the lens analogy)

5 Replies

Whose Lens Are You Using? « Green Baggins.

There is much wrong in this, either, radically skeptical, radically relativistic, or quasi-Newmanesque Roman Catholic view of the role of the Westminster Confession and catechisms in interpreting Scripture.  But I want to mention something basic.

If you use a lens faithfully to an examine an object, such use does not preclude you from realizing if the lens is smudged in some places.

This is a pretty silly point, except it exposes a silly strategy among Protestants.  Rather than dealing with exegesis, some “protestants” prefer to point out that the person that they disagree with is failing to conform to the Westminster Standards and is thereby in violation of some sort of “rule of faith.”  But the exact opposite is the case.  A person may be in disagreement with the Westminster standards in some place in some degree precisely because he has been more diligent in using them.

Saying that at some point the Westminster Confession and Catechisms vary from Scripture (paedocommunion, say) does not mean that one doesn’t use the Westminster standards as a “lens” for interpreting Scripture.  It could mean the opposite.  The interpreter might have been very careful in studying Scripture via the interpretation of the Westminster documents and noticed a tension that led him to embrace paedocommunion.

Calvin on union with Christ and justification

Leave a reply

Faith is therefore said to justify, because it is the instrument by which we receive Christ, in whom righteousness is communicated to us. When we are made partakers of Christ, we are not only ourselves righteous, but our works are also counted righteous in the sight of God, because any imperfections in them are obliterated by the blood of Christ. The promises, which were conditional, are fulfilled to us also by the same grace, since God rewards our works as perfect, inasmuch as their defects are covered by our free pardon.

Read the rest: Euangelion: Calvin: Justification, Union with Christ, and Good Works.

Since you’re not a Harvard Prof who is personally friends with the Prez, no one cares.

Leave a reply

Here is the news story.

Here is some commentary: The Plague of Punitive Populism. Of course the “perps” (the official name for victims of government torture) are being heavily charged.

When the pregnant daughter-in-law of the victim intervenes, she, too, is forced to perform the “electron dance.” The grandfather is charged with disorderly conduct and public intoxication, despite the fact that Virginia state statutes specify that such offenses cannot be committed on one’s own property.

The woman who came to the aid of the first victim was charged with “assaulting an officer,” since her brave effort to protect the grandfather from a criminal assault involved placing her unhallowed hands on the sanctified personage of a “law enforcement officer.” Such presumption simply cannot be tolerated.

I’m deleting my own commentary (that I just wrote) and doing breathing exercises to calm down.  Then I’m singing Psalm 2 (pdf).

Not just a message, but a way of talking

Leave a reply

One small thing I’d add (and I know Trevin wouldn’t disagree). Using the language of Scripture doesn’t make something biblical, and not using the language of Scripture doesn’t make something unbiblical. The most important thing is that we reflect the meaning (logic and intention) of Scripture. But it should certainly make us pause when we get so detailed in our semantics that we wince at a Scriptural writer using certain unqualified expressions.

So my encouragement–building off of Trevin’s–is for people not to be semantic legalists (either in favor of, or in opposition to, repeating Scriptural language).

via Between Two Worlds: On Being More Biblical Than the Bible.

Well, I’ll add one small thing to Justin’s statement, not knowing if he would agree or disagree.  He has a point in what he says, and I agree with it as anyone looking at the number of times I use the word “Trinity” (or even “covenant” when it is not used as often in Scripture).

But even so, I want to never forget, nor fail to communicate, that the Bible is not  just a sent message but a means of discipleship.  Yes it can and must be translated, but even so its words and expressions are intended to re-teach us how to talk and write and pray.

If the Bible was just a message, it would be much shorter.  There wouldn’t be 150 Psalms.  We wouldn’t have two tellings of the architecture of the Tabernacle in one book.  Et Cetera. (See, I even still use Latin.  I’m just another scholastic, I tell you!)

Great advice for the Reformed subculture

Leave a reply

Did John Calvin believe in “Limited Atonement” – the L in the famous TULIP acronym, which teaches that Christ did not die as an atonement for the sins of the whole world, but only for the elect?

I don’t know.

There are contradictory signals in Calvin’s writings. At times, it seems very clear that he did not believe in limited atonement. At other times, there is hardly any choice but to assume that he did.

I am not going to debate Calvin’s view of limited atonement. Instead, I’d like to point out what I find most fascinating about Calvin on this subject: his willingness to speak in ways that the Bible itself speaks when it comes to these matters.

Read the whole thing: Why Calvin is More Biblical Than Some Calvinists : Kingdom People.

Anarchism’s historical mistake

Leave a reply

It seems to me that if you look in the book of Genesis you can’t really tell the difference between the public sector and the private sector. Laban, for example, seems to be Jacob’s “government.” Abraham seems like just some guy, but as he gets wealthy, he comes to be regarded as a “prince,” leads an army, and makes alliances with what we would think of as political units.

But that’s the point, extended family units with servants and political units are hard, in my opinion, to distinguish.

The libertarians won’t recognize it, but what I see in Genesis looks pretty much like it is all “private sector.” There may be people who got treated with respect and deference that we now think of as royalty, but this deference was shown to any powerful person.

What this means is that we have an example of what happens when the private sector “provides public services” like arbitration, punishments, and military protection. And what happens is kind of predictable. No one ever thought to form a completely voluntary association. No, once you joined with a household, or lord, you were expected to be loyal for life with your children. It was a natural monopoly.

Robert Nozick did the reasoning in Anarchy, the State, and Utopia. He pointed out that people want protection from threats, not just protection from harm. If someone played russian roulette with a revolver pointed at your child’s head, you would want retribution and/or protection, even if no actual harm ensued. Likewise, people tend to want more protection than the hypothetical free associations of right-wing anarchism can provide. They want their protector to be able to claim a monopoly. Likewise, the rich and powerful protector, who may remember a time when he was not so rich and powerful, takes the steps he takes to provide protection and order with the goal of feeling safe.

I’m not saying that there can’t be stateless societies. They have happened (though usually on islands and in extremely traditionalist and uniform cultures). I’m just saying it is completely natural to see how the state arises out of society’s needs.

Against the Boycotters

2 Replies

Have you ever been compelled, either through a public appeal, or by your own conscience, to boycott a particular company or product because of the owner’s political persuasion of theological beliefs? Throughout the years, I’ve been called upon:

1 – to abandon Disney movies (fine…I never really liked that rebellious little mermaid anyway!)

2 – to reject any product made by Johnson & Johnson (hey…who needs baby lotion, Tylenol or Band-Aids??)

3 – to avoid, at all costs, purchasing Heinz ketchup (no great loss…afterall, I prefer the tanginess of Brooks!) and…

4 – to refrain from drinking Starbuck’s coffee. NOW WAIT JUST A MINUTE! This is getting to be a little ridiculous, don’t you think? Before you know it, we’ll be confined to consuming that which our own gardens produce and all manner of feasting, fun and frivolity will be strictly forbidden! Surely this calls for deep theological reflection and analysis.

Read the rest at She’s No Lady: Coffee, Ketchup & The Wealth of the Wicked.