Category Archives: Scroll & Quill Consulting

Unbelievable deal at wordmp3: James Jordan, Peter Leithart on Gospel, critique of theonomy, revivalism, democracy

Back in 1991 before anyone in Evangelical world had heard of N. T. Wright or “the Federal Vision,” Jim Jordan of Biblical Horizons and Peter Leithart gave a conference that pointed out the political nature of the Gospel and of Arminianism and revivalism.

The recordings of these lectures are worth a lot more than five bucks.

I’ll start with Mr. James B. Jordan first. At that time Greg Bahnsen had just written his No Other Standard, a response to a rather uneven collection of essays by Seminary professors entitled Theonomy: A Reformed Critique as well as The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses by Vern Poythress. Jordan begins his first lecture informing his audience that he had intended to deliver studies on the Noahic law, but had recently received a copy of Bahnsen’s book defending his ideas. So rather than stick with his plan he decided to address Bahnsen’s position against his critics.

Theonomy A Preliminary Theocratic Critique 1

This first recording starts off with a bang by pointing out the obvious fact that the Gospel is inherently theocratic. In fact, both the Great Commission and the preaching in Acts show the Gospel message is that Jesus is the exalted king. It is a theocratic proclamation. This is the lecture that tells you that everything you know is wrong: In the OT individual people were changed but history never changed. In the OT individual people were saved but the world was not saved. Until Now. Now the Gospel proclaims the change in history and the salvation of the world.

(By the way, this was years before N. T. Wright came out with What Saint Paul Really Said, showing that the term, “gospel” designated a royal pronouncement rather than a personal improvement message about spiritual renewal.)

There is also a lot of good study of the OT (this seems to be the theonomic divide: some people wanted to talk about God’s law and others wanted to actuall find out what it was). Jordan’s first point is that there needs to be more reflection on the actual nature of Biblical torah. Jordan raises that the Law in the Bible sounds nothing like what we think of as law. We make it into “law” by abstracting the parts that fit our expectations out of the text.

This is a great lecture that will change your thinking in many ways.

Theonomy A Preliminary Theocratic Critique 2

This lecture continues Jordan’s arguments. I won’t attempt to rehearse them all here. But to give one example, Jordan points out that saying Biblical Law is “binding” is an equivocation. Of course, all revelation is binding, but that doesn’t mean that we are supposed to follow what they actually say (i.e. circumcision). This is not even a distinctive issue faced by us in the Christian era. Converted Gentiles, like those of the ciy of Ninevah, would have had to figure out which dimensions of the Torah really were for them to obey.

Jordan goes on to both deconstruct, and raise exegetical problems with, Bahnsen’s use of Matthew 5.

Theonomy A Preliminary Theocratic Critique 3

Jordan continues to pose questions about Bahnsenian Theonomy and whether it is really derived from Scripture. What makes Jordan’s approach unique is that he is not driven by a need to prove Bahnsen totally wrong, but simply wants Theonomy to give an account for what all of Scripture says.

Calvin & Theocracy

Somewhat like Jordan’s criticism that Theonomy, Peter Leithart shows that Theonomists have been too simplistic in claiming Calvin as a precedent. Of course, the same holds true of the anti-Theonomists. Calvin, like all the Christians of his day and for centuries prior, was a theocrat.

Theocracy, Revivalism, and Democracy

Building on his description of Calvin’s thought, Leithart argues that the rise of revivalism contributed to a significant change in Christian social order. This is an important lecture that should interest many different sorts of Christians (and non-Christians for that matter).

Let me emphasize that point for the entire conference: these lectures are going to be interesting to people who have no interest in “theonomy” debates from the early nineties. Anyone interested in issues of being “missional” or “emergent/ing church” concerns, or in Biblical theology, or in American culture, or in the controversy surrounding N. T. Wright, is going to find a great deal to chew on in these messages.

And each lecture is on sale right now for only a dollar!

(Full disclosure: I have done work for WordMp3.com)

PS.  If anyone wants to support the work of WordMp3.com, consider linking the product site entry.

Blogging can destroy you in court and freak out corporations

On my professional bivocational side I’ve been doing some corporate work. Since I doubt any of my readers are lookng for medmal issues, they probably missed a couple of issues that shoul interest any blogger–because they are about blogging:

New business

scrollandquill.gifI’m having second thoughts about having a business blog. I think I’d rather simply refashion this one somewhat. In any case, I’m doing everything at once as I transition into the bivocational world. I already have a project and am working on getting another one under way. It is one of those “Don’t look down; keep climbing” periods in my life.

Among other things I haven’t done yet involves spelling out services and, as best is possible, rates. So far, I know I’ll be offering manuscript review (my wife has actually had a small business called the Write Review, so this is easy), ghost-writing, manuscript creation out of other materials (notes, audio, etc–this was basically one of my main duties as an assistant pastor last year), and illustrations (though a contact).

I can’t say that this isn’t tainted with some regret. Starting a business like this at my age to support a family of six is doable, I think. And, I’ve done this enough times (both before and during the pastorate) to have a reputation enough to hope to compete with the single college student who can underbid me in hourly rate (you get what you pay for and all that). But I’m now looking back on life and realizing I could have really capitalized on work I did and built up an even better rep by offering services at a lower rate. Back before Jennifer and I had children and when we both worked, I could have afforded to really offer some skills (though I’ve improved since then) at a lower rate. Maybe our time in seminary could have been done more easily when it was time to go….

Sadly, I really didn’t “get it.” At the time. Generating a business simply did not occur to me. I tried to 1) simply get steady work and 2) get rich from some great book I would write (Why didn’t that intimidate me? I couldn’t tell you.). I had a lot of connections and I realize now that I didn’t utilize them. If anything, I expected them to bring opportunities to me. Youth is wasted on the young.

But I’m not too worried about it now. I was reading John Calvin’s 1536 Institutes this morning before church and came accross this piece of wisdom:

…even while we walk in the Lord’s ways by the leading of the Holy Spirit, to keep us from forgetting ourselves and becoming puffed up, something imperfect remains in us to give us occasion for humility, to stop every mouth before God and to teach us always to shift all trust from ourselves to him…

For some unaccountable reason it has become scandalous to some Presbyterians to point out that good works are necessary in believers as means of obtaining final salvation. But the full truth is even more scandalous: our sins are also means of our salvation.

Paul is quite clear about this. When he writes that

in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

there are two things to remember. First, Paul certainly includes our own sin in this list. Second, Paul is not merely saying that we stay in the love of Christ despite these things. The phrase could bear that meaning but the context militates against it. We remain in Christ’s love through these things. “And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.”

All things. Even our sins are means to bring us to glory. This was Paul’s message. It would be easy to see how someone might think Paul was encouraging sin. In fact he was accused of preaching “why not do evil that good may come?”

So paradoxically, even though I can see when I might have done things differently and had an advantage, I have to believe this is the right time.

Just to give you an idea of what I’m trying to do, here are a few agencies I found on the web:

More later