Category — 21st Century

“Nenikekas Galilaie”. — Julian the Apostate

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. — 2 Peter 2:1

“Furthermore, they have even sent for men who come from afar, to whom a messenger was sent; and lo, they came—for whom you bathed, painted your eyes and decorated yourselves with ornaments; and you sat on a splendid couch with a table arranged before it on which you had set My incense and My oil. The sound of a carefree multitude was with her; and drunkards were brought from the wilderness with men of the common sort. And they put bracelets on the hands of the women and beautiful crowns on their heads”.
— Ezekiel 21:40-42

Outsiders with new ideas are brought in, Holy things are treated as common and the common are given authority.

Further proof that free enterprise, not government, is the source of real technological progress. Check out the sponsor on the wings— Hublot, the Swiss watchmaker.

They should make it a prerequisite to calling oneself a “Calvinist” that one take a two-year long course on the Institutes of the Christian Religion (the whole thing, not just the “Five Points”), and in the context of the local church. It is funny, but Calvin is so much different than much of the new Calvinist clap-trap that is floating around the web. Much of it does not have the clarity and warmth of Calvin, nor his acumen. I think it is driven by the “Five Points” more than the Institutes, which are not so easily used as a club or a “test pattern” for orthodoxy. It’s like a bunch of high-school bullies are now pastors and “theologians”. They all have big hammers, and everything looks like nail to them. “Hey McFly, are you a four or five pointer?” Whammm! 

The fact is, many of them deny by the practice about half of what Calvin taught: presbyterian rule, paedo-baptism and a host of other things, including paedo-communion. The latter half of the Institutes weigh in on themes that are entirely lost on these guys. But heh, it’s the new cool. 

The confusion between Baptist theology and Calvinism continues. It has become an unargued assumption that Calvin and Credo-baptists are one in their understanding. John Piper and many others are flying this flag. It makes no sense — it is logically impossible.

The reason? Calvin presents a system of theology that is a whole cloth, and the covenant is central to it.As a definitive expression of the covenant, the children of believing parents are included in the sacramental signs and seals. Genesis 17 is a good text to ponder. His system is so closely knitted together, taking away one thread destroys the fabric.

But to take him up as one’s figurehead, all the while denying two-thirds of the Institutes is simply irrational — Presbyterian government is another heavy point that many choose to simply ignore. I am not trying to make any claims to Calvin-ownership, far from it. This is simply a philosophical issue for me. If I disagreed with Marx, I would not call myself a Marxist. If I disagreed with Plato, I would not call myself a Platonist. But, for some strange reason, certain pastors who are at odds with many of the primary teachings of the man still claim him as their own.

If this kind of thing continues, the sheep are going to get more and more confused as time goes on. It seems like these men have little or no concern for the minds of the people, and expect them to fall in line with an irrational leap across an empty chasm. They have done with Calvin what Apple did with Ghandi — turned him into a

There is a rally happening right now on the capitol campus of my state. It is a gathering of charismatic Christians praying for economic recovery. I am glad that they are free to gather, that we are still free to state our minds in the public arena. They are blasting the neighborhood with loudspeakers.

Here is a sample of the prayers being offered: “God, we pray that consumers would not be afraid to spend their money…” “God we know that you can reverse this trend with the simple breath of your mouth”.

Not heard: “God, if you are disciplining us for our misbehavior, our ill-spending, our greed, our unrighteous expectations, please forgive us and give is the grace to walk through the trouble. You alone are righteous and know what is best for us. Amen”. Or, “God, grant us the will and the desire to aid the helpless and support our needy neighbor. Amen”.

Escaping suffering seems an odd request.

The confusion between Baptist theology and Calvinism continues. It has become an unargued assumption that Calvin and Credo-baptists are one in their understanding. John Piper and many others are flying this flag. It makes no sense — it is logically impossible.

The reason? Calvin presents a system of theology that is a whole cloth, and the covenant is central to it. As a definitive expression of the covenant, the children of believing parents are included in the sacramental signs and seals. Genesis 17 is a good text to ponder. His system is so closely knitted together, taking away one thread destroys the fabric. Further, it cannot be reduced to TULIP.

To take up Calvin as one’s figurehead, all the while denying two-thirds of the Institutes, is simply irrational — Presbyterian government is another heavy point that many choose to simply ignore. I am not trying to make any claims to Calvin-ownership, far from it. It is a basic issue of identity and authenticity. If I disagreed with Marx, I would not call myself a Marxist. If I disagreed with Plato, I would not call myself a Platonist. But, for some strange reason, certain pastors who are at odds with many of the primary teachings of the man still claim him as their own.

If this kind of thing continues, the sheep are going to get more and more confused as time goes on. It seems like these men have little or no concern for the minds of the people, and expect them to fall in line with an irrational leap across an empty chasm. They have done with Calvin what Apple did with Gandhi — turned him into a ©Brand identity that can be manipulated to fit their current purposes. And, just as the corporation did to the little man in India, many in the church are doing with Calvin: ignoring the reality of his teaching. A little shallow digging into his ideas and the New-Calvinist will find that John is not on message with their marketing plans.

I brought this simple point up at the Bayly brother’s blog. The responses speak for themselves.

Where does one go? I feel like Elijah, waiting for the ravens to arrive with some meat.

One of the stories circulating through evangelical websites is the Carrie Prejean thing. I have no interest in the story directly, but rather I am interested in the way in which evangelicals are using her as a kind of “proof” of the rightness of their convictions.

This is just confirmation that the evangelical church is mired in modernity: a religious dependence upon “science” as the foundation of faith. As Zizek has written: “Religious fundamentalists are among the most passionate digital hackers, and always prone to combine their religion with the latest findings of science: for them, religious statements and scientific statements belong to the same modality of positive knowledge” (In Defense of Lost Causes, 31).

Prejean is a kind of “specimen” that proves the argument for heterosexual marriage. Forget the fact that Word of God says it plainly already. Here is empirical proof that we have it right. She is a kind of Penthouse Joan of Arc in the minds of evangelical men everywhere (albeit a surgically enhanced Joan). Men, wholly embedded in the image, having no real knowledge of her person, are singing her praises.

As John Gray has said: “Religious fundamentalists see themselves as having remedies for the maladies of the modern world. In reality they are symptoms of the disease they pretend to cure” (ibid, 43).

For some reason I am getting hit with hundreds of spam posts from gmail addresses. So, if you try and post with a gmail account it will automatically be sent to spam. Sorry about this, but until I find a better fix this is what I need to do. Someone in Eastern Europe has it out for me, or is trying to sell me hundreds of brands of contraband erectile dysfunction drugs. 

In Christ,

Chris

“It was understood better in the past than it is today. It is this: one must distinguish between, on the one hand, the gospel as what God has done and what is the message to be announced and, on the other, what is demanded by God or effected by the gospel in assorted human responses.” — DA Carson

Read the whole article here.

Carson, for some reason, seems to think that the Good News does not include the actual redemption of God’s people, their actual salvation. He places faith and obedience in the category of human responses to his abstraction of the Gospel. He says that if we don’t make the distinction he is making, we are falling into the trap of legalism or moralism. In this way, it seems to me, he is splintering the work of the Godhead. God might demand faith, but He gives it as well. He might demand repentance, but it is also a gift from Him. The responses might be acted by humans, but they are the fruit of the Holy Spirit, completing the work of redemption in time and space. Is Carson inadvertently taking on a Pelagic view of salvation? If the aspects he eliminates from his abstraction aren’t “good news” then what are they? It sounds like bad news to me. 

Besides, one of the “assorted human responses” was to call it Good News. It is Good News to God’s people, but it is “the smell of death” to those outside. Is this simply more baptistic splintering of the whole counsel of God? This seems like a favorite past-time of baptistic scholars- always setting the Word against itself. 

Also, it would be great to see the footnotes to those who “understood better in the past”. Where are the references?