An electronic self-reflection

I plan to keep this blog up.   While my scholarship isn’t anything to brag about, I have read a lot on a lot of stuff that most evangelicals haven’t.   And some people find it helpful.  The identity of this blog took on a life of its own. Part of it is a response to Eastern Orthodoxy, part on Scottish Church history, and an emerging eschatological front.   In some ways, I really don’t have anything to add to the EO discussion.   EO folks still use the standard argument, “Well, why aren’t you a Mormon?” or some nonsense like that.  Even one of the more intelligent bloggers keeps reiterating the line that Calvin rejected “the Patristic Consensus.”  But as I and others have shown many times with incontrovertible evidence, there simply was no such thing.

And others will keep misrepresenting sola scriptura, as if they Reformed simply held to the Bible alone as the alone authority.   We say it is the final authority, implying more than one.    Few EO have even bothered to find out the difference between magisterial and ministerial authority.

I am content with my hypostasis arguments against icons and Jesus-cookies.

I do have an eschatology blog up that I will link soon.  Yes, it is historic premillennialial.  I make no bones about that.  But it is a different kind of premillennial.  It is seeking to understand the streams of Reformed thought and premillennial….ontologies (for lack of a better word).  The earlier Reformed premillennialists (Gordon Clark, Schaeffer, James Boice) had decent arguments for it, but it seemed that their premillennialism was tacked on to their Reformed thought as a hangover from an earlier fundamentalism (I think this is a fair statement:  the former two were in the Bible Presbyterian Church, and the latter was a successor to Donald Barnhouse).   None of them reflected on the implications of their eschatology.   After Vos and Hoekema, these reflections are necessary.


6 comments on “An electronic self-reflection

  1. Andrew says:

    I very much enjoy reading this blog. There has been more than a few posts that I have found very helpful.

  2. Canadian says:

    Sola scriptura = Solo scriptura

    And could you save me some of those Jesus cookies, or are they in your computer

  3. Surely the weakest link in Reformed theology today, is the lack of seeing Modern Israel, and the fact that the “covenant” was/is theirs really first! (Rom. 1: 16 ; 11: 15-29, etc., and Rom. 15: 8-9)…see 1 Cor. 10: 32! I lived and taught in Israel in the latter 90s (after being in Gulf War 1 myself, I am a retired reserve officer from the RMC’s…Royal Marine Commando’s). Indeed Gulf War I was a great providence for me, seeing and fighting Radical Islam! In 1993 I came to the fullness of the Historical Premillennial (post-trib). Indeed no “supersessionism” for me!

    Btw, on certain doctrines I am somewhat EO friendly, i.e. the Christology of Christ, and the Trinity of God (with the monarchy of the Father in the Godhead. Which even Augustine taught btw!) See here btw, Robert Letham’s rather friendly book: Through Western Eyes, Eastern Orthodoxy: A Reformed Perspective, (Mentor Imprint, 2007). Letham is a Brit., but also taught as an Adjunct at Westminister Theo., and was a visiting professor at Reformed Theo. Washington/Baltimore, also.

    • Hello Fr Robert. Thank you for your comment. I agree on the Israel question. I am currently reading Horner’s Future Israel.

      • @ZC: I read Horner’s book: Broadman Holman, as I remember? A good book, that I passed along. What is needed most I believe, is to get todays general Evangelicals to see the central nature of Modern Israel, and to note Zech. 13: 8-9! The great Gentile Apostasy is surely upon us! I am old enough (64) to remember Robert Gundry’s book: The Church and the Tribulation, one of the first books (early 70’s?) to teach a sort of dispensational type Post.Trib. The point being we simply must move beyond the older Post-Mill, and classic type A-Mill, and even the older classic type Dispensational apologetics, not that the latter is completely wrong, but that it is still changing and getting better in understanding, with a least some. But surely Ryrie’s book: Dispensationalism, the Revised and Expanded version (2007) should still be read! I am even a student of the older Ultra-dispensationalism of E.W. Bullinger. (Love his two books especially: Figures of Speech Used In The Bible, and his Greek/English Lexicon. And yes I have his Companion Bible – KJV)… I am of course not an advocate of his “dispensationalism”. But, his notes in Acts especially show that the Book of Acts was a Book of Transition, from the OT ground, to the New! And I have too JND’s full Collected Writings. (My Irish great-gram, died when I was 15 as I remember, was a PB – Plymouth Brethren, or what she preferred to call Irish Brethren (she was then among the so-called ‘Kelly Brethren’.. William Kelly. But later she went with the “Open” Brethren). I have many of her “Brethren” books.

Comments are closed.