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.