I have been blogging at Blogger for the past year. I might have a new project in the works at WordPress on the healing of the human person, evangelism, and the like drawing upon the Patristic tradition.
sorry to keep doing this
I’m keeping this up but changing my whole project. trying to be more irenic or something.
And I am a monarchist again. That is not accidental with the title of the new blog.
We read in That Hideous Strength that the first time Jane Studdock looks at Ransom her world is unmade. Why? Because up until that moment Jane believes in a world of total egalitarianism. Now she realizes, once again, in the depths of her soul, that hierarchy holds a deeper truth than the legal fiction of equality. Lewis writes,
She had (or so she had believed) disliked bearded faces except for old men with white hair. But that was because she had long since forgotten the imagined Arthur of her childhood…for the first time in many years the bright solar blend of king and lover and magician which hangs about that name (Lewis is here referring to King Solomon) stole back upon her mind. For the first time in all those years she had tasted the word Kingitself with all linked associations of battle, marriage, priesthood, mercy, and power. At that moment, as her eyes first rested upon his [Ransom’s] face, Jane forgot who she was, and where…her world was unmade; she knew that. Anything might happen now.
“With these words Lewis introduces us to the importance of monarchy. It is vital because it reminds us that we do not live in an egalitarian world but rather a world in which hierarchy exists at all levels (144).
Will Vaus, Mere Theology
I found this fun lecture by the grandfather of the big-tent intelligent design movement, Berkeley law professor Philip E. Johnson.
I’ll bet you guys have all heard of him, but you’ve never heard him speak, right? Well, I was a young man, I used to listen to Phil’s lectures and his debates with Eugenie Scott quite a bit. This is one of my favorite lectures. Very easy to understand, and boilerplate for anything else in the origins debate. This is a great lecture – funny, engaging and useful. You will definitely listen to this lecture several times if you listen to it once.
The MP3 is here. (91 minutes, 41 megabytes)
The Inherit the Wind stereotype
- Many people get their understanding of origins by watching movies like “Inherit the Wind” (or reading science fiction)
- The actual events of the Scopes trial are nothing like what the movie portrays
View original post 1,368 more words
The more I read Dabney, the more I realize he a) predicted the coming economic struggles and crises and b) sort of had a theory of getting beyond it.
The more I read Anchorite apologetics, the more I realize they never deal with Reformed Presbyterians, but Baptists. That’s cool. Baptists are ubiquitous. The problem is the subconscious projection of Baptist mentality upon Magisterial Presbyterianism.
Reading the Bible as Tradition by Andrew Stephen Damick.
Interestingly, I had this same thought yesterday. Question: is the LXX translation also a tradition? It most certainly is, since translations are tradition. I’ll come back to that.
I recently came across a conversation online in which someone insisted that he didn’t need tradition at all, because he had the Bible.
This statement is universally rejection by our confessions (though it is the American mindset, sadly).
If you are reading the Bible for yourself at home , then you are unlike most Christians in history, most of whom could never afford a Bible and many of whom could not read.
I agree 100%. This is why our confessions say that especially the preaching of the Word of God. This reinforces the Verbal Ontology that is from God’s revelation. So I say “amen” to the good father.
If you believe that the Bible’s meaning is simply apparent to you without anyone’s help, then you are discounting everything you have learned about what the Bible means from other people and even what language itself means
Again, I agree. The above mentality, typical of American evangelicals but firmly rejected by Confessional Protestants, is simply Greek autonomy in new dress. The desire for unmediated truth.
If you are reading a translation of the Bible, then you are trusting someone else’s word about what it says. The Bible never says it’s okay to use translations, and it doesn’t endorse one over another.
This is a good rebuttal to King James Onlyism. I would like to add my own thoughts. We see the apostles using both the LXX and the Hebrew traditions.
If you are reading the Bible in the original languages, then you not only had someone teach you Greek or Hebrew, but you also made a choice or accepted someone else’s choice when it came to which version of the Biblical text you would read. There are multiple manuscript traditions, and they’re not all the same.
See above. I took years of textual criticism and this is old hat.
If you are reading the Old Testament in Hebrew, then you’re not using the Old Testament most often used by the apostles in their writings, which was the Greek Septuagint, a translation of the Old Testament made by Greek-speaking Jews completed perhaps as early as the late second century BC.
I dispute that it’s overwhelmingly so. What we don’t see from the apostles is a clear endorsement of the LXX over the Hebrew, nor does it vindicate a lot of the LXX’s goofiness as a whole.
If you are reading the Old Testament at all, then you are benefiting from the Jewish community’s traditions of textual transmission and editing—and not just the Jewish community in general, but particular parties within Judaism, which as a whole had several different incipient canons all by the time of Christ. And within the text itself, there are clear signs that not everything written under someone’s name is from that person. For instance, the Books of Numbers and Deuteronomy, both attributed to Moses, include the details of his death and burial. How could Moses have written that? He didn’t. Those details were included in a process of tradition.
There is a lot of stupidity in American evangelicalism, but this borders on insulting their intelligence. Anyone with even a mediocre study bible knows all of this.
And the Bible you read may have a different Old Testament than the one the apostles did, i.e., not just different in language but with a different list of books (the Septuagint includes books like Tobit, Baruch and the Maccabees).
But in his above point he conceded that the Judaisms had multiple canons. How does he know that the apostles are using the Hellenized Alexandrian canon and not the Hebraic Palestinian one? Textual scholarship is by no means leaning towards the former view. After Beckwith it is hard to even countenance it.
But what I try to tell anchorites is that Protestants hold to tradition in a ministerial sense.
It’s impossible to read the Bible without tradition. Tradition gave you the Bible. So the question really is: Which tradition?
I’ll take it a step further: how do you know which tradition in a non-circular manner? This problem is by no means limited to sola scriptura. It is the heart of every claim to authority.
Argument: The Apostolic Church teaches it, therefore it must be so.
Dilemma: This is 100% circular reasoning. In order to accept this, you have to first accept the presupposition that the “apostolic” church in question is infallible, which is in and of itself circular reasoning. It should likewise be noted that I have heard this argument made even when all previous evidence already stated in this post has been brought forward. At this point, it’s just appealing to authority of the individual church group, despite evidence that this group is in error.
I rarely reblog, but when I do it is too important for me to pass up. Derek Rishmawy does a fine job responding to Martini’s exposition of the Tullian fracas.
Some of you know there’s been a bit of a brouhaha over the issue of sanctification in online Reformed circles in the last couple of months. It’s what led to the departure of Tullian Tchividjian (henceforth TT, because who can spell that?) from TGC and other unfortunate online ugliness. Basically, the dispute was surrounding a number of issues like, what role the law continues to have in the life of the believer?, or how necessary is obedience after conversion?, should we focus on obeying or getting used to our justification, and stuff on that order. Kevin DeYoung’s summary article “What We All Agree on, and What We (Probably) Don’t, In This Sanctification Debate” is probably…
View original post 1,825 more words
In Walter Lowrie’s “interpretation” of Rudolph Sohm, a very convincing case is made that the “bishop” in the early church was a local church, a congregational, minister whose primary job was to preside over the Eucharist, which was a communal feast. He writes:
Both Gentile and Jewish usage required a president at the feast, and this was particularly the case with regard to Passover, from which the Eucharistic feast was derived. In the Eucharist there were two functions especially that fell to the part of the president: namely, the breaking of the bread, and the thanksgiving prayer.
~The Church and Its Organization in Primitive and Catholic Times, p 268
He adds that this bishop was selected on the basis of a personal leadership charismata. The office was necessary for order, and there was naturally a leader who best fulfilled the office. In the absence of such a person…
View original post 499 more words