A Plethora of Resources

I’ve got a whole pile of interesting resources to share today, all of which came to me courtesy of Paul Manata of Triablogue.

First off, James Anderson (whose tabular comparison of WCF, Savoy, and LBC was previously featured here at the Outhouse), has a book out, titled Paradox in Christian Theology; I haven’t read it, but it looks interesting. And as a bargain, if you’re not sure you can make it through 344 pages of philosophical theology, it would appear that Paul Manata’s (p)review offers you the whole book in under 20,000 words!

Next up, Kerux, “The Online Journal of Biblical Theology.” Perhaps a better title would be “The Vos Project,” as their mission seems to be to persist and further the work of Geerhardus Vos and his school. Having been “founded in 1986, at Escondido, CA,” I’d bet my last roll of toilet paper that Kerux springs from a certain seminary that we at the Outhouse endorse. I can’t tell whether Kerux is still in operation or not, but their online archives contain their complete production from 1986-2002. And scanning the list of authors (Baugh, Clark, Irons, Kline, Ridderbos, Van Drunen, and of course Vos), I think Kerux might deserve the ultimate honor: a link in the Confessional Outhouse Sidebar, under “Sites that Dazzle” (except that since we cannot alter the alphabetical rendering, it would be yet another site that appears before Kline Online)!

Last, but certainly not least, behold the Veritas Forum! I first went to Veritas on a recommendation to listen to Alvin Plantinga’s “Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism,” and stumbled into an archive of over 450 recorded lectures by almost 250 speakers, on any number of topics related to Christianity. May your .mp3 player ever be full, and your commute ever congested.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Resources. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to A Plethora of Resources

  1. RubeRad says:

    Speaking of “Sites that Dazzle”, why haven’t we linked to the Upper Register yet?

  2. Pingback: Confessional Friday « Leviticus and Stuff

  3. Ron Smith says:

    The difference between the Presbyterian and Congregational/Baptist on imputed righteousness confession is notable.

    http://www.proginosko.com/docs/wcf_sdfo_lbcf.html#WCF11

    I wonder what held the Westminsterians back?

  4. Ron Smith says:

    From “About” on Veritas Forumns:

    “Veritas Forums are university events that engage students and faculty in discussions about life’s hardest questions and the relevance of Jesus Christ to all of life. “

    Jesus is relevant to “all of life”? Since when? 😉

  5. kazooless says:

    Don’t let Zrim read that quote.

    😉

    kazoo

  6. Zrim says:

    Yes, because he might say something like, “I have no problem saying that he’s ‘relevant to all of life.’ But that he is is different from how he is.”

    What a radical.

  7. Ron Smith says:

    Ok, Z, you asked for it now. How exactly is Jesus Christ relevant in civil politics?

  8. Zrim says:

    Ron,

    Well, where he rules rules the right-hand kingdom by grace, he rules the left-hand kingdom by law. That seems relevant.

  9. Ron Smith says:

    Ok, so it is your view that Jesus rules the civil sphere by Law? What law, God’s or man’s? And if man’s law, then Jesus could hardly be seen as ruling in practice. That would be like having a liberal president who could only enact laws that were consistent with the previous conservative administration. Who’s really in charge then?

    And if you believe God rules the civil sphere via natural law, is this natural law God’s Law? And if it is, then why not use God’s explicitly written Law to better understand natural Law since they are from one and the same pen and so many people seem to disagree about what natural law says to do with murderers (for instance)?

  10. Zrim says:

    Yes, he rules the civil sphere by law, his law. Your next question seems to make a radical bifurcation between God and man, as if God’s (natural) law is not in fact written on the human conscience. But I am a triadalist, not a Fundamentalist who radically seperates the spheres like that (or a Liberal who radically conjoins them).

    You don’t need to open the Bible to know that murder is wrong, etc. You open it up for another purpose, to discover Christ and his fulfilmment of the law and prophets. The reason you don’t use special revelation for statecraft is that that is not its intent. (This is why theonomists seem to have a blind spot for fulfullment.) The Bible is not a handbook for living, including statecraft. It’s a book to reveal the reconciliation of God to sinners by grace alone through faith alone by Christ alone to the glory of God alone.

  11. Ron Smith says:

    You don’t need to open the Bible to know that murder is wrong, etc.

    But is it wrong enough to prescribe capital punishment, or would that sort of punishment just be another murder? How does “natural law” answer that question?

  12. Ron Smith says:

    The Bible is not a handbook for living, including statecraft. It’s a book to reveal the reconciliation of God to sinners by grace alone through faith alone by Christ alone to the glory of God alone.

    This is not confessional. The scriptures contain both things to be believed and things to be done. WCF SC3 asks and answers,

    Q. What do the scriptures principally teach?
    A. The scriptures principally teach what man is to believe concerning God and what duty God requires of man.

  13. Zrim says:

    Ron,

    Re capital punishment, I think you can find that quite easily in natural law. I think it is perfectly legitimate. Many would disagree. This is what one must be ready for, I think, when invoking natural law, that not only will there be disagreement but that one may very well be wrong. I could be wrong about CP, but I don’t think so; I am quite confident that it is right to execute murderers.

    It seems to me that views like yours are very queasy about that sort of world where there is disagreement mixed with confident conclusion; it doesn’t compute in the mind which conflates the kingdoms. I know the world doesn’t shake out the way I think it should. I live with that every day. But I am not at all ready to completely mis-read the Bible in order to reverse that.

    Re what is confessional, to my lights, you misread both the Bible and the confession. You are more concerned with fulfilling law than in seeing that Christ does that. You need to brush up on what it means to read pieces within wholes.

  14. Ron Smith says:

    Re capital punishment, I think you can find that quite easily in natural law.

    If it is so easy, then why do people disagree? And please pray tell how nature tells you to kill killers. Does nature tell you to kill child molesters and rapists too? Because God says to do this in His Law. Are God’s Law and Nature’s Law contradictory?

    It seems to me that views like yours are very queasy about that sort of world where there is disagreement mixed with confident conclusion; it doesn’t compute in the mind which conflates the kingdoms.

    What I am queasy about is arbitrariness. No one has the right to be the arbiter of right and wrong except the LORD. Appealing to Natural Law is pure arbitrariness. Watch. “Natural Law says Theonomy is correct.” See how easy that is?

    Re what is confessional, to my lights, you misread both the Bible and the confession.

    How have I misread the confession? It is one thing to assert that I have misread the confession; it is quite another thing to substantiate the assertion. When the Westminster Assembly wanted to sum up what the scriptures contain, they listed two things. You only listed one. Who is misreading the confession then?

    You are more concerned with fulfilling law than in seeing that Christ does that.

    This is of course not true. I acknowledge that Christ fulfilled the Law, but we are obligated to fulfill it too, and “neither does Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.” (WCF XIX.V) Or maybe I am “misreading” the confession here too.

  15. Zrim says:

    “How have I misread the confession? It is one thing to assert that I have misread the confession; it is quite another thing to substantiate the assertion.”

    First, let’s admit you will never agree with me, and vice versa. Second, with that in view, I have no need to chase you around the way so many Calvinists chase Arminians around blaming them for being Arminians. You are a theonomist. You are as wrong about the kingdoms, etc. as the Arminians are about grace, election, etc. My whole extended family is deeply entrenched broad Evangelical-Arminian. I have learned to pick certain battles and in certain ways. I can live with them and you inhabiting the earth and the church. Third, one more time, you fail to read pieces in contexts of wholes, that’s how, which is basic Reformed hermeutics. I am not sure what else to say here, it’s sort of like describing green to someone who is blind.

    “This is of course not true. I acknowledge that Christ fulfilled the Law, but we are obligated to fulfill it too, and ‘neither does Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.’ (WCF XIX.V) Or maybe I am ‘misreading’ the confession here too.”

    But now you are guilty of arbitrariness: it’s not true because I say so. Yes, Christ strengthens my obligation, but that only increases my guilt as well. Now what?

    Look, my Evangies tell me all the time they don’t believe in works-righteousness, but they really do. And it isn’t enough to say you don’t. Theonomists deny Christ’s fulfilling of the law, the same way Revivalists deny grace, the same way Rome anathematizes the gospel, the same way Liberals deny the historical faith. Theonomists are unfaithful to the Reformed hermeneutic to read parts within the whole. Theonomy is a version of prosperity gospel, insofar as it believes there are principles to be invoked for this-worldly reward. Some want their money problems solved, some want their intangible and relational problems solved, and still others want their statecraft problems solved.

    Feel free to have the last word here, Ron.

  16. Ron Smith says:

    I am not sure what else to say here…

    How about actually substantiating your assertions instead of simply re-asserting them? You say I “fail to read pieces in contexts of wholes”, but you have yet to point out how I have taken anything out of context.

    But now you are guilty of arbitrariness: it’s not true because I say so.

    I was commenting on my own view! My view is what I say it is, is it not? Are you saying that I am lying about my own position?

    Yes, Christ strengthens my obligation, but that only increases my guilt as well. Now what?

    Sanctification, that’s what. Real, personal, and true holiness without which no one will see the Lord. (WCF XIII.I)

    Theonomists deny Christ’s fulfilling of the law…

    Show me where one theonomist ever denies this. Have you ever read TCE? There is a whole chapter devoted to “Messianic Obedience and the Atonement”. You demonstrate your ignorance on the subject with that comment.

    Theonomy is a version of prosperity gospel

    Well to those who hold to the “Gospel of doom and gloom”, the true gospel appears this way, I am sure. But the confession states that blessings can be expected in this life for obedience to God’s Law (WCF XIX.VI). I guess the Westminsterians were on par with Benny Hen, heh?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s