Déjà Vu

dionne-warwick

 

As I understand it, researchers have discovered what lies behind that mysterious human experience known as déjà vu. Apparently, a memory wire in the brain simply crosses with the present experience in front of us and we think we have been transported through time. Sometimes, however, déjà vu can simply be the way to describe how one has had similar thoughts as someone else during conversations with others that seem repetitive.

The Old Life Theological Society wonders about a connection I have also wondered about. I have had amicable conversations recently with those who seem to share neo-Calvinist assumptions (or at least use the same language) and want to know how it differs from a two-kingdom outlook. The refrain from the other side of the table is always something like, “We, as believers, are redeeming creation.” One of the things this disposition surely leans on is a generally sunny, New-School-ish  assessment of human ability. But I also can’t help but be struck by the idea that we are doing to creation what Jesus is doing to us, namely sanctifying. And it almost is reminiscent of the medieval notion that grace is some sort of stuff that is somehow leaking out of us. In the medieval scheme this was a bad thing, and the Mass was the antidote to fill our “bathtubs of grace.” In the modern scheme, this is a good thing as whatever in creation we touch, so long as we do it well, seems to become something more than what it is.

But if the left-hand kingdom is ruled by law and the right-hand kingdom is ruled by grace, then it does seem to follow that to confuse the kingdoms as the New School does is in some sense to confuse law and gospel. Maybe not in letter, but certainly in spirit.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Law/Gospel Distinction, Transformationism, Two-kingdoms. Bookmark the permalink.

58 Responses to Déjà Vu

  1. GAS says:

    What if Re-creation were still a matter of sovereign grace and the Church merely a means would Neo-Calvinism still be as pernicious as your caricature?

  2. Zrim says:

    Of course not. But I fail to see how it can be that we, either individually or corporately, can do to creation what the Spirit does to us both individually and corporately. Unless the medievals were right and grace really is stuff that leaks out.

    In other words, that’s a big “if.”

  3. Anonymous says:

    So if I’m understanding you correctly the Spirit can only change hearts salvically? It’s impossible for the Spirit to affect the hearts of men non-salvically? Can you see where I’m going here?

    And I think you still haven’t dealt with secondary means.

  4. Zrim says:

    Doesn’t the Reformed doctrine of providence explain all of this?

    But I don’t think you’re tracking with my concern, namely, that I still don’t quite understand how either regenerate hearts or those unregenerate but no less led by providence can be said to do to creation what the Spirit is doing to them. If a believer builds a good house is it really more than a good house, as in “redemptive work”?

  5. Anonymous says:

    No, sorry, I’m not tracking with you. And I was thinking more specifically about Common Grace as the effacious cause while Providence seems more in the line of Decrees.

  6. Zrim says:

    GAS,

    I’m of the persuasion that the language of “common grace” instead of “providence” poses certain problems. I think many who mean something in keeping with a conventional “providence” speak of “common grace.” But others who mean something transformative virtually never employ “providence.”

  7. RubeRad says:

    When WCF speaks of common operations of the Spirit, it seems to be a in a context of the visible church, not the world at large.

  8. GAS says:

    (Therefore, as God regenerates for ever the elect alone with incorruptible seed, so that the seed of life planted in their hearts never perishes, so he firmly seals within them the grace of his adoption, that it may be confirmed and ratified to their minds. ) But this by no means prevents that inferior operation of the Spirit from exerting itself even in the reprobate…Nor do I deny, that God so far enlightens their minds, that they discover his grace; but he so distinguishes that perception from the peculiar testimony, which he gives to his elect, that they never attain any solid effect and enjoyment. For he does not, therefore, show himself propitious to them, by truly delivering them from death, and receiving them under his protection ; but he only manifests to them present mercy.

    -CALVIN

  9. Zrim says:

    GAS,

    So how does this relate to the initial suggestion that “…re-creation [is] a matter of sovereign grace and the Church merely a means”? I get that election and regeneration are of sovereign grace. What I don’t get is how this makes the church a means to re-creation. I thought the church was the re(newed)-creation.

  10. GAS says:

    Good question. Let’s play “Who said that?”

    “Therefore, finally, according to this formulation of the doctrine [Regeneration precedes calling], the church as organism precedes the church as institution. The church as organism consists of reborn people who manifest their new life through out the entire broad terrain of creation, in family, state, and society, or in science and art, and the like. Thus the church as institution is absolutely not the whole manifestation of the new life of the regenerate; rather, it occupies a very modest place that is limited on every side. It does not stand above family, society, and state, but among and alongside them, with a temporary, transitory, and clearly defined task.

  11. Zrim says:

    How is this quote making your case and not mine? This makes it sound like the church is limited (to both being the re-creation and necessarily in what it can accomplish), which seems altogether different from “the church is a means to re-creation.”

  12. GAS says:

    The Church is organism and institution. The institute is where you get your Word, Washing, and Wine. The total activity of all the regenerate in every sphere is the church organic. If the church organic is the total activity of the regenerate in the world then as a secondary means these activities will affect the world in a renewed fashion more or less depending upon the health of the church organic.

  13. Zrim says:

    Again, I understand the church is both organic and institutional. What I don’t get is how being organic means we transform creation. I thought redeeming creation was God’s work alone. I understand a life of grateful response, but I don’t understand how that translates into something more than a grateful life lived. I’m hearing extra-ordinary where I expect ordinary. Like Hart is suggesting, I get the sinking feeling that this is a form of works-righteousness, where we are doing something reserved for God alone.

  14. GAS says:

    I keep bring up the elephant in the room and it is still ignored.

    Oh well.

  15. Todd says:

    “If the church organic is the total activity of the regenerate in the world then as a secondary means these activities will affect the world in a renewed fashion more or less depending upon the health of the church organic.”

    GAS,

    How did the presence of Christ in Israel affect Israel’s politics and culture positively?

  16. John Yeazel says:

    “I simply wrote about, talked about and preached God’s Word-otherwise I did nothing. And while I drank Wittenberg beer with my friends Philip and Amsdorf the Word so greatly weakened the papacy that no emporer ever inflicted such loses upon it. I did nothing- the Word did everything.” So, who said that?

    When you look at the life of the person who said this he did not do nothing. But this is like Paul who stated that the Holy Spirit mightily inspires these things which cause me to do things I cannot do with my own resources. Is this not a question we cannot really answer and that God sovereignly moves in the Church and Providentially on whomever He chooses in order to accomplish His purposes of redemption. It is like the mystery of evil- it probably will never be answered satisfactorily either in this life and perhaps even in the next life.

  17. GAS says:

    Todd,
    Your question belies the scope and mission of Christ’s kingly reign and his role while on earth. Does not a king send his subjects to do the dirty work?

  18. Zrim says:

    GAS,

    I admit, in my more ungodly moments I have suggested that in the drawing boards of my creation it would’ve been a good idea to make me at least somewhat intelligent.

    Clearly I am missing something you want to say, something that is just not as obvious to me as it is to you. I’m not ignoring anything, just cornfused. Why not refrain from more quotes and just spit it out for my sake?

  19. Todd says:

    “Your question belies the scope and mission of Christ’s kingly reign and his role while on earth. Does not a king send his subjects to do the dirty work?”

    Gas,

    Can you elaborate? How is our mission different from Christ’s mission in his humiliation?

  20. RubeRad says:

    The church as organism consists of reborn people who manifest their new life through out the entire broad terrain of creation, in family, state, and society, or in science and art, and the like.

    I think what’s going on is that GAS puts forward this quote and says, “see, the church organic transforms the world,” while Zrim wholeheartedly affirms that quote and says, “see, the church organic participates in the world”

  21. GAS says:

    Zrim,

    I was hoping if I repeated the term “secondary means” enough times I would not hear the “works-righteousness” charge.

  22. Zrim says:

    GAS,

    It was more a suggestion than a charge. But I’m still not persuaded that providence (or common grace) can’t be used as a cover for smuggling works into the equation. It still seems you’ve got the church organic doing what is reserved for God alone. God transforms creation, we participate in creation. You know, Creator/creatures distinctions.

  23. GAS says:

    Zrim,

    My understanding of secondary means allows for God to be the author through changing wills and hearts, etc, but it’s played out in human action to his glory. Of course works can be smuggled in under the guise of common grace that’s the Arminian project.

    To me it’s a positional stance in which we should see ourselves as the unworthy servant doing his/her duty.

    It just seems to me that if one is looking for a villain in what’s happening in the Church the blame should be placed upon Barth not Kuyper. The new positional stance seems to be that through works I experience God.

  24. Charles says:

    Taken from another website, Stephen Macasil discusses Tim Keller’s New School Gospel and how it is forced to match a postmillenial scheme.

    Macasil writes, “If we are to be charitable and make concession for creative thinkers in Christian academia and allow them freedom to venture out and experiment, then at some point there should at least be *a* line, right?

    That line seems to be somewhere that is nowhere! Look, is the following an acceptable definition of *THE* gospel?”

    (Keller) “God has entered the world in Jesus Christ to achieve a salvation that we could not achieve for ourselves which now 1) converts and transforms individuals, forming them into a new humanity, and eventually 2) will renew the whole world and all creation. This is the ‘good news’—the gospel.”

    Macasil asks, Notice the last phrase, “This *is* *THE* good news – *THE* gospel. Is it?

    Also,

    (Macasil) the statement above claims to be “the good news” – the gospel, not some of the good news but THE good news. The statement in itself precludes any other content from joining itself to this collection of propositions (if critically and strictly appraised).

    Now, here is some more context to better familiarize yourself where this idea (of Tim Keller) is coming from:

    —–begin quote—–

    Christians cannot simply rest satisfied with individual conversions or separated enclaves when they discern the central plot-line of the Bible:

    A) God created a world of peace and life;
    B) The world has fallen into a state of injustice and brokenness;
    C) God has determined to redeem this world through the work of his Son and the creation
    of a new humanity; until
    D) eventually the world is renewed and restored to being the way that he made it and the
    way we all want.

    In short, the purpose of redemption is not to help individuals escape the world. It is about the coming of God’s kingdom to renew it. God’s purpose is not only to save individuals, but also to make a new world based on justice, peace, and love, rather than on power, strife, and
    selfishness. If God is so committed to this that he suffered and died, surely Christians should also seek a society based on God’s peace and love.

    —–end quote—–

    Lastly, Macasil quotes from Tim Keller again,

    Here is another direct quote:

    —–begin quote—–
    If you try to convict them [postmoderns] of guilt for sexual lust, they will simply say, “You have your standards, and I have mine.” If you respond with a diatribe on the dangers of relativism, your listeners will simply feel scolded and distanced. Of course, postmodern people must at some point be challenged about their mushy views of truth, but there is a way to make a credible and convicting gospel presentation to them even before you get into such apologetic issues.

    I take a page from Kierkegaard’s The Sickness Unto Death and define sin as building your identity-your self-worth and happiness-on anything other than God. That is, I use the biblical definition of sin as idolatry. That puts the emphasis not as much on “doing bad things” but on “making good things into ultimate things.”

    Instead of telling them they are sinning because they are sleeping with their girlfriends or boyfriends, I tell them that they are sinning because they are looking to their romances to give their lives meaning, to justify and save them, to give them what they should be looking for from God. This idolatry leads to anxiety, obsessiveness, envy, and resentment. I have found that when you describe their lives in terms of idolatry, postmodern people do not give much resistance. Then Christ and his salvation can be presented not (at this point) so much as their only hope for forgiveness, but as their only hope for freedom. This is my “gospel for the uncircumcised.”
    —–end quote—–

    Do these critiques by Macasil shoot over the bow, or is there traction to any of this? He is Clarkian, and sometimes Clarkian critiques are more nitpicky than my taste.

  25. Todd says:

    Charles,

    I think the critique is valid. The slide to classic liberalism usually begins with redefining the word “salvation.” As soon as anything besides souls are saved, salvation has lost its Biblical and heavenly meaning. Christ came to seek and to save that which was lost. He did not come to save art, or politics, or culture, or education. If these entities can be “saved,” then salvation has lost its meaning.

    That is why I asked earlier (still waiting for an answer) why our mission as the visible church is not the same as Christ’s. He came to seek and save the lost. “As the Father has sent Me, so I send you.” If the presence of God himself in Israel did little to change the culture or politics of Israel, but did save human beings and unite them to God and his body the church, why should we think it should happen so differently with us? Tranformationalists are forced to express a disconnect between Christ’s mission and his church’s mission.

  26. Zrim says:

    Charles,

    I think to be fair we might have to say that Keller certainly says some orthodox things, and insightful and helpful things. But his transformationism gets in the way of all that. It’s like when theonomists confess that Jesus is the sole fulfillment of the law. If that’s true, then their theonomy is getting in the way of their good confession.

    But like Todd suggests, the leading edge to liberalism is the notion that the gospel has a direct and obvious implication for the cares of this age. Just because one has an orthodoxy attached to this notion doesn’t insulate one from liberalism. It means one is inconsistent, or a conservative liberal. Like Rush Limbaugh.

  27. GAS says:

    Todd,

    Using your own criteria, if Christ didn’t change culture or politics immediately indicates that was not his mission then saving the lost was not his mission since only a handful of folk were actually saved during his humiliation.

  28. Todd says:

    Gas,

    The question is not over the amount saved, but the goal of the mission. Obviously his church throughout the world would reach numerically more people. But Christ reached the people his Father had ordained for him to reach “I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world…None has been lost except the one doomed for destruction…(John 17).

    Christ accomplished this, yet the politics of Israel continued on without caring about it. Only the eyes of faith can discern the the glory and prosperity of the spiritual kingdom, even as the world continues as is. The handful saved was exactly the ordained plan of God, just as the many saved through his church is the exact plan of God, regardless if the world’s political or cultural power brokers notice or care.

  29. GAS says:

    Todd,

    That’s all fine but I could use the same arguements (and i did) for culture. God ordained the culture of that time and the Church would obviously affect culture. My only point is the canard you presented can easily be turned back on you.

  30. Todd says:

    “God ordained the culture of that time and the Church would obviously affect culture.”

    Not sure what this means. The purpose of Christ’s mission was to save the lost and unite them to God and his church. He accomplished his mission. The purpose of his mission was not to change the political structures of Israel. Christ’s body continues the same mission as Christ. We are not given a different mission or mandate. That is the point.

  31. Zrim says:

    God ordained the culture of that time and the Church would obviously affect culture.

    Again, something seems “obvious” to you. This helps clarify our respective presuppositions: 2K rejects the dominionist premise that cult influences culture.

    But I have a question for your premise: if cult influences culture, are you willing to take responsibility for all the bad stuff in human history (or at least for the not-so-shiny stuff), or is this just a program to take all credit for the things westerners covet (e.g. education, art, law, medicine, general culture)?

  32. GAS says:

    if cult influences culture, are you willing to take responsibility for all the bad stuff in human history

    Absolutely. I believe I wrote earlier that the Church would affect culture more or less depending upon it’s health.

    I also believe one could make a biblical case that the OT Isreal cult affected it’s neighbors more or less depending upon her obedience.

  33. GAS says:

    Todd,

    You just reasserted your position which I understand. My point was a point of logic (which is why I wrote “my only point”) that the Transformationalists, so called, can use the same logic for their position that you use for your position.

  34. Todd says:

    “My point was a point of logic (which is why I wrote “my only point”) that the Transformationalists, so called, can use the same logic for their position that you use for your position.”

    Gas,

    You are comparing differences in numbers with differences in mission. I don’t think that is a valid comparison. What justifies a difference in mission between Christ and his church?

  35. Zrim says:

    So it would seem to follow that we can look at the state of the world and determine the health of the church. But I thought the standard was Scripture. When did sola scriptura get replaced with solus mundus?

    Do you see the problem here? By confusing horses and carts you end up in the same cart as liberalism, which said that the world sets the church’s agenda. And from where I sit, the world is in the same state of flux it has ever been in. Claiming the good stuff with the bad stuff still doesn’t solve any problems here, it just makes matters muddier. Scripture is the standard, not the world.

  36. GAS says:

    Todd,

    You originally asserted that because Christ did not change culture or politics during his humiliation this proved that was not his mission. Then you claimed, with some evidence, that Christ’s mission was to seek and save lost souls. When I showed that your criteria for why a cultural mission was defective could be used against the seek and save mission, i.e. not that many souls saved during his humiliation, you referred back to the Decrees and the role of the Church. I then was able to use that same arguement for a cultural mission.

    I believe we need to think about these things more organically such that it’s not an either/or proposition but somehow these things work together.

  37. GAS says:

    Zrim,

    I know of no Reformed Confession or Synod declaration that rejects the use of General Revelation or how looking at OT Scripture is somehow Sola Mundus. So I’m not sure how you got the world setting the agenda from my comments?

  38. Zrim says:

    GAS,

    I didn’t say anything about general revelation or OT scripture. I was using a good and necessary inference from your assertion: if as the church goes so goes the world then it must mean that the state of the world says something about the state of the church (synergy). Polio gone? The church must be strong. Economy tanked and families fracturing? Oops, church must be sick.

    You’re measuring the health of the church by the subjectivist standard of the state of the world, not the objective standards of Scripture.

  39. Todd says:

    GAS,

    We are now talking past each other I think. Since you admit it wasn’t the Lord’s mission to change the politics of Israel, why is a new mandate (cultural transformation) given to the church that was not given to Christ? Have you answered this yet?

  40. GAS says:

    Zrim,

    I agree if I’m measuring the health of the Church only by the health of the world then I’ve gone sola mundus (Robertson, et al). But if a biblical case can be made that the health of the Church, according to the objective standards of Scripture’s definition of a healthy church, affects the health of the world is that still a subjective standard?

    Additionally, I think its too simplistic to take a particular phenomonon and make any kind of conclusion. But is it possible to measure the health of the Church according to the objective standards of Scripture and if so does Scripture speak of what will result or can we come to any good and necessary inferences about those results?

  41. GAS says:

    Todd,

    My answer: We’re Reformed not Fundementalists so we take in the whole corpus of Scripture. Part of Christ’s mission was to be a propitiation but the Church is not asked to be a propitiation so there is not necessarily a one to one relationship between Christ’s mission and the Church’s mission.

  42. Todd says:

    GAS,

    You tend to state the obvious without answering the question, so I’ll try one last time. Obviously there is not a one to one relation, given the cross, but demonstrate from Scripture that the church is given a mandate beyond that of our Lord, which was to to seek and save the lost.

  43. Zrim says:

    GAS,

    But if a biblical case can be made that the health of the Church, according to the objective standards of Scripture’s definition of a healthy church, affects the health of the world is that still a subjective standard?

    Well, now it’s not so much a question of ob/subjectivity as it is that you’re back to your premise that cult affects culture. I simply don’t accept that.

    Additionally, I think its too simplistic to take a particular phenomonon and make any kind of conclusion. But is it possible to measure the health of the Church according to the objective standards of Scripture and if so does Scripture speak of what will result or can we come to any good and necessary inferences about those results?

    But if the state of the world indicates the state of the church there has to be something to hang our hats on, otherwise what’s the point? How do we know if the world is in a bad way, what would that look like?

    Yes, it is possible to measure the health of the church according to the objective standards of Scripture: that’s what Reformed mean when we speak of the three marks. But you seem a bit too worried about results. Reformed are about obedience.

  44. GAS says:

    Todd,

    A very quick survey of the Psalms I would say 47, 67, and 115 begin to make my case.

  45. Todd says:

    GAS,

    It is the amils who can say that those Psalms are being fulfilled now in every nation where the gospel has rescued people from Satan’s dominion and his church exists. It sounds like your interpretation would have to say those Psalms have not really been fulfilled yet in those nations which have not bowed the knee to Jesus officially, which is pretty much every nation. Of course, it is at Christ’s return where those Psalms are fulfilled completely.

  46. GAS says:

    But you seem a bit too worried about results. Reformed are about obedience.

    The Lord seem to think it was pretty important to let the 7 Churches know the results of their (lack of) obedience. The OT Prophets often talked about results.

  47. Zrim says:

    The Lord seem to think it was pretty important to let the 7 Churches know the results of their (lack of) obedience.

    He wouldn’t have had to point out the results of disobedience had there been obedience in the first place.

    The point, GAS, is not that results are negligible but that obedience is superior. But then there’s the pesky reality that the results of obedience can be unattractive, as in dying on a cross or having to bear one.

  48. Todd says:

    “But then there’s the pesky reality that the results of obedience can be unattractive, as in dying on a cross or having to bear one.”

    Exactly! Ironically, the church among the seven in Revelation that Christ praises the most for their obedience is the one seemingly making the smallest impact, the church in Philadelphia(Rev. 3:7-13). Doesn’t exactly fit the “more obedience in the church equals greater cultural impact” paradigm.

  49. GAS says:

    I realize it’s neater just to push it all to the eschaton but I don’t think that’s the only reading an Amil can make. The OT prophecies had a now and then element.

  50. GAS says:

    I don’t believe it’s a matter of greater or lesser as it is logical order. The Warren and Hybel types reverse the order and believe that results leads to obedience.

  51. GAS says:

    I absolutely affirm that obedience will lead to personal trials and tribulation but we’re talking about culture. Todd, I don’t know the anthropology of the seven cities at that time but I’m not proposing some magical formula that a certain level of obedience will automatically impact the surrounding culture irregardless of other variables.

    If were going to do justice to this issue we need to define Culture, the elements of it, and what the bible says about it.

    Culture springs from two elements: Religion and Nature. All Cultures have a religious element as Paul tells us in Romans 1 & 2. Through General Revelation the Law is written on the hearts of all men but they rebel against this knowledge and God leaves them to their evil devices and idolatrous religions. The social interactions of a culture speak about the basic faith commitments of a particular culture. Nature also plays important role in Culture. Geography plays an important element as to the type of economic activity. Different tribes display different gifts and abilities. Time and history plays a role in cultural self-interpretation.

    If this basic definition of Culture is correct does it seem cogent that the social interactions of Christians may affect it’s surrounding culture? The reverse of that question is does it seem cogent that the social interactions of a heathen culture may affect the Christian culture?

  52. GAS says:

    Let me propose a hypothesis and you guys can rip into it.

    By God’s providence he establishes his church within a culture and through common grace he restrains the evil intents of the heathen culture such that through the social interactions of the organic church the culture will experience a time of relative peace and prosperity.

  53. Zrim says:

    GAS,

    If this basic definition of Culture is correct does it seem cogent that the social interactions of Christians may affect it’s surrounding culture? The reverse of that question is does it seem cogent that the social interactions of a heathen culture may affect the Christian culture?

    Yes, if the premise is held the conclusion follows. But it isn’t a matter of definitions, but presupp’s. Over here the premise that culture springs from cult is simply denied. Basic to NL/2K views is that before the Fall cult and culture were united. But the fall into sin changed that. We are hard-wired to think cult and culture are united, just like we are hard-wired to think our works gain us glory. That’s because that’s how it was all supposed to work before the Fall. 1K dominionism doesn’t account for the Fall, except perhaps nominally. It wants to join together what God has necessarily divided. It’s a form of works-righteousness. One day they will be united again, but until then it’s a wilderness wandering.

    But the doctrine of spirituality of the church seems to presuppose that culture can affect cult. That may seem not so cogent , but sometimes rules aren’t quite as two-way as one might think.

  54. Zrim says:

    GAS,

    By God’s providence he establishes his church within a culture and through common grace he restrains the evil intents of the heathen culture such that through the social interactions of the organic church the culture will experience a time of relative peace and prosperity.

    Again, where’s the cognizance of sin? The premise here seems to be the more of me there are the better things will be. But I’m a sinner. I’m part of the problem. The more sinners there are the worse it is. Yes, I’m indwelt, but grace doesn’t leak out of me magically making the world a better place. My sin has way more effect on my world.

    Instead of fantasizing about how wonderful our very presence makes things, how about we tell yet unbelieving fellow sinners there is a place to find refuge and salve for how depraved we all are?

  55. Charles says:

    Amen Zrim.

  56. GAS says:

    Over here the premise that culture springs from cult is simply denied.

    Yea, umm… I’m not quite sure how to respond to that except to ask how does culture spring?

    Beyond the caricatures on your side I’m wondering how the fact that radical 2Kism is unknown to the ancient Reformed faith comports with a supposed love for the tradition?

  57. GAS says:

    I guess the one thing you learn about blogs is never leave anything unsaid unless the other correspondent assumes the worst. Ya, we tell the unbelieving sinner about the salve. Yet I find it fascinating that the social interactions of (even imperfect) Christians is somehow a magical leaking. I’m left to believe the Holy Spirit is limited in his power to only convict of sin.

  58. Zrim says:

    I’m not quite sure how to respond to that except to ask how does culture spring?

    Don’t all things come from God? But dominionism has another premise, which is that spheres are extensions of each other, whereas 2K seems to hold that the spheres overlap each other.

    Beyond the caricatures on your side I’m wondering how the fact that radical 2Kism is unknown to the ancient Reformed faith comports with a supposed love for the tradition?

    Well, now you’re anticipating this discussion.

    Ya, we tell the unbelieving sinner about the salve. Yet I find it fascinating that the social interactions of (even imperfect) Christians is somehow a magical leaking. I’m left to believe the Holy Spirit is limited in his power to only convict of sin.

    I find it fascinating as well. I’m left to believe that the (social, cultural, ethical and political) opinions and actions of believers are morally superior to those of unbelievers. Remember those EF Hutton commercials? Shh, the Christian is speaking, everybody listen.

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