Sola Scriptura and The Spectrum of Scriptural Authority (IV): Hyper-Literalism, Rationalism, and Prima Scriptura

To some extent the rise of Dispensationalism in the early 20th century can be understood as an expression of this same reaction-to-liberalism dynamic, even though the theological system it spawned (despite its claims) was actually proven to be an inaccurate and unfaithful interpretation of the Scripture itself. It's hyper-literalism proved to be selective and driven by certain commitments. Once these were undermined by more solid exegesis, the entire system collapsed like a great house of cards.

The Clarkian-Gnostic Freemasonry

Recently I was in a used book store and stumbled across Christianity and Neo-Liberalism by Paul Elliott (published by the Trinity Foundation in 2005). Some will immediately know this is a book connected to the followers of Gordon Clark (1902-1985), a controversial figure within Reformed circles in general and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) in particular.

Kuyper and Schilder on Eschatology and Culture

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/beginning-at-the-end-of-all-things/

The theology and thought of Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920) is riddled with contradictions. On the one hand contemporary Dominionists wishing to posit a monistic view of society will quote Kuyper's famous dictum : 'There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, Mine!'

It's a pretty bold statement suggesting the boundaries of the Kingdom are all encompassing and there can be no room for dissent.

The Rich Young Ruler, Law, and New Covenant Supremacy (II)

So if the Rich Young Ruler had (in faith) obeyed the commands of God, his works would mean something. This does not suggest he could earn his salvation but rather it would be a testimony to the Holy Spirit working within him. Instead, he was an idolater and his understanding of the law was of the letter not the spirit. He had no real faith to speak of and when standing before Christ and receiving a face to face invitation from Him - he turned away. He wasn't interested.

The Perils of Viewing the Godhead Through a Scholastic Lens (I)

https://frame-poythress.org/scholasticism-for-evangelicals-thoughts-on-all-that-is-in-god-by-james-dolezal/

After following the Dolezal-Divine Simplicity controversy for some years now, I found this review of his book 'All that is in God' to be helpful. I have been quite open over the years that I'm not a real fan of John Frame. I remember being rather put off by his Worship in Spirit and Truth back in 1996 and yet despite my differences I'm always curious to read his works and see what he has to say. His take is often a bit different and always challenging, even when I think he's wrong.

Sola Scriptura and Divine Simplicity (II)

To my mind, it makes perfect sense that this dispute over the doctrine of God has arisen in the context of Reformed Baptist circles as I have long argued Baptist doctrine and understandings regarding concepts such as the covenant and sacraments tend toward reductionism and result from a kind of rationalism at work that will not tolerate ambiguity, tension, and paradox – even though a true Biblicist hermeneutic demands the embrace of such mysteries.

Sola Scriptura and Divine Simplicity (I)

https://www.ironsharpensironradio.com/podcast/june-17-2022-show-with-dr-sam-waldron-on-do-we-still-believe-sola-scriptura-a-word-of-caution-to-reformed-churches-leaders-about-present-day-dangerous-paths-slippery-slopes-on-the-rise-among/

Though I've made it abundantly clear in the past that I'm not a fan of Chris Arnzen's Iron Sharpens Iron, when I saw that Sam Waldron was to be the guest I decided to give the show a listen. I was all the more intrigued by the suggestion that there were problems or challenges with regard to Sola Scriptura.

I was mostly pleased by what I heard. I feared that the show would be about Critical Race Theory, alien epistemologies and things of that order, but that wasn't it at all. They were talking about a debate taking place within Reformed circles and given Arnzen and Waldron – specifically within Reformed Baptist circles.

Inbox: Kingdom Clarity and Soteriological Fog

As usual I have reworked the questions a bit but essentially I was asked the following. If God has made the distinctions between the Kingdom and the World with such lucidity and clarity, why then do I argue that issues like Justification are so nuanced? Why would God present something as critical as what it takes to be made right with Him, what it takes to possess eternal salvation... in terms that seem so unclear? Isn't Sola Fide, the question of justification the primary focus of Scripture from beginning to end?

It's a very interesting way of framing the question to be sure and one I've not encountered before.

Saving Faith and the Question of Works

Recently I encountered someone bringing a rather novel interpretation to the 'Lord, Lord' passage of Matthew 7. The well-known pericope contained within the Sermon on the Mount is for many (and rightly) a source of trembling. It speaks to self-deception and false faith.

Are We Calvinists?

To answer simply we would have to say both Yes and No. Of course there is also the problem of the many definitions of this term. Not everyone is using the term the same way.

Do we believe in Predestination and Election? We believe what the Bible teaches and we believe the Bible does in fact present this doctrine. But at the same time we will freely admit that many Calvinists have distorted this doctrine and have failed to do full justice to the full picture of what Scripture teaches. The issue is actually more complicated than then simple Calvinist and Arminian understandings of this issue. We believe the Scripture teaches us its own understanding of logic and how to hold to beliefs that sometimes seem to be in contradiction. The problem isn't the Scripture but in how we understand it.

This age old question cannot be answered in a way that will please everyone but it must emphasized that as Christians our duty is to submit to God's Word even if we cannot fully reconcile in our minds the tension between God's Sovereignty and Man's Responsibility.

 

Inbox: What about John MacArthur and his theology?

How does he fit into the spectrum of Reformed Theology and the ideas you are presenting?

I've actually written about MacArthur before but I can revisit him again.

Trinitarian Controversies are on the Horizon

Observing the theological struggles of our day it leads me to wonder what will the next big 'heresy' be?

In recent years we've seen challenges to God's Omniscience and Omnipotence in the teachings of Open Theism. From the Canon to many of the Fundamentals of Historic Christianity, scholars have been deconstructing historical understandings and re-contextualizing and re-interpreting them.

A Few Clarifications Regarding Philosophy and Christian Theology

This is an update/revision of an article originally published in July 2010

For years I grappled internally and with others over theological issues. As time progressed I became convinced most theological debate was basically fruitless due to fundamental differences regarding reason itself, and accepted or assumed thought categories.

We bring this baggage with us when we read the Bible and we run the risk of two extremes.

FN Lee

*updated 24 December (evening)

Francis Nigel Lee has died. Most have probably not heard of him. He was something of a pariah even in Reformed circles. He talked about and was quite proud of the history of the Reformed Church in South Africa…a topic few wish to discuss, and consequently few Americans have any knowledge of.

I will grant FN Lee one thing, he was a consistent Sacralist. He excoriated Verduin and with Rushdoony and others realized the deep threat Two Kingdom non-Sacralist theology posed to their system and vision for the Church. The Anabaptists have always maintained a special place of condemnation in Reformed circles. It’s not so much about the issue of Baptism. That’s present, but many Reformed are Baptists as well. It’s really about their rejection of Sacralism, Dominionism, and Constantinianism. Though I’m not an Anabaptist, on these points I heartily agree with them, and maintain on these issues they are the maintainers and custodians of a key doctrine held by many Dissenters going back to the early Church.

In many ways this is one of the biggest issues in all of Church History. FN Lee understood this, he just came out on the wrong side…dreadfully wrong.

Westboro Baptist, Hyper-Calvinism and Constantinianism versus Means Theology and Biblical Pluralism

or Why I'm thankful for the First Ammendment to the United States Constitution.

The people of Westboro Baptist Church are thoroughly deceived.

Many aren't aware of it, but they're actually a bunch of extreme hyper-Calvinists….and thorough Constantinians. These two points are what drives them to do what they do.

Five Point Reductionism- Part 2, Method and the danger of Meta-system

In the end, the Five Points express truth but are a wholly insufficient and lopsided expression of it. I've always marveled at Calvinism's insistence in employing these points as an expression of their system, or even worse as a starting point. The Five Points resulted from the work of the Synod of Dordt in the early 17th century. The Arminian party put forward the Five Points of Arminianism, I summarize:



Partial Depravity

Conditional Election

Universal Atonement

Resistable Grace

Conditional Salvation



And the Calvinists responded with their Five Points...



Total Depravity

Unconditional Election

Limited Atonement

Irresistable Grace

Perseverance of the Saints.



So the Calvinistic points are just responses to another faction's argument. Calvinists then take the Five Points and teach them as a bedrock to their system. Again, while true, how can we think we can reduce the faith to five doctrines? Why would we want to? On one level we could say the bedrock or foundation is one point....Christ Jesus. On another level we would need to insist on a hundred points.

Five Point Reductionism- Part 1

Recently I was on another website and responded to an article concerning Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace. Some of you will recognize these two doctrines as the 'U' and 'I' in the famous Calvinist acrostic TULIP. If you're unfamiliar with it, read on.

While TULIP is certainly true, the problem is the Bible also teaches reciprocal truths on each of these points. The so-called Five Points are dealing with eternal truths, focusing on the decretal activity of God as it pertains to individual salvation. It deals with fallen man's state and need, God's purpose and how salvation is applied. But the categories all deal with what I would call the eternal or invisible. This would include God's workings beyond the realm of space and time (meta-creational/eternal) and with man's internal or spiritual state.

Johnson's Primer: Discussion, Expansion, and Solution

This article has three sub-points:

Johnson's Hyper-Calvinism Primer, it's strengths and weaknesses.
The Core Principle of Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism.
The benefit of Dialectical Theology

Anyone who has examined the contents of this site know more than once I have mentioned the problem of Hyper-Calvinism. Phil Johnson has done a great service in his very succinct Primer on Hyper-Calvinism which has been read by many and we can be thankful for that.

He outlines several key doctrinal points which are helpful in identifying the Hyper-Calvinist position. Of course not all hold to all the points, but all hold to at least some of them.

Here's Johnson's list:

Aristotle's Razor at work.

For Calvinists.....it leads to a hyper-Calvinistic Baptist Theology.

Here's a recent post from the Heidelblog of R. Scott Clark.

Circumcision and Baptism

Clark tries to avoid two extremes in dealing with a text like Colossians 2.11-12 but instead of navigating it, he's trapped.

The Bible is full of dialectical tensions often between the visible/temporal and the invisible/eternal.

Clark and others who depend on Aristotelian based and defined Systematics cannot let these tensions stand. The force and drive of their system insists on synthesizing the two sides and eliminating what seems to them a contradiction.

But rather than submit to God's word, this method subsumes Revelation and consequently the Scriptures are re-categorized to work in a grid-like dogmatic structure.

Ockham's Razor....is a tool of Rationalism which seeks to simplify and eliminate plurality or dualisms.

Aristotle's Razor is a name I've given to another Rationalist tool. This one parses and divides, creates categories that aren't there in order to make the System work with the matrix that it is interacting with.

In other words....re-define and re-categorize Biblical terms so that it makes sense in light of your system.

How am I using the term Hyper-Calvinism?

What does it mean and why the Reformed World today cannot understand Augustine, Calvin, Amyraut, or often each other?