Redemptive-Historical Theology Part 2: Logic and Salvation History

Redemptive-History focuses on the development of doctrine as it is revealed throughout the history of salvation. This is the history of God working to save a people for Himself, to defeat death and break the effects of the Genesis 3 curse, all culminating in the Kingdom of Heaven. The central character as well as the plot are all centered on the person of Christ. As such Redemptive-Historical Theology (or Biblical Theology as some would have it) focuses on development and context in relation to Christ as opposed to logical structure and ordering.

Spiritual Symbolism is Still Symbolism

https://www.crossway.org/articles/is-the-lords-supper-jesuss-actual-body-and-blood-1-corinthians/

On one level this article had moments in which it was a blessing to read. And yet another part of me wanted to crumple up the paper and throw it across the room.

We can agree that the Lord's Supper is not a repeated sacrifice as understood in the Roman Catholic Mass and while some of the Lutheran hair-splitting and insistence on ubiquity is not always helpful, Naselli's rendering of the Supper as merely symbolic does not account for the Scriptural data.

Mystery, Logic, Engineering and Neo-Luddism

When philosophers, apologists and other thinkers labour to destroy certainty, attempts at coherence and confidence in logic, the scepticism they produce sends many into crisis and the response can range from the robust to the frantic, the diligent to the foolish.

One of the most common arguments I hear (and often at that) from within Christian circles is that scepticism is wrong because if the world adopted this view then we could have no inventions and no technology. They will usually buttress this reductio ad absurdum by arguing that it's a good thing their auto or aeroplane mechanic wasn't a sceptic. 

This argument rests on several fallacies.

Biblical Studies: Slipping into Reductionism?

The counter to Systematic Theology is to focus primarily on Biblical Studies and largely within a framework that is often called a Redemptive-Historical hermeneutic.

Riddles of Fundamentalism Part 2: Epistemology, Social Context and the Charge of Anti-Modernism

Industrialisation proved traumatic for Western society. Traditions, what we might call social forms of coherence, accepted norms, standards and commonalities were modified and in many cases jettisoned. A new urban culture began to form that changed many economic, social and thus finally familial and traditional dynamics. While on the one hand this was the outcome of modern thinking and the science and technology it produced, in another sense its non-coherence and fragmentation led to a social crisis. The mechanistic view of the universe first moved God to the periphery and then abandoned Him altogether. Science and technology came into their own and created a new type of Foundationalism for the new era. The previous coherence of what we might call Enlightened Christianity, the form familiar to late colonial and early Republican America was no longer needed or viewed as valid.

Riddles of Fundamentalism: Modernist Epistemology and the Question of Biblicism Part 1

The other night I was watching the old Fess Parker version of Davy Crockett and found myself trying to explain to my kids his mannerisms and the 'can-do' and 'aw shucks' common sense of the frontiersman.

It's just a movie of course and yet there's something to be said on that topic. The old backwoods sensibility and pride in lack of sophistication is something deeply rooted in sections of American culture. It took one form in the log cabin and another in the halls of academia along the Eastern Seaboard, and yet it's something common to the American experience and its intellectual tradition.

Negativity and Relational Epistemology

In Epistemology we can speak of categories which help us to organize and identify both ideas and entities. These categories can be approached from several different vantage points and thinkers have differed over how to arrange them.

Temporal Conditionality and Typology vis-à-vis Eternal Reality

We read in 1 Kings 2.4

'If your sons take heed to their way, to walk before Me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul,' He said, 'you shall not lack a man on the throne of Israel.'

The Davidic promise is two-fold. It contains both a temporal/provisional aspect which is typological and an eternal/unconditional aspect which is the reality.

Countering the Claims of the Watchtower Society: Talking to Jehovah's Witnesses

To put it simply, the main problem with the Watchtower Society is that their views are not based on Scripture. Despite their claims to the contrary, Scripture is read through the eyes of CT Russell and JF Rutherford. They believe these men to have had possessed prophetic powers. These powers are perpetuated by the Governing Body based in Brooklyn.

Essentially their system functions like the Catholic Magisterium. In fact at the core the issues we have with Rome are functionally the same. The Governing Body tells you how to interpret the Bible. Bible study is encouraged but only through the lens of the Governing Body.

Philosophical Wanderings 5a

These posts have generated some offsite discussion. I've been posting some of these exchanges. This is a continuation of the discussion from the previous post.

Philosophical Wanderings 4

The role of reason and logic in the realm of metaphysics....

Philosophical Wanderings 3

** These discussions will not interest most readers.

They will seem perplexing, pedantic, if not arcane and impractical. In the end what I'm saying is that the Bible has to shape our thinking. That would seem obvious to everyone that appreciates my writings. That's what all this leads to.

While on the surface it seems obvious, there are nevertheless many disagreements among Christians and within the larger circle of people labeled the Church. Why?

Because we all read things differently and we have different ideas about 'thinking' and how ideas are formed and work. You don't have to master this material to read your Bible. But at some point virtually all of us will to some extent wrestle with some of these questions. If we're not, then we're probably just reading the Bible as Westerners, as 21^st Century Americans. To be sure, we can still apprehend the Gospel...but will we understand the Bible rightly? Deeply? What is that we're after?....to merely escape hell or to know God, to be reconciled with Him and to know the Truth?

So many of us agree the Bible alone is foundation. So many of want to just follow the Bible....why then are there so many disagreements on so many topics? Most of the arguments are a waste of time because the fundamental issues that drive the disagreements are not being addressed. That's what is happening in these posts, in this discussion I've labeled Philosophical Wanderings....

Philosophical Wanderings 2

 

Since these comment threads are so long, I'm just putting them up as posts. The comment module will only take about a page at a time. If I want to type a 5 page response, I have to break it up and copy-paste. Plus it's harder to read for anyone following. This is easier.

Pardon any typos....I'm not getting too carried away since this is just an ongoing discussion.

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.

Answering Questions #17- Calvin v. The Calvinists, The Renaissance and Reformed Scholasticism, Orthodoxy, Armstrong, Amyraut and Muller…Incomprehensibility and the nature of Theology.

A friend recently sent an email referencing Brian Armstrong’s “Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy: Protestant Scholasticism and Humanism in Seventeenth-Century France”

I responded………

Answering Questions #14- The Law of Non-Contradiction and its theological results

Some time ago I was in a discussion on another site and made this comment:

Like I said I'm uncomfortable with these laws being employed because through syllogistic formation, deduction and inductive theological construction. We can quickly get far away from the text. I can think of quite a few issues where Reformed theology has done this, and gotten into tangles due to questions that shouldn't have been asked." 

 I received this response just recently from another party:

Will you please give me some examples of this?  As far as the noncontradiction issue goes, I wonder if Jesus is God, and God is all knowing yet Jesus did not know the time or the hour of His return then isn't it true that Jesus was not omnipotent.  I have a really hard time saying Jesus didn't have any characteristic that God would have if He (which I do believe) he was God.  Will you please share your thoughts on this issue with me please?

To which I replied:

Hyper-Solafideism Part 5- Vosian Hyper-Eschatology, Federal Vision's Bestial Agenda, and a few observations regarding the Lutheran Legacy

Thus far I have been in agreement with the Vosian crowd rejection of the Federal Vision understanding of Redemptive-History. But at this point I switch sides. Unlike the Federal Vision folks I certainly affirm the concept of merit, that Christ's Active Obedience helped to pay for our sins and I wholeheartedly agree with the Garden-Works principle, and the reiteration of this under the Mosaic order in typological form applied to the Corporate body of Israel.

Evangelicalism's Deistic Response to the Catastrophe in Japan

 I’m used to disagreeing with Chuck Colson, but today really shocked me. I’ve long believed that many Evangelicals are in fact Deists, that is they don’t really believe in Providence. They don’t believe that God is actively governing the affairs of this world. The practical implications of this cannot be overstated.

Many of them think that God sort of lets the world be, and intervenes from time to time. Some go even further and would believe that God actually keeps adjusting the details of His plan to keep it compatible with the choices that people make. The overall plan stays the same, but it’s as if God has to keep compensating for our actions.

It’s no surprise that Open Theism has taken root and become quite popular. For those unfamiliar this is the quite rational idea that God doesn’t actually know the future as a certainty. He reacts to our actions. It’s really just a logical conclusion of the aforementioned position.

It’s a rational response; it just happens to reject what the Bible teaches concerning God’s government of the universe.

Answering Questions #8 - Personal Questions, Credibility, and Overview

I wanted to answer a series of questions stemming from a couple of comments. My answers are too long to put in the comment boxes. So I just made it into a post.

Dominionism- What are its goals, and how does it seek to achieve them?

This is basically a summary of what this project and website are all about. Sorry this is kind of long, but since there are a lot of new readers here as of late I wanted to post this. It's nothing new to longtime visitors, but I've tried to piece together and encapsulate several of the main themes I've written about. Anything that's brought up here has already been written about in more detail in other posts.

I'm critiquing Dominionism and for my other responses and interactions to make sense, you have to know where I'm coming from. There are others out there arguing along lines that are similar, but I'm approaching this a specific way that I've not found anywhere else. So while some of what I'm saying might be familiar to both friend and foe, there are ideas I'm bringing out that will be new to some readers. Not constrained by Reformed Confessionalism and/or Reformed denominational commitments, I'm also able to speak a little more directly to what I think some of the problems are.



As a follow on, a sort of Part 2, I will respond to the critique of this website by DT Maurina. He is offering a broad critique of my ideas, so I provides a unique and excellent opportunity to interact. I already posted his text at the end of the GreenBaggins discussion post. D.V., I'll re-post the text with my comments in the very near future.