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 (I)

Not long ago I listened to a sermon on the Rich Young Ruler in Matthew 19 and I was struck by the difficulty the preacher seemed to have in dealing with the passage. I agree, there are some interpretive challenges but I think that often these difficulties are the result of theological baggage that's brought to the text.

Another Example of Progressive Orthodoxy

https://churcheswithoutchests.net/2025/03/13/the-imitation-of-christ/

I am pleased to note de Bruyn also offers some praise for the Theologia Germanica, another worthy pre-Reformation work.

But as I've often argued there's a problem with this approach to orthodoxy - it's progressive. Men like de Bruyn are willing to say that à Kempis and the anonymous author (the Friend of God from the Oberland) of the Theologia were Christians.

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.

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.

Confessionalism's Embrace of Progressive Theology and Historiography (Part 2)

And when (it must be asked) did the Roman Catholic Church become the Roman Catholic Church?

That is a difficult question indeed and one I've addressed from time to time. There is an answer but it's not straightforward. Recently I've even heard some rather absurd arguments from Confessionally Reformed circles, one history professor (of all things) has tried to argue that the Catholic Church only became 'Roman' at the Council of Trent! Roman Catholicism apparently didn't exist until the mid-16^th century!

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.

Riddles of Fundamentalism Part 3: Faith and Epistemology

While often accused of being Anti-Modern and fideistic, Fundamentalist epistemology could be more accurately described as representing a Evidentialism with a strong tendency to rely upon Coherentist arrangements and interpretations of empirical data, all resting upon axiomatic basic beliefs. Its Foundationalist ideology must be understood as a variant of Empiricism and within the general flow of what has come to be known as the Analytic tradition.

A Lutheran Interpretation of Reformed Two Kingdom Theology: Some Observations and Considerations

http://justandsinner.libsyn.com/a-critique-of-escondido-two-kingdom-theology

Jordan Cooper of Just and Sinner recently lectured on some of the significant differences between the Reformed and Lutheran versions of Two Kingdom Theology. The Reformed variety usually associated with Westminster Seminary West in Escondido California is often conflated with the Lutheran variety and this troubles Cooper. He wants to set the record straight. This has probably been furthered by the fact that to many, Westminster West also has (more or less) embraced a Lutheran Soteriology and understanding of sola fide.

Inbox: Lutheranism, Kuyper and the Two Kingdoms

In terms of the differences between the confessional Lutheran position and my own maybe I can shed a little light, but I will be brief and paint with a broad brush. I'm also throwing a variant of Reformed Theology into the mix because I think it's pertinent and may shed a little light for some readers on a seemingly obscure point of dispute in contemporary Reformed circles.

Revisiting Evangelicals and Catholics Together

Commentators are revisiting the issue of ECT or Evangelicals and Catholics Together. The original document was penned in 1994 and since it has been about twenty years, it's definitely a time for reflection.

Sadly I'm not terribly impressed with the analysis.

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.

Saving Faith, Temporary Faith, and Justification by Faith

Here's a link to the text of a good sermon pertinent to the Hyper-Solafideism discussion. He does well in defining Saving Faith... avoiding Faith without Knowledge (which is mysticism) but also avoiding Faith being defined as mere assent which results in easy believism.

He's dealing with the classic categories of Knowledge, Assent, and Entrustment. Removing any of these gets you into trouble. He covers them briefly but well.

Hyper-Solafideism- Part 3

The Bible presents us with a strange dynamic, one that defies Aristotelian-like attempts at systemization. As with the Incarnation, we are presented with a dialectical soteriology. We have seemingly opposite and irreconcilable truths that we cannot reconcile. We cannot systematize them either by reaching a synthesis or by reading one pole in light of the other.

Just as the Scriptures seem to teach God predestines our free choices, we are also given a doctrine of Salvation by Grace through Faith Alone, grounded in election, and yet somehow cast in conditional terms dependent on our perseverance. We could say 'seemingly' dependent and that would probably be correct, but I would prefer to avoid this and other attempts at systematizing, because when we do this, we start the process of explaining it away. By throwing the word 'seemingly' or some other term if you prefer...in front of a word like dependent, we're viewing the conditional passages through the lens of election...which raises the types of dilemmas we often see resulting from System problems gaps.

Questions like....are the warnings genuine? are they written to believers? Is the gospel offer really sincere?

Once were asking these questions, we're on the wrong path. We're second guessing the text because it doesn't fit with our systemic presuppositions.

Hyper-Solafideism Part 2

 The Scriptures clearly teach that Salvation is a free gift. We can do nothing to earn it. We are lost, alienated from God, cursed and deserving of physical and eternal death. Adam the first man acted for himself and for his posterity. He was the Federal Head of the entirety of the human race. His sin, whether the actual sin or the resulting curse, passes on to all of us, all of his descendants. As CS Lewis put it, being descendants of Adam we can hold our heads high and yet also hang our heads in shame. We bear the image of God and yet we're cursed by sin.

Like it or not, we're united to Adam, we're in Adam. We need a 2nd Adam to come along and create a new race, a new people. Old Testament Israel represented both the 1st and 2nd Adams…a sort of repeat performance of the first and an anticipation of the second. This point is often missed, certain groups emphasizing the one to the exclusion of the other. The 2nd Adam comes and passes the test, completes the tasks and yet to rescue those under the curse of the 1st Adam he must pay the penalty of sin and make a way of reconciliation to God. Christ the 2nd Adam does this and now we are 'in' Him…united to Him, 'under' Him.

There's nothing we can do to affect this, to earn this, or even to maintain it. It truly is a gift. God out of pure love for His treasonous creatures did this for us. All of mankind is shown mercy, but only those of us who are saved can grasp the wonders, the breathtaking wonders of Grace. Its foundations in the Person and Work of Christ are rightly called amazing, and its application via the Holy Spirit…well, even the Angels are in awe of it.

Hyper-Solafideism and Meta-System Part 1

For those unfamiliar with theological jargon, this article will delve into unfamiliar waters. As much as possible I'm trying to avoid using too many terms but I'm afraid it is somewhat inescapable. In this post and several subsequent parts I will be discussing the doctrine of Sola Fide or Justification by Faith Alone and how that works both in the Bible and how we in seeking to understand the Bible, and teach it, run into certain dilemmas. These dilemmas and the way we deal with them are actually the source of the many divisions within the Church today.

Over the course of history people have lived in different contexts and these contexts affect how they think. Due to these contextual factors, we read the Bible in different ways and one group may really focus on one thing while someone else in a different time and place focuses on something else. I'm arguing we tend to overly focus on certain things and that sharply affects how we understand or in some cases don't understand the rest of the Bible.

In this particular series I'm dealing specifically with those who are committed to the Bible being the very Word of God and claim it as the Sole Authority for faith and life....Scripture Alone/Sola Scriptura. Thus far we're in agreement. But now how do we read it and what tools do we employ in seeking to understand it? That's a different question and one that I wish to raise.

Christmas 2010: Constantine is the reason for the season

Dashing through the snow….a Yuletide ramble.


Yes, I had to write about another holiday I don't keep….

All Sacralist's Eve

A discussion regarding Halloween.

The Reformation: Romanticism and Reality

A few reflections concerning the Reformation.




Historians have long debated the reasons for the success of Martin Luther, Zwingli, and the other Reformers versus the failures of other per-Reform movements. Why did Luther succeed in 1517, but Hus fail in 1415?