https://gospelreformation.net/dear-pastor-may-my-child-take-the-lords-supper/
Spinnenweber is to be commended as he covers all the bases and his treatment of the subject is fair. Unfortunately his conclusions are completely wrong.
Calling for a Return to the Doctrinal Ideals and Kingdom Ethics of the First Reformation
https://gospelreformation.net/dear-pastor-may-my-child-take-the-lords-supper/
Spinnenweber is to be commended as he covers all the bases and his treatment of the subject is fair. Unfortunately his conclusions are completely wrong.
https://www.str.org/w/will-god-be-in-pain-for-eternity-as-he-watches-people-suffer-in-hell-
I will desist from an extended critique of Greg Koukl and the advice he dispenses on his programme. There are quite a few things that could be said about the other segments of this episode that I found problematic. In fact, I rarely find myself ever agreeing with him about much of anything. But one particular aspect of this show struck me.
Dolezal's admission of mutabilist language being present in the text and his resort to nonliteral, accommodationist, and anthropomorphic arguments in order to fit the language of Scripture into his theological grid has the potential if not the tendency to generate more problems than it solves. Once again, one is driven to think of the patterns exhibited in historical theology and the role such 'rationalist' systems-driven thinking has played. The road from rationalist scholasticism to theological liberalism is in fact a short one. The dynamics of Scripture don't lend themselves to such rigid constructions and there's a tendency (even a drive) to refine and ultimately compress both Trinitarianism and the hypostatic union into ever monistic and more coherent frameworks. It begins innocently enough, pushing to the edge of orthodoxy. But in another generation it's redefined and in another lost altogether.
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.
I was asked to elaborate a bit on the question of proto-Protestantism's relationship to Magisterial Protestantism and the question of conservative vs. progressive movements.
Critics of the Calvin vs. the Calvinists thesis often seem to
suggest that those who posit the notion have erected a straw man – the supposed
epistemological and methodological divide between the first generation of
Magisterial Reformers and their seventeenth century descendants just isn't
there.