I am not a Hyper Calvinist

Whew!

Over at Pyromaniacs, Phil Johnson is having some trouble with Arminians using his words to call solid brothers "Hyper-Calvinists" (HC). Phil provides a link to his original article. While reading that, I found his excellent article on "supralapsarianism".

I had heard of supralapsarianism before, but never really understood what it is. The third article has an excellent chart showing the continuity between supralapsarianism and Arminianism.

I am a supralapsarian. (All hyper-Calvinists are supralapsarian, but not vice-versa).

Phil argues the key to hyper-Calvinism is the subversion of the Gospel (isn't that always the case with heresy, and HC is heresy). The HC does not preach the whole Gospel, because he does not believe it will have any effect.

To sum up, supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism (both versions of standard Calvinism) are minor disagreements about the order of operations during the eternity before creation. These issues are minor, below the teaching doctrines of a local church.

Tolerance

Today it seems moral outrage can only be generated over the heinous war crime of "intolerance". That is, the champions of "tolerance" are "intolerant" of anyone who is "intolerant" (and like a White Ward, this effect somehow manages to not cancel itself).

Albert Mohler has an interesting take on the latest intolerant fury of the forces of tolerance.

Of course, any stand for truth requires intolerance (we call it "discernment"). "What communion hath light with darkness?" (2 Corinthians 6:14) In order to protect the truth, we must speak out against what is false.

Modernism

Ever since reading Oden ("The Rebirth of Orthodoxy"), I am intrigued by the events leading up to the age of modernism. Oden places the beginning at 1789 (the Bastille), but clearly, a big influence was Darwin's "The Origin of Species" (1859). Then, there is Charles Lyell's "Principles of Geology" (1830-33) which so greatly impacted Darwin...

While Lyell and Darwin were doing their thing in Great Britain, Albert Mohler has found an interesting occurrence in America around the same time...

In 1838 (one hundred and seventy years ago!) Ralph Waldo Emerson (in "The American Scholar") made many of the statements we hear today from postmoderns.

I think the whole thing is summarized in one block:

"To this holy office you propose to devote yourselves. I wish you may feel your call in throbs of desire and hope. The office is the first in the world. It is of that reality that it cannot suffer the deduction of any falsehood. And it is my duty to say to you that the need was never greater of new revelation than now."

Emerson seems to understand what is at stake. Yet, he falls into the classic blunder.

The assumption that the new is better than the old.

Orthodox Study Bible

The Orthodox Study Bible is the first book I have received through the Thomas Nelson review program.

The book is quite beautiful. It is over 1800 pages - each page is very thin (which can add a sense of 'reverent patience required' when turning pages!). The Old Testament is a one of a kind translation of the Septuagint (LXX, Greek Old Testament). The New Testament is standard New King James (NKJV).

I won't comment on the Biblical text, the opportunity to read an English translation of LXX might be a selling point in itself. The advantages and disadvantages of NKJV are fairly well understood.

The Biblical text is two columns, and very easy to read. The pages are packed with information, as the study notes are often one-third or, even, one-half(!) of the page (notes are single column). There isn't a lot of room for notes in the margin, but the line spacing should be enough for under liners (I don't like writing in books, especially not Bibles :).

The notes are reflective of Orthodox (captial 'O') tradition. As a Protestant, I don't agree with everything, but it is good to see the defense of their doctrines. It's also interesting to note the differences with Roman Catholicism (which I am more familiar with). I can certainly see the draw for Evangelicals (tired of the silliness in many megachurches) exploring an older tradition. For those Evangelicals, I will be making note of differences in Orthodox doctrine from classic Reformed theology.

End of Faith

Last month, I saw Christopher Hitchens. While talking with the atheists at my table, I was told Sam Harris' book "The End of Faith" was the most damning book to come from the new atheists. Of course, my local library (being a endless font of heretics and apostates) had a copy for me...

There is a lot to cover, and I have just started, so I will break the review up over several posts...

Harris starts with a rather bizarre proposition - on page 13 he says:

"criticizing a person's faith is currently taboo in every corner of our culture"

Um, hello, McFly? You just sold a New York Times bestseller criticizing every faith! I regularly criticize people's faith (whether it be in nothing or themselves). I have yet to be stoned or tarred and feathered. I don't even get that many nasty looks :) People are usually very open to talking about faith.

Harris reveals much of his assumptions in a statement on page 22:

"If religion addresses a genuine sphere of understanding and human necessity, then it should be susceptible to progress; its doctrines should become more useful, rather than less." [emphasis in original]

Two points here, one is an evolutionary assumption: everything is changing and getting better all the time. I think I've said enough about that...

The second is that I partially agree with him. Christian doctrine is more useful today - since it is most being ignored! Of course, it is doctrine which has been around for two thousand years...

Gospel in Three

I'm going to switch from counting words to counting sentences, or at least ideas.

With three, we can start to get a progression to a story (two bad news, one good news):

1. There is none good, none who seeks after God, all have turned away and become useless (Romans 3:10-12).


2. God will by no means clear the guilty, an honest judge cannot be bribed, God owns everything, what can we give to Him? (Exodus 34:7)
   


3. But God, demonstrates His great love for us, for while we were without strength, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6,8; Ephesians 2:5)

The law (primarily the ten commandments) shows us our true selves, that we are not good, but rather sinners.

Our good works are actually filthy rags in God's sight, and even if they had some value, what is that to an infinite God who owns everything? And even if they had value, you cannot bribe an honest judge.

At this point, you want to shout John 3:16 or Ephesians 2:5!

God's Test

God tests us:

"When Jesus then lifted up [His] eyes, and saw a great company come unto Him, He saith unto Philip, Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat? And this He said to prove him: for He Himself knew what He would do." (John 6:5-6)

In our society, we are familiar with tests. Standardized tests; SAT/ACT, tests for public school performance; tests in class; driving tests; eye tests.

In these cases, the test is used to verify reality for the test maker. That is, do we meet the standard of the college, or the department of education, motor vehicles, etc.

But that is not why God tests us.

God already knows what we have done, why, and what we will do. He has no need to prove things to Himself.

God gives us tests to reveal our performance to ourselves.