God of the Mundane, my Heidelblog review

Status
Not open for further replies.

RamistThomist

Puritanboard Clerk
Turretin:

Michael Lynch translated a portion of Louis le Blanc on good works. He cites Pareus and Ames against Bellarmine.

Mark Jones (Twisse, Zanchi, Witsius, Mastricht):

John Davenant contra Bellarmine's misconception of the Protestant view of good works:

Someone more contemporary, Sinclair Ferguson:
"In order to experience final salvation, sanctification is as necessary as justification."

GK Beale:
No one disputes the necessity of good works. The problem is when we speak of justifying faith as "morally effective."
 

A.Joseph

Puritan Board Senior
@RamistThomist, is there going to be a part 2 thread since this one has been such a success?
Man, we are brutal to each other. It was a good read. People get sentimental about Piper but he’s not above some healthy criticism. Who is he accountable to? This was a good discussion. …. No need to pick a side.
 
Last edited:

Pilgrim

Puritanboard Commissioner
Maybe I know and have forgotten but what makes you call it a watered down version of the rpw?
Well, it’s not EP for one thing. I haven’t been around here much in the past few years. But my sense has been that some EP advocates would not grant that what might be termed the “OPC version” of the RPW is really the RPW although they would appreciate some aspects of it as opposed to the typical evangelical worship today. Hart and Muether are strong on images from what I recall. But beyond the prohibition of images, how different is it from what Andy Webb has referred to as “Episcoterian” worship, which is the kind of thing that you would have seen in most “traditional” Protestant churches in the mid 20th Century regardless of denomination: 4 hymns, the Gloria Patri, the Doxology, the Lord’s Prayer and maybe the recitation of a creed. I think Hart and Muether probably don’t like choirs and soloists. So that would be a difference. But otherwise? Well, the Trinity Hymnal did Calvinize Fanny Crosby and Charles Wesley. Plus, unlike John Frame, I am sure they are a hard “No” on liturgical dancing. :)
 

A.Joseph

Puritan Board Senior
I am a man of unclean lips and I dwell amongst men of unclean lips. I will go. It aint easy either. Definitely an uphill battle but who knows what God will do. Thy Kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven. I don't care about all the. "we are too pagan now to recover." God is able to do what he wants when he wants. I am called to go.
Did you watch the Tipton video? What’s the template and how is it applied? The relationship between Israel and Jehovah was very unique. We all know murder is wrong and it is good not to do it…. Then what? This place is going down in flames. Don’t mean we need to keep our mouths shut. Point out the contrast boldly.
 

Pilgrim

Puritanboard Commissioner
Man, we are brutal to each other. It was a good read. People get sentimental about Piper but he’s not above some healthy criticism. Who is he accountable to? This was a good discussion. …. No need to pick a side.
This is the kind of thread we used to have here all the time.

EDIT: Except that, for what it’s worth, some of us seem to be taking positions that are more or less the opposite of what we took 10-15 years ago.
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
Well, it’s not EP for one thing. I haven’t been around here much in the past few years. But my sense has been that some EP advocates would not grant that what might be termed the “OPC version” of the RPW is really the RPW although they would appreciate some aspects of it as opposed to the typical evangelical worship today. Hart and Muether are strong on images from what I recall. But beyond the prohibition of images, how different is it from what Andy Webb has referred to as “Episcoterian” worship, which is the kind of thing that you would have seen in most “traditional” Protestant churches in the mid 20th Century regardless of denomination: 4 hymns, the Gloria Patri, the Doxology, the Lord’s Prayer and maybe the recitation of a creed. I think Hart and Muether probably don’t like choirs and soloists. So that would be a difference. But otherwise? Well, the Trinity Hymnal did Calvinize Fanny Crosby and Charles Wesley. Plus, unlike John Frame, I am sure they are a hard “No” on liturgical dancing. :)
I would not be so uncharitable and would want to reserve to note that until someone actually reverts to "but, it's not forbidden". And that does happen in some exchanges I do grant.
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
EDIT: Except that, for what it’s worth, some of us seem to be taking positions that are more or less the opposite of what we took 10-15 years ago.
I think I can say "speak for yourself." :) I do think I've refined my views but the basic stances have remained the same far as I can recall, at least as far as the subjects of worship.
 

Luther'sHammer

Puritan Board Freshman
Anthony,

I am quoting you twice below and would like to ask a clarifying question following up with each. Actually, it's the same question. Before I do that, understand that I am attempting to exercise humility and teachability. Regarding the points below, I don't see how you could possibly be correct
but I'm willing to learn.

How much theological truth and biblical reality must us Calvinists ignore for this to be true via the comment section of the YouTube video:

“RIP Gary North. Yes, we postmill types would rather not have the unbelievers secretly establish a centralized counterfeit monetary scheme that lines the pockets of their regime, disincentivizes productivity, and encourages debt accumulation. Instead we look forward to a world where a general equity of law is followed, and understood as common sense, among believer and unbeliever alike. North is not seeking for nominal Christians to outwardly follow the law in the flesh. He’s seeking a dominant Christian influence in culture that results in less wickedness in the lives of unbelievers. The rampant pietism of the churchmen causes this position to be a fringe one.”

…. the bolded section of the comment is seen as a prioritized vision for the prevention and annihilation of the non-bolded portion. But can this really be our focus and concentration? An exercise in distracted futility that ranks up there with Twitter wars. Eventually the wicked take over and change and circumvent laws accordingly. That doesn’t mean we hide or bury the truth of the gospel or the 2nd use of the law. It just means we can’t change hearts by persuasion or coercion - it’s just where we are. It’s where we always wind up. Even now punishments are not equally distributed, nor is the law equally enforced, until such time that laws and standards are abolished all together. Maybe then men and women will cry out.

"How much theological truth and biblical reality" - can you cite any Reformed confessions that teach or confess the truth and reality you reference, specifically that would rebut the Youtube comment you called out?


Did you watch the Tipton video? What’s the template and how is it applied? The relationship between Israel and Jehovah was very unique. We all know murder is wrong and it is good not to do it…. Then what? This place is going down in flames. Don’t mean we need to keep our mouths shut. Point out the contrast boldly.

"This place is going down in flames" - again, can you cite any Reformed confessions that teach or confess this?
 

A.Joseph

Puritan Board Senior
Anthony,

I am quoting you twice below and would like to ask a clarifying question following up with each. Actually, it's the same question. Before I do that, understand that I am attempting to exercise humility and teachability. Regarding the points below, I don't see how you could possibly be correct
but I'm willing to learn.



"How much theological truth and biblical reality" - can you cite any Reformed confessions that teach or confess the truth and reality you reference, specifically that would rebut the Youtube comment you called out?




"This place is going down in flames" - again, can you cite any Reformed confessions that teach or confess this?
Fair enough. I think civil morality is dependent on God's law but good luck trying to institute it at this point in our rigged system.* (I'm more of a Benedict Option guy at this point but I'd be willing to get behind a common sense moral system/foundation of law). I don't know any real life example to follow that's been sustained. American government was faulty almost from the start. .... See Jefferson's conception of natural law.

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” - John Adams *

“Going down in flames” is just a figure of speech. A better way to put it? See Romans 8

@Luther'sHammer - if you’re interested check out those two videos I linked which touches on how North may have crossed the line to over-prioritize civil affairs, applications and earthly comforts for both the saved and the unsaved alike.
 
Last edited:

Pilgrim

Puritanboard Commissioner
I would not be so uncharitable and would want to reserve to note that until someone actually reverts to "but, it's not forbidden". And that does happen in some exchanges I do grant.
Its been a long time since I read that book. Basically, what I was getting at was that the OPC will say it follows the RPW but it doesn't look like what the RPCNA does (or doesn't do) for example. I'm not even taking a position about which one is right, although I'll grant that "watered down" makes it look that way. It might have been a poor choice of words, but what I had in mind is the idea that EP seems to be more prevalent here than it was 15 years ago.
 
Last edited:

Pilgrim

Puritanboard Commissioner
I think I can say "speak for yourself." :) I do think I've refined my views but the basic stances have remained the same far as I can recall, at least as far as the subjects of worship.
I was mostly thinking about the views that Jacob and Randy have expressed here as opposed to what positions they would have taken in 2006.
 

RamistThomist

Puritanboard Clerk
I was mostly thinking about the views that Jacob and Randy have expressed here as opposed to what positions they would have taken in 2006.

I won't speak for Randy, but that's true for me. And those savage, bloody threads back in the day--I was involved in most of them. It was Van Tillian vs. Clarkian vs. everyone else.
 

Pilgrim

Puritanboard Commissioner
I won't speak for Randy, but that's true for me. And those savage, bloody threads back in the day--I was involved in most of them. It was Van Tillian vs. Clarkian vs. everyone else.
Vanilla Westminsterian vs Van Til vs Clark vs Kline vs FV vs. Baptist, with the Baptist category including 1689er, NCT and a few that were at least mildly Dispensational way back in the beginning.
 

lynnie

Puritan Board Graduate
Going back to Piper on page 8, I've been thinking it is a lot like the great Norm Shepherd controversy at WTS. Some guys at WSC had him labeled as a heretic on justification; Frame and Gaffin were defending him. My husband had loved him as a prof and was adamant that he was being slandered and never denied justification by faith as the Reformed Confessions state it. WTS let him go amid the furor.

Eventually the Prez Ed Clowney put out a thoughtful and detailed paper on it, exonerating NS on justification, but explaining how his beliefs on perseverance were not Reformed, and while he was a good brother and beloved teacher, you have to hold to P in TULIP to teach at WTS.

What my husband finally said though, was that while NS was teaching truth on our initial justification vs the role of works and obedience, when it came to all that he was reading about WTS grads getting examined for ordination, they were saying heretical things and claiming it was what Dr. Shepherd taught them. And that was a problem.

Now hub was a math minor in college, and is very successful in his IT job and debugging and if/then logic. He has an analytical mind. And I think he was able to put together what NS taught and come away from it biblical, even if it may have been hard to grasp this complex subject.

But, if so many students came away with a different, works salvation justification, while you can say maybe they just didn't have such high IQs or good ability to grasp the complexity of theology at times, you have to conclude that there was a real problem with NS' teaching. Hub didn't see it at the time, but he had to finally admit that when so many students end up flunking ordination and referring it back to NS, NS had a problem as a teacher, and it was understandable to let him go for that reason ( even if he hadn't denied Reformed Perseverance).

I've concluded Piper is OK and he gets the truth. But in trying so hard to explain the end of the sermon on the mount and all kinds of verses on obedience and works and justifying faith bearing fruit and so forth, he maybe does not realize what young zealous believers are hearing and coming away thinking, and he is confusing them into heretical ideas.

I could be wrong. We stopped listening to him a while ago after 2000 when his tone began to get harsh and he seemed to change from tender to something harder. But maybe it is just one more Norm Shepherd type of situation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top