Reformational Resurgence » theological debate

God? Justice?

Whiskeyjack — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 21:18:21 +0000

A God of love divorced from justice and wrath towards transgression is lunacy. It does not provide for the protection of his people, nor the absolution of the their transgressions of his law. But as well, he would cease to be a God worthy of worship, for he himself would, though possessed of a love of his own glory, not be able to demand his glory. For in truth, a God of love divorced from justice would love sin, having no other course of action by which to respond, and in doing so cease to be a moral creator.

Thus love without law is hedonism reigning as the only ethic and God would die and man would reap the consequence. The rise of the supra-man, the embarkation of the ship of power out into the sea of nihilism. But this is the sociological dimension, the noetic influence of the fall onto the minds of man. Because God never nor can he die, but the image of God seen in creation is obscured to the point of perversion and denotative realignment.

And so we perceive the depth and true motivation of liberal theology; the obscuring and eventual disembodiment of the revealed nature of God, as well as the divine nature of Jesus. Furthermore, if those who see Christ see the Father, and the Son is the only way to the Father, but yet the Son possesses no divine nature, then the kingdom of God and the entrance into it are merely moral. Thus making Jesus the definitive moralist. And in doing so they reduce the kingdom from adoptive/eschatological to nihilistic , wherein the construct of law/gospel is replaced by personal liberty/hedonism, with the only deterrent being the termination of personal intention by an ego greater than oneself.

In short, love without law is the reduction and self-conscious dismantling of Christianity and must be viewed as such.

A Question of Foundations

Whiskeyjack — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 18:41:00 +0000

I have often wondered if the debate going on between the confessionally reformed and the federal vision camps- I do make a distinction, though it is not meant as a slight, but rather one of denotation- is in fact a secondary or consequent- though valid and necessary- argument and that the real battle is over a theology containing a works/merit and faith/grace paradigm and one that rejects a works/merit paradigm wholly in favor of a single covenant model of faith/grace. Thus it often seems that the subliminal war over the epistemological foundations for the theological enterprise at large is largely between the camps of Kline and Shepherd. And that being so, though we are often told that the debate is about what the gospel is it seems rather that it is actually about what lense we acquire to read the text in order to actually define the gospel.
Any thoughts or insight is not only welcomed but sought, though perhaps no one will ever read this anyway.

Ruminations on conduct

Whiskeyjack — Sat, 27 Jan 2007 01:25:00 +0000

What is it that causes those in theological debates, those who consider themselves educated, layman or not, to descend to pejorative, incendiary language in response to those with whom they disagree? I know that I myself have been guilty of this and I have noticed that it occurs in contexts where the discourse is one of thoughts and not voices, gestures devoid of the face that goes with them. In short, it seems to occur within the anonymous context of the internet; the great equalizer between the learned and the laymen and alas, it has also become the spark which has kindled flames of arrogance, condescension, and outright slander.
I, for one, feel ashamed at how, in the pursuit of truth we have forgotten that we dwell in the covenant community, yes that includes those outside our denominations and even our confessions, and instead functioned more adversarially than fraternally. Though I believe that conflict both does and must arise- due to the fact that confessional unity would require both more humility and exegetical depth than we shall ever be possessed of- it does not mean that we should deride, demean, and impugn our opponents. I have often read blog posts to which I wholehearted concurred substantively but was grieved by the manner in which it was conveyed.
Well, this being my first foray into the land of the blog, I felt that I had to get that out of the way.