I've been thinking about issues I should harp on more, such as the regulative principle of worship, and that I should write more about their implications for an understanding of Christian life. For now, I just leave you with the archived link.I recently finished D. G. Hart's biography of John Williamson Nevin, and I recommend it. I found the conclusion particularly good (although not in the antikuyperian way Hart intended it, I'm sure), and I will provide a link to an excerpt at some point. The gist is that the success of the church should not be measured by the extent of her influence with those outside her communion in extra-ecclesial matters, but rather by the degree of her faithfulness in administering her ordinances. It might not sound controversial when I put it like that. However, evangelicals operate by contrary "ecclesiastically defining" principles (and so contrary standards of faithfulness) to those of the reformed church.
In a recent email exchange Russ Reeves, associate prof in History at Providence Christian College, offered a concise critique of David VanDrunen's protestant neoscholastic "two-kingdom" theory.
Robert Lotzer styles his own two-kingdom position as "anti-antithesis," confusedly suggesting that the 'antithesis' which he abjures is between special (redemptive) and common (preserving) grace! There is no such antithesis, so this misconception is a tragedy, especially since Klinean theology employeed by VanDrunen, Lotzer, and others is actually anti-scholastic and more conducive to neocalvinist (kuyperian) social theory.
This is a horse for future overflogging.
Monergism has a face lift.
The Reformational Publishing Project is now in motion.
Posts
