Let's play a little game...

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

luvroftheWord

Puritan Board Sophomore
A day or so ago I stumbled across this statement concerning the basis or ground of the believer's assurance of salvation. I liked it pretty well and I thought it would be fun to see if you guys could guess who made this statement:

[quote:8f6a418c8c]
The ground of our salvation is Christ's righteousness, plus nothing. The instrument of our salvation is faith, which itself is a gift from God, lest any man should boast. And when you put those two things together, you are not supposed to take it under your own authority to examine the quality of your faith and rummage through it like a muckraker. As Luther said, if you doubt your salvation, then say your prayers, man.
[/quote:8f6a418c8c]

Any takers? Who said this?
 
Craig,

I hate to be a spoil sport, but the practice of taking quotes out of context and throwing them out is not very helpful or edifying. A great example of this was that done by Bahnsen's son this year.
 
Sorry, this post used to be a rant. I deleted it because I don't feel like being angry or making anyone else angry.

[Edited on 3-4-2004 by luvroftheWord]
 
Craig,

I hope that it was not my post that made you angry, I really wasn't intending to scold you, only expressing my disinterest in guessing at the question. If others want to, then fine.
 
Actually some of us who aren't as theologically advanced as Fred might be interested in knowing.

Craig I do not know, but would be intersted in finding out.
 
[quote:9983a45ec6][i:9983a45ec6]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:9983a45ec6]
Sorry, this post used to be a rant. I deleted it because I don't feel like being angry or making anyone else angry.

[Edited on 3-4-2004 by luvroftheWord] [/quote:9983a45ec6]

Reply...

How about a little Bouncimania to cheer you up?

:spin::spin::spin::spin:

:bouncing::bouncing::bouncing::bouncing:

:tumble::tumble::tumble::tumble:

[Edited on 3-4-2004 by Gregg]
 
[quote:771a920034][i:771a920034]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:771a920034]
oooooooooo [/quote:771a920034]

:puzzled:
 
Okay... it was Douglas Wilson. It was a word for word response to the question, "Given the requirement of covenant faithfulness, what is the basis or ground of the believer's assurance of salvation in glory?" This answer was given at the 2002 AAPC, the conference that began the whole controversy.

Now I ask all of you, what is wrong with Wilson's answer?
 
The initial answer is that it is NOT the Confession's answer, which is a better representation of Scripture:

[quote:4f6e1bfb01]This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion grounded upon a fallible hope; (Heb. 6:11,19) but an infallible assurance of faith founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation, (Heb. 6:17-18) the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made, (2 Pet. 1:4-5,10-11, 1 John 2:3. 1 John 3:14, 2 Cor. 1:12) the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God, (Rom. 8:15-16) which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption. (Eph. 1:13-14, Eph. 4:30, 2 Cor. 1:21-22)[/quote:4f6e1bfb01]

The Scripture describes BOTH the objective (the promises of God) and the subjective (inward evidences) and the combination of the two (the Spirit witnessing to our Spirit) as the ground of [b:4f6e1bfb01]assurance.[/b:4f6e1bfb01]

Wilson has avoided the question for most of his answer. See what he says:

The question was: "Given the requirement of covenant faithfulness, what is the basis or [b:4f6e1bfb01]ground of the believer's assurance[/b:4f6e1bfb01] of salvation in glory?"

And yet Wilson answers: "The [b:4f6e1bfb01]ground of our salvation[/b:4f6e1bfb01] is Christ's righteousness, plus nothing. The [b:4f6e1bfb01]instrument of our salvation[/b:4f6e1bfb01] is faith, which itself is a gift from God, lest any man should boast"

It is singularly unhelpful, unnecessarily deviating from the confession (at best, it restates the Biblical position in a confusing and indirect manner, rather than being easier to understand) and does not even address the question head on.

A good follow up question(s) would be:

Can the believer have assurance?

Does assurance consist solely in objective criteria, namely baptism?

If so, how is that different from the Pharisees placing their assurance in their lineage and circumcision.
 
Fine, I'll grant the point that Wilson did not specifically address our assurance. But he did address the ground or basis of our salvation. What is wrong with what he said about that?
 
[quote:7f840c55ac][i:7f840c55ac]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:7f840c55ac]
Fine, I'll grant the point that Wilson did not specifically address our assurance. But he did address the ground or basis of our salvation. What is wrong with what he said about that? [/quote:7f840c55ac]

Craig,

Two things. First, I have maintained in the past that Wilson has given the most orthodox statements of all of the "Auburn Four."

Second, the statement you gave is perfectly orthodox [i:7f840c55ac]as far as it goes.[/i:7f840c55ac] But the doctrine of forensic justification by an alien righteousness imputed by Christ to us must go beyond that statement in this day. The New Perspective gets the gospel half-right: it states that one gets into the covenant by grace, but stays in by works (covenant faithfulness). It declares that the "righteousness of God" in Romans 1 and Romans 3 is not the righteousness of Christ, and that the righteousness of Christ is not imputed to us. Having heard basically that from Schlissel and Wilkins, I would want to hear greater clarity from Wilson.

For the life of me - why can't these men simply articulate the doctrine of justification in the clear fashion that EVERY reformed and Lutheran theologian has for 400+ years?? Why do we need to innovate? Why do we need confusing statements?
 
[quote:21d35e82a5][i:21d35e82a5]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:21d35e82a5]
[quote:21d35e82a5]
For the life of me - why can't these men simply articulate the doctrine of justification in the clear fashion that EVERY reformed and Lutheran theologian has for 400+ years?? Why do we need to innovate? Why do we need confusing statements?
[/quote:21d35e82a5]

part of it may be because they wan't to get rid of the notion of merit. I'm not supporting any side here, just trying to speak to their concerns. This of course gets into the denial of "covenant of works." They want it to be totally grace and so they deny active obedience and covenant of works.

-Paul [/quote:21d35e82a5]

I think you are right Paul. The irony here is that the only way to keep our merit out of justification is with the Biblical covenant of works/covenant of grace scheme.
 
[quote:ec9933ff30][i:ec9933ff30]posted by Fred Greco[/i:ec9933ff30]
For the life of me - why can't these men simply articulate the doctrine of justification in the clear fashion that EVERY reformed and Lutheran theologian has for 400+ years?? Why do we need to innovate? Why do we need confusing statements?[/quote:ec9933ff30]

Maybe because a lot of people want to be on the cutting edge of truth, and forget that truth is also mundane, like 1+1=2 is mundane to the mathematical system. It is so "old hat", but that's because it is truth that has been clear for a very, very long time. Except, of course, to those who are out there muddying up the waters all the time.
 
[quote:4bad54feaa][i:4bad54feaa]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:4bad54feaa]
[quote:4bad54feaa][i:4bad54feaa]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:4bad54feaa]
[quote:4bad54feaa]
For the life of me - why can't these men simply articulate the doctrine of justification in the clear fashion that EVERY reformed and Lutheran theologian has for 400+ years?? Why do we need to innovate? Why do we need confusing statements?
[/quote:4bad54feaa]

part of it may be because they wan't to get rid of the notion of merit. I'm not supporting any side here, just trying to speak to their concerns. This of course gets into the denial of "covenant of works." They want it to be totally grace and so they deny active obedience and covenant of works.

-Paul [/quote:4bad54feaa]

I think you are right Paul. The irony here is that the only way to keep our merit out of justification is with the Biblical covenant of works/covenant of grace scheme. [/quote:4bad54feaa]

Exactly. While I'm not extremely familiar with the Auburn Four and all the supporters of the New Perspective, from what I've read about it from various sources, it seems like in trying to totally get rid of the notion of merit in the theoretical realm, they've given it center stage in the practical implications (and eventually even the theoretical as well)!

Chris

[Edited on 3-5-2004 by Me Died Blue]
 
Oh, oh.....I've got one!

Who said this:

[quote:71b539f8a0]The meritorious cause of justification is Christ through his obedience and righteousness, who may, therefore, be justly called the principal or outwardly moving cause. In his obedience and righteousness, Christ is also the material cause of our justification, so far as God bestows Christ on us for righteousness, and imputes his righteousness and obedience to us. In regard to this two-fold cause, that is, the meritorious and the material, we are said to be constituted righteous through the obedience of Christ.

The object of justification is man, a sinner, acknowledging himself, with sorrow, to be such an one, and a believer, that is, believing in God who justifies the ungodly, and in Christ as having been delivered for our offenses, and raised again for our justification. As a sinner, man needs justification through grace, and, as a believer, he obtains justification through grace.

Faith is the instrumental cause, or act, by which we apprehend Christ proposed to us by God for a propitiation and for righteousness, according to the command and promise of the gospel, in which it is said, "He who believes shall be justified and saved, and he who believeth not shall be damned." [/quote:71b539f8a0]

Phillip
 
Paul,

Thanks for proving my earlier point. The author is of course John Calvin, from his sermons on Deuteronomy, as quoted from the Covenant Media web page. But of course the quote is laid out there in an attempt to try and link performance of the condition with the fulfillment of the promise. But what Calvin is actually saying (as intimated by the last sentence) is that our covenant obedience is [b:97a34e8859]evidence[/b:97a34e8859] that we are in the covenant. A few other quotes from the Institutes will suffice for this:

[quote:97a34e8859]2. For this reason, the promises offered in the law would all be null and ineffectual, did not God in his goodness send the gospel to our aid, since the condition on which they depend, and under which only they are to be performed-viz. the fulfillment of the law, will never be accomplished. Still, however the aid which the Lord gives consists not in leaving part of justification to be obtained by works, and in supplying part out of his indulgence, but in giving us Christ as in himself alone the fulfillment of righteousness. For the Apostle, after premising that he and the other Jews, aware that "a man is not justified by the works of the law," had "believed in Jesus Christ," adds as the reason, not that they might be assisted to make up the sum of righteousness by faith in Christ, but that they "might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law," (Gal. 2:16). If believers withdraw from the law to faith, that in the latter they may find the justification which they see is not in the former, they certainly disclaim justification by the law. Therefore, whose will, let him amplify the rewards which are said to await the observer of the law, provided he at the same time understand, that owing to our depravity, we derive no benefit from them until we have obtained another righteousness by faith. Thus David after making mention of the reward which the Lord has prepared for his servants (Ps. 25 almost throughout), immediately descends to an acknowledgment of sins, by which the reward is made void. In Psalm 19, also, he loudly extols the benefits of the law; but immediately exclaims, "Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults," (Ps. 19:12). This passage perfectly accords with the former, when, after saying, "the paths of the Lord are mercy and truth unto such as keep his covenant and his testimonies," he adds, "For thy name's sake, O Lord, pardon mine iniquity: for it is great," (Ps. 25:10, 11). Thus, too, we ought to acknowledge that the favor of God is offered to us in the law, provided by our works we can deserve it; but that it never actually reaches us through any such desert. (Institutes of the Christian Religion. III.xvii.2)[/quote:97a34e8859]

[quote:97a34e8859]6. Here, by the way, it is of importance to observe how those forms of expression differ from legal promises. By legal promises, I mean not those which lie scattered in the books of Moses (for there many Evangelical promises occur), but those which properly belong to the legal dispensation. All such promises, by whatever name they may be called, are made under the condition that the reward is to be paid on the things commanded being done. [b:97a34e8859]But when it is said that the Lord keeps a covenant of mercy with those who love him, the words rather demonstrate what kind of servants those are who have sincerely entered into the covenant, than express the reason why the Lord blesses them.[/b:97a34e8859] The nature of the demonstration is this: As the end for which God bestows upon us the gift of eternal life is, that he may be loved, feared, and worshipped by us, so the end of all the promises of mercy contained in Scripture justly is that we may reverence and serve their author. [b:97a34e8859]Therefore, whenever we hear that he does good to those that observe his law, let us remember that the sons of God are designated by the duty which they ought perpetually to observe, that his reason for adopting us is, that we may reverence him as a father.[/b:97a34e8859] Hence, if we would not deprive ourselves of the privilege of adoption, we must always strive in the direction of our calling. [b:97a34e8859]On the other hand, however, let us remember, that the completion of the Divine mercy depends not on the works of believers, but that God himself fulfill the promise of salvation to those who by right conduct correspond to their calling, because he recognizes the true badges of sons in those only who are directed to good by his Spirit.[/b:97a34e8859] To this we may refer what is said of the members of the Church, "Lord, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill? He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and speaketh the truth in his heart," &c. (Ps. 15:1, 2). Again, in Isaiah, "Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings? He that walketh righteously," &c. (Isa. 33:14, 15). For the thing described is not the strength with which believers can stand before the Lord, but the manner in which our most merciful Father introduces them into his fellowship, and defends and confirms them therein. For as he detests sin and loves righteousness, so those whom he unites to himself he purifies by his Spirit, that he may render them conformable to himself and to his kingdom. Therefore, if it be asked, What is the first cause which gives the saints free access to the kingdom of God, and a firm and permanent footing in it? the answer is easy. The Lord in his mercy once adopted and ever defends them. But if the question relates to the manner, we must descend to regeneration, and the fruits of it, as enumerated in the fifteenth Psalm.
(III.xvii.6)[/quote:97a34e8859]
 
Hmmm, that Calvin quote sounds like stuff I've heard out of the mouth of Doug Wilson. But of course, Wilson is obviously being dishonest, right?

By the way, Fred, I'm glad you believe that Wilson isn't as bad as he's often made out to be.

[Edited on 3-6-2004 by luvroftheWord]
 
[quote:cc01090a65][i:cc01090a65]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:cc01090a65]
Hmmm, that Calvin quote sounds like stuff I've heard out of the mouth of Doug Wilson. But of course, Wilson is obviously being dishonest, right?

By the way, Fred, I'm glad you believe that Wilson isn't as bad as he's often made out to be.

[Edited on 3-6-2004 by luvroftheWord] [/quote:cc01090a65]

Craig,

Context, context. As I said, a statement may be true [i:cc01090a65]as far as it goes[/i:cc01090a65]. Of course it is also the case that Calvin would disagree with Wilson's constant drumbeat against the concept of the visible/invisible church distinction, to wit:

[quote:cc01090a65]The judgment which ought to be formed concerning the visible Church which comes under our observation, must, I think, be sufficiently clear from what has been said. [b:cc01090a65]I have observed that [u:cc01090a65]the Scriptures[/u:cc01090a65] speak of the Church in two ways.[/b:cc01090a65] Sometimes when they speak of the Church they mean the Church as it really is before God-the Church into which none are admitted but those who by the gift of adoption are sons of God, and by the sanctification of the Spirit true members of Christ. In this case it not only comprehends the saints who dwell on the earth, but all the elect who have existed from the beginning of the world. Often, too, by the name of Church is designated the whole body of mankind scattered throughout the world, who profess to worship one God and Christ, who by baptism are initiated into the faith; by partaking of the Lord's Supper profess unity in true doctrine and charity, agree in holding the word of the Lord, and observe the ministry which Christ has appointed for the preaching of it. [b:cc01090a65]In this Church there is a very large mixture of hypocrites, who have nothing of Christ but the name and outward appearance: of ambitious, avaricious, envious, evil-speaking men, some also of impurer lives, who are tolerated for a time, either because their guilt cannot be legally established, or because due strictness of discipline is not always observed.[/b:cc01090a65] Hence, as it is necessary to believe the invisible Church, which is manifest to the eye of God only, so we are also enjoined to regard this Church which is so called with reference to man, and to cultivate its communion.
(Institutes of the Christian Religion. IV, i, 7)

When in the {Apostles'} Creed we profess to believe the Church, reference is made [b:cc01090a65]not only to the visible Church of which we are now treating, but also to all the elect of God[/b:cc01090a65], including in the number even those who have departed this life.
(Institutes of the Christian Religion. IV, i, 2)

68. The Church is regarded in two points of view; as Invisible and Universal, which is the communion of saints; and as Visible and Particular. The Church is discerned by the pure preaching of the word, and by the lawful administration of the sacraments. (One Hundred Aphorisms)
[/quote:cc01090a65]

contra Wilson, who takes Calvin to task for being a pietist who focuses on "etherealism":

[quote:cc01090a65]The first error is that of individualistic pietism, assuming that invisible saints are the only saints, or rather, that invisible saintliness is the only kind. Advocates of the "ethereal Church" need to learn that, according to the Bible, a Christian is one who would be identified as such by a Muslim. Membership in the Christian faith is objective- it can be photograped and fingerprinted. (Reformed is Not Enough, p.21)[/quote:cc01090a65]


Poor Calvin, what an irrepressible Hellenist:
[quote:cc01090a65]This {distinction between the visible and invisible Church} can be very helpful, but it can create a few problems. We cannot encourage others to be faithful to the covenant if we are ignoring the covenant. In order to understand this, we have to refer to Hellenism again. The Hellenistic mind tends to see the ethereal, spiritual real as the "real" one...There is a religious version of this about, and this is the attitude which sees the "invisible"
Church as the "true" Church and the "visible" Church, at best, as only an approximation of the true Church. (Reformed is not enough, p. 69)[/quote:cc01090a65]

and speaking of WCF 25.2, Wilson takes the divines to task as well:

[quote:cc01090a65]And so here {WCF 25.2} is one of the rare places in which we would suggest an improvement on the language of the Confession. A problem is created when we affirm a belief in two Churches [i[i:cc01090a65]at the same moment in time[/i:cc01090a65], one visible and the other invisible. (Reformed is not Enough, p. 74)[/quote:cc01090a65]


I've said it many times; there is very little or no wheat at all in these "new formulations" but there is plenty of chaff. Maybe if we stop trying to be cute and smarter than Calvin, smarter than the divines, smarter than Luther, than the Three Forms of Unity, we can actually get to the work of the Church.

[Edited on 3-6-2004 by fredtgreco]
 
My problem with all of this is that I am by nature a covenant-breaker, I probably break it every day by a conservative estimate. Even in my best works, which are few & far between, I break it. I could never function in the churches of the Auburn 4. This is getting back to a righteousness which I cannot perform, I need the active righteousness of Christ.
 
Fred,

I admire the fact that you are zealous for confessional Christianity, and particularly of REFORMED confessional Christianity. I don't want to minimize the importance of the WCF or the 3FU, or even such theologians as Calvin or the Westminster divines.

But having said all these things, I don't for a second believe God blessed these men of God and the documents they penned to the extent that they got everything right the first time. In fact, I think there could be many areas of improvement.

God has continued to bless his church with great teachers. Biblical Theologians such as Vos, Ridderbos, Gaffin, Kline, and others have made many theological breakthroughs that influence our exegesis of texts and our understanding of biblical themes. More recently, the development of Literary Theology through such men as Richard Pratt, Bruce Waltke, Tremper Longman, and others have led to more breakthroughs in exegesis and understanding. Are these breakthroughs "chaff"? I don't think they are. Perhaps if there had been breakthroughs in Ancient Near Eastern studies in Calvin's day, it would have been John Calvin and not Meredith Kline who was formulating ideas about the covenant that we consider more contemporary ideas today (ideas which are the seed of ideas like the conditionality of the covenant, etc). But of course, that would have been fine if Calvin had done it. But because Meredith Kline did it almost 500 years later, his scholarship is somehow inferior to the scholarship of Calvin. And because Richard Pratt, Doug Wilson, Greg Bahnsen, John Frame, Ken Gentry, and other men come to different conclusions than Calvin and the Westminster divines, their ideas should bow the knee to the "real" champions of our faith. This is wrong, in my estimation. I am definitely against historical bigotry. I don't believe for a second that our generation today is somehow more intellectually capable than past generations. But I am also against the idea that generations of the past were more capable than we are today. Its not a matter of trying to be smarter than Calvin. Indeed, trying to compare what men like Wilson et al are doing today to what Calvin did in Geneva or the Westminster divines did in England is not a fair comparison at all, since both Calvin and the divines were preparing a systematic statement of the Reformed faith. They were attempting to solidify the faith as a whole, while men like Wilson and others today are specializing in specific areas of theology.

Theological formulations are either true enough to be considered true, or false enough to be considered false, but ALL theological formulations can be improved, simply because we are fallen, and our knowledge is finite and incomplete. God has not imparted full perfect knowledge to anyone, not even Calvin or the Westminster divines.

Now I know, many questions could be raised at this point and much more could be said. But I digress. I'm kinda tired now.
 
By the way, Phillip, I'm not sure who said the quotation you gave.

And Paul, was I right on my guess for the second quote?
 
[quote:c9509ee01a][i:c9509ee01a]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:c9509ee01a]
Fred,

I admire the fact that you are zealous for confessional Christianity, and particularly of REFORMED confessional Christianity. I don't want to minimize the importance of the WCF or the 3FU, or even such theologians as Calvin or the Westminster divines.

But having said all these things, I don't for a second believe God blessed these men of God and the documents they penned to the extent that they got everything right the first time. In fact, I think there could be many areas of improvement.

God has continued to bless his church with great teachers. Biblical Theologians such as Vos, Ridderbos, Gaffin, Kline, and others have made many theological breakthroughs that influence our exegesis of texts and our understanding of biblical themes. More recently, the development of Literary Theology through such men as Richard Pratt, Bruce Waltke, Tremper Longman, and others have led to more breakthroughs in exegesis and understanding. Are these breakthroughs "chaff"? I don't think they are. Perhaps if there had been breakthroughs in Ancient Near Eastern studies in Calvin's day, it would have been John Calvin and not Meredith Kline who was formulating ideas about the covenant that we consider more contemporary ideas today (ideas which are the seed of ideas like the conditionality of the covenant, etc). But of course, that would have been fine if Calvin had done it. But because Meredith Kline did it almost 500 years later, his scholarship is somehow inferior to the scholarship of Calvin. And because Richard Pratt, Doug Wilson, Greg Bahnsen, John Frame, Ken Gentry, and other men come to different conclusions than Calvin and the Westminster divines, their ideas should bow the knee to the "real" champions of our faith. This is wrong, in my estimation. I am definitely against historical bigotry. I don't believe for a second that our generation today is somehow more intellectually capable than past generations. But I am also against the idea that generations of the past were more capable than we are today. Its not a matter of trying to be smarter than Calvin. Indeed, trying to compare what men like Wilson et al are doing today to what Calvin did in Geneva or the Westminster divines did in England is not a fair comparison at all, since both Calvin and the divines were preparing a systematic statement of the Reformed faith. They were attempting to solidify the faith as a whole, while men like Wilson and others today are specializing in specific areas of theology.

Theological formulations are either true enough to be considered true, or false enough to be considered false, but ALL theological formulations can be improved, simply because we are fallen, and our knowledge is finite and incomplete. God has not imparted full perfect knowledge to anyone, not even Calvin or the Westminster divines.

Now I know, many questions could be raised at this point and much more could be said. But I digress. I'm kinda tired now. [/quote:c9509ee01a]

Craig,

I'm not arguing (as you know) that Calvin and the divines had some revelatory insights. What I am arguing is that they, rather than Wilson, Wilkins, Frame and any other who disagrees with them on critical doctrines, are the ones faithfully interpreting the Scriptures.

Isn't at least somewhat troubling to you that basically all that has come out of many of those you mention is confusion? I mean confusion from both supporters and detractors. Why is it that all of the Auburn 4's arguments basically hinge around - we aren't being understood - even when they have written books, given lectures, follow up lectures, follow up-follow up colloquia, and so on? Have we lost sight of the fact that one of the major requirements for a teacher in Christ's church is to be understood by LAYMEN? If professors at leading Reformed seminaries can't understand what you are teaching, how can the average elderly woman in the church? And if the laymen and seminary profs can't understand what you are teaching, what use is it?

Again, my point is not simply chronological bigotry. The Reformed understanding of justification has been held by men in its most refined form for over 400 years (and in its less refined form since the days of Augustine) . It has been held by Americans, Europeans, missionaries, Presbyterians, Baptists, Lutherans, Anglicans, pastors, professors, Greek scholars, and Hebrew scholars for centuries. It is not simply Calvin and Westminster we are talking about here. It is Beza, a Brakel, Witsius, Warfield, Hodge, Davies, Dabney, Bunyan, Owen, Stott, Spurgeon, Cunningham, Dagg, Henry, Poole, Berkhof, Pink, Machen, Watson, Buchanan, Henry Martyn, Piper, Sproul, Gerstner, Al Moehler, Vos, Ridderbos, Ladd, Doriani, and on and on.

How can all of them be so clear, and no all of a sudden everything is so muddy? And remember we are not talking about advancement along the same line of trajectory on a secondary subject - this is justification, the article on which the church stands or falls. Kline's advancement, for example, while helpful, did not "revolutionize" covenant theology. It merely gave additional proof and insight to support the classical covenantal theology formulation (Kline himself would admit as much). Somehow we forget when we get all giddy over Ridderbos and Vos that Owen wrote a Biblical Theology three centuries earlier, and Edwards had a massive treatment of Biblical theology and redemptive history.

So I must respectfully disagree with you. There are men today who desire to be innovative for the sake of being innovative. It is not helpful, and they should think more about the church then themselves.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

P
  • Locked
Let's start a Christian country
2 3
Replies
70
Views
6K
Peter
P
S
  • Locked
God wants me to play Playstation and not Xbox?
Replies
7
Views
2K
FrozenChosen
F
O
  • Locked
Jesus loves the little children.
2 3
Replies
64
Views
10K
Skyler
Skyler
R
  • Locked
a little confused
Replies
2
Views
2K
Archlute
Archlute
Romans922
  • Locked
What role does the Resurrection play in Justification?
Replies
10
Views
2K
fredtgreco
fredtgreco
Back
Top