Comments for Some Thoughts

Comment on Reading Recap: July – Dec 2011 by Joel P

Joel P — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:16:57 +0000

Ha! I’m definitely guilty, too. I read a couple of those the year I read 50, but they were worth reading, and as long as they have an ISBN, they still count as books!

Comment on Reading Recap: July – Dec 2011 by Aron

Aron — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 02:27:55 +0000

@Joel: Nope, it’s you. I blame you because I was trying to hit 50 books last year and was behind! I don’t think that book is even 100 pps., so it was an easy notch. I know. I sold out. It lacks character. I was blinded by ambition…reading isn’t a competitive sport (or is it?)
Fischer’s book is excellent. I have a one year reading plan if you’re interested; I took my time going through it, reading a few pages every Saturday. Let me know.

Comment on Reading Recap: July – Dec 2011 by Joel P

Joel P — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 02:06:43 +0000

1. I think that’s the first time I’ve read of Sproul being described as bathroom material. Not that it doesn’t happen, but…
2. Why do you blame me? I’ve never even heard of that book. Unless that comment is for another Joel, of course.
3. Fischer’s book was the first to add to my wishlist from this list. Never heard of it, but looks great (especially that edition).

Comment on The Ethic of Seeing by Greg Gentry

Greg Gentry — Thu, 29 Sep 2011 16:58:51 +0000

I haven’t read Kloosterman, so I was just going by the quote you gave. :-)

Comment on The Ethic of Seeing by Aron

Aron — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 13:30:05 +0000

I think Kloosterman, VanDrunen, and Van Til (and little old I) would all agree that all facts are essentially revelatory. That is, the revelatory aspect is not a different ‘part’ of a fact, but belongs to its inner essence. The unbeliever sees the fact, but wrongfully bifurcates it from what it reveals: he attempts to mute the fact so that he can still ‘use’ the fact. In other words, truth is not composed of parts: the unbeliever’s bifurcation of truth is part of his sinful suppression of truth “in unrighteousness.”

Kloosterman, on the other hand, says the unbeliever even represses the supposedly muted fact of 2+2=4. That’s not true. Unbelievers don’t come up with arguments why 2+2 does not =4, and they don’t refuse to answer ’4′ on the quiz, nor express rebellion by writing ’5′ instead. I think he overshoots Romans 1:18f, and denies too much for the unbeliever. VanDrunen, Van Til, and Calvin (and anyone else who affirms what we now refer to as common grace) would, I think, disagree with him. This is difficult to navigate while also rejecting Thomas’ nature/grace dualism. Schaeffer himself, an ardent opponent of Thomistic dualism, fell prey to it when he said unbelievers only see the ‘bottom half of the orange’ when they reject its revelatory message of God’s existence. As Bahnsen said, this schizophrenia is “awkward to articulate”. This is also why Van Til would emphasize that the antithesis is in principle, not in practice – that “unbelievers can count, but they cannot account for counting.”

So yes, I agree with Kloosterman that all facts objectively and essentially reveal God. I disagree that Romans 1:18f teaches that they reject all truth. They drink the water happily, but deny its source with vehemence. They appreciate and use the rain, often in very wise ways, but don’t glorify God for it. Kloosterman’s road leads to a denial of common grace, and I think that is somewhat outside the Reformed tradition, at least as I understand it.

Comment on The Ethic of Seeing by Greg Gentry

Greg Gentry — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 05:07:50 +0000

I think you have better illustrations though, for sure. ;-)

Comment on The Ethic of Seeing by Greg Gentry

Greg Gentry — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 05:06:38 +0000

I think you and Kloosterman actually agree. Either that or I am missing how he is saying something different.

You both refer to ‘real truth’ as the unseparated fact that (2+2=4 and reveals God).

I don’t think Kloosterman is saying that (2+2=4) is untrue apart from (and reveals God), it’s just not all the way true. It’s true as far as it goes, but it is an unfinished sentence. The unbeliever refuses to finish the equation where the believer makes an effort to do so.

So there IS a sense in which 2+2=4 is not true. The same sense as if you leave a few pieces out of a jugsaw puzzle. What you have is correct, it’s true, but it’s still “wrong” until you put the last few pieces in.

But I think you are both saying the same. ^_^

Comment on The Rule of Elders (presbuteros) by Greg

Greg — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 10:00:28 +0000

I like yours better for the reasons you list. They are good emphasis(pl) that grudem’s diagram misses. Also I think his version has it wrong in a couple of other senses as well…
I don’t want to do away with his diagram entirely, but I do want to turn it on its head. As it stands it looks far too romish or episcopal. As it stands it looks hierarchical, which you point out is not helpful. And while there is a greater authority, it is an authority in service, and so while ruling, the elders are actually beneath the congregation, serving and protecting them. And so the diagram should be turn on its head, the church at the top with the GA at the bottom and Christ himself below as the foundation (and also atop as the head, but that’s a separate emphasis).
The other issue I would take is from the perspective of church discipline, one of the main reasons why there is such a thing as polity at all. And in that regard i would replace the congregation with the individual, the local session below him, then presby, and ga. Each individual in the church is afforded the full gamet of the church courts, appealing to broader, and therefore wiser, ‘judges’.
So instead of portraying presby polity like that of rome, a single entity ruling over more and more as they go down the diagram, it is instead the individual believer (or church) at the top being served by more and more men as necessary.
I cant draw a picture on my phone so i hope the description is adequate. ^_^

Comment on Reading Recap: Jan – Jun 2011 by Aron

Aron — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 13:24:09 +0000

I do have some fiction on the list…but surprisingly little, now that you’ve pointed it out to me. I’ll have to remedy that; there are plenty of classics I’ve never read (Melville, Dickens, etc.). Thanks for the note!

Comment on Reading Recap: Jan – Jun 2011 by Joel

Joel — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 12:31:14 +0000

Definitely some interesting titles, Aron. I’ve added some to my wishlist – thanks for the recommendations. I have Noll’s Search for Christian America on my summer reading list, but don’t think I’ll read half a dozen on the topic like you. One will probably be enough for me! Any fiction on the horizon for you?