Credo Ut Intelligam

Freedom

In the later part of the 20th century, a political conservative was a classic liberal: individualistic in a quasi-libertarian manner, democratic, and egalitarian; he stood opposed to modern liberalism, which was collectivist, socialistic, democratic, and egalitarian; and to 60s-style radicalism, which was individualistic in a licentious manner, socialistic, democratic, and egalitarian. Now, in the 21st century, we have socialistic politicians calling themselves conservatives because they stand opposed to modern radicalism which is now standard liberalism: the line that defines a moderate keeps moving leftward.

But some of us would oppose modern liberalism with something other than classic liberalism. Perhaps we are but a lonely few, but some of us are wary of the socialistic expansion of government for reasons that have nothing to do with libertarian views of individual property-rights. But to do this involves calling into question those democratic and egalitarian ideals that the the staunchest talk-radio conservative shares with the most urbane leftist intellectual. Whoever questions such a shared, fundamental conviction about what is good and right can expect not to be taken seriously. Our views, we are tacitly assured, are either silly, crazy, or wicked.

A Layman's Conjecture Regarding the First Few Verses of the Bible.

Christians, even those of us who don't know Hebrew, have an interest in studying the OT as carefully as we can. For good or ill, the interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis has become a theological hot-spot, and it raises questions for laymen like me, who yearn for the unity in the family of Christ, but who also are committed to the purity of doctrine. Before addressing the text directly, I will say a few words about inspiration in general, then procede to investigate the cultural context in which the text was written.

DW and Xon on the Age of the Earth

Here I really do have a beef with Doug Wilson. And this time I'm not being jocular. What he says in this post is very foolish. Let me be clear: It's not his young-earth exegesis that's foolish (just incorrect). It's the atrocious interbreeding of a slippery slope with an ad hominem, along with his intolerance w/r/t adiaphora, that makes him come out sounding like a fundamentalist.

Toqueville on Industrialism and Aristocracy

This time, I'll translate.

Nupta Electa

I hope you all understand how jocular I was being in my last post. Life is too short for arguing, seriously, about whether or not so-and-so's essay, the substance of which I affirm, had an insufficient emphasis on this or that point. If I seemed to be doing that, it was only for the fun of calling Doug Wilson (of all people) baptistic! But behind my jocularity there was a serious point. The truth that, in the Lord's supper, we feed upon the very body and blood of Christ is a truth I care very much about. And I am sad that this truth is not taught in our churches (I only discovered it by reading Calvin). Of course, it isn't Doug Wilson who is leading the way in this forgetfulness of our theological tradition. Quite the contrary. When it comes to sacramental theology, Wilson and the other FVers are leading the way in exposing and correcting such forgetfulness. So, in my last post, I was really (if you can belive it) expressing my appreciation for FV theology. In this post, I want to continue expressing my appreciation for FV theology, this time in the area of ecclesiology and election.

What is Really Present?

Here's a point on which I'm more FV than Doug Wilson: I take a more realistic view of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. Wilson's view, as he expresses it here, is rather wishy-washy. Which is unusual for him. A Lutheran, Matthew N. Petersen, has been very deftly defeating Wilson in the comments.

Blunders

Has anyone else noticed how often scholars who aren't themselves part of the Calvinistic tradition get Calvinism so egregiously wrong -- I mean when they are writing as scholars specifically about Calvinism and Calvinists? Two quick examples -- one a blatant error of fact on a specific doctrine, the other a myopic inability to "get" the most basic ground-motive of the Reformed faith:

The Calvinists took the bread and wine as symbols only, simple reminders of the Last Supper. When Calvin was questioned about the Real Presence, he said that Christ was everywhere and hence present at the sacrament also. (p. 29 From Dawn to Decadence. Jacques Barzun. Harper-Collins, Perennial: 2001.)

Independence of mind ... was stimulated by the new Calvinistic faith. The Kirk had removed from its members any assurance of eternal salvation by the work of the Church and its sacraments. On the contrary, a man's salvation depended on himself: he must prove himself to be one of God's elect -- a congenial doctrine to people who had always believed in self-reliance and a man's importance to himself. (p. 70 The Scotch-Irish: A Social History. James G Leyburn. Chapel Hill U of NC Press: 1962.)

If scholars are so befuddled when it comes to a tradition that still exists contemporary with their scholarship, how much can we trust the conclusions of modern scholars when they tell us about the mindset of, say, second-temple Jews? Don't take that question as more cynical than it was meant to be. I think such scholarship needs to be given a serious look. But I also want to be cautious: the potential for unnoticed (and perhaps uncorrectable) mistakes needs to be taken into account. Stepping back from the work of examining the scholarship itself to see how compelling it is -- even the most compelling-seeming (from our vantage point) scholarship may face a reliability issue. I assume it is not completely unreliable. It is, then, "somewhat" reliable. What are we to make of this somewhat-reliable historical scholarship? What role should it play in our interpretation of Scripture?