Be ye therefore perfect even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. Matt 5:48
A MUSIC SCHOOL, where students from age three upwards learn various instruments, is a great place to learn about perfection. A significant number of the students in this particular school learn either violin or piano, and for very young students, the violin has some added attraction. For a start, it’s possible to buy an instrument in fractional sizes so that the very young can fit their arms and hands around the instrument. No such ease exists with piano, and young students must simply learn to spread their fingers and extend their hand in order to cope with the physical dimensions of the instrument.
How difficult it is on the hearing of adults as these young students, especially the violinists, struggle to master their instruments. One of the few things more difficult to endure than someone learning the violin is a beginner on the bagpipes.[1]
Never Let The Facts Get In The Way of A Good Theory
I had another epiphany. You know, one of those “aha” moments when someone switches on a light.
The light on this occasion was Dr. Greg Bahnsen, and I was listening to the CD set Defending the Christian World View Against All Opposition. It’s a great set. No. It’s a brilliant set.
But what got me thinking was his comment about facts. Facts convince no one. You cannot start with the facts and end up with biblical truth. To attempt to reason that way is to reverse the process.
“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge” (Prov. 9:10).
“Luther himself began with victory and ended in defeat, a self-tortured, guilt-ridden, and bloated man. He who had been the hope of the Christian poor had been denounced by them as Herr Luder, Mr. Liar, decoy, law scoundrel, or carrion. Luther could rightfully plead that his was not a theology of social revolution, but he had raised false hopes among the peasants. ‘Sola Sciptura’ was his standard: the word of God alone. This to the people meant not only justification by faith but also the sovereign law of God. To that law they appealed, and Luther denounced God’s law in favor of statist law. . . .
“Calvin also made possible the revival of natural law by his loose views of the law of God. The Puritans for a time saved Calvinism from itself by their emphasis on Biblical law, only to succumb themselves to the intellectual climate of neoplatonism and also the lure of the natural law. The Reformation as a whole moved form victory to defeat, from relevance to irrelevance, from a challenge to the world to a surrender to the world or a meaningless withdrawal from it. Rome, Geneva, Wittenberg, and Canterbury retreated also into an ineffectual pietism. They were all now of the world but not in the world.”[1]
See also:
Why I Am Not (Always) A Calvinist.
Calvin and Usury.
The Myth of Calvinism.
Neopolatonism and Calvinism.
In the first part of this Tribute to R.J. Rushdoony I recalled the personal side of my relationship with him and some of the fond memories I have as a result of a 21-year association.
In this portion of the Tribute, I’m going to highlight what I think is Rush’s very significant contribution to Christian thought.
The name R.J. Rushdoony is tied up with two concepts: theonomy and Christian Reconstruction. But for Rushdoony, these two concepts are tied together in a unique manner.
For those of us raised outside of Reformed circles, his call to return to God’s law was somewhat radical. Yet for those raised on Reformed catechisms, Rushdoony’s view was not that unusual in some respects. Both the Heidelberg Catechism and the Westminster Larger Catechism expound the Ten Commandments using what Rushdoony called “case law”. That is, the Ten Commandments were given substance through the many laws given in the Pentateuch (or Torah).
Many of Rushdoony’s followers, then and now, came from outside the Reformed tradition. What is curious, however, is the hostility Rushdoony received from the Reformed community, and I can understand why.
“If not another penny was borrowed starting now, and we started to pay back all that debt at a rate of one dollar per second, it would take over 100,000 years to pay it all off?” – Scott Craig Mooney
Debt and usury are tied together. This is the thesis of Scott Craig Mooney in his original book on the topic, Usury: Destroyer of Nations. Now he’s returned to the fray with a small — but powerful — reminder that we’re in economic trouble. The Fall of the House of Usury
Mr. Mooney is concerned that no one is talking about what is really wrong, and what is really wrong is usury. The reason for the lack of discussion on usury is simple: no one really believes it is a principle to be found in Scripture and practiced today. One of the reasons for this is the apparent “refutation” of usury by John Calvin.
A contents of a letter by John Calvin to Oekolampadius provides us with insight into the great reformer’s view on the topic of usury. It also provides an opportunity to view any biblical arguments that might be found to support the pro-usury position.
Calvin’s position, however, appears somewhat ambiguous. For example, he argues on the one hand that “there is no scriptural passage that totally bans usury.” This is true, but the issue at stake today is not whether there is a general ban on usury, but whether there is any ban at all on the charging of usury. The Old Testament did not place a total ban on usury: it allowed usury to be charged to foreigners.
While he is not prepared to argue against usury on biblical grounds, Calvin nevertheless attempts to put moderation on the charging of interest. He prefers that “usurers were chased from every country.” Hardly an endorsement for usury.
DO YOU BELIEVE IN SPIRITUAL POWER?
In part 3 of this series, I explored the idea of the church as the body of Christ. Not in a nominalist sense, but somehow in a real sense. I noted some indicators of this in contemporary Christian thought as it pertains to politics.
It seems the only valid reason to seek change in the nation through political means is because the political realm has the power to change things. Now this concept of power is a compelling one and often mistakenly applied.
In the Bible power and authority are connected. To have authority was to have power. Jesus said, “All authority is given to Me” (Matt. 28:18). Was he speaking as the Triune God in general, or more specifically as the second Person of the Trinity? There is a fine difference, because Jesus and the Father are One, in essence if not in their functions. But Jesus appears to indicate all authority belongs to Him as Second Person of the Trinity.
When it comes to any consideration of the future, most people consider death somewhere in the distance. Only a serious illness in ourselves or a loved one brings home the reality of mortality.
The Scriptures, however, contain three promises pertaining to longevity of one kind or another. The promises are all conditioned upon behavior — ethical behavior. Interestingly, it is not correct thought that is important, but correct action. Obeying the Torah is more important than arguing Calvinism or any other -ism, unless that -ism leads to changed behavior. While thoughts and actions are connected, too many people want to argue Calvinism rather than how to apply God’s Law. Calvinism’s objective, of course, is to make sure we do not let the law become meritorious — “works of the law.” A misplaced emphasis on gnosis, however, can help bury action — godly living according to Torah.
The Image of God
A worldview, by definition, is the idea that all areas of life can be viewed from the mountain top of certain principles. In this series, I’ve concentrated on just one of those principles, But I have assumed — or presupposed — another two principles at all times. The reason they are presupposed? They are inescapable concepts; you cannot eliminate them from your assumptions.
Behind our theory of knowledge (epistemology – how do we know things, and how do we know that we know) is an underlying assumption about ourselves, other people, and the world that we comprehend around us.
Meet the Apostles of Denial
“Everything is just a matter of opinion. You have your opinion. I have my opinion. Truth is whatever you perceive it to be.”
So said a young lady in my home recently. A Christian young lady educated in the best public schools and the best state universities.
And she attends a church that cannot advise her how to tell the difference between truth and error, right and wrong, good and evil.
Dreaming the Impossible Dream
There can only be one debate in the construction of a worldview. How do you have a discussion without assuming the implied truths of the Biblical worldview?
Imagine, for a moment – if you can – the idea of evolution. How did language begin? Perhaps it was something like this. The first form of life with vocal chords made a gesture towards an object and made a sound, maybe a grunt. And his or her mate replied, “Uh?” So the first grunter responded to that by repeating his first grunt, and again received another “Uh?” Oops! Sorry, in order to grunt a reply, there must have been two forms of life with vocal chords. Guess they evolved in pairs. Or, maybe they didn’t evolve. (But that’s another story.)
Recent Comments