Individualism and liberty only gores the ox of the “faith is all about family” people.

Logically, when one focuses on simply the ethics and the practical aspects of Christianity, one will necessarily move away from the metaphysical and epistemological aspects. You see this kind of thing in the “fundamentalist” circles, (unfortunately not the way Machen used it). If you question “why” then you are simply shunned. In any case, a shift in this direction cuts the whole of Christianity into little blocks, and it becomes lopsided.

I think this was spot on, and well worth the read

Thanks

And I know I will never be ontologically like God ad intra in any sense whatsoever. But that’s ok, I’ll be content with the Rom. 8:29 goal of perfect “image.”

My question concerns circular reasoning in presuppositional apologetics. Says Van Til, circular reasoning does not necessarily make for bad arguments (c.f. In Defense of the Faith 4th ed., 123, and particularly fn. 8). However, does this mean that circular arguments—begging the question—never makes for bad arguments? When, in presuppositionalism, do they make for bad arguments? This is relevant to Edwards because I am wondering why his natural theology gets labeled by Jeff as presuppositional and not as simply question-begging. E.g., some classic cosmological arguments get rejected for pretty overtly begging the question (some Reformed apologists make such criticisms, in fact) and it seems like Edwards makes such arguments.

On the other hand, Van Til at times, and some discussions of Van Til, seem to argue that natural theology arguments for God’s existence are only good arguments when circular. E.g., Bahnsen (Van Til’s Apologetic, 617ff) argues that there are presuppositional versions of the cosmological argument (though he wanders off before saying exactly what that argument would be). These arguments seem to simply say, e.g.:
1. God must be the cause of everything that has a cause (or, everything created)
???
C. Therefore, God exists.
This seems to suggest that the problem with many arguments in natural theology is that they did not beg the question enough, and Edwards successfully made some such arguments because he begged the question.

So, what’s the right thing for the Van Tillian to say here? Feel free to email me to tell me your thoughts, pbrucea@hotmail.com

Thank you for the excellent exposition. In my ethics I tend to emphasize the dominion mandate as setting forth the normativity of the heterosexual family and the importance the sexual complementarity of men and women in family. In this perspective I assume the permanent importance of family and complementary sexuality in God’s plan. Of course this like everything else must be redeemed and elevated (crucified and resurrected) through Jesus Christ and the Gospel.

But to recognize a further, deeper, and more important fulfillment of the mandate does not vacate the basic and immediate fulfillment. Of course I do not think the first fulfillment of the mandate is complete without the full fulfillment in Christ. Ultimately marriage and family is unto the glory of God in union with Christ. However, I don’t think that this means that children are simply optional or merely a matter of preference. Even if the dominion mandate is only complete in Christ it doesn’t follow that the originnal design is replaced or vacated. God from creation placed us in family and for many (most) Christians this remains one of the ordinary means of sanctification. So if we are called to marriage we are calle to children (this is the obvious emphasis of the Scriptures taken as a whole), albeit marriage is now given its full meaning and theological value in the great commission and the work of the church. In sum, the family and children remain ordinary means of sanctification but they only fulfill this funciton within the context of church and the great commission.

Does this fit with your understanding?

Best regards,

Benjamin Smith

The Bible’s clear answer to your question is, “no,” see Revelation 21-22.

“And I saw a new heaven and new earth; for the first heaven and first earth passed away…and He shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there shall no longer be any death; there shall no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.”

If the wages of sin is death, and in heaven, their will be no death, then, there will be no sin in heaven.

Jeff

Very interesting discussion about a thorny theological question, maybe unanswerable. To look at it from the flip side, can man sin once he is in heaven and in the presence of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost? Adam certainly knew the Father but he sinned so what about us? Maybe if you can answer one you can answer the other.

For my part, if I get there, I’ll certainly try to be on good behavior and stay there

Steve

The Principle of the Assignation of Divine Honour unto the Person of Christ, in both the Branches of it; which is Faith in Him.

The principle and spring of this assignation of divine honour unto Christ, in both the branches of it, is faith in him. And this hath been the foundation of all acceptable religion in the world since the entrance of sin. There are some who deny that faith in Christ was required from the beginning, or was necessary unto the worship of God, or the justification and salvation of them that did obey him. For, whereas it must be granted that “without faith it is impossible to please God,” which the apostle proves by instances from the foundation of the world, Heb. xi. — they suppose it is faith in God under the general notion of it, without any respect unto Christ, that is intended. It is not my design to contend with any, nor expressly to confute such ungrateful opinions — such pernicious errors. Such this is, which — being pursued in its proper tendency — strikes at the very foundation of Christian religion; for it at once deprives us of all contribution of light and truth from the Old Testament. Somewhat I have spoken before of the faith of the saints of old concerning him. I shall now, therefore, only confirm the truth, by some principles which are fundamental in the faith of the Gospel.

Christologia, Chapter 10 http://www.ccel.org/ccel/owen/christologia.xiv.html

My initial thought after reading your comment is that it’s up to a Christian family as to whether or not they want to have kids. I’d be cool with that.

Also, a tangentially related thought. – The great commission commands to make disciples of all nations. Piper in Let the Nations Be Glad says that what Christ meant by “all nations” was some from every people group, and not every individual Gentile believer. This seems to fit nicely with what you wrote. …Piper also makes the connection between Gen 12 and Matt 28.

All good stuff to think about. It’s very interesting and the first time I’ve heard such teachings. =)

In Adam situation, his knowledge of God was something other than 1 or 0. If it was a 1, when the serpent, said, “If you do this, you can know things like God does”, Adam could have said, “I am a creature, and I will never know as the creator does. Such is a silly claim.” When Adam ate of the fruit, he did in fact do so because it looked to be his best option at the moment, just as his descendants do and have done since then.

There was nothing defective in Adam that caused him to not seek to know and understand God properly. He simply had the ability to go one way or the other. He went the wrong way and all have suffered in his wake.

Cat got your tongue?

1) Barth rejected the primacy of justification, instead giving equal importance to justification, sanctification, and vocation.
2) Barth criticized Luther (and lutheranism) for the dichotomy of a God Hidden (that predestines some for salvation and not others – which calvinism theology understands very well) and a God Revealed (that wills the salvation of all men – which the theology of Karl Barth understands very well). I personally think that lutheranism in a way acknowledges the validity of the theology of Barth (God Revealed) and Calvin (God Hidden). I know most lutherans are not fond of either Barth or Calvin, but I do consider both of them to have sound doctrine and to be among the greatest theologians that ever lived.

3) Though Barth and lutheranism teach the objective salvation (justification) of all mankind, there is a difference in that Barth’s theology advocates the election of all mankind, every man is elect in Christ. Lutheranism on the other hand teaches that the elect are those that have saving faith in Jesus Christ.

Regardless of the above three areas of conflict between Barth and lutheranism, what lutherans have in common with Barth far exceeds the differences. Both theologies acknowledge the 5 solas of the Reformation. And the same can be said of Reformed theology (calvinism). This is why I support Mike Horton and the White Horse Inn who tries to unite in a way all that the Reformation (both lutheran and calvinist as well as Karl Barth) stands for. Because let’s face it, at the end of the day, all other forms of christianity except for the lutheran and reformed tradition in one way or another run serious risk of ending up in elagianism or semi-pelagianism and a doctrine of salvation by works, because they are not solidly founded on the augustinian doctrines of grace.

So after I heard this program I did a bit more research on Rahner. What I wrote in my posts were my conclusions on Rahner’s theology. What strikes the me the most is how Rahner can do theology without backing up his conclusions from the biblical text (he’s basically doing philosophy), even though he has a reputation as a sola scriptura theologian, he’s certainly not.

I was never under the impression that you were advocating for Rahner’s theology. I say it again, you guys did an amazing job. And if you ever get get registered as a charity organization for tax purposes in Canada (and I think you should since many canadians follow your Ministry) I would gladly make a donation to support the work of your Ministry. The White Horse Inn and Reformedforum are do an amazing job of spreading the word of God. You guys are amazing preachers of the gospel, and I would not expect anything less from the calvinist / reformed tradition. Beside the lutheran tradition, the reformed are the only christian group today that represents the doctrines of grace in the tradition of Auigustine, Luther, and Calvin.

Oliphint: “Logic, like all else save God himself, is created. ”

Does that say logic is created?

I tried to reply to this below. I think you have a good point for discussion, though I don’t think it would make the “reproduction” mandate mandatory for all believers today in the same way that it was for Adam. Adam was created as a family unit – completed with the creation of Eve. I believe that all believers – unmarried, or unable to bear children – can fulfill that mandate as we understand it in its fruition through the church today. Hopefully below I’ve explained my reasoning.

Thanks!

Thanks for your comments, and thanks for listening. There is a bit of an audio popping that we are trying to figure out and eliminate. Eventually, we’ll track it down, but in the meantime, I hope it’s not too distracting.

I think Brian’s comment above expresses a similar concern regarding the dominion mandate and the connection to children. I agree that “be fruitful and multiply” has application to children. The command to be fruitful is given to the animal kingdom prior to the human kingdom, with the obvious meaning that the animals are to multiply. Perhaps you’re right in that more time could have been spent in the biological multiplication to which this mandate calls us. “Blessing” itself carries with it the connotation of multiplication. God commands the animal kingdom – and also the human kingdom – to multiply in order to rule in the realm in which he has placed them. In my opinion, it is appropriate to bring in Ps. 127 – “blessed is the man who fills his quiver!” If I remember correctly, I made that application when preaching on Gen 1:28.

But when we view “be fruitful” in light of the rest of Scripture, I don’t believe that is the primary intention of the command today.

The second set of commands in that same blessing is about “ruling” – vs. 28 – “subdue it and have dominion” – that the image of God could be replicated all over the globe – that as God rules the heavens, so man would rule all over the earth. Humankind, ruling as God’s vice-regent, was to build a kingdom on earth that would give glory to God. They were to spread God’s name over all the earth, and they were to produce a royal race of image bearers. God crowns them with glory and honor and sends them out to their tasks.

The problem is, of course, humankind sins, the entire created order falls, and humankind can’t rule as he should. Satan usurps this role. He couldn’t have God’s throne, so he takes man’s. He couldn’t rule over the heavens, so he rules over the earth. That’s why Satan is spoken of as the “ruler of this world.” Merely having children, even for believers, can no longer fulfill this mandate. The image of God has been thoroughly contaminated (though not obliterated). One must be redeemed before he can rule after the image of God.

So the restoration of dominion comes through the victory of the gospel.

The writer of Hebrews walks us through this story in 2:6-10:
“It has been testified somewhere, “What is man, that you are mindful of him, or the son of man, that you care for him? You made him for a little while lower than the angels; you have crowned him with glory and honor, putting everything in subjection under his feet.” Now in putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control. At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him.”

The writer of Hebrews is quoting from Psalm 8. It speaks of man, given a place of dominion, but fallen under the dominion of sin. He takes the psalm, which speaks of man, and applies it to Christ (Heb 2:6-10):

“But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering.”

Adam is given a kingdom, but he fails. Instead of exercising dominion, he falls under the dominion of sin. God must provide a way for him to escape the dominion of death and sin, and so we see the Covenant of Grace (Gen 3:15). God will ensure an offspring and from that offspring bring salvation from the dominion of sin. Here “be fruitful and multiply” takes on a new dimension. Isaac and Rebekah had children – but they did not both qualify as a fulfillment of this mandate – only the one whom God redeemed.

In Gen. 12 we’ll see that God calls Abraham out of a country of darkness to form the promised offspring, and he blesses him – giving him the commission that is first given in the Garden of Eden. Adam fails. Noah – as righteous as he was – fails. Here the mandate is given to Abram. This time not directly as a command, but as a promise. What man has failed to do – God will do. The children of Abraham would multiply and fill the earth – populating the kingdom that God created for them.

It was through the blessing and line of Abraham that the seed of redemption would take root and grow, culminating in the ultimate blessing – the seed of Abraham, Jesus Christ, the second Adam – the final Adam – the pure, true, and exact image of God. He comes, frees his people from the tyranny of sin, and rules and reigns in a way greater than the first Adam could ever have done. By his perfect life, defeat of Satan, death, and resurrection, all who are united to Christ will rule and reign as God intended back in Genesis 1.

In the meantime, the mandate of dominion applies to us in the spiritual sphere. The church is called to reproduce. To be fruitful. To make disciples of every nation – to take the good news of the gospel of God in the image of Christ and spread it all over the earth. Through the testimony of Christ the Church bears the gospel forth throughout the globe, to recreate the image of God in turning lost souls into sons of God. And in carrying out the promise to Abraham – in taking the gospel all over the world, we are declaring the name of Christ – the one who is in himself the fulfillment of the promises made to and the responsibilities placed upon Adam.

We build the kingdom of Christ through our spiritual offspring. As God gave provision to Adam in the garden to fulfill the mandate, so also he gives gifts to the church to fulfill its mandate (I Cor. 12; Eph. 4, etc.).
An excellent resource on this is found in John Fesko’s “Last Things First.” I highly recommend that. http://www.wtsbooks.com/last-things-first-john-fesko-9781845502294 John points out that in the Greek translation of the Old Testament there is a direct explicit correspondence the blessing of the offspring and the great commission. He concludes, “With the advent of the second Adam, Christ takes up the work of the dominion mandate by producing offspring with his helpmate, the Church, and creates those who bear his image.” I believe that is well said.

Even if you are unable to bear children, or are not married, you still can fulfill the command “to be fruitful and multiply,” and can have many offspring – as did Paul, who considered Timothy to be “my true child in the faith.” And this we do until we receive the “new creation,” where we will live in perfect fellowship with God.

Anyway, I strongly disagree with calling the extracalvinisticum the extracatholicum, or the extrapatristicum. Lutheran Christology is taken largely from Patristic sources. Our Confessions have a section titled “the Catalogue of Testimonies” which is a selection of quotes taken from various Patristic writings. Cyril’s soteriology, for example, is largely based on the conviction of the deification of Christ’s human nature. This is present in the Cappadocians, Athanasius, and various other Eastern fathers. Perhaps Calvin’s christology is representative of late western medieval theology, but it is not universally Patristic.

I also disagree with some of your criticisms of Barth and Rahner; Christ taking human nature (the universal rather than the particular) upon himself, and changing something about humanity universally is not necessarily Hegelian or Heideggerian. The concept is implied in Irenaeus’ recapitulation soteriology. I understand that it doesn’t work within a Reformed framework, due to its particularism, but it really is an ancient idea. Luther uses similar language as well.

Put another way, there’s a good reason why Warfield’s Calvin and Augustine isn’t cited among those works that analyze Augustine’s impact on the Reformation . . .

By the way, I noticed something odd with the audio: there’s a periodic clipping sound effect, almost like scissors-snipping, throughout the broadcast. I haven’t noticed this with other audio I’ve been listening to, so wondering if you guys know what that is all about?

What does it say?

“the created character of the logical function”

Steve

THE MUTE CHRISTIAN UNDER THE SMARTING ROD OF GOD by Thomas Brooks

You can find it in Volume 1 of his works.

Since God was very specific regarding rules and consequences regarding circumcision, does it bother you at all that the same cannot be said for water baptism?

Question: How would the early part of this conversation impact the Christian’s view on having children in marriage? It seems the OT says it’s mandatory.

I am wondering if and how the idea of antithesis in the theology of Paul fits into this early Genesis account. Vos in his Pauline eschatology points out that antithesis lies behind the dualities one commonly sees in Paul such as the present age & the age to come, old and new, first Adam and last Adam, etc. I would think one might expect this to appear pretty early in Genesis. This seems to more obviously come into play in the story of the temptation by the serpent, the fall, the curse, the enmity between the seed of the woman & the serpent by God, the expulsion from the garden, etc. but I suspect it might occur even earlier at least implicitly; for example, maybe even in the creator / creature distinction through which God covenantally condescends to mankind and places him in a probationary state. Another possibility is the duality between creation of heaven and earth as distinct realms and God taking His Sabbath rest, i.e., being enthroned, in heaven while man is given dominion on earth which includes judgement, e.g., of the serpent who is Satan.

Romans 3:23 – 3:25
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.

Now somebody may argue that the last sentence of Romans 3:25 makes room for the anonymous christian. I say that the former sins that God passed refer to the old testament Saints that had not seen the Messiah, men of faith, Israelites that were saved under the Old Testament dispensation of grace as Jesus taught in John 4:22 which I quoted in my post above from yesterday..

You see here’s the problem with Karl Rahner, he denies the total depravity of man. He also denies that the sole remedy to this total depravity of man is the blood of Christ received through faith, Romans 3:25 which I just quoted. Saving grace is not given to man in any other way that through faith in the propitiation of sin through Christ’s precious blood. And this faith is a gift of God. This is what separates classic protestantism (lutheran, reformed, and neo-orthodox as Karl Barth) from Roman Catholicism and evangelicalism (like Rick Warren and Billy Graham). Both roman catholics and evangelicals deny the total depravity of man, they teach that man can be saved by works whether it be obedience to the conscience or making a decision for Christ. The altar call is a form of neo pelagianism by which it its taught that man is capable of making a decision that will change his life forever and profit him eternal life, scripture teaches the opposite that no man can embrace Christ unless he be born again first (what the reformed would call regeneration and lutherans would say that God has to create faith prior any man being able to receive Christ as Saviour).

But now and after giving due recognition to this exceptional program and having given appropriate praise to the two hosts of the program, I have to say that I am puzzled. What has the world come to? Karl Rahner is supposed to be a sola scriptura theologian and is very well respected. Where in the bible is that professing muslims, hindus, orthodox jews or atheists will be in heaven? Where does the bible say that every man will have an opoortunity to be saved based on how he acts in accordance to his conscience? Does Karl Rahner know there is an old testament and a new testament where God says who and how anybody will be saved? Does Karl Rahner know the doctrine of election? Does he know that in the old testament salvation is of the jews and nobody else? And in the new testament salvation is of those that have faith in Christ and nobody else? Scripture makes it so clear but Karl Rahner chose to ignore scripture, he is not a sola scriptura theologian. In the old testament salvation is of the jews. and Jesus made this very clear, In John 4:22 Jesus told the Samaritan woman “You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews.”

It’s not up to Karl Rahner to say that every man can be saved. Jesus clearly taught in John 4:22 which I just quoted that in the Old Testament salvation belonged to those that knew God which were the Jews. Salvation did not belong to every people but to God’s chosen people Israel. And not to all of Israel but only to the children of the promise:

Romans 9 verses 6 to 9 :
“6 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, 7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.”[b] 8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. 9 For this is the word of promise: “At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son.”

Karl Rahner’s theology to me is nothing more than a new form of pelagianism or semi-pelagianism where man is able to choose his own salvation and natural revelation (in the conscience and nature) is sufficient for salvation. None of this is taught anywhere in scripture. Karl Rahner is a philosopher that chose to reject all scripture and write his own man made theology.