I was alerted to a post by my Minders π over at Parchment & Pen Blog. Sam Storms wrote a post articulating the exhausting and tired old fodder that makes up the usual discussion surrounding who God is and thus what 
salvation looks like from a Classic Calvinist perspective. Predictably the status quo debate has now ensued in the comment meta, wherein I felt it my duty — given my Keepers π — to do due diligence and alert these somewhat well intentioned brethren to how wrong they are. Per my humble self, I have registered three comments now; and according to the normal communication loop, thus far (at the writing of this post), there has been no response to the sheer brilliance that I have evinced (for free, no less π ) on their rather pedantic and typical exchange. Here is what my last comment said over there (although I don’t know if it will remain my last comment):
Also, it is naive to assume that the only categories to work from in this debate are those represented by the polar opposites of Classic Calvinism/Arminianism. The reason you guys canβt get anywhere is because you all operate from the same philosophical ground provided by Thomas Aquinas or Thomism. Let me clear it up for all of you: you are all what is called classical theists, and thus itβs not a matter of offering different conceptual schemas about the nature of God or man; instead itβs just an issue of shifting your referent points and emphasizing different syllAblEs with the same words. You both Calv/Arm (classics) believe God works through βdecreesβ construed through the metaphysics and causality provided by Aristotle; you both suppose that God is a βsubstanceβ (who has accidents, so His attributes and persons); you both believe that grace and sin are created qualities ( privatio); you both believe that by Spirit imbued grace you are enabled to cooperate (operative grace or habitus) with God in your salvation (or that youβll Persevere); you both believe that predestination and election have to do with particular people instead of a Particular person (the God-man); you both believe that eternal life and damnation have to do with quantity vs. Trinitarian relationship; you both believe that the cross represents a transactional moment wherein God buys an βelectβ group of people (whether that be based upon his arbitrary choice or His foreknowledge) β so your reductionistic view of a forensics only atonement; and you both are simply dead wrong! Can it be anymore clear than that 
?
Obviously, I am being somewhat facetious with some of the tone of my post here; but in all reality it is only “some” of my tone, most of it — in principle — I am quite serious about! Classic Calvinists and Arminians simply do not get it! Most of these fine folks (who I am sure love the Lord) in this thread — have never really considered the fact that the “history” of the Reformed tradition itself has much more nuance to it than the rather sociologically popular forms of Calvinism and Arminianism that they have been taken by, actually exists — in the history! Clearly, you can disagree with me (and be wrong π ), but you cannot disagree that the “history” of the Reformed tradition (and that includes Barth, Torrance, et al) has conceptual possibilities; that as of yet, most Christians who claim the name Calvinist or Arminian have never ventured into. That really is my point. Sure, you can disagree with me; but don’t forget my point!
Art thou he that troubleth Israel?
Lovin’ it Bobby…absolutely lovin’ it! I pray that some of these folks will start listening to what you are saying…
I’ve suspected for the longest time that classic calvinism is dialectical. It can only function by simultaneously positing its antithesis (be it Rome or Arminianism). These are the only categories in which it makes sense.
@SG,
No. Just the “Church!” π
@Brian M.,
Hey great to hear from you, thanks! I just hope, really, that if anything, I will provoke some of these folks to pick up someone like Barth or Torrance; or someone outside of their normal sphere of operation.
@Jacob,
Yes, it’s mode definitely follows the via negativa. It’s just a negating theological method, in constant need of more negation in order to survive.
Bobby, pure hubris !
It’s a little weird to hear you claim Thomas Aquinas and his classic formulation of the D.O.C. is completely wrong. I would be a bit more careful in my rejections of such a giant.
Your Philosophical foundations for how god works is surely indebted to ideas that might be found to be lacking, just give it a bit of time and I’m sure the metaphors your trinity is based on might shift and then you might have to say to yourself something much like you said to those stupid “classic” thinkers. What if the classical picture of God is correct, who side would you be on then? It might be because of this very binary (and how it causes one to choose a side) that people like you seem so confused in your wordy discourses on the rejection of such ideas. How can you accuse classic theists of having basically a causal metaphoric structure (which you think is bad) and not see a causal structure in the metaphor of the trinity, or your elected onto-christ – hubris!!!! Dig a little deeper into your philosophic structures before you call the kettle black.
Point is well received on the many faceted face of the demon “calvinism” unleashed on the world, shit why stop with the theologians? Why not get the Novelists like Melville in this talk too, how about the Artists – you know, just so we can understand we all have options in the Calvinism we want to believe in. Why not just call Calvinism a reformed salad bar of theological concepts, where we can just take what we like and leave what we don’t based on blah blah blah (unverifiable noise).OH God when did we become such theological consumers?
I wondered when the boy from LV who lives in Norway would show up, I’ll be with you soon!
Let me say really quickly, Kenny. You come strong, that’s good; but you don’t come strong with anything but cynicism. You make loud assertions (indeed so do I, at points); but that’s all. You talk about doing more work in philosophy, when you yourself admit that you haven’t really read much of Torrance if any. I never called anyone stupid, just pedantic π . . . and you presume too much, Kenny; as if I’ve just come on the scene, or something. If I haven’t been exposed to classical theism my whole theological life (starting at Calvary Chapel, well even sooner, from the time I’ve been a boy); as if I haven’t studied and conversed with those who are trained in the analytics of Thomism and philosophical theology, if I haven’t read the same kind of people (like Paul Helm for example). As soon as you can back up some of your machismo I’ll take your talk serious, until then . . .
Why don’t you highlight how I’ve screwed up in my assertions? Why don’t you identify how my metaphors are hubris and what your alternative is other than the tired metaphysics provided by your normal Western tradition. I’ve read plenty of Thomas, directly, written papers on him, etc.; I’ve read Muller, Trueman, Horton, Clark and too many other of these characters. These guys not only admit their appropriation of Aristotelian causality but appropriate and defend it within the historic continuity of the post-Reformed orthodox of which they see themselves continuously connected to.
Give me a break, Kenny! Give me something to go on besides a tantrum.
Kenny,
If you took the time to read TFT’s “The Christian Doctrine of God” you wouldn’t make the silly claim you do about causal structure in the onto-relations of God; in fact that’s the point the ousia of God is shaped by the perichoretic relations of the hypostasis of God — or the onto-relating. So the traditional processions of God (in the economy) are eternal realities vs. being subordinated to the economy and subsistincies of God’s relation to His creation.
Reformed theology isn’t a salad bar, but it should be “always Reforming!” It makes sense, though that you’re stuck in a static receptus mode of thinking, though Kenny; since this is really only a reflection of the kind of classically conceived God you choose to worship, you know the Monadic God of classical tune. If indeed that’s what you follow, is it? I never really know where you’re coming from, Kenny. The first time you came on the blog here, I thought you were appreciative of Torrance. But now, since apparently you’ve spent so much time reading him; you seem to think anything associated with him is at the level of hubris. Am I really supposed to take this seriously?
Come on, Kenny, think with me . . .
Bobby, you’ve nailed it my brother! I love the brevity in which to get rigth to the heart of the matter.
You make a very good point about the depth and width of the Reformed traditions, but I am sorry to say that the classical Calvinists will dispute the clear facts that both Torrance and Barth are within the Reformed traditions. These classical Calvinists dismiss Barth as a German Liberal, which drives me to pulling out the remaining few hairs left on my head. What could be a more stupid statement than that, who knows?
Anyway, keep up the good work, there are people who are listening.
Hey Tony,
Thanks, great to hear from you; now if we could only convince Kenny π .
Yeah, I know, unfortunately, how classic Calvinists of all shades think of Barth/Torrance (if in fact they’ve even heard of them, I doubt that most of the readers over at Patton’s blog have ever heard of Torrance, maybe they’ve heard of Barth). You know, what’s amazing, is that I used to be one of those people who thought Barth was a “liberal” or worse “neo-Orthodox;” really because of what I heard at my Bible College (in Seminary I had a prof who was/is a Barthian Paul Metzger to some degree). Once I read him and about him, the irony was that he was, in many ways, more Evangelical than “Evangelicals” π .
Anyway, thanks for the encouraging word, Tony!
Your Post was hubris based in an attitude of thinking you have “nailed it”, basically you said, Hey guys this is what I said on another blog and isn’t it so great and then the people who follow you on your blog said Oh yeah man, you “nailed it.” This is similar to an in house discussion in an echo room, or like hipsters talking to themselves about the coolest band in the world that only they know about. And anyone who likes the band from last year is a complete dickhead – similar?
This type of attitude is hubris and you display it clearly on your blog and on other blogs (which I read and see you on, riding your hobbyhorse) You sir display the hubris, but your ideas are a mixed bag. I like some of them, I think some are completely off, I think some of them make no sense, and other ideas seem to be nice latin or greek smoke screens for the sake of sounding studied (which you are, but so what!), so it really doesn’t matter how many papers you wrote on Anyone – I did the same in seminary and Bible college and it’s all bullshit. Those papers mean Nothing and your reading and defending Torrance means nothing and my reading you and misunderstanding what you write means nothing it’s pretty much just talk about Literature. It’s like arguing about a character in a novel or poem with no recourse to actually verifying anything you say about that character by objective reality, and why cant we? Maybe because the character we are talking about is a fiction and only lives in the story and that’s all we have- the STORY about this character.
You say, I should think with you Bobby, I seriously have been, but since you fail to get to the roots of what YOU are saying on this blog it is hard to have a discourse with you. If you haven’t really figured out that I think most theology is just words with hardly any meaning then there you Go, it’s out. I care more about the idea behind the words and that brings us to Metaphor. Which has been what I have tried to understand from you, i.e. why are your metaphors better or more true than other Theologians, basically this is all I have been saying to you from my probings.
Every time I ask you to explain the idea/metaphor behind a statement you seem to get really frustrated and spout GREEK or Latin WORDS which is fine if you explain the metaphors that allow them to apply to the situation. I think this is a deeper form of discourse because it gets at the root of what we really believe and are saying. E.G. You believe in a Trinitarian D.O.G – well what metaphors govern this ? Relationality. OK, so what metaphors are the basis of our ideas about relationship etc – The deeper you dig in this line of thinking the more you come to the fact that the metaphors are really the only important thing, but they are simple and unverifiable ideas (beliefs) and therefore tentative. That was my point, and you are right to sense skepticism in my writing, I’m the biggest skeptic when “theology” is involved, not because I’m a new comer to the field, but because I have come to believe most of it is Bullshit and always has been.
It’s not that I don’t believe in God as character with influence on our lives, I just think when we humans start to fight and argue about dumb shit like the interpenetration (what does this even mean? MAYBE IT MEANS THIS, “onto-relations of God; in fact thatβs the point the ousia of God is shaped by the perichoretic relations of the hypostasis of God β or the onto-relating. So the traditional processions of God (in the economy) are eternal realities vs. being subordinated to the economy and subsistincies of Godβs relation to His creation.” YOUR EXPLANATION. My response IS THIS, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yy8FDjSGmwQ
WHAT?)
of the three and it’s effect on our conception of the DOG, everyone just turns out to be an asshole and weird. It would be one thing to argue against a heliocentric idea in astronomy and then be able to prove something different BY ACTUALLY VERIFYING IT but theologians are weak thinkers since they only argue texts not reality outside the texts. It is like Kuhn’s idea of “Normal science” – my take is -assholes talking to assholes, but without the evidence part.
Finally, just a word on my conception of god, god is the main character in most of the canonical texts and seems to have influence over other characters in the text. Jesus is the main character of the newer part of those texts and calls other characters to IMITATE him as he IMITATES his god. I think our theology shouldn’t go any farther than IMITATION. All the weird shit about Trinity and Classical causal metaphors based in physics rather than biology is fruitless and maybe bordering on ideological idol worship, I know I’m “safe” as an IMITATOR of the man in the story. And the reason I Imitate him is because for some weird reason I have come to Love Him – I’m in love with a Jewish man who lived 2000 yrs ago in the dust of Israel and if that isn’t weird than nothing is. Is this Theology?
Anyway Bobby I love you too because we are both in Love with Jesus and are part of that Biological metaphor (family) . As a member of the family I think having a smart prideful younger brother (you) calls for a little rebuke, in love, from an older brother – this is why I said your post was pure hubris. p.s. you should take serious idea/people seriously and funny things as humor and you should have the wisdom to know the difference.K
On a more serious note, basically what I’m saying is that your biological metaphor structure over the classic Calvinist physics metaphor of cause is a choice made by you and is not any more true to reality. It might be more true to the text, but why is this (biology metaphor) the controlling metaphor and not the causal physics metaphor for the “nature” of GOD, it just can’t be because Torrance or whoever said it was. I see various metaphors being used in the text and different theologians hit upon one and build a system based on it and then other come around and fight about it- I guess it is something to occupy our time in this meaningless void (joke). Anyway, I in all seriousness just think the choice of One metaphor over the other is relative and really amounts to picking basketball teams to “root” (as in root metaphor) for. If you could argue for a root biological metaphor grounding your theology from the text/s it would probably do more to sweep away my skepticism.K
@Kenny,
1) Let’s deal with how you’re trying to frame this as a “rebuke” from an older brother. You might be “biologically” older than me by a couple of years or so, maybe; but that’s it! Don’t take that posture with me, please; that presumes way too much (I mean we know each other and everything, but let’s not push the boundaries of that too far!).
2) Do you actually think I’m going to submit to a guy from whom every other word is: sh*#&, a@*hole, d*%$head, etc etc.? If and when you comment here again; please refrain from using this kind of language. I am, as of yet, not so liberated!! And, this only illustrates the “why” of my point from #1 above. I have a couple of “older” Christian guys in my life who I respect in the way that you seem to think I should look at you; but unfortunately, Kenny, I look at you as a peer/brother (for sure). And I’m willing to certainly hear (and test) what you have to say to me as a Christian brother. But the thing is, I’ve seen you comment other places too; and most of the tone of your comments are angry and come with an “attitude” of everyone else is just a bunch of moron’s who don’t have the Gnostic (Wittgensteinian/Nietzscheian) knowledge that you do — i.e. so everyone else should get a life. If you want to get real for a second, Kenny!!! (btw, you shouldn’t make too much fun of hipsters, have you looked in the mirror lately?).
3) QUIT shifting the burden from you to me. I’ve explained to the extent that I’m going to explain something (for free) at a blog. You don’t even know what you mean by the “metaphors;” that simply seems to be a nice rhetorical tool you pull out when you don’t really seem to know what else to say or when you’re in over your head. Since you don’t like “my metaphors” what are your’s IMITATION? Again, am I supposed to take everything you’ve said about my language and grammar seriously and then be happy with your idea on IMATATION; is that what all of this reduces to? Are you serious, Kenny? The difference between you, apparently, and me; is that I don’t buy your view of reality or metaphor rubbish etc at an axiomatic level, and I would imagine neither would any of the “Classic Calvinists” I am always trying to provoke (since they haven’t done any of that with Barth or Torrance [per Van Til et al]). In other words, your position is a rather lonely one and I think you should abandon it. If you think I will ever meet the “burden” that you have laid out for me to meet for your satisfaction, then, Kenny, I’m afraid you’ll be waiting a long time, my brother! Btw, on what ground do you hold the view about (text/s) that you do? To me you’ve created a slippery slope scenario (epistemologically and even ontologically) that if consistent won’t allow you to point to anything as “real” — including the world of the “text” (I simply reject structuralism out of hand, because it’s a self-refuting mess at it’s own “foundation” or as representative of a “basic belief”).
4) As far as your “prideful” point. Let me hit that one more time. That is really being presumptuous. I realize I come strong, that I press, that I try to provoke — have been doing this for years with classic Calvinists, primarily — but it’s not because I think I’m smarter than anyone else, it’s not because I think you’re a weirdo or stupid, it’s not because I think I’m the Don Juan of the theo-blogosphere (there are plenty of people who can kick my intellectual butt), it’s not because I’m unaware of some of the perceptions that I know people have of me and my “attitude” (like yours), it’s not because I think I have it all figured out, it’s not because I simply want to use Greek and Latin out of context (prestige jargon, which I haven’t), it’s not because I want everyone to worship Torrance or Barth, it’s not because I hate Richard Muller, Scott Clark, Carl Truman, Kenny Chmiel, et al. Instead, really Kenny, this whole “game” and nonsense (at this level anyway) is motivated by something else (and this is why most of your “rebuke” and comment on being “older” “younger” etc is really presumptuous); and that is that I have seen classical theism jack people up (in real life) — people who are very close to me — in their daily walk with Jesus! That’s really it!! Now you can believe me or not . . . that’s up to you.
My MO in the sphere is usually one of being a provocateur, other than that, I find blogging to really be a total waste of time. So that means I will try to, at points, get in certain people’s faces (but only to a point); I will, at points, “play” like I have it all figured out; and will at points try to be the squeaky wheel so in fact I can try and expose these folks to something/one that I think could at least expand their horizon’s towards, what I believe to be a more fruitful way to know and “Imitate” Jesus.
So unfortunately, you missed the “point” of this post (which I mention in the last sentence of the post). Unfortunately you didn’t pay attention to the categories of the post “Sarcasm”, and apparently you didn’t go over and look at the context that I made these comments in. Again, I came like I did with this comment over there for a reason; i.e. to be the squeaky wheel. At that mode still didn’t work, I was simply ignored (and that’s fine, but I thought I would register at least something . . . and btw, Kenny, I’ve had plenty of people who aren’t Torrancean/Barth etc., just normal Christian people email me and say that they’re glad that I commented somewhere because I’ve at least made them think in a way that they hadn’t considered before [that’s my whole motivation]).
5) One last point. You don’t think that I think that ideas are tenuous? I certainly do! I see ideas and “metaphors” etc. finding their concrete verifiable reality in the person of Jesus Christ (even the Text’s reality). I don’t hold Jesus or the Trinity or God to be metaphorical, I hold God to be ultimate axiomatic undisputed incorrigible indubitable reality (or to quote Him “I AM, that I AM!”)!!!! My axiomatic reality isn’t even the TEXT per se; only insofar as that TEXT (and it does by the Spirit’s intense witness) bears witness to HIM! There you go, there’s my “root metaphor” or whatever that’s supposed to mean.
“You donβt think that I think that ideas are tenuous? I certainly do!” Bobby G.
I just wrote a 3 hr response, but hit tab and away it went – “F”
But your sentence on point 5 was nice. I think I got mad when you called me a “boy from LV” I’m 38 yrs old and have been married for 6 yrs, hardly a boy. I thought this was disrespectful and a low blow so I came with the “son let me teach you a thing or two” – stupid, but we are both guilty here.
Most of what you said is weird and a little emotional, unlike the cool customer you usually are. I thought you would say something about the video i put up – funny, no?
You can attack me I have no problem with that. I’m really not trying to sell anything or get anyone to believe in the kind of God (god wars are so boring) I think is the right one, all I’m doing is trying to get to the bottom of what you are saying. I do this with the tool of metaphor. So metaphor isn’t rubbish and to say this
“You donβt even know what you mean by the βmetaphors;β that simply seems to be a nice rhetorical tool you pull out when you donβt really seem to know what else to say or when youβre in over your head. ”
about me is such a weird thing to say in a response. I have read plenty on metaphor, Examples Lakoff ” metaphors we live by and philosophy in the flesh” ricouer “the rule of the metaphor” John teehan “in the name of god: the evolutionary origins of religious violence” and Nancey Murphy “bodies and souls or spirited bodies” You should go back and read the book “open theism” by john sanders to see how important metaphors are for the dog. As far as being in over my head (what pride to even suggest!!!!) I think I had a reading and Conference with dr. ron frost on richard sibbs affective theology and the english calvinists in which I got an A ( which demonstrates an ability to understand some of your ideas? It’s my street cred!) so to suggest I am in “over my head” is stupid and wrong. I have never directly attacked a position you have asserted, but what I have done is tried to get under your ideas and see what supports them. I don’t really think you are that “wrong” anyway for me it isn’t a matter of being “wrong” it’s a matter of seeing how an idea works from ground up. The burden is on you, you have the blog.
I didn’t miss the point of the post since I wrote the second post about salad bar calvinism and other writers on calvinism like melville. my point there was to say be consistent bobby, if you want others to be knowledgeable about other calvinistic traditions shouldn’t you as well, not just your Torrance trad.
Finally, Imitation is how I see our responsibility as religious people. Christianity is mythic and as such we need to learn what meaning is a myth. It (meaning) comes from Imitation not understanding. As people who follow myths, we need to understand the nature of myth and how they work on the followers. Followers of myth know they have no understanding (scientific philosophical) of the “essence” of the God they know god is beyond but they know they have a responsibility to follow god. why? oh because they just do. Read Dennis Ford’s book “the search for meaning: a short history” This is why is I say imitation. you say
“I donβt hold Jesus or the Trinity or God to be metaphorical, I hold God to be ultimate axiomatic undisputed incorrigible indubitable reality (or to quote Him βI AM, that I AM!β)!!!!” what? You have to have some metaphors or you couldn’t even think these thoughts (Basic cognitive science). Anyway I’m over this. Sorry for hurting your feelings by calling you prideful, will you forgive me?
P.S.Remember I asked you for the scripture texts for your “ontological atonement” well?
Still brothers in christ? K
should be “IN” myth not “a” myth.
Hi Bobby,
I think maybe you are being a little generous. Sure we can not judge a person’s salvation, but from what I read above, I do not believe that Kenny claims to be a Christian. He wrote “Jesus is the main character of the newer part of those texts and calls other characters to IMITATE him as he IMITATES his god.” etc. etc. This actually occurred to me the other day, as the Arians rejected the Divinity of Jesus, they rejected Christ. They could believe in a man (a God “imitator”) named Jesus, in their case at least, he was a special creation, but they did not believe in the Christ, the Son of God, Emanuel. Maybe Kenny loves a man named Jesus, but Christ was not his last name. Maybe Bobby, you know more of the history of Kenny to believe that he is a brother in the faith, or perhaps you are being charitable in refering to him as a brother seeker or some such.
Kenny, unless I totally misunderstood you, I pray the Lord reveals Himself as the creator Lord of the universe to you, and reveals His love for YOU. This IS the Real Deal, not a metaphor of a metaophorical relationship. The man on the cross next to the man Jesus finally came to grips with his error and asked Jesus who had done “nothing wrong” “Jesus remember me when you come into your kingdom”. Jesus carring the weight of the sins of the world at that moment, gave the criminal the fulness of His attention and assured him “I tell you truly, today you will be with me in Paradise.” Such is the concrete dynamic love of our Savior, our God.
@Kenny,
1) I apologize and ask for forgiveness as well; will you forgive me for not being in the Spirit with you?
That little comment I made to you first, about the boy from LV in who lives in Norway wasn’t intended, at all, to be condescending or patronizing; I made that comment with the understanding of how we usually carry ourselves with eachother in our little exchanges . . . you know, with a little edge and just being a smart alek. I should’ve used an emoticon with that one. I think you’re a smart brilliant guy! But seriously, and I’m not trying to play this off now, or something; I did not intend to try and put you in some sort of place or something by what I said there (the clarity of the blogosphere is amazing π ).
I should’ve avoided that little “over your head” comment, Kenny; that was an unnecessary knee jerk response. Sorry!
We all have holes in our belief systems, Kenny; that’s why we need eachother! My heart and goal with Calvinists/Arminians etc. is not to beat them up, but to get their attention; and you have to know, that is not easy at all! I usually avoid commenting on threads like the one at Parchment and Pen anymore; it really isn’t worth it, after awhile anyway.
Anyway, my blogging is going to slow down; not because of this little exchange, but because it drains more time from me than it should be allowed to. So as you can see I’m switching to another blog, and another focus; and another style of blogging π .
On metaphors. They are important components of communication. I’m not, of course not denying that. In fact the whole point that Torrance is trying to make, for example, is that all metaphors are in the LORD’s service; and he is trying to prove a framework for thinking that starts in the concrete reality of God’s life in Christ and think from and through Him to the Father. I’m more simple than a lot of the “philosophical” stuff tries to get at. I went down that road for awhile, it just didn’t do it for me π .
Peace, Kenny, and stay warm in my Mother-land!
@Duane,
No. I would just give Kenny the benefit of the doubt on what he was saying through his language of “Imitation.” I do know, Kenny, went through Bible College with him, and we attended the same Seminary as well (he after me). He loves the Lord. He doesn’t believe God is a metaphor. He doesn’t believe the cross or Jesus are phantasms or myth; he believes in Jesus as God’s concrete life in salvation history. He’s a brother. Yeah, it is true, I wouldn’t or don’t communicate or approach things the way Kenny does; but I know He’s a brother, he believes in the Trinity; salvation by faith alone etc.!
But I understand why when reading what Kenny wrote, and not knowing him, why that could be confusing.
Thanks, Duane!
Yeah Man, this is what I find to be encouraging, two truthful strong guys saying sorry. This is the “power of weakness” we have by following and loving Jesus (the second person of the trinity, for Duane, since he doubts my worship of Jesus as GOD) which we demonstrate to the world. Doing theology and sharing some of our conclusions with people is bound to cause this type of tussle we just had, and it is fine, but what I really love about being a Christian, is when after the destruction caused by sin, we can see the light in our family member shinning through when we allow it to come through, in things like saying sorry and the move to be reconciled. Seriously Bobby I think you are a really smart Guy and a good teacher and that is kind of why I wanted to say hubris to you. It was like seeing a persons best qualities (your deep knowledge / understanding of various forms of reformed theology, your ability to explain, your ability to minister, and your ability to publicly worship Jesus through your blog) was slightly twisted and used against you and made all those strong qualities look like pride. And that was all I was saying by the word hubris. You might not believe this but I actually kind of agree with you on numerous thoughts. Which ones must remain a mystery to you.
On my part I’m very skeptical by Nature even though I have a deep deep faith in Jesus as My lord and my God. I know the weaknesses of Christian theological thought, so I come across as a unbeliever and a sower of unbelief when I highlight where I think those fault lines are. I’m a person who loves deconstruction and this can be a sin when used against somebodies faith. But I guess that’s my whole point – faith is not a rational construction. It just is something we have or don’t. I seriously don’t believe Jesus is God and Rose from the dead because I have rational proof but because it is just so deep in me that to deny it would be unthinkable. My point is that since I view faith (in christ ) this way, deconstruction and by whatever means is open game. I know this is annoying to others who don’t see faith the way I do. so it can be a sin on my part by being a “A” hole skeptic of their system.
Anyway Bobby, I loved the exchange and the forgiveness. I know the Lord has used you in my life over the past couple of months to get me thinking on certain ideas that I view as beneficial to my walk with the Lord. So be encouraged in the work you have done on your blog. Here in Norway theological talk is contained and stifled, so to vent thoughts with someone who has done his homework and knows the field is fun. If I write on your blogs in the future I’ll try not to be me at my worst. Love you dude and I hope your new Blog is more relaxing. K
Thanks for clearing that up for me Bobby!
@Kenny,
Good words, brother! I’m glad we can be Christian about this too, and move on together in Christ. I know you love the Lord, and I thoroughly agree with you about relationship with God in Christ not being a rationalist situation; which is why I like Torrance’s approach, btw π . I’ll see you over at the other blog.
@Duane,
π .