Schaeffer begins laying the foundation for much of what he has to say in this first chapter of the book/film. He is going to be dealing with the thought life or the presuppositions that we all have, although, for the most part we have caught them like a “child catches the measles.” His claim is that “the inner thought world determines the outward action.
He then applies this reasoning to the decline of ancient Rome. He attributes the fall of Rome not to outward circumstances, but to their inner thought life. Their reference point, that is, their gods were just not sufficient to the task. He says, “A culture or an individual with a weak base can stand only when the pressure on it is not to great.” (Did anyone think of our Lord’s words in Matt 8:24-27?)
In the Institutes Calvin says, “…no man can survey himself without forthwith turning his thoughts towards the God in whom he lives and moves.” Calvin’s claim is that no man can truly know himself apart from a knowledge of God.
The conclusion is that Rome fell because they did not have true self-knowledge. They lacked this knowledge because their gods were really just projections of themselves. Their knowledge was autonomous. They were their own standard.
Christians, however, reference themselves to the infinite, personal, triune God revealed in scripture. Their standard is ‘outside’ them and is the norm of all norms.
It is very easy make comparisons with the situation that Schaeffer describes of ancient Rome and today. Do you think these comparisons are valid? Do we have a ‘crisis of knowledge’ today?
randy
Posted in Schaeffer, epistemology.
By admin
– June 20, 2009
In our progress through Joel Beeke’s Living for God’s Glory we now come to the topic of total depravity, or as some prefer radical depravity, radical corruption, or pervasive evil. To deal with this topic we need a thorough understanding of sin, its nature, and how it has affected us in our relationship to God as well as our ability to comply with His just demands.
The following quotations, taken from What Is Sin by David Powlison give us some starting points for our discussion of sin. I encourage you to read carefully the full article. In just three paragraphs it lays a foundation for our contemplation of the nature and effects of sin.
First, people tend to think of sins in the plural as consciously willed
acts where one was aware of and chose not to do the righteous
alternative.
But sin also includes what we simply are, and the perverse ways we think, want, remember, and react.
Sin – the desires we pursue, the beliefs we hold, the habits we obey as second nature – is intrinsically deceitful.
Sinners think, want, and act sinlike by nature, nurture, and practice.
Have you thought about sin in these ways before? How do these descriptions of sin apply to the regenerate?
randy
Posted in calvinism.
By randy
– November 30, 2008
I came across this post on Justin Taylor’s blog Between Two Worlds. Our discussions, as we began Joel Beeke’s Living for God’s Glory, coupled with Thanksgiving have brought the words ‘Puritans’ and ‘Calvinists’ to your hearing repeatedly. The essay linked in the post helps to give us an even a broader understanding of the nature of the Puritans than Joel Beeke can in the opening chapters of his book. As we move along in the book, however, and see the thought and practice of the Puritans in greater detail we will have a better understanding of the essay. The Puritan practice as described in the essay will be seen to flow from the Puritan and Calvinistic doctrine. This is not ‘deeds, not creeds’ but the biblical order of deeds flowing from and out of our creeds. We saw this pattern echoed when we studied the Heidelberg Catechism. Our deeds or good works, done in thankfulness and described in the Decalogue, were a response to what we had learned of God’s work for us as expressed in the Apostle’s Creed.
As you can see, Between Two Worlds, is listed in my blogroll. When I get in off the road it is one of the first sites I check. The site is never stale and is broad enough in scope that I can almost always find something that relates to what has been brewing in my head while I have been gone. I highly recommend it.
randy
Posted in calvinism, puritans.
By randy
– November 28, 2008
A quote from Michael Horton form his article Sloth
It is not only that we do not think enough; we do not love enough and–more importantly, we do not love the right things. C. S. Lewis writes, “Our Lord finds our desires not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition, when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.” The church, we are told, has to satisfy the needs of the people; it cannot simply ignore the questions that people are asking today. Of course, that’s true. It isn’t enough for the church to simply educate; it must address itself to the whole person in the whole context of that person’s life. We must make the connection between the text of Scripture and the experience of men and women living today. But the problem is the one expressed here by C. S. Lewis. Our felt needs are trivial. It’s not only that they are human-centered, but that the pleasures of such religion fall so far short of the everlasting peace that comes from a sound understanding of The Faith. We’re so wrapped up in tips for living, relationships and success in life we miss the grander scheme of redemption from God’s wrath. We are like children making mud-pies in the slums when we could be enjoying a holiday at the sea
A sound understanding of the faith is what we seek, and Joel Beeke’s Living for God’s Glory will go a long way in helping us gain that understanding. As we attain to that understanding may our class and individual prayer be that in all we do we may live soli Deo Gloria
randy.
Posted in calvinism.
Tagged with calvinism.
By admin
– November 16, 2008
I do not intend to devote much time to You Tube videos, but I found this along with the many comments intriguing. Ramona and I had some difference of opinion on whether to post this. Initially, Ramona had some objections to posting this on the blog. She thought that it was making fun of the performers and might be taken in a wrong spirit. I believe, however, it highlights some of the problems of “fee will” theology. Pay close attention to the words. Are they really saying Jesus purchased our love at Calvary?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrczyFvkv8Q[/youtube]
Well, what do you think?
randy
Posted in Uncategorized.
By admin
– November 15, 2008
Posted in Uncategorized.
By admin
– November 8, 2008
Our chapter from Keller this week is “The Knowledge of God.” The following quote from The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God highlights how the Christian is to seek knowledge under God’s authority. In addition, John Frame gives an insightful definition of presupposition, a term that has been mentioned in our class over the past few weeks.
When we seek to know God obediently, we assume the fundamental point that Christian knowledge is a knowledge under authority, that our quest for knowledge is not autonomous but subject to Scripture. And if that is true, it follows that the truth (and to some extent the content) of Scripture must be regarded as the most certain knowledge we have. If this knowledge is to be the criterion for all other knowledge, if it is to govern our acceptance or rejection of other propositions, then there is no proposition that can call it into question. Thus when we know God, we know Him more certainly, more surely than we know anything else. When He speaks to us, our understanding of His Word must govern our understanding of everything else. This is a difficult point because, after all, our understanding of Scripture is fallible and may sometimes need to be corrected. But those corrections may be made only on the basis of a deeper understanding of Scripture, not on the basis of some other kind of knowledge.
It is at this point that we introduce ourselves to the term for which Van Til’s apologetic is best known, the term presupposition. A presupposition is a belief that takes precedence over another and therefore serves as a criterion for another. An ultimate presupposition is a belief over which no other takes precedence. For a Christian, the content of Scripture must serve as his ultimate presupposition. Our beliefs about Scripture may be corrected by other beliefs about Scripture, but relative to to the body of extra-scriptural information that we possess, those beliefs are presuppositional in character. This doctrine is merely the outworking of the lordship of God in the area of human thought. It merely applies the doctrine of scriptural infallability to the realm of knowing. Seen in this way, I cannot understand why any evangelical Christian should have a problem in accepting it. We are merely affirming that human knowledge is servant-knowledge, that in seeking to know anything our first concern is to discover what our Lord thinks about it and to agree with His judgement, to think His thoughts after Him. What alternative could there possibly be? Would anyone dare to suggest that though we commit ourselves unreservedly to Christ, there is no place for such commitments in our intellectual work? Thus this doctrine of presuppositions purely and simply asserts the lordship of Christ over human thought. Anything less than this is unacceptable to Him. (pp 44-45)
randy
Posted in epistemology.
By randy
– September 27, 2008
We are more than halfway through The Reason for God thus it is time to give consideration to our next undertaking. If you have any suggestions as to what we might study next, please post a comment. There might be books that you have read or things you just want to know more about. All ideas are welcome and your input is greatly desired, so don’t be shy.
randy
Posted in Uncategorized.
By randy
– September 21, 2008
It’s intermission so it must be time for popcorn, right? Actually, it’s time to shift our focus as we begin the second section of The Reason for God. In Keller’s words we are ‘between missions.’ Our first mission was an attempt to regain ground lost to secular humanism and antitheistic thinking. Our tactic was to show that ‘underlying all doubts about Christianity are alternative beliefs, unprovable assumptions about the nature of things.’ Now, however, our focus is changed. Instead of attacking the doubts about Christianity by showing them to be unwarranted and lacking justification, we begin to proclaim the Christian message and ‘to argue that there are sufficient reasons for believing it.’
There are two reasons why I think the second section of the book will be more engaging, edifying, and entertaining (hmm-almost looks like a sermon outline). First, as Christians, telling the story is part and parcel of our life. Keller, in dealing with the residents of New York City, has had to present the gospel in a context that differs somewhat from our Midwestern culture without changing or diminishing its content. I think he has been successful in this and presents much material that we can use as we try to tell the story to friends, family, etc.
The second reason involves the message itself. The second section is a retelling of the gospel, the power of salvation to all who believe. We may be confronted and challenged by the content, but at the end of it all is the grace, mercy, and peace that is our inheritance as those rescued from darkness by our Lord Jesus Christ. Here are Keller’s words (from Monergism):
…’the gospel’ is not just a way to be saved from the penalty of sin, but is the fundamental dynamic for living the whole Christian life–individually and corporately, privately and publicly. In other words, the gospel is not just for non-Christians, but also for Christians. This means the gospel is not just the A-B-C’s but the A to Z of the Christian life. It is not accurate to think ‘the gospel’ is what saves non-Christians, and then, what matures Christians is trying hard to live according to Biblical principles. It is more accurate to say that we are saved by believing the gospel, and then we are transformed in every part of our mind, heart, and life by believing the gospel more and more deeply as our life goes on.
Any ideas, comments, or suggestions as we continue or study are always welcome. I hope you share my enthusiasm for the rest of the book.
randy
Posted in doctrines of grace.
By admin
– September 6, 2008
Recent Comments