tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post126845063597659614..comments2024-03-18T18:19:19.002-07:00Comments on bylogos: No Bible for Christian Academia?john bylhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-1349190427428794422013-10-21T10:43:41.307-07:002013-10-21T10:43:41.307-07:00Dr. Byl:
I have, then, 4 questions to ask these p...Dr. Byl:<br /><br />I have, then, 4 questions to ask these people:<br /><br />1. Does 2KT assert that the two norms for the two separate kingdoms are separate (or exclusive) as well? (i.e. General Revelation for the Common Kingdom; and Special Revelation for the Redemptive Kingdom.) <br /><br />2. Are the two kingdoms related? Will there be a Common Kingdom in eternity; and, is there a Redemptive Kingdom in the Common Kingdom now? (i.e. not just sharing a mutual, common world, but one kingdom alive and active inside the other, as part of it.)<br /><br />3. Are the three values neutral? (i.e. Truth, Goodness, and Beauty: a) belonging to both kingdoms the same; or b); peculiarly belonging to the one kingdom or c) belonging to both but as separate values in each kingdom, namely Truth - a la Common Kingdom, vs. Truth - a la Redemptive Kingdom.)<br /><br />4. This all started with something that was supposed to be innocuous: a dispute about how much time it actually took God to create the world. Or more accurately, what does the word “day” in Genesis One actually mean? It was not supposed to (and they all promised it wouldn’t) touch the basics of true Biblical theology. What happened? Now the kingdom of Christ has no say in the Common Kingdom anymore, but is now just a matter of motive or intent in the believer, and no longer that of the world’s rightful Sovereign Ruler. So, again, what happened: to the first intentions and the first motives of those who introduced these innocuous questions into the churches; to the theology of these questioners; to the norms to which they promised fidelity before God and His people?<br /><br />respectfully,<br />JohnVJohnVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00330406643601471203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-67862540719760916732013-10-10T09:33:03.260-07:002013-10-10T09:33:03.260-07:00Hi John
Thanks for your comments. In answer to yo...Hi John<br /><br />Thanks for your comments. In answer to your last question, unhappily, they do not see it as "worldly wisdom" but mistake it to be truth revealed by God through "general revelation", and they do sense any "capitulation", but, rather, believe they have attained a deeper understanding of Scripture. They fail to see that their approach erodes also the theological meaning of Scripture.John Bylnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-68416579225435345742013-10-09T11:19:20.209-07:002013-10-09T11:19:20.209-07:00Dr. Byl:
It is interesting that you include Roy C...Dr. Byl:<br /><br />It is interesting that you include Roy Clouser in this article. The "sphere sovereignty" of Dooyeweerd has become the sphere dichotomy of the present day. The dominion of Christ in all of life seems to have been scaled back for some reason. As you say, it seems that culture has conquered Christ's realm instead of Christ ruling over everything. <br /><br />Dr. Schaeffer once said that you cannot have a static two-kingdom situation: the one will always try to conquer the other. But it seems that Jesus' admonition, to "Have faith in God" (Mark 11: 22), is now being put after having faith in men and their "knowledge". What we see in your article is that the naturalist's theories are raiding the theologist's territory, to the point of changing key precepts of theology. <br /><br />So much for two kingdoms!<br /><br />People tend to forget that it is not the Three Forms of Unity or the Westminster Standards that define us as Bible-believing Reformed Christians; it is faithfulness to the what the Bible says that defines us, that determines our faith, thats sets us apart. It is not adherence to one sectarian view of Scripture, but it is belief in and adherence to Scripture alone that marks us. And that does not divide us from the truth of the creation around us, but in fact strengthens our tie to it. The Reformed Confessions are meant to safeguard a Biblical fidelity. <br /><br />Instead of questioning the integrity of Scripture why would we not rather question the integrity of man? If it is the case that not everything a theologian says is theological, much less theologically correct, then why would we not also suppose that not everything that a scientist says is scientific, much less scientifically correct? <br /><br />Are these Christians really glad about the fact that worldly wisdom has triumphed over the Bible? Does it not bother them that their "better understanding" has robbed them of their own understanding, that their intellectual advancement it is really nothing else but mere capitulation?<br /><br />A sad, sad situation in our churches.<br /><br />JohnVJohnVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00330406643601471203noreply@blogger.com