Calvinism is…

January 14, 2013 Leave a comment

"It's the way we move, sway and raise our palms to that sexy beat."

“It’s the way we move, sway and raise our palms to that sexy beat.”

By: The Gay Nazi Wizard and His Noxious Nest of Nobodies

Calvinism is dust on a Spurgeon devotional on a hearth with a kettle boiling goat’s milk for a mediocre-looking wife’s offspring, sprung from her privy parts.

Calvinism is an “elect” man in a van down by the river with a huge triple cassette tape deck running nonstop, multiple copies off of a generator about the legal status of living by the river on state property.

Calvinism is a week-long lecture on the Song of Solomon, only to retire every evening with your wife giving you zero nookie.

Calvinism is a debate on the legality of saying “missionary position.”

Calvinism is Wednesday night haircut/bible study in the farm home of the “elders.”

Calvinism is congregational ruling elders delivering your offspring through midwifery on the kitchen island.

Calvinism is debating an unknown person a thousand miles away, furiously slapping at the keyboard for hours on the Sabbath, only to immediately click over to bigblondebutts.com

Calvinism is whizzing in your boxers when you first see Gary North’s luminous crown of white hair emerging over the horizon, walking towards you.

Calvinism is running theonomy.com AND bigblondebutts.com

Calvinism is that *rush* you get at hearing “Rushdoony.”

Calvinism is rejecting lace head coverings for being too similar to lascivious lingerie. Read more of this post

Filed under Apologetics, Bible, Comedy, Culture, Psychology/Sociology, Religion Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Failure of the One & Many Argument of Van Til

July 22, 2010 8 Comments

By: Jay

The so-called argument from the one and the many is a hallmark aspect of classical Van Tillian apologetics. Having studied this school for the last ten years, I am very acquainted with its methodology and published works. However, once one moves into patristics and Catholic and Orthodox theology, and then into other religious philosophies, the argument as constructed in writers like Van Til, Rushdoony and Bahnsen no longer works. This is not to say, however, that the argument has no relevance: on the contrary, in my estimation, it still retains its strength as a powerful signpost pointing to the Personal God of the Bible. However, I don’t think it proves the Trinity. 

There are two reasons the one and many argument doesn’t to prove the Trinity. For one, Van Til wasn’t the first to reason in this regard: many earlier Christian thinkers and church fathers had argued along similar lines, such as Origen, Irenaeus, Basil and the Cappadocian, Maximus the Confessor, and others even in other religions, as we see in the Coomaraswamy article on Vedic Exemplarism. What is interesting in Maximus though, is that from the created one and many we experience, it does not prove or point to a single divine ousia and three Persons, but rather a single rational Principle of God – the Logos, the second Person of the Trinity, in whom all the many logoi, or rational principles/meanings of things are united. So for Maximus, drawing on Origen, the many logoi are one in the one Logos of God. This argument arose historically in the context of Hellenic Christianity borrowing the Logos idea, and was transformed into an argument for the necessity of creation through the Logos. In other words, the one and many argument is an argument centered in divine exemplarism. Read more of this post

Filed under Theology, Apologetics, Bible, Philosophy, Religion Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

R.J. Rushdoony Was Nestorian

April 6, 2010 6 Comments

By: Jay Dyer

Lately, I have been re-reading some old reformed Protestant materials I read several years ago. One of these books is by a very respected reformed thinker named Rousas J. Rushdoony. Rushdoony wrote and did some good things, like defending homseschoolers and giving that movement an initial impetus. However, these things don’t magically make him orthodox or erase his denials of the Incarnation. In my many dealings with reformed pastors and theologians, I’ve learned that it generally doesn’t matter what heresies their heroes have, nor does it matter how serious the heresies are. No, reformed thinkers have their demi-gods and none dare challenge them. So it doesn’t matter that Rushdoony also promoted the Jewish food laws, which is condemned by St. Paul. It doesn’t matter that Van Til said the essence of God was a Person. It doesn’t matter that Bahnsen thought one could have pictures of Christ and that he celebrated Christmas, which John Knox thought worthy of death. And none of this stuff would be so bad if the reformed didn’t claim to hold to the ecumenical councils.

No, if the reformed thinkers decide you’re a hero, you can, in fact, get away with quite a bit. Forgiving men for errors and passing them over is one thing, and it’s an aspect of love. However, when it comes to the point of excusing men or ignoring their substantial heresies on Christ and/or the Trinity, that’s another story. The reformed thinkers and pastors that have despised and blasted me, fail to realize that whatever errors I have held, I haven’t promoted serious Trinitarian and Christological errors like Van Til and Rushdoony. And none of this would be so bad if Rushdoony’s foundation wasn’t named “Chalcedon.” Other men in these circles also name their publications and churches after Chalcedon. Read more of this post

Filed under Theology, Apologetics Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 155 other followers