I’ve always wanted to be able to root for either the Vikings or the Raiders because,well, those really are the perfect icons for football lore. If only there were a team called the Marauders…
Well, my excuse is now here. Mississippi loyalty demands that I don the purple.
You can listen to my interview with Paul Butler online now. I couldn’t quite get the signal from my radio, so I’m listening online as well.
Through an interesting occurrence of theo-blog networking providence, I have been interviewed by Paul Butler of Moody Radio and will appear on his radio show this Monday at 4:20pm.
If you live in the Jackson area, you can hear me on 89.1 FM. For anyone else who might be interested, you can check the Moody Radio website for station listings. The station finder is on the left-hand sidebar on the front page.
The topic of the interview was cynicism, an interest sparked from my earlier open-ended question, of which I didn’t quite give an answer here. My answer, in part of course (there’s never enough time!), will be given on the show.
I am very excited to be a participant in the show, but I will only occupy a brief portion of the show. There are two other participants in the discussion, and I should say that I do not know them. I’m sure they will be great, but I know how all you Presbyterians are out there. Each person was interviewed separately, and I did not get a chance to interact with the other participants. I’m also quite confident that Paul will edit out all the crazy stuff I said.
Just today I received the Zachman book on Calvin and RC, but I also happened to order this one as well and have read it first.
It is invaluable. With essays on the failed Council of Florence, the integrity of Melanchthon, the catholicity of Calvin, and perhaps the most valuabe, the Reformed and Evangelical Irenics: Pareus, Drury, Calixtus, etc.
This is where it’s at. You must all get this book and read it posthaste.
No no, there’s nothing like that. The bill just allows for “attenuated care” for certain folks. That’s all.
I just noticed this book edited by Randall Zachman. It has been purchased. More to come someday.
So I don’t know what to make of Geerhardus Vos. I’m a late-comer to him, to be sure, but I recently read his “Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed History,” which appears in the collection Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation. I have a few interesting observations of his work, and perhaps I can go in more detail in subsequent posts.
1st) Vos is largely responding to the critics of “Covenant Theology” or “Federalism,” but also those who say that it represents a novelity in the Reformed tradition. Vos does this in a rather sophisticated way, however, since he freely admits that Calvin was not a covenant theologian. Vos also admits the Lutherans never latched on to this sytem, and he puts some distance between the Lutherans and Reformed.
2) Vos believes that the Lutherans and Reformed use the law in different ways, and he even says that the doctrine of justification functions differently in these two traditions. In this regard, he is not all the way in the “continuity” camp that we see today. I’m not sure that I agree with him, but it is worth noting.
3) Vos’s defense of covenant theology is that it is a legitimate development, with seed-ideas in early Reformed theologians which grew up through the work of their successors. It seems to me that this same argument could be employed today by some of the “discontinuity” proponents for different purposes, though it would require a good balance.
4) Vos admits that Robert Rollock holds to Piscator’s position on imputation, though he believes that Rollock should have gone all the way with a full-blown active/passive affirmation. This should not obscure the fact, however, that Vos admits that Rollock did not affirm such, which is what I have also argued. More on this to come in later posts, for sure.
5) Interestingly, Vos concludes his essay with an excursion on the role of children in the covenant, and he admits that certain key Reformed theologians taught baptismal regeneration. He lists Zanchius, Ames, and Spanheim. This doesn’t seem to upset him. He lists other positions, as well, but all are perfectly “Reformed.”
