Skip to main content


Showing posts from January 30, 2011
Safe Haven: Chapel-Skipper Edition. Ahem. So, my second session of the affectionately-named "E & E" was this morning. It's worth a note that Dr. Robert Peterson is a gifted man. More than that, a lovely, godly, man. He might do a fair bit of verbal sinning when I'm not present, I don't know, but he's always building people up. It's almost shame-inducing, it really is. And he's a good (Reformed) systematician. [According to, that's not a word.--ed.] All that proves is that lexicographers don't talk to theologians. [Or all lexicographers are godless pagans.--ed.] Be nice. Seriously, that was uncharitable. [Well, since I'm not an idiot synergist like you, I'm not worried about it.--ed.] I have serious doubts about your justification, sir, in the Reformed sense. [You strike me as uniquely unqualified to make that determination.--ed.] Perhaps. But the judgment cometh, and that right soon. Anyway, I was saying that Peter
I can't well describe the terror I felt in my first day of Ecclesiology and Eschatology class. By my instructor's own admission, this is the most sectarian class at the seminary. [And you're not Reformed.--ed.] Right. On the other hand, I've wanted to take this class for 6 years. Still, I cannot assume the truth of Reformed theology, or the legitimacy of its ecclesial structures. Frankly, why would we allow all that to be assumed for so long? How do we account for what even a cursory glance at the Fathers reveals as glaring continuity issues in doctrine? [Eucharist, authority] We could, of course, assume they were wrong. But that would surely invite the question, "What else were they wrong about?" [So you're saying that all of Protestant Christianity is standing on the same ecclesiological ground as, say, the Mormons?--ed.] Exactly. If you have a built-in assumption of corruption, you can believe pretty much anything you want. It gets even less clear when