R. C. Sproul Jr. has taken a position on the “authorship of sin” which is getting some buzz in the blogosphere. Before we say anything further, let’s put this into perspective. R. C. Jr. isn’t famous in his own right. He’s not a great theologian like Calvin or Turretin or Owen or Bavinck or Cunningham or Warfield or Vos, &c.
R. C. Jr. is well-known for the same reason that Lisa Marie Presley is well-known. Celebrity children. People know who they are because they know who their parents are. Borrowed renown. If Elvis was the king, then that made Lisa the titular princess.
Just as no one would give Lisa Marie Presley the time of day were it not for her last name, so no one would give R. C. Jr. the time of day were it not for his last name. If he were R. C. Finkelstein, nobody would pay the slightest attention. He’d just be another schmuck like yours truly.
What R. C. Junior brings to the table isn’t achieved status, but ascribed status. Like the duke of Lichtenstein. Hereditary titles. A coat-of-arms. Same thing with members of a certain political dynasty who think name-recognition automatically qualifies them for high office (e.g. Caroline Kennedy).
This doesn’t mean we should dismiss their opinions out of hand. But by the same token, it’s not as if their opinions are entitled to special deference just because of who said it.
As for the substantive issue, I’ve already blogged on that issue, so I don’t have to repeat myself here.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/09/is-god-source-of-sin.html
Ouch.
ReplyDeleteJr presents the Calvinist supralapsarian position honestly. It is somewhat amusing to watch the kids swipe at an accurate representation of this dogma.
ReplyDeleteI doubt Mallett has a clue about supralapsarianism to make the determination that RCS, Jr. presents it honestly.
ReplyDelete"It is somewhat amusing to watch the kids swipe at an accurate representation of this dogma."
ReplyDeleteYeah, it's kind of like us citing Arminian systematic theologians of the past who acknowledge that the philosophical presupposition of libertarian free-will is the starting point of Arminian theology, not Scripture, and then Roger Olson and modern Arminian apologists come along and say that's not true.
The Arminian theologians of the past represent the non-Scriptural position honestly. It is somewhat amusing to watch the kids swipe at an accurate representation of this dogma.
A.M. MALLETT SAID:
ReplyDelete"Jr presents the Calvinist supralapsarian position honestly. It is somewhat amusing to watch the kids swipe at an accurate representation of this dogma."
I notice that you don't interact with the post I did, commenting on Copan's piece, which is what Reppert originally plugged.
Mr. Peter, how would you differ with regard to Sproul's supralapsarian doctrine?
ReplyDeleteMallett,
ReplyDeleteA) Can you even define Supralapsarianism for me?
B) How do you know if I'm even Supralapsarian given that I've never stated my position on the subject?
Mr Peter, I have no interest in having a discussion of decrees or the order of decrees with you. I do not know your position regarding the fall however I do know Sproul Jr's and his thesis regarding the fall of man and the authorship of sin are directly connected. It seems you wish to distance yourself from Sproul and at the same time defend him. That is not a tenable position.
ReplyDeleteMr Peter, I should clarify somewhat. I had asked how you differed with Sproul rather than assumed you agreed with him. In any event, I am not sure a reply furthers any enlightenment on the matter.
ReplyDelete