We live in a novel, not a computer simulation

Here's a great interview with James Anderson on the simulation hypothesis and the authorial analogy for the God-world relation. By the way, Parker Settecase's Parker's Pensées podcast is fun and interesting if you enjoy musing on philosophy, theology, and/or philosophical theology from a Reformed perspective. Not to say these are always the subjects under discussion in his podcast, but I think that's his inclination. Parker has had a number of fascinating guests as well as topics on his podcast. He seems like a good guy to grab a beer with too.

The Theology of Jonathan Edwards review

Alastair Roberts reviews the book The Theology of Jonathan Edwards by Michael McClymond and Gerald McDermott:

There's also a transcript of the same video. Here's a brief excerpt:

I think there is a lot that can be done with a theology like Edwards’, that is creatively rooted within the tradition; that is rooted within the tradition but is moving out in ways that enable it to take on board insights from the natural sciences, insights from other contexts of the church, insights from empirical experience, and insights from foreign religions. And in these respects, there is something bracing and exciting about Edwards’ theology. He is not just a hidebound traditionalist, but nor is he someone who has abandoned all moorings and has no anchor left anymore, and is going off on the wild waves of the sea into who knows where. He is someone who has bearings and he is someone who has a clear anchor. And yet, he is someone who is able to explore areas that others cannot, because he has a different cast of theology.

Blinded to see

John Murray was known for his emphasis on exegetical theology rather than historical theology. For him, Calvinism had to be justified from Scripture. He wasn't someone who paid lip-service to sola scripture but in reality defaulted to tradition. Of course, like everyone, he was still conditioned by his background, but he made a good-faith effort to derive Calvinism from Scripture. 

In that regard I wonder if it's coincidental that Murray was blind in one eye. He lost one eye in WWI. I imagine it's harder to read with one eye than two eyes. So his visual impairment meant he couldn't be as prolific a reader as B. B. Warfield or E. J. Young. If you can't read as much, then that forces you to be more selective about what you read. The fact that he was blind in one eye may have enhanced his concentration on Scripture. If a Christian suffers from visual impairment, then constant Bible reading may be a priority. 

I'm reminded of something Virgil Thompson said about Toscanini:

…poor eyesight [is] probably responsible for the Toscanini style. When one cannot depend on reading a score in public, one must memorize everything. And when one memorizes everything, one acquires a great awareness of music's run-through. One runs it through the mind constantly; and one finds in that way a streamlined rendering…

If Murray's experience was analogous, to be steeped in the text of Scripture might facilitate his grasp for the flow of argument, narrative arc, and connections within or between books of the Bible. If you carry so much around in your head, then there's a constant process of mental comparison. So it may be that God providentially used–indeed, arranged–Murray's disability to make him excel at exegetical theology.  

Keller and Ferguson at WTS

Nothing novel or groundbreaking, but I enjoyed this discussion between Tim Keller and Sinclair Ferguson at WTS (with Peter Lillback moderating). Sometimes it's nice simply to listen to a pleasant conversation.

Not to suggest I necessarily agree with everything said. For example, I think some of the comments on women and race are a bit imbalanced and could've been better measured. In fairness, the answers seemed to have been off the cuff.

The light of nature

James Anderson continues his chapter by chapter review of J. V. Fesko's Reforming Apologetics in "Reforming Apologetics (The Light of Nature)".

Anderson vs. Abasciano on John 3:16

James Anderson has responded to Abasciano on John 3:16.

John 3:16 teaches limited atonement

"John 3:16 Teaches Limited Atonement" by Prof. James Anderson.

Calvin, Classical Trinitarianism, and the Aseity of the Son

Calvin, Classical Trinitarianism, and the Aseity of the Son

Seeing Christ in all of Scripture

Westminster Seminary Press is currently offering Seeing Christ in All of Scripture: Hermeneutics at Westminster Theological Seminary (pdf) as a free download.

Are all sins equally bad?

"Are All Sins Equally Bad?" by Prof. James Anderson.

Poythress on the big questions

An Interview with Vern Poythress on the "Big Questions"

Select bibliography on Reformed theology

Introductory

Paul Helm, Calvin: A Guide for the Perplexed (T&T Clark 2008)

_____, The Beginnings: Word and Spirit in Conversion (Banner of Truth 1986)

_____, The Callings: The Gospel in the World (Banner of Truth 1987)

–––––, The Last Things: Death, Judgment, Heaven and Hell (Banner of Truth 1989)

A. A. Hodge, Westminster Confession: A Commentary (Banner of Truth 2004)

Anthony Hoekema, Saved by Grace (Eerdmans 1995)

John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Eerdmans 1996)

Roger Nicole, Our Sovereign Saviour (Christian Focus 2001)

J. I. Packer, Concise Theology: A Guide to Historical Christian Beliefs (Tyndale 2001)

Intermediate

Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology 

Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Zondervan 1995)

Paul Helm, The Providence of God (IVP 1994)

Roger Nicole, Standing Forth (Mentor 2001)

J. I. Packer, A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life (Crossway 2010)

O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Prophets (P&R 2004)

Carl Trueman, John Owen: Reformed Catholic, Renaissance Man (Ashgate 2007)

Fred Zaspel, ed. The Theology of B. B. Warfield: A Systematic Summary (Crossway 2010)

Advanced

William Cunningham, Historical Theology, vols 1-2 (Banner of Truth 1960)

_____, The Reformers & the Theology of the Reformation (Banner of Truth 1979)

John Frame, The Doctrine of God (P&R  2002)

_____, The Doctrine of the Christian Life (P&R 2008)

Paul Helm, Calvin at the Centre (Oxford 2010)

_____, Eternal God: A Study of God without Time (Oxford, 2nd ed. 2011)

_____, Faith with Reason (Oxford 2003)

_____, John Calvin's Ideas (Oxford 2006)

Vern Poythress, Chance and the Sovereignty of God (Crossway 2014)

Thomas Schreiner, New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ (Baker 2008)

_____, Paul, Apostle of God's Glory in Christ (IVP 2006)

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology (P&R 1997)

Geerhardus Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, vols 1-5 (Lexham Press 2014-)

Bruce Waltke, An Old Testament Theology (Zondervan 2007). A few concessions to liberalism. Coverage thins out on the Psalter and the Prophets. 

The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield (Baker 1978)

The first and most important distinction between Rome and the Reformed Orthodox

Q1. What is the chief and highest end of man?
A. Man’s chief and highest end is to glorify God, and fully to enjoy him forever.

Just to be clear, this is from the “Westminster Larger Catechism”. After a century of contending with Roman Catholicism, the Reformed Orthodox perceived this issue to be the first and most important distinction between themselves and the Roman Catholics. Rome wants to deify itself and man; the Reformers sought God in his own glory, for His own sake.

William Ames and the Christian life

http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2014/11/william-ames-and-christian-life.html

Post-Reformation Digital Library

A useful resource.

Muller on “The Breadth Of The Reformed Orthodox Phenomenon”

Just a while ago Steve Hays posted a link to Paul Helm’s brief analysis of Oliver Crisp’s “Deviant Calvinism” on the discussion between “freedom of the will” and “grace” in the Westminster Confession of Faith.

I don’t intend to get into the specifics of that discussion. But in my own reading of Richard Muller’s “Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics”, I’ve found that Muller has found a tremendous amount of leeway “within the boundaries established by the major national confessions and catechisms of the Reformed churches”, wherein things may legitimately be termed as “Reformed”.

This goes against the grain of some of those who require more narrow boundaries around “the Reformed Confession” – yes, I’m thinking of Scott Clark, especially with regard to some of the things he’s written about John Frame. But yes, Muller paints the “Reformed Orthodox” period with a very broad brush.

Here’s that selection from Muller.

Libertarian Calvinism, Part 2

http://analytictheologye4c5.wordpress.com/2014/10/05/libertarian-calvinism-2/

Disambiguating impassibility

There's currently a debate within evangelicalism generally and Calvinism in particular over the question of whether God is impassible. One problems with the current debate is equivocation: there are two different definitions of impassability in circulation. If you Google "impassibility," you pull up definitions like this:

1. Classic theism teaches that God is impassible — not subject to suffering, pain, or the ebb and flow of involuntary passions. 

Incapable of suffering or of experiencing pain 

Incapable of feeling 

Compare that to a more academic definition of the term:

2. Nothing created can cause God to change or be modified in any way…Many classical theists make this point by insisting that God is impassible. In this context "Impassible"…means "not able to be causally modified by an external agent"…God cannot be altered by anything a creature does. B. Davies, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion (Oxford, 3rd ed, 2004), 5. 

Notice that #1 doesn't mean the same thing as #2. #1 defines impassibility in terms of divine emotional generally or divine suffering in particular.

By contrast, #2 does not include emotion or suffering in the definition. Rather, it defines impassibility in terms of divine independence. God cannot be influenced by his creatures. 

Take another example:  

The view that God is in no way affected by creatures is called the impassibility of God. This seems to be the view that you favor. God cannot suffer emotional pain. 

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/divine-impassibility-and-the-crucifixion#ixzz3Bnn02fI5

Craig begins with one definition, but immediately substitutes a different definition. He oscillates between two different senses of the word, without even registering the equivocation.  

For now I'm not discussing which one is true, or whether either one is true. The immediate point is that the current debate suffers from this semantic confusion. 

It's possible to see how these two different definitions might be interrelated. If you deny #2, then that makes God susceptible to emotion or suffering if God reacts to events in the world. 

Finally, I'd point out that impassibility, in the sense of #2, dovetails with Reformed theism, which stresses divine independence. God is never conditioned by the creature, but vice versa. 

Can Lister keep the balance?

http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2014/08/can-lister-keep-balance.html

Calvinism and determinism

"Calvinism and Determinism" by Prof. James Anderson