Christian Faith: Calvinism is back. “In America’s Christian faith, a surprising comeback of rock-ribbed Calvinism is challenging the Jesus-is-your-buddy gospel of modern evangelism.” Josh Burek, Christian Science Monitor (27/Mar/2010)

“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.

Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!”

Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”

Matthew 16:15-23

The Roman Catholic Church claims that its authority structure is founded in Matthew 16 where Jesus makes Peter the first Pope. And that every subsequent Pope has had the same authority and power as were given to Peter. Peter was able to speak for God, as evidenced by his letters 1 and 2 Peter. And since this passage gives the authority to Peter and all of his successors then every Pope since Peter can speak for God with the same authority.

So, did Jesus really set up this authority structure here in Matthew 16?

Read the rest of this entry

Over at his blog, Dr. James Anderson recently announced a 50% discount being offered for a very limited time by P&R Publishing on the festschrift in honour of John Frame, Speaking the Truth in Love: The Theology of John M. Frame (2009), with expository and analytical essays from 36 contributors on Frame’s own work in the fields of theology, apologetics, ethics, etc. (including Wayne Grudem, Paul Helm, Vern Poythress, James Anderson and more). The discount expires 31 March 2010, so get your copy soon. See the Table of Contents and a sample chapter (PDF).

(HT: Chris Bolt at Choosing Hats.)

It is almost impossible to respond to this:

Once honored for voicing substantive theology in the Reformed tradition, Union Theological Seminary’s 2010 Sprunt Lectures will feature a feminist speaker who favors replacing the cross with a lactating breast.

I couldn’t make that up if I tried. The feminist speaker in question is Margaret Miles, who said that despite the claim by theologians “that crucifixion scenes exhibited the extremity of God’s love for humans, it was scenes of the child sucking at the breast that spoke to people on the basis of their earliest experience.” She suggests that the cross is inappropriate as a symbol of God’s love because “it presents a violent act as salvific.”

The article tells that Union Theological Seminary is one of eleven seminaries that are officially related to the PCUSA. That actually explains a lot.

You can read the whole article here.

(Thanks to Mathew for pointing out the incorrect URL.)

Last year as part of our Sydney Anglican Church “Connect Groups”^[1] we met to study the doctrinal framework of the Australian Fellowship of Evangelical Students (AFES), whose intention it is to make clear what it means to be a Bible-believing Christian. Although I have previously considered the authority claims of the Bible, this study really made me think more about this issue than I had previously. Phillip Jensen and Tony Payne provide commentary on all nine of the doctrinal statements made by the AFES in the Matthias Media publication The Blueprint^[2]. This article is concerned only with the first of those statements:

The divine inspiration and infallibility of Holy Scripture, as originally given, and its supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct.^[3] [emphasis mine]

Infallibility has to do with the trustworthiness of Scripture. So by implication the AFES seem to be affirming that the Bible is completely reliable when it comes to religious or spiritual issues, but not necessarily when it comes to other issues like science or history. Or as Jensen and Payne put it more explicitly, “… Scripture is limited to matters of faith and conduct. The Scriptures do not claim to be an authority in calculus, nuclear physics, poetry or chess”^[4] [emphasis mine]. For textual support they cite 2 Tim 3:16-17; possibly the most popular proof text used to refute anyone who thinks that the Bible doesn’t make any restrictions on the kinds of subjects on which it speaks truthfully.

But then only two pages later… “The Scripture has authority over all matters on which it speaks. It is not exhaustive – it does not cover all matters – but because of its authorship its authority extends over everything it covers“^[5] [emphasis mine]. What then do Jensen and Payne mean when they talk of Scripture being limited to matters of faith and conduct? To avoid the confusion, I can only assume that what they mean is this:

Read the rest of this entry