White Horse Inn

The four boys of the White Horse Inn seem intent on importing secular academic shallowness and man-fearing into the Reformed faith.

And their ridiculous performance style gives them away as perhaps not holding to what they claim to hold to. When biblical doctrine is delivered in an affected quirky manner it is the person or people doing it saying, even unconsciously, that they really don't value what they are saying. All that "Yup!" and theatrical "Uh, hum..."s and projecting breathless "Wow"s after the recitation of any verse of Scripture is a bit quirky. Not to mention all the straw men put forth, usually always to mock or denigrate the intelligence of Protestants (never Romanists).

One doesn't detect any value of classical influences - history, poetry, especially - in these boys. Nor does one detect the bold stance of fearing God alone one sees in the first and second generation reformers whose doctrine these four boys claim to hold to. One sees a rather obsequious fear of man, and in particular a fear of secular academic opinion.

Matthew Henry - Psalm 24

From an email:

I just read all of Matthew Henry's commentary on Psalm 24. I was surprised. If you read it straight through by the time he gets to the final third of the psalm his take on it is really powerful and transcendent. He has you up at the gates of Heaven. The imagery I had was like an epic fantasy novel. Yet he also gives the interpretation that applies to us, our being, I was impressed. It was the first time I had the patience to read something from him complete. Just judging by the cover, so to speak, you expect him to be more tame and safe and so forth. From this I can now see why some modern Reformed academic theologians are not positive on him. I should say, the modern academic Reformed types who make Calvin look like a bare foot mystic. They're not all like that by any means though.

Three little notes

CAN GOD TRUST ME. I like that question: Can God trust me.

Can he trust me with a lot of money (metaphorically or not)? With great responsibility? With great power? I.e. in His Kingdom.

We can answer the question after awhile. I say yes He can trust me.

Of course He gives me the ability and constitution to be trustworthy.

ARM YOURSELF. In your time left arm yourself.

Armor is defined in Ephesians 6:10-18.

And Biblical doctrine is armor of God. True, hard-to-accept doctrine is the best armor. It changes you internally.

OLD PATH. Get the old books into you. The ones that just have the feel of weaponry and armor. Get them in the parts and the whole. See through the dead patterns around you. See the whole plan of God and the more invisible realm where the battle takes place.

Go for depth of understanding, deeply engrafted, using only a handful of summit level inspired influences. Influences vetted by time. Reread them. In short master the word of God.

Answering the question of an accredited Christian 'teacher'

Peter Enns, one time, long time, professor at an iconic Reformed seminary, asks why is God so mad at His creation? You have to read the entire post to see how far a person can apostatize.

Here's one answer: idol worship.

Question: has Peter Enns ever read the Old Testament? I know his specialty, but has he ever actually read the Old Testament beginning to end as a plain believer? If he had he'd have seen a lot in the behavior of God's creation to make God angry.

Question: has Peter Enns ever looked into himself? Christianity doesn't even begin until you know you're a sinner.

Peter Enns' juvenile evolutionism aside, his lack of understanding of the Bible, parts-in-relation-to-the-whole understanding, the very type of understanding Reformed Theology uniquely attains to, is an indictment of seminaries in general. That Enns could attain the level of a professor in a so-called top Reformed seminary while having obviously little to zero understanding of the Bible and God's plan of redemption as a whole, and, again, setting aside his inability to distinguish micro from macro evolution claims (which is most likely intentional at this point of his apostasy, Darwinian macro evolution being the old useful hammer to attack Christianity with) shows the worth of academic seminaries of any stripe. About the same as the Ivy League today.

There's a thing going on

There's a thing going on among Reformed academic theologians regarding the republication of the Covenant of Works at Sinai. Because they never saw the simplicity of it, that Jesus came to fulfill what Adam failed to fulfill, and that Jesus was born under the law, and that that law was republished in obviously elaborated form on Sinai (what, was Jesus supposed to not eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? and no the battle in the desert with Satan was not a direct analogue to Jesus fulfilling the Covenant of Works), and Jesus followed that law dotting every 'i' and crossing every 't.'

That simplicity which was missed by Reformed academic theologians who solely concentrated on how a republished Covenant of Works could relate to fallen human beings called national Israel, never seeing them as a type of the Messiah who existed to bring the Messiah in their midst in the fulness of time, the Messiah who *could* fulfill the Covenant of Works, etc.

Because they missed this they are now saying: "Well, ahem, of course, it's not as simple, uh, as to just say Jesus fulfilled what Adam failed to fulfill and that the law at Sinai represented that Covenant in the Garden and, uh, so on. It's much more complicated than that."

In other words Reformed academic theologians are reacting to protect their vanity by 'complicating' the matter and by that hoping to lasso it back in to their sterile professor's lounge and away from the street Calvinists who tend to see the parts in relation to the whole upon their first effort to see the parts in relation to the whole, and then recognize terminal understanding of biblical doctrine when they reach it. Rather than making everything akin to ever learning never able to come to understanding of the truth.

How to view death

Christopher Hitchens looked scared in the last weeks and days of his life. When the body starts to break down due to illness or injury it lets go its hold on the soul. That is when the silly atheist starts to see and experience things he'd denied during his life when his body was healthy. At that point Christopher Hitchens either had to silently concede defeat to reality or willfully go into a lunatic state to protect his pride. His speech at the atheist convention shortly before his death suggests the latter.

A corollary note: there is a difference between pondering your death when you are in a healthy state and experiencing the process of death when your body is breaking down. We can ponder death when healthy and come to off-the-mark conclusions or work up unnecessary fears. Once the body releases its smothering* hold over the soul and our spirit and spiritual body are freer to communicate beyond the veil - all a matter of degree in each individual case due to many obvious factors - we're likely to view it like we view now the miracle of birth. People don't freak out when they die.

*If you almost knee-jerked a "You're a Gnostic!!!" accusation slap yourself in the face.

Peter Enns' full stomach

Liberal theologians, cultural Marxists in academia, useful idiots in Hollywood and news media...they're all porting full stomachs.

Unfortunately the victims of their easy, go-with-the-current Devil philosophy are denied that comfort and blithe ease.

How do you explain to a liberal theologian that their game-playing is fueled by a constantly full stomach? You're talking to shells.

Sin and evil and the hard-a** nature of Christianity

Reading through some books I was thinking of the very stark difference between Christianity and other teachings. The stark difference is sin and evil. Christianity comes off as *hard-ass mean* compared to the new age and similar stuff. And it's because of the doctrine of sin and evil. The reality of sin and evil as Christianity forces us to confront it.

And think about it: we're not innocent pussy cats wandering around this planet. We're all venomous snakes. We all have poison in us. OK, we say, but I've never beaten somebody to death, or kicked an unconscious person in the head, or cut somebody's head off, or raped a child, or raped an adult, or killed a village, men, women, and children, or thrown fire on someone, or lied about someone so that they were put in prison, or what have you, BUT, I have *that poison* in me. Just because I don't - or haven't yet - struck with my fangs doesn't mean I don't have that poison in me. That poison is *sin.* As for evil: it is my *nature* to strike with my fangs.

(By the way, the fact that all those evil things listed above are actually done every day on this planet by similar human beings to ourselves is witness to the sin and evil constitutionally a part of our fallen being. Our state after the fall.)

And I can no more get that poison out of me than a leopard can change its spots. Nor can I change my nature. Only God can work such change in me through regeneration.

This is hard to see and hard to accept and hard to remember. We are not harmless puppies. We live in a world of hallucinogenic sin and evil. Kaleidoscopic sin and evil. The softer teachings - new age, whatever - are actually dramatically evil in their pretending people are inherently good.

Yet still, continually, we have to come to see and accept that we are *children of wrath*, living, prior to regeneration by the word and the Spirit, with one foot and half a leg in eternal hellfire. A deserved hellfire. "But we were created like this!" we say. No, we were created good. Adam was created good. Then he fell. "But we didn't fall!" Yet we would have, just like Adam, and the giveaway is prior to regeneration we willingly and happily side with our fallen nature. So our fall, due to being under the federal head of Adam, is just the exposing in ourselves of what was exposed in Adam by his act. [I notice that I engaged in some sketchy theology in this paragraph. Better to say we fell in Adam simply because Adam was our federal head, our King, and whether we would have done the same or not is immaterial. We certainly didn't show much remorse, instantly or throughout the ages, as his fallen progeny. We find ourselves in the medium of good and evil despite ourselves, and either recognize God is sovereign over His creation (Potter > clay) and over providence and grace, or we rage against that which gave us life to begin with. Once regenerated we then at some point need to see the evil in and around us as a means of escape, by being awake and loving our enemies. Or practicing the two great commandments of Christ in the real time everyday traffic of life.]

"So we're in really bad straits." That's why what Jesus did is called good news.

BONUS: So why did God make all this His *Plan*? The Bible says it is so that we can see the justice and mercy of God in the whole process, and in that to accept that God, our Creator, is above us, and is, in fact, as a Potter is to clay.

Now, speculation alert: we might also speculate that it is the only way God can create beings that will have consciousness, real will, and real understanding without having to be given those things by fiat. I.e. the only way God can create actual real beings who are not robotic. Real beings also who love Him without it being robotic love. We had to fall from the level we were created at so that we could experience good and evil. So that we could *know the difference* which is like an ignition inside us that makes a spark of possibility for us to be real in our understanding and being. And there had to be a real consequence for the fall, namely eternal hellfire or it wouldn't all be effective. Then in the process of being drawn back upward, most aspects of the Plan monergistic (like regeneration, justification, and definitive sanctification), but some synergistic (like progressive sanctification) we attain a level higher than where we were created at (glorification eventually, which is an eschatological act of God).

The evil angels are in a different state. They did something that was akin to committing the unforgivable sin. They are also part of the overall Plan of God, the role they play; but also a stark reminder, and something that must be accepted: that God is sovereign in creation, providence, *and grace.*