Why Mark Jones wants to stain Louis Berkhof

Mark Jones is a creepy sort. In the political realm he is the type to write for a pseudo conservative, very establishment magazine that lo and behold never saw a cultural Marxist move on the nation and culture that didn't make him get all tingly with approval. And just watch him go full Rex Reed on the untermensch when needed.

You can google it, but Jones has recently written a blog post at Reformation21 citing examples of Berkhof plagiarizing Geerhardus Vos in his Systematic Theology. The examples are of the nature of: Berkhof wrote, "Adoption and eternal life follow upon justification." Vos wrote, "With justification comes adoption and eternal life."

I kid you not.

Then Jones proceeds to give mitigation, several reasons, why Berkhof probably isn't guilty of plagiarizing Vos. Yet the headline stands that Berkhof was a plagiarist.

Why does Mark Jones want to put a stain on Louis Berkhof? Because Jones lately has come fully out of the closet as showing a nose-in-the-air dislike of Reformed Theology. It's too......common. Not enough separation, or hierarchy regarding the teaching church and the.......laaaay people. He's moved in a bit of a Romanist direction and adopted the old label last popular in the early 2000s of Reformed Catholic. He, for instance, wants sola ecclesia (church alone, whatever that can mean) to be made a sixth sola. He believes, with some of his friends at Ref21, that the word of God should only be heard, through the mediation of a properly ordained cleric, and not read by people who are biblical morons at best..you know, the untermensch. Reformed Catholics have similar Romanist leaning beliefs as Federal Visionists, who don't like Berkhof either.

So why does Berkhof come under their wrath? Isn't Berkhof's work just sort of an on-the-mark, well-organized, clear textbook variety of Reformed - i.e. biblical - systematic theology? Why pick on Berkhof? It's in the sentence above: on-the-mark. When Reformed Theology is presented on-the-mark its power becomes manifest. And Berkhof's work has another quality. He laces historical theology through his systematic theology in a way that inevitably convicts those not content with the basic truth and would twist doctrine and distort doctrine to suit their demands. I.e. Berkhof is an ever wakeful sentinel, and his presence annoys them. So now Jones has decided the tactic must be to separate Berkhof out from Vos and Bavinck (lesser read so less of a threat) by smearing the mud of a plagiarism accusation against him.
_______

Wow. In a totally unrelated blog post by Mark Jones I found this: "...it is no coincidence that some of the best theologians over church history were men of the Scriptures first and foremost, otherwise they would have, like Berkhof, merely regurgitated Reformed theology!"

http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2015/12/of-the-reading-of-many-books
_______

I wrote the above post without knowing about this:
http://www.nsa.edu/mark-jones-begins-nsa-lectureship/

Doug Wilson once disdainfully said, in a comments thread at greenbagins blog, that he didn't even own a copy of Berkhof's Systematic Theology. It was beneath him, it seems.

What 'experimental' means vis-a-vis Christianity

I came across this article in pdf.

In the first paragraph is a very good explanation of what 'experimental Christianity' means. I confess to having used the term while always being a bit hazy on the meaning.

Worth reading and remembering. - C.

On the presence of the cartoonishly evil Islam

I'm starting to understand more what is going on in the world today. 

All this Muslim crap and the lunacy of non-Muslims who enable it all a thousand ways...

It is helpful to read Rodney Stark's God's Battalions. This is a politically-incorrect, truthful account not only of the Crusades, but of European/Muslim warfare from the time the Arab Muslims ventured out of Arabia. I.e. from almost 400 years prior to the first crusade.

This early history is necessary and enlightening because it shows how much the Satanic movement of Islam has been intimately involved in the lives and history of Christians since God allowed them to manifest in the 7th century. 

I.e., what I'm getting at is we as Christians don't want anything to do with the retarded, goat-fucking sand monkeys and would rather they stay in their God-given hell holes...BUT.......that is not what God intended when He allowed them to arise. 

God intended Islam to be a thorn in the side of Christians, and a constant presence of evil for when Christian lands and peoples fall short of the faith or apostasize. The filthy, cartoonishly evil Muslims are also a test for each individual believing Christian. Do we hold to the faith or go dhimmi to the Satanic retards? Do we increase our understanding of the faith? Do we increase our level of being within the friction and heat of being in the faith by practicing the faith when it is most difficult?

Unfortunately we have no clerics who could write what I've just written. Why do I have to take a swipe at clerics at the end of this? To communicate that we as Christians are prophets, priests, and kings. Where do kings gather together? On battlefields. That would be the spiritual battlefield. Not a nursery being lectured to by a seminary graduate, full of cultural Marxist indoctrination up to his wet gills; and feckless in not having a clue about it. Bowing their knee, dhimmi style, to Islam (see James White, a vocal dhimmi, and the innumerable others who, for their own style, remain silent on the subject altogether.)

We'd like for the orcs to go back to their subterranean hells, but God has destined His children to be in a constant warfare in this pilgrimage. - C.

Note to James White

One thing you should never do is say somebody who identifies as Christian is not a Christian. That is denying the work of the Holy Spirit within a person. That is also placing yourself in a seat of judgment no human other than Jesus Christ can sit in.

You can confront somebody on their doctrine or behavior, but saying they are not a Christian when they claim to be is out-of-bounds.

This is a temptation for all Christians. Those who have been on the spiritual battlefield know the potential consequences of making this mistake.

In White's case he is stating that Donald Trump is not a Christian, presumably because he's been married three times and who knows what else. When you apply a strict legalist standard to fallen human beings you can decree anybody to the flames of hell.

Fear of death

I'm not referring here to a fear of death due to a lack of faith. Just the general thoughts of our impending death that can make us wonder about the unknown and perhaps be scared at times. For me, I've had that fear in the past, but right now, lately, I feel no fear or apprehension of death and what will happen. Here's one reason why.

The philosophical notions of a personal vs. an impersonal universe are very helpful in clearing the mind of infections of naturalism and atheism we pick up from the world in general.

This universe is not impersonal. God Himself is a personal God. Not, for instance, some impersonal force or energy, but a Person; with thoughts and emotion and will. We are created in His image which is why we are like that.

I think we tend to look up into the night sky and see no life and hence assume an impersonal universe. The light of the stars is not enough to evoke life; we want persons, the dearly departed, consciousness, angels, God Himself. As believing Christians we know we can't see into that invisible realm, but it's not even in our mind. We fall for the impression of the impersonal in what we're seeing and thinking.

We're definitely vulnerable when we die. Just as when we were born. Those are the two major thresholds we cross. But notice when we were born we weren't born into an impersonal realm? Our mother, a person, was there. A doctor. A nurse. Perhaps other family members. And even if we'd been thrown into a dumpster or aborted it would have been at the hands of persons.

So when we die we are told angels - persons - will be present. Perhaps dearly departed family. The presence of the Person of God, too, in some way? People. Not a realm of no conscious beings.

Is it obnoxious when an intellectual is a parasite on more foundational, and foundationally articulated, ideas?

Look at this. This is Tim Challies quoting a seminary professor, Carl Trueman, and doing it as if Trueman is articulating something only the unique and clever Trueman could articulate:

Here’s Carl Trueman doing what he does so well: “When you decide that categories of identity are merely psychological and that reality is constituted by language, you consequently have neither the right nor the ability to call a halt to the Promethean process which you have unleashed just because some of the results prove to be distasteful to you and unhelpful to your political cause.”

Why do I find this obnoxious? Because such observation can be had by the truckload in the writings of writers associated with worldview analysis. A subject that people like Trueman are likely to be ignorantly critical of. I say ignorantly because incorporated into worldview analysis, when done by Christians, is a self-critical element. Anyway...

I suppose it should be seen as positive that good, on-the-mark ideas and observations and analysis seep down into the general universe of discourse. But it might be good if we didn't present people as genius who are dependent on more foundational writers.

American exceptionalism

“Humanity has won its battle,” Lafayette wrote from the newly-liberated America, after the victory of the Revolution. “Liberty now has a country.”

Liberty now has a country.

That is what American exceptionalism is. It is why the Devil and his spiritual children have always burned with hatred for America; from outside, and from within.

Sometimes I come across a uniquely good comment on the internet

This was written under another tediously dumb column on Donald Trump by Jonah Goldberg at NRO:

"****4 hours ago

The Donald is in a long negotiation process with the plundering political classes to save the country. It is messy business when you have to negotiate with a cabal of totalitarian leftist statists but the Donald is up for it.

Already after less than a year of negotiations the parameters and assumptions about the value of the country have changed. The totalitarian leftist statists started negotiation from the assumption that the country doesn't even exist except to be taxed. The Donald is moving the discussion and more and more people are starting to believe that the country is worth saving. In a couple of months the leftists will acknowledge that we have borders and the establishment GOP will acknowledge that we have laws that govern them."

Seeing something in a different context can be powerful

Here is an exercise to find the most powerful sources and presentation of the Christian faith.

Imagine you are presenting the Christian faith to a semi-interested Muslim (and think Jihadist, though not a mentally disturbed one or a purely sadistic one, but a more thoughtful one who is just deceived in a big way...let's keep this within the realm of possibility, though the Holy Spirit can conquer any stony and rebellious heart).

The first part of the approach, it seems to me, would be to not necessarily steer the Muslim away from a human teacher. We might think, Muhammad, the human, has defiled enough minds, let's steer them towards the word of God and the Holy Spirit for their teacher.

Yet in Christianity there are schools. We tend to think in terms of branches and denominations, but really we should think in terms of schools. John Knox called Calvin's Geneva the best school of Christ. This is the sense I mean.

What teacher (prophet, small 'p') would be the highest school? Undoubtedly it is John Calvin. And the parallel is convenient. Muhammad, the prophet of the desert (false prophet of course), and Calvin, the prophet of the mountain. A Muslim could admire this prophet, Calvin, if he or she got to know him. (And we are doing this exercise for ourselves as well remember).

Who were the ultimate followers of the school of Calvin? The Puritans. Again, a Muslim could admire these Puritans, as he or she got to know them.

What is the most powerful book to learn of this school from? Undoubtedly the Bible itself. Yet a Muslim could see the power in adopting the Authorized, 1611 Version and being able to say, "This, this that I hold in my hands, is the pure and whole word of God, unchanging and inspired of the Holy Spirit Himself."

What books written by man would be a part of this powerful school? For systematic theology the mere books of knowledge would not make the cut. It would have to be the systematic theologies that had a historic character and uniqueness to them. a Brakel's Christian's Reasonable Service would be one. Calvin's own Institutes of the Christian Religion. Watson's Body of Practical Divinity. John Dagg's Manual of Theology, to cite a lesser known, unique one.

Also, very contained and ordered works such as Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress and Boston's Human Nature In its Fourfold State. These two are folk level works with power.

A work on spiritual warfare, a Puritan distinctive, foundational to the Puritan school, would be Gurnall's Christian in Complete Armour.

Spurgeon's Sermons would make the roster. Matthew Henry's Commentary would as well.

For history: Wylie's History of Protestantism and Schaff's History of the Christian Church. (The latter would be a slight refining influence to take too sharp an edge off the Christian, yet not to dull the edge.)

These are 12 works. The academic and reference material intentionally left out. We want literature of power rather than mere literature of knowledge (to use de Quincey's categories).

Now the Muslim convert has the history and example of the Puritans to drawn on and emulate; a strong tradition; a powerful and high school of the Christian faith; actually outside apostolic times the highest, most powerful school.

Obviously, and obviously not so obviously, we're currently witnessing the rolling out of a globalist plan

The plan ostensibly is to flood the first world with the third world so as to implement a real income redistribution. 'Cuz justice, and stuff. Yet in spiritual reality it is the Devil creating a one world unity of shit and tyranny and hell, for the purposes of killing God's children, killing more people as human sacrifice to the Kingdom of Satan, and to basically play for time until God kills all evil. Sin is irrational and the Devil and his followers act on the premise that they can defeat God, but they know better, deep down.

I say not so obviously because we're all a bit confused as to what has been going on regarding this globalist plan, so no need to pretend otherwise. An act this big can be easily overlooked.

We are also naive and ignorant regarding the Devil's plans, despite reading of them over and over in something called the Bible.

We also don't generally anticipate such massive, daring moves from people we generally don't have a very high estimate of. We forget that the spirit of the Devil makes even a village idiot a genius to do evil.

Is it inevitable? The entire planet reduced to a fake unified third world status? With people like Merkel and Obama holding the reins of tyranny over an easily controlled poor and chaotic landscape?

This is definitely a goal of the Devil. Is it a necessity in the plan of redemption? Is it required for the coming of the consummation?

Clerics and the discernment of evil

If you're a follower of James White currently wringing your hands over what's happened over the last few weeks you just need to understand that White's narcissism has finally forced him into a position of conflict with a regenerate discernment of good and evil. On the question of the Satanic death cult that is Islam White would rather position himself as bowing his knee to the Devil so that he can call everybody "stupid" on the issue, presenting himself as the only person with understanding.

And he's boxed himself in now pretty fully. Even talking about it now on his latest videos* you see that he's having to emote in the saucer-eyed, dramatically-bewildered-at-what-he's-witnessing way that he slips into when he's boxed in.

He's read books on Islam, learned some Arabic, shook hands with a Muslim debater or two or three, but typical of a shallow, specializing academic can't see the forest for the trees. In the military an officer like White is the worst possible nightmare scenario. As a cleric and Christian educator he's unfortunately more common.

* https://youtu.be/DWk737SEiaQ