Comments on: Playful or Serious? http://deregnochristi.org/2007/09/27/playful-or-serious/ The Reign of Christ Fri, 21 Nov 2008 00:26:08 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: JMuether http://deregnochristi.org/2007/09/27/playful-or-serious/#comment-2217 JMuether Tue, 02 Oct 2007 18:50:36 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/09/27/playful-or-serious/#comment-2217 Wait. The entire southern hemisphere has heard of Meredith Kline? Who knew? Wait. The entire southern hemisphere has heard of Meredith Kline? Who knew?

]]> By: James Jordan http://deregnochristi.org/2007/09/27/playful-or-serious/#comment-2209 James Jordan Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:32:50 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/09/27/playful-or-serious/#comment-2209 Well, but my opinion is shared by the entire southern hemisphere, which is the church of the future and is thoroughly "theonomic." ;-) They don't have the luxury of "common grace" since people are trying to murder their wives and kids. They have to get serious about Jesus' Kingship, and His Kingship is very definitely gospel to them, as it was to Peter in Acts 2. Well, but my opinion is shared by the entire southern hemisphere, which is the church of the future and is thoroughly “theonomic.” ;-) They don’t have the luxury of “common grace” since people are trying to murder their wives and kids. They have to get serious about Jesus’ Kingship, and His Kingship is very definitely gospel to them, as it was to Peter in Acts 2.

]]> By: D Hart http://deregnochristi.org/2007/09/27/playful-or-serious/#comment-2202 D Hart Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:13:01 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/09/27/playful-or-serious/#comment-2202 James, but yours is the opinion of one man. John's is the opinion of a sect (your word). A sect at least is bigger than one man or a conversation. Scissors beat paper. James, but yours is the opinion of one man. John’s is the opinion of a sect (your word). A sect at least is bigger than one man or a conversation. Scissors beat paper.

]]> By: James Jordan http://deregnochristi.org/2007/09/27/playful-or-serious/#comment-2200 James Jordan Tue, 02 Oct 2007 15:03:34 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/09/27/playful-or-serious/#comment-2200 But that's your opinion. Mine is that Kline is almost totally outside the Reformed tradition, and Rushdoony is totally within it. But that’s your opinion. Mine is that Kline is almost totally outside the Reformed tradition, and Rushdoony is totally within it.

]]> By: JMuether http://deregnochristi.org/2007/09/27/playful-or-serious/#comment-2134 JMuether Sun, 30 Sep 2007 17:27:36 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/09/27/playful-or-serious/#comment-2134 Jesse, The point of Charles Hodge's widely misunderstood and often lampooned comment on the lack of anything "new" during his 50-year watch at Princeton was not to condemn creativity. How could it when Hodge himself was one of the most creative minds of the 19th century? Rather, Hodge understood that freedom and creativity are not products of our liberation from confessionalism (as Frame argued in the quote Darryl cited and and Meyers bellowed on another post). Rather we should seek to be creative within the tradition, and this is what Kline has done, in my judgment. Animus Imponentis is, as Darryl acknowledged, a difficult matter to determine. But OPC GA's reception of the study report on creation in 2004 was, among other things, an animus-furthering action. Thus Kline's views on creation find themselves within the confessional tradition. This to me is the incredibly liberating feature of confessionalism. It allows for theological reflection that is truly creative and even "playful" in the proper sense. Jesse,
The point of Charles Hodge’s widely misunderstood and often lampooned comment on the lack of anything “new” during his 50-year watch at Princeton was not to condemn creativity. How could it when Hodge himself was one of the most creative minds of the 19th century? Rather, Hodge understood that freedom and creativity are not products of our liberation from confessionalism (as Frame argued in the quote Darryl cited and and Meyers bellowed on another post). Rather we should seek to be creative within the tradition, and this is what Kline has done, in my judgment. Animus Imponentis is, as Darryl acknowledged, a difficult matter to determine. But OPC GA’s reception of the study report on creation in 2004 was, among other things, an animus-furthering action. Thus Kline’s views on creation find themselves within the confessional tradition. This to me is the incredibly liberating feature of confessionalism. It allows for theological reflection that is truly creative and even “playful” in the proper sense.

]]> By: D Hart http://deregnochristi.org/2007/09/27/playful-or-serious/#comment-2130 D Hart Sun, 30 Sep 2007 12:54:23 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/09/27/playful-or-serious/#comment-2130 I strikes me that animus imponentis is much more clearly a part of the sort of thing I am describing as a tradition than a Bible study is. Granted, it is not easily defineable. It requires wisdom and intuition. And yes, I think Kline's creativity is good and FV's is not so good. Part of this determination rests on a sense of allegiance to a tradition. I strikes me that animus imponentis is much more clearly a part of the sort of thing I am describing as a tradition than a Bible study is. Granted, it is not easily defineable. It requires wisdom and intuition.

And yes, I think Kline’s creativity is good and FV’s is not so good. Part of this determination rests on a sense of allegiance to a tradition.

]]> By: J. Pirschel http://deregnochristi.org/2007/09/27/playful-or-serious/#comment-2013 J. Pirschel Thu, 27 Sep 2007 17:06:48 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/09/27/playful-or-serious/#comment-2013 John, Where are the limits to the "no" creativity clause? I remember well your quote from Hodge on the library office door about not doing any "new" theology. Yet, Kline was very "creative". I mean the man used more hyphens than a feminist's last name. Yet there seems to be nothing but appreciation for "that" kind of creativity. I would imagine it's because you and others believe his creativity was "within" the bounds of the tradition and didn’t do damage to anything substantial. Others, of course, would disagree (did the Confession really envision Framework?). That is why I asked yesterday (though it was never posted) how Darryl’s (and your) view of traditionalism makes peace with "animus imponentis" (since no assembly voted on such things, who gets to decide what the animus of the church officially is?) John,

Where are the limits to the “no” creativity clause? I remember well your quote from Hodge on the library office door about not doing any “new” theology. Yet, Kline was very “creative”. I mean the man used more hyphens than a feminist’s last name. Yet there seems to be nothing but appreciation for “that” kind of creativity. I would imagine it’s because you and others believe his creativity was “within” the bounds of the tradition and didn’t do damage to anything substantial. Others, of course, would disagree (did the Confession really envision Framework?).

That is why I asked yesterday (though it was never posted) how Darryl’s (and your) view of traditionalism makes peace with “animus imponentis” (since no assembly voted on such things, who gets to decide what the animus of the church officially is?)

]]> By: James Jordan http://deregnochristi.org/2007/09/27/playful-or-serious/#comment-2011 James Jordan Thu, 27 Sep 2007 16:50:27 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/09/27/playful-or-serious/#comment-2011 I can't appreciate it. Both John and I are setting out what we believe the Bible says. He's wrong and I'm right, as it happens. ;-) I can’t appreciate it. Both John and I are setting out what we believe the Bible says. He’s wrong and I’m right, as it happens. ;-)

]]> By: JMuether http://deregnochristi.org/2007/09/27/playful-or-serious/#comment-2001 JMuether Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:24:42 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/09/27/playful-or-serious/#comment-2001 Jeff, The relevance of John Frame lies here: Jordan whole-heartedly embraces Frame’s creativity with respect to the Reformed tradition. But Frame employs that creativity in defense of contemporary worship which Jordan claims he opposed for 25+ years. Can you appreciate the difficulty of taking that claim seriously. Jeff, The relevance of John Frame lies here: Jordan whole-heartedly embraces Frame’s creativity with respect to the Reformed tradition. But Frame employs that creativity in defense of contemporary worship which Jordan claims he opposed for 25+ years. Can you appreciate the difficulty of taking that claim seriously.

]]> By: James Jordan http://deregnochristi.org/2007/09/27/playful-or-serious/#comment-1998 James Jordan Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:06:11 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/09/27/playful-or-serious/#comment-1998 I don't think YOU are supposed to take FV seriously at all. FV is a conversation among exegetes, theologians, and pastors. If you want to be part of the conversation, you'd be welcome, but only sans the whif of sarcasm that, intentional or not, is coming through your posts here. I don’t think YOU are supposed to take FV seriously at all. FV is a conversation among exegetes, theologians, and pastors. If you want to be part of the conversation, you’d be welcome, but only sans the whif of sarcasm that, intentional or not, is coming through your posts here.

]]>