Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6

It’s quite good and worth reading.

The purpose of this site is to set these contemporary ‘God Wars’ in their historical context, and to offer a range of perspectives (from all sides) on the chief issues raised by the ‘new atheists’. We hope this will encourage more informed opinion about the issues, discourage oversimplification of the debate, and deepen the interest in the subject.

When God condemns the ungodly, does that forensic declaration only obtain to those who receive it by faith? Of course not. If you are summoned to appear before a judge, and he declares you guilty or not-guilty, your status does not depend on whether or not you believe the judge. The sentence is an objective reality. You don’t receive it by faith alone or with anything else. It simply makes no sense to even talk that way.

Here are the titles now available…

“Reformed” is Not Enough
Against Christianity
The Victory According to Mark
The Lord’s Service
Trinity and Reality
The Promise of His Appearing
Deep Comedy
A Great Mystery
Building Her House
For a Glory and a Covering
Faith of Our Fathers
The Baptized Body
Critique of Modern Youth Ministry
Contours of Post-Maturity
Brightest Heaven of Invention
Reforming Marriage
Trial and Triumph
The Paideia of God
Fidelity
Praise Her in the Gates
Mother Kirk
Future Men
The Mantra of Jabez

Permutations of the question “Who designed the designer?” are trite, easily addressed, and if you read the moderation rules you’ll find that comments using this and other trite arguments are deleted. There is not enough data to make any determination of who designed the designer. When and if we can identify the designer of organic life on this planet we might have some data to work with in determining the origin of that agency. Until that situation changes, maybe SETI will give us some data someday, there’s no point in asking the question over and over again.

Downloading music is not theft of an idea, or of a thing, but under many circumstances, it is most certainly theft. Call it theft that violates the golden rule. If you had a band, and you were trying to make a living that way, would you mind if someone spread the word about your music by copying a song and sending it to a friend? No, you wouldn’t. Would you mind if someone were standing at the counter of a music store with your CD in hand, and a friend told him to put it back—that he had that CD at home that could be copied? Yes, you would mind, and you would mind because someone was stealing from you.

He sets up the Law-Gospel distinction by quoting Louis Berkhof,

The Churches of the Reformation from the very beginning distinguished between the law and the gospel as the two parts of the Word of God as the means of grace. The law comprises everything in Scripture which is a revelation of God’s will in the form of command or prohibition, while the gospel embraces everything, whether it be in the Old Testament or the New, that pertains to the work of reconciliation and that proclaims the seeking and redeeming love of God in Christ Jesus.

Now, that, to me, sounds like the typical explanation, the law is everything that requires something of us, and the gospel is everywhere that Christ is offered to us. I read Horton’s article, The Law & The Gospel and got the impression, again, that the distinction is something in the actual text.

Horton’s WSC buddy R Scott Clark describes the distinction in this way,

By “law and gospel” I’m referring to the debate between those of us who hold to the historic and confessional distinction between those places in Scripture where God command and those places where he promises. Historically, Protestants have described these two ways of speaking in Scripture as “law” and “gospel.”

Again, this doesn’t appear to make the distinction in how any particular text affects or is received by an individual, but rather is something innate in the text. Even the Wikipedia article on Law and Gospel says that “it is used as a hermeneutical principle of biblical interpretation”.

However, just halfway down the same page, Horton then says:

We have to be careful of reductionism here, of course. Texts are not frozen into categories of either “law” or “gospel.” Often the same verse could be either, depending on how we take it… The same verse may strike one as a threat and then also as a consolation. That is because the Bible is not simply a book of objective, timeless propositions but a means of encounter with the Triune God. Through preaching, God addresses us, and, as in any relationship or confrontation with another person, our existential situation before the one who addresses us is never excluded from the event of being addressed. While the grammatical meaning of the text is the same, it is variously applied by the Spirit to each person.

This seems to me to be taking with one hand what was given with the other. This paragraph sounds strikingly close to what Doug Wilson has said and written on the subject, but I’m pretty sure that Horton wouldn’t claim to be on the same page as Wilson. So… what gives?

The Bible repeatedly teaches God’s people to “be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:22, 28; 8:17; 9:1, 7; 35:11, etc.). Psalm 127:4-5 says that the man who has many children is blessed. The truth of the matter is that many, even in our churches, simply don’t believe this.

Amen and Amen.

HT: The Flying Inn