I agree with Sam Storms on everything but 7.f.
Admittedly, I have done no study on the issue of the age of the earth. For some reason I just want to side with the "new earthers."
Anyone want to make a BRIEF case for the age of the earth?
-Justin Childers
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I am in substantial agreement with Storms, though some of his points I would have worded differently. My only definite disagreement is with point 7C, though I'm not entirely sure what kind of ministry he envisions. As I understand it, the Church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, and this foundation was laid in the first century. When the church is almost fully built seems like a strange time to lay more foundation (i.e., call more apostles).
I'm a bit different than him on the complementarian issues - my understanding of the office of deacon would not allow women to serve (it is a position of authority, albeit servant authority, underneath the authority of the elders).
I also do not speak in tongues daily, though I am a continualist (and prefer that term to charismatic for a variety of reasons).
Centuries ago, most pastors took the time to write out their own confession of faith. Have any of you guys ever done this? I think it would be an interesting project!
I'm glad to encounter another calvinistic, continualist, old-earth amilennialist. For what its worth, I am no longer a day-ager. I have found the analogical view much more convincing. It would take another post to make arguments for it, or you can read Poythress' arguments on his website. If I remember correctly, Justin Taylor also holds to this view. It is still an old-earth view.
I should add that not only do I not speak in tongues daily, but I've never done it at all. I'm still very cautious about claims concerning extraordinary gifts. I am very much looking forward to Sam coming so that we can discuss these things. Everyone be sure to reserve Saturday lunch (February 17th, I think) so that we can all spend time conversing with him together.
Surely I am misreading your comments that item (7)c. and (7)f. are the only things that you disagree with on the webpage to which this post links. Is this what you are saying? Are you in positive agreement with all of the other things here?
Justin N,
I agree. I would word things a bit different than Storms did.
And, I don't speak in tongues either.
How could you not agree with 7(c) the way Sam has worded it?
It is a very general statement. Notice that he intentionally says "apostolic" not that there is a possibility that there are still apostles. I want to leave open the possiblity that people function like apostles today ("apostolic" function), but deny that there are apostles outside of the Biblical ones.
I've had this dicussion with Sovereign Grace pastors.
Confused: Yes, I agree with all of the other positions described on the page this post links to.
What are your disagreements?
Some I totally disagree with, some I don't understand, some raise questions that need to be clarified.
(1)a
(1)b
(2)a
(2)c
(2)d
(2)e
(3)a
(3)b
(6)c
(7)c
(7)d
(7)f
Justin,
I see your point. Still, I hesitate to divorce the term "apostolic" from the ministry of the apostles themselves. Storms makes clear that he does not have in mind things such as writing Scripture, but I think these things are what define apostolic ministry. I know its just semantics, but I think that using the term "apostolic" to describe the ministy of men today can eventually lead into error. IMHO.
Confused - I agree that I would have preferred Storms to clarify a bit more, but the point of his article was to outline BRIEFLY what he believes about some controversial issues. I am in substantial agreement with his positions. Is there one in particular that you would like to discuss?
Okay "confused", here goes.
1a - I have never liked the "supra-infra" debate, and would prefer for a new term that recongnized what I believe is the simultaneity of God's decree both of election and the Fall. Before time, God chose to give a people to His Son. But that people was always to be a REDEEMED people, which means that God never had in mind election APART from the Fall. Therefore, while I do not fit neatly into either category, I think infra is probably closest to my position.
1b - this one is difficult to prove from Scripture, but is something I pray is true (I think you know why).
2a - I agree with this with a few qualifications. a: we are speaking here strictly of unique spiritual gifts - we all recognize that faith in Christ, for example, is a spiritual gift given to all believers. b: I am not including the gift of apostleship or others like it in this category. My agreement with Storms is only to the point of saying that I believe God can give any kind of gift He chooses to any person at any time, and that He has not expressly revealed in the Scriptures that He is limiting certain gifts to the first century.
2c - I don't see how anyone could disagree with 2c. Has God not given every Christian at least one gift? Has God given all Christians all gifts? I'm confused at your confusion.
2d - Again, I don't see the issue. Every blessing we have is a blessing purchased by Christ - it is ours because of the cross.
3a and 3b - As explained in an earlier comment, I would not have said exactly what Storms does here. I do want to affirm women's freedom to minister in a local church, but within the context of male leadership and authority. My view of deacons is different than that of Sam, and I would not be in favor of women deacons.
6c - I must admit that I didn't read this one carefully enough the first time. I assumed he took a memorialism appraoch - I shouldn't have assumed. I do affirm that God's Spirit works through the Lord's Supper to use it as a means of grace, but I would not agree with Sam's approach here.
7c - as already mentioned, I don't agree with this one.
7d - I suppose this all depends on the definition of the word "demonized", doesn't it?
7f As mentioned earlier, I hold to the analogical view as presented by Poythress and others.
(played any halo 2 lately?)
Justin N,
I'm assuming you know who "confused" is.
We've got to have the 'deaconess' discussion here on the blog.
What is halo 2? I didn't read anything by Storms about angels.
I would love to have the "deaconess" discussion on here sometime soon.
As far as the points from Storm, I think he could have been a little more clear as well. However, it was meant to be a brief statement of what he believes. Overall I agree with most of what he says (with some clarifications). I am still working through the Amillennialist view to determine if I agree. I have almost come to that conclusion.
As for the deaconess position...I first agreed with Justin N. because that is what I had always heard...then I agreed with Justin C. because Piper and Dever did (and they are Piper and Dever)...then I came back to where Justin N. is because of the masculine language used in both Acts 6 and 1 Timothy 3...after further review, I am not convinced that it has to be men because the Bible seems to indicate at least the possibility of women deacons. Maybe we should start another post for this.
Post a Comment