Comments for Biblical Horizons

Comment on Concerning BMEV by James B Jordan

James B Jordan — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 23:45:58 +0000

I’ll stick with God. And note that your quotation from Calvin proves my point.

Comment on Concerning BMEV by Devin Rose

Devin Rose — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:42:50 +0000

The Catholic Church upholds both marriage and marital relations to be very good. Virginity for the sake of the Kingdom is also very good.

Luther and Zwingli unabashedly believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity. Calvin was neutral to favorable toward it:

“[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called ‘first-born’; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.”

“Under the word ‘brethren’ the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.”

I’ll stick with what the early Church, Luther, Zwingli (and possibly Calvin) believed over what you believe.

Comment on Concerning BMEV by Tim Gallant

Tim Gallant — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 06:09:49 +0000

I think the story of Hannah and Samuel also fits with this whole theme; and of course the Gospels make clear connections between the two events. (The description of Jesus in the temple at 12 has strong echoes of the Samuel story, and of course the Magnificat is essentially a re-formation of the song of Hannah.) Samuel was the first, given to Yahweh in a special way – “and Yahweh visited Hannah (came to her in terms of His covenant faithfulness) and she conceived and bore three sons and two daughters” (1 Sam 2.21 ESV).

Comment on The Liturgy Trap is Back by Anthony

Anthony — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:42:06 +0000

This book is an EXCELLENT treatment on the subject. Very concise, but still fairly comprehensive (and gracious); James Jordan did an excellent job with this.

I’ll be recommending it to a dear friend who recently converted to Eastern Orthodox.

Comment on Rome? Why Bother? by James B Jordan

James B Jordan — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 20:22:05 +0000

Of course it’s outrageous. Editorials are supposed to be outrageous. But that said, the situation in the PCA is outrageous. As you well know, neither Calvin nor Bucer nor Knox would be allowed to serve in the PCA or the OPC; and not only that, but they would loudly condemn these groups for just what I’ve condemned them for. In fact, I doubt if any of the delegates at the Westminster Assembly would be allowed to serve in either of these groups. Matthew 23:29-30 certainly is beginning to apply.

As for joining churches, people don’t join either the RCC or the PCA. They join local parishes. And generally speaking, a PCA parish would be preferable. At the same time, I know of a PCA parish in Northwest Florida that is virtually a synagogue of Satan, and a decent RCC church might be a better place to attend (though they won’t let you have communion).

Comment on Rome? Why Bother? by David A Booth

David A Booth — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 18:58:47 +0000

Jim,

In my experience, wine is commonly used in PCA/OPC churches in New England while grape juice was commonly used in the PCA churches I attended in Mississippi and North Carolina.

That said, your claim is outrageous (“So, if a young conservative Presbyterian leaves the idolatries of the PCA and goes into the Papal church, he’s not making much of a change.”). If someone told you they were considering joining either the PCA or the Roman Catholic Church, would you really say that it doesn’t make much difference?

David

Comment on Rome? Why Bother? by James B Jordan

James B Jordan — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:57:20 +0000

AJ, hmmm. I don’t know where you live, but I have to say I think your own experience is virtually unique. I’ve been in numerous PCA and OPC churches, and the only time I was served wine was in a church that had just, after a decade of arguments and trauma, finally moved to it. Most PCA churches are in the South, if that makes any difference to your understanding my my post.

Others can chime in here.

Comment on Rome? Why Bother? by AJ

AJ — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 22:53:52 +0000

Nice post, but I think the grape juice comment is overstated. I’ve received communion from probably a dozen PCA churches in my life, and it’s 100% of the time been wine. To say that wine is rare strikes me as a dramatic overstatement.

Comment on Rome? Why Bother? by SuperShadow

SuperShadow — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 16:02:40 +0000

Drinking a grape juice instead of wine is of course a problem of the whole modern evangelical community, here in Russia too. People in evangelical churches willingly rejected drinking an alcohol for their lives, why then use it in a church?

Though… personally for me, such refusal, speaking Russian, is a “tilt at windmills”, because I’ve never seen problems with using a communion wine in churches, even for children.

Moreover, I see some sort of contradiction – wllingly rejecting drinking an alcohol for the life everlasting in the communion and, from other side, willingly using drugs, like morphine, ketamine etc., for a body in a medicine. What is finally more important?

Comment on Rome? Why Bother? by curate

curate — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 07:23:53 +0000

If Rome repented of all her errors, but retained justification by faith plus works, it would still have to be resisted.