USAID and the corruption of new liberalism

USAID (United States Agency for International Development) has recently been exposed by the (second) Trump adminstration as funding sexual perversion (among other things) around the world. The spotlight on the immoral left shows that much of the new liberal talking points about "democracy" and so on are actually subversive of democracy. On the issue of sexual pervsion (i.e. LGBT+), it is easily seen that the push for so-called "inclusion" on these issues has never been organic.

Part of the rhetoric pushed by those advocating for so-called "sexual minorities" is that it is a small minority of religious people pushing their religion into the public sphere. In light of the exposure of USAID, it is clear that this is not the case. The push for LGBT+ is a well-financed operation by a small group of extremely powerful and wealthy immoral Leftists to impose their wickedness on the rest of the world. Just because religious citizens are the most vocal in pushing back against these wicked people, that does not mean that they are the small minority seeking to impose religous values. Rather, because the natural law is clear, all peoples everywhere naturally know that LGBT+ is wrong, and it takes "education" or indoctrination into Leftist ideologies to suppress the conscience and to regard evil as good.

Whatever one wants to think about the person of Donald Trump, we should all thank God at least for this one blessing: the exposure of Leftism as an imperialist agenda. The next time someone raised this idea of religious imposition, we have a very good counter to it.

Book Review: Shepherds for Sale, with responses to Gavin Ortlund and Jordan Steffaniak

The book Shepherds for Sale by Megan Basham has taken the American evangelical church by storm, as it documents and charges various evangelical leaders of pushing leftist positions. Is this a political book, or rather, as the author says, it is a book designed to expose politicking in the church? Well, I have finally read the book, and have written a review about it from a non-Western and non-American perspective. I have also included responses to two book reviews of sorts from Gavin Ortlund and Jordan Steffaniak, both of which in my opinion misrepresented the book and its author. Steffaniak in particular even get page numbers wrong, so take from that what you will.

Without further to do, here is the book review. An excerpt:

American evangelicals in the early 21st century are truly a sight to behold, as compromises one after another flare up within her. One is shocked to find professing Evangelicals promoting immorality such as LGBTQ, as David French does. One is puzzled as to how American evangelicals can tolerate such people, who in earlier centuries would be immediately excommunicated by orthodox churches, and even heretical groups as well. The flood of sewage coming out of American Evangelicalism is shocking to evangelical Christians around the world looking in, but ‘Murica being focused on itself, they could not care less about what the world thinks.

Megan Basham in her book seeks to peel away the secrecy behind the shift in American Evangelicalism. ...

[more]

Oh, also, since the book mentions political issues, you can find my thoughts on political issues and the church here as well.

The Council at Chalcedon (451) and the Court of Final Appeal

[The Canons of Chalcedon on the Church of Constantinople (Canons 9, 17 and 28); Text, with commentary]
9. If any cleric has a suit against another cleric, let him not leave his own bishop, nor have recourse to the secular courts of justice, but let him first try the question before his own bishop, or, with the consent of the bishop himself, before these persons whom both parties shall choose to have the hearing of the cause. And if any person shall act contrary to these decrees, let him undergo the canonical punishments.

But if a cleric has any matter either against his own or any other bishop, let him be judged by the synod of the province. But if any bishop or cleric has a controversy against the metropolitan of the same province, let him have recourse to the exarch of the dioceses, or to the Throne of the imperial city of Constantinople, and plead his cause before him. [J. Stevenson, ed., Creeds, Councils and Controversies: Documents illustrating the History of the Church, AD 337 – 461 (rev. W.H.C. Frend; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1966, 2012), 415]

.

[Leo, Ep. CV. 2-3, to the Empress Pulcheria]
But bishops’ assents, which are opposed to the regulations of the holy canons at Nicaea in conjunction with your faithful Piety, we do not recognize, and by the blessed Apostle Peter’s authority we absolutely disannul in comprehensive terms, in all ecclesiastical cases obeying those las which the Holy Ghost set forth by the 318 bishops for the pacific observance of all bishops in such a way that ever if a much greater number were to pass a different decree to theirs, whatever was opposed to their regulations must be held in no respect. (p. 422)

In the history of the Church, a major point to be made is that the pope played only a minor role in the earlier ecumenical councils (Nicea 325AD, Constantinople 381AD, Ephesus 431AD). At Chalcedon in 451AD, Pope Leeo I played an important role through his tome, yet he was not present at the council and, as we can see, he did not have as much authority as what papalism demands.

As it can be seen from the Canons promulgated at Chalcedon, the bishops there worked hard to deal with the Nestorian and the Eutychian errors, and also drafted a bunch of canonical rulings. Canon 9 is interesting because it duplicated imperial procedure in deferring authority to the most important city of the Empire, which at that time was the new capital Constantinople. That such a ruling was drafted showed us that papal authority was not considered ultimate at that time, but merely one of respect and deference. Pope Leo I of course protested against this ruling, but as we know from subsequent church history, his protests did not register for the churches in the Eastern part of the empire.

Charles Hodges' view of theology as a "science"

In every science there are facts: facts and ideas; or, facts and the mind. Science is more than knowledge. Knowledge is the persuasion of what is true on adequate evidence. ... In every department the man of science is assumed to understand the laws by which the facts of experience are determined; so that he not only knows the past, but can predict the future. ... If, therefore, theology be a science, it must include something more than a mere knowledge of facts. It must embrace an exhibition of the internal relation of those facts, one to another, and each to all. It must be able to show that if one be admitted, others cannot be denied. [Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2001), p. 1]

What is true of other science is true of theology. We cannot know what God has revealed in his Word unless we understand, at least in some good measure, the relation in which the separate truths therein contained stand to each other. (Ibid., p. 2)

What does Charles Hodge mean when he claim that theology is a science? In the beginning of his Systematic, Hodge makes it clear what he means by that by comparing theology with other subjects like astronomy, geography, and other such subjects of study. Just like other subjects have facts which must be studied and put together in their relation to one another, so likewise theology consists of facts from the Bible to be put together in biblical truth.

From the analogy Hodge draws between theology and the other sciences, it can be seen that Hodge is calling theology a "science" using it in the older meaing of scientia, a word denoting that the subject is to be studied rigorously to gain knowledge. By calling theology a "science," Hodge means by that that theology belongs to the same genre of intellectual enquiry as other subjects like astronomy, geography or biology. They are all "sciences" in the sense that (1) all of them require intellectual rigor, (2) facts are present in all of them, and (3) these facts are not left by themselves but are to be put together into theories and relations to other facts.

A simple example of that from the Bible is when one reads 1 Samuel 15, and compare verse 10 and 29. Anyone who attempts to reconcile the two verses are taking the two verses ("facts") and parsing them out how is it exactly that both are true ("put together into theories and relations to other facts"). In other words, most Christians do some form of systematizing in their theology. The difference between Systematic Theology and what most Christians do is whether the "systematizing" is done properly and rigorously, or improperly and incoherently. But unless one claims that the two verses are both true and therefore the Bible is not the Word of God because it contradicts itself, or engage in other forms of Higher Criticism, Systematic Theology is inescapable. Also, the Bible is not Systematic Theology for the simple reason that Systematic Theology does the systematization of facts, not provides two texts that must be parsed in order to not be contradictory.

It is true of coure that Hodge further defines the method of theology as induction (Ibid., p. 8). We note here that this is in Section 2 of his first chapter, whereas defining theology as a science is in Section 1. That means that definining theology as science is a queustion to be dealt with logically prior to the nature of theological method. Therefore, whether theology is a "science" or not is independent of the question of theological method. One can, like me, accepts Hodge's definition of theology as a "science," while rejecting the idea that the method of theology is induction. One should not conflate the genre of theology with the method of theology, which are two different topics altogether.

Based on Hodge's discussion, I would certainly agree that theology is a "science." Of course, theology is more than a "science," since it involves the will and the emotions as well, but it not less than that.

Compounding Error: A Review of John Frame's Systematic Theology

John Frame is an influential but controversial figure in American Reformed Christianity. In the last few months, I have decided to carefully read and analyze John Frame's works, specifically his Systematic Theology book, so as to give him as fair a reading as possible. The result is this analysis of John Frame's thought in general and his book Systematic Theology in particular, here. An excerpt:

John Frame has been a major figure in American Reformed circles in the late 20th century, portraying himself as a disciple of Cornelius Van Til and a proponent of his version of presuppositional apologetics. He is a controversial figure in some Reformed circles. Certainly, as a student at Westminster California, Frame was not thought of very well, and he returned the favor in his polemic attacking the so-called “Escondido theology.”

That being said, it is helpful to understand one’s opponent, and reading the primary sources are the way to do so. It is with this in mind that I have read John Frame’s Systematic Theology with as open a mind as possible. Having done so, I would like to offer a review of the work, pointing out certain helpful stuff there, as well as the problems within the book.

...

You can read the whole review here.

Debate: Gavin Ortlund versus RT Mullins

Gavin Ortlund and Ryan Mullins has done a sortof debate on whether the doctrine of divine simplicity (DDS) is true, with Ortlund taking the affirmative position and Mullins the negative position. You can watch the debate below:

On ministry in an anti-Christian place

While reflecting on ministry, I recalled a piece I had read some time back. Titled "Arise Jonah, Go to California that Wretched State and Preach Jesus!," the blog article by Pastor Christopher Gordon sets forth reasons for Christians continuing to be in California and specifically for preaching Christ in California. Now if this article is arguing for Gospel ministry to be done in the most godless of places, certainly that would be correct. But what should ministry in an anti-Christian setting look like?

There has been discussions over ideas of a "positive," "neutral" and "negative worlds" as it pertains to ministry. While the labels might be helpful, the Scriptures are clear about how Christians are to behave and ministers have to minister on objective issues of morality. Biblical morality is "inflexible," inasmuch as it does not care what the cultures thinks but proclaims God's standard for all time, always. In other words, it does not matter whether the culture celebrates, tolerates or detests Christian morals; the pastor has to be prepared to preach the truths of Scripture regardless.

In a hostile, anti-Christian setting, the pastor has the uneviable job of being en emissary from a hated land of a hated King. It does not matter whether that place is California, or the many places around the world where Christians are persecuted. The pastor has to proclaim the whole counsel of God. Knowing the message is detested, he would know Christians would be persecuted for holding to biblical truths. The role of the pastor is to preach and prepare his people for persecution. In other words, unlike a "typical Western church," the pastor is not looking for businesss as usual. He should not expect the church to be well-liked, to be well settled in a commmunity, and for the secular rulers to be godly. Besides proclaiming the Gospel, part of catechesis is to teach the congregants the wickedness of the culture, and to not partake of its wickedness. The pastors while proclaiming the Gospel to wicked and dying men is to be a witness of something different, a "counter-culture" if you will, and be unflinching against the tide of wickedness of that culture.

What that means is that ministry in Babylon is decidedly counter-cultural, but not as a withdrawal from culture, rather a condemnation of the wicked culture. In other words, a Gospel minsitry that does not condemn wickedness in culture is merely creating a small protected "space" for Christians to retreat to in their churchly culture. While Christians do need oases to refresh themselves, the church should not be about creating protected spaces but about reaching the world. This is a hard calling but those who are called to such must do so, and not "agree to disagree" on whether sin is indeed, sin. Or worse of all, hide behind a mutilated version of "2 Kingdoms" theory, as if the Reformers did not condemn the wicked rulers of their times!

The problem with the new scholasticism - "Retrieval of classical theism"

According to the philosopher, the people on the first story have no visible stairway by which they may walk up to the second story and actually see the nature of who God is. They can look at pictures that God the owner has placed on the first story. Some of the pictures are very good and very beautiful. But it is still all the first story. The philosopher, however, is like the manager of the house. He knows about a secret, hidden back stairway, used only by the manager of the house.

He has been up the stairway, by means of reason and Aristotle’s categories. He has special qualifications. He can tell us what the actual situation is. The secret back stairway is an exciting discovery because of its intellectual power.

But does the secret back stairway actually exist? Or is the philosopher himself under an illusion? …

[Vern S. Poythress, The Mystery of the Trinity: A Trinitarian Approach to the Attributes of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 2020), pp. 336-7]

There is concealed a pride, a self-satisfaction, and a knowing superiority to ordinary Christians who have not achieved such heights of reverence for the Almighty. (p. 460)

The fourth response, classical Christian theism, attempts mediation by prioritizing transcendence, that is, prioritizing the second story. But to do this prioritizing, we must first have adequate knowledge of the second story itself. And so the back stairway enters the picture. (p. 487)

In his book promoting a form of "classical Christian theism," a phrase which up till now seems amorphous, Vern Pothress cautioned against the over-use of philosophy in understanding the doctrine of God. Without pointing out anyone today in particular, Poythress points out the problems with utilizing Aristotelian categories to understand God. Of course, the rest of us can be less restrained, and point out the arrogance and superiority mindset that infects modern day neo-Thomists, who insist that anyone rejecting Thomas Aquinas's doctrine of God are heretics who should be de facto excommunicated from the Church.

The main problem with the new scholasticism promoted by Matthew Barrett, Carl Trueman, Craig Carter et al. is not so much whether they think that a Thomistic doctrine of God is good, but that that is the only way one must conceive of God. While claiming the Creator-creature distinction, and holding the distinction between archetypal/ ectypal theology, they undermine it with what Poythress call their "secret, hidden back stairway," where they can behold God as He truly is. They are the only ones who truly know God; the peons must just bow down to their superior intellect, and don't you dare question the Great Tradition™ !

God is God; he is beyond all human comprehension, and that applies to philosophers and theologians. Instead of thinking that we must have it correct, Christians especially should understand that the only reason why we can know God is that God reveals Himself to us. Instead of trying to recover "Natural Theology," wwith the idea that Man can somehow grasp a knowledge of God by His own intellect, we should understand that total depravity extends to the intellect. We are sinners, even in and especially when we think, and the idea that somehow we can climb a hidden back stairway to understand God is a mockery of the God who reveals Himself to us.

Therefore, we should be humble in our assertions of who and what God is. By all means hold to Thomstic views if that is what one is convicted of, but do so with humility. A little less pride and more humility, more teachability, will go a long way in preserving the peace and unity of the Church.

See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. (Col. 2:8)

The corruption of monasticism on the life of the church

After the victory of icons, the number of monks who became bishops grew. (John Binns, The T & T Clark History of Monasticism, p. 77)

The monastery was a centre of support for icons during the iconoclast controversy in the eighth and ninth centuries. (p. 90)

Monasteries were places of ascetic struggle and were populated by women and men who lived by different standards and had a different set of values from those of the city. They were suspicious of education and learning, which they associated with the world which they had left behind. They recognized the need to read and understand the Bible and other books but wanted to distinguish this form of knowledge from secular education. (p. 175)

Monasticism, with initial good motives, became a snare and a curse to the church over time. With the idea that the "spiritual" was superior, and the mundane is of the world, monasticism led Christians aways from education and learning, causing a steady deterioriation in the interpretation of Scripture. One just has to read the allegorical sermons of medieval times to see how over-spiritualizing had led people away from the Word of God into fanciful interpretations, distorting the Word of God for their own traditions.

By the time of Niceae II (787AD), monks had devolved into a movement away from Scripture, as they were at the forefront for pushing for the use of icons, which a cursory read through the Scriptures should have shown to be contrary to what God has said. The Second Commandment clearly forbids the use of any form of images of in worship (Ex. 20:4-6), and this prohibition against images (which includes icons) extends throughout the Old Testament, a prohibition that Jesus nowhere rejected. There is simply no way to support icons from Scripture, and Eastern Orthodox arguments are speculative based upon tradition rather than Scripture.

"You shall know them by their fruit" (Mt. 7:16). The seeking of God by speculative mysticism leads to darkness and disobedience, and Nicaea II is proof of that, as monks, not knowing the Scriptures, violate Scripture with impunity, leading to a council promoting falsehood and heresy. If there was any doubt of the spiritual darkness of monasticism, Nicaea II is its irrefutable proof.

Monasticism in violation of Scripture: The case of Amoun

Another pioneer of Egyptian monastic life was Amoun. He was born in 295 and lived in the north of Egypt in the region of the Nile Delta. He was an orphan and at the age of twenty-two was forced by his uncle to marry. He went unwillingly through the ceremony but then read passages of the Bible to his illiterate new wife instructing her about the importance of chastity. She had little option but to accept his preferred way of living but wanted at least to live in the same house. Amoun worked growing balam, ate and prayer with his wife, then retired at night to a different room. This went on for eighteen years after which his wife suggested they lived separately. Amoun then happily moved to the nearby mountiain of Nitria, when he was thirty-four years. (John Binns, The T & T Clark History of Monasticism: The Eastern Tradition, 38)

Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. (1 Cor. 7:27)

The case of Amoun, one of the pioneers of monasticism in Egypt is instrumental in showing us how seeking supposed good things led many to sin. In this case, Amoun violated Scripture and broke his marital vows to his wife. Scripture is clear that those who are married to live as married men and women — the husband to love his wife and the wife to honor and respect her husband (cf. Eph. 5:22-33). It is also clear from Scripture and its context that one's happiness or "consent" in the matter of marriage is irrelevant to the obedience of these commmands, noting that many marriages in antiquity were arranged without the concept of consent or romantic love. Amoun entering a marriage through being forced by his uncle to marry is therefore irrelevant to the issue of how he ought to conduct himself in his marriage.

God is God, and He is the one who ordains each person's station in life. The greatest virtue comes in obedience to God in our daily lives, not to create an artificial "holiness" through human means. Thus, the one who enters into marriage ought to obey God in the midst of his/her marriage, noting the marriage covenant that binds husband and wife in one flesh (Eph. 5:31 cf. Gen. 2:24). There is therefore no legitimate reason for Amoun to violate his marital covenant, breaking it with the view of "living for God." Instead of living according to God's revealed will, monasticism replaces the words of God with the commandments of Man, and in so doing showing us how sin enters through Man's sincere attempts to be good.

The beginnings of monasticism

Where did Christian monks come from? There were certainly no monks or nuns in the Bible, yet, for we know that monasticism infests the lands in the time of Martin Luther. Most certainly, monasticism is a departure from biblical Christianity, yet how did it emerge in the first place?

In his book on the history of monasticism, John Binns details the emergence and development of monasticism [John Binns, The T&T Clark History of Monasticism: The Eastern Tradition (New York, NY: T&T Clark, 2020)]. As someone sympathetic to the Eastern tradition, Binns holds that monasticism is nothing more than Paul's supposed ascetism taken to heart, but more on that at another time. Formally however, monasticism begins with the first monk, Anthony of Egypt, the father of eremetic or solitary monasticism, around 304 AD. Pachomus began the first coenobitic or communal form of monasticism aound 320 AD. From then on, monasticism spreads rapidly through Christendom, becoming a feature of both Eastern and Western Christianity.

The beginnings of monasticism come about due to a few factors. A major factor is the fermenting of pagan views of ascetism through the views of condemned heretics like Origen and Evagrius, something which Binns could not deny, although he separated their heretical "metaphysical speculation" from their "ascetical teaching." (p. 182). Another factor is the elevation of marytrdom and martys to a holy status in the early church (the "cult of the martyrs"). Those who attain to this yet are denied actual marytrdom can aspire for the "white martyrdom" (p. 36) that symbolizes a removal from the world. A third factor is the zeal for holiness, which became difficult when more and more people became Christians. When Christianity became normal, those who seek purity ran to the desert to live out their separate lives, a choice easier to make after Constantine legalized Christianity in the Roman Empire resulting in an influx of nominal Christians into the Church.

As it can be seen, two of the main factors of the beginnings of monasticism come from a desire for good things. There is nothing wrong with honoring and respecting those who pay the ultimate price for their faith in Jesus Christ. There is likewise nothing wrong with a desire for holiness, and the influx of worldliness into the church should trouble Christians. But is the solution a withdrawal from the world, as monasticism would do, in a personal pursuit of one's subjective holiness? The answer of the Reformation was a resounding no. We are called to be in the world, but not of the world, as it is written:

I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. (Jn. 17:15-6)

Marytrdom is a gift, and so is continence, but none of these things are things one can dictate to God. The problem with monasticism from its inception is its vain attempt to control what gifts God should give to His people. One desire matyrdom, so one seeks after the "white" variety when the "red"' version (real martyrdom) is not given. One thinks ascetism brings one closer to God, so one becomes a monk, usurping God's prerogative over who should be married and who is to be celibate. In the end, instead of submitting to God, one attempts to climb Jacob's ladder to reach God, never understanding that God is the only one who can reach us, never we him.

John Damascene on energies

For activity is the natural power and movement of each essence. (St John of Damascus, On the Orthodox Faith, 147)

ἐνέργεια γάρ ἐστιν ἡ φυσικὴ ἑκάστης οὐσίας δύναμίς τε καὶ κίνησις (pp. 147-8)

And again: Natural activity is the innate movement of every essence. It is therefore clear that those things that have the same essence have the same activity, and those things that have different natures also have different activity. For it impossible for an essence to be without a natural activity. (p. 148)

Natural activity, again, is the power that makes each essence manifest. And again: Natural and primary activity is the ever-moving power of the intellectual soul, that is to say, its every-moving reason flowing out naturally from it. Natural activity is the power and movement of each essence; only non-being is without it. (p. 148)

One should know that the second way embraces both potentiality and actuality, for on the one hand, the latter is in potentiality, on the other, the former is in actuality. (p. 148)

Χρὴ οὖν γινώσκειν, ὁτι ὁ δεύτερος τρόπος κοινός ἐστι τοῦ δυνάμει καὶ τοῦ ἐνεργείᾳ, δεύτερος μὲν τοῦ δυνάμει, πρῶτος δὲ τοῦ ἐνεργείᾳ (p. 148)

Far from the static view of the classical God, the Eastern tradition has preserved a more dynamic view of God through its preservation of the difference between "essence," "energies," and "acts." In John of Damascus' work, all essences must have energies, and part of these energies includes the actions being do. However, the main focus of "energies" is to manifest the essence, not the actions themselves. Actions are part of the energies, but are not all of the energies. That is why actions are discussed later, after discussions of the "natural and primary activity" of the intellectual soul. We note here that discussions of "actuality" and "potentiality," where the same term is used for "actualities," should be taken to mean that "actualities" is a subset of "energies," rather than the two being the same.

God is thus not the "unmoved Mover," but rather He constantly "moves" yet never changes. The Father loves the Son, yet neither change despite the dynamism of the relationship. God has His own movement, and it is we who are blessed because of it.

John Damascene's view on the will

One needs to know that here is a faculty naturally implanted in the soul that is appetitive of what is in accordance with nature and embraces everything that is essentially characteristic of nature. This is called the capacity for willing (θέλησις, thelēsis). For the essence of being and living and moving, both mentally and sensibly, has an appetency directed towards its own natural and full realization. For that reason, this natural will (θέλημα, thelēma) is also defined as follows: Will is a rational and vital appetency that depends solely on what belongs to nature. (St John of Damascus, On the Orthodox Faith, 144)

Θέλημά ἐστιν ὄρεξις λογική τε καὶ ζωτικὴ μόνων ἠρτημένη τῶν φυσικῶν (Ibid., 143)

Actual willing or wishing (βούλησις, boulēsis) is a natural capacity for willing of a particular kind, that is to say, a natural and rational appetency in relation to some specific thing. For there lies within the human soul a faculty of reaching out in a rational manner. Therefore when this rational appetency in relation to some specific thing is set in motion in a natural manner, it is called wishing. For wishing is an appetency and yearning for some rational specific thing. (p. 144)

One needs to know that the capacity for willing (θέλησις, thelēsis) is one thing and actual willing (βούλησις, boulēsis) is another, and that what is willed (τὸ θελητόν, to thelēton) is one thing, the faculty of volition (τὸ θελητικόν, to thelētikon) is another, and the agent of willing (ὁ θέλων, ho thelōn) is another. For the capacity for willing is the simple power itself of willing. Actual willing is the direction of the capacity of willing towards something. What is willed is the matter that is subject to the will, namely, that which we will. (For example, appetency is oriented towards food. Appetency on its own is a rational capacity for willing but when appetency is directed towards food it is actual willing, and the food itself is what is willed.) The faculty of willing is that which possesses the power to will, such as a human being, and the agent of willing is the one who exercises the capacity for willing. (p. 147)

Much has been made over whether God has one will or three wills. When one look at the Church Fathers on the issue, one of course know that they insisted that God has one will and that will is tied to nature not to the persons. But why is that the case?

When one reads carefully what they are saying, it is clear the Father are definining "will" in a very specific way. They are defining it not as how most of us today think of as a will. No. According to them, "will" (το θέλημα) is the "rational and vital appetency that depends solely on what belongs to nature." Put it another way, "will" is capacity. One does not "will" (θέλω) to do anything, but rather one chooses (βουλομαι), thus a distinction is made between "actual willling" (βούλησις) and "the will" (θέλησις).

The distinction works in its own way of course, and if one holds to these definitions, then most certainly God has one will, the Father and the Son do not have different wills but merely different βούλησις. If one wants to holds to Patristic terminology, then one should be able to say of the Trinity that there is one θέλησις, three βούλησεις. The problem of course is that the new classical theists do not go there even though that seems to what John of Damascus is moving towards.

That said, I would gladly hold to the technical difference between θέλησις and βούλησις, but not to calling θέλησις "will" as belonging to the nature. That is because that is not how the Enlish language works. "Will" is a dynammic term in modern parlance, not a static term in later patristics/ early medieval thought. Rather, it stands to reason in the modern context that we should translate θέλησις as "disposition" and βούλησις as "will," so as to better appreciate their use in the texts.

Confessions of a former Strict Confessionalist (Consolidated, with footnotes and conclusion)

I have completed my personal reflections on strict confessionalism and my time in it. The whole article with footnotes and conclusion can be read here. Here is an excerpt from the conclusion:

The promise of Reformed Confessionalism is to plot a path between Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism, to not pick fights on minor issues while keeping fidelity to the Christian faith. Evangelicalism has failed in its fiduciary duty to the faith once for all delivered to the saints. Fundamentalism has failed in its duty to love others, especially those of the household of the faith. Sadly, strict Reformed Confessionalism is no different from Fundamentalism, just more scholarly, more organized and institutionalized, and thus more powerful as they weaponize theology against their opponents.

[continued]

So, what's next? What's next is for me to continue in my Christian faith, free from the lies I had believed in. I need to focus on my walk with God, and to serve wherever I can. God will judge the wicked-doers; it is my call only to warn any who would listen to avoid the strict Reformed confessionalists, for the good of their souls.

Confessions of a former Strict Confessionalist (Part 4)

The failure of strict confessionalism: Theological lies and the failure to tell the truth

It is not a secret that the American Reformed churches are extremely divided. After studying Reformed theology, it is my opinion that many divisions are not warranted and driven more by ego and the need to “prove oneself.” For example, the whole republication (of the Covenant of Works in the Mosaic Covenant) controversy, while interesting and worth of discussion, is in more opinion not worth the amount of heat and ink it generates. Readers can read the OPC report on this issue themselves and ask if the amount of sophistication is worth actual bickering and fighting over.

Now, it is true that some things are worth fighting over. John Gresham Machen was right to fight liberalism for example. But the amount of stuff American Reformed Christians fight over is shocking given the small proportion they have among professing believers.

This idea of fighting to establish themselves was brought to the fore in 2016, when first Todd Pruit and then Carl Trueman lobbed theological grenades accusing those who promote a doctrine called “Eternal Functional Subordination” (EFS) or “Eternal Submission of the Son” (ESS) of heresy. This set a firestorm that continues to have its embers even today. Now, charges of heresy are serious charges, and the first step of proving any doctrine is heretical is to actually represent it correctly. If one misrepresents what one is critiquing, then it does not matter how eloquent and how biblical one argues. One is engaging in a straw man and nobody should take what is said seriously.

The 2016 ESS controversy caused me to read up on the topics raised, and the more I read the more disturbed I feel. The initial feelings were one of astonishment and anger that these prominent pastors and theologians are hypocrites when they engage in the sort of slug fest that they deplore and attack in others. Evidently, when pastors and theologians told their congregants not to attack other Christians, or not to fight online, they mean only THEY can engage in attacking other Christians, and fight online. You see, only Reformed pastors and theologians can engage in the type of conduct other Christians should not engage in. For normal Christians to do so is sin I guess, but the clergy have privileges the laity do not!

As I read into the topic, I start to feel disturbed because what the critics are saying is not what the proponents of ESS are saying. Many critics are insisting that ESS necessarily imply this and that, which are heretical. But they do not prove this point, instead taking such implications as a given. This is just for the more honest critics. Then you have militant polemicists who just want to tar ESS any way possible, like Matthew Barrett who attacks ESS as tritheistic, Sabellian and Subordinationist. Barrett’s dishonesty is seen in his attacking ESS as both tritheistic and Sabellian. Just as something cannot be A and not A at the same time, something cannot be both tritheistic and Sabellian, given tritheism holds to three gods, while Sabellian holds so closely to the unity of the one God the persons are mere “appendages” or “manifestations” of the one unitary God.

Ironically, while it is among the hardcore anti-ESS “Reformed Confessionalists” that truth has gone missing and hatred festers, it is among the egalitarians that charity continues. Glen Butner, while a critic of ESS, is fair in his critique, and makes some points that ESS proponents should address. In my engagement with Butner on social media, I have found him charitable and willing to engage, while my engagement (where there is any) with Reformed Confessionalists has been either absent, or rude and condescending, just shy of hurling anathemas.

Just stand and ask yourself: From a human point of view, who would you be predisposed towards: a rude and condescending Reformed Confessionalist, or a supposed “biblicist”? I have interacted with Bruce Ware as well as Owen Strachan, and they have been extremely courteous. They have also consistently denied the positions attributed to them. Just on the issue of optics, which side is anyone more predisposed to think is in the right?

Of course, truth is one thing, and conduct another. This is where my reading comes in. In my own personal reading, while I do not think everything said under the banner of EFS is biblical, I find it to be not the monster, the heresy, that Reformed Confessionalists accuse it of being. Again, it means a big deal when these polemicists are busy burning straw men. Lying about one’s opponents, even after being called out on it, is a sure sign that one is probably in the wrong. The sheer venom that these Reformed men spit against “biblicists” and “Arians,” while lying over and over again about their opponents, does not endear me to them. But then, who cares perhaps, since I am a non-white and a non-American, so I am nobody to them?