Bible, Theology & Philosophy

In this short excerpt from his massive and unfinished systematic treatise, Summa Theologica, Aquinas discusses the difficult doctrine of reprobation ¹

Amazon Affiliate Link

The widespread public acceptance of biological evolution in Darwin’s day was probably a product of the simultaneous faith in Progress. Darwin’s theory was accepted as readily as it was because it shared in the general belief that things were getting better. It’s not that the organisms themselves were being swept along, but that European and then American intellectuals believed that everything was improving. (256)

This is the way Tom Bethell ends his entertaining book attacking the reigning scientistic consensus of evolution. Darwin’s House of Cards is a fully up-to-date survey of the mechanics and effects of evolutionary theory — a theory which Karl Popper concluded was “not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program” (14).

As to the general optimism which provided the conditions for the enthusiastic acceptance of Darwinism in the middle of the nineteenth century, Bethell writes,

[A]s I hope to show in the following chapters, the science of neo-Darwinism was poor all along, and supported by very few facts. I have become ever more convinced that, although Darwinism has been promoted as science, its unstated role has been to prop up a philosophy – the philosophy of materialism – and atheism along with it. (20)

A person can know who Jesus really is by looking at what He said about Himself, and what He did. His actions tells us who He is.¹ Here, in this miracle account, Jesus’ actions show He is both divine and yet distinct from the Father. And, in doing so, Mark shows us the doctrine of the Trinity.

Reposted, with permission, from The Cripplegate.

The next installment of our Reformation Month TULIP series on Calvinism is the big L. If you missed the previous installments – you can see Total Depravity here and Unconditional Election here.

This is the boogieman doctrine of Limited Atonement. What is the debate? The issue is usually phrased this way: “For whom did Christ die, the whole world, or specifically for those who would believe?”

If option A, the whole world, then why are some people in Hell? If option B, only believers, what about the verses that talk about Jesus loving the world? You can see why even some Calvinists disavow this letter, leaving them as diminutive “four-pointers” whose gardens bloom with tu_ips.