(1) The marks of an RTS education: Students at RTS receive ministerial training marked by biblical fidelity, confessional integrity, and academic excellence. As much as it ever has, the church today needs well-formed, well-prepared leaders.
(2) The mode of an RTS education: Though much can be shared and accomplished through online communities, much cannot. Face to face, in-person instruction continues to provide the best context for forming pastors, teachers, counselors, and missionaries to serve Christ's church.
We are grateful for your prayers and for your support of @ReformTheoSem.
“Race” is what the kids call a “construct,” a man-made system of classifying human beings to the advantage of one (pseudo) class and the disadvantage of another.
As such, race is susceptible to critical theory’s tools of deconstruction—unmask the lie, dethrone the oppressor, liberate the oppressed.
What critical theory cannot do is explain why the construct is false, why the oppressor is wrong, or why the oppressed is worthy of liberation. Lacking an understanding of human nature, it lacks a definition of human dignity and goodness, and an understanding of human destiny.
A handful of thoughts for talking about the Trinity and love:
1. Remember that the Trinity is the standard for what love is, not the creature. Too often we define love by a creaturely measure then transfer that definition to God.
2. Be careful with terminology. Too many today are squeamish about saying “the Father loves the Son.” Don’t be. But do (per point 1) be careful about saying God is “self-giving love,” “other-centered love,” etc w/out defining terms: e.g., self, other, giving. Flee kenoticism!
3. In describing God’s love for his people don’t go straight from the Trinity to us. Remember that God’s love for us is (a) a condescending love, the high God stooping down to a lowly people, and (b) fulfilled in God becoming man. God’s love for us is Christologically mediated.
In the Christian doctrine of God, God is both doctor and doctrine, the subject matter expert and the subject matter.
God, the divine teacher, has given us two books in this field of study: the Book of Nature and the Book of Scripture.
Both books are authored by the same teacher, both books teach the same teaching. The latter, however, exceeds and perfects the former, as grace perfects nature and faith gives fullness to reason.
We need to recover the concept of “attunement”—the divinely designed “fit” between God, world, and self—in our evangelism and catechesis. Along with: reason as the faculty for perceiving this attunement and virtue as the mode of habituating ourselves to it.
Lack of such a category is one reason a Christian understanding of the human body and sexuality doesn’t *make sense*. There’s no underlying sense of divinely established harmony between God, world, and self. It’s a pagan battle of the gods all the way down.
If talk of “reason” causes you to stumble, consider this: perhaps it’s instrumental reason that’s your problem, not the Xian concept. Perceiving the fit of all things under God is not something we can accomplish merely w/ our eyes, ears, and sense appetites—good as those may be.
There's an argument to be made that the 2 titles in John 5, "Son of God" (5:25) and "Son of Man" (Jn 5:27), reflect a pattern (observed by @bobby_jamieson in Hebrews) of identifying the Second Person of the Trinity as Son (of God) by nature and Son (of Man) by divine appointment.
John 5:27 seems to be a further specification re Jesus' authority to exercise judgment, i.e., "because he is Son of Man," beyond the already established more general point that, as the Father's own (natural-born) Son, he has authority to perform the self-same works of his Father.
What I'm still pondering is whether, in John's mind, the two titles map directly on the Fourth Gospel's descent-ascent schema: as the Son of God, Jesus descends to give his life for the world; as the Son of Man, Jesus ascends to his Father's side.