Comments on: The Theology of Senator H. Alexander Smith http://religioninamerica.org/2009/11/21/the-theology-of-senator-h-alexander-smith/ A collaborative exploration of the history of religion in America Sun, 25 Jul 2010 15:10:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Paul http://religioninamerica.org/2009/11/21/the-theology-of-senator-h-alexander-smith/#comment-62 Paul Tue, 24 Nov 2009 23:21:54 +0000 http://religioninamerica.org/?p=310#comment-62 Movement founders take note: That's the problem with naming your theological system after a conference and not a person. Ditto for place names. Think of how much more of a pain it would've been if they'd named it "Genevism" instead of "Calvinism." (-; Movement founders take note: That’s the problem with naming your theological system after a conference and not a person. Ditto for place names. Think of how much more of a pain it would’ve been if they’d named it “Genevism” instead of “Calvinism.” (-;

]]> By: Scott Buchanan http://religioninamerica.org/2009/11/21/the-theology-of-senator-h-alexander-smith/#comment-61 Scott Buchanan Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:18:15 +0000 http://religioninamerica.org/?p=310#comment-61 I wasn't aware of the shift in the Keswick Conference, but look at the Week 2 speakers: Iain Murray is highlighted. I can almost guarantee that Murray doesn't believe in carnal Christians (as in the traditional Keswick view). I would expect the same of Alistair Begg who is speaking the third week, though I'm not as familiar with him. I wasn’t aware of the shift in the Keswick Conference, but look at the Week 2 speakers: Iain Murray is highlighted. I can almost guarantee that Murray doesn’t believe in carnal Christians (as in the traditional Keswick view). I would expect the same of Alistair Begg who is speaking the third week, though I’m not as familiar with him.

]]> By: Lincoln Mullen http://religioninamerica.org/2009/11/21/the-theology-of-senator-h-alexander-smith/#comment-60 Lincoln Mullen Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:55:07 +0000 http://religioninamerica.org/?p=310#comment-60 What is the book, Andrew? What is the book, Andrew?

]]> By: Andrew http://religioninamerica.org/2009/11/21/the-theology-of-senator-h-alexander-smith/#comment-59 Andrew Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:01:40 +0000 http://religioninamerica.org/?p=310#comment-59 As far as the PPS goes, the Keswick Convention has apparently not held the early 20C tenets of Keswick theology for some time. In a presentation of his research at DBTS a while ago, Naselli specifically dealt with difference between Keswick of the early 20C and the later 20C. It seems that the more recent products of the Keswick Convention are somewhat more amorphous and pretty clearly don't hold the two-levels view. More to the point of the post, I've been reading a book on religion in public life in which the author argues that mystical revelation is a perfectly valid source of public justification. That is, I can use my mystical experiences to defend some policy that I favor. It seems like there ought to be a big epistemological problem, but it turns out that it's hard to discover exactly what the problem actually is. As far as the PPS goes, the Keswick Convention has apparently not held the early 20C tenets of Keswick theology for some time. In a presentation of his research at DBTS a while ago, Naselli specifically dealt with difference between Keswick of the early 20C and the later 20C. It seems that the more recent products of the Keswick Convention are somewhat more amorphous and pretty clearly don’t hold the two-levels view.

More to the point of the post, I’ve been reading a book on religion in public life in which the author argues that mystical revelation is a perfectly valid source of public justification. That is, I can use my mystical experiences to defend some policy that I favor. It seems like there ought to be a big epistemological problem, but it turns out that it’s hard to discover exactly what the problem actually is.

]]>