2008-11-23

Hays presents several quotes from modern Roman Catholic standard commentaries on James and Paul that are compatible with the protestant understanding of sola fide. He brings these out to show that Francis Beckwith, in his book Return to Rome, doesn't even understand Roman Catholic scholarship. http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/11/perils-of-pauline.html

Hays responds to a post by Witherington (Arminian scholar) on Calvinism: Witherington's criticisms are self-refuting. 1) After criticizing 'theological systems constructed by finite human beings' and intellectual coherency as a guide to what is true, he has the audacity to claim that Calvinism is has too small a concept of God, and yet think himself to have such a great (and coherent) understanding as to be able to make that claim. 2) He puts a non-sensical dichotomy between 'assurance from the living presence of God' and 'intellectual certainty' (you need to intellectually identify this experience with certainty to know that this is the assurance from God!)  3) He says, "we should be placing our faith in God, not in a particular theological system." Hays says, "That’s a lot of pious nonsense. The immediate object of faith is our concept of God. Our faith is oriented to what we think, rightly or wrongly, God is like. The question, then, is whether our concept corresponds to what God is really like." Or, “Humility is fostered more by a recognition of and an owning up to what you don't know about God, than what you do.” Hays replies, "This is one of those mock-pious statements that sounds very modest and devout, but it’s also one of those throwaway disclaimers that he himself quickly discards in actual practice. Witherington is a very prolific speaker and writer. His entire life is dedicated to persuading his audience that he is right." He also presumes to think (ironically pridefully) that Arminians have a more spiritual experience than Calvinists. His mock-pious disclaimers are predicated on intellectual certainty. "he’s so oblivious to his own presuppositions that he arbitrarily oscillates between absolutistic claims and relativistic disclaimers." http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/11/deceptive-humility.html

Here is a good post with some reminders about what to do before, during and after church to make the most of serving others. Of note, showing up early is among them. http://solapanel.org/article/factotum_1_continued/#When:22:00:00Z

SolaPanel: Windsor argues that the idea behind Luke 9:57-62 and Jesus' words to would-be followers is that the good can be the enemy of the best. You might have to give up a good thing (which can feel bad) for the best thing for the kingdom. [He extends this to neglecting the church family - which is nonsensical if the church is the kingdom of God, since you cannot neglect the kingdom of God for the sake of the kingdom of God. That's like trying to pave more roads and build more buildings while your existing infrastructure is in shambled.] http://solapanel.org/article/the_enemy_of_the_best/#When:22:00:00Z

Phillips? Why would someone want to say he is Christian when he isn't really? 1) Wolf-in-sheep's clothing - he's feeling hungry. 2) Social respectability (e.g. early 20th century) 3) They like the perceived benefits of the Gospel that they don't really understand. 4) Self-deception to take care of that death-thingy. So can you know who is Christian? Yes - confession of Lordship and obedience and acceptance of His word are evidence. The NT requires, imposes, and provides tests (e.g. the true Gospel, correct doctrine, obedience, love for the brothers, etc; constant reference to false brothers, contra modern 'charity'). No - we must be cautious not to presume upon salvation. and, "mark this: there is no sentence, word, nor syllable of Scripture meant to give comfort to anyone willfully continuing in unrepented sin." This post is worth reading for those looking to understand this more. http://bibchr.blogspot.com/2008/11/defining-christians-and-republicans_21.html

This post has an excerpt on how forced recognition of homosexual marriages undermines a free society: "From the beginning, the debate over “same-sex marriage” has been one of those topsy-turvy issues in which the side that is truly tolerant and fair has been characterized as narrow-minded and oppressive, while the side that is intolerant and blatantly coercive has been depicted as open-minded and sympathetic." ... "those who advocate government recognition of same-sex “marriage” want to use coercion to deny other people their fundamental rights." http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/BetweenTwoWorlds/~3/457949256/karnick-on-how-forced-recognition-of.html

Spurgeon: "Fashion is the law of multitudes, but it is nothing more than the common consent of fools." http://www.joshharris.com/2008/11/charles_spurgeon_being_unfashi.php

Turretinfan goes after the notion that Muslims are worshiping the true God, just in error. They are worshiping a different god altogether. Just because there is only one true God doesn't mean that they aren't worhipping an imaginary god and not the true God. They explicitly reject Yahweh. Some worship Satan. Do they worship God? Jesus taught us that those who don't worship in spirit and truth are not true worshippers. (Zeph 2:11; 1 Chr. 16:26; Ps 96:5; 97:7; John 4:22-24; 1 Thess. 1:9; 2 Cor. 6:16; 1 Jn. 2:23) http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2008/11/all-gods-of-nations-are-dumb-idols.html

Bayly: More on Keller and female deacons. "Unordained men and women serving in the same diaconate, on the same deacon board of a church with no distinction in their duties or authority, are what is being sought today by men like Pastor Keller. This is precisely what is contrary to the historic practice of the Church." Bayly provides an excerpt from Warfield on deaconesses. http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/BaylyblogOutOfOurMindsToo/~3/460131779/yes-but-it-leads-nowither.html

Interesting comments on the falling of America. "The United States, having for the most part a deeply conservative people, had until now just about stood out against many of the mistakes which have ruined so much of the rest of the world. Suspicious of welfare addiction, feeble justice and high taxes, totally committed to preserving its own national sovereignty, unabashedly Christian in a world part secular and part Muslim, suspicious of the Great Global Warming panic, it was unique." http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/BaylyblogOutOfOurMindsToo/~3/462136837/the-other-hitchens-priceless-on-our-late-obamination.html

Koinonia: Here's a list of reviews on the Verbal Aspect series. http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/typepad/pQHu/~3/456559887/basics-of-verbal-aspect-reviews-list.html

This post tries to remind us that the church is not the building we go to on a Sunday morning - a spiritual shopping mall - but the living body of Christ. http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/typepad/pQHu/~3/456152261/monday-with-mounce.html

Gender Blog: It is predicted that half the clergy in the Church of England will be women by 2018. This church is increasingly becoming an illustration of Grudem's argument that evangelical feminism is a major step in facilitating a slide towards liberalism. http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/genderblog/~3/460071549/Church-of-England-Clergy-Increasingly-has-Female-Face

Gender Blog recommends "Becoming God's True Women" edited by Nancy Leigh DeMoss. http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/genderblog/~3/461299998/Becoming-Gods-True-Woman-Offers-Keen-Insight-into-Biblical-Womanhood

Patton on what 1 Peter 3:7 does and doesn't mean: It doesn't mean 1) that a man ever has the right to hurt his wife, 2) that a man has the right to bully her or verbally abuse her or belittle her or treat her life a slave, 3) that a man has the right to ask his wife to do anything illegal or immoral. It does mean that a man must 1) treat his wife with respect as he respects himself, 2) love his wife as Christ loved the church, 3) be a united front with his wife before the kids, and 4) he must trust his wife. http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ParchmentAndPen/~3/455541492/

Natural is a tricky word. Natural as opposed to artificial, and natural as true and pure against contamination, or natural in the sense of universal, or original. "In the thought of people such as Calvin and Aquinas, law is natural in the sense of being both universal and original; the presence of such law, and its recognition as such by men and women, are part of mankind’s primitive endowment." However, the fall has intervened in the operation of natural law. Now, man's essential nature remains (he is still man) but he is corrupted in every supernatural gift comprising the imaho dei (i.e. total depravity). With 'natural' law, the idea is a universal innate sense of supernatural origin. For Calvin, the sensus divinitatis is part of the esence of human nature, albeit perverted. "An apple tree produces apple leaves even though its blossom and fruit-producing powers have been extinguished by the blight. And similarly with the other aspects of mankind’s original powers." "So how do the Dutch Calvinists come to emphasise common grace at the expense of natural law? What is the explanation of Bavinck's mistake? It is, I believe, that he was working with a Counter-Reformation view of nature and grace, a view ultimately derived from Cajetan, and reading it back into Calvin's own situation: a classic case of anachronism." ... "I argue that these expressions ;’common grace’ and ‘nature’ are complementary descriptions of the same phenomenon; they are not at odds with each other, and so they are not to be set in opposition to each other. " Nature looks at persisting structures; common grace brings out is that these abilities and activities, as found in fallen and unregenerate human nature, are the result of undeserved, divine goodness (it could have been worse). http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2008/11/natural-law-and-common-grace.html

"The swooning frenzy over the choice of Barack Obama as President of the United States must be one of the most absurd waves of self-deception and swirling fantasy ever to sweep through an advanced civilisation. At least Mandela-worship – its nearest equivalent – is focused on a man who actually did something." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1084111/PETER-HITCHENS-The-night-waved-goodbye-America--best-hope-Earth.html

Hays demonstrates, again, that pop-atheists can't go for a paragraph without self-refutation and contradiction. http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/11/offer-he-cant-refuse.html