2009-01-12

Spurgeon, in his typical eloquence, articulates from Christ's rebuke of unbelief that unbelief is treated far too lightly by Christians, as if it were a disease, rather than a blatant wicked sin. We should be inclined to harshness towards our unbelief, not self-pity, and seeking the pity and comfort of man, as though we suffered from some illness, and we were mere victims, when we are really doing a great injustice in distrusting God's promises. "we are far too ready to palliate our own wrong-doing, to cover up our own faults and to belittle our own offenses. I very specially urge every believer in Jesus to deal most sternly with himself in this matter of unbelief." Don't Pamper Your Doubts

Engwer very briefly addresses a claim of disunity among the apostles, and points to further resources. The Unity Of The Apostles

Here's a quote from the New York Times, in an article about Driscoll and Mars Hill church. "[The] New Calvinism underscores a curious fact: the doctrine of total human depravity has always had a funny way of emboldening, rather than humbling, its adherents." Phil Johnson has a couple of thoughts: 1) Driscoll is quite atypical, in many ways. 2) that remark about Calvinistic arrogance has too much truth in it to be dismissed completely. We're Living Proof that Depravity is Total

Engwer comments on Ehrman and evangelical impressions of him - basically, Engwer states that a) evangelicals may be misunderstanding Ehrman, and b) Ehrman is overrated. Engwer cites a number of very positive statements about the NT from Ehrman (e.g. "Most of these [textual] differences are completely immaterial and insignificant....In fact, most of the changes found in our early Christian manuscripts have nothing to do with theology or ideology." "when scribes made intentional changes, sometimes their motives were as pure as the driven snow" "This oldest form of the text is no doubt closely (very closely) related to what the author originally wrote, and so it is the basis for our interpretation of his teaching"). Ehrman basically puts a lot of emphasis on the few problems they are, isolated from context, and critics of Christianity jump on this. Engwer briefly argues that by Ehrman's standards on the Comma Johannine, Matthew 28:19 is perhaps just as much a prooftext for the Trinity. He then comments on Ehrman's argument that the textual problems in the NT prevent us from being confident that we have the word of God - Ehrman admits the problems aren't characteristic, so if we even lack confidence in a relatively small portion, how much of a problem is this? The rest is still good. He isn't bringing up anything Christian scholars aren't already aware of. "He should make more of an effort to explain why the textual problems supposedly wouldn't have been allowed by God if the New Testament were a Divine revelation."  Bart Ehrman On The New Testament Text

White posts a video on P52 here: "It begins with an image of the fragment itself. The first transition gives you the rest of the text of John 18:31-33; next, the fragment disappears leaving just the text; next, the very same text as found 300 years later in Codex Alexandrinus; then it transitions into the modern printed text, then into the same text in modern digital format, then I bring the fragment back in to complete the circle. One text, transmitted faithfully for about 1,900 years." The P52 Graphic

Piper points out that "When the choice is between exalting God or exalting man, Satan is pro-man. When the choice is between exalting Satan or exalting man, Satan is pro-Satan. Here are the texts." Not all pro-man movements are really good for man. Is Satan Pro-Man-

Here's the NY times article on Driscoll - it is, shall we say, something else: "Driscoll represents a movement to revamp the style and substance of evangelicalism. With his taste for vintage baseball caps and omnipresence on Facebook and iTunes, Driscoll, who is 38, is on the cutting edge of American pop culture. Yet his message seems radically unfashionable, even un-American: you are not captain of your soul or master of your fate but a depraved worm whose hard work and good deeds will get you nowhere, because God marked you for heaven or condemned you to hell before the beginning of time. Yet a significant number of young people in Seattle — and nationwide — say this is exactly what they want to hear." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/magazine/11punk-t.html?_r=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

JT points to Reinke, who has some tips on reading: "Tip 1: Capturing Reading Time Tip 2: Read with a Pen in Hand Tip 3: Read With Purpose in Mind" Reinke on Reading

JT points to some writings on technology: "Technology Is Always a Trade-Off ("Our challenge is to be neither all-embracing of technology nor all-rejecting, but rather to think well about how introducing a technology into personal, family, or church life will have some positives and some negatives.") Technology Creates Winners and Losers ("We ought recognize is that technology is not perfect and that for all its good, there is a cost to using it – sometimes that cost is in persons. Hopefully, by understanding these technological times we can guard against pride in our devices and skills and be more aware of those in need of the love of Christ.") Technology Contains a Powerful Idea ("The tools we use shape the way we see the world. . . . The catch is that those embedded messages are sometimes at odds with the Gospel and the Kingdom of Jesus Christ.") Technology Is Ecological, Not Additive ("New technology is not merely added alongside other things, it changes the world it enters and alters the relationships that existed before.") Technology Tends To Become Mythic ("Every culture has things that started as 'new,' but over time become 'normal.'. . . It has become the default against which we judge other things. The only thing we can’t do [without appearing a complete fool] is question technology which has become mythic.")" Five Things the Church Needs to Know About Technological Change

JT points to Marvin Olasky's Abortion Rites: A Social History of Abortion in America. (Contrary to what many of us functionally assume, the history of abortion in the US goes back not just to 1973, but 1652) and then to an article in world by the same author. "Roughly 160,000 abortions occurred in 1860 in a population of 30 million. Probably about 1.2 million abortions (13 percent of them through RU-486) occurred last year in a population estimated at around 307 million." So how did our predecessors curb abortion? "Overall, as pro-lifers compassionately aided women at risk, the abortion rate declined dramatically from 1860 to 1910 and stayed relatively low until the cultural revolution of the 1960s sent the numbers soaring again. Pro-life leaders during the 1860-1960 century of decrease understood that there never would be "total abolition of the practice." Realizing that this is a fallen world, they appreciated the educational impact of anti-abortion laws but did not expect much in the way of enforcement: Instead, they concentrated on ways to provide women with compassionate alternatives to abortion. They were not laid low by a sense of failure when, despite their efforts, many unborn children died. They rejoiced that so many were saved. " World Magazine on Abortion

Patton has a worthwhile post on how people hate intellectual critique like they hate moral critique. That we need discipline - to be disciplined. That we can't be theological mavericks. That we need people to keep us accountable. That we need training in the faith. He writes about some of his own critiques, but says, "Concerning these critiques—concerning these beatings I took—there is something you should know—most of the time I was theologically correct in my conclusions. I thought that this is all that mattered. Hey, if I did not do the word study right, who cares? As long as I came to the right answer—wasn’t this acceptable? Isn’t the right answer what we ultimately are trying to find? This was not good enough! I learned that how you come to your conclusions is just as important as the conclusions themselves. In the end, I was humiliated so that I could be humbled." [I'm think that last sentence might be a little strong regarding the importance of how you come to but the point should be duly noted] "Concerning these critiques—concerning these beatings I took—there is something you should know—most of the time I was theologically correct in my conclusions. I thought that this is all that mattered. Hey, if I did not do the word study right, who cares? As long as I came to the right answer—wasn’t this acceptable? Isn’t the right answer what we ultimately are trying to find? This was not good enough! I learned that how you come to your conclusions is just as important as the conclusions themselves. In the end, I was humiliated so that I could be humbled." "People need serious theological training. People need discipline. People need to be humiliated theologically. People need to know that they cannot do whatever they want with Christian belief and expect there to be so many lab rats available." Getting Theologically Humiliated

Chan provides this: "William Williams was surely one of the finest hymn writers to grace the church. The following selections from Sweet Singers of Wales by Howell Lewis should hopefully whet your appetite for more from Pantycelyn's gifted pen..." Links after the jump. Williams Pantycelyn