2009-01-24

[ As I am on vacation right now, I do not have regular access to the Internet, hence the lack of posts ]

Phillips writes that Rick Warren's prayer was pathetic - a call to niceness, not to repentance. So much for representing the one who came to bring a sword, not peace. Warren's prayer — first impression

Phillips agrees fully with Piper's assessment that Obama's selection of a homosexual priests to pray means that Obama is making the church a minister of destruction. But Phillips has a problem with the fact that Piper didn't throw down before the election, when these things were already clear. Now is good, then would have been better. Now Piper says something unambiguous

Nichole of Girltalk exhorts teenage girls to sow to the excellencies of womanhood while they are young, when the time is ripe to invest in godly character that has eternal significance, rather than the transient pleasures of the world, like popularity. Sowing in Springtime

Phil Johnson would decline an invite to the inauguration prayer: "Not because it’s a political event, or because I don’t agree with Obama’s foreign or domestic policies, but because Obama’s own stated intention is to make his inauguration “the most inclusive, open, accessible inauguration in American history,” and I would not want to affirm that goal, even tacitly." That's why he invited who he did. Obama's message is that truth doesn't matter, and he is very clearly his own god.  Inauguration Day Prayer #4- Phil Johnson

Phillips own inauguration day prayer would definitely not get him invited back. The outline is, 1) America has been blessed richly, both materially and in terms of biblical knowledge, and to those that have been given much much is required; 2) Repentance and prayer for the corruption of politicians and preachers who twist the truth; 3) Confession for the atrocity of abortion and the murdering of the weakest Americans; 4) There is no excuse, knowing God's word is not above our paygrade; 5) Acknowledgment and proclamation of the work of Christ in the Gospel; 6) Prayer for Obama's salvation and submission to God's word; 7) Prayer for renewing of America. Inauguration Day Prayer #5- Nobody Of Any Consequence

Turk asks a single question about Rick Warren's prayer: "is it a legitimate thing to pray to God that we as a nation be united by anything other than the cross of Christ (a la Eph 2)?" Should we pray that union be based on mere temporary civic good. Short and Sweet

Hays responds to a Romanist who argues that Mt 16:18, Mt 28:20, and Jn 16:13 are together proofs of a visible, infallible catholic church. Here's some notable points: 1) Not a single passage mentions the the visible catholic church, and it is a massive interpolation to read the mess of the Romanist papacy, etc. into them. 2) The 'visible' fellowship presupposed in any of these is entirely compatible with a number of protestant polities. 3) The argument mentions 'visible means' but Catholicism distinguishes between valid and invalid sacraments. While a sacrament is visible, the validity of a sacrament is invisible. It’s contingent on intangible, indetectible factors like the intent of the officiant or the intent of the communicant. So the criterion of visibility fails to distinguish between a true church and a false church, or between a pope and an anti-Pope. 4) The promise of the gates of hell not prevailing against the church speaks to its indefectibility, not its infallibility. And it doesn't say what the church is. The principled basis for determining the true church has always been fidelity to God's word (e.g. the not-so-infallible apostolic sees of Rev 2-3). 5) Things really aren't all that different now than they were back then: "there were various congregations, with various moral and doctrinal deviations both between and within various congregations" The visible church

Manata points out that libertarian free will is a bedrock for Arminian critiques of Calvinism (though they don't admit it). "They tell us that they don't stand upon this rock when arguing for Arminianism, I'll grant them that for argument's sake. But I cannot grant that it isn't a bedrock for launching arguments against Calvinism." He then quotes a few leading libertarian writers to show that indeterminism is equally non-intuitive in choice. Libertarian Kane writes, "The first step is to question the intuitive connection in people's minds between "indeterminisms being involved in something" and "its happening merely as a matter of chance or luck." It looks to be the case that simply saying "choice" doesn't demand a libertarian understanding of the term. It is duplicitous for Arminian epologists to act as if it does... we never hear this common and intuitive understanding of indeterminism as incompatible with control being admitted by Arminian epologists. I Chose to Write This Post

Manata addresses the Randian philosophers contention that the claim 'existence exists' means that 'God doesn't'. "the fact that "existence exists" doesn't tell us anything about the nature of the existents means that Peikoff can't make a direct argument from this axiom to the claim that "existence exists" means that the "supernatural doesn't." If "existence exists" just means "only non-supernatural things exist" then it appears that "existence exists" does tell us something about the nature of the existents. Moreover, to say that the nature of the existents in "existence exists" is that they are "uncreated, indestructible, eternal" seems to be close to contradicting yourself when you say that "existence exists" tells us nothing about the nature of the existents." Manata says, "by all means argue that only physical objects exist; for instance, like the laws of logic you must employ in your argument. Or the mind that forms conclusions caused by other beliefs." There is a reason why this argument doesn't appear in atheological compendiums. Existence, God, the Randians, and the Maverick

Hays shows the consequence of 'all means all': "i) "All have sinned and fall short of God's glory" (Rom 3:23).
ii) All means all. iii) Ergo, Jesus sinned and fell short of God's glory." Why Jesus was a sinner

Hays has some chilling comments regarding Obama's inauguration: "Yesterday marked a milestone in American politics. We truly turned a corner on that day. For Barack Obama is the first black Klansman to hold the highest elective office in the land. He will single-handedly do more to achieve the venerable vision of the KKK than any Grand Wizard... Yesterday was also a benchmark in the history of racial reconciliation, as black voters and white liberal voters joined hands to further the cause of black genocide.... We can all be proud that so many Americans have finally nailed the door shut on racism and come to the view that the only good black baby is a dead black baby." While representing only 13% of the 15-44 female population black women underwent 36% of abortions. We shall overcome

Superstitious atheist Woody Allen is afraid, because of the void, the nihilistic outlook of his worldview. Life, for him, is entirely meaningless, accruing to nothing. The meaningless flicker of life

Hays comments on the identification of Obama devotees with Obama: "

The Obamatons have a profound personal investment in the One. "Whatever happens to him, for good or ill, might as well be happening to them—collectively and individually. They take any criticism of the One as if it were a personal slight to their one person. Likewise, they fervently believe that Americans in general are somehow tainted by the Adamic sin of slave-owners who died a century ago, and the only way to atone for our corporate complicity is to elevate a racial token to the highest office in the land. " It's a parallel to original sin and vicarious atonement. Obama, original sin, and vicarious atonement

Swan points out that while Patrick Madrid claims that the Rosary is the strongest weapon against mortal sin. However, this is conspicuously absent from Ephesians, an epistle which is soaked in devotion to Christ, with no mention of Mary, and which includes the description of spiritual armor. Patrick Madrid's Strongest Weapon Against Sin

Piper asks several pointed questions of Obama regarding abortion, and intends to honour Obama by expecting straightforward answers to these straightforward questions. "You have immense power as President of the United States. To wield it against the protection of the unborn without giving a public accounting in view of moral and scientific reality would be dishonorable. We will honor you by expecting better." Being Pro-Life Christians Under a Pro-Choice President

Piper asks what the difference is between killing a baby a few weeks out of the womb and hiring a doctor to do it just before birth that justifies 25 years in prison for the first [and under Obama, tax-dollars paying to make the second possible]. He then quotes Abraham Lincoln's reasoning on the absurdity of arguments for slavery, which are directly relevant to abortion today (e.g. "You say A. is white, and B. is black. It is color, then; the lighter, having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with a fairer skin than your own.") Lincoln’s Logic on Slavery Applied to Abortion

Phil Johnson continues his series on clarifying Calvinism by articulating two doctrines from the massive statement on God's sovereignty, "We love because He first loved us." 1) The perverseness of our fallen state. There was a time when we did not love God. And we only love God because God loved us - we are totally unable to love Him. This is the magnitude of our perversion, since a failure to love God is the entire essence of lawlessness. Thus this verse affirms total depravity, in that our whole soul is corrupted, unable and unwilling to love God. 2) The priority of God's electing choice. Jesus told His disciples, you did not choose me, but I chose you. Though they did choose him in a real way. The point is that it is Christ's choice that is decisive. His love secures our love. The only reason we love Him while they remain at enmity with God is that God’s loving grace has worked a miracle in our hearts to enable us to return His love. "Do not think for a moment that you can take credit for your love toward Christ. If you love Him at all, it is only because He first loved you. That is the very essence of the doctrine of election." (he makes the point that historic Arminians affirm this truth). Clarifying Calvinism (Part 6)

Phil Johnson continues to point out three more doctrines from "We love because He first loved us." 3) The particularity of His saving work. The words express John's conviction that God has done something special for them. We love him but not everyone loves Him. Though God does indeed love every person, not all love is the same. His love for them is the highest and most sacred kind of love known to man. No greater love can possibly be extended to any creature. And that great love is manifest in a particular way. It is a sacrificial kind of love that will stop at nothing to preserve its object. (cf. vs 9-10; John 15). This love is the particular love manifested in the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ that is efficacious for every believer (which Arminians agree with). 4) The power of His loving deliverance. The love of God is the effectual cause of our love for Him. God here does the impossible, for man cannot love God, except by the grace of God. God's saving grace is irresistable to His elect, as He transforms them to find the glories of His love irresistably attractive. 5) The perfection of His redemptive plan. If our love for God is a product of God's love for us, it is secured by His love for us as well. We won't fall back. It is permanent. "We love" speaks of just this transformed heart. Clarifying Calvinism (Part 7)

Johnson summarizes his series on "We love because He first loved us": The perverseness of our fallen state—that’s the doctrine of Total Depravity. The priority of God’s electing choice—that is the doctrine of Unconditional Election The particularity of His saving work—that, as we saw, entails the doctrine that is often called Limited Atonement. The power of His loving deliverance—that, once more, is the doctrine of Irresistible Grace. The perfection of His redemptive plan—that is nothing other than the doctrine of Perseverance. If you are Christian, you fundamentally affirm every one of these truths. You don't believe you're better. You know it was God that brought you to Him. Clarifying Calvinism (Conclusion)

Solapanel asks the question, what might it mean to use the law in gospel preaching, and what does the Bible actually do with this question? The apostles, while reminding people of the OT in Acts, appear to point people to the truth that God has made them His, and that He will judge the world, so they need to repent for their rejection of Him - rather than listing off a string of commands. We also aren't easily understood in our culture - e.g. what is love, what is justice, for our hearers? Since people have lost a sense of universal authority, we can be inclined to use consequentialist ethics - but if there aren't consequences for a sin in society than it isn't considered sinful! "Our biggest issue with sin is that we sin against the God who made us and who has every right to judge us. We reject the Lord of life." The good news is that in Christ's work God has dealt with this huge problem, and more, in His death and resurrection and appointment to Lord and judge. (note that there are many levels to using the law - e.g. look at God's promises, that He is creator, commands, etc.) How do you unmask depravity-

Patton lists off several types of 'gods' that people leave when they leave Christianity - they didn't really abandon the true God, but rather their false conception of Him. He gives an example along with each: "The “My will be done” type of God named “Jesus”, The personal promise maker God named “Jesus”, The “I am primarily concerned about your success and stability” God named “Jesus”, The “Jesus” who said the world was flat." (i.e. false requirements to become a Christian) "If we allow people to remain undiscipled “Christians,” what do we expect? Are we about making disciples or making converts? If we continue in the same vain, we should expect more disillusionment, more doubt, and more leavers. We must teach people that God is God, his promises are his prerogative, and we do not dare add to his requirements for Christianity. We must get back to theological discipleship." Lack of Theological Discipleship- Casualties by Friendly-Fire

This interesting post briefly details a paper on two fascinating ancient manuscripts. 'The first papyrus (P.Oxy. XXXIII 2673) speaks of the confiscation of church property and the second (P.Oxy XXXI 2601) preserves evidence of Christians circumventing demands for imperial worship.' ... the first article 'poses a number of provocative questions concerning how the persecution played out and the ways in which Christians learned to avoid legal punishment. The second P.Oxy text demonstrates how an early Christian escaped offering tribute in a forensic setting.' Where did you put those manuscripts-

Jay Adams exhorts people to look into becoming nouthetic counselors, and discusses how everything in life goes to pot - how false teachers will deteriorate the faith in churches, how all material things will waste away, how movements and organizations will go astray, until the coming of the new heaven and earth. "Nouthetic counselors, who do not counsel principally for the short, but rather for the long term, know that they offer counsel about that which will never go to pot. Why? Because their counsel, when faithful, comes from the One Who is eternal, Who does not change, Who Himself is ever faithful to His everlasting Word. The ... focus .. is on the land where neither rust, nor moth can destroy, but all is eternal in the heavens waiting to be given to his Christian counselees." The counselor knows there is an imperishable city awaiting. "He seeks primarily to help counselees make decisions about things perishable that have eternal imperishable consequences, so that he always keeps in mind that which will never go to pot." Everything Goes to Pot

From Riddlebarger (The False Prophets Look Pretty Foolish!) "No wonder people don't understand the doctrine of justification.  It is hard to explain Christ's righteousness being imputed to us (i.e., his active obedience) if you don't believe that Jesus had any righteousness to impute.  Apparently, 1 in 3 Christians now believe that Jesus sinned.  Click here: 1 in 3 'Christians' says 'Jesus sinned'"

This talks about the transientness of what was once the brilliant innovation of the Palm Pilot, applying it by analogy to Brian MacLaren. "The ditches of the information highway are littered with people who started out with some good ideas about what was missing and needed to change.  It wasn’t that they didn’t understand the past and the shortcomings of the old information management systems.  It’s that they didn’t understand the future and issues like convergence." "Today you can escape the historical errors of inferior information systems without giving up the power of what they did well." He then points out that now he feels like an idiot wearing a palm pilot on his belt. Why Brian McLaren is like my Palm Pilot

Bayly comments on Obama's invitation of Gene Robinson, proud practicing homosexual Anglican bishop, to pray. The "church that doesn't discipline men of perverse immorality will take pride in their tolerance of diversity. They will be smug in their betrayal of the Lord Jesus Christ, accusing those calling them to repent of being arrogant, themselves." Bayly goes on to quote: '"While that is a holy and sacred text to me, it is not for many Americans," Robinson said. "I will be careful not to be especially Christian in my prayer. This is a prayer for the whole nation."' The Bad Bishop will be careful not to be especially Christian

Great slightly paraphrased Owen quote: "The root of an unmortified course is the digestion of sin without bitterness in the heart. When a man has established a habit of thinking about grace and mercy in such a way as to be able, without bitterness, to swallow and digest daily sins, that man is at the very brink of turning the grace of God into lasciviousness, and being hardened by the deceitfulness of sin." Be killing sin or it will be killing you. John Owen on the holy war

Bayly links to a quote that refutes the caricatures of unbelievers on the church and homosexuality: "we have had many brothers and sisters in Christ with the same history and present temptations as Pastor Pacht. They are loved just as those of us who fight against the temptations of gossip, greed, envy, pornography, rebellion, and anger are loved." The normal Christian life

Here's Gene Robinsons abysmal prayer. The deaf, dumb, and blind god of our many idolatries

Bayly posts a dialogue of two people critiquing John the Baptist's criticism of Herod to point out much folly in modern Christian thinking. John the Baptist's moral performance narrative

JT quotes Piper applying James 1:27 - visit ... orphans in their distress - to unborn victims of abortion. Their place is the womb, and their distress is the greatest, as they are torn limb from limb. Christ's command to have compassion on the helpless applies here. A Sermon on Abortion

JT quotes an article pointing out that the fear surrounding criticizing Obama and the media's pandering to establish their place in the election of the first black president is not helpful. They treat his mediocre speeches as if they are extraordinary. "This is patronizing. Worse, it carries an implicit presumption of inferiority. Every American president must be held to the highest standard. No president of any color should be given a free pass for screw-ups, lies or failure to keep a promise." Let's Not Celebrate More Ordinary Speeches

Here's Rick Warren's prayer... a notable quote: "Help us, O God, to remember that we are Americans--united not by race or religion or blood, but to our commitment to freedom and justice for all." [So it is American freedom and justice that unites? This is like the kingdom-now American patriots at this conference]. Rick Warren's Inauguration Prayer

JT links to Lee Irons on Origen and righteousness: "Contra the New Perspective on Paul, Origen interprets the Pauline lexeme “the righteousness of God” as having reference not to God’s faithfulness to the covenant but to Christ himself and the status of being cleansed from sin, justified, and qualified for eschatological glory on the basis of Christ’s atonement. “The righteousness of God” is thus a soteriological status that sinful humans receive by believing in Christ. And it makes believers fit for glory, “not by their merits, nor for their works, but freely (gratis) offers glory to those who believe.”" Origen on the Righteousness of God

Solapanel'ist Jean Williams notes that in response to a 'redundancy' prayer, that is, for those in the UK made redundant by the economic crisis, there is a question being asked - why pray at all? Prayer, from this angle, is viewed as individualistic and valuable only insofar as it serves to increase our feelings, and God is considered to be an open listening ear, but otherwise useless - the unskilled therapist at best. Rather, prayer is a profound expression of dependence on God. "By calling out to God for his help, we are expressing that to God, and we are saying that this is how we want it. We don't want to depend on our own abilities, strengths or capacities; we want to depend on God. We want him to rule and order our lives, even in the tough times. In prayer, we say most eloquently that we are weak, but God is strong." This "is countercultural to western society, which values individualism, autonomy, strength, beauty and wealth... [and] instinctively sees prayer as a meaningless act apart from its impact on the person praying... where its value is entirely due to whatever comfort or strength a person derives from the act of praying." Redundant prayer-

Patton posts a testimony of a guy who experience 'prophecy', etc. for twenty years. These prophecies never came true. He is sickened by the damage done by false prophecy, even from Christians. He would love to be proved wrong with quantifiable evidence. The post is his anecdotal argument against continuing revelatory gifts as the norm. Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 4)- Excursus

Patton continues by reminding his readers that he is talking about the idea of normative continuation of revelatory spiritual gifts, and then appealing to church history to show the similar experience that the gifts were simply not there. Not that they were theologically cessationists, but necessarily. Chrysostom on 1 Cor. 12 says, "“This whole place is very obscure . . . but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to and by their cessation, being such as then used to occur, but now no longer take place"; Augustine says, "In the earliest time the Holy Ghost fell upon them that believed: and they spoke with tongues which they had not learned ‘as the Spirit gave them utterance.’ These were signs adapted to the time. For it was proper for the Holy Spirit to evidence Himself in all tongues, and to show that the Gospel of God had come to all tongues [languages] over the whole earth. The thing was done for an authentication and it passed away." This early church de facto cessationism is not unlike the canon of Scripture. Why has the canon “closed”? Because God stopped inspiring writers to add to it. It is that simple. This, of course, doesn't mean that God wasn't active or that miracles didn't happen. Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 5)- An Argument from History