2009-01-29

Turk begins his series of words to pastors, and reminds us that a pastor is someone who Paul would call a "true child in the faith". This is an immensely rewarding thing to be called, as well as a humbling thing. We don't see Paul telling us to run from churches on account of lousy pastors. Let me introduce you to you

I wonder what this says about Americans: "despite its below-average numbers this season, Idol still managed to give a ratings beat-down to President Barack Obama." http://tvguide.sympatico.msn.ca/TVNews/Articles/090128_idol_beats_obama_DW

Hays comments on the Humean standard of evidence, popularized by Carl Sagan, according to which extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. 1) Does this require supernatural evidence? That seems viciously regressive. The evidence would suffer from the same alleged implausibility as the event to which it attests, if 'like requires like' is in view. 2) It has a superficial appeal in its compact symmetry. 3) the slogan seems to concede that a miracle is credible as long as you can furnish the right kind of evidence. 4) If it doesn't require the same kind of evidence to attest to a miracle, then by definition ordinary evidence is all that is needed. 5) unless the event already fell within your preconception of an extraordinary event, then ordinary evidence would suffice to attest its occurrence. 6) Skeptics beg the question, since they already have a preconceived notion of what is extraordinary and improbable. The premise that miracles are inherently implausible begs the question. The onus of miracles

Manata writes that just because you can't choose a counterfactual, doesn't mean you didn't choose what you chose. Libertarianism doesn't afford the control to choose counterfactuals anyway - given the luck, you can't choose them. His Arminian interlocuter is attempting to read a libertarian understanding of choice into dictionary definition (and use the dictionary to argue for libertarianism), and worse yet, into ancient Jewish thinking. People have held different worldviews throughout time (e.g. fatalistic Greeks), and it is nothing other than egregious question begging to claim that the biblical authors thought that libertarianism was true. Given Calvinistic interpretations of many of the OT passages, they would have held to divine determinism. The Arminian begs the question by appealing to what he thinks is the 'common man', to whom he thinks the Bible was written - while the Bible was written to everyone. That and the common man also has problems with indeterminate happenings. Merriam-Webster Said It, That Settles It!

Turretinfan has a series in response to Jay Dyer on Calvinism. He intends to address the following: (1) What is the actual error (or conversely, doctrine) at stake? (2) How does or doesn't Calvinism correspond to the error (or doctrine)? and (3) Does this criticism fit Catholicism better? Response to Jay Dyer on Calvinism (Part 1 of 13)  Dyer says that a consistent Calvinist must be Nestorian (The Nestorian error is (to put it concisely) to deny the hypostatic union. Nestorianism, as it is classically defined, argues that Christ was not one person with two natures, but two persons.) to which it is responded that a consistent Calvinist must hold to a proper view of the hypostatic union, wherein the divine person of Christ was fully man and fully God, not two persons. His human nature made the atonement possible, and His divine perfection and worth and dignity and righteousness made it acceptable. Also, the historicity of associating the error with Nestorian is disputed. Moreover, through its idolatrous treatment of Mary, Rome has proven Nestorius' apparent concerns over the term "theotokos" (literally "God-bearer" but often translated "mother of God") to be well founded. Response to Jay Dyer on Calvinism (Part 2 of 13)

Next Dyer says [unbelievably!] that Calvinists must be Manichean. "The error of the Manicheans may be succinctly described as asserting that the physical world is intrinsicly evil, having been created by an evil opposite of God. Thus, the Manicheans deny that evil has a purpose in God's plan, view the body as contemptible, and deny God's omnipotence." Now, Calvinism holds the biblical position that God has a purpose in evil, that dualism is false, that God is omnipotent, that God will redeem our physical bodies, that God created man good, and so on. "On the other hand, Manichean errors - particularly the dualism of viewing the body as intrinsically evil - have had a perceptible impact on the theology of Roman Catholicism. Thus, for example, we seen in modern Roman Catholicism things like a view that abstinence from sexual relations is more holy than normal marital relations and an exaltation of asceticism." That and Romanism doesn't have a clear answer to the question of the purpose of evil. Response to Jay Dyer on Calvinism (Part 3 of 13)

Swan points out that Jimmy Akin, Catholic apologist, goes to Kierkegaard - who was raised Lutheran - for interpreting Genesis 22, which reduces it to a lesson about child sacrifice. Ironically, he doesn't go to the church fathers, who interpreted it as pointing to Christ. Swan then cites Augustine. If one keeps in mind the entire Bible has Christ as it's central focus, one has found the "reason" for Genesis 22. We Have Apostolic Tradition - The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary #2

Piper gives fifteen pro-life truths. Here's a sample: "2. Fetal surgery is performed on babies in the womb to save them while another child the same age is being legally destroyed. ... 9. Justice dictates that when two legitimate rights conflict, the limitation of rights that does the least harm is the most just. Bearing a child for adoption does less harm than killing him. 10. Justice dictates that when either of two people must be inconvenienced or hurt to alleviate their united predicament, the one who bore the greater responsibility for the predicament should bear more of the inconvenience or hurt to alleviate it. 11. Justice dictates that a person may not coerce harm on another person by threatening voluntary harm on themselves." http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TasteAndSee/ByDate/2003/1690_Fifteen_ProLife_Truths_to_Speak/

Piper writes an interesting article on God's sovereign control over the crash of flight 1549. He says that it happened because God meant to give our nation a parable of his power and mercy the week before a new President takes office. God can take down a plane any time he pleases—and if he does, he wrongs no one. But God is longsuffering. He is slow to anger. He withholds wrath every day. This is what we saw in the parable. The crash of Flight 1549 illustrates God’s right and power to judge. The landing of the plane represents God’s mercy. The landing of Flight 1549 was God’s doing. And the Obama presidency is God’s doing. “He removes kings and sets up kings” (Daniel 2:21). http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TasteAndSee/ByDate/2009/3520_The_President_the_Passengers_and_the_Patience_of_God/

Commenting on the acceptance by the senate of Geithner as secretary of Treasury, despite evidence of tax evasion, Hays points out that a basic function of the law is to protect the weak from the strong. "the law functions as a social and moral leveler. It brings everyone down to the same level of accountability for their actions. At least, that’s how it’s supposed to work. But in a land with a passive, ignorant electorate, many officials flout the law with impunity." The slogan, "no one is above the law" is only intermittently true. No man is above the law

Sovereign Grace has a big sale through all of February. This is a great time to pick up their music. Sovereign Grace Book and Music Sale. See also here: Crazy Sovereign Grace Music and Book Sale

This post gives some characteristics of the girl that fears the Lord. The Beginning of Wisdom

Phillips compares pre-election Piper to post-election Piper on abortion. Piper now, Piper then

Turretinfan provides his own thoughts, which are mostly in defence of certain points in Rick Warren's prayer at the inaugeration. 1) People wouldn't have been satisfied unless he had given a 30 minute prayer-homily; 2) The true God IS compassionate and merciful, and it may help Muslims to see that this is not uniquely Koranic but came from Christianity+Judaism; 3) The use of 'Isa' to refer to Jesus is in a line of names of Jesus in various languages, and Warren actually goes on to positively affirm that Jesus taught us to pray in a Christian way.  Rick Warren's Prayer

The excommunication of the Society of St. Pius has been lifted by Rome. This has implications for Rome, as it implies theological disunity between Benedict and John Paul II. SSPX is Back - JP2 heading out- Implications for Unity

Pink writes an article on discerning what you read: "To turn away from the lifeless preachers and publishers of the day—may involve a real cross. Your motives will be misconstrued, your words perverted, and your actions misinterpreted. The sharp arrows of false report will be directed against you. You will be called proud and self-righteous, because you refuse to fellowship empty professors. You will be termed censorious and bitter—if you condemn in plain speech—the subtle delusions of Satan. You will be dubbed narrow-minded and uncharitable, because you refuse to join in singing the praises of the "great" and "popular" men of the day. More and more, you will be made to painfully realize—that the path which leads unto eternal life is "narrow" and that FEW there are who find it. May the Lord be pleased to grant unto each of us—the hearing ear and obedient heart! "Take heed what you hear" and read!" http://www.gracegems.org/Pink2/take_heed_what_you_read.htm

Gilbert recounts a sermon which became dialogical (not intentionally, and the question that started it off is a little humourous). He argues briefly that Total Church has understated the case for monological preaching in the Scriptures, and that learning requires listening, so dialogical suffers from 1) being unable to convey as much information; and 2) the depth of your exhortation is also going to be much shallower for the same reason. RE- Total Church by Greg Gilbert

Stott has some moving comments on the centrality of church in the NT. "I trust that none of my readers is that grotesque anomaly, an unchurched Christian.  The New Testament knows nothing of such a person.  For the church lies at the very centre of the eternal purpose of God.  It is not a divine afterthought.  It is not an accident of history.  On the contrary, the church is God's new community." On Acts 2:37 he says, "He didn't add them to the church without saving them, and he didn't save them without adding them to the church.  Salvation and church membership went together; they still do." Yet many today are just this grotesque anomaly.  John Stott on Church Membership by Thabiti Anyabwile

Thabiti has some anecdotes illustrating some concepts about church membership, the context being Total Church. 1) That a person can come for years and love the church and even be known by many but could slip through the cracks outside of membership. 2) That a person could be a member and not want to be - it would be a mistake to just assume that such folks want to be "members" or be a part of "church belonging" just because they've shown up over a period of time. 3) That an unregenerate individual might be a member. Membership- Based on a True Story by Thabiti Anyabwile. Gilbert adds to this that in 1 Cor. 12:27 Paul explicitly uses the term members, and argues that this is an allusion to the body politic that was well understood in Greco-Roman culture. The people knew exactly who was a member of that body politic and who wasn't. If this connection is there then Paul is deliberately using a familiar picture to illustrate the body of Christ. The idea of membership isn't esoteric. RE- Membership by Greg Gilbert

McKinley relates this: "This week a church member made an appointment for lunch.  He wanted to ask me a question: if I imagined this were the last time I ever saw him, and I was being 100% completely honest about what I saw in his life, what criticism would I offer him?" He says that he cannot imagine a more godly question, and only pride constrains us from it. The Perfect Question by Michael Mckinley

McKinley rants about pastors talking about their clothing - it is certainly funny, and he touches on the feminizing of boys, etc. This is the kicker though: This does not pass the "DMLJ" test.  If you missed it, the "DMLJ" test is this: would what I am doing make Martyn Lloyd-Jones want to rip off my arm and beat me with the bloody shoulder socket?  If the answer is "yes", don't do it.   Stop It With the Clothes Already by Michael Mckinley

Gilbert thinks that 'internet church' is based on a misunderstanding of church: "When your fellowship after church amounts to typing some words in a chat room to "jesusgirl4567," I think you're missing something important in the whole koinonia concept.  Like human-to-human interaction, for instance---seeing pain or struggle in a person's eyes, for example, and being able to react to that; or sharing joy, which is much more powerfully communicated through the face than through a colon and a parenthesis." RE- Internet Campus by Greg Gilbert

Obama is giving indications of his fundamental pragmatism over principle approach - an approach that will result in the weaker and marginal groups being tosses to the side. “If you are a lobbyist entering my administration,” Obama said, “you will not be able to work on matters you lobbied on, or in the agencies you lobbied during the previous two years.” But he went on to appoint a deputy secretary of defence who lobbied for Raytheon, a treasury secretary who dodged taxes, and an attorney general who had formerly helped make possible the pardon of a blatant criminal. http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=11039