2009-02-02

Spurgeon warns against two errors: 1) The claim to new revelation and attributing to the Holy Spirit that which He did not speak, by reading one's one fanciful imagination and impressions and feelings onto His words. 2) Neglecting the Holy Spirit in ministry and preaching, disconnecting the Person from His writings, so that if it were not for the doxology the parishioners may never know He exists. Equilibrium

Hays responds to some comments by philosophy prof. Neal Judisch, an evangelical convert to Catholicism. 1) Hays responds to the misuse of Matt. 16:18 and 28:20, where Catholics anachrostically read Romanist definitions of 'church' and 'gates of hell' into these writings, as well as assuming that promises given to the eleven are warrant for the Roman church papacy. Same with John 16:13 - the promise of the Spirit was to the eleven disciples. 2) The NT doesn't mention a Petrine “chair” or Petrine “office" anywhere, let alone a successor. 3) The idea that Peter had the final say over the church at large is problematic given Acts 15 or Gal 2:11-14. 3) "On the one hand, he says you can’t have a canon without a church to justify the canon. On the other hand, he’s citing canonical prooftexts to justify his high-church ecclesiology. So is the church logically prior to the canon—or is the canon logically prior to the church." 4) From a historical perspective, Catholics haven't exactly been error free. 5) Protestants study arguments and evidence to determine canonicity. Each individual doesn't have to revisit this from scratch. Moreover, the Roman church did this at Trent when they established the canon (and it was hardly unanimous) - they wasn't a divine illumination that made them think alike . 6) Catholics seem to assume that God can't guide His people into truth through ordinary means. "Neal is not, himself, infallible. So, unless, in the providence of God, we can be reasonably confident of arriving at the truth through ordinary means, then Neal’s objection is self-refuting. Neal is using his fallible powers of reason to fallibly argue for infallibility. If he can do that, why not a Protestant." Why can't God guide His people through ordinary providence, which may look like a collection of writings with fallible humans receiving them as Scripture? 7) In the Great Schism, the Catholics had to decide between pope and anti-pope. didn’t fallible Catholics have to decide, with extreme uncertainty, which pope was the true pope? Disputes over the minor limits of the canon are relatively minor. 8) it’s never entirely clearly exactly how the Spirit is supposed to be involved in the extraordinary magisterium. At Trent, the vote on the canon went 24 to 15 with 16 abstentions. So the motion didn’t even carry by a majority vote. Is that the way the Holy Spirit works? 9) Neal makes an individual case against individual interpretation, leaving the readers to individually judge his argument - why not weight the evidence, then? 10) God has put us here and now. Walk by faith, doing the best with what He's given you. 11) In a discussion about filters through which we understand Scripture: "Was his pre-Catholic filter reliable or unreliable? If the pre-Catholic filter by which he evaluated the claims of Catholicism was unreliable, then he converted under false pretenses. But if his pre-Catholic filter was sufficiently reliable to rightly evaluate Catholicism, then in what respect does he even need a Catholic filter? " ... "If he has so little confidence in reason, why is he trying to reason his readers into Catholicism? Is reason only reliable for Catholics? But, in that case, no one could reasonably convert to Catholicism. Only unreasonable people could convert to Rome, beginning with Neal. " 12) "So what we mean by probability is that it’s possible I’m mistaken about this, not that I am mistaken. To say I could be wrong doesn’t mean I’m actually wrong. As long as I’m right, what does it matter if I could be wrong?  Just to say you don’t know for sure if you have the correct canon doesn’t, of itself, cast any doubt on your canon. It doesn’t furnish any tangible evidence that your canon is incorrect. So it’s a very weak objection. Indeed, it’s the sort of fallback objection we’d expect from someone who has no tangible evidence to challenge your position." 13) How does an appeal to conciliar authority solve the problem cleanly? As Neal is fond of saying, doesn’t that push the problem back a step? How does he distinguish an orthodox council from a heterodox council? 14) Did the Jews have no OT canon before a church council demarcated it? Why did God hold them in breach of covenant if they didn't know where to find God's word? Toppled towers and forkéd tongues

This is a short and humourous read: How would Dawkins argue if he were a theist

Manata responds again to an Arminian arguing for libertarian free will using the definition of 'choice.' Manata says, "No one is debating that the word 'choice' is a proper word. I can use it. I choose to use it. That I used the word 'choice' doesn't mean that I think libertarianism is true." The interlocuter again blurs the difference between having choices and making choices, and seems unaware that Jewish scholars see an inherent determinism in ancient Judaism. Most scholars know that the Jews believed (a) God foreknows what we will do, which they thought implied determinism, and they also held that (b) man was free. Generally, they didn't try to resolve this problem, though. It was held a paradox. This issue was even debated among later Jews. Manata goes on to cite a few scholars. e.g. one "finds compatibilism the expression of "classical Jewish theology." It is further noted that some view talk of libertarian free will as an "exaggerated premise about the value of free will in Judaism."" This quote indicates the diversity: "According to the first-century historian Josephus, different conceptions of fate and determinism distinguished the three major Jewish sects of antiquity... the Essenes believed that fate determined everything, the Sadducees rejected fate entirely, and the Pharisees--the forerunners of rabbinic Judaism--believed that, "certain events are the work of Fate, but not all." He points out that compatibilism easily accounts for making choices. Just because you couldn't choose a counterfactual does not mean you did not choose what you chose. "God's choice wasn't indeterminite either... God doesn't have libertarian freedom. I don't think he has compatibilistic either. I believe his freedom is sui generous." Last Response to Dan

Phillips is beginning a series of pointed posts to challenge the premises underneath the arguments of those who say that the Scriptures and Jesus do not oppose homosexuality. The first is simple: "Challenge: Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. Response: Jesus never explicitly said anything about child-molesting, rape, incest, or marrying your hamster, either. And...?" Jesus and homosexuality (NEXT! #1)

Engwer comments on the value of apologetics for the resurrection. 1) The Bible often appeals to evidential arguments (e.g. fulfilled prophecy). 2) Converting people isn't the only objective: the historical evidence for Jesus' resurrection can also glorify God in His creation or demonstrate the corrupt nature of the unregenerate. 3) We should be ready with an answer (1 Peter 3:15), but we should realize that God can accomplish His ends without our answers. The Role Of Apologetics

White has some post-debate comments on the five goals he wanted to accomplish going into the debate with Ehrman. 1) Dr. Ehrman did not even attempt to mount a case against my presentation, preferring to rely upon arguments from authority; 2) Ehrman was clearer than I have ever heard him in repeating his mantra that without the originals, there can be no inspiration; 3) It was not difficult at all to present portions of the mountain of evidence that demonstrates the unity and accuracy of the NT manuscript tradition - Ehrman seems insulated from the overwhelming similarities of even the most diverse manuscripts; 4) White made the case against any kind of edited control of the text and in demonstrating that this is a far more serious allegation than Ehrman’s “we need the original” argument; 5) Bart Ehrman has (likely) ever been quite so forthright publicly in his disagreement with the great scholars of the past, in his promotion of an abandonment of the establishment of the “original” text, his rejection of the tenacity of the text (though he provided not a single rebuttal to the documentation of tenacity provided by Kurt Aland) and in essence the open proclamation that we do not, in fact, “know” what anyone in the past actually said or did.. A Review of the Ehrman Debate

Manata points out that in his experience, most laymen don't reject God's absolute control, and appeal to "mystery" or "paradox" or "antinomy," to hold that both LFW and exhaustive determinism are true. In this case, the argument from the view of the 'common man' doesn't get anyone anywhere. More on the common man argument

From Piper's Finally Alive: "What's the relationship between God's work in the new birth and ours? From Finally Alive: God's role in bringing about the new birth is decisive, and our role in bringing about the new birth is essential." Our Essential Role

From Finally Alive: "If you feel average or below average in your fitness to share the gospel treasure, you are closer to the truth than someone who feels powerful and wise and self-sufficient.... [Y]ou are the person God is looking for—a clay pot, who simply shares the treasure of the gospel, not the glitzy intellect, not the glitzy eloquence, not the glitzy beauty or strength or cultural cleverness." The Beauty of Being (Below) Average

Here's a Gospel sharing tip from Finally Alive: "Be encouraged that simply finding people interesting and caring about them is a beautiful pathway into their heart. Evangelism gets a bad reputation when we are not really interested in people and don't seem to care about them" People Are Interesting

Here's a list of recommended books from David Mathis. Get Your Book Bearings

Five points from Piper's sermon on God's purpose in the recession: "To expose hidden sin and so bring us to repentance and cleansing. To wake us up to the constant and desperate condition of the developing world where there is always and only recession of the worst kind. To relocate the roots of our joy in his grace rather than in our goods—in his mercy rather than our money, in his worth rather than our wealth. To advance his saving mission in the world—the spread of the gospel and the growth of his church<precisely at a time when human resources are least able to support it. This is how he guards his glory. To bring his church to care for its hurting members and to grow in the gift of love." What Is the Recession For-

Phillips writes a worthwhile post on what he calls silly Calvinism. "By this I mean the sort of Calvinism that looks like a self-parody. It takes the truth of God's sovereignty and blots out other balancing Biblical truths such as human responsibility and the evil of evil. It's the sort of Calvinism that shrinks from calling bad things bad things, as Scripture certainly and unhesitatingly does — even right up against God's sovereignty (i.e. Genesis 50:20)." He applies this to John Piper's (and others) response to Obama [though I think the principle applies to many other things. Call sin a sin. Call evil evil. Lament tragedy and evil and wickedness]. New category- moderate Calvinism, 5-point Calvinism, hyper-Calvinism, and

Patton clarifies emphatically that cessationists do not have a problem with miracles, but rather is one that believes the supernatural sign gifts exhausted their function following the apostolic period and have passed away. He says miracles do indeed happen, and God is obviously free to move as He sees fit, "But, generally speaking, they are extremely rare. Too much expectation can set us up for disillusionment. Most people don’t get healed. Everyone stays dead. Christians’ bills sometimes don’t get paid." Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 6)- Excursus- It’s Not About Miracles!

Patton compares the de facto closing of the canon with the de facto cessation of supernatural revelatory gifts. Basically, it isn't that the Bible said the canon closed but that it factually closed. No more apostles or verified prophets, etc. produced Scripture. He then goes on to explain reasons why the gifts may have ceased - not proofs they did, but after-the-fact explanations, similar to the treatment of the closed canon. He draws from the marks of an apostle (2 Cor. 12:12), the fact that apostles and prophets are called the foundation of the church, which implies that it is laid down and not still under construction, and indications of de facto ceasing even in the Scriptures: He writes of Hebrews, "the message of salvation was first spoken by the Lord (subject #1—first generation). It was then confirmed by those who heard (subject #2—the Apostles and prophets—second generation). The “to us” is the key. The writer of Hebrews indicates that the Gospel was confirmed to them (subject #3—third generation), not by them." Why I am Not Charismatic (Part 7)- Building a Theology of the Sign Gifts

After exhorting us to go first to the Scripture on every moral issue, recognizing that things are not as they should be, as God would have them be, and as He will make them, but that God is working all of history for His purpose, Mohler points to the commissioning of Jeremiah, saying: "Listen to those verbs: made, knew, consecrated, appointed. These are strong verbs, revealing divine action. God says, “I did these things, and I did these things before you were born, before I made you.”" Mohler highlights God's purposeful and omniscient and omnipotent forming of Jeremiah for His purpose - Jeremiah was on no trial run, and he was not an accident. He was formed by the hand of God. http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=3122

Collin Hansen has some retrospective reflections on Young, Restless and Reformed. Here's a striking paragraph: "I would hate to see Calvinists fall into the same destructive patterns that weakened them in previous generations. Calvinists are renowned for eating their own, and it will take restraint and patience to refrain from becoming consumed by debates over baptism, ecclesiology, or the Holy Spirit. Nor do I believe there is much to be gained by relentless polemics against evangelicalism. Sadly, we all know by now that the problems are deep--perhaps intractable. But Keller and others show us there is much to be gained by demonstrating faithful alternatives to contemporary church practices. Indeed, there is a time for polemics, a time for practice, and a need for both. Now may be just the time to shift the balance toward practice." http://www.reformation21.org/articles/reflections-on-young-restless-and-reformed.php

Interesting words from Paul Tripp: If you were to play a recording of the previous month, by and large, what kingdom would your words be upholding? The kingdom of self, protected by malice, selfishness, entitlement, quick to criticize, and so on? Or would it be the kingdom of God, with words of love, honesty, encouragement, and service? The Kingdom of Self vs. the Kingdom of God

Driscoll on Nightline: Listen to the description of Jesus at about 4:00 on. I wonder if Nightline hasn't distorted the picture of Christ from Driscoll; if you didn't know his theology and you were watching it. They do mention that he's a Calvinist but frame it purely in terms of "heaven or hell right from the chute" and such. http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=6746393

Apparently some DSS fragments of Daniel and Exodus are for sale on the open market! Dead Sea Scrolls for Sale

Nicole of Girltalk points to the invitation from God that His people come and learn the fear of the Lord. She exhorts young women: "If you have a godly mother, God also wants you to learn the fear of the Lord from her. She can help you learn how to apply the fear of the Lord in the every day trials and struggles of teenage life. The Bible promises that if you make it your life goal to obtain the fear of the Lord, you will find happiness, security, riches, honor and rest (Pr. 28:14, 14:26, 22:4, 19:23). Everything that teenager are longing for is only to be found in fearing God. " Learning to Fear the Lord.

She goes on to show the Proverbic wisdom of learning from your parents, and the idea that God has chosen the family to be the primary learning community. Don't Miss This Deal!

Here's some advice for young women who have an unbelieving mother. Don't despair, for God provides. 1) Honour your mother. 2) Pray for godly mentorship. God does not leave His people in the lurch, and it is not a hindrance to godliness, by the grace of God. When Your Mom Isn't A Christian

Piper says, will our faith rise? Or will we worry like the world in this economic crisis? http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=f7AxMf-Mjhw

More lunacy from the religion of environmentalism. From Time: "Couples who have more than two children are being “irresponsible” by creating an unbearable burden on the environment, the government’s green adviser has warned.  Jonathon Porritt, who chairs the government’s Sustainable Development Commission, says curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming. He says political leaders and green campaigners should stop dodging the issue of environmental harm caused by an expanding population. " Be fruitful and multiply

Here's some reasons that gambling dishonours God - some better than others. Point form. A few reasons why gambling dishonors God

In commenting on a new book on adoption, Bird adds this anecdote: "My wife used to work with a crisis pregnancy help line and she learned that would-be mothers who approached social services to give their child up for adoption were often referred to "clinics" for abortions instead (no wonder there's a freaking 10 year wait!). Probably a further factor in Australia is that the Govt. gives a baby bonus of $5000 to families who have a child, thus making it quite lucrative to have children. While this does help struggling working class families (I have benefitted from it in the past), a pastor friend told me a story of a lady in his church who has a daughter with a heroin addiction and she pays for her habit by having baby after baby. She abandons the babies after getting the bonus and it is the grandmother who then has to raise the children and deal with babies born with a heroin addiction. Very sad." New Book on Adoption

Struckenbruck on Revelation: "Read in sequence, 20:4-6 and 11-15 could be read as an eschatological judgmnt occurring in two stages. What may seem to be successive stages could actually be a literary device used by John to focus singly on the vindication of the righteous martyrs and on the eradication of the wicked and evil. It is, therefore, misleading to insist that John was simply interested in chronology." ... "Read in sequence, 20:4-6 and 11-15 could be read as an eschatological judgmnt occurring in two stages. What may seem to be successive stages could actually be a literary device used by John to focus singly on the vindication of the righteous martyrs and on the eradication of the wicked and evil. It is, therefore, misleading to insist that John was simply interested in chronology." Revelation Bonanza - Part 4- Stuckenbruck on the Millennium

Timothy Jones provides further advice on clothing for your children: 1) Set clear standards, and don't budge. 2) Recognize and discern the messages emblazoned on clothing. Don't capitulate to unbiblical messages on account of the 'it's just a joke' argument. 3) Recognize and admit that the need for peer popularity is overrated. "The idea that this type of peer popularity is necessary for healthy development is a recent phenomenon, rooted more in the social function of the American school system than in any perennial truths about human nature." Clothing and the Character of a Child, Part II

In his book Womanly Dominion, females, Chanski asserts, as God's fellow image bearers, also share the dominion mandate; both men and woman are to carry out this mandate within their specific, God-given spheres. He uses an interesting sports analogy of playing your position faithfully, rather than listening to the call of feminism to leave the post, grab the ball, and try to score on their own. New Book Calls Women to Exercise Womanly Dominion, Part I. Here's a further review, which points out that the book provides examples of women in church history whose lives portray a bold trust in God's providence, a trust that led them to act courageously in the midst of difficult. The final chapters are aimed at the woman's role as wife, her roles in the church and her role in the public square. New Book Calls Women to Exercise Womanly Dominion, Part II

Florida government "gone wild" - they've passed a law which allows “transgendered” people to use either a male or female restroom, the restroom of their choosing. This means that sex predators could now simply enter a woman’s restroom claiming to be a “transgender” person. Florida Conservatives Fighting Transgender Restroom Law

Rhology brings out quotes from prominent Romanist sources to show the acceptance of the partim-partim view by the Roman Catholic church (they're ambivalent, also allowing material sufficiency). Of note: Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI - "...no one is seriously able to maintain that there is a proof in Scripture for every catholic doctrine" Partim-partim

Here we have another of example where Catholic reality doesn’t appear to match the arguments of Catholic epologists. Protestants are told they cannot trust their own interpretation when reading the bible but are in need of an infallible interpreter, especially to provide clarity around modern-day moral issues (contraception, stem cell research, etc.). But in reality we see thousands to millions of Catholics turning to a layperson organization for fallible answers and interpretations. Shouldn’t Catholics be asking questions of their priests and bishops rather than Catholic Answers? Catholic Answers- Providing Certainty-

Russell Moore: "I don’t hate Sanctity of Human Life Sunday because I think it, somehow, unbiblical. No, indeed. The entire canon throbs with God’s commitment to the fatherless and to the widows, his wrath at the shedding of innocent blood. I don’t hate it because I think it’s inappropriate. ... I hate Sanctity of Human Life Sunday because I’m reminded that we have to say things to one another that human beings shouldn’t have to say. Mothers shouldn’t kill their children. Fathers shouldn’t abandon their babies. No human life is worthless, regardless of skin color, age, disability, economic status. The very fact that these things must be proclaimed is a reminder of the horrors of this present darkness." http://www.russellmoore.com/index.php/2009/01/18/why-i-hate-sanctity-of-human-life-sunday/