2009-02-14

Manata comments on a comparison between Islam and Calvinism, where the poster effectively quote-mined to show acontextual comparisons to undermine Calvinism. Now, Muslims do get some things right. It's not like a similarity is automatically an argument against Calvinism. Ironically, Arminianism and Islam both deny that original sin actually affected man, prevenient grace having taken care of that problem. Now, Reppert thinks that the theodicy moves put forward by Calvinists could also be used by Islam. But Manata recently interviewed an Imam who affirmed LFW! "He makes the same moves Arminians make, viz., Allah is loving and merciful, he could not cause people to sin." Now, In the 8th century Mu'tazili argued that evil is the result of free will. Islam has its "Arminians" just like Christianity has its Arminians. But those who want quick and easy refutations of another religion are loathe to represent it in all its various sophistications. He cites several other Muslims, including a scholar, who makes very Arminian arguments. He concludes, "I have seen Arminian philosophers take more care to make sure that physicalism or atheist philosophers are represented charitably than I have seen care to make sure Calvinism is represented properly... In this we find common ground with Jesus. His fellow Jews sought to defend and let off Barabbas over him. His fellow Jews strove to misrepresent him and his teachings, searching for quick ways to dismiss him before the people. Calvinism walks this road too." Islam and Arminianism

Pike comments the deficiencies of a recent Gallup poll on whether people believe in the theory of evolution (there are really multiple competing theories, of which neo-darwinism is prominent). "I think if I were to spin this poll myself, I’d say that what it actually shows us is that those who are currently studying the theory of evolution believe it. And that, too, is logical since the dissent is never presented while you are studying the theory, and when you have intellectual peer pressure being put upon you to conform to the will of the professor (or high school teacher), you’re going to go with the crowd. Once you get out on your own, you realize two important facts: 1) Darwinism means absolutely nothing to you in your day-to-day living and 2) there are actually arguments against Darwinism out there." Gallup On

In answering an objection to hell based on its 'trumping' of heaven, Hays says that if "the objection takes the form of: “I’m pained by how much pain they’re in,” then I think that loses a lot of its traction if we discount the pop tradition of hell as a torture chamber." [he doesn't seem to have a conception of hell as torment]. He points out that our view of heaven in heaven will be different than our view now. Again, circumstances can dramatically change our view of a person, as we all experience. That should be considered. [I think that once our sensibilities are wholly aligned with God's we shall see perfectly and clearly the horridness of the crime of the rejection of God by our loved ones, and ourselves delight in the vindication of His glory in the display of His justice, in rightly condemning them]. i) We often feel we ought not to feel this way; but we don't have the same duties then as now. ii) We don't like to think of current relations as temporal. iii) Heaven is an ideal for which we have no analog. So it is surreal to us. God will wipe away every tear

Hays comments on Al Kimel advocating an ecclesiastical version of reader-response theory. He demoted the historical audience in favor of the implied audience, which he identified with “the Church.” Hays quotes the standard Catholic monograph on hermeneutics to show issues with this: i) If the intended audience is not just the believers contemporaneous with the author, and there are differences of views, how do we settle these differences [since there's no historical context?], and if we demarcate among believers, what is the criterion for this? ii) If it is the understanding common to all believers that counts, how can any believer or group of believers at any given time be certain of an interpretation, not having access to the understanding of those who have not yet lived? iii) There may be several legitimate understandings of the text that contradict each other! It should be noted the same issues apply to the Magisterium. Catholics don't have, as an example, access to future interpretations. Revelation & reader-response theory

Harris posts links to a few messages, and makes this interesting comment: "These messages all reflect, in one way or another, things that I've learned since I wrote the book I Kissed Dating Goodbye twelve years ago. I still stand by the message of that book that premature, short-term romantic attachments can be a big distraction from serving God—especially for teenagers. But in the years since I've also seen that a legalistic application of these ideas can be unhelpful, too. One of my main concerns in my church or any other church is that there be no disunity among Christians over issues of dating and courtship." He cautions people to hold their convictions on this with charity, to not go beyond Scripture, and to not elevate even his books to dogma.  What I've Learned Since I Kissed Dating Goodbye

White comments on a post concerned that White is becoming a Reformed Baptist wacko (he has been RB for years and years) that has this hilarious comment: "[As a clarification, Reformed Baptist have this tendency to believe (or at least act as if they believe) that one can by logical argument convince someone against their will to be a Christian without any assistance from the Holy Spirit.]" White writes, "Once again we are left stuttering and wondering "how can someone get it so completely wrong?" One is tempted to think that this is meant to be a humorous post, but, alas...I don't think so." Oh No! I Am in Danger of Becoming...a Reformed Baptist!

A primary idea in the Qur'an is continuity with religion before it, namely, Christianity and Judaism. The Qur'an, in its OT usage, does two things commonly: i) the stories are presented as teaching tools to make a present-day point, and ii) they are embellished. Colin Smith gives an example of the altered confrontation of David's sin over Bathsheba, and several others. Of note, Sura 12 recounts the story of Joseph in a way that appears at first to be simply a paraphrase of the Biblical account; however, the story soon deviates from the Biblical narrative. Instead of being accused of molesting Potipher's wife, Joseph is vindicated by eyewitnesses but chooses prison over being under her control (28-35). This testifies to the Islamic attitude toward the prophet: Allah will not permit him to be shamed. For the Muslim, the idea of Joseph being accused and convicted of impropriety with Potipher's wife would be as unthinkable as a prophet being executed as a criminal on a common cross. A Brief Introduction to the Qur'an- The Qur'an and the Old Testament

Haykin comments on Lincoln and the civil war. After observing that he did not appear to be a Christian, Haykin quotes Lincoln at length and writes, "Notice Lincoln’s conviction about the inscrutability of God’s will, a humble agnosticism about the purposes of God. Lincoln declares this in the form of a thesis: “The Almighty has His own purposes.” He then quotes Matthew 18:7 to suggest the moral character of life under God: “Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!”" He points out the sharp contrast with those on both sides of the civil war (which killed 2% of the population in 1860, 5 million if it were today), who felt strongly that the same God of the same Bible was on their respective side. Mark Noll has a fascinating comment: "The theological puzzle of the Civil War thus reveals a theological tragedy, both for those who retained profundity at the expense of Christianity and those who retained Christianity at the expense of profundity." Remembering Abraham Lincoln and the Second Inaugural Address

Interesting embellishment of the narrative of Jesus replying to John the Baptist's doubts, to illustrate that Jesus comforted and assured John, sending a promise to sustain his faith, and he will certainly do the same for us. "He does not always answer with the speed we desire, nor is his answer always the deliverance we hope for. But he will always send the help that is needed. His grace will always be sufficient for those who trust him. The hope we taste in the promises we trust will often be the sweetest thing we experience in this age. And his reward will be beyond our imagination." John the Baptist's Doubt

Piper quotes samples of love letters from Martin Lloyd Jones and Jonathan Edwards. Valentines from Jonathan Edwards and Martyn Lloyd-Jones

Bird has an interesting quote on the 'definition' of a Gnostic gospel: It is, i) used in the oral sense for preaching a message about salvation revealed through the coming of Jesus, it is the content of their soteriology, not the term, that distinguishes Gnostics from other Christians. Used in the mid-second century forward for written accounts of Jesus and his teaching commonly circulated among Christians, there is no special Gnostic Gospel; and ii) the poetics of the Gnostic universe push its teachers away from imaginative engagement with the historical or physical world such as might produce additional Gospel narratives. What is a Gnostic Gospel-

Bird cautions against overdoing the rhetoric in criticizing the church, especially since such seems to bolster egos and parade our vision of how it should be. If you call your friends fiance a stupid lazy whore, he might be ticked - even if she is. Remember that what you call the church, you'll calling Jesus' fiance. Slagging on the Church

Bird writes, "Whether you like Barth or not, if you are interested in theology, then you have to do business with him. One book that engages with Barth from an evangelical point of view is, of course, Engaging with Barth. This book has its own webpage which describes the volume and the contributors. Do check it out." He thinks that both Barthians and Evangelicals are rival siblings trying to move to orthodoxy from fundamentalism and liberalism. Engaging with Barth

Bird has a few notable comments on the Wilson review of Wright's book: 1) Wilson is correct that we need to dump this idea of merit and focus on the covenantal aspects of Jesus' obedience as the true Israel and second Adam; 3) I'm still not sure if the NT allows for a distinction between active and passive obedience (usually what is emphasized is his passive obedience, e.g. Phil. 2.6-11). He thinks union with Christ is missing from Wilson's presentation. Doug Wilson on Wright's New Book

Here is some followup on the above. After quoting Wilson to the effect that Wright can't get away from the idea of imputation (what does it mean to represent apart from it??) Bird thinks the problem is with those who want to find the whole package [of imputation, etc] in every key text, when it isn't there. He also says that the question is where does imputation fit into the story? Whereas some want to make justification the centre and imputation the centre of justification; I would make imputation a corollary explains the forensic nature of justification, the representative functions of Adam and Christ, the gift of righteousness, etc. Doug Wilson on Wright's New Book - Follow Up

Here's brief quote to the effect that the scientific method was designed to mitigate the effects of the fall upon man, the cognitive damage, to recover Adam's original unpolluted knowledge of nature. There were significant religious foundations in the formulation of the scientific method in the 16th and 17th century that reckoned with the brokenness of man. The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science

Bird meanders about the theological centre of the NT, tentatively concluding, "I'm tending towards certain "fixtures" that involve God, Christ, and the story of salvation as it is made in the NT. The word "gospel" is an encoded reference to that story which is decoded in the apostolic proclamation that details the relationship between the exalted Lord and Messiah to Jesus of Nazareth, the life of Jesus in relation to the hope of Israel, the identity of Jesus Christ in relation to the God of Israel, and the God of Israel in relation to the rest of creation." The centre of the New Testament - Apostolic Discourse

Responding to the notion that John 14:6 is unoriginal gloss, Bird has some interesting comments: The old addage that Jesus proclaimed the Kingdom of God and the Church proclaimed Jesus is a half truth. Jesus proclaimed the Kingdom but there was always an implicit element of self-reference as it was his ministry of proclamation, exorcisms, and healings which are the means by which God's kingdom was breaking in... he comments on the 'believe with Jesus, not in Jesus', quoting this to describe the entire approach: "A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross." "Ultimately Christians believe in the all exclusive claims of the all inclusive Saviour." He points out that we can share things in common and relate positively in ways to other religions, noting some shared objectives and common grace. Inter-Faith Relations

JT has a post on indulgences - read for more detail. Indulgences are not for the forgiveness of sin but rather for the forgiveness of punishment. Christians in three locations: on earth, in Purgatory, and in heaven. All of them are united to Christ... Because of its authority under Christ, the Catholic Church believes that it may open and administer the benefits of Christ's Treasury - all of Christ's infinite merits before God, plus Mary's prayers and good works, plus the prayers and good works of all the saints in heaven -  to Christians under their jurisdiction in response to their prayers and good works, which in turn can expedite purification from punishment. "When it's all said and done, the whole idea of indulgences comes down to the idea that Christians must undergo a process of temporal punishment before they are allowed to go to heaven. But Scripture doesn't teach that. Rather, the punishment process was completely absorbed for us by Christ on the cross." Indulgences 101

DeYoung comments on the avant-garde tendency to church bash, noting the massive number (50 million) people who not only attend church every Sunday (vastly more than fill stadiums for sports), but also contributed, and not under compulsion. He pleas for charity for the church, and not to overlook what God is doing. We don't need eyes to spy the church's failures. That vision is getting closer to 20/20 all the time. What we need eyes for are all the reasons we should love the church. The reasons are out there. Why I Think the Church is Amazing (Even Though We Don't All Get Cool Buildings Like This One)

Is abortion just personal preference? DeYoung writes: "

These are common questions but not really germane to the issue. The question is not whether a woman has a right to choose what do with her body or whether a woman might suffer greatly if she brings the child to term. The question is whether "the unborn entity, from the moment of conception, is a full-fledged member of the human community", to quote Francis Beckwith. If the fetus is a human person, then abortion is prima facie morally wrong, and a moral wrong that ought to prohibited by the state. If the fetus is not a member of the human community, then we can debate whether the mother can terminate the pregnancy or not. But this would be to conclude that the unborn child is nothing much more than a mass of flaking skin cells. We don't talk about a man's right to choose to shoot his wife, or the right of a parent to suffocate her 4 year old, or the right of a 55 year old to push his aging mother in front of a car. These are not rights because in each case an innocent human person is being killed. If the fetus is a human person, then how can abortion be a right?" Abortion is not one issue among many; it is different. No one argues for hurting the poor! "Almost every state has fetal homicide laws for the prosecution of those who harm a child in the womb. And yet, every state allows for abortion in all three trimesters for any reason." If the fetus is human, it should be protected by law. Abortion and the Duty to Legistlate Some Morality

DeYoung points to an incredible example of the faithfulness "in sickness" part of the wedding vows. Just read it. Here's a quote: "Don’t get me wrong. I really, really like sex. But given a choice between the mere biology of lust and the deep soul of love, I’ll take love. My body has changed — but my doctors say my libido will be warming up again before I know it. Deb understands, and we’ve adapted." Love Is In the Details

Here's a bunch of stats on the net percentage change favour of various demographic groups for Obama. "There are many ways to parse the election, but basically Obama was a likeable candidate in a bad year for Republicans. The Republican base was virtually unmoved, but the Democrats chipped away at the Catholic vote and won big (bigger than usual) among ethnic minorities, thanks no doubt to Obama's personal story and the Republicans' hardline stance on immigration. All in all, 5% more of the population voted for Obama than for Kerry, and that made for a 54-46 victory for Obama in 2008, whereas Bush won 51-49 in 2004." Values Voters in the 2008 Election

Here's a rather funny comment on the temporality of electronic communications, as compared to being able to read the intimate writings of people from hundreds of years ago. The Christian Lover II- Dispatches from the Digital Age

Hays responds to a criticism of JT's post on indulgences which didn't fancy a critique from sola scriptura. The Roman Catholic, if he wishes to turn the discussion into one of a burden of proof, must discharge his own burden as well! Moreover, i) What's our source of information on the afterlife, etc. by which we could formulate a dogma of indulgences? ii) How do we know the mind of God to know how He operates, since this is presupposed in the dogma of indulgences? iii) If the atonement is generally sufficient, it is specifically sufficient; If Christ atones for mortal sin, then he atones for venial sin. If he atones for eternal guilt, then he atones for temporal guilt. iv) Indulgences assume a theory of retributive punishment, not remedial punishment. The demands of divine justice must be met. The assignment of a just punishment. Just desert. v) If Christ didn't atone for post-baptismal sin, this admits a deficiency in the atonement. vi) Catholics pile on their unfounded assumptions to prop up other assumptions. vii) This particular interlocutor does a bait and switch, trying to use remedial punishment as a justification for the retributive punishment of indulges. viii) If I must suffer to pay the debt of temporal punishment, then the suffering of Christ is insufficient to pay the debt of temporal punishment on my behalf and in my stead. That's not what Col. 1:24 means. Quoting Moo, who notes a change in vocab from 'sufferings' to 'afflictions' (a term never used in the NT for Christ's redemptive sufferings), "It is not that there is anything lacking ‘in’ the atonement suffering of Christ but that there is something lacking ‘in regard to’ (TNIV) the tribulations that pertain to Christ as the Messiah as he is proclaimed in the world." There is the backdrop of the promised suffering of God's people in the 'last days', which are inaugerated by Christ. Indulgences

Responding to a comment on Jewish conspiracy theories by a Romanist, Hays writes, "It’s an equally sad fact that in 2005, the American Life League identified 72 pro-abortion Catholics in Congress: http://www.all.org/crusade/congress.htm ... It’s also a sad fact that Catholic Justice William Brennan was the brains behind Roe v. Wade: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3798/is_199801/ai_n8769194 ... The Vatican is quite capable of publicly excommunicating someone when it wants to send a message, viz. Luther, Cranmer, Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, Frederick II, Castro, Perón, Lefebvre, &c. Why has it never seen fit to publicly excommunicate an influential proabortion Catholic politician?" Jay Dyer- Puppet of the International Jewish Conspiracy

Turretinfan has a sad story of an experience he just had in a chat room of 'Christians', who would have nothing to do with the 'fear of the Lord.' After quoting Romans 3:18 (There is no fear of God before their eyes), they reacted strongly, silencing him, claiming it was inappropriate to quote Scripture to people who weren't interested in it. "Probably I'm just too sheltered - but the pure evil of a religion that despises God's word so openly was absolutely shocking to me. I feel so sorry for those folks - it is the "reprobate mind" of Romans 1 written large. But they are not seared in their conscience as to be able to completely ignore the Scriptures. The felt the need to mock and revile them - and to mock me for bringing them up. I've seen the latter from atheists - but a group of people would call themselves "Christians" while attacking the church and the Scriptures left me near speechless." The Fear of God

Interesting quote from the Rule of St. Benedict, which seems to serve as a constitution of sorts to the Benedictine order, to the effect that the teachings of the fathers are exalted, but Scripture is in the highest place. Excerpt from the Rule of St. Benedict

Here's some links to some audio on the New World Translation with comments from James White. The New World Translation of Jehovah’s Witnesses

Turretinfan: "Officially, Rome is opposed to abortion. Unofficially, prominent pro-abortion politicians are permitted to continue to commune with Rome. Case in point, America's first papist vice-president, who not only takes communion but receives a standing ovation (link). Nota Bene: he is now the VP, but the communion-taking and standing-ovation-receiving were 2 days before, when he was only a senator and the VP-elect. One of the marks of a true church is whether godly discipline is being handed out." Catholicism's Double Standard

Turretinfan gives some thoughts on the 'rod of discipline:' 1) it must be for the child's good, not to satisfy one's own anger; (2) the severity of the chastisement must be tailored to the child's age / personality and the offense; (3) the discipline provided must be consistent; and (4) the punishment must follow as soon as practical upon the infraction. Those things said, the "rod" is the general term for any means of measured, reasonable physical correction: aka corporal discipline. Ironically, when T-fan was saying this in a chat room, a belligerent individual disagreed, with no regard for Scripture, who claimed he turned out ok without the 'rod', but in the end was booted from the chatroom! "There are some people that try to interpret the "rod" as being things like "time outs" and revoking privileges - but believers have consistently interpreted Scripture to mean actually, you know, giving your son a few whacks with a wooden stick." (cf. Sirach 30:1-13, although this is extreme, e.g. 'no liberty') Child Discipline Conversation

Turretinfan offers his own satirical comment on "all means all": " 1) World means World (This is an important tenet of "Arminianism.") 2) John 12:19 The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world is gone after him. (Bold added to assist one's vision.) 3) Therefore, by "Arminian" logic, it follows that the Pharisees were saying that they themselves followed Jesus!"  Pharisees and Jesus - A Study in Arminian Logic

Tfan writes, "When I talk to people (average, ordinary people) they mean by choice just what Calvinism teaches about what choice is: people picking from among various options. They normally don't impose much of a philosophical framework on it." People will say if they were forced they didn't have a choice. They'll also say they got their spouses to choose them, often through persistent action. "The truth is that Scriptures clearly teach that God has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass (see Acts 17:26, for example), that men make choices (see, for example, Isaiah 65:12), and that God has a purpose in evil the evil acts of men (see, for example, Genesis 50:20). These truths are compatible, whether people like it or not. Everything is part of God's plan, even our choices." Choice and the Common Man

Turretinfan has some commentary on Proverbs 3:1-10. Some points: "If something is around your neck, it won't come off unless you lose your head. If something is engraved into the tablet of your heart, it's a permanent record that goes with you wherever you go." ... "we are to acknowledge God in all our ways, and as a result he will direct our paths. This is just a natural result. When we do what he says, he is guiding our paths. If you read the instructions, you are being led by the author of the instructions. If you want to know how to live your life, read the Bible." ... "The proverbs continues to point out the absolute necessity of humbling ourselves before God's Word" ... "The point is that God does reward obedience. If we give to God, he will give to us. It's not rigid formula, and its not an absolute promise. God is not an ATM from which we demand money. We need to honor God with our physical possessions."  Proverbs 3-1-10

Patton writes, "I don’t think that there is a more valuable phrase that I have learned than this. “The palatability of a doctrine does not determine its veracity.”" The tastes of a doctrine to our sensibilities does not settle its truthfulness. When there is clear revelation from God’s word, we must submit to it as the final authority, no matter how bad, bitter, spicy, or bland it might taste. Truth is not a democracy. He thinks that if things are not clear, then we can look to our sensibilities, even thought they are infallible, and palatability may have a say here. "we believe that we are created in the image of God. Theologians call this the imago dei. Being in the image of God creates what we call an analogia entis (analogy of being). The analogia entis is the correspondence that we have to God in our being and includes emotions and desires. The simple statement “God loves” only has meaning to us because we believe that our understanding of what it means to love corresponds to God’s. This creates an analogy of language that makes communication possible." It Does Not Matter if You Don’t Like a Doctrine . . . Truth is Not a Democracy

Copan has some comments and commendations (and a criticism) on a book that seeks to refute the claim that religion leads to violence. i) why point to just the violent associations with religion and ignore its non-violent representatives? ii) Jesus crucifixion hardly justifies violence, as Christ Himself laid down His life in sacrifice and did not retaliate; iii) Commenting on an author's accusation that monotheism leads to violence, Copan notes that during the first centuries of church history, Christians were viewed by Roman polytheistic, emperor-worshiping pagans as atheists (one God is close enough to atheism!). It was precisely because they were “monotheists” that they were singled out for attack. "Properly understood, the Christian faith (and not some generic category called “religion”), with its doctrine of the self-giving and other-centered Trinity, is actually a beacon of hope for peacemaking and reconciliation (Rom. 5:6-11; Eph. 2:14-17). Some may refuse to participate and continue the conflict, but that is not the fault of the Christian faith." Does Religion Cause Violence-

Tony Payne comments on a brutal interview process, hiring for a Christian institution: "I suppose I didn't expect theological astuteness, nor any real clarity about the gospel. But I guess I had hoped for at least a mention of Jesus or God or the cross or the resurrection or faith or anything! I would have settled for a passing reference to the Sermon on the Mount. Or the Ten Commandments.It was painfully and embarrassingly obvious that none of the candidates had ever given Christianity (as a subject) a moment's thought. It's not that they had wrong ideas so much as they had no ideas. They were saying the first thing that came into their heads, dredged up from who knows where." Eek. Not a clue

Jay Adams has a list of don't when counseling. When Counseling, Don’t

Here's a comment from John Ensor: "abortion is not on par. I remember how and when I came to this conclusion. It was the week of February 12, 1990, as marked on the Newsweek magazine I was reading. Kim Flodin, in an article on why she did not counter-march for abortion rights, wrote, "I was pregnant, I carried two unborn children and I chose, for completely selfish reasons, to deny them life so that I could better my own" (My Turn). There it was: a momentary lapse into honest concrete language about abortion from an advocate. No ancient Baal worshiper could have described the reasons for their child sacrifice better. I was stunned that it had to be stated so plainly for me to grasp the preeminent evil of it. It is not one issue among equal concerns. Abortion is our postmodern version of child sacrifice for the Me Generation. As such, it is an incomprehensible and unthinkable evil." Why Are We Striving To Make Abortion Unthinkable-

Gilbert makes the good point that people aren't 'provoked' by bad language. They're just somewhat shocked or amused that a nerdy preacher is trying to be cool by swearing. And if you really want to provoke people, tell them that they are sinners, and the only way to be saved is Jesus Christ. Come on, Mike..... by Greg Gilbert. In response to this question, re. Driscoll's conference message on course language: Humor, Coarse Language, and the Christian by Michael Mckinley

See also Thabiti's comments. Eph. 4:29 seems really, really clear to me.  "Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen."  Then there's Eph. 5:4--"Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving." Our own consciences convict us of when we've used course speech. The Bible Is Clear by Thabiti Anyabwile

Phone counseling can indeed be useful (such as when someone calls you at 3 am, who is going to commit suicide). For Thabiti, From the Nuanced Nice Guy by Deepak Reju

Some good additions to a list of counseling don't's. Read them all, but here's a sample: 1. Don’t counsel people who want absolute confidentiality; 2. Don't counsel without scheduling boundaries; 8. Don’t counsel if you are struggling with “besetting sins,”; 10. Don’t counsel without personal accountability, someone who is willing to ask intrusive questions. Thabiti, Here are my additions..... by Deepak Reju

Nicole of Girltak writes, "It may surprise you to learn that in the Bible God has already given you a sneak peek into your future. As women, we are all appointed to be keepers of the home (Prov. 31:10-31; 1 Tim. 5:14; Titus 2:5)." Not that a woman's 'place is the kitchen' but that Scripture unapologetically sets forth the high priority of the home for each and every woman. Contra the world's [obtuse] thinking, homemaking requires considerable expertise - thus, prepare now. Future Homemakers

" So far we’ve given you three great deals for teenage girls: The Fear of the Lord  (part one and two); Mom’s Godly Teaching (part one, two and three); Homemaker Training (part one and two). Contrast these with the typical teenage priorities: Popularity, independence, and selfish Pleasures" Three Plus Two More

The godly woman is to live a life “devoted to good works” (1 Tim. 5:9-10)—or, as Jerry Bridges calls them, “deliberate deeds that are helpful to others.” We must be dedicated to good works, beginning at home, and flowing outward into the church and community. Teenagers must pursue and cultivate this while they are young. God has lines up works for them (Eph. 2:10) Deliberate Deeds

Good works begin at home, as Paul said (1 Timothy 5:4). Loving your family can be harder. From there, we move out to the church, then to the world. It may not be glamorous but it is glorious. This is a mark of sincere love. Glorious Good Deeds

How are you making use of the time, if you are single? Maybe you're always looking forward to another season. Whether marriage or singleness is better—that’s not the point! What ultimately matters is that time is short; that the days are evil. The real question is: how do we as Christians live in light of eternity? “Marriage and singleness both present us with unique trials and unique opportunities for our sanctification” explains John Piper. “There will be unique rewards for each, and which is greater will not depend on whether you were married or single, but on how you responded to each.” “Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, making the best use of the time, because the days are evil.” Ephesians 5:15-16 The Single Season

"How do you avoid wasteful spending of your time? Don’t invest it all in "the present form of this world." ‘Cause it ain’t gonna last." “Believe me, there is nothing here that is worthy of your pursuit,” warns pastor Charles Spurgeon: “If you give your soul up to anything earthly, whether it be the wealth, or the honours, or the pleasures of this world, you might as well hunt after the mirage of the desert or try to collect the mists of the morning, or to store up for yourself the clouds of the sky, for all these things are passing away.” Deal As If You Don't

Commenting on 1 Cor. 7, "Free from the anxieties attendant upon marriage and family, you have the opportunity to live for the things of the Lord, to pursue undivided devotion to Him." As Piper says, “It is not a calling to extend irresponsible adolescence into your thirties. It is a calling to do what only single men and women in Christ can do in this world, namely, to display by the Christ-exalting devotion of your singleness the truths about Christ and his kingdom that shine more clearly through singleness than through marriage.” Undivided Devotion

Here's some quotes from Augustine and Aquinas to the effect that they argued the saints could see the damned in hell. Interesting church history factoid on Hell (Tradition or not Tradition-)

Responding to a charge that Calvinism is tri-theistic, suggesting that the Godhead in the "Father" cutting off the "Son." Turretinfan replies that God cannot die, that Calvinism affirms monotheism and that the Christ's suffering was fulfilled in the incarnate Son of God, and that Jesus, in dying, was not removed from the Trinity, and there is no clear logical reason why Mr. Dyer would attribute such a view to Calvinism. Why Mr. Dyer thinks the Holy Spirit was somehow removed from the Trinity in Calvinism is so far from being what Calvinism teaches that it is mystifying to try to guess why he would say that. He then points out that in Catholicism, Mary is often treated as a goddess (being addressed by such absurdly exalted titles as "Queen of Heaven"), and the "saints" are often a "Christianized" equivalent to the pantheon of Greek/Roman lesser deities. They attribute to her divinity implicitly in praying to her. The first common rebuttal is to say that no one is really praying to Mary, they are just asking Mary to pray for them: But John Paul II disagrees! (quote provided).  Response to Jay Dyer on Calvinism (Part 5 of 13)

Bayly says that "by now readers know I regularly contrast the preaching of the Reformers with the preaching of Protestant pastors, today --usually with the goal of pointing out how fearful and timid we are compared to the men we claim as our heroes. This present discovery of sodomite rapists in parishes across North America is no exception. Why is it that mainstream Protestant print media like Christianity Today and World, not to mention theological journals and pastors in pulpits, never point out the very first thing that would have been said by church fathers of past centuries: that the heresies and errors of the Roman Catholic church inevitably produce such fruit? That, theologically and pastorally, this fruit is inevitable?" Rather than taking the opportunity to warn others about the dangers of the Romanist religion, what are we doing? we're busy showing how kind and gentle and non-censorious we are. He concludes with a warning to Protestants:  The church is only going to be sued more often in the years to come, and the man of God cannot be too careful protecting himself against false charges; but also against transference. Against a woman's fantasies or his own lusts. Cardinal Mahony faces scrutiny

Bayly, on Darwinism and Darwin's birthday: "The president of the Skeptics Society (which publishes Skeptic magazine), Michael Shermer, isn't waiting for the holy day to celebrate. He assures fellow homo sapiens that his cult's high priests have a "pretty good outline" of the origin of life. But then he goes and spoils it all by saying something stupid like...  "we still don't know how it actually started." Yup, that's what he said." Darwinists throw their own monster's ball

Talking about the favourite word, 'authenticity', of the former pastor of a church for which Bayly assumed the pastorate, he says: "Where did that word come from, anyway? A facile, glib, age whose heroes and heroines are actors... " A generation that responds to 9/11 saying that it was 'just like a movie'. The fakification of everything

Commenting on the scandal and shame brought on the church by Haggard, and how the unbelievers don't distinguish between the various groups of 'Christians', Bayly says: "Dear pastor, elder, or deacon: What are you and your wife, sons and daughters, older women and elders doing to respond to this blasphemy of our Lord Jesus Christ? First, does it grieve you that your Father has this reputation? Second, do you take it personally? Third, are you doing everything possible to flee sexual immorality--to not even allow a hint of it in your life and home and congregation? Fourth, are you leading your church to demonstrate loving discipline and disciplined love of those caught in such sin? Fifth, are you and the other shepherds of your flock asking questions of each other and the flock that will cause you to know of the sexual immorality of the married men in your church before the media publish it? Sixth, have we all learned once and for all that a man or woman being a member-in-good standing in our church, being an officer of the church, being married and having children, etc. are no proof of heterosexuality?" How the world sees Christ through His Bride

Rick Warren apparently called down a blessing on America, and praised Obama's decision to select Gene Robinson for the prayer. "So Warren agrees to call down God's blessing on a nation of bloodshed, whose infants are slaughtered by decree of our highest court and have died at the rate of a million and a quarter to a million and a half per year for thirty-five years, now--well over 50,000,000 in all." And Warren says that this is good for America. "When I say to the wicked, "O wicked man, you will surely die," and you do not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require from your hand. (Ezekiel 33:8)" "Tremble with me before our Holy God Who Himself has said He will hold the watchman personally responsible for the blood of the wicked he has refused to warn--wicked men such as Pastor Warren is commending and soon, before the watching world, will bless." Rick Warren, Gene Robinson, Barack Obama and the false presence of the Kingdom of God

"Here's a good reminder of who President Obama actually is, and what oppression and bloodshed have formed the cornerstone of his public service from its inception. And the Emergelicals? Well, this is precisely what they wanted, and still want. They're just not honest enough to admit it." And there arose up a new king over America, which knew not babies

Interesting comments, to the effect that people sit and enjoy action movies in the suburbs while gunshots are fired downtown, while militaries secure our freedom, while police shoot criminals, and so on. In other words, we live in peace given to us by the Man of Blood; we live in the midst of a civil security given us by men of blood who laid down their lives for the sheep; but then we pull back in horror when one of them barks, kills a wolf, or comes to church with blood on his hands. "He's so dirty! He should be Baptist or Pentecostal." In praise of sheepdogs

So, actually do it. These three words are the secret to success in a multitude of circumstances. It's certainly true of writing. When someone comes to me (as they quite often do), indicating their desire to be a writer, and then asks me how to go about it, I have only these three words to say to them: actually do it. Actually do it: it also works for evangelism, prayer and reading the Bible. Don't just think about it; learn about it, hear sermons about it, do courses in it, and go to conferences to get fired up about it. Actually do it

Another recommendation from solapanel for Carson's Memoirs of an Ordinary Pastor. Book review- Memoirs of an Ordinary Pastor

Answering the question, 'why pray if God is sovereign?' we add two more points. 1) It means that God is able to actually answer prayer. Perhaps the question, “If God is sovereign, why pray?” could be replaced with the question, “If God is not sovereign, why pray?” Believers must come to their God presenting to Him their requests because He has both the authority and the ability to grant what they have requested in their petitions and intercessory prayers. 2) God actually answers prayer. Jesus promised it, biblical history shows it over and over. "mediately after answering the question of how to pray in Luke 11:2-4, Jesus goes on to answer the question of why to pray by giving two reasons—because God rewards diligence in prayer by granting requests (Luke 11:5-10), and because God delights in giving good gifts to His children (Luke 11:11-13)." Why Pray if God Is Sovereign- (Part 3)