While developed libertarian philosophers provide concessions and nuances that are less than helpful for the average Arminian's view, the latter generally relies on the 'ought implies can' principle. Now, say you repeated a moment of choice over and over and every time you chose the same - is it morally relevant whether or not I had the freedom to do otherwise? Why do I need an option I never exercise? It might be better to say, "I’m not responsible unless I would have done otherwise. " If this is a reliable intuition, then to use it against Calvinism, the Arminian must show that the reprobate would have done otherwise had they been able to do so. However, even this has problems: "If the robber had known the teller would trip the silent alarm, the robber would not have tried to rob that bank." Is that exculpatory? It hardly excuses his action. It hardly gets you out guilt that you would not have done wrong if you had known for sure there would be a bad consequence. " Typically, libertarians define libertarian freedom as the freedom to do something different under the same circumstances. But what this formulation leaves out of account is the self-identity of the agent. The question is not merely if an agent can do something different under the same circumstances, but if the same agent can do something different under the same circumstances." To enable LFW, one would have to remove the identity of the person. The libertarian intuition
Every Christian is a theologian, irregardless of whether he or she has sat down and pieced it together. Every Christian knows God and has some understanding of his nature and actions. Once this is understood, we should become the best theologians we can be. Getting doctrine right is the key to getting everything else right. Become a Theologian
Interesting thoughts from McKinley on humour: 95 Theses On Christian Humor by Michael Mckinley
Phil Johnson reproduces an article on the trend of Christianity Today towards universalism, an article he wrote a while back, which focused on Peter Kreeft's Ecumenical Jihad, a book suggesting that Christians need to abandon the exclusive claims of the Gospel to win the culture war, pursuing ecumenical relations with the world's religions, and investigate and learn from other religions. He effectively pedals religious pluralism. And, he also thinks that the Eucharist (transubstantiation) has the mystical power to do this uniting through a common adoration of it. Kreeft claims to have had an out of body experience wherein he saw Mohammed in heaven or purgatory, and he thinks that the world's religious leaders qualify for heaven because he thinks they all taught moral principles compatible with the teaching of Christ. Whatever may be faulty about their views is simply going to be refined in purgatory. CT got this guy to explain heaven. Kreeft doesn't think it's necessary to believe anything about Christ in order to get to heaven. He says (in his answer to question 34) that he believes "good pagans, Hindus, et cetera" will go to heaven. In a book review, CT affirmed inclusivism (the idea that those who don't know Christ will be saved by Him because God can read their hearts). They even try to sell it as a normal view through history. CT's rejection of the exclusivity of Christ is just more evidence of how far that magazine has strayed from her Protestant evangelical heritage. What in heaven's name-
DeYoung points out that the modern view of McLaren and other avant-garde writers who diminish God's wrath, eternal punishment, do away with substitution, and are fundamentally antinomian, isn't really that new, and he argues that this was the thrust of Marcion, born 85 AD, a heretic opposed by the fathers. "Marcion's theological errors (and there were many) came from one main root. He refused to believe that the God of the Old Testament was the same as the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. Marcion could simply not believe in a God full of wrath and justice. So he threw away the Old Testament and took for his Bible a truncated version of Luke's Gospel and selectively edited versions of Paul's epistles. When all the cutting and pasting was finished, Marcion had the Christianity he wanted: a God of goodness and nothing else; a message of inspiring moral uplift; a Bible that does away with the uncomfortable bits about God's wrath and hell. Marcionism was anitnomian, idealistic about human potential, and skittish about dogma and rules." "For him, there was a fundamental contradiction between law and love, righteousness and grace. Marcion thought that true Christianity was flawed by the incompatibilities at the heart of its teaching. His solution was radical. Nothing less than a restatement of faith would do, and for Marcion that restatement had to focus on what for him was the essential gospel: the love, mercy and compassion displayed in the life and teachings of Jesus. This, for him, was all that was necessary, it was the blueprint for a new and pure humanity." Marcionism and the New Mood
This post by Lisa Robinson discusses briefly how it can be perceived that prayer is futile; that if God will not grant us the desires of our heart, even if He has something greater, seems to suggest an indifference to the desires of man on God's part, perhaps more for those suffering. It can leave one thinking, what's the point? Leaving this seemingly hanging, she simply argues that the alternative, that is, to reject Christ as not worth it, is vastly worse. And even the biblical characters largely suffered (Hebrews 11:35-) while following Christ. Yet, trust in Christ is the point. That trust does not promise a bed of roses during our earthly sojourn but it does guarantee an eternal hope. Moreover, an accurate consideration of that trust is essential, that our faith is placed in the accomplishments on the cross to provide us with reconciliation to a holy God of whom we were an enemy to. The promise is an eternal existence with Him. So What’s the Point-
Patton reminds people that theology is about the pursuit of truth, not prejudice. It is easier to be than to become, so we oft go to the text looking for verses to support our a priori conclusions. He thinks the methodology of trying to prove your own rightness, no matter what you're defending, even the truth, is dishonouring to God, as it lacks humility. Exegetes are not lawyers, and they are not to pass over things contrary to their preconceptions. The process of validation is essential. Manipulating the data to support your belief, no matter what this belief is, is not authentic Christianity and does not honor God. Christians should be above this. We need to avoid polished rhetoric, just to win arguments: Let none of us be able to be accused of using twisted, skewed, bent, shadowed, spurious, or in any other way manipulated information to defend your faith. We don’t need this. Christians are advocates of truth, not our prejudices. We must follow the truth wherever it leads, even if it takes us in places we do not want to go. Doing Theology is About Pursuing Truth, Not Prejudice
Here's a good quote JT provides from VanDrunen concerning culture: Two extremes they were to avoid. First, they were not to shun involvement in pagan Babylonian culture. Second, they were not to become so involved that they lost sight of their true destiny or the true destiny of Babylon. Instead, they were to do their various cultural tasks, building homes, planting farms, raising families, while all along recognizing the temporary and limited nature of the work they did. Biblical Theology and the Culture War
Here's an article on the advances of Muslims in the west to intimidate critics of Islam in Europe and across the West. The message in the European Union is clear: Politicians, religious figures, and even private citizens with religiously and politically incorrect opinions will be subject not only to Muslim protest, but to criminal prosecution and violent retribution. http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20090212_The_Elephant_in_the_Room__Intimidating_critics_of_Islam.html
When counseling those who struggle with homosexuality, instruction regarding the profound implications of union with Christ is essential, for, it means that the statement, "I am a homosexual" is false, and the statement, "I am in Christ" is true, and that a recognition of this will result in a radical new way of thinking; it will bring hope and change to thoughts, desires and behaviors. They think and act in new ways abandoning homosexual and effeminate dress, words and mannerisms. Hope, Holiness, and Homosexuality
Rick Holland points out that Christ dealt with the problem of evil head on in His own crucifixion - when Pilate asserted his authority, Jesus declared that it was God who was in total authority, that the perpetrators, conspirators, and evildoers ultimately act under the authority of God. Piper says, “At the all-important pivot of human history, the worst sin ever committed served to show the greatest glory of Christ and obtain the sin-conquering gift of God’s grace. God did not just overcome evil at the cross. He made evil commit suicide in doing its worst evil." The problem of evil is our anticipatory cry for the glory of Heaven. Holland provides this quote: “…the degree of a Christian’s peace of mind depends upon his spiritual ability to interpose the thought of God between himself and his anxiety." The Problem of Evil at the Foot of the Cross
Apparently Romanist (for now) Dyer argues that Calvinists should consistently be "gnostic iconoclasts." Iconoclasts were generally anyone opposed to the worship of God by the use of images. It's a Scriptural position. That and Calvinism is hardly Gnostic. Turretinfan redirects the criticism, saying that we tend to see Gnostic (and related) influences in terms of an excessive focus on Mary. Some of their teachings regarding Mary seem to have found their way into Catholicism's folklore and legends, if not always into dogmatic teachings (such as the idea that Mary's birth of Jesus was pain-free: Gnostics, imagining Jesus to be a phantom, wouldn't expect the birth to be very painful). Response to Jay Dyer on Calvinism (Part 6 of 13)
Mounce points out the danger of defining a Greek word by its English cognate (never do it), in the misuse of moron to communicate the meaning of Greek mwros in the Sermon on the Mount. The association creates a terrible picture. "The fact of the matter is that a fool is not a "mentally deficient" person but a "morally deficient" person. A fool is someone who does not recognize the majesty and grandeur of God, a person who does not stand in fear of God. A fool is someone so blinded by his or her own sin that they cannot see God for who he is and therefore who they truly are. My dictionary defines it as, "ignorance of, an willful rebellion against, God and his will.'" He cautions against the inclination to display academic acumen by saying 'in the Greek,' especially if you're not sure. "The fact of the matter is that a fool is not a "mentally deficient" person but a "morally deficient" person. A fool is someone who does not recognize the majesty and grandeur of God, a person who does not stand in fear of God. A fool is someone so blinded by his or her own sin that they cannot see God for who he is and therefore who they truly are. My dictionary defines it as, "ignorance of, an willful rebellion against, God and his will"" Matt 7-26—Is a moros a moron (Monday with Mounce 21)
Commenting on the bizarre practice of older women playing with dolls to avoid the trials of motherhood, CBMW points out that the difficulties of motherhood slight and momentary. They are dust on the scales of reality when compared with the infinitely massive weight of glory and joy that is to come for those who entrust themselves to Jesus Christ. So, why the dust? Why not just get the glory without the affliction? Somehow the dust works the glory. Eternity and the Inconvenciences of Motherhood
Peter Sholl writes about the corporate saying, “change will only happen if the perceived benefit is greater than the perceived cost", which has a certain sensibility to it. He concludes, "Frankly, as I think about my church friends and as I look through my missionary prayer diary, I see a whole lot of people who are undergoing great personal change and hardship for sometimes little visible benefit. If they were governed by shareholder meetings, they would have been downsized long ago. But fortunately for the people they minister to, and for those who hear the word of life through their ministry, faithfulness and love are greater measures of the worthiness of change than cost versus benefit." Love and the cost of change
Challies posts a few points from Koukl regarding Tactics. i) Because of the innate knowledge of God (he's taking a particular view of Romans 1) there is no reason to abandon reasoning with people, even in a postmodern context, because people ultimately know that beginning with relativism is incoherent. Reality is our ally, because of this cognitive dissonance in those who deny God. ii) A caution would be, don't approach conversations seeking to one-up or make someone look stupid. Tactics aren't manipulative tricks to coerce people. They aren't meant to belittle. They help you argue. iii) All our work without God's work is vain. This means we have an ally and can speak with confidence, for it is the Spirit who will convince. The Tactics Blog Tour
Adams warns against co-miserating; basically, wallowing in the mud with the counselee, joining in the chorus of hopelessness, etc. since this merely reinforces his view that God has no answers, since you, being the Christian counselor, would have told him if you had them. Co-miserating
Reformed Baptist Fellowship has this blog on the advances of the homosexual agenda over the last years, and the erosion of common grace in culture. Advocates advanced a six point strategy: "Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and often as possible. Portray gays as victims, not aggressive challengers. Give homosexual protectors a “just” cause. Make gays look good. Make the victimizers look bad. Solicit funds from corporate America and major foundations in support of the homosexual cause." Seven more strategies are listed as well, on all fronts. Albert Mohler warns of the potential collapse of Western culture if society allows ungodly social engineers to dismantle the moral foundations of sexual normalcy and the family. He calls us to counter the attack at each of the seven battle lines drawn above. He urges us to bear witness by being ourselves sexually pure and exemplifying godly family life. He calls for us as Christians and as churches to reach into the lives of those ensnared in sexual sin and declare the power of the gospel of Jesus Christ. We are all only saved sinners. Hey Don’t Say Gay
Mohler writes ton the idea of overlapping magisteria, saying that Gould's theory of NOMA has been thoroughly criticized from both sides, and for good reason. The hard fact is that science and religion do often overlap, and that overlap is where the smoke of controversy is to be found. If science and religion did not overlap, all this controversy would be over mere misunderstandings, but this is hardly the case. "why" and "how" are not so easily separated. It is simple anti-intellectual and dishonest to just redefine God and 'science' to fit each other. Fundamentally evolution is a challenge to Biblical revelation. The conflict between Genesis and evolution is not merely over the "how" as opposed to the "why" of creation. Evolution presents a direct challenge to the entire story-line of the Bible. http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=3300
Interesting find of a Greek inscription from 178 BCE. "The text shows an official Greek monumental text from just before the outbreak of the Maccabean revolt and these pieces apparently anchor the original location of the Heliodorus inscription to Maresha." Greek Inscription from 178 BCE at Maresha
Genderblog writes about how marriage is in decline, only 1 in 4 households consist in a married couple with children, and 5.2 million couples are co-habitating, and they are raising 2.2 million children. Even beyond the pragmatic horrors of this reality, covenant marriage is supposed to say something wonderfully true about God's covenant union with his Church, his Bride. God keeps his promises. Sexual immorality lies about God - it makes him look unfaithful. While the married vow, ‘til death do us part,' cohabiters say, ‘til life drives us apart.' John the Baptist was beheaded for confronting this sin. Graciously Confronting Cohabitation
No comments:
Post a Comment