2009-02-22

Mathis points to the stunning logic of Romans 8:32, what he calls the Everest of the Bible: If you believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ then you may also believe that every promise God has made for his people is to be fulfilled for you, and everything is being worked for your good, and every thing is going to be given to you. For since God gave His own Son, not sparing Him, for us, how then will He not give us all things? The Bible's Everest

Bird recommends Vanhoozer for systematic theology students: i) doing theology needs to take into account hermeneutics, speech-act theory, postmodern objections to foundatonalist epistemology, the canon, and critical engagement with Barth. ii) Vanhoozer objects to the process of treating Scripture as textual dross, needing a conversion from exegetical description (what it meant) to normative dogmatics (what it means); i.e. both the form and content are equally important and the form can be lost in systematizing. iii) Bird thinks systematicians influenced by rationalism implicitly feel the need to rescue revelation from genres (Law-code, narrative, prophecy, Proverbs, Gospels, Epistles, and Apocalypse) into propositional truth. iv) "if you're preaching narrative material then preach narratively; if you're preaching topical material, preach inductively/proverbially; if you're preaching didactic material, then preach deductively/didactically. The same holds for theology..." Bird seems to have some reservations, unarticulated here, on Vanhoozer though.  Vanhoozer on Theological Method

JT quotes Packer: "By wisdom God found a way to justify the unjust justly; in love he gave his Son to bear death's agony for us; in justice he made the Son, as our substitute, suffer the sentence that our disobedience deserved; with power he unites us to the risen Christ, renews our hearts, frees us from sin's bondage, and moves us to repent and believe; and in faithfulness he keeps us from falling, as he promised to do, till he brings us triumphantly to our final glory." The Attributes of God and the Glory of the Gospel

JT quotes Piper with strong words against the neglect of prayer and Satan's deception therein, as Satan will try to convince you and others that a disciplined prayer life is legalism! But prayer is a duty like it is the duty of a soldier to clean and load his gun or like a hungry person to eat. Disciplined Duty vs. the Lie of Legalism

Challies points to a Piper observation on 1 John 3:11-14 - the problem John is dealing with isn't that Christians are going to murder each other. It's the motive of resenting the spiritual betterment or superiority of a brother or sister in Christ. "Cain didn't kill Abel simply because Cain was evil. He killed him because the contrast between Abel's goodness and Cain's evil made Cain angry. It made him feel guilty. Abel didn't have to say anything; Abel's goodness was a constant reminder to Cain that he was evil." Instead of repenting he got rid of Abel. Love doesn't do that - it doesn't resent. That's hateful and selfish. Love enjoys the advance and success of others. It has joy in the joy of others. Humbly Rejoicing in the Goodness of Others

Hays has a humourous and satirical comment on Perry Robinson showing that Turretinfan is a Calvinist. Turretin Fan exposed!

Patton gives four views of God's sovereignty: "1. Meticulous sovereignty: God is the instrumental cause behind every action and reaction there has ever been; 2. Providential sovereignty: While God is bringing about his will in everything (Eph 1:11), his will is not the instrumental cause of all that happens. 3. Providential oversight: Here God’s sovereignty is more of an oversight. He has a general plan, but is not married to the details. 4. Influential oversight: Here God’s sovereignty is self-limited. God could control things, but to preserve human freedom, he will not intervene in the affairs of men to the degree that the human will is decisively bent in one direction or another." See for details, etc. What Do You Mean When You Say God is Sovereign-

Interesting comments by Hays on an article by a one-time religion reporter for the NY Times; "don’t atheists like Hitchens, Harris, and Dawkins claim a strong correlation between religious belief and outward behavior? Don’t they claim that observant Christians are dangerous to the common good precisely because they put their fanatical faith into practice? So if Lobdell is right, then they are wrong." To the comment, “So it’s time for religious doubt to come out of the closet and be dealt openly and thoughtfully.” He says, "I wonder if he feels the same way about scientists who privately question Darwinism. Is it time for them to publicly voice their doubts–without fear of reprisal?" Without a clue

To the argument that if something is determined, it cannot be a choice, Manata points to Job 14:5: "Since man's days are determined, The number of his months is with You; You have appointed his limits, so that he cannot pass," and the fact that some people do indeed choose when they'll die, and they are indeed morally responsible for their actions. So either Job 14:5 is false, or all orthodox Christrians ought to be compatibilists (since orthodoxy grants inerrancy). Determined Choosings

"Three elements must be a part of any true effort at personal evangelism or the preaching of the gospel: 1)  The message given must be true to the Scriptures concerning God and man; 2)  The messenger should sincerely care about the individual; 3)  The messenger must rely upon the Holy Spirit for results." Evangelize or Fossilize or Compromise- - Part 1

Here's a prayer from Tozer for desiring to desire God. A Prayer for Those Who Want to Want God