2009-03-10

Josh Harris points to an article in the Washington Post: "The percentage of Americans who call themselves Christians has dropped dramatically over the past two decades, and those who do are increasingly identifying themselves without traditional denomination labels, according to a major study of U.S. religion being released today." Losing My Religion

Mohler writes that Americans increasingly see religious faith as "more like a fashion statement, not a deep personal commitment." A study concludes that the challenge to Christianity isn't other religions but a wide rejection of any organized religion [i.e. hatred of authority]. Mainline denominations are bleeding members (although Baptists grew). Those who identify as "Born Again" Christians (34%) and those who reject the existence of any personal God (25-30%) are now almost even -- a major new reality in our times. The non-religious block almost doubled their share of the adult population, from 8% in 1990 to 15% in 2008. We are living in a vast mission field - but at least people now know that they aren't Christians. http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=3406

From John 13:2-3, this post points out that certain texts were 'lightning rods' for variation (in this case, there is an ambiguity in the earliest Greek witnesses, where it could be that Jesus, Judas, or the devil is the grammatical antecedent for 'all things under his power.') Jesus, Judas or the Devil-

Phillips has some comments on Piper's earlier point about men wrestling women (he generally agrees with Piper's first point, that it sends a sexual message, but disagrees with this: Boys should be raised to honor and protect women, not attack them), in that, either the women are doing it for athletics, or they learn martial arts for self-defence. He argues that if men hold back, or women only train with women, then they will only be able to defend themselves against gentle, kind men, or women - and that's useless. As a father, Phillips wants his daughter to be able to protect herself when the men won't.  Piper makes a point, but only one point. And it needs to be balanced by the fact that these girls are not in fact living in a world where (A) all men are gentlemen, or (B) they'll always have a man with them to protect them. Therefore Phillips encourages 'sparring with gusto' to his own son, because of his concern for women. Piper and boys wresting girls

JT has posted many samples of hymns, etc. How to Introduce Older Hymns to a Contemporary Congregation

Wikipedia doesn't allow negative things to be posted about Obama's page. Now Bush, on the other hand... good to see 'freedom of thought' in action. http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114

"Here is an interview with The Shack author William Young. In it he flatly denies the substitutionary atonement (which was one of the questions many people had as they read the book)." Interview with William Young HT: Challies. 10)

Phillips points to the effort and dedication that athletes put in, and makes two applications: 1) Does anything about your approach to Christian living look like an athlete in training? 2) How's your grasp of the art and sciences involved in handling that text? For pastors, especially, what are you doing to improve your preaching, theology, biblical knowledge, etc? Are you a devoted athlete? Would a casual observer conclude that you're not competing for anything nearly as valuable as these football players? Paul points to athletes in 1 Cor. 9 - all Christians must take heed. I don't in any way follow football, but

Phil Johnson provides some answers to questions regarding his message and Mark Driscoll. 1) He and MacArthur have challenged Driscoll personally, to no avail. 2) He didn't really talk about Driscoll specifically in his message at the Shepherd's conference. 3) He's not lumping people together. And interestingly, all the questions he's getting are about Driscoll - where are the defenders of the others (e.g. xxxchurch, Ed Young, etc)? "Here's the point: My message was not actually about Driscoll per se. If the problem were just one guy who likes to talk dirty, I wouldn't have even dealt with the topic. What my message actually decried was the atmosphere in evangelical and post-evangelical circles that deliberately glorifies everything lewd and lowbrow at the expense of any serious call for holiness." Preachin' Dirty

Hays has some thoughts on a post Paul Helm did on heaven. Hays initially notes that such talk is speculation, but that there are degrees of speculation (e.g. extrapolating from Scripture), and that God's imagination vastly surpasses our own. Helm points to the propensity of masking our short-term needs and environmental concerns in the 'let's bring heaven on this earth' (geo-heaven): "The implication seems to be that there is to be a new earth continuous with this earth, with, for example, the same mountain ranges, oceans and deserts, towns and cities, though with their ‘dark Satanic mills’ dismantled, or at least made angelic through having zero carbon emissions." Hays appreciates the swipe at the Green theologians, but has some cautions: 1) It could be a little caricatured: Not all theologians who advocate a more down-to-earth conception of the final state are tree-huggers, driven by a global warming agenda. 2) Environmentalism really is irrelevant to the final state either way, since it depends on palingenesis, not Kyoto. 3) While Helm points out that no one has denied a bodily resurrection in Christianity, that the disembodied view of heaven isn't true, Hays points out that the question is how successfully, or not, the church has integrated its commitment to the resurrection of the body into its view of heaven. 3) Our theology must here reckon not only with the intermediate state but Christ's return to us. 4) a “spiritual body” is a glorified physical body. It’s similar to our mortal body, but youthful, ageless, and disease-free. 5) Helm wonders, "If my memory is to be refined and renewed, how can it still be my memory?" Hays thinks that the new earth will reflect a sanctified version of the cultural products from the fallen world. They would have memories of the old earth. There’s a difference between sinful memories and memories of sin. It’s not inherently sinful to remember sinful things. Indeed, our memories do have something to do with our personal identity, and our memories are bound up with places. Hays wonders whether personal identity is maintained in Helm's scenario. 6) Not only does Scripture use cataclysmic endtime imagery, but it also uses golden-age endtime imagery. It’s arbitrary to take the cataclysmic imagery literally, but the golden-age imagery figuratively. Both types of imagery are figurative.Not only does Scripture use cataclysmic endtime imagery, but it also uses golden-age endtime imagery. It’s arbitrary to take the cataclysmic imagery literally, but the golden-age imagery figuratively. Both types of imagery are figurative.Helm on heaven

Hays responds to an Arminian charging Calvinists with equivocation over the term 'choose': 1) There is a distinction between words and concepts. The sentence (“You can choose X”) expresses a concept. A Calvinist doesn’t define the meaning of the concept or word “choice” in terms “You can choose X if it’s your strongest desire.” Choosing according to desires comes into play to answer the question, what lies behind the choice? It's the psychology of choosing. Are motives necessary and sufficient? Or not? It's not a definition but an explication of a concept. Moreover, there is also the metaphysics of choosing. 2) Arminians, who hold LFW, also have a theory of the will that goes beyond "you can choose X" in an attempt to unpack their action theory: They also explicate the concept. If an argument is made against Calvinism on the basis of equivocation, the sword cuts both ways. 3) A definition is not an explanation. The ontological or psychological preconditions which make a choice a choice are completely extraneous to the meaning of the word. The Arminian here is apparently unaware of the standard literature on lexical semantics and due to his ignorance doesn't comprehend the correction. 4) Common usage is preanalytic, and doesn't reckon with modal metaphysics, etc. 5) The dictionary isn’t going to define the word “choice” according to a particular theory of the will - it's silent here - since the psychology of choice is irrelevant to the meaning of the word. This applies equally to LFW and Arminianism. 6) There is an elementary distinction between the mental act of deliberation, and the extramental configuration of the world. We may entertain possibilities out of our reach. We may make make choices on the basis of what we thought was possible, which turns out to be beyond our reach. If LFW requires live possibilities, and intuition is the criteria, then its false, for many goals turn out to be unreachable. 7) Speaking of intuition, it’s counterintuitive to claim the future is indeterminate if the future is foreknown. The Calvinist, Thomist, and open theist all appreciate the force of that intuition, dropping something to make it fit. 8) Not a single instance of any human anywhere at any time has accessed that 'alternate' possibility. There is no evidence for LFW. It's quite counterintuitive to have an ability that you can't exercise. 9) So repeat the same timeframe, with a different outcome: The ability to do otherwise under identical circumstances is the essence of LFW. So show it! Access the alternative timeline, for reality should conform to your intuition - after all, that's supposed in LFW: there is no future, only possible futures. 10) The Arminian obfuscates with 'ought implies can,' which really means, 'I’m not responsible unless I can either do it or refrain from doing it.' Since the claim is the ability to do otherwise, its “ought implies either can or can’t.” Is a man not obligated to love his wife because he can't love her because he's smitten with a lover? Hardly intuitive. 11) The Arminian confuses deliberation with decision. Deliberation is also volutary, what is desirable is not. 12) Calvinism doesn’t reject the existence of alternate possibilities, it's just whether we index alternate possibilities to the will of God or the will of man.  13) The Arminian distinguishes interpretation from 'what it says,' which not only isn't the grammatico-historical method, but it also implies that even if the 'what it said' was in line with Arminianism, interpretation might be Calvinistic. Moreover, what matters in grammatico-historical exegesis isn't modern 'common' sense, but what the ancient readers finds sensical - and even then this is challenged at points 14) Hays quotes several passages, illustrating his arminian interlocutor's hermeneutic, and then concludes with several quotes showing the philosophical and scholastic thinking of Arminius (ironic, considering the Arminian is the one railing 'exotic counter-definition.' Dan's grand switcheroo

"Let me say this: there is no greater human motivation than the need for other relationships. The question is only if we will make the right choices. And that's not only for those who are lonely: it is for those who read James 2 and want to be doers of the word and not hearers only. Wishing others not to be lonely is not the same thing as standing in their loneliness with them and fighting for hope. If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in fellowship, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be content as you are," without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?" Read this more than once

Why doesn't a mom have time? Because she requires, with children, and all they require, 45 minutes to do what would otherwise take 15. It is a full-full time job. Out of Time

Here's a bitter, unsubstantial, angry, vitriolic rant against complementarian women by the Guardian. The columnist calls them 'self-hating collaborators', "illiberal, antiwoman nonsense,' kept from 'their rightful place in the office.'' In truth, these women have true liberty, being free in Christ, knowing women are made in God's image and are equal in worth, honor and dignity to men. "Sadly, Elliott and other angry feminists fail to see that it is they who are in bondage-captive to a deadly ideology that enthrones man, mocks the Word of God and sees the will to power (Elliott accuses complementarian wives of "ceding control to men in the domestic sphere"), and not the Gospel, as salvation. Her closing line is telling: "Even if a million women sign the True Woman charter, or if only a handful of women ever choose to identify as feminists, women's rights (as Elliott defines them!) are non-negotiable; we've already come this far, and we're not going back without a fight.""   Biblical Womanhood and Its Cultured Despisers- More Media Venom

Here's an insightful comment on the reason for the popularity of movies where women chase men: "women are now "liberated from the social norm of saving sex for marriage" which means that men are free to approach their pursuit of women as a quest for physical and relational intimacy apart from any long-term, binding commitment.  They can enjoy sexual intimacy without being "stuck" with a particular woman, so they in turn grow more "stuck" in passivity, unwilling to exert sacrificial energy for their woman, unable to savor the joy that only a lifelong, binding, monogamous relationship can cultivate. " Men can now be scornful of women who desire marriage, because of the abundance of women who can fill their carnal desires. Trading hearts and bodies for the transient affections of man is a loss game. Saving Sex for Marriage, Real Life vs. the Movies

Here's some worship song software that might be useful. Software for Managing Songs

Here's an interesting summary of covenant theology. "Covenant is from the Hebrew [ber-eeth] meaning to cut, and by extension means a promise or pledge to do something. "It is an agreement upon the promises concerning the relationship between two or more parties. In Biblical terms the covenant is the prime agency of God's self-revelation in history. God reveals Himself to be the covenant God. The essence of the covenant between God and man is "I will be your God, and you will be My people." It briefly details three types of covenant (parity, vassal, and royal grant). The New Covenant is classed as the latter, which is given to a servant or subordinate for faithful or exceptional service to the king. "This type of covenant was usually perpetual with no specific conditions. It was, however, understood that the behavior of the heirs would continue to follow the original recipient's loyal example." The post then point-form details the covenant of works. Covenant Theology Part 1

Mounce comments on the ambiguities in the genitive in Greek: "just as the English use of "of" is flexible, so is the Greek. Is a "bowl of silver" a bowl made out of silver or a bowl full of silver? The ambiguity of English here is perfectly mirrored in Greek." (e.g. James 1:20 - righteousness of God? Righteousness that God requires?) Genitives can be broken down into two basic camps. Does the word in the genitive perform the action of the head noun (which is the noun being modified by the genitive) or does it receive the action of the head noun? These are categorized as the "subjective" and "objective" genitives. There is also the plenary genitive (Wallace), which means both. Greek grammar doesn’t necessarily answer all the questions definitively. Sometimes it does, but normally it gives us the legitimate range of possible interpretations, and then context and theology make the final determination. There is also a use of the genitive called the "Hebraic genitive." It is a reflection of a Hebrew idiom where you put several nouns in a series like 1 Timothy 1:11, but you want "glory" to function adjectivally. Whether you smooth out the ambiguity is a matter of interpretive philosophy. However, sometimes, there is no way to carry the ambiguity into English (like here). Is it, "the gospel of the glory of the blessed God.", or "the glorious gospel of God?" Hebraic Genitives—1 Tim 1-11 (Monday with Mounce 24)

Bird likes covenant theology because it secures the unity of God's plan, demonstrates the representative functions of Adam and Christ, and shows the continuity between Israel and the church. He recommends some resources on learning more (Ligon Duncan has a good introduction). Bird quotes Horton, who speaks of Adam's covenant of works, the covenant of grace in the promise made to Eve, renewed in the covenant with Abraham, etc. The selection concludes, "On the basis of the Messiah's fulfillment of the covenant of works (in fulfillment of his mediatorial role assigned in the covenant of redemption), the people of God are accepted on the terms of the covenant of grace." Bird takes issue with the covenant of works, in that the term 'covenant' is nowhere to be found, and there is no support for seeing the Sinai covenant as a republication of this covenant. He thinks that "a lot of covenant theology can be made redundant if one has a proper grasp of the Adam/Christ framework for theology: human beings are either in Adam or in Christ and God's plan is to shift human beings from one to the other" and takes issue with this covenant framework in that it seems to reduce Christ's work to fulfilling this pre-fall covenant, when the biblical focus is on bringing salvation, and "Jesus' obedience and faithfulness are genuinely salvific (e.g. Mattew 4.1-11; Luke 4.1-13 Romans 5.12-21; Philippians 2.5-11; Revelation 1.6), not in the sense of accruing merit to be imputed to others, but since it qualifies him as the true Israel, the new Adam, and the coming Messiah who is able to reconstitute Israel in his own person, take away the sins of God's people, and begin the task of restoring creation back to its state of edenic goodness."  http://euangelizomai.blogspot.com/2009/02/adam-and-christ-in-covenant-theology.html. He has some more clarifying thoughts here. http://euangelizomai.blogspot.com/2009/02/adam-and-christ-in-covenant-theology_09.html