Phillips agrees that the “Son of Man” is a sure allusion to Daniel 7, but doesn’t think that it’s a mere reference to the divine nature of Christ. He points to the expression, Son of Man, which he calls an OT sign-post to the dual nature of the Messiah. Christ the Son of Man (sermon)
Jeff Downs of aomin.org links to a few presentations by Stephen Nichols on Jonathan Edwards’T apologetic in theory and practice. An Absolute Sort of Certainty
The current debates over interpreting the US Constitution seem eerily similar to some of today’s debates over the meaning of Scripture. JT provides some quotes: “The originalist has easy answers for many things, especially the most controversial things in modern times. [Does] the equal protection clause require that states permit same sex marriage? That is not a hard question for an originalist. Nobody ever thought that is what the equal protection clause meant. . . .[Is there] a right to abortion? For Pete’s sake, it was criminal in every state for 200 years. . . . So I have easy answers to a lot of stuff. Whereas, for the "living constitutionalist," there are no answers.” “Let me put it this way; there are really only two ways to interpret the Constitution — try to discern as best we can what the framers intended or make it up.” Interpreting the Constitution
Josh Braham points out nine things the media messed up about the Obama stem cell story. 1) Omitting the importance of iPS cells. These are adult skin cells that scientists may soon be able to reprogram into embryonic-like stem cells, without killing a single human embryo! 2) Omitting that the diseases everyone is talking about curing (diabetes, Parkinson's, paralysis) have already been treated with adult stem cells. 3) Perpetuating the myth that stem cell research will likely cure Alzheimer's disease. Researchers don’t believe stem cells will work here, as it is a 'whole brain disease,' rather than a cellular disorder (such as Parkinson's). 4) Omitting the dangers of HESCR. A man injected with stem cells in china was painfully killed as bone grew into his brain. Here’s a quote regarding some implanted with ESC: ““They chew constantly, their fingers go up and down, their wrists flex and distend. It’s a real nightmare. And we can’t selectively turn it off. No more fetal transplants. We are absolutely and adamantly convinced that this should be considered for research only.”” 5) Confusing or combining reproductive cloning with research cloning. “Opinion polls show that the vast majority of Americans disapprove of both types of cloning. (83% against reproductive cloning, versus 81% against research cloning.) In another poll asking Americans to rate the morality of 16 social issues, 86% said human cloning was morally wrong. In fact, the only social issues ranked lower than human cloning were extramarital affairs and polygamy!” “What does it mean for our society morally and ethically when we are creating human beings for their body parts? ” 6) Creating a false choice that “leftover” embryos will either be used for research or be killed. 7) Dehumanizing human embryos. "In the hours of conception every aspect of the genetic inheritance for a new individual will be determined once and for all: to be a boy or girl, with brown, or with blue eyes, fair or dark, tall or short; all the rich detail of physical attributes from head to toes... The new genetic program is achieved when the two parent pronuclei come to lie side by side within the egg for perhaps a day, as their contents combine in the ultimate biological union of male and female. In the instant when the union is consummated, the whole egg substance divides into two entirely new cells, identical to one another. These are the first two cells of the baby-to-be. So begins the first day of the first nine months of life." 8) Responding to a Strawman argument that pro-lifers are concerned about embryos being misused in laboratories (other than killing them). 9) Bush’s policy restricted tax dollars being used on “all” stem cell research. “On the contrary, President Obama is the one restricting tax dollars for stem cell research. In fact the only type of stem cell research President Obama seems interested in funding is the very type that has consistently failed to produce any positive results.” http://www.rtlcc.org/fresno-madera/resources/9_Things_the_Media_Messed_Up_About_the_Obama_Stem_Cell_Story.html
Here’s some thorough medical testimony attesting that embryos are indeed human. This page shows, from medical experts and pro-abortion individuals alike, that “It is false to claim that no one knows when life begins and dishonest to argue that abortion does not kill a human being.” http://abort73.com/index.php?/abortion/medical_testimony
Piper exhorts believers to never think that they move on from the Gospel to greater things; rather, they should endeavour to always perceive the Gospel as bigger, not smaller. Never let the gospel get smaller in your heart. He enumerates the effects on the heart of the Gospel growing bigger for you, incl., His death is more wonderful, His resurrection more astonishing, your own sin gets uglier… Never Let the Gospel Get Smaller
Bird (posting at ETC) links to a collection of extant canon’s in the early church. Canon Lists in the Early Church
James Grant critiques Driscoll’s ‘Four Ways the New Calvinism is so powerful.’ He cautions against a (post)modern arrogance of recent history, pointing out the battles and sacrifices made by the Calvinists of the last 50 years. “None of us who are younger have any idea what it was like to be a Calvinist before the 1980s or 1990s, and we shouldn’t forget their sacrifices.” 1) Old Calvinism was not liberal and it is flat out wrong to say that missional was not part of “old Calvinism” (whatever that is). 2) Simply put, Calvinists beyond 50 years ago have been associated with cities. And there is no reason to put a dichotomy between the cities, the suburbs, and the rural areas. New Calvinists who flood into the city without having an experience in the city are often making a mistake by following a fad, and this movement to the city is so very faddish. 3) There are plenty of cessationist new Calvinists, and Driscoll seems to make his version of the work of the Spirit a badge of New Calvinism, and he makes a subtle shift from a theological argument to an experiential conclusion. Just because someone is a cessationists, doesn’t mean the are not joyful in the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. 4) New Calvinists can be just as bridge-burning snooty as the next guy. http://www.inlightofthegospel.org/?p=4301
In light of Romans 1, John 3:18-20, this TED talk on ‘buggy morality’ or ‘buggy intuition’ is very interesting. http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_on_our_buggy_moral_code.html
Phillips comments on the idea of granting a ‘civil union license’ to any (thing?) and otherwise the government stays out of marriage entirely. This has a superficial appeal but he points to some problems. 1) The homosexual lobby doesn’t just want to steal rights that don’t belong to their perversion, but they want to force societal approval of that perversion. 2) If the government sanctions these, it forces private citizens to do so as well. 3) Let’s face it – how many really think that homosexuals don’t intend to target churches? Homosexual unions- discussion of a proposal
JT gives a really interesting summary of a post on fasting, abstinence, etc. The general thrust seems to be that pleasures are indeed intensified with delay, hence, fasting/abstinence isn’t ascetic at all, but rather preparatory for a marvelous feast of the senses. Do you prefer a roast to raw meat? While everywhere we look, the world tells us not to keep the fast. But Jesus kept the fast; he waited, labored, suffered, died, and then opened his hand to receive all the life, glory, honor, authority, and dominion that his Father had to give Him, and as a result was admitted to the fullness of the kingdom’s feast—because by that time both it and he were ready. Keep the Fast, Keep the Feast- A Lenten Lifestyle in Imitation of Jesus
Singer is an intellectually honest atheist, and it appears that atheists don’t embrace him because they feel his ideas will discredit atheism. But he is truly working out secular life at its purest! Interestingly, he doesn’t want state sponsored killings, but he wants it left to the individual. Free market homicide. Peter Singer- The Rare Intellectually Honest Atheist
Girltalk recommends Shepherding a Child's Heart
by Tedd Tripp and The Shaping of a Christian Family by Elisabeth Elliot to parents. Shaping and Shepherding
Adams writes, don’t bother judging the unbelieving world (throwing your pearls to swine). Unbelievers will not respond to attempts to reform them. It’s not our job to reform the world—just to witness to it about the way of salvation. Pigs and Dogs
Adams exhorts counselors to walk a fine line between losing control of emotions over the horrid things involved in the business and becoming calloused and insensitive. Hard—but not Hardened
Hays responds to an Eastern Orthodox interlocutor (Perry), who seems to assert that Calvinism is Pelagian. 1) As Pelagianism considers nature to be grace this is a marked distinction from Calvinism. “grace” and “righteousness” are not the same. 2) Reformed theology considers grace in three ways; saving grace (objective and subjective dimensions, the latter having degrees), common grace, or something gratuitous/generous and discretionary, but not obligatory (e.g. creation, which isn’t saving grace as that presupposes the fall). 3) Reformed theology uses ‘righteousness’ in the Pauline sense, i.e. moral perfection. Since whoever transgresses one commandment is guilty of breaking the whole law James has the same idea. There are no degrees of righteousness – a sinner can’t be actually righteous, but he can be counted righteous. 4) Just because Reformed theology holds that Adam was in a covenant of works does not mean that he merited the reward or that this was perpetual. 5) Perry quotes Hodge: “Protestants hold that original righteousness [of Adam] was natural… concreated [in contrast to a Romanist view that it is supernatural]” but he equates righteousness and grace, and he doesn’t bother to show whether its wrong, but rather slaps a label on it. Hodge’s view seems implied (e.g. Eccl 7:29; Eph 4:24; Col 3:10). 6) Perry presents things as if Calvinists had to usher in Total Depravity because their view was way to Pelagian. Hardly. There are both continuities and discontinuities between fallen man and unfallen man. Reformed theology follows biblical nuancing on the imago Dei, in its corruption in fallen man and renewal in the regenerate. 7) Perry’s modus operandi is to simply state the consequence of an opposing position as if that’s unacceptable, without bothering to explain why that’s an unacceptable consequence. 8) Since God is the Creator, and man is the creature, there’s a fundamental sense in which God is cause and man is effect.
But the WCF excludes occasionalism, having a doctrine of second causes. God is not the only agent. Man is a finite agent. There are communicable and incommunicable attributes between man and God (not ‘opposite properties). 9) To say the church is the ‘glorified and immortal body of Christ’ is pious nonsense on stilts. Christ’s glorified body is a discrete body. 10) The Person of the Son would exist without the incarnation. But surely the human nature contributes something to the personality of Christ (e.g. psychology of experience). Christ is a theanthropic person. Pelagian Calvinism
Hays provides some interesting quotes from Rupert Sheldrake, contrasting his outlook with Dawkins’. Here’s a quote: "“I’ve never had anyone in the Church accuse me of heresy, whereas my experience is that it’s easy to be a scientific heretic. I’ve been proclaimed one on several occasions, notably in a most intemperate editorial in Nature, which described my first book as ‘A Book for Burning.” The editor subsequently said that I ‘deserved to be condemned for exactly the same reasons as the Pope condemn Galileo–it’s heresy.” These kinds of attitudes–the idea that science knows the absolute truth and that there is one single view of nature, which is universal and everyone in the whole world should believe in–in fact resemble the attitudes of the Catholic Church before the Reformation. Science has not yet undergone a kind of reformation and it’s still run by the equivalent of colleges of cardinals and is authoritarian and needlessly dogmatic. All of this is in stark contrast to the rhetoric of science, which is about free enquiry and fearless exploration.” Rupert Sheldrake
Engwer points to a glaring example, and an admitted one at that, of gross inconsistency in accepting Josephus and Tacitus as generally reliable while rejecting the NT as spurious, when the same standards that are applied to the NT, if turned on these other works, must conclude that they are in vastly worse shape than the NT. Yet, these atheists have the shameless candor to say, “Are there good reasons to reject Josephus or Tacitus? Fine. Reject them. Persuade us that we should reject them. I'm open to it” when faced with the same grounds they use to reject the NT! Inconsistent Skepticism. This is a more detailed overview of this double standard, for those interested. Josephus And Double Standards. While these atheists are quite favourable to Josephus and restrained in criticizing them, they have no problem dismissing the NT and father, like Luke, by pointing to alleged errors in their writings, potential reasons they might have for lying, potential ways in which they might be mistaken, etc. In some cases, as with Irenaeus, he'll keep pointing to one error over and over again, claiming there is a "pattern" in Irenaeus and something Irenaeus is "prone" to lie, based on one example. The same sort of approach could be taken with Josephus. The historian Paul Maier writes the following. This glaring double standard is intellectually absurd. The Absurd Stories Of Cruel Josephus
This post at Genderblog reminds us of the importance of learning to plan and act upon a plan in the development of manhood. Men must learn to handle life without it being spoon-fed to them. Intentional Manhood, Part IV- Planning
Reflecting on Psalm 19, Cheng @ SolaPanel writes, the more I know of God's pure law and true rules, the more I understand his righteous character, the more I see that the law warns me even as it offers “great reward”, the more I am filled with fear over my own sin, which is judged by these perfect commandments. The contemplation of the glory of God in his law leads naturally to the acknowledgement that I am a sinner. See also Isaiah 6:5; Luke 5:8; Romans 3:10 and on, etc. Seeing God is glorious and dreadful. But thankfully there is comfort in a merciful God. Fallen short
Challies has a positive review of the biblical effort in Cornelious Venema’s The Promise of the Future, a treatment of the resurrection, final judgment, eternal punishment, and so on. While he defends the amillennial view, he offers information that will help anyone, regardless of his eschatology, to better understand what is to come. Book Review - Christ and the Future
While James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore appears to limit the prayers to those in heaven to ‘saints’, Jimmy Akin, e-pologist, doesn’t. Hard to believe that these folk use disunity among adherents to sola scriptura as an argument against it, isn’t it? Can You Pray To Whoever You Want To- Let's Ask Jimmy Akin
Here’s a number of resources from 9Marks on God’s will and guidance. God's Will & Guidance by Jonathan Leeman
Mike Gilbart-Smith of 9Marks recommends delaying seminary for the value of an experience of pastoral ministry in a local church, which will highlight your inadequacies. 1) Seminary is good because you rarely can learn some things at a local church well (e.g. Greek). 2) A delay can help one save money. There would be more usefulness if they were able to be supported adequately in order not to need to find another source of income during that time. Almost always delay. Hardly ever skip. by Mike Gilbart-Smith
No comments:
Post a Comment