2009-03-23

Phil Johnson answers some more questions from those aggressively opposed to his resistance to course language in the pulpit. 1) He is all-too-familiar with profane speech, and therefore isn’t fooled into thinking it can be harnessed as a tool to contextualize the Gospel. The concern is not that they are injurious, but that they are spiritually defiling. 2) When asked about the use of ‘damnable heresy’ or ‘pompous ass’, the former is legitimate if used to describe damnation, and the latter, while the latter isn’t profane (ass=donkey) but nevertheless should not be applied to fellow believers. He confesses that his tongue is oft too sharp, and he’s been rethinking things with the rise of profanity in the pulpit in recent years. 3) There is a clear difference between filthy speech and vivid and repulsive terminology, a distinction blurred by some [who use the former], and Scripture forbids the former but uses the latter. 4) No one has challenged his interpretation of Titus 2:7-8; Ephesians 4:29; 5:3-4; or the third commandment (Exodus 20:7). Rather, 1) some complain that he doesn’t understand the importance of contextualization; and 2) some complain that he’s exaggerated the problem. More On the Pornification of the Pulpit

White has some reflections on meeting with a Jehovah’s Witness elder. 1) He articulates their position in his own words first, reassuring them he has never been affiliated with them. 2) He focuses on showing (a) that Jesus is Yahweh in the NT (e.g. Revelation 5, Christ is worshipped); and (b) areas of mistranslation (e.g. John 14:14). Abandoning the JW’s beliefs is a long and difficult process. Reflections on a Two and a Half Hour Conversation with a Witness Elder

Proverbs 27:5-6 reads, “Better is open rebuke than hidden love. Faithful are the wounds of a friend; profuse are the kisses of an enemy.”  Bayly points out that Paul opposed Peter to his face, while Judas kissed Jesus, and provides a quote pointing out that these words are not too common amongst Christians, or even pastors, and refers to Matthew Henry’s commentary: ““It is good for us to be reproved, and told of our faults, by our friends. If true love in the heart has but zeal and courage enough to show itself in dealing plainly with our friends, and reproving them for what they say and do amiss, this is really better, not only than secret hatred (as Lev. 19:17), but than secret love, that love to our neighbors which does not show itself in this good fruit, which compliments them in their sins, to the prejudice of their souls. Faithful are the reproofs of a friend, though for the present they are painful as wounds. It is a sign that our friends are faithful indeed if, in love to our souls, they will not suffer sin upon us, nor let us alone in it.” In other words, the alternative to this is to be as Judas was to Christ. Faithful are the wounds of a friend

JT points to a FAQ including some definitions for various terms in the stem cell/cloning debate. Here’s a quote: “President Obama proposes "therapeutic cloning" and opposes "reproductive cloning," saying that the latter is "dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society." So the irony is that in President Obama's worldview it is moral and welcome to clone a human and kill him--but if you clone him and let him live it is deeply immoral.” Did Obama Allow for Human Cloning- George vs. Kmiec

Stott points to the double influence of Christians on the world, as salt, to arrest decay and inhibit the spread of evil, and as light, to bring from darkness into light and promote the spread of beauty, goodness, and truth. John Stott- The Double Influence of the Christian

Bayly makes this pointed statement: “I think is that pastors today are about as concerned about the blood guilt [e.g. committing abortion] of our sheep as the chief priests and elders were about the blood guilt of Judas when he came to them in anguish, confessing, "I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.”” Gratitude for recent comments made here by our wives and daughters

Here’s a good quote from Augustine: “Fear God that you may not retrogress; love Him that you may progress.” Fear and Love

Phil Ryken recommends the latest book by Steve Nichols, with Eric Brandt: Ancient Word, Changing Worlds.  “Simply put, it is the best, clearest, and most reliable historical overview of the doctrine of Scripture for a contemporary audience.” http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2009/03/the-doctrine-of-scripture-in-a.php

Windsor of Solapanel explains that while it is good to build relationships in the process of evangelism, so as to lead people to Christ, he still likes stranger evangelism, “cold turkey evangelism”: Every time he asks a stranger to talk about Jesus, there is an impact and a reaction, whether good or bad. But really, all the recipients of evangelism are strangers - strangers to God. “The Bible calls them enemies (Rom 5:10), children of God's anger (Eph 2:3), alienated and hostile in their minds (Col 1:21). Therefore, they are also strangers to God's people, alienated from God's family (Eph 2:19), “outsiders” (Col 4:5) who don't know us or understand our motivations or behaviour (1 Pet 3:16, 4:3-5).” We need to remember this, or risk leaving out crucial ‘strange’ truth. “Evangelism that fails to speak the hard truths of our estrangement from God risks simply confirming people in their estrangement. The most loving thing you can do for somebody who is estranged from God is to treat them as a stranger—to remind them of their estrangement and urge them to be reconciled to God.” Stranger evangelism

AiG discusses the Miller-Urey experiment in light of the question, could life arise from natural processes (some try to shift the problem to life being plants by aliens). “In the experiment, Miller was attempting to illustrate how life’s building blocks (amino acids) could have formed by natural processes. However, throughout the experiment Miller relied on years of intelligent research in chemistry. He purposely chose which gases to include and which to exclude. Next, he had to isolate the biochemicals (amino acids) from the environment he had created them in because it would have destroyed them. No such system would have existed on the so-called “primitive” earth. It appears Miller used intelligent design throughout the experiment rather than chance processes.” i) Miller et. al. need to assume there was no free oxygen in the atmosphere because it destroys biological molecules, so, without⁵ evidence,⁴ they did this. ii) Without oxygen, there is no ozone, so UV destoys biological molecules. It’s a catch-22. iii) Some propose the oceans, but hydrolysis is a massive obstacle at this point, where a water molecule causes two bonded molecules to split. iv) all amino acids forming proteins in living things are left-handed, but the textbooks and media fail to mention that what Miller et. al. actually produced was a mixture of left- and right-handed amino acids, which is detrimental to life. v) contra textbooks, Miller and Urey proved nothing except that life’s building blocks could not form in such conditions. vi) Any explanation has to account for the encoding of massive amount of information in the genome. “Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome.” vii) To assemble just 100 left-handed amino acids (far shorter than the average protein) would be the same probability as getting 100 heads in a row when flipping a coin. In order to get 100 heads in a row, we would have to flip a coin 10³⁰ times (this is 10x10, 30 times). viii) Chandra Wickramasinghe, Professor of Applied Math and Astronomy, calculated that the probability of getting a cell by naturalistic processes is 1 x 10^-40,000. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/can-natural-processes-explain

Piper pleas with Christians to combine instruction from an insightful teacher or book, who can explain in 30 minutes what would take you 10 years to see, with your own prayerful private devotional study of Scripture, lest the latter cap off at a low level of insight. A Plea for Heart Devotions and Head Study

GenderBlog writes that ABC’s family channel, with a new show called The Secret Life of the American Teenager, which focuses on the romantic entanglements of a pregnant 15-year-old girl and her friends, indicates a trend towards the sensual obsession of our culture. The shows ratings indicate that parents are unconcerned, despite its overtly sexual content. Disney-ABC’s excuse is… authenticity! You need to hold a mirror up to the culture [emerging types should give this comment some serious thought]. ABC’s Family Channel No Longer Fit for Families-