MacArthur points to Ephesians 5 and Paul’s prohibition regarding drunkenness. He cites statistics to show that drunkenness is a significant problem, and most likely one in your church. Rather, we should be filled with the Spirit – almost drunk with the Spirit. Both alcohol and the Spirit remove inhibitions and embolden. But one leads to destruction. The other leads to righteousness [incl. self-control]. Being filled with the Spirit isn’t to be baptized, indwelt, or sealed by the Spirit, all of which are true for every believer already. Paul is saying, ‘be kept filled’, or effectively, ‘continually let the Spirit of God, who is in you, control you.’ Every part of your life, as the context shows, is affected and should be surrendered. This isn’t a ‘let go and let God.’ To be filled with the Spirit is parallel with letting the word of Christ dwell in you richly in Colossians, which also has singing, submission, love, obedience, gentle parenting, diligence, and fairness. As you study God’s word and are saturated in it, you become Christ-centred/conscious all the time. Joy and gratitude will characterize you while you are filled with the Spirit. The Spirit-filled life is overflowing with gratitude, joy, right relationships, and good behavior — quite a contrast to those enslaved by alcohol. Are you seeking joy in the Spirit? The Joy-Filled Christian Life
Phillips has this thought on Driscoll’s talk at TGC: Driscoll is largely preaching himself. In other words, he is the backdrop and context to his own message and you have to know him to know what he is saying. But the others, like Piper, Carson, etc., when they preach, you need to know nothing about them. They preach Christ, and they preach in such a way that if you had seen them for the first time you would know Christ and His word better for it. Phillips’ own prayer is that he preaches in such a way that it doesn’t matter who does the preaching. He fears that Driscoll is not responding well to a biblical critique. Preaching- beware the And you are...- factor
DeYoung quotes the Guttmacher institute on the reason for a decrease in abortion 1989 and 2004. “Among the possible reasons for this are greater acceptance in society of nonmarital childbearing, more difficulties in obtaining abortion services in some parts of the United States and changing attitudes toward abortion” He goes on - “the other simple fact is that pro-choice policies and regulations do not reduce the number of abortions. According to the Guttmacher Institute, the legal abortion rate per 1000 women, aged 15-44, decreased 13.6% from 1996 to 2005 (22.4 to 19.4). Only 9 states have seen their abortion rate (measuring occurrences of abortions in the state) increase since 1996, and only one state has seen its rate increase since 1987. That state is Maryland, which has had FOCA (Freedom of Choice Act) type legislation on the books since 1991. Maryland's abortion rate increased from 27.6 in 1987 to 31.5 in 2005.” He then points out that actions that show an indifference to legislation and abortions are not those consistent with someone who cares about actually reducing abortions. Does Rhetoric Reduce the Number of Abortions-
JT summarizes the above as: “Kevin DeYoung explains why Planned Parenthood is praising President Obama's first 100 days in office. Kevin also restates the obvious--namely, that pro-choice policies and regulations will not reduce abortion.” Reducing Abortion
A former Mormon posts this article lists several beliefs held by the average Mormon: “1) The idea that "As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become"; 2) The idea that temple work is essential to reaching the highest level of the celestial kingdom; 3) The idea that ultimate truth is to be found in the Standard Works as well as the LDS prophet and apostles; 4) The idea that a person must be baptized in the Mormon Church to have an authentic baptismal experience; 5) The idea that Joseph Smith and succeeding church leaders were given complete authority on earth; and 6) The idea that the Mormon Church is the most trustworthy church in the world. 7) The idea that a complete apostasy from Christ’s teachings and Church began in the second century AD and necessitated a restoration instead of a reform; and 8) The assertion that a personal, feelings-based "testimony" of events and doctrines outside of one’s own personal experience (Joseph Smith’s first vision, for instance) is a reliable arbiter and authenticator of truth claims.” Not one of these could be accepted by an evangelical, and these disqualify Mormonism from the term Christianity. The Mormon Mirage, part 1 of 5 by Latayne C. Scott
Here’s an interesting summary of a review at SBL Boston that centres on P72 and P45. Here’s one interesting comment: “I would observe that it is (I believe)perfectly consistent to hold that dogmatic changes began to occur around 300 and that the majority of textual variants arose during the first three Christian centuries (that is, before 300). We have to keep in mind that the vast majority of textual variants do not involve (as it seems) theological corruption. So, while most textual variants may have arisen early, the comparatively few theological corruptions could have been late on the scene.” SBL Boston, Book Review of James Royse Scribal Habits in Early Greek NT Papyri, pt. 3-4
Patton has some points on why he teaches how he does, which are interesting whether you agree with them all or not. He isn’t seeking an amen from the congregation, but rather he seeks to have people believe what they believe for the right reasons [presumably believing the right things]. He isn’t seeking to proof-text propositions, or defend evangelicalism, though he holds it to be the best expression. He isn’t seeking to make all as he is (Calvinists and inerrantists) though that would be nice, but rather, he’s seeking to represent all positions of significance accurately. He isn’t seeking to dumb things down for the audience, nor is he pretending that every answer will be found by sufficient study. He seeks to deconstruct and exhort people who study to be willing to ‘let go of all they believe’ so that they can have true beliefs. Why I Teach (and Blog) the Way I Do
Swan points to a Roman Catholic seeking answers for responding to Bart Ehrman, and the Romanists have so far provided only Protestant sources, since Rome is apparently quite silent and unhelpful here. Even the Romanist e-pologists defer to Protestant scholars on this issue. Catholics Need Catholic Answers, But Will Settle for Protestant Answers
Rhology points out that because Roman Catholics deny a distinction in the usage of proskeneo (i.e. worship), a distinction Protestants argue is based on whether the context is religious or non-religious (e.g. to God or to a king), they lose a weapon in the defence of the divinity of Christ against Jehovah’s Witnesses, for Christ is at numerous points in John’s writings the recipient of proskeneo. In Revelation 4-5 the Lamb receives the same worship (proskeneo) that the Father (Jehovah Himself on JW view) does, fulfilling John 5:22-23 where the Son is to be honoured as the Father is honoured. Romanists cannot use this to show that Christ is divine based on the approved receipt of the same kind of worship that is directed towards God the Father because they have to be able to defend their practice of “proskeneo” to statues, saints, etc. How Roman Dogma Affects a Defense of the Deity of Christ
Here’s an interesting thought on the effects of politics on pandemics based on government disregard for the 1918 influenza pandemic. The Story of the Deadlinest Pandemic in History
Here’s Mahaney’s 17 part series on biblical productivity, downloadable in PDF. Mahaney on Biblical Productivity
Bayly points to the story of an American soldier who was convicted for attempting to kill an unborn child via poisoning (if he was found guilty of actually doing it the penalty is life in prison), while a doctor who does the same thing faces no consequences; indeed, they are paid to do this. What happens when pastors preach for a price
Here’s a short note from a pastor whose view has changed on the many complaints from wives in the church. There is a ‘steady stream’ of women upset with the church for failing to chastise their husbands. Yet, he’s noticed that many of these men have given of themselves, often at their expense, and the criticisms utterly ignore this. He observes that, upon receiving this critique, he has received from a man’s wife what the man likely receives regularly. He sees the “criticism as indicative of deeper problems: a rebellion against all authority and male authority in particular, an effort to deny or shift personal responsibility, a justification of sinful heart attitudes.” These women consider themselves spiritual betters than their husbands, even shaming the pastor who would confront them. Such an approach has no hope of resolving marital difficulties, as men do not respond well to public shaming by their wives due to their lack of manliness. They need to know their wives are for them and look up to them despite their faults. A pastoral word to critical wives
Jeremy Pierce isn’t convinced the torture investigations spoken of in the USA are really about the torture. First, no mention has been made of the Democrats involved: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and a number of other congressional Democrats were involved in discussions with President Bush and other administration officials when all this was actually going on, and they seem to have given their approval of whatever actually took place with official sanction. They at least voiced no objections. Second, the US military trains their forces using techniques like waterboarding. http://parablemania.ektopos.com/archives/2009/04/torture-invest.html
White reflects on his debate with Dan Barker, who apparently did no preparation, considering his arguments to be invulnerable. White does as much research as he can because he seeks to edify the saints, and evangelize the lost. Barker had already lost the debate by walking in and presupposing the laws of logic in the debate, which is against his materialistic worldview and dogmatic functionalism. But he doesn’t seem to reckon with the epistemology of his own position, nor with that of a Reformed Christian. Reflections on the UofI Debate
Here’s a list that is fascinating, not so much in terms of its contents, but in its authorship – it’s a well-balanced list of arguments that Roman Catholics should not use against Protestantism by a Roman Catholic apologist. Follow the link through aomin.org: A Refreshing Roman Catholic Blog Post
Mounce has a post on 1 Timothy 2:15 and the meaning of “saved through child-bearing.” First he argues that the term means spiritual salvation in this verse, not physical rescue through child – Paul is quite consistent with his use of the term. He takes the position that Paul means the same sort of thing as when he tells believers to work out their salvation with fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12). In this case, women weren’t to listen to the false teaching, and they were not to abandon marriage or child-birth (so as to look for other avenues of Christian commitment), but rather they are to see it as something to be treasured. Women are saved through the bearing of children (Monday with Mounce 35)
Rick Phillips at Reformation21 argues that Christians should avoid being critical of the tactical judgments regarding the fight against secularism and unbelief. He’s careful to note this doesn’t mean glossing over compromise. But rather, lend as much support as you can even if you might fight a little (or a lot) differently. This is his justification for signing the Church of Scotland petition on homosexuality. http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2009/05/why-i-signed-too.php
Adams writes about the kind of person who busies himself with the insignificant aspects of Scripture while leading a life out of sync with his profession – he strains gnats while swallowing camels. Gnats and Camels
This post by Jon Bloom uses Jesus’ rebuke of Peter (‘get behind me Satan’) to show us that we’re not immune to the deception of Satan. So let us be "quick to hear, slow to speak" (James 1:19) and clothed with humility, because, as Peter wrote, "God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble" (1 Peter 5:5). Peter later wrote: “Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. Resist him... (1 Peter 5:8-9)” Rock of Truth, Satanic Stumbling Block
Mohler points to the view, increasingly held by young Christians, that kissing should be kept for marriage. It is viewed as an act of physical intimacy -- a gateway drug to greater physical intimacy and involvement, and virginity encompasses more than just sexual intercourse. While the world practically assumes that teens will be engaging in sex, and deals accordingly, these Christians aren’t afraid of their bodies, but of sinning and losing something precious, and therefore they are mounting a counterrevolution of monogamous lips against a culture that has experienced the breakdown of virtually every support for sexual abstinence. It stops the ‘how far is too far’ train from leaving the gate. http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=3747
James White writes that he is struck by “how difficult it must be for most conservative, believing Roman Catholics in these days. They know, in their heart of hearts, that the majority of the Magisterium is significantly less conservative than they are---a Magisterium they must believe to be God-guided and, in matter of faith and morals, infallible. Yet they know many of their priests, bishops, and Cardinals are at the very least inclusivists, and more probably universalists. Most pay at the very best a lip-service to inerrancy, limiting it to a merely accurate communication of the basics of the faith, nothing more.” The Roman Catholic Quandry
Hays has some objections that Protestants should not use against Roman Catholicism. Threshing the wheat
Don’t find yourself belonging to a church that has locked Jesus outside. Please Come In
No comments:
Post a Comment