Check this out. “the problem of evil cannot be answered philosophically or ontologically, only historically!” Keep reading if you want the Answer to the Problem of Evil
More Americans now identify themselves as pro-life than pro-choice, but don’t make too much of it. More Americans Now Self-Identify as Pro-Life than Pro-Choice
JT and Bruce Ware recommend the self-published book Water of the Word… by Andrew Case, which is a collection of rich Scripturally derived prayers. Ware endorses it as a tool with the potential of binding husbands and wives ever closer together while these prayers seek more intimate relationship between their wives and their God Praying for Your Wife
JT responds to misunderstanding in a post by Blomberg that praises NT Wright’s new book, where Blomberg glosses Jesus’ "active obedience" as his "sinless life" and Jesus' "passive obedience" as his "atoning death," which isn’t the historical meaning. “The Reformed understanding is that Christ's "passive obedience" and his "active obedience" both refer to the whole of Christ's work. The distinction highlights different aspects, not periods, of Christ's work in paying the penalty for sin ("passive obedience") and fulfilling the precepts of the law ("active obedience").” Our Lord’s whole work of obedience in every phase and period that is described as active and passive. The distinction recognizes that the law demands full discharge of its precepts and penalties for infractions - Jesus perfectly met both the penal (passive) and the preceptive (active) requirements of God’s law. On the Distinction between Christ's Passive and Active Obedience
John Frame recommends a book by John Barber, The Road from Eden: Studies in Christianity and Culture (link is to WTS Books; also available from Amazon.com.), as a thorough and excellent discussion of “Christ and culture,” in contrast to the usual confused ‘Christ and culture in paradox’ versions that have been gaining steam. The Road from Eden- Landmark Book on Christ and Culture
JT points to a book, The Infinite Merit of Christ: The Glory of Christ's Obedience in the Theology of Jonathan Edwards, writing that more objectors to imputation ought to read this, so they can see i) that it is biblical and ii) that they have failed to deal with the best articulations of the view. Edwards argues that Christ infinitely satisfies God’s rule of righteousness on behalf of the elect to fulfill God's ultimate purpose to display and communicate his glory through this obedience. The Infinite Merit of Christ- The Glory of Christ's Obedience in the Theology of Jonathan Edward
Here’s an interesting exchange where two polar errors among Christians with regard to emotions are discussed – the sovereignty of the emotions on the one end, and the emotionless Vulcanesque approach on the other. Feelings and Faith
JT has an interview with VanHoozer. VanHoozer voices his concern about the temptation facing evangelicals in the academy [he’s not opposed to the academy, though!] to read the Bible as a ‘university document’ rather than the Christian Scriptures, to attain intellectual credibility among other respectable scholars. Do all interpretive frameworks preserve the Gospel, and is there an alternative to imposing theoretical frameworks on the Bible? He also wants to see the Enlightenment split between the academy and dogmatics healed, the dichotomy between exegetes and systematic theologians. VanHoozer also compares the church and the world to a ship in the sea, with the pastor of the ship being the first mate – it behooves him to know well the ocean that he is in. VanHoozer also see the ‘sanctified imagination’ as essential in connecting beliefs with behaviour. He also argues that hermeneutics is a subset of ethics, wherein the attributes for good interpretive approaches are moral. “Hermeneutics is a subset of ethics because interpretation aims at a certain kind of good, namely, understanding.” He also alludes to another work that argues that “it is immoral--always, everywhere, and by everyone--to believe something except on the basis of sufficient evidence.” Postmoderns tend to sloth rather than intellectual pride, claiming it is immoral to make claims about a text’s meaning. An Interview with Kevin Vanhoozer
Hays responds to the argument by an Arminian that 1 Cor. 10:13, in promising a way of escape from all temptation, would be a lie if exhaustive determinism was true, since God predetermined that, if one didn’t escape, that he wouldn’t escape – the objection also claims that this would mean God deceives His people into believing they are capable of making the right choice when ‘in reality it is impossible for them to choose.’ (i.e. a predetermined choice isn’t choice at all because it’s the only course of action available). Hays responds: i) The text says nothing about Christians succumbing to temptation. The text doesn’t prove that Christians succumb to temptation. ii) The verse is, in context, talking not about temptation in general but about the particular temptation of denying one’s faith, of which idolatry is the paradigm, and that due to God’s fidelity Christians will never succumb to this temptation. This text is a prooftext for perseverance of the saints. 1 Cor 10-13
Hays posts an excerpt that discusses the philosophical difficulties of defining the freedom to do otherwise, a concept Arminians treat as transparent and simply take for granted. Defining the freedom to do otherwise
Hays anecdotally demonstrates the difficulty in performing historical criticism, and in writing about the past (i.e. anachronisms are easy to make), due to continuous time-sensitive change. This change also means that it is very difficult to fake a history. But historical critics make broad claims about error in the Bible two thousand years later. Even the clues in extant evidence, without a greater context, could seem like they point one way, when they really don’t, as someone with more/inside knowledge would know (e.g. a car from the 30’s in a picture, but a woman with clothing from the 50’s is standing beside it). Now there is a lot of corroborative evidence for the Bible. This itself attests it its truthfulness given the random state of the extant evidence. Getting a lot of things right creates a presumption about the author, in that he’s not out of touch, and he’s describing something that he’s seen, or the recollection of other eyewitnesses. Moreover, even if there were anachronisms in the Bible (which there aren’t) it wouldn’t at all mean that the text wasn’t written by people who were there. And, “If it takes very specific knowledge of the past to write accurately about the past, then, by the same token, it takes equally specific knowledge of the past to detect historical inaccuracies in a historical account.” Historical writing
Hays comments on Hume’s objection to miracles, which appeals to the experience which has established the ‘unalterable laws of nature.’ i) Reported miracles are part of human experience – yet the objection appeals to experience. ii) If Hume appeals to the uniformity of nature as militating against the truth of these reports, the Christian can appeal to reports of miracles as militating against the presumption of uniformity. iii) It’s rather ironic to appeal to the ‘laws of nature’ (anthropomorphizing nature) while viewing it as depersonalized. iv) Miracles can happen through natural mechanisms as well – e.g. coincidental timing. Breaking the laws of nature
Martyn Lloyd Jones, though excelling in medicine, left that career to preach the Gospel, which he felt was the best way to use his talents. “He had no dramatic crisis of conversion, but there came a point when he had committed himself entirely to the Christian gospel. After that, as he sat in the consulting room, listening to the symptoms of those who came to see him, he realised that what so many of his patients needed was not ordinary medicine, but the gospel he had discovered for himself. He could deal with the symptoms, but the worry, the tension, the obsessions could only be dealt with by the power of Christian conversion.” A young rich man
Remarkably, some people actually think there can be ‘Christians’ who deny the empty tomb. There are those in such intellectual flux that who like to define ‘Christian’ so loosely that no matter what position they take they can leave their options open and claim they were acting in good faith. What's in a name-
Manata responds to a critique of Van Tillian thinking. i) Appeal to paradox isn’t side-stepping biblical issues – rather, it is precisely because one is not side-stepping biblical issues that one appeals to paradox. ii) Appeal to paradox in Scripture is to say what "all" orthodox theologians and pastors have said. it is to stand in line with "Spurgeon and Edwards and Luther." iii) It is mere assertion to say that if a paradox isn’t reconcilable by the human mind it is a contradiction. Van Tillians would admit that "someone" is able to reconcile them. Surely they wouldn't want to affirm this premise: If God is able to do something, man must too be able to do it. iv) The fact that we can debate the issue of merely apparent vs. apparent but real contradictions show that the distinction can be, in principle, made. Showing Gerety The Door
Manata briefly shows some problems with an infallibilist epistemology – that is, it requires infallibility as the criterion for something to be considered as “knowledge,” or, put another way, the possibility of falsehood in a claim (e.g. testimony) means that something cannot be knowledge. Yet, this epistemology means that it is impossible to know anything, for it isn’t difficult to imagine defeaters (e.g. brain in a vat). Skepticism, Infallibilism, and Knowledge
Roman Catholicism sets its adherents up for massive disillusionment, as its superiors are not like the spiritual Protestant superiors. The former are mediators of God’s grace to the common members. The latter are tentatively-acknowledged spiritual authorities whose power resides in the proper exposition of the Bible. So when the former fail, there is good reason for doubt. If the latter fail, the Protestant’s faith is affixed to the person and work of Jesus Christ, and it isn’t the end. “For Catholics, authority is found in the magisterium (what the church teaches today) and tradition (what the church has taught in the past). Scripture’s meaning can only be authentically explained by the Church. For Protestants, Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith. This is the principle of Sola Scriptura.” Doubt
Turretinfan has some thoughts on some fallacious arguments made in a debate he had with a Roman Catholic over the issue of the veneration of Mary. There is no logical link between Mary's being blessed, or between loving the brethren, and Mary's being venerated. Veneration of Mary Debate - Thoughts on Reflection - Part 7
DeYoung posts an excerpt on the idea of ‘national repentance’. C.S. Lewis and others sliced the idea apart, attributing to it the pride of a false apology or false repentance, for it allows one to look good and feel good without actually being good, making an apology for things in which they had no part – which isn’t hard to do – while persisting in their own present wickedness – which is difficult to repent of. “We get to feel grandiose for “our” guilt without actually having to change.” “Younger generation today face these same dangers with regard to the church. In confessing all the sins of the church, we have everything to gain and nothing to mortify.” False Apology Syndrome means one gets all the moral high ground that comes with confession and none of the personal pain. False Apology Syndrome
This post illustrates from the TV show Lost, wherein the characters have travelled back in time, and in trying to prevent future events they turn out to be the cause of them (i.e. its a closed universe, apparently – what’s done is done, and so on), that while the events are fixed and unchangeable, the actions involved are hardly meaningless, as so many suppose it would be in a predestined universe – the very actions themselves are the means for the accomplishment of things. Lost and The Closedness of Time
Turk has some follow-up thoughts on the challenge he posed to Arminians the other day. Those modern day objectors to Calvinism should really stop pretending that they are Arminian objections and not Pelagian objections. The non-calvinists show themselves as people who don’t receive Paul’s answer to the hypothetical questioner in Romans 9 (where God has apparently failed in His promise and man is sort of just a victim of God’s capricious choice to save or not.with any seriousness. These objectors just want to go on and on about God being the author of evil as if the book of Job and Acts don’t exist. These objectors aren’t Arminian, they’re post-Finney revivalists (who didn’t see man as essentially unable to be faithful to God), afraid that the Gospel in Calvinistic terms is too hard on God. i) If God does not (in the Gen 50 sense) “intend” evil in any way, he certainly does not “superintend” the acts of the universe –Arminians make no sense of this problem, which is actually a main point of the Bible. ii) They make no sense of suffering throughout the world – the universe is just running away on God. iii) The death of Christ, being done act of evil men, makes no sense. And the Arminian who is trying to protect God from evil loses all credibility in a world which is just full of suffering. An unkind word, which is better than a kiss from an enemy
An evolutionist would not be happy if a Christian’s reason for believing in the Creation was, “It just was created.” Yet, the evolutionist assumes uniformity, and is still left without a good reason for why he believes in laws of logic, why they have the properties they do, and why the physical universe does not violate them. He is indeed “borrowing” from Christianity. The Christian worldview is the worldview that makes knowledge possible. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/04/17/feedback-imagine-no-creator
Carson has a caution against the seductive applause of the conservative constituency (theologically speaking), and how it manifests in pandering to your own conservative friends unwittingly, by living and seeking their applause and pursuing work to reinforce this identity. In the end, we stand or fall on the approval of one Master, Jesus Christ. The Seductive Applause of a Conservative Constituency
JT says that one cannot separate Christ's fulfillment of God's precepts from Christ's payment of the penalty for failing to obey God's precepts, responding to those who say fine distinctions between active and passive obedience and imputation are a result of systematic theology, not the text, and yet say that only passive obedience is imputed – a distinction that itself cannot be supported by the text. Active and Passive Obedience- One Additional Thought
Here’s some good points from Ray Ortlund and Doug Groothuis on the Prejean problem. i) We live in a merciless world that says, ‘let’s destroy and shame and embarrass her.’ ii) Groothuis points to the sinful waste of the short time that we have on this planet that is the sad and silly game of playing beauty queen - She is no role model, no character model. To give her attention reveals the paucity of both real virtue and Christian discernment today. Defining Decency Down- We Are Far Too Easily Pleased
This is worth quoting in full from Doug Wilson on Craig Blomberg's review of N.T. Wright's response to John Piper (HT: Wilson Response to Blomberg): “Notice what is being juxtaposed here. The Reformers had a individualistic fixation on getting individuals into heaven when they die. But we, upon whom the new perspective has shone, now understand that there is a "bigger picture." I see. And what did the Reformers do with their narrow vision? Well, they toppled kings, transformed laws, overhauled cultures, settled a continent, built nations, founded schools and colleges, inspired musicians and painters, and we could continue in this vein for quite a while. And what do we do, entranced as we are by the new perspective? We write academic papers, download podcasts of academic lectures that we can listen to in the privacy of our ear buds, and we go white in the face if conservative Christians suggest that Jesus might have an opinion about the ongoing slaughter of the unborn. John Piper, with his preaching on the pro-life issue, challenges the principalities and powers. The soft statism that goes with trendy theology these days does nothing of the kind -- it simply suggests (but not too loudly) that we need kinder, gentler principalities and powers.” Wilson also writes of Wright’s lack of engagement with Piper’s arguments, as Wright effectively goes after some imaginary and unnamed opponent. Moreover, Blomberg actually provides a summary of something Wright teaches that is fundamentally no different than a doctrine of the imputation of Christ's active obedience! http://dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=6572
Right here, Blomberg actually says, “Piper, on the other hand, has not always represented Wright well, I suspect in large part because he has not always understood him well.” This is nothing short of legendary – see above. He also says, “The Christian’s hope is not just dying and going to heaven—that is what theologians have called the intermediate state” as representative of Piper’s “Calvinism!!” (i.e. “The problem for Wright with much of the Reformation and especially with John Piper’s version of Calvinism is that it can quickly lose sight of the plan of God to redeem the entire cosmos through the people of Israel, culminating in the Messiah, as a blessing for the whole world.”) [I was at Resolved 2008 when Piper explained in vivid and wonderful detail, using an anecdote of an encounter with a deformed man, of the wonderful glory and promise and hope of the new heaven and earth as it is made for us with respect to things just like that – Piper pointed out that for the disabled in this life, so much time is spent making them fit the world, and in the new heaven and earth, the world will be made to fit their glorified, physical, resurrected bodies. Thus this post is borderline dishonest, or there is another John Piper who wrote another response to N.T. Wright to which Blomberg refers. Blomberg also says, “God’s righteousness is not only his legal declaration of our acquittal, imputed to us, but also it is his covenant faithfulness to all of his promises.” Is this supposed to be a response to Piper – or anyone? When did Piper define God’s righteousness that way? Piper defines God’s righteousness as His unwavering commitment to uphold the worth of His glory. And how does this answer Piper’s point that covenant faithfulness presupposes a character of faithfulness, etc? And that defining righteousness as covenant faithfulness confuses implication with definition? It’s just restating the points that Piper already dealt with.] The Wright Approach to Justification in Paul by Craig L. Blomberg
Mohler agrees with Peter Singer (yes, it’s true) on the point that the UN should not be drafting anti-blasphemy laws (as the Muslim world wants – unsurprisingly, Islam is the religion mentioned in the proposal: Again and again, Islam is referenced as the only religion singled out for protection against defamation. The reason for this is central to the identity of Islam, which is an honor religion. Thus, in the Muslim dominated world, blasphemy is a serious legal matter. ) Islamic states want to make the "defamation of religion" a human rights violation, but how can defamation of religion be a human rights issue since human rights belong to humans and not to institutions? This proposed resolution would make the proclamation Gospel of Christ ‘offensive’ to other belief systems. We are called to defend the faith, not the honour of the faith. “The United Nations has no right to protect adherents of any religious belief system from being offended.” http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=3625
MacArthur answers some reader questions (he doesn’t own a computer or use the internet directly) re. the Song of Solomon series. Some general points: i) . The Rape of Solomon's Song (Part 4--conclusion)
No comments:
Post a Comment