2009-05-17

Here’s a short article by Piper on the issue of whether unbelieving children disqualify a man from eldership. Piper briefly observes that Titus 1:5-6 reads, “faithful children” or “unbelieving children,” and argues that the point of the passage isn’t to lead to the quick resignation of pastors but to discern whether a man has a maturity and giftedness to lead a well-ordered family. Good management doesn’t mean a perfect outcome. http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/RecentlyAdded/3903

JT has an article on the same topic, where he observes the parallel between 1 Timothy 3:4 and Titus 1:5-6, where in the former the grounding question explicitly connects the elder’s qualifications with his managerial skills in 1 Tim. 3:4. So ‘faithful children’ is equivalent to ‘having children in control / submission / obedience.’ This means that the final part of Titus 1:6 ("not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination") is  a description of what pista means. http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByTopic/40/3902_Unbelief_in_an_Elders_Children/

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) speculative interpretations are never good. When something is veiled, we must not impose speculations on the text. ii) Song of Solomon is not ‘erotic’ literature in any sense – it isn’t intended for arousal. There isn’t one explicit mention of a reproductive body part of sexual act in the book. It is the definition of not explicit. iii) Metaphors can also be euphemisms, and there is no exegetical way to decide the particular meaning of the various symbols. The symbols are general emblems of beauty and desire. By using symbolism instead of explicit language it is by definition euphemistic. iv) Holiness, not how-to’s, ought to be the subject of the pastor’s teaching. Paul, though living in a culture even more uninhibited than ours sexually, never used explicit language. God’s word never gives specific instructions. It never uses sex talk for evangelism. Adopting the world’s obsession with sex and filthy talk cannot possibly have a sanctifying effect, because the strategy itself is unholy. Pretending to find such instruction in Song of Solomon elevates the preacher’s imagination above revelation. It’s a fallacy to think that people can’t be reached without ‘learning to speak their language’ – God draws people to Christ through the gospel. v) Rape is an act of forced violation; and this treatment of Solomon’s Song is a molestation of the book, tearing off its God-designed veil, publicly defiling its purity, and holding it up for leering and laughter. People need to recognize the difference between strong and obscene language. vi) MacArthur defends his admonishment of Driscoll, likening the response he received to those who cried, “peace, peace” to Spurgeon in the downgrade. “… I am making such an issue of this [because] the New Testament makes an issue of it. It is not simply a difference of opinion, generation, preference, style, or methodology. It is an issue that arises from clear New Testament mandates related to the character of an elder. If anything, I don’t think I have reacted strongly enough.” vii) He points again to the reaction he’s received: “those who insist such disagreements should be handled privately reveal the hypocrisy of that claim when they use a public forum to berate and accuse a pastor whom they disagree with.” He also comments that it is way overstating it to say Piper and Mahaney are ‘discipling’ Driscoll, and moreover, to say he needs mentoring before rebuke is rather backwards given that he’s a pastor. The Rape of Solomon's Song (Part 4--conclusion)

DeYoung writes that the fourth high place is the lack of church discipline. Pointing to Geneva, 5-7 percent of the adult population was called to the Consistory for some case or hearing each year. In its first two years of activity, the Consistory summoned almost 850 persons out of total population of less than 13,000. Some say Calvin was over-zealous – at least he was zealous to guide the flock. Church discipline is a means of grace and it has been neglected (e.g. in the case of divorce). The church is commanded to do it, and the flock is commanded to obey the elders. Our High Places (4)

Turretin gives six reasons Molinism/middle knowledge is wrong. i) two categories are sufficient and encompassing: free and natural knowledge. ii) things that are not true cannot be foreseen as true – conditional future things are not true apart from the determination of divine will, and therefore God could not see them as true apart from His decree that they are true. His knowledge depends on His decree. iii) The fact that God in His providence exhaustively decides what the future will be precludes middle knowledge, which requires something indeterminate. To suppose middle knowledge is to suppose man as a ‘first cause,’ in the position of God. iv) No uncertain knowledge can be attributed to God. If God’s knowledge of a future contingent thing is certain, then it is not contingent. Molinists assert that God does know what man will do. v) Middle knowledge removes God’s sovereignty over the creature. If one grants that God can make different circumstances to cause an event X to come to pass (e.g. removing a circumstance), then God is still sovereign over the event. vi) God’s freedom to choose of His own pleasure is removed – God is reactionary rather than free. Middle Knowledge - Part 4

Does your heart groan, how long until I become holy? Does you hate your own sin? How Long Till I Become Holy-

Bird comments on the Schreiner-Seifrid-Vickers panel on the new book by Wright: i) Schreiner doesn’t think that the book really responded to Piper, and Wright fails to emphasize the degree of discontinuity between the Old and New Covenant. ii) Seifrid regards Piper and Wright as hyper-forensic, i.e. justification is not about a "mere" declaration but concerned with the actual enactment of justice (see Ps. 82 and Luke 18.1-8). He doesn’t like Wright’s stress on the works of the Spirit in us as the basis for eschatological justification. Rather, God’s work in us is faith and God presents this, his own work of new creation, before himself on the final day. iii) Vickers shows that, contra Wright, imputation does not rely on this notion of a "treasury of merit" that Jesus supposedly acquired. By what mechanism does union make us righteous? As Leon Morris wrote: "imputation is a corollary of the identification of the believer with Christ". Each panelist sees the righteousness of God slightly differently, Vickers as an attributive quality referring to His own character, Seifrid sees the righteousness of God as related to God's intent to establish justice throughout all of creation, and Schreiner sees it as the righteousness from God that we receive by faith. Bird quotes Schreiner’s commentary on Romans saying that it is unlikely that ‘righteousness of God’ can be confined solely to forensic or transformative categories, as it is effective, in that those whom God has vindicated He also transforms. The saving righteousness of God is a gift received by faith alone, and God declares sinners to be in the right before him on the basis of Christ's atoning death. The forensic is the basis for the transformative but they cannot be rended. SBTS Wright Review Panel

Patton has a brief review for why he doesn’t think the Shack is that bad. He defends the representation of God by highlighting things like the inability to focus while looking at the Spirit, and arguing that critics should be consistent in such criticisms (e.g. Chronicles of Narnia). He likes that the reason for the tragedy was left a mystery, but that ultimately God’s working for good. The Shack- Liking it Won’t Send You to Hell