Burk comments on Blomberg’s misrepresentation of active and passive obedience (i.e. he wrongly takes Christ’s active obedience as “his obedience to the law” and Christ’s passive obedience as his vicarious death on the cross), and shows that Blomberg drew this error from Wright himself, who, after wrongly defined Christ’s active and passive obedience in the Reformed tradition, makes it a focus of his critique of Piper. If ever there were a case of building a straw man and then blowing it down, this is it. “it is ironic that while Wright criticizes Piper repeatedly for not understanding Wright’s views, Wright fails to comprehend how much he misunderstands Piper’s.” Blomberg and Wright’s Straw Man
Given all the vitriol directed from evangelicals at fundamentalism, Piper links to an article that would hopefully stem some of this. Good Breeze from a Fundamentalist Neighbor
Patton argues that the biggest problem in Western conservative Christianity is Gnosticism, particularly as it manifests in hermeneutics, the art and science of interpretation. Authorial intent hermeneutics, i.e. understanding the text’s meaning from the standpoint of the author and original audience, makes many uncomfortable, and instead they opt for a lucky-lotto reader response ‘the Bible is God’s love letter to us’ hermeneutic, where the Bible becomes God’s message to them as they read it. It’s all about ‘what the Bible means to them.’ They might as well be reading Moby Dick, since the actual literal meaning of the text [not wooden literalism, rather, the meaning of the literature]. This is Gnostic, as it supposes a secret, private message, where Christians have a decoder ring (the Spirit) who brings that secret message to them. The problem quickly became evident as people would search for this deeper hidden meaning without any rules or reliable guidelines for finding such – everyone reaches different conclusions. While the Bible can have different and subjective applications, it cannot have different and subjective meanings. It means what it meant. Nothing more, nothing less. It Does Not Matter What the Bible Means to You
A finding in Israel may be the altar in Joshua 8:30–35, which Joshua built out of uncut stones. “Despite strong opposition by others, there remains no better explanation than that this represents an anomalous Early Iron Age cultic site that has no clear cultural antecedents anywhere in the region.” The Altar on Mount Ebal by Richard S. Hess
Solapanel points to the deposing, as it were, of a rugby personality for past legal of despicable sexual acts, and asks how it is that Paul, though having a horrid past, would be promoted by God! The answer lies in the nature of the message to which Paul was appointed to preach and live as an example and role model – it is a message forgiveness and mercy and reconciliation through Jesus Christ. The worst role model in history-
Phil Johnson posts an interesting dialog on the necessity of theological controversy from an unlikely source. What combatants are so eager as brothers? On the one hand, those in the world deride the clergy for their apathy in their vocation, and yet deride them for controversy simultaneously, but how is it that a clergyman should be urgent at all times and yet not come into contact with those with whom he disagrees? On the distasteful necessity of theological controversy
Burk points out that Obama did not transcend the abortion debate, but merely demonstrated his skills as a rhetorician. He held fast to his radical pro-abortion position. “The Roe vs. Wade status quo, which the President heartily supports, has presided over the legal killing of nearly 50 million human beings since 1973. This reality is neither reasonable or respectable, and the President (and the administration of Notre Dame) sadly obscured that fact today.” Obama Fails To Transcend Abortion Debate
Hays muses that it must be frustrating for the Roman Catholic layman, who carries the banner high, to see things like the utter lack of Magisterial leadership or discipline in situations like permitting Obama to speak at the Notre Dame commencement ceremony, when the president of Notre Dame is an ordained Catholic priest. The commanders have fled the battlefield, as it were. “When will Catholic laymen ever learn? How often to they have to have the ground cut out from under them by their own leadership before they wise up?” When the Commanding Officer is AWOL
There will be violence at the Notre Dame protests to Obama – but not like PETA or Vietnam war. It won’t be protestor violence. The protestors will be accused of angry hatred. Rather, it will be the violence depicted in the uncensored signs, which show the murder and mutilation of little humans at the hands of the ‘pro-choice.’ Violence at Notre Dame
Burk writes, “Obama is not so much looking for a Justice who will interpret the Constitution according to the framers’s intent. Rather, he is looking for a Justice who can go beyond the letter of the law and stand for justice when no one else will.” The Court’s most significant power is that of “judicial review”—the right of the court to declare laws unconstitutional, giving it the last say on the meaning of the Constitution – thus Obama’s philosophy is fundamentally flawed and dangerous. Obama’s Supreme Court Philosophy
Procrastination is really a selfish delaying of duty – Janelle of girltalk writes, ‘just hold your nose and eat your broccoli’ – which is to say, just do the less desirable things immediately and quickly, and get them over with. Hold Your Nose and Eat Your Broccoli
Challies This Momentary Marriage, which Piper felt he could write after 40 years of marriage. Piper writes of the cultural distortion of marriage, a distortion that sees marriage as little more than temporary convenience that lasts only as long as the romantic feelings remain. Marriage is God’s doing and the display of God. Marriage is patterned after Christ’s covenant relationship with His church, and staying married is not about staying in love but about keeping covenant; getting divorced involves not just breaking a covenant with a spouse but misrepresenting Christ and his covenant. While Challies has a few disagreements, he holds the book up high, endorsing it as a powerful, biblical book, realistic in its outlook, even attending to singleness. Book Reviews - This Momentary Marriage & Velvet Steel
Iain Murray said that it is never by putting unity first that the church has changed the world. Indeed, the Papacy could claim its highest point of unity in the “Dark Ages.” The ecumenical call of the 20th century was not for truth or salt but supremely for oneness above all. “At no point in church history has the mere unity of numbers ever made a transforming spiritual impression upon others.” Putting Unity First
Turretinfan discusses some Molinist proof-texts. 1 Samuel 23:11-12: Turretin argues that the men in the city are planning to deliver David up, not that it refers to a future contingency. Matthew 11:21 is hyperbole, where Tyre and Sidon are used to illustrate the hardness of the people (e.g. if I had been teaching a donkey he would have got it by now!). 2 Samuel 12:8 contains conditional promises, namely, continued obedience – thus this falls under free knowledge. These are not conditional decrees, nor are these seen before the decree. That God knows what the men of the city would do in 1 Samuel 23:11-12 can be understood easier in terms of free knowledge, as there is no requirement that these are the result of human autonomy, or that God knows these things through middle knowledge. Middle Knowledge - Part 5
Windsor at Solapanel writes that in Matthew 5:33-37, Jesus is calling the people of the day to account for their hypocrisy, not to give up promise-making. Pharisaical reasoning would say, swear by Jerusalem, instead of God, so that one could break his oath. They claimed to be obeying the command but had created loopholes, like crossing your fingers behind your back. Jesus’ standard of faithfulness is massive – every promise must be kept, since breaking promises is evil. The form of the words does not matter. Indeed, if you always kept all your promises, why do you need to take an oath? “Yes” and “no” should suffice. He encourages people to check themselves for excuses for promise breaking, and to write down throughout the day all the promises they make, and then determine how to fulfill them before going to sleep, and apologizing if you cannot. Faithfulness, big and small
Commenting on Gene Roddenberry (and atheist) and the Star Trek universe, which is atheistic, secularistic, and largely devoid of any recognizable religion, Phillips points out that, scratch a virulent anti-Christian, and you simply find someone who wants to have a lot of immoral sex. Star Trek afterthoughts
Phillips comments on Mother’s day: How a wife treats her husband also deserves mention, not just how she mothers. Does she set a godly example (cf. 1 Peter 3:1-6)? Can her husband relax and trust her commitment to him (Proverbs 31:11-12)? Does she give him good reason to feel like a king, or a rotted twig (Proverbs 12:4)? Al Mohler almost says Bah! Mombug! to Mother's Day
Adams asks why “licensed by the state” is a good thing for a biblical counselor. Since when did the state know anything about this? A “Licensed” Counselor-
Payne writes that in Isaiah 30, God’s fury (e.g. his face furious with anger, his sleeves rolled up for battle, his breath a stream of sulfurous fire) is released against the fear-stricken Assyrians, and what’s more, it is set to music – the Lord is smashing the Assyrians’ heads in and the Israelites are playing in time with happy music. Whenever something appears in Scripture that doesn’t fit with our conception of God, it’s an opportunity to have our sinful thinking corrected. Our problem here is that we do not want to hear about the Holy One of Israel, just as they didn’t: “Do not prophesy to us what is right; speak to us smooth things, prophesy illusions, leave the way, turn aside from the path, let us hear no more about the Holy One of Israel” (Isa 30:10-11). Sinners are offended by the blinding holiness of Yahweh. Moreover, that He is the Holy One of Israel is a slap in the face – God elects. An offensive God
ETC summarizes some points from a paper by Wallace. Wallace discusses three postmodern intrusions into the field of textual criticism, the last of which is the only positive: i) Ehrman/Epp/Parker redefinition of the goal of NT TC away from determining the wording of the original text, their approach is anchorless, isolationist, and self-defeating, and 'the quest for the wording of the autographa is still worth fighting for'; ii) 'epistemological skepticism' - just because we can't know something certainly (e.g. the date of P52 or the correct text of ancient writers) doesn't mean we can't know anything. iii) A focus on community/collaboration (this one is good). Peter Head has some comments on some questionable quotes from the paper for those interested. Dan Wallace in JETS
Hays has some comments on the Trinity: i) “God is one” isn’t speaking about an attribute of God but an economic statement of God’s relation to the world that stands in contrast to the gods of paganism. Even in the OT there is the divine complexities of the Spirit of the Lord being distinct from the God who sends Him, yet He is personal, divine, etc. Ditto for the Angel of the Lord. ii) The monotheistic verses of the OT do not exclude the sort of properties and relations which the OT attributes to the Spirit of God and the Angel of the Lord – this is greatly problematic for unitarian monotheism. iii) OT monotheism won’t tolerate the blurring of lines so one cannot suppose that the Spirit and Angel are intermediaries. There aren’t degrees of divinity. iv) ‘God’ doesn’t carry metaphysical baggage in the ANE, referring to all sort of non-non-god entitites. e.g. pagans use the term with pagan referents in mind. Words aren’t concepts. v) The numerous descriptions of God addressing man in the OT inevitably lead to somewhat anthropomorphic representations of God (e.g. man-to-man). vi) the mere wording of the OT monotheistic passages does not, of itself, denote singular consciousness or personhood. vii) You can't infer personhood or consciousness from grammatical personhood. That's simply a linguistic convention. Even in English usage the third-person includes the neuter pronoun "it." viii) First person singular speaks more to individuality than a singular personal viewpoint – and the first person singular can have many voices behind it, speaking on behalf of others. God is not one person but can speak as one person. There is individuality within the Godhead. The Father is not the same individual as the Son, or the Spirit. ix) while the OT is, in some measure, a criterion of the NT, there is also a sense in which the NT is a criterion of the OT. The relation of promise and fulfillment is a two-way street. Monotheism & Trinitarianism
Harris defends speaking out against abortion and exhorting people to not waste their vote with regard to this issue. His concern is that concern we would grow weary of the issue of abortion and stop thinking biblically about it. “where God’s word is so clear in condemning the taking of innocent human life I must speak to that—even if it could be interpreted as some sort of endorsement of one.” What issues are on par morally with abortion? http://www.covlife.org/blog/correspondence_on_abortion_and_voting
"Although it was certainly not his intention, the president’s remarks point to the profound and growing weakness of the case for America’s radical abortion laws." Why President Obama's Address at Notre Dame Should Give Pro-Lifers Some Optimism
Here’s some question for Obama on abortion regarding the other consequences of abortion. http://www.webjam.com/bbc_disability_ministry/$bbc_disability_ministry_blog/2009/05/18/when_do_we_get_to_talk_about_the_other_consequences_of_abortion_mr_president
Trueman has some excellent observations on the Miss California ‘scandal.’ (note that strictly speaking Obama agrees with her). A beauty queen is pilloried for making a statement that is deemed by the liberal avant garde of the culture to be somewhat stone age and out of touch, yet this is a "beauty contest". Were these things (the premise of which is to parade women as eye candy to be leered at) not dismissed by the feminists as stone age some twenty or thirty years ago? It surely doesn't get more stone aged than that. “If the gay guy in the judging panel doesn't want to be offended by sexism and illiberal attitudes, then surely he shouldn't take money for participating in something which, in its very essence, objectifies women as sex objects.” A real troubling aspect is that the homosexual man saw no problem with the pageant in principle. “Sex appeal is now seen as a source of power -- in its mildest and most trivial form, a swimsuit contest with a liberal, gay judge, in its most malicious form, the feminist embrace of pornography and prostitution as forms of female empowerment.” Frankly, Perez Hilton should be the one the media is bashing at this point for encouraging women to make themselves sex objects. “That's pretty illiberal behaviour, you'd have thought.” Derek Thomas and Miss California (Carl Trueman)
No comments:
Post a Comment