This post at Genderblog argues that i) hospitality is not a unique spiritual gift for some Christians, but rather, being woven into the fabric of the Gospel, it should be the the mindset among Christians (Phil. 2:5), and all believers should relive the hospitality shown to them in Christ’s welcoming of sinners. ii) It is not only for women (see (i)), for the criteria for elders includes this – churches should not pass off their reclusive pastor as a mere bookworm, but rather pastors should be hospitable in their disposition. Not Just Good-Housekeeping- A Case for Christian Hospitality (Part 1)
Turretinfan makes some comments on Augustine and transubstantiation: When Augustine speaks of "divine presence" that does not mean or imply (quite the contrary) a bodily presence, because a body is not part of the divine nature but the human nature of Christ; and his speaking of the ‘catholic church’ refers not to the Roman church, but the universal church. The Romanist with whom T-fan debates uses figurative language to describe T-fan’s use of Augustine, yet doesn’t allow Augustine himself to use figurative language. Augustine vs. Albrecht on the Bodily Presence - Round 2
Patton comes to two conclusions about the way many churches view big words, as they look to dumb things down or to pander to a lack of desire to learn in the congregants, and so drop crucial terminology (e.g. atonement, etc.): “1) Even though my two year old boy can learn a new phrase in passing everyday, once people get out of college the have exhausted their ability to learn something new. 2) People don’t come to church or lessons to learn new concepts and ideas, but to take what they have already learned and have it restructured and/or be reminded of it. Therefore, we are limited in how we can communicate.” He points out that God created big words, they work, and they legitimize (in that they show a concept did not originate with the speaker; e.g. ‘leukemia’ conveys something that ‘blood hurt’ does not). Nevertheless, be wise in the words you use, never using them to impress; always define them, and be careful not to assume too much. A Theology of Big Words
DeYoung looks at Exodus 1:16-17, where the Hebrew midwives fear God more than Pharaoh, the most powerful man in the country, and so disobeyed Pharaoh’s orders to kill all the Jewish baby boys. It is only when we fear God alone that we will begin to make morally prudent decisions, hence, the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. How often do we give into Pharaoh, be it in peer pressure, worldly assumptions in movies. and so on. And even though the Israelites were in captivity, these women demonstrate remarkable faith in God. We must fear disobeying God more than man: there is a wrong way and a right way to fear God. We should not fear destruction, but we should fear disobedience. We should not fear hell, but we should fear his holiness. We should not fear condemnation, but we should fear his consuming fire. Perhaps, after all our caveats, fear is the term used, because we should actually fear Him? Respect, etc. won’t cut it alone. Oh to Have Faith Like a Hebrew Midwife
Challies has a description of the aims and purpose of The Gospel Coalition. What Is The Gospel Coalition-
Patton fields some objections to using big words, noting that far from trying to use an elite communication beyond the common man, their usage fosters greater understanding, and where words are limited, comprehension will be limited. The audience always has some degree of ignorance, be it words or concepts. Paul used large terms and words foreign to people, and he would even make them up at times? Other disciplines would be severely limited – and if one objects that such terminology is learned for professionals only, we are a kingdom of priests. A Theology of Big Words (2)
The term that Jesus uses for an abomination means something detestable, loathsome, repugnant, and it appears in the LXX often. Jesus labels the Pharisees themselves as an abomination. They were exalted by men for their outward deeds, and they mocked Jesus for his teaching while engaging in self-congratulation, but Jesus saw this applause as confirmation of their guilt and alienation from God. An abominable word
Genderblog continues on hospitality, couching it in terms of humble, personal, authentic sacrificial service and giving. The contrast is with entertaining, which is having people over to put on a show, as it were, being self-focused and prideful, avoiding the lowly. Rather, show hospitality without grumbling, speaking and serving one another. Hospitality doesn’t seek to be repaid, it doesn’t hide from flaws or concern itself with appearances – it is sharing lives, and it is always costly. (1 Peter 4:8-11)
The Synod of Dordt rejects the errors of those “Who teach that the spiritual gifts or the good dispositions and virtues such as goodness, holiness, and righteousness could not have resided in man's will when he was first created, and therefore could not have been separated from the will at the fall. For this conflicts with the apostle's description of the image of God in Ephesians 4:24, where he portrays the image in terms of righteousness and holiness, which definitely reside in the will.” It is Charles Spurgeon who put things into biblical perspective when he said, “he who thinks lightly of sin will think lightly of the Savior.” Arminius’ Adam has fallen, but unlike the Adam found in Scripture, Arminius' Adam can get up - he merely wounded by sin. The weaker the view of sin, the lower the view of grace. Contra Eph. 4, Arminians argues that true righteousness, knowledge, and holiness were not part of man’s original nature and not removed in the fall – so these things aren’t required to come to faith in Jesus. Fourth Head of Doctrine, Refutation of Errors, Article Two
MacArthur writes that to kill sin we must cultivate obedience. Paul, though he had not attained perfection, pressed on toward the Mark (Phil. 3:12-14), and we are characterized by obedience to the truth (1 Pet. 1:22). We must follow a course of obedience and slowly a habitual obedience will form, we will put on godliness, and sin will be killed. MacArthur provides a series of challenging questions for self-examination. Some are, “s it your soul’s highest delight to sing His praise and know Him better, that you might offer Him honor?” Or do you say with the Jews of Malachi’s day, “What a weariness worship is!”” “Are you sensitive to sin in the church? Are you sensitive to sin in the world? Does it tear your heart up when you see sin around you any where? In your own life?” How to Kill Sin in Your Life (Part 3)
Turretinfan points out that Roman Catholic Archbishop of Freiburg, Robert Zollitsch, chairman of the Catholic bishops' conference of Germany stated that Christ "did not die for the sins of the people as if God had provided a sacrificial offering, like a scapegoat." Turretinfan’s point is that having an ecclesiastical authority doesn’t lead one to correct doctrine, as evidenced by this liberal high in the ranks of the Roman church, and ironically, many catholics will exercise their private judgment and reject the teaching of this official in the church. Roman Catholic Archbishop on Christ's Death
Phillips writes about a particularly ugly effect of the recession: rise in abortions. One nearly despairs to read Hell's death-dealing "logic": "It sucks that it comes down to money... But if we can't even support ourselves, it wouldn't be good for a baby." So kill the baby — for its own good. “why not throw in the 2yo and the 12yo at the same time? Don't want them to have to do without their PlayStation, right?)” Then, we see this story, where a woman suffocated her 3 year old because she did not want him growing up with no one caring about him. "For a mother to kill her own child is unfathomable. Most people can't even imagine how you could even think about doing something like that," said Cmdr. Michael Geier. "We'll never really understand why that happened, but we now understand the dynamics of what led up to that.” Phillips also points to this, where a pretty girl thinks she’s really a trapped man, attracted to women, so she has a sex change, and now has found that she's ‘a gay man’, because she (as she should be) is actually attracted to men. [do unbelievers really find it hard to believe that Christians might be the ones who find the unbelieving mindset absurd, self-contradictory, and self-destructive, in light of the aforementioned atrocities?] And La Shawn observes, " As pro-infanticide Barack Obama talked around his support for abortion, you can hear a baby crying in the audience." Hither and tither
Nancy Leigh DeMoss comments on the Carrie Prejean situation: While she made a strong profession of faith, ”her choices and public actions, past and present, are representative of many women who consider themselves Christians, but who lack clear biblical thinking and conviction on such matters as virtue, womanhood, beauty, modesty, and discretion… So many young women in the Christian world have little understanding or discernment when it comes to modesty and personal purity. And can you blame them when they are following in the footsteps of a generation of so-called believers who tolerate, justify, and flaunt immodesty, sensuality, and immorality of every form, along with serial divorce and remarriage?” http://www.truewoman.com/?id=677
Piper writes about the danger of confessing sin. There is a way to do it and a time to keep things covered. The Risk of Confessing Our Sins
Mohler writes that there is great pressure against the church to buckle on the issue of homosexuality, for the advocates know that evangelical churches are the last resistance against their immoral progress. Now, many churches are indeed giving in, but we need to be courageous. But churches are failing the test of compassion. Too often the perception is “liberal churches preaching love without truth, and conservative churches preaching truth without love.” Compassion entails calling sin sin and telling the truth – there is nothing loving about permitting deadly deception. It also includes speaking the truth in love, extending the love of Christ to sinners, homo and hetero-sexual alike, and calling them all to the mercy of Jesus Christ. We must show them a sincerity of tangible love: The genuine Body of Christ will reveal itself by courageous compassion, and compassionate courage. http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=3661
White plays a clip where Barker claims that Calvin set up complete thought control, that he executed people, that he had written his institutes and set up his own dictatorship. He says, “Calvin had Servetus burned at the stake.” [Barker is a liar, or ignorant]. He says that John Calvin was a monster. Barker goes on to basically say that anyone who admires Calvin is morally reprobate [odd for a materialist]. What a tortured, imbalanced view of the Servetus affair. White points out: i) It’s a joke to say Servetus broke no laws in Geneva – heresy was against the law. ii) Why doesn’t Barker mention that Calvin risked his life to meet Servetus in Paris and was stood up? That Calvin knew Servetus, but had to be coerced to identify Servetus? That Calvin wasn’t a citizen in Geneva at the time? That Servetus went to Geneva knowing he would be arrested? That he tried to have Calvin imprisoned there? That many people sided with Servetus and opposed Calvin there? That Geneva sought much counsel on the matter and received unanimous advice to kill Servetus? That everyone including Servetus in that day believed that the duty of the state was to punish heresy? That it wasn’t Calvin who had him burned – but that Calvin asked for a more merciful punishment and the secular government turned him down? iii) Why is twisting history immoral if it were done to Barker but Barker can do it to Calvin? Dan Barker on John Calvin and Michael Servetus
Here’s a comment on confession of sins that says that Hodge sets out the principle that public sins ought to be publicly confessed whereas private sins are best confessed in private… confession of sin to another implies some clear relationship to exist which makes it especially appropriate for the one hearing the confession to hear it. Some don’t like that distinction, but public confession of shameful acts before both genders, unbound by close relation, smacks of the courtroom, not Christian fellowship. Another Perspective on Confessing Sins Publicly
“Chris Beard, curator of vertebrate paleontology at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, sorts through the hoopla: Ida is not a "missing link" – at least not between anthropoids and more primitive primates. Further study may reveal her to be a missing link between other species of Eocene adapiforms, but this hardly solidifies her status as the "eighth wonder of the world"” He writes that Ida has primitive features that commonly occurred among all early primates, and to be a close relative of anthropoids, which includes humans, she’d have to have anthropoid-like features that evolved after anthropoids split away from lemurs and other early primates – which she doesn’t. Rather, Ida belongs somewhere closer to the base of the tree than living lemurs do. Why Ida Is Not the Missing Link
JT links to a remarkably clear apology to Trueman and Gaffin on justification, for a misrepresentation of things – it stands out in our day. Apology to Trueman and Gaffin on Justification
No comments:
Post a Comment