Challies reviews Tchividjian’s book Unfashionable. The point is this: Christians make a difference in this world by being different from the world; they don't make a difference by being the same. Basically, the author tries to show what it means to live ‘subversively and redemptively for God and His expanding kingdom – only by being properly unfashionable can this be done. Challies is concerned because he holds that the ‘transformationalism’ (i.e. God seeks to redeem and renew not just people but nations and cultures) in the book is non-biblical. This emphasizes continuity between this world and the next at the expense of the discontinuity. The author thinks we’re here as ‘agents of renewal’ and that we must take part in God’s work of ‘revitalization’, and he apparently means cultural forms and structures as well, saying without biblical support that the church is designed to do this. He appeals to Paul’s example to argue that Christians should engage in ‘every area of culture’, yet Challies points out that Paul’s concern with culture is purely a means to save souls. Book Review – Unfashionable
Sholl at Solapanel reflects on the disadvantages of virtual conferences (and church) after watching the Gospel Coalition conference live view the internet. i) He was easily distracted; ii) he missed the pretalk banter; iii) he didn’t get to sing; iv) he wasn’t part of the corporate prayer (it was just him and his tortoise); v) he didn’t get to engage with other attendees. Hebrews 10:25 almost certainly meant face to face meeting. A virtual conference
Genderblog has a short interview with Russ Moore on his book on Adoption. “Adoption tells the story of the universe, and it encompasses everything about what God has done for us in Christ… we are all orphans… adoption in a gospel issue also at the missional level.” We care for orphans through various means because Satan hates babies and Christ loves them. Q&A- Russell D. Moore on his new book, Adopted for Life- The Priority of Adoption for
Riddlebarger imagines what would happen if Calvinism became extremely popular. What If Calvinists Became the Majority . . . Not Gonna Happen . . . But What If
Israelies are coming to recognize that Obama is sacrificing Israel to make nice with Islam. http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=18917. Obama's Cairo Speech and the Resurgence of Popular Dispensationalism
T-fan cautions against using certain approaches when approaching Rome in apologetics. i) Eschatological identifications of the pope(s) as the anti-Christ, while confessional, fail to deal with the central issue, namely, whether the pope preaches the Gospel or not. This must be determined before any eschatological connections. ii) Sexual abuse allegations may be a reason not to make your son an altar boy, but not a reason to repent and turn to Christ (though it may indicate the character of their bishopric). iii) Don’t rely on dating doctrines too much. RC’ism is not static, and it certainly doesn’t resemble the early church or the Bible, but one must distinguish between when a doctrine was innovated and when it was defined. Things were gradually developed. iv) Avoid “the” Roman Catholic position – despite their propaganda, its really quite diverse, in ways that would cause splits in Prot. denominations. So deal directly, or source your claims. Many Roman Catholics don’t know the official positions of their church. v) don’t rely on martyrologies as primary arguments. vi) Don’t use arguments that you do not understand. He lists a few where detailed knowledge is needed: “One Mediator,” “Call no man father”, “Petra not Petros” (i.e. know how to answer a speculation like an Aramaic original). vii) Don't employ Scriptures that you don’t understand. Don’t be arrogant – admit mistakes, and move on – show integrity. Don’t employ any falsehood. viii) Don’t have a simplistic view of church history (in response to Rome’s simplistic view): Recognize the diversity among the fathers, the development of individual fathers, be aware of the paucity of patristic data (relatively speaking), the incomplete view of history it presents, and the gigantic gap in textual transmission. ix) Don’t go around saying that Roman Catholics are Christian brethren. It does them no good, even if it makes things a little easier. Why are you witnessing to them then, since you imply they have the Gospel? This isn’t saying that in the diversity within Catholicism that some aren’t saved. But the Gospel isn’t the message of Rome. Avoiding Landmines in Roman Catholic Apologetics
Bayly points to a bill in Texas that would make killing one’s baby (up to 1 year) the equivalent of a serious drunk driving charge, provided you could show that you were suffering from post-birthing stress – to which he says that the answer to this stress isn’t to decriminalize murder. And because of the flow of blood streaming down sewers and drains and dumpsters, God has cast America into judicial blindness. “Addiction trumps besetting sin. Low self-image trumps pride. Alcoholism trumps drunkeness. Mid-life crisis trumps adultery. Depression trumps suicide. Postpartum depression trumps murder. But every now and then, I wonder how clinical excuses will play before the Judgment Seat of the Holy God. Guilty with an explanation, Your Honor?” Abortion, postpartum depression, and murder
Turns out that Obama gave less than 1% of his income to charity before coming to public office. Now that his household income is in the millions, his giving is lower than other presidents who have preceded him. The Bidens gave less than 0.7% last year, and less than 0.125% in previous years. The average American gives 2.5%. Liberals are liberal with taxpayers' money, not their own
A Scripturalist refers the Triabloggers to literature, which requires sensory perception, yet he thinks sense knowledge is a contradiction in terms – so what’s the point of reading them? Moreover, a Scripturalist can’t, by his own epistemology, have anything more than an opinion about Scripture, since he has to read Scripture (i.e. use his senses). Hays makes a few additional points in response to Scripturalism: i) how can one know that he can’t know whether he’s a man – where does Scripture explicitly or implicitly teach that a man can’t know that he’s a man? ii) if false beliefs because divine imperative because the injunctions of Scripture apply to them, then it’s not hard to imagine how one is required by Scripture to sin (i.e. they take 2 Cor 10:5 to mean, not that we ought to correct our false beliefs in light of the Bible, but that we should simply plug our false beliefs into the injunctions of Scripture.) iii) Where does Scripture implicitly or explicitly distinction a true opinion from knowledge, on the grounds that an opinion has an account? iv) Validity is a logical concept. Inference is a logical process. A person must bring his own powers of deduction to the text to understand what it contains. This would seem to mean that knowledge of logic is innate (you can’t apply logic that you don’t know to learn logic out of the text since logic is necessary to understand the text). iv) It’s rational to believe whatever God reveals. The fact that God reveals something ipso facto makes that a rational object of belief. If God reveals a paradox, then it’s rational to believe the paradox–because it’s rational to believe whatever God reveals. This isn’t a commitment to the idea that God reveals paradox – we can’t know in advance whether of revelation if this is true. v) An objection predicated on representation (i.e. correspondence theory of knowledge - we hold a picture of the object of knowledge in our mind, and can never hold the reality in our mind, so we can never know if the representation is truly similar to the object of knowledge) undercuts the Scripturalist since Paul and Peter used words that correspond to the idea in their minds, and we largely use translations of those words – representations. According to Clark, we don’t know if the words match. vi) Is it de facto unreasonable to allow for the possibility of a humanly insoluble paradox? The human subject of knowledge is less complex than the extramental object of knowledge–God, reality as a whole. So who's afraid of da big bad wolf-
Riddlebarger reminds people not to forget the Battle of Midway, which was a significant turning point in the war with the Japanese. Remember D-Day (the 6th of June), but Don't Forget the Battle of Midway
Haykin quotes Warfield on evolution to the effect that the problem isn’t inadequate time, but insufficient cause. Effects such as the ordering of biological structures do not but except from a cause adequate to them and directed to the end in view. What change cannot begin to produce in a moment it cannot complete in an eternity. You might as well stir up a mass of type with a long stick – you’ll never get Dante’s Inferno. Warfield on the utter folly of Darwinian evolution
Luther once preached a sermon on John 10:1-11, with the following points: i) Every Christian has a commission from authority as royal priests; ii) Entering by the door implies preaching what Christ preached, and nothing else. iii) A commitment to understanding the Law before preaching the Gospel, and not ending on the Law. iv) Before the sheep will follow a preacher they must be sure that the preacher is preaching Christ – they will willingly follow Christ, and acknowledge the preacher as shepherd if he preaches the words of the True Shepherd. v) One cannot decree faith, rather, we must have a confidence in the word of God to change hearts – sword and fire cannot drive a man to believe. Five Lessons from Luther on Preaching by Aaron Menikoff
MacArthur continues a series on contentment. Satisfaction with little is essential (Phil. 4:11-12). Our needs are simple: food, clothing, shelter, and godliness with contentment. Don’t assume your wants are needs, and, like many wealthy, never find contentment. Our culture bombards us with messages to tell us we need that which in truth we only want. Contentment in a Consumer Culture
MacArthur goes on to add that a detachment from circumstances (Set your mind on things above; Col. 3:2, and realize than any circumstance is temporary) and being sustained by divine power (endurance is found in God alone, Phil. 4:13). Contentment is a by-product of stress, when you experience the sustaining power of Christ when you have run out of steam. But, if by your own sin you’re at the bottom of the pit, don’t expect a dazzling display of power, but rather a chastening on top of the pain. Contentment in Difficult Times
MacArthur concludes the series. Contentment comes from selflessness and sacrificial giving, and living for self will never bring it. Let each regard one another as more important (Phil 2:3). Paul was deeply concerned for their spiritual benefit, which is what he sought in receiving the generous gift of the Philippians, which was like a sacrifice before God (Prov. 11:24-25; 19:17; Luke 6;38; 2 Cor. 9:6). God promised to supply their earthly needs (Phil. 4:18). They had given and this would be honoured by God. We have no need to be anxious because God isn’t going to let His people starve. Seek first the kingdom (Prov. 3:9-10; Matt. 6:33-34). buck the tide of our materialistic, selfish society by being satisfied with little and more concerned about the spiritual welfare of others than your material needs. Contentment Comes from Giving
Trueman explains why he chose the seminary professor ordination track (the OPC has such a category as a church office): i) the accountability is essential, given his own sinful heart. ii) as a confessional presbyterian (WCF), liberty of conscience is safeguarded, and the presbytery protects him, in that he has the right to a fair trial. Things must be done decently and in order and that’s the intention here. The Joy of Presbyterianism (Carl Trueman)
Here’s the continuation of a Q+A with Russ Moore on his book Adopted for Life. Q&A- Russell D. Moore on his new book, Adopted for Life- The Priority of Adoption for
Mohler posts the preface to his book, The Disappearance of God: Dangerous Beliefs in the New Spiritual Openness. People seek their own personal idea of Jesus, they have largely abandoned the authority of God’s word, adopting openness/tolerance (code for avoiding ruth and never having to make a judgment), and now the landscape is dotted with theological fads. Truth is the essential issue, and where it is absent Christianity becomes an attitude, rather than a belief system. http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=3761
Engwer argues that, given Hengel’s estimate that 85% of Christian writings known to us by title from the 2nd century have been lost, and that Origen held the 27 book canon of the NT, it follows that other ante-Nicene sources likely did as well that have not been preserved. i) While people assert different canons in the earliest centuries, the reality is that the difference isn’t as large as stated. E.g. by the end of the second century the four gospels, the letters of Paul, and 1 Peter and 1 John had acquired very broad use and high authority in almost all regions of early Christianity (19 books, close to the 20 Eusebius lists as undisputed). ii) There is a quantifiable category difference in terms of frequency of quotations by the fathers, with the NT books falling into those quoted very frequently and somewhat less frequently, and then those excluded from the NT being quoted rarely. Usage was establishing the canon. iii) This 20 book list is likely a low count. As D.A. Carson and Douglas Moo note, Revelation seems to have been "almost universally recognized as Scripture in the second century.” It’s status was only disputed later. Same with Hebrews. Acts is the companion piece to Luke, which was accepted; it makes no sense to exclude it. iv) Five remain: James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude. There is no evidence of widescale rejection, though their acceptance wasn’t as wide as the others early on. v) Engwer has a brief discussion of the claim that other writings, like the Shepherd of Hermas, ought to be included in a 2nd century canon. Even where the patristics seem to accept it (Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian), there is counter-evidence: Tertullian’s view changed, Origen said it wasn’t widely accepted, the Muratorian canon doesn’t include it, Clement would speak of non-canonical documents highly in one place, and critique/qualify it later, etc. vi) It seems that twenty-two of the twenty-seven New Testament documents were widely accepted during the ante-Nicene era, five were accepted by a smaller majority, and documents like The Shepherd Of Hermas and The Epistle Of Barnabas were accepted only by a minority. Moreover, 2 and 3 John are short and we wouldn’t expect them to be quoted, and their exclusion affects the textual length of the canon very little. The Significance Of Other New Testament Canons
DeYoung points out that Matthew 25:40 speaks of Christians, not the general poor, contra those who try to use it as support for the next state program to help the poor. Christians should show care for all poor, of course, especially those of God’s house, and when we show care for Christians we are showing care for Christ himself. Don’t co-opt a text to support something that it doesn’t, and on the other hand, don’t be smug in being ‘right’ so as to avoid helping the poor. Exegetical Oops (Matthew 25-40)
Here’s a reminder to, in ministry, always be full of grace, and kind, quick to forgive (a measure of Christ in you), and quick to seek reconciliation. More Grace . . . -
Hays briefly talks about sensory perception and enumerative induction. Strictly speaking, just because we observe 999 black ravens doesn’t mean the 1000th will be black. But, it does tell us something about ravens. From a Christian perspective, experience is confirmatory of divine design. Our experience helps us learn/recognize natural patterns. We don’t live in a dream world. While our sense sometimes fail us, they are sufficiently reliable. We believe that God built the world to function is a predictable way (we don’t accept uniformity, but subscribe to ordinary providence). So we can consistently use our experience to predict the future because God has built the universe in such a way that this is a generally reliable induction, barring miracles. The problem of induction
At the core of it, youth and adult ministry is the same. Paul Tripp points out that there is one Gospel for both, and that the struggles of the heart are the same, and at the end of the day we all share the same sin problem, and desire for sovereignty. Ultimately, it’s not merely a problem of misbehaviour. The (Non)Difference Between Youth and Adult Ministry
Listen to counsel and submit to discipline that, at length, you may be wise. Proverbs 20:20. Counsel and Discipline
Hays points to this: Arminian A: God’s threats are real and very possible – people can fall away. Arminian B: Middle knowledge preserves God’s people. They cannot fall away, God puts them in the right circumstances that keep us in the faith and from unbelief. Arminian adversus Arminian
Turk has some solid comments on the whole Carrie Prejean incident. (a) The idea that just because Prejean did something formerly (which she now denounces and regrets) she can never denounce any sin without being a hypocrite, ironically silences all converts to atheism – How can the former ‘christian’ denounce the stupidity of worshipping Jesus when he formerly did it? (b) the world can see through our stupid attempts to trojan horse them into agreeing with us. Even the gossip bloggers [well known for their intellectual prowess] can see that when Christians line up to support a girl who goes on TV dressed as one promoting fornication/adultery, either the appeal to the world is phony, or the appeal to Jesus is phony. Dying to sin is meaningless b/c I have rubbed sin all over me in order to be more like what I say I hate and what Jesus abhors so that you will pay attention to me. Intellectually topless
Hays points out the irony that while Arminians castigate Calvinists for denying the ‘plain sense ‘ of Scripture, etc. b/c of a prior commitment to predestination, they have a prior commitment to foreknowledge, which presupposes a fixed future. Because the future is fixed, the agent lacks the ‘real’ freedom as defined by the Arminian and such freedom is illusory. So some go to Molinism, which merely shifts the problem, since in the actual world, God has instantiated only one human choice to the exclusion of other possibilities. Arminian Calvinism
Here’s an interesting post on Koinonia by a former Mormon on the real impact of leaving Mormonism, likened to waking up one morning and realizing that the God of the Bible was not true – everything fell apart, everything because vain, all that time was wasted. “If you’ve been burned by a god, how do you learn to trust another one? Make no mistake about it, I knew I needed what only He could provide: forgiveness of sins, eternal life, church and community based on truth, not beloved fictions.” The Mormon Mirage, pt. 3 of 5 by Latayne C. Scott
Hays points out that the Arminians inconsistently hold conditional election and the possibility that the regenerate can lose their salvation. For the latter means that the elect, who were chosen based on foreseen faith, can lose their salvation. And if God has chosen who will be saved based on foreseen faith, how is a contrary outcome still in play, and how can Heb. 6 apply to them? In Molinism, there is only one actual world – either the instantiated possible world where a person commits apostasy, or the world where this person perseveres. So how is this person at liberty to do otherwise? Conditional election and apostasy
Patton anecdotally illustrates emotionally held beliefs, i.e. we feel obligated to defend our positions once taken. Pride first, truth second – our intellectual integrity is at stake. Hardening is dangerous and serious, wherein we force ourselves and others to defend a position in an imbalanced way. The opposition’s view becomes defined by your polemic against them. Some apologists fall into this, being committed first to defending above all else. And they fail to see that argumentation can cause the other side to represent themselves in an imbalanced manner. We should be willing to change, and willing to allow others to change without riding them for it. Don’t harden the opposition. The Problem I Have with Apologists
Aomin has a quote on how many put the spirit in opposition to the letter, ironically speaking of vague principles and being occupied with Christ. But how do they know these without reading the letter? Critical study of Scripture is derided. But they have no idea what they are talking about. How can the inspired text be inspired and be useless? They set aside what the Spirit has put forth. “Most difficult is it to arouse Christians in general to a sense of the full importance of critical study of Scripture; and especially is this the case when dreamy apprehensions are cherished, and where vague idealism has taken the place of truth, and sentimental asceticism is the substitute for Christian holiness… There may be an external knowledge of Scripture where there is no spiritual life or light; but that is no reason for cherishing what is supposed to be spiritual in contrast to the words of inspiration. Such a contrast cannot really exist. He who truly loves the Lord Jesus Christ, and is guided by His Spirit, will be the most subject to that which is written in the Word. True acquaintance with Scripture is the best check to mere sentimental emotion.” S. P. Tregelles Has a Word for Today's Post-Evangelicals on Sentimentalism
Phil Johnson responds to some Arminian proof texts. i) “Why would God command something that is impossible?” Biblically, God does do this. (Matt. 5:48; James 2:10). The law was ‘unobeyable’! God commands things to show our spiritual impotence. Moreover, it’s a mistake to think inability nullifies responsibility in the moral realm. People choose wrong because it is in their nature, not because they’re coerced. That is morally culpable, because you are immoral. ii) God often commands people to choose good rather than evil. But this is against the sinner’s nature (Rom. 8:7-8; Jer. 13:23; Rom. 6:20), and we are enslaved to our lusts apart from divine grace. The sinner predictably chooses wrong. iii) Job 40:14 is actually quoted to show that a sinner can save himself, when the point of this verse is to show the arrogance of thinking that you can save yourself! iv) Irresistible grace doesn’t mean that it can’t be resisted, but that ultimately grace proves irresistible. And God’s goodness to the reprobate is what we see operating in Saul’s case. v) God’s warnings are the means of perseverance. Jude 24 is claimed to say in Greek that ‘able’ means ‘maybe’, ‘might’, etc. which is just plain wrong, since the term means ‘power, ability’ – i.e. God has the power to keep you from falling (cf. 1 Peter 1:5). One Arminian's Proof-Texts
T-fan provides a discussion of the Greek grammar with respect to the veneration of Mary debate, showing out the word for "having been highly favored" is not in the "titular form." Veneration of Mary Debate - Thoughts on Reflection - Part 1
Challies points to an example of remarkable heroism of a Marine in Iraq as an illustration of the work of Christ, which is yet more remarkable, in that Christ died for His enemies. While We Were Still Sinners
Manata points out that Reppert actually took issue with Driscoll saying that, well, if the resurrection didn’t historically, actually, happen, then (in a blunt way), there is a more ‘fun’ life to be had. Well, 1 Cor. 15:29, anyone? Epistemic Virtues Bureau
Hays cautions against slogan style advice often given in churches for those who are in horrid relational situations. Sometimes distance helps. But people can bring their baggage into other relationships. Telling someone to love, reconcile, forgive when they’re defiant is counter-productive. Moreover, love is functional in Scripture, not so much sentimental. What you do. And this is practical. Doing love has a way of incrementally overcoming rage and resentment. Utopian advice won’t do – Bible-based, realistic solutions are needed. A way forward
This post on 9Marks observes the relatively recent development wherein Christians have trouble accepting both intellectually and personally the doctrine of the inspiration of the Scriptures. Difficult Doctrines by Aaron Menikoff
Here’s an except from Womanly Dominion by Mark Chanski, praising the efforts and necessity of being a ‘stay-at-home’ mom throughout the lives of children, and how the need for a good mother increases as the children grow. “The mother is the hub of the home, holding all the spokes in place. Without her being at her post, the family spins out of control and falls apart.” Who Needs A Stay-At-Home Mom-
This post at Straight Up gives brief definitions of evangelical complementarianism and egalitarianism. Gender Roles and the Image of God- Part 1
Here’s a technical note on the translation of Hebrews 6:9, and whether it is “accompany salvation” or “close to salvation”, with the author appearing to land on the former (with most translations). Hebrews 6-9- Future or Present-
The solution to suffering is never to eliminate the sufferer. Mohler talks about the moral significance of the fact that the biggest opponents to euthenasia are doctors, who often view it as an abdication of their roles as healers. Many doctors refuse to perform abortion as well. Yet, the Obama administration is posed to remove conscience protection laws and to force doctors to commit murder. http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=3768
No comments:
Post a Comment