2009-06-14

T-fan continues his comments on his debate over the veneration of Mary. i) All generations calling Mary blessed is not a command in Greek, but a future active indicative (i.e. they will count as fortunate; ‘shall’ in English is ambiguous). ii) The statement need not be taken literally (as in, every single generation will call her blessed), as the statement is recorded, and she is excited, and it could be hyperbolic. It is an idiom that appears in the OT (e.g. it was applied to Solomon, “all the nations”, but this was fulfilled in a number of nations paying him regard, not every single one). iii) even taken as inspired and literal, the statement is simply declaring that all generations will count or consider Mary as a person who has received something good from God. iv) Contra the view of many, it simply does not mean that blessing is like radiation with which Mary is glowing. It means something great happened to her. No veneration here. Veneration of Mary Debate - Thoughts on Reflection - Part 5

Mohler comments on a transgender professor (i.e. he is really a man) who argues, in typical post-modern fashion, against ‘binary’ categories of gender. Now, postmoderns view such categories as oppressive designations, but ironically, this individual is as binary as everyone else – there are only two genders in his view! Such confusion stems from the fall and man’s rebellion against God. Man was created good, and in the image of God, both male and female, and to confuse or deny this distinction is to deny God the glory that He is due, and our greatest joy. While we must show compassion to those struggling with sexuality issues, manhood and womanhood are God-defined categories to which we are bound, not arbitrary man-made constructions which can be discarded at will. http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=3792

Grimmond talks about the question his daughter asked him, ‘why didn’t they count the women in the Bible? Did God not care?’ He points out the temptation to say that the Bible is a product of its times, whereas we live in an enlightened day when woman are counted and can vote (yet, they still get raped by football players, pressured to a certain look and fashion, etc). The latter isn’t what measures the value of women. God has made His world in such a way that it cannot function without women, where He sent His Son to die for women, where He has made them fellow workers for the gospel and destined them for glory, where they are His precious daughters. That’s why women are important. Women and the Bible (Reflections on reading the Bible with my kids part II)

Patton thinks there is less “Christ-like character in many Calvinistic brethren than I do in just about any other tradition in Christianity.” (or at least internet Calvinists). He calls Calvinists to, well, love Arminians, treat them as brothers, etc. He isn’t concerned about rebuking non-Calvinists at the moment, but calling Calvinists to live in line with their theology, and when debating to treat them not as terrorists but as brothers. Tame the tongue, as it were (James 3). Calvinists, Let’s Calm Down

MacArthur turns attention to another effect of seeker-sensitive entertainment driven ministry. In its efforts to place as few demands on the hearers as possible, it has turned church members into mere spectators. Practically the worst thing any churchgoer can do is be a hearer but not a doer (James 1:22-25). Christ himself pronounced doom on religious people who want to be mere bystanders (Matthew 7:26-27). The duty of the pastors is to equip the church for ministry (Eph. 4:12) and every believer is called to minister (Rom. 12:6-8). He illustrates from the damage done to the arm of a famous picture just because of an injury to a toe, which resulted in an unnatural delivery, how the body cannot be disproportioned in its contributions or things go badly. An article was written of MacArthur’s church, titled ““The Church with 900 Ministers.”” He’s not denying the distinction in function and roles in the church, and the role of teachers. But the New Testament pattern is clear and inescapable: Every Christian is gifted and called to ministry for the sake of the whole body. Usually all they need are encouragement and opportunity. Servants, Not Spectators

DeYoung provides a quote from a friend who is an American ministering in Africa, who has encountering some medical trials, and whose wife is now sick. He gives some comments on 1 Peter 4 :12-13 ("Dear friends, do not be surprised at the painful trial you are suffering….But rejoice that you participate in the sufferings of Christ..."): He feels he is so American to be surprised by suffering. The why and how questions. On the other hand, in Africa, their journey is one with suffering. They’d be surprised if it didn’t happen. When someone dies, you smell it at the funeral. Suffering is part of the plan, but never our plan. Dear friends, do not be surprised at the painful trials

Swan writes, responding to some ?red-letter? Romanists, that God has given us a systematic treatise on how one is made right with God by giving us the book of Romans, so when we look to this question, it is not as all inappropriate to first go to this Christ-ordained Spirit-inspired book. Catholic Answers Update

T-fan comments on calling Mary the “mother of God.” She was mother of Jesus, His humanity, not His divinity, so the statement, while not strictly unorthodox, requires some clarification. It is not a biblical term, and citing Theodoret, not a term favoured by the church fathers before the 5th century. It is not a term used (to my knowledge) by any of the fathers of the first three centuries, including the Apostolic fathers. Neither Origen nor Augustine use it. “with respect to Jesus' divinity, Mary was His handmaid by her own confession.” Turretin says that “she is called the mother of God specificatively (i.e., of him who is God), but not reduplicatively (as he is God).” Veneration of Mary Debate - Thoughts on Reflection - Part 6

Hays has some comments on the various ways the Trinity has been defined. There is the high-churchman manner, and the Biblicist manner, who say we just use verbal placeholders. Aquinas called the members ‘subsistent relations,’ but relations do not make persons; rather, persons have relations, so this is deficient. Barth and others used ‘modes of subsistence’, yet this is too indiscriminate (e.g. a chair can be a mode of subsistence) and too impersonal. Some use ‘person’, which requires a definition. Barth and others deny the modern sense, as it would require tritheism. Yet the modern idea of person isn’t that modern: Boethius - “an individual substance of a rational [Aristotelian connotation, mind, intellect] nature.” Let’s not predefine God by setting up a generic category and avoiding it (‘tritheism’). God is like what He is like. Some use ‘centres of consciousness’, which requires similar clarification. Really, we shouldn’t begin with a definition, but with the object, and then find an approximate word, as best we can. And in this way we analogize from our own experience when we see various ascriptions to God. We use ourselves as the point of reference. Hence, person and centre of consciousness are pretty good. The Bible tells us that each member of the Trinity is a self-conscious individual (i.e. distinct consciousness), personal and rational, and that each is also conscious of the other two. They share the same knowledge, yet not the same beliefs (the Son doesn’t believe that He’s the Father). There is multiple self-consciousness, and also a collective consciousness. They know each other’s thoughts because they are the same timeless, indivisible being. This is why the Bible can speak or act as one person, not because He is one person. The persons of the Trinity can speak on each others behalf because they are profoundly symmetrical. Hays says that he’s model the Trinity on symmetries. “In particular, the geometric notion of enantiomorphism. A symmetry is both one and many.” God is self-symmetrical, and the Trinity is a symmetry of persons. God in three persons

Bird has some thoughts related to Blomberg’s glowing review of NT Wright’s new book. Of note, he distinguished between imputation of obedience and imputation of merit, and rejects the medieval notion of merit as unbiblical (i.e. Jesus does not rack up a bunch of frequent flyer points and then give them to you so you can fly to heaven), rather, he argues that Jesus is justified in his resurrection and that, by virtue of our union with him, we are justified in his justification. His obedience isn’t an abstract transaction of merit but the fulfillment of a redemptive-story. Craig Blomberg on N.T. Wright's new book

Hays responds to some EO interlocutors regarding religious authority. i) When Jesus would challenge and debate the religious establishment, as a practical matter the crowd had to judge for itself (some did rightly, some wrongly, a leading theme in John). ii) God hasn’t authorized church officers to settle matters with normativity for others. iii) The authority of Christ is intrinsic, the authority of man is contingent and derivative. iv) Verification of such authority types doesn’t confer the authority but provides recognition. v) Normativity is secondary to truth. What matters first is what is right, not who is highest on the authority ladder. And church decisions are only normative insofar as they accurately apply Scripture. vi) Protestants accept the consequence that there is no judge to normatively bind all conscience, or issue a judgment that isn’t revisable. vii) A pastor is a qualified layman. A layman who’s qualified to hold church office. viii) Prophets and apostles have divine vocation, and inspiration. Pastors have natural abilities. Religious authority

An article in the Wall Street Journal points to the radical change of desires that women experience upon having children. Thus, they unwittingly affirm the biblical truth of the very nature of womanhood. “A woman’s natural, God-implanted desire will be for her children and that may well entail both faithful child-rearing and profitable commerce out of the home. This is also a reminder that biblical womanhood is by no means a stifling, cookie-cutter reality for women, but a gloriously liberating and empowering truth.” Proverbs 31 Written on the Heart

Gender Blog: “Lauren Winner, at Boundless Webzine, writes that young voluntary leadership in churches today is significantly feminine.” Men simply don’t step up. Ditto with college: “While women are getting higher grades, higher honors, and more volunteer hours, men best women in video games, TV, and workout hours. ” Yet Winner’s solution in the church is to lower standards, showing that she thinks dismissively and cynically of men. Her sweeping statements imply a flatlining of any gender distinctions in church, work, and home. “pastors must compel their men by the Gospel skillfully applied to their lives, families, and local church. The Gospel imbues humility, servant-hood, and a love for the local church to the heart of the Christian. Without the Gospel-soaked message that calls forth biblical manhood, men will flounder in the serving options of publicizing and decorating. Male leadership calls for strong, male pastors, with a strong, Gospel-centered theology.” A Lost Generation of Boys

Straight Up comments on manhood and womanhood. We mustn’t simply settle for less than God has given us. With these issues, we must not only show that something is right, but also that it is good. Thus the aim of this series of posts is to show the beauty of a biblically informed complementarian understanding of gender. Biblically speaking, a “type” is an event or person in biblical history that images or foreshadows Christ and his redemptive work (e.g. Passover Lamb, Melchizedek, Adam, Isaac, Ishmael, etc.). And though the type precedes that which it symbolizes (i.e., the anti-type) in order of time, the anti-type precedes the type in order of preeminence. In the next post, the marital type of “one flesh”, which points to Christ’s present “one Spirit” relation with the Church, will be explored, for it teaches a lot of gender roles. Gender Roles and the Image of God- Part 2

Grant at Sola Panel doesn’t like the reasoning behind the proposed nationally funded maternity leave scheme. It basically implies that (i) motherhood is unproductive and (ii) it gives aid to the now established dogma that the two incomes needed to pay off the mortgage are more important than quality and quantity time with the kids. Really, it just endorses the thinking that what is really needed is the mortgage big enough to require the absence of both parents. A parenting group founder points out that while our children have everything, they seem to be unhappier and unhealthier. Other reasoning argues that its economically bad to have women wasting their time at home. This is spin. Why not be glad that a lower female workforce participation rate gives opporunity for one of the highest rates of community volunteering? Especially in light of cries for more?? In Titus 2:5, 1 Tim. 5:10,14 ‘home duties’ are held up as the central focus of a woman’s life and service. “implies that (i) motherhood is unproductive and (ii) it gives aid to the now established dogma that the two incomes needed to pay off the mortgage are more important than quality and quantity time with the kids.” Wrong reasoning for maternity leave

Mathis shows from Scripture that laziness is not the alternative to living in your own strength: Eph 6:10, Col. 1:29; 2 Tim. 2:1, 1 Cor. 15:10, Rom. 15:18, 1 Pet. 4:11, Heb. 13:20-21. There is a being strong in another strength and working hard in that strength. Both Peter and Hebrews move directly from being strong in another's strength to praising Jesus. Strong in Another’s Strength

Liberals really don’t have a problem with theology in politics so long as its consistent with their liberalism. “President Barack Obama, says the article, has mentioned Jesus Christ "in a number of high-profile public speeches," more so than did President George W. Bush, and in much less "innocuous contexts."” “In other words, Obama is doing the things, faith-wise, that Bush was angrily accused of doing.” Liberal Theocracy

Engwer is asked about Mary as the new Eve and the Ark of the Covenant, and points out that this typological doesn’t at all require Mary’s sinlessness, and fathers like Tertullian can hold such typology and in the same document talk of her sins. That, and there is no need for an NT figure to be foreshadowed by the Ark. Why not someone else? Such a parallel seems rather arbitrary and selective. So Roman Catholic Raymond Brown: "However, in our judgment there is no convincing evidence that Luke specifically identified Mary with the symbolism of the Daughter of Zion or the Ark of the Covenant." Iranaeus, Clement, Tertullian, Hippolytus, identify Jesus or something else, not Mary, as parallel to the ark. Also, John 13:10 and Hebrews 3:1 refer to individuals as "clean", "holy", etc. without suggesting that they're sinless throughout their lives. Mary, Eve, And The Ark

Engwer writes that the earliest Christians prayed to Jesus. “In Matthew 21:16, Jesus identifies Himself as the object of the prayer of Psalm 8:2. Jesus is referred to as the one who chose the apostles in Acts 1:2 and as Lord in Acts 1:21, so the prayer to the Lord to choose another apostle in Acts 1:24-25 seems to be a prayer to Jesus. Hebrews 1:8-12 identifies Jesus as the object of some prayers in the Psalms. See, also, Acts 7:59, 1 Corinthians 1:2, 16:22, and Revelation 22:20.” We also shouldn’t overestimate the prominence of prayer to the Father – Jesus wouldn’t pray to Himself, His followers wouldn’t pray to Him while He was there, and the OT doesn’t strictly delineate the members of the Godhead. May We Pray To Jesus And The Holy Spirit-

JT quotes some comments on election fraud in Iran and the minimal mainstream media coverage of the events. Iranian Election Fraud, Riots, Arrests

Edwards (so also Owen, and Piper): “Thus there is a difference between having an opinion, that God is holy and gracious, and having a sense of the loveliness and beauty of that holiness and grace.” Like seeing a feast richly prepared and not taking part for refreshment, such heartless, as it were, thoughts shall fade without the heart. “A man may have the former, that knows not how honey tastes; but a man cannot have the latter unless he has an idea of the taste of honey in his mind.” “When the heart is sensible of the beauty and amiableness of a thing, it necessarily feels pleasure in the apprehension. It is implied in a person's being heartily sensible of the loveliness of a thing, that the idea of it is sweet and pleasant to his soul; which is a far different thing from having a rational opinion that it is excellent.” Jonathan Edwards learned it, John Piper learned it, and so did John Owen

Manata illustrates the fallaciousness of Reppert’s view that God’s unequivocal love for every single human being is God’s defining characteristic, in light of the OT purging of wicked peoples etc. Reppert's put-put gun is all out of ammo

Challies writes about Dutcher’s book, You Are The Treasure That I Seek. He “defines idolatry as "cherishing, trusting, or fearing anything more than we cherish, trust, or fear God himself."” Idolatry is alive and well in our day, and it is a stealthy hunter. "Being enamored with Christ is the best offensive weapon against idolatry. When idols call for our attention, we should flee, yes, but in fleeing we need to ask God to show us the excellencies of the Savior. Hearts that cherish, trust, or fear Jesus more than anything else prove to be barren soil for idols. Counterfeit saviors cannot grow in soil that has been reserved for Christ alone." You Are the Treasure That I Seek

Challies, somewhat though cautiously following the ‘medium is the message’ catchphrase trend of McLuhan, would like to encourage us not to bring an electronic Bible to church, but to use an old-fashioned Bible. Christians have been using electronic mediums without thinking about the implications. Challies refers to Neil Postman’s saying that two technologies (i.e. a paper Bible and an iPod) are two entire worldviews squaring off. So reading the Bible influences you to a different worldview. Challies wonders what “ideological bias, what predisposition, is carried in the book and in the electronic book” and “what skill or attitude is amplified.” [Again, should we return to papyrus? People have been using the modern technology of the book without thinking through the implications. Doesn’t this all seem a bit ‘golden age of the past’? Should we return to fur for clothing?] Don't Take Your iPod to Church!

Gilbert just read a brutal book on the ‘theology of the city.’ He provides some things that one should not do in terms of interpretation and application for developing a theology of the city. Theology of the City by Greg Gilbert

JT points to some resources from Paul Tripp. Tripp, Broken Down House and Other Resources

Phillips at Reformation21 was queried as to his conformity to the Westminster standards in light of his position “that the judgment of believers in Christ on the last day will consist only of reward and praise, all to the glory of our Lord,” for which his main arguments are “that 1) the biblical representations of believers on the last day involve no depictions of chastisement or shaming, but only reward and praise; and 2) believers will appear at the final judgment after they have entered into their glorified states via the final resurrection, which occurs prior to the final judgment, and the idea of judgment is incongruent with believers' glorified state.” He assesses this position in light of the WCF, for those interested. http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2009/06/judgment-of-believers-in-the-westminster-standards.php

“As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today (Gen 50:20).” Hays writes that if God is good, we’d expect that whatever God makes is good. We expect good from good. But it’s more impressive when God brings good from evil; unlike from like. For good to come from evil is counterintuitive. Theodicy is largely focused on this. But what about the question, how can evil come from good? Bringing evil from good requires evil. That’s a partial answer to why there is evil. “To bring good out of evil is a greater demonstration of divine omnipotence than bringing good out of good.” Making the garden is great. But making the Church is far greater a testament to God’s power. Bringing good out of evil

“In all unbelief there are these two things--a good opinion of one's self and a bad opinion of God.” Believing Lies, Rejecting Truth

“The inward attitude certainly holds first place in prayer, but outward signs, kneeling, uncovering the head, lifting up the hands, have a twofold use. The first is that we may employ all our members for the glory and worship of God; secondly, that we are, so to speak, jolted out of our laziness by this help. There is also a third use in solemn and public prayer, because in this way the sons of God profess their piety, and they inflame each other with reverence of God. But just as the lifting up of the hands is a symbol of confidence and longing, so in order to show our humility, we fall down on our knees. (John Calvin, Commentary on Acts 20:36)” John Calvin- Lifting hands helps jolt us out of our laziness in worship

Hays points out that in this life, justice often is tossed aside by worldly administrators. Indeed, the world will actually oppose justice! The world loves its own, and can be counted on to help the worst of the wicked at times. But when they die, their luck runs out. In hell, there is no evasion of the authorities or acquittals on technicalities, there is no bribing or discarding the law, there is no parole, not statute of limitations, no plea deals. Is that unjust? Or just justice overdue? No escape

Some scientists have discovered that birds’ upper legs are relatively static compared to other animals, and that the fixed upper bones are crucial in keeping their lungs from collapsing, and this is essential for supporting the sophisticated pulmonary system that helps enable flight. This is fundamental to bird physiology. However, the mobile femur in dinosaurs means that they couldn’t have given evolutionary rise to birds. An evolutionist who found this says, “Frankly, there’s a lot of museum politics involved in this, a lot of careers committed to a particular point of view even if new scientific evidence raises questions.” http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/06/13/news-to-note-06132009

Cheng writes, “why do you think we've stopped confessing our sins publicly? My own theory, for what it is worth, is that there is a part of us that can't really believe that we're as bad as the Bible says we are (Dan 9:9-10).” Confession

Bird, commenting on the Phillips post (summarized above), writes against the "rubies and sapphire" approach (i.e. the purpose of the final judgment is only to determine how many jewels you get in your crown). He says it doesn't comport with passages like 1 Cor. 3.12-15. He finds it better what R.C. Sproul says: "we will still undergo an evaluation. Christ will examine our lives and determine our degree of obedience and sanctification." (Rom. 14.10, 2 Cor. 5.10) Rick Phillips

Piper argues that there ought to be a connection between the preaching elder, who is a shepherd, and the people geographically, for he ought to have access to them, to care for them, visit them, and so on. John Piper on Multi-Campus Churches