2009-06-17

Turk has some comments on the words of Dr. Peter Masters about the ‘massive failings of new calvinists’ and iMonk’s words for Masters. He argues that it is a good thing that the Calvinism of MacArthur and Piper and Owen and Edwards don’t look like each other because there are different cultures, and Calvinism in Sudan isn’t going to look like Puritanism. The reality is that the Puritans themselves weren’t that rigid. Turk basically credits Masters with two things: i) the central concern for holiness is lost on many and it is really a serious concern. ii) there is a distinction between edifying music and other genres; and there truly is a place where the art in culture reflects its depravity. Now, is it really anti-sanctification to praise God loudly with music and song? There is a difference in context between conference music (informal, populist, yet still edifying) and local church worship. But iMonk is correct in noting that Masters makes matters of style and context into doctrinal crises, and apparently views things from something of a rosy bubble of his own movement, as it were, not admitting the drift away from historic reformed truth. Turk concludes: “if Dr. Masters is right about “us”, and iMonk is right about Dr. Masters, maybe what “we” have to do is receive what they both have said about “us” and step it up.” If you’re preaching the Gospel, you’re not cool. Stop thinking you are. Get serious about holiness. Jiggling one's Jenga

JT points to an article on the demise of fatherhood. “With the exception of a few more obstacles and demands on their time, their involvement with their children is envisioned as being something manageable and marginal. Nothing like a complete transformation—an abrupt end to their former life—really enters men’s minds.” But the reality is that everything changes, everything gets more difficult. But there is something rewarding, not an amusement of high school or college but rather the honor and nobility of sacrifice and commitment, like that felt by a soldier. Everything he does therefore has a new significance. The stakes are higher. The Meaning and Demise of Fatherhood

Turk excerpts a quote from the above article, of which this is a taste: “We are now entering a brave new world, where marriage is easily dissolved before it becomes tyrannical, where parenthood is the product of choice not mere biology, where reproductive technologies allow us to have the children of our own making, and where fathers have finally earned the hard-won freedom to follow their dreams and leave their children behind.” HT- JT

In responding to some questions re. Calvinism and James White, T-fan makes the following points: i) "author of sin" has a nasty ring to it, but what's wrong with saying that God is the "author of sin" in some remote sense of ordaining that sin will transpire. Why should that be problematic beyond being susceptible of an ugly label? ii) Regarding passages in Jeremiah used to argue that God did decree some sins, or didn’t think of them, T-fan distinguishes between God’s will of command (revealed will, what one should do) and God’s secret will (what one will do), and observes that one thinks that God cannot hold man responsible for things foreordained, one runs into a serious problem in Acts 2:23-24 and John 19:10-11: God ordained not only Pilate’s actions but the greater sin of handing Jesus over to Pilate. Response to Prophecy Channel

Grimmond relates an impressive display of godliness (i.e. an impressive display of the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of a man) in a pastor coming to repentance over something after being yelled at during an important public meeting! “Who, humanly speaking, can so set aside their personal aspirations and desire for public approval that they might grow from the rebuke of an enemy?” Miraculous godliness

Girltalk starts an answer for how wives should act when their husbands are, well, useless. The first think is that they should be aware of their own sense of fairness, and when that is violated, for this leads to resentment, anger, bitterness, and so on. A homemaker must not take cues from the culture, their own upbringing, sense of fairness, a friend’s husband, and so on, but rather from God’s word alone. A Homemaker’s Dilemma, Pt. 2

Hays notes the parallel between the caricature of Protestant theology, who are often charged with supposed vicious circularity for thinking “The Bible is true because the Bible says it’s true” (a straw man), and the Roman Catholic argument, “My church is true cuz my church says it’s true.” He goes on to give some examples. My church is true cuz it says so

GenderBlog writes that “Governor John Lynch signed a bill on Wednesday that makes New Hampshire the sixth state to legalize same-sex “marriage.” The governor has changed his position on the issue, having previously supported civil unions but not gay “marriage.”” Citing the ‘separate but equal’ doctrine, it appears the governor has bought into the argument that the gay population should be a protected class. Christians don’t oppose gay marriage on the grounds of the separate but doctrine, but rather do not recognize sexual preference as a basis for creating a protected class. Culture is ideologically moving. Faithful Christians are not. The implications of this are yet unfathomed. A Civil Rights Decision in New Hampshire-

An Arminian thinks that the argument, ‘what principle in a man is the reason for why he chooses Christ while another man does not, in light of Arminian prevenient grace?’ reduces to “What necessitates choices that aren’t necessitated?” (i.e. an absurd statement). Hays points out that this Arminian lacks a grasp of libertarian action theory, and points out with citations from a libertarian, who, running through a number of noncausal and event-causal strategies to make libertarian action theory satisfy the conditions of control and rationality, draws attention to various deficiencies of among competing versions.  The Fallacies of Arminian Apologetics – Fallacy #1

Turk points out that Paul, in requiring elders to be ‘blameless’, isn’t making a comparison between a sinner and without any sin, but rather saying that the one who ought to be an elder is the mature believer (hence the families, etc), manifesting the fruit of the Spirit, in whom confidence can be placed in a way which is unlikely to be betrayed. “The elder must have blameless character; he must show the fruit of the spirit.” Mature men

Here’s  “a statement to think on: "A mature Christian is easily edified." Are you instead easily annoyed, irritated, impatient, hurt, angered, distracted, and arrogant? Could it be said that it doesn’t take the fanciest packaging to edify you? Only the simply truth of Christ? Easily Edified

In the UK, rats resistant to rat poison have been touted as an example of evolution in action. AiG notes that the reports are vague and that all observed mutation leads to a loss of information, not an increase of information (which is required to even start to look at molecules-to-man evolution). This would comport well with what we know of superbacteria and other rat resistances – the existing gene pool is being slimmed in the rat population (i.e. natural selection). http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/05/18/rats-evolving

This article at AiG points to three assumptions in radiometric dating: i) the original number of unstable atoms can be known. ii) The rate of change was constant. iii) the daughter atoms were all produced by radioactive decay. What if any of these are wrong? http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n3/radiometric-dating

Gender blog has praise for the Gospel Coalition’s tight linking of Gospel truth with biblical manhood and womanhood, and Carson’s statement that complementarians cannot just say ‘no’, but must positively encourage women in various ministries without exceeding God’s mandates. Carson on Complementarianism in Gospel Coalition

White points to the massive incongruity in that Romanists apologists constantly attack sola scriptura while Notre Dame allows a pro-abort president to speak (who denies a moral belief) and while Mother Rome does nothing about the number of elected Roman Catholics who really care little about what Rome says. Obama basically said, "Truth? Divine revelation? Come on, that's just one viewpoint. Let's all just get along, OK?" and most of Notre Dame’s students were fine with it. At the end of the day, the Rome is useless, contradictory, and doesn’t provide any clear leadership. No wonder the sedevacantist is growing. The Obamination of Notre Dame

Bayly gives a report on Obama at Notre Dame. “agree to disagree” was his thing. “No, Mr. President, only the views of Americans like you, who believe in the slaughter of defenseless and innocent babies, are complex and contradictory. The rest of us have a wholly synchronous, direct, straightforward, morally integrated, harmonious, logical, wholistic view on the matter.” Bayly agrees that the pro-aborts should stop caricaturing pro-life supporters as power seeking. Pro-lifers actually care about the lives of the unborn. As for those who would murder babies, what wrong could be said? “That they are heartless? Cruel? Bloodthirsty? Lacking the milk of human compassion? Oppressors of the most innocent and vulnerable of our nation's citizens? Murderers? Mass murderers? Brutal mass murderers? Brutal mass murderers whose victims outnumber any other slaughter in the history of man?” Barack Obama rocks XXIII- At Notre Dame

AiG makes something of an argument for the concept that blasphemy of the Spirit is rejection of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. When one rejects Christ, one does not receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/05/18/contradictions-the-unforgivable-sin

Bird goes to Deut. 10:12-13, 20 for an understanding of the fear of the Lord. The fear of the Lord is to follow, love, obey, and serve him. What does it mean to fear the Lord -

Here’s an interesting quote to the effect that from a theistic point of view liberal rationalism and the ideology of science make the cardinal error of being self-originating or self-authorship; and that in order for any of them to do any thinking, they must first have a prior specification of what is real and important – something that they must take on faith. Hitchens + Dawkins = Ditchkins

Bird quotes Fowl, who says that the real difference between modern and pre-modern biblical interpretation is that the former has given priority to historical concerns, and the latter theological (i.e. Ultimately, Scriptural interpretation, worship, and Christian faith and life were all ordered and directed towards helping Christians achieve their proper end in God.) It’s not that moderns are smarter or more sophisticated. Bird chimes in with his approval for theological interpretation. Stephen Fowl on Theological Interpretation

A good quote from NT Wright is here to the effect that the wrath of God “is rooted in the doctrine of God as the good, wise and loving creator, who hates--yes, hates, and hates implacably--anything that spoils, defaces, distorts or damages his beautiful creation, and in particular anything that does that to his image-bearing creatures.” If God isn’t willing to root out from creation the wickedness by which man does horrid things, he is neither good, nor loving, nor just. N.T. Wright on the Wrath of God

Hays points out that the Scripturalist is in the sticky spot of needing to rely on standard definitions for terms (the Scripturalist seems to deny you can know something without defining your terms) which are obtained by induction (which Scripturalists don’t like) upon common usage. This requires sense knowledge. So the Scripturalist must rely on empirical methods to make his case against empiricism. John Robbins, Empiricist!

Manata posts an excerpt from Michael Sudduth. Along these lines, “For the Scripturalist, the axioms are the statements of Scripture, or to be more precise, the axioms are those statements of Scripture that cannot be deduced from any of the other statements of Scripture. Furthermore, according to the Scripturalist, knowledge is limited to the explicit statements of Scripture and what may be validly deduced from these statements. Scripturalists also maintain that "knowledge is a true opinion with an account of its truth"” i) No Scripturalist has ever validly deduced the above from Scripture. ii) The idea that knowledge requires "giving an account" or "citing reasons" does not cohere with this axiomatic-deductive model to which Scripturalists adhere, because belief in the axioms must constitute knowledge independent of the activity of citing reasons. Basic or foundational statements, axioms, don’t need reasons. They are confusing what is required for knowledge claims to be justified and what is necessary for a true belief to constitute knowledge. “The Scripturalist begins with the fairly conservative epistemic notion that we can know only those propositions for which there is a justification from Scripture, that is, that can be deduced from Scripture (or which are explicitly stated in Scripture). But the Scripturalist ends up in practice with what appears to be a fairly liberal view of what we are actually permitted to believe and utilize in syllogistic inferences.” On Scripturalism and (some of) its Epistemological Shortcomings

Bayly has some thoughts on how to teach little girls the meaning of true beauty (a gentle and quiet spirit), and how this involves careful persistence to avoid teaching them that this amounts to walking around whispering, etc. It is also essential to teach them that God is trustworthy – they need this, for women and girls are so often given to fear, which is why Peter speaks of it in this very context. Raising daughters, part I- The nature of true beauty and how to avoid fear

Swan provides some citations from Romanists apologists, which show a marked disunity. He asks the question, “why are there still ultra conservative and ultra liberal positions within the Roman church after the church officially establishes a doctrine?” Updates on Rome's Forgotten Apologists

The video from Advance09 is up, with John Piper’s sessions available here. Advance09 Video

A post at ETC says that the data of P40, which Aland placed in the 3rd century, is suspect, and evidence suggests a 5th/6th century data. Still, five manuscripts from the 3rd century remain: P27, P46, P113, P118, and 0220 Early manuscripts of Romans

Many blogs have spoken of the demise of the emergent church. DeYoung thinks that it has splintered. He gives advice to those who suspect their churches of going emergent. Search your heart for pride, divisiveness, etc. Talk to one other trusted Christian – don’t bash the pastor. Go with one other and have a mature, calm, non-assaulting conversation with the leadership. Be clear and specific. Ask important questions, like ‘what is the Gospel?’ Depending on how they respond, you could stay or leave the church (with the latter required if the church has left the Gospel). Pray for your leaders, the church, and your own heart. Then move on. “Help, my church is going emergent!”

Here’s a helpful distinction between act/rule utilitarianism: “The act-utilitarian asks, “How much pleasure or pain would result if I did this now?” The rule-utilitarian asks, “How much pleasure or pain would result if everyone were to do this?”” Rule Utilitarianism

Hays observes that while Pope John-Paul II quotes John 13:35 and speaks of love drawing people to Rome, “when outsiders object to Roman Catholicism, what do they single out? Don’t they generally seize on things like the Inquisition and the Crusades? Aren’t they put off by Roman Catholicism because it strikes them as being a very violent, autocratic, iron-fisted organization–at least when it had that power at its disposal?” This observation is independent from whether those things are justifiable. It’s the antithesis of a loving institution. Christian Unity

Hays quotes John-Paul II speaking of “the specific duty of the Bishop of Rome as the Successor of the Apostle Peter” and how essential it is for the Pope to be praying for the return of “full communion among Christ's disciples.” Hays observes that very rationale for Catholic ecumenism is one of the major reasons why Catholicism is a standing offence to other Christians. Ut Unum Sint

Sola panel writes on Why Johnny Can’t Preach. Observing that it’s a dangerous book in the ‘I told you so’ sort of approach some might erroneously take up after reading it, the book comes strongly recommended. The book observes the sorry state of preaching. Who is to blame? An aliterate culture – those who can read but don’t. This culture is opposed to the learning of theology and of preaching. Aliterate individuals arrive at seminary, and they need to learn how to read and write! Why Johnny can’t preach (Part 1)

Hays points out some of the difficulties of a presupposition in the Roman dogma of intercession of the saints, namely, how it is that the deceased come to be aware of those still living. “For you are our Father, though Abraham does not know us, and Israel does not acknowledge us; you, O Lord, are our Father, our Redeemer from of old is your name” (Isa 63:16). Abraham doesn't know us

Hays makes a brief argument that Matt. 22:15-22 (i.e. Jesus’ reply to whether paying taxes to Caesar is permissible) is neutral on the two-kingdom/theonamy debate. i) Jesus was replying to a trick question, so it doesn’t necessarily represent His actual position, but rather pushes the question back into their court. Hays thinks the reply speaks more about what is allowed than what is obligatory. ii) Jesus speaks with a studied ambiguity and doesn’t play into His enemies’ hand.  iii) They can only then clarify the answer at their own expense – if they explain why they use Roman coins, it will force them to come down on one side of their own dilemma. Jesus’ answer thus serves to trap, and doesn’t lay out the concrete principles for state-church interaction. iv) Even if Jews/Christians are subject to Caesar, Caesar is subject to God. v) Hays thinks it is possible that Jesus viewed a decadent regime as preferable to anarchy, that the Jewish establishment was just as corrupt, and that Roman rule was legit insofar as it was a judgment on the Jews. Two-kingdom theory

Challies briefly reviews Justification and Regeneration by Charles Leiter, saying that there is ‘no better’ more accessible study of these two truths. The author looks at sin as man’s ultimate problem. He looks at the aspects of regeneration: A New Creation; A New Man; A New Heart; A New Birth; A New Nature. He looks at five changes brought about by justification: Flesh to Spirit; Earth to Heaven; Sin to Righteousness; Law to Grace; Adam to Christ. "Christianity is Christ. Every spiritual blessing is found "in Him"--including all the blessings of justification and regeneration--and no spiritual blessing exists apart from Him." Book Review - Justification and Regeneration

T-fan responds to a Romanist who calls James White a bigot for agreeing with the justifiable position that a large portion of the guards at Buchenwald and Auschewitz were practicing Catholics (1/3 of Germany was Roman Catholic, combined with German conscription). Given this definition of a bigot: “A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion” it would seem that the Roman Catholic is the bigot, blindly devoted to his church. Ironically, apparently White mentioned it in relation to the idead that there are some unreasonbly intolerant folks out there who will scream "bigot" (or worse) when you mention that the Jews killed Jesus and even called down his blood on them and their children. Bigotry and Bellisario

This post briefly draws an analogy between the 1689 LBCF and the US Constitution, in that the former serves Confessional Reformed Baptists in a manner similar to the latter serving the USA. The post points out that there is no well known public voice like a Piper or MacArthur for Confessional Reformed Baptists. Who Speaks for Reformed Baptists- – Part 1

Mohler discusses the naturalistic reductionism of the reports of a professor of radiology and psychiatry, who argues that religion can be a force for good or evil depending on the conception of God (i.e. a nice God makes positive people, a mean God brings a negative outlook, and so forth). He reduces God to mere utilitarian value, and hopes that more people will adopt a belief in a nice God just for its effects. They assert that the thalamus in the brain makes no distinction between inner and outer realities. Mohler points out that even on these grounds, don’t people want a God who is both kind and just – don’t they want rapists and child molesters punished? Moreover, the news of this report (which appeared in USA Today recently) clearly indicates that the exclusivity of Christ is viewed as a ‘negative’ belief in the minds of these researchers. “Of course, the question he does not want to answer -- and his scientific model allows him not to answer -- is this: What if they [i.e. those espousing the exclusivity of Christ] were right?” http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=3999

Klusendorf in an interview with Trevin Wax, in commenting on Obama at Notre Dame, who in calling abortion ‘heart-wrenching’ engages in liberal double-speak, implicitly condemning abortion with his words, but making sure there’s not a shred of legal protection for the unborn: “Let’s be clear: For Obama, women can only achieve equality by trampling on the rights of their unborn offspring. That’s what he means by equality. But never once did he say why treating the unborn human this way is morally and legally permissible. And if the President truly cares about “sound science,” how about starting with the undeniable scientific truth that from the earliest stages of development, the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings? In short, Obama is adept at saying one thing and doing another.” http://trevinwax.com/2009/06/16/the-current-state-of-the-pro-life-movement-interview-with-scott-klusendorf/

Challies continues with a post on not taking your iPod to church. i) He argues that the trend in instantly accessibly knowledge is that it exalts cold fact knowledge at the expense of intimate knowledge – and he thinks that this is why someone brings an iPod to church (i.e. someone who brings it for Bible study). It encourages surface level interaction. He illustrates this with Facebook. ii) He thinks it emphasizes the skill of accessing in favor of the skills of knowing and understanding. e.g. there is no use in memorizing if it’s right at your fingertips; if it’s right at our fingertips, it’s not in our minds, and therefore not in our hearts. iii) He thinks this causes us to care more about the utility of such knowledge for fixing our problems than the morality of what we do with that info (e.g. students downloading essays to pass tests, illegal downloading of music to get a lyric). iv) “We must exercise great caution that we do not lose knowledge of with our newfound ability to find knowledge about.” Don't Take Your iPod to Church! (Part 1.5)

CotW points to a new study that indicates that supposed ‘junk DNA’, one a poster child of evolutionary theory, serve to improve longevity, and are functionally integrated into the amazingly complex regulatory apparatus of mammalian genomes. “this was an argument from silence, that ‘form follows function’, and that this was akin to the old vestigial organ argument (and thus is easily falsifiable once functions are found).” http://creation.com/junk-dna-slow-death