Adams writes that there is no biblical precedent for basing the truth or falsehood of any statement on one’s own feelings, yet many do it, when they should be turning to the Scriptures. “I Feel It’s So”
Bird comments on the debate in the French Parliament to ban Burkas because they demean women/restrict freedom. i) On the one hand, they are a cultural expression in Arab culture that derived from Byzantine culture. ii) On the other hand, should the state prescribe dress? If a woman consents, who has the right to stop her? What about churches that mandate head coverings. Burkhas and Religious Freedom
Jeff continues going after the Word-Faith health and wealth teaching (which has been fatal) by pointing to John 9 to definitively demonstrate that their thesis that disease is a result of a lack of personal faith. While all disease is ultimately the result of sin, this destroys the idea that a one-to-one connection can be established: "It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him. Pool of Siloam Found in Jerusalem
JT provides a quote on good writing. Don’t make assertions. Put forward why someone should care about your thesis, and not with vague unsupported claims, but solid reasoning. Good Writing Is Good Arguing
Clint point to messages by Dr. VanVliet, who spoke on the topic , "Who is Afraid of John Calvin?" and the corresponding sermon highlighting some of Calvin's favorite texts of Scripture.
Creation.com observes that researchers imitate lizards, etc. in building the SandBot: Man’s efforts to engineer robots that can emulate what animals do “effortlessly” surely speaks volumes about the Master Engineer who engineered them to function so efficiently in the first place. http://creation.com/desert-creatures-inspire-sandbot
MacArthur highlights and praises the example of a coach of a high school basketball team, which steam-rolled the competition and won the state championship. The coach discovered that a player had been ineligible to play because had failed some courses, and even though this was immaterial to the victory, reported it, because the team’s character was more important than the victory. Biblically speaking, where you are young yourself or one who influences them, you have a divine mandate (Deuteronomy 6:7; Prov. 22:6; 1 Tim. 3:2-4; Titus 1:5) to be a good example, and one cannot underestimate how important our youth truly are. "Let no one look down on your youthfulness, but rather in speech, conduct, love, faith and purity, show yourself an example of those who believe" (1 Timothy 4:12). Be constantly aware. The Importance of a Good Example
Walsh at DG writes, should we still be sending and going? Yes: “1. God wants his name to be great in every place as well as among every people. 2. There are still hundreds of remote peoples who haven't heard the gospel. 3. Too little money is given to missions, not too much. 4. In many cases, the Church in the West has something to offer (Just as it would be arrogant to think that we know it all and have no need of the global Church, it would be arrogant to sit on our wealth of resources, history, and doctrinal development rather than make it accessible to the world). 5. Crossing cultures is a fitting means for the message.” Should We Still Be Sending and Going-
DeYoung looks at Acts 15:1 and writes that the New Perspective on Paul argues that the Reformers misunderstood Paul, seeing him as a crusader against works righteousness. They hold that first century Judaism was gracious, not legalistic. DeYoung points out that while the Law was supposed to function in response to God’s gracious deliverance and election, this is not how it was taken, as we see that there were those who boasted of righteousness that came from the Law instead of God (Phil. 3:9). He dismisses the distinction between being saved by keeping the big parts of the law or the small parts or the ethnic boundary marker parts, observing that either way they trusted themselves. They thought Jewishness saved, which was indistinct from covenant law-keeping. Peter responds to those in Acts 15, “but we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will” (15:11). These Judaizers weren’t covenantal nomists but placed circumcision in opposition to grace. I Still Don't Get It
While many talk of the power of prayer, and it being the most powerful thing, and so on, Phillips writes that Biblically it's one thing, and one thing only: prayer is talking to God. It’s not a dialogue, or conversation, and has no intrinsic power. Now, if God talks to me unmediated, I’m a prophet. If I talk to God, I’m praying. Scripture never directs us to engage God in conversation, or wait for God to speak back in prayer, or to do an Eastern-style emptying of the mind. Rather, it’s like the soldier pressing the button on the walkie-talkie. If you want to hear God speak to you, go to His Word in faith, and He will (Proverbs 6:20-23; Hebrews 3:7ff.; 2 Peter 1:19-21, etc.). The prayer of the one who turns from the Law is an abomination. Sometimes prayer is wrong, and the only appropriate prayer would be a prayer of broken, heartfelt repentance and confession (Psalms 32; 51; 1 John 1:9). When prayer is expressive of relation with God and in accord with His will it accomplishes much (James 5:16; 1 John 5:14). But it’s not prayer that has power but the God to whom it is directed. And note that the weapon in Eph. 6:18 is the word, not prayer. Now there are some words with power (Psalm 33:6, 9; Jeremiah 23:29; Hebrews 4:12). Use them. What prayer is and isn't [requested classic re-post]
Engwer discusses the apostolic era further with respect to the canon of Scripture. Apostolicity is a canonical criterion (i.e. written or approved by an apostle). By traditional authorship 21 of the NT books are known to be written by apostles, and James likely counts as well (cf. Gal 1:18-19, 2:9). Only Mark, Luke, Acts, Hebrews, and Jude remain, which were accepted by the patristic era Christians whose primary criterion was apostolicity. Engwer aims to corroborate their judgment: i) Date: Metzger finds reference to Mark, Luke (and by extension Acts as they were a pair) and Hebrews in sources from the last half of the 1st century and first half of the 2nd century. By AD 200 Jude was accepted in Alexandria (Clement and Origen), in Rome (Muratorian Canon), and in Africa (Tertullian). Since Hebrews mentions that they were not yet persecuted to death, this indicates that it is before the Nerorian persecution, and also refers to the sacrificial system in present tense (favourable pre-AD 70). Jude identifies himself as a brother of James and his description of heretics doesn’t match those in the 2nd century. ii) Authorship: Mark and Luke were associates of multiple apostles. Jude was well-known also (1 Cor. 9:5) and the brother of an apostle. As to Hebrews, the earliest authorial attributions are Paul himself or one of Paul’s companions. Given the unique discussions of authorship it may have been the product of a group, surely of Paul’s companions, perhaps Barnabas (cf. Tertullian, Jerome) who was a Levite (Engwer has more detailed notes on this). iii) Apostolic awareness: Engwer cites a few scholars who indicate the utter implausibility of the prevailing notion in form criticism that the Church was utterly ignorant and cut off from the founders of the faith (as if the apostles were somehow translated directly into heaven after the Resurrection!). Rather, not only did Christian writings proliferate much more quickly in the first century as compared to other works of antiquity, but the apostles’ writings indicate quite an awareness of the church. Papias seems to indicate that John was aware of Mark, if Matthew/Luke depend on Mark, they are likewise aware, 1 Tim. 5:18 likely quotes Luke, so also 2 Cor. 8:18. iv) Apostolic approval: Matthew’s use of Mark shows a high view of the document. Papias suggests that John also held a positive view of Mark. Clement of Rome has a high view of Hebrews (so too do other sources in the 2nd century, and it was widespread), implicitly suggesting apostolic approval. None of the documents have any significant objection to their apostolicity. From Apostolicity To The Twenty-Seven-Book New Testament
Challies points to this: "More than 98% of supposedly natural and environmentally friendly products on US supermarket shelves are making potentially false or misleading claims, Congress has been told. And 22% of products making green claims bear an environmental badge that has no inherent meaning, said Scot Case, of the environmental consulting firm TerraChoice." A La Carte (6/23)
Phillips points out that while it’s in vogue to say that “dad is a pastor!”, the Bible never says anything like that. Shouldn’t that be significant? Why didn’t God come up with this? Some may argue that he leads his family, teaches them the word, and prays for their souls, and that’s what pastors do. But the Bible never says that dad is, is like, or is sort of a pastor. Does this make mom an associate pastor? The ugly side of this notion is that it can encourage arrogant, self-absorbed, loveless isolationists to withdraw from actual church fellowship. Dad is a pastor- Hunh; why didn't God think of that-
JT points to an endorsement of Scott Klusendorf’s book on abortion, which says that he is precisely the sort of advocate the pro-life position needs – someone who has the intellectual wherewithal and charisma to navigate and communicate the argument and insights of philosophers. Watson, Is the Abortion Debate Over-
Challies recommends The Betrayal, a novel that recounts John Calvin’s life as historical fiction. Book Review - The Betrayal
Turretinfan responds to a ‘reformed leader’ who says there are three important aspects of Calvin’s legacy (and therefore reads his modern sensibilities back into Calvin): Ecumenism, social justice, the environment. T-fan points out that Calvin’s Institutes give us a better idea: a) God is Creator; b) God is Redeemer; c) Salvation is by Grace; and d) The Church Preaches the Gospel. As to ecumenism, Calvin saw all true believers as united in Christ by the Spirit, but rejected the Romanist religion. Calvin certainly says provision should be constantly made for the poor, but this wasn’t the focal point of the work of pastors. Calvin also recognized that we must not be wasteful (for man is entrusted with the earth by God), but also that man has dominion over the earth. Misunderstanding Calvin's Legacy
Grimmond writes, “Theologians are as risk-averse as actuaries, so how can they contextualize the gospel successfully?” He looks at Wesley’s hymn, which says, “Jesus, the name that charms our fears”, observing the inherent risk that Christ might be seen as a charm (though Wesley here responds to the superstitious practice of magic/incantations to ward off fear). All theology is risk-taking. All good Gospel-preaching is risk-taking, for without it you’ll never communicate with anyone. Wesley, charms and church planting (Part II)
Bayly commends John Piper for inviting Doug Wilson to the DG conference… “John will pay for escorting Doug into the Reformed big top. But like Doug, John has some courage and those who specialize in anti-Wilson bile should take note that, among men who are reformed pastors of national reputation, John stands with Doug.” John Piper explaining his invitation to Doug Wilson.
Burk writes on Psalm 115, “The dead do not praise the Lord.” Skeptics claim that the Psalmist has no eschatology, yet there are hints and pointers in the Psalms and other OT texts that are suggestive of an afterlife (Psalms 17:15; 49; 73; Ezekiel 37:12–13; Daniel 12:2-3). Moreover, this reading misses the point, since the Psalmist isn’t contrasting life with afterlife but live bodies with dead ones, viewing it from the angle of those who have not yet died – as long as he lives he will praise the Lord publically, and if he were to die, one living testimony to the greatness of God is gone. Would the world’s worship be diminished if you weren’t here? Is embodied life continual worship in your life? Do dead people praise God-
Patton summarizes young earth creationism, gap theory (between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2), time-relative (Belief that the universe is both young and old depending on your perspective, based on relativity), old earth creationism (the days aren’t literal), theistic evolution (with literal Adam and Eve) and theistic evolution without. He briefly summarizes problems in approaches on both sides. Evolution Debate
A KJV Only Arminian claims that White is putting human thoughts into the text of Romans 9. [insisting on libertarian free will and the autonomy of man is the epitome of imposing a human thought on a text]. He claims that ‘knowing’ is a state of being verb (i.e. awareness). He also doesn’t know Greek. But he proceeds to laugh at White, mock White, etc. White notes that God knew Jeremiah, He knew Israel, and that when God knows something that thing is always personal, never what people will do. God is actively involved in foreknowing His people. The term means, when used with God, that God chose Jeremiah, and God chose Israel. White suggests that if someone wishes to contest this, he must first show that the LXX and the OT are not the background upon which Paul is operating. He also encourages a more humble approach to studying theology. Young Arminians Attack on YouTube!
JT quotes Lewis on those who want ‘black to be blacker’, a mindset which makes us into devils. Do you want to see everything that your enemies do as bad? e.g. do you hope that when you hear something bad about Bush/Obama that it’s true? Or do you hope that it isn’t? Lewis on Seeing Everything Your Enemies Do as Bad
Empiricism is “reliance on experience as the source of ideas and knowledge. More specifically, empiricism is the epistemological theory that genuine information about the world must be acquired by a posteriori means, so that nothing can be thought without first being sensed. ” Philosophy Word of the Day – Empiricism
Here’s a proof from James Anderson that Twittering is wrong, from nearly every ethical system (it’s quite funny). Against All Tweets
Payne gives a brief summary of a report which he recommends (and helped produce) on the biblical data for the question: Why do Christians gather? What is the purpose of Christian assemblies? Why did Jesus say He would build His assembly? (Matt. 16:18) As a testimony to Christ, bearing witness to the crucified and risen Lord. For fellowship in Christ – not merely friendship or human fellowship. For building towards maturity in Christ – all we do in our assemblies should contribute to this end. So why do we gather-
To the statement, “No mistake was made in heaven when God gave you the gift of leadership or teaching. Every gift you have came from the hand of a loving Father who crafted you” which taken apart from its egalitarian agenda is accurate, Genderblog writes, “No mistake was made in heaven when God authored the qualifications in Scripture concerning the exercising of spiritual gifts. Every gift you have been given should be exercised according to the qualifications laid down by your wise and loving Father.” The Bible limits how and when spiritual gifts should be exercised, and for some reason egalitarians miss this point. 1 Tim. 2:9-15 applies to women and leadership. So too there are limits on men in various areas. Even Jesus was limited: Specifically, Jesus spoke of not being able to do anything unless it was willed by his Father (John 5:19, 8:28). The presence of Spirit-gifting is not the last word concerning ministry: Believers must also practice gifts in ways that honour the qualifications and commands of Scripture. Spirit-Gifting and Ministry in the Church
No comments:
Post a Comment