Challies has an interview with Terry Stauffer, whose 14 year old daughter was attacked and killed as she was out on a walk, September 28, 2008. He expresses how very profound the Gospel truth is for him in this time, and how this perspective has taught him that death is not the worst thing that can happen, not even the death of a child. The worst thing is to face the wrath of a holy God. “On a more personal level, on the first morning after Emily's death, I was overwhelmed with thoughts about what her last minutes must have been like. In the middle of that desperation, I remembered, "Christ was forsaken so that Emily didn't have to be." In fact, I wrote that "good gospel theology" line only a few minutes after this realization. Emily's Saviour brought her to Himself, and Emily is safe and secure, full of joy inexpressible and full of glory. That is a great comfort for us.” [The words in this interview are tested words, so read them]: "When Emily's death was confirmed on Saturday night, I was shocked and bewildered. All I could pray was, 'O Lord, Help! Help! Help!' As I was on my knees, a thought came to me: 'If all my talk about the Gospel and God's goodness is not true now, then it was never true.'" Asked about the formative effect of suffering, he agrees: “God seems much bigger and I seem much smaller.” And as Spurgeon said, trials drive us from earth (to heaven). The God Who Gives Strength as Needed- An Interview with Terry Stauffer
Hays talks about legends and legendary embellishment in the early church. i) The early church was a small, close community, favouring commonality of belief, so there’ less chance for conflicting rumours and legends to spread. ii) Any rumours follow the party line. iii) Into the 2nd century, we see more diversification as the movement grew. iv) Cults are an example of this, with high levels of group-think, but where there are rivalries, you have a split. This isn’t how they start though. v) Simply writing a legendary account doesn’t work. You need a constituency to sponsor a particular version of events. i.e. ‘sectarian’ literature is associated with sectarian groups – it’s in-house. vi) The history of religious movements/cults shows a tenacity of believe, an institutional inertia, which tends against alternative views, and latter views rarely eradicate that which exists. You get a split in the worst case. vii) Critics are skeptical of the canonical gospels because of the supernatural element, for they presuppose a Humean maxim that miracles are implausible. This begs the question. Then have no experience with the miraculous, and they keep themselves from any accounts/encounters with miracles, and so reinforce their skepticism – it’s a vicious circle. Miracles served an apologetic purpose in the Gospels, so a skeptic may discount them for this very reason. viii) Even in the Gospel narratives, the miracles often fail in an apologetic way. People deny Christ. So the narrator, who controls this, isn’t trying to fabricate, he’s showing what actually happened. ix) Mark is considered the earliest, yet it has more miracles. John is considered the latest, and has fewer miracles. Yet miracles are supposedly evidence of legendary embellishment. x) Skeptics assume without merit that there was decades of manipulation of the tradition before it was written. xi) They assume that if an author believes what he writes then it lacks historical value because he’s trying to persuade, an artificial and utterly implausible assumption. xii) It should be noted that Matthew/Luke make careful use of the text of Mark (assuming the conventional solution to the Synoptic problem), which not only puts an external check in place on them, but shows their trustworthy character. They weren’t embellishing. xiii) John uses a number of editorial asides in his Gospel, which not only helps the reader and deals with inconsistencies, but also shows an awareness throughout of a distinction between the original events and the narrative of them, the record and the historical event. xiv) The Gospels don’t have the character of bias – they show a spectrum of realistic responses to Christ. Eyewitness control of the gospel tradition
Hays discusses the issue of whether God loves the reprobate. i) Helm and the minority report deny that God has an unrealized desire for the salvation of the non-elect, appealing to anthropomorphism for certain passages of Scripture. ii) God doesn’t command people to do something and then eternally prevent them – there’s a difference between inability and prevention [the former being internal, the latter external]. iii) “Prevention” presumes that apart from divine intervention the reprobate would do good. Why do people think their default setting is to do good? iv) Since God gives commands, and they are actually broken, there’s a sense in which God intends his commands to be violated. So their violation serves some ulterior purpose beyond the terms of the command itself. This is a factual problem for anyone who thinks that “God thus is presented as flatly acting against His own commands; not disobeying them, exactly, but staunchly refusing to even desire to bring His own commands to fruition” is an objection to Calvinism. v) It’s fallacious to equate the agent’s moral obligation with divine intent. These are separate. Since God’s preceptive and decretive wills exist in a part/whole, means/end relation, and God doesn’t will means irrespective of the ends, you can’t isolate the part from the whole. vi) “The question of divine accommodation and anthropomorphic usage goes to the issue of how we treat emotive language (e.g. expressing unrequited desires) in reference to God. And that is clearly relevant to this debate. At one end of the spectrum is Mormonism.” Does God love the reprobate—1
McKinley is not against sermon introductions, but poorly crafted ones. He doesn’t like either of these: ""We will now engage in this five minute convention wherein I make reference to something in the news, in a book or movie and you pretend not to notice that the segue I make to the Biblical text insults your intelligence" , or "I will now say something funny or tell a story and you will be so glad that I am chewing up 11% of my allotted time on this nonsense that you won't care that it's not really meaningful in any way." Otherwise, he cuts them. Sermon Introductions by Michael Mckinley
McKinley has some suggestions on moving to elders in a church. i) If you’re interviewing for a pastoral position, be up front about your intent. ii) If you’re planting, get governing documents in place at the beginning. iii) Move slowly, emphasizing godly, Biblically qualified leadership even if they aren’t ‘elders’ right away. Show you’re actually concerned with the church’s health. iv) Take a season and put eldership front and centre in the teaching of the church. Find out if objections are emotional, traditional, or exegetical. On Moving Towards Elders by Michael Mckinley
Creation.com reveiws D’Souza’s book, What’s So Great About Christianity, noting that while it’s full of great arguments, but it’s serious flaw is that it embraces theistic evolution, ignoring man as specially created according to Genesis, not derived from animals, ignoring the genealogical records, which trace Christ back to Adam, and ignoring the treatment of Adam as a real man. He also confuses speciation with evolution. “He argues rightly that evolution cannot account for the beginning of life, and ridicules some evolutionists’ attempts to get around the origin of life problem,10 such as Crick’s seeding from space aliens.11 However, he does not seem to realize that tagging God onto an otherwise godless system to explain the gaps in evolution is just as unreasonable. So is asserting that God is somehow directing evolution, since this is no different for all practical purposes, from atheistic evolution, apart from a Christian’s say-so.” http://creation.com/review-whats-so-great-about-christianity-dsouza
The philosophy word of the day is identity. Philosophy Word of the Day – Identity
DeYoung writes, “Whatever lasting impact John Calvin has had on the church of Jesus Christ, and on the whole world for that matter, is owing to his commitment to understanding and explaining the word of God.” Calvin’s confidence was not in technology or in human potential, but in the Word of God, and this is why we remember him. Strive for relevance in your day, and you’ll may make a difference for a few years. Anchor yourself in what is eternal and you may influence the world for another five centuries. The word of God stands forever (Is. 40). Calvin had weaknesses, and he was physically frail and could be emotionally volatile, and no one lamented his weakness like himself. But his universe was one where man was small and God was big, and he had no problem being dust and a worm because he knew that’s what he was in comparison to the infinite glory, splendor, and holiness of a sovereign God. Unlike humans, God’s word is strong, abiding, and eternal. We all want significance, but paradoxically we pour ourselves into that which is fleeting. John Oswalt in his commentary on Isaiah remarked, “If I insist I am permanent, then I become nothing; if I admit that God alone is permanent, then he breathes his permanence on me.” Fads and fashions rise and fall but the truly significant people are those who know they are nothing. “This is the one I esteem,” says the Lord, “he who is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at my word” (Isa. 66:2). Let’s do everything, reading, studying, singing, missions, relations, theology, being saturated in the word and with the firm conviction that God is true though everyone were a liar. Let’s truly reckon with the permanence of God’s word. “Te grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever” (Isa. 40:6-8). Withering and the Word- John Calvin at 500
Here’s a visualization of just how massive the debt is apparently going to become under Obama – his own administration’s budget predictions make President Bush Jr. look like a ‘coupon-clipping housewife’.
Here’s a dose of links for Calvin’s 500th birthday. John Calvin (1509-1564)
Phillips writes, “Want a peek into how an evil mind views abortion? Witness Supreme Court Justice Ruth "Darth" Bader Ginsburg. This is cold-blooded pro-abort absolutism at its ugliest; the spirit of Margaret Sanger and her racist eugenics lives on in the highest court of the land… don't ever forget that Hillary! is a huge fan of that selfsame bloody-handed racist.” Hither and tither
T-fan (on Calvin’s birthday) quotes Calvin to the effect that birthdays can be good to celebrate as far as they give thanks to God, who created the world, but human depravity tends to distort and corrupt things. So don’t overdo it. Calvin on Birthdays - Don't Overdo It
JT links to an article of a feminist who unashamedly claims selfishness as a virtue: “… Why shouldn't we be selfish if it means we're meeting our own needs and taking care of ourselves? What's wrong with caring more about bringing pleasure to your own life than anything else? …” JT appreciates the candor, and prays that she and other feminists would be set free from the bondage to self by teh glorious Gospel. What's So Wrong with Being Selfish-
A contributor to 9Marks laments the encouragement and agreement received regarding the latest 9 Marks e-journal on missions, which had an article warning of the replacement of Biblical faithfulness with pragmatic results as the new measure of missionary success. “When you essentially suggest that someone you love (Western missions) has a cancer the last thing you really want is lots of agreement, especially if many add that things are even worse than you suggest.” They were hoping for a less ‘this is so true’ sort of response from all over the world. Depressed by all the Encouragment by Andy Johnson
White is very grateful for Calvin, but notes, regarding the celebration of his birthday, that “I cannot help but think that Calvin himself would be royally angry about the whole thing. In fact, I'd say he'd probably have some of us flogged and driven out of Geneva! Especially us "Anabaptists," we'd be in deep trouble.” Yes, Yes, I Know it is July 10th
Bird has some summaries from the Tyndale Fellowship. I mention this here because the last one caught my eye: “Tiemeyer wants to read Ezekiel for authorial intent and with the "grain" of the text, as part of Sola Scriptura, in canonical perspective, but she recognizes elements of Ezekiel which she finds morally abhorent such as that which happens to the populace of Jerusalem and Judea. She believes that a "Christian" reading requires honesty as some parts are morally offensive and sound to us as unworthy of God, yet we cannot be selective and we cannot explain it away. Instead she chooses to look Ezekiel's "violent and misogynist God" in the face and plea before him. We should read Ezekiel with Lamentations and be willing to lament before God, appeal to his mercy, honour, and grace, and accept God's acts but also call him to account.” Bird doesn’t seem convinced that the approach was distinctively Christian, in that a Jewish reader could grapple similarly, but rather, should we not read this with the story of the cross too? My thought – why is it that I’ve seen so many Christians who actually think that what God does in the Scriptures is morally abhorrent or unworthy like this? Do they really not reckon with the reality of sin?? Do they not truly comprehend that the real injustice in the whole thing is that these people were permitted to live for yet another day as in their wicked depravity and disregard for a Holy God, and that this is where the cross story fits so well – in that God vindicated His glory in forebearing with this very sin because of His mercy in Christ Jesus? Tyndale Fellowship - Part 1
Ray Ortlund suggests a competition over which all Christians can fight for first place – outdoing each other in showing honour (Romans 12:10). http://christisdeeperstill.blogspot.com/2009/07/romans-1210.html
On July 9th, 2009 the Episcopal Church held hearings on a collection of resolutions requesting marriage equality or rites for same gender blessings. Episcopal Life reports that the resolutions received broad support. These requests include making canonical changes to the Book of Common Prayer – replacing the words “man and woman” with “two persons” and “husband or wife” with “spouse.” Gender blog notes that this should be a living parable before the watching world and especially the Christian church of Romans 1:32, “Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.” This is nothing less than a matter of the creature disregarding the Creator’s will and design, forsaking Him for their desires. The Episcopal Church has gagged the authority of Divine instruction. A Holy Blessings on Same-Gender Marriage - Holy-
“Apostle Troy” has condemned James White (who is apparently the leader of Calvinism) to hell. Apostle Troy Condemns Me to the Flames
Hays quotes Jonathan Ray, an assistant prof in Jewish Studies (he specializes in medieval and early modern Jewish history, focusing on the Sephardic world), on the anti-semitism of the medieval Roman Catholic church. “medieval Jews typically shut themselves securely within their walled Jewish Quarters during Easter week to try and avoid the nearly perennial anti-Jewish violence that the holiday provoked among the Christian masses.” Popes also would threaten kings, etc. which would largely be disregarded. Is Lateran IV anti-Semitic-
Girltalk explains why godly womanhood is so important by quoting Feminine Appeal, which in turn explains why they blog. The virtues of womanhood are not about personal fulfillment, but about the Gospel of Jesus Christ, about adorning this Gospel (Titus 2). “Nothing Evil to Say”
This, and the ensuring combox, is worth a read. The Obligatory Triablogue is Full of Big Meanies Post
No comments:
Post a Comment