2009-07-20

Phillips quotes an excerpt of NT Wright on hell. For Wright, hell is really just progressive dehumanization, merely the result of a choice you make to reject God. He also states again – as if he’s the first person in history who has actually recognized things like this – that it’s not a matter of leaving earth to go to heaven but rather heaven coming to earth. Wright ‘concluded’ this after talking to a Greek Orthodox individual who said he ‘didn’t understand a final judgment’. Phillips: i) The polarization of hell/heaven didn’t happen in the middle ages. Ditto for viewing people as having two destinations. Matthew 25:32-46; Revelation 20:4-15. ii) Is this ‘hell’ even a place of punishment? iii) What language would the Bible use to depict hell if it were an actual place? iv) Wright’s description doesn’t sound worse than the Bible’s depiction, nor does it communicate much urgency in escaping it. v) “Is it that view of judgment and Hell that is "Western" — or is it not Wright's own existential, philosophized presentation that is thoroughly and almost squeakingly "Western"?” vi) What sounds like Jesus’ presentation of hell? N. T. Wright on Hell

T-fan notes, i) What’s wrong with God being ‘the author of sin’ if all that is meant is that in some remote sense He ordains that sin transpires, aside from sounding like a nasty label? ii) We need to distinguish between God’s revealed will and His secret will in discussions of theodicy, and when studying certain key passages. iii) God foreordained that the Jews would deliver up Jesus to Pilate and yet the Jews had not just sin, but a greater sin than Pilate's sin in executing Christ unjustly. Response to Prophecy Channel

Engwer points to some discussions on the historicity of the infancy narratives, where he responds to objections akin to those posed by Marcus Borg and John Spong. [just a note, a post at Reclaiming the Mind argued that Mary/Joseph did not stay in a ‘barn’ at all, but were received into a house in Bethlehem. Animals were kept in the middle of the house; hence, the manger being available.] He also notes a discussion on praying to the dead and angels, and whether Ps. 103:20-21 justifies prayer to angels. Discussions About Christmas And Prayer

Colin Smith at aomin.org writes on the state of the reprobate. i) The Arminian objection to election is that it seems to entail ‘double predestination’, which is fundamentally emotional for them, as they misconstrue the idea of election as God dragging millions of helpless screaming victims to hell who cry, ‘why me, why me?’, like terrorists rounding up a number of hapless villagers. ii) The Reformed view starts with the fact that we are all sinners (Rom. 3:23). iii) People do not want God and seek to actively suppress the knowledge of Him. The last thing they want is God. You’d be dragging them kicking and screaming into heaven. iv) If by "double predestination" you mean that God has elected some (a multitude, if we accept what Revelation 7:9 says) for salvation, and purposefully left the rest to their just and deserved condemnation, I say, "indeed, that's exactly what I believe." v) The condemnation of the non-elect is designed primarily to furnish an eternal exhibition, before men and angels, of God's hatred for sin, or, in other words, it is to be an eternal manifestation of the justice of God. The True State of the Reprobate

Challies writes that Burroughs (The Rare Jewel of Christian Contentment) defines contentment in this way: Christian contentment is that sweet, inward, quiet, gracious frame of spirit, which freely submits to and delights in God's wise and fatherly disposal in every condition. Challies notes the pastoral tone of the book. “But now comes the grace of contentment and sends it under, for to submit is to send under a thing. Now when the soul comes to see its own unruliness-Is the hand of God bringing an affliction and yet my heart is troubled and discontented-What, it says, will you be above God?” Burroughs notes that the Christian quietness, true contentment, does not murmur in affliction, is content to stay down until God makes one stand, is truly spiritual, and keeps quiet under affliction in submission to God, while seeing His sovereignty and delighting in His wisdom. Reading Classics Together - The Rare Jewel of Christian Contentment (I)

Girltalk writes that who does what in the home matters, and that God has given men and women unique roles to fulfill. There is no one-size fits all, but women must seek to avoid two errors: i) Wives are in error in expecting their husbands to be their helpers. Rather, women are their husbands helpers, and the wife is the home manager (1 Tim. 5:14). The husband and wife do not equally share this responsibility. Girltalk cautions against taking advantage of a husband’s servant attitude. ii) Wives are in error if resentful when their husbands do not help at all. Laziness is inexcusable, but this post is aimed at women: Stop looking at your husbands as determinative of joy and rather look to serve the Lord. Look at your husband’s sin in light of the cross. Overlook sin if this is such a time. Look for ways to help your husband help. Look to others, get assistance in marriage. Look to God in faith. A Homemaker’s Dilemma, Pt. 3

Hays reviews a review, which itself seeks to build a theodicy for animal suffering in response to an atheist vegetarian’s ‘problem of evil’ in animal suffering. i) The review is predicated on Darwinian evolution – reject this premise, and the problem of evil is likewise rejected. [i.e. Darwinian evolution would necessitate such suffering in the good creation, so reject it, you reject his]. ii) Even granting theistic evolution this doesn’t commit you to gratuitous animal suffering. iii) Naturalistic evolution can’t accept teleological explanations. iv) If the idea is the with evolution we’ve been enlightened to the horror of animal suffering, and animal suffering is unjust, the former point is irrelevant, since the amount of suffering is inconsequential if its unjust. Ancient Jews and Christians were already well aware of animal suffering. v) We don’t need to accept that gratuitious evil is unnecessary evil. Rather, it’s pointless evil, which serves no greater good. vi) Even if we are confronted with gratuitous evil, this doesn’t de facto mean God doesn’t exist, for there are many other theistic proofs. vii) It’s a slight of hand to move from suffering (a natural phenomena) to moral evil. How can an atheist derive moral properties from events? He commits the naturalistic fallacy. viii) While responses to theodicies are inevitably person-variably due to a lack of common values, we can argue for our value systems. ix) While surely animals feel pain, pain-states correlate with mental states. You can’t ascribe the same mental states to all animals regardless of their mental capacity. x) To simply say that we don’t need Satan, etc. to explain any natural phenomena is mere secular prejudice, and this has no weight. xi) Human liability to disease is the result of Adam’s fall. But animal pain serves a legitimate function in a cyclical ecosystem, which by definition is not gratuitous. x) “God designed the natural world in such a way that it would pose a challenge to man. Man has a calling to cultivate the wilderness and tame the wild kingdom. To make the whole world a garden of Eden.” xi) There is a difference between Eden and the wilderness; this is presupposed in that ejection from the garden is punitive. xii) The sensible world is symbolizes good and evil. xiii) Most animals seem to enjoy life just fine. Indeed, a well-fed lion is a happy lion. It’s mere anthropomorphic projection to view them as victims of cosmic injustice. They don’t think that way. xiv) “From a Christian perspective, animals are divine artifacts. We should treat them with the same respect that we treat all of God’s handiwork. Not every type of creature should be treated the same way. But we should avoid inflicting wanton harm on a creature.” Nature raw in tooth and claw

T-fan writes that Augustine took 1 John 2:2, i.e. ‘Christ is the propitiation for the whole world’ as referring to the Church throughout all the nations/the world. He saw it as a vast geographical expanse, and should inform our understanding of the semantic domain of the phrase in patristic interpretation. Augustine on 1 John 2-2 and Whole World

Bolt at Solapanel observes the need for greater respect to women from women, noting that feminists toss all the blame for all problems on the male – there’s no such thing as the female sinner anymore. But this ends up slighting women: Is the victim always the female, and the female always the victim? Does the seductress in this office care about the wives at home?  It is disrespectful to remove women from all responsibility. Moreover, ideologies hijack questions of personal responsibility: “To speak of women, instead of this woman, and men, instead of this man, is, in the end, being disrespectful of both.” Where do those weary in heart find relief from guilt, restoration of relation, etc. that is needed due to sin? ‘Respect for women’ isn’t going to cut in. Only Christ is sufficient for this. What about respect for women from other women-

Jeremy Pierce looks at Mary Anne Warren’s defence of abortion, which he says is demonstrative of how poor a position they have: He argument against potential/future personhood is effectively that “Each cell is a potential person, so you're preventing the future existence of each one if you refuse. If abortion is wrong because potential persons have a right to life, then we should have an obligation in such a scenario to submit to be taken apart and have our cells turned into new people.” i) No one holds that idea of potential personhood - It's having the characteristics to develop naturally into a person given one's natural environment, and the natural environment for a fertilized embryo is a healthy human uterus belonging to the embryo's biological mother whose nourishing body provides the nutrients and protection to develop into a person. Also, she views a 9 month fetus as having ‘not much more’ moral status than a guppy – so to her infanticide really isn’t that bad. Yet you need strong justification to kill a dolphin, say. But a newborn has similar moral status to a dolphin. The only way to make this hodgepodge claim consistent is to take the "not much more" as somehow enough to move from a moral status with a fairly open allowance for killing to a moral status that takes very strong moral justification for killing. And that makes it implausible in the first place. http://parablemania.ektopos.com/archives/2009/06/warren-guppies.html

Piper quotes Kuyper (who argues for this) on the massive debt we owe to Calvinism: “In the rise of your university education . . .; in the decentralized . . . character of your local governments; . . . in your championship of free speech, and in your unlimited regard for freedom of conscience; in all this . . . it is demonstrable that you owe this to Calvinism and to Calvinism alone.” The thought of Calvinism is that of an the all-embracing personal pervasiveness of God’s sovereignty in all life: "the whole of a man's life is to be lived as in the Divine Presence." God’s sovereign purposes govern the simplest occupation – this is the foundation for the protestant work ethic. And Calvinism thus breathed freedom into modern history. America's Debt to John Calvin

Bird has an interesting quote from Ambrosiaster on Romans 1:17 (Ambrosiaster takes the objective genitive for the righteousness of God. He also has no problem with human faith being the instrument that reveals God's righteousness). Bird argues that he sees the righteousness of God as God’s faithfulness. Ambrosiaster on Rom. 1.17

While the Emergent movement appears to be in its death throes, Johnson notes that “the contempt for truth and clarity that gave rise to Emergent in the first is deeply engrained in secular culture. And as long as the church is full of wannabe hipsters who think the biblical mandate is to marry the culture rather than confront it, postmodern irrationalism and post-evangelical apostasies will simply mutate into new strains, blend into existing movements of all stripes, and continue to trouble the church for generations to come.” Eugoogly

AiG, responding to reader feedback shows again that there is no end of citations of baseless invective from evolutionists. You’d think that if their position was so good they’d actually attempt some argumentation. For example, this commentator actually just asserts that there is something like an ‘unbiased review board’, as if man can decouple himself from his presuppositions, which seriously begs the question at hand. This objector also calls AiG/creationists irrational, apparently unaware that atheism has no grounds for rationality in the first place without presupposing the existence of transcendental entities, like the laws of logic. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/06/19/feedback-a-good-day-ruined

Reformed Baptist press has some stats indicating a lack of moral conscience in America. God has been replaced with the real American Idol – the self. Self-gratification is the new moral norm.David Myers (The American Paradox , 2000) writes: “We are better paid, better fed, better housed, better educated, and healthier than ever before, and with more human rights, faster communication, and more convenient transportation than we have ever known.  Alongside all of this largesse, however, are the signs of life in pain and travail.  Since 1960, the divorce rate has doubled, teen suicide has tripled, violent crime quadrupled, the number in prison has quintupled, illegitimate children sextupled, and the number of those cohabiting has increased sevenfold.” Selfolatry

Koinonia has a post on the background studies of the Philistines, how they were a ‘cultured’ people, not primitive, and represented the quintessential foreign adversary to Israel and God. Citations are given from a number of ANE sources mentioning the Philistines. In sum “at least by the beginning of the Iron Age (c. 1200 B.C.) the Philistines were settling along the southwest coast of Canaan from somewhere south of modern Jaffa to the border of Egypt. Their five most important cities, the so-called Philistine pentapolis, were Ashdod, Gaza, Ashkelon, Gath, and Ekron (Josh. 13:3; 1 Sam. 6:17). Beyond their so-called pentapolis, the Philistines exhibited expansionist tendencies—already in the time of Samson and increasingly in the period of Samuel and the early monarchy—which brought them into direct conflict with their Israelite neighbors to the north and east.” [note that I think this simply assumes a late Exodus] The Philistines by V. Phillips Long

JT has a summary of Rick Holland’s message at Resolved on fighting sexual lust: Undertake the pursuit of biblical instruction (Prov. 5:1-2). Undress the deception of sexual sin (Prov. 5:3-6). Understand the value of safe distance (Prov. 5:7-8). Unmask the regret of sin’s aftermath (Prov. 5:9-14). Unlock the satisfaction of marital fidelity or intimacy (Prov. 5:15-19). Unleash the power of God’s omniscience (Prov. 5:20-23). A Biblical Strategy for Fighting Sexual Lust

Broughton Knox identifies another principle of prayer; namely, that we are to be joyful and rejoicing in prayer. Thanksgiving is an essential characteristic of recognition of God. We should rejoice in God all things, knowing that they come from the hand of God. God invites us to bring our requests to Him that He might answer them in wisdom and we might rejoice in Him with thanksgiving. This privilege of praying is through Christ, and therefore all our prayers are offered in His name. Knox’s seven principles of prayer (Part VI- Rejoicing)

Mohler writes on the pervasive marginalization of fatherhood in our culture (which some bring upon themselves through abuse), a prime source of which is the intellectual class and its radical commitment to ideological feminism. Fatherhood is an ideological category inescapably linked to patriarchy (their original sin) in their view. Mohler summarizes five myths about fatherhood debunked by Brad Wilcox. i) The stay-at-home dad: only 1% of 22 million families have stay-at-home dads and most still view dad as the prime breadwinner. The media focus on the "exotic breed" of the stay-at-home dad obscures the fact that providership is essential to the role of most fathers in most families. Such fatherhood should be honoured. ii) While it may be true for the average journalist or academic, it’s simply not true that most women want a 50-50 distribution between work and family life for fathers. Rather, most are happy to have their husbands take the lead when it comes to provision, and don’t want to work full time. iii) Marriage and fatherhood are a package deal – and cohabitating simply isn’t the same: cohabiting fathers are much less likely to stay around and stay significant in the lives of their children. iv) Divorce is harmful [what sort of stupid, irrational, near-sighted, selfish, pig-headed, incompassionate, cruel, God-hating, foolish, moronic, idiotic imbecile would say otherwise?] and, for example, girls whose parents divorce are far more likely to drop out of high school, get pregnant, suffer depression, and divorce later. v) Dad’s are indispensable, contra modern fads upholding the single mom by choice scenario, and vast social scientific literature showing children do better in married families with fathers than otherwise. http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=4015

Hays writes that while critics deride inerrancy as dying from a thousand qualifications, inerrancy is bound up in the question, ‘what makes a statement a true statement?’ which is not self-defining and not trivial. There are competing theories of truth. Inerrancy also needs to be defined. The ‘qualifications’ feed into the definition. Unbelievers, of course, have their own definition as well. What makes an historical statement true? It must simultaneously bear a certain relation to the event, the speaker, and the audience, for it is a form of communication. What is meant? What is meaningful?  This isn’t trivial. Critics charge inerrantists with special pleading. But this sword cuts both ways, and it is just as easily said that the critic is defining inerrancy in a way that’s easy to falsify the Bible, since he doesn’t want it to be true. It would be wise for the critic to refrain from imputing motive. Defining inerrancy

Creation.com discusses insecticide resistance in the Australian sheep bowfly. The development of resistance to malathion can be easily explained by natural selection, resistance to diazinon is not so easily explained. Evolutionists point to this as evidence of evolution. i) Creationists should not de facto approach these issues arguing in vague categories that creatures don’t ‘change much.’ ii) It is noted that researchers in this field who are not part of the creation or intelligent design movements have pointed out that many changes in the genetic code appear as a result of far more complex mechanisms than just random, chance processes. iii) As to diazinon resistance, (a) while important, this sheds no light on the origin of molecular systems: Genetic changes which result in a shift of an enzyme’s substrate hardly explain the origin of the gene for the enzyme. (b) This resistance could have been present in the population before but was missed in sampling; though there are problems with this. (c) In the lab,In both the bacteria and diazinon resistance in blowflies, the mutations are costly in terms of loss of normal function. Thus from a creationary viewpoint, it is not surprising that these changes are generally resisted. (d) it could also be argued that both the appearance of the resistant mutation and of the subsequent modifier mutation were the result of directed mutations resulting from the selection pressure. (e) Diazinon resistance and multiple resistance from gene duplication may be the result of designed mechanisms that allow for adaptation in created life. It iv) Increasingly evolutionists are describing genetics in terms of computer programming – which rather supports arguments for design. http://creation.com/insecticide-resistance-sheep-blowfly

JT points to a new counseling book many will find helpful and of interest: Counsel from the Cross: Connecting Broken People to the Love of Christ , by Elyse M. Fitzpatrick and Dennis E. Johnson. Counsel from the Cross

Bird links to a piece in CT on Hengel entitled The Champion who Debunked Bultmann. Hengel had said once, "John 8:32 promises that "the truth will make you free." This is the ultimate aim of all true biblical scholarship. The search for truth unites us, and it is a task for which we remain always responsible. In a time of astonishing discoveries about the Bible, but also of deep errors and seducing deception, this task is more necessary than ever." CT on Martin Hengel

Creation.com has an article on evangelizing animists and Buddhists in various places in Asia. For them, the spirit world is very real. They live their lives appeasing the spirits by making various offerings to them. Interestingly, each group has stories of creation similar to those in the Bible (sometimes polytheistic variations). Some have great flood stories. They have no problem understanding angels and demons. Some are literally enslaved to demons, ensnared by them. Some groups love genealogies, being quite impressed with those in Scripture. The animists understand that there needs to be sacrifice. The people understand the suffering servant concept, and the missionaries will lead them through the OT, showing them the promise of the Messiah, and then identifying Him as Jesus. This chronological Bible teaching has been very successful among the animistic peoples who think chronologically. http://creation.com/liberating-animists

Craig Blomberg has a post here summarizing his ‘Calminian’ position. He thinks [wrongly; search triablogue] that middle knowledge preserves God’s sovereignty and human freedom/responsibility [e.g. consider that if God instantiates a particular reality based on future choices, (a) what grounds that foreknowledge, since those things are possible, not actual, so how can they exist outside of God before He instantiates them?, and (b) this is deterministic once instantiated, and under Arminian categories there is no ‘genuine freedom’ because one cannot choose otherwise]. He also says [wrongly, again] that Calvinism emphasizes divine sovereignty, while Arminianism emphasizes human freedom/responsibility [e.g. Calvinism has the most developed doctrine of sin around – it labours to preserve human responsibility, so this is a straw man]. He appeals to the ‘great men have differed so no side is right’ argument. Hence he calls himself a Calminian [he’s apparently actually a Molinist]. Why I'm a Calminian by Craig Blomberg

Walker notes a problem with Blomberg’s reasoning above: it fails to take into account that Christians can be and often are wrong about their theology. He points to the Arian controversy as an example. “we do not do theology by counting heads. Rather, we do theology by rigorous and thorough exegesis.” Counting Heads

T-fan responds to Blomberg above, noting the counting heads error as well. He also points out that Blomberg hasn’t adopted a position halfway between Calvinism and Arminianism, but rather Arminianism with a Molinistic explanation – which is more like a halfway point between Calvinism and Open Theism, not between Calvinism and Arminianism. What he also fails to miss is that if you pick the third position as a mediating position, the original argument still stands, and now there are just three positions that ‘godly men’ hold. So the truth must really be a fourth position, and so on, ad infinitum. Hence it’s self-refuting. He also ironically overlooks the fact that "godly evangelical Christians" disagree (mostly) with his fundamental premise that if "godly evangelical Christians" disagree about something, both sides must be wrong. Blomberg’s method isn’t how truth is determined. So Good Men Differ ... so what-

Ugggh. There’s an ‘iChristian’ app: “Now your iPhone / iPod Touch is a missionary, preacher and the evangelist!!! The iPhone / iPod Touch application "iChristian" ("Become a Christian") contains the minimum of required information to become a Christian. Alter the prayer of salvation. you may register as a Christian. If you would like, you may request a certificate of a Christian.” Bayly notes this doesn’t quite communicate the cost of discipleship – it isn’t a $1 app. When large crowds were going along with Him, He said

Piper writes that the Bible protects us from overstatements. He particularly has in mind situations where someone starts to overstate the case for "story" and says that the "real" way to communicate God's truth is in "story," marginalizing alternative ways, or vice versa (i.e. someone starts to overstate the case of doctrinal exposition to the exclusion and minimization of story and poetry). The Bible contains all manner of literature and forms of writing, so God has communicated to us in various forms. The Bible Frees Us From Being Swayed by Overstatements

Challies looks to the example of Nebuchadnezzar, who was unrepentant, and yet God called him His servant. There are two kinds of servants – the bondservant sort, like Paul, dedicated to God’s work, and this kind. Which will you be? The willing servant? Or the wicked servant trying to usurp his Master? Will We Be His Servants-

Mohler writes (citing Richard Louv) about kids having ‘nature deficit disorder’, where a loss of contact with nature leads to impoverished lives and stunted imagination. In the past, it seems, kids enjoyed a kind of free, natural play that seems, in the era of kid pagers, instant messaging, and Nintendo, like a quaint artifact. Kids today know more facts about ecosystems/forests, but unlike their forebears have little experience themselves in them. Increasingly, nature is something to watch, to consume, to wear--to ignore. Most kids have little contact with it. Unlike TV, nature does not steal time, but amplifies it. “Louv describes the environment as experienced by many American children as the "third frontier"--an environment that is characterized by increasing distance from nature, an intellectualized understanding of the animal world, and a disconnection in the human consciousness between food and its origins… many children have little knowledge of how food is produced. Lacking any experience with farming, livestock, and the food chain, these children simply assume that food is produced by something like a factory process. Young people may join animal rights groups without knowing anything about the actual animals involved. Louv argues that many college students become vegetarians without understanding that vegetables and vegetable byproducts are not manufactured indoors.” He suggests that a "nature-deficit disorder" may be behind the phenomenon now routinely diagnosed as ADHD. http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=4137

White notes the devastating danger of the unverifiable allegorical method, and the need for the grammatical-historical method to ensure we understand what the text is saying, and not what we want it to say. Allegorical interpretation destroys biblical authority. The authority of the Word is not based upon the interpreter but upon the inspired text itself. James White vs. Harold Camping on Iron Sharpens Iron!

McKinley points to a summary of Capitol Hill Baptist Church’s church planting recruiting process. Church Planter Recruitment Process by Michael Mckinley

In light of Governor Mark Sanford’s adultery and the ‘if he wants their help’ approach of the pastorate on Sanford’s church, Bayly notes that pastoral care isn’t a hands-off job, an aiming to please job. Pastors shepherd, they don’t offer help and wait to see if it’s wanted. If they desire his help

Hays writes that the argument from evil against God’s existence paradoxically generates its own theodicy, as it forces one to question things he’d take for granted in an unfallen world, and to contemplate the fallen versus unfallen world. “The atheist forces us to ask ourselves what the world would be like without God. Forces us to ask if there would even be a world without God. Of course, in an unfallen world, we’d have no occasion to ask such questions. And these are good questions to ask.” These very questions give us cause to treasure things in this life, and the exemplifications of God’s beauty in our world. We ought to take the atheist “up on the offer. Think long and hard about the deprivations of atheism. About the empty house behind window of atheism.” The gospel of the godless

Creation.com addresses an allegation that Genesis says that the moon emits its own light. “To us, the moon does emit light onto the earth. The sun’s light strikes the surface of the moon and reflects back at the earth. Notice that the Genesis text does not say or suggest that the moon generates its own light. In fact, the point is not the source of the light; the point is the impact that the lights have on earth.” http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/07/20/contradictions-by-the-light-of-the-moon