Turk writes that Paul, in Titus 2, which was sent to a guy who is to put things in order, raise up elders, etc. in a culture as far from the Gospel as the most unchurched city in the ancient world could be, that Paul does not say ‘make sure you administer the sacraments rightly’ or ‘make sure you uphold the continuity of the covenants by baptizing babies and maintaining the Law/Gospel contrast’ or ‘get serious about your Greek and Hebrew, and make sure every sermon you preach is verse-for-verse, word-for-word preaching’. He says, ‘teach what accords with sound doctrine’ because these ‘people need to adorn the Gospel’. Some people may take this as works righteousness. But Paul is saying that the church ought to be training itself so God’s word isn’t reviled. So people know how to live after they know the Gospel is true. Hence, Paul teaches shoe-leather doctrine. The pastor’s job to preach doctrine and the consequences of those doctrines -- that is, how to live now that this is true. Adorn the Gospel [1]
Hays continues debating with an Arminian. i) “Choice” can mean either the psychological process of deliberating on hypothetical alternatives, deciding one, or it could involve the metaphysical claim where the future is open and we have the power to instantiate an alternate timeline. ii) The Arminian keeps missing this. iii) A gambler is an example of one who deliberates over hypotheticals and decides one, even though only one possibility is live – and the gambler even knows this. There is one order of the cards. iv) The Arminian admitted he has no empirical proof for LFW, but it just seems intuitive. Hays noted in response that we often make choices on the basis of what we thought were possible outcomes which, in hindsight, turn out to be beyond our reach. A card player deliberates over mathematical possibilities, though he knows only one is actual. v) The Arminian defines real choice in terms of the power to realize the outcome of choice. So anytime you choose something and it fails to work out, you’re not really choosing. vi) In determinism, there may be several abstract possibilities, but only one live possibility. This metaphysical restriction doesn’t impede making choices because the determinist can’t anticipate which abstract possibility is live in advance. vii) Can the gambler not make choices? Is the future open? In terms of probability, yes. Metaphysically, no. Yet the gambler is not prevented from making choices. viii) The Arminian says that you can’t go from ‘chocolate is possible’ to ‘I can choose chocolate’, but you can go the other way. This restricts choice, ironically, to psychology. Which is consistent with determinism. ix) In Molinism, the agent doesn’t determine what he will do, but only what he would do. Will do has reference to the actual world, and that is up to God. God chooses what the agent does by instantiating a possible world. So the future isn’t open-ended. Mathematical possibilities and live possibilities
Hays quotes William Lane Craig: “Philosophically, I’m persuaded by arguments such as have been offered by Harry Frankfurt that free choice does not entail the ability to do otherwise… Now in the case of God, if God is essentially good, then there is no possible world in which He does evil. But does that imply that God does not freely do the good?” William Lane Craig on freewill
Adams writes that Christianity, unlike Mormonism, etc. is above board, open to examination. It isn’t concealing things. Rather, the religion is proclaimed openly to the world. It’s not like Gnosticism, where it takes years to become a full member. Jesus spoke openly to the world (John 18:19). So too must we. Got a Secret-
T-fan continues responding to a Romanist on the sufficiency and perspicuity of Scripture. Cyril (315-386 AD) said, “Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.” Justin Martyr (100-165) seemed to think the Scriptures were clear, contra this Romanist: “Pay attention, therefore, to what I shall record out of the holy Scriptures, which do not need to be expounded, but only listened to.” Irenaeus said, “Since, therefore, the entire Scriptures, the prophets, and the Gospels, can be clearly, unambiguously, and harmoniously understood by all, although all do not believe them… those persons will seem truly foolish who blind their eyes to such a clear demonstration, and will not behold the light of the announcement [made to them]…” Tertullian (about A.D. 160 -220) said, “Take away, indeed, from the heretics the wisdom which they share with the heathen, and let them support their inquiries from the Scriptures alone: they will then be unable to keep their ground. For that which commends men’s common sense is its very simplicity, and its participation in the same feelings, and its community of opinions; and it is deemed to be all the more trustworthy, inasmuch as its definitive statements are naked and open, and known to all. Divine reason, on the contrary, lies in the very pith and marrow of things, not on the surface, and very often is at variance with appearances." Athanasius said, “And this is usual with Scriptures, to express itself in inartificial and simple phrases” and “These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.’ And He reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me.” And so on. Moreover, the doctrine of perspicuity doesn't claim that every text of Scripture is equally clear. Chrysostom (A.D. 347 - 407) wrote, “… All things are clear and open that are in the divine Scriptures; the necessary things are all plain….” This Romanist by implication of his own assault on perspicuity should think the core Trinitarian and especially Christological doctrines are not clear from Scripture, putting him at odds with Theodoret, Augustine, and Novation. The Scriptures were written for our learning, which likewise implies that we can read it and learn (Rom. 15:4); for our admonition, implying they can do this (1 Cor. 10:11); they are able to with sufficient clarity make one wise for salvation (2 Tim. 3:15), and John’s works are written so that people can believe and be saved. Thus, Romanists are at odds with Tradition and Scripture. Flattening Flimsy Flim-Flam
Obama is not doing too well in the polls. He’s now worse off than President Bush at the same time in his presidency. http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2009/07/22/graphic-crumbling-polls-is-it-the-end-of-the-obama-affair.aspx
Genderblog, anecdotally comparing the author’s child’s poor conduct at a baseball game and a pro golfer’s mature conduct in losing at a key moment, writes that self-control and learning how to fail gracefully are critical lessons for future men to learn; they are a critical part of manhood, a critical part of a man's ability to lead well. "A man without self-control is like a city broken into and left without walls." (Prov. 25:28) Young men- Learn self-control
Spurgeon’s catechism is available in Arabic. Charles Spurgeon in Arabic
Thabiti offers his new book, May We Meet in the Heavenly World: The Piety of Lemuel Haynes, as one tool to turn your mind back to your first love if your heart has grown dull or complacent. An Interview with Thabiti about Lemuel Haynes
White (and Swan on his blog) point to a statement by Romanist apologist Sungenis that illustrates the vacuity of Rome’s claim to unity, particularly in light of Rome’s criticisms of sola scriptura as resulting in disunity. The Unity of Rome Illustrated
White follows up on his post on the worthlessness of praying to saints, like James, especially given that this contradicts what those saints taught. i) Romanists assert that praying to saints is no different than asking a friend to pray from you. But prayer is an act of worship. We don’t pray to our fellow saints. And the ‘communion’ of the saints is not due to ease of communication but union with Christ. Roman Catholic practice has robbed prayer of its exalted position (by allowing it to saints, angels, and in particular, to Mary) (White points to where he debated this topic). ii) Roman argumentation try to ‘connect’ Luke 20:28 (God is God of the living) to the transfiguration, and from there takes a leap to the idea that the saints in heaven can communicate with those on earth. White notes the use of obscure and baseless connections rather than clear hermeneutical conclusions and careful handling of the text: the unique, one-of-a-kind event of the Transfiguration is assuredly not a basis for such communication. iii) An appeal to a seventh century example of such prayer is hardly compelling. “Who has ever denied that by the seventh century all sorts of unbiblical traditions were as popular as popcorn?” A Brief Comment on the Communion of Saints and Catholic Blogger Devman
Barry at Solapanel writes that Jesus is (i.e. presently) a Jew. This removes all grounds for anti-Semitism (after all, we worship a Jew). This reminds us of His humanity, confronts us with the present reality of the Jew/Gentile issue and how Gentiles are included, and reminds us that while God’s purposes are universal in scope they were achieved by a particular race in time. This is biblical: “... behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals. (Rev 5:5)” Jesus IS a Jew
This post connects the parable of the talents to the Great Commission. Too often the parable is interpreted in the discharge of the talents in abstract, general terms—becoming a better person, using our gifts and abilities at church. But the discharge of the talents is congruous with the Great Commission. Christ leaves, and His disciples are given this mission. “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you.” Christ will require of us this charge, not whether we attended church or were moral. “Make no mistake about it. A true disciple of Christ is engaged in the mission of Christ.” Don’t be deceived: the parable reveals only two kinds of servants—those who hear “Well done,” and those who hear “Go to Hell.” This is not a side-job. It must be our singular focus. The Parable of the Talents and the Great Commission- Connecting the Dots
“The story's told that, during the Second World War, the RAF had a small group of pilots they noted were quite good at spotting camouflage. When they looked into the matter, they found the thing this group of pilots had in common was that they were all color blind and had memorized the color charts to get into the RAF.” Apparently colourblindness is an advantage when colour causes a distraction. It's an ill wind that blows nobody some good
Phillips asks that you read “You Aren’t Bipolar, You’re Just a Jerk” by Mike Adams before reading this post (done). Phillips finds “Adams' post a maddening mix of the brilliant and the irresponsible.” There are surely many, many people who need to get over themselves. Equally though, there are those who will be crushed by his uncaring over-generalizations. "Whoever sings songs to a heavy heart is like one who takes off a garment on a cold day, and like vinegar on soda" (Proverbs 25:20)."Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep" (Romans 12:15). Phillips knows little about ‘bi-polarism’/’manic depression’ except that there is something serious to it. He has first hand experience with depression and ‘there that ought to fix it’ simplistic formulas probably do more harm than good – he tried all that the article said. A depressed person should speak with his pastor, study the Scriptures, etc. If that doesn’t address it, maybe it’s something else. People who help need to be longsuffering. And identical symptoms can have different causes – and people may not be what they seem. The ‘Christian’ may be in unrepentant sin. Depression (bi-polar and otherwise) and jerkiness
Piper comments on Luke 11:33-36, writing that the lamp in the world is His wise and powerful presence, greater than Solomon or Jonah. Christ is the lamp. Jesus becomes a lamp for you when you see it for what it really is. If you see Jesus for who He really is (i.e. your eye is healthy), then you are full of light. If not, you’re full of darkness. There is much in the world that passes for light through the eye, but is really darkness. Many bright things keep us from seeing Christ. Like city-lights obscuring the stars. Be careful what you see. Christ is the glory we were made to see. https://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TasteAndSee/ByDate/2009/4110_Be_Careful_Lest_the_Light_in_You_Be_Darkness/
Here’s an interesting post citing Yoder’s argument (which the post identifies as weak at points) for practicing Jubilee in the NT. Yoder takes the Lord’s prayer (forgive us our debts…) in a monetary sense, and he takes Luke 12:33 as a mandate to redistribute capital (though not through government action and socialism, which robs Christians of the joy of giving to serve). While he doesn’t like the argument that this command is an individual challenge to a particular man’s materialism, he nevertheless waters down the command himself since he doesn’t think Christians should sell everything. Yoder argues Jubilee is supposed to be a permanent state in the church. Yoder and the Implications of the Jubilee
JT posts eight theses and four priorities from Carson on establishing a Christian university. Can There Be a Christian Univeristy-
Creation.com quotes Darwin on his problem with the Peacock tail, and notes that detailed observation by a research team led by Mariko Takahashi of the University of Tokyo ‘throws a wrench in the long-held belief that male peacock feathers evolved in response to female mate choice’. The study found no evidence that peahens choose mates according to the quality of the peacocks’ tails—‘at odds with Darwin’s theory of sexual selection’. Darwin’s sexual selection theory has been increasingly under attack in recent years. http://creation.com/peacock-tail-tale-failure
No comments:
Post a Comment