This post summarizes Yoder's argument in The Politics of Jesus for a pacifistic reading of the Scriptures. Basically, he points to a number of texts in the OT where God says He will fight for His people, i.e. they don't have to. That is, a dominant theme is that God saves His people without their needing to act. Key texts include: Ex. 14:3; 2 Chr. 14:11; 20:17; 20:29; 32:8; Ezra 8:21; Deut 28:7; 1 Sam. 2:9, Zech. 4:6. Yoder thinks it is wrong to go to the texts looking for moral judgment on holy wars, since he argues the original audience would not have thought this way, and instead would have seen God their Saviour working on their behalf. When the modern reader hears the Sermon on the Mount, etc. he just assumes that "Jesus can't mean that." Now, Deut. 20. does seem problematic, as the Israelites were commanded in the Law to put the Canaanites to the sward. God Will Fight for Us- Is the Old Testament Pacifist-
JT posts the "Anti-psalm" 23, which basically inverts the song: it tells what life feels like and looks like whenever God vanishes from sight. The experience of Psalm 23 is not beyond us, for we may have it in Christ. Jesus puts it this way, "It is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom" (Luke 12:32). He delights to walk with you. The antipsalm is only your reality when you live in a lie. The real Psalm 23 captures what life feels like and looks like when Jesus Christ puts his hand on your shoulder. Antipsalm 23 vs. Psalm 23
DeYoung writes that many churches involved in missions don't put enough thought into their missions budgets, and offers some questions to help. i) Are we supporting 1 Timothy 4:16 kind of people? Basically, sounds doctrine, a firm and unwavering grasp of the Gospel, a right view of the Bible, lives beyond reproach, growth in godliness, and lives in line with the truth are essential for missionaries, not just pastors. But don't allow this to become adversarial. ii) Are we supporting ministry in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and the ends of the earth? Basically, we should be active in pursuing both like-culture and cross-culture ministry, both near and far. It's not about an even split, but don't be too lopsided. iii) Are we striking the right balance of word and deed in the ministries we support? Holistic missions is good, but it's not a euphemism for not sharing the Gospel. Word-ministry is first. Make sure deed-missionaries are looking for ways to share the Gospel. Don't lose sight that the goal is to teach others to obey Christ [such social ministry in evangelism is only a question because we are so privileged - poor, broken oppressed people witnessing to the rich don't have this question - and that's telling as to what our priorities are.] iv) Are we giving priority to long-term missionaries? Don't overemphasize short term missions, which is a fad these days. Short-termers are very limited; they can't even disciple. "It's not always as sexy as the youth trip to Kentucky, but it is the only way to win the world for Christ." Questions for Your Missions Budget
Challies writes that those of us who are Western Christians continue to hear reports that the church is migrating to the south and to the east--that as our nations increasingly turn their collective backs on God. Numerous figures are given to indicate that China, Africa have greater church attendance than Europe, etc. The world is becoming more like America and so American Christianity is becoming more important, according to Mark Noll. He doesn't blame America for recklessness in exporting religion, etc. Instead he stresses "the advantage of seeing the new regions of recent Christian growth as following a historical path that Americans pioneered before much of the rest of the Christian world embarked on the same path." However, Noll's book suffers considerable weakness in being far to broad and unqualified in its definition of Christian. The New Shape of World Christianity
Fee has a new commentary on 1+2 Thessalonians. Fee on 1 and 2 Thessalonians
Patton asks, can a true Christian doubt God at a fundamental level? He thinks a reborn believer can doubt. Belief isn't black and white; i.e. people waver in the strength of their belief. The definition of doubt, at least from one perspective, is the line that bridges our faith and perfect faith. No one has perfect faith. This takes on various forms, be it habitual sin, doubt of God's existence, etc. He doesn't think this is wrong in that we live in a fallen world, so he thinks this is only wrong insofar as living in a fallen world is wrong [i.e. he seems to imply a victimization view of sorts; my view doubt is always culpable, since it declares God to be untrustworthy]. But Christians can and do doubt. It's a necessary evil on the resulting from imperfection. Can Christians Doubt-
This blog says of Piper, "I’ve not heard a great deal of Piper’s sermons—maybe only a handful. But every time I’ve heard him preach he’s left me with the unswerving impression that he truly, deeply, profoundly, and earnestly (even fiercely) believes the things he preaches about. And that’s not a small thing. Lord have mercy! If we even believed half the things we say we believe… As mentioned above, Piper has an immense ability to communicate the urgency of spiritual matters. Eternity is at stake and Piper doesn’t let you forget it." Gerald’s Mount Rushmore of Preachers
Here's a warning against begrudging the 'celebrity' preachers. i) We are in the same team, so rejoice in their success. ii) All is not as it seems, so reflect. Big doesn't necessarily have God's blessing... all that appears fruitful is not necessarily so, and some things that appear less effective on the surface are being greatly used of God. iii) Rest, since Jesus is Himself the prize, and not success. The goal of ministry is to get people deeper and deeper into a God glorifying, soul satisfying relationship with Christ. Well Known or Well Done-
Hays continues commenting on Genesis 50:20, in light of Craig Blomberg using it to justify his 'Calminian' theology. i) The text would appear fatalistic on an unbiased glance. Calvinists are often accused of fatalism. ii) There are two ways to look at fatalism. No matter what you do, you fulfill your fate. All paths lead to the same outcome. Nothing you do can change it. ii) Self-fulfilling prophecy - you fulfill your fate by trying to avoid it. iii) We also tend to think of fatalistic scenarios as bad - i.e. a person striving to escape his sorry fate against his will, in vain. It seems unfair. This need not be. Hays looks at some cases: Joseph, Herod, and Herodotus. and Sophocles: all these examples share a common motif: an unwelcome prophecy or prophetic dream. Some of the participants try to foil the prophecy. Yet their efforts to foil the prophecy are the very means by which the oracle comes true. God occasionally uses fatalistic methods to make a point - even defiant sinners cannot avoid his will. We'll also note that Joseph didn't object to the dreams. And the brothers, who did, were beneficiaries later. So too we benefit from the case of Herod. Benevolent fatalism. There is also a delicious poetic justice in fatalistic twists against wicked men at times. e.g. Haman. Ester is the story of one grand reversal - and no one need guess as to where this comes from. Esther and Mordecai are not attempting to sabotage God’s plan. As pious Jews, they have implicit faith in God’s providence. So the reversal of fortunes is fateful for Haman, but not for Esther or Mordecai. Calvinism, fatalism, and self-fulfilling prophecies
Engwer enumerates some important nuances in the conversion of Saul of Tarsus as evidence for Christianity. i) The idea that he had a naturalistic vision is problematic, as detailed elsewhere. Paul was not conflicted and did not doubt his Judaism. Paul tells us that he was zealous and viewed himself as blameless (Galatians 1:14, Philippians 3:6). He doesn't seem like a probable candidate for something like a guilt-induced hallucination. ii) There is no credible early dispute of Paul's conversion as related in Acts. There was rejection of Paul after, but this wasn't disputed. iii) The conversion makes more sense if it's true because it is placed at a time when the enemies of Christians would be well aware of it. i.e. this makes it difficult to contest. iv) Paul talked about his conversion of Acts, he surely mentioned it in dozens of places over his decades of ministry, The author of Acts has these things "not done in a corner" (26:26). That's not a good way for the author to contextualize a story he's making up. The idea that the author was free to be largely inventive in his accounts of Paul's conversion, yet get those accounts to be so widely accepted, is dubious. v) The author of Acts knew Paul. Acts has a good track record in terms of historicity. Why would a naturalistic vision result in blindness (Acts 9:8), which was removed by Ananias (Acts 9:18)? A naturalistic vision wouldn't have been experienced by Paul's companions. Paul's ability to perform miracles following the conversion is also confirmatory. "Any argument that Paul was lying would have to address the evidence we have for his sincerity. Any argument that he was sincerely mistaken would have to address the nature of the miracles reported in Acts and the widespread acceptance of his claim to be a miracle worker, including in contexts in which people were willing to question him on other grounds." Paul's Conversion
Lisa Robinson at Parchment and Pen praises Patton for his openness/"authenticity" and exhorts people to confess their sins with their churches, to be honest, open, etc. We also must not create an environment where people cannot confess. Though this isn't to be taken as a license for leaders to poor their ills upon whomever will listen. There is need for wisdom. On Authenticity, Condemnation and Community
Bayly writes about turning grace of God into lasciviousness. He thinks that what we don't need is more talk of 'graciousness', but a word about sin, holiness, repentance, and mortification, and false conversions, etc. Anyone who holds to eternal security must hold to the danger of self-delusion as well, and wolves in the church. Owen said, "To use the blood of Christ, which is given to cleanse us, 1John 1:7, Titus 2:14; the exaltation of Christ, which is to give us repentance, Acts 5:31; the doctrine of grace, which teaches us to deny all ungodliness, Titus 2:11,12, to countenance sin, is a rebellion that in the issue will break the bones." Turning grace into lasciviousness
Apparently the Y chromosome is 'degrading'. Christian environmentalists and the degeneration of maleness
Bayly notes the utter abdication of the duty of shepherding when pastors just 'wait for the sheep to ask for help', while permitting the wandering sheep to go astray, allowing unrepentant wanton sin in their congregations, etc. Sometimes the sheep have to be manhandled back to the fold. And they don't always like it. David, in Psalm 23, says, "Thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me." Discipline is a great comfort to redeemed souls because, according to Hebrews 12, it is proof of the Father's love. So, also, it's proof of the love of His undershepherds. Such kindness and love for sinners, such as excommunication, is rarely demonstrated today. And it is absurd that a pastor would think he should only get involved in the public scandal of his congregant if asked. The lost sheep and his shepherds
Phillips reflects on the unbelief and grumbling of the Israelites in Numbers 20:3-5, and depression. i) Their concern about water had a basis in reality. But depression doesn't always need a cause. ii) The Israelites had forgotten that they were in the desert because of their unbelief. So they blame everyone but themselves. And failing to learn, they simply repeat their sin. "For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction," (Romans 15:4), "And we mustn't miss the lesson here. Refuse to learn from discipline for sin, and we will repeat both sin AND discipline." So too the Proverbs speak to those who bull-headedly refuses to accept discipline, rebuke, correction (cf. 1:24-31; 10:17; 12:1; 15:10; 29:1, etc.). And while we forget, God does not. The Israelites' unbelief got them there, and they respond with more unbelief, and thus exclude God. The matrix of unbelief is the cause and sustenance of their despair. Depression is a fundamental miscalculation. The essence of depression isn't that it's baseless, but that it's vantage point is incomplete. Thankfully we have their story for our instruction. Unbelief is depressing [requested classic re-post]
Challies quotes Burrough's on Christian contentment to the effect that true contentment depends profoundly upon a right understanding of God's providence. All the infinite variety of God's works work in an orderly way. We look at things in parts. God sees the whole. He looks at all things at once, working our His purpose. And our discontent derives from our lack of perspective on the relation of things to one another, and we'd rather have God change something, without regard to the thousands of connections this thing has to His works elsewhere: "by your desire to have your will in such a detail, you may cross God in a thousand things that he has to bring about". Reading Classics Together - The Rare Jewel of Christian Contentment (VI)
Phillips writes, "Professor Jim Hamilton brings a tale from his brother about an expectant mother who walked out of an abortuary and decided to have her baby.It's wonderful to read a story with a happy turn, in the ongoing war against the inconvenient and the imperfect." A story with a happy twist, from the war on the inconvenient unborn
Jeremy Pierce comments that Molinism/middle knowledge's problem is that it doesn't get a middle view - it gets Calvinism. This is because there must be truths about what a free being will do in a certain situation in order for God to know what he will do, precluding open theism. If God knows what a free being will do, then there is a fact about what a free being will do (i.e. “counterfactuals of freedom”). But what would make it true that under different preconditions I'd do something different? If you lose the preconditions, you lose the explanation: "Somehow such facts exist, but nothing makes them true, because if something made them true then my actions would be caused by what makes them true." There is no explanation for why there are such truths as espoused by middle knowledge except for the compatibilistic view - but this is what Calvinists insist upon, and Arminians object to! In other words, Molinism/middle knowledge has no grounds unless Calvinism is true, and is therefore self-refuting. Molinists aren't Calvinists, but they reject Calvinism and also take on a view that makes no sense if Calvinism isn't true. Once you admit that there are facts about the world that explain choices, you adopt a compatibilistic freedom, and then it's not middle knowledge. Jeremy Pierce on Molinism
Hays notes how in recent debates certain atheists have simply begged the question, arguing like this: "Naturalism is true. We know naturalism is true because all the evidence supports naturalism. Therefore, any evidence for the supernatural can be dismissed without further ado." i.e. they say there are 'no reliable eyewitness' testimonies to the resurrection. i) It begs the question to assert that the NT writers were 'superstitious', or that they wrote 'decades' after. ii) The Bible's accuracy may be in dispute, but its inaccuracy is too. This cuts both ways. iii) If someone is a “devoted follower,” does that automatically render his testimony suspect? What if someone is a devoted follower of Darwin? iv) The atheist has given a deconversion testimony. Yet he says that eyewitness testimony is the worst kind and unreliable. So should we discount his deconversion testimony? If anyone has an axe to grind, it's him! v) The atheist says it’s rational to discount the first occurrence. Yet his appeal to precedence is self-refuting if you can never credit the first occurrence. vi) He also makes the typical mistake of treating a miracle as if it’s synonymous with any weird, pointless event you can dream up. Biblical miracles aren't weird and pointless. vii) Some miracles are expected to be one time events. And we have testimony of other resurrections, like Lazarus. viii) The atheist's argument boils down to this: "We can't believe NT reports of miracles because the NT reporters were gullible and superstitious. And we know the NT reporters were gullible and superstitious because they report miracles." ix) Also, in terms of Gospel harmonization, and Jesus referring to the priest as 'Abiathar', Hays notes that Matthew clarified, and this is audience dependent [moreover, this was a convention for referring to a story]. Tail-chasing atheism
Hays comments on Hubbard’s new commentary on Joshua. i) Hays notes the general disconnect we have from the world of the Bible. Hubbard was a naval chaplain, and thus brings warfare experience to his commentary. ii) Modern readers find the world of Joshua deeply offensive. It is an appalling world, but one can't shoot the messenger. iii) The peoples of Canaan initiated the hostilities against Israel. "Israel’s northern and southern campaigns (Josh 10-11) were in response to those hostile initiatives, not preemptive strikes. Even though the peoples knew the power of God (according to Rahab and the Gibeonites), they choose to stand against him. This fact should caution us against viewing the peoples of ancient Canaan simply as victims of some sort of injustice." iv) It's easy from our comfortable life of peace to wag the finger at militaristic history. But war would remind us of the reality of the things we read here. "It isn’t as easy to be judgmental when our own foes are just as ruthless as the enemies of ancient Israel." We need to adopt the perspective of a field commander when reading this book. Joshua
Phillips calls his vote for Jimmy Carter ... "Worst. Voting decision. Ever" He makes this pointed statement: "the difference between my vote and that of professed Christians who trashed their distinctively Christian values to vote for their ideological enemy, Barack Obama, is that contrary information and thought-out Christian resources were not readily available." Carter's follies are visible and repeated globally. There's a book entitled, The Real Jimmy Carter: How Our Worst Ex-President Undermines American Foreign Policy, Coddles Dictators and Created the Party of Clinton and Kerry. He's betrayed his country, Lord, and denomination. Jimmy Carter, my Obama
Turk, quoting iMonk affirmatively, notes that you have to do more than read books all day and call yourself a Christian. The early believers didn't even have a lot of books. They had a life in a community built on the Gospel given through Christ, and they did it by being grateful and kind and loving and generous, not belligerent. Mostly right
This post at Genderblog reminds us of the sad effects of third wave feminism - the raunch-porn culture. Girls raised in a culture that preaches female empowerment see their bodies as tools/assets to power, and moreover, they flaunt because they want to. Pornography, which was once a tenet of the feminist (and Christian) fight, now is not simply an exploitation of women at the hands of men. Girls are proud producers of it too. This article connects this to sexting, i.e. sending sexual explicit photos via MMS. "Most teens who sexted sent the photos to girlfriends or boyfriends, but 11% sent them to strangers, according to the study made public today by the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children and Cox Communications. Of teens who sext, 80% are under 18, the survey found." Sexting and the Teenage Girl - Part 1
Adams writes about the inseparability of biblical truth and exhortation. The academy deals with truth in abstract. This should not - and cannot - be so. Luther said, when I preach I teach, when I teach I preach. You can't interpret the Scripture rightly and believe it and not exhort people to follow it. You can't merely emote. And you can't just give a dissertation. Preach and teach. Preaching and Teaching
On John Newton's birthday (the blaspheming slavetrader turned grace-filled pastor and hymnwriter), JT points to some resources on him. John Newton
White points out that unregenerate individuals always respond to the Gospel - with rejection, be it hatred or a false piety and empty religion. Then he notes the story of the Glasgow publicly funded exhibition that encourages people to deface the Bible. "the irony is that "The exhibition has been created by the artists Anthony Schrag and David Malone, in association with organizations representing gay Christians and Muslims." Gay Christians and Muslims? So, the first thought across the logical mind is, "So, why don't you have a Qur'an sitting there to be scribbled in as well?" And, of course, we all know the answer to that. Anti-Christianity is good business and culturally acceptable." White asks, are these morally neutral agents with a free will who just need more info to turn from their sin? Moreover, God chose to instantiate these people who would do exactly what they would do (but freely), and without any purpose or meaning. Which is senseless. The general call of the Gospel will either curb sin, or it will stand as a condemnation of man. "Western culture hurtles toward self-annihilation in its hatred of God and His law, we see open desecration of Scripture being hailed as "art." Is this not a fulfillment of the Bible's own description of the sinfulness of man in Romans 1 and 3?" Glasgow Art Display Again Shows Man's Hatred of God's Ways
JT quotes Piper with an imagined conversation between the prayerless and the prayerful. The answers to prayer are like the brightness to a fire; God has ordained both the effect and the cause, and the effect does not happen without the cause. The event will happen if the cause happens. God has established the universe so that in larger measure it runs by prayer, the same way he has established brightness so that in larger measure it happens by fire. A Conversation between Prayerful and Prayerless
Hays points to Reppert, who furnishes an example of the 'no matter what you actually believe, as long as you're courteous, it's cool' in his talking about infanticide. "Once we reduce ethics to etiquette, then as long as the prison guard who shoves a Jewish kid into the oven is polite to the inmates, that’s the main thing. There’s no cause to speak ill of the guard or question his character." While you're killing late term babies, just be polite. And ironically those who tout universal love are consistently intolerant of opponents they don't like, only loving the lovable. Nice, polite infanticide
Here's a call to be slow like God - that is, slow to anger, slow to quarrel. Be Slow Like God
Bird notes the resurgence of sorts in ascribing a messianic paradigm, intent, self-consciousness to the historical Jesus in recent scholarship, in contrast to previous scholarship. The Return of the Messiah
Rick Holland's first message at Resolved begins by reminding us that sin comes from within us. It's innate. Not learned. And we're our own worst enemy. We are in a spiritual war. Yet we need to be perfect. But does this sink in? Do you merely think your theology? Or does it change your life? Does it cause you to war against your own flesh? Peter told us that we are strangers in this world. Do you feel like a stranger? Are you an alien here - so that the things of this world aren't quite right, and your heart's treasure is in heaven? Owen calls us to ask, do you have a due consideration of God? And labour to know your own disposition, to know your weaknesses. Do you know the agents of Satan in your heart? Do you really reckon with why Jesus had to die for your sins? Sin is any thought, action, etc. that is contrary to God's word - it is a lack of perfection. If you are fighting sin, you're alive. If you're not, you're dead. www.resolved.org
After noting that the fact that philosophical/theology debates can continue indefinitely (and this can be a turn-off), Manata responds again to an Arminian’s assumption that LFW is in the Bible. The argument is basically, “The Bible uses the word ‘choice’ and was written for the common man, and Merriam-Webster contains what the common man understands words to mean and defines ‘choice’ in libertarian fashion, thus the Bible teaches LFW, and so determinism is false.” i) What is the referent of ‘common man’? Who are these people? Statistical groups usually are dynamic. Does the ‘common man’ think the same things in all places and times? It’s certainly plausible that the common man holds to determinism. Maybe he doesn’t reflect on the tension of LFW and determinism and holds them both inconsistently. ii) The common man consults the dictionary as much or more than everyone else. Why not his own mind, if the dictionary contains what he understands? iii) The Bible was not solely written ‘by and to’ the common man. Kings, doctors, Pharisees, etc. wrote it as well. iii) To the comment “the Bible was not written to semi-compatibilists.” it seems Arminian God is not as fair and omni-loving as we have been told! Calvinists have limited atonement, they have limited intended audience. iv) Open theists have argued the same way as this Arminian (e.g. Boyd claims that when we think of “deliberating,” we presuppose that the future is open, not settled (and if it is open, God does not know it).) v) The argument depends on every single ‘common man’ holding to liberarianism. To this, Manata points to a study of ‘common men’ which indicates that less than half hold to free will. The philosophers wrote this: “The data seem to support compatibilist descriptions of the phenomenology more than libertarian descriptions. We conclude that the burden is on libertarians to find empirical support for their more demanding metaphysical theories with their more controversial phenomenological claims.” Hence, this Arminian’s argument is refuted. vi) Manata previously cited libertarian Robert Kane’s definition of ‘choice’ and concluded that it certainly seemed possible that “choosing” can happen on determinism. Also, other dictionaries don’t contain the PAP element. It has also been noted that ‘When we think of ourselves hypothetically as having acted otherwise than we did, we always suppose a difference in the antecedents: we picture ourselves having known something we did not know … or as having desired something … more or less than we did’ (i.e. compatibilistic). vii) Frankfurt counter-examples, which rebut PAPs and ought-implies-can, are equally as intuitive as these. viii) Kane on Free will: “A choice is the formation of an intention or purpose to do something. It resolves uncertainty and indecision in the mind about what to do” (Robert Kane, “Libertarian Perspectives on Free Agency and Free Will.” Oxford Handbook of Free Will, p.423). ix) Manata wrote to Kane, and Kane said: “I wouldn't change my definition. The idea that you can prove libertarianism or compatibilism or any other view on fw true by defining terms such as choice in a rigged way is whistling in the dark. We could still make choices in a determined world. We would just not be *ultimately responsible* for the choices we did make.”” Plantinga and Basker are fine with his definition. Goetz says the Bible teaches nothing on free will. Timpe thinks there are a variety of similar mental acts called choice. x) This Arminian is at odds with the biggest guns for his position. A PAP Test In Action- Ability to Write a Retraction-
Frame on neutrality: “To tell an unbeliever that we can reason with him on a neutral basis, however that claim might help to attract his attention, is a lie. Indeed, it is a lie of the most serious kind, for it falsifies the very heart of the gospel—that Jesus Christ is Lord. For one thing, there is no neutrality. Our witness is either God's wisdom or the world's foolishness. There is nothing in between. For another thing, even if neutrality were possible, that route would be forbidden to us.” The Myth of Neutrality
Here’s links to a number of MP3’s on parenting. Parenting Seminars
This article at Washington Post on climate change is worth a read. i) China has made it clear that economics are its priority, contra Obama’s belief that developing nations will sacrifice their modernization on the altar of climate change. ii) Even Japan isn’t really trying that hard. iii) The G-8 vowed to cut greenhouse emissions by 80% by 2050 (41 years). If you don’t want to do something, just promise to do everything tomorrow. Why such sluggishness in the face of a crisis? Simple: iii) 5 billion in the developing world are behaving in a new way. After centuries of exclusion from economic growth, they are enjoying it, which is tiresome to would-be climate fixers in already prosperous nations. iv) When New York Times columnist Tom Friedman called upon "young Americans" to "get a million people on the Washington Mall calling for a price on carbon," another columnist, Mark Steyn, responded: "If you're 29, there has been no global warming for your entire adult life. If you're graduating high school, there has been no global warming since you entered first grade." v) Hence, regarding climate change, “the U.S. government, rushing to impose unilateral cap-and-trade burdens on the sagging U.S. economy, looks increasingly like someone who bought a closetful of platform shoes and bell-bottom slacks just as disco was dying.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/22/AR2009072202415_pf.html
Piper’s Filling Up the Afflictions of Christ is available for free here (as with all their other books). Download John Piper's Latest Book for Free
Live mice have been grown from skin-cell derived stem cells. http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/07/23/stem-cells-mice.html
No comments:
Post a Comment