2008-08-11

Clint comments on a local Calgary coffee shop/ministry, and the lack of interest in evangelism expressed in the coffee-shop literature. i) All it seems they offer is a good cup of coffee, possibly with soy milk… does the nature of ‘outreach’ today reduce to fair trade, organic drinks, and service that goes beyond? ii) Ironically, the coffee is cheap – making them a competitor to the other coffee shops in the area. Does this leave them with the impression that a megachurch is trying to take over the coffee business with cut-throat pricing? iii) “Yet no gospel. No mention of the Savior. No real love. So concerned with treating with "dignity and respect" that the gospel was hidden in shame.” Saving the World One Soy Latte at a Time-

Spurgeon cautions against wasting time pursuing the innumerable number of men’s ‘cardhouses’ of philosophical arguments. He exhorting ministers to instead pursue the building up of the flock, dealing with real doubts and anxieties in converts, and to avoid the common sewers of skepticism. On Philosophical Apologetics

Engwer links to a lengthy thread where he responds to skepticism regarding the resurrection of Christ. Jesus' Resurrection And Historical Probabilities

Dan Wallace points out the significance of Codex Sinaiticus, which is the oldest complete NT in the world, one of the most important for establishing the autographic wording, and lacks the story of the woman caught in adultery and Mark 16:9-20. He then discusses some of the ‘mixed up facts’ the media has published regarding Codex Sinaiticus. i) It’s not the world’s oldest Bible. It’s incomplete in the OT; if an incomplete manuscript can be considered the oldest Bible, Vaticanus is a better candidate. ii) It’s not the oldest copy of the Gospels (e.g. P52, P75, P66, P45, Codex B are all older, by up to 200 years). iii) That Barnabas and Hermas are between its covers is no indicator that they were thought canonical by the church, and its extremely doubtful they were thought so in the fourth century, nor were they accepted in the earlier centuries. iv) Sinaiticus does not say Jesus was angry in Mark 1:41 (that’s Bezae). v) The Codex is not a new find, it doesn’t affect issues of canonicity, and the ‘alterations’ that will supposedly ‘upset fundamentalists’ don’t impact belief in the inerrancy of the original autographs. vi) It’s misleading to suggest that it excludes Jesus’ resurrection, since only Mark’s longer ending is missing, and even in Mark Jesus predicts His resurrection several times. vii)  Modern Bibles aren’t based on the ‘latest’ manuscripts, and factor in all sorts of things, like this. Wallace chides the sloppy journalism shown in this sampling of widespread bad reporting on Sinaiticus. “Codex Sinaiticus is of inestimable value. Its importance for establishing the text of the New Testament, as well as the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint or LXX) and the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas, for giving us a window on ancient bookmaking, for being a milestone in the cultural shift of the ancient world from the scroll to the codex, and for many other reasons cannot be denied.” Codex Sinaiticus Completely On-Line Now

Manata sums up (again) the argument by an Arminian who thinks that (a) choice in the dictionary is by definition libertarian, and that (b) this is the ‘common man’ understanding, which means (c ) that this is what the Scriptures mean in using the terms. Manata goes on to show numerous problems with it (including disagreement with the Arminian by libertarian philosophers). He cites a philosophical definition of choice that mentions alternative possibilities, showing that ironically the Arminian is using a philosophical definition, and not a ‘common man’ one! Manata thinks this definition of choice is good: “Choose = df to select freely out of a greater number of things, where this selecting is a mental action explained in terms of reasons, where a reason is a purpose, end, or goal for choosing one (or more) thing to make a selection out of a group of things, or an intentional object, which is about or directed at the future and opative in mood, i.e., wishing to pick x-thing and that it be good for x-thing to prevail in the world rather than y-thing being picked and prevailing in the world.” He notes that it is consistent with determinism. Calvinists won’t find the Arminian’s argument compelling because it simply assumes its own position in its foundation. Manata also notes that there are many good arguments that attempt to show that indeterminism does not provide us with the kind of control needed for freedom. He addresses a number of other points, like the idea that man is default libertarian, or the absurd notion (ad hoc asserted to attempt to save the Arminian’s argument) that God wouldn’t use a word without explanation if ‘common man’ might misunderstand it. Final Thoughts on the Choose Debate

Hays responds to an atheist’s question begging argument that miracles are ‘antecedently improbable’ (that miraculous reports must be ‘weighed against the prior improbability’ and that it’s ‘irrational to believe a miracle if it’s unprecedented’ and ‘since miracles are by definition extraordinary the evidence from the normal course of nature automatically outweighs any ostensible evidence for the miracle’) by making an observation. Hays notes a few analogies from life: i) the natural course of a man’s heart is to keep beating until old age. So if this atheist were a juror, he’d acquit a murderer because it’s antecedently improbably that a heart stopped beating by a knife stab, since hearts naturally beat until old age. ii) If he saw water flowing uphill, he’d deny it, question his senses, etc. but if you showed him a pump which did it, he’d still deny that the water flows uphill because of the towering presumption against this occurrence. “Left to its own devices, it’s antecedently improbable that water flows uphill. However, given a water pump, it’s not antecedently improbable that water flows uphill. Indeed, given a water pump, it’s antecedently probable that water will flow uphill.” “You can’t very well say there’s a presumption against miracles because there’s a presumption against unnatural events. For there is only a presumption against unnatural events given the absence of a countervailing factor, like a miracle. The ordinary course of nature does nothing, of itself, to create any presumption against the occurrence of a miracle.” The objection to miracles is ultimately tautologous: absent a miracle, it’s highly unlikely that an unnatural event ever occurs. Flyers or liars-

Hays has to reiterate (again) the essence of his cardplayer analogy, which illustrates whether you can make choices even when you don’t have them. Depending on the state of the game, several hypothetical alternatives are mathematically possible, but only one is a live possibility; i.e. the actual sequence. Yet the players are deliberating as if more than one possibility is live. Laughing with him...or at him-

Poythress comments on egalitarianism, noting the dangerous lure to project contemporary ideals (in this case on male and female roles) onto the consummate state, and then read them back into the present as moral ideals for moving the now to the then. For egalitarians, the ‘goal’ is then retrojected back into the present as an ideal to which marriage and the church should move; they aim to become ‘utopian’ in thinking and practice, and this damages rather than enhances Christian living for God’s glory. He reminds us that “We are living in the middle of God's program leading to the new heaven and the new earth."  A Steady Path Forward- Some Direction for the Gender Debate, Part 4

McKinley offers his thoughts on how preachers might speak on sex from the pulpit. i) Being frank is ok – the Bible has lot’s of stories/serious warnings about sexual immorality. ii) Careful, though: Some people have different comfort levels, and we need to be sensitive. Pastors should seek to be caring and loving at this point. iii) We should not be graphic, crude, or casual. iv) It’s a good idea to run things by those who are more conservative/sensitive than you are. He runs it by his elders. Preaching About Sex by Michael Mckinley

Payne answers the question, why don’t we sing [in church]? James wrote, “Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing.” He concludes, then, that the reason we don’t sing is because we are sad: as a society, we have lost some of the joy of being truly human because we have drained God and the gospel from our culture. Back in the day, even common men would sing about their work. G.K. Chesterton observed that there is something spiritually suffocating about our lives. “The very fact that we Christians do still sing makes us strikingly different in our world. That we don't sing more lustily means that the godless sorrow of our world is still too much with us.” Why we don’t sing

Burk notes an article in CT that reports that Christian camp ministries are in decline. Crossings Camps

Challies points to this article relating the story of parents finding out their baby would be disabled. It begins with this: “When I called the MFM specialist, she immediately rattled off the severe abnormalities found, the fetus' incompatibility with life, and the scheduling of an abortion. I interrupted: "If the baby is going to die anyway, why do you want to kill it before it dies a natural death?" There was silence on the other end. I went on to explain that the parents would not have to deal with the guilt of killing their child if it died naturally. There was a pause, then, "I hadn't thought of that," she said.” Here’s a better idea: "Perinatal hospice honors life. The woman carrying the disabled child receives extensive counseling and birth preparation involving the combined efforts of MFM specialists, OB/GYN doctors, neonatologists, anesthesia services, chaplains, pastors, social workers, labor and delivery nurses, and neonatal nurses. She carries the pregnancy to its natural conclusion." http://www.worldmag.com/articles/15726