Manata continues debating with an Arminian. i) The argument [as I recall] began and was definitional – i.e. it was asserted (using the dictionary) that ‘choice’ doesn’t exit in determinism (in that it was asserted that the definition of choice entails a live alternative possibility). ii) The Arminian has moved the discussion beyond this (thus giving up the original argument implicitly) by citing a leading Libertarian philosopher who denies that deterministic choice (Manata has confirmed Kane agrees - contra the Arminian - that choice can be made in determinism) can be morally responsible or free. iii) Since this is a substantive philosophical question, and the very question at issue, the Arminian has demonstrated the massive question-begging nature of his original argument by simply assuming the tough part of the debate in his definition of choice. Arminian 4 eva. Here’s a refutation of the original ‘common man’ argument. Manata has shown that it is far from obvious that all "common men" whoever are libertarian (the Arminians has done nothing to substantiate his crucial assumption about all "common men" whoever), and that other major crucial assumption that "the dictionary" has (actually) "possible" as an essential component to the definition of "choose" is plainly false. Kaput
This post notes a friendly atheist (William Rowe) who in a recent book, Can God Be Free, has a chapter on Edwards’ view of divine freedom. Most of the chapter agrees with the force of Edwards argument. “Arminians consider God's acts to be free, and yet not free in the libertarian sense, while nevertheless considering God's acts of goodness as being praiseworthy.” Arminians can’t have it both ways; they can’t insist on the power not to will as one does for an act to be free/morally responsible, while declaring that God is perfectly free, when God wills of necessity to always do what He sees best – then God is necessary, not free. The atheist will apparently go on to try to demonstrate that Edwards' compatibilistic freedom is also incompatible with divine freedom. The Friendly Atheist on Edwardsian Freedom- Part 1
Continue the previous, Rowe opposes Edwards' belief that "moral inability to refrain from willing as one did is irrelevant to the agent’s moral responsibility for so willing and acting." (i.e. Edwards holds the drunk as responsible for taking the drink even if he is unable to refrain). Rowe uses an insanity defence as an example. But this cuts back on him, since when ‘it comes to judging those who are of their right minds, the court presumes that the actions of the individuals arose necessarily from the person's nature’, thus implying a compatibilistic understanding, and militating against Rowe’s ‘current moral standards’ premise. [not only this, but my guess is that Edwards would hold an insanity plea under the category of natural inability] The Friendly Atheist on Edwardsian Freedom-Part 2
Engwer has some thoughts on the evidence for New Testament authorship. Papias attests to Mark’s origins. i) He was probably a disciple of John (apostle, son of Zebedee); multiple sources attest to this, Eusebius inconsistently argues against it. ii) Papias refers to his source in such discussions as ‘the elder’, a term used for John. iii) Papias’ uses of the elder indicates him to be older/a source on earlier times. Papias lived late 1st/early 2nd century; i.e. he was a contemporary of the apostles, and there’s no good reason to put him later. iv) If Mark has some other earlier authorial attribution or circulated anonymously, we shouldn’t see the universal agreement from Papias/his source onward agreeing with Markan authorship. v) There is wide, early attestation to the traditional gospel authorship attributions. While authorship was openly disputed by believers/unbelievers alike for 2 Peter/Revelation, no such dispute is seen for Mark. vi) There is substantial internal evidence for Markan authorship. vii) Most ancient documents had the author’s name only in the title, this is not unusual. Documents were distributed among those known to the author, and authorial attributions/titles affixed to the outside. Also, once in circulation, such ascriptions were essential to distinguish them. It’s inconceivable that the Gospels were ever presented as anonymous – i.e. without authors. It’s also unthinkable that the superscriptions on the Gospels suddenly came into being, against the grain of the evidence we see. This who assert such must explain the completely unanimous and early attestation of these titles. viii) Hengel: Matthew established itself quickly and tenaciously in the church at the beginning of the 2nd century. Mark, novel in earliest Christianity, managed to establish itself in the communities and to be used extensively by such self-confident authors as Luke and the author of the First Gospel - in the case of Matthew around eighty percent and of Luke more than sixty percent - only because a recognized authority stood behind it. Nothing has led research into the Gospels so astray as the romantic superstition involving anonymous theologically creative community collectives, which are supposed to have drafted whole writings. Evidence For New Testament Authorship
Patton responds to the question, “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” i) This fails to recognize the greater good explanation, which is very common, having many parallels in real life, from disciplining kids to weight training. ii) This would be the suspicion from the start if evil exists. iii) But the Bible confirms this (Rom. 8:18, 28; Gen. 50:20). iv) This doesn’t mean we always know why particular evils happen. v) Faith trusts in the Lord’s character when we are faced with calamity that we don’t understand. We understand that if God created the world, acted in history, became incarnate, died on a cross and rose from the grave, then he is true to his word. Theology is of vital importance. If Evil, Why God-
Hays writes on the problem of evil, noting that he often presents a Supralapsarian theodicy, which furnishes a general rationale for the existence of evil, but doesn’t explain the particulars. It’s at this point that other explanations have some supplementary value. i) The general argument Christian philosophers often give, that there is no presumption that we’d know the reasons for permitting evil if God exists, is taken as special pleading by atheists. ii) If you begin with the assumption that there’s no evidence for God’s existence, it’s more natural to think as these atheists do, since they hear, ‘I don’t need to give a reason for God’s existence or for evil’ and thus it appears that nothing could count as counter-evidence. iii) There’s a difference between this and, “We don’t have a reason for the existence of evil, but we have many reasons for the existence of God–some of which we can give you, and some of which we can’t (since they involve personal experience, which is intransitive).” This isn’t nearly as open to the charge of special pleading. iv) It’s eminently plausible, beyond this dispute, that God could have reasons for allowing/decreeing evil which are inscrutable to the human, for causality is an immensely complex matter, and it’s simply impossible for us to fathom the infinite permutations. Who’s to say what’s ultimately better or worse? Certainly not man. v) God may have a reason not to tell us the reason. Indeed, God would have to make known to us the whole future in minute detail to show why such and such happens. But a future you know is one you’re in a position to change. This introduces a counter-suggestive dynamic which undermines foreknowledge. If you know the future then you know what to change in the past to change in the future, and if you act on that knowledge, you undermine the basis of the foreknowledge – it’s paradoxical. vi) Our priorities are limited in scope compared to God’s. The noseeum assumption
Hays debates some Roman Catholics. i) Hays shows how a Romanist tacitly admits that their dogma predetermines how Scripture is read in the case of the Eucharist/Lord’s supper. ii) Saying “The teachings of the apostles passed down through their successors, the bishops and early Church fathers as to how the Scriptures were in fact understood predetermined Catholic dogma” is an illustration of assuming what needs to be proved, and also makes the NT superfluous. iii) In the Reformed view, doctrine is intended to be the result of exegesis, not tradition. iv) heretical esoteric cults (e.g. Gospel of Thomas 92) use the appeal to disciplina arcani as Romanists are now, an appeal made by Romanists to explain away the silence of the church fathers on later Catholic dogmas, which itself goes back to the 17C Catholic apologist Emmanuel Schelstrate, and was rendered obsolete by Newman’s theory of development! v) In John 6, Jesus assumes his hearers were in a position to grasp what he said, for he faults them for their refusal to accept his claims – if this is a cryptic allusion to Mass, they’d be in no position to know what He’s talking about since it wasn’t yet instituted. Instead, correctly interpreting John 6 depends on background knowledge already available. The heavenly bread is a metaphor for Jesus’ Incarnation and immolation. John 6:51 entails that everyone who ever took ‘the bread’ is heaven-bound. So are Romanists now saying that everyone who took communion is heavenbound? On the basis of Jesus’ fulfillment of OT types and prophecies, they were in a position to know that he would die a sacrificial death. That involves general knowledge of a certain kind of event. They would be in no position to know about the institution of the Lord’s Supper–which involves specific knowledge of a particular event. John is quite clear on what Jesus’ listeners were in a position to know. That crops up throughout the Fourth Gospel. They were obligated to believe his claims because his claims were attested by OT Scriptures as well as his miraculous works. vi) Contra Romanists, the OT types don’t prefigure NT sacraments, but Christ and His life. [i.e. they point the pointer at another pointer instead of the object of both pointers]. vii) Arguments from similarities of practice of rites don’t prove anything, since their can be very different understandings under such rites. viii) Catholic Bible scholars have adopted Protestant hermeneutical methods. And they do so with the sanction of the modern Magisterium. ix) On one hand, John 6:51 is interpreted Eucharistically. On the other hand, when this entails the salvation of every communicant, they disregard the actual wording of John 6:51 and arbitrarily restrict its scope by an extraneous appeal to 1 Cor 11:27. x) They assume a eucharistic reading of Luke 24 to justify their eucharistic reading of Luke 24. x) Romanists can’t seem to think in anything other than authoritarian categories. They can’t reckon with the idea that a Protestant might agree with a commentator not because he’s an authority but because he presents a logical argument based on relevant evidence. The bread of life
Helm writes that while Calvin uses Augustine and latches onto the idea of the knowledge of God and of ourselves, i) he’s not uncritical. He thought Augustine’s account of evil would be unsatisfying, and rejected outright Augustine’s creation platonically influenced creation account. Calvin doesn’t slavishly follow Augustine. There is also nothing that corresponds in Calvin's experience to Augustine's 'ascent', the centre of which is both a metaphysical and an epistemological conclusion. Calvin had no concern to establish the certainty of God's existence in such a manner. ii) Esp. given his polemic against Rome, Calvin was concerned with the authority of Scripture and the certainty that believers could have through the work of the Spirit illuminating the revealed truth of the Scriptures. iii) Helm notes that Calvin committed himself to 'Necessarily, if A desires, then A exists', (a refutation of mortalism, the idea of the soul dying at death) but that this should not be ascribed a great epistemological significance, as if both Calvin and Descartes started from an Augustinian premise – that personal experience is the gate of access to our being. iv) Calvin's appreciation of divine transcendence was couched in much more negative terms than Augustine's, and he was not so much concerned with skepticism as with what does and ought to count as the knowledge of God in the Church. Only explicit trust in God as He is to us is sufficient. v) Calvin depart from Augustine by imparting his own distinctive emphasis to the importance of the knowledge of God and self. He finds in our knowledge of God as Creator another source of wisdom. vi) Augustine held a positive view of the body as well, but the external world was distracting, and could result in ‘a mass of empty thoughts’. Yet he thought when you enjoy a human, you enjoy God rather than that human. vii) Calvin has a different emphasis, less burdened by physical temptation/the pull of Platonism, and so supported secular disciplines and callings; he recognized the NT difference between things below and above, but help the first legitimate in a way Augustine found hard to do. Calvin thinks the same things can be used and enjoyed so he doesn’t have a tension between sacred and secular. There is not only necessity, but delight. This life isn’t just disposable means. Calvin thought a man could enjoy his wife; Augustine would have trouble with that. He counsels moderation, and enjoyment, not abstinence. Calvin rejected the latter as a knee-jerk polar reaction to excess. Augustine and Calvin on the Knowledge of God
Hays notes that the liberal media blame prolife organizations for Tiller’s murder, and say that though prolifers preach non-violence their incendiary rhetoric incites violence against ‘abortion providers’. Hays draws a parellel with a phenomenon on the left, which involves ecoterrorism, viz. Earth First, Earth Liberation Front, Animal Liberation Front, Earth Liberation Army, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, &c. These groups use incendiary rhetoric, resort to forms of ecotage like arson, car bombing, and tree spiking, considering this to be a logical extension of the conservation ethic. Yet mainstream environmental organizations denounce this. Ditto with anti-globalization, which shows the inconsistency of the liberal media. Meat is murder
Hays writes that radical environmentalism is becoming mainstream (e.g. Animal Planet is glamourizing ecoterrorist organization ‘Whale Wars’). This has inroads into the Obama administration and Democrats. Hays cites such radical thinking, which makes humanity a virus. “No human community should be larger than 20,000 people and separated from other communities by wilderness areas… We need to radically and intelligently reduce human populations to fewer than one billion… Who should have children? Those who are responsible and completely dedicated to the responsibility which is actually a very small percentage of humans. Being a parent should be a career… Curing a body of cancer requires radical and invasive therapy, and therefore, curing the biosphere of the human virus will also require a radical and invasive approach.” [I wonder why these environmentalists don’t lead by example and off themselves? They’re like Bin Laden. You don’t see him strapping on a bomb. Instead he recruits young men with guilt-laden consciences looking to secure a spot in paradise. Hypocrites.] The human virus
ETC notes a paper at SBL which demonstrates how Ehrman's interpretation of the textual evidence is seriously defective (i.e. in his Orthodox Corruption of Scripture). Whenever there is a textual variation in a passage that somehow relates to Christology, one or more readings are too easily identifed as examples of "orthodox corruption," when there are often other equally, or even more viable reasons for corruption… A balanced judgment will not seldom require knowledge of the pecularities of individual manuscripts and their scribe(s), the citation habits of church fathers, and a familiarity with the character of a particular version and its limitations in representing the Vorlage from which it was translated. La grande finale
Adams cautions pastors to remember they are clay pots with treasure within, and to avoid the error of drawing attention to the pot rather than the treasure. Clay Pots or the Treasure Within-
Capitol Hill Baptist Church is now making their children's curriculum, Praise Factory, available online for free if your church is interested in obtaining a copy. Praise Factory Children's Curriculum. Here’s some reasons why it’s worthwhile. 5 Reasons Why Our Church Loves Praise Factory by Michael Mckinley. See also here. Introducing Praise Factory by Deepak Reju
Adams writes that counseling is the duty of of “every Christian (Colossians 3:16; Romans 15:14), as he encounters a brother caught in sin (Galatians 6:1). And it is the task of an elder to formally counsel the members of the flock by virtue of his office (I Thessalonians 5:11, 12).” So learn! Competent to Counsel
Bloom points to a booklet by Haykin, In God We Trust: What Is God Saying In The Midst Of This Financial Crisis. Haykin exhorts Christians (in light of Paul’s collection for the Jerusalem saints, etc.) to be radically generous in times of financial uncertainty since this is precisely when our trust in God can be most clearly seen. “as we have opportunity, let’s do good to everyone.” In God We Trust
Piper reflects how Winter’s helped him know and love the enormity and centrality of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and why a radical missions focus would have this effect. The effort to spread the Gospel continually rescues the faith from becoming lost in institutional/cultural evolution/absorption, as ministry and cross-cultural efforts result in a constant back-home reflection on what it truly is. This is crucial to preserving the Gospel, at every level. “Where a person or a group is not spreading the gospel, they are losing their grasp on what it actually is.” The Gospel- Spread It or Lose It
This post summarizes Calvin’s life as he went off to university in Paris in 1523 at 14 years old. At Paris he earned both a B.A. and M.A. Meanwhile, Calvin’s father’s relation with Rome strained, and in 1528, at his father's request, Calvin left his theological studies in Paris to pursue law at Orleans. It was Calvin’s disillusionment with humanism that brought him to the brink of his conversion (1528-32). After his father’s death he returned to Paris to study theology. Off to Paris- Life of Calvin, Part 2
Here’s a brief history of the development of Calvin’s institutes, originally a small pocket book. Calvin: "All I had in mind was to hand on some elementary teaching by which anyone who had been touched by an interest in religion might be formed to true godliness. I labored at the task especially for our own Frenchmen, for I saw that many were hungering and thirsting after Christ and yet that only a very few had any real knowledge of him." Institutes- Life of Calvin, Part 4
Here’s how William Farel twisted Calvin’s arm to stay in Geneva, cursing his ivory-tower life in Strasbourg. En Route back to Strasbourg, Calvin was detoured to Geneva for one night. Farel heard he was there, and pled with him to stay. Calvin resisted. So Farel pronounced a curse on his quiet studies when the need was so desperate in Geneva. This moved Calvin somehow. So he stayed, and by January of 1537, he and Farel were fully engaged in their attempt to complete the Reformation in Geneva. A Night's Stay in Geneva- Life of Calvin, Part 5
Piper writes that if you find yourself in a love-hate relationship with the concept of "liberalism," part of the reason may be the schizophrenic history of the concept. One kind originally was reflected in such principles as the right to vote, to assemble freely, to trade with others and keep the fruits of one's labor, to practice one's religion, to tolerate different political and religious views, and so on. The new kind is characterized by the right to blaspheme, pornography as a protected form of free expression, the exclusion of religious symbols from the public square, the right of teenagers to receive sex education and contraceptives, the right to abortion, prostitution as a worker's right, and so on. Liberalism 1 and Liberalism 2
Eventually Calvin and Farel were expelled from Geneva in 1538, and he went first to Basel and then to Strasbourg. In 1539 Calvin helped Geneva by responding to Cardinal Sadolet, and the relationship was on the mend. In August of 1540, Calvin married Idelette de Bure. In 1541, Geneva asked him to return, and so he did, though he didn’t want to. The Golden Years- Life of Calvin, Part 6
Piper writes that when Paul tells us to put on the helmet of the hope of salvation, he means (in the original context of war, with weapons like mace’s etc) that there are blows that will come that can destroy us, if we aren’t protected. Piper reflects on how this helmet preserved him through a biopsy for cancer. "For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us so that whether we are awake or asleep we might live with him" (1 Thessalonians 5:9-10). the ‘for’ is connected to "...having put on for a helmet the hope of salvation. For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation." (vs. 8) God covers the head with promise so that this blow is not his wrath. Biopsy Blows and the Helmet of Hope
Mathis recommends Ralph Davis's The Word Became Fresh as an excellent resource for preaching OT narrative, complete with a broad scope, examples, a very high view of Scripture. Mathis has this caution: “Davis nearly (though not quite) broke my heart in the end of chapter 8 when he seems to play theocentricity off against christocentricity. He says, "I do not honor Christ by forcing him into texts where he is not" (138). I agree, but I want to respond with Spurgeon, "I'd rather find Jesus where he's not than miss him where he is."” Resource for Preaching OT Narrative
Piper wrote a poem to remind his heart that Jesus tells us not to be overly excited about our ability to do feats of triumph in defeating the devil (Luke 10:17-20). Most of us are more dazzled by miracles than the assurance of salvation. I Wrote a Poem to Put My Heart Right
Calvin returned in Geneva, stepping back into the pulpit in 1541. There would be severe trials. There was a plague. Then Calvin’s only child was born and died. Calvin said, "The Lord has certainly inflicted a severe and bitter wound in the death of our baby son. But he is himself a father and knows best what is good for his children." Calvin's wife would have no more children and would remain sickly until her death in the spring of 1549. There was scandal as the wife of his brother was imprisoned on adultery, then release, then later convicted of adultery with Calvin’s servant. On the bright side, Calvin and Heinrich Bullinger (Zwingli's successor) drew up the Consensus of Zurich in 1549. Return to Geneva- Life of Calvin, Part 7
Challies posts some quotes on ‘oppositional-defiant disorder’: "Thirty years ago, if a boy cursed his parents and spit at his teacher, the neighbors might say that the boy was a disobedient brat who needed a good spanking. Today, the same behavior from a similar boy might well prompt a trip to the pediatrician or the child psychiatrist… The main criterion for both these 'disorders' is disobedient and disrespectful behavior that persists despite parental efforts.'” [Behold the glory of a foundationless therapeutic culture]. Oppositional-Defiant Disorder
Harris asks, how could Solomon, a man of such great wisdom and the author of Proverbs have strayed from faithfulness into the folly of idolatry? He then enumerates a few of the compromises of Solomon’s reign. He married Pharaoh’s daughter. He acquired many horses and chariots. He amassed great wealth. He had a passion for foreign wives. So “wisdom isn't a badge you earn once and then get to wear for the rest of your life. You're only as wise as your next decision.” Your present wisdom is not determined by your past record. Knowledge can never be separated from obedience to God. Proverbs 1:7 says, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction." Solomon was led astray by his desires. His wisdom wasn’t coupled with an awesome respect and fear of God. Solomon’s sin doesn’t disaffirm the truths of Proverbs. Rather, it affirms it. We see the wisdom of Christ in it. You're Only as Wise As Your Next Decision
Boundless.org is now making available their free, attractive booklet: A Girl's Guide to Marrying Well. See also A Guy's Guide to Marrying Well. A Girl's Guide to Marrying Well
Phillips gives two anecdotal examples of how murderers in our culture get free support on the tax-payers dime. The Bible's attitude is clear and univocal and just: When you take a human life by murder, your life is forfeit. Instead we have the pathetic spectacle of victims' survivors having to plead and reason to keep a murderer in jail. THe murderer should be dead. Behold relativism, pop psychology – inconvenient children get the death penalty while murderers get room and board for decades, and then walk. When justice is forgotten (capital punishment)
Here’s a collection of links to the Reformed resurgence series at CT. The Reformed Resurgence Series by Collin Hansen
Pike writes, “We now have even more tangible evidence as to why socialized healthcare is a BAD IDEA. Sure, all anyone’s had to do is watch how many Canadians flee to America for healthcare treatment instead of using their lovely Canadian “free” healthcare, but the argument could always be made that Americans will do it better.” [I will note that health-care costs far more in the USA for providers/citizens/insurers than it does for the Canadian government; hence why remote health coverage is inadequate in the USA. However, health care is better down south. We have really, really, long lineups]. A Disaster Waiting to Happen
Here’s a sobering note at Solapanel on church planting, illustrating the hardships anecdotally. It is never free from pain and controversy. Others will seize negative gossip if they perceive you to be a threat. The conflict of church planting
For those interested in the PCA debate over whether or not a church should have deaconessses, byFaith Magazine has articles by Tim Keller, The Case for Commissioning (Not Ordaining) Deaconesses, and Ligon Duncan, The Case for Our Current Policy on Female Deacons. Female Deacons
Don’t be a deadbeat child. Why is it that we heap scorn on "deadbeat" parents who fail to take care of underage children, but excuse adult children who don't take care of their feeble parents? Perhaps it’s an unwillingness to confront death? How Not to Be a Deadbeat Son or Daughter
Here’s some thoughts on a question that sounds a bit strange to Canadian ears. How Can I Get Black People to Come to My Church-
Some negative comments on Palin here, posted by JT because conservativism and liberalism, though not the Gospel, are not equal, and the former has far more truth: “In television interviews she was out of her depth in a shallow pool. She was limited in her ability to explain and defend her positions, and sometimes in knowing them. She couldn't say what she read because she didn't read anything. She was utterly unconcerned by all this and seemed in fact rather proud of it: It was evidence of her authenticity.” We need strong conservative leaders who know how to think. Palin- Out of Her Depth in a Shallow Pool
Obama aims to make abortion a ‘health benefit’ conferred to every family. “Why is Obama pushing ahead with such a radical abortion agenda? Since there's no way to accuse him of doing it out of poll-driven opportunism, sincere conviction becomes the most plausible motive. Sometimes the simplest, most straightforward answer makes the most sense. A president who once said he wouldn't want his daughter punished with a baby if she made a mistake is deeply committed to making free and easy access to abortion an inescapable element of American culture.” Is Abortion About to Become a Universal Health Benefit in America-
“In her opening address to the Episcopal Church's recent General Convention, the Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, the church's presiding bishop, made a special point of denouncing what she labeled "the great Western heresy"—the teaching, in her words, "that we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in right relationship with God." This "individualist focus," she declared, "is a form of idolatry."” Uggh. Salvation of Souls as the Great Western Heresy-
Jeffrey Anderson and Darren Guerra recently argued that President Obama is more in step with Stephen Douglas and John C. Calhoun than with Abraham Lincoln. Both slavery and abortion ultimately reduce to competing claims over unalienable rights. No one can justly take the liberty or life of another if that other qualifies for the rights with which all of humanity is endowed. “debates over slavery eventually became — as debates over abortion eventually become — debates over the humanity of the slave or the fetus.” So we know where Obama falls. Lincoln and Obama, Slavery and Abortion
Vern Poythress points out how OT prophets, kings, and priests – mediators – point to Christ. Christ is the final prophet, king, and priest who fulfills all three functions in a final way (Heb. 1:1–3). Mediation also occurs through institutions, like covenants, the temple, and animal sacrifices. How Mediators in the OT Point to Christ
"…We asked a total of 1,000 twenty-something unchurched people; 900 American, 100 Canadian. And we compared them to a sample of 500 older unchurched (30 or above). ... And what we found is that yes, there are negative views of the church, two-thirds saying the church is full of hypocrites, people who do one thing and say another. But there was also great openness that's there. One of the questions that we asked them to agree or disagree with was: "I would be willing to study the Bible if a friend asked me to?" Among twenty-somethings, 61-percent said, "Yes." Among their older counterparts of 30 and above, 42-percent said, "Yes." Unchurched Twenty-Somethings and Bible Study
Here’s a post with links to a number of resources on theological anthropology, namely, the extremely important question in our day – what is man? What Is Man-
Hays links to some astute observations on another blog. i) If it is admitted that there are exceptions to God ‘not needing evil’, like the crucifixion to save sinners, then this contradicts the idea that “if God is omnipotent he doesn’t need any evil and can hinder it".” ii) God is love. God wanted to the murder of His Son. So God is love and can ‘want’ evil. iii) A redeemed world is better than an unredeemed world. Therefore, God "needed" evil to bring about the better world. iv) A God who can bring good out of evil is more powerful than a God who cannot. Bringing evil out of good is actually a display of omnipotence. v) God is love. God wants a world where the greatest love is instantiated. There is no greater love than a God-man laying down his life for his friends. God wanted a world where man needed to be saved so that a world that was greater in love would result. The only thing man need be saved from is sin. God wanted a world with sin to bring about the most loving world. What Is Man-
No comments:
Post a Comment