2009-08-09

Mohler quotes Kostenberger that western civilization is for the first time faced with the need to define the meaning of marriage/family. Kostenberger et. al.’s new book, God, Marriage, and Family: Rebuilding the Biblical Foundation, which argues that the only way out of this societal crisis is a return to the biblical vision. He points out that the Judeo-Christian family unit is now only one ‘option’ among many, being replaced to a certain extent been replaced with a set of values that prizes human rights, self-fulfillment, and pragmatic utility on an individual and societal level. Marriage is under siege. Family/parental authority is compromised by the intrusion of state authorities, cultural influences, and social pressure. The rise of libertarian ideology and self-autonomy, etc. has become life’s central purpose. The book fills a gap in the volumes of Christian literature out there, where little looks at the whole of Scripture, or explores on a deep, thorough level the entire fabric of God's purposes for human relationships. The book affirms a complementarian understanding. "Our sex does not merely determine the form of our sex organs but is an integral part of our entire being." A Christian Vision of Marriage and Family, Part 1

Pike responds to someone asking whether regeneration precedes faith. Pike observes that Paul in Titus 3:5 is mentioning specific steps to an outcome. He then illustrates inferring logical order from such sequences with some simple examples. He shows how logically speaking, Titus 3:5-7 (regeneration precedes salvation); John 3:5 (salvation require regeneration); Romans 10:9 (regeneration precedes salvation); 1 Cor. 12:3 (confession depends on the Spirit, having the Spirit); 1 Cor. 2:14 (without the Spirit man thinks spiritual things are foolish – how can he believe in what he thinks is foolish?) require regeneration before faith, even apart from the explicit 1 John 5:1. The order is, Regeneration -> Faith -> Confession –> Salvation. He then evaluates the Arminian order, Faith –> Regeneration -> Confession –> Salvation, noting that if faith precedes regeneration, 1 John 5:1 can be false and 1 Cor. 2:14 is also false, because a man without the Spirit can believe spiritual truth prior to regeneration (also contra Romans 8:5-8, where non-believers are unable to submit to God’s law or please him). He points out that the only way to salvage the Arminian scheme in light of 1 John 5:1; 2:29; 3:9, is to argue that regeneration temporally coincides with faith but logically depends on it. However, if faith logically causes regeneration, then so too must righteousness and avoidance of sin logically cause regeneration: Faith, righteousness, and avoidance of sin are all treated identically by John in those statements.  Responding to Dan

Grimmond notes how its easy to think after decades that you believe in God’s word – but it’s also trivial to find passages which confront your latent unbelief. He uses his own anti-establishment mentality, and Romans 13:1 (authorities are from God), as an example (be it from his own consumer generation or his convict heritage as an Australian). One could list 1000 reasons to disbelieve Romans 13. The reality is that none of them are good, and the spirit of our age is against authority. The essence of sin is the assertion of autonomy, and the lie is that their is freedom therein. And we are led by this world to believe that this is all there is. There is a true Judge who will set things right. Do we believe Him? Authorities and the preacher’s unbelief

T-fan responds to the argument by a Roman Catholic that the Papacy didn’t ‘develop’, in that there were additions to the faith, but rather later statements were simply an explicit assertion of the old faith. The argument attempts to parallel this to Nicaea and the Trinity. However, the Nicaean definition can be shown historically to be simply a restatement of ancient doctrine. It can be shown from the Scriptures. This is not the case with Transubstantiation or the Papacy. And it isn’t just the silence - it has been shown that the early church fathers did not view the bishop of Rome as having the final word in matters of discipline. The declaration of papal infallibility by the First Vatican Council isn’t simply making explicit something held all along. T-fan quotes two historians in support. Also, according to the Council of Constance (1418), ecumenical councils, not the pope, had the final say in matters of faith. Even the approach taken by the Roman Catholic in making this argument, and the admission of presumption by Catholic Cardinal John Henry Newman, are indicative and affirmative of the reality that there is no clear teaching of such essential doctrines like the Papacy in the early church. Bellisario (by Proxy) on the Papacy - Part 2

Mohler continues reviewing Kostenberger’s book, writing: “marriage and the roles of both husbands and wives is grounded in Genesis and then traced through the entire Old Testament. Husbands are to love and cherish their wives, to bear primary responsibility for the marriage union and to exercise authority over the family, and to provide the family with necessities for life. The wife, on the other hand, is to present her husband with children, manage her household with integrity, and provide her husband with companionship. Contemporary readers may be shocked by the candor of Kostenberger's presentation, but he grounds his arguments directly in the biblical text.” Kostenberger also argues that within six generations from Adam people had engaged in polygamy, and that the OT clearly communicates this is a departure from God’s plan. Sin and disorder are produced by polygamy. Kostenberger also differentiates between "traditional" and "biblical" visions of marriage. And marriage is not merely a contract but a covenant, and a sacred bond. Citing Bock, the OT family unit is patricentric – centred around the father. Also, the biblical verdict on homosexuality as sinful is consistent throughout. The current crisis, assaulting the family, etc. is "symptomatic of an underlying spiritual crisis that gnaws at the foundations of our once-shared societal values." Mohler recommends the book. A Christian Vision of Marriage and Family, Part 2

This blog continues looking at a friendly atheist’s assessment of Edwards’ view of divine freedom. Rowe has issue with the idea that God cannot do evil, that it cannot be in God’s power to do less good than He can. Being perfectly good God cannot cease to be perfectly good. Rowe seems to know Edwards’ readers won’t have trouble with the idea that God can’t do evil. But he doesn’t like this idea of freedom – that a being is free in doing what he wills if he is free to do as he wills, and whether one is unable to do otherwise doesn’t matter. Rowe is unsatisfied with the libertarian account, and finds that compatibilism dispatches it nicely, but then he dislikes compatibilism: “he won't be satisfied with the compatiblistic account of God's freedom unless God is able to act in contradiction to his nature.” And why would this be an issue anyway? The Friendly Atheist on Edwardsian Freedom-Part 4

Leeman points to the dubious nature of the statistics on the number of “Christians” in a region. What do the statistics about the number of Christians mean- by Jonathan Leeman

(Manata?) responds to an Arminian, yet again. Most is repeats, but one notable point made is that libertarians are putting more and more distance between the body and soul (e.g. saying Frankfurt counterexamples don’t apply to the immaterial soul; i.e. it seems they need to decouple to find some place to put the idea of libertarian freedom in light of reality not quite fitting.) even though Christianity holds a very tight unity and coupling between the two. Physical things affect those things which are supposed to pertain to the ‘immaterial soul’. This is telling. Dan's Wrong . . . Again

Pike points out that it is important to not merely say that “God is sovereign”, but to show what this means. Hence, Pike enumerates a number of passages illustrating that God causes (he notes that Hebrew uses verbal inflection to indicate causality, so a word search won’t help you here). i) Weather/natural processes (Gen. 2:5-7; Ex. 9:18; Job 38:12; Ps. 78:16,26; Ps. 103:13; 105:29). ii) Birth (Is. 66:9). iv) Sleep (Gen. 2:21) v) Wandering (Gen. 20:13; 2 Kings 21:8). vi) Success (Gen 39:3; Is. 63:11-13). vii) Victory in war (Deut. 28:7). viii) Defeat in War (Deut. 28:25; Jer. 19:7; 49:2; Lam. 2:8; Ezek. 32:12; Zech. 11:6). ix) Prosperity (2 Sa. 23:5; Ps. 106:46; Ezek. 32:14; 36:11, 33; Zech. 8:12). x) Calamity (Ps 88:8, 18; Is. 30:30; Lam. 1:14; 3:32; Ezek. 31:15; 32:4). xi) His name to be remembered (Ex. 20:24; Ezra 6:12; Ps. 111:4). xii) Righteousness (Is. 61:1; Jer. 33:15; Ezek. 29:21). xiii) Regeneration (Ezek. 36:27; 37:5-6; 1 Peter 1:3). Pike then fields some objections to some of these. Many of these things are what libertarian Free Willers would characterize as nothing less than coercion (like God forcing Pharaoh to conform to His will, or His determining the outcomes of battles – how is that done except by killing some, giving others the right choices in battle, etc? The commander can’t choose that which would defeat him if God intends for him to win, and the loser couldn’t make that choice which would succeed. Pike uses the example of God declaring who will win a chess game, thus limiting the loser from playing a winning game).  Things God Causes

Here’s the fourth part in DeYoung’s Pilgrim’s Progress-esque narrative. Quite worth the read! Many are Called, But Few are Chosen (Part 4)

Bird summarizes a presentation from Tyndale Fellowship, bringing out these points: “1) If we accept the historical possibility of miracles, then don't we have to accept all "miracles" in all religions as well, be they Christian, Hindu, Muslim, etc.? Why or why not? (2) If you reject miracles and God/transcendence as part of an explanation of history, then you're buying into a perspective that is only 200 years old and limited to Western civilization. To say that they only reason why Muslims in the Middle East still believe in religious miracles is because they haven't had their enlightenment yet is a tad bit imperialistic.” Tyndale Fellowship - Part 2