2009-08-20

Paul Copan talks about Galileo, the Bible, and Genesis. He first notes that Galileo didn’t oppose Scripture. He put a priority in the natural sciences on sensory experience, and at the same time, said, “the holy Bible can never speak untruth—whenever its true meaning is understood.” Copan cites Augustine, who cautions Christians against asserting what they understand from the Bible in such fields, lest they look stupid before the world, and give cause to unbelievers to continue rejecting the Gospel. Copan notes the Scriptures (e.g. Gen. 1-2, latter part of Job, Psalm 104) don’t speak with scientific precision, but employ phenomenological language, i.e. the way things appear (e.g. sunrise). He notes that Genesis does speak of an absolute beginning, which has scientific implications, and writes that the word “day” has at least three distinct meanings in Genesis: the period of daylight, and the length of each of the six “days,” and the “day” in which God made heaven and earth (2:4); that and the 7th day is still continuing. Modern science emerged because of the Judeo-Christian worldview: God created ex nihilio, humans are made in the image of God, etc. God and science aren’t worlds apart, since theistic assumptions are woven into modern science. Galileo wasn’t against Scripture, but an Aristotelian worldview (mediated in part by Thomas Aquinas’s influence), which included mathematically perfect, earth-centered universe with heavenly bodies moving in perfect circles); favoring a more Platonic view in certain aspects (elliptical orbits, heliocentrism, etc). In sum, “the notion that God and science are inherently contradictory is a late nineteenth-century invention. Historians of science no longer accept the God-vs.-science mythology as having any historical substance. The Galileo affair actually helps highlight Galileo’s own commitment to the harmony of science and Scripture.” The Galileo Incident- A Clash of Faith and Science-

This post begins by talking about how God ordained the overtaking of many areas of the early church by Muslims. Just because a church is planted by an apostle doesn’t mean that church will be preserved should she become faithless. The author goes on to note that more Muslims than ever are turning to Christ in our day:” “The Khomeini regime exposed the true nature of Islam to many peaceful and normal Muslims. The cruel dictatorships of Qaddafi of Libya, Hafez Al Assad of Syria, Saddam Hussein of Iraq, the Taliban of Afghanistan, and the trickery and deceitfulness of Yasser Arafat and suicide bombers, violence and Al Qaida and other Jihadist Muslim movements are also creating a turmoil in many other normal everyday and secular Muslims, and God is working in more Muslims today, than ever before in history for them to seek the truth all over the world, including the Arab World.” How and why did Churches become Mosques in the Middle East-

Powlison said that he has yet to meet a couple locked in conflict who actually understands their motives. See, they say, “It’s because of my husband/wife.” But James 4:1-3 teaches that it’s really something about you. Cravings and Conflict (audio)

Hays notes that on Whale Wars there was a funeral service – for a whale – which died at the hands of a harpooner. Of course, the ecoterrorists are deeply grieved. i) This is just manipulating the viewer’s anthropomorphic empathy for the plight of the whales to soften them up to promote a radical agenda. ii) This looks brutal, but its no more so than natural predation in the animal kingdom. Environmentalists treat the whale like a house pet: “Hunters who live off the land are far more in touch with mother nature than yuppie urban environmentalists.” iii) In an evolutionary worldview, there is nothing morally prescriptive about the natural order. The world is a vampire

JT writes, “President Obama said on a conference call yesterday that it was "untrue," a "fabrication," that legislation backed by the White House would result in "government funding of abortion."” However, in 2007 Obama explicitly pledged to Planned Parenthood that the public plan will cover abortions (see the video clip here). “The Obama-backed legislation makes it explicitly clear that no citizen would be allowed to enroll in the government plan unless he or she is willing to give the federal agency an extra amount calculated to cover the cost of all elective abortions — this would not be optional.” The Government Health Care Plan Would Make It Non-Optional for You to Give Money to Cover Elective Abortions

Girltalk has some practical tips for women on how to be hospitable. More from Julie’s House

A tornado recently hit downtown Minneapolis, baffling weather experts – and it took out the ELCA’s national convention, at precisely the time when the 5th session was about to begin, the topic of which was whether practicing homosexuality is a behavior that should disqualify a person from the pastoral ministry. Piper offers a biblically warranted interpretation of this providence. i) The unrepentant practice of homosexual behavior (like other sins) will exclude a person from the kingdom of God. (1 Cor. 6:9-10). ii) The church has always embraced those who forsake sexual sin, but still struggle with it, knowing forgiveness is in Christ (1 Cor. 6:11). iii) Official church pronouncements which condone these sins are evil, for this reason; they implicitly promote damnation where salvation is freely offered. iv) Jesus Christ controls tornadoes, wind – everything (Mark 4:41). v) Jesus’ message when asked about a seemingly random disaster is repent. (Luke 13:4-5). vi) The tornado in Minneapolis was a gentle but firm warning to the ELCA and all of us: Turn from the approval of sin, behaviour leading to destruction, and stop distorting the grace of God into sensuality. The Tornado, the Lutherans, and Homosexuality

Hays responds to Reppert attempting to deal with Calvinist presuppositions. i) Reppert goes after the belief in the inerrancy of Scripture as fundamental. Hays asks, what is the issue at hand? Why is there evil? What is God’s will for man? What is the afterlife like? We would know none of the answers unless God revealed Himself. We can’t read God’s mind. ii) Reppert then says Calvinists argue for the grammatico-historical type of interpretation (true), and they produce exegesis on the relevant passages (true). The presence of anti-Calvinist exegetes has no more bearing on Calvinist correctness than a Jehovah’s Witness’s exegesis. Trust has nothing to do with who we believe out of the scholars on both sides. Commentators interact with the other side, and present arguments. We can evaluate their arguments, since most reduce to a question of logic. Unless the scholar is a pro logician he has no advantage over the layman here. Moreover, non-Calvinists can be cited to offer interpretations consistent with Calvinism. iii) To say, ““I think it won't do to deny that God loves every person” Knowing the mind of God

Interesting point here: “In other words, Christian liberty (as with all true liberty!) has boundaries. Christian liberty is tempered with love for neighbor (think of him/her before our liberty) and self-denial (we don’t need to indulge in this liberty). If Christian liberty is not tempered with love for neighbor and self-denial, it is more like a high school fad (i.e. the brand of jeans you wear) than a Christian ethic.” If You're Really Reformed