2009-08-24

Some Romanists quote Gregory of Nyssa, saying that this is against sola scriptura, “And let no one interrupt me, by saying that what we confess should also be confirmed by constructive reasoning: for it is enough for proof of our statement, that the tradition has come down to us from our fathers, handled on, like some inheritance, by succession from the apostles and the saints who came after them.” But they need to show what is meant by ‘tradition’ here. Swan points out that for the early Christian writers is usually referring to a basic, foundational outline of belief about God and Christ, or refers to practices and rites not doctrinal or dogmatic. For this to be against sola scriptura they must prove Gregory believed in another source of infallible truth. Gregory of Nyssa- We have a tradition coming down to us from the Fathers

Hays responds to Reppert, who simply asserts that God’s aim is always remedial, and not retributive, that God’s love is what confronts rebels, and that if it were up to God He would bring it about that a person repents. i) We don’t go to Lewis for Christianity; he’s not a prophet or an apostle. ii) There is a lot of retributive judgment in the Scriptures, and one cannot jettison it for only remedial punishment. Even the atonement is predicated on it. So Reppert’s theology involves jettisoning the atonement, and denies the Scriptures as a reliable source of information about God. He pins his immortal hopes on this optimistic mishmash of open theism, universalism, make-believe, and wishful thinking. These don’t quite fit: Dan 12:2; Matt. 25:41,46; 2 Thess. 1:5-9; Rev. 14:9-11. Lord Hunk-Ra

Hays notes that Walter Cronkite died. But anchormen are quickly forgotten: “It’s a good example of how trite and trival are the honors which the world bestows on its own. One moment you’re famous. Hot property. The world follows you around. Hangs on your every idle word. The next moment you’re an epitaph in a weedy graveyard.” (1 Jn. 2:15-17). The pride of life

Hays, responding to Reppert on issues of tone, etc. quotes Wesley calling the God of Calvinism worse than the devil. Roger Olson has also said this. It’s a phony distinction to say this merely goes after doctrine, for to say this about their God is to say something about Calvinists. It says they’re devil worshipers. Calling Calvinism blasphemous is to call Calvinists blasphemers. Arminians even spell this out – you become what you worship – so Calvinists become Satanic. Ironically, it’s Hays who has never faulted an anti-Calvinist for using “offensive” or “hurtful” language, while those who do make many assumptions about what motivates the Calvinist. Isn’t calling a fellow believer a closet Satan-worshiper the worst thing you could say to him? The talk of love is mere verbiage - “they actively discriminate against Calvinists–all the while spouting sanctimonious rhetoric about Christian charity.” Sons of Belial and brothers in Christ

T-fan, commenting on Harold Camping’s view of the Bible as a code book for the end times, notes that he misses that the intention of the Scriptures is that people would believe and have eternal life, and hopes that while he recognizes he’s not infallible, if another of his prophecies fails, he’ll awaken to the real focus of the Scriptures. Surprising Wisdom from Harold Camping

Hays comments on a blog by a would-be aspiring church historian who claims to be a revert from Calvinism. Sadly he misrepresents Calvinism, talking like one who seems betrayed by his former beliefs. i) Calvinism has no position on how many are elect. The ‘few are saved’ is actually dominical – Jesus said it! – even though this objector uses this against Calvinism. ii) God does not withhold mercy ‘merely because he decreed it’. He does so to demonstrate the gratuity of grace. God could justly damn all; His mercy is free. iii) His Arminian charity presumes to say that Calvinists think that since God deals people in such an “underhanded manner,” that authorizes us to do so as well. Indeed, for this individual, ‘if Reformed discourse is “un-Christlike” by his standards, then the Calvinist is blameworthy–but if Reformed discourse is “Christlike” by his standards, then the Calvinist is still blameworthy since his Christian discourse is at odds with his “un-Christlike” theology.’ iv) By the Arminians standards, is blanket imputations of ill-motives to Calvinists, impugning them as devil-worshipers, etc. in line with their view of Christian charity and the fruits of the Spirit? v) As to ‘harsh rhetoric’, one scholar has written, ‘we can recognize in Jude’s rhetorical strategy the use of techniques common to vituperatio, the ‘rhetoric of slander’… Jude doesn’t intend to persuade the heretics, but vilify them. The literature seeks to create heroes and villains. Thus such rhetoric is not de facto unbiblical. “In vituperatio, a person would employ well-known topoi in the denunciation of others…These themes were so well used that they even became part of the syllabus of rhetoric.” vi) Citing a few words from Paul, e.g. “You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy, will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord?”, Hays asks if this Arminian thinks Paul isn’t necessarily born again? vii) Here’s a sample of this Arminian’s ‘charitable’ discourse. ““Most versions of Calvinism where God's character is concerned are so reprehensible that it is likely to incite the baser parts of one's humanity.”” The Arminian fruit tree

Sola Panel posts a quote from a church-planter in Australia, who notes the remarkable nature of their biblical preaching to the Christians around them. Many churches have all manner of ministries, but the preaching of God’s word is not central, and many have never heard a passage explained! Biblical ministry is considered too bookish, etc. God’s word and church planting

GenderBlog continues discussing the reality of ‘sexting’ – using SMS/MMS for pornographic pictures, etc. Ministering to young women entails reckoning with this reality, and helping young girls to understand that they are not their own, to do with their bodies as they see fit, but rather they should consider their bodies to be temples of the Holy Spirit. Parents must protect their daughters from their own sin and the sin around them, not giving them unmoderated, unmonitored access to any social networking technology. Parents have a responsibility to protect them from predatory men and boys interested in only using them for their sexuality. Raise them to value purity. Because tech like social media can be used for evil or for good, parents must be especially diligent to protect girls from their own sinful hearts. Sexting and the Teenage Girl - Part 2

A Romanist says that Cyril never tells us that Scripture alone is how the church gets its divine revelation and its only authority from, to which Swan quotes, “Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.” The Romanist quotes in response Cyril's statement "if it be God's pleasure, proceed to treat, as far as may be, of those which remain out of the New Testament", which is supposedly an objection to Cyril holding sola scripture. The problem is that in the proceeding lecture indicates that Cyril is here referring to the Old Testament. Cyril's Proof for God's Special Revelation Outside of Scripture

Hays responds further to Reppert on the issue of retribution versus remediation. Reppert claims that since Hays holds that repentance in response to retribution is better than retribution alone then if God has it in His power, and God is good, then why isn’t God causing this outcome? i) Hays notes that Reppert begins with universalism and reasons from there. But we can reason from the actual outcome backward instead. If not all are saved, it’s not better than all are saved. If it were better for everyone to be saved, then God would save everyone – thus the outcome falsifies Reppert’s premise. ii) The Bible also treats retributive punishment as an end in itself – it has intrinsic value, not merely instrumental. iii) Biblical doctrines like original sin, justification, vicarious atonement, and eschatological judgment are all embedded within a forensic framework. To reject retribution in favour of remedial punishment results in a rejection of these doctrines. iv) Reppert is saying that retributive judgment is justifiable only if it has repentance as its end – which is basically saying that it’s only justifiable if it is remedial, not retributive! v) It’s futile to do as Reppert is doing and reject the revealed view of the afterlife in favour of what you’d prefer, since you’re lost at sea, and you have no reason to think you know what you’re talking about. Retribution or remediation-

Patton posts a story of internet ordination as illustrative of the reason for why he believes that evangelicals need some form of return to apostolic succession. The passing on takes on the form of approval of the next generation by the preceding to create an accountability and some degree of credibility. The Christian faith cannot be now what it never was before. He argues this will guard against novelty and heresy, and will “restore a healthy fear that all must have when we find ourselves as representatives of the faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3; )” This is not opposed to sola scriptura at all, but should mitigate the free church mayhem in protestantism that drives many to institutionalized traditions from which Protestants fled hundreds of years ago. Why Evangelicals Need Apostolic Succession

Patton goes on to explain a little of what he means by apostolic succession. i) There are no modern apostles. ii) It is continuity of teaching, not office. iii) Doctrines like sola fide aren’t novel, rather, their articulations lie more dormant. Nicea didn’t advocate a non-existent doctrine of the Trinity. iv) Such succession of teaching would immediately place things like health and wealth teaching outside the perimeter of evangelicalism. iv) It’s a ‘historic evangelicalism’. Those who wish to identify with it could but they’d need to subscribe to the boundaries or centre of beliefs which have anchored the church for two thousand years. v) This doesn’t mean being able to trace literal lineage, or that laying on hands is some sacred sacrament. Laying on of hands is important, but the continuity of teaching must balance it, as it’s no guarantee vi) He believes evangelicals can agree on what is essential, and he proposes these four criteria as all necessary: 1. Does the Bible speak clearly to the issue 2. Does the Bible explicitly identify this issue as an essential 3. Does the history of the church speak clearly to this issue 4. Does the history of the church identify this issues as essential. vii) This is not a denomination; it is a pervasive spirit and movement within all evangelicals. More on Evangelical Apostolic Succession

Burk notes the tornado of criticism from the blogosphere of the emergents, including Tony Jones, etc. He notes the common theme: “Now everyone can see what we Emergents have suspected for a long time. John Piper is a fundamentalist crackpot with a retrograde theology that offends unbelievers.” Tony Jones calls on Piper’s peers to shun him into the margins. To Piper’s credit, he has not responded in kind, instead quoting Ps. 141:5, and following up with the post on his prostate cancer. Burk is especially concerned at how the direction of outrage is so skewed in its priorities. “There appears to be little concern about the fact that an entire denomination has just taken a public stand against the Bible and 2,000 years of unanimous Christian teaching. There is scarcely a cross word about the fact that the ELCA Lutherans are walking away from the gospel of Jesus Christ. Instead, the critics are offended by Piper.” Indeed, they engage in the very mudslinging stumbling block to unbelievers these emergent types say they wish to avoid. They haven’t read Piper’s article charitably, and they have missed the point: Piper is applying Christ’s words to a calamity. “Jesus did in fact teach that God uses seemingly random calamities to remind all of us of our need for repentance.” And Piper said it’s a warning ‘to us all.’ God help us that this is controversial among evangelicals. A Second Tornado in Minneapolis

Clint enumerates three characteristic of missionaries of past days in China. They were itinerant evangelists, moving from town to town, they operated on the ‘faith principle’ of support, never soliciting financial aid, and they husbands and wives operated as a Ministry Team. While commendable in many instances on face value, a problem has arisen wherein these voluntary emphases became ingrained practices in Chinese churches. i) Pastors move from church to church, preaching only basic evangelistic messages, and the congregations are caught in perpetual immaturity, never having preaching on the whole counsel of Scripture (Paul, itinerant himself, established shepherds over churches; 2 Tim 2:2). ii) Pastors are poorly supported by their congregations and viewed as greedy if they solicit support (contra 2 Tim. 2:6; 1 Tim. 5:7). iii) Children are neglected by husband and wife in their pursuit of ministry (1 Tim. 3:4-5); many missionary kids grow up with a distorted view of family. iv) It is easy to be nostalgic about the greats of the past without reckoning with the ramifications of their choices. That’s a lesson for us now – are we putting out emphases in context, aiming at maturity, rather than merely thinking of the urgency of the moment? Unseen Consequences to Good Intentions- Missions in China

I think the philosophical attempts to define humour, as enumerated here, in the categories of incongruity, superiority, and relief theories, i.e. attempts to understand the nature of humour, have bearing on understanding its morality, as the Scriptures definitely speak to aspects of these definitions – something Christians should certainly ponder… Philosophy Word of the Day – Philosophy of Humor

JT: “Interesting article here from atheistic philosopher of science Michael Ruse, who says that Dawkins's The God Delusion makes him "ashamed to be an atheist," that the New Atheists are a "bloody disaster." In particular, he thinks that the New Atheists are doing a "grave disservice" to (1) the cause of science, (2) the cause of scholarship; (3) the cause of fighting Creationsim, and (4) the cause of fighting to keep Creationism out of schools. On Dawkins in particular: Ruse says that he would fail any introductory course in philosophy or religion.” Michael Ruse on the New Atheists as a Bloody Diasaster

If we understand a little of the ANE culture of the time during the contest between Elijah and Baal’s prophets, we can see that what was communicated to the people was that Yahweh had demonstrated Himself superior and had won on Baal’s terms. The fire indicated that God was listening to Elijah, as it was considered a theophany. The picture is that of warfare between Yahweh and Baal, as lightning was the weapon of the divine warrior. It is natural, then, that this should result in the slaughter of the prophets of Baal and Asherah. In the ancient world, this contest therefore made a lot of sense, and fit together as a whole. Elijah's Contest

Johnson asks, does Scripture permit us to regard any doctrine as secondary? What do Scripture and common sense tell us of the relative weights of doctrines? Some argue that every truth is primary and every disagreement worth fighting over and ultimately dividing, and you either agree with them on everything, or you’re going to hell. Others take the opposite extreme, viewing relationship as primary, and so no truth/proposition is ever worth fighting over. Does the Bible have any distinction in priorities? What about deciding what doctrines are primary? Johnson doesn’t think contemporary writers have dealt with this enough. i) Some errors are camels, others gnats; some are more weighty (Matt. 23:24-25). ii) There is truth of ‘first importance’ (1 Cor. 15:3). iii) Various truths are identified as fundamental (1 Jn. 1:6, 8, 10; 1 Cor. 16:22; 1 Jn. 4:2-3; Rom. 4:4-5; Jn. 17:3;1 Cor. 15:4). iv) The foundation is said to be Christ; it seems the superstructure was of different worth (Johnson takes 1 Cor. 3:11-13 as referring to doctrine). v) There were matters of opinion that Paul refused to lay down as hard-and-fast matters of truth (Romans 14:5). Indeed, Paul elsewhere does lay down truth about it (Col. 2:16-17) indicating he had an emphasis on tolerance in Romans. vi) Johnson is as eager to see evangelical unity as to attack ecumenical compromise. To keep the two straight it is crucial to have clear biblical reasons for treating various doctrines as either fundamental or secondary. Does Scripture Permit Us to Regard ANY Truth as Secondary -

Here’s an interesting and self-admittedly speculative thought on the connection between apostasy in the American churches among young people and their views on the War in Iraq. Because there was an illusion of consensus among evangelicals that supposedly affirmed the war in Iraq, this seems to have formed a point at which they ‘broke’ with evangelicalism, and it crystallized a loss of credibility about evangelicalism in their eyes. They became skeptics, and mixed with emergent theology. The War gave traction to emergent theology as these young anti-war voiceless dissenters “turned to leaders who would tell them the things they already secretly suspected ("We think the war in Iraq is immoral. Oh, and also, we believe that the Bible isn't inerrant, Jesus is not the only way to God, Hell is horrible and to be rejected on those grounds, etc.").” The Iraq War and Apostasy

Challies begins by discussing his all-too-intimate knowledge with anger. Anger is a strong feeling of displeasure to something wrong – or perceived wrong. It is triggered. Anger can be terrifying in proportion to the power of the one who is angry. It is not surprising that people have historically feared God’s anger (and much of ancient religion involved trying to appease gods). We can confuse human anger with divine wrath, imposing our own sinful, irrational, emotional anger upon God's just, perfect, holy wrath. “Charles Leiter has said it well: "God's wrath is not a temporary loss of self-control or a selfish fit of emotion. It is His holy, white-hot hatred of sin, the reaction and revulsion of His holy nature against all that is evil." God's wrath is revulsion.” It is not mere emotion and not at all irrational. It is a good and just and fair reaction to something that is absolutely, fundamentally opposed to God's very nature. God does not act rashly in anger, but justly. God must express His wrath against sin, and in His mercy did so for all who believe in Jesus Christ. The Reaction & Revulsion of a Holy Nature

Patton has a high endorsement for Tom Schreiner, and his sermon on Revelation 20, in terms of how he handles the issues of the priority of these issues. He includes the audio here. Tom Schreiner on the Millennium . . . and So Much More

Interesting point from Sandy Grant at Sola Panel: “What's the most dangerous excuse for avoiding a conference? I reckon it's the one that says, “I'm not going to that conference because I've heard what they're going to say before”. Maybe you don't go because because the particular conference speakers are not going to say anything new! But I go because the conference speakers are not saying anything new!” The most dangerous excuse for avoiding a conference

Carson talks about the trend to talk about God’s work to reverse the effects of sin in recent days, while depersonalizing God’s wrath, and collapsing God’s wrath and human rebellion into the single construct of the degradation of human life, all the while failing to reckon with the reality that from the beginning sin is an offense against God. Carson hammers Wright on this point, noting that his central idea of sin as somehow anarchic rebellion against shalom, and the triumph at the end is the restoration of shalom, ironically trivializes sin and loses the profound sense in which sin is personally against God. This is to lose something important in the storyline itself. Death, the consequences of our sin, and lostness are nothing other than preliminary manifestations of the wrath of God, and Christ’s death saves us from the wrath to come. Depersonalizing God's Wrath and Undermining the Cross

Patton has various anecdotes of misreading “God-sightings”, or thinking based on events that God is doing one thing, and then discovering that He was not, such as Patton’s own (mis)interpretation of providence as God’s intention to keep his sister alive. When You Go Right and God Goes Left – Reflections on “God Sightings”

The Total Church study guide is free and can be downloaded by following the links in this post. Total Church Study Guide

Hays writes that Arminians seem to think that as long as the human agent has libertarian freedom it’s a sufficient solution to the argument from evil. He illustrates the problem. Say he was a mad scientist, who created Frankenstein and endowed him with libertarian freedom. Frank is morally responsible. Say the scientist could foresee that Frank would go on a killing spree. Arminians think Frank is responsible for his own actions. But this hardly exculpates the scientist for knowingly creating a homicidal monster. He’s complicit. Arminius and Frankenstein

Spurgeon describes the atonement to an Irishman concerned about the justice of God in forgiving sinners. Atonement

God is the one who chose Saul and David to be king. The king was the earthly representative of God. “… the king’s anointing expressed his vassal relationship to the Great King, from whom his authority was derived, under whose protection he stood, and to whom he was beholden. Not only in the Bible but generally in the ancient Near East, "royal authority was seen to have a heavenly origin and destiny; where authority was at issue, the gods were believed to be nearby."… As a worshiper of the one true God, David is rightly respectful of the status of Yahweh’s anointed (cf. 26:9) and, despite the fact that Saul is clearly out to kill him, regrets having lifted his hand, even symbolically, against Saul.” V. Phillips Long on Ancient Kings Chosen By Deity

This post talks about ANE thought in 1 Sam. 2:1-10. i) There is a conviction of the sovereignty of God, that the fate of human beings is in the hands of God. Hannah adds a trust in a compassionate God to this view of sovereignty in her prayer. ii) Thundering from heaven – severe thunderstorms – were taken as a sign of divine power. The Psalmists employ this language as well, possibly in part to express the superiority of Yahweh in ancient terms. iii) Hannah anticipated the kingship in Israel. Kingship per se need not be a problem in Israel—only kings who refuse to rule as vassals of the Great King. iv) The king’s status as "the anointed" implied his divine enabling and his inviolability. Hannah's Prayer (1 Sam. 2) by V. Phillips Long