[Administrator note: For those who follow this blog, it’s been sparse here as of late because there are many other things these days that are occupying my time. Lord willing, I will be a little more flexible in the near future.]
Hays notes the interesting scenario wherein one set of humanists, the cryonists (and other humanists who glory in the medical advances, etc) is opposed to the other set of humanists, the antinatalists (i.e. it’s immoral to have a baby), environmentalists (humans are a plague/parasite), and eugenicists (who fear the population bomb). The cryonicists versus the eugenicists
Noting an atheist blog which cites 2 Cor. 6:14 as forbidding Christians to have contact with atheists, Patton dismisses the separationalist mentality he sees in many believers, who avoid associating with unbelievers, as if they expect the unbeliever to already be like a believer before they’ll engage them. Patton states a stat which says that after an average person becomes a believer, he loses contact with all unbelieving friends within two years. He argues 2 Cor. 6:14 is not saying not to have unbelieving friends/associations, but rather, not to join together with unbelievers in their practices and worldview. He gives four reasons Christians should be intentional about having unbelieving friends. i) They are sick and in need of hope. Christians shouldn’t be like the religious leaders who looked down on Christ for eating/drinking with unbelievers (Matt. 9:12). [I’ll add that ‘sick’ isn’t as good a reason as ‘they are culpable criminals, rebels against God, who need a Saviour – a Saviour you know.’]. ii) They keep you real. Your folk theology (belief/practice held without understanding it), your Christian cliches, etc. will be challenges (e.g. what does ‘the Spirit moved me?’ mean anyway? Christians will all nod in approval, lest they seem unspiritual in questioning it, but unbelievers won’t). iii) They are not shy about their struggles and ask great questions. That is, they won’t let you ‘just take everything on faith’ or take a blind leap in the dark. Believers should be the first to ask the tough questions. Anselm defined theology as “faith seeking understanding.” iv) Christ had unbelieving friends, as He was on a mission to reconcile the world to Himself. He was often accused of associating too closely with them. If you want to follow Christ’s example, associate with all those in need. If You Are an Atheist, Don’t Talk to Me!
Bloom fills out the narrative of Luke 7, where the sinful woman becomes a model for true worship: "He who is forgiven little, loves little." This small statement reveals a mammoth truth for us: we will love God to the degree that we recognize the magnitude of our sins and the immensity of God's grace to forgive them. True worship is a passionate love for God. And, for sinners like us, the fuel of that love is a profound realization, in the words of former slave trader-turned-pastor, John Newton, "that I am a great sinner, and that Christ is a great Saviour." Seeing Our Shame- The Fuel of True Love for God
Turk continues discussing when it is ok to leave the church – i.e. whenever we talk about the local church, someone has to clarify that it’s time to leave ‘a church’. Turk notes that while God tells disciples to leave towns which don’t receive them, etc. and that God knows how to say, “leave” as shown throughout the Scriptures, He never gives instructions on leaving a church. Not in Galatia, not in Corinth, though the former had voided the Gospel, and the latter was into incest. Paul didn’t see the church the way you do - “You see the church as a place where the word is preached, the sacraments are rightly administered, and discipline is rightly upheld.” He thought it was more than that – and not more of the same. In Titus 1, Paul is saying that the way to run off false teachers is to teach what accords with sound doctrine so that people will adorn the sound doctrine through their actions. And these aren’t the bookish seminary students, who have what they think is a tidy interior, and don’t want people messing it up – they’re socially inept, not dignified and self-controlled. Church is more than your weekly events – it’s a household, and it’s a big one, and the reality is greater than this image, which means it’s harder. Thus Turk plans to discuss why he thinks the GTY statement, “However, there are times when it becomes necessary to leave the household of God for the sake of one's own conscience, or out of a duty to obey God rather than men” doesn’t make sense to him. Not Done Lightly (2)
DeYoung writes that When Helping Hurts: How to Alleviate Poverty Without Hurting the Poor and Yourself by Steve Corbett and Brian Fikkert is the best book he’s read on ministering to the poor. Social justice, etc. is all the rage, especially among the young, but ignorance can mean a lot of harm out of good intent. The book has lots of example, doesn’t dwell on guilt trips, but rather on practical ideas on how to help and how not to ‘help’, it is balanced in recognizing that both broken systems and people contribute to poverty, and it keeps the focus on helping the poor, not just making us feel better or accomplished. Good intentions aren’t enough. DeYoung discusses Part 1: Foundational Concepts for Helping Without Hurting. i) The cross and forgiveness of sins are central, and helping the poor, etc. are important to God as well. God has chosen to reveal His glory chiefly among the weak and despised. However, the poor are not inherently more righteous are sanctified than the rich; there is no place in the Bible that indicates poverty is desirable or material things are evil. Wealth is viewed as a gift from God. ii) Poverty is defines as the absence of shalom in all its meaning, the result of one or more core relations being broken – with God, with self, with others, and with creation. DeYoung isn’t sure this can be exegeted from Gen. 1-3, but still thinks the point is good. iii) While we see poverty as material, the poor talk about it in psychological/social terms - shame, inferiority, fear, hopelessness, isolation, and voicelessness. In other words, when we march in and give the poor the stuff we think they need, we are only making them feel poorer, as they understand poverty. DeYoung anecdotally notes the failure of a thanksgiving basket program at his church to actually alleviate poverty, for this reason. Thus poverty alleviation must factor this in. iv) “Poverty alleviation, Chapter 3 argues, does not mean making the poor all over the world into middle-class Americans (a group, Fikkert notes, characterized by high rates of divorce, sexual addiction, substance abuse, and mental illness).” Rather, we’re to work to reconcile those four relations. Too often, people resort to just throwing money at them. [I’ll note that this lines up with the African economist’s negative response to Bono, see here]. People need to see that Jesus’s death and resurrection changes everything. When Helping Hurts, Part 1
Phillips posts part two of his testimony here. He was converted through an altar call and the four spiritual laws, along with Mere Christianity. February 11- the most pivotal day in my life (part two [requested classic re-post] )
Interested in church history? Check out Timothy Paul Jones book Christian History Made Easy. Christian History and the Church
T-fan, responding to a Romanist taking Rev. 12 as Mary, notes that it is about the ancient church, an interpretation which has the unanimous consent of the fathers. He cites a number of early Christians, and then points out that while modern Romanism teaches that the woman is both Mary and the Church, the fathers don’t make this identification. “In the 19th century we see a tenuous identification being made to Mary, and then in the 20th century we see that tenuous identification becoming the primary identification within the evermore mariolatrous religion of Rome.” Mary Crowned in Revelation-
Hays interacts with Reppert over tone and Reppert’s accusations of the Triabloguers. This is a worthwhile post to read. Hays notes, for example, the proliferation of the term ‘Calvinazi’ among those who oppose Calvinism – a term Reppert has tolerated on his blog’s discussion, ironically. [My own thought – don’t go making yourself an internet tone cop. Don’t impute tone to the words you read coming from others whom you’ve never met. Concern yourself with the content, rather than projecting your own emotional response onto someone’s words as a result of the ‘tone’ of those words and not the fact that someone just said (or argued) that you’re wrong.] Hays then continues to interact with a would-be church historian, who is an Arminian. Some points: i) You can incompetently read a competent author. ii) Reformed theology doesn’t take an official position on the proportion of humanity that is elect; some take a majority, by combining infant salvation with a post-mil outlook. iii) You need to have a critical detachment to be a historian. iv) If the use of invective is an indicator that one is not reborn, and there is a link between the God of Calvinism and Calvinist’s using invective (as the Arminian says, “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, thus giving rise to ungodly attitudes among many Calvinists”) then why doesn’t the Arminian level the same charge of unregeneracy against Wesley, Arminius, etc. on account of their invective? And what of the link to Calvinism? v) It is ironic to go after Calvinist theology by accusing Calvinists of lacking the fruits, while the same people resort to double standards, which is itself spiritually symptomatic of an immaturity, a lack of capacity of self-criticism (a mark of sanctification), and moral blindness. Jesus went after hypocrites. The Calvinazis
Girltalk writes that it is nearly impossible to hold onto evil prejudices, etc. while showing hospitality (1 Peter 4:8-10). Hospitality says to one another, “Your background or ethnicity, your education or accomplishments, hobbies or interests—none of that matters. What matters is that we are both undeserving recipients of the grace of God. That is what unites us in friendship.” Hospitality, as one author put it, “is a way of bringing the household into the church and the church into the household.” By showing hospitality we show that love covers a multitude of sins. Hospitality Says
Thabiti quotes Murray’s biography of Lloyd-Jones with respect to sermon preparation and full manuscripts, who, while adapting and changing his way of preparing, from two full manuscripts for both sermons on Sunday, to one full, then to an outline, having read through the sermon multiple times, always maintained a relentless focus on preparation. The sermons where he relied on a feeling from the text, with an inadequately thought out plan, failed miserably. “Generally his experience concurred with that of Henry Rees, one of the Methodist fathers who, when asked which of his sermons had been most honoured of God, replied, 'The ones I prepared most carefully'.” Sermon Manuscripts and Outside Speaking Engagements by Thabiti Anyabwile
Andy Naselli points to this article: "Maintaining Moral Purity in the Ministry", which gives five nevers: “"Never risk your moral testimony." "Never be alone with a woman not your wife." (This is where Minnick shares the answer to the opening scenario.) "Never meet with a woman by herself." "Never physically touch another woman, other than by a brief handshake." "Never compliment a woman on her appearance."” [One thing worth noting is that it’s quite something to hold one’s head up high while observing an abstract, blanket moral principle, in particular ways the Bible doesn’t require, to the exclusion of actually doing good to others. Simplistic, reduced morality may assuage the conscience but it’s not necessarily good or right, any more than the Pharisee, who ‘devoted’ things to God instead of helping his parents, while feeling righteous, actually did the right thing]. It’s worth noting that the comments indicate that its bad to impose standards that Jesus would fail. Maintaining Moral Purity in the Ministry
Pike writes, to the charge [which is historically falsifiable; e.g. William Carey] that Calvinism dampens evangelism and chills churches: “I’ve written a total of 30 articles on Arminianism and 35 on Calvinism (and there are some posts that are archived under both, of course). In contrast, I’ve got 157 on Atheism, including 84 on presuppositionalism alone. There are another 144 on science, 45 on math, and 52 on evolution, but these don’t all fit as apologetics against Atheism. Still, 157 articles on Atheism is more than 5x the number of articles I’ve written about Arminians.” He then asks, “what are the odds that someone who’s writing a blog called “Classical Arminianism: A FORMER CALVINIST'S CENSURE AGAINST CALVINISM AND PROMOTION OF 5-POINT ARMINIANISM” is going to dedicate five times the volume of posts against Calvinists to posts against atheism? Or even Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, or New Agers?” Calvinists and Evangelism
Sola Panel, in the first of ten propositions on ministry, reminds us that ministry is about making disciples, not mere believers. What ministry is about
Hays compares the modern tirades of Ingersoll and Dawkins against the God of the Bible to the words of John Wesley, who said, “… Nations yet unborn, or ever they have done good or evil are doomed never to see the light of life, but thou shalt gnaw upon them for ever and ever! Let all those morning stars sing together, who fell with Lucifer, son of the morning! Let all the sons of hell shout for joy! For the decree is past, and who shall disannul it?"”. New players, old playbook
Turk answers a question as to whether there comes a point to leave a church, given a bad scenario wherein the leadership of a church deliberately heads in a bad doctrinal path, away from the centrality of the Word. He says that while Phil Johnson, and the folks at GTY, would say that at some point you leave, he respectfully disagrees. i) How does said scenario happen in a healthy church? It doesn’t – the church picks a pastor who reflects who they already are. You can now walk into your church disabused of the notion that God protected it from being a church full of Corinthians/Galatians, etc. Some of those dirty fingerprints are yours. ii) The natural tendancy of the bloggerreadus apologeticus is to hit somebody -- theologically, of course, but with great zeal, which is wrong because, as those who pose such questions like to point out, the church is not a building. iii) You have to love someone as Jesus loved someone (i.e. you) to set him straight. The thing is that if a person doesn’t want your advice/help then, they will ask you to leave – and in that case, leave. They aren’t rejecting you then, but the one to whom you belong. Dust off your feet. iv) Try that for two-five years, and see how it works out. Not Done Lightly (2-A)
This post at Reclaiming the Mind (which I’d suggest one read only if one is mature enough to recognize that just because someone adamantly holds timeless propositions as part of the central core of Christianity, he is not ‘reducing’ the truth of God to cold orthodoxy, which, in my experience, is not a maturity we can take for granted), argues that a Princetonian dichotomy between head and heart represented by Charles Hodge (who had a great antipathy to the subjective nature of Christianity [though note Paul Helm’s recent blogs on this topic, I recall he was more balanced at this point that this author]) resulted in a compartmentalized faith and life, a cold creedal orthodoxy in the graduates (i.e. “The only difficulty is there is too little reverence for Scripture as the Word of God and too great an exaltation of human reason as arbiter over it””), and a disjunction between formal theology and personal piety. This results in a theology that puffs up the knower, while reducing “the truth of God to timeless abstract propositions.” Princeton and Propositions
Piper quotes Lewis for one of the best reasons for a man to get married and stay married. No relationship is more clearly commanded to model the death of Christ, and none is more costly, in both senses (painful and precious). “This headship, then, is most fully embodied not in the husband we should all wish to be but in him whose marriage is most like a crucifixion; whose wife receives most and gives least, is most unworthy of him, is—in her own mere nature—least lovable. For the church has no beauty but what the bridegroom gives her; he does not find, but makes her, lovely.” The consecration is not seen in the joy’s of a man’s marriage but in its sorrows, “in the sickness and sufferings of a good wife or the faults of the bad one, in his unwearying (never paraded) care or his inexhaustible forgiveness: forgiveness, not acquiescence.”. Weighty Words on the Meaning of a Husband’s Headship
Creation.com notes the thick Darwinism in Nazi ideology. Their systematic attempts to make the Aryan master-race (Lebensborn, ‘Fountain of Life’ program) are an example of eugenics in action. Eugenics is the application of Darwinian evolution to produce better offspring by improving the birthrate of the ‘fit’ and reducing the birthrate of the ‘less fit’. They note three factors leading to the acceptance of social Darwinism in Germany: Darwin’s Origin of Species had been translated into German in 1860, followed by his Descent of Man in 1875 (which showed that Darwin was himself a social Darwinist!). And their logical sequel, articles on eugenics, by Darwin’s cousin, Sir Francis Galton, had been translated into German by the early 1900s. Ernst Haeckel (Prof. of Zoology at Jena University in Germany from 1865 to 1909) had become ‘Darwin’s chief European apostle proclaiming the gospel of evolution with evangelistic fervor. The German nation had been subjected for many years to the ‘God-is-dead’ atheism of Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900). Nietzsche believed Darwinian evolution would produce the super-man. Hitler adopted Darwinist racism, calling the negro an anthropoid (ape) by birth. “Richard Weikart, professor of modern European history at California State University writes, ‘Since Hitler viewed evolutionary progress as essentially good, he believed that the highest good is to cooperate with the evolutionary process. … If evolution provided the ends, the Darwinian mechanism suggested the means: increase the population of the “most fit” people to displace others in the struggle for existence.’ This was the rationale for the Lebensborn program.” Evolutionary ideas infest all that is worst in Mein Kampf. Hitler justified his racism by appealing to Darwinian science. ”if Hitler and his Nazi associates had fully accepted and consistently acted on the belief that all humans are descended from Adam and Eve and so are equal before the Creator God, as taught in the Bible in both the Old Testament and New Testament, neither the Lebensborn program with all of its pain, nor the Holocaust with all of its horrors, would ever have happened.” http://creation.com/hitlers-master-race-children-haunted-by-their-past
Bird writes, “Over at CT-online is an article on the plight of seminaries in Sweden and how the government is threatening to withdraw accreditation from them. This shows that secularism and pluralism, far from being ideologies that promote harmony and diversity within society, can become rampantly aggressive and seek to eradicate all dissent to their political and cultural hegemony. Pray for Sweden!” Swedish Seminaries in Peril
Mohler comments on the Episcopal Church, which recently voted to end its commitment to a moratorium on the election of openly homosexual priests as bishops, and now one of the largest and most liberal diocese of the Church has nominated two openly homosexual clergy to election as bishop. While Rowan Williams remarkably suggests a ‘two-track’ approach which accommodates ‘both styles’ of being Anglican, Mohler notes that this is impossible: Both sides view the issue of homosexuality as fundamental. The authority of God’s word is at stake: no church can accept the coexistence of an affirmation of biblical authority and a denial of the same. http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=4177
People ought not to measure the quality of a ministry by how good it makes them feel. A doctor may make you happy to tell you you’re fine, but if you have a deadly disease, the doctor would be careless and hateful to do that. Pastor, Don’t Crack My Egg-Shell
Here’s an interview with Graham A. Cole on his forthcoming book God the Peacemaker: How Atonement Brings Shalom. Carson endorses it. Graham Cole's Book on the Atonement
Patton, noting that the words of reformer Meldenius, “In Essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity,” have become something of an evangelical credo. reiterates his four criteria for what makes a doctrine ‘essential’ or ‘fundamental’: 1. Historicity: Does the doctrine have universal historical representation? 2. Explicitly Historical: Does the history of the church confess their centrality? 3. Biblical Clarity (Perspicuity): Is the doctrine represented clearly in Scripture? 4. Explicitly Biblical: Does any passage of Scripture explicitly teach that a certain doctrine is essential? He holds that all four must be present. What are the essentials to Christianity- Four Criteria
Mohler writes about polyamory, which Newsweek reports is having a "coming-out-party." Advocates “define their movement in terms of the moral principle of "ethical nonmonogamy," defined as "engaging in loving, intimate relationships with more than one person -- based upon the knowledge and consent of everyone involved."” Marriage is not the issue here, hence why it’s not called polygamy. Legal theorists, etc. note rightly that the legalization of homosexuality will inevitably lead to polygamy, and once strictures against adultery were eliminated, something essentially like polygamy was inevitable. Ideas like ‘free love’, etc. abound as this is becoming increasingly mainstream. One telling word in their vocab is "polyfidelitous" -- which means that the multiple partners keep sexual activity within their own self-identified cluster. It has a feminist bent – i.e. if men can have multiple partners, woman must too so as to be equal. This is all a natural consequence of subverting marriage; the culture has largely normalized adultery, serialized marriage, separated marriage from reproduction and childbearing, and accepted divorce as a mechanism for liberation. But the culture is morally confused, and they won’t condemn polyamory as what it is – immorality. http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=4211
While critics of Christianity argue that the early Christians thought that Jesus had promised to return before the end of His generation, sometime well before the end of the first century, Engwer notes that Paul, in Ephesians, seems to presuppose that children born contemporaneously could live to an old age. This is inconsistent with the notion that the early Christians thought that Jesus had promised that His second coming would occur before the end of His generation. Interestingly, there are those who deny Pauline authorship because of this point, since Paul must have thought that parousia was immanent. One Of The Reasons Why Ephesians Is Important
Engwer recommends Dutcher’s book You Are The Treasure that I Seek, But there’s lots of cool stuff out there, Lord, which touches in a more introductory way many of the themes Piper often addresses. He defines idolatry as "cherishing, trusting, or fearing anything more than we cherish, trust, or fear God himself". Os Guinness said, “Idolatry is the most discussed problem in the Bible and one of the most powerful spiritual and intellectual concepts in the believer's arsenal. Yet for Christians today it is one of the least meaningful notions and is surrounded with ironies. Perhaps this is why many evangelicals are ignorant of the idols in their lives. Contemporary evangelicals are little better at recognizing and resisting idols than modern secular people are. There can be no believing communities without an unswerving eye to the detection and destruction of idols.” As Dutcher says, “A seminary professor of mine had a helpful saying that I've never forgotten, "You know what your idols are by observing this: When they shake, you shake." Modern Idolatry
Mathis concludes his 9 part series, which overviews Calvin’s life, by noting his final efforts on his Institutes (so as to leave his church a definitive edition) and years of lecturing and preaching, before dying at 52, and being buried in an unmarked grave: “He requested burial in an unmarked grave hoping to prevent pilgrims from coming to see his resting place and engaging in the kind of idolatry he'd spent his lifetime standing against.” An Unmarked Grave- Life of Calvin, Part 9
Hays cites Arminius at length, who rails against the Pope with some vivid language and intense polemic, which has bearing in the ongoing issue of tone (and the subsequent questions of genuine conversion on account of the T-bloggers interactions) Arminian e-pologists continue to raise. Arminian rhetoric
Hays has an interesting short story/dialog on prayer here. In this house of prayer
Reppert actually argues from the natural death of embryos that “if every fertilized egg is sacred before God, then why is God systematically killing so many of them? It seems George Tiller had nothing on the Almighty as an abortionist.” Hays writes, i) It’s a fallen world, and everyone dies sooner or later. If this is an argument for legalizing abortion, it’s an argument for infanticide and homicide too. ii) There’s an obvious difference between taking a life and nature running its course. iii) Reppert appears to have no problem with Tiller’s profession, yet he resents the accusation that he’s a front-man for baby-killers. iv) It’s rather obvious that God, the Creator and Judge, has the right to do things that we don’t have. The Almighty abortionist
AiG writes that most words have more than one meaning, but only one of these meanings will properly fit the given context. When someone shifts from one meaning of a word to another within an argument, he or she has committed the fallacy of equivocation. Evolutionists often commit the fallacy of equivocation on the word evolution. This word has a number of meanings. Evolution can mean “change” in a general sense, but it can also refer to the idea that organisms share a common ancestor... Many evolutionists seem to think that by demonstrating evolution in the sense of “change,” that it proves evolution in the sense of “common descent.” Also, they conflate operational science with evolution, hoping to give evolution a credibility that it does not truly deserve. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/08/10/logical-fallacies-equivocation
Girltalk has a reminder to practice hospitality intentionally, and not merely when you feel like it (1 Peter 4:9). How Do You Do Hospitality-
Payne offers a second proposition about church: Churches inevitably drift towards institutionalism and secularization. The focus shifts from the vine (the making of disciples through the prayerful ministry of the Word) to the trellis (the programmes and structures that support and enable that work). Don’t let managing the trellis take over for the vine. Pastors must be very careful not to have their view of the church reduced to mere structural and corporate terms. What ministry is about 2
CBMW notes that the Assemblies of God have elected their first woman to the highest office, the Executive Presbytery (they have ordained female pastors for decades), which she accepted with this most ironic statement: "The call of God is not a gender issue, it's an obedience issue. Being female is not an excuse for not fulfilling God's purpose for your life." She is clearly obeying some subjective mental impression, and not Scripture - particularly in places such as 1 Tim. 2:12, where Paul insists that "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man." We are thankful for the giftedness of women in the churches, but God never calls men or women to disobey Him. While this appointment isn’t actually to a local church, they are doing the same activity that commands in Scripture are talking about, and so, as Grudem writes, such Scriptural commands are applicable. Indeed, properly following the guiding principle here is precisely a matter of obedience and not gender. Assemblies of God Appointment - A Matter of Obedience, but to What-
White, commenting on the use of prolific modern Romanist scholars – who are deeply theologically liberal – by Islamic apologists, writes that “when you join the likes of Bart Ehrman as the favorite go-to-source for those denying the essential aspects of the Christian faith itself, well, that doesn't speak too well as to your orthodoxy.” Rome’s theologians have long abandoned meaningful commitment to Rome’s theology. Romanist apologists know that their theologians are not their friends. He then notes that for some reason, all that tradition, and all that "extra" help from the Pope and the "living Magisterium" didn't keep [Romanist apologists] Sungenis, Madrid, and Matatics together. The Unity and Certainty of Rome
For those interested in and capable of understanding such things, here’s a post, with images of the papyri in question, on a variant in Hebrews 1:1. 'God spoke to our fathers'- Hebrews 1.1 (P12 and P46)
Windsor at Sola Panel has a post on justification through atonement, as illustrated by the parable of the tax-collector and the Pharisee, where the former offered a prayer of atonement, while the latter offered a prayer of justification (i.e. he expected to be justified, recognized as righteous, by God). Yet the former was justified. Justification happens because Jesus Christ was presented as an atonement (Romans 3:25-26). Using your biblical word power- Justification through Atonement
Piper cites this: “Stolen water is sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant. (Proverbs 9:17)”, and then Augustine: “For of what I stole I already had plenty, and much better at that, and I had no wish to enjoy the things I coveted by stealing, but only to enjoy the theft itself and the sin.” The real pleasure consists in doing something forbidden. Let Augustine’s Life Illumine Solomon’s Warning
Creation.com debunks some myths on global warming, making the following points: i) CO2 is not a pollutant; Higher CO2 levels actually improve plant growth and productivity. There has been a substantial increase in the productivity of the world’s crops and forests due to the increased carbon dioxide concentrations, contributing to the food and fiber production to meet the needs of the growing human population.1 ii) CO2 is increasing. iii) There is a slight average increase of global increase over the last century of about 0.5 degrees C. Whether this increase is due to normal climate cycles over the centuries, changes in the Sun’s activity,3 natural CO2 emissions, or man-caused CO2 emissions is the subject of fierce debate. iv) most climate measurements appear to show a greater warming trend at high latitudes than in the tropics, which won’t necessarily get warmer. In his movie, An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore6 fails to make the distinction. Perhaps he found that particular truth inconvenient! v) The continents would not be drowned even if all the ice in the world melted. vi) Global warming is not making weather more violent. Records of storm frequency and intensity show no increase in the violence of weather events such as hurricanes/cyclones and tornados; there was been a 43% reduction between 1950 and 2006 in severe tornadoes in the USA. Creation.com goes on to argue that higher temperatures are actually likely a good thing, as indicated by fossil plants, which show the world was warmer. Plants would thrive with more CO2 and a warmer climate. Indeed, it may be that secular experts are afraid of climate change because of their theory of the Ice Age(s), and their view that the atmosphere is unstable. Instead, a creationist offers a theory consistent with the observed features of the Ice Age. Earth’s climate is not ‘triggerable’. http://creation.com/global-warming-facts-and-myths
Carson has a warning, in light of the onslaught of church planting strategies coming off the printing press, not to replace the foolishness of the cross with the wisdom of strategic planning. The Foolishness of the Cross and Church-Planting Strategies
Phillips observes that in Mark 14:31, Peter is emphatic that, while the other losers might bail, he’ll never ever, even if he has to die with Jesus. Now, we don’t doubt Peter’s sincerity, nor the intensity of intent behind his words. But what went wrong? He underestimated Christ’s words and the fierceness of Satan’s attack. And he overestimated his own strength of character and will, his resolve, his ability to withstand temptation in his own strength. Consider God’s promise in Hebrews 13:5, which is even more emphatic than Peter’s words: “'I absolutely will not abandon you, nor will I ever, ever desert you.'" Has God missed on his estimates too? Has he underestimated how difficult you would be, or how flawed you are? Has He overestimated the efficacy of His grace? Well, if you have the god of open theism, those could be ‘yes’, but if you believe in the God of the Bible, the answer is absolutely not – God has not misestimated. You can bank everything on God’s promises. Promises, promises
Does James 1:13 contradict Calvinism? Hays posts the response of of four NT scholars (Beale, Hamilton, Poythress, Schreiner), and the comments of three commentators (Davids, Green, Pratt). None think so, and offer varying aspects and explanations as to the meaning, such as secondary causation (God equips evil agents, but they do the evil themselves), the distinction between the preceptive and decretive will of God (which all must admit to understand the crucifixion), the fact that temptations could never get traction if it weren’t for the heart of man, comparisons to Job, where he is tempted by Satan, but all the evil comes from God ultimately – yet God is not accountable, the idea that James isn’t considered with theoretical theodicy but rather the practical, the fact that one of his Satan’s duties as “accuser” is to tempt and test human being, although God himself tempts no one (see Jas 1:13), God gives Satan permission to test believers (see Mt 4:1-10; Lk 22:31-32; Rev 2:10). Does Jas 1-13 contradict Calvinism-
On the same theme, Hays posts his interactions with Reppert over the question: i) the Bible distinguishes between divine agency and intermediate agency, viz. sending an evil spirit to mess with Saul. ii) Under a counterfactual theory of causation, then in Calvinism, Molinism, Arminianism, universalism, and open theism, God is the cause of sin, since He created the world. iii) To place love as always seeking the good final result for the beloved in opposition to justice, especially retributive justice, is to disregard the latter aspect of the Scriptures. iv) Hays notes non-Calvinists who offer interpretations of Arminian prooftexts which are consistent with Calvinism (e.g. Lincoln in Jn 3:16, Towner on 1 Tim 2:4, Bauckam on 2 Pet 3:9, &c.). v) If God truly doesn’t want anyone to sin, then why did he created sinners in the first place? Was creation was a metaphysical necessity? vi) Why is it outrageous for God to hate an evildoer? Even if that evildoer is related to someone God loves? vii) Reppert claims that God’s will is the eternal good of everyone, which can only be achieved via the creature’s free response, and “many pains are used by God to induce us to freely obey him.” Hays retorts, “Suffering frequently turns people against God. Take the street girl who’s gang-raped. Do you really think that’s the best way to induce her to freely obey God? And you presume to talk about coherence, do you?” viii) Reppert effectively rejects inerrancy, yet continually invokes the ‘love’ argument. But inerrancy is held because it’s crucial to our source of knowledge. If we have no reliable revelation from God, how do we know that God loves anyone? If one judges by looking at the world, it’s not a very loving place. ix) The opponents of Calvinism don’t take evil seriously; core objections, once the layers are pulled back, reveal that they can’t bring themselves to see evil as truly culpable. If everyone is guilty, there is no injustice in treating offenders unequally. No one deserves better. Hays modifies Reppert’s metaphor of grading a class too hard: Rather, all the students were cheaters on the exam. So what should be done? The teacher could flunk the whole class. That would be a just and justifiable course of action. He could also pardon every student and give every student an “A”. Or he could pardon half the students to give them a second chance, a chance to learn from their mistake–while he flunks the other half to send a message, a warning to the other students not to be presumptuous.” x) Unless Bible is a reliable source of information, that unreliability doesn’t make room for universalism or anything else. On the rabbit trail
Interesting: “A seminary professor I know was going blind and also went to the elders, and his eyesight was restored directly by God, to the bafflement of the Wills Eye Hospital specialists. Dr. Poythress informed me that the healing was not immediate but tarried a week or two—which is an outcome to James 5 that I had not considered.” Andrée Seu on Healing, Praying, and Waiting
Good quote from Packer: "The world’s idea that everyone, from childhood up, should be able at all times to succeed in measurable ways, and that it is a great disgrace not to, hangs over the Christian community like a pall of acrid smoke.” A Pall of Acrid Smoke
Here’s a video of the Democratic side of both houses booing the President during the State of the Union, 2005. Just for reference
No comments:
Post a Comment