2009-09-14

The Secular Student Alliance (SSA) visited the Creation Museum, and a pastor who went with them, and wore their badge, reports he felt rejected. For those interested, the CCO of the museum gives a context-establishing report, part of which is excerpted here. “We were amazed at how tolerant our 2,000 museum guests were of the rude behavior of dozens of atheists who toured our museum. (YouTube features some of that bad behavior.) At the same time, most of the 285 atheists were, thankfully, not disruptive.” The Creation Museum Responds to Earlier Post about SSA Visit

Challies: “I am beginning to see more and more articles claiming things like this: "It is increasingly clear that global warming is on hiatus for the time being. And that is not what the UN, the alarmist scientists or environmentalists predicted. For the past dozen years, since the Kyoto accords were signed in 1997, it has been beaten into our heads with the force and repetition of the rowing drum on a slave galley that the Earth is warming and will continue to warm rapidly through this century until we reach deadly temperatures around 2100."” Global Warming Takes a Break

JT links to the audio from a discussion at SBTS on the Trinity and what the implications of authority and submission within the Godhead for discussions about human relationships between men and women. The panelists are Randy Stinson, Bruce Ware, and Gregg Allison. Trinity and Gender

Koinonia has a post on the context of dreams in the ANE, where they were often viewed as communication with God. i) Solomon’s experience has some commonality with other ANE dream accounts. ii) Various methods were employed for divine communication, including extispicy (entrails), libanomancy (smoke), lecanomancy (oil in water), incantation, and divination (astronomical observations, other events, dreams, etc). iii) Three types of dreams: revelatory , possibly needing interpretation, mantic , revealing the future (e.g. symbolically), symptomatic (concerns the spiritual/physical health of dreamer). iv) Dreams might include theophany or a voice. v) Revelatory dreams could function as a stamp of approval on the reign of a king in military areas, royal projects, etc; they often had divine promises of riches, honor, long life, and similar royal ideals. vi) An individual might try to provoke such a dream by sleeping in a shrine/temple; Solomon’s trip to Gideon gives no indication this is why. vii) They often intersected with temple building. viii) The account of Solomon’s temple building is often compared with the account of the Sumerian king Gudea of Lagash (ca. 2100 B.C). The blog lists a number of parallels, though with a caveat not to overstate them. ix) Solomon’s request for wisdom and knowledge connects with the ancient Near Eastern motif of "the king as sage." x) In the ancient Near East wisdom was not as much abstract as it was functional. Thus, from the perspective of the king, wisdom had functionality in important areas such as practical knowledge, decision making, and temple building. xi) Divinely endowed wisdom for temple building is stressed in a number of ANE texts. xii) Solomon’s dream experience, which included wisdom, enthronement and temple building, fit well in the context of dreams in the ANE. Solomon's Dream at Gibeon by John Walton and Fred Mabie

Engwer has some good advice on taking notes on books here. In the spirit of highlighting something important, I’ll note that he points out the importance of acquiring a breadth of understanding regarding the lay of the land. “As early in life as possible, spend some time reading a large variety of online forums, or consulting some similar source, to gather information about what you should be looking for when you read.” That means, before you dive into reading. How To Use A Book

Using Wesley as an example, Hays notes that Arminians rail against Calvinism based on the notion that doctrines like reprobation and limited atonement are an affront to God’s love, justice and mercy. However, this overlooks a whole category of beings – fallen angels – for whom no redemption is available. Why the double standard where angels are concerned – isn’t the lack of redemption incompatible with God’s love, etc? Giving the devil his due

Roman Catholics go after Protestants as schismatic, i.e. because they rebel against the divinely constituted hierarchy of the one true church, and no matter how corrupt she becomes, it’s still a sin to break with the church. Hays points out a number of ways that John the Baptist was a schismatic with the divinely instituted religious establishment in Jerusalem, so as to argue from the lesser to the greater – if there is a time when it is permissible to split from a divine institution, then it’s certainly permissible to split with a human institution (divine pretensions not withstanding). i) He lived in a self-imposed exile; a deliberate snub/repudiation of the corrupt religious establishment. John turned his back, not following in his father’s footsteps so as to discharge his priestly duties. ii) The Gospels place his wilderness ministry in direct contrast to the religious authorities from Jerusalem. iii) He gave a baptism of repentance – remission of sins by an alternate route than the temple. iv) He publically denounced the establishment. v) His mission taps into the OT remnant motif. vi) It was not impermissible to continue in temple attendance; it was permissible, however, to cease attendance, undergo John’s baptism and live by all that represents. John was by Romanist definitions a schismatic, yet he had divine approval. The point is that institutions are a means to an end, and we must consider the function. John the Baptist and other schismatics

Hays writes that all the various religions and philosophies past and present are variants on three basic worldviews: Calvinism, atheism, and Manichaeism. He argues that Arminianism is fundamentally Manichaean. The Arminian is really a bitheist or ditheist. In his theology, “God” is a code word for the good God (Zurvan/Ahura Mazda) while “Satan” is a code word for the evil God (Ahriman/Angra Mainyu). He must tip-toe through life, wondering which god created which part of the world he’ll bump into next. The Calvinist, by contrast, accepts everything from God’s hand with thanksgiving; there is only one God. This doesn’t come easily. But God brings good out of evil, and He decreed the fall for that reason. So we walk by faith, trusting His wisdom and goodness. The Calvinists sees a deeper meaning in all things. Everything is part of a wise design. Atheism, like Manichaeanism, sees no good in evil. “The Arminian wants the good without the bad, while the atheist–by disowning God–loses the good. All that’s left is irredeemable evil.” The Arminian must hold onto faith by avoiding lucid thoughts about God. The atheist just thinks soberly. Hays concludes by pointing out that when a dad gives his child a dog, he knows the dog will eventually die – after the child has come to love it – and this will cause his child great pain. He foreknows this will happen. Is it cruel then to give the dog? The neo-Manicheans

Swan, continuing to show how vacuous the claim is that we need the infallible magisterium in light of Roman Catholic confusions, that that Augustine held John 6 was not literal, and Catholic Answers says it is. They also are in error when they state "there is no record from the early centuries that implies Christians doubted the constant Catholic interpretation" of this passage. So who’s correct? Neither? Unless the magisterium decides, the interpretation of John 6 is up to the individual interpretation of the Roman Catholic – the very thing they criticize non-catholics of doing. We Have Apostolic Tradition - The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary #12

Peachy. “The law, which was signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996, defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and prevents same-sex married couples from receiving the same federal benefits as heterosexual married couples.” Obama, btw, promised a full repeal of it. Lawmakers To Repeal Defense of Marriage Act

Sola panel has a reminder to stop “deluding ourselves into thinking that we have done something good when all we have done is thought about doing something good.” “I’ll pray for you.” “I'd love to give money to support that gospel or mercy ministry.” And so on. Recognize your human limitations. Don’t commit to what you can’t handle. Carry through everything to which you commit. And Paul, in 2 Cor. 8-9, calls the church on their commitments to ensure they follow through with it. Perhaps we need to do that. The death of good intentions

Mounce has some good comments on Bible Translation here, in response to Mark Strauss’ invitation in his paper last year, "Why the English Standard Version (ESV) should not become the Standard English Version." Strauss predicates his whole argument on the conviction that the only "proper" and "right" translation is a colloquial translation. And he constantly asks, “would anyone actually say it?” i) Shakespeare is not English on this definition. ii) Whose colloquial English? So-cal? Texas? Deep south? English? Mounce notes how differently the members of the ESV translation committee heard words. iii) One example is Luke 17:35. "There will be two women grinding together. One will be taken and the other left." Mounce never even thought of dirty dancing, nor did the ESV translator who was a pastor and quite familiar with high school kids. The ESV had as one of its principles not to do the work of a commentary. The meaning here is perfectly obvious. iv) He wonders if a publisher would really want to invest millions of dollars in a truly colloquial publication that will be out of date within a few years, which is how fast language can change. Luke 17-35—The ESV and Dirty Dancing (Monday with Mounce 41)

White recalls how, after debating Barry Lynn, ACLU attorney and head of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, Lynn threatened suit in the 9th Circuit (the wrong place, mind you, for such disputes) to suppress dissemination of the videos! (note again, ACLU). White found it ironic that someone who would speak so highly of free speech rights would attempt to use litigation to attempt to suppress the record of a public debate, but the lesson is clear: “free speech is only for those on the left, not anyone else. And we surely see that on every hand today as well.” Obama’s office has given Lynn a position, which ought to be no surprise, since radicalism is Washington’s new orthodoxy. You Just Gotta Love Liberals