Challies: Augustine said, ‘I am the sort of man who writes because he has made progress, and who makes progress by writing.’ Challies notes the value of writing as not only for gaining knowledge, but for marking the progress he’s made in applying knowledge. Writing is a way for knowledge to transform into wisdom; for the rubber to hit the road. Progress by Writing
AiG: There are 6912 distinct languages (defined as the speaker of one not naturally understanding another) in the world. Standard theory argues that languages changed when people separated; the Bible teaches that people were separated at Babel when God changed their language. i) time and distance does change language; the English of Beowulf (680-800) is unintelligible today. ii) even formalizing languages doesn’t stop change, e.g. ‘let’ means ‘allow’ now, rather than ‘prevent’. iii) linguists can use clues like simple numbers to identify ancestry in languages. iv) 449 languages fall into the Indo-European family, stemming from Proto-Indo-European (PIE), thought to be used in Europe between 3000-7000 BC. v) Another major family is Sino-Tibetan (e.g. Chinese). vi) No one has shown how language families as different as Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Sino-Tibetan could derive from a common source; so also with the other 92 families insofar as they have been studied. vii) The languages generated at Babel could account for this, assuming they were radically distinct. viii) The rate of change of known subgroups shows that the whole number of languages in the world today could easily have been produced within a space of 4,000 years (e.g. PIE to 449 in several thousand years). ix) AiG predicts that the number of linguistic families will reduce to no less than the number of groups in Gen. 10. ix) the whole number of languages in the world today could easily have been produced within a space of 4,000 years. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n2/more-than-pie?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AIGDaily+%28Answers+in+Genesis+Daily+Articles%29&utm_content=
Burk cites Trueman, who notes that Americans under 35 do not consider homosexual marriage to be an issue. Those evangelical leaders who prize appearing on TV shows, etc. had better get prepared to make a choice, because we are not far from the time when opposing homosexuality will be regarded in the same bracket as white supremacy. Soon enough, evangelicals faithful to biblical teaching will be called bigots. Evangelical Bigots-
DG: God has designed the church to be indispensible; Christians should be relationally committed to a local group of other Christians (1 Corinthians 12:21-22). It is wrong to say, 'I have no need of you’, to any member of your local church. Click through for the remaining posts in the series on the local church. The Local Church- Indispensable
Bird: Some interesting quotes here from Kasemann on Christian discipleship, and the uniqueness of allegiance to Christ alone. Ernst Kasemann on Discipleship
B2W: Quoting Tripp’s What Did You Expect? (A book on marriage). “Love is willing self-sacrifice for the good of another that does not require reciprocation or that the person being loved is deserving.” Twenty-three bullet points describe various aspects of what this looks like in marriage – worth the read. Do You Love Your Spouse-
B2W: Luther on preaching: “Would to God that we could gradually train our hearts to believe that the preacher’s words are God’s Word and that the man addressing us is a scholar and a king.” i) If told that there is a place in the world where God speaks, and all we see is a weak pastor, we’d think ourselves duped. ii) We don’t like listening unless the preacher has oratory gifts. If you don’t see God’s person but merely look to see whether the pastor is so gifted, you’re already half a Jacob. Eloquence is not prerequisite to truthfully speaking God’s word. “There is no difference between the Word when uttered by a schoolboy and when uttered by the angel Gabriel; they vary only in rhetorical ability.” iii) People do not recognize the person of God, but only stare at the person of man. It’s like a tired and hungry man refusing to eat unless the food is on a silver platter. Luther on Preaching
B2W: Piper on C.S. Lewis: “It’s this combination of experiencing the stab of God-shaped joy and defending objective, absolute Truth, because of the absolute Reality of God, that sets Lewis apart as unparalleled in the modern world. To my knowledge, there is simply no one else who puts these two things together the way Lewis does.” In an essay in 1939, Lewis said the Christian “must ask himself how it is right, or even psychologically possible, for creatures who are at every moment advancing either to Heaven or to hell to spend any fraction of the little time allowed them in this world on such comparative trivialities as literature or art, mathematics or biology.” He points out that the Scripture encourage to continuation of normal living activities. The Gospel doesn’t necessarily call one to forsake such things, but rather transforms them. He calls “the life of learning, humbly offered to God, was, in its own small way, one of the appointed approaches to the Divine reality”. For the Sake of the Kingdom
Triablogue: Some points in arguing with an Arminian: i) Calvinists typically say is that faith is a gift of God. They also say monergistic regeneration causes faith. Born-again Christians exercise faith, but they don’t cause faith. ii) We don’t in Calvinism come to faith through faith. We “come to” justification through faith, we “come to” faith through regeneration, and we “come to regeneration” through saving grace. iii) What is the source of justifying faith? That’s the question. iv) Is grace alone monergistic, or synergistic? That’s the point at issue. v) In Calvinism, the process of sanctification is the inevitable result of monergistic regeneration, but the Arminian, who denies this, has sanctification as another case of denying sola gratia. vi) human will is not an independent variable, unlike Arminianism. Rather, we have a cause/effect relation. Sola gratia
Triablogue: Replying to one who calls Plantinga's "evolutionary argument against naturalism" an embarrassment, misunderstanding that the argument assumes a Christian worldview, not a naturalistic one: i) The EAAN argues that the cognitive faculties would be less reliable given naturalism than Christianity. Unreliability is more plausible given naturalism than a Christian worldview [i.e. it seems God would design it to work properly, where naturalism is a WIP]. ii) This isn’t relying on the notion that accuracy wouldn’t help survivability. It’s saying that unreliability is more plausible in naturalism. iii) has pointed out elsewhere) ‘accuracy in senses’ isn’t really the relevant cognitive faculties ; the EAAN has the cognitive faculty of perception in view, namely, the beliefs produced or held on the basis of the senses. iv) Science isn’t a monolithic entity, as it is practiced by scientists, some who may think it brings epistemic certainty, while others don’t. It seems, though, scientists DO claim a theory or experiment as fact, with a tiny bit of wiggle room. They won't publicly claim to have perfect "certainty" that scientific theory or law x is absolutely, irrevocably true, but they act as if they do. e.g. at its worst, ridiculing those who call a theory into question, even within the secular group of macroevolutionists, let alone their treatment of ID. cf. Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions. vii) Science isn’t the only means to acquire veridical knowledge (that which corresponds with reality). There’s math, reason, logic, philosophical inquiry. How do we discover logical or mathematical truths from empiricism? viii) Science has its limitations, which some seem to completely ignore. ix) Before we can properly review the scientific evidence, we need to review our philosophy of science, and that, in turn, goes back to our underlying epistemology. Does my perception of the world resemble the world? A dog or a cat is a consummate realist. Yet, by the time light, sound, etc reach our brains, they are encoded as chemical information which is nothing like the thing encoded (e.g. a music score compared to sound). Basically, there are several layers of abstraction between us and the outside physical world. Philosophy has no counter for the brain-in-the-vat, yet theology does: The Creator of the world enjoys an intersubjectival knowledge of the world. And by virtue of revelation, we may tap into a God’s-eye view of the world. Science can never disprove Scripture because divine revelation is the only clear window into the world. Otherwise we are stuck in inescapable subjectivity. x) Plantinga: "To show that there are natural processes that produce religious belief does nothing, so far, to discredit it; perhaps God designed us in such a way that it is by virtue of those processes that we come to have knowledge of him." Whale of a tale
Triablogue: i) “truth-seeking” is meaningless on a godless worldview. Truth-seeking lacks symmetrical value in atheism and Christian theism. ii) Note that while technically there is a difference between moral absolutes and moral realism, in popular usage moral absolutes are synonymous with objective morality. iii) Regarding the Mosaic Law and civil law part, it’s fallacious to infer that unless every injunction is a moral absolute, no injunction is a moral absolute. iv) Many Christians won’t classify the ceremonial law as moral law anyway. Categories of ritual purity or impurity are not intrinsically good or evil. Rather, their value is instrumental. v) Cognitive bias cuts both ways – what does the atheist or agnostic give to show themselves free of it? vi) Skeptics have to be certain of some things to question other things. e.g. a high degree of self-confidence in the veracity of their own beliefs and the falsity of Christian beliefs. vii) Also, opponents need to actually show, not assert, that Christians suffer from significant cognitive bias wrt Christianity. From a Christian standpoint, we’d expect God to shield Christians from degrees of cognitive bias which impede saving faith. viii) Lower animals survive without forming true beliefs about reality. Accurate sensory perception, since sense data must be interpreted, doesn’t by itself tend to improve survival. ix) If kids uncritically accept the religion of their parents, such indifferent reflects humanity’s fallen condition, completely consistent with Christian anthropology. x) There is no reason to think that most religious adherents (or unbelievers) are that intellectually self-reflective in the first place. xi) Evangelicalism, being focused on sola fide, in contrast to other religions, which focus on orthopraxy rather than orthodoxy, tends to promote self-reflection. Seasanctuary-1
Triabloguer Engwer notes the double standard in the Christian Delusion. “Some of the other contributors to The Christian Delusion not only hold minority positions, but even minority positions much less popular than those of Evangelicalism. Robert Price, for example, denies the existence of Jesus and, in support of that view, proposes many interpretations of ancient sources that are rejected by the vast majority of scholars. In some cases, I don't know that any other scholar holds Price's view.” or “Tobin's skepticism about the infancy narratives is so radical as to place him in disagreement with the vast majority of modern scholars. If” He goes on to note their hypocritical appeal to the majority argument. He notes that early opponents of Christianity affirmed things which modern critics deny – yet they had much closer proximity to the events at hand. A position that's a minority view today may have been a majority view in the past. These critics of Christianity also employ terms like ‘theologian’ as a pejorative to ad hominem attack someone’s credibility. Majority Appeal- Dismissing Evangelicals Because Of Their Minority Status
The Triablogers have written the Infidel Delusion. Check it out. http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/07/infidel-delusion.html
Triablogue: The debunkingchristianity folk attack Matthew’s typology as quoting out of context, zeroing in on Matthew 2:15’s use of Hosea 11:1. He cites Miler, a member of the Jesus Seminary, as if we’re supposed to assume his view represents mainstream critical scholarship – something the DBC’ers refer to without documentation frequently. i) Matthew was written for a Jewish audience familiar with typology. Matthew's readers wouldn't have been dependent on Matthew for their knowledge of Hosea or the Old Testament in general. So also with applications of Davidic Psalms to Christ. [Matthew’s point is to identify Jesus as the new Israel, which depends on the audience KNOWING THE ORIGINAL CONTEXT – their level of interpretation is like saying a poem is communist because it uses the word ‘red’]. [I’ll also note that Hosea actually employs typology in that very passage; Matthew isn’t out of line here]. ii) A typological fulfillment of Hosea 11:1 doesn't have to "prove to skeptics that Jesus was the messiah". Typology is beneficial for the believer, even if the unbeliever doesn’t see it. Typological prophecies have less evidential significance than non-typological prophecies, yet have some cumulative evidential significance. iii) The ‘fulfillment’ language is complex, as it involves understanding historical events as foreshadowing the events in the NT. “Tobin's view of prophecy is simplistic and absurd.” Typology And Simplistic Skepticism
Here’s a summary post on Aquinas’s philisophical theology. “Although Aquinas does not think that philosophical reasoning can provide an exhaustive account of the divine nature, it is (he insists) both a source of divine truth and an aid in exonerating the intellectual credibility of those doctrines at the heart of the Christian faith. From this perspective, philosophical reasoning can be (to use a common phrase) a tool in the service of theology.” He held that we come to know God both through reason and sacred teaching. Philosophy Word of the Day — Aquinas’ Philosophical Theology
Phillips: the least-qualified President, ever arguably just got the least-qualified candidate, ever elevated to the Supreme Court. Given Kagan's record of homosexual-agenda activism, the prospect of the marriage issue reaching the Supremes is a matter of legitimate concern. The folly of American voters may harm us for decades and decades to come… Citing Lowry: “President Obama promised to be this kind of leader. He has instead proven — with a few exceptions — to be the servant of a limited political faction. He has exacerbated the nation’s fiscal crisis without dealing effectively with its economic crisis, and has piled on far-reaching legislation of dubious merit. His supporters still lament that Washington is “broken.”” Where are all the adults in Washington? Hither and thither 8/6/10
Uh oh. “U.S. naval planners are scrambling to deal with what analysts say is a game-changing weapon being developed by China — an unprecedented carrier-killing missile called the Dong Feng 21D that could be launched from land with enough accuracy to penetrate the defenses of even the most advanced moving aircraft carrier at a distance of more than 1,500 kilometers (900 miles).” http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100805/ap_on_re_as/as_china_us_carrier_killer;_ylt=AqEvJfDbYPE7m8cmrN22UxtbbBAF;_ylu=X3oDMTNmYmN1bWhiBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwODA1L2FzX2NoaW5hX3VzX2NhcnJpZXJfa2lsbGVyBGNjb2RlA21vc3Rwb3B1bGFyBGNwb3MDNgRwb3MDNgRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrA2NoaW5lc2VtaXNzaQ--
Phillips: “Judge Walker did not examine the proposition to see if it was constitutional. Had he done so, as I said, it would have been a pretty brief trial.Rather, Walker put the voters on trial, read their minds, weighed the value of their religious/moral convictions, and decided they did not impress him. We who voted for Proposition 8 were tried and found guilty, and now we are disenfranchised, as an activist judge invents something (as far as I know) never seen nor embraced in any society.” The judge was out to marginalize religious Americans, while mainstreaming one class of sexual pervert. Homosexual judge rules to validate his actions
See James White’s response to Walker here. He says, “Why do homosexuals feel the over-riding need to force the rest of us to accept their perversity as good and moral and acceptable? Why do they insist upon fundamentally altering the very structure of the family, abusing children by exposing them to such depravity and denying them proper parental role-models? The Scriptures tell us, plainly. Those who live in constant and willful rebellion against God are idolaters. They worship their own sin, and they want others to join them. But, they are made in the image of God, so they cannot avoid the constant effort it takes to suppress the knowledge of God, and silence the scream of conscience. This is why we see them standing on street corners displaying the most incredible levels of depravity all the while screaming at families, moms, dads, "normal" people, "Shame! Shame!" if they dare show disapproval toward their behavior. Just as their entire personhood has been twisted and turned from its created purpose, so their thinking, and behavior, is twisted and irrational.”: http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=4108\
SolaPanel: Prayer for others is one of the most basic things that a Christian learns. The NT commends it, and it is modeled for us. We obviously pray for others because we love them. And prayer is not merely the best thing to do when all other options are out, for it is offered to a loving God with the ability to act on His love without hindrance. It is always the best thing to do. But prayer is also for the glory of God. It is an act which recognizes God as sovereign creator and places trust in Him. It is an act of love for God. Paul aimed for the multiplication of thanksgiving in prayer. “You also must help us by prayer, so that many will give thanks on our behalf for the blessing granted us through the prayers of many.” (2 Corinthians 1:11). We are also to pray for our enemies, so as to be sons of God, for God loved His enemies and gave His Son for them. Is our prayer because we love people? And because we love God, and want to see His name magnified? A prayer journal is recommended. Why do we pray for others-
God the Peacemaker looks like an interesting book, exploring how God brings shalom to man through the atonement, removing all barriers to peace (series editor is Carson). “His treatment of the reconciliation and restoration of creation (not only the human soul) in light of atonement is evidence of such thoroughness.” Book Review — God the Peacemaker- How Atonement Brings Shalom
“As fellow Christ followers we grieved as news of the tragic murders by the Taliban of missionaries serving the Afghan people broke this week. Here were people who loved God and loved serving people at the risk of their own lives. These servants of Christ fulfill the words of John 15:13 No one has greater love than this – that one lays down his life for his friends.” No fool
Lot’s of stuff here: Library of Historical Apologetics
No comments:
Post a Comment