2010-08-13

DeYoung has a post on the difference between election and predestination. In common usage, there’s not much. While the Bible doesn’t make much of a distinction, if there is a distinction to be made, predestination is the general term for God’s sovereign ordaining, while election is the specific term for God choosing us in Christ before the foundation of the world. Everything happens after the counsel of God’s will (Eph. 1:11), yet divine superintendence is not meant to undercut personal initiative and responsibility. “God’s sovereign unalterable will of decree is not be confused with his violable will of desire.” Means must not be neglected, nor can one assume everything is pleasing to God [DeYoung gets at the category error involved there]. What is the Difference Between Election and Predestination-

Triablogue cites some articles on pictures of Christ, by VanDrunen, who, while opposing them, evaluates the pros and cons, and so undercuts some traditional objections. VanDrunen on pictures of Christ

Hays makes the interesting point regarding biblical typology by comparing it to chain effects, wherein both the former and latter the significance of earlier disparate events is only discerned in retrospect. And in the case of biblical typology, planning this wasn’t humanly possible, since it required long-range prevision. Biblical typology and historical causality

White posts here: The Real Story of the Arrest of Nabeel, David, Paul and Negeen

[I found this post unconvincing, and I’m not even a charismatic. Read on if you want]: Reformed Baptist Fellowship: Five Concerns about the Merging of Charismatic and Calvinistic Doctrine

Trueman continues his series on Luther being a theologian. See Luther On Being a Theologian V (Carl Trueman) (The fourth element of the making of a true theologian for Luther is occasio.  This is not the easiest word to translate in context but means something like `opportunity' or `opportune moment’, and not in the sense of luck, but rather relating to the faculty of judgment). Luther On Being a Theologian VI (Carl Trueman) (The last two elements which go to make up a theologian are, for Luther, careful and constant reading, and a practical knowledge of the academic disciplines. )

Turk talks about the problem with BioLogos and Evangel, having resigned from Evangel: “So the problem is not the lack of full-throated endorsement of a 6-day creation. The problem is not even a failure to endorse a robust doctrine of scriptural inerrancy. The problem is that there are members of the Evangel masthead who are, frankly, engaged in damaging the faith of others by defending rank apostates -- and not merely defending them, but endorsing them as faithful members of the larger church.” More than a Mere Distinction

“Dr. Haykin recently taught a week long Summer term “Introduction to Christian History, 1″ course at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.  A student, Andrew Wencl, recorded the lectures and has posted them online at his website.” Audio Lectures on Early Church History

Phillips always has good stuff: Hither and thither 8/13/10

Triablogue: Hays continues taking on a detractor to the mature creation view, who asserts that perceptual illusions are not the same as mature creation. i) For parity between mature creation and an example, the example need only be a ‘deceptive’ appearance for which God is directly or indirectly responsible. ii) When Jesus multiplied the fish, all evidence would indicate that the fish came about by ordinary processes – except that the ‘evidence’ is consistent with both natural and supernatural origins. What’s the evidentiary value of X if the same physical effects are consistent with disparate causes (natural or supernatural)? They aren’t evidence for anything regarding the past history. iii) the metaphysical principle of the uniformity of nature takes the uniformity of nature for granted – evidence that things ‘normally’ happen in a certain way assumes they unfold in a chain of cause and effect. If the cause is supernatural, that might be undetectable. iv) No view can produce evidence that history didn’t start five minutes ago, in progress. v) We have no problem with miracles ‘rupturing’ the regularities of nature in unpredictable ways. vi) creation ex nihilo is abrupt, discontinuous, unprecedented, nonlinear. This could initiate the close causal continuum at any point. There’s no antecedent reason to think any time in the cycle is a more likely starting point. vii) Angels and demons are agents affecting outcomes in time and space. While we don’t know how much, we can’t trace a physical effect to a physical cause. viii) So too with prayers. History is honeycombed with the tangible effects of answered prayer. Our world is shaped by the indiscernible factor of petitionary prayer. Yet it usually looks like these things ‘naturally’ happen.  ix) We can’t start with a physical effect, then actually (or hypothetically) run back by through the physical links until we arrive at a physical cause. And physical evidence won’t show the effect of prayer.  Latex gloves

JT: God, Marriage, and Family is the best biblical theology of these issues I’ve ever seen. Written by Andreas Köstenberger with David Jones, it is both comprehensive and accessible. New Edition- God, Marriage, and Family

Carson has a worthwhile answer to the question, “How do I know God exists?” i) The question, from one angle, can end up putting God on trial before unmoved judges. ii) The Bible views this as the wrong way to begin. We were made in the image of God, and to ask, is a sign of our deep rebellion (e.g. the fool has said in his heart, there is no God). This is even a possible consequence of an evidential approach to proving God. iii) If there has been no sin or rebellion, no one would be asking about the philosophical evidences for the existence of God. iv) There are many evidences. But really, we can’t argue someone into the kingdom. People come by repentance and faith, their consciences are quickened. Conversion – God opens the eyes. God will not be the conclusion of a mere syllogism.

Challies quotes the Atlantic: “Earlier this year, women became the majority of the workforce for the first time in U.S. history. Most managers are now women too. And for every two men who get a college degree this year, three women will do the same. For years, women’s progress has been cast as a struggle for equality. But what if equality isn’t the end point? What if modern, postindustrial society is simply better suited to women? A report on the unprecedented role reversal now under way—and its vast cultural consequences” A La Carte (8/13)

Mohler says about seminary, “But what one thing would I change? I would want to banish forever the idea that the mission of the theological seminary is to turn out newly minted professional ministers. Far too many Christians—and this includes many who should know better—think of the Christian ministry as a profession.” The idea of a profession is an identifiable body of knowledge and profile of expertise, that, when masters, renders the candidate a pro. The skill set does not qualify one for Christian ministry. Click through for Carson’s answer and others. http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2010/08/13/tgc-asks-what-one-thing-you-would-change-about-seminary-education/

JT provides some questions from C. John Collin’s on theological exposition of biblical narrative. 1. What is the pericope, and who are the participants? 2. What is the paragraph structure of the pericope (including peak)? 3. What is the basic sequence of events? 4. How do those events follow causally from what comes before and affect causally what comes after? 5. Are there repeated key words or roots (both within this pericope and across several pericopes)? 6. How does the author present the characters? 7. What devices does the author use to communicate his point of view? 8. What is the passage about? 9. How are covenantal principles on display here? Questions to Ask in a Theological Exposition of Biblical Narrative

Here’s a post on how evolutionists like to pull evolution into observations that other scientists would think really say nothing about evolution. Numerous examples are cited. The habit of drawing evolution into explanations for observations has a long history. Inserting Evolution into Data

Paul Helm talks about Bob Letham’s book, The Westminster Assembly. He concludes, “You may already have gathered from all of this that Dr Letham’s new book is a most welcome addition to the literature on the Confession, and on Reformed theology more generally, being both instructive and thought-provoking.” An English Assembly

CMI has a post on Huxley and Haeckel: “The Bathybius affair was one of the first instances of false evidence being used to support Darwin’s theory. It becomes clear that finding such evidence was of utmost importance to men like T.H. Huxley and Ernst Haeckel, and this clouded their judgment. When found out, Huxley admitted his error in 1875, but not whole-heartedly, leaving a measure of doubt in people’s minds even in 1879. Haeckel continued to allow fictitious examples of ‘Monera’ to be used in textbooks for decades afterwards.” The post goes on to note the Duke of Argyll’s complaint of a ‘reign of terror’ that was evident in the Royal Society against those who disagreed with Darwin’s theory. The article concludes, “Whether or not Bathybius was a deliberate plan to deceive, as the Duke of Argyll suggests it was, this episode certainly exposes Huxley and Haeckel to the charge that they were so driven by their own presuppositions that they were unable to conduct scientific research in a purely objective fashion. In other words, they were indeed misled by their own preconceptions about the truthfulness of a universal theory of evolution.” [One might think they’re nearly religious in the matter ;) ] http://creation.com/bathybius-haeckelii

Hays continues the previous debate here. To the notion that general revelation tells us things started in primordial goo, “General revelation can’t tell us at what point in the cycle God instantiated the world, for general revelation presupposes the existence of the world as its reference point.” If a cycle is started at a later point in the cycle, the early phase is folded into the later phase (e.g. changing the battery in your watch and changing the time). ii) the totality of physical evidence is irrelevant, because angels/demons are not physical agents. iii) Why are some so threatened by the idea that any particular event may own its occurrence to at least one supernatural factor further upstream? xi) The detractor of YEC puts a false dichotomy between natural and supernatural (contra the confluence in the virgin birth). He has the need to draw a bright line between natural and supernatural causes, create a general presumption against miracles, and make as little allowance for miracles as he can get away with while maintaining a pious veneer of orthodoxy. xii) To the objection that we presume natural processes will unfold, and that this is essential for daily life, the objector completely neglects prayer here, for we both pray for the sick and apply medicine. Again with the false dichotomy. We don’t assume the latter will do the trick. xiii) Miraculous effects can be imperceptible in relation to natural effects. Miraculous factors cannot ever be de facto excluded because they could be located anywhere up the chain of events. For want of a nail

JT quotes The Deep Things of God. “Trinitarianism is the encompassing framework within which all Christian thought takes place and within which Christian confession finds its grounding presuppositions. It is the deep grammar of all the central Christian affirmations.” Trinitarianism goes on in the lives of believers whether we know it or not, by the Spirit within us causing us to cry ‘Abba, Father’. Do You Know that You Know the Trinity-

Beggar’s All: “Whitaker's seventh argument in defense of Sola Scriptura needs no additional commentary: Our seventh argument is taken from 1 Thess. ii. 13… If the Thessalonians, when they only heard Paul, received the doctrine of scripture as divine, and so embraced it, then, without the judgment of the church, the scripture ought to have a divine authority with us.” And this is true. “… Ambrose writes thus upon that place: "They received the word with such devotion as to prove that they understood it to be the word of God." But whence could they understand it to be such? Certainly from the doctrine itself, and the testimony of the Holy Spirit; not from the authority of any church, or of the apostle himself. For what church could persuade the Thessalonians by the weight of its testimony to receive Paul, or assent to his discourses as divine? The apostle himself was unknown to them, and had nowhere any authority but on account of that doctrine, the minister and herald of which he was. Therefore, the doctrine itself gained for him all his credit and authority…” So also the Bereans. Scripture of itself, without the testimony and authority of the church, has a divine, canonical and authentic authority to us. Whitaker's Seventh Argument

Turretinfan notes that Pope Benedict didn’t really apologize, in that he didn’t admit the church did anything wrong. Back to politics as usual, and the pope’s vacation. One Year Apologize

"The scale of marital breakdown in the West since 1960 has no historical precedent, and seems unique. There has been nothing like for the last 2,000 years and probably longer." ("Splitting Up" by Joseph Adelson, a professor of Psychology at the University of Michigan and the author of, "Inventing Adolescence." It ran in Commentary, September 1996, pp. 63-66.) Our scale of marital breakdown has no historical precedent

AiG: They have a post here responding to feedback. Compare the attack on AiG (‘crackpots are a  hobby of mine’, ad hominem, etc) to the cool-headed response by AiG. Who sounds more reasonable? Ironies abound. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/08/13/feedback-entertaining-evolutionists-everywhere?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AIGDaily+%28Answers+in+Genesis+Daily+Articles%29&utm_content=Google+Reader