2010-08-16

Mohler writes on the inerrancy of Scripture, which has been embattled for 50 years. In the 70’s, Fuller and the Luther Church-Missouri were the battleground; the SBC in the 80’s. There is a renewed effort to forge an evangelical identity apart from the claim that the Bible is totally truthful and without error. Enns, of Westminster Philadelphia, argued that Scripture erred (e.g the historicity of Adam). Kenton L. Sparks says to hold inerrancy is intellectually disastrous. He understands inerrancy, and views the text as culturally contingent, bearing the errors of its contingent authors. Sparks’ writings appear at “the Biologos Web site, a site with one clear agenda — to move evangelicals toward a full embrace of evolutionary theory.” Sparks even calls teachings in the Bible immoral, and ‘down-right evil’. Their incarnational model of inspiration goes back as far as the model goes, except Sparks implicates Jesus as well as making errors. This is the battle-line, and they claim we must abandon inerrancy to maintain intellectual credibility. Accepting this demand demand amounts to a theological disaster of incalculable magnitude. We are talking about nothing less than whether the Bible truthfully reveals to us the nature, character, acts, and purposes of God. When you encounter a present day view of Scripture, you encounter more than a view of Scripture. You meet a total view of God and the world. http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/08/16/the-inerrancy-of-scripture-the-fifty-years-war-and-counting/

AiG notes that Noah’s ark has not been found, and that if it was, while it would be another sign to the truth of God’s word, “If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if Noah’s Ark is found.”. Likely the ark was buried under thousands of feet of lavas, as Mt. Ararat was formed by volcano. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/au/where-is-noahs-ark?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AIGDaily+%28Answers+in+Genesis+Daily+Articles%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

Beggar’s All: Here’s a post on Luther’s view of Judas. “Judas did not betray Christ in the sense of necessity of force or violence. Rather, he appeals to a necessity of time, that if God knows something is going to happen, it will indeed happen.” This is not at odds with Romanism on this point.  Luther- God Moved the Will of Judas-

This post notes that original sin is a major problem for many (‘thats not fair!’, etc), but: i) Worldview-versus-worldview comparisons, judging Christianity by an unbelieving ethical system such as consequentialism, is irrelevant. The issues are foundational; your preferred ethic doesn’t resolve them. "Who cares, if your ethical system doesn't think that Original Sin is fair?" would be a completely legitimate response in this sort of situation. This type of objection doesn’t threaten internal coherence. ii) Only Christian ethical standards could question internal coherence. “But given the Christian worldview, there is nothing unjust or unfair about God's decision to so constitute humanity with a single individual as the federal head of the race.” Therefore critics must reckon with where they stand. In our day, intellectual laziness in our society leads to skepticism. If its too hard to think through, it must not be true. On the Fairness of Original Sin

CMI Here’s an interview with David DeWitt, B.S. biochem, PhD neuroscience. He’s a creationist. He notes the incompatibility of evolution with Scripture, as he was formerly an evolutionist. “Evolution requires millions of years of death for natural selection to work its magic for amebas to evolve into college students. But the Bible was clear that death came as a result of Adam’s sin. Therefore, death came after man rather than as a means to make man.” He goes on to discuss ‘junk’ DNA, which only received this name because of evolution, and it hardly is junk. On Neanderthals, he says they were fully human with slight morphological distinctives: "“We found that the mtDNA sites where Neandertals differed from modern man tended to be at mutational hotspots—sites where many modern humans also differ. In addition, at the sites where Neandertals differed from each other, one of them would match the modern human. This indicates a much closer relationship than implied by evolutionists. In fact, I believe that it shows that Neandertals were descendants of Adam and Eve just like us.” http://creation.com/david-dewitt-interview-brain-scientist

Challies says the most important thing to know about technology is this: every technology brings with it both risk and opportunity. This is important because we tend to only look at the benefits of a technology when it arrives. He recommends conscious awareness of this  as we discern with respect to technology. Risk and Opportunity

Burk: Here’s a taste of political libertarianism. Glenn Beck cares little for abortion, and he’s out to lunch on gay marriage. On whether the latter will harm the country, after a ridiculously simplistic answer, he quips: “I believe that Thomas Jefferson said: “If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket what difference is it to me?” Why I don’t care for Glenn Beck’s politics

DG: “Edwards draws a distinction here between two kinds of ability: Physical ability — having the external means with which to do something, and Moral ability — having the internal will or desire to do it.” Men are physically (naturally) free to believe in Jesus, but no one has the moral ability – no one wants to, aside from divine mercy. Free Bodies, Bound Wills

Piper talks about suffering here. He expresses his pastoral concern over the suffering of disabled children, and commends the book, Just the Way I Am. Just the Way I Am- Piper's Best Answer to Suffering

JT: It is often uncritically cited that Warfield was an evolutionist. Fred Zaspel sets it straight: “Warfield did claim to have accepted the theory of evolution in his youth, but he then rejected it early in his career. Thereafter he remained open to the possibility of it and affirmed that Scripture could accommodate it, if it were to be proven true, but he himself continued to reject the theory.” Zaspel’s new work looks at Warfield’s foundational assumptions and basic distinctions about creation and evolution, his skepticism about evolution as a scientific theory, and how Christians specifically should evaluate and respond to evolution.” Warfield on Creation and Evolution

JT: Five myths about hell: “Hell is a place where Satan reigns. Hell is where sinners party. Hell is temporary. Hell is the absence of God. Hell is for bad people.” Five Myths about Hell

Philosophy professor Stephen Heaney argues that the call for same-sex marriage has the same misdefinition as calling a dog’s tail its leg. A man who defines a dog’s tail as its leg defines it by its non-essential characteristics. The issue, then, is not that the leg has bones and muscles, but how they are put together, and why. Don’t Call a Tail a Leg

Sproul notes that the worst thing about hell is not the absence of God. This is euphemism to skirt the horror of hell. “We need to realize that those who are in hell desire nothing more than the absence of God. They didn’t want to be in God’s presence during their earthly lives, and they certainly don’t want Him near when they’re in hell. The worst thing about hell is the presence of God there.” The absence of God’s special presence and redemptive blessing does not mean God’s omnipresence is untrue. “Hell reflects the presence of God in His mode of judgment, in His exercise of wrath, and that’s what everyone would like to escape.” What Is the Worst Thing about Hell-

White writes that Francis Beckwith was likely never really non-Romanist: “While he professed justification by grace through faith alone, he did so first not knowing Rome’s arguments against that belief, and he did so holding a view of man and a view of grace that is fundamentally antithetical to the biblical gospel which was proclaimed so forcefully at the Reformation… He never saw Rome’s gospel as a false gospel, her views of man and grace as sub-biblical and dangerous. While that put him in the majority today, it likewise means he never landed on the far side of the Tiber.” He notes that many non-Catholic schools have no internal commitment to the Reformation, displaying this by never teaching that the gospel is at stake in the conflict with Rome. Did Francis J. Beckwith Ever Leave the Tiber- (Part 1)

Turretinfan notes the battle of inerrancy goes back well before our century, with folks like the Manichaeans alleging errors in the Old Testament Scriptures. He notes Augustine’s response: “If the Manichees were willing to discuss the hidden meaning of these words in a spirit of reverent inquiry rather than of captious fault-finding, then they would of course not be Manichees, but as they asked it would be given them, as they sought they would find, as they knocked it would be opened up to them. The fact is, you see, people who have a genuine religious interest in learning put far more questions about this text than these irrelegious wretches; but the difference between them is that the former seek in order to find, while the latter are at no pains at all to do anything except not to find what they are seeking.” Augustine, On Genesis: A Refutation of the Manichees, Book II, Chapter 2, Section 3. Albert Mohler on Inerrancy

Triablogue: Hays has some links related to the issues that came our of the Arab festival in Dearborn, Michigan. There is apparently some disagreement over the core issues there, and Hays vouches for one participant, and then notes “the modus operandi of Islam. Islam is a religion bent on world denomination. And it uses two tactics: conquest or infiltration. What it cannot defeat in battle, it tries to subjugate through infiltration-like a python slowing choking the life out of its prey.” He asks why Christians might side with Muslims over Christians: i) Liberal Christian pride themselves on promiscuous tolerance of all things unchristian; and/or professing Christians cave under social/political pressure – easier to appease than pay the cost of discipleship. Dhimmitude in Dearborn

Doug Wilson is worth quoting in his own words: “I said that the Muslims know what they are doing. What is that exactly? They are exposing the intellectual, theological, and ethical bankruptcy of secularism, and they are doing it on purpose. To answer their challenge, someone as intelligent as Charles Krauthammer is reduced to saying that sacrilege is defined by what lots of people think, true or false, doesn't matter, or where lots of people died, right or wrong, doesn't matter either. Someone really does need to tell secularist America that her gods are genuinely pathetic. And currently, the Muslims are doing this because the Christians won't. And the Christians who won't do this are not so much in need of a different kind of theology as they are in need of a different kind of spine.” http://dougwils.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7892:a-different-kind-of-spine&catid=146:mere-christendom