Phillips lists off a number of things that he knows about every single unbeliever, all of them Scriptural teachings. (e.g. they were created in the image of God; it is natural for them to resist the truth; what they need most is the specific expression of love in telling the Gospel of Jesus). He says to enter relationship with an unbeliever and to not keep those things in mind will absolutely result in two disastrous consequences: you will be led off into the wrong path; and you will be, at best, absolutely useless to him and, at worst, positively harmful to him. Phillips then lists a number of stock objections (you pre-judge, etc!): To the disciple and slave of Christ, every one of those objections is irrelevant. Such objections are not really aimed at arrogance or hate. They come from a mindset which finds God’s viewpoint offensive. The only way a Christian can find approval from this mindset is to cease being a Christian in all but name: there is no greater arrogance than rejecting the word of God (Psalm 119:21). Do I know you- No... and yes
Rhology responds to Romanism on the canon. i) The Tridentine canon passed over at least one book in silence, so their canon is not closed or complete. ii) The Roman Church should provide an infallible canon of infallible teachings, or, failing that, a fallible canon of infallible teachings, or, failing that, an infallible canon of Scripture. iii) We don’t depend on the church – we depend on God to make His revelation known. iv) Why the Roman church as the infallible interpreter? There’s a lot of competition: the Watchtower, the LDS, David Koresh, José Luís de Jesús Miranda, etc. An appeal to apostolic succession doesn’t distinguish from EOC. Wouldn’t a check on apostolic succession be a non-authoritative interpretation? v) infallibility or "just your opinion" are not the only options. Between is an educated, argued-for position. vi) Individual Romanists can’t claim infallibility for themselves. vii) Where was the infallible interpreter in the Old Testament? viii) If God has not spoken clearly and sufficiently we have no basis for any objective epistemology or metaphysics. Contra Liccione on the Canon Question
Phillips chews out Dr. Hendel, (former) member of the SBL. Hendel worships a very narrow definition of ‘reason’, in that is must exclude or dismiss a certain category of evidence. He posits a vast chasm between faith and facts, and simply assumes that ‘the religious’ is unrelated to reality. No one who doesn’t fall in Hendel’s narrow borders is fit to be a scholar. Not even no less than Bruce Waltke, internationally-acclaimed author of a very solid Hebrew grammar and reams of articles and publications. Why? Because Waltke believes the texts he studies. And that apparently makes him unfit for the society of biblical literature. One hysterical scholar; or, When academics throw hissy-fits
Bring the Books reviews Philip Pullman's new book The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ (he’s the author of the golden compass). The novel is basically an abuse and perversion of the Gospel narrative throughout. Pullman’s agenda is obvious. He wants to call into question the editors of the New Testament by assuming that they saw all of the implications of what they were building and how their teachings would eventually be adopted by some sort of magisterial structure hundreds of years down the road. Of course, this book is blasphemy. But the Romanist church doesn’t prove his point. Against Pullman’s whole idea, Jesus is asked about who woudl be the greatest in the Kingdom. He doesn’t endorse the authority of the greatest. He says: "Let the greatest among you be the servant of all." The message of Christ is one of humbling those in leadership - not building them up and strengthening them in the selfish pursuit of power. This is a fatal flaw for Pullman's argument. The Unprofessional Book Review- The Good Man Jesus and the Scroundrel Christ by Phillip Pullman
Greg Gilbert has a new book, What is the Gospel? What Is the Gospel-
Challies apparently has technology on the brains. For those so interested he has five reasons why a real book is better than an e-book. 5 Reasons Books Are Better Than E-Books
CMI comments on the so-called ‘God-spot’, which some claim proves that God is all in our heads. [I’ll note at this point that such a ‘spot’ would prove nothing of the sort, for the theist can simply say that God designed an awareness of Himself into His creations.] Consider what one scientist says of Moses: ““Whatever happened back there in Sinai, Moses’ experience was mediated by his temporal lobe.”” Science Channel’s Through The Wormhole show features a God-helmet which simulates religious experience: i) This doesn’t disprove them, it assumes their falsity and tries to explain them away. ii) Christianity in particular is not disproved, for Christianity does not depend on ecstatic experience. Its core claims are about events that happened within history. The atonement happened outside ourselves, and the subjective experience of believers is predicated on the objective event of justification. iii) it would not even disprove the effectiveness of prayer, the importance of worship, etc. Rather, it would only mean that our feelings (but not our rational thoughts) when we pray, worship, etc., originate in our own minds. But this is no more meaningful than trying to disprove the voice coming through a radio by explaining how it works. iv) The genetic fallacy: The error of trying to disprove a belief by tracing it back to its source. http://creation.com/god-spot
Wow, turns out Anne Rice likes conservative protestant interpreters. She really likes Carson, Keener, and Wright. She says, “Sometimes the most conservative people are the most biblically and scholastically sound. They have studied Scripture and have studied skeptical scholarship. They make brilliant arguments for the way something in the Bible reads and how it’s been interpreted. I don’t go to them necessarily to know more about their personal beliefs. It’s the brilliance they bring to bear on the text that appeals to me. Of all the people I’ve read over the years, it’s their work that I keep on my desk.”. Anne Rice Reads Scripture
Piper talks about his understanding of the place of spiritual gifts in the church. He basically talks about prophecy/a word from Gdo in terms of impressions, etc. He also notes reformed groups which try to fold prophetic elements into the service. They have elders confirm and test the message first, and then it is presented in an orderly way. How Should Miraculous Gifts Be Used in the Church-
DeYoung: “There are two kinds of Christians: those who like to rebuke and do it often and those who are scared to rebuke and never do it.” Those who enjoy it are usually least qualified, and vice versa. In a culture of hurt feelings and thin skin rebuke has never been more suspect. He begins a twenty point checklist on rebuke, under the headings, why, when, how, and how to receive it. Why? i) it is biblical (Gal. 2:11, Prov. 19:25; Mat. 18; 2 Tim 3:16). ii) It is loving (Rev 3:19). Jesus doesn’t say, I love you BUT I ahve to rebuke… He said, Because I love you, I will rebuke you. And yet, if you rebuke or discipline, people will say you are not loving. iii) It protects from falst teachers and evildoers. (2 Tim. 4:2; Titus 1:9, 14; 2:15) A leader who never rebukes sin and never corrects false teaching is not protecting his flock. And he who refuses to protect refuses to love. iv) It restores (James 5:19-20). The Ministry of Rebuke (1)
JT writes on Clark Pinnock: “Even as Pinnock sought to be faithful, in many respects the “later Pinnock” devoted much of his considerable talent and energy to convincing God’s people to embrace views of God and his ways that are contrary to God’s revelation. That is not a glib observation but a sober assessment. It’s difficult to write such things upon one’s death, but I’m not sure there is any virtue in skirting this truth.” JT says that we ought to view him both positively and negatively. Clark H. Pinnock (1937-2010)
Russ Moore has a more striking post here. In his own words, he credits Pinnock with leading him to faith in Christ, and says, “the gospel I believed came through preachers who were trained by Clark Pinnock. More than that, the nation’s largest evangelical denomination would never have turned back to biblical inerrancy had it not been for a man who would later reject the concept… I cannot think of a single figure of crucial importance in the conservative resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention who is more than two steps away from Pinnock’s direct influence.” Sadly Pinnock fell into much error, questioning Christian orthodoxy at every point. He abandoned his belief that conscious faith in Christ is necessary for salvation, and began to see the Spirit at work in the other world religions. He denounced the concept of everlasting punishment as cruel and contrary to the nature of God. Why Conservative Evangelicals Should Thank God for Clark Pinnock
Hays adds this, while others are saying things about Pinnock: “What Pinnock said about God: If the "outrageous doctrine" of the traditionalists were true, God would be a "cruel" and "vindictive" deity. In fact, He would be "more nearly like Satan than like God, at least by any ordinary moral standards...." Indeed, the traditionalist's God is a "bloodthirsty monster who maintains an everlasting Auschwitz for victims whom he does not even allow to die."” Remembering Clark Pinnock
To say that protestant theology, justification, offers no coherent protest with respect to the Holocaust is blatantly false. Christians expect a final judgment with the expectation of the rectification of all things. And it isn’t enough to hope for the mere transformation of Auschwitz perpetrators; there has to be an accounting for their deeds (cf. the Psalms). “The wonder of it all is that God deigned in Christ to humble himself and become the victim of our violence: the feet that are swift to shed blood, shed his blood (Rom 3:15, 25). In Christ’s cross and resurrection, our violent rejection of both God and our neighbor meet with judgment—and forgiveness. Indeed, there can be no forgiveness where there is no judgment.” Just judgment
Hays cites an interesting point: “Were Christ to be the only human person upon whom divine justice was visited, as a vicarious substitute for sinners (as per Augustinian universalism), this would not have the right connection to desert because Christ does not deserve to be punished – he acts vicariously (and sinlessly) on behalf of sinful human beings deserving of punishment. There has to be some connection between the display of divine justice and the idea that (at least some of) those upon whom divine justice is visited are deserving of punishment. In order to reflect this, we could rephrase condition (c) as follows: (c∗ ) The need for the display of both God’s grace and mercy and his wrath and justice in his created order for some number of deserving humanity.” Final retribution
Hays notes Michael Dowd, who has a book, Thank God for Evolution, and observes that the example of new atheism illustrates that those who begin by thanking God for evolution easily end up thanking evolution for God. Thank God for Evolution
Hays assesses the commentary of Tremper Longman on Genesis 1-2. I) Longman says, without a sun, moon, stars, there is no literal day. Hays replies that he overlooks cosmic temple imagery and intertextual parallels with the flood account. 1:14-18 may be an architectual metaphor; ‘lights’ foreshadows the Menorah, and Day 4 may be analogous to the ark, with its room/windows (6:16; 8:6). Six solar days account for the diurnal cycle, even though the luminaries weren’t visible until the skylights were installed. ii) It is mere raw assertion to say that the first audience simply was not interested in how the creation came into existence, but who brought it into existence and why. Why assume the audience dichotomized like this? Abraham and Sarah were interested in the ‘how’ and ‘what’ of having a child, even though they knew the ‘who’. iii) Longman alludes to the framework hypothesis while disregarding objections to it. iv) As to parallels with the Babylonian Atrahasis: the divine componetns are different (spittle/clay versus breath/dust). Breath may allude to the Spirit as well. 2:7 doesn’t likely evoke a potter/clay metaphor. Longman is disregarding the specific connotations and intertextual allusions to force a parallel with the Babylonian Atrahasis. v) The accounts could be so different because Gen. 2 isn’t reflecting on any ANE myths. Usually that’s the obvious explanation of such contrast. vi) Longman says that account is metaphorical because God doesn’t have a body. But if Gen 1-2 are as indebted to ANE conceptual resources as he’d have us believe, then what prevents the narrator of Gen 2 from having a crude, materialistic view of God? Why couldn’t an ANE deity have a body and lungs? vii) Gen. 2:7 isn’t that descriptive of God anyway; the language is suggestive. Ezekiel 37 is an obvious comparison, but the Spirit is the recreative agent, the divine wind/breath. This doesn’t requite such an anthropomorphic image. viii) Longman doesn’t consider theophanic angelophany, common in the Pentateuch. Longman says, “e New Testament’s use of Adam (Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15) does not resolve the issue as some suggest because it is possible, even natural, to make an analogy between a literary figure and a historical one.” To say this is a natural analogy requires a supporting argument. Tempter Longman
Trueman notes the pathological fear in American culture of wasting time. He notes we have lost the virtue of laziness, in light of the non-stop busyness: “friendships are crucial to staying the course of ministry -- laughter in the face of adversity and hardship not only being vital in this regard but also, of course, an almost exclusively social phenomenon that requires company; drinking beer with friends is perhaps the most underestimated of all Reformation insights and essential to ongoing reform; and wasting time with a choice friend or two on a regular basis might be the best investment of time you ever make.” On the Virtue of Wasting Time (Carl Trueman)
JT has an interview with Paul (the apostles) on the law, life, and death. This is certainly worth a read, and also a little bit humourous. An “Interview” with the Apostle Paul on the Law, Life, and Death
No comments:
Post a Comment