Mohler comments on the NYT article on the 'failure to launch’ phenomenon among 20’s something. It’s not merely economic recession. There has been a major change in the way youth move towards adulthood – if they do at all. “The traditional cycle seems to have gone off course, as young people remain untethered to romantic partners or to permanent homes, going back to school for lack of better options, traveling, avoiding commitments…” the impact of which is unquantified at this point. As a generation, they are constantly moving residence, changing jobs, moving back home, and cohabitating. This is a massive change of the 60’s. Less than half of young women and a third of young men reach the five milestones by 30: “completing school, leaving home, getting married, having a child, and establishing financial independence.” Not every young person experiences this extended adolescence: young people without the luxury of time and money move rather more quickly into adulthood. Many factors contribute to a failure to launch. There is an intense focus on the self that emerges in how many of these young people explain their delayed adulthood. There is a steep price for this delay; not just in the societal impact of dodging responsibilities, but also in the missed joys, consolations, challenged, responsibilities, and long-term flourishing. The extension of adolescence also means a further delay in accepting the kinds of roles and responsibilities that make for mature Christians. Why Aren’t ‘Emerging Adults’ Emerging as Adults-
JT has a helpful summary here on Trueman’s blogs on Luther, including resources/recommended books. Trueman: Recommended Books on/by Luther, and Luther on What It Means to Be a Good Theologian and Preacher
JT cites Wallace on the differences between the KJV and other translations. For example, Erasmus, when working on the last six verses of Revelation, had no Greek manuscript, and used very late MSS for the whole NT, and only half a dozen at that. Wallace also discusses 1 John 5:7-8,which reads, ‘there are three witnesses in heaven, the Spirit and the water and the blood.’ There was an uproar among some Roman Catholics, and Erasmus was eventually compelled to include it because a Greek manuscript was ‘made to order’, since he said he did not include it because no Greek MSS had it. To date, no Greek MSS has been discovered demonstrably earlier than the 16th century with this verse. “It illustrates something quite significant with regard to the textual tradition which stands behind the King James… Very few of the distinctive King James readings are demonstrably ancient.” Textual evidence indicates a strong tendency to add, no subtract, and most additions are found in more recent MSS. Why Does the King James Bible Have Some Different Verses Than Modern Translations-
Another helpful tool for writes: Patricia T. O’Connor’s Words Fail Me: What Everyone Who Writes Should Know about Writing. Splitting Infinitives
Girltalk cites Mark Chanski: “The mother is the hub of the home, holding all the spokes in place. Without her being at her post, the family spins out of control and falls apart.” He has these words of encouragement: “She needs something more empowering to keep her going. She needs to gain and maintain the deep conviction of the glory, honor, and nobility of selfless service. This she finds at the foot of the cross, looking up to the One who earned for Himself “the name which is above every name” (Philippians 2:9), by “emptying Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant” (2:7), humbling “Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross” (2:8).” Motherly Greatness
DG: Edwards reflected on Romans 7:8, and the operation of sin in the heart upon encountering the Law. Sinners are extremely uneasy about the Law because of the punishment they will receive for breaking it. But that uneasiness is intolerable, and so they go to something more pleasant, especially the very thing forbidden. They exaggerate the sinful pleasure in the mind to think of it as more desirable than it really is. But having been delivered from the Law, we should serve in newness of spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. Believers perform the commands not because salvation is conditional on obedience, but because of the beauty of God, to whom sin is contrary. Interestingly, Edwards argues, “Wherefore now in gospel times, 'tis requisite that all ceremonial commands should be abolished, which have no intrinsic direct loveliness, nor agreeableness to the lovely God, or tendency to happiness.” Why the Law Makes Us Want to Sin More
Carson answers, ‘how could a loving God send people to hell?’ i) People who do not like God in this life won’t much like heaven, or God’s holiness, etc. But there are more fundamental answers. ii) Hell is not a place where there are a lot of deeply sorrowful repentant sinners who want to turn to God and escape. Those who are filthy are filthy still. There is no evidence in Scripture that people come to hell and want to repent. They are still defiant, still hating Him. iii) God transforms hearts. You can’t understand this question without understanding righteousness and sin. What will be clear for those in heaven and hell is that God is just. See here: http://vimeo.com/7415156. A La Carte (8/23)
Challies recalls an article posted by his pastor, Paul, on the now current practice of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada to recommend that all expectant mothers undergo screening for fetal abnormalities such as Down’s syndrome. Dr. Andre Lalonde, a clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Ottawa and the executive vice president of the SOGC, makes this chilling statement: “Yes, it’s going to lead to more termination, but it’s going to be fair to these women who are 24 who say, ‘How come I have to raise an infant with Down’s syndrome, whereas my cousin who was 35 didn’t have to?’” Dr. Lalonde said. “We have to be fair to give women a choice.” ‘Genetic counseling’ recommends abortion as the preferred course of action: Paul recalls the picture of a downs syndrome child, with a video asking, ‘is this what you want?’ That question is irrelevant. God gives life, and we must accept it. “over time the issue of abortion has evolved from “Is this what you want?” (a matter of personal inconvenience) to “Is this what you want for your family?” (a matter of wider inconvenience) to “How can you do this to us?” (a matter of societal inconvenience). Those who learn that their child may be born with Down’s syndrome or another condition now feel pressure to abort this child for the good of society.” Challies connects having a Down’s Syndrome baby to John 9, where the man was born blind for the glory of God, and how parents today simply won’t even wrestle with this idea. Matthew Henry said, “the intentions of Providence commonly do not appear till a great while after the event, perhaps many years after.” Challies concludes, “When we abort those who are infirm, physically or mentally, we destroy boys and girls, men and women, in whom we ought to see the works of God displayed. We miss out on marvelous opportunities to see the works of God displayed in their lives.” God's Losers and Gainers
"We Muslims know the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation." Mischief in Manhattan
Hays continues responding to a denial of penal substitution: i) Acts 2:23, Lk. 22:22, Rom. 8:32; Isa 53:10. "Scripture doesn’t say that if it was unjust for sinners to crucify Jesus, it was also unjust for God to bring about the same event. Scripture is not impugning the character of God when it attributes to Crucifixion to God as well as man. ii) Whether we think this makes sense is a different question than whether Scripture teaches it, which it does. iii) But it does make sense; God didn’t have the same motive for ordaining the Crucifixion that sinners had in crucifying Jesus. iii) The historic setting for Ezekiel 18 is the Babylonian exile. And that’s a textbook case of corporate judgment. Daniel, among others, suffered the same judicial consequences, despite being faithful. iv) Facile appeals to Ezekiel 18 overlook the fact that the vicarious atonement of Christ is an exercise in divine self-punishment, or self-retribution. This falls outside the situations in Gen 18:25, Deut 24:16, Prov 17:15,26, and Ezk 18. Also, consider Exod 20:5-6, 34:7, Num 14:18, Deut 5:9-10, 7:9-10, 2 Sam 21:1-14, 2 Kgs 24:3-4. v) Even if the death of Christ were not a case of innocent punishment, it is still a case of innocent suffering, which raises the same theodicean issue. The suffering righteous is a standard problem in theodicy: If it’s unjust for God to punish the innocent Jesus, it’s equally unjust to make him suffer and die at the hands of wicked men. vi) To the claim that the sacrifices were pleasing to God not on account of punishment, but because “they were done in obedience to the instructions that He had given” betrays a manward reorientation, since the offerings are no longer tokens of God’s grace in His exactly retribution on a surrogate, but tokens of how pious/faithful the worshiper is – it’s all about our goodness rather than God’s. The just for the unjust
Manata has his own notes on Ezekiel 18 here (he’s a paedobaptist, and he was prepping them for use against credobaptists, but he posts them for discussions on the atonement). Individualism in the Bible
Trueman commends Andreas Kostenberger and Mike Kruger’s new book, The Heresy of Orthodoxy, which responds to the Bauer hypothesis, which holds that what came to triumph in Christianity was not some primeval orthodoxy but merely one competing vision of Christianity among a host of others. This view is being popularized by Ehrman and Pagels, crossover scholars read by a popular audience. Trueman writes that this is helpful for the hard pressed pastor who needs to be prepared to answer questions. Books which deal concisely and informatively with areas outside of one's own area of interest and expertise are always to be welcomed. Heresy and Orthodoxy (Carl Trueman)
Trueman is recommending books on Luther. I just wanted to quote his in full (emphasis mine): “Robert Kolb and Charles P. Arand,The Genius of Luther's Theology: A Wittenberg Way of Thinking for the Contemporary Church. A quite brilliant appropriation of Luther's theology for the contemporary church by two leading Lutheran scholars and (most importantly) churchmen. Not everything would be applicable in a Reformed, evangelical or baptist context; but there is enough here to show that Luther is still relevant and also to show how the past can be mined for help in the present. If you think the church is dying because the working single mums in your congregation can't offer a Christian perspective on the films of Quentin Tarantino, or if you like to read books with titles like The Gospel According to Lady Gaga, this book won't be very helpful; if you think it's failing because your members don't know the basics of the Christian faith (creation, fall, incarnation, redemption etc) and if you like to read books with titles like The Holy Bible, this is the one for you. Very highly recommended.” Not for Crashing Bores or Fans of Lady Gaga (Carl Trueman)
Beggar’s All draws out the implication of The Heresy of Orthodoxy for Ecclesial deism, which means, “Ecclesial deism is not the belief that individual members of the Magisterium could fall into heresy or apostasy. It is the belief that the Magisterium of the Church could lose or corrupt some essential of the deposit of faith, or add something to the deposit of faith.” The problems with this definition are: i) it anachronistically reads the concept of "magisterium" back into the earliest church. ii) It was not a "magisterium" that the earliest church had, but the concept of "covenant". iii) Kostenberger et. al. not only identify core doctrine, but describe how the concept of covenant always brought with it the requirement for a written copy of the covenant documents. Covenant, Canon, and the New Testament Church
Patton has some helpful charts/pictures on the distribution of types of literature. For example poetry makes up 5% of the Bible by book.
Two Charts on the Literature of the Bible
Genderblog: “Tony Kummer over at the blog on Ministry-to-children.com has put together an excellent set of notes that summarize each presentation at this past weekend's Connecting Church and Home Conference held Friday and Saturday at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.” Connecting Church and Home Conference Notes and Video
Hays writes that 1 in 5 Americans think Obama is Muslim. Apparently this is technically true, since, barring apostasy, if your dad is Muslim, you are. Hays holds that Obama is a closet atheist or religious pluralist. He points out the interesting position the White House finds itself in – why are they so defensive? Our first Muslim president
“Astronomers have decided the universe will expand forever, growing colder and darker, till it ends in a heat death…. One researcher remarked that the study proves “exactly what the fate of the Universe will be” – which the article desribed, “Eventually it will become a cold, dead wasteland with a temperature approaching what scientists term ‘absolute zero’.”” [Doesn’t this solidify that the whole universe is entirely pointless in an atheistic worldview?] Universe Is Doomed
CMI has a post on the Galapagos birds, which Darwin took as examples of evolution. They point out with regard to the finches, “This is indeed an example of adaptation and natural selection. But note that it actually removes genes from the populations—on seed-rich islands with few grubs, information for long, slender beaks would likely be lost; while the information for thick, strong beaks would be lost on grub-rich (seed-poor) islands... this change is in the opposite direction from goo-to-you evolution, which requires new genes with new information.It can hardly be over-emphasized: natural selection is not evolution; indeed, natural selection was discovered by creationists before Darwin, and is now an important part of the biblical creation model.” Goo-to-you evolution would require changes that result in new genetic information. Loss of flight is a loss of genetic information. There is variety due to information loss through mutation and natural selection. But the Churchian compromise with millions of years led to an easy target for Darwin, and hindered the development of a credible creation model. http://creation.com/galapagos-birds
Burk points to the article on Obama’s faith, with excerpts. Obama is a liberal or postmodern Christian, it seems. Look at this: ““I retain from my childhood and my experiences growing up a suspicion of dogma. And I’m not somebody who is always comfortable with language that implies I’ve got a monopoly on the truth, or that my faith is automatically transferable to others.”” He’s also a universalist, contra to Christianity: “There’s the belief, certainly in some quarters, that people haven’t embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior that they’re going to hell… I find it hard to believe that my God would consign four-fifths of the world to hell. I can’t imagine that my God would allow some little Hindu kid in India who never interacts with the Christian faith to somehow burn for all eternity. That’s just not part of my religious makeup.”” He also defines sin as “Being out of alignment with my values.” Obama’s Faith
Burk notes that the theistic evolutionists at BioLogos went after Mohler in the secular arena, in the Huffington Post, for Mohler’s rightly critique that general revelation cannot trump special revelation. But they didn’t respond to the central issues. “Gilberson … airs some pretty outrageous accusations against Mohler. Chief among them is the notion that Mohler simply doesn’t care about the truth. Phil Johnson has an extended response to Gilberson that rightly questions Gilberson’s chosen forum for airing this unseemly (and untrue) accusation against Mohler.” “The plain sense of the Genesis creation narratives does not support an evolutionary version of human origins. Mohler warns against letting science drive the interpretation of the Bible rather than letting the Bible drive the interpretation of science. Why can’t Gilberson answer these central concerns?” Mohler vs. Theistic Evolutionists
Beggar’s All: Whitaker’s eight argument for sola scriptura: “1) The oral revelation given to the patriarchs did not require the authority of the Church to authenticate it; the patriarchs believed it upon receiving it by virtue of hearing God speak. 2) The written revelation of the canon is of the same kind and authority as the oral revelation given to the patriarchs. 3) Therefore, the canon does not require the authority of the Church to authenticate it to us; it should be received in the same manner as the patriarchs received oral revelation.” God communicates his word through ordinary means. Whitaker's Eighth Argument
Turretinfan takes BioLogos to task over their denial of inerrancy. He makes an interesting point that Jesus’ mention that the hairs on your head are numbered not only shows God’s infinite cognitive power, but His attention to detail – something which errantists imply God isn't too concerned with. A Second Anathema Against Biologos
Piper writes about how he does sermon prep here. Very interesting. http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/2556_how_does_john_piper_prepare_a_sermon/
Here’s an overview from AiG on the biblical flood timeline. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/08/23/overview-flood-timeline
Phil Johnson writes of the BioLogos response to Mohler. “The gentlemen at BioLogos have finally settled on their best strategy for replying to Dr. Mohler: Publish something at the Huffington Post accusing Dr. Mohler of dishonesty.” He points out that the only version of "Christianity" Darwin ever adhered to was by no means evangelical. He was a product of that Unitarian intellectualism that dominated the established church in Georgian times. “Giberson insists Dr. Mohler is a deliberate, cold-hearted, shameless liar… I'm not exaggerating. Giberson loaded his Huffington article with just about every accusation and insult space would allow, short of making Mohler out to be a felon. Giberson alleges that Mohler "does not seem to care about the truth and seems quite content to simply make stuff up when it serves his purpose." "Perhaps [Mohler's] only real encounter with Saving Darwin was an instruction to an assistant to 'find something in Giberson's book that I can ridicule in my speech.'" "Mohler perhaps, is being a 'faith fibber,' something I have been guilty of, although not on this scale." "I am disappointed to realize that [skeptic Michael] Shermer, who repudiated his faith, has more respect for the truth than Al Mohler, who views himself as a caretaker of a faith that I share."” Rather then both to address the biblical and theological points, Giberson insists on insults. At the end of the day, though, BioLogos cannot be serious when they claim they are interested in bringing science and faith together. Evangelicals and Atheists Together
No comments:
Post a Comment