2010-08-30

Phil Johnson points to an exchange of letters between an insolent congregant and Campbell Morgan, wherein the congregant attacks Morgan for receiving ‘big fees’, to which Morgan replies with candor and restraint, as well as the brilliance of simultaneously exposing the error of the congregant while genuinely handling the situation. What was never known to the rank and file was the extraordinary generosity with which Campbell used the money. Insolence Upbraided

Moore: “Too often, and for too long, American ‘Christianity’ has been a political agenda in search of a gospel useful enough to accommodate it.” http://www.russellmoore.com/2010/08/29/god-the-gospel-and-glenn-beck/

Microsoft is releasing their Security Development Lifecycle in the hope that this will lead to more developers using the process for developing software more securely across the entire product lifecycle. “This should make it easier for others to use and distribute the principles behind SDL and for programmers to integrate SDL components into their own development processes. This has not previously been possible, as documentation and other SDL materials were under an exclusive Microsoft license which precluded such use.” [Given the security advancements and innovations Microsoft has made, such as those in Windows Vista/7, this is good to hear.] http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Microsoft-s-Security-Development-Lifecycle-under-Creative-Commons-License-1068172.html

Girltalk writes for those going back to high school, university, etc: “You may be tempted to join the party scene (rebelliously indulge your sinful desires, James 1:14-15), to downplay your faith (hide it under a basket, Matt. 5:14-16), to keep an open mind (question the only eternal truth, 1 John 1:1-4), or to chase your dreams (pursue selfish ambitions, James 3:13-18) instead of running after God’s commands.” “Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be frightened, and do not be dismayed, for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go” (Joshua 1:9). He Goes With You

Hays writes that while he has spent time defending penal substitution, it shouldn’t be necessary to do so. i) intellectuals can fall into a trap of demanding rational justification for everything; this can be a malicious use of one’s intelligence. ii) Should you require intellectual justification for a cake from your mother? That’s no way to treat a gift. Gratitude is. iii) For people to attack the logic of penal substitution is no way to treat a priceless gift. That’s an act of supreme ingratitude. iv) Penal substitution isn’t illogical. But that’s beside the point. v) It’s as if you need a blood transfusion to survive, and a friend offers to donate his blood, but you make it a requirement that he defend his generous offer to your personal satisfaction. A simple thank-you will do

Hays points out that while scholarship attacking a true religion is going to be false, it doesn’t follow that scholarship attacking the credibility of a false religion will be false, even if it comes from liberal critical scholars. Liberal scholarship

Hays points to a quote of Larry Hurtado on the historical Jesus. i) All four gospels place Jesus fully in time, place, and cultural setting. ii) This is particularly interesting in light of the differences among them, but also in comparison with the rather unlocalized way that Jesus is depicted in extra-canonical “Jesus books” such as The Gospel of Thomas, and The Gospel of Philip. iv) This emphasis shows that the Lord and Christ of Christian devotion is to be linked to, and defined with reference to, the historic figure of Jesus, and may also have been a major impetus for these texts, and an important factor in shaping their genre as narrative books about him. The quote goes into a number of specifics. Hurtado on the historical Jesus

Hays answers that while he doesn’t believe any of the Triabloggers are Plymouth brethren; (a) they represent an honourable theological tradition; (b) they are a limiting case of Protestant polity, which, while Hays is himself on the low end of the spectrum, he disagrees at this point inasmuch as the NT teaches church office. Plymouth Brethren

JT writes that words have almost everything to do with Christianity. At every stage of redemptive history, from before time and on, ‘God is there and he is not silent’. God’s words decisively create, confront, convict, correct, and comfort. By his words he both interprets and instructs. JT goes into the beginnings of a theology of words, from Genesis and Hebrews 1, and points out the connection between words and the fall, where Satan called into question God’s words, and then called God a liar. Christianity and Words- Part 1

DG asks the question, how can God decree sin without sinning? Edwards’ answer was that God can decree an action that is sinful for a human to perform, because he decrees it for non-sinful reasons. A sin is only sinful because of the attitude of the heart in so doing. God doesn’t rebel against himself in ordaining human sin. He ordains sins with His good ends in mind, which makes the act of ordaining them not sinful, since the attitude of his heart is not rebellious but righteous. (e.g. Gen. 50:20, Rom 11:32). God does not decree sin for the sinfulness of it; man commits it for the sinfulness of it. How Can God Decree Sin Without Sinning-

Mohler looks at the new interest in reincarnation. “The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life reported last year that a quarter of all Americans now believe in reincarnation.” The growing acceptance of reincarnation points to a retreat of Christian beliefs. Reincarnation offers an escape from that linear view of history and human destiny. The Eastern conception of time common to Confucian cultures is deeply cyclical, with events and persons appearing again and again throughout time. Mohler notes that readers may ask, Why is it that these people seem only to recover knowledge of such noble past lives? The picture looks dubious. The therapeutic application of reincarnation looks just like the latest fad. Others connect the popularity of reincarnation to the fact that Americans like their stuff, and want to delay eternity. Few views, however, are more incompatible with Christianity. The Bible states clearly that “it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment” [Hebrews 9:27]. There is no “do-over,” and no great cycle of life. And the shift is more likely a loss of Christian conviction in the face of secularization — not a comprehensive embrace of Eastern worldviews. Mohler asks, even in these confused times, how many Americans really want to consult a psychiatrist who believes he was once a caveman who got gobbled up? http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/08/30/never-having-to-say-youre-dead-the-new-interest-in-reincarnation/

Here’s Mark Dever’s summer reading list: Vacation Reading 2010

Hays responds to a comment which calls the Triabloggers intolerant, bigoted, hateful, and declares God to be unjust and cruel if He were to send Glenn Beck to hell. “i) Folks who can’t argue for their position fall back on first-shaking adjectives like “hatred,” “intolerance,” and “bigotry.” That tactic won’t work here. ii) Whether or not Beck is sincere is irrelevant. Sincerity and veracity can lead separate lives, and often do.iii) The commenter is typically blind to his own intolerance. He’s only tolerant of those who see things his way.iv) The fact that he’d say God is spiteful and cruel for sending Beck to hell is a good illustration of folks who judge by tone and appearance rather than reality. v) I’m all for brotherly love. But Beck is not my brother. He’s a lost soul. And he’s recruiting others to his false gospel.” Hays makes some points about Mormonism itself: “Mormonism doesn’t regard the theology of other Christian traditions or denominations as essentially the same. Mormonism is a polytheistic, neopagan fertility cult with an autosoteric doctrine of apotheosis. It’s hard to think of any other Christian heresy that’s as systematically opposed to every Biblical doctrine as Mormonism.” Hays adds, ”Do unto others” is not a slogan you can uproot from its Biblical soil and transplant wherever you please. Brotherly love

DG blog discusses contrived humility versus the genuine humility of faith. We may be tempted to try to bend God’s will through tears and contrite statements when we feel inadequate in prayer. There is a humbleness that does not flow from the Gospel. It’s the humility of self-abasement hoping that this will cause God to hear their prayers. The humility that pleases God (Psalm 51:17) isn't an outward show, but a response of faith to Jesus' work for us and nothing else. Let us have confidence in the work of Christ alone. (Romans 5:1,2)) [Though I would be interested in teasing out the meaning of ‘humble yourself’, and to factor in the reality that seemingly contrived examples like sackcloth and ashes were counted as genuine humility by God] Contrived Humility Vs. Humility from Faith

Apple’s Quicktime provides a vulnerability in Windows. New QuickTime Flaw Bypasses ASLR, DEP

JT posts an adaptation from the section on Mormonism in the ESV Study Bible. An FAQ on the Difference between Mormonism and Biblical Christianity

James Anderson answers a question put to Calvinists: “If free will as uncaused choice is logically incoherent, what about God’s decision to create the world?” i) few contemporary defenders of libertarian free will (LFW) would concede that it entails uncaused choices. I suspect most Christian philosophers today who hold to LFW accept some version of agent causation. On that view, they aren’t uncaused – they are caused by the agent, with no prior sufficient cause or explanation. ii) Calvinists needn’t be committed to the idea that LFW is logically incoherent. Some do. It’s not necessary. A Calvinist could hold either of these views: (1) LFW is logically coherent, and God has LFW, and necessarily no creature has LFW. (2) LFW is logically coherent, but God does not have LFW, and necessarily no creature has LFW. He may hold (as many Calvinists do) that creaturely LFW is incompatible with divine omniscience or meticulous divine providence – since God possesses omniscience and sovereignty essentially, there is no possible world in which creatures have LFW. But there is a difference between creaturely LFW and divine LFW. However we think of the latter case needn’t cause Calvinists to blush on the former. A Short Answer to a Quick Question for Calvinists

Trueman discusses some of the complications of the differences between the lead pastor and elders, and the responsibilities of the pastor. The pastor is full time, the elders aren’t. The pastors specific calling is the congregation. The elders may not always be available, the pastor is. His priorities lie with the congregation. “though it may well be that all of us except for the pastor are unavailable to take that urgent call during the hours of daylight Monday to Friday, the important point is that the pastor is there. That's where his priorities lie. And that's the kind of pastor who needs to be the aspirational norm for students leaving seminary and going into the ministry. Just knowing your people by name and caring for them as individuals as you faithfully minister to them week by week: that may represent terrible lack of ambition in a wider secular culture where big is best, and fame is always the spur; but, by the logic of the cross, what the world deems lack of ambition could well be the greatest ambition to which anyone can aspire.”. On Organ Grinders and Monkeys (Carl Trueman)

Hays has some more comments on the issue of images. “To my knowledge, idols were fashioned to make the gods accessible to the worshiper. The idol mediated the presence of the god it depicted. That was a way of reaching the gods and even manipulating the gods. It was a two-way conduit, by which the worshiper could interact with the god, and vice versa… Pentateuchal prohibition against divine images would therefore apply to any analogous use of divine images. Does a modern-day worshiper use a divine image to facilitate contact with God? If so, then that is idolatrous. That is forbidden.” Also, “Yahweh is invisible, we cannot know what he is like apart from his self-disclosure.” “In Catholic theology, Mary is, herself, a way of making God available to the worshiper. And a statue of Mary is a way of focusing one’s prayers to and through Mary to God. In that respect, a statue of Mary is idolatrous twice over.” Idols & idolatry