Piper answers the question of exorcisms are a thing of the past. i) Occasionally you see a manifestation of demonic power so apparent and possessive that an extraordinary intervention is called for. ii) He has been involved in only one in his life; he hears reports from mission fields where it is much more common. iii) The steady state ordinary way of bringing people out of the clutches of evil is to teach with gentleness, correct your opponents in love. God may perhaps grant them to repent and come to a knowledge of the truth and be delivered or escape from the power of the evil one who had taken them captive. (2 Tim. 2:24-26). That is, it is by teaching and love and patience and God's sovereignty – God may intervene. iv) It’s not about doing exorcisms all the time. Satan is a liar and therefore he will not abide truth. He is a murderer, and therefore he will not abide love. So if you are a truth-giver and a deep, self-sacrificing lover, you will win. v) Revelation 12:11—"They overcame the devil by the blood of the lamb, for they loved not their lives even unto death"— you overcome the devil by the Gospel, by teaching and applying it, and being dedicated even to death to people’s lives. vi) Demon and Satan are real, and every pastor should study their ways because there is always an attack on the church in various forms. Are Exorcisms a Thing of the Past-
Creationsafari has a post briefly describing the complexity of OK Go’s music video (this too shall pass), which as lame as it is, serves as a metaphor for intelligent design – an irreducibly complex system, requiring increasing engineering effort the smaller the components. Intelligent Design as Entertainment
As it turns out, while astronomers formerly had high hopes that other solar systems would resemble ours, now that we have hundreds of examples, the reality has been far different. The number of surprises in real exoplanet systems underscores the potential flaws in building models based on a sample size of one. There are Jupiter size planets in three day orbits. One leader in exoplanet hunting compared it to going on a safari and discovering a blue lion. “That might be the level of wackiness I would attach to it.” [so much for ‘scientists now know’] Exoplanet Hunters Fail Predictions
Trueman continues with some thoughts on church size, and how the modern aspirational ideal of ministry has shifted from the practice of Paul – knowing his people (e.g. Acts 20:20), to criteria of success – money, numbers, celebrity. i) Trueman anecdotally relates the value of personal pastors. ii) Such personal ministry might not be able to be modeled effectively in a church of thousands or even hundreds. Also, it’s hard to see how an elder board of 30+ could be efficient. iii) It’s easier to hide from membership responsibilities in much larger churches. iv) Who says the preaching in large churches is necessarily better, or even good, compared to that in smaller unknown congregations. v) Try to go to a church where the pastor + elders can actually get to know you and you can roll up your sleeves and get your hands dirty. That’s closer to the NT model. 20 Vision (Carl Trueman)
Phillips reviews Plummer’s 40 Questions about interpreting the Bible. “Generally, how did Plummer do? Amazingly well. It's really a terrific book, and I'm glad to commend it to you.” Overview: The book is an up-to-date, yet thoroughly faithful, Christ-centered survey. Plummer says his aim is to help the reader understand the Bible, addressing himself to "any curious Christian," though specifically hoping that the text would serve for introductory Bible courses in college or seminary. Book review — 40 Questions about Interpreting the Bible, by Robert L. Plummer
Hays critiques an overzealous assault on charismatic excesses, which goes a bit far. i) The evidentiary value of miracles isn’t their only role. They can be acts of mercy. ii) It’s true that miracles can be demonic, and as such their evidentiary value needs to be qualified – they don’t stand alone. But some of the church fathers appealed to contemporary miracles in the life of the church to challenge pagans, and we ought not to treat them as de facto marks of the anti-Christian church. We don’t automatically credit claims, but we don’t dismiss them out of hand. iii) neither side of the charismatic debate has a knockdown argument from Scripture. So we can’t predict what God will do in this respect. Wait and see. iv) Demonic miracles aren’t a just a post-apostolic phenomena. The NT church was a wonder-working church. v) Does the possibility of demonic miracles vitiate the evidentiary value of miracles? If so, what about the miracles of Christ and the Apostles (e.g. 2 Cor 12:12)? Or Moses, Elisha, and Elisha? vi) The existence of charlatans hardly falsifies the existence of miracles in the church age. Wilhelm à Brakel on cessationism
Challies has some comments on how to use and not use facebook for ministry. i) As a leader it lets you be where your people are. This is where people often are, and even where serious issues are occasionally discussed. ii) Use it as a supplement to the real flesh and blood contact you have with people – not a replacement. Use it to push toward face-to-face contact, not away. iii) Learn, but don’t be a stalker. You will need to guard against the temptation to be constantly trolling for information (negative information in particular), to go looking at vacation photographs to see if something is amiss (“She shouldn’t be wearing that on the beach!”), to read walls to find errant messages and responses (“Whoa! That sounded a bit snarky!”). iv) The societal rules about what we may do with information we encounter on Facebook are still being written; until they are, be careful. It may be that you will offend people even as you seek to help them. v) Be aware that much of what happens on Facebook is public (e.g. careful about posting ‘had a great time last night’ on a female friend’s wall). vi) Be present, but not always present. Don’t be on it all the time, wasting time in trivialities. vii) Don’t play Farmville. It’s stupid and it will make you stupid. How (And How Not) To Use Facebook for Ministry
Derek Thomas asks, should the preacher ever say I Don’t know? He notes the options in the face of this for the preacher: i) Spell out the possibilities. There likely isn’t even time for this, and “Preaching must, at the end of the day, bear the mark of authority - the authority of the Word that is, not the man who delivers the sermon. But whilst the preacher is not infallible, he is God's servant in proclamation.” The preacher needs a definite opinion. ii) John Piper told his congregation when preaching through Galatians that he wasn't going to comment on the verse (3:20) since he didn't understand how it related to the anything Paul had just said. It is refreshing (on occasion) for a preacher to say, "I don't know what this means, but it is the inerrant Word of God." iii) It’s the preacher’s task to come to some understanding and state it. He may preface it with words of caution. Should Preachers ever say, I don't Know! (Derek Thomas)
Beggar’s All: commenting on a Muslim claiming he’s refuted Christianity. i) Muslim apologetics can never refute the truth of the Bible. The truth of the Bible is what refutes the Qur’an, since the Qur’an came 600 years later and is not inspired by God at all. Whatever good is in the Qur’an is stolen from the previous Scriptures, the OT and the NT. ii) The Qur’an corrupted the message of the Bible. Mohammad did not know the details of the Bible – he only thought he did, from hearing heretics and nominal Christians. iii) The Qur’an affirms the Bible (5:46-48 and 5:68 and 10:94 and 2:136 and 29:46 and). The writes/compilers of teh Qur’an thought the Bible was perfect without knowing what it was. iv) The 27 books of the NT were "canon" (meaning "standard", "criterion", "rule", "principle", "law", "measuring rod") as soon as they were written, between 48-96 AD. v) That there was a historical process of collecting all of them under one cover for all the churches is not disputed. Origen quoted all the NT books as Scripture, the same 27, around 255 AD. Athanasius wrote them all in a list in 367 AD. The Muratorian Canon, a fragment, dated around 160- 170 AD, attests to the undisputed 20 books plus Jude, Revelation, and probably 2 John.See Triablogue for more on the canon here: 27 book NT before Athanasius; also historical roots of the Reformation. vi) All the NT books were written separately to different places, from different places and by different authors. vii) “disputed” just means that some parts of the Christian world questioned them and were not sure. But other parts of the Christian world exhibit evidence of knowing about the rest of these books, although no one church or area or writer mentions all the books at one time until Origen and Athanasius. Some disputed books are clearly used by early church fathers like Irenaeus. viii) In sum, the gospel of Jesus as Son of God, God the Son, the Deity of Christ, the Trinity, the substitutionary sacrifice of the innocent lamb of God for the sins of humans from all the nations (Rev. 5:9; Mark 10:45; John 1:29); the resurrection of Christ from the dead; justification by faith alone, salvation by grace alone; the inherent sinfulness and blindness and deadness of all humans; ie, the doctrines of the “gospel” are all there in the undisputed NT texts, the gospel, which the Qur’an affirms (2:136; 5:46-48; 5:68; 10:94) still stand The Bible and History defeat the Qur'an.
Purswell answers, “In the book of Acts there seems to be a greater emphasis on Christ’s resurrection than the cross. Shouldn’t we follow the early church’s example and emphasize the resurrection over the cross?” i) The exaltation of Christ through his resurrection and ascension is central in acts, but that must be understood in the framework of the book. ii) When one is proclaiming the message of a crucified messiah—particularly within a few years of his death—the resurrection (and, in Luke’s writings, the ascension) becomes the fundamental apologetic point for supporting the claims of Jesus. iii) This apology supports Jesus’ death as vicarious atonement. iv) The emphasis on the resurrection fits Luke’s aim to provide assurance to his readers that the foundation of their faith is secure (Luke 1:1-4). 4. Doesn’t the book of Acts stress the resurrection more than the cross-
Some neat quotes at DG here: e.g. “Legalism and liberalism are equally toxic." "Imperatives minus indicatives equals impossibility." "The story of Jonah is the story of all of our lives . . . That's why the message of the gospel is so crucial even after we're saved." Media from Our Interview with Tullian Tchividjian
Phillips has a laugh that JT and Challies get as excited as they do over “The Driscoll [telling] Francis Chan that he thought he was nuts”. Click through the links in Phillips post. His criticism of Chan regarding his ‘calling’ to leave pastoral ministry is potent. Here’s a taste: “This is what a Biblically-minded interviewer would ask Chan. "Are you likening this move to Abram's move from Ur?", I would ask. To anything like an affirmative response, I would follow up with this: "So are you saying that you received an inerrant, verbal, prophetic, morally-binding revelation directly from God, apart from Scripture, telling you that you needed to walk away from your pastoral commitment abruptly and go off doing other unspecified things?"”. “If he means anything else, Chan is drawing from some spiritual authority other than Scripture. That is what a Biblical writer would mean, unless it were Paul speaking of the effectual call to salvation (which clearly does not fit). "God is calling us" must mean that, to a Biblically-oriented Christian.” If he isn’t claiming an inerrant word, he should drop the spiritualized lingo, not put it off on God. Genesis 15:6 defines faith – There is a word from God, and an embrace of that word. That’s faith. Chan uses the language of moral obligation. “Again, Chan needs to be called on this. Christians who look up to him need him to be called on it. Should they do the same? If they "believe" God is calling them to leave their jobs in IT Support or truck-driving or whatever, the jobs by which they feed their families and pay their creditors, are they similarly morally-obliged to lurch off in that direction? How can they tell? How did he?” Justin and Challies- just kinda funny. See here for the quotes: http://bibchr.blogspot.com/2010/04/taking-step-of-faith-few-thoughts.html
Patton has a cautionary post about the ‘professional weaker brother’. He gives a few examples, like, “I don’t ever drink alcohol because a weaker brethren might see me and fall into sin.” Which has the often implied translation: “I have scruples with this issue and you should too.” Patton writes, “When grace and liberty clash with “scruples,” more often than not, unfortunately, the scruples win. Why? Because we are so quick to sacrifice our liberty for the sake of the “weaker brethren.” Yes, this “weaker brethren” card is often pulled and legalists love it.” [I might add that the weaker brother argument is one that can only be afforded to another, never taken for oneself, for it is an admission of binding someone to more than is written to use it as a defence]. Patton says, “I don’t think we are obligated to bow our liberty to everyone who has a problem with our actions. A “weaker brother” is one who is truly weaker, not just one who has a misguided interpretation of things.” What can happen is the ‘weaker brother’ who simply hasn’t been educated is supposed to become stronger, but often they realize their power and become professionals. Patton notes Paul’s passage in 2:4-5, and how the false brethren could have played the weaker brother card under the thinking Patton is going after. “We need to be sensitive, but not to the point where we are simply fueling others’ faulty understanding and legalism. People will control you to the degree that you let them. If you allow this to go on without discernment, not only will you be immobile, but you will have lost your liberty. Lose liberty, lose the Gospel.” There are those who hate our liberty and will do anything to make us lose it. Beware of “Professional Weaker Brethren”
No comments:
Post a Comment