Wednesday, September 22, 2010

2010-09-22

  • DeYoung writes that Calvin was not naive about the apparent discrepancies in Scripture, nor did he expect biblical numbers to be exact. He accepted that Scripture uses phenomenological language and figures of speech. He often probed the difficult issues stemming from mistakes in translation and transmission. All that to say, he made the same sort of distinctions careful modern-day inerrantists make. He also held to the same view of verbal, plenary inspiration. Calvin never rejected the truthfulness of any Scriptural affirmation. He believed the Bible to be the Word of God and without error. Did John Calvin Believe in Inerrancy-

  • [I feel like I do damage to Trueman when I summarize his words, since they are so uniquely potent in their own right.] “If the fact that the Senate did not repeal `Don't ask, don't tell' was a pleasant surprise, the tiresome role of celebrities (or, `slebs' as British journalist, Rod Liddle, calls them) in weighing in to campaign for such a repeal was not.    This time it was `Lady Gaga,' who comes across as a cut-price knock-off of Madonna (as Camille Paglia has noted), speaking at a rally in Maine.  Members of the crowd variously described her speech as "brave," "moving," and "touching;" I found it cliched, lacking in argument, and utterly lightweight.  How a pampered celebrity, with a veritable army of bodyguards, playing to the gallery and going with the cultural flow is `brave' is somewhat unclear to me.  Crossing a moderately busy road to buy a packet of cigarettes would seem in today's world to be a more physically, culturally, and professionally dangerous undertaking… was reminded of a comment made to me in the 80s about the student activism of that time: student politics is all about sincere people getting superficially involved in very deep issues.  If that applied to relatively articulate and intelligent students at Cambridge in 1985, it would seem to apply in spades to the barely articulate synthetic celebrities who now consider themselves to have the right to lecture the rest of us (via ghost written speeches made up of emotive blather) on how society should be organised.  Personally, I blame Bono… The unspoken wisdom of the day seems to be that those with less experience of the world, and thus presumably less `baggage,' are better equipped to solve its problems.  That's theologically Pelagian and technically nonsense. ” Goo Goo for Gaga- I Blame Bono (and Bush) (Carl Trueman)

  • Hays notes in light of Romanist attacks on sola scripture which claim it to be infallible with Scripture, that Scripture itself has binding/authoritative interpretations of itself. That, and if we need binding/authoritative interpretations of binding/authoritative interpretations, then the Magisterium is likewise insufficient, for the demand is regressive. Binding interpretations of binding interpretations of binding interpretations as far as the eye can see. At some point one must admit the possibility of binding/authoritative interpretations which stand alone, which brings us back to sola Scriptura. Binding interpretive authority

  • Hays cites two church fathers on Genesis 1 to show that ancient readers and writers did in fact ask logistical, common sense questions about the physical configuration of the world. This is in light of unbelievers imputing a flat/triple-decker cosmography of the author of Gen 1 and claiming that ancient, prescientific people didn’t ask logistical, common sense questions about the physical configuration of the world – the lacked the mindset. Ancient logistics. So also here on the flood account. Ancient logistics II

  • Patton is irritated by the treatment of Rick Warren by discerning Christians, thinking they have given Warren an unfair shake. He says they ‘shoot stun darts at enemies and bazookas at our family’. He calls this ”the gift of parochialism”: 1) The ability of Christians to target and focus only on the bad in others; 2) The chronic display of other people’s shortcomings; 3) The gift of the Holy Spirit to be excessively narrow in our findings; 4) The uncanny ability of being indignant of other people’s theological shortcomings and indulgent of our own. It’s easier to attack than be tactful. He then argues from Warren’s tweets that he is orthodox, and that people shouldn’t make much of his citing of those who aren’t. “Has he said some stuff that is theologically off? Possibly. Who has not? Has he misrepresented our faith here and there? Certainly. We all have (and do). Is he perfect or imperfect? Please use a number 2 pencil and shade in the circle next to “imperfect.” In fact, do that for everyone but Christ.” Give Rick Warren a Break!\

  • Discovery News claims that Moses' Red Sea Parting Explained by Computer Model. [Ummm, no. How about reckoning with the overtly supernatural explanation of the event in Scripture? That and Moses didn’t part the sea; God did: “Exo 14:21  Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and the LORD drove the sea back by a strong east wind all night and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided. ”].

  • Creationsafaris notes the above, saying, “Indeed, Brett Israel in his write-up was ready to exchange Gods: “Mother Earth could have parted the Red Sea, hatching the great escape described in the biblical book of Exodus, a new study finds.”” Exodus Theory Inherits the Wind

  • CMI addresses some rudimentary charges against Scripture here. Is the Bible 'evil'-

  • AiG comments that the question If Humans Evolved from Apes, Why Do Apes Exist Today-, betrays a lack of understanding of the evolutionist’s position. The evolutionary concept of the origin of humans is not based on humans descending from modern apes but, rather, argues that humans and modern apes share a common ancestor. Evolutionists assert that millions of years ago a group of creatures existed that gave rise to both. Don’t use this argument. If Humans Evolved from Apes, Why Do Apes Exist Today-

  • JT has a meditation describing the Holy Spirit’s role as analogous to that of a floodlight. A well-positioned floodlight is not seen, but rather makes another thing seen. It is as if the Spirit stands behind us, throwing light over our shoulder, on Jesus, who stands facing us. The Holy Spirit’s Hidden Floodlight Ministry

  • Turk asks, if everyone repudiates the idea that the reader sets the terms of engagement with the text, why worry about whether anyone thinks the Bible is "inerrant"? Here's why: the way you read the Bible dictates the kind of truth you can get from it. If people read the Bible like Hemingway they will “come to the conclusion that things like the resurrection or the virgin birth are themselves analogical truth and not something which happened on calendar days to people with (so to speak) birth certificates and dirty sandals. And their conclusion is honest insofar as their approach is honest.” What exactly do you expect to get from the Bible if you approach it with the premise that it isn’t a story by witnesses about something that happened on Jerusalem streets and in Roman courts and on a wooden cross? The problem is that it makes the intention of the writers a non-determining factor. “It actually inverts the bogus Fundie dichotomy that the text is either "true" (and therefore woodenly literal) or "false" (and therefore some kind of subjective buffet).” While the Fundie may ignore the fact of genre types in the text and read everything as if it was just blank statements of fact, the buffet reader is doing exactly the same thing with just as bad results: he is ignoring the demands a genre makes on the reader as expressed by the writer. From 2007 - the Ways to Read Scripture

  • 9Marks has an interesting post from a pastor whose church has tried to make the best of a recession by taking advantage of a state policy where parents can have their children dismissed from school during the school day in order to be able to be instructed in religion at a place of the parent’s choosing. They teach 650 elementary students in public schools about the Gospel every month, having secured approval from parents and strained teachers alike. Recession and Ministry

  • DeYoung notes that while we don’t think of Lot as particularly righteous (after all, he chose Sodom rather than Canaan), Peter calls him righteous, and God considered him righteous (as evidenced by Abraham’s plea). But what made him righteous? At least in part, it was his torment. Lot was “greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked” (2 Peter 2:7). His righteous soul was “tormented” over the lawless deeds he saw and heard in Sodom (2 Peter 2:8). For all his failings, Lot is worthy example in this one respect: sin bothered him. DeYoung makes a few points: i) How to be tormented by sin without being a torment to sinners is surely a great challenge for us, one that requires extraordinary maturity and wisdom. ii) We must realize the strategy of the world and the devil is to make sin look and feel normal. As one theologian put it, “Our great security against sin lies in being shocked at it.” We are in grave danger of becoming insensitive to sin. Can we truly say our righteous souls are tormented over the lawless deeds we see and hear? Or do we find them funny? Few of us can honestly say, “My eyes shed streams of tears, because people do not keep your law” (Psalm 119:136).Tormented Souls

  • Mahaney offers a diagnostic for spiritual dehydration. If your affections for Christ are diminished, ask yourself: “Am I preaching the gospel to my own soul each day? Am I praying with any level of consistency? Am I eagerly awaiting Christ’s return and am I longing for heaven?” The Causes, Symptoms, and Treatment of Spiritual Dehydration

  • Aomin has a post on Apologetics and the Age of the Earth. The priority of Scripture should determine how we do apologetics. The doctrine of God is central and the most worthy of defending. The doctrine of man and His relationship to God is determined by that doctrine of God. And God's relationship to plants, animals, air, the stars, and cesium proceeds. The discerning apologist would not waste time with a religious sociology in America debate. “A) I have no commitment to any big bang, B) to old earth creationism, C) I don't want to abandon the chronological details of Genesis so as to just "get to the main point" of "God created everything," D) I'm not duped into any form of naturalism (unless that can be demonstrated), and E) I'm not an advocate or believer in a "local flood." I merely want to be faithful to the text of Scripture and to be careful in where energy is spent.” Of note, the post says, “Gen 2, however, (A) is specifically and explicitly stated to have chronological accuracy twice (Tim 2:13 and I Cor. 15:45) - or more times depending how you interpret (Gen. 2:24 in Matt. 19:5; Mark 10:7–8; 1 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 5:31) and (B) falls under the basic Genesis category of "these are the generations of," unlike chapter 1.” i.e. “That's not to say that Gen. 1 is automatically disqualifed from being chronologically accurate or what have you. But it is to say that if we have a question specifically about chronology, Gen. 2 would probably be the first place we should go…” “The BioLogos forum needs to be held accountable not for their standard evolutionary view of the age of the earth, but for their anti-Christian view of God's images.” Apologetics and the Age of the Earth

  • Challies takes on Christian Piracy of music. Christian Piracy

  • AiG takes apart a lot of the ‘prophecies’ and claimed ‘evidence’ that the world world will end in 2012. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/09/17/feedback-world-end-2012

  • JT: “Collin Hansen says that Mark Dever’s sermon from last weekend, Jesus Paid Taxes from Mark 12:13-17, is the best sermon he’s ever heard of Christianity and politics.” “The Best Sermon on Christianity and Politics”

  • JT cites some principles for interacting in politics as Christians from ‘City of Man: religion and politics in a new era’, along with the comment that there is no formula for how to deal in these areas. Five Guiding Principles for Thinking about Religion and Politics

  • T-fan notes that “Ratzinger (then prefect/puppeteer of John Paul II) was alleging that the Roman Catholic Church's position on the ordination of women is an infallible, irreformable teaching, despite the fact that there is presently (or at least certainly was) dissent within the heirarchy as to whether the failure to ordain women is proper.” Test Case of the Infallible Magisterium- Ordination of Women

  • AiG argues that “observer-centric anisotropic synchrony convention eliminates the distant starlight problem by reducing radially inward-directed light travel-time in the reference frame of the observer to zero”. Anisotropic Synchrony Convention—A Solution to the Distant Starlight Problem

  • Creationsafaris: “It’s a good time to be a Neanderthal. You’ll get more respect than ever before from paleoanthropologists. The latest example, published in PhysOrg, is headlined, “Neanderthals more advanced than previously thought.” Julien Riel-Salvatore [U of Colorado at Denver] says he is “rehabilitating Neanderthals” by challenging a half-century of “conventional wisdom” that portrayed them as numbskulls. His studies in Italy show them to be creative, adaptable and successful, coming up with tools, art and hunting implements on their own without “modern human” help. “We are more brothers than distant cousins,” he said.” More Neanderthal Promotion

  • Hays cites some concluding remarks in a new book on the canonization of the gospels.  i) Papias knew all four Gospels (~120-30 AD). ii) He reports an earlier tradition (probably ~100 or earlier). There is some evidence to think that Papias’s source was aware of all four. iii) Eusebius’s source allows for an even earlier endorsement of the four Gospels. For it says that the apostle John ‘welcomed’ or ‘received’ the three previous Gospels and ‘testified to their truth.’ This would make the aged apostle John the earliest ‘chooser,’ endorser, or ‘canonizer’ of the four Gospels. This is not to claim of course that the this testimony about John ‘choosing the Gospels’ is historically factual, only that it is an extremely early tradition. iv) Origen (3rd century) knew of a similar tradition. (C. E. Hill, Who Chose the Gospels? (Oxford 2010). Who canonized the gospels-

  • JT: Here’s a new book dealing with racism. JT posts part of Tom Schreiner’s foreword to Jarvis Williams’s new book, One New Man: The Cross and Racial Reconciliation in Pauline Theology Tom Schreiner on Racism and Racial Reconciliation

  • No comments: