2010-09-16

Piper points out that the not wanting people to see in is not the only reason porn shops don’t have windows. It’s also because the sun is the enemy of lust. He anecdotally relates the power in fighting his own lust of simply getting out of dark or lonely or boxed-in places, where it’s just small you and your mind, to where you’re surrounded by color and beauty and bigness and loveliness. There’s something about bigness, there’s something about beauty, that helps battle against the puny, small, cruddy use of the mind to fantasize about sexual things. “Pure, lovely, wholesome, beautiful, powerful, large-hearted things cannot abide the soul of a sexual fantasy at the same time.” Our capacities of seeing the sky are cut down progressively by yielding to lusts and fantasies and unwholesome things. It can happen to anyone; anyone can fall from having a large heart to being a gutter person. “battle it with the upward glance of the magnificent blue and the thunder and the lightning and the sunrises and the sunsets and the glory of God.” Why Porno Shops Don’t Have Windows

Burk gives his reasons why the “young, restless and reformed” often stand apart from reformed egalitarians. i) We need a ranking of doctrinal priorities. There are first-order issues which distinguish a Christian from a non-Christian. Second order issues can be disagreed upon by Christians but prevent Christians from doing local church ministry together. “Women in ministry” is a second order issue. ii) Second order issues (like egalitarianism) often directly affect how healthy a church and its members will be. An “egalitarian perspective on church leadership is often accompanied by an egalitarian perspective on the role of husbands and wives in the family. Differences on this issue lead to radically different definitions of what a healthy Christian home will look like.” For complementarians, leadership and submission in marriage are not insignificant details but reflect our seminal commitment to the gospel itself – as per Eph. 5 the Gospel is affirmed or denied depending on how husbands and wives relate to each other. In a complementarian framework, families are unhealthy and marriages are at risk where this male headship (which is therefore entailed in discipleship) is absent, while egalitarians say that this kind of leadership is unbiblical and immoral, while Complementarians say it is essential for a husband’s faithfulness to Christ. iii) The hermeneutic adopted by egalitarians puts one on a slippery slope, as it undermines biblical authority despite protestations to the contrary. When the functional authority of Scripture is compromised we’re moving into first order issues. Grudem notes that egalitarianism often leads to the denial of anything uniquely masculine, to calling God “our Mother,” and to the approval of homosexuality. History is a witness of the slippery slope that begins with an egalitarianism that then leads into any number of unorthodox, unbiblical directions. (Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism) iv) The glory of Christ and his love for his bride is most clearly on display in churches and in marriages that embody Christ’s sacrificial love for and leadership over his bride. Where it is absent, the vision of that glory is diminished. Gospel Priorities and Complementarianism

Creationsafaris asks, ‘How much do you trust scientific experts?’ and writes, ‘Most of the scientific experts expect us to trust them. They are appalled when lay people express doubts about matters the consensus of experts take for granted. Yet others tell us we should doubt.’ Examples follow. No Consensus on Scientific Consensus

Turk writes that BioLogos has affirmed the complete denial of Adam’s existence. He also notes the Pyromaniacs told us this was coming. “the folks defending BioLogos have to face up to it: it was never about whether or not there were days or ages in Genesis 1; it was never about reconciling Gen 1 and Gen 2 to "science". It was always explicitly about what it means to say, "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth," and then "the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature" without it meaning that God actually, really, historically did something.” Biologos has explicitly said that Genesis 1 does not reveal how God created life. “It's only a matter of a few faculty meetings before they have called Jesus a manifestation of first century Jewish imagination and a deconstructing of Greek ethos to suit the likes of Philo and Paul.” My last post on BioLogos

Aomin: this post provides two contrasting quotes, one from Bavinck and one from Warfield, to the question, “Does the Christian apologist defend the faith established, or establish the faith by defending it? In other words, does our theology determine our apologetic methodology, or does apologetics give rise to our theology?” Bavinck and Benjamin- The Relationship Between Theology and Apologetics

CMI: Similarities between certain organisms is claimed as evidence for evolution but incredible similarities that are not due to common ancestry undo the argument. The article goes into some examples, and concludes, “God has indeed created things in such a way as to confound naturalistic (everything made itself) explanations for the origin of organisms. Various ad hoc, or just–so, stories have been invented in an attempt to explain the many things which do not fit the evolutionary scheme, but they are just that—stories. May God receive the glory that is His due for the marvelous things He has created!” Are look-alikes related-

Mohler responds further to Chris Mooney’s vacuous attempt to bridge science and religion by appealing to his blend of ‘spirituality’, saying, “neither side is buying his argument. The naturalistic scientists want nothing to do with what they see as a pandering to superstition, and those with any genuine theological convictions want nothing to do with a vacuous “spirituality.” Citing another perspective from Jerry Coyne, Mohler summarizes, “mere “spirituality” will not heal the breach between naturalism and theism.” Coyne says, “Mohler may be a Baptist, but he’s not a moron.” Mohler writes, “So I am a Baptist but not a moron? Well, I will file that under awkward compliments.” http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/09/15/i-may-be-a-baptist-but-i-am-not-a-moron-says-evolutionist

Tony Reinke writes, “generation of believers transferring the truth of God to the next generation is a theme that can be found throughout Scripture.” He cites a number of Scriptures, and points out that this is reflected in the NT, in that pastors are called to identify and train their successors, following Paul’s model: he trained Timothy and expected him to train a generation of teachers that Paul himself could not see (2 Timothy 1:13–14, 2:2). Stewardship of the Gospel requires churches and pastors to think seriously about transition. From Generation to Generation

DeYoung has More Advice for Theological Students and Young Pastors. It is succinct and point-form, and worth the full read. For example, “Don’t preach your issues from seminary. I can almost guarantee no one in your church doubts the Pauline authorship of Ephesians. It says “Paul” in their Bibles so they’re good to go.” And “Figure out what you believe about divorce and remarriage, and figure it out soon.” Or, “… I realized early on I didn’t really want revival unless I was fine with it starting at the church down the street.” … “Better to be a little naive than a lot cynical.” “Love your wife. Spend time with your kids. Be very afraid if you no longer look forward to going home at the end of the day.” “Learn to ignore some comments, some controversies, and, yes, some people.”

JT posts a chilling quote from Darwin on the diminishment of his tastes and affections. It concludes “My mind seems to have become a kind of machine for grinding general laws out of large collections of facts, but why this should have caused the atrophy of that part of the brain alone, on which the higher tastes depend, I cannot conceive…The loss of these tastes is a loss of happiness, and may possibly be injurious to the intellect, and more probably to the moral character, by enfeebling the emotional part of our nature.” Do You See the Glory of God in the Sun- Darwin’s Negative Testimony

Pike responds to the Arminian argument that while God knows the future, choices are still free: “God knows what a man will freely choose. If the man chooses X, God knows that the man will choose X. But if the man would have chosen Y, then God would have known that the man chose Y instead. Therefore, the man’s choice is still free and self-determined, despite the fact that God knows what it will be.” i) This will lead to Open Theism. ii) The only reason the Arminian argument can even get off the ground is because of the confusion most people have between a temporal “before” and a logical “before.” The Arminian confuses temporal sequence with logical sequence. iii) Even if we grant the Arminian view for the sake of argument, we are left with a determined future. It cannot be other than it is, for God knows what the future is. iv) In their scheme God functions little better than someone who watches a DVD he has seen before and knows what the next scene will be before the characters in the movie do; but he only knows that next scene because he’s already watched the movie at some point in his past. v)  if our actions are self-determined, then God must logically wait for us to determine our actions before He will know what we will determine. Saying, “If we would have chosen otherwise, then God would have known otherwise” actually proves this, for it explicitly states that God knows what we will do only because we have already, in God’s time, made the decision. But that isn’t foreknowledge (it is post-knowledge, for it is in God’s past even if it is in our future) and opens all kinds of problems with the flow of time. Arminianism in Time

Mounce writes, “What was most educational was to see how dynamic translation works, first hand. From my years on the ESV I had gained an appreciation for formal equivalent translation, but to actually be part of a dynamic translation (okay, "functional equivalence") was a great teacher. I watched godly men and women struggle, sometimes agonize, over just the right wording so the NIV would faithfully convey the same meaning as intended by the biblical author. Whoever says dynamic translators have a lower view of Scripture needs to sit behind the veil and watch this group work.” What Constitutes an Accurate Translation- (Monday with Mounce 75)

Jeremy Pierce comments on the bad argument for homosexuality which aims to minimize the passages in the Law on homosexuality as an abomination because eating shellfish is also an abomination. “Anyone who has thought for a little bit about the relation Christians see between the Mosaic law and the New Testament should see through such an argument, because the New Testament explicitly affirms the judgment of male-male and female-female sexual relations as bad while explicitly rejecting the dietary laws that the ban on eating shellfish was a part of. So that objection is pretty naive. Any Christian interpretive grid that seeks to minimize the Torah prohibition on same-sex sex acts can't do so merely because we nowadays think it's all right to eat shellfish, because there's explicit allowance of that in the New Testament and explicit continuance of the harsh language about same-sex sex acts.” He points out a further aspect – it isn’t that the judgment on shellfish lowers the judgment on homosexuality. It’s that the evil of eating shellfish goes way up Eating shellfish in the covenant context of God's people called together to be separate from their neighbors is tantamount to deciding for yourself what you think God's standards should have been when he instituted the dietary laws. We can't read our acceptance of shellfish-eating into how serious eating shellfish would have been taken among those at the time. “Any Christian does consider it an abomination to do something with the import of what eating shellfish would have been in that context.” “We should instead increase our sense of the horror an ancient Hebrew would have had at the idea of eating shellfish.”http://parablemania.ektopos.com/archives/2010/09/abomination.html

Phillips writes, “Worthy bros Justin Taylor and Kevin DeYoung are shocked, shocked that WORLD magazine would print an article by Andree Seu lauding Glenn Beck and dubbing the practicing Mormon a born-again Christian.” He points out, “I myself used to love Seu's writing. This is shocking. But is it more shocking than gushing all over an unrepentant murderess and antinomian, dubbing her (also) a "Christian"? Is it more shocking than accepting as "Christian" a convert to Roman Catholicism, without as much as one question about the meaning of the Gospel? WORLD did all this, and it was duly noted... more than four years ago. By someone.”  Justin and Kevin- also kinda funny

AiG writes, “A large number of recent American presidents and high government officials have openly supported creationism/Intelligent Design, or have expressed the right to question Darwinism.” High Level American Government Leaders Support Creationism

Interesting article cited here from Ligonier: “Cardinal Newman said that to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant. The truth is that to be deep in real history, as opposed to Rome’s whitewashed, revisionist, and often forged history, is to cease to be a Roman Catholic."” To Be Deep in History - excellent article by Keith Mathison

JT has this suggestion: “Even if you’re not a political conservative National Review is worth subscribing to for Ross Douthat’s movie reviews alone. They are invariably insightful and often entertaining. And unlike some Christian reviewers, who tend to find commendable spiritual lessons in even the worst films, he’s willing to tell it like it is.” Why Ross Douthat Is My Favorite Movie Reviewer

Wow. JT links to an article at the national review which says, “The reason marriage exists is that the sexual intercourse of men and women regularly produces children. If it did not produce children, neither society nor the government would have much reason, let alone a valid reason, to regulate people’s emotional unions. (The government does not regulate non-marital friendships, no matter how intense they are.) … What the institution and policy of marriage aims to regulate is sex, not love or commitment. These days, marriage regulates sex (to the extent it does regulate it) in a wholly non-coercive manner, sex outside of marriage no longer being a crime. Marriage exists, in other words, to solve a problem that arises from sex between men and women but not from sex between partners of the same gender: what to do about its generativity.” “The government cannot simply declare itself uninterested in the welfare of children. Nor can it leave it to prearranged contract to determine who will have responsibility for raising children.” read this whole piece. Law and Marriage, Sex, and Children

DeYoung cites Bavinck: “Whatever apostasy occurs in Christianity, it may never prompt us to question the unchanging faithfulness of God, the certainty of his counsel, the enduring character of his covenant, or the trustworthiness of his promises. One should sooner abandon all creatures than fail to trust his word. And that word in its totality is one immensely rich promise to the heirs of the kingdom. It is not just a handful of texts that teach the perseverance of the saints: the entire gospel sustains and confirms it. The Father has chosen them before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4), ordained them to eternal life (Acts 13:48), to be conformed to the image of his Son (Rom. 8:29). This election stands (Rom. 9:11; Heb. 6:17) and in due time carries with it the calling and justification and glorification (Rom. 8:30).” Does the Bible Really Teach the Perseverance of the Saints-

Phillips has a potent post contrasting Samson and Jesus: “Samson died as a result of his own personal foolishness, while Christ died in the wisdom of God. Samson's lifelong eye-problems (Judges 14:3) led to his eyes being bored out. Worse, in a damning indictment we read that Yahweh had departed from Samson and he did not even know it (Judges 16:20b). By contrast, the righteous Christ died, innocent from any personal sins (as even Pilate admitted; Matthew 27:23), bearing the sins of others; and because of that imputed sin, God the Father turned from Him — and, in agony of soul, He knew it (Matthew 27:46).” Does Samson point to Christ? Absolutely. But mostly by way of contrast. Samson and Jesus- studies in contrast

Hays has an interesting point about the Romanist ‘33000 Protestant denominations’ argument, in that it poses a dilemma for the Catholic epologist. If these are mutually contradictory denominations, then in what sense are they all “Protestant”? You can’t very well classify them under the same rubric unless all “33,000” denominations share a core identity.
So the very objection to Protestant diversity tacitly assumes that all Protestant denominations have a common denominator. They must have something essentially in common that makes all of them “Protestant.” 33,000 Protestant denominations

Heh – “Sleep is good practice for death. It’s good preparation for life with that same God who you’re going to have to trust eventually. And it’s worth asking for sweet dreams, because he gives sleep to his beloved, and he gives to his beloved in their sleep.” Theology of Sleep

Hays responds to Hector Avalos, writing, “even if, ex hypothesi, Avalos succeeded in proving that Christian morality is tautologous, how would that begin to prove that Christian morality is inconsistent with itself? How can a moral tautology fall short of its own ideals? Is it incoherent to say that single men are bachelors?” Carrier's foot-in-mouth disease

Moore gives his answer to whether the Christian should marry his non-Christian girlfriend. i) Christians should break off dating relationships with unbelievers. The Scriptures make it clear that Christian marriage is to be the union of a faithful man and a faithful woman. We are not to be, the Bible maintains, “unequally yoked with unbelievers” (2 Cor. 6:14). ii) The situation here is complicated. Paul does not treat already existing marriages believer to unbeliever as an ongoing state of sin. Those who are already in this predicament should, Paul says, continue in it, unless the unbeliever abandons the marriage (1 Cor. 7:12-16). iii) Piling sin upon sin is worse than the current state. iv) The sexual union, in and of itself, does not constitute a marriage. There is a reason, after all, that there is a biblical category for “fornication,” sex outside of the covenant of marriage. v) Saying you are are “yoked” already does not mean that you are married already. Rather you are not in a temporary “relationship.” Even in repentance, you cannot simply “move on.” Your only question now is whether, in addition to being a fornicator, you will also be an orphan-maker. vi) One who does not “provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household” has “denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Tim. 5:8). vii) Moore concludes: “The answer, I believe, is what our Father God models for us: provision, protection, and covenant faithfulness. A child is meant to have two parents, a mother and a father (Gen. 1-2). Love this woman, and love this child.” She might refuse to marry. But repent of your sin, receive the forgiveness of Christ, and move forward with your responsibilities. You’re a father now. Should I Marry My Non-Christian Pregnant Girlfriend- My Response

Good point from John 20:30-31: “The most important question we must ask when reading the gospel narratives is not “what did Jesus do?” but “what did the gospel writers tell us that Jesus did, and why did they select the material that they did?”” We have to learn to read the gospels with an eye to what the authors are trying to communicate.Jayber Crow’s Hermeneutical Insight

2010-09-14

DeYoung posts twenty thoughtful points of advice for theological students and young pastors. Some teasers: “Christian maturity entails more than theological acumen. Don’t assume the dudes reading Bavinck will be the most fruitful, faithful, and effective leaders. Could be, but that’s far from certain” and “Take advantage of opportunities to be taught by others. Get the most out of books, lectures, and special speakers in seminary, because soon you’ll be be doing all the putting out with few people to put it in to you.” Advice for Theological Students and Young Pastors

Creationsafaris: An archer fish can spit out a man’s cigarette. A paper in PNAS describes the experiments that proved archer fish possess “orientation saliency,” a “fundamental building block of vision” that allows the brain to discern a target from its background. The Scientist and PNAS were baffled by how such a complex trait could have evolved. Why? The authors of the paper explain, “Given the enormous evolutionary distance between humans and archer fish, our findings suggest that orientation-based saliency constitutes a fundamental building block for efficient visual information processing.” But if so, they did not demonstrate that all fish have this ability, to say nothing of the all animals in the evolutionary branch leading to mammals. At the end of their paper, the authors hedged their bets.  They tried to argue that either way, whether the trait evolved by homology (common descent) or analogy (convergent evolution), Darwin can’t lose. Archer Fish See Like People

Creationsafaris: Geologists were baffled. Something moved rocks up to 3,000 miles across whole continents. They found evidence in Asia and also in America. How on earth could that happen? Their list of explanations omitted one possibility: the transporting power of water. Their short list of possible mechanisms omits one that creation geologists would probably be saying is intuitively obvious: a global flood. Indeed, their list of explanations are actually consequences of a global flood. Did a Global Flood Move Rocks Across Continents- No, uh

DG: Spurgeon says, “It is good for a man that he bear the yoke in his youth. (Lamentations 3:27)  This is as good as a promise. It has been good, it is good, and it will be good for me to bear the yoke.  Early in life I had to feel the weight of conviction, and ever since it has proved a soul-enriching burden. Should I have loved the gospel so well had I not learned by deep experience the need of salvation by grace? … Come, my soul, bow thy neck; take up they cross. It was good for thee when young; it will not harm thee now. For Jesus' sake, shoulder it carefully.” He writes that when the Lord lays the yoke of affliction, which is by no means to be sought for, it nevertheless frequently develops a character which glorifies God and blesses the church.  Sufferers Make Strong Believers

Calvary Grace Church blog provides a brief justification for formal church membership/partnership, in an age when it is increasingly unpopular. It is still a “vital element of church health and a key part of church organization and administration.” i) Counting God’s people is not new. God ordered it in the Old Testament, and He keeps a book of life, which lists all the righteous and names all his own. (Phil. 4:3; Rev. 3:5, 13:8, 17:8, 20:15, 21:27, 22:19). This divine “membership list” is actually also noted in the Old Testament, in Psalm 69:28. The books are used in judgment and have an administrative purpose. ii) 1 Cor. 5’s discipline of a man, and the subsequent restoration of perhaps the same man in 2 Cor, both presuppose a visible belonging. This points to another scriptural practice that logically implies formal church partnership: the ultimate negative sanction of corrective church discipline, excommunication. iii) The task to deal with sin in the church and protect its witness before the world is so important that theologians like Wayne Grudem have identified church discipline as a sign of a pure church, and even as a “means of grace” alongside worship, fellowship, and the ordinances. For this to work, however, a person so excluded needs to be aware of the difference between being in the church and out of it, lest this command lose all meaning. iv) Contra today’s sentiments, the apostolic church distinguished between themselves and the world in faith and in practice. A person was recognizably “in” the congregation or “outside.” v) Also, note the widow’s list. vi) As the examples of the censuses in Numbers and of the list of widows in First Timothy show, one practical reason to have a “list” of members is to facilitate administration, organization, and service. Church membership provides a facility so that each believer may be mobilized for service to one another and the world. vii) If elders do not have a practical method to know the shape and composition of their flock, let alone its members, how can this responsibility be fulfilled? viii) The church is to be visibly different from the world, because it reflects a perfect and holy God. Formal church membership is one practical tool that is used to guard the purity of the church. ix) That formal church membership is not explicitly commanded is no objection per se; This is a legitimate hermeneutical approach. The evidence may “not be abundant. But it is clear, and it is consistent.” (Dever and Alexander). x) Formal partnership with a body of local believers is not an option. It is a necessity driven by the real needs of the church and her ministry. The church is to be holy, after all – a concept that includes the ideas of distinction and separation. There must be a dividing line between the church and the world, and formal partnership or “membership” is an administrative reflection of that line. Why Formal Church Membership-

Some Brisbane atheist has made himself a minor celebrity by smoking homemade cigarettes using pages from the Bible and the Koran as the rolling papers (link to article). Smoking Books-

Girltalk cites Wilberforce comparing the suffering of losing his dearest daughter to the suffering his granddaughter experienced when she was vaccinated. The baby had no idea what was coming, and no idea that the subsequent pain was intended for good. William Wilberforce On God and Suffering

Trueman quotes Chesterton, “It is a fact that falsehood is never so false as when it is very nearly true.  It is when the stab comes near the nerve of truth, that the Christian conscience cries out in pain.” He then notes that modern Christianity is more than happy to welcome someone who comes near the truth; we think they’ve done well. Obvious errors are unlikely to do much damage, but errors which are nearly there are much more insidious (Matt. 24:24).  Thought for the Day from GKC (Carl Trueman)

Adams comments on the necessity of reconciliation. “Reconciliation ought to follow [forgiveness]. As we are reconciled to God after forgiveness, so too ought the counselor help counselees to develop proper relationships with one another. Two who have been at enmity, may not find it easy to do so. They ask forgiveness, seem embarrassed, and in the future avoid one another, RECONCILIATION MEANS DEVELOPING A GOOD RELATIONSHIP FOR THE FUTURE.” Pastors are exhorted to monitor such situations. Reconciliation

Phillips comments on Terry Jones and his Qur’an burning: Evidently, the associate pastor said that God told them to do it. “Oh boy, here we go. As long as I've been preaching, teaching, writing I have been trying to school anyone who will listen to take such talk seriously, and analyze it right down to the floor. I urged folks to do it with Francis Chan's irresponsible language. Now let's do it with this gent.” Are they claiming that they are receiving inerrant, morally-binding, direct, verbal revelation from God today? If they didn't obey, it would be sin? Too bad no reporter seems to have asked this question. Apparently God told them to do it, then told them not to, and they built in the wiggle room that God might change his mind, but remove it when he does. All Charismatics come in right at this point: they come in by giving this man "cover." A Charismatic has to say, “How do I know whether God told him to do this? He could have… We mustn't quench the Spirit. We can't put God in a box." Let's be more specific: the Wayne Grudem type of Charismatics — and everyone who gives Grudem cover —  "own" Pastor Jones. Howso? By their desperate re-defining and Clintoning-down of the Biblical gift of prophecy as the errant reporting of inerrant revelation. “It is precisely like the old liberal redefinition of Biblical inspiration: the writers of Scripture received inerrant inspiration from God, but they wrote it down errantly.” “The constant refrain of such folks is that God is whispering and mumbling and nudging, and the only "control" we have is whether or not it is contrary to Scripture. Well, friends and neighbors, that leaves a lot of open ground for fools to graze… Is it contrary to Scripture to burn a cult’s holy book? No. Thus it might have been God's static-riddled leading — on Charismatic/Grudemic/Blackabbean premises. ” What are those with Scripture to do then? We study the revealed call of the church, pursue that, and prayfully, responsibly, biblically, and rationally weigh decisions, and take responsibility for that decision if it does not grow from a direct statement of Scripture, rather than blaming it on God.  not-burning Terry Jones

Good question. Where Did the Mimic Octopus Get Its Amazing Abilities-

White writes on a big stumbling block for Muslims, which derives from the fact that Mohammed did not understand the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. “From the point of your earliest memories you have been told that the Trinity is tri-theistic, and that to worship in such a fashion is to commit the most horrible and unforgivable sin imaginable! And so when that Christian missionary speaks to you about “the Lord Jesus Christ” all you can hear is “idolatry, IDOLATRY, SHIRK!!!”” One of the greatest evidences of the fact that the Qur’an is not inspired Scripture is the fact that its author did not understand a doctrine that had already been fully defined at the time of its writing. It is vital to recognize that there has never been a time in Christian history when Christians have not asserted with the full force of orthodoxy the absolute truth of monotheism. There is only one true God. http://reformedbaptistfellowship.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/the-quran-in-the-light-of-god-breathed-scripture-shirk-surah-448/

JT: The verdict of The Economist on Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow’s The Grand Design: Not impressed. The Economist on The Grand Design

JT: Dave Helm at Southern Seminary, explaining how to teach children the whole storyline of Scripture: He tells the story of how The Big Picture Story Bible came into existence. How to Teach Your Children the Whole Story of the Bible

Challies: “Needless to say, The Power is a bad book. A really bad book. It’s so utterly stupid, so unbelievably vapid, that it boggles my mind that anyone could read it and believe it. If you could package foolishness, if you could slap stupidity between two covers, you’d end up with The Power. Read it if you must, but as you do it, you’d better generate some good feelings toward brain cells; you’ll need to attract a few to yourself if you’re replace all the ones that are sure to die as you give hours of your life to all of this drivel.” Book Review - The Power

AiG: Didn’t Darwin Call the Evolution of the Eye Absurd? Not exactly - by reading Darwin’s entire statement in context, we can see that he in no way abandoned his theory. He did, indeed, indicate that the evolution of the eye was “absurd.” Nonetheless, his “reason” led him to accept that this “absurd” thing could actually occur by means of natural selection. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/09/14/darwin-and-the-eye

McKinley @ 9Marks applies some advice from CS Lewis to preachers about not telling people who to feel, rather make them feel it. There's a temptation each week to settle for simply telling people about the holiness of God, the tenderness of Christ, the agonies of the cross or the hope of glory, i.e. simply describe the reality, without doing the heavy lifting of supplying the appropriate affections. The job is to preach in such a way as to help actually stir up the approriate emotional response in the hearers. “They should hear God's word and feel genuine fear, hope, sorrow, tenderness, or love.” Study the text diligently, meditate/pray about the response to the text, prayfully think about what inhibits the congregation from having the proper response (i.e. what sins/barriers), carefully choose words to help them get there, and cultivate these affections in your own heart so as to preach with integrity and genuinely model the response. Don't Make Them Do Your Job for You

Engwer cites more Neglected Evidence For The Gospels.

In light of the 2 kingdom debates breaking out over the Reformed blogosphere, Hays wonders if Kline's (the modern father of 2K) Jewish background wasn't a factor in his radical church/state separatist ideology. “He once told to me that as a boy, he attended synagogue with his dad. He seemed to indicate that his dad was a nominal Jews. Just going through the motions. But it’s possible that I misunderstood him. I’ve also read that his granddad was a pious Jew… To my knowledge, Jews have a historical antipathy to state churches because they were often persecuted by the Christian establishment…  I think many Jews harbor conscious or subconscious fears of "Christian theocracies."” He notes that ironically, while Kline may have been haunted by memories of antisemitic state churches, the Reformed tradition is exceptionally philo-Semitic by contrast. Kline, 2K, and Judaism

Hays cites Roger Penrose: “Some people take the view that the universe is simply there and it runs along–it’s a bit as though it just sort of computes, and we happen by accident to find ourselves in this thing. I don’t think that’s a very fruitful or helpful way of looking at the universe. I think there is something much deeper about it, about its existence, which we have very little inkling of at the moment.” Roger Penrose on cosmic purpose

Hays cites Paul Davies comparing the unexplained meta-laws pervading the hypothetical multiverse to having the same status as a transcendent god, saying, “So is that the end of the story? Can the multiverse provide a complete and closed account of all physical existence? Not quite. The multiverse comes with a lot of baggage, such as an overarching space and time to host all those bangs, a universe-generating mechanism to trigger them, physical fields to populate the universes with material stuff, and a selection of forces to make things happen.” Big Bang of the Gaps

2010-09-13

Challies points to Take Words With You, by Tim Kerr, a small book that contains over 1600 scripture promises and prayers meant to help God’s people pray more effectively. The promises are arranged around the cross—its purposes and rewards. The author says, “Many years ago I discovered a precious truth regarding prayer: God loves to hear his own words prayed back to him!” Praying God's Promises

Mike Law @ 9Marks comments that the church is indeed full of hypocrites. A true church is hypocritical, but honest about it. We are endeavoring to be holy we’re endeavoring to live lives that honor God, but we’re sinners. If anyone is honest, though, he’ll admit he’s also a hypocrite, acting one way, while the heart says something else - be wary of your passion for pointing out hypocrisy, for that might avert your attention away from your own hypocrisy. We all need the Saviour. Also, the hypocrites in Galatians were Cephas and Barnabas.  Just because someone is a leader in the church does not mean they are above serious hypocrisy.  Hypocrisy & Our Congregation

Creationsafaris notes that an enzyme MEC-17 has been discovered to be responsible for directing traffic in nerves. The researchers deduced that “this microtubule acetylation process using MEC-17 is an evolutionarily conserved function.”  Conserved means un-evolved. “Saying evolutionarily conserved is like saying “aimlessly straight.”  It’s a meaningless phrase we should not be duped into thinking signifies anything logical.  This discovery emphasizes once again that things do not just happen; specific parts that are functionally exquisite are necessary for function.” Nerve Traffic Cop Identified

JT lists a number of important sermons and articles here. For example, The Excellencies of Christ, by Edwards. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/sermons.excellency.html. A List of Important Sermons and Articles That Are Worth Reading

Commenting on her 16-year old daughter, this post reads, “She lives in a world where friends are openly gay. The lead actress in last year's musical had to get her costumes specially made to accommodate her pregnant stomach. She has classmates who have parties where girls make the rounds, delivering sexual favors to the line of boys. She passes girls in the hall who wear bracelets in a rainbow of colors, each signifying a different type of sexual exploit so the world will know what they've accomplished. There are "420" drug parties (accounting for a tremendous number of absences every April 20). She lives next to an ROTC teacher who was fired for prohibiting same-sex couples from attend the military ball… There has been a concerted effort among adults to normalize all sorts of behaviors (what we used to call "sins"). Media that pours teenage sex, pregnancy and abortion into the developing brains.The work to get homosexuality highlighted in movies, tv shows, music. Video games that glorify defying authorities and devaluing people.  Schools that offer diversity training for behaviors and sexual preferences. Porn-peddlers who target their inboxes. Leaders who praise open-minded tolerance and criticize "bigots" who describe a narrow path.  Like those warned in Isa 5:20, they call good evil and evil good.” The reward? A generation without shame. Shameless

CMI points to the discovery of a new species of rabbitfish… what grabbed the media’s attention were comments by lead researcher Jules Soto linking the fish to the time of the dinosaurs. “The species that we found has fossil records that are 150, 180 million years old,” he said. “That’s very rare. It’s like if we had an animal as old as the Tyrannosaurus rex still alive.” Evolutionists have a problem: why are “living fossils” like the coelacanth absent from the upper layers of the fossil record—(supposedly) representing millions of years? Also, the living and fossil forms are much the same—this latest rabbitfish species, according to Soto, is unchanged in 180 million years—why no evolution in all that (supposed) time?” These species have been reproducing according to their kind, and the oldest fossils likely date back only to the global Flood of Noah’s day, around 4,500 years ago. This fits the evidence far better. http://creation.com/rabbitfish

Beggar’s All comments on Michael Liccione, pointing out that the argument he gives for Romanism is simple, ‘we assume the church’. Michael Liccione on The Authority Question

T-fan takes issue with a two-kingdom proponent who has problems with preachers preaching against the sins of the nation. “I can't imagine an article that would be more universally dismissed by not only all the Reformers but also by all the Presbyterians and Puritans from the 16th to the 19th centuries. Even the Reformed Baptists from that period would likely share the same assessment of this article, despite their stronger view of separation of church and state.” But this is one of the duties of the gospel minister. Preaching sermons about Jesus' life, death, and resurrection on the third day are great, and there is nothing wrong with them, but ... ministers must preach the whole counsel and that includes convicting sinners of their sins. Radical Two Kingdoms - Both Anti-Biblical and Worthless

Mohler comments on an opinion column by Chris Mooney in USA Today , author of Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future. Mooney sets out to argue that spirituality can serve as a bridge across the science-religion divide. Mooney equates associates ‘illiteracy’ with ‘the war on science’ being fought by anti-evolutionists, etc. The fact that a large majority of Americans reject evolution only adds fuel to his fire when he cries in his milk over what he can only describe as “illiteracy.” Mooney doesn’t like the new atheists either: “The American scientific community gains nothing from the condescending rhetoric of the New Atheists,” he argues, “and neither does the stature of science in our culture.”“Abrasive atheism can only exacerbate this anxiety and reinforce the misimpression that scientific inquiry leads inevitably to the erosion of religion and values,” he writes. Spirituality can have little or even nothing to do with belief in God, Mooney affirms. “Spirituality is something everyone can have — even atheists.” He sees spirituality as a potential public relations strategy for the advancement of secular science and the naturalistic worldview, and wants atheists to shut up about atheism. Mohler concludes, “The real question posed by Mooney’s USA Today column is whether Christians possess the discernment to recognize this postmodern mode of spirituality for what it is — unbelief wearing the language of a bland faith.” The American public might be confused enough to fall for his ploy. Will Christians? http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/09/13/the-war-between-spirituality-and-science-is-over/

Calvary Grace Church blog has a post about why the terms ‘church partnership’ are preferable to ‘church membership’ (due to the secular connotations of vacuous membership; church membership is good). “The Bible doesn’t explicitly unpack the administrative details of early church membership. But it lays out more than enough guiding principles and suggestive examples for us to emulate. One fruitful exercise is to examine the concept of a “fellow worker” in the New Testament.” The wide sense of ministry workers (cf. 3 John 8) is what is meant “when referring to “ministry partnership” as being our idea of church membership. Calvary Grace Church is to be a fellowship of workers for the kingdom, a unit of “fellow soldiers” defending and expanding a Kingdom beachhead in Calgary. Partnership with us, “membership” in this church, will be no passive thing. Everyone is called to serve the kingdom and work in the gospel. Paul and John show that being a “fellow worker” is open to men and women, Jews and Gentiles, and that the work done can be formal frontier or pastoral ministry (Paul) or behind-the-scenes informal and indirect support of such ministry (John). There’s plenty of room to work and many different callings within this partnership. But everyone is expected to work; every soldier must be prepared to fight. That’s ministry partnership.” Everyone Works!

“A judge in Johannesburg, South Africa, has blocked a plan by a Muslim to burn Bibles on the anniversary of Sept. 11. An Islamic intellectual organization, Scholars of the Truth, had sought the order. It bans the burning of any holy books. “I’m very pleased the judge came to this decision. Not only did he ban this protest but he also banned other people from burning the Bible,” The Christian Scientist Monitor quoted plaintiff’s lawyer Yasmin Omar as saying.” ““What Mr. Vawda wanted to do is not just morally wrong but is an affront to Islam. We regard Jesus as a prophet who is part of the Koran so if he burns the Bible, he is burning part of the Koran,” said Omar.” Muslims Block Bible-Burning in South Africa

The title of this article speaks for itself. Patton makes a decent enough argument, including a timeline! His basic argument is that there can’t be any conception prior to the fall, or otherwise there would be a sinless line of people, and sex ostensibly would have worked quite well before the fall, and God gave the command to be fruitful and multiply (i.e. have sex), so the fall must have happened very quickly so as to not have broken this command, while not having conceived. Why I Believe Adam and Eve Fell Within 45 Minutes (Warning- PG-13)

JT posts a primer on the image of God. “Man represents, reflects, and resembles God in some ways—which includes as a result the ruling (subduing, having dominion) over creation, and having the capacity for relationship with God and with fellow human beings.” Even after the Fall, we all remain in the image of God, distorted though the image may be. When we were united to Adam, our original covenant representative, we bore his image. Though we are in the image of God, Christ is the image of God. When we become united to Christ, our covenant head, our goal is to be conformed and transformed into his image. When Christ returns we will fully and completely reflect the image of Christ. The Image of God- A Primer

Edwards argues that human beings are greater than angels: “Angels were made to serve God by serving man, but man was made to serve God directly.  Human grace, holiness, and love are greater virtues than angelic wisdom and strength.  Believers are united to Christ in a way angels never will be.” How Humans Are Greater Than Angels

Girltalk cites Piper: “"So I would say a wife's role is to see all that God enables her to see and then ask the Lord for wise and humble and submissive ways to share, to bring into her husband's life her perspective on things. And it's his job as a leader to be humbly receptive to those kinds of things and then to take action." What is the Wife’s Responsibility in Conflict-

Solapanel: one of the greatest pieces of ministry advice is “Make sure you are involved in some ministry outside your own patch”. 1. It encourages Kingdom growth, not growth of one’s own kingdom, one’s own tasks and ideas. 2. It encourages generosity. 3. It benefits others. 4. It helps share resources; When we serve outside our patch, often resources are flowing from the ‘resource rich’ to the ‘resource poor’, and that is a great help for kingdom growth. 5. It encourages a broader prayer horizon. 6. It provides great training opportunities. Often the external ministries we get involved in provide excellent opportunities for getting training in, and practicing ministry skills that we might not have at other times. Great ministry advice

Moore reviews the movie, ‘Get Low’:  “Get Low portrays where we all are, apart from Christ. Our conscience shows us who we really are, cut off from our only source of life and unable to get back to it past the watching angel’s fiery sword. That kind of guilt is enslaving. Like the protagonist in the film, we want somehow to explain our actions, or to assemble a cloud of witnesses who can explain it for us, without admitting our culpability. We want to live through judgment (which is, after all, what a living funeral is) so that we can reassure ourselves that the end result of our choices isn’t quite the horror we fear it to be.” “Get Low isn’t Christian, but it’s Christ-haunted. In an often animalistic culture, it reminds us that even the Gentiles know that guilt is real, and that it burns. It also reminds us that, no matter how deep the exile, where there is still a conscience there is still the God who put it there. That’s not the good news, but its a step toward acknowledging the bad. It’s not the whole truth, but it’s the truth, the (almost) gospel truth.” “Get Low” and the Gospel

Interacting with Westminster Two Kingdoms view, Manata argues here that the Bible does indeed have things to say about politics. “it seems clear that the Bible has significant things to say to the area of politics (and all that entails). The Bible may not detail a particular political theory, and tell us, say, whether democracy is better than a monarchy. Yet, it seems clear that given the nature of political philosophy (what we all engage in, from the mechanic to the academician), the Bible will have significant things to say about the field of inquiry, placing constraints or parameters on where we can go with our theorizing, help to direct our inquiry, and provide foundations for the various metaphysical and ethical presuppositions of the field of inquiry.” The Ethics of Politics

Mary Kassian argues that wives should take their husbands’ names, in light of the Globe and Mail recently suggesting that women who get married should say “I don’t” to changing their name. It cited new research from the Netherlands, which demonstrates that a woman who assumes her partner’s name upon marriage is regarded as more emotional, less intelligent, less competent and less ambitious. She gives six reasons - “Unity:  Scripture says that when you become married, you become one flesh with your husband.  Changing your name to his reflects that fact. (Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:5) Identification: Scripture teaches that it’s the man who launches out to establish a new family unit. Changing your name to his… identifies all of you as part of his family unit. (Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:5)  Commitment: Changing your name indicates that you are making a permanent, life-long commitment to be inseparably linked to your husband. (Rom. 7:2; Matt. 19:6)  Roles: Changing your name to his indicates that you affirm the biblical pattern of your husband being the head of your marriage and household. (1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5) Paradigm: Since the relationship between husband and wife is a paradigm of the relationship between Christ and the church, Christian women who change their name model and bear witness to the reality of Christ changing our names when we enter a relationship with Him. Christ’s bride is rightly called by her Husband’s name. A woman who changes her name bears witness to this part of the gospel story. (Isa. 43:7, Acts 15:17, 2 Chron. 7:14, Rev. 3:12; 14:1) Precedence: Adam named Eve. Twice. (Gen. 2:23; 3:20)” Saying “I Do” to changing your name may, in fact, be more intelligent than saying “I Don’t.” Say I Do to the Name Change 

Trueman has some words of advice to become a generalist. i) 90% of it dis disciplined use of time. ii) the books review section of a good journal to which you either subscribe or to which you have access via the web or a library. iii) build a private library of good theological books.  Do not waste space on garbage.  Life is too short and shelf space too precious to read or buy second rate books on any topic. iv) read one general, secular cultural publication each week. v) Remain attuned to the culture and keep an eye on the Amazon bestseller lists and the shelves at your local Barnes and Noble; this will give you hints about what congregants might ask. vi) talk to the people in your church.  Nothing highlights the kinds of issues you need to be adept at addressing than actually listening with a carefully tuned ear to what your people have to say, what is on their minds, and what is causing them problems.  In Praise of the Generalist III- Some Suggestions (Carl Trueman)

Engwer recommends The Heresy Of Orthodoxy.

2010-09-12

Phillips posts a video of the 9/11 attacks. “We should never forget. Our leaders have. The unity that the country knew after this attack was brief and passing, unlike our focused, national unity during World War 2.” http://bibchr.blogspot.com/2010/09/9112001-do-not-forget.html

Wallace has an early commendation for Grudem’s Politics – According to the Bible. The fascinating thing is that this book exists: He notes that conservative theologians don’t usually dive into politics with the fervor of their left-wing opponents (think seminary-trained, Jesse Jackson, Al Gore, Jim Wallis). “Grudem has been for a long time an outspoken defender of conservative thought—both theologically and politically. He has impeccable credentials—Harvard BA, Westminster MDiv, Cambridge PhD.” Politics According to the Bible (Dan Wallace)

DeYoung posts A Communion Prayer of Thanksgiving from the Didache.

Spurgeon: The ministers have “preached the people out of their faith in the Scriptures; they taught them to be doubters. The most mischievous servant of Satan that I know of is the minister of the gospel, who not only doubts the truth in his own soul, but propagates doubt in the minds of others by his criticisms, innuendoes, and triflings with words.” The Times Are Out of Joint

Creationsafaris points to an article where engineers are taking inspiration from flying fish in a wind tunnel. “The aerodynamic performance of flying fish is comparable to those of various bird wings, and the flying fish has some morphological characteristics in common with the aerodynamically designed modern aircrafts.”  “Having shown that flying fish are exceptional fliers, Choi and Park are keen to build an aeroplane that exploits ground effect aerodynamics inspired by flying fish technology,” the article ended, stating nothing about evolution or how this flight technology might have evolved. Flying Fish Tested in Wind Tunnel- Match Bird Flight

Bayly has this powerful quote from Spurgeon’s disciple, Archibald Brown: “The devil has seldom done a more clever thing, than hinting to the Church that part of their mission is to provide entertainment for the people, with a view to winning them. From speaking out the gospel, the Church has gradually toned down her testimony, then winked at and excused the frivolities of the day. Then she tolerated them in her borders. Now she has adopted them under the plea of reaching the masses! ...In vain will the epistles be searched to find any trace of the 'gospel of amusement'. Their message is, "Therefore, come out from them and separate yourselves from them... Don't touch their filthy things..." Anything approaching amusement is conspicuous by its absence. They had boundless confidence in the gospel and employed no other weapon.” iii) Edwards dealt with a woman who was zealous to share ‘messages from God’ (which included marring local pastors, and she was disrespectful to her husband. Though her witnessing was wholly inappropriate, Edwards refused to discourage her from witnessing. Instead he helped to guide her zeal to witness toward a more God-glorifying end—successfully! Edwards was not a harsh man. He was a winsome man who recognized evidences of grace in those who many pastors would readily write off. He had startling pastoral abilities that complemented his amazing theological insight. The gospel of art

DG: A caricature sometimes emerges that Edwards was a man with detached personality, intellectually engaged in doctrinal theory but not the practical know. That he was a poor pastor. But several stories paint a different picture. i) Edwards first pastorate was a church split. He labored to reconcile the church he was pastoring to its mother. He accomplished his aim in two years, working himself out of the pastorate. This shows incredible pastoral prowess. ii) James Davenport was a radical sensationalistic itinerant preacher engaged in great error. Everyone else wrote him off. Edwards was asked to win Davenport, and he insisted a delegation go with him. A year after this, and two weeks after Edwards met with him privately, he publically repented and attributed much of his ministry to a false spirit. “When is the last time you heard of a preacher or minister like Davenport coming around to a submissive and sound disposition?” Edwards took the time and energy to invest in this wayward minister, in such a way that actually moved him to repent. iii) The Pastoral Touch of Jonathan Edwards- Three Examples

CMI responds to questions of whether black holes are real, and whether Adam had another wife, Lilith. i) The evidence for black holes it very strong. “They are certainly a theoretical possibility from Einstein’s theory of General Relativity. Furthermore, once a star runs out of nuclear fuel, then the outward pressure would no longer match gravity. So the star must collapse.” ii) A certain star (S2) orbits around something in the galactic centre at a distance of 17 light hours (about three times that of Pluto), and period of only 15 years (Pluto’s is 248years). This is consistent with the gravitational pull of 4.1 million solar masses… the only known solar mass that could compact 4 million starts into the required volume is a black hole. iii) This Lilith idea comes from extra-biblical Jewish legends, possibly derived from Babylonian/Assyrian demoness Lilit/Lilu. There is no shred of evidence in the Bible for this. Those who claim male redactors suppressed her have no evidence whatsoever of textual tampering. http://creation.com/black-holes-lilith

Creationsafaris: The world’s best chemists are bested by plants. There is a race to make solar cells more efficient. One approach is harvesting real photosynthetic enzymes from plants and employing them on a scaffold of carbon nanotubes. Michael Strano of MIT and his team have succeeded in getting the enzymes, lipids and surfactants to self-assemble on nanotubes, a promising step that may allow for solar cells that both harvest light and can repair themselves. Oxygen, unfortunately, is very damaging to solar cells. “Plants have been doing this for quite some time, splitting water’s hydrogen apart from its oxygen, but our efforts to turn water into a source of free hydrogen fuel by mimicking them have borne no fruit.” World's Top Chemists Can’t Match a Plant

White again calls on Geisler and Liberty to come clean about Caner and call him to repent. Norman Geisler Remains Silent- the Cover Up is Working

Some thoughts on the ‘L’ in TULIP. i) Limited Atonement is not about how valuable the blood of Jesus is. Rather, it is a statement about the Son's intent in coming and laying down his life "of my own accord." The death of Christ actually put away the sins of God’s elect. ii) Believing the Father only elects some and the Spirit only draws some, while holding that Jesus died with the intention of saving all, is to create an unpleasant Trinitarian dilemma. The Son removes the sin of the elect – thus there is unity in purpose in the Godhead. iii) If Jesus really did atone for the sins of those in Hell, not only are we to accuse God of double jeopardy (punishing the same sin twice), but we have a situation where someone's sin has been removed. What sin are they punished for? If unbelief, then has not unbelief been covered by the cross too? If not, then Jesus didn’t die for all sins iv) There are plenty of verses which teach that anyone who believes will be saved, but these do not contradict Limited Atonement. v) There are many verses which teach Christ's particular intention in laying down his life. This includes Christ talking about intending to save "His sheep": John 10:11, 15; "His Church," Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25-27; "His people," Matt. 1:21, and "the elect," Rom. 8:32-35. Furthermore, The Bible does speak of Christ's only coming to save some: "John 6:37-40; Rom. 5:8-10; Gal. 2:20; Gal. 3:13-14; Gal. 4:4-5; 1 John 4:9-10; Rev. 1:4-6; Rev. 5:9-10.. The Last Letter of the TULIP

Haykin points out that when William Carey went to India, he began a lifelong program of learning about the culture and history of India. Some of those who had sent Carey out to be a witness to the Christ among the millions of the Indian subcontinent thought he was wasting time on literature. Haykin does not think that Carey was mistaken: “He realized that for the gospel to make any headway in his adopted Indian culture, there had to be some understanding of that culture, and the best way to do that was to systematically study the world of India.” Thinking about Carey’s love of Bengali literature 

Haykin notes a quote on the demise of the wise of the world without the Spirit, and comments, “I take it as a given that an acultural Christianity is a non-entity. To be involved in the work of saving sinners, Christians must impant themselves in a culture. But what is the value of that culture? Left to itself, I can readily affirm with Macarius-Symeon that any culture will perish. But if indwelt by the Spirit, ah, there is the question?” He says, “I look forward to that day when all that is best and good and true in the kingdoms of this world will be transformed into the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus and become the Empire of the Holy Spirit.” Human cultural artifacts and the Empire of the Holy Spirit

Hays begins, “Because Gen 1 has become a battlefield, we tend to interpret the text with an eye on modern science, one way or another. It takes a certain conscious effort to detach the text from modern controversies and listen to the text on its own terms.” i) A striking feature of Gen. 1 is the interplay between the divine senses of speech and sight – speech is creative, while sight is evaluative. He commands and commends. ii) Contrast this with Plato’s cave, which held the sensible world of time and space as echoes and shadows of a more ultimate and perfect reality. ii) There’s a perfect match between God’s creative command and the creative effect. iii) Scripture teaches of a New Eden, of cosmic renewal, a doctrine of the Palingenesis, where in some sense the future restores the past, the end renews the beginning (Isa 35:1-10; 65-66; Ezk 47:1-12; Mt 19:28-29; Acts 3:21; Rom 8:18-23; 2 Pet 3:10-13; Rev 20-22). This is the good made better, not a cyclical thing. Echoes of God

Hays posts a number of scholarly comments which contradict the claim that Daniel’s prophecies are inaccurate. Antiochus Epiphanes

2010-09-10

James White interacts with Dr. Jones, of the “Burn the Qur’an” event. My Attempt to Reason with Dr. Jones of Gainesville

T-fan: “No one would be able to protest (on their blogs) what some private citizens are planning on doing in Florida, unless they protested what the U.S. government did in Afghanistan (referring to this).” If I Ran the Blogosphere

T-fan cites Augustine, “It is by these manners of speech, when we speak of things that do not happen to God as though they did, that we acknowledge it is he who makes them happen to us, those things at least that are praiseworthy, and these only to the extent that scriptural usage allows it. I mean, we certainly ought not to say anything of the sort about God, which we do not read in his scriptures.” He then contrasts this with the Romanist approach, where it is claimed that Romanist dogmas are ‘fitting’. Yet they have no support in Scripture, and their ideas of ‘fitness’ run counter to the narrative of Scripture. Scripture or Fitness - Two Standards Compared

Hays observes that while Christians are oft accused by atheists of lying when we claim that atheism can’t justify objective moral norms, it seems tat an increasing number of atheists are indeed coming out of the closet on the moral nihilism implicit in a naturalistic Darwinian worldview. Evolutionary amorality

Hays has some comments on Hawking’s disability: i) Hawking is not an idiot, nor should anyone mock his disability. ii) Hawking’s disability isn’t necessarily irrelevant to the quality of his latest book, as such a degenerative illness is a significant impediment to writing. Hence he cowrote his latest book; he isn’t up to such a task himself. iii) Atheists gleefully discounted Antony Flew as a senile old man because he coauthored his final book. iv) Although Hawking’s not an “idiot,” he is a “fool” in the Biblical sense of the word. Is Hawking's disability germane-

Hays writes that while Darwinians claim their theory is falsifiable, there are a few problems: i) Darwinians can always add another caveat to their theory. They have generated many face-saving distinctions and harmonistic devices which can reconcile their theory with opposing lines of evidence. ii) While evolutionists will narrate an evolutionary pathway given the state of the evidence, when this is confronted by the evidence, the evolutionary biologist simply comes up with a new backstory. The theory itself is never challenged – the backstory is rewritten to obtain the desired result. iii) Darwinians also rely on circular evidence (e.g. phylogeny). Is evolution falsifiable-

DeYoung argues that for Christians to burn the Qur’an is to shoot oneself in the foot. i) Increased opposition against American forces. ii) Missionaries in Muslim lands may be put at risk. iii) News outlets give hours of coverage to one fringe pastor while the honorable deeds of thousands of churches go unnoticed. iv) Muslims extremism is seen more and more as a product of Western aggravation. Many Americans and Europeans will say, “Well, you can hardly blame them.” No, we can still blame them. Killing people or threatening to kill people is not one of the acceptable responses to your holy book being burned. It’s like telling your little brother, “Touch me again and I’ll clobber you.” The little brother is stupid to touch him, but the older brother is still wrong to punch him. This will be lost on most people who will see pictures of a church burning Korans and ignore the fact that some Muslims may see this an excuse to kill. Of all the ways to voice your opposition to Muslim radicals and the Islamic religion this is about the stupidest. It’s not like Acts 19, where people burned their own books. A non-stupid person would listen to these reproofs (Proverbs 12:1). Burning the Koran and Shooting Yourself in the Foot

Challenge: You're a Christian? How do you handle the problem of evil?
Response: Me? Mainly, by switching sides, by God's grace. The problem-of-evil dodge (NEXT! #25)

James Anderson: “Needless to say, the Koran-burning stunt (apparently now abandoned, thankfully) was a phenomenally stupid idea. But does anybody know the Arabic for “double standards”?” One Good Burn Deserves Another

Bird provides this quote: “Scholarship is an exercise of obedience to Jesus Christ. It helps prepare the church for fresh words and deeds… when Christian scholars engage with contemporary thought, it’s not because the church needs protecting from the world, but because Christ is already in the world and he calls us to meet him there.” Ben Myers on Christian scholarship

CMI argues that Tim Keller’s paper, which tries to find a way for Christians to accept a ‘literal’ Adam and evolution, forces a reinterpretation of key parts of Genesis. i) Keller’s argument for evolution from what God could have done is almost meaningless because God could do anything that doesn’t contradict His own nature. ii) While Keller claims that whether Genesis 1 is poetry will ‘always be debated’ he clearly takes a non-literal view himself. Rather than the typical parallelism which characterizes Hebrew poetry, he thinks that “refrains” in the narrative justify taking it as a poetic, non-literal text. But saying that a text uses exalted, semi-poetical language is quite different from saying that it is poetry. iii) Keller’s insight has been far less than “obvious” to generations of Jews and Christians, including biblical authors, who have studied Genesis and interpreted Genesis 1 to be a straightforward account of what actually happened. iv) Young, who Keller claims cites as support, despises such compromise: “Whenever ‘science’ and the Bible are in conflict, it is always the Bible that, in one manner or another, must give way. We are not told that ‘science’ should correct its answers in light of Scripture. Always it is the other way around. Yet this is really surprising, for the answers which scientists have provided have frequently changed with the passing of time.” v) The language of Genesis does not negate its grammatical constructions, which point to a chronological sequence (cf. Number 7, which is similar, yet none claim it was not meant as historical narrative). vi) Keller argues that the author of Genesis 1 did not want it to be taken literally, as we can’t read both Genesis 1 and 2 as straightforward accounts of events because Genesis 1 shows the light before the sun, and vegetation before the atmosphere. However, early Christian writers observed that this historical order was to demonstrate where things originated, that it might not be attributed to the sun. Also, in Genesis 2:5 it says that the types of plants that did not exist yet were the bush of the field and the small plant of the field—that is, cultivated plants. vii) Keller suggests that evolutionist Christians and biblical creationists should focus on the “Grand Theory of Evolution” as a common enemy, which would hopefully make it easier to draw a distinction between that and EBP. But in practice, as exemplified by the Biologos crowd he runs with, theistic evolutionists and atheistic evolutionists make biblical creation their common enemy—and it’s often hard to tell them apart. viii) Keller’s answer is to accept a literal Adam and Eve as a product of evolutionary biological processes. Keller realizes the problem of death before sin, but gives the rather weak counter-argument that the creation could not have been perfect if Satan was around, anyway. Keller thinks that God took Adam out of a population of tool-makers ix) It is impossible to read Keller’s essay without being struck by the weakness of his assertions. The qualifiers that predominate give a sense of something that cannot be more charitably described than as wishy-washiness. It is possible, or it could be, etc. A response to Timothy Keller's 'Creation, Evolution and Christian Laypeople'

JT provides a number of quotes to the effect that “Just Me and My Bible” Is Unbiblical, including this by Spurgeon: “It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others.”

DeYoung cites an analysis which attributes a long tradition of preaching to ‘felt needs’ to the well-intentioned but misguided philosophy of Harry Fosdick, who argued that preachers should start with “a life issue, a real problem, personal or social, perplexing the mind or disturbing the conscience; face the problem fairly, deal with it honestly, and throw such light on it from the spirit of Christ, that people will be able to think more clearly and live more nobly because of that sermon.” Thus the “literature of the past thirty years has been influenced by an understanding of “preaching as counseling on a group scale” and pastoring or shepherding as “tender and solicitous concern.”” This understanding is problematic: i) It owes more to modern therapeutic understandings than the image of the shepherd. ii) The shepherd’s task was not only to comfort and support but also to guide, protect, and ensure the general welfare of those in his charge. iii) This sort of preaching, in its emphasis on acceptance, never confronts with a word of judgment or guidance on the concrete demands of Christian life. iv) It’s also very individualistic. v) Rather, Paul uses imagery from the family life (see 1 Cor. 4:14-21) and the construction (see 1 Cor. 3:16-17) to describe preaching as the active involvement in ensuring the well-being of the community. How to Preach Like a Liberal

Beggar’s All: “The simple fact of the matter is that sober historical inquiry, a discipline given to us by thoroughly committed Christians in the Renaissance, has never been the friend of many of Rome's dogmatic claims, but has in fact demonstrated that the "historical" support for her dogmatic claims is weak, suspect, or else very easily and quite reasonably challengeable.” Protestants can face history with eyes open

Phillips writes, “So the Qu'ran-burning has been cancelled. Or not. It's confusing. I don't think much of this pastor overall, but oddly the predictable barking, screaming, foam-flecked Muslim reaction has rather made his point, hasn't it?” Also, “American Academy of Pediatrics, while with one side of its mouth denouncing hypersexualized media, with the other side also denounces abstinence education. Hm. I wonder if that's also their policy on cigarette smoking? I'm thinking... no.” Hither and thither 9/10/10

For those so interested: From Darwin to Dover—A broad overview of creation vs evolution

JT cites some writing advice from Lewis: “Always try to use the language so as to make quite clear what you mean and make sure your sentence couldn’t mean anything else.  Always prefer the plain direct word to the long, vague one. Don’t implement promises, but keep them.  Never use abstract nouns when concrete ones will do. If you mean “More people died” don’t say “Mortality rose.”  In writing. Don’t use adjectives which merely tell us how you want us to feel about the things you are describing. I mean, instead of telling us the thing is “terrible,” describe it so that we’ll be terrified. Don’t say it was “delightful”; make us say “delightful” when we’ve read the description. You see, all those words (horrifying, wonderful, hideous, exquisite) are only like saying to your readers “Please, will you do my job for me.”  Don’t use words too big for the subject. Don’t say “infinitely” when you mean “very”; otherwise you’ll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite.” C.S. Lewis’s Advice on Writing Well

CreationSafaris: “A “bizarre” new dinosaur fossil found in Spain with a hump on its back that resembles a fin also has quill knobs on its arms, interpreted as attachment points for feathers. For this reason, the BBC News announced that it “may” yield clues to the origin of birds.”…  The fossil, however, does not provide unequivocal evidence for a dinosaur-bird kinship; Live Science said this fossil “surprises and puzzles experts” and even National Geographic which a decade ago embarrassed itself with Archaeoraptor seemed to downplay the dino-bird link, calling it a “carnivorous camel” in its headline.  Whatever attachment points the bumps on its skimpy forearms provided (assumed to be quill knobs for feathers) were certainly not anything like flight feathers of birds. ” Dino-Bird Link Confused by New Fossil

Pyro posts an older comment: “there comes a point somewhere when a person's questioning the plain truth of Scripture ceases to reflect the weakness of an immature faith and instead becomes an expression of rank unbelief… I think that point is reached sooner rather than later. The more someone questions Scripture, the more I question that person's profession of faith.” Ignorance, or Unbelief-

Challies has a number of interesting resources on the Screwtape Letters here. The Screwtape Letters

AiG answers the question, Doesn’t the Order of Fossils in the Rock Record Favor Long Ages? They conclude, “While there are underlying thick strata sequences which are devoid of fossils and were therefore formed during creation week and the pre-Flood era, most of the fossil record is a record of death and burial of animals and plants during the Flood, as described in the biblical account, rather than being the order of a living succession that suffered the occasional mass extinction. While there are underlying thick strata sequences which are devoid of fossils and were therefore formed during creation week and the pre-Flood era, most of the fossil record is a record of death and burial of animals and plants during the Flood, as described in the biblical account, rather than being the order of a living succession that suffered the occasional mass extinction.” http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/do-rock-record-fossils-favor-long-ages

Phillips asks whether burning the Qur’an is a good idea. i) Part of him really likes the idea. “Muslim extremists — which is closer to a tautology than one wishes — threaten and target anyone who dares speak out against any aspect of their cult, including cartoonists and writers. Here's a church saying, "Oh yeah? Take this!"” ii) But by the age of four or five, usually one has begun to develop the ability to think about impulses before acting on them. iii) It is a very bad idea. iv) Obama’s opposition is really encouragement to do it, since he only gets excited opposing his personal enemies, and not America’s (whom he embraces and flatters and enables). v) Gen. Petraeus’s warning carries much more freight. “We all know that "those" people in "those" countries are nuts, frankly. They'll riot and chant "death to America" over a false rumor.” vi) But really, it's a bad idea for a Christian church to do. The church’s calling isn’t to show courage, or even the right Gospelly contempt of other religions. “the message of Christ's church is not "Stop being a Muslim, stop being an atheist, stop being a homosexual, stop being a Hindu, stop being a Roman Catholic." The message of Christ's church is the Gospel. The message of Christ's church is the holiness of God, the sinfulness of man, the Lordship and incarnate deity of Christ, the atoning death of Christ, and the call to repentant faith in Christ. That is what should mark a church. That is what people should think of, when they think of a Christian church.” vii) Now it is quite appropriate to burn a Qu'ran. Who could perhaps burn it? Converts from the deadly cult of Islam, following the example of the Ephesians (Acts 19:17-20). Not necessary, but it would make sense, which this stunt does not.  Burning the Qu'ran- good idea- Bad idea-

JT citing Lloyd-Jones: “We must spend more time in studying our Lord’s lessons in observation and deduction. The Bible is full of logic, and we must never think of faith as something purely mystical…. We do not just sit down in an armchair and expect marvelous things to happen to us. That is not Christian faith. Christian faith is essentially thinking.”  So Augustine: “No one believes anything unless one first thought it believable… Everything that is believed is believed after being preceded by thought… Not everyone who thinks believes, since many think in order not to believe; but everyone who believes thinks, thinks in believing and believes in thinking.” Faith and Thinking

Calvary Grace Church has a post discussing the benefits of church membership here: Blessings Beyond Compare

Hays addresses Dawkins’ one-liner, “We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.” i) “It’s striking that so many atheists seem to think that’s a compelling reason to be an atheist. After all, they pride themselves on their rational superiority. So why are they impressed by such a lame argument?” ii) Is it logical to reject every explanation if you reject every explanation but one? ii) How does knowing why I reject something mean that I know why you reject something? You can’t simple combine one man’s reason for rejecting something with another man’s reason for rejecting something, for they may have different reasons. e.g. the atheist reject Mormonism because he rejects theism generally; the Christian has specific issues with Mormonism. iii) It’s not true that Christians simply reject all other “gods” save our own. There is something behind the pagan pantheon: There’s an occult reality which motivates, animates, and empowers paganism. “What does it say about “free-thinkers” and “rationalists” when they find a fallacious slogan like this convincing?”  We are all atheists

Burk addresses the question of whether Jesus affirmed a gay couple in Matthew 8:5-13, as put forward by a billboard ad! The billboard reflects an obscure interpretation: “the “gay couple” that Jesus affirmed was a Roman soldier and his young boy sex-slave. In short, Jennings and Liew argue that the Greek word pais—usually rendered as “servant” in verse 6—is actually a mistranslation. Jesus didn’t heal the centurion’s “servant.” Rather, Jesus healed the centurion’s “boy-love” (p. 468). The paralytic is a young boy who was the sexual plaything of a Roman centurion. The authors contend that such “forced pederastic relations” between Roman soldiers and young boys were both “legally permissible and socially prevalent” during Jesus’ time” i) In the Sermon on the Mount alone (a favorite text among progressives), Jesus unambiguously condemns sexual immorality (Matthew 5:28) while affirming the sanctity of the marital union (Matthew 5:32). Are these authors seriously going to suggest that Jesus goes against the Old Testament and his own teaching to affirm the alleged homosexual conduct of the centurion and his sex-slave? ii) The reason is completely implausible. Jennings’ and Liew’s novel interpretation of Matthew 8:5-13 has not been widely received in scholarship and was subsequently debunked in the same journal on historical grounds. This is the kind of revisionist historicism that supports progressive interpretations of key texts. It’s not serious, though it is seriously damning, and people should pay no heed to it. Did Jesus Affirm a Gay Couple-

Trueman: “One of the things that marks the world today, particularly the academic world, is the importance of specialisation and expertise.  We all tend to trust the experts because who are we, poor mites, to question what somebody who has spent a lifetime studying a particularly narrow area says about a given field? One obvious example doing the rounds in cultural circles at the moment is evolution.  Everywhere we are being told that to reject evolution is simply an egregious act of willful ignorance.  Yet how many of us are really qualified to judge the arguments? … scientists have become a kind of priesthood, hijacking language and demanding the same kind of uncritical capitulation from others as the older, more openly religious priests did in the past.” “The implications of all this -- the cult of the specialist, enhanced as it is in an ironic twist by postmodern impotence and intensified by the deluge of information and the pressure to publish in academic circles -- poses an acute problem to the church: how can we respond?     My belief is that part of that response needs to be the reassertion of the importance of the generalist, both in the church and in the seminary.” In Praise of the Generalist I- The Problem (Carl Trueman)

Trueman goes on to describe the generalist. “This single doctrinal qualification (Titus 1:8), however, carries within it the demands for intellectual, theological breadth: the elder needs to know the word he has been taught.  That implies a good knowledge of the biblical text and the tradition of interpretation of the text -- in turn implying a knowledge of history and how that word has come down to us.  Then, the reference to sound doctrine implies a knowledge of the same and, one assumes, the ability to relate textual exegesis with doctrinal synthesis to contemporary application.  A radical separation of the three, or exclusive specialisation in only one of them is not what is envisaged here.  Rather it is a  matter of a healthy generalism, a knowledge of the truth in its broadest sense, from biblical text to current pastoral context… What is being demanded is not absolute perfection of knowledge, any more than the requirement not to be greedy for gain implies that the elder must be sinless or immediately resign if he is ever tempted think a covetous thought; what is required is a credible,  public competence  in this area.”  In Praise of the Generalist II- The Possibility and the Imperative (Carl Trueman)