2010-09-29

Here’s more top Biblical archaeological discoveries at Reclaiming the Mind. Here’s one: “The House of David inscription is significant on many levels. First, contrary to all of the ink spilled touting the silence of David and Solomon from the extra-biblical record there is now proof of a historical king of Israel named David.” [as I’ve read, one’s attack on the reliability of Scripture will in time become an archaeologists embarrassing footnote]. Top Ten Biblical Discoveries in Archaeology – #2 House of David Inscription

Bayly has a note on the spiritual downfall of Jimmy Carter, who could say to an interviewer from Playboy, “The Bible says, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." Christ said, I tell you that anyone who looks on a woman with lust has in his heart already committed adultery. I've looked on a lot of women with lust. I've committed adultery in my heart many times.” and now mocks what he once professed. How the mighty have fallen

JT likes Nick Needham’s 2000 Years of Christ’s Power, a projected five-volume history of the church. Scholarly yet accessible, few footnotes, an overview while containing primary source, etc. Historical Theology + History of the Church

Mahaney @ Girltalk: “Mothers, we have the gospel: we need not fear. And yet we do. A lot.” Parents will never outgrow their need to trust God for their children – nor will they outgrow the faithfulness of God (Ps. 103:17). When Worries Multiply

Bird isn’t sure on the ‘original autographs’ as the locus of the doctrine of inspiration, and thinks the ‘Bible as it has been received in the church’ is better. i) Text-critics debate whether their task is to reconstruct the original autographs or simply an "initial text" [as I understand it this is a rather late post-modern development in the field]. ii) There are the seeming different versions of Jeremiah between the LXX and MT, and Acts in the Western text is 10% longer. iii) “for thine is the kingdom…” is not in modern Bibles but widely used despite not being in the autographs. iv) The death of Moses is clearly secondary, and the Psalms underwent some redaction in their compilation as a collection. [he doesn’t address here how such a view can reckon with the fact that the ‘church’ is not a unanimous body in its reception of Scripture throughout history (e.g. 2 Peter), nor the implication that you can have two local churches having two different ‘inspired’ versions of the same text]. The original Autographs

ICR points out some of the difficulties cell division poses for evolutionary theory. “Processes at work inside the cell somehow ensure that enough of every required part makes it into both daughter cells, whether it is a complete set of chromosomes, at least one each of every organelle (in eukaryotic cells), and thousands of required proteins.” How do all these thing remain ordered and continually repeat with such precision? Researchers have found that a particular enzyme called Cdk operates as a master oscillator, undergoing rhythmic periods of activity. ICR points out the irreducible complexity of this system, which is essential to the function of the cell. Logically speaking, if a necessary component of any system is broken, then the whole system breaks. But this also means that the required piece—which in this case is the phase-locking oscillator setup—must also have appeared in its entirety and fully integrated at the very start. By evolutionists’ own admission, without these coordinated oscillators to regulate it, DNA replication would not occur. And without DNA replication, cell division would not occur. Without cell division, there would be no reproduction. And without reproduction there can be no evolution, because evolution supposedly operates by survival and reproduction of the fittest. Cell Division Defies Evolutionary 'Just-so' Stories

Genderblog has a rather honest confession from a woman: “When it comes to romance, many women are so needy, and get emotionally enmeshed so quickly, that they throw their brains out the window. They foolishly make excuses and rationalize giving their hearts away to guys who are jerks.” If you’re wise, you’ll listen up and guard your heart. Don’t give it to a jerk. Save it for a gem. Why do Women Love Jerks-

Hays points out that NASA must hold to a flat earth, as evidenced by their use of language, according to one critic of the Bible, who says, “Steve, Whether the story is about a person taken up to heaven in the spirit in a vision or in a physical body, the point is that they are taken UP. (While Paul tells us that he believed in beings that exist "under the earth.") That's three-tiers. ”. From NASA: “On March 27, 2004, NASA 008 carried the X-43A, mounted on a modified Pegasus booster rocket, up to the drop altitude of 40,000 feet. The rocket boosted the X-43A up to its test altitude of about 95,000 feet over the Pacific Ocean, where the X-43A separated from the booster and flew freely at its test speed of Mach 6.8.” NASA's flat-earth cosmography

Solapanel advises a community party around Christmas for the cause of the Gospel. Connecting in your street

Reformation21 reflects on the importance and value of criticism – despite how much we don’t like it – especially in ministry. Criticism can be very healthy and is neccesary. Think for example of preaching class.  The best preaching classes are where the guys giving the feedback have the the guts to be brutally honest and tell you when you've bombed. We need to allow ourselves to be critiqued. It’s the criticism that we’ve found incredibly difficult to take that is most formative in ministry.  “Surely as reformed evangelicals we've got to be willing for the same, we should be able to critique each other, faithful are the wounds of a friend.  There must be a willingness to take it on the chin and disagree if need be.  It's not nasty to criticise it's what we need and what I need.  We must be able to laugh at ourselves because we are laughable!” http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2010/09/criticism.php

Beggar’s All has a chart here describing Romanist justification. The post also highlights this quote: "The Reformers' forensic understanding of justification ... the idea of an immediate divine imputation [of righteousness] renders superfluous the entire Catholic system of the priestly mediation of grace by the Church." (Bruce McCormack,What's at Stake in the Current Debates over Justification, from Husbands and Treier's Justification, pg 82.) That’s why ‘infusion vs. imputation’ is no mundane discussion The Faith that was Once for All Delivered to the Saints, Roman Style

Challies has some reflections on the downsides of blogging here. He posts some stats on the fickleness of the audience. He comments on the need to adapt, despite how it can be frustrating to do so. Bloggers just can’t write a wow post every time. And there is a lot of pressure on site statistics. He points out that blogs deal with a skimming audience, who read blogs read for information, not for wisdom or understanding. Solo blogging is a lonely sport. And readers demand the highest quality for, well, free. What I Hate About Blogging

DG reflects on Edwards’ arguments that we should be eager in doing good. “What Edwards brings to light is that what Paul is saying here about giving applies to good works in general. That is, we are to be earnest and eager and cheerful and bountiful and thoughtful and sacrificial in regard to all of our good works, not just giving. In other words, Christians are to be thoughtful people who are eager to do good and proactive in it. ” Christians Are to Be Proactive in Doing Good

DeYoung cites Carl Henry on the good of inerrancy if we don’t have the original manuscripts. ‘On the basis of all the existing early testimony, it is clear that the generation which possessed the apostolic autographs viewed them as the veritable Word of God. The fact of inerrant autographs is both theoretically and practically important. If the originals were errant, then textual criticism would expect to give us not more truthful readings but only more ancient ones.” Henry also notes the ironic presupposition in the documentary hypothesis that the present texts were inerrant, and that by postulating their idea, they were presuming to give us trustworthy redactions to replace the supposedly unreliable accounts given us in Scripture, and preferring alternatives allegedly uncorrupted by the theological convictions of the Gospel writers. What Good is Inerrancy If We Don’t Have the Original Manuscripts-

Hays posts a comment from an NT scholar on judgment by works, in particular on Romans 2:16. “In my opinion, the principal point throughout the first part of Romans 2 is a conventional OT point: God is the righteous judge. Everyone will get what he deserves. What many commentators do not recognize is that Romans 2 is part of a developing argument. It is too early in the argument for Paul to bring in how judgment according to desert is consistent with anyone being saved. So 2:12-16 should be read as pretty much a flat general principle, not as a statement about Christians.” [contra Schreiner, for one]. The consistency of God's judgment can be explained only after the doctrine of justification is introduced. At the last judgment the works in view are those of Christ. Christian good works are rewarded, but only in the light of Christ's perfection. Judgment by works

Hays notes in taking on those with a low view of Scripture that Walton draws a firm distinction between “material ontology” and “functional ontology.” He regards the cosmography of Scripture as “functional” rather than “material.” In this view even if Scripture did depict a flat-earth or triple-decker world, that would merely be a “functional” flat-earth or “functional” triple-decker” world rather than a real flat-earth or a real triple-decker world. Hays also notes that i) the absence of seismic activity is picture-language for the stability of life on earth–while the presence of seismic activity is picture-language for divine judgment; ii) earth immobility doesn’t refer to the mobility of the sun and the immobility of the earth, but between stable ground and earthquakes; iii) phenomenological language of the ‘sun shining down’ isn’t wrong – after all, it does shine down on us relatively speaking; iv) That a biblical book inerrantly records what he said doesn’t mean what he said is ipso facto inerran; v) even the seasonable variability of the sun is evident to the naked eye. Do we think that folks who rose with the dawn didn’t ever stop to ask themselves these elementary questions?  Thoughtless free-thinkers

Here’s a report of a planet that has some characteristics similar to earth; [I point to this article because it illustrates the massive faith that the scientists hold in simply assuming that they’ll find life there. It’s akin to the old – just add water, and you get life! (and they haven’t even confirmed water yet). Of course, the naturalist needs to believe that there practically must be life there because he already believes that life formed naturalistically here (against all odds), and now to rationalize it, he must simply step out in blind faith and assume that it can easily happen anywhere.] http://news.discovery.com/space/earth-like-planet-life.html#mkcpgn=rssnws1

Creationsafaris comments on the above: “Headlines are screaming that an earthlike planet in its star’s habitable zone has been found. Many sources, though, are claiming that life must certainly exist on this planet. Their hubris stems from the words of Steve Vogt, an astronomy professor at UC Santa Cruz.” Despite the ‘100% probability of life’, one thing is 100% certain: no life has been found. All that is known about this planet is that it is 3 to 4 times the size of our Earth, and it orbits a red dwarf star. Those two factors reduce the probability of life. The probability that life has not been found is certain – 100%, for now at least. Nevertheless, most of the articles cheerfully echoed Vogt’s confident 100% probability estimate, although some reported that co-discoverer Paul Butler (a planet-hunting pioneer), though optimistic, did not want to put a number on it. None of the articles criticized Vogt for stating an evidence-free, and therefore unscientific, personal opinion. Probability Life Not Found on Exoplanet- 100%

These look interesting: VanDrunen's Lectures on Christianity and Culture

Nine of Poythress’s books are available here for free: http://www.frame-poythress.org/poythress_books.htm

Good pastors won’t let you off the hook. http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2010/09/13/good-pastors-dont-let-you-off-the-hook/

2010-09-28

JT says of the October 2010 Christianity Today cover story of Mohler: “As far as I can see, it’s the lengthiest profile they have done (at least in recent memory) and certainly the most condescending.” He found the author’s bias subtly and explicitly pervades the article. He asks a series of questions on key issues, in part to show how much an author’s own presuppositions influence the direction of the narrative. Christianity Today Cover Story on Albert Mohler

Here’s an example of the government imposing solutions instead of seeking them. A law requiring the ability to ‘unscramble encryption’ is useless, technically inept, and dangerous. U.S. Government Wants to Read Your Emails

JT points to Carson on the Law, and asks six questions as a litmus test for whether you understand the relationship of the Law and the Gospel. One key point is that “law” does not refer to a misunderstanding/perversion of to condemnation of the law.  A Good Test Case for Your Understanding of Law and Gospel

Spurgeon has words for the The [Post]modern Missional Strategy. “This is the suggestion of the present hour: if the world will not come to Jesus, shall Jesus tone down his teachings to the world? In other words, if the world will not rise to the church, shall not the church go down to the world? Instead of bidding men to be converted, and come out from among sinners, and be separate from them, let us join with the ungodly world, enter into union with it, and so pervade it with our influence by allowing it to influence us. Let us have a Christian world…  In order to win the world, the Lord Jesus must conform himself, his people, and his Word to the world. I will not dwell any longer on so loathsome a proposal.” He observes how people turn their houses of prayer into theatres, into musical displays. [and they think they’re novel today…] "The [Post]modern Missional Strategy

Clint points to Terry Stauffer, two years after his daughter was murdered, as an example of true heaven-mindedness. More serious about life and what we believe

CMI: Dinosaur and pterosaur skeletons are often found in this characteristic posture: head thrown back, hind limbs bent, tail extended. The question of why so many fossils exhibit this posture “has troubled paleontologists for more than a century”. Tendons drying out, etc. is inadequate; animals dying from being poisoned or hit by a car often adopt the posture while still (barely) alive. The death throes of these animals are explicable by a global flood. Death throes

Reformation21 has an interesting anecdote relating the story of someone who showed promise for Gospel ministry, but withdrew himself on account of his doubts, saying, ‘I would give anything to share you convictions about the bible, but I don't and I cannot in good conscience go into the ministry confused and doubting as I am.' He had lost confidence in the authority of Scripture and felt, rightly, that he had nothing to say, and he refused to go into the ministry. Actually he went on to be an effective worker in his local church and over the years has regained his trust in the scripture for which I am grateful to God. Full Confidence (Liam Goligher)

Hays responds to opposition to retributive justice. i) To say no one deserves eternal punishment is to indict God as an unjust judge by punishing sinners more harshly than they deserve. ii) The Nicene creed is a primitive, uninspired statement of faith. It omits much that Scripture teaches. It won’t work as a permission slip before God to excuse one from believing revealed truths. iii) “The Church” doesn’t get to decide what we are free to disbelieve. God obligates us to believe whatever he reveals. One can’t game to system by citing loopholes in fallible creeds. iv) We’re in a position to have a better grasp of Biblical theology than the church fathers. And to whom much is given, much is required. v) Israel had a sacrificial system, involving vicarious punishment. vi) God exacts full retributive justice on the damned, and full retributive justice on the Redeemer instead of the elect. vii) There can be gradations of punishment even though all of the damned are damned. viii) The only condemnation is not to reject Jesus. People are condemned even before that. The incarnation doesn’t create that situation. Rather, the Incarnation exposes that situation. Only the Holy Spirit can heal the blind (Jn 1:13; 3:3-8). Just desserts

T-fan cites Machen: "There is not one law of God for the Christian and another law of God for the non-Christian." He also speaks on the redemption of culture. What Would Machen Say to Darryl Hart-

JT notes that while there is much to commend the three-fold distinction between the Law, it doesn’t seem to work. The Sabbath command is surely part of the moral law in the OT, and is never repeated in the NT, but Paul seems to regard it a matter of some indifference (Rom. 14:5; Col. 2:16–17). Carson says that the problem “with the tripartite division of law, which as a device for explaining continuity and discontinuity between the Testaments… is that it attempts to construct an a priori grid to sort out what parts of the law Christians must keep or do, and holds that Paul must have adopted some such grid, even if he does not explicitly identify it.” Carson suggests using it a posteriori, by first discerning Paul’s patterns of continuity and discontinuity, and after this, old covenant laws which Christians “fulfill” in a fashion most closely aligned with their function within the old covenant may safely be labeled “moral”. On the Tripartite Division of the Law

Mounce writes that we use context to determine whether a Greek sentence is a question (since the punctuation isn’t in the original). Subjunctive verbs may be a deliberative subjunctive (inviting the hearer to ponder; i'.e. ‘what should we wear?’). Greek ou indicates that the sentence may be a question where the expected answer is a negative (do you not care we’re perishing?). μη is just like using ου except that the expected answer is "no." (e.g. all don’t have the gift of tongues, do they?). When is a Sentence a Question- (Monday with Mounce 77)

JT points to the Ordinary Pastors Project, and cites a number of encouragements from Matt Redmond. Here’s a few: “Be encouraged when young men grown fat on the feast of podcasts question your every move. Be encouraged when no one knows your name; it is written in blood in the book of life. Ordinary pastor, be encouraged: Your faithful labor in the darkened forest of obscurity is heroic.” Ordinary Pastors- Be Encouraged

Patton likes Roger Olson, but takes serious issue with his friendliness to Purgatory: “The very idea of Purgatory goes against everything that the Reformation was about. Let me back up. In essence, this is what I am hearing Olson say: “There are some Christians who have done some really, really bad things and had some really, really bad attitudes. Therefore, I am considering that these Christians have to enter into an educational corrective half-way house before entering Heaven. Let’s call this a ‘Protestant Purgatory’.”… What is wrong with hate-filled Christians going through corrective therapy as a consequence for their sinful thinking? Really? Are we being serious here? If Olson had simply said that we will all be learning in heaven, if Olson had said that all our thinking be instantaneously sanctified upon entering Paradise, maybe if this was not in the context of Purgatory, I might have been able to follow him a bit more. But to suggest that certain people are just too bad to get a true free pass evidences how difficult it is, even for someone as astute as Olson, to comprehend how radical God’s grace is and how sinful we all are. To single out these fellas is problematic as it seems, like the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory, to place a breaking point on the grace of God. ” Patton contrasts Purgatory with the view of the prodigal son. Baptist Seminary Professor Roger Olson Headed Toward Rome

Dane Ortlund: “While the Bible is not uniform, it is unified.” The Grace of God in Every Book of the Bible

Burk commends the new book The Faithful Parent: A Biblical Guide to Raising a Family (co-authored with Martha Peace). Stuart Scott’s New Book

CMI: “Stephen Hawking is still using tendentious cosmological speculation to support his atheopathic faith”. Hawking atheopathy

DG citing DeYoung: “Simply put, God's will is your growth in Christlikeness. God promises to work all things together for our good that we might be conformed to the image of His Son (Romans 8:28-29). . . . God never assures us of health, success, or ease. But He promises us something even better: He promises to make us loving, pure, and humble like Christ. In short, God's will is that you and I get happy and holy in Jesus. So go marry someone, provided you're equally yoked and you actually like being with each other. Go get a job, provided it's not wicked. Go live somewhere in something with somebody or nobody. But put aside the passivity and the quest for complete fulfillment and the perfectionism and the preoccupation with the future, and for God's sake start making some decisions in your life. Don't wait for the liver-shiver. If you are seeking first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, you will be in God's will, so just go out and do something. ” God's Will for Your Life- Follow Jesus, and Do Something

Though I don’t know the authors, these lists are certainly interesting: [See Infertility: People Say the Dumbest Things and What Not to Say When Someone is Grieving.] HT: Bock’s blog, What Not to Say- Adoption

Hays observes that while the church formally denies continuing revelation, which requires them to appeal to the theory of development to justify their theological innovations, they do nurture belief in Marian apparitions. They’re wary of official pronouncements but certainly open to the idea that Mary even reveals things from the future (Fatimia prophecies). But what is this if not a theory of continuing revelation? Also, why does the Roman church need a teaching office then? It has a living prophetess in the person of Mary. Who needs the pope when you have Mary? She outranks the pope. If Mary can pop in to unveil new truths, then the papacy and the development of doctrine are pretty superfluous. The Fatima Prophecies

Mohler writes that, in light of accusations swirling around Atlanta’s Bishop Eddie Long, the media have turned back to Ted Haggard, who, at the time of his own scandal, was pastor of New Life Church in Colorado Springs. Haggard actually said, “Nobody’s guilty until the court says he’s guilty.”, as if it takes a court to define sin! A church cannot possibly settle for this as a principle of how to deal with accusations of sin. The church does not need the courts to define either sin or its remedy. http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/09/27/it-takes-a-court-to-define-sin

DeYoung writes that Christianity is no friend of rationalism, but it is rational. That is to say, although divine truth comes by revelation not by unaided reason, that revealed truth is nevertheless reasonable. Too often mystery is a cover for anti-propositional bias, a suspicion of truth claims, or just plain intellectual laziness. But American culture does not encourage careful thinking. He relates an anecdote of an encounter with a woman illustrating complete disregard for argumentation, and serious cognitive dissonance (e.g. “She called herself a Christian, but on takeoff claimed the sunset in front of us was God”). DeYoung asks, “How do you give a reason for the hope that you have when the people asking you aren’t interested in reason? It seems to me one of the first tasks of evangelism today is to reintroduce the law of non-contradiction.” Reasons for Reason 

This post takes issue with the myth of short web content: “Unfortunately, it is an ongoing myth that web content must be short.  There are no “rules” with length of successful content, in fact if you look at some of the most popular digital personalities… you’ll see their content is quite in depth.” ... “ It is an ongoing myth you need to write short, pithy posts.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  If you are writing about a complex subject matter, wish to tell deeper stories or have lots of examples to share, do it.  Just be sure to format properly, have compelling hooks, use visuals to break up content and show readers that yes, you have longer format content – but it is unmissable. ” HT: Challies. http://thefuturebuzz.com/2010/09/27/myth-of-short/

Manata responds to this: “By morality, I am referring to the social rules we are all familiar with . . . It is the behavior we learn from our earliest development, from our immediate social encounters (usually parents and siblings).” He notes that this sounds odd coming off of his interlocutors strongly worded indictments of the inquisitions, for he’s lost the right to critique and condemn the moral practices of others from other cultures or societies. This cultural relativism has several unfortunate problems, apart from its being false. His interlocutor wants to make “the world a better place”, but if culture defines what is right and wrong, then to critique culture from some transcendent perspective is not only inconsistent with a denial of any such perspective, it is itself immoral. In other words, cultural relativism cannot account for moral reform. If a culture thinks slavery is good, then a William Wilberforce is bad. If a society is the standard, then it can’t be made “better.” Better compared to what? Is Belief in God Good, Bad (Religion), or Irrelevant- – 3

Beggar’s All: “I've cited Paul Johnson to the effect that 1/3 to 1/2 of all priests had concubines and illegitimate children, a system which perpetuated itself (Paul Johnson, "History of Christianity"). As bad as that was, it wasn't the cause for the Reformation.” The post cites an author who talks about "the extent to which hierarchy, Pope, bishops, priests, and monks are understood to have exchanged poverty for greed." But even on top of all of these evils, it wasn't the worst thing, and it wasn't the cause for the Reformation. ” The doctrinal heart of the Reformation was the doctrine of justification. Doctrinal causes of the Reformation

T-blog points to some stats that don’t reflect well for American priorities. A Recent Survey On Religious Knowledge

Hays responds to the problematic idea that taking the Bible at its word means thinking in terms of a flat earth. One obvious problem is “the assumption that stories of ascents and descents necessarily refer to physical locomotion. Although that’s sometimes the case, this imagery can be both a literary convention as well as a description of the mystical experience.” (Ezek. 40:2; Rev 21:10). Locomotive imagery can be conceived of in visionary or out-of-body terms, and is also employed in mystical literature. Ascent of Mount Carmel

2010-09-26

JT points to Thomas Spence of Spence Publishing who argues that if boys don’t read well, it is because they don’t read enough. He contrasts the traditional ideals of education as being training for freedom with the trend now occurring where many chalk it up to literature being to boring, and so they give boys ‘gross-out homour’ in books, etc., while saying, ‘worry about what they’re reading later’. But education was not merely transmission of information but entailed the formation of manners and taste. “One obvious problem with the SweetFarts philosophy of education is that it is more suited to producing a generation of barbarians and morons than to raising the sort of men who make good husbands, fathers and professionals. If you keep meeting a boy where he is, he doesn’t go very far.” The key to raising boys who read is simple – keep entertaining electronic media to the barest minimum, and fill your shelves with good books. Want to Raise a Boy Who Reads-

DeYoung cites John Woodbridge, who notes that Christians in the 17th century weren’t torn between a belief in a completely infallible Bible and a Bible whose infallibility was limited to faith and practice, but rather they faced the interpretive challenge of how much interpretive allowance should be made for phenomenological language. He concludes that “Christians will sometimes disagree on how to interpret biblical passages that touch on history and science.” But those who “skip the interpretative work altogether because the Bible supposedly makes mistakes or only speaks on “theological” topics” build their “houses far outside the suburbs of historic orthodoxy.” Does the Bible Teach Science-

DeYoung anecdotally illustrates the fact that most people in the pew assume that when we say the Bible is trustworthy we say it doesn’t make mistakes. “If we try to parse some fine distinction between infallibility and inerrancy or between reliability and inerrancy, the average churchgoer will think we’re just trying to avoid a label for some reason or just trying to hide something. And very often they’ll be right on both accounts” Who’s Afraid of Inerrancy-

“The once (and briefly) credible idea that Charles Hodge and B. B. Warfield invented inerrancy has been shown to be resoundingly false. Scholars like John Woodbridge and Richard Muller have demonstrated convincingly that the doctrine of complete biblical truthfulness is not a Princetonian invention. Clement of Rome (30-100) described “the Sacred Scriptures” as “the true utterance of the Holy Spirit.” Polycarp (65-155) called them “the oracles of the Lord.” Irenaeus (120-202) claimed that the biblical writers “were incapable of a false statement.” Origen (185-254) stated, “The sacred volumes are fully inspired by the Holy Spirit, and there is no passage either in the Law or the Gospel, or the writings of an Apostle, which does not proceed from the inspired source of Divine Truth.” Augustine (354-430) explained in a letter to Jerome, “I have learnt to ascribe to those Books which are of the Canonical rank, and only to them, such reverence and honour, that I firmly believe that no single error due to the author is found in any of them.” It was not modernism that invented inerrancy. It was modernism that undermined inerrancy. (Why We’re Not Emergent, 76-77)” An Argument Discredited

DG has a plea for support in mission efforts to the Shan (Buddhists/animists). A Month of Prayer for the Shan-Tai

Aomin responds to the 8 commandments of atheistic ethics: “The Christian believes that morality is objectively given by God, and that ethical norms reflect His holiness. There is a great diversity of opinion and human experience in life. But the interaction of "multiple psychological building blocks" in no way diminishes the firm and revealed moral law of God.” Also, “, the neurotheology of Scripture consistently makes a contrast between human beings and "unreasoning animals" who operate "instinctively." It also asserts how people can be so depraved that they're cognitive faculties actually operate like animals.” A Christian Response to the 2010 “Consensus Statement” on Morality – Part II

Creationsafaris has some comments on embryonic stem cell research. “With non-controversial adult stem cell research zooming along, like finding ways to prevent adult stem cells (ASC) from aging (PhysOrg), providing hope for leukemia patients (Science Daily) and giving mastectomy patients a chance for beauty once again (Science Daily), why are so many scientists adamant about keeping embryonic stem cell research on the public dole? … scientists are urging Congress to make a law protecting embryonic stem cell (ESC) research. They have allies on Capitol Hill.” Indeed, secular scientists think an ‘ethics council’ will sort out the issues. “… PhysOrg reported that the first human clinical trial of a spinal cord treatment with embryonic stem cells is open for enrollment. The public will soon see if the hope of ES cures lives up to the hype. But even if it succeeds, the controversy over the ethics of destroying human embryos will not go away.” Ethics Shmethics- Scientists Obsessed with Embryonic Stem Cells

Mohler comments on Newsweek redefining masculinity. “In 1945, the male share of the labor force was 70 percent. Now it is less than 50 percent. In the nation’s largest cities, women often make more than men on average do. Women now outnumber men at virtually every level of higher education, starting with a six to four advantage in undergraduate registrations.” Newsweek says that traditional masculinity is endangered, but their solution isn’t to reassert it. They claim that men will have to redefine masculinity as they take on “girly” jobs, transform themselves into nurturers, and celebrate a fully egalitarian society in terms of gender. Moher says that “ men will certainly not recover a healthy manhood by aping crude stereotypes or cultural constructions of “Marlboro Manliness.” At the same time, the path to recovery doesn’t lie in denying the truth about gender differences or roles… Today’s men are likely to be more nurturing, but they are also statistically less faithful… A healthy masculinity should motivate men to find their way in this new world of changed economic realities and work opportunities, and to do this while remaining men. The unanswered question from Newsweek’s analysis is this: Will men change the new work of work, or will the new social realities change men?” Man Up or Man Down- Newsweek Redefines Masculinity

T-fan notes the Romanist error that councils basically decide what orthodoxy is, and at that point its heresy to think otherwise. “The church does not make up orthodoxy. When the church does its job correctly, it merely recognizes the truth that was already once delivered to the saints. There was no new delivery in the fourth century or any of the succeeding centuries.” Romanists have to put the cart before the horse, because they've added to the gospel. Bryan Cross places the Cart before the Horse, Theologically Speaking (With Additional Commentary

Hays writes that annihilationism typically concentrates on the fate of the damned. But objections to hell also include the fate of the survivors – how they rejoice in heaven knowing all the while that some of their loved ones are missing out on heaven? Annihilation does nothing to address this issue. Thus on its own terms it only does half the job! Does annihilationism even succeed on its own terms-

Mohler: “One of the illusions of modernist thinking is that religious beliefs can be sanitized and separated from public life.” Damon Linker Offers a Religious Test — From the Left

Dan Wallace argues here that ‘inviting Jesus into your heart’ isn’t the meaning of Revelation 3:20, and it isn’t the Gospel. He notes two assumptions made: (1) that the Laodiceans, or at least some of them, were indeed lost, and (2) that the Greek εισελεύσομαι πρό means “come into.” The first isn’t sustainable from the text (those whom I love, I reprove). The second is based on a less than careful reading of the English text. The ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, for example, all correctly render it ‘come in to’. Notice the SPACE between ‘in’ and ‘to’ – it isn’t ‘into’. Spatially the term used means ‘toward’, not into: The text means, ‘come in toward/before a person’. The verse isn’t an offer of salvation. To use it as such is a perversion of the simplicity of the Gospel; people ‘accept Jesus into their hearts’ without knowing what they even mean. Reception of Christ is a consequence, not a condition, of salvation. Now if they have truly put their faith in Christ, and they understand that he alone can save them from their sins, then of course they are saved. The problem is that many people cling to the symbol but never understand the reality it is intended to represent. He concludes, “If it causes us some measure of panic to have to use other than Revelation 3:20 when we share the gospel, keep in mind that the earliest Christians did not have this verse. Revelation is the last book of the Bible to be written. How was it possible for Peter and Paul and James to ever see anyone get saved without this verse? They never had it!” Inviting Jesus into your Heart (Dan Wallace)

Pike critiques a definition of omniscience here, showing its inability to account for statements of variable truth value. Uncertain Omniscience

Phil Johnson responds to a critic who thinks that his statement that less time should be spent on being hip/trendy and more effort should be spent on defending and proclaiming the Gospel means that he is opposed to engaging the culture. He notes that everyone has a different understanding of engaging the culture. Johnson points to Scripture’s teaching instead: “Sometimes we need to engage the world's culture by foregoing our own freedom and becoming servants who observe whatever cultural taboos are deemed sacrosanct (1 Corinthians 9:19-23). Sometimes we need to engage the world's culture by refusing its tastes and values, as Daniel did in Daniel 1:8-21. Sometimes we need to engage the world's culture by mocking it, as Elijah did in 1 Kings 18:27. Sometimes we need to engage the world's culture by attacking it, in a manner analogous to the zeal with which David attacked Goliath and the Philistines in 1 Kings 17:26-54.” [I’ll add that I don’t see anyone buying minivans to meet suburban soccermoms with 4 kids where they are at – and that’s because minivans don’t make them feel independent, expressive, and cool, and soccermoms aren’t the kind of people they want to have think much of them. Contextualizing is all-important – unless of course its actually humbling]. Engaging the Culture

Turk has a letter here to the SBC. Weekend Extra- Something Else

McKinley posts a quote from Baxter: “Throughout the whole course of our ministry, we must insist chiefly upon the greatest, most certain, and most necessary truths, and be more seldom and sparing upon the rest. If we can but teach Christ to our people, we shall teach them all. Get them well to heaven, and they will have knowledge enough. The great and commonly acknowledged truths of religion are those that men must live upon, and which are the great instruments of destroying men’s sins, and raising the heart to God. ” Four Great Things

Phillips comments on Matthew 16, where after Peter’s wonderful confession, he rebukes Jesus for saying that He will die. Peter rebukes Jesus with these words: “The Greek hileos soi, kurie is hard to capture. Probably the best way to render it is to paraphrase along the lines of the ESV's footnote: "May God be merciful to you, Lord!"” Peter is horrified with what Jesus is saying; it does not seem to be base self-interest. Peter clearly loved Jesus, by his best lights, and the idea of Him being treated in this way simply sickens Peter to his very soul. But Jesus scorchingly blames him. "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man". Why does Jesus call Peter "Satan"? Wasn't Peter motivated by tender, compassionate concern for Jesus? He faults Peter’s thoughts. Peter wasn’t thinking about God’s concern. He was like Satan was with Eve: “She should not deny herself such a boon! The fruit she wants is the fruit she needs, and God has no good reason for keeping it from her! God have mercy on you Eve, take the fruit and realize your full selfhood, your full potential!” Peter’s compassion was Satanic. Compassion is a wonderful godly human emotion, when information and directed by Scripture. Modern examples abound of Satanic compassion: Pro-aborts present their position as a compassionate position, in fact as the compassionate position. “Homosexuality leaps to mind. It sounds like the very distillation of compassion to tell such tortured souls that they should give up the struggle, accept their passions, and embrace them, assured of God's approval. But this is the compassion of Hell. This is the compassion that ignores the Cross, with its equally vast threats of judgment, and promises of redemption, deliverance, and freedom. To tell souls struggling with any vile passions, whether they draw one towards homosexuality, adultery, theft, or murder, that they have no hope for deliverance, that their only hope is to redefine and then embrace sin, is no compassion at all.” And we all have compassion on ourselves, protecting our darling sins. From 2006- When compassion is Satanic

Good quote cited at Reformation21: “'We live in a culture where everyone has their say, where I can press the interactive buttons and register my view on television, where I can set up a blog and proclaim my views on anything and everything to the world, where the most friendly thing we can say in welcoming newcomers is 'We want to know what you think', but dare I say it - God does not want to know what we think. He wants us to know what he thinks.' ” Best of the British! #1 (Paul Levy)

CMI: News reports of a recent partial fossil skeleton find from Ethiopia’s Afar region, allegedly 3.6 million years old, and dubbed Big Man, is said to represent Australopithecus afarensis, the same species as the famous ‘Lucy’. It’s unclear, though, if this classification has more to do with the alleged geological age than its form: if evolutionary assumptions are put aside, one can be left with the impression after reading these news reports that what has actually been found may be an ancient human skeleton instead, and not one representing Australopithecus afarensis. One if evolutionary assumptions are put aside, one can be left with the impression after reading these news reports that what has actually been found may be an ancient human skeleton instead, and not one representing Australopithecus afarensis. But evolutionists can’t consider this possibility because that would bring their whole edifice toppling down. It just does not seem feasible that Lucy and Big Man are of the same species, Australopithecus afarensis. Whilst the former can be classified as such, the latter (Big Man) seems to better fit the description of Homo erectus. Many creationists believe that fossils labeled as Homo erectus are in fact ancient humans, descendants of Adam and Eve, and so actually belong to the species Homo sapiens. Whether some of these ancient humans were actually buried during the flood, or subsequently after the post-Babel dispersion, is an important issue that needs addressing further. He ain't my brother- no apparent family ties between Big Man and Lucy

Calvary Grace continues with the next chapter of Thabiti’s What is a Healthy Church Member? This week, we look at expositional listening. Isaiah 6 has a chilling example of judgment, in that the people of Israel are given God’s words, but are denied the heart necessary to hear them. But to hear the words, to be ‘good soil’ (useful to the Master), is to be greatly blessed (Matt. 13:23). One key benefit of expositional listening is church unity. Consider the other fruit of those who listen in this manner. What Is A Healthy Church Member- Part 2

WSJ has a story on evangelicals and adoption featuring Russ Moore. WSJ on Adoption

Trueman: “So Bono's campaign for the poor is all about `raising awareness,' not actually helping people?” He compares it to being a level beyond those charities which only send 15% of their money to the actual cause - those giving money can be assured that it all goes to help `raise awareness,' presumably so that people will -- ahem -- then give money to charities that actually do use the money to help the poor. Trueman just wants to raise awareness: “This confirms my deepest, darkest fears about leather-trousered, superannuated, multi-millionaire `authenticity' mongers.” U2, Brutus my son (Carl Trueman)

SolaPanel from Synod: “1. there are between 80,000 - 160,000 problem gamblers in Australia, along with another 230,000 - 350,000 vulnerable to problem gambling; 2. poker machine users are disproportionately represented among the ranks of Australia's problem gamblers; 3. 41% of the $11.9 billion that Australians lose on poker machines comes from problem gamblers; and 4. the public benefits and jobs creation, which the registered clubs claim to offer through their gambling profits, are highly debatable.” General Synod 6—Gambling at Synod

Dever says that while there are secular, Marxist and Muslim utopian visions for our world, none of these sufficiently take into account the things the Bible teaches about the sinfulness of humans, about our being made in God's image, about God's goodness, his love, his holiness. Utopian visions of politics or nations or the state always lead to tragedy. They always lead to tyranny and despotism and terrible distortions of God's will. Visions for the state like this are way too shallow. They're about swords and external conformity to laws. The Bible shows us that God has a wonderful vision for his world. We’ve all rejected that vision. But God in His mercy and love pursues us. Does Christianity Have A Vision for Society-

Phillips notes an article highlighting Obama’s distaste at the words ‘by their creator’ – and how he skipped them: “Oopsie: speaking to another racist group, the president indicates... well, several things. One is that he's delusional about history in general, and about Nancy Pelosi in particular. But my focus is that President Obama evidently feels that the Preamble to the Declaration is too long... by three words. Guess which three?” Hither and thither 9/24/10

White cites an update on the Dearborn missionaries incident: “A jury Friday acquitted four Christian missionaries who were accused of inciting a crowd while videotaping themselves proselytizing to Muslims at the Dearborn Arab International Festival in June.” Still, “Dearborn Mayor Jack O’Reilly Jr. said Friday night that he respects the decision but that the missionaries were anti-Muslim bigots pulling a publicity stunt to gain attention on YouTube in order to raise money. ” White comments, “Do you think O'Reilly is trying to keep his job in sharia-laden Dearborn or what? Amazing, absolutely amazing.” Partial Justice...It Isn't Over

Manata interacts with a learned atheist who takes the route of attacking Christianity over the inquisitions: “Leaving aside the issue of how you ground the moral judgments by which you indict Christianity (because you are a constructivist there too, but we’ll get to this topic in your later emails), surely you note the distinction between the propositions of Christianity and those who believe those propositions. For example, if thousands of mathematicians perpetrated an inquisition against, say, english professors, that would not invalidate math. One and one would still equal two. Secondly, Christianity makes claims about Christians in particular and men in general. One such claim is that the members of those sets are sinners. So, it would be an odd argument indeed which concluded that Christianity was falsified because of the empirical verification of one of its claims. Put differently, pointing out that people sin (or act immorally, or however you want to phrase it) seems to be a strange way of falsifying a religion that predicts people will sin! … if the goal is to somehow undermine the truth of Christianity, I’m afraid that conclusion won’t work; not the least of which is because you can’t refute a position by pointing out that an instance of something the position predicts will happen (e.g., men will act sinfully) has happened (e.g., the inquisitions).” Is Belief in God Good, Bad (Religion), or Irrelevant – 2

Scientists seek to emulate creation, but they attribute, apart from any evidence for their assertions, the amazing wonders in other organisms to evolution. Scientists Pursue Natural Champions

We are continually learning more about how complex the cells and cell division really is. “Most of the articles either never mentioned evolution, or only asserted merely that such-and-such a complex system had evolved – without saying how. No wonder; an article on PhysOrg reported that scientists at the University of Edinburgh “were able to define some 4,000 proteins involved in the division of cells.” These proteins “protect the fragile genetic material and help it fold into the correct shape before it splits into two new cells.” They were astonished at “the intricacies of this process” but had nothing to say about evolution.” Mere Biochemistry- Cell Division Involves Thousands of Complex, Interacting Parts

From DG: “We know that Jesus commands us to go and make disciples of all nations, yet many Christians are afraid to go to Muslims. We know that the gospel is the power of God for salvation to all who believe, and yet many Christians don’t think Muslims could ever be saved… As a former Muslim, Thabiti completely dispels the notion that Muslims can’t come to Jesus Christ for salvation. Both Thabiti and J. D. have had great experience in communicating the gospel to Muslims in the US and around the world.” Loving Our Muslim Neighbors

Piper writes that one of the main reasons so many of God’s children don’t have a significant life of prayer is not so much that we don’t want to, but that we don’t plan to. We even plan vacations, but not prayer. From Desiring God: “Let us take time this very day to rethink our priorities and how prayer fits in. Make some new resolve. Try some new venture with God. Set a time. Set a place. Choose a portion of Scripture to guide you. Don’t be tyrannized by the press of busy days. We all need midcourse corrections. Make this a day of turning to prayer—for the glory of God and for the fullness of your joy.” Make This a Day of Turning

“Todd Friel’s new documentary, What Hath Darwin Wrought (see trailer at WhatHathDarwinWrought.com), harps on the proverb, “Ideas have consequences.” The twentieth century, “Darwin’s century,” saw some of the most horrendous ethical abuses the world has ever seen. The documentary includes lengthy interviews with David Berlinski (mathematician, author), John West (ethicist and legal analyst) and Richard Weikart (historian, author, and professor at UC Stanislaus), who connect the dots from Darwin to eugenics, Hitler, communism, abortion and the modern resurgence of eugenics (now couched within population control and genetic engineering). Each scholar was careful not to draw simplistic connections. The quotes from prominent evolutionists and perpetrators of atrocities, and from Darwin himself, using primary sources, should suffice to silence critics who discount the connections.” Documentary Ties Darwin to Disastrous Social Consequences

Here’s an interesting post from Bring the Books which looks at Edwards seemingly ‘unreformed’ view of union with Christ, which is actually not a novelty with him. Indeed, Calvin seems to think along those lines. Edwards wrote, “what is real in the union between Christ and his people, is the foundation of what is legal; that is, it is something really in them, and between them, uniting them, that is the ground of the suitableness of their being accounted as one by the Judge.” [i.e. Edwards grounds justification in union, apparently]. Consider Calvin: “as long as Christ remains outside us, and we are separated from him, all that he has suffered and done for the salvation of the human race remains useless and of no value to us. (Calvin, Institutes 3.1.1)” [i.e. the benefit of Christ’s death for us is based on union] Jonathan Edwards un(-)-Reformed Doctrine of Union With Christ

CMI comments on the inability of climate models to produce the warm climates of the past. But “The Flood transported vegetation-mat model can solve most, if not all, the problems with the observations of warm climate fossils at high latitudes and within continental interiors of mid latitudes. It also accounts for the observed mixing of vegetation from widely divergent climates, as reported from some paleoflora sites. The model also explains the relatively common occurrence of fossil trees oriented in a vertical position” http://creation.com/climate-models-fail

Mohler writes that “the great moral revolution on the issue of homosexuality collides with the total surrender of a liberal denomination and the result is the church’s apology.” This is “the picture just a few days ago when the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America welcomed three lesbian ministers into the clergy roster through a “Rite of Reception” ceremony.” The church actually confessed the “sin” of having once stood on biblical ground, and the “sin” of exercising church discipline. He quotes Luther: “You should not believe your conscience and your feelings more than the word which the Lord who receives sinners preaches to you.” What Would Luther Say- — A Church Apologizes for Church Discipline

Mohler: “There is ample documentation to prove that boys are falling behind in reading skills at virtually every age level. In many cases, boys are semi-literate at best, and many never develop adequate reading skills. They never know the pleasures of a book.” “The most direct enemies of reading in the lives of today’s boys are video games and digital media. These devices crowd out time and attention at the expense of reading. Spence cites one set of parents who tried to bribe their 13-year-old son to read by offering video games as a reward. Spence is exactly right — don’t reward with video games. Instead, take the games away. If parents do not restrict time spent with digital devices, boys will never learn to read and to love reading.” http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/09/24/on-getting-boys-to-read/

Burk writes that it is striking how far evangelicals have fallen from first principles. The authority of the Bible in all its parts used to be a defining evangelical belief. But now it is considered within the evangelical pale to deny that truth. That Brian McLaren’s hackneyed objections are considered serious evangelical fare these days is a most unhappy and unwelcome declension. He also writes that as a practical matter, the British parochializing of the question of inerrancy as a North American peculiarity will not work. Either the Bible is authoritative and true in all that it teaches, or it is not. If it is not, then who gets to decide how we distinguish which parts are reliable and which parts aren’t? Furthermore, what does this say about the character of God who then would be responsible for inspiring error? That’s no small issue. The British evangelicals can’t just avoid it. Keller and McLaren on Inerrancy

Solapanel: Christians ought not be comfortable with euthanasia, and the biblical and ethical arguments haven't changed much in fifteen years. The more basic issue in the euthanasia debate is that of who rules: God or man. Who has the right to determine who lives and who dies? Who has the right to determine under what conditions human life may be taken? The euthanasia proposals being discussed in Australia and other parts of the world today seek to give to one group of humans—doctors—the right to end human life. They do this without reference to God, or to the circumstances under which God has said human life may be taken. The Image Disaster- Euthanasia and God’s view of human life

Hays writes that while annihilationism raises an emotional objection to the traditional doctrine of hell. Yet annihilationism is subject to emotional objections no less weighty.  The annihilationist might say that there will be compensations in heaven. God will work it out somehow. Yet that appeal is equally available to orthodox Christians who uphold the traditional doctrine of hell. The metrics of hell

Hays continues to respond to an annihilationist. “The damned aren’t damned for disbelieving the gospel. Many of the damned never hear the gospel. They are damned as sinners whose sins go unatoned.” Rejecting the gospel is an aggravated sin. In that respect, the Jews who reject the mission of Jesus are guilty of a graver sin. Both the saints and the damned share immortality-–but the damned are cursed with immortality, whereas the saints are blessed with immortality. Reparations for the damned

Pike responds to some comments on omniscience from non-Calvinists. In classical Christian philosophy, God is eternal and omniscient, which means He never learns anything at all. “If God knows that I will eat chocolate chip cookies tomorrow (and, if that is a true statement, then God’s omniscience requires that He does know this), then the truth-maker for that statement must be eternal. Why? Because God doesn’t learn. And therefore, the truth-maker for this knowledge must be eternal like God is eternal.” This immediately rules out any created thing or action as being a truth-maker for God’s knowledge. The only option that remains is that God Himself is the truth-maker. Which ultimately is saying, “God knows that X will occur because God is the truth-maker for X occur.” Biblically we know that God decrees what will happen. He foreordains whatsoever comes to pass. He has declared what will happen, and then He does it. In other words, it seems that Calvinism is the inevitable result of a belief in the eternal omniscience of God. The only way to avoid determinism or compatibilism is to assert that God is capable of learning—a denial of omniscience. But I Want To Know How

Engwer cites Origen on Peter, who says that believers who make the confession of Peter become a Peter: “For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.” He says all Christians are what Peter was in a particular context. A person can succeed to Peter, or be what Peter was, in one sense, but not another. Such distinctions ought to be remembered when we see Romanists citing patristic passages. What Kind Of Successor Of Peter-

Hays argues with an opponent of retributive justice, and says that he commits a “fundamental asymmetry between merit and demerit. Sinners can’t merit salvation. But sinners can merit damnation. By definition, sinners are already in a demeritorious condition. Saving grace is not merely unmerited favor, but demerited favor. But by the same token, sinners richly deserve retributive punishment.” As soon as a coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs. Also here: The wages of sin

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

2010-09-20

thChallies notes this: Trellis & Vine Workshops - Matthias Media is holding several Trellis & Vine workshops across the US. Check the site for dates and locations. “Our aim is simple: to equip ministry leaders with the biblical foundations, vision and resources to train co-workers in gospel ministry in a local ministry context. The concrete value of the workshop is that participants will leave with at least the first draft of a plan for their training ministry.” A La Carte (4/17)

“One in seven people lived below the poverty line in 2009 in the world's richest nation.” U.S. Poverty at Record Level

9Marks: A church removed 575 members. “Inactive membership is contrary to what the New Testament teaches about the life of the church, so our action in removing members was motivated fundamentally by a desire to become a more biblically-functioning church… To be a "member" is to be part of a body (1 Cor 12:27) and part of a family (Eph 2:19).  Both of these images depict vital relational connections.” Also, Hebrews 10:24-25. The church leaders encountered “resistance all throughout this process.  Despite all the teaching, there are some brothers and sisters who believe that membership is more of a right than a responsibility and that we ought not remove anyone from membership except maybe in the grossest of immoral situations. Theirs’ is a principled disagreement.  Others struggled for more personal reasons, as when the list of members to be removed included adult sons and daughters and grandchildren. ” Church Disciplines 575 Members

Here’s an interview on B.B. Warfield. To the question, what is the heartbeat of Warfield’s theology, Warfield stressed over and again that Christianity is a redemptive religion, that it is a religion specifically for sinners, that at its very heart it was a remedial scheme. He sees both the forest and the trees and understands all as pointing to this redemptive center. And for Warfield personally this was no merely academic discovery, but he is himself marked by a keen sense of utter dependence upon Christ. Two recommendations follow for starting to read Warfield: For broad acquaintance, his two-volume Selected Shorter Writings. For those less interested in the academic material, Faith and Life is a wonderful collection of sermons preached at Princeton, displaying well Warfield’s gospel-centered heart. An Interview on B.B. Warfield

From DesiringGod: Free PDF of With Calvin, and Pastoral Endorsements

Patton reposts an older article he wrote on the importance of getting theologically humiliated. He relates his own experience of being cut down at seminary. The early church took discipleship seriously. “In the early church Christians went through a rigorous discipleship process (notice the connection between disciple and discipline). Once you became a Christian you went through a three year boot camp. You were called a catechumen, derived from the Greek katechein, meaning “to teach” or instruct.” For three years your theology was shaped and scrutinized by superiors in the church… The church would not accept a new convert to the faith without this rigorous discipleship process. They took serious Christ’s command to “make disciples.””  “We need serious theological training. We need discipline. We need to be humiliated theologically. We need to know that we cannot do whatever we want with Christian belief and expect there to be so many lab rats available. If you have not been trained theologically, you need to be. This does not mean that you have read a book or two on theology, but you need to be in some sort of program that systematically, from beginning to end, takes you through the Christian faith, teaching you not only what to think and believe, but how to think and believe. We all need to be critiqued, disciplined, and humbled. We need more spiritual black eyes. We also need to be prepared to do the same with others.” Getting Theologically Humiliated

Bird talks his ‘not traditionally Reformed’/’not NT Wright’ view on justification in light of a review over at reformation21. “Waters raises a good question about what is the "righteousness" that believers are incorporated into or have imputed to them. Now I'm 100% convinced that it is not the merit of Jesus or his entire life of obedience. I've just gone and read again over Romans 5 and I see how people can think that, but it is clear that this is not explicitly said in the text. Jesus' "one act of righteousness" results in justification, but the one act of righteousness is not something that is imputed as the grounds of justification (Rom 5.18-19)…. by virtue of union with him we also share by implication in his faithfulness that was the basis of his vindication. So what is true of the Messiah is now reckoned to be true of the people of God. It is this implication that I think makes imputation legitimate. If we are in Christ than what is true of him is true of us, including the faithful execution of his messianic vocation as the second Adam, Son of God, and true Israel.” [I think that Bird puts a heavy emphasis on faithfulness of Christ, and he is inclined to the pistis christou=faithfulness of Christ; http://euangelizomai.blogspot.com/search/label/Pistis%20Christou. I’m a little less convinced myself] Review of Introducing Paul by Guy Waters 

Phillips: “economics lesson: when government takes money from working citizens, and gives it to government ostensibly to create jobs, what is the result? Wellsir, $111 million "creates" 56 jobs — at the cost of #2 million per job.” Hither and thither 9/17/10

Burk points to an article by Gregg Allison which advises Christians on how to dress. i) Be conscious of the fact that clothes always communicate something. i) Don’t flaunt wealth with clothing. iii) Don’t flaunt sexuality or be seductive with clothing. iv) Don’t wear that which associates with evil/rebellion. v) Don’t spend too much/unreasonably on clothes. How To Dress Like a Christian

Beggar’s All writes on Kostenberger and Kruger’s The Heresy of Orthodoxy, which takes aim at the ‘new school’ of Bauer/Ehrman, concluding,  “while the authors work from a presupposition that the New Testament is an accurate and reliable record of history, they also work from the presupposition that it is normative for the doctrine and practice of the church.” The Heresy of Orthodoxy – Introduction

Trueman on Glen Beck: “Beck is also both a function and a perpetuating cause of a wider problem in American politics: his idiom is the rhetoric of extremism and fear; he trades in Manichean cliches which see the political world as a very black and white place; he models for the wider world a form of discourse which is a million miles from anything which represents thoughtful, critical engagement with the issues and with those with whom he disagrees; he rarely puts forward a real argument (at least as I would understand an argument, with evidence, engagement with the strongest points of his opponents etc.); his attitude and tone when speaking about legally elected government are difficult to square with New Testament teaching on respect for those in authority…”… “If democracy ever dies, it is unlikely that it will be by act of Congress; more likely it will be because of the failure of the electorate to engage in an intelligent, civil manner with the democratic process.  Sadly, Christians seem all too often to be in the vanguard of such uncritical incivility.” No, Mr Beck is Part of the Problem (Carl Trueman)

Manata has some interesting thoughts on the conversation on Christ the Centre on Michael Sudduth’s book, The Reformed Objection to Natural Theology. He briefly touches some of the nuances required in discussing epistemology. Natural Theology Discussion

Engwer notes that the objection to sola scripture that there are many denominations put forward by Romanists undercuts Catholicism itself, for Romanists often argue for the church by arguing for Jesus. But this requires the Catholic to argue for, or depend on others who have argued for, Jesus' existence, His identity, what He taught, the meaning of what He taught, etc. And there are many differing and contradictory interpretations of Jesus and His historical context. The Catholic appeal to the historical Jesus as an argument for Catholicism depends on our being able to sufficiently discern the historical Jesus. If we can do so, despite all of the disagreements that exist on the subject, why should we think the same isn't true with regard to the Bible and sola scriptura? But Romanists don’t often apply their arguments against their own belief system. Roman Catholic Suicide

A God Given Functioning Conscience

DG cites Edwards on the eternally increasing happiness and holiness of the saints: “and if their knowledge, doubtless their holiness. For as they increase in the knowledge of God and of the works of God, the more they will see of his excellency; and the more they see of his excellency . . . the more will they love him; and the more they love God, the more delight and happiness . . . will they have in him.” Edwards also holds that the essence of holiness is love for God. Holier and Happier Forever- How-

DG has a meditation, on the day of Yom Kippur, noting that the Day of Atonement was both provisional and a pointer (Heb. 9:23-26): “Jesus turned out to be far more than the Messiah had been expected to be. He was the consummate temple, Passover lamb, sacrificed goat, scapegoat, high priest, prophet and the King of kings. Here is the good news for Yom Kippur: Jesus the Messiah has put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. The Day of Atonement: it is finished.” Yom Kippur- It Is Finished

Well neato. Ancient Samaritan Synagogue Unearthed In Israel

Arctic Microbes Sleep for 100 Million Years [how exactly does the genetic material last that long??]

Hays notes the ramifications of fire/drying up in the hot, arid world of the Bible’s setting, and points out that possible that the metaphor of fire is associated with the related metaphors of hunger and especially thirst. Unquenchable fire signifies unquenchable hunger and thirst. And these, in turn, are figures of yearning. The damned forever long for what they shall never have. Dying of thirst, but cursed with immortality. Hellfire

Genderblog exhorts women to look for the qualities of Boaz in a man: A servant, a generous giver/provider, a God-lover, a protector, a kind man, a helper of the needy, respected, and a man of integrity. Boaz- A Model

Here’s an overview of the discover of Jericho. Top Ten Biblical Discoveries in Archaeology – #3 Jericho

Wallace exhorts Christians to interact with their communities with the ‘soft touch’; buying the girl scout cookies, giving out the best candy on Halloween, buying the lemonade at the lemonade stand, all to adorn the Gospel. Halloween- A Missed Opportunity for Evangelicals (Dan Wallace)

Here’s a sobering and realistic assessment of the doubts of the minister from Patton: I Don’t Really Know if I am Called to Ministry

Adams corrects the idea that nouthetic counselors oppose the use of medicine. Nevertheless they do oppose any medicines for ‘non-organically caused problems’ that ‘inhibit the body from functioning as it should’ (e.g. Mood changing drugs affect a person in such a way that the benefits of pain and other unpleasant feelings are not realized). He writes, “For help on so-called “chemical imbalances,” for instance, see The Christian Counselor’s Medical Desk Reference.” [I’ll note that whenever I’ve heard the critique of nouthetic counseling regarding a lack of meds, the meaning is psychological meds, so Adams is hardly clearing anything up hear]. Nouthetic Counselors Oppose the Use of Medicine, Don’t They-

CMI compares the world’s fastest supercomputer (10^15 flops [that’s floating point operations per second, a measure of CPU power, but not much more useful than measuring peak horsepower in a car). Compared to the human brain: “Estimated total number of nerve cells (neurons): 100 billion. Number of connections in the brain: 500 trillion (5 x 10¹⁴). Number of new nerve connections made every second: 1 million Processing capacity: 100 trillion instructions per second (10¹⁴).” The computer fills a room. [there will also be parallelization issues with the supercomputer, etc]/ Supercomputer to brain-storm the human brain

Challies point to an article in Canadian Business: “The focus of the article is pornography and its coming decline. It seems that pornography has been unable to adapt to the realities of Web 2.0, realities that dictate that everything must be free. Or nearly everything. Porn producers are saying that they have seen revenue fall 80% over the past three years; Playboy is bleeding money and laying off staff; actors who were once paid $2000 a scene are now being paid just half of that; revenue for major distributors has fallen 30% in just the last year.” Basically, porn can’t keep up with Web 2.0, where people just won’t pay for things. While the death of the industry in this form is in itself great, the reason it dies is not: Amateur/grass-roots free porn is supplanting professional porn. “Pornography is suffering because of reasons related to morality, and yet it is a lower rather than a higher morality that is making the difference. It’s not that as a culture we are objecting to pornography on the grounds that it objectifies women or hardens the hearts of men. Rather, the culture has decided that it won’t pay for what it consumes and that it will take whatever it desires. And even worse, the culture has become so hardened to what used to be shocking, that no allure remains.” Porn has succeeded itself into decline. Sex Isn't Selling

Hays has some interesting thoughts on the idea of right to privacy. Right of privacy

JT cites a comment pointing out the real heart of the whole Glenn Beck issue: The problem is Americolatry. “If our government does X, Y, and Z, then we will be joyful, satisfied, safe, and complete.  Then we will live in heaven.  But if the other guys get their way, it’ll be hell.  In that equation, God is no longer our joy, our comfort, our satisfaction, our all.  If God is brought into the conversation at all, it is to use God as a means for our own idolatrous ends.” Americolatry

Creationsafaris: “China has had a “one-child policy” for 30 years this week. This policy has caused untold grief for many families desiring children, and has resulted in unexpected demographic problems – such as aging of the population, not enough brides for young men, and enormous numbers of abortions. Two articles in Science this week explored the convoluted reasoning that resulted in history’s biggest social experiment, and asked, what are the prospects for abolishing the policy, or at least relaxing it? After all, this regrettable “case of ideology trumping science” sprang out of “a wave of neo-Malthusianism” that captivated government officials in the days of Chairman Mao – a view of population demographics that had influenced Darwin (01/15/2009) – but has largely been discredited today (12/09/2009 bullet 3, 12/12/2008, 06/05/2007, 03/17/2003)… ” the article goes on to detail the disturbing imbalance. “… in spite of negative demographic consequences facing China’s elderly, bachelors, work force, and the sustainability of its population – all based on flawed math and science and ideology – a majority of the couples in a province who were given, once again, the opportunity to have families with siblings, responded, with no disagreement from the bloated bureaucracy, “one child is best.”” China Suffers 30 Years of Misguided Malthusian Idea

T-fan responds to Dawkin’s critique of Rome’s doctrine of Original Sin – many of Dawkin’s ‘arguments’ would be easily cast at the Reformed doctrine as well. Dawkins Criticizes Rome and Original Sin. See also Hays’ critique here. Dawkins on the warpath For example, Dawkins says, “Even if Hitler had been an atheist – as Stalin more surely was – how dare Ratzinger suggest that atheism has any connection whatsoever with their horrific deeds?” Hays responds, “Why not? Even Peter Singer admits that human rights are traditionally grounded in the doctrine of the imago Dei. Once you reduce man to a meat machine, which is, in turn, the byproduct of a mindless machine (a la naturalistic evolution), then why not kill human beings with impunity?”

Dawkins is a selective moral relativist. Punishing the Pope

Mounce comments on whether ‘kai’ means ‘but’. Strictly speaking “there is no specific word in the Greek that has the basic meaning “but.”” Kai can have an adversative force.  He notes that the danger in placing too much weight on something textually suspect, and the complexity of communicating the meaning of the author and its tension with communicating the direct structure of the original into English. The moral: check multiple translations. Does καἰ Mean But - (Monday with Mounce 76)

DeYoung writes, “Satan is an accuser and a deceiver. In both cases his weapons are words, which is why we must overcome him with the word of our testimony. In other words, it is through our belief in the gospel and our confidence in the power of Jesus Christ that we can stand secure in the face of Satan’s lies and accusations. ”  Precious Remedies Against Satan’s Devices

Hays interacts with a detractor of retributive justice: “Scripture doesn’t regard the demand for retribution as inherently sinful. Consider eschatological setting of Rev 6:10. Furthermore, Scripture doesn’t treat forgiveness and retribution as mutually exclusive. To the contrary, God forgives the redeemed because he exacted punishment on the Redeemer. Penal substitution lays the foundation for divine forgiveness.” “In Scripture, divine forgiveness is contingent on repentance and retribution. We don’t have unconditional forgiveness in Scripture, where God forgives the impenitent. ” Are you washed in the blood-

Burk relates a chilling encounter with a the pro-choice escorts outside the abortion clinics, who directly oppose Burk and his group’s efforts to offer woman another choice [rather ironic, isn’t it! Just goes to show feminists hate women, and they aren’t really concerned with their ‘freedom to choose’]. The woman with whom Burk interacted actually said the mother has the right to kill the baby outside of the womb if it is still connected. “The encounter brought home again how indefensible the pro-choice position is. There is no morally significant difference between a person inside the birth canal and one outside. One is here, and one is there. But there’s no basis for arguing that one is human outside but not human while only inches away inside the birth canal (or for that matter in the womb). The pro-choice position is indeed ethically bankrupt.” “What I encountered in this woman was not mere irrationality, but spiritual darkness. She didn’t know Christ and needed desperately to be introduced to him. I tried to do just that by sharing the gospel with her, but as far as I know to no avail.” Pro-choice Irrationality

Mohler cautions Christians against practicing Yoga, as it cannot be decoupled from its pagan and sexualized roots. “Syman describes the yoga on the White House lawn as “sanitized, sanctioned, and family-friendly,” and she noted the rather amazing fact that a practice once seen as so exotic and even dangerous was now included as an activity sufficiently safe and mainstream for children.” The Subtle Body — Should Christians Practice Yoga-

Creationsafaris has a reminder of the discovery of soft tissue and blood cells in a T. rex bone, which, while evolutionists waltz around it,  threatens to undermine the dating and phylogeny of the world’s most famous dinosaur. Waltzing with Dinosaurs

JT points to four observations in light of the Gospel on Green Awakenings. “This booklet co-opts language of the biblical gospel to articulate the work of creation care. Green Awakening’s articulation of renewal suggests, at times, a replacement of the transcendent God of the Bible with another god: the earth itself. The renewal presented in this booklet defines the role of human beings differently from the way the Bible defines it. This articulation of Renewal skews the whole biblical story, from beginning to end—because it misses the central point.” The Gospel must be central. Green Is Not the Gospel

Mohler cites a Harvard prof who argues that presidents don’t get far ahead of public opinion on controversial/moral matters. “how many politicians on both the right and the left take their positions based on such a political calculation? Apparently, for far too many, the risk of telling the truth “isn’t worth taking.”. When Telling the Truth “Isn’t a Risk Worth Taking”

Hays talks about how Protestants should view Eastern Orthodoxy. i) If our “heresies” are their orthodoxies, then what they take to be their corresponding orthodoxies are heretical from our own vantage point. ii) minor error, or even a minor truth, can become a major error if it is elevated to the status of an all-important truth. e.g. Seventh-Day Adventism and the Sabbath. Consider the theological priorities of the Eastern Orthodox. What do they consider all-important? And compare that with the theological priorities of the Bible. Is Eastern Orthodoxy Eastern heresy-

Genetics is complicated. Synonymous Codons- Another Gene Expression Regulation Mechanism

White points out that the reason even rejected proclamation is never a waste of time is because such a proclamation is honoring to God, because it is the declaration of His Lordship and truth. He contrasts this with William Lane Craig’s belittlement of the impact of sin. Glory-Based Apologetics vs. Rebel-Based Apologetics

Hays comments on the Arminian use of 1 Tim. 2:1-5. i) Arminians dismiss Calvinists taking this as all kinds of men (in light of vs. 1-2) as subterfuge, violating the ‘plain sense’ of the passage to uphold his ‘unscriptural belief system’. ii) If under the Arminian view prayer for all men doesn’t mean prayer for representative sample groups, then, presumably, the Arminian alternative means that we (or Timothy) pray for every individual. iii) How does Timothy pray for them all if he doesn’t know how many individual humans live at the time? iv)  If Timothy prays for every individual, what does he prayer for? Does each human being have the same needs? Is there one generic prayer that we should pray for everyone? And, if so, what would that be? Is it a sincere and meaningful prayer to pray that God saves every single person? We know that God doesn’t save everyone. So isn’t it hypocritical to ask God to do something even though we know that God has no intention of answering our prayer? v) Or does this mean that we pray certain types of prayers, which automatically apply to whatever individuals happen to fit the terms of the prayer? Isn’t this the same as praying for different kinds of individuals? How does that distinguish the Arminian interpretation from the Reformed interpretation?  Pray for all men