2009-03-12

Here's a brief post on the work of Baxter in mentoring and evangelistic pastoring: "Alongside his public preaching ministry, Baxter implemented a rigorous process of church discipline based on the systematic personal instruction (catechizing) of each parishioner of all ages, family by family. He argued that catechizing was “a most helpful means of the conversion of souls”, which would “promote the orderly building up of those who are converted”, “make our public preaching better understood” and “be much assisted in the admission of them to the sacraments”.. As part of the wider application of his pastoral strategy, Baxter took pains to raise up and train young men for the ministry, thus ensuring a godly succession that would build on his work." The power of example

Bird provides a quote from R.T. France that 1) attempts to show from a Pauline allusion that Paul to the traditional material from which he drew some of his illustrations, which he employed for a focus on Christ chiefly; and 2) "If anyone is obliged to practise the most rigorous grammatico-historical exegesis, without taking short cuts or fudging the issue, it is the evangelical." The evangelical holds inerrancy, a high view of Scripture, and because of what he is handling, he must do this more rigorously than anyone, for he should be chiefly concerned about what the text means. R.T. France - Inerrancy and NT Exegesis

Phillips points out that the default setting of man is fatally unobservant - to the knowledge of God revealed everywhere. Even as believers, we still need to humble ourselves and cry out to God for open eyes, lest we be duped as well. Another chuckle on being observant, and how we aren't

Wilson comments on Spencer's (imonk) post on the evangelical collapse, and makes this (among other comments) significant point of disagreement with Spencer's notion that evangelicals are too politically conservative(i.e. on abortion, gay marriage): "in my experience, those Christians who know the gospel up and down, backwards and forwards, are usually the ones who understand most clearly that the resurgent paganism we are battling is a paganism that requires a blood sacrifice, and that it is the kind of paganism that will not be satisfied with a couple more sacrifices and then they are done. Are you kidding me? And when the helpless are being led off to slaughter, the appropriate response is not to leave a tract down at the laundromat, not even one that articulates the gospel with coherence. We must oppose all this, not by lobbying in a way that plays their game, but with the gospel. Our age needs a prophet in the worst way, one who can get into Obama's head the way Elijah got into Ahab's, and the way John Knox got into Mary's." http://dougwils.com/index.asp?action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=6381&qdata=2314

Mohler has an annotated list of all the posts/audio that he has done on evolution. Here's some samples: "Don't Trust a Theory You Cannot Sing The theory of evolution, inevitably expanded into a worldview, must explain everything, if it explains anything. Rightly understood, evolutionary theory attempts to explain virtually all dimensions of reality. As evolutionists like Daniel Dennett explain, the theory becomes a "universal acid" that burns away all other explanations." "Two Irreconcilable Worldviews: Evolution and Christianity Efforts to reconcile Christianity and evolutionary theory abound, even as evolutionists bemoan the fact that such a large percentage of Americans simply will not accept a naturalistic understanding of cosmic and human origins." Christians also aren't the only ones opposed: "with specific reference to major religious groups, Orthodox Judaism is also steadfastly opposed to evolutionary theory."  http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=3276

Here's a post from AiG on the pervasive influence of Darwinism in England, and in particular how the church's compromise to evolution undermines biblical authority in a devastating way. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/ghost-of-darwin

From AiG: "How else would we know that the Bible is written by inspiration of God unless it said so? I suppose God could have attached a yellow sticky note to the Bible that said, “This really is my Word—God.” But then we’d have to ask the question, “How do we know for sure that the sticky note was really written by God?” And then I suppose God could attach another sticky note to the first sticky note that says, “The first sticky note was really written by Me—God.” But then we’d have to ask how we know for certain that the second sticky note was really written by God, and . . . well, you see where this is going. Ultimately, the Bible must be self-attesting—and it is. It claims to be the Word of God, and a person must either accept or reject that claim. And that choice will have consequences." http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/02/13/feedback-a-question-of-authorship

It turns out that Time Magazine thinks that the New Calvinism is number 3 in the top ten ideas that are changing the world. I'm not sure I like the characterization of Edwards in there but nevertheless JT thinks its an accurate enough assessment. Time Magazine- The New Calvinism Is Changing the World