2009-03-19

Harris points to the stats on how pro athletes tend to go broke, unlike white collar executives, but like 20 year old lottery winners. “By the time they have been retired for two years, 78% of former NFL players have gone bankrupt or are under financial stress because of joblessness or divorce. Within five years of retirement, an estimated 60% of former NBA players are broke.” Professional Athletes Go Broke

Bird doesn’t like Dever’s recent comment that paedobaptism is sinful and that he wouldn’t admit paedobaptists to the Lord’s Supper, saying that in light of together for the Gospel, if Dever wouldn’t break bread and drink wine with Duncan and Sproul in Christ’s name, they’re not ‘together’ in the sense that matters. Soggy Fish Award - Mark Dever

Dever responds to complaints here. i) It’s only a surprise in our day that a Baptist should think infant baptism is sin. Dever understands sin to be disobedience to God, and the Scriptures have categories for intentional and unintentional sins. Infant baptism impedes obedience to Matt. 28:18-20. ii) The paedobaptist may very well think that I am in sin in withholding from children the sign of God's gracious covenant. iii) be Together for the Gospel as much as we can, working together in the extension of the Gospel in our own towns and cities, and around the world. iv) As it turns out, Baptists are sinners too! God protects us from our inconsistencies. The Sin of Infant Baptism , written by a sinning Baptist by mdever

Bird comments on whether Colossians 2:15 should read, “Christ stripped himself’ or ‘Christ stripped the powers’, observing that patristic authors mostly take the former, while modern commentators take the latter. He thinks the link of 2.15 with 1.12-14 and the military imagery of defeated hostile forces makes the latter image most likely. Dan Reid on the Pauline Strip

CotW comments on the tragedy of the capitulation of the churches to the unproven assertions of evolution, which, of course, simply gives the unbelieving world what it wants as the churches unnecessarily unwittingly surrender key truths in an attempt to remain in step with modern ‘science’. The well known statement by Richard Bozarth writing in the American Atheist magazine sums it up: “Christianity has fought, still fights, and will continue to fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.” The reality is that creationists are hardly opposed to science. [to be dogmatic about evolution is fundamentally UNscientific, no matter how much the media stomps its feet and huffs and puffs and uses pejoratives against Christians]. http://creation.com/churches-celebrating-the-year-of-darwin

Hays observes that the reaction of sinners (contra the thinking of universalists) to God’s presence in the Scriptures is not always positive, and doesn’t lead to repentance and a love for the Lord (Rev. 6:15-16). Also, the angels, rational beings in the presence of God, became wicked. Why should we assume if a holy being goes wicked in the presence of God that a wicked being will go holy? To the wicked holiness is repellant. When familiarity breeds contempt

Hays responds to a [lacking] argument by an atheist that compares God to a lousy/indifferent landlord in an attempt to disprove His existence (e.g. its an attempt to find a 'class of evils’ that wouldn’t exist if God did). i) The best you’d ever get from this is an inference that God is a cosmic slumlord. ii) It’s disanalogous b/c the world is a contrast of great evil and great beauty. iii) The ‘tenants’ are wicked. Hays points to liberal public housing, which sounds nice and pious, but just ghettofies the neighbourhood when the tenants turn it into a slum, as it attracts violent crime, drug trafficking, and prostitution. iv) There are positive theodicies. v) On what basis does an atheist call anything evil? The cosmic slumlord-

Americans have lost their confidence in EVERYTHING except the military when compared to 30 years ago. http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/03/americans-losing-their-faith-in-faith.html

MacArthur argues, in light of criticisms that his sermons aren’t ‘practical,’ that his job as preacher in exposition is explanation, not application. He is to explain the meaning of the text and the implication of tha tmeaning. But the work of application is the work of the Holy Spirit. Not only can focusing on practical applications miss the explanation of the text, but it tends to narrowly focus on a particular subset of people in the experience to which the preachers speaks.  http://odeo.com/episodes/23930643-John-MacArthur-on-Sermon-Application-Selected-Scriptures. Transcript: http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/GTY117

Wilberforce points out that absolute necessity for an understanding of human nature, which lies at the heart of all true religion, in discerning true faith from false beliefs. Many don’t reckon with total depravity, and though they are forced to acknowledge that something is amiss with human behavior, they will deny sin and depravity and speak instead of frailty and infirmity, of petty wrongdoings rather than indwelling sin. Yet, as unwanted as the truth is, it is necessary for one who would truly understand the great work of the gospel, for only the heart that knows its desperate need is really welcoming of the Gospel. Otherwise, the work built will be on a poor foundation. Reading the Classics - Real Christianity (III)

Challies posts notes on Sinclair Ferguson message on John Calvin. Grace wasn’t a foreign concept before the Reformation. While the RCC church was against the doctrine of grace because they think it leads to licentiousness, Paul faced the same problem. The Reformers came to understand that one could know that he is justified, and have assurance and peace and joy, something the church denied unless one had special revelation. “Calvin saw that the righteousness given to us is the very righteousness of Christ, counted to the believer. It is the righteousness of the final judgment, brought forward into the present. Sin, when punished, cannot be punished again. We can stand before the judgment seat of God, fully righteous and all by God's grace.” Calvin taught the doctrines of grace, but not in the form of Dordt. Now, he held that there was no such thing as grace, only Jesus Christ, and everything Christ has done for us is of no benefit unless we by faith get Christ Himself. This is Calvin: it is all of God, it is all in Christ, it all comes through the Holy Spirit. Naturally, this militates against Romanist teaching on many fronts. Ligonier Conference - Sinclair Ferguson

Here is a Q&A at the Ligonier conference on Calvin, with Ferguson, Mohler, Duncan, and Lawson. It’s an excellent summary, and even touches on the Servetus incident, details which should be read by every individual who thinks himself accurate taking the “Tyrant of Geneva” view. Ligonier Conference - Q&A

Swan has another example from the New Catholic Answerr Bible which takes a view of Romans 8:38-39 as speaking about astrology – something apparently unique, not in the fathers, and not the ‘consensus’ of what the verse means. “Wouldn't it be more "Catholic" to actually tell us what Tradition says these verses mean?” Finding Astrology in Romans 8

Hays writes, “What’s a Hypo-Calvinist? A Hypo-Calvinist is a Christian who thinks that God suffers from conflicted feelings. God can’t have what he wants. So he’s emotionally frustrated. When a Calvinist denies this, a Hypo-Calvinist calls him a Hyper-Calvinist.” He quotes Warfield to the effect that, 1) It’s God’s universe, 2) He must be supposed as having made it as He wished not only statically but dynamically considered, that is, in all its potentialities and in all its developments down to the end; or, is it that He couldn’t, having to put up with the best He could do? This includes time – if it messes up down the road, we’re in the same boat. A being who cannot make a universe to his own liking is not God. And even considering this ‘godling’, he still made the universe, even though it wasn’t to his liking. He’s still responsible for it – and even those things that he didn’t like, he still allowed. Is he watching things coming and coming for ages that he doesn’t want to happen, and then being unable to stop them? Hypo-Calvinism

Engwer responds to an atheist claim that Romans 11:9 is talking about the destruction of the temple in AD 70 saying that it shows Romans to be spurious, even though a table isn’t the temple, and the cited passage, Ps. 69:22, isn’t talking about the temple. And why would the temple have to be destroyed already in order for it to be a snare to the Jews who rejected Christ? Hebrews treats it this way. Anyone willing to accept such dubious assumptions in order to reject Pauline authorship of Romans should likewise be willing to accept the dubious assumption that Josephus couldn't have written a document in which the Old Testament canon is referred to as undisputed. But double-standards don’t seem to matter to these atheists. Does Romans 11-9 Suggest That Romans Is A Forgery-

Engwer continues, responding to a set of assertions about discrepancies in Pauline books that allegedly indicate different authors by pointing to what one writer called "countless changes and contradictions" in Josephus that are reconcilable with his authorship, and observing that these atheist objectors refuse to apply the same standard, and just simple assert that the Josephan difficulties are all in a different category, without argument. Moreover, even the large majority of liberal scholars don't see these supposed characteristics in Paul’s writings as inconsistent with Pauline authorship. Josephus' Countless Changes And Contradictions

Hays points to a dilemma for liberals and Ehrman: “A contradiction involves a discrepancy between two or more passages. You can’t allege a contradiction unless the text is reliable. If the text is unreliable, then you’re in no position to say that these passages are ultimately discrepant. For all you know, the discrepancy might well be a scribal gloss.  So a necessary precondition for imputing contradictions to scripture is the essential integrity of the text. If the transmission of the text is unreliable, then any contradiction you allege is vitiated by an unreliable witness to the original text.” The liberal must pick one line of attack or the other. Also, if one opts to say the meaning of Scripture is hopelessly obscure, this forfeits the right to impute error to Scripture, which is only as good as your interpretation. Inerrancy and textual criticism

Ehrman makes a pitiful argument based on reports of miracles of first century Jews and pagans (and a 3rd century biography – AD – of Apollonius that seems similar in some ways to Christ - as if that discredits the reports in the Bible. 1) The Bible shows Jews performing miracles. Why are 1st century miracles problematic? 2) the bible shows pagans performing miracles. Why is this problematic? 3) Missionaries report miracles even in the present? What’s the problem here? Ehrman is banking on the gullibility of his readers. Ehrman seems to assume that miracles de facto attest the messenger, so religions cancel each other out. Miracles can attest. That’s not all they do. Moreover, they can attest to evil power, i.e., what is true, not what is right. The existence of sorcery corroborates Christianity. Ehrman is either working the crowd or dumb enough to believe his own argument. Ehrman Corrupted

AiG writes: “Many people do not realize that science was actually developed in Christian Europe by men who assumed that God created an orderly universe. If the universe is a product of random chance or a group of gods that interfere in the universe, there is really no reason to expect order in nature. Many of the founders of the principle scientific fields, such as Bacon, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton, were believers in a recently created earth. The idea that science cannot accept a creationist perspective is a denial of scientific history.” “Operational science deals with testing and verifying ideas in the present and leads to the production of useful products like computers, cars, and satellites. Historical (origins) science involves interpreting evidence from the past and includes the models of evolution and special creation. Recognizing that everyone has presuppositions that shape the way they interpret the evidence is an important step in realizing that historical science is not equal to operational science.” No one saw the past; they must interpret with presuppositions. While the evolutionary textbooks claim this distinction isn’t necessary (citations provided), the same books claim that observability, testability, repeatability, and falsifiability are the hallmarks of the scientific method! The past is not directly observable, testable, repeatable, or falsifiable; so interpretations of past events present greater challenges than interpretations involving operational science. Modern ‘science’ simply operates on naturalistic (no supernatural implications) and materialistic (only matter exists) presuppositions. The ability to study the world around us is only reasonable because there is a Lawgiver who established the laws of nature. Most people do not realize that modern science was founded by men who believed that nature can be studied because it follows the laws given to it by the Lawgiver. (Bacon, Newton, Kepler, Galileo, Pascal, Boyle, Dalton, Linnaeus, Mendel, Maxwell, and Kelvin were Bible-believing Christians.)http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/what-is-science

Carson reminds interpreters to keep the centre of the Bible in the centre, to be strong and clear on what Scripture says, to not fudge what the Bible says, and, if you find that the “best articulated and sophisticated, knowledgeable exegesis of Scripture, carefully thought-through, can be graced with the word ‘complementarian;'” then stop apologizing for it, since it is for good and for your good. God knows what He’s doing. “you cannot use your culturally-located questions to become a back-door way of saying that you're uncomfortable with exegesis…'” “Keep Your Finger on the Text,” D.A. Carson Speaks on Gender