Grant of Solapanel has a tentative list of books in a number of topics that he is considering recommending for an apprentice. A basic booklist for MTS
“Have you ever thought about finding, encouraging and training others with similar gifts to yours to see how they could use them in the life of your church?” Apprenticing/mentoring/discipling has three elements: Development—the trainer is committed to the development and progress of the trainee. Instruction—there is a program of formal instruction to build a knowledge base sufficient for the required skills. Modelling—the trainee observes the skills and attitudes of the trainer and can ask questions. Practice—knowledge and practice are integrated by learning on the job. The trainer can critique the work of his protégé. Every Christian leader should have an apprentice. Some thoughts on apprenticeships (Factotum #9)
Mark Driscoll is debating on Nightline for the existence of Satan. Mark Driscoll in Satan Debate on Nightline
Bird still doesn’t think that Dever’s view of infant baptism as ‘sinful’ is correct, opting instead for pointing out that there are degrees of theological certainty, and in contestable areas that call for theological construction, a hermeneutic of humility is necessary because we do not have a God's eye-view of things. Mark Dever Responds to Critics
Here are some conference messages by Carson at Different by Design: The Flow of Thought in 1 Timothy 2, Is the Culture Shaping Us or Are We Shaping the Culture?. See Carson on Complementarianism
JT links to and summarizes some of Carson’s article Biblical Gospel. He outlines some of the broader considerations for understanding the concept of the ‘Good News’ from the Scriptures, and he observes that there is little difference between the Gospel of the Kingdom and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Carson on The Biblical Gospel
Paedobaptist R Scott Clark agrees with Mark Dever on baptism. “Mark is a Baptist and as such thinks that we paedobaptists (who haven't been re-baptized) are unbaptized and it is sinful to remain unbaptized. Now, as a principled paedobaptist (baby-baptizer) who started his Christian life as a evangelical Baptist, who came to his views through biblical theology and exegesis, and who is comfortable with the history of the doctrine, I'm quite convinced that the Baptists are wrong, but Mark is right that it's sinful to remain unbaptized. Further, if he's right about baptism, he's right to say that we paedobaptists are sinning. I'm not offended. God bless Mark Dever for taking the holy sacraments seriously and for taking the doctrine of the church seriously. Hang in there buddy.” He concludes by saying we all have a moral duty to confess what we understand from God’s word. This Paedobaptist Agrees with Mark by R. Scott Clark
Haykin was recently interviewed on the importance of reading and studying the church fathers. Dr. Michael Haykin Interviewed on the Reformed Forum
Hays briefly argues that Obama is unintentionally digging a mass grave – and he just keeps digging. How to dig a mass grave in 3 easy steps
Engwer responds to an unbeliever who attempts to argue that since Christ didn’t appear to everyone, it’s evidence that He didn’t rise from the dead, because He would have. 1) The resurrection is significant evidence for Christianity but not the only evidence. 2) We don’t need to be eyewitnesses to trust the witnesses of the highly public resurrection. 3) Jesus appeared to hundreds of people, including opponents of Christianity (James, Paul), and we know that enemies and those high positions of leadership became Christians after the resurrection (Acts 6:7). 4) Why wouldn’t critics just dismiss the testimony of other enemies of the faith as they do the ones who did see Jesus? 5) The empty tomb, which was guarded, is evidence. There were hundreds of witnesses, which is sufficient. The testimony of witnesses is evidence for people who weren't witnesses themselves, as is the case in other areas of life. 6) Even when ancient critics were eyewitnesses to miracles looked for ways to dismiss the implications Christians associated with those miracles, even though they didn’t deny them, and they were highly public. 7) Naturalism hardly has an alternative explanation. Why Didn't The Risen Christ Appear To More People-
Hays continues to respond to an Arminian who insists employed dictionary argumentation, saying Calvinists don’t use the common sense ‘meaning’ of ‘choice’. 1) Dictionary definitions are circular and tautological as they presuppose general knowledge of the language. 2) There is a difference between a definition and an explanation (answers, why?). 3) It’s begging the question to say a “Reformed” definition of choice leaves out essential elements. 4) In translation, when the meaning is unclear, the best meaning is the least meaning. Or, transliterate. 5) To choose=’to make a decision’, or, as libertarian Kane has defined it, “A choice is the formation of an intention or purpose to do something,” (nothing here that involves freedom to do otherwise or alternate possibilities.) 6) Depending on whether the agent is human or divine, choice has different pre-conditions. God’s choices don’t ‘form’, as His intention is timeless, and His mind was never in a state of uncertainty or indecision. 7) Even including alternatives in the definition, there’s a difference between contemplated hypothetical options, and whether these options match accessible alternatives in the real world. 8) Even if it seems intuitive that one must be able to do what he imagines being able to do otherwise, this intuition isn’t a reliable guide to a set of live possibilites. 9) There is a distinction between the mental act of choosing and the extramental availability of choice. 10) If Arminianism were true “there would be a one-to-one correspondence between the mental act of opting for A, B, or C, and the extramental availability of A, B, or C.” 11) In Calvinism, what makes a possible world possible is that God is able to instantiate it. 12) The Arminian equates volition with choice, which ironically reduces it to a mental act, a making of decision, so one can make an “actual” choice (in this sense) even though he may not be able to carry through with his intention, as this doesn’t require metaphysical access to alternate possibilities. 13) Intuition isn’t proved true by majority vote. 14) The Arminian admits that people can only do one thing–one thing rather than another thing. If you choose A, you can’t choose B. If you choose B, you can’t choose A. In this case, what’s the benefit of LFW? 15) “God’s decree is the logical consequence of timeless divine decision. The fact that the consequence is immutable doesn’t mean that God lacked the freedom to decree otherwise had he chosen to foreordain a different alternative with a different consequence. Alternate possibilities exist because alternate possibilities inhere in God’s omnipotence. The finite world does not exhaust the unlimited resources of divine omnipotence.” 16) Paul isn’t pointing out a patently absurd objection in Romans 9:19, but one that has some apparent force. Otherwise, why bother citing it? The critic is challenging Paul’s conception of God. It offends the common sense of the hypothetical critic. And people can’t resist the fact of predestination, but they can resist its teaching. Pharaoh irresistibly fulfills the decretive will of God in the very process of resisting God’s perceptive will. 17) The Arminian abandons his Wiktionary approach when verses used by Open Theists are cited. He attempts to reconcile these verse with other truths, denying their ‘common man’ meaning. Contra his own words, this is not picking from the range of ‘what it says’. Wiktionary exegesis
An atheist attempts to argues that the appearance of “I, Paul” is indicative of forgery, referencing Ehrman. i) Ehrman doesn’t think the phrase "I, [author’s name]" is as indicative of forgery as Jon has suggested, as he holds 1 Corinthians to certainly be Pauline. ii) Two translators render the beginning of Josephus’ Jewish War with the phrase "I, Josephus" – ironic since this atheist has been applying double standards, in defending Josephus, but rejecting the NT. I, Josephus
Christ is not the Christian’s employer, but his Lord, and the Master of his life. Pastors don’t have their office time serving Jesus, and then their ‘me-time’ after. We are not our own. True, lasting happiness can only be found in a heart dedicated solely and wholly to his purposes. Christ demands total allegiance, and this isn’t just expressed in vocational ministry, but in all of life. Why Jesus Isn’t My Employer
White comments on the pejorative, emotional and irrational criticisms of those who think that if a Calvinist happens to believe that God hasn’t decreed His own eternal misery, that He doesn’t fail at anything He does, that God is not in contradiction with Himself, then, that Calvinists is really a hyper-Calvinist, and surely damned. He points out the lack of argumentation, the lack of sound exegesis, and the substitution of name-calling instead of reasoned arguments. Of Squeamish Calvinists and Hyper-Arminians
Turretin cites a comment to the effect that there is a statistical correlation between whether a church has an ‘Executive pastor’ and whether there are books by Barna, or Turretin, in the library. The Concept of Executive Pastors
Adams lists what he thinks are the similarities and differences between preaching and counseling. Biblical Counseling is Like Preaching
Commenting on John 15:2, Mounce points out that the meaning of airo, translated “takes away”, (a) must match the image of vine husbandry, must contrast properly with ‘prune,’ and must parallel v. 6; and (b) in BDAG, the range of meaning is between removing, and picking up to remove. “raise up” is not part of the semantic domain. airo in John 15-2 (Monday with Mounce 29)
Walton discusses the difficulty in the designation of one of the goats on the Day of Atonement as a "scapegoat"—a ancient attempt to render an obscure Hebrew word, Azazel. i) Rather than ‘scapegoat’ we should read, “to Azazel”, so one of the goats ‘belongs to Yahweh’ and the other ‘belongs to Azazel’. ii) Many different suggestions have been put forward for the meaning of “Azazel”, including "jagged rocks/precipice”, or as a ritual including the expulsion of a goat in order to overcome divine anger. If it’s a proper name, that eliminates ‘scapegoat’ since that refers to the goat whereas the syntax is, ‘to Azazel’. iii) Azazel, apparently a spiritual being in opposition to Yahweh, is most likely some kind of demon (so Jewish tradition recorded in 1 En. 10:4–5), who dwells in an uninhabited region (cf. Lev. 17:7; Isa. 13:21; 34:14; Luke 11:24; Rev. 18:2). iv) The biblical ritual expels moral faults to Azazel, who is apparently the ultimate source of their sins (cf. Gen. 3; Rev. 12:9), in contrast to pagan rituals that expelled the demons themselves. v) The goat is a moral garbage truck. vi) Information from the ancient Near East indicates that rituals of elimination (which is what Yom Kippur is) were common enough in the ancient world, and that the offenses would be sent out to a wilderness chaos entity resonates well with ancient Near Eastern conceptions. Azazel and the “Scapegoat” (Leviticus 16)
Payne likes neither the willingness of the capitalistic right to exploit human selfishness for gain, or the naivety of the socialist left, which denies human wickedness and the idea that human problems are intractable or personal, insisting that they are economic and social and can be solved by benevolent government efforts. He prefers “Christian.” Truth in labelling
Payne uses his own parking ticket and various traffic habits as an illustration of ‘getting away with as much as possible while defensibly within the law’, and connects this to Pharisaism, which “like all sin, has its consequences. We reap what we sow. Sin has a way of sidling up to you, getting acquainted, becoming your close friend, and then betraying you.” No use crying
No comments:
Post a Comment