Cheng of Solapanel points out that Saul stole another man's wife (Michal) for David. Cheng suggests "that King David ended up as a nasty, sleazy piece of work because he always was (1 Kgs 1:1-4, 2 Sam 11)." Nevertheless, we're to follow his example. How to steal another man’s wife
Here's the notes from Keller's Gospel Coalition message on confronting personal (money, romance, self-expression- the idol of the artistic community, children), spiritual (truth, morality, gifts), and cultural idols (family, individualism, any ideology). http://theresurgence.com/gospel_coalition_2009_keller_notes
MacArthur writes about the Trinity. It is in large part a mystery, but the Scriptures teach that there is one God, and that God exists as three Persons sharing one indivisible essence. The Old Testament hints at the Trinity (plural pronouns in Genesis, texts where God's name is applied to more than one person in the text, Ps. 110:1; cf. Gen. 19:24, and places where all three divine persons are seen at work. Is. 48:16; 61:1.) The New Testament clearly distinguishes three Persons who are all simultaneously active. They are not merely modes or manifestations of the same person (as Oneness theology incorrectly asserts). Trinitarian formulas appear in various places (Matt. 28:19, 2 Cor. 13:14) The Trinity
DeYoung brings a reminder from Martin Bucer (born 1491). The pastor (and anyone engaged in pastoral ministry Bucer would say) must seek the lost, bring back the wandering, restore the fallen, strengthen the weak, and encourage the strong. He should view pastoral ministry as all about people, not about administration and programs. Concerning the True Care of Souls
Ascol points to the Founders Journal with the theme "Reconsidering Calvin and Calvinism." It should help any honest reader to get past the caricatures of Calvinism. Reconsidering Calvin and Calvinism
Here's a blog on the basics of death, looking at the question why? Simply put, death is God's judgment on sin for man's rebellion, and in Christ, death is overcome. Death- What’s It All About-\
Some notes from the complementarian Connecting Church and Home Conference, which included CBMW president Randy Stinson, are here. Of note, Stinson's presentation on cultivating manhood points out: "Kill a bear or a lion. Don't run from the bear or the lion in your life. Some of you have people in your life who don't know Jesus...share with them. Don't be scared. A fast-beating heart does not mean you aren't supposed to do something. Go deal with it." Exercise dominion, do your work now, not later; keep your domains in order; reject passivity, and run to the battle. Connecting Church and Home Conference Takes Place in Nashville, Part II
Regarding apprenticeship, too often we are reactive. Why do churches leave scouting, i.e. seeking out talent for leading the church to the sports world? Find people to mentor: The Faithful—those who are proven faithful to Christ and in serving his people. Those who persevere and fulfil their responsibilities. The available—apprenticing requires a relationship and ministry responsibilities which take time. There are seasons of life when being an apprentice is more compatible with the demands of life. The teachable—an openness and respect for the trainer is fundamental. Don't choose the following as apprentices: The young convert—especially if they are being trained as a teacher (1 Tim 3:6). The enthusiast—those who volunteer for every ministry may not be reliable or suitable. The insecure—those who are overly dependent on acceptance and recognition may make poor ministry apprentices. They will jump through all the hoops but for the wrong reasons. Criteria is given for mentoring, some from the business world. There are numerous relations in the Scriptures that could be looked to for implicit guidance. And don't distinguish between teaching and discipling. Some weaknesses of apprenticing (largely the weaknesses of the mentor) are given, with some guidance on how to mentor (e.g. have high standards, etc.) Some thoughts on apprenticeships II (Factotum #9)
Smith at aomin.org gives a summary of the Qur'an and the New Testament, to inform readers that Muslims will take their understanding of the OT and NT from the Qur'an and of the differences that result (e.g. they seek to protect the reputation of a prophet in denying Jesus' death, and in following various gnostic myths regarding Jesus). They also deny the divinity of Christ, and call the Trinity shirk, meaning they hold Christians guilty of denying monotheism by saying that Jesus is a partner with God. A Brief Introduction to the Qur'an- The Qur'an and the New Testament
A writer at Solapanel provides a mathematical formula for happiness that he read elsewhere: Happiness is equal to reality divided by expectations. Therefore, happiness decreases for two reasons. Reality gets worse, or our expectations are unrealistic. Christians tend to adopt the expectations of the world without first filtering them through the word of God. Christians should never ‘expect’ to have, to be or to do anything that our gracious heavenly Father has not promised to give them, make them or empower them to do. The article goes on to enumerate some false expectations. There is great gain in Godliness with contentment. The mathematical formula for happiness
When the Christian doubts, he has an anchor of some sort, and this varies from person to person. It might be a rationalistic conclusion or a feeling from reading the Scriptures. Patton looks to multiple anchors, with the central being the historicity of the resurrection of Christ. Christ rose, so what do I do with that? The evidence is overwhelming and it would be dishonest to deny it. He also looks to the existence of everything and concludes that things do not just come into being without a sufficient cause. Finally, he looks to his experience, which is the weakest anchor (e.g. he's never heard God's voice, etc). Patton also points out that the Holy Spirit is the power behind any anchor, so the super-spiritual types should not just say, "the Holy Spirit." What is the Anchor of Your Faith-
Swan comments on Romanist e-pologists interpreting Scripture in light of their insistence that we need an infallible magisterium to do so. First, Swan addresses the claim that Luther was trying to make the Bible say what he wanted in adding 'alone' to Romans 3:28. "some Catholic versions of the New Testament also translated Romans 3:28 as did Luther. The Nuremberg Bible (1483), "allein durch den glauben" and the Italian Bibles of Geneva (1476) and of Venice (1538) say "per sola fede." Luther mentions others before him translated Romans 3:28 as he did (for example, Ambrose and Augustine)." Catholic scholar Joseph A. Fitzmyer has confirmed Luther's claim. We Have Apostolic Tradition - The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary #8
Here's some notes from the initial sessions of the Connecting Church and Home Conference. "From session one the vision of the conference was made clear: when it comes to leading churches with the family in mind..."We've Got to Get Better at This." So challenged David Horner, senior pastor of Providence Baptist Church in Raleigh, North Carolina. Horner went on, "[Family ministry] must be something that resonates at the core of who we are. This is a life-long process of relationally taking people deep into the Scriptures. We don't have to juice it up or make it relevant. We have so diluted this and what it looks like over the years that we must come back to a simple way of communicating Christ to the next generation."" Connecting Church and Home Conference Takes Place in Nashville, Part I
Peter Bolt at Solapanel reflects on study and seminary. This is worth-while: "Full-time study. Or, for those for whom a full-time load is best done half-time, a half-time full-time load, if you know what I mean. But there is something about being full-time—taking the time out to be confronted by, exposed to, deeply immersed in the sustained, constant, ever-present word of God through classes and interaction with peers and faculty. This is powerful medicine with powerful effects. And the results are clear: graduates who are well-taught, thoughtful, personally changed by the experience of college, and fired up for their new venture in the Lord's work." It makes sense, since pastors are given study leave to permit deeper thought, etc. There are many with objections to the need for theological training, which Bolt briefly addresses (particularly, he points out the 'smell of sulphur' all over the idea that this is a thing of the past - the idolatry of the new!) Time out to learn and grow, undistracted and exposed to the word of God
Patton pays attention to de-conversion stories (he notes that he's a Calvinist and a firm believer in the perseverance of the saints). These are the steps: 1: Doubt (this involves revealing doubt to mentors, inquiring for the sake of intellectual satisfaction to some degree), Discouragement (they don't get answers, or they get, 'that's unchristian to ask,' 'just believe', or 'that's a good question, never thought of that' and that's it), Disillusionment (doubts intensify as intellectual disillusionment progresses, with a feeling of betrayal by those who made them believe in Christ), Apathy (gives up on finding the answers and lives as closet unbeliever), Departure (they announce their unbelief, and because they feel betrayed, they feel a duty to evangelize others). A core part of discipleship involves showing the intellectual viability of the Christian faith, and expositional preaching alone is not enough for this. Everyone will doubt, and everyone should ask questions. but let's not theologically atrophy. Let's obey the great commission and make disciples, not mere converts, and let's pray that the Holy Spirit will cause revival, for this alone will change the antagonistic heart. People Leaving the Church- What Do We Do-
DeYoung begins writing about a book, A Clear and Present Word: The Clarity of the Scriptures. The doctrine of the perspicuity of the Scriptures (that the core teachings are clear and accessible) has fallen on hard times lately. For example, emergents claim that we cannot know the 'plain sense' of the text. These objections go way back, however. Here's five objections: 1) “The doctrine fails to take account of the transcendent mystery that is the subject of Scripture.” (this was made by Erasmus). 2) “The doctrine fails to acknowledge the God-given role of the church as the interpreter of Scripture.” (Romanists defer to the magisterium, emergents to the community) 3) “The doctrine fails to take seriously the [very human] nature of the word of Scripture.” 4) “The doctrine fails in practice given the reality of diverse interpretations.” 5) “The doctrine fails by its own criterion, since Scripture confesses its own obscurity.” The post-modern idea of epistemic humility has magnified the problem. Here's a quote: "We can cloak our own darkness by calling it the obscurity of the text; we can evade the judgment which Scripture announces by endless hermeneutical deferral; we can treat Scripture not as the clear Word of judgment and hope but as a further opportunity for the imagination to be puzzled, stimulated and set to work...That is why the promise of claritas scripturae is inseparable from the prayer: ‘Open my eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law’ (Ps. 119:18)." A Clear and Present Word (1)
MacArthur has a summary of some of the biblical teaching on the divinity of Christ here. He looks at the claims Jesus made, both to the authority of God and possessions of God, His actions, His receiving of worship, His fulfillment of biblical prophecy, His use of "I AM", His appropriation of titles like "Son of God" and "Son of Man", His unapologetic representation of Himself as divine, which caused livid reactions from His opponents, the Gospel narrator's testimonies, the claims to unity and representation of the Father, and the apostolic testimonies. Fully God and Fully Man
Gender Blog writes, "Biblical womanhood has shown up in a neighborhood where women are often denigrated and objectified in the basest fashion: hip-hop music. On his recently-released CD Storiez, Christian rapper shai linne honors authors Carolyn Mahaney and Elisabeth Elliott in a song on biblical womanhood. In the song "Work it Out," the Philadelphia-born artist contrasts the Bible's vision of the Gospel-transformed woman with the vain, narcissistic and radically individualistic woman of popular American culture." They provide lyrics and a testimony. An Astonishing Convergence- Biblical Womanhood and Hip-hop
Grimmond writes that the term, 'cultural engagement' isn't that helpful, it just seems to be something everyone is using. It's so broad that it's in danger of being meaningless. What is culture? Porn? Swinging on a swingset? "the sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human beings and transmitted from one generation to another”? As for 'engage', you can get 'engaged' to your wife, engage in nuclear war, and engage in anything you 'jolly well like.' "So is cultural engagement having any sort of relationship with anything that any other human being does?" It becomes a word allowing us to call in and call out whom we will, a description of a vibe, so that if one doesn't like another's vibe, he can say that he's not 'culturally engaged.' Moreover, if we account for sin, and culture is the products of humans, the assumption here that it needs to be preserved is probably largely wrong, and rather, it needs to be repented of. This, of course, must consider the depth of ethics, where actions and motives can be distinct in their moral value (though they often go together). Even what is neutral in culture, from the motive of angles, is bad. So what does redeeming culture mean? Do we make a Christian porn industry? No, because the Gospel destroys that culture. Is it only morally neutral culture (which isn't that neutral)? The problem is we're talking about the wrong thing, since culture isn't self-existent but the outpouring of human hearts, which reduces cultural engagement to redeeming human hearts (since the objective of it is to 'redeem culture'). So the term is hopelessly confused: "let's use the biblical terms, shall we? Let's love our neighbours enough to know and serve them, and seek every opportunity to share the good news of Jesus." God seeks to redeem human souls, not culture. Culturally engaged-
Swan compares more Romanist e-pologist interpretations. An e-pologist asserts that the woman of Revelation 12 is Mary and that the early church fathers agreed, while Roman scholars (e.g. Brown) disagree. Brown points out that in "subsequent theology, especially in the Middle Ages, the woman clothed with the sun was identified with Mary the mother of Jesus)" contradicting the claim about the early church, and he himself takes the woman to be Israel. The NCAB study notes also take the parallel to be Genesis 37. Armstrong's insert in the NCAB Bible says, 'Is it any wonder that in such a portrait, Catholics see Mary, Queen of Heaven?" Well, there is indeed wonder here- it is a wonder why Rome's scholars see one thing, while her apologists see another. We Have Apostolic Tradition - The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary #9
Hays returns a Romanist's words against Protestantism back at him. In sum, the Roman church is a megalomaniacal local church, independent, with no common government, that formerly hawked indulgences to fund a marble basilica for the Vicar of Christ (since the Romanist critique parachurch ministries, which minister immensely to the poor at their own expense), with self-appointed teachers within it (e-pologists), and open scandals like priestly pedophilia that continue without corrective action for lengths of time, having such stains on its record like the inquisition. Pernicious tendencies
Engwer points to a few lines of evidence for the resurrection. There was the empty tomb (most likely guarded by Romans, but possibly by Jewish guards). The Romans and Jewish authorities had an interest in the tomb, and the fact that it was empty involves a public shaming of them, and a reversal of what they had done. Second, there is the multiply-attested fact that James was an unbeliever, and that (cf. 1 Cor 15:7) the resurrection appearance of Christ to James is the best explanation for James' appearing as the leader of the Jerusalem church. This evidence has the criterion of embarrassment (Jesus' own brother rejecting Him, and the early church wouldn't sponsor embarrassing statements about a major leader that weren't true). If an individual, like James, had been opposed to Jesus, then his testimony to the resurrection becomes more significant, even though he was only one person. Also, there is the conversion of Saul of Tarsus, an opponent of Christianity. Writers are selective of what they do and do not mention, and Paul could have been prominent at the time of his conversion, yet not have been mentioned in the extant writings of his contemporaries because his prominence was so brief. The New Testament shows that he was well known to Christians as a persecutor of the church. The early enemies of Christianity, especially those who were Jewish, would have had difficulty with a prominent Jewish enemy of Christianity who converted to the religion on the basis of seeing the risen Christ. They would have had an interest in not discussing him in some contexts. Modern critics are out of step with ancient critics, too. It was common for the early enemies of Christianity to acknowledge Jesus' performance of apparent miracles, but dismiss those apparent miracles as the work of Satan, magic, or sorcery, for example. The Significance Of The Resurrection Evidence
Hays responds to James McGrath regarding methodological naturalism. i) History is supposed to be a descriptive discipline, while methodological naturalism (MN) is prescriptive. Thus, with the latter, the historian has a foregone conclusion about what can and cannot be evidence before he even begins. This isn't doing history, but merely insulating oneself from the past. ii) MN doesn't distinguish between first-hand or second-hand miracles; thus, even if the MN'ist saw one, he'd have to seek an alternative explanation, if he stakes out the position that anything is more likely than a miracle. iii) The naturalistic filter controls historical interpretation. iv) Historical probability depend on what is actual or possible, so the MN'ist is assuming his conclusion in assigning a probability to a miracle - testimony evidence for a miracle cannot be discounted on the basis of probability since that probability depends on testimony evidence. v) MN can only be the default position of metaphysical naturalism is true. vi) What makes a miracle (say, the resurrection) likely or unlikely is whether God would do it. vii) Unless metaphysical naturalism is true, it is not antecedently improbable that God willed the resurrection of Jesus. Evidence for the resurrection is also evidence for God and His will. viii) Why assume that because God did miracles in the past that he'll do them now? Why assume that He should regenerate lost limbs? Where's that promise? Hays also briefly defends the Chicago statement on inerrancy as detailed and articulate, and rejects conspiracy theories that conservative scholars are really closet liberals. More on methodological naturalism
Hays responds to a Romanist who brings out "Church History" as a norm and who claims, without argument, that Protestants are out of step with 'Church History'. This takes for granted that early church history should be our yardstick. Early church history is descriptive, not prescriptive. It’s not as if modern Catholicism moves in lockstep with early church history. Moreover, a historic fact is not a norm, and, church history includes rival factions in it, so church history cannot adjudicate between rival factions. Toxic plants
"Winners write history." Hays points out that, strictly speaking, the Jews were the losers in the OT times (since the Babylonians, Assyrians, etc. trampled on them) and in Roman times, the Romans suppressed the Christians. So really, the OT and NT (i.e. history) was written by the losers. Folks like Ehrman should view it as reliable. Moreover, measure the yardstick even today - who is winning the war on terror? The Americans, Brits, and Aussies. Now, have the media and Hollywood portrayed them in the best possible light? Hardly. Is all the negative media coverage and moves - did the Jihadis make these? History is written by the winners
Here's some early church reflections on the heightened glory and testimony of Christ's silence before His accusers at His trial, and His silence now. Jesus Before His Accusers
Hays provides a short satirical memo on bringing executions up to EPA standards. The auto-da-fe
Engwer points to articles on the fulfillment of prophecy in the events of Jesus' death. The Fulfillment Of Prophecy In The Events Surrounding Jesus' Death
Engwer quotes meditations from the patristic writers on the crucifixion of Jesus (citing Mathetes, Irenaeus, John Chrysostom). He also quotes Spurgeon and Piper. Jesus On The Cross
Hays has a meditation on the pilgrimage of the Christian. There is a tension between the past and the present, recollection and reality, when looking at a former earthly home. For the Christian, "the point of tension lies not between the past and the present, but between the present and the future. He lives in one place, but yearns for another. And the longer the journey, the deeper the longing. The passage of time intensifies the alienation with this world, and intensifies the anticipation for the world to come. There’s a sense in which every day is Holy Saturday for Christians. Good Friday is behind us, but we await the Easter morn. In this life we hold a vigil for the life to come." Home is where the heart is
Hays responds to Reppert's argument that God could lie (basically, since, he says, lying is morally obligatory/permissible in some cases - e.g. to a murderer - then God may be doing wrong by not lying in some potential scenario). Hays points to a disanalogy. Humans have to lie sometimes because they cannot do the right thing by telling the truth. They don't have control over the scenario. But God has all control. God has created the situation and He is responsible for the circumstances. God can't be put in a situation where He must lie to save an innocent. The argument is raised in the context of inerrancy. For argument's sake, Hays points out that all one need do is show that the promise is to the people of God, for example - that God never lies to His own. Reppert's paradox
Hays shows that postbiblical miracles are well within the bounds of Reformed orthodoxy, and even Warfield distinguished between a wonder-working God and a wonder-working church. Moreover, within the history and theology of Calvinism, there are references to both the possibility and actuality, of postbiblical miracles (citing Poythress). This is a point of liberty among Reformed believers. Also, since the Bible itself appeals to testimonial evidence, including fallible eyewitnesses, we cannot just dismiss all testimonial evidence to postbiblical miracles. This would require a radical degree of skepticism, which is self-refuting since this skepticism itself must rely on testimonial evidence for its grounds. Calvinists sometimes back themselves into a corner with a reductionistic view of miracles that sees their only function as evidentiary, and they thus must dismiss out of hand all miracles lest another religion be affirmed. There's no need for this. Reformed cessationism
Manata points out that Reppert can conceive of a morally justifiable reason for God to lie, thus throwing out his own strong intuition against God being a liar, but he cannot conceive of any reason whatsoever that reprobation might be for a greater good. "It is the height of irony that thinkers like Reppert will run as far as he can, maximizing to the nth degree, passages like "God is love," but then he has no problem minimizing the "truth" passages. At the very least, then, Reppert defeats a powerful reason for his views against reprobation and unlimited atonement based on God's "love."" The Blind (Bat) Leading the Blind - Response to Reppert
Engwer posts some meditations on Jesus in the Tomb from a few patristic writers. Jesus In The Tomb
Hays has a comment on the consistency of cessationists who deny all post-biblical miracles on the grounds of confessionalism (i.e. Reformed cessationists). He provides citations showing that such confessionalism (i.e. Calvinists who take this position tend to pride themselves on their strict subscription to the Reformed confessions, catechisms, and creeds, &c.), if strictly adhered to, requires one to identify the Roman Catholic church papacy as the antichrist. Now, the Scriptures promised that the phenomenon of false prophets, false christs, of the antichrist (which is a biblical motif, hence the connection) would be accompanied by great miracles and signs and wonders. So, applying this motif to the church age, the confessionalist must admit that Catholic miracles happen (These are not divine miracles, to be sure. They are demonic or diabolical miracles.) Nevertheless, it creates a dilemma, where the confessional cessationist must reject strict confessionalism or reject a denial of post-biblical miracles. Reformed historicism or Reformed cessationism-
Bayly writes that Rocky Mountain Presbytery in the PCA has affirmed in obedience to the Scriptures and the Book of Order that only men are to be elected or ordained to the office of deacon. Woman deacons and Rocky Mountain Presbytery- short and sweet submission
White points to a debate that is ongoing in Iraq among Muslims - over whether the earth is flat. One side is arguing that it is on the basis of the Qur'an. White's point, though, is this question: "given the over-arching legal power of Sharia, what internal corrective mechanism is there in Islam to allow the refutation of these kinds of people who refuse to read the Qur'an in any other way than as it was read by the first generations of Muslims? That is something to ponder when one speaks of "moderate" Islam." The Earth is Flat, and the Qur'an Proves It
