2009-04-08

Mohler has some insights regarding Obama’s statements on Islam, to the effect that (i) America is not a Christian nation; ii) America is not at war with Islam, iii) rather, “we will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world -- including in my own country.” Mohler agrees with the first two points. Classical Islam understands no real distinction between religion and the state, but instead establishes a unitary society; it is really a territorial religion including all lands under submission to the rule of the Qur'an. When a foreign power like the United States invades a Muslim nation like Iraq, most Muslims see this as a war against Islam. He asks whether Christians  - that who would call America Christian - would wish to be associated in the Muslim mind with the flow of debauchery and abortion coming from the United States. However, unlike Obama, Mohler says that Islam does pose a huge civilizational challenge, which is much more than just terrorism. “Islam is, in effect, the single most vital competitor to Western ideals of civilization on the world scene, offering two very different and fundamentally irreconcilable visions of society: “The logic of Islam is to bring every square inch of this planet under submission to the rule of the Qur'an.  Classical Islam divides the world into the "World of Islam" and the "World of War."” Mohler’s chief concern is that Islam is a system that enslaves millions to damnation, since Christ is the only way to be saved. http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=3579

Mohler reflects on the Newsweek article – which mentions him, was written while talking to him, and which he thinks is generally fair - by editor Jon Meacham, "The End of Christian America." The number of religiously affiliated is dwindling (the number of Americans who claim no religious affiliation has nearly doubled since 1990, rising from 8 to 15 percent), and Christians now make up a minority in America. New England, becoming increasingly secular, is a stark example. The articles are in a post-Christian time, where the Christian God appears to be less of a “force” in politics than any other time in recent history. While Maecham writes that "a commitment to freedom" is what binds America, Mohler points out that this presupposes “some prior understanding of human dignity and the origins of conscience itself.  Though the founders included those who rejected the Christian Gospel and Christianity itself, Christianity had provided the necessary underpinnings for the founders' claims.” Maecham also thinks that it is good for the state and church that this is happening, since for the church it keeps "the garden of the church" from "the wilderness of the world” (separation of church and state) and will make more serious believers, and “the decline and fall of the modern religious right's notion of a Christian America creates a calmer political environment,” where no attempt to compel or coerce religious belief or observance is made. Mohler’s first concern isn’t cultural, though, it’s evangelical. Nevertheless, it is good for non-Christians to know that they are not believers, and that “Christians be reminded of that fact that what sinners need is the Gospel of Christ, not merely the lingering morality of the Christian memory.” http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=3563

Here’s Mohler’s thoughts on a study where “researchers found that stress levels and heart rate showed a 68% reduction in measurable stress after reading from a book.” “Other stress relievers included listening to music (61% reduction), having a cup of tea or coffee (54% reduction), and taking a walk (42% reduction).  Playing video games lowered stress rates by only 21%, but left heart rates racing.” Mohler writes that no other experience “brings the same ability to transport the imagination and to transfer ideas.  Those who would lead, must read.  Those who would learn, must learn to be avid and skilled readers.” http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=3556

Hays comments on some ‘thoughts’ by John Armstrong on neo-Calvinism. For Armstrong, “If there’s disagreement between Calvinists and fundamentalists (in the SBC), lay all the blame at the doorstep of the Calvinists. If there’s disagreement between Calvinists and Emergents, lay all the blame at the doorstep of the Calvinists.” He also manages to slander every critic of the NPP. Armstrong also asks, “why then do so many with a genuinely classical and high view of God, such as Roman Catholics and the Orthodox, not embrace what we call Calvinism?” Because they reject sola scriptura. The New Calvinism

Someone goes after Manata for not upholding this distinction, “(1) God allows or permits certain things to occur (the majority view among Christians concerning evil and suffering), versus (2)God actively predetermining and desiring for those things to occur (the view of necessatarians/calvinists).” The Calvinist position is that God willingly permits, and position (1) doesn’t put someone in a better place than (2). Here is an argument against (2): "Well, if a human did that, then the human would be naughty." Likewise, though, if a human "merely allowed or permitted" 9/11 to happen, while he had the power to stop it, then that human would be naughty. At that point, they’ll appeal to the greater good – but so can the Calvinist. In other words, there is a difference, but it doesn’t do any good. An announcement does not an argument make

Hays has some observations for those who choose to apply methodological naturalism to the Bible. i) They have to allow miracles, since this is a method (it disallows making allowance for miracles in the interpretation of a natural or historical event.), and to deny miracles amounts to a metaphysical statement. ii) This means it must take the position that a naturalistic position is always preferable even if its false (i.e. allowing miracles, disallowing miraculous interpretation). iii) Even if the miraculous is the best explanation it cannot permit it. Why would a responsible historian or scholar choose a method that automatically excludes a true interpretation? Isn’t to point to arrive at truth? iv) what supposedly distinguishes methodological naturalism from metaphysical naturalism is its ontological neutrality, so one cannot classify miracles as improbable, since that’s a metaphysical idea, making a claim about the nature of the world. v) Hays asks, “what conceivable warrant does it have to invariably favor a naturalistic interpretation to over a supernaturalistic interpretation?” Miracles and methodological naturalism

JT points to Tim Keller's latest book, Counterfeit Gods: The Empty Promises of Money, Sex, and Power, and the Only Hope that Matters, which is due out in October. It deals with the issue of elevating what is good to the ultimate good in the search for security and meaning, a subtle temptation. Keller on Counterfeit Gods

JT posts some short conclusions from Everett Ferguson's just-released massive/magisterial book, Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries. i) On infant baptism, there is general agreement that there is no firm evidence for it before the latter part of the second century, producing a chronological gap, and the most plausible explanation for the origin of infant baptism is found in the emergency baptism of sick children expected to die soon so that they would be assured of entrance into the kingdom of heaven. ii) It would seem that full immersion was the normal act. Ferguson on Infant Baptism and the Mode of Baptism

JT posts the outline of the book here. He provides this quote on the book: “Everett Ferguson has accomplished here the next to impossible by presenting us with a single, detached, comprehensive, very well written, and easily readable study of baptism in the first five centuries of Christianity. No baptismal font remains unturned. No author or document, whether of greater or lesser significance, is left untreated. Liturgically and theologically, with attention to culture and archaeology, this is a truly remarkable study.” Baptism in the Early Church- History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries

Clint provides an anecdote illustrating that the free market spiritual economy is thriving, even as the material economy suffers: Advertisements for new churches adorned a highway, with the names, “The One, Epic, LifePointe, Mosaic, The Rock, and of course The Church For People Who Don't Go to Church (the old name was The 37 Minute Church).” But these are examples of the proliferation of bad methodology and theology, as researching some of them indicated that they are “”almost entirely characterized by the ethos of the seeker sensitive movement even though their 'brands' had been updated by incorporating the language and styles of the emergent church.” The Free Market Spiritual Economy Part 1

Carl Trueman has a review of Wells’ The Courage to Be Protestant. He opens with, “For nearly two decades, David Wells, the Andrew Mutch Distinguished Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, has been subjecting American church life, particularly white, evangelical church life, to rigorous, if not merciless, scrutiny. In four deep tomes he has argued that, for all of the superficial signs of health among American evangelical churches—crudely considered, their impressive size, financial resources, and political influence, compared to the lack of these for evangelicals elsewhere in the world—there is a deep, dark sickness at the heart of the American evangelical church which indicates a deep spiritual crisis which is even now bearing evil fruit…” Trueman closes with, “In conclusion, I want to reiterate that I find David's latest book (along with his others) to be a compelling analysis of the problems facing the church in the modern West, particularly America. The church has secularized to an impressive degree. Whether it is mega-church excess or emergent eclecticism, it is clear that both by and large provide religious idioms for the expression of deeply secular cultural concerns. I also find myself in full agreement with David that the answer to these problems has to be a return to the great solas of the Reformation, to a church practice built around word and sacrament, and to the practice of church discipline” and cautions those in the OPC not to fall into the trap, "I thank you Lord that I am not like other men." Trueman is also pessimistic about the reality of a return to church discipline. “David is right: it is a time for a courageous Protestantism. But sadly such may be too little too late.”  http://www.opc.org/os9.html?article_id=147

Phillips reviews a few cell phones. He found the iPhone really impressive, but: “you have to get apps from the Apple apps store. And, if the battery goes out, you can't replace it. You have to send it to Apple. I've read a battery only takes 300 charges, which means it'd only last a year. And you can't upgrade the memory card. This is what turned me off of Apple in the early '80s: I saw they'd get you and own you so you could only do business with them. They haven't changed… the iPhone is heat-activated, meaning you can't use a stylus — nor, in cold weather, your hands in gloves, or your fingernails for precision.” Cell phone progress report

Gilbert goes after a representation of the Gospel by NT Wright as quoted by Scot McKnight. i) There’s no explanation of what Jesus’ death actually did. What does it actually mean to say that He won decisively over evil? The NT is much clearer than this. ii) Who is this for? “'Good news!  Jesus is "the true king of the world" and "every knee" will bow to him!' ” If you aren’t a universalist, how is this good news? How does a person take advantage of the benefits obtained by Christ?  iii) There’s no connection between Jesus’ death and God’s wrath against sin (Is. 53). “In the NT, the good news is always the proclamation of forgiveness of sin through the substitutionary death of Jesus, and the call to repent to believe in him.” Sometimes the NT also zooms out to include all the promises that flow to those forgiven. The NT never presents Kingdom alone, apart from the means of entering. It is always something more like, "The kingdom is at hand; therefore repent and believe [that is, trust in the crucified and risen Jesus for salvation]."  Which Gospel- by Greg Gilbert

MacDonald explains what he means by a vertical church: i) believing that God actually wrote the Bible and treating it accordingly. ii) Faithful prayer. iii) Believing the fields are ripe to harvest and being the hands and feet of Jesus to people in pain, counting this as far superior to seeing the gospel as a horizontal transaction of human persuasion and cultural savvy. iv) The adoration of Christ is the first and most fervent focus.  Quiz- Is Your Church Vertical-

Here’s a collection of Resources for Teaching about Hell from Harvest Bible Fellowship.

Swan points to another Romanist apologist who insists on claiming the “Luther threw James out of the canon” myth. “It is a simple historical fact that Luther’s translation of the Bible contained all of its books. Luther began translating the New Testament in 1521, and released a finished version in 1522. He published sections of the Old Testament as he finished them. He finished the entire Bible by 1534.” While Luther did have doubts about its canonicity, so did the great humanist Scholar Erasmus and Cardinal Cajetan, one of the leading 16th Century Roman Catholic scholars. Luther even understood the reconciliation of Paul and James: 'Faith,' he wrote, 'is a living, restless thing. It cannot be inoperative. We are not saved by works; but if there be no works, there must be something amiss with faith' " and “We say that justification is effective without works, not that faith is without works. For that faith which lacks fruit is not an efficacious but a feigned faith… It is one thing that faith justifies without works; it is another thing that faith exists without works.” The real issue was apostleship. Not, Why Johnny Can't Read or Write, but Why Johnny Shouldn't Write

Swan satirically points to the vacuity of the claim of unity by using the New Catholic Answer Bible as an example. it's complete with the NAS text and extensive interpretive footnotes. But, this volume possesses an uncanny ability. It comes with additional apologetic "inserts" scattered throughout. These will so overwhelm you, that some Catholics won't even realize the NAS footnotes are there. That's right, even though "there are some theologically liberal errors to be found in some of the notes" according to the NCAB author (Dave Armstrong), those who buy the NCAB "probably don't even read the footnotes." No mixed messages there! Beggars All Recommends... The New Catholic Answer Bible. This answer Bible is schizophrenic. “Why are the alleged conservative Catholics "right" as to their interpretation and the alleged liberal Catholics "wrong" as to their interpretation? The constant drone, that somehow Catholics have a unified understanding of the Bible, or an infallible interpreter of the Bible, or a Holy Spirit given interpretation via the Catholic Church of the Bible, simply does not match up to reality.” Where is the infallible magisterium telling you what the Bible means, to sort out who is right? Catholics have been saying that the Bible is too unclear to solve this. Most Catholics Don't Read Footnotes