2009-04-16

Turk has some thoughts on an essay by NT Wright about the atonement. Wright says that Jesus wanted to explain the atonement He gave them a meal, not a theory. Turk writes that Wright has an extraordinarily- robust view of the operation of covenant and teleology or purpose in the work of Jesus Christ, here suddenly becomes a one-note wonder, fumbling the NT in a reductionistic way (after critiquing others for being reductionistic). Turk can agree that the Lord’s Supper is the central act of worship and has some analogical value in promulgating the Gospel (rather than propositional). He can agree that God’s promise to Abraham is fulfilled in Christ. But reducing the object of the Gospel to this meal doesn’t reckon with how Jesus spoke about being the Christ. In Mark 8, Luke 9, Matthew 16, Jesus plainly taught them that He must suffer and die and be raised. On the road to Emmaus, Christ interpreted Moses and all the Prophets to the men – it is the words of Christ that revealed these things, the explanation, not the meal. The ordinances are consequential, not principal, and to hang so much on them is reductionistic. Best Of -- Art Markers & Oil Paints

Abraham Piper gives some alternatives to Strunk and White’s The Elements of Style. See here for a “refreshingly scathing review” of the book. An Alternative for Some Readers of Strunk and Whit

“So why plant a new church? Planting churches is the surest way to accelerate our mission of making the Name of Jesus Christ famous in the world. I am planting a church because I believe that eternity is real. Souls are in the balance. Hell is horrific. Heaven is glorious.” A New Harvest in Frankfort, Kentucky

Adams encourages preachers to look to their everyday existence for sermon illustrations, as Spurgeon looked to his bees, and Edwards looked to spiders. Honey and Spiders

Grudem’s Sunday School classes on Christian essentials are available online for free. Grudem's Sunday School Class

Swan points out that Catholic apologists will repeatedly claim a Christian relying on the Bible as his sole infallible authority will produce confusion, and yet, up to 70% of Catholics do not understand the core belief (“crown jewel” of the Catholic faith) of the Eucharist. The magisterium isn’t exactly keeping things all tidy. Seventy Percent of Roman Catholics Do Not Understand The Eucharist

Phillips uses the example of a man, who, thinking it was an April Fool’s joke, thwarted a bank robbery by challenging the robber to shoot him, to illustrate showing belief or faith by works. He did what he did, because he believed what he believed. You couldn’t tell what he believed exactly, but you could tell he really believed it and thought he was right. Deeds reveal faith more truly than words. Life as lived reveals reality. Can people tell that you live your whole life for the glory of God, from how you live? Faith is absolutely important, making all the difference, because we do what we do because we believe what we believe. Does faith matter-

Irish Calvinist says, “When pastors use Jesus to be a punch line of a joke, regardless of the ostensibly biblical point that is being made, they too should be embarrassed. Whether you are suggesting or inferring homosexuality to Jesus or suggesting that people thought Mary was “knocking boots in some guy’s car at the prom” you are out of line. This is just using Jesus to make a joke. Folks who do such things bring shame upon themselves, the church, and their boss, who is the Lord of the church.” http://www.irishcalvinist.com/?p=2775

Turk has some a brief but worthwhile observation on MacArthur’s comments on Driscoll’s use of Song of Songs. He asks, “if Josh Harris delivered either that Scotland talk or the Ecclesiastes joke on D.L. Hughley, does anyone think C.J. Mahaney would not call him the very next day? And what would Josh do after CJ called him, one wonders? And what would happen to Josh if he didn't actually do what we all know he would do?” We break into the BOC

Steve continues responding to an Arminian. i) The object of divine predestination is not God, but creation. It applies to contingent things that would not be unless He instantiated His decree. God can choose from among possible worlds because they represent the range of divine omnipotence. ii) Alternate possibilities are thus a presupposition of divine predestination. iii) God isn’t indecisive. Practically speaking, there’s no going back on the decree because God is timeless, omniscient, and wise, but the starting point is omniscient knowledge of God’s own omnipotence – not the decree. iv) This Arminian continues to inject a non-technical word with technical meaning, and he doesn’t do a proper word-study of the original languages, but just reads his own loaded English definition back into terms, even to the denial of Libertarian definitions. v) Words like “possibilities” or “alternatives” do not distinguish determinism from indeterminism. God can determine an agent’s actions – the divine Agent isn’t limited doesn’t lack access to different possibilities. vi) Oxford’s definition of ‘choice’ applies to mental acts. It doesn’t define choice in terms of action. vii) even a libertarian doesn’t know what hypothetical alternatives are viable alternatives unless he tries to act on his mental choice. viii) The intuitive argument for libertarianism involves the inference that if we can conceive all these possibilities, then only plausible explanation is if these conceivable possibilities are, in fact, live possibilities, so what’s one concedes that they aren’t live possibilities, it shows that this intuition isn’t a reliable guide. ix) The difference between libertarian and determinist lies in the interpretation of the experience of choice, not in the experience itself. Determinism is perfectly consistent with apparent alternatives. x) under Molinism, the human agent has no real freedom of choice. No freedom of opportunity. He merely has different wishes. He wishes one thing or another. But he doesn’t determine which wish, if any, will come true. God makes the ultimate choice, and not the creature. God chooses which possible world to actualize, and God actualizes the possible world of his choice. xi) For a predestined agent, apparent alternatives serve a purpose and are still functional in the deliberative process since they influence his choice of the viable alternative (e.g. playing cards; gamblers make decisions based on probabilities). xii) While Libertarians contend that freedom to do otherwise (or choose otherwise) is a precondition of moral responsibility, one can’t make an informed decision unless he foreknows what the various alternatives entail. xiii) God enjoys an immediate knowledge of the decree since the decree is a divine idea. God’s knowledge of the decree is self-knowledge, a knowledge of his own mind. Time, or future time, is an extramental entity for creatures – it’s not immediate knowledge. God’s knowledge of the future is grounded in God’s knowledge of his decree for the future. How we know the object of a belief and whether that belief corresponds to reality are two different things. The ice cream parlor at the edge of the alternate world