2009-07-29

Anderson defends Piper’s point about how God’s foreordination of all things doesn’t imply that petitionary prayer are pointless against an Arminian, who in taking a shot, is in danger of shooting himself. i) Appealing to divine timelessness doesn’t solve the problem of divine foreknowledge with libertarian choices (cf. Helm, Eternal God). Indeed, temporal causes affecting timeless causes is even more incoherent, making more problems than it solves. ii) Even on the Arminian view, God’s decisions about how to answer prayers are settled from eternity. So on the Arminian’s assumptions, how could those prayers be ‘genuine’ causes of those decisions? iii) Our prayers aren’t the causes of God’s decisions on how to answer prayer, but rather the causes of the answers to those prayers. iv) The prayer temporally proceeds the answer, and on a counterfactual theory of causation this thus makes sense. Piper on Predestined Prayers

Burk points to an article writing that no matter what end of the spectrum an American falls on, he likely thinks the War in Iraq was a mistake, and he’d sooner like to forget it. “These twists and turns make Iraq look less like either Vietnam or World War II -- the analogies that politicians and pundits keep closest at hand -- and more like an amalgamation of the Korean War and America’s McKinley-era counterinsurgency in the Philippines. Like Iraq, those were murky, bloody conflicts that generated long-term benefits but enormous short-term costs. Like Iraq, they were wars that Americans were eager to forget about as soon as they were finished.” Of note, "Pro-war Democrats like Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton talked a good game about seeing the conflict through, but they got both of the crucial decisions wrong – backing the invasion in 2003 and then, fingers in the wind, voting against the surge in 2006.” The War We’d Like To Forget

Here’s a glimpse of what happens when Muslims who refuse to accept American values/principles gain political power in an American community. A Christian coach has been fired (and the ACLU doesn’t care – strange, huh!), followed by a seeming threat, after a Muslim student converted to Christianity. The coach is a hall of famer. Behold “The Religion of Peace. Coming to power near you.” Muslim principal fires Christian coach after Muslim student converts — off-campus

Adams briefly discusses that anthropomorphisms are a condescension to communicate to us. ANTHROPOMORPHISMS

This post echoes my thoughts on Leviticus. It is often sadly the subject of mockery by both unbelievers (who don’t like its statements on homosexuality) and believers (who try to pander to those who think the Bible is boring) alike. Aside from the dangers, Cheng anecdotally illustrates that Leviticus shows us how we can be reconciled to God. The Jews knew what they were doing on the day of atonement – transferring their guilt to another. And that sacrifice points to Jesus Christ’s sacrifice. The unbeliever should be asking, “Has God provided an Offering for me, that I may lay my sins on His head?” The law of God forces our conversion from self-centredness and guilt to the acknowledgement of his glory and grace. Conversion by law

AiG addresses the ‘three days/nights’ ‘contradiction’. They argue briefly, with some citations, that the Jews used a different method of counting days (e.g. Esther 5:1), reckoning a day from the previous day’s sundown to that day’s sundown. [I’ll note that the expression is probably idiomatic as well, see the archives of this blog].  http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/06/29/contradictions-three-days-and-nights

Challies endorses the short read, Does Grace Grow in Winter?, authored by Ligon Duncan and J. Nicholas Reid, which seeks to prepare and arm Christians for hardship and pain, which all of us will face. Most simply try to put a happy face on trials. But careless platitudes are vacuous, and one cannot treat suffering in a cold and pedantic manner. Moreover, it must also be addressed objectively from Scripture, or a world of despair will arise. Does Grace Grow Best in Winter-

There is a push in the UK for compulsory annual registration of homeschooled children and inspection visits by representatives of the Local Education Authority (LEA). AiG notes that i) In many cases, it is precisely because of the poor standard of LEA provision that parents have chosen to educate their children at home. ii) Interviews with the child alone violate parental responsibility and right. iii) Education is not the responsibility or decision of the state, but the parents, who may delegate it to those they trust – but if parents choose to send their children to a collective school, rather than educate them at home, the school must still educate them according to the wishes and direction of the parents. The teacher is in loco parentis. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/06/30/inspection-of-homeschooling

This post by a Southern Baptist at Genderblog expresses this thanks: “issues of sexuality and gender are not matters for debate within the SBC.  Southern Baptists invariably get this issue right and this was evidenced once again Wednesday morning, June 24, as more than 8,500 messengers voted overwhelmingly in favor of a resolution upholding biblical sexuality and opposing federal policy proposals extending special rights to homosexuals.” SBC Messengers Approve Resolution on Biblical Sexuality

If you’ve ever wondered about the meaning of the ichthus (Jesus fish) and the Darwin fish (the one with legs), Creation.com discusses the ‘fish wars’. Yeah… Darwin Fish

Mohler summarizes the reports of Governor Sanford’s adultery. “Governor Sanford may cite King David, and he may even suffer the illusion that his response is similar to that of Israel's King. Nevertheless, the difference is clear. David's adultery was mixed even with murder, but his own acknowledgment of sin came in a flood of contrition, remorse, broken heartedness, and humility. David acknowledged the reality of his sin, expressed his hatred of the sin, and became a model for us all of repentance. Governor Sanford, on the other hand, demonstrates the audacity to speak wistfully of his sin, longingly of his lover, and romantically of his descent into unfaithfulness.” http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=4089

Dever cites Spurgeon as an example of how to preach on hell. Spurgeon extolled the sovereignty of Christ in heaven, earth, and in hell. “While in heaven the glorious notes shout forth his goodness; in hell the deep growlings resound his justice, and his certain victory over all his foes. Thus his empire is higher than the highest heaven, and deeper than the lowest hell.” How To Preach About Hell by mdever

Futato on the purpose of Jonah: The primary purpose of the book of Jonah is to engage readers in theological reflection on the compassionate character of God, and in self-reflection on the degree to which their own character reflects this compassion, to the end that they become vehicles of this compassion in the world that God has made and so deeply cares about. The Purpose of the Book of Jonah

DeYoung posts this update on Iran, from the inside. More Iranians are becoming disillusioned with Islam in light of the regime’s actions. Ahmadinejad finished a distant third – the one who reported this suffered a ‘fatal accident’. Many Iranians are desperate to leave the country. Update from Inside Iran

JT points to a reveiw of Larry Hurtado's The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins, which comes recommended for all those with a high view of Scripture, and should be of interest to those with questions of how the NT came into being. Hurtado's The Earliest Christian Artifacts

Turk points to an article which says some scientists are concerned that machines are becoming too close to human intelligence. [I’ll note that the article cites botnets (which are more like insects than intelligent) and Predator drones [and I say, from my own experience, that most assuredly these drones are not even close to human intelligence – the article grossly overstates it]. Turk argues that building a machine because you are philosophically a misanthropist and a committed worshipper of yourself violates both of those, no matter how you dress it up. Culture and Science

This post at ETC notes that the exhibit in Glasgow, which allows people to write in the Bible (the intent of the artists is allegedly but unbelievably "to reclaim the Bible as a sacred text"), has received almost exclusively negative response, with profanity, etc. being thrown in. The Christian community has reacted negatively to texts altered and torn out in the name of ‘art’. This post observes that this provides a postmodern and negative parallel to things like Ehrman’s Orthodox Corruption. One must consider the possible motivations for the numerous various readings, whether positive or negative, to avoid assuming that an individual’s personal opinion is more valuable than the text he altered. Rewriting the Bible in Postmodern Parallel

Piper reminds us that prayer wins battles. Literally. Throwback- Winning Battles Through Prayer

“Adult stem cell research, which is using stem cells from anything other than embryos, is very successful. There are people walking around today who are alive because they had an adult stem cell treatment, using their own stem cells. There are also other alternatives to produce embryonic stem cell lines that don’t involve the destruction of an embryo: Altered Nuclear Transfer, which is still in active research, and IPS, Induced Pluripotent Stem cells. If Christians were going to pick one to be well informed on, stem cell research is probably the one I would encourage them to spend a little time with.” Interview with New Director of Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity

Challies points to an article by Mohler discussing recent research into what is called ‘confirmation bias’, i.e. "The moment a person forms a theory his imagination sees in every object only the traits which favor that theory." The study finds a strong correlation between particular activities in the brain (notably not so much the part responsible for reasoning) and such bias. Mohler cautions against biological reductionism and biological determinism, being "suspicious of all efforts to reduce human consciousness and cognitive activity to measurable or observable studies of the brain.” It’s quite the claim to think we can map out and solve why humans love, feel, believe, etc. Nevertheless, we are inclined to seek evidence that confirms our bias and discard that to the contrary. This is a product of the fall, and Christians, being aware of this, must read widely and think carefully and study opposing positions carefully. John Calvin, in his Institutes wrote "If we regard the Spirit of God as the sole fountain of truth, we shall neither reject the truth itself, nor despise it wherever it shall appear, unless we wish to dishonor the Spirit of God." Confirmation Bias

T-fan points to an index of the works of Hugh Binning. Hugh Binning is little known today. However, in his day he was viewed as one of the leading young Scottish ministers. It is even reported that John Owen was left unable to answer his arguments. Works of Hugh Binning – Index

Turk writes, in response to the suggestion that preaching should be about the application, i.e. the ‘how-to’ in the Pew, that even in the “how-to” letter by Paul, 1 Corinthians, all the problems of the Corinthians were because they had a wrong view of Jesus Christ. There were real people in real time doing real things and they should have been doing something else, but the solution wasn’t self-help, but Jesus Christ. The solution to culture is Jesus Christ. The Gospel. To those who would say, “but in what way?” and “that’s sloganeering,” Turk points out that this is the primary purpose of reading and expositing the Scriptures every Sunday from now until Christ returns: not to get a better life, but to get Jesus. Interlude- Y-O-U

Here’s the definition of utilitarianism, and the point that it’s only half a moral theory – that it requires another moral theory to tell you what’s actually right and wrong, particular for a human being. It only works if you know what’s good for a human. Philosophy Word of the Day – Utilitarianism

White is debating Harold Camping. Day 2 audio is available here. Day Two of the Debate with Harold Camping

Here’s a sad statement – despite all the different takes on Michael Jackson, as Genderblog points out, perhaps he is a tragic and extreme case of an effectively fatherless childhood. As he said, “what I really wanted was a dad.” What I Really Wanted Was a Dad

Tozer: "The man of pseudo faith will fight for his verbal creed but refuse flatly to allow himself to get into a predicament where his future must depend upon that creed being true. He always provides himself with secondary ways of escape so he will have a way out if the roof caves in. What we need very badly these days is a company of Christians who are prepared to trust God as completely now as they know they must do at the last day." Tozer on Pseudo-Faith vs Biblical Faith

Lewis draws a distinction between receiving and using art. Using’ is inferior to ‘reception’ because art, if used rather than received, merely facilitates, brightens, relieves or palliates our life, and does not add to it. Using it is treating it as assistance to our own activities. Receiving it is using the imagination, senses, etc. according to the pattern invented by the artist. Lewis on the Distinction between Receiving and Using Art

Phillips writes, “we warned people who were trying to profess Christ and Obama that the two weren't a good mix, given (among other things) Obama's pro-abort extremism.” Obama’s new appointed science czar doesn’t think a person is human at conception, human during conception, human after birth, human at first birthday, perhaps not human at his second birthday... and so on. John P. Holdren says, “The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being.” He also thinks the best think for the poisoned, burnt, dismembered baby is abortion. Phillips adds, “But we already knew what Obama thought, well before the election. Inconvenient children are a punishment, and their lives are forfeit at a whim.” This is nothing a biblically faithful Christian could ever accept. Obama science czar says babies may become human, eventually (another bloody hands alert)

Hays continues interacting with an objector to Reformed theodicy. i) Hays doesn’t need to prove Reformed theodicy to disprove the objector’s attack; rather, he only needs to disprove the general argument. ii) Since the Genesis narrative was never about the origin of evil, the silence of the narrative on that question is altogether unremarkable. iii) We can find the essentials of the greater good defense in the Bible itself, so disregarding it is dangerous out of the gate. iv) The objector admits that God is omnipotent. But God either willingly allowed evil to enter the world, or unwillingly, and if He’s omnipotent, then He could have prevented it, and so He willingly allowed it to enter. v) We need not be more pious than the Bible, using ambiguous terms like ‘author of sin’. Too much football without a helmet

Pike discusses Signs as an excellent example of compatibilism. “What sets this movie apart from others such as Final Destination is that this determinism is not fatalistic. That is, the characters are not trapped by fate and unable to alter their final destination no matter how hard they strive. Instead, every single member of the Hess family behaved exactly as they would have under those circumstances. Indeed, they acted freely and were never coerced. Yet they did exactly what was determined that they must do.” Signs As An Example of Compatiblism

Grimmond at Solapanel notes that, seemingly oddly, in Romans 5, what produces hope is the character of God’s people. Not that the death of Christ is unimportant. But the tested, proven character is an important piece in Paul’s exhortation. Indeed, throughout the NT is is those whose faith are proven who persevere through suffering )1 Thess 1:4-7; Phil 1:27-30). Godly endurance in the face of suffering displays a person's character; it shows that they belong to Jesus. And if you belong to Jesus, then God's hope is absolutely certain, because Jesus has died to save you and God's wrath holds no terror. No hope without character

2009-07-28

Josh Harris wrote a book on the Church. Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck also wrote a book on the church. He likes their book better: Why We Love the Church: In Praise of Institutions and Organized Religion and says, read it. Kevin DeYoung's Book on the Church is Better Than Mine

Packer on the Apostle’s Creed. "Each worshiper . . . has come into the hands of the Christian God where he is glad to be, and when he says, 'I beleive,' it is an act of praise and thanksgiving on his part.  It is in truth a great thing to be able to say the Creed." Apostle's Creed, A Great Thing To Say (Stephen Nichols)

Phillips reviews and likes Paul Blart, Mall Cop [I think it was a decent movie as well]. Fun movie- Paul Blart, Mall Cop

Koinonia has a quote from Phil Long that makes some points about polygamy/polygyny. I) Monogamy is God’s design for marriage (Gen. 2:24; one man, one woman, forsake all others). ii) Polygyny was far more common among the rich. iii) It had more to do with having offspring to continue the family line and having enough kids to do the work needed. It also had to do with status, not romance. iv) Marriage had a very different purpose than today as clan alliances rather than a relation built around love, etc. v) The OT’s treatment of marriage is comparatively ad hoc (wrt. other literature), and one shouldn’t seek to infer God’s standards of marital conduct from the (mis)adventures of OT characters any more than one should infer traffic laws from individual drivers. Polygamy by V. Phillips Long

Turk notes that Obama is a natural born citizen. Apparently the accusation that he wasn’t wa started on a blog from a supporter of Clinton. News Flash. Here’s JT with a caution against conspiracy theories. He quotes, “The hallmark of a conspiracy theory is that a lack of evidence for the theory is taken as yet more evidence for the theory.” Born in the U.S.A

Kevin DeYoung gives his basic defense of infant baptism. It’s predicated on the continuity of circumcision and baptism, the idea that one can be in the ‘covenant’ and not receive the covenant blessings, and he writes that the spiritual sign of circumcision was not just for those who already embraced the spiritual reality. He notes that Ishmael was circumcised, and argues that the children of believers are part of the same covenant with Abraham (i.e. God’s children would be blessed, etc.), and so should be baptized. In sum, “Because sons were part of the Abrahamic covenant in the Old Testament and were circumcised, we see no reason why children should be excluded in the New Testament sign of baptism.” He also declares that the burden of proof is on the non-paedobaptists. He says “we come to administer the sacrament of baptism to this child today with the weight of church history to encourage us and the example of redemptive history to confirm our practice.” Why I Baptize Babies

Phillips writes, “A female police officer was interviewed about Obama damning the Cambridge police as having acted stupidly. She said she'd supported and voted for Obama, but would never do so again. She further said that Obama should have said that he supports his friend Professor Gates, but "I don't have all the facts. So I'm not going to comment."” Now, that requires humility, and if Obama had that, he would have said 2 years ago, "I have no qualifications and no achievements to prepare me to be President of the United States. Find someone who does." The wisdom of humility, the mouth, Obama- study in contrasts

Rhology notes more Romanist argumentation, which makes people the standard of truth (apparently oblivious to the discord both within and outside the RCC with her doctrines, such as Papal Infallibility, male-only priesthood, etc).  I got myself banned

This blog notes that Christ endured great shame on the cross, in line with the Messianic expectations of the OT (which are briefly explored). Yet those who trust in Christ are not put to shame. [this blog is in the context of Islam]. Here’s the conclusion: “Those who put their hope in Jesus the Messiah will not be put to shame. Our shame is removed and we are given the honor of being sons and daughters of God. This comes through the loving bearing of our shame by Jesus Christ. He endured the worst kind of shame on the cross. Yet the worth of his death and resurrection show us just how honorable he truly is.” Honor and Shame in the Psalter (Zabur), Part 8 – Honor through the Shame of the Messiah

White points to Harold Camping and Family Radio as an example of how far from orthodoxy one drifts once he is cut loose from the foundation of Scripture (ie.. he now teaches that Jesus, as the Christ, died before the foundation of the earth, and then became the Son of God upon His resurrection: the cross then is just a "representation" of what He did in eternity past! The cross does not pay for sin, as that was done prior to the Incarnation!). This theology then results in modalism (confusion of the divine persons, a unitarian presentation of one Person being manifested in different modes.). It has the odd effect of also meaning that the Son rose before He was incarnated, as he died in the past. Harold Camping- Modern Day Cult Leader

Mathis at DG briefly sketches some more of Calvin’s life, and how he was expelled from the council of Geneva, which probably served to break him down into a more realistic pastor than idealistic theologian. He went to Strasburg, and pastored there, and wrote to help Geneva answer a Romanist Cardinal’s attempts to win her back. He married Idelette in 1540, who died eight years later. On September 13, 1541, Calvin's "golden years" came to an end. Geneva asked for him to return. He wasn’t eager, but felt it was God’s will. The Golden Years- Life of Calvin, Part 6

Burk notes a survey by Barna on the spiritual lives of gay and lesbian adults. Of interest, apparently most are interested in faith, but not the local church, they reject orthodoxy, view their faith as private rather than communal, and don’t prioritize it. Burk notes that it’s remarkably unsurprising to observe that homosexuals consider themselves religious, or even Christian – most Americans think they’re Christians, and aren’t, in any biblical sense. “The problem is that large segments of the population simply don’t understand what Christianity is. In fact, this study says that both gay and straight people believe in similar proportion that “good people can earn their way into Heaven through their goodness.”” It doesn’t make the homosexual population more Christian than previously thought, but rather reveals that the population is more confused about Christianity than we’d like to admit. Spiritual Profile of Homosexual Adults

Trueman has a speech which shatters the illusions of those wanting a [theological] PhD. He concludes with this: “Too many theological students come unstuck not because they do not master the sophisticated intricacies of their chosen fields of specialization but rather because they failed their apprenticeships in the basics, the corporate disciplines of church attendance, submission to elders, hard work for the local body, and the individual disciplines which flow from these: private prayer and Bible reading, a crying out to God for his mercy, and a burning desire to be mastered by the Word of God. Successful theological students are never the subjects in theological study; rather they are always the objects of God’s grace. And the church is the place where they will be held accountable for these things.” Trueman's Speech to Those Thinking about a PhD

Carson notes that while polemical theology is unavoidable in any serious theological stance, which the Bible makes clear itself, and unsurprising in a world of self-absorbed people in rebellion to God, the serious danger is that one can make polemical theology the focus of one’s theological identity, becoming known more for what he stands against than what he stands for, or his generosity to the needy or even for affirmation of historically confessed truth. e.g. “To make the refutation of error into a specialized “ministry,” however, is likely to diminish the joyful affirmation of truth and make every affirmation of truth sound angry, supercilious, self-righteous—in a word, polemical.” Polemical theology should not be skirted, but should also not be made a specialism. He also notes the wide range of tones in Galatians. Carson on Polemical Theology

Here’s John Newton on how it is Christ who has distributed the gifts among His people as He wills, so that there is no perfect pastor. Why There Are No Perfect Pastors

2009-07-27

Turretinfan responds to some arguments that Psalm 58 doesn’t teach original sin. The objector has a few presuppositions: i) Guilt can only come from what you personally do. But in undercutting imputed guilt you undercut imputed righteousness. ii) The age of accountability precludes it. Also, original sin isn’t like a slime, like contracting a physical disease. Original sin actually has three aspects: i) Guilt of Adam’s first sin. ii) Absence of original righteousness. iii) Corruption of nature. Now, it is pointed out that this is poetry. But what the objector misses is that this also means there is parallelism, which Ps. 58 is full of. http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2009/06/psalms-583-vs-kerrigan-skelly.html

TGC has a series by DA Carson on the temptation of Adam and Eve, Joseph, Hezekiah, Jesus, and the believer. Carson Sermons on Temptation

Adams has a short tribute to John Calvin, noting his pastoral work and concern for the person on the street. He even asked for his meager salary to help other pastors. John Calvin

Challies has a quote of Whitefield forcing a child to pray, apparently giving several blows to the obstinate child, and then rewarding him with figs when he did. A Humble but Flawed Servant

T-fan takes issue with Challies criticism of Whitefield for ‘breaking a child’s will’, asking what standard of judgment Challies is using and on what basis he thinks Whitefield is wrong. Whitfield Criticized for Breaking a Child's Will

Bird quotes some comments on Calvin’s theology at two points. i) It cannot be integrated with the Eastern Orthodox notion of theosis, since Calvin had dispensed entirely with the idea of the interpenetration of natures. Believers only share in Christ’s human nature, not divine, and if not divine, then there is no divinisation. ii) As to whether Calvin held to a twofold communion with Christ, one being sanctification/governing by the Spirit, directing us, and the other is granted by participation in Christ’s righteousness, it is very odd to treat justification as a form of communion if justification is understood along the lines of imputation of alien righteousness. Calvin and Theosis

Burk quotes an article in CT which asks whether the gay marriage debate is over and argues that shifting views on marriage are due to a radical individualism which has caused capitulation among evangelicals. Basically, evangelicals are hypocrites here - arguing for the sanctity of marriage while divorcing/approving of remarriage at damaging rates; arguing that the state can insist on certain values while failing to submit to even the local church; and saying that marriage is about more than self-fulfillment while with the tide of culture delaying marriage until we experience ‘life’, and then delaying children until we enjoy each other for a few years. Is the Gay Marriage Debate Over-

Jeremy Pierce offers some excellent points on Blomberg’s “Calminian” post (which is really just Molinism with a fancy name). He explains why it doesn’t work (as summarized here previously). Moreover, he writes, “I don't think freedom requires this absolute power to do something contrary to what we actually do. Libertarians insist that our choices can't be explained by any events within us, but I think freedom makes no sense unless our character and internal nature lead to our choices. When I want my choices to be free, what I want is for my own desires and character to lead to what I do in the right sort of way. So freedom doesn't conflict with being caused. It requires it. This compatibilism about freedom and predetermination is exactly what Calvinists have long insisted on.” At the end of the day his middle ground just isn’t a middle ground. http://parablemania.ektopos.com/archives/2009/07/calminianism.html

“While speaking at the National Press Club luncheon, Democratic Congressman John Conyers(D-Mich.), who is also the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, mocks the need to read bills before voting on them, because it takes two lawyers to interpret them and more than two days to work through them! And this from the chair of the Judiciary Committee????” More Irresponsible Behavior from Our Congress

2009-07-25

This post summarizes Yoder's argument in The Politics of Jesus for a pacifistic reading of the Scriptures. Basically, he points to a number of texts in the OT where God says He will fight for His people, i.e. they don't have to. That is, a dominant theme is that God saves His people without their needing to act. Key texts include: Ex. 14:3; 2 Chr. 14:11; 20:17; 20:29; 32:8; Ezra 8:21; Deut 28:7; 1 Sam. 2:9, Zech. 4:6. Yoder thinks it is wrong to go to the texts looking for moral judgment on holy wars, since he argues the original audience would not have thought this way, and instead would have seen God their Saviour working on their behalf. When the modern reader hears the Sermon on the Mount, etc. he just assumes that "Jesus can't mean that." Now, Deut. 20. does seem problematic, as the Israelites were commanded in the Law to put the Canaanites to the sward. God Will Fight for Us- Is the Old Testament Pacifist-

JT posts the "Anti-psalm" 23, which basically inverts the song: it tells what life feels like and looks like whenever God vanishes from sight. The experience of Psalm 23 is not beyond us, for we may have it in Christ. Jesus puts it this way, "It is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom" (Luke 12:32). He delights to walk with you. The antipsalm is only your reality when you live in a lie. The real Psalm 23 captures what life feels like and looks like when Jesus Christ puts his hand on your shoulder. Antipsalm 23 vs. Psalm 23

DeYoung writes that many churches involved in missions don't put enough thought into their missions budgets, and offers some questions to help. i) Are we supporting 1 Timothy 4:16 kind of people? Basically, sounds doctrine, a firm and unwavering grasp of the Gospel, a right view of the Bible, lives beyond reproach, growth in godliness, and lives in line with the truth are essential for missionaries, not just pastors. But don't allow this to become adversarial. ii) Are we supporting ministry in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and the ends of the earth? Basically, we should be active in pursuing both like-culture and cross-culture ministry, both near and far. It's not about an even split, but don't be too lopsided. iii) Are we striking the right balance of word and deed in the ministries we support? Holistic missions is good, but it's not a euphemism for not sharing the Gospel. Word-ministry is first. Make sure deed-missionaries are looking for ways to share the Gospel. Don't lose sight that the goal is to teach others to obey Christ [such social ministry in evangelism is only a question because we are so privileged - poor, broken oppressed people witnessing to the rich don't have this question - and that's telling as to what our priorities are.] iv) Are we giving priority to long-term missionaries? Don't overemphasize short term missions, which is a fad these days. Short-termers are very limited; they can't even disciple. "It's not always as sexy as the youth trip to Kentucky, but it is the only way to win the world for Christ." Questions for Your Missions Budget

Challies writes that those of us who are Western Christians continue to hear reports that the church is migrating to the south and to the east--that as our nations increasingly turn their collective backs on God. Numerous figures are given to indicate that China, Africa have greater church attendance than Europe, etc. The world is becoming more like America and so American Christianity is becoming more important, according to Mark Noll. He doesn't blame America for recklessness in exporting religion, etc. Instead he stresses "the advantage of seeing the new regions of recent Christian growth as following a historical path that Americans pioneered before much of the rest of the Christian world embarked on the same path." However, Noll's book suffers considerable weakness in being far to broad and unqualified in its definition of Christian. The New Shape of World Christianity

Fee has a new commentary on 1+2 Thessalonians. Fee on 1 and 2 Thessalonians

Patton asks, can a true Christian doubt God at a fundamental level? He thinks a reborn believer can doubt. Belief isn't black and white; i.e. people waver in the strength of their belief. The definition of doubt, at least from one perspective, is the line that bridges our faith and perfect faith. No one has perfect faith. This takes on various forms, be it habitual sin, doubt of God's existence, etc. He doesn't think this is wrong in that we live in a fallen world, so he thinks this is only wrong insofar as living in a fallen world is wrong [i.e. he seems to imply a victimization view of sorts; my view doubt is always culpable, since it declares God to be untrustworthy]. But Christians can and do doubt. It's a necessary evil on the resulting from imperfection. Can Christians Doubt-

This blog says of Piper, "I’ve not heard a great deal of Piper’s sermons—maybe only a handful. But every time I’ve heard him preach he’s left me with the unswerving impression that he truly, deeply, profoundly, and earnestly (even fiercely) believes the things he preaches about. And that’s not a small thing. Lord have mercy! If we even believed half the things we say we believe… As mentioned above, Piper has an immense ability to communicate the urgency of spiritual matters. Eternity is at stake and Piper doesn’t let you forget it." Gerald’s Mount Rushmore of Preachers

Here's a warning against begrudging the 'celebrity' preachers. i) We are in the same team, so rejoice in their success. ii) All is not as it seems, so reflect. Big doesn't necessarily have God's blessing... all that appears fruitful is not necessarily so, and some things that appear less effective on the surface are being greatly used of God. iii) Rest, since Jesus is Himself the prize, and not success. The goal of ministry is to get people deeper and deeper into a God glorifying, soul satisfying relationship with Christ. Well Known or Well Done-

Hays continues commenting on Genesis 50:20, in light of Craig Blomberg using it to justify his 'Calminian' theology. i) The text would appear fatalistic on an unbiased glance. Calvinists are often accused of fatalism. ii) There are two ways to look at fatalism. No matter what you do, you fulfill your fate. All paths lead to the same outcome. Nothing you do can change it. ii) Self-fulfilling prophecy - you fulfill your fate by trying to avoid it. iii) We also tend to think of fatalistic scenarios as bad - i.e. a person striving to escape his sorry fate against his will, in vain. It seems unfair. This need not be. Hays looks at some cases: Joseph, Herod, and Herodotus. and Sophocles: all these examples share a common motif: an unwelcome prophecy or prophetic dream. Some of the participants try to foil the prophecy. Yet their efforts to foil the prophecy are the very means by which the oracle comes true.  God occasionally uses fatalistic methods to make a point - even defiant sinners cannot avoid his will. We'll also note that Joseph didn't object to the dreams. And the brothers, who did, were beneficiaries later. So too we benefit from the case of Herod. Benevolent fatalism. There is also a delicious poetic justice in fatalistic twists against wicked men at times. e.g. Haman. Ester is the story of one grand reversal - and no one need guess as to where this comes from. Esther and Mordecai are not attempting to sabotage God’s plan. As pious Jews, they have implicit faith in God’s providence. So the reversal of fortunes is fateful for Haman, but not for Esther or Mordecai. Calvinism, fatalism, and self-fulfilling prophecies

Engwer enumerates some important nuances in the conversion of Saul of Tarsus as evidence for Christianity. i) The idea that he had a naturalistic vision is problematic, as detailed elsewhere. Paul was not conflicted and did not doubt his Judaism. Paul tells us that he was zealous and viewed himself as blameless (Galatians 1:14, Philippians 3:6). He doesn't seem like a probable candidate for something like a guilt-induced hallucination. ii) There is no credible early dispute of Paul's conversion as related in Acts. There was rejection of Paul after, but this wasn't disputed. iii) The conversion makes more sense if it's true because it is placed at a time when the enemies of Christians would be well aware of it. i.e. this makes it difficult to contest. iv) Paul talked about his conversion of Acts, he surely mentioned it in dozens of places over his decades of ministry, The author of Acts has these things "not done in a corner" (26:26). That's not a good way for the author to contextualize a story he's making up. The idea that the author was free to be largely inventive in his accounts of Paul's conversion, yet get those accounts to be so widely accepted, is dubious. v) The author of Acts knew Paul. Acts has a good track record in terms of historicity. Why would a naturalistic vision result in blindness (Acts 9:8), which was removed by Ananias (Acts 9:18)? A naturalistic vision wouldn't have been experienced by Paul's companions. Paul's ability to perform miracles following the conversion is also confirmatory. "Any argument that Paul was lying would have to address the evidence we have for his sincerity. Any argument that he was sincerely mistaken would have to address the nature of the miracles reported in Acts and the widespread acceptance of his claim to be a miracle worker, including in contexts in which people were willing to question him on other grounds." Paul's Conversion

Lisa Robinson at Parchment and Pen praises Patton for his openness/"authenticity" and exhorts people to confess their sins with their churches, to be honest, open, etc. We also must not create an environment where people cannot confess. Though this isn't to be taken as a license for leaders to poor their ills upon whomever will listen. There is need for wisdom. On Authenticity, Condemnation and Community

Bayly writes about turning grace of God into lasciviousness. He thinks that what we don't need is more talk of 'graciousness', but a word about sin, holiness, repentance, and mortification, and false conversions, etc. Anyone who holds to eternal security must hold to the danger of self-delusion as well, and wolves in the church. Owen said, "To use the blood of Christ, which is given to cleanse us, 1John 1:7, Titus 2:14; the exaltation of Christ, which is to give us repentance, Acts 5:31; the doctrine of grace, which teaches us to deny all ungodliness, Titus 2:11,12, to countenance sin, is a rebellion that in the issue will break the bones." Turning grace into lasciviousness

Apparently the Y chromosome is 'degrading'. Christian environmentalists and the degeneration of maleness

Bayly notes the utter abdication of the duty of shepherding when pastors just 'wait for the sheep to ask for help', while permitting the wandering sheep to go astray, allowing unrepentant wanton sin in their congregations, etc. Sometimes the sheep have to be manhandled back to the fold. And they don't always like it. David, in Psalm 23, says, "Thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me." Discipline is a great comfort to redeemed souls because, according to Hebrews 12, it is proof of the Father's love. So, also, it's proof of the love of His undershepherds. Such kindness and love for sinners, such as excommunication, is rarely demonstrated today. And it is absurd that a pastor would think he should only get involved in the public scandal of his congregant if asked. The lost sheep and his shepherds

Phillips reflects on the unbelief and grumbling of the Israelites in Numbers 20:3-5, and depression. i) Their concern about water had a basis in reality. But depression doesn't always need a cause. ii) The Israelites had forgotten that they were in the desert because of their unbelief. So they blame everyone but themselves. And failing to learn, they simply repeat their sin. "For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction," (Romans 15:4), "And we mustn't miss the lesson here. Refuse to learn from discipline for sin, and we will repeat both sin AND discipline." So too the Proverbs speak to those who bull-headedly refuses to accept discipline, rebuke, correction (cf. 1:24-31; 10:17; 12:1; 15:10; 29:1, etc.). And while we forget, God does not. The Israelites' unbelief got them there, and they respond with more unbelief, and thus exclude God. The matrix of unbelief is the cause and sustenance of their despair. Depression is a fundamental miscalculation. The essence of depression isn't that it's baseless, but that it's vantage point is incomplete. Thankfully we have their story for our instruction. Unbelief is depressing [requested classic re-post]

Challies quotes Burrough's on Christian contentment to the effect that true contentment depends profoundly upon a right understanding of God's providence. All the infinite variety of God's works work in an orderly way. We look at things in parts. God sees the whole. He looks at all things at once, working our His purpose. And our discontent derives from our lack of perspective on the relation of things to one another, and we'd rather have God change something, without regard to the thousands of connections this thing has to His works elsewhere: "by your desire to have your will in such a detail, you may cross God in a thousand things that he has to bring about". Reading Classics Together - The Rare Jewel of Christian Contentment (VI)

Phillips writes, "Professor Jim Hamilton brings a tale from his brother about an expectant mother who walked out of an abortuary and decided to have her baby.It's wonderful to read a story with a happy turn, in the ongoing war against the inconvenient and the imperfect." A story with a happy twist, from the war on the inconvenient unborn

Jeremy Pierce comments that Molinism/middle knowledge's problem is that it doesn't get a middle view - it gets Calvinism. This is because there must be truths about what a free being will do in a certain situation in order for God to know what he will do, precluding open theism. If God knows what a free being will do, then there is a fact about what a free being will do (i.e. “counterfactuals of freedom”). But what would make it true that under different preconditions I'd do something different? If you lose the preconditions, you lose the explanation: "Somehow such facts exist, but nothing makes them true, because if something made them true then my actions would be caused by what makes them true." There is no explanation for why there are such truths as espoused by middle knowledge except for the compatibilistic view - but this is what Calvinists insist upon, and Arminians object to! In other words, Molinism/middle knowledge has no grounds unless Calvinism is true, and is therefore self-refuting. Molinists aren't Calvinists, but they reject Calvinism and also take on a view that makes no sense if Calvinism isn't true. Once you admit that there are facts about the world that explain choices, you adopt a compatibilistic freedom, and then it's not middle knowledge. Jeremy Pierce on Molinism

Hays notes how in recent debates certain atheists have simply begged the question, arguing like this: "Naturalism is true. We know naturalism is true because all the evidence supports naturalism. Therefore, any evidence for the supernatural can be dismissed without further ado." i.e. they say there are 'no reliable eyewitness' testimonies to the resurrection. i) It begs the question to assert that the NT writers were 'superstitious', or that they wrote 'decades' after. ii) The Bible's accuracy may be in dispute, but its inaccuracy is too. This cuts both ways. iii) If someone is a “devoted follower,” does that automatically render his testimony suspect? What if someone is a devoted follower of Darwin? iv) The atheist has given a deconversion testimony. Yet he says that eyewitness testimony is the worst kind and unreliable. So should we discount his deconversion testimony? If anyone has an axe to grind, it's him! v) The atheist says it’s rational to discount the first occurrence. Yet his appeal to precedence is self-refuting if you can never credit the first occurrence. vi) He also makes the typical mistake of treating a miracle as if it’s synonymous with any weird, pointless event you can dream up. Biblical miracles aren't weird and pointless. vii) Some miracles are expected to be one time events. And we have testimony of other resurrections, like Lazarus. viii) The atheist's argument boils down to this: "We can't believe NT reports of miracles because the NT reporters were gullible and superstitious. And we know the NT reporters were gullible and superstitious because they report miracles." ix) Also, in terms of Gospel harmonization, and Jesus referring to the priest as 'Abiathar', Hays notes that Matthew clarified, and this is audience dependent [moreover, this was a convention for referring to a story]. Tail-chasing atheism

Hays comments on Hubbard’s new commentary on Joshua. i) Hays notes the general disconnect we have from the world of the Bible. Hubbard was a naval chaplain, and thus brings warfare experience to his commentary. ii) Modern readers find the world of Joshua deeply offensive. It is an appalling world, but one can't shoot the messenger. iii) The peoples of Canaan initiated the hostilities against Israel. "Israel’s northern and southern campaigns (Josh 10-11) were in response to those hostile initiatives, not preemptive strikes. Even though the peoples knew the power of God (according to Rahab and the Gibeonites), they choose to stand against him. This fact should caution us against viewing the peoples of ancient Canaan simply as victims of some sort of injustice." iv) It's easy from our comfortable life of peace to wag the finger at militaristic history. But war would remind us of the reality of the things we read here. "It isn’t as easy to be judgmental when our own foes are just as ruthless as the enemies of ancient Israel." We need to adopt the perspective of a field commander when reading this book. Joshua

Phillips calls his vote for Jimmy Carter ... "Worst. Voting decision. Ever" He makes this pointed statement: "the difference between my vote and that of professed Christians who trashed their distinctively Christian values to vote for their ideological enemy, Barack Obama, is that contrary information and thought-out Christian resources were not readily available." Carter's follies are visible and repeated globally. There's a book entitled, The Real Jimmy Carter: How Our Worst Ex-President Undermines American Foreign Policy, Coddles Dictators and Created the Party of Clinton and Kerry. He's betrayed his country, Lord, and denomination. Jimmy Carter, my Obama

Turk, quoting iMonk affirmatively, notes that you have to do more than read books all day and call yourself a Christian. The early believers didn't even have a lot of books. They had a life in a community built on the Gospel given through Christ, and they did it by being grateful and kind and loving and generous, not belligerent. Mostly right

This post at Genderblog reminds us of the sad effects of third wave feminism - the raunch-porn culture. Girls raised in a culture that preaches female empowerment see their bodies as tools/assets to power, and moreover, they flaunt because they want to. Pornography, which was once a tenet of the feminist (and Christian) fight, now is not simply an exploitation of women at the hands of men. Girls are proud producers of it too. This article connects this to sexting, i.e. sending sexual explicit photos via MMS. "Most teens who sexted sent the photos to girlfriends or boyfriends, but 11% sent them to strangers, according to the study made public today by the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children and Cox Communications. Of teens who sext, 80% are under 18, the survey found." Sexting and the Teenage Girl - Part 1

Adams writes about the inseparability of biblical truth and exhortation. The academy deals with truth in abstract. This should not - and cannot - be so. Luther said, when I preach I teach, when I teach I preach. You can't interpret the Scripture rightly and believe it and not exhort people to follow it. You can't merely emote. And you can't just give a dissertation. Preach and teach. Preaching and Teaching

On John Newton's birthday (the blaspheming slavetrader turned grace-filled pastor and hymnwriter), JT points to some resources on him. John Newton

White points out that unregenerate individuals always respond to the Gospel - with rejection, be it hatred or a false piety and empty religion. Then he notes the story of the Glasgow publicly funded exhibition that encourages people to deface the Bible. "the irony is that "The exhibition has been created by the artists Anthony Schrag and David Malone, in association with organizations representing gay Christians and Muslims." Gay Christians and Muslims? So, the first thought across the logical mind is, "So, why don't you have a Qur'an sitting there to be scribbled in as well?" And, of course, we all know the answer to that. Anti-Christianity is good business and culturally acceptable." White asks, are these morally neutral agents with a free will who just need more info to turn from their sin? Moreover, God chose to instantiate these people who would do exactly what they would do (but freely), and without any purpose or meaning. Which is senseless. The general call of the Gospel will either curb sin, or it will stand as a condemnation of man. "Western culture hurtles toward self-annihilation in its hatred of God and His law, we see open desecration of Scripture being hailed as "art." Is this not a fulfillment of the Bible's own description of the sinfulness of man in Romans 1 and 3?" Glasgow Art Display Again Shows Man's Hatred of God's Ways

JT quotes Piper with an imagined conversation between the prayerless and the prayerful. The answers to prayer are like the brightness to a fire; God has ordained both the effect and the cause, and the effect does not happen without the cause. The event will happen if the cause happens. God has established the universe so that in larger measure it runs by prayer, the same way he has established brightness so that in larger measure it happens by fire. A Conversation between Prayerful and Prayerless

Hays points to Reppert, who furnishes an example of the 'no matter what you actually believe, as long as you're courteous, it's cool' in his talking about infanticide. "Once we reduce ethics to etiquette, then as long as the prison guard who shoves a Jewish kid into the oven is polite to the inmates, that’s the main thing. There’s no cause to speak ill of the guard or question his character." While you're killing late term babies, just be polite. And ironically those who tout universal love are consistently intolerant of opponents they don't like, only loving the lovable. Nice, polite infanticide

Here's a call to be slow like God - that is, slow to anger, slow to quarrel. Be Slow Like God

Bird notes the resurgence of sorts in ascribing a messianic paradigm, intent, self-consciousness to the historical Jesus in recent scholarship, in contrast to previous scholarship. The Return of the Messiah

Rick Holland's first message at Resolved begins by reminding us that sin comes from within us. It's innate. Not learned. And we're our own worst enemy. We are in a spiritual war. Yet we need to be perfect. But does this sink in? Do you merely think your theology? Or does it change your life? Does it cause you to war against your own flesh? Peter told us that we are strangers in this world. Do you feel like a stranger? Are you an alien here - so that the things of this world aren't quite right, and your heart's treasure is in heaven? Owen calls us to ask, do you have a due consideration of God? And labour to know your own disposition, to know your weaknesses. Do you know the agents of Satan in your heart? Do you really reckon with why Jesus had to die for your sins? Sin is any thought, action, etc. that is contrary to God's word - it is a lack of perfection. If you are fighting sin, you're alive. If you're not, you're dead. www.resolved.org

After noting that the fact that philosophical/theology debates can continue indefinitely (and this can be a turn-off), Manata responds again to an Arminian’s assumption that LFW is in the Bible. The argument is basically, “The Bible uses the word ‘choice’ and was written for the common man, and Merriam-Webster contains what the common man understands words to mean and defines ‘choice’ in libertarian fashion, thus the Bible teaches LFW, and so determinism is false.” i) What is the referent of ‘common man’? Who are these people? Statistical groups usually are dynamic. Does the ‘common man’ think the same things in all places and times? It’s certainly plausible that the common man holds to determinism. Maybe he doesn’t reflect on the tension of LFW and determinism and holds them both inconsistently. ii) The common man consults the dictionary as much or more than everyone else. Why not his own mind, if the dictionary contains what he understands? iii) The Bible was not solely written ‘by and to’ the common man. Kings, doctors, Pharisees, etc. wrote it as well. iii) To the comment “the Bible was not written to semi-compatibilists.” it seems Arminian God is not as fair and omni-loving as we have been told! Calvinists have limited atonement, they have limited intended audience. iv) Open theists have argued the same way as this Arminian (e.g. Boyd claims that when we think of “deliberating,” we presuppose that the future is open, not settled (and if it is open, God does not know it).) v) The argument depends on every single ‘common man’ holding to liberarianism. To this, Manata points to a study of ‘common men’ which indicates that less than half hold to free will. The philosophers wrote this: “The data seem to support compatibilist descriptions of the phenomenology more than libertarian descriptions. We conclude that the burden is on libertarians to find empirical support for their more demanding metaphysical theories with their more controversial phenomenological claims.” Hence, this Arminian’s argument is refuted. vi) Manata previously cited libertarian Robert Kane’s definition of ‘choice’ and concluded that it certainly seemed possible that “choosing” can happen on determinism. Also, other dictionaries don’t contain the PAP element. It has also been noted that ‘When we think of ourselves hypothetically as having acted otherwise than we did, we always suppose a difference in the antecedents: we picture ourselves having known something we did not know … or as having desired something … more or less than we did’ (i.e. compatibilistic). vii) Frankfurt counter-examples, which rebut PAPs and ought-implies-can, are equally as intuitive as these. viii) Kane on Free will: “A choice is the formation of an intention or purpose to do something. It resolves uncertainty and indecision in the mind about what to do” (Robert Kane, “Libertarian Perspectives on Free Agency and Free Will.” Oxford Handbook of Free Will, p.423). ix) Manata wrote to Kane, and Kane said: “I wouldn't change my definition. The idea that you can prove libertarianism or compatibilism or any other view on fw true by defining terms such as choice in a rigged way is whistling in the dark. We could still make choices in a determined world. We would just not be *ultimately responsible* for the choices we did make.”” Plantinga and Basker are fine with his definition. Goetz says the Bible teaches nothing on free will. Timpe thinks there are a variety of similar mental acts called choice. x) This Arminian is at odds with the biggest guns for his position. A PAP Test In Action- Ability to Write a Retraction-

Frame on neutrality: “To tell an unbeliever that we can reason with him on a neutral basis, however that claim might help to attract his attention, is a lie. Indeed, it is a lie of the most serious kind, for it falsifies the very heart of the gospel—that Jesus Christ is Lord. For one thing, there is no neutrality. Our witness is either God's wisdom or the world's foolishness. There is nothing in between. For another thing, even if neutrality were possible, that route would be forbidden to us.” The Myth of Neutrality

Here’s links to a number of MP3’s on parenting. Parenting Seminars

This article at Washington Post on climate change is worth a read. i) China has made it clear that economics are its priority, contra Obama’s belief that developing nations will sacrifice their modernization on the altar of climate change. ii) Even Japan isn’t really trying that hard. iii) The G-8 vowed to cut greenhouse emissions by 80% by 2050 (41 years). If you don’t want to do something, just promise to do everything tomorrow. Why such sluggishness in the face of a crisis? Simple: iii) 5 billion in the developing world are behaving in a new way. After centuries of exclusion from economic growth, they are enjoying it, which is tiresome to would-be climate fixers in already prosperous nations. iv) When New York Times columnist Tom Friedman called upon "young Americans" to "get a million people on the Washington Mall calling for a price on carbon," another columnist, Mark Steyn, responded: "If you're 29, there has been no global warming for your entire adult life. If you're graduating high school, there has been no global warming since you entered first grade." v) Hence, regarding climate change, “the U.S. government, rushing to impose unilateral cap-and-trade burdens on the sagging U.S. economy, looks increasingly like someone who bought a closetful of platform shoes and bell-bottom slacks just as disco was dying.”  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/22/AR2009072202415_pf.html

Piper’s Filling Up the Afflictions of Christ is available for free here (as with all their other books). Download John Piper's Latest Book for Free

Live mice have been grown from skin-cell derived stem cells. http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/07/23/stem-cells-mice.html

2009-07-22

Turk writes that Paul, in Titus 2, which was sent to a guy who is to put things in order, raise up elders, etc. in a culture as far from the Gospel as the most unchurched city in the ancient world could be, that Paul does not say ‘make sure you administer the sacraments rightly’ or ‘make sure you uphold the continuity of the covenants by baptizing babies and maintaining the Law/Gospel contrast’ or ‘get serious about your Greek and Hebrew, and make sure every sermon you preach is verse-for-verse, word-for-word preaching’. He says, ‘teach what accords with sound doctrine’ because these ‘people need to adorn the Gospel’. Some people may take this as works righteousness. But Paul is saying that the church ought to be training itself so God’s word isn’t reviled. So people know how to live after they know the Gospel is true. Hence, Paul teaches shoe-leather doctrine. The pastor’s job to preach doctrine and the consequences of those doctrines -- that is, how to live now that this is true. Adorn the Gospel [1]

Hays continues debating with an Arminian. i) “Choice” can mean either the psychological process of deliberating on hypothetical alternatives, deciding one, or it could involve the metaphysical claim where the future is open and we have the power to instantiate an alternate timeline. ii) The Arminian keeps missing this. iii) A gambler is an example of one who deliberates over hypotheticals and decides one, even though only one possibility is live – and the gambler even knows this. There is one order of the cards. iv) The Arminian admitted he has no empirical proof for LFW, but it just seems intuitive. Hays noted in response that we often make choices on the basis of what we thought were possible outcomes which, in hindsight, turn out to be beyond our reach. A card player deliberates over mathematical possibilities, though he knows only one is actual. v) The Arminian defines real choice in terms of the power to realize the outcome of choice. So anytime you choose something and it fails to work out, you’re not really choosing. vi) In determinism, there may be several abstract possibilities, but only one live possibility. This metaphysical restriction doesn’t impede making choices because the determinist can’t anticipate which abstract possibility is live in advance. vii) Can the gambler not make choices? Is the future open? In terms of probability, yes. Metaphysically, no. Yet the gambler is not prevented from making choices. viii) The Arminian says that you can’t go from ‘chocolate is possible’ to ‘I can choose chocolate’, but you can go the other way. This restricts choice, ironically, to psychology. Which is consistent with determinism. ix) In Molinism, the agent doesn’t determine what he will do, but only what he would do. Will do has reference to the actual world, and that is up to God. God chooses what the agent does by instantiating a possible world. So the future isn’t open-ended. Mathematical possibilities and live possibilities

Hays quotes William Lane Craig: “Philosophically, I’m persuaded by arguments such as have been offered by Harry Frankfurt that free choice does not entail the ability to do otherwise… Now in the case of God, if God is essentially good, then there is no possible world in which He does evil. But does that imply that God does not freely do the good?” William Lane Craig on freewill

Adams writes that Christianity, unlike Mormonism, etc. is above board, open to examination. It isn’t concealing things. Rather, the religion is proclaimed openly to the world. It’s not like Gnosticism, where it takes years to become a full member. Jesus spoke openly to the world (John 18:19). So too must we. Got a Secret-

T-fan continues responding to a Romanist on the sufficiency and perspicuity of Scripture. Cyril (315-386 AD) said, “Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.” Justin Martyr (100-165) seemed to think the Scriptures were clear, contra this Romanist: “Pay attention, therefore, to what I shall record out of the holy Scriptures, which do not need to be expounded, but only listened to.” Irenaeus said, “Since, therefore, the entire Scriptures, the prophets, and the Gospels, can be clearly, unambiguously, and harmoniously understood by all, although all do not believe them… those persons will seem truly foolish who blind their eyes to such a clear demonstration, and will not behold the light of the announcement [made to them]…” Tertullian (about A.D. 160 -220) said, “Take away, indeed, from the heretics the wisdom which they share with the heathen, and let them support their inquiries from the Scriptures alone: they will then be unable to keep their ground. For that which commends men’s common sense is its very simplicity, and its participation in the same feelings, and its community of opinions; and it is deemed to be all the more trustworthy, inasmuch as its definitive statements are naked and open, and known to all. Divine reason, on the contrary, lies in the very pith and marrow of things, not on the surface, and very often is at variance with appearances." Athanasius said, “And this is usual with Scriptures, to express itself in inartificial and simple phrases” and “These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.’ And He reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me.” And so on. Moreover, the doctrine of perspicuity doesn't claim that every text of Scripture is equally clear. Chrysostom (A.D. 347 - 407) wrote, “… All things are clear and open that are in the divine Scriptures; the necessary things are all plain….” This Romanist by implication of his own assault on perspicuity should think the core Trinitarian and especially Christological doctrines are not clear from Scripture, putting him at odds with Theodoret, Augustine, and Novation. The Scriptures were written for our learning, which likewise implies that we can read it and learn (Rom. 15:4); for our admonition, implying they can do this (1 Cor. 10:11); they are able to with sufficient clarity make one wise for salvation (2 Tim. 3:15), and John’s works are written so that people can believe and be saved. Thus, Romanists are at odds with Tradition and Scripture. Flattening Flimsy Flim-Flam

Obama is not doing too well in the polls. He’s now worse off than President Bush at the same time in his presidency. http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2009/07/22/graphic-crumbling-polls-is-it-the-end-of-the-obama-affair.aspx

Genderblog, anecdotally comparing the author’s child’s poor conduct at a baseball game and a pro golfer’s mature conduct in losing at a key moment, writes that self-control and learning how to fail gracefully are critical lessons for future men to learn; they are a critical part of manhood, a critical part of a man's ability to lead well. "A man without self-control is like a city broken into and left without walls." (Prov. 25:28)  Young men- Learn self-control

Spurgeon’s catechism is available in Arabic. Charles Spurgeon in Arabic

Thabiti offers his new book, May We Meet in the Heavenly World: The Piety of Lemuel Haynes, as one tool to turn your mind back to your first love if your heart has grown dull or complacent. An Interview with Thabiti about Lemuel Haynes

White (and Swan on his blog) point to a statement by Romanist apologist Sungenis that illustrates the vacuity of Rome’s claim to unity, particularly in light of Rome’s criticisms of sola scriptura as resulting in disunity. The Unity of Rome Illustrated

White follows up on his post on the worthlessness of praying to saints, like James, especially given that this contradicts what those saints taught. i) Romanists assert that praying to saints is no different than asking a friend to pray from you. But prayer is an act of worship. We don’t pray to our fellow saints. And the ‘communion’ of the saints is not due to ease of communication but union with Christ. Roman Catholic practice has robbed prayer of its exalted position (by allowing it to saints, angels, and in particular, to Mary) (White points to where he debated this topic). ii) Roman argumentation try to ‘connect’ Luke 20:28 (God is God of the living) to the transfiguration, and from there takes a leap to the idea that the saints in heaven can communicate with those on earth. White notes the use of obscure and baseless connections rather than clear hermeneutical conclusions and careful handling of the text: the unique, one-of-a-kind event of the Transfiguration is assuredly not a basis for such communication. iii) An appeal to a seventh century example of such prayer is hardly compelling. “Who has ever denied that by the seventh century all sorts of unbiblical traditions were as popular as popcorn?” A Brief Comment on the Communion of Saints and Catholic Blogger Devman

Barry at Solapanel writes that Jesus is (i.e. presently) a Jew. This removes all grounds for anti-Semitism (after all, we worship a Jew). This reminds us of His humanity, confronts us with the present reality of the Jew/Gentile issue and how Gentiles are included, and reminds us that while God’s purposes are universal in scope they were achieved by a particular race in time. This is biblical: “... behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals. (Rev 5:5)” Jesus IS a Jew

This post connects the parable of the talents to the Great Commission. Too often the parable is interpreted in the discharge of the talents in abstract, general terms—becoming a better person, using our gifts and abilities at church. But the discharge of the talents is congruous with the Great Commission. Christ leaves, and His disciples are given this mission. “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you.” Christ will require of us this charge, not whether we attended church or were moral. “Make no mistake about it. A true disciple of Christ is engaged in the mission of Christ.” Don’t be deceived: the parable reveals only two kinds of servants—those who hear “Well done,” and those who hear “Go to Hell.” This is not a side-job. It must be our singular focus. The Parable of the Talents and the Great Commission- Connecting the Dots

“The story's told that, during the Second World War, the RAF had a small group of pilots they noted were quite good at spotting camouflage. When they looked into the matter, they found the thing this group of pilots had in common was that they were all color blind and had memorized the color charts to get into the RAF.” Apparently colourblindness is an advantage when colour causes a distraction. It's an ill wind that blows nobody some good

Phillips asks that you read “You Aren’t Bipolar, You’re Just a Jerk” by Mike Adams before reading this post (done). Phillips finds “Adams' post a maddening mix of the brilliant and the irresponsible.” There are surely many, many people who need to get over themselves. Equally though, there are those who will be crushed by his uncaring over-generalizations. "Whoever sings songs to a heavy heart is like one who takes off a garment on a cold day, and like vinegar on soda" (Proverbs 25:20)."Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep" (Romans 12:15). Phillips knows little about ‘bi-polarism’/’manic depression’ except that there is something serious to it. He has first hand experience with depression and ‘there that ought to fix it’ simplistic formulas probably do more harm than good – he tried all that the article said. A depressed person should speak with his pastor, study the Scriptures, etc. If that doesn’t address it, maybe it’s something else. People who help need to be longsuffering. And identical symptoms can have different causes – and people may not be what they seem. The ‘Christian’ may be in unrepentant sin. Depression (bi-polar and otherwise) and jerkiness

Piper comments on Luke 11:33-36, writing that the lamp in the world is His wise and powerful presence, greater than Solomon or Jonah. Christ is the lamp. Jesus becomes a lamp for you when you see it for what it really is. If you see Jesus for who He really is (i.e. your eye is healthy), then you are full of light. If not, you’re full of darkness. There is much in the world that passes for light through the eye, but is really darkness. Many bright things keep us from seeing Christ. Like city-lights obscuring the stars. Be careful what you see. Christ is the glory we were made to see. https://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TasteAndSee/ByDate/2009/4110_Be_Careful_Lest_the_Light_in_You_Be_Darkness/

Here’s an interesting post citing Yoder’s argument (which the post identifies as weak at points) for practicing Jubilee in the NT. Yoder takes the Lord’s prayer (forgive us our debts…) in a monetary sense, and he takes Luke 12:33 as a mandate to redistribute capital (though not through government action and socialism, which robs Christians of the joy of giving to serve). While he doesn’t like the argument that this command is an individual challenge to a particular man’s materialism, he nevertheless waters down the command himself since he doesn’t think Christians should sell everything. Yoder argues Jubilee is supposed to be a permanent state in the church. Yoder and the Implications of the Jubilee

JT posts eight theses and four priorities from Carson on establishing a Christian university. Can There Be a Christian Univeristy-

Creation.com quotes Darwin on his problem with the Peacock tail, and notes that detailed observation by a research team led by Mariko Takahashi of the University of Tokyo ‘throws a wrench in the long-held belief that male peacock feathers evolved in response to female mate choice’. The study found no evidence that peahens choose mates according to the quality of the peacocks’ tails—‘at odds with Darwin’s theory of sexual selection’. Darwin’s sexual selection theory has been increasingly under attack in recent years. http://creation.com/peacock-tail-tale-failure

2009-07-21

Hays said that God’s freedom is sui generis, not falling into either libertarian or determinist models. A Molinist asked if this was a paradox (wanting to get Hays to admit God has LFW so man can have it). i) T-fan notes that God’s will is not like man’s will. It is not something that begins from existing circumstances and produces a choice that is responsive to the circumstances in which it finds itself. It itself determines all circumstances – God’s will’s decision is not something that comes to pass. It always was. ii) In both Molinism and Calvinism the order of the knowledge of God is logical, not temporal: Natural, decree, free for Calvinism, and natural, partial decree, middle, rest of decree, free for Molinism. By contrast, humans have a temporal/logical order – nature, circumstance, decree. iii) Molinism effectively makes man’s decree a product of his circumstance, which really sounds quite deterministic, though the Molinist insists it isn’t even though he admits a person will always do the same thing, all things equal. iv) God is the uncaused cause, self-existent. Springboarding off of Hays Against Molinism

Creation.com responds to more detractors. The opening line of an objector is, as seen by anyone aware of the textual tenacity of the NT, a rather embarrassing statement, giving its condescending tone coupled with ignorance: “This is exactly why I can’t stand religious people who are ignorant to everything else than their own small dome. Your stupid Bible has been rewritten and changed so many times…” Makes one wonder if this individual is as learned in the areas of evolution as the transmission of the Bible? http://creation.com/spore-gamers-attack-christianity

DeYoung takes issue with the call to spend money in recession, instead urging people to be thrifty. He finds the former morally and economically dubious: i) Saved money is likely to be productive money. Americans are not in danger of saving too much, and economists agree that piling on debt and not saving is a recipe for long term economic disaster. Moreover, we generally save by putting it in a bank, etc. The genius of a (healthy) credit system and free market capitalism is that your money is being spent as it’s saved. ii) For individuals and families, it's always wise to live within your means. iii) Governments, not individuals or families, are responsible for any deficit spending needed to moderate economic downturns. iv) Assuming that there is a paradox of thrift encourages waste. Not every dollar spent is productive. v) Properly understood, "thrift" means the ethic and practice of wise use. “The economy doesn't grow by paying people to dig holes and fill them back in again. The economy grows when the needed ditch digger figures out how to build better ditches, in a faster time, for less money.” Go Ahead and Be Thrify, The Country Will Be Ok

Piper has a tribute to his father, who was an evangelist, here. http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/1874_A_Tribute_to_My_Father/

While a bacteria supposedly awoke after being frozen for 120000 years, and evolutionists are eager to imagine thriving bacteria on distant harsh planets, AiG points out that this just ignores how that life could have originated. AiG also notes (again) a study dismissing dinosaur to bird evolution. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/06/20/news-to-note-06202009

Mohler writes on signs of maturity and manhood. i) Manhood is biblically a functional reality, demonstrated by leadership and fulfillment of responsibility – the sufficient maturity to hold an adult job and handle money. “A real man… knows how to hold a job, handles money with responsibility, and, if married, takes care of the needs of his wife and family. Failure to develop economic maturity leads to young men who float from job to job and take years to “find themselves” in terms of career and vocation.” ii) For boys to become men, they must be taught how to work, save, invest, and spend with care. iii) To many boys are coddles and entertained today and demonstrate and laziness detrimental to their futures as husbands and fathers. iv) A Christian man sees his work as an assignment from God—and as a gospel issue. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n3/signs-maturity

Spurgeon writes about the deceitfulness and folly of toning down hard truths: “Do not be like the fellow, in one of the American towns, who saw a traveller leaning against a lamp-post, weary and worn with his journey. The traveller enquired of him how far it was to such a place, and was told that it was ten miles. The weary traveller sighed, and said, "I shall never hold out. I shall faint on the road." "Ah!" said his sympathizing informant, "I did not know you were quite so far gone, I will knock off three miles, and make it seven for you."” The Folly of Toning Down Hard Truths

At Solapanel, Windsor writes on changing words, citing the example of ‘wicked’ which often means cool, interesting, etc. and ‘unethical’, which has replaced ‘immoral’. He suspects, though, that ‘ethics’ is used because it’s personal and individual, whereas they avoid morality because it hints at absolutes, and a God who will judge us by those standards. If we only talk of ethics, we may blunt the Gospel. But then, how do we best communicate? Watch your language

Hays continues discussing God’s love for the reprobate with a universalist who apparently attempted to use original sin as an objection to Calvinism. i) Universalists, like atheists, demonize a God who would consign anyone to everlasting punishment. ii) Hays reiterates that in terms of God’s determining who is elect and reprobate, there is nothing in particular which a possible person was going to do. It’s not as if he was going to do one thing rather than another until God preventing him from doing that. A possible person has no default setting. God institutes one course of action, and this actual agent wasn’t going to do otherwise. iii) God is responsible for what happens in the world, but not solely responsible, and not blameworthy. iv) “The question at issue is not whether God is (partly) responsible for the sinner–but whether God is responsible to the sinner.” v) God doesn’t have to ‘rectify’ the outcome of His decree, as if it’s defective. vi) The universalist says that at least annihilationism holds that unrighteousness won’t permanently exist: Hays notes that if unrighteousness is unacceptable in eternity, it’s unacceptable in time. The fact that sin exists at all shows there’s nothing inherently intolerable about the mere existence of sin now or in hell. vii) We cannot infer God’s intentions from his commands. Commands are not equivalent to predictions. Does God love the reprobate—3

Some have trouble with the fact that God is the Potter, we are the clay, and that He sovereignly determines who to form as vessels of wrath and who to form as vessels of mercy. Some object overtly, and some are subtle. T-fan notes an Arminian objection to unconditional election, that even a carpenter uses a long nail when appropriate. The problem with this is that it treats God as finding men as pre-existing objects – this is the very error under Molinism. They view God as finding men as-is and then basing His decrees on this. But the Scriptural analogy disagrees with this; God is the Potter. He doesn’t find nails, He forms clay according to the purposes that He has in them. And even a carpenter comes prepared, purposefully choosing to bring the nails for the job. cf. 1 Cor. 4:7; Gal. 5:22; Eph. 2:8. Even our faith is something we receive - it's not something of our own that differentiates us from another. It is God who makes the difference. The Potter or the Carpenter

Phillips points to the silliness of evolutionary thinking with regard to bat’s ‘learning’ (bodily tools?!) how to thwart bats. Smart bugs. Or, brilliant designer. Isn't evolution wonderful- — 7 (anti-sonar moths)

Considering Sotomayor’s comments to a senator’s question, JT points to an article which concludes she “has no excuse not to know what Sen. Coburn was getting at. She has no excuse not knowing that abortion on demand has been the law of the land since January 22, 1973. She has even less excuse covering that up in a nationally broadcast congressional hearing, if she does know it.” Sotomayor and Abortion- A Tutorial

Think Adam’s headship isn’t fair? FAIL! (Wow, that was quick.)Adam's headship isn't fair dodge (NEXT! #17)

Here’s a summary from Religion News Service on the rescinding of the ban on homosexual bishops by the Episcopal Church last week. Openly gay Bishop V. Gene called it a ‘day to rejoice’. [One major problem with this is that love does not delight in wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth.] Coverage of Episcopal Church Lift of Gay Ban

JT interviews Piper on Filling Up the Afflictions of Christ: The Cost of Bringing the Gospel to the Nations in the Lives of William Tyndale, Adoniram Judson and John Paton. Consider missionaries to whom this book could be sent. Piper briefly speaks of how writing on these three men affected him. “John Paton’s life thrilled me because of his courage… He responded once to a man who said he might be eaten by savages, that we will all be eaten by worms, so there is not much difference, if only he could die for Christ.” “William Tyndale’s life made me want to give my best efforts to study and understand and teach the Scriptures. He was betrayed and strangled and burned because he wanted the common man to have the Bible…” “The life of Adoniram Judson was the most sobering because of how relentless were the losses. He lost three wives. He hung upside down in a hot, bug-infested prison…” Piper encourages missionaries in that all their suffering is worth it. While some use the immanent threat of persecution to promote activism, Piper argues that persecution, death, and suffering will be the very means God uses to spread his kingdom. In the NT Christians pervasively suffer. Suffering is not God’s problem, but His plan (Col. 1:24). “We are too sinful to be left without suffering. And the world is too sinful to see our love unless it comes with suffering.” Therefore we suffer for our sake and theirs. Three Questions with John Piper about Filling up the Afflictions of Christ

JT points to a new book, Your Jesus Is Too Safe: Outgrowing a Drive-Thru, Feel Good Savior (Kregel, 2009).

Here's research suggesting that if President Obama's health-care overhaul succeeds, 48.4% of Americans with private health coverage will have to drop their coverage in favor of the government plan (since their employers providing the insurance will opt for the less-expensive option). Health Insurance Shift

This blog comes with Piper’s recommendation: http://hispeaceuponus.com/

T-fan notes, “Apparently this is also old news, but it is reported that chaplains who pray in the House of Representatives are forbidden from using the name of Jesus Christ (link).” Sad News - Jesus Christ Not Welcome in Congress

Apparently Luther is charged with ‘changing’ Genesis 3:15 to masculine pronouns, instead of feminine, when, as Luther says, it was the Latin Bibles that say “and she will crush”, and this passage is therein applied to Mary.  Luther Changed Genesis 3-15-

White notes, in interacting with a Romanist, that they simply assume the existence of the Marian doctrines because their ultimate authority is, of course, Rome, and this permits them to can twist and contort history. Romanists believe the Trinity, etc. "Because God revealed it to us through Christ and his Holy Church." Protestants believe in biblical truths, rejecting Romanist dogma, on the basis of the revelation of God in Scripture, which records for us its revelation in the Incarnation of Christ and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Mark Shea- No, I Can't Defend My Position, but I Can Pretend

Hays, while recognizing Blomberg as a fine NT scholar, who has written a number of useful books, takes issue with his “Calminian” post. i) Speaking to the argument from disagreement, Hays notes that Blomberg subscribes to Baptist theology as outlined in his seminary’s statement of faith, and historic premillenialism. Yet godly men have disagreed on these points. So are they not completely faithful to Scripture? ii) “Another reason that godly, Bible-believing Christians can disagree over the five-points of Calvinism is a lack of clear thinking. Indeed, Blomberg will be furnishing some examples.” Hays notes the straw man in Blomberg’s implying that Calvinism deemphasizes human responsibility. Moreover, Plantinga is not a Calvinist. Calvinism rejects Molinism; Plantinga holds middle knowledge and LFW. iii) Foreknowledge is not what humans would do. Foreknowledge is knowledge of the future. Advance knowledge of what will happen–not what would happen. iv) Blomberg confuses middle knowledge with counterfactual knowledge. Calvinism affirms counterfactual knowledge, but rejects middle knowledge. In Reformed theism, God’s knowledge of hypotheticals is grounded in his knowledge of hypothetical decrees. v) Blomberg says God must choose to create some beings and not others; Hays notes this does not preserve sovereignty, and it reduces God to ordering from a catalogue. vi) To the idea that there are many passages that “seemingly paradoxically, affirm at one and the same time God’s sovereignty and human freedom”": We need to draw a firm distinction between what the Bible teaches and the impression that makes on some readers. That some readers can’t harmonize doesn’t mean Scripture affirms a paradox. vii) Blomberg misses the causal relation in Phil. 2:12-13, inserts a tension in Isaiah 10:5-13 that isn’t there, and his interpretation of Gen. 50:20 cuts against the grain of the narrative arc, as this represents the long-range fulfillment of a prophet dream which took place at the onset of the cycle. Gen 50:20 completes the cycle. The brother’s will is subordinate to God’s will. “Their attempt to advert the outcome is, unwittingly, the very means by which the outcome is realized. They intend one thing, God intends the opposite.” The point of the narrative arc is to show the sovereignty of God here despite the subversive efforts of the brothers. This is no problem for Calvinism. Why I'm not a Calminian

Burk notes an interesting comment in the WSJ: “The glory of Walter Cronkite’s career is that he did more than anyone to earn his viewers’ trust and establish his profession’s authority. The tragedy is that he also did more than anyone else to undermine them.” A Critical Look at Cronkite’s Legacy