2010-01-10

Hays warns against the problem of taking a philosophical orientation as your theological starting point. Hence, men like Liccione, Cross, Beckwith, etc. give us a hypothetical model of how they’d like the church to be, a lovely exercise in make-believe devoid of tangible connections to OT, NT and church history. Dismissing sola scriptura out of hand due to its ‘antecedent unlikelihood’ forms a vicious circle as one has no incentive to study the Bible with an eye to how God actually administers the covenant community. i) Liccione writes as if he must convert the non-propositional content of Scripture into dogma. It’s odd because the Scripture is full of propositions. Rearranging and reexpressing them isn’t a bad exercise (e.g. creeds). But we’re deriving from revelation. Maybe he doesn’t think of Scripture as revelatory, but views it like an archaeologist who must excavate to get at the revelation below all the non-revelation. ii) The Romanist assumes that God’s inscripturated word is insufficient in itself to clearly express God’s intent, thus requiring another overlaid mechanism to identify His intent. But John wrote 1 John to adjudicate a crisis without his presence or further recourse to the apostle. iii) Having a written record has its obvious advantages. iv) When we talk about differing interpretations, we have to distinguish (unlike the Romanist) between an honest and a willful difference of opinion. It’s doubtful that John’s opponents assented to 1 John. v) While the infallible Magisterium is posed as the alternative to fallible human interpretations of sources, even fallible human opinions are under the providential control of God. These are not autonomous variables. An infallible God can work his will through fallible human opinions. Fallibility creates the possibility of error, but it doesn’t equate to being in error. Again, the example of 1 John comes up. The Romanist assumes 1 John lacks the “requisite definitiveness” needed to resolve things. What if the church had cried, it’s inadequate?! when they received the letter? vi) The inquirer trying to decide between Prot. and Catholicism should consider which approach to doctrine is rooted in divine precedent, not just ‘which one will settle things best’. vii) The infallible visible authority is a paper theory. Indeed, the church of Rome certainly doesn’t give the appearance of being either infallible or indefectible. viii) Why is a fallible layman like Liccione lecturing us on behalf of the indispensible magisterium? Once Upon an A Priori

Hays has a biting satire of the Manhattan declaration here. A taste: “II. We Affirm Together… Jesus Christ is Lord. Unless he's the Archangel Michael. Either affirmation is rationally defensible.” Catholics and Jehovah's Witnesses Together- The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium

This post interacts with an atheist over creationism. i) Christian creationist agree observational science is based on measurable, verifiable evidence, which is one reason they reject neo-Darwinian evolution as a legit scientific model. ii) The Bible tells us that God created each individual organism to reproduce after its kind, which is exactly what we see today. iii) Selection pressure combined with point mutations causes great variation. Creationists expect this. But goo to you transformations are not expected, nor have they ever been clearly shown. He cites non-Christian Hubert Yockey comparing the faith of evolutionists in the probability of origins by chance in primeval soup to believing in a perpetual machine. iv) Speciation occurs through natural selection/point mutations working on information already present in the DNA. Dogs remain dogs. So scientist Lee Spetner at Johns Hopkins: “But in all the reading I've done in the life-sciences literature, I've never found a mutation that added information.” They all reduce information. v) To idea that new  information originate through mutations, central to evolution, Dr. Werner Gitt replies that mutations can only cause changes in existing information – there can never be an increase in information. They cannot be the source of new creative information. vi) Thus it takes great belief to hold evolution. vii) Faith is not opposed to have reason. We do not reason to have faith, we have faith first in order to correctly reason. The atheist assumes that people can only know things through ‘measurable, verifiable evidence’. This is circular reasoning since he arbitrarily assumes this idea, without empirically proving it. Everyone begins with a set of beliefs. “do you know that the proposition "empiricism is the only way we can have knowledge" itself be known through empirical investigation? Can you "measure" and "verify" the existence of the concept of empiricism in a test tube or a petri dish? How about the laws of logic?” viii) Christian creationist scientists believe some information can be gained through empirical investigation, but not all. If you are an ardent naturalistic materialist, then you have no category for immaterial things like logic or concepts. A naturalist materialist has no basis for using logical law because his worldview doesn’t provide the category needed for immaterial things. ix) Empiricism is self-refuting; and if the Bible wasn’t true, you couldn’t prove anything at all. Biblical truth provides the necessary preconditions. x) To the common retort that we just want it to be made by a god: "Religious unbelievers fervently want the universe and its contents to not have been created and guided by a god and, come what may, it must be so." xi) Dawkins claims to want open debate, but then refuses to actually debate. xii) Facts do not speak for themselves; conclusions differ greatly because they come to the evidence with different presuppositions that make up their antithetical worldviews. Atheism Feedback Response 1-6-10

Hays notes the contrast between the Manhattan declarionation’s ‘Kumbaya rhetoric’ about protestants and catholics and the scorched earth rhetoric at Romanist sites like Called to Communion or Return to Rome – where you see what they really think of Protestants. He then interacts with Romanist Francis Beckwith over sola scriptura: i) Beckwith makes the same arguments as Dan Brown and Bart Ehrman regarding competing texts. ii) This is typical because its Protestants who are opposing them, not Romanists. iii) To the idea that the Bible does not yet exist as a whole, the church does not yet exist as a whole. Unlike the Bible, the church is still a work in progress. iv) The inspired ‘table of contents’ argument ignored the massive intertextual evidence we have. v) That the Biblical writers quote individuals in different languages than they spoke, whether to translate is hardly a problem. vi) The Bible can implicitly address a question – it’s not just what’s explicit. We can use reason where its silent. vii) The Bible gives us a combination of general norms and case-laws we can apply to analogous situations. viii) Beckwith is using improbable and weak objections to promote his defeatist attitude of Scripture. ix) To the charge of the mess things like Open Theism makes, Hays notes that Catholic philosopher Nicholas Rescher is a process theologian. The friend of my enemy

Russ Moore has a review of Avatar. i) He notes that it is not an argument, not an appeal, not a narrative, just anti-American propaganda mediated through shock and awe technology. ii) This quote is somewhat chilling: “Of course, James Cameron is the same man whose moving images and music caused theaters full of “family values” Christians to tear up and cheer two teenagers fornicating in an abandoned car on the RMS Titanic. ” Southern Seminary student Daniel Pattersonsaid, “This is Perelandra meets Jurassic Park.”http://www.russellmoore.com/2009/12/18/avatar-rambo-in-reverse/

John Frame reviews David VanDrunen's A Biblical Case for Natural Law. HT: A Biblical Case for Natural Law. See also here: The Reformed Objection to Natural Theology

2010-01-06

White writes about the importance of tackling tough issues and the need to give a solid foundation for new believers. One area he has addressed is the trustworthiness of the Scriptures. “the doctrine of inspiration speaks to the origination and character of the original writings themselves, their character and authority. Inerrancy speaks to the trustworthiness of the supernatural process of inspiration, both with reference to the individual texts (Malachi’s prophecy, 2 John) as well as the completed canon (matters of pan-canonical consistency, the great themes of Scripture interwoven throughout the Old and New Testaments).” God chose to reveal Himself in a way that isn’t neat enough for some, who want it locked and encrypted, having floated down from heaven complete with gold edges. God’s means of revealing Himself and preserving that revelation through a manuscript tradition has vindicated it from the allegation of wholesale corruption and changed, which could be lodged against a text like the Qur’an, which was a controlled, centrally edited text. Folks like Ehrman presuppose that God simply could not have revealed himself prior to the invention of the photocopier. And we must also avoid ‘microwave theology’. Inspiration, Inerrancy, Preservation

Here’s what looks like an interesting read on radiometric dating: The Relevance of Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, and Pb-Pb Isotope Systematics to Elucidation of the Genesis and History of Recent Andesite Flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, and the Implications for Radioisotopic Dating. Here’s the abstract: “Mt. Ngauruhoe in the Taupo Volcanic Zone of New Zealand erupted andesite lava flows in 1949 and 1954, and avalanche deposits in 1975. Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, and Pb-Pb radioisotopic analyses of samples of these andesites, as anticipated, did not yield any “age” information, although the Pb isotopic data are strongly linear. When compared with recent andesite flows from the related adjacent Ruapehu volcano, the Sr-Nd-Pb radioisotopic systems plotted on correlation diagrams provide information about the depleted mantle source for the parental basalt magmas and the source of the crustal contamination that produced the andesite lavas from them. The variations in both the depleted mantle Nd “model ages” and the Pb isotopes also suggest radioisotopic heterogeneity in the mantle wedge 80 km below the volcano where partial melting has occurred, contaminated by mixing with trench sediments scraped off the interface with the subducting slab. Thus the radioisotopic ratios in these recent Ngauruhoe andesite flows were inherited, and reflect the origin and history of the mantle and crustal sources from which the magma was generated. By implication, the radioisotopic ratios in ancient lavas throughout the geologic record are likely fundamental to their geochemistry, characteristic of their origin and history rather than necessarily providing valid conventional “ages.”” [emphasis added] http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v5/n1/mt-ngauruhoe-isotope?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AIGDaily+%28Answers+in+Genesis+Daily+Articles%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

The missing link, Tiktaalik, has been dethroned by recent findings, namely, trackways with digits and alternating steps, said to be 18 million years older, which force a radical reassessment of timing, ecology, environmental setting, and completeness of the body of the fossil record. Tiktaalik Demoted to Has-Been

Here’s an explanation of the complex, integrated, coordinated, robust, overlapping systems involved with human vision. Getting the visual scene right can actually affect our sense of self.  “Central aspects of our self-conception may build upon the integration of such corollary discharge-transmitting loops and their disturbed functioning might contribute to the symptomatology in devastating diseases such as schizophrenia.” No word from scientists on how this might have evolved. http://creationsafaris.com/crev201001.htm#20100106a

God’s judgment on Babylon in Isaiah 13:16-19 , remembered in Psalm 137:8-9, which assails modern sensibilities, is a reminder to fear the Lord and to serve Him only, for God is a Jealous God. God's Judgment On Babylon

Aquinas differed (based on forged or dubious patristic citations) that i) the universal church could in some sense define doctrine, and ii) he viewed the Roman bishop as the chief residence of the universal church’s authority. Aquinas on the Development of Doctrine

Calvinism is sometimes accused of turning men into robots or puppets. Two ways of responding: i) Men have wills, make choices. This is fine. ii) But this isn’t the best analogy – rather, men are turned into axes, saws, and staves [my answer was pottery]. If it’s degrading to compare to robots, how much more a stick with a blade. Yet, Isaiah 10:12-15. Shall the axe boast itself against him that heweth therewith? or shall the saw magnify itself against him that shaketh it? as if the rod should shake itself against them that lift it up, or as if the staff should lift up itself, as if it were no wood. Even wicked men are tools in God’s hand, and if you don’t like it, your problem isn’t with 16th century Frenchmen but with the Scriptures themselves. Men are not deciders in history, but actors. Axe, Saw, and Staff Theology

Aquinas taught that the universal church could not err at least in some circumstances. But as to the successors of the apostles and prophets, he taught that we believe them insofar as they teach the same things as the apostles and prophets. Hence, for him the Scriptures serves as the outer markers for what those holding apostolic succession can teach and expect others to believe: “we believe the successors of the apostles and prophets only in so far as they tell us those things which the apostles and prophets have left in their writings.” Aquinas- Scriptures Define Limit on Acceptable Teachings of Apostolic Successors

T-fan links to Greg Bahsen here: Is Sola Scriptura a Protestant Concoction-

Hays cites how the argument for Roman Catholicism inevitably reduces, after all the selective appeals to history, etc. to an a priori argument for the necessity of an infallible teacher – but when there was a disagreement between Hillel and Shamai over the grounds for divorce, which Jewish pope adjudicated? None. That's why I'm Catholic

Whether we agree with them or not, it’s important to understand how groups view themselves, and Muslim Nauman Khan gave a lecture recently on “Common Misconceptions by Non-Muslims” and particularly addresses the issues of violence and war within Islam. Contentious Issues – War in Islam

Phil Johnson writes that Christians ought to be passionate about truth, love for God and others, and the glory of God – but raw passion isn’t the point; it edifies when it’s the right kind of passion for the right things. Many Christians glorify passion for passion’s sake, a problem exacerbated by Christian emulation of all the world’s passions. We do things to stir artificial passions which are no better than idolatry. For example, the youth pastor who uses the act of eating peanut butter out of armpits to shock and astound. "The idea is to get students here to meet our Savior. They are getting all this crazy stuff out there in the world all the time. We are trying to show them that God is cooler." Ouch. When the goal of churches is to entertain, lull into self-satisfaction, or simply gross out, no wonder the world isn’t being won to Christ but instead increasing in hostility. Peanut-butter Passion

Gender Blog posts a blog from Challies on their adoption of child. The most common question was, ‘Don’t you already have kids?’ i.e. why would you adopt if you have biological children? Challies writes that being committed to life, to the helpless and disadvantaged, to biblical manhood, to Gospel-centredness, to the nations are all reasons for adoption. Don't You Already Have Kids- Adding to Your Existing Family Through Adoption

Nearly 20% of pregnant Canadian women are having more ultrasounds than recommended (guidelines recommend that two ultrasound exams can be performed in a pregnancy without complications). http://www.medbroadcast.com/channel_health_news_details.asp?news_id=20284&rss=67&rid=999999&channel_id=1003&rot=3

Piper offers seven reasons to study Ruth. i) It’s God’s word. ii) It’s a love story. iii) It’s a portrait of beautiful, noble manhood and womanhood. iv) It addresses racial and ethnic diversity and harmony. v) It displays the sovereignty of God. vi) It displays radical acts of risk-taking love. vii) It displays the glory of Christ. 7 Reasons to Love and Study the Book of Ruth

Swan, in replying to the typical objection that ‘if one claims the Bible is the standard by which all doctrine is assessed and sola scriptura itself is not taught in Scripture, then sola scriptura is self-refuting,’ notes: i) The burden of proof is on the Romanist to prove that God has given special revelation elsewhere. If they can’t, then it follows that there is only one record of God’s voice. ii) Ironically Bible verses are employed to help the Romanist position, as if they have been infallibly interpreted by Rome – but they haven’t been. What Rome says, is "we declare X, and here are some Bible verses that help us out...but keep in mind, the Bible verses may not actually support X..." iii) Patrick Madrid offers this helpful and self-obliterating explanation: “As anyone familiar with the dogma of papal infallibility knows, the reasons given in a dogmatic definition are not themselves considered infallible; only the result of the deliberations is protected from error. It’s always possible that while the doctrine defined is indeed infallible, some of the proofs adduced for it end up being incorrect.” The Helpful Apologetics of Patrick Madrid

Burk cites Peter Wehner, who points out the double standard among those who are angry over Hume’s remakes, in that when Hitchens promotes atheism and is far more critical of Christianity than Hume was of Buddhism, the left didn’t say that such remarks were inappropriate for public debate. “Brit Hume is rightly recognized as one of the finest journalists of his generation. He also turns out to be a man of deep Christian faith who isn’t afraid to say so. That makes him not only rare, but very nearly unique. And admirable.” Howling about Hume not Hitchens

Burk notes the scorn poured upon Brit Hume for his comments on Christianity and Buddhism. Washington Post columnist Tom Shales said that he doesn’t have the authority unless he believes every Christian by mandate must proselytize. Contra Shales, Jesus does command His disciples to proselytize. And Jesus told us that the world would not congratulate us for being faithful to this task (Jn. 15:18-21). More Scorn for Hume

JT posts links to a number of essays from a variety of intellectuals on the issues surrounding the use of ‘torture’. Torture and Ticking Timebombs- A Christian Ethics Symposium

“John Piper’s latest book is now available: A Sweet and Bitter Providence: Sex, Race, and the Sovereignty of God. It unfolds the book of Ruth and its relevance for today.” Redeeming Ruth

“Good counselors explain the import of every decision that’s made. And make sure that counselees understand the importance of them. They obviously want counselees to make good decisions, explain why, and urge them to do so. But, at the same time, they warn about the seriousness of making light-hearted, meaningless decisions. They make every attempt to explain the nature and the consequences of their decisions.” Always Read Carefully

Oh awesome. Avatar is nothing new under the sun. http://twitpic.com/wt1lk

Engwer recommends William Lane Craig’s Reasonable Faith podcast as having a helpful discussion as to how Christ appeared to more than 500, and some other issues. The Resurrection Body And Appearances

Phillips satirically points out the problem of the sucker-footed bat for evolution. Isn't evolution wonderful- — 13 (Sucker-footed bats)

U.S. President Barack Obama began his second year in office with the second lowest job approval rating and highest disapproval rating of any president at that point in their term over the past 50 years, according to Gallup. http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/01/06/obama-poll-gallup-approval.html

Riddlebarger cites the prophetic logic of Harold Camping, if anyone is wondering. “Frankly, someone needs to just say it.  The guy is a kook.  Or else he's senile.  Or a false prophet.  Not good options. This is one reason why "scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires.  They will say, `Where is the promise of his coming?  For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.'” (2 Peter 3:3-4).” The Mayans Got It All Wrong! The World Won't End in 2012 . . . Because Jesus is Coming Back in May 2011.

2010-01-05

Aristotle produced a work called Physics, which was a treatise into nature and motion, covering a variety of topics. His analysis includes the establishment of the ‘unmoved mover’ of the universe, a supra-physical entity without which the universe could not continue to exist. Philosophy Word of the Day – Aristotle’s Natural Philosophy

ETC reports that ‘Sinn Fein Leader Gerry Adams is involved in the search for "the real Jesus of the Gospels" as part of a new seven-part television series for BBC Channel 4 called "The Bible: A History."’ Adams was a former supporter of political violence (e.g. IRA). Though he intends to focus of Jesus’ teachings of love, forgiveness, and repentance, former Tory minister Lord Tebbit, injured in an IRA bombing, laughed as he said he hopes Adams comes across the doctrine of hell and judgment for unrepentant murderers. Sinn Fein Leader Gerry Adams in Search for Jesus and Papyrus 45

Bayly cites the NYT: “Avatar is Cameron’s long apologia for pantheism — a faith that equates God with Nature, and calls humanity into religious communion with the natural world, (leading us to) collapse distinctions at every level of creation.” Ross Douthat. A movie isn’t just a movie. [I would note that somewhat ironically even Cameron can’t actually stomach pantheism, as he has to explain it in scientific terms even within the movie as a massive planet-wide biological neural network…] The Gospel according to James (Cameron)

Phillips cites Matt. 22:34-40, noting that the universe would be turned on its head if a raging and all-consuming love for God was not the greatest commandment – a commandment chosen in the inerrancy of divine wisdom. What isn’t immediately transparent to us, but it is to God, is the second commandment. And this isn’t set as a contrast “A, but also B”, but rather, “A (love God), and B (love neighbour”). They are inseparable in God’s mind – you can’t love God if you don’t love your neighbour (1 John 3:17; 4:20); you can’t love your neighbour if you do not love God. The second commandment is like the first in that both have a personal object. The second grows from the first. The first command send us to God, who sends us to our neighbour (1 Jn. 5:3; 3:23). “A God-hating people-lover is under God's condemnation. A people-hating God-lover is under God's condemnation.” And the second is — not in competition with it, but rather... (Part One)

White comments on the angry, irrational protest to Brit Hume’s comments that Tiger Wood’s turn to Christ and find redemption. Hume is right; Buddhism offers no redemption or forgiveness, instead directing one to look inward for enlightenment and eventual freedom from suffering. Secularists are enraged that he would actually dare to express his thoughts in public, for secularism is an all-encompassing worldview, and it cannot tolerate the expression of dissenting views in its holiest place – the media. For them, it’s not what Hume, but that he said it. Freedom of speech is surely endangered. Brit Hume Incident Illustrates Secularism's Hatred of Christianity

Burk writes on the above, “For me, the story here is not the controversy surrounding Hume’s remarks. That’s to be expected. What’s notable here is the fact that a senior news analyst had the courage to speak of Christ in a difficult place. Would that more of us might be so bold.” He cites Hume explaining that speaking the name Jesus Christ has always been explosive, and that the Bible predicts that it will elicit strong reactions in those who do not accept the faith. In this case, the objections are that Hume was proselytizing and that he knocked on Buddhism in the process. Offering Redemption and Forgiveness

Challies has a glowing review for The Trellis and the Vine. “The Trellis and the Vine is a metaphor Colin Marshall and Tony Payne use to introduce a mind-shift in ministry that they insist will change everything. That is no small claim. A trellis, of course, is a structure that is used to support, to hold up, a vine. In this metaphor the trellis refers to the administrative work within a church, those tasks that, though important, are not actually directly related to discipling people. Vine work, on the other hand, is those tasks of working with the vine, drawing people into the kingdom through evangelism and then training them to grow in their knowledge of God and their obedience to him.” The Trellis and the Vine

Clint Humfrey discusses the disappearance of godly and biblically conservative Bible colleges in Canada (the list is very short). Even in the USA they are dwindling, especially under tough economic pressures. Now, it’s not mismanagement; most profs are paid ‘starvation wages’. There are few tenured ‘fat cat’ profs. Those colleges that come back from debt generally engaged in deep cuts and campaign style fund-raising and tuition hikes. One such effort was led by one who appears to be more of a savvy amoral politician than the head of a school aimed at serving churches. But is this a good way to save such an institution?  Who Laments the Vanishing Bible College- Part I

Phillips really likes the Christmas album, ‘The Greatest Gift’, by Alexis Cole. Read on for the musical details. The Greatest Gift, by Alexis Cole — music review

Piper writes, “you won't come to Bethlehem College to learn a trade or a profession. You come to learn how to learn for the rest of your life—with the glory of Jesus Christ at the center of every idea and every event. We want to impart "habits of mind" that fit students for life-long, Christ-exalting learning.” Thanking God for Bethlehem College

DeYoung posts a letter from a woman who learned the lessons of biblical womanhood and uniqueness the hard way. He incidentally notes that he rejects the idea that a young woman working outside the home is a sin ('i.e. 'what was ‘stay at home’ before the industrial revolution?’). Often stay at home moms are very busy with things that take them outside the home – don’t legislate what the Bible does not. Now God’s word instructs the young women to be busy at home (Titus 2:5) and a helpmate to their husbands (Gen. 2:18), and this means something, and manhood and womanhood are not interchangeable. Speaking of a blogger she likes in the letter, this woman writes, “she seems to have grasped, early on, some essential fact about gender relations that no one ever told my husband or me. Those brave and brainy revolutionaries who raised us – parents, professors, Self magazine – never so much as hinted that someday we might want to act like men and women. Having dodged that retrograde fate, we had turned into neutered freaks, mired in resentments and domestic dysfunction. Our lucky kids!” “Nothing Can Unsex Me If I Don’t Let It”

Another quote from Aquinas on the primacy of Scripture, and what virtues are known only through Scripture to us: “Such like principles are called "theological virtues": first, because their object is God, inasmuch as they direct us aright to God: secondly, because they are infused in us by God alone: thirdly, because these virtues are not made known to us, save by Divine revelation, contained in Holy Writ.” The Theological Virtues Only Known to Us Through Scripture

From Mohler: Hindsight — The Most Newsworthy Events of 2009

T-fan posts an index to his posts on Aquinas, including indices of his works, Sola Scriptura, and on other topics like the virginity of Mary. Aquinas – Index

Full-body scanners likely wouldn’t work against terrorist attacks like those on Christmas Eve. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/are-planned-airport-scanners-just-a-scam-1856175.html [This is what I have been saying – a man lights his underwear on fire, and what do our nations do? They call for full-body scanners (which wouldn’t have caught the explosives); they ban carry on (though the man didn’t use carry on); and they implement pat-downs for everyone (though this wouldn’t have caught the bomb either). All of the privacy violations, none of the security. Al Qaeda must be pleased, not in the least because of the deleterious economic effects of the slow-downs caused by all the ineffective security measures.] Consider this: Fixing Security Issue Isn't Always the Right Answer

Neat. Mark Dever’s study. If You Ever Wanted to Look in Mark Dever’s Study

CJ Mahaney tells his assistant and secretary, “We’ll try again tomorrow” when he leaves for the day, which is a statement embodying the inadequacy and failure of their efforts during the day, and the resolve to, Lord willing, come back tomorrow and by His grace try to serve Him faithfully to His glory. Carolyn thinks that’s some good advice for the new year (Phil. 3:13-14). Try Again This Year

Hays satirically illustrates some of the holes in Roman Catholic sacerdotalism as it relates to baptism. Pedal justification

“Evolutionists believe it is necessary to get chemicals up to the point of replication before Darwinian evolution can come into play to build them into giraffes and eagles (given millions of years, of course).  But because it is difficult to imagine a chance formation of nucleic acids (the “genetics first” theory), it has become popular in certain camps to change approaches and imagine metabolism coming into existence first.  These “metabolism first” scenarios envision self-perpetuating cycles of chemical reactions as the first stages in the origin of life.  A team of scientists just showed it won’t work.” The evolutionists who produced the paper also chastised their brethren for misapplying Darwinian terminology to chemicals. Moreover, aside from their false presupposition that life is defined by its ability to undergo Darwinian evolution; “what they really mean is that a lack of accurate genetic replication forbids Darwinian evolution.  But the lack of accurate genetic replication forbids life itself, too, so they lose either way.” Nature has turned naturalism against itself. http://creationsafaris.com/crev201001.htm#20100105a

Slovak police have planted explosives on eight unsuspecting airline passengers – one made it through. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8441891.stm

Patton discusses the lamentable state of the Evangelical mind, in the words of Mark Noll: The scandal of the Evangelical mind is that there is not much of an Evangelical mind.” Today, the children of evangelicalism bitterly pout about their heritage and demand that all things must change, without really knowing why or how. Bill Hybels has confessed that his seeker-sensitive approach is bankrupt. But still we haven’t seen much progress toward a reformation of the mind. People are crying out for truth, for something to believe – but not just anything. They want an understanding of the truth they have ownership in. Real, biblical, mind-stimulating to heart-satisfying, historically sound teaching. Many have never had a chance to really believe, beyond emotional persuasion. Many have never really known and have never had the scandal relieved in their minds. So Packer: ““It has often been said that Christianity in North America is 3,000 miles wide and half an inch deep.” People are biblically ignorant, because “the teaching mode of Christian communication is out of fashion, and all the emphasis in sermons and small groups is laid on experience in its various aspects.” “The result is a pietist form of piety, ardent and emotional, in which realizing the reality of fellowship with the Father and the Son is central while living one’s life with Spirit-given wisdom and discernment is neglected both as a topic and as a task.” “Christianities” that care more for experiences of life than for principles of truth will never strengthen churches nor glorify God. Packer is convinced recovery depends on the historical practice of catechesis, of systematic instruction. J. Gresham Machen says “False ideas are the greatest obstacles to the reception of the Gospel.” When did we forget that they are as much our enemies as Satan, poverty, and death? We must be preaching and teaching true doctrine with the result that everyone will be complete in Christ. When did teaching become secondary to everything else? How shall we escape if we neglect teaching? The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind Sixteen Years Later

If you haven’t seen Ignatius the Ultimate Youth Pastor at your own local youth conference, here’s a video. http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2009/08/27/ignatius-ultimate-youth-pastor/

An advice column in the UK is based on evolution. Here’s a sample of some advice given to a woman with two men in her life: “Some Darwinists might say your optimal strategy would be to pair-bond with the older male but surreptitiously allow the younger, sexy male to fertilise you.” http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/01/05/evolutionary-problem-column?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AIGDaily+%28Answers+in+Genesis+Daily+Articles%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

Because the essence of total depravity is enmity to God, preachers pray, and they must not buy the lie that they should be doing something better with their time. This is also why there is nothing more humbling than evangelism. This is why we pray by Aaron Menikoff

Hays responds to the Romanist charge, “Protestantism of whatever variety has no way, even in principle, to distinguish consistently between propositions that call for the assent of divine faith and propositions expressing plausible opinions which might well turn out to be wrong.” i) This position means that whether we interpret NT Christology as Arians or in orthodox terms it comes down to an arbitrary choice between equally plausible or rationally defensible positions. ii) It implies that even sophisticated Catholics have no more theological discernment than the old ladies passing out Watchtower tracts. iii) Claiming that the JW’s interpretation is just as plausible/rationally defensible does nothing for one’s credibility, except to say ‘be a Catholic because your judgment is no better than a cult member’s’. iv) The elders at Ephesus would, by this Romanist reasoning, be unable to make use of 1 John to condemn antinomianism or docetism; these would be just as plausible as orthodoxy. Even though it’s written to authoritatively settle a theological controversy, it does not actually command our assent. v) That’s how far removed the Catholic mindset is from the NT. vi) Yet, ironically, the Romanist appeals to argumentation and interpretation of dogma. But “why is the interpretation of Scripture reducible to a variety of rationally defensible opinions, but the interpretation of dogma is exempt from the same pluralism?” Arian wolves in papal vestments

Genderblog has a review here. “While Julie and Julia was made with a secular world-view (often times even idolizing cooking), it survives only off of borrowed capital. Only within the worldview that presupposes God’s creative design for men and women does the love for Julia Child’s creative mind make sense.”: Reflections on Julie and Julia

2010-01-04

Clint recommends Grant Horner’s Bible reading plan (he’s a prof at Masters’ College). It’s A 10-Chapter-a-Day Bible Reading Plan!

Piper looks at the example of the round-about forgiveness of Job’s three friends (when Job’s prayer was heard), and points out that it’s not that they just need to patch things up with Job before prayer/worship will be heard (cf. Matt. 5:18-23). Rather, it’s that God has ordained that the prayers of some people will be received for the guilt of others. Part of the reconciliation process is the vertical intervention of Job, not just horizontal. God wills to do some things in answer to prayer that He wants to do but will not otherwise do. We should be diligent to pray for others whose prayers may themselves may not be received for unknown reasons. We may be the appointed means of someone escaping otherwise inescapable folly. The Strange Way God Arranges to Forgive

Challies: “You may have heard about the ax-wielding Muslim who tried to kill infamous Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard. He was at home caring for his granddaughter when a man broke in seeking to kill him. This part blew my mind: "He did not have time to collect the child from the living room before locking himself into a 'panic room', a specially fortified bathroom." So he ran to the bathroom to save his life and left his five year-old grand daughter out there with a terrorist? Unbelievable!” A La Carte (1/4)

DeYoung comments on the lofty ambitions of those aspiring to ministry, and how these tend to wane. He cites an explanation, wherein the church becomes a ‘religious cushion’ – the pastor is permitted to become a ministerial superstar, if the pastor does not really call on them to disturb their preChristian lifestyles. The church is reduced to a society of mutual reinforcement and cushion against the pains of life. And it is in those moments of leeway in the pulpit when the pastor is tempted to push the church in this direction. He –preaches against every sin but his own, he sounds prophetic, everyone likes the passion, but in reality things are going quite wrong. A pastor must be aware of the sin permeating the church, but above all, be aware of his own sin and delight in the Saviour. “Without a real hatred of our real sins, including the pastor’s own people-pleasing and the congregation’s status quo seeking (and the conspiracy between the two), and a real love for our really risen Lord, we will turn the church from pillar and power to fluffy pillows.” Religious Cushioning

Creation.com writes that life only comes from life, contra what evolutionists keep telling us, noting that a sardine can seems to be a far better environ than Darwin’s warm pond, and yet life never spawns out of it. Life does not simply pop up out of nowhere around us. “Now, I’ve never seen a ‘primordial’, and I’ve never come across a recipe for primordial soup, but I’m sure there’s less chance of a ‘primordial’ jumping out of primordial soup than there is of a tomato growing out of tomato soup.” The true source of life is God, the only One who has life in Himself. http://creation.com/origin-of-life-and-sardines

Challies posts a letter to an atheist, explaining what he means when he says that he is a Christian, and his thoughts on whether Christians and atheists can work together (which he says will always have some level of difficulty, even if there are social causes they could collaborate on). He concludes with this question: “I would be interested in hearing your take on the role and the acceptability of evangelism or proselytization. While Christians are known for their work and perhaps with their obsession in spreading their faith, in recent years atheists are making strides in this area. As it becomes increasingly socially acceptable to be an atheist, we find atheists interested in spreading what they believe (or do not believe). How do you feel about proselytizing? Should we both be free to proselytize or should we both just keep private what we believe (or again, what we do not believe)?” Letters to Luke (II)

Mounce posts a story where he makes the suggestion that a person choose a church not based on meeting her own needs, but rather on her ability to meet its needs. Maybe a food bank will meet your needs better. But maybe it’s time to learn the really important lessons of the Christian walk – that at the throne Jesus will ask if we cared for his disenfranchised children. Dangerous Compassion (Monday with Mounce 55)

Patton discusses the idea that a homosexual can be saved but that this salvation guarantees a change of lifestyle within a short period of time. i) Homosexuality is a terrible sin (Scriptures provided), but it’s not outside the carnality of the believer. ii) Those who do not struggle with homosexuality may not understand the power of that particular temptation. iii) Sinful bents seem to get the better of Christians at one time or another. Homosexuality isn’t different. iv) When it comes to justification, we must not put homosexuality in a different category than other sin (though not all sins are equal). v) The question seems to be, ‘Can sinners be Christians?’ at the end of the day. vi) While homosexuals can and many times do have victory over their particular bent, this won’t necessarily always happen. Some sins remain as nagging webs. vii) This is like the ‘easily ensnaring sin’ of Hebrews 12 (unbelief, in context of the subject of the book, which is expressed in ‘the sin of the hour’). It could be the case that a homosexual becomes entangled in his sin. viii) Paul still seems to consider the ‘fleshly', immature, not-doing-so-well Corinthians as generally being washed and sanctified; in Paul’s thought, Christians are named in Christ, not by their sinful bent, even if that bent entangles them. This does not make their sinfulness any less severe, but it does say that Christ’s redemption, in Pauline theology, has redeemed the sinner, while still in a sinning state. ix) We also all have our justifying bents, attempting to minimize sin. Homosexuality isn’t categorically different than sin in general; so while the Spirit should be there, and our hearts should be changing, attempting to justify a sin isn’t necessarily indicative of a lack of justification. “Having said all this, we all need to recognize the utter sinfulness of sexual perversion. Homosexuality is a sin, and a terribly destructive one at that. But we need to be careful and gracious with those who struggle with this sin, understanding that the struggle against sin is in the plight of us all.” Can Homosexuals Be Christian-

A.W. Pink wrote: “There are many today who talk about the love of God, who are total strangers to the God of love. The Divine love is commonly regarded as a species of amiable weakness, a sort of good-natured indulgence; it is reduced to a mere sickly sentiment, patterned after human emotion. Now the truth is that on this, as on everything else, our thoughts need to be formed and regulated by what is revealed thereon in Holy Scripture.” So, from the Scriptures, the love of God is uninfluenced; it is eternal; it is infinite; it is immutable; it is holy; it is gracious. THE UNFATHOMABLE LOVE OF GOD...for those who have ears to hear

Here’s a set of convicting tweets. One that caught my eye: “If I’m not prepared to jeopardise a friendship so that I can tell others about Christ, I can be fairly certain I won’t give up my life.” Some New-Year Conviction

Another example of the tenacity of the Roman Catholic claims of unity. Internet Inquisition Goes After Distinguished Roman Catholic Scholar, 10 Years To Late

Here’s a useful looking article (it’s PDF): Do Modern Versions Change Key Doctrines-

“The only hope for social networking sites from a business point of view is for a magic formula to appear in which some method of violating privacy and dignity becomes acceptable.” The Magic Formula for Making Social Networking Sites Profitable

Ascol has a short note on the hardships of some of his acquaintances in their ministry in hard places. 18 years ago today, he was released from captivity

Turk points to a set of slides that paint a different picture than the mainstream media on global warming, CO2, and an emissions trading scheme. Leon Ashby Slides

Hays responds to Fr. Kimel, who claims that the Bible does not function as the external Word upon which faith relies, saying that because the Scriptures weren’t written to us personally, therefore they cannot function like, say, baptism, which is an ‘inescapable item in your history’. i) Does this also apply to the church fathers, papal encyclicals, and conciliar decrees? ii) Getting a tattoo is also an inescapable item in your history; that’s not relevant. iii) Romanists often try to prooftext the efficacy of baptism using certain baptismal promises; assuming the Romanist interpretation is correct, then Kimel’s objection means that their extrapolation is wrong, since Catholics can’t directly and personally appropriate the baptismal promises of Scripture since they weren’t for them individually.  Promises, promises!

Piper makes the interesting point that ‘Our various disciplines and spontaneities are Christian to the extent that they are an overflow of our confidence that God is already 100% on our side.’ The Gospel rules out neither spontaneity or discipline. Piper explains how faith in the Gospel will lead the Christian to the discipline of planned private prayer. As our Lord, we gladly do what He tells us; as our Treasure, we are eager to get more of Him; and as our Saviour, we know that we go in prayer, not to purchase, but to receive. Praying in the Closet and in the Spirit

T-fan posts a number of translations of a key text from Aquinas on the primacy of the Scriptures. Aquinas on the Primacy of Scripture - a Word of Clarification

2010-01-03

Hays further interacts with Romanist Kimel, asking why, if the Gospel is essentially, sacramental, nobody belabours that point in the NT. He also observes that no matter the theological education and time, some people will never direct attention to the most important thing. Instead, they are always sizing up the decor on the boat rather than addressing the issue of whether they’re even on the right boat. What matters is not understanding Luther’s doctrine of justification, but Paul’s. To avoid works-righteousness we must understand how self-examination functions: “There is a world of difference between a person trusting his own state of mind or attainments for salvation and a person paying attention to his own states of mind as evidence that he has been and is converted.” He does not trust himself; he finds in himself important evidence that He genuinely trusts Christ, just as the birth certificate evidences birth on a certain date. And how can a Romanist find comfort in baptism, since there are baptized Catholics in hell by their own reckoning? The Judaizers anchored the gospel in circumcision, and all Rome does is substitute one form of ritual justification for another. Faith in a gracious disposition, however, is no ‘work’. Missing the boat

Philosophers William Lane Craig and Michael Tooley are set to debate the question “Is God real?” on March 24, 2010, at the University of North Carolina Charlotte at 7:00 p.m.  The debate is being hosted by Ratio Christi Student Apologetics Alliance, a ministry of Southern Evangelical Seminary. Upcoming Debate- William Lane Craig vs. Michael Tooley

T-fan, responding to the charge that Augustinian/Calvinistic predestination is Gnostic, points out that while there may be superficial similarities between the saved pneumatikoi (an idea in certain forms of Gnosticism) and the ‘spiritual’ (pneumatos in Romans), and the somatikoi and the ‘carnal’, and it may even be that one is derived from the other, the mere presence of such superficial similarities (such as that between the fatalistic aspects of some Gnosticism and the predestination of Scripture/Augustinianism/Calvinism) does not prove derivation or dependence. Eastern Orthodox Confusing Augustine with Gnostics

T-fan responds to a Romanist who suggests that Scripture is insufficient to interpret Scripture. Not every part of Scripture requires further interpretation, as some parts are plain, and others more obscure. It is reasonable that those more obscure parts are interpreted by what is clear, rather than conversely. T-fan then cites a number of Patristic sources over Magisterium More Sufficient than Scripture- (Part 1)

Hays, noting the emphasis on sola fide and the contextual application of Paul’s anathemas in debates over Galatians, writes that Paul shows that divine deliverance of revelation is of paramount importance to him (Gal. 1:11-12; 15-17), and that this means that it is essential that we understand Paul on his own terms. This is why exegesis is so important – the real gospel is revealed, and what we preach is only as good as its divine origin. Tradition is no substitute because what we preach must directly conform to the primitive revelation. The revelation of the Gospel

Hays further interacts with Romanists over the issue of sola fide. i) Works are justificatory in the Jacobean sense of “works” and “justification,” but this doesn’t mean we can substitute Jacobean for Pauline usage, as if these are interchangeable terms and concepts. ii) A dichotomy between ‘initial’ and ‘final’ justification must be argued, not assumed. iii) The issue of whether baptism is a work in NT theology is not the same as the issue of whether it functions as a work in Catholic theology – the former could be false, even if baptism is acting as a ‘Pauline work’ in Romanism. And remember that merit is central in Catholic theology. iv) If, for example, baptism (or communion) is simply meant to function as a token of salvation, or some aspect thereof (i.e. forgiveness), then we’d still have “salvation-like” passages, for that’s the nature of symbolic predication. We don’t need to give ‘salvation-like’ passages ‘different import’ in this case. When Jesus calls Himself a vine, the botanical metaphor is itself ineffective; the real-world counterpart is what matters. Also, if the benefits of a ritual can be enjoyed prior to the ritual, like the OT placeholders, then that undercuts the sacramental view, since such an approach treats them as symbolic placeholders for the actual reality. v) Part of responsible exegesis is to practice studied ignorance. Even if you happen to know more than the text indicates, you shouldn’t normally intrude that extraneous viewpoint into the narrative viewpoint. You need to move within the referential world of the narrative. vi) The Catholic assumes that OT passages foreshadow the institution of a new ceremony, rather than foreshadowing the event which the ceremony signifies. But why would we make that assumption? vii) Why assume a Romanist sacramental understanding of the concept of rebirth – what if it’s not a ceremony, but the immediate action of the Spirit, of which baptism is a picture? Born from above

Jonathan Edwards’ resolutions are compiled into a New Year’s Prayer, by Trevin Wax. “Fill my heart with such love that I would never do anything out of a spirit of revenge, nor lose my temper with those around me.” http://trevinwax.com/2010/01/03/a-prayer-for-the-new-year-adapted-from-jonathan-edwards-resolutions/

Here’s a brief description of the DNA-repair systems. Two proteins have been found that act like molecular tailors on bad DNA. Without this system, the results would be fatal. No word yet on how this evolved. http://creationsafaris.com/crev201001.htm#20100103a

Evolutions have been found exaggerating: “Mutations are the raw material of evolution.” Experiments were done on a plant – but there were no beneficial mutations observed, such as those that might help it evolve into a better plant. Rather, they found it was a degenerate sibling of a more fit cousin that can live for years instead of months. Evolutionists Caught in the Act – of Exaggerating

Phil Johnson posts some audio: A Primer on Postmodernism

2010-01-02

To the claim that disinfectants ‘trained’ superbugs to resist antibiotics, AiG notes that such does not prove molecules-to-man evolution, and that it may well be that the genetic code already existed among some of the population to resist the disinfectant, as a corruption of existing information. The disinfectant would have conferred an advantage over the others. In this case, loss of information would have occurred. Also, it is noted that natural selection cannot explain the origin of genetic information. Often research that claims to show evolution offers examples of the workings of natural selection (a concept creationists understand and research), and actually offers no support for the evolution of all life (a great amount of genetic information) from a single common ancestor (a small amount of genetic information). Finally, the discovery of Sinornithosaurus in China (a ‘bird-like’ dinosaur) is claimed to be ‘almost certainly feathered’ by evolutionists, showing their evolution-driven presuppositions despite the lack of evidence and the fact that similarity of the Sinornithosaurus to modern reptiles reflects the reptilian status of dinosaurs. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/01/02/news-to-note-01022010?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AIGDaily+%28Answers+in+Genesis+Daily+Articles%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

Chan posts an interesting article on blood in the human body. There is power in the blood

Responding to feedback and the accusation of ‘fact-fitting’ in contrast to ‘real’ scientists, Creation.com posts a reminder that the idea of the disinterested, objective scientist is a myth. [I would add that the secular sociology of science course I took during university agrees with Creation.com here, citing numerous examples including Watson and Crick in their pursuit of DNA, as well as different theories on the personal attachment scientists have to ‘make their thesis work’] http://creation.com/irrational-knuckle-brains

“Chad Brand says that Avatar is “anti-military, anti-non-green, anti-American (at least Bush and Reagan’s America), and anti-Custer.” This is a clever, short movie review from a theology professor at Boyce College and Southern Seminary. His conclusion: “I liked the film. I will probably watch it again. But I am not going to drink the Koolaid.” Read the rest here.” Brand talks about how the antagonists are depicted in monochromatic terms, versus the complexity of the protagonists. Cameron wants us to hate the Colonel, and we do. “I think Cameron could have done a better job depicting the Colonel and Parker. But maybe he could not bring himself to believe that such persons really are more subtle than he thinks they are. Maybe Cameron should live in the real world for awhile and have lunch with some real military people and even play cards with a few Republicans.” Chad Brand says Avatar is Anti-Custer

9Marks has a set of questions to consider for the new year. More Questions to Consider by Deepak Reju

Engwer talks about an interaction between two Christians and an atheist over the infancy narratives on the program Unbelievable?. i) The concept that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is vague, can result in infinite regress, and assumes without argument that the evidence we have isn’t extraordinary. ii) Matthew’s complex use of typology in the OT was not dishonest; it may not have the evidentiary significance of a non-typological prophetic fulfillment, but such methods were common in ancient Judaism, and to accuse him of dishonesty is unreasonable. iii) As to alleged parallels to the infancy narratives in non-Christian sources, even if we thought that the prominence of unusual births in fictional accounts casts doubt on the New Testament infancy narratives, we'd still have to go on to consider other factors, such as the earliness of the sources, their general credibility, and how other sources responded to the claims. The general credibility of accounts of unusual births is only one factor. iv) The atheist often redirected away from the topic of the virgin birth during the program, as many skeptics of the virgin birth do when their objections are shown to be inadequate. Skeptical Floundering On The Infancy Narratives

Atheists call creationists ‘kooks’, refusing to debate creationist Ph.D’s. Dawkins even said himself, “Yet when you look at it rationally there is not reason why those ideas shouldn't be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow between us that they shouldn't be.” Yet why won’t they debate? Dawkins quote is interesting in light of his reluctance to public, moderated debate. “why not take a few hours to show the rest of the world just how silly these "lackwits" really are?” Put up or shut up. Creationist Kooks Offer Debate Challenge

T-fan quotes a Romanist arguing that Sola Scriptura is unsound because Arians ‘could affirm every single verse of Scripture’ and so bishops had to define the Faith using an extra-biblical term homoousious, because Scripture was insufficient to resolve the dispute. He argues that the bishops are thus shown to have authority by apostolic succession, or their affirmation would carry no more authority than the Arian denial. T-fan, citing Athanasius, Augustine, Alexander of Alexandria, and others, notes that the Fathers themselves thought they refuted Arianism from scripture, putting the Romanist at odds with them. The primary sense of apostolic succession which the Arians lacked was not ordination, for they could trace that back, but in doctrine. They didn’t follow the teachings of the apostles in Scripture. T-fan offers this challenge: “find even one Christian (non-Arian, if Roman Catholics are calling Arians Christians these days) from Arius' birth until 100 years after Nicaea that says that the Arians "could affirm every single verse of Scripture" or couldn't be refuted from Scripture alone. More positively, the challenge is to find some writer in that time period who appealed to apostolic succession, as such, to refute the Arians: who said that the orthodox clergy had apostolic succession but the Arian clergy did not.” Arianism is Consistent with Scripture-. Some arguments:

• Of what is the Son a partaker? Not the Spirit, for the Spirit partakes of the Son. It must be the Father. If something externally provided by the Father, then it is not the Father, and He is no longer second to the Father, for something is between them. If the Son says that God is His own Father, it follows that what is partaken is not external but the essence of the Father. And if the essence of the Son is not the essence of the Father, then something is between them again.

• God is Maker, yet they say there was a time when His Framing Word and Wisdom were not, which is to say, that there was a time when God was not Maker, since he didn’t have the Word which is from Him, and yet that by which He frames is alien from Him and unlike His essence.

• How can all things be made through the Word, and without Him not anything is made, if the Son is Himself made?

• If the creation is ‘below’ God’s direct actions, and unworthy of Him, so that He needs an intermediary (i.e., the Son), how is God’s direct providence (e.g. not even a sparrow falls) not unworthy of Him?

• John 10:15: if the Father only in part knows the Son, then it is evident that the Son does not perfectly know the Father. But if it be wicked thus to speak, and if the Father perfectly knows the Son, it is plain that, even as the Father knows His own Word, so also the Word knows His own Father, of whom He is the Word.

• If whatever is spoken of God is spoken according to substance, then that which is said, "I and the Father are one," is spoken according to substance. Therefore there is one substance of the Father and the Son. Or if this is not said according to substance, then something is said of God not according to substance, and therefore we are no longer compelled to understand unbegotten and begotten according to substance. It is also said of the Son, "He thought it not robbery to be equal with God." We ask, equal according to what? For if He is not said to be equal according to substance, then they admit that something may be said of God not according to substance. Let them admit, then, that unbegotten and begotten are not spoken according to substance.

T-fan notes Atkinson suggesting that sola ecclesia (currently the Roman alternative to sola scriptura) be added to the five reformation solas. Church authority, however, must always be subservient to Scripture because human power always tends to corruption. http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/01/sola-ecclesia-reformation-maxim.html

Hays further interacts with a Romanist over baptism. i) Relying on baptism for assurance is sort of like the way some Jews relied on their biological relation to Abraham. ii) Where is the argument that when the priest administers baptism, he takes the place of Christ, and so Christ baptizes through the instrumentality of the priest? iii) If Christ is the baptizer, then why didn't he at least establish a dominical precedent by baptizing Jews and Gentiles during his earthly ministry? iv) We can be cognizant of our operating presuppositions and test them. v) The Romanist would have us avoid the ‘thicket of exegesis’ and substitute vague theological platitudes instead. The thicket of exegesis

Spurgeon: “You are meddling with Christ’s business, and neglecting your own when you fret about your lot and circumstances.You have been trying “providing” work and forgetting that it is yours to obey. Be wise and attend to the obeying, and let Christ manage the providing.” A Word for Worriers

Here’s a review of The Invention of Lying. It’s definitely a unique movie – and it certainly affirms the biblical truth about the disposition of man to God. The Blasphemy of The Invention of Lying- Give It a Second Look

“Suppose, in the encounter between doctor and child [in an abortion], the child won half of the time, and killed the doctor in self-defense—something he would have every right to do. Very few doctors would perform abortions. They perform them now only because of their absolute power over a small, fragile, helpless victim.” —Stephen D. Schwarz Abortion Ethics- When Might Makes Right

Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson is none to popular for selling his vote to protect the unborn in favour of attaining Medicaid for his state – only 17% favour the deal Nelson struck to vote for the bill, and if he were running today, polls show he would lose by a large margin. Go Big Red

T-fan writes, regarding a house found in Nazareth (“Israeli archaeologists said Monday that they have uncovered remains of the first dwelling in the northern city of Nazareth that can be dated back to the time of Jesus. ”), that if there were any skeptics out there who thought to themselves, "Nazareth wasn't inhabited in Jesus' day," (and I seem to recall one telling me that on a previous occasion) that excuse for not believing in Christ has been taken away (link). T-fan then quotes a skeptics [now somewhat embarrassing] skeptism. Nazareth Residence Found

Piper aims three times a day to use twitter to post a provocative sentence concerning the character of God, or Jesus, or building faith, or something helpful. He then says, don’t waste time on the web, and don’t vie for followers. Ask yourself – why do you do what you do? John Piper on Twitter

2010-01-01

Avatar movie reviews: Phillips notes “Cameron may well have intended a heavy-handed parable preaching the joys of pantheistic Gaia-worship, and the evils of America, George Bush, the war on terror, the military, and capitalism. If so, Cameron failed miserably, pathetically, and laughably, because there is no actual connection.” http://bibchr.blogspot.com/2009/12/avatar-movie-review.html. After noting that the incredible immersive FX is about all the film has going for it, Chan says, “Many liberals seem to think the problem is that some humans refuse to get with the program and cooperate and so are causing the rest of humanity its problems. The few are keeping the many - the rest of humanity - from utopia. But the problem isn't merely some humans (e.g. conservatives). The problem is all humans. The problem is sin - our sin. We live in a fallen world. We ourselves are fallen. We're sinners. We have rebelled against God himself. That's the problem. Or as G.K. Chesterton once responded to the question of what's wrong with the world: "I am."” Avatar review

J. Gresham Machen went to be with the Lord, New Year’s Day 1937. He wrote that a refuge from strife, a place of refreshing, a place where two or three gather in Jesus name and forget all human sins, is the house of God and that the gate of heaven. And from under the threshold of that house will go forth a river that will revive the weary world. Machen- 73 Years Ago Today

“Be determined more than ever to be a godly Christ like man in the totality of your redeemed humanity. What your people most need, and what an on-looking world most needs in your ministry, is a man who in his person in the totality of his redeemed humanity is both an exemplarity validation and an illustration of the power of the gospel. We all know the text, “I am not ashamed of the gospel it is the power of God unto salvation.”” The Gospel power should work in a weak and imperfect man – the pastor - so that anyone who knows him should see it. Paul told Timothy to be in all he did the embodiment of the message. http://reformedbaptistfellowship.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/here-is-a-timely-word/

Bayly posts a reminder from the Clearnote Fellowship Blog that (a) the church proclaim its doctrine, remembering that new perspectives like open theism, feminism, and abortion and mere modernized rehashings of ancient heresies (pelagianism, goddess worship, child sacrifice); and (b) that Christ as the Good Shepherd has for 1900 years enabled sinful men to be defenders of the truth, and has preserved the Churcsh as the ‘pillar and ground of this truth’ even in the midst of Arianism, Pelagianism, Islam, etc. To ignore this history is to ignore 2000 years of the blessings of God’s work. Announcing the ClearNote Fellowship blog

‘Nuf said. Jesus Taught Justification Through Foot Washing In John 3-5 (this has a context in a debate)

Hays interacts with a former Anglican who converted to Romanism. i) Appeals to Luther which imply that he is the founding father of Protestantism assume that Protestant identity is defined by continuity with a Protestant tradition rather than a rule of faith (sola scriptura). ii) To imply such is to impose a high-church paradigm on Protestantism. iii) Luther’s works are to be considered; the questions over baptism and justification are exegetical at the end of the day. iv) Good works are a condition of salvation. But they are not a condition of justification. They are a condition in the sense that sanctification is a condition – no one can be saved without the Spirit working through him to renew/preserve him in the faith. v) Baptism may well be a blessing to the faithful, but this doesn’t mean it is salvific. vi) To appeal to verses which promise salvation to baptized Christians one must account for the nature of symbols and metaphors – if baptism is purely symbolic then the relation between the rite and promise would also be symbolic, and one must reckon with passages which promise salvation apart from baptism. vii) To say that faith is a condition of baptism doesn’t begin to show that baptism is a condition of salvation. viii) Since infant baptism is the norm in Lutheran praxis (as well as Catholic praxis), Luther’s condition is at war with his practice. ix) To say faith requires an ‘embodied word’ (e.g. sacraments) and practice such is to shift from Christ alone to a mechanical rite and gain a false assurance. x) A mentally competent Christian should never leave the Bible so far behind that he can’t find the trail leading back to Scripture. xi) Romanists must show that the church of Rome is the body of Christ rather than simply assume that joining the church of Rome unites on to Christ and so justifies. xii) Romanist Kimel says, “Until one grasps the profound unity of these divine realities, one will never exegete Scripture properly,” admitting that before you can exegete Scripture properly, you must already have a thoroughgoing soteriology sacramentology, ecclesiology, and triadology – understanding which must be acquired apart from Scripture because you need it to interpret Scripture. Why Kimel is not the guide to Himmel

Burk points to a reading schedule for the Greek NT. Read the Greek NT in One Year

“What is first result of Adam and Eve choosing to be god?” Piper answers that the root of shame is the pretension to be god – invulnerable, self-sufficient, god-like – and the non-godlike appearance of man is absurd. So we try to do everything to look less like the wreckage we are without God. The essence of the fall is preferring to be god over enjoying God. To Satan’s suggestion that if they eat they will be like God, Piper notes that man can cut himself off from God (who is all sufficient, and who provides us with everything) in favour of being his own source of life, light, truth, right and beauty. And he’ll die. What Is the Essence of the Fall-