White writes the he has become more and more convinced over the years that one of the primary signs of regeneration is found in a person's obedience to, love for, and respect of, the Word of God. Christians long for Scripture. They long to read Scripture, possess Scripture, meditate upon Scripture. He links to a moving picture of a Christian woman in Laos reading a burned Bible – which God’s enemies tried to destroy, but is life to her. An Image That Touches My Heart
Hays responds to Olson’s arguments against Calvinism. i) Olson says Calvin denied that God merely permitted the fall, and wonders why Calvinists often use the term. Hays notes [as I do] that he’s not crazy about permissive language, but points to Paul Helm’s careful definition of the term. ii) Arminians don’t often bother to define what they mean by ‘author’ of sin and evil. It’s a technical term. The Westminster divines, etc. surely used it in the sense of God being the actor of doer of evil. But Olson uses it metaphorically, which results in equivocation – for his use, whatever that is, isn’t what Calvin et. al. meant. iii) Where is the argument that figurative authorship is unacceptable anyway? iv) Olson fails to distinguish between causes and intentions. God intends sin and evil, but not for sin’s sake. And that’s a different issue than the way its brought about (e.g. the determinist debate). v) Something can be evil in its own right, but contribute to something better. It’s not hard to see how there could be true evil. (Gen 50:20). Unless Olson means that something can’t be truly evil unless it has no redeeming value at all – in which case God allows purposeless horrendous evils for no good reason! vi) As to the idea that Calvinists should praise God for sin and evil, Hays responds that the issue is being oversimplified. Sin isn’t in itself praiseworthy. But the occurrence of sin/evil can be praiseworthy if God meant it for good – Joseph, the cross. vii) Olson’s problem is that he sees the problem only in terms of God’s involvement with evil. But disassociating God from it doesn’t solve anything. God still ought to be responsible. Arminians seem to treat evil like it is ritual impurity – just avoid contact – which Hays thinks is reflected in legalism among some Arminians. God, evil, and Olson
Patton comments on Hawking saying that the universe came into being from nothing, and there is no God. Patton shows that Hawking actually worships an ‘unknown God’. i) Hawking says that the universe is governed by the laws of science. And he’s added to this the idea that “Spontaneous creation is the reason why there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.” He goes on, “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper [fuse] and set the universe going.” ii) Aren’t we supposed to be rational? Is it rational to say that something comes from nothing? Consider the chaotic implications of ‘spontaneous creation’. Such irrationality must not get a serious shake in religion. iii) The response for ‘who created’ God is transcendence. God is transcendent, and this is what we call a ‘necessary’ belief. In order for something to exist, we need an adequate cause to explain it. The cause must be transcendent to avoid infinite regress. Ultimate cause. iv) The ultimate dilemma facing the atheist is existence itself. Why is there something rather than nothing? Hawking argues for multiple universes, postulating that one of these universes will have physical laws so different that it does not abide by the law of cause and effect. In this universe something can come from nothing. v) Thus Stephen Hawking believes in a god. Hawking there is a “universe” out there which is responsible for all things. Hawking’s creative universe where something can come from nothing carries the same basic and essential characteristic of the Christian view of God: transcendence. Sure, Christians add attributes to our understanding of God such as intelligence, love, and intervention, but the essential realm of existence is the same. God resides in a realm where the laws of physics do not have the same application. Why? Because he created them. What this ‘universe’ is like is a grand mystery to Hawking, but it exists for him, and Hawking thus believes in a mysterious creator of all things. He’s a pantheist or deist. He is now evangelizing on its behalf and he credits it with creation. He doesn’t have a relationship with it and doesn’t believe it cares though. The altar to the ‘unknown god’ of Acts 17:23 is for Hawking ‘Another Universe’. Hawking’s argument that God isn’t necessary dies of its own qualification. But Christ is the revelation of the true God. Stephen Hawking Worships the “Unknown God”’
Creationsafaris comments on Hawking, who relies on M-theory: “M-theory in either sense is far from complete. But that doesn’t stop the authors from asserting that it explains the mysteries of existence: why there is something rather than nothing, why this set of laws and not another, and why we exist at all. According to Hawking, enough is known about M-theory to see that God is not needed to answer these questions. Instead, string theory points to the existence of a multiverse, and this multiverse coupled with anthropic reasoning will suffice.” Untested and untestable. Also, Hawking is near asserting an anti-realist ontology that asserts multiple independent views of reality are possible, each one model-dependent, each one hopelessly incomplete. It sounds indistinguishable from postmodern relativism. What may be true for Hawking would not be true for you or me, so why even do science? Such a perspective precludes a defensible position for Hawking or anyone else. Stephen Hawking His Atheism
DG points to Crossway’s forthcoming Seek and Find, a tool to help children aged 5-9 learn to love God’s word. Help Your Kids Love God with Their Hearts and Minds
From Phillips: “In further irony, a bunch of pastors (?) insist that Obama should get a special pass on the Lord's axiom that a tree is judged by its fruit. Which pastors? Leftist tool Jim Wallis, false teacher T. D. Jakes (who's wobbled similarly in the past), Usual Suspect Ron Sider, Brian Maclaren, and others. (Thanks to Kate G for that lead. Paula found another analysis as well.)” Hither and thither 9/3/10
Turretinfan provides evidence that seven (or eight) popes denied the immaculate conception: Leo I, Gelasius I, Gregory I, Roman Clergy, during a vacant seat time, after the death of Honorius I (attributed to John IV, though not by Launoy), Innocent III, Innocent V, John XXII (or Benedict XII), Clement VI. How Many Popes Does it Take to Deny the Immaculate Conception-
Dusman @ Triablogue reports on a debate over whether God exists at the campus of University of North Carolina at Greensboro. Our goals for the debate were twofold: (1) give a clear gospel presentation, and (2) that God be glorified. Their opponents focused on alleged contradictions in the Scriptures, God being an immoral monster, and rather than dealing with these, Dusman et. al. took their feet out from under them by showing that they have no basis for using the laws of logic to begin with in order to create any objection to Christian theism. Atheists with no formal training in philosophy or Biblical studies tend to do three things: i) They tend to amass a list of alleged Biblical contradictions one after another knowing that their Christian opponents will never have time to fairly respond to them in a public debate setting. ii) They tend to ask questions of their opponents that have been successfully answered by Christian theologians for hundreds of years (i.e., Euthyphro's Dilemma). iii) They make bare naked assertions based upon prejudicial conjectures in order to "preach" their unbelief (i.e., "You can't trust the Bible because it's been translated and re-translated, over and over again.") Obviously none of these are compelling. Debate Report- Does the Christian God Exist-
CMI writes that the genetic diversity in dogs is greater than natural selection and random mutation would allow. After a discussion of the genetic involved, the article concludes by saying that the two canids preserved on the Ark would be expected to have carried a fairly uniform karyotype and up to four alleles for non-duplicated genes. This brief examination of present-day karyotypes and several groups of genes indicates that significant diversity has arisen since the Flood. They say that chromosomal comparisons within created kinds have implicated numerous designed mechanisms which control chromosomal changes in a way that maintains viability of the animal. The patterns seen here suggest that God, in His infinite wisdom, designed animals to be able to undergo genetic mutations which would enable them to adapt to a wide range of environmental challenges while minimizing risk. Genetic diversity in dogs
Creationsafaris: “Political conservatives have often been stunned by lone judges overturning the will of the people. This time, liberals in support of embryonic stem cell research are reeling from the decision of a federal judge that halts funding of such research that was recently energized by the President.” Embryonic Stem Cell Researchers Reeling from Judge’s Decision
God owes His grace to no one. “According to Louis Berkhof, common grace "curbs the destructive power of sin, maintains in a measure the moral order of the universe, thus making an orderly life possible, distributes in varying degrees gifts and talents among men, promotes the development of science and art, and showers untold blessings upon the children of men" (Systematic Theology, p. 434).” Without the grace of God, even your average run of the mill pagan would behave like a brute beast, even towards their own children. Exhibit A: Severely Malnourished Girl Found Dead, Tied to Bed. If Not For God's Grace, We Would Starve Our Children\
JT points to an article by Collin Hansen and a seminary by Dave Harvey and Jared Mellinger as helpful in thinking through pastoral succession in churches. Pastoral Succession
DeYoung quotes Martyn Lloyd-Jones, who comments on the social problem in Acts 6 of the widows failing to receive enough food [something rather relevant for so many who place social needs as ultimate]: “Surely the business of the Christian Church, and the leaders particularly, is to deal with this crying need: Why go on preaching when people are starving and in need and are suffering? That was the great temptation that came to the Church immediately; but the Apostles under the leading and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and the teaching they had already received, and the commission they had had from their Master, saw the danger and they said, ‘It is not reason that we should leave the Word of God, and serve tables’. This is wrong. We shall be failing in our commission if we do this. We are here to preach this Word, this is the first thing, ‘We will give ourselves continually to prayer and the ministry of the Word.’” These priorities are laid down once and for ever. Nothing can deflect from the ministry of the word. The apostles didn’t ignore the need in the church (and it was IN THE CHURCH), so saying proclamation is prime isn’t to say nothing else matters. But nothing can supplant the primary task of the indispensable mission of the church. Lloyd-Jones on the Mission of the Church
DG blog quotes Blaise Pascal on the limitation of man. For example, “Our intelligence occupies the same rank in the order of intellect as our body in the whole range of nature. Limited in every respect, we find this intermediate state between two extremes reflected in all our faculties. Our senses can perceive nothing extreme; too much noise deafens us, too much light dazzles; when we are too far or too close we cannot see properly; an argument is obscured by being too long or too short; too much truth bewilders us.—Blaise Pascal, Pensées, 61-63” Man- A Little Perspective
Dusman writes further about the on-campus debate with the atheists et. al. One opponent used a reformulation of Renee Descartes' classic argument, “I think, therefore I am”. The classic formulation fails to impress the Christian because as atheist Bertrand Russell pointed out, it commits the logical fallacy of begging the question, since you assume that you are the one thinking in order to prove that you are the one existing. So you’d have to say, “There is thinking going on, therefore, I exist.” But this is a non-sequitur, for that doesn’t prove you exist. Now the atheist could have turned to Bertrand Russell. Instead he went to Wikipedia and read Soren Kierkegaard: “X thinks. I am that X. Therefore, I think. Therefore, I am.” This doesn’t help. For one, they admitted that logic is non-absolute and dependent upon the existence of people. They think this argument gives them epistemic certainty. But it is even worse than Descartes, and Kierkegaard never intended it for this. The problem was whether they could provide epistemic certainty regarding the functional utility and uniformity of logical laws in a world only made of matter. It’s possible the atheist didn't know the difference between psychological confidence and epistemic certainty. But the argument still uses the conclusion as one of its premises. As someone asked in the Q+A: “If we, along with Kierkegaard, arbitrarily assert our own existence, how does that help us logically? Is that not akin to simply asserting an opinion and hoping that no one notices?” Does Kierkegaard Save the Cogito- NO!
Dusman continues to address the charge, "You guys did nothing but dance around questions all night." i) “If there's no God, what's wrong with avoiding questions? What moral obligation do I have to answer anybody's questions or be rational if there is no God? How does epistemic normativity arise out of mere matter in motion?
The above metaphysical and epistemological issues are why we *purposefully* and *strategically* refused to address some of their assertions.” Their opponents both denies that logic was transcendent, and they admitted that they couldn’t account for immaterial laws given their materialistic metaphysic. What right do they have to demand that the Christian provide answers to their alleged Biblical contradictions when their own worldview can't provide the philosophical cash value needed to account for the very logical laws needed to make their argument in the first place? ii) The charge is false. There’s a video recording to prove it. iii) “(1) because we knew that we would not have the time to do justice to their list of alleged contradictions in the six minute rebuttal period and, (2) because we knew that they wouldn't be able to account for immaterial logical laws given their naturalistic materialism, we took the strategy that we did. iv) They have answers for the contradictions, the vast majority of which required no preparation to deal with. v) We avoided answering them *on purpose* because if they can't account for contradictions in their worldview in the first place, then I'm not obligated to answer their alleged contradictions.” Do Not Answer a Fool According to His Folly
See here: Does the Christian God Exist- Debate Audio and Handouts
From DeYoung, quoting the president of Belhaven University. “There are few who can accurately self-evaluate. In repeated studies, most people rate themselves much higher than their true skills. And thus, leaders need at least one person who will shoot absolutely straight with them and be both their best friend and best critic.” The title says it all: The Blessing of a Loving But Unimpressed Spouse
Piper addresses the question of how to glorify God in the workplace. We are all ministers, we are all priests—priesthood of the believer. That priesthood is as real in the secular workplace as the clergy. Seek to do your work in such a way that Christ looks more important than your work. Seek to make and use money in such a way that Christ looks more important than money. Seek to have relationships with people in the work place such that Christ is more important than those relationships. We should be creative and industrious and excellent in all of our work in order to adorn the gospel and do it in a way that Christ is shown to be more valuable than any of those things. How Can I Glorify God on the Job-
Hays quotes apostate and Christ-hating atheist John Loftus, who calls Lee Strobel 'utterly stupid’ for repeating platitudes that ‘Biblical scholars have long ago debunked’ in his debate with John Shelby Spong. Hays then points out that “Loftus is one of those benighted individuals who's too self-absorbed to know he made a revealing statement when he makes it. Spong is just a hack who merely repeats platitudes by Fosdick, Harvey Cox, &c.” Strobel is just a popularizer, but he interviews top scholars, and he has a law degree from Yale. It’s doubtful that he’s just stupid. Lee Strobel, You Are Just Plain Stupid!
Mohler comments on the Francis Collins/Human embryos issues. Collins successfully led the massive effort to map the entire human genome, bringing the project to completion ahead of time and under budget. He now serves as director of the National Institutes of Health, having been nominated by President Barack Obama last summer. You’d think the scientific world would be impressed. They’re not. “Harvard’s Steven Pinker declared that Collins is “an advocate of profoundly anti-scientific beliefs”… Dr. Collins is “a believing Christian.” As writer Peter J. Boyer explains, “The objection to Collins was his faith—or, at least, the ardency of it. Collins is a believing Christian, which places him in the minority among his peers in the National Academy of Science.” Basically, they have a problem with Collins because he actually believes what he believes. Mohler points out that it evidently doesn’t take much to be considered ardent these days, since ‘believing Christian’ is equated with ‘ardency’. Now Collins started the BioLogos website. The main preoccupation (or obsession) of the BioLogos site is advocacy for the theory of evolution among Christians. Now Francis Collins is headed into a public controversy over the use of human embryos in medical research. Collins now appears to be an forceful advocate of an aggressive broadening of research using human embryos. “It’s time to accelerate human-embryonic-stem-cell research,” he said, “not throw on the brakes.” Even the pioneer of human embryo research wrote, “If human-embryonic-stem-cell research does not make you ate least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough.” Collins thinks its morally wasteful to not take advantage of wasted embyros. And Collins thinks they re ‘potential life’. Defining a human embryo as merely “potential life” is an evasion, especially when the same person says that is impossible “scientifically to settle precisely when life begins.” A closer look at that statement will reveal that, once it is denied that life begins at conception, there is no real scientific answer to the question of when life does begin. And it is a horrifying pragmatism would allow the use of any “doomed” human being for medical research or destruction. And interestingly the most promising avenues of stem-cell research are using cells derived from adult cells, not from embryos. Note this well too: Even when Francis Collins presses his case for evolution, he is dismissed by many scientists simply because he believes in God. So when we are told that we have to accept and embrace the theory of evolution in order to escape being considered intellectually backward, remember the opposition to Francis Collins. ”This is the predicament of those who argue that evangelicals must accept some form of theistic evolution — the guardians of evolution still consider them clowns.” The Predicament — Francis Collins, Human Embryos, Evolution, and the Sanctity of Human Life
Challies cites Sproul’s reply to the objection that Christians are a bunch of hypocrites who call people out for being sinners. “What happens is that people observe church members sinning. They reason within themselves, “That person professes to be a Christian. Christians aren’t supposed to sin. That person is sinning; therefore, he is a hypocrite.” The unspoken assumption is that a Christian is one who claims he does not sin. It reality just the opposite is the case. For a Christian to be a Christian, he must first be a sinner. Being a sinner is a prerequisite for being a church member. The Christian church is one of the few organizations in the world that requires a public acknowledgement of sin as a condition for membership.” Thus the church has fewer hypocrites than any institution. It doesn’t claim to be perfect, and moreso, admits its defects more plainly than any. “There is no slander in the charge that the church is full of sinners. Such a statement would only compliment the church for fulfilling her divinely appointed task.” A Prerequisite for Membership
Neat! The ESV Bible Atlas
And neat again! http://www.biblemap.org/
For those who are wondering, from AiG: Feedback- Do Genesis 1 and 2 Contradict Each Other-
9Marks: Don’t put your spiritual confidence in your spiritual fruitfulness. “A man may edify another by his gifts—and yet be unedified himself; he may be profitable to another—and yet unprofitable to himself.” “The efficacy of the Word does not depend upon the authority of him who speaks it—but upon the authority of God who blesses it. So that another may be converted by my preaching—and yet I may be cast away notwithstanding... God may use a man's gifts to bring another to Christ, when he himself, whose gifts God uses, may be a stranger unto Christ.” Don't Go Out in a Stink
John Piper: Having God Is Better than Money, Sex, Power, or Popularity. “First think about them in relation to death. Death will take away every one of them: money, sex, power, and popularity. If that is what you live for, you won’t get much, and what you get, you lose. But God’s treasure is “abiding.” It lasts. It goes beyond death.” Notably he writes, “Sex is a shadow, an image, of a greater reality—of a relationship and pleasure that will make sex seem like a yawn.” “Fame is a pipe dream if you are only known by human nobodies.”
JT: Eckhard Shnabel says the term ‘incarnational ministry’ is not very helpful. Andreas Köstenberger independently agrees, writing that “The Fourth Gospel does therefore not appear to teach the kind of ‘incarnational model’ advocated by Stott and others.”” Kostenberger writes, “The term that I think captures the nature of our mission according to John’s gospel is “representational.” That is, we are to re-present the message of redemption and eternal life in Jesus on the basis of the finished cross-work and resurrection of Christ. Clearly, John’s Gospel presents Jesus’ incarnation as utterly unique (read the introduction, 1:1–18!), so it is hard to conceive of John teaching an “incarnational model” in which the disciples share in Jesus’ incarnation in some way. Remember, my doctoral dissertation was just on John’s Gospel, and so I only addressed and critiqued an “incarnational model” from John’s vantage point. The major implication from this kind of “representational” model, then, is that we are to focus on the gospel message, not the messengers, and pass that message on faithfully and accurately in our mission to the world.” Does the Gospel of John Advocate “Incarnational Ministry-”
No comments:
Post a Comment