2010-09-07

Challies writes that the book Church Planter will be a valuable resource to church planters and pastors alike. “For those who are seeking to become church planters, it will tell them of the gravity and necessity of what they are doing and help them catch God’s desire for his church; for those who have already planted or who are already pastoring churches, it will renew, refresh, reset and re-challenge.” Click through for the full review. Book Review - Church Planter

Patton reposts his piece on what taking the Lord’s name in vain means. Interesting points: i) Saying “God bless you” and not meaning it should be just as bad as saying “God damn you” and not meaning it. ii) God” is not the name of God, but a common phrase used to refer to deities in general. Why don’t people get offended when others say “God bless you?” iii) What does it mean to use God’s name in an empty or vain way? What does the third commandment really mean? The nations to which the Israelites were going had many gods. They were highly superstitious. Their prophets would often use the name of their god in pronouncements. The usage could be in a curse, hex, or even a blessing. They would use the name of their god to give their statements, whatever they may be, authority. To pronounce something in their own name would not have given their words much weight, but to pronounce something in the name of a god meant that people would listen and fear. God was attempting to prevent the Israelites from doing the same thing. God was saying for them not to use His name like the nations used the names of their gods. He did not want them to use His name to invoke false authority behind pronouncements. He does not want anyone saying “Thus sayeth the Lord” if the Lord had not spoken. iv) Many people thus take God’s name in vain all over the Christian landscape by attributing statements and actions and guidance and words to God that God did not give. v) Don’t be flippant by trying to encourage a friend and say, “God is telling you . . .” If you are unsure, make your statement reflect your uncertainty. vi) We don’t want to be offensive. Be intentional with everything we say (Eph. 4:29). [i.e. don’t just say, “O my God” and “God damn it” flippantly]. What Does it Really Mean to Take the Lord’s Name in Vain-

Challies points to Sproul on lashing out to God in prayer: “Scripture is brutally honest with us, revealing the faults and vices of the saints, as well as their virtues. We see inappropriate conduct even from great men such as Abraham, Moses, and David. Thus, the fact that the Bible tells us that various men tried to bargain or negotiate with God should not communicate to us that this is the appropriate way to deal with Him.” Sometimes we think, "“Well, if Moses can do it, if Job can do it, then it must be my prerogative as a Christian to voice my bitterness and complaints.” We need to notice not just the complaints the biblical saints sometimes make, but the responses God gives. “Who is this who darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Now prepare yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer Me” (Job 38:2–3). Sproul observes that Job did not continue to complain. He was severely rebuked for the attitude that he expressed to God. Consider Habukkuk’s state after God’s answer to his demand: “My body trembled; my lips quivered at the voice; rottenness entered my bones; and I trembled in myself” (Hab. 3:16a). It is acceptable to bring all our cares to God, including matters that may move us to frustration or anger. However, we must not come to God in a spirit of complaint or anger against Him, for it is never proper to accuse God of wrongdoing. A La Carte (9/7)

Challies has a new book for women, which seeks to help women, whether wives or wives-to-be, to understand the purpose and the power of sex and sexuality. It encourages them to put away the false messages they have believed about sex and to reorient themselves around the truth. Since God is the one who created sex, he is the one who must direct it. False Messages- A New E-Book

Phillips reposts his thoughtful plea to women regarding dress. “"Is it pretty?" Fine question, no evil in it. "Is it comfortable, is it complimentary, is it fun?" No problem. I'd just suggest you add one more question: "Is it helpful, or is it hurtful, to my brothers in Christ? Will this unintentionally contribute to their having a focus that is harmful to their holy walk?"” He has some disclaimers worth noting up front: “Every man's sin is his own, and every man's struggle is his own (Proverbs 14:10). No one makes a man think or feel anything (Proverbs 4:23). It is each individual's responsibility to guard his own heart (Proverbs 4:23). Beauty is a wonderful gift of God (cf. Exodus 28:2; Song of Solomon 1:8, 15, etc.)” [i.e. don’t think asking women to show mercy in their dress for one moment abdicates men of the fact that its their sin to lust].  Sister... show mercy! (Annual repost #3)

Interesting – Passover chronology From Craig Blomberg

Hays quotes some comments on WLC’s video on Hawking’s new book: “Atheism – The belief that there was nothing and then nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything.” “It's the "nothing of the gaps" argument. Nothingdidit.” Nothing-of-the-gaps

Carl Trueman asks whether the impending burning of the Qur’an will cause backlash against American forces abroad. He also notes how burning books tends to make them bestsellers. Public sympathy for victims. “This Koran burning is childish; it will at best only draw attention to the book and fuel curiosity; at worst, it could jeopardise young people serving their country.  Christians would be better served spending the time praying for the conversion of their Muslim neighbours and reaching out to them with love and with God's true word, rather than with a box of matches and acts of counterproductive immaturity.” He also points out that “Luther understood this  -- when Prierias published his criticisms of Luther in 1518, Luther did not burn the book; he republished it with a new, witty preface and a refutation.  He understood the subtleties of polemic in a way that left his opponents playing catch-up.” Koran Burning (Carl Trueman)

CMI critiques BioLogos here. “BioLogos claims to bring science and faith together, but leaves important doctrines on the cutting-room floor in the process, including the authority of Christ Himself.” The article writes, “when they finally do talk about Jesus, it’s to say that if we want to avoid Docetism we have to acknowledge that He didn’t have perfect knowledge; He was just a man of His time. And they have the same view of Scripture… BioLogos makes the equal error of Ebionitism, which denied the deity of Christ; their view is essentially an Ebionite view of Scripture. Of course, Jesus was certainly fully human, but He was the unique sinless human who was also fully divine. And therein lies the problem—Jesus said, “If I have spoken to you about earthly things and you do not believe, then how will you believe if I speak to you about heavenly things?” (John 3:12) So it’s not surprising that BioLogos criticizes biblical morality as well as biblical history” Evolutionary syncretism- a critique of BioLogos

Mohler discusses Hawking’s new book here. “Hawking has acknowledged that his work “is on the borderline between science and religion, but I have tried to stay on the scientific side of the border.” That seems a strange comment, given the fact that he so routinely crosses that border… Stephen Hawking’s worldview is based in positivistic scientism. He really believes that science holds all the answers.”  He calls philosophy dead [which may be why he seems so bad at it]. And this is the man who thought that the great project of theoretical physics might be concluded by the end of the twentieth century. “By this I mean that we might have a complete, consistent, and unified theory of the physical interactions which would describe all possible observations.” Quite ambitious.  http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/09/07/no-need-for-god-stephen-hawking-defies-divine-creation/

Engwer reviews the debate between James White and Robert Price. Engwer notes his Price’s erroneous logic: “A historical argument for the truthfulness of Christianity doesn't require that "all early Christians" were "always careful". It just requires that enough of them were sufficiently careful enough of the time. It's not as though the existence of some carelessness, some false accounts about Jesus, etc. inherently falsifies Christianity or inherently makes Price's theories probable” Engwer also dismantles the ‘bad memory’ example of a clown in a classroom, pointing out the numerous things that people DID remember.Would we dismiss what Josephus or Tacitus reports on the basis of the existence of some false information in their day, what people remember when a clown unexpectedly enters a classroom, etc.? Also, the textual corruptions suggested by Price should have shown up in our textual record if they had occurred. Appealing to the possibility that the corruptions occurred without being reflected in the textual record (and without being mentioned elsewhere) doesn't overturn the probability of the general principle White is appealing to. And Price's speculation about an early Christian standardization of the text, similar to what occurred in Islam, has a series of problems. Including zero evidence.  A Review Of James White's Debate With Robert Price (Part 1)

DeYoung has some pointers on spotting bad argumentation. 1. The Big Nasty. One of the best ways to discredit your opponent is to give his position a nasty sounding name. 2. The Third Way. That Isn’t. 3. Categorize and Conquer. “It should be noted that this line of thinking is also prevalent in discussions of pluralism and tolerance. When Christians are chastised for being intolerant of other religions what the arguer is really arguing for (though he doesn’t realize it) is that the Christian should accept his belief in the sameness of all religions and the irrelevance of doctrinal and ethical distinctions. His tolerance is not neutral ground, but an unstated faith commitment.” 4. Preemptive Strikes. Any good argument will anticipate counter-arguments. But the preemptive approach doesn’t anticipate arguments, it merely tries to preempt them by defining would-be opponents in unflattering terms. This rhetorical strategy is brilliant, annoying, and cowardly. 5. Affirm Then Deny. In this approach you simply say one thing and then say the opposite. “I’m not saying you’re fat, I’m just saying your grossly overweight” 6. We’ve Been Wrong, So You Are Wrong. If you insist that God created the world out of nothing by the word of his mouth or that homosexual behavior is sinful you’re bound to have someone bring up Galileo and slavery. But that people have wrongly interpreted something does not mean that we can’t be sure of anything. “In conclusion, all I have to say is this post was too long so I’m taking tomorrow off. The mean-spirited blog bullies will probably call me lazy, but that’s a cross I’m willing to bear. On one level this may look like a passive aggressive argument, but on another level I knew you would say that because you are beholden to Greek thinking and a mechanical dictation theory of inspiration.” Less Than Meets the Eye