2009-08-17

CotW looks at Romans 5, which supports the view of a historical Adam, by way of Paul’s comparison of the historical Christ to the historical Adam. i) The article argues that that verses 12b–17 constitute a parenthetical thought. Paul interrupts the main argument to clarify the relation between Adam an Christ. ii) death spread to all men because all sinned; when Paul uses the phrase translated ‘because’ (which can have different causative meanings) it always otherwise means ‘because’. iii) Adam is a type; a person prefiguring by God’s design Christ. But Paul contrasts them – the point of similarity is so that both did things that had far reaching consequences. iv) Paul uses the quantifier πολλοὶ (polloi) for the people affected by Christ’s sacrifice, which sometimes means ‘all’ but also means ‘many’. However, Paul has earlier used the word πάντες (pantes), which means ‘all’ or ‘every’, for those affected by Adam’s sin, indicating that he wishes to distinguish between ‘the many’ and ‘all’. Thus this does not teach universalism. v) One is counted sinful or righteous not by one’s own individual sinfulness or righteousness, but by way of relationship with Adam or Christ. The legal aspect of justification (δικαίωμα, dikaiōma) can be shown by its contrast with ‘condemnation’ (κατάκριμα, katakrima), obviously a legal concept in Romans 5:16. Thus Paul is using a typology in this passage which requires Adam and Christ to be equally historical since both acted in ways that had real and lasting consequences in human history. http://aturnfortheworse.blogspot.com/

Mohler agrees with a methodist theologian that it seems the only ‘heresy’ in much of liberal Protestantism is the heresy of believing in the possibility of heresy. This is loudly declared by many as well. Heresy has become the norm, rather than the exception. Historically, heresy is a term reserved for contradictions to Biblically revealed Gospel truth. Now, Bishop Jefferts Schori’s recent remarks that the ‘great Western heresy’ is “that we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in right relationship with God” effectively identify what has been central to the Christian faith for the past 2000 years as heresy. Sadly, her comments aren’t aimed at the manipulative and formulaic use of the ‘sinner’s prayer’: her assertion of heresy was directed to the very idea of individual conversion to faith in Christ -- the faith that has always and everywhere defined authentic Christianity. She laments evangelism because it will divert attention from ecological, economic, and other political imperatives. “The irony of all this was not lost on many Episcopalians and other observers. The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church finally summoned the determination to apply the word heresy --- and then applied this most serious term of odious rejection to the Gospel itself.” It is tragic, but in her words we see true heresy in its most undisguised form. http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=4129

DeYoung has two more questions after reading Wright’s new book: i) On what basis are we declared to be in the right before God? While Wright’s understanding that the present verdict of justification is on the basis of faith alone and the future verdict is based on works is close to the traditional Reformed understanding, Wright doesn’t want to say that we must give corroborating evidence of a justification by faith alone in our works. He doesn’t think debating ‘basis’ is a way to clarity. He does seem to be saying that we are declared to be in the right before God on the last day on the basis of works, in that works are not mere evidence of saving faith. So the basis of our justification matters. ii) Why not just say “imputation”? DeYoung takes issue with Wright’s view of 2 Cor. 5:12. a) That Paul is pleading with people in the church of Corinth to be reconciled to God isn’t out of place at all, given the situation. b) Wright imposes the larger context in such a way that the immediate context is dismissed. Hence, Wright doesn’t think Paul can bring up the atonement in 2 Cor. 5. But in this chapter Paul is talking about our heavenly dwelling, persuading others based on the fear of coming before the Lord, being made new in Christ, and being reconciled to God - all Old Perspective stuff: Heaven, reconciliation, faith. So it makes perfect sense that Paul would talk about the atonement and “how we get saved” in verse 21. c) For Wright, instead of 21b being about reconciliation through imputation, Wright assumes reconciliation so that 21b can be about something else, Paul’s apostolic ministry. When Wright will say, “the Messiah came and bore the covenantal curse in himself, so that the new covenant blessings might flow out at last to the world”, why won’t he just say ‘imputation?’ After all, how is it that we are declared righteous without some reckoning of it? Isn’t Wright saying that Christ did what we we’re supposed to do so we could get covenant blessings and bore the penalty we deserved as covenant breakers? Flying Monkeys and the New Perspective

Bird points to a post on whether baptism is a Gospel issue, which concludes, “"When we abandon baptism, we substitute other more individualistic and subjective forms of recognition and exclusion. We undermine the unity on which the NT places such a high value. We subvert the gospel."” Is Baptism a Gospel Issue - John Davies

Burk notes that the expansion of hate crimes protections to include homosexuals/transgendered happening in the Senate, combined with existing law, “could expose to prosecution Christians and others who proclaim the Bible’s teaching that homosexual behavior and other sexual relations outside marriage are sinful.” Someone who hears a biblical sermon, commits a violent act based on ‘sexual orientation’, could open the preacher to the charge of inducing the crime. Concerns about New Hate Crimes Bill

Courtney Reissig at Genderblog recommends The Legacy of Biblical Womanhood by Susan Hunt and Barbara Thompson. There is a generation of women who have an understanding of womanhood that is radically opposed to God’s design. The hyper-sexualized, self-focused, feminist worldview screams "this is what it is all about" at them from every corner. “The legacy of the world says that you can do anything a man can do, your career is top priority, and you must stop at nothing to attain these things. The legacy of godliness says that God has uniquely created you as a woman to live within his parameters for his glory (Titus 2).” You pass on what you love. Intentionally discipling young women in Christ is a great legacy because it exalts Jesus and makes much of Him and points away from us. Apart from Christ our legacy is to death. But women bought by the blood of Christ are called to leave a legacy of life (Genesis 3:20, Titus 2:3-5). Leaving a Legacy

 

2009-08-15

“Some interesting stats from Christianity Today. 42% Scientists ages 18-34 who say they believe in God. 28% Scientists 65 and older who say this.” Scientists Who Believe in God

Burk writes that the YouTube video going around that claims to give biblical evidence that Barack Obama is the anti-christ (see above). may sound like it has insight on the biblical text, but it doesn’t. “It is filled with factual inaccuracies and exegetical fallacies and should be discarded onto the scrapheap of crackpot-pseudo-intellectual hooey.” Is Obama the Anti-Christ-

Reformed Baptist press notes the ease with which one may attack certain believers as thieves of liberty or Pharisaical legalists just because they don’t indulge in culture or they have questions/concerns. The progressive adoption of things formerly thought immoral, be it certain movies, music, excessive drinking, etc. by Christians and even pastors raised the question – is there any definition of the ‘world’ that all believers agree ought to be rejected. The standard is shifting. “Holiness, it appears, is culturally conditioned.” My Pharasaic Heroes or Bible Babies in Fundy Bathwater

Challies highly recommends A Lover's Quarrel with the Evangelical Church, which is "intended primarily for Christian believers, particularly those who might generally fit into the category of theologically conservative, evangelical believers. Though much of what follows is highly critical--on both practical grounds and theological grounds--of the current state of the evangelical church, it is criticism aimed to build up, not to tear down." The author, Warren Cole Smith, loves the church, and rather than rejecting the faith seeks to reform its evangelical (American) expression. Whether or not one would debate his proposed solutions, his analysis is solid, and he sees the local church as the foundation to the solution. A Lover's Quarrel with the Evangelical Church

Phillips picks up on a topic he’d railed on before – when Doug Wilson blamed Todd Palin for Bristol Palin’s sexual immorality. He says, “Who are the last people in the world you'd expect to think that Person A can cause Person B to be faithful or faithless from the heart?
Me, I'd nominate hardcore Calvinists.” Yet, the father and mother are blamed for their child being an apostate. Many Christians seem to go into parenting thinking that a particular formula will yield particular results, yet life happens and their nifty parenting book doesn’t quite come through. “it is a pan-Biblical verity that you can never be assured of drawing a straight line between cause and effect in relationships. God has a human son (Luke 3:38) who sins in spite of perfect fathering, who has a son who is saved in spite of imperfect fathering. There's your template.” Here we go again, again- the illusion of human sovereignty among those who should know better

Hays responds to Reppert, who argues that saying that the elect will appreciate grace more in heaven if people are damned is ineffective because God can produce in them all the appreciation he wants to without damning anybody (e.g. showing a fake movie of hell). i) Hays notes that movies of hell are hardly compelling. ii) Reppert’s alternative here is called a Cartesian demon; i.e. an omnipotent being can create delusive experiences. BUT biblically God forms our beliefs through real world experience, and all the icky stuff that comes with. iii) The Cartesian demon argument cuts both ways – why wouldn’t a benevolent God then put us with simulated wives and kids, without any problems? See, a God who is both benevolent and omnipotent would create the best possible world, and as Reppert points out this is a virtual world with implanted memories - But since the real world isn’t the best possible world, as Reppert defines it, God does not exist.  Calvinism or Cartesian Demonism-

Hays again illustrates, by appealing the The Matrix and Dark City, the absurdity of Reppert’s notion that reality shouldn’t put any constraints on theology. Christianity or Renderosity-. See also here. Victor Reppert's show-n-tell [I might add that God aims to actually demonstrate His wrath].

The Worship God MP3 sessions are available here. Worship God MP3 Sessions

Piper answers the question, “Do you think complementarianism is so important to some people that they deny women more opportunities than the Bible denies them?” Too Complementarian-

Wilson has some insightful comments here. i) He notes a picture of a fundamentalist women, who seems to be out of touch entirely, who is actually seeking to do the right thing, to be modest and discrete, and not trying to achieve an effect that the Bible never urges women to have – to be ‘edgy’. She’s playing the instrument poorly, but at least she’s playing the right one. ii) After pointing to Titus 2, Wilson notes that the Bible says that older women should teach younger women how to achieve that effect, an effect we can sum up with the word respectable – and that younger women are not to push the envelope until the older women finally call them on it. There is a way to try to be respectable that ends up being worldly – this is playing the right instrument badly. But there is a way to live in a disrespectable, unkept, etc. way that’s like using a totally different instrument, and how well you play is irrelevant. The Distinction Between Doing the Right Thing Badly and Doing the Wrong Thing Well

Here’s links to two articles by John Piper on the vessels of wrath. God's Patience with the Vessels of Wrath

Girltalk notes that Peter (1 Pet. 4:9) says hospitality is to be done without grumbling. It’s not enough to just do it – it must be done cheerfully. Hospitality is work and sacrifice and it take energy and even money. How do you do it unbegrudgingly? By remembering why. Hospitality Coreography

Phillips thoughts on altar calls: i) The very name should give the Christian pause, since we don’t have an altar here. We don’t call them to an altar but to Christ. And if this was changed to a ‘Christ call’ the whole practice would fall apart since no biblically-instructed pastor could ever connect walking to some geographical location with meeting Jesus. But that’s what the altar call does – and if not, why do they make it sound that way? ii) (A) no evangelist in most Christian history felt the need to do it, and (B) the first to popularize it was the heretic Charles Finney. iii) In practice they can be horridly manipulative. iv) Jesus isn’t waiting at the front of the church. v) The primary purpose of assembly is edification, not evangelism. vi) Don’t take any of that to be a disinterest in evangelism. vii) We should most assuredly be constantly extending invitations, be available after services to talk to individuals upon whom the Spirit works, and preaching the Gospel. Altering altar calls

Genderblog points to an article at DG: One of the greatest reasons for a man to get and stay married is not the rapturous flame of eros but the refining fires of holiness. No relationship is more clearly commanded to model the death of Christ. So CS Lewis: “the husband is the head of the wife just in so far as he is to her what Christ is to the Church.” “This headship, then, is most fully embodied not in the husband we should all wish to be but in him whose marriage is most like a crucifixion; whose wife receives most and gives least, is most unworthy of him, is-in her own mere nature-least lovable. For the church has no beauty but what the bridegroom gives her; he does not find, but makes her, lovely. ” Weighty Words on the Meaning of a Husband's Headship

T-fan has to show a Roman e-pologist what Rome has actually taught on the painlessness of Mary’s giving birth. Pope Alexander III is quoted showing it quite clearly. The roman apologist misses this point too: Aquinas reasoned that Mary didn't have birth pains because she didn't give birth through the birth canal, because she remained a virgin even despite the birth of Christ. Even the Catholic Catechism say, “Christ's birth "did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it."” Trent said, just as the rays of the sun penetrate without breaking or injuring in the least the solid substance of glass, so after a like but more exalted manner did Jesus Christ come forth from His mother's womb without injury to her maternal virginity. This all highlights a troubling question for Roman Catholics: How do they know what Rome teaches? It's nice to act as though the Catechism were an infallible canon of Rome's teachings, but it doesn't make that claim for itself. Rome Teaches-

A guest poster on Beggars All writes on Islam and Church History, and the importance of history in answering the volumes of questions muslims have on issues like canon, the Trinity. He is convinced that Mohammad and the Arabs got the wrong impression of Christianity from the combination of different beliefs and heretical sects on the border of Arabia and all over the Middle East, North Africa and the Persian Empire, and moreso as they spread. They encountered Monophysite churches,  Nestorians, Apocryphal heretical sects, and so on. Several indications in the Qur'an point to Muhammad getting a lot of his information from Apocryphal gospels. no doubt, the images, icons, and statues of Mary, and seeing the eastern Christians bow down and pray before pictures and icons of Mary contributed to their mis-understanding of Christianity and the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity. The guest poster, being a 26 year evangelist to Muslims, notes that still most Muslims think most Muslims still think that the Trinity is God the Father, the Son Jesus, and Mary, "the Mother of the God" (See Qur'an Surah 5:116; also 5:72-73). Eastern Orthodoxy meet

The guest at Beggar’s All continues to answer this question. “As for the presence of Nicene and Chalcedonian Christianity in Arabia in the 6th and early 7th century, it is my understanding that Arabia was a haven for non-Orthodox sects—am I correct on this?” He doesn’t think there was much Chalcedonian Christianity in Arabia at all, but there was Trinitarian Christianity from the Monophysites and Nestorians (they both agreed with the Nicean and Constantinople councils and the doctrine of the Trinity) around the borders of Arabia. “Muhammad could not distinguish between the Monophysites, Nestorians, Chalcedonians, and Apocryphal Gnostic sects, desert monks, ascetics, and the Collyridians (if they got that idea from them); -- they could not distinguish between them because of the Marian practices, images, bowing before icons, prayers to Mary, and calling her "the Mother of the God". It was a bad witness and lack of evangelical missions on the Orthodox part; combined with the heretics who were exiled to the frontiers. Cults and heresies grew up and new religions are started from a lack of outreach and witness.” He goes into some more detail. It seems incipient gnosticism, such as veneration of Mary, and other things like icons, etc. were part of the problem. Muhammad and the Arabs just did not get a credible Biblical and Evangelical witness

Ok, this is funny. I’m not this bad – you won’t find descriptions of me online that say, “Can’t resist a good Bonhoeffer quotation, Edwardsean philosophy, and a venti mocha with light whip.” - but it burns a little. :-) “So, reformed hipster/progressive/student/master-of-irony, next time you consider charting your particular coffee-related beverage of choice, next time you wear it as a distinctive identity marker, remember: everyone else likes coffee.  Work harder on the goatee pattern, find another brand of undiscovered denim, dig even deeper in the alternative music shop to lay hands on the truly avant-garde musical act, because your love for coffee–it ain’t getting you there.” Poseur Coffee Drinking

Was Spurgeon KJV Only? Phil Johnson says, no, and read Spurgeon again, and then clearly, unequivocally shows that he is most assuredly not. Was Spurgeon KJVO-

Helm comments on this statement in the Times on the danger of legalizing attempted suicide. ‘The knowledge that I’m here by choice, that every breath I take I take by choice, injects into my soul a transcendent joy. That we can let go whenever we want is for me the deepest sort of thrill.’ Helm particularly notes that expression of a libertarian view of politics in the life of the author: Absolute self-autonomy (the author is an atheist and something of a Lucretian, (‘death is nothing to me’)). i) What is self-deceiving is the idea that the freedom to end one’s life is the freedom to keep it. Can we even want to let go when we have the opportunity? “The realisation that (as Parris puts it) I am no longer useful and life is no longer fun will hardly be trumped by the transcendentally joyous realisation that I can flip the switch.” ii) Am I free to keep my life? There’s an obvious plethora of contingencies that could take you out of the world. Our lives are not in our hands. We do not know what a day may bring. And so this is also a reason to go easy on the hubris. Parris at the weekend

Peter Head notes that “one of the potential dangers in eclectic texts is that the mechanisms used for indicating variants may mislead readers into isolating variants that are actually in close relationship with each other (and you do see this a lot even in scholarly writing).” He uses Hebrews 1:3 as an example in the NA27. 'the word of power'- Hebrews 1.3 (P46 et al)

Hays responds to Reppert’s idea that “we could avoid interpretations of Scripture that commit biblical authors to absurd statements”, observing that Reppert hasn’t defines absurd from the viewpoint of the author, but rather substituted a reader-response theory (a la Marxist/feminist/queer/postcolonial criticism) for the grammatico-historical method. Reppert wants to just pick his favourite interpretation out of the possible ones, rather than pick the best one (of Romans 9:22-23). Hays then quotes Moo’s commentary: i) “In v22, then, Paul is reiterating the point that he made with respect to God’s dealings with Pharaoh in v17: God works with those who are not in positive relationship with him to display in greater degree his own nature and power.” “The purpose of God’s patience here would be to allow the rebellion of his creation to gain force and intensity so that his consequent victory is all the more glorious and also (and perhaps primarily) to give opportunity for him to bestow his mercy on those whom he has chosen for his own (v23),” “This contrast would be unfairly diminished, I think, if we were to assume that the vessels of wrath could have the same ultimate destiny as the vessels of mercy.” “’Prepared beforehand,’ then, refers to the same thing as the word ‘predestine’ in 8:29; a decision of God in eternity past to bestow his mercy on certain individuals whom he in his sovereign design has chosen.” Hays then quotes Schreiner: “It is apropos to recall that the issue informing all of Rom 9-11 is salvation. The historical destiny of nations alone hardly answers the question that provoked the entire discussion: why many in Israel are unsaved.” “Thereby the reason God bore patiently with vessels of wrath is explicated…The implication is that it would have been just and righteous for him to destroy them immediately (cf. Rom 3:25-26)….Those with whom he is patient are skeue orges [vessels of wrath] heading for eschatological judgment in contrast to skeue eleous [vessels of mercy] in v23…” “God defers his immediate judgment of vessels of wrath so that he can unveil the full extent of his power and wrath on those who continually resist his offer of repentance.” “The mercy of God is set forth in clarity against the backdrop of wrath. Thereby God displays the full range of his attributes: both his powerful wrath and the sunshine of his mercy.” (read for more…) Rom 9-22-23

“A thoughtful post here by Erik Raymond, wondering why everyone is comfortable condemning Michael Vick's ruthless behavior against dogs, but it's impolite to talk about the killing of unborn humans.” [I’ve observed this too, recently up here in Canada with the outrage over some guys shooting ducks in Saskatchewan. What a country of hypocrites.] American Culture, Dog Killing, and Abortion

For those who follow this debate, from the mouth of one who holds to two-kingdom theology: “Two Kingdom Theology does hold that Christ is lord over every inch of the universe. This is not at issue in the debate between these two views. But what is at issue is how Christ is lord over both kingdoms. In other words, Two Kingdom Theology holds that Christ rules the church in a different way then he rules the secular kingdom. Christ rules the church with special revelation and Christ rules the secular realm with general revelation. But are given by God to mankind but for different spheres of existence.” DeYoung and Two Kingdom Theology

Wallace responds here to the exegetical atrocities in the video that tries to show that Obama is the Antichrist (There is a disclaimer at the end of the video that simply says the correlation is striking, but not that the narrator is claiming that the President is the Antichrist). Wallace summarizes the argument, which is basically a succession of switching between languages, random assertions and connections, to change Luke 10:18 from saying “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven” into “And I saw Satan as baraq ubamah” (which is allegedly what a Rabbi today would say in Hebrew). Wallace then takes the argument apart, which makes a number of rank errors, and then says, “When all is said and done, the evidence is simply bogus. Jesus didn’t speak in Hebrew, and the Hebrew that is given here does not mean ‘lightning from the heights.’ Baraq ubamah means ‘lightning and height.’ But that can hardly be the underlying Aramaic (which is not Hebrew) for the Greek text of Luke 10.18. Thus, a linguistic leap from Greek to Aramaic to Hebrew, with the grammar and vocabulary changing along the way, is required to make Luke 10.18 mean what the narrator wants it to mean. This is hardly a case of “I report; you decide.” It is rather a case of “I’ll tell you only part of the evidence, and will use some fancy exegetical gymnastics to make everything fit; and based on the skewered evidence, you decide.””  Is Obama the Antichrist-

JT notes that the Senate Finance Committee has agreed not to include end-of-life counseling provisions from the Senate's version of the health-care reform bill. These provisions are disturbing. End-of-Life Counseling in Health-Care Reform Bill

Challies summarizes another chapter in The Rare Jewel of Christian Contentment here. Burrough’s gives five reasons a murmuring discontented spirit is great evil: i) It reveals much corruption in the soul. It isn’t the greatness of affliction that brings misery but the murmuring of the heart. ii) This is the sin God attributes to the wicked in a very special way. iii) God counts it as rebellion. iv) It indicates a heart in direct contradiction to the converting work of God: "This is the work of God in the soul, to disengage the heart from the creature, and how contrary is a murmuring heart to such a thing! Something which is glued to another cannot be taken off, but you must tear it; so it is a sign your heart is glued to the world, that when God would take you off, your heart tears. If God, by an affliction, should come to take anything in the world from you, and you can part from it with ease, without tearing, it is a sign then that your heart is not glued to the world." v) It is far below the Christian to be murmuring; i.e. below the dignity God has bestowed on him. Reading Classics Together - The Rare Jewel of Christian Contentment (VIII)

Trueman: “The professional statesman is the person who thinks and acts as if they can rise above the fray and speak to issue in a way that transcends the typical struggles involved in any leadership situation… they are those who try to defuse theological conflict by playing the moral equivalence card whereby they argue that the struggle is really petty and personal, a moral conflict between lesser men above which they and they alone can stand and see the way forward.” Trueman identifies this as the simply problem in wider society of a need to be liked, to avoid divisive decisions, and to have all the perks of leadership without the responsibilities. The Problem with the Emergence of the Professional Statesman

DeYoung comments on the two kingdom theology v. neo-Kuyperianism debate. In broad strokes, the two kingdom folks believe in a kingdom of this world and a kingdom of Christ. We have a dual citizenship as Christians. Further, the realm of nature should not be expected to function and look like the realm of grace. They aim to focus on the church being the church, not transforming the culture into the kingdom of God. neo-Kupyerianism (intellectual descendants of the Dutch theologian and politician Abraham Kuyper) argue that every square inch of this world belongs to Christ and His Lordship should be felt and manifested in politics, in the arts, in education, in short, everywhere. [see above comment on this by a two-kingdom advocate]. DeYoung tries for a third way. He highlights the strengths and downsides of both, seeing biblical elements in each. He says two kingdom theology feels more realistic/fits better with the "un-preoccupied-with-transforming-society" vibe of the New Testament. Nevertheless, he has serious issues with opposing those who want to see abortion eradicated, etc. Bottom line: let’s work for change where God calls us and gifts us, but let’s not forget that the Great Commission is go into the world and make disciples, not go into the world and build the kingdom. Two Kingdom Theology and Neo-Kuyperians

DeYoung continues to enumerate a number of things both sides agree upon, and then a few things that they disagree on, including the role of the church, versus the responsibility of faithful Christians, and whether we should expect or desire our nations’ laws to be governed by Christians laws/explicit biblical commands (i.e. is govn’t justified in letting certain sins go unpunished?) He then highlights a point made in Carson’s Christ and Culture Revisited. Christians must pay attention to the whole storyline of Scripture including Creation (lest we not see good in the world), Fall (lest we are too optimistic about the world’s chances of self-improvement, and too quick to approve every good idea as kingdom work), Redemption (lest we lose sight of the centrality of Christ, sin, the cross, and the need for faith/repentance), and Re-creation (lest we think of salvation as nothing but fire-insurance). What (Most of Us) Can Agree On

Gilbert notes a serious error in Crouch’s book Culture Making. His conception of the cross is quite emergent, that Jesus' death was the result of human evil or greed or corruption or culture or whatever reaching its absolute lowest point and then Jesus absorbing all that in his death and conquering it through his resurrection. This leaves out God the Father, making the cross about absorbing human evil rather than divine wrath, and makes humans the ultimate actors when Isaiah could not be clearer that it was God Himself who crushed Jesus. Gilbert also notes that it’s simply artificial and embarrassing to say that culture is central to the biblical storyline (e.g. Adam and Eve made clothes! is supposed to be an argument here). He goes after this ‘reductio ad absurdum’, by showing how plants are central to the Bible’s story. Culture-Making and Plant-Growing by Greg Gilbert

Swan at aomin.org points to an impressive collection of MP3’s on Islam from Iron Sharpens Iron. Do You Need To Catch Up on Islam-

“Human rights groups in South Korea say North Korea has stepped up executions of Christians, some of them in public. The communist country, the world's most closed society, views religion as a major threat.” Execution of believers in North Korea

Bayly points to the horror of the “Women on Waves” evangelists for baby-murder. “We should also think of the Dutch sending out a ship filled with women missionaries for baby-slaughter; feminists who "just" want to say, "Give murder a chance." Being quite modern, they're not dirtying their hands with surgical abortions. Rather, they're spreading the good news and distributing the weapons of chemical abortion--killing by pilling.” Of course it's a pretty sight

This post brings up the point that believers have the hope of a bodily resurrection (with continuity to the old body) to offer those who despise their bodies (e.g. obese people), a resurrection predicated on that of Christ, the benefits of which are enjoyed even now as we await consummation (such that Paul can say in Eph. 2:5-6 that believers are also made alive now with him, and are now raised with him and now seated with him in the heavenlies.) [I would add that those with disabilities have this hope as well, and this point ought to be made in evangelism – this is one of the promises of the Gospel and a way by which people will enjoy all that Christ is for them]. Beaches, Bikinis, and the Body of Christby Lynn Cohick

Neat. New Audio Book- Spectacular Sins

Phillips laments that dispensationalism (which he argues in no way contrasts with affirming doctrines of grace.) “is under Heresy and Bad Theology — along with Islam, Open Theism, Postmodernism, Emerging Church, Jehovahs Witnesses, Atheism, Roman Catholicism, and the DaVinci code” on monergism.org.  He says, “Ah, I love the smell of "Reformed" humility and love in the morning.” He notes ‘leaky canoneers’ (i.e. continuationists) are represented by both sides on the site. Monergism.com lets leaky-Canoneers peddle their goods, BUT

Phillips finds Scotland ineffably sad, a land of spiritual deadness. “Now the Gallery of Modern Art in Glasgow has an exhibit of a Bible, with several pens and a note that reads "If you feel you have been excluded from the Bible, please write your way back into it.” Many theophobes have written obscenities, heavily featuring (of course) embracers of the day's favorite perversions. The exhibit "includes a woman ripping pages from a Bible and stuffing them into her underwear."” Let them try this with the Koran – if they’re really brave. Deface the Bible... for art!

Phillips writes on “health care. It's another one of those Funny Things. Liberals have such a reputation as being all for free speech. Turns out that's only if the speech is obscenity, pornography, treason or blasphemy. If it's dissent against our wannabe totalitarian overlords? Not so much. Hence the White House is asking for citizens to inform on citizens who won't drink the Hopey Changey. I did not make that up. On the White House's own page, we read, "If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."… When President Bush tried to solicit information to prevent criminal acts of terrorist violence, liberals were all aflutter. But when Obama wants citizens to inform on law-abiding citizens who exercise their First Amendment rights?” Hither and thither 8/7/09

An eight year old girl was raped, and what is perhaps as shocking to Westerners is that the family didn’t see her as a victim, but one who marred the family honour. “In honor cultures, a woman’s honor normally belongs to her husband or father, and the dishonor of any sexual contact outside marriage, whether consensual or otherwise, falls upon him exactly alike, since it shows him up before the world as a man incapable of either controlling or protecting her. Dishonor is more like a fatal disease than a moral failing. It requires constant vigilance and even then can strike anyone at any time. And its only end can be death.” This is another reason to love the One who bears our shame and makes us clean. “For it stands in Scripture: ‘Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame’” (1 Peter 2:6). The Tragedy of Shame

Bayly writes, “Among the many wicked things Submergent church leaders have given us through their support of Barack Obama's presidency, we come to this: “...the Senate (defense) bill also expands the federal hate-crimes law to those attacked because of their sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability.” I'm wondering if Rob Bell will negotiate an exception for pastors preaching that sodomy is an abomination before God?” Submergent church leaders have a lot to answer for

2009-08-13

T-fan shows by a number of citations that for Aquinas, Scripture was the ultimate authority. Even though he held to infallible councils of believers, and a certain primacy to the Bishop of Rome, nevertheless, he did not hint or suggest that either could go beyond what was written. T-fan cites Aquinas pointing out that the Holy Scriptures ("Holy Writ") are the rule of faith, to which nothing can be added, and from which nothing can be subtracted. Other things aside, as to Scripture, Aquinas’ view was quite similar if not identical to that of the reformers. “The truth of faith is contained in Holy Writ, diffusely, under various modes of expression, and sometimes obscurely, so that, in order to gather the truth of faith from Holy Writ, one needs long study and practice, which are unattainable by all those who require to know the truth of faith, many of whom have no time for study, being busy with other affairs. And so it was necessary to gather together a clear summary from the sayings of Holy Writ, to be proposed to the belief of all. This indeed was no addition to Holy Writ, but something taken from it.” Aquinas on Sola Scriptura

DG points to new curriculum for Junior High students. New Curriculum for Jr. High

Hays discusses a fallacy in the ‘futility care theory’ in light of US health care reforms; the idea that there’s no point in pouring resources into a lost cause (e.g. end of life care). He points out that determining what is a lost cause is a retrospective analysis – how do you know that person is in his last year of life, etc? In the ER, resources are poured into ‘lost causes’, since many die. But the number who live are inextricably linked to this effort, and there are those saved precisely by this substantial effort. It it weren’t for the set of resources poured out on both, many more would die. But in their reasoning only those who die are counted, not those who recovering. The rationing of care involved a prospective judgment, whereas futility of care requires a retrospective judgment. The fallacy of futility-care theory

T-fan looks at the older rationale for the Catholic doctrine that Mary experienced no pain in child-birth. It’s often thought of as being part of the immaculate conception, but Aquinas offers a different justification. i) Pain in child-birth is due to the sin of the ‘mingling of the sexes. ii) Mary didn’t have to suffer because Mary didn’t come to atone for our sins – thus rejecting the modern Roman doctrine of the co-redemption of Mary. iii) Aquinas rejects the idea of midwives being present, rejecting the Protoevangelium of James as ‘apocryphal ravings.’ iv) Aquinas mistakenly thought Augustine taught that she experienced no pain. v) Aquinas thought Jesus didn’t come out through the birth canal – she wouldn’t be a virgin after this! Why Do Roman Catholics Think that Mary Didn't Have Pain During Childbirth-

T-fan notes many Roman Catholic authors use the Protoevangelium of James. But what did others think of it? Aquinas: "apocryphal ravings". Jan Wakelin, Director of Radio for Catholic Answers, in response to the question "How do we know that the Protoevangelium of James is credible?": "We don't." Pseudo?]-Pope Gelasius I, bishop of Rome 492–496, lists it among "The remaining writings which have been compiled or been recognised by heretics or schismatics the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church does not in any way receive; of these we have thought it right to cite below a few which have been handed down and which are to be avoided by catholics…" Hence, Romanist apologists are either ignorant, or don’t care. They could also rely on it because, historically speaking, heretical works were the true sources of Romanist doctrine/ belief. Protoevangelium of James- a Question of Sources

T-fan notes the incongruity in the Romanist identification of the woman of Revelation 12 as Mary, in light of (a) their belief in the pain-free birth of Jesus and Mary’s perpetual virginity, and (b) the painFUL birth of that woman. i) The early church believed this woman was the church. ii) An internal critique of Roman Catholicism shows Rome’s theology is self-contradictory here, should they insist on the identification. Romanist Shea, changing the argument, responds as though the critic of Rome says the birth pains are part of the curse and therefore Mary could not have had them, and then says that to identify these birth pains as such would indict Jesus because He suffered. T-fan points out that Jesus suffered, toiled, sweated, and died, just like Adam because Jesus was bearing the sins of his people. Jesus is our mediator. Mary did not bear sin, and there is no reason for her to suffer unless she was a sinner. So Augustine: “For to speak more briefly, Mary who was of Adam died for sin, Adam died for sin, and the Flesh of the Lord which was of Mary died to put away sin.” As previously observed, the lack of suffering pain is a product of perpetual virginity in the extreme, not immaculate conception. And if the birth pangs are to be allegorized into something else, why wouldn't we allegorize the birth into something else? Mark Shea and the Revelation 12 Woman

Piper wants to make some autumn resolutions. Piper encourages us to do self-examination—life-examination, routine-examination, schedule-examination, heart-examination—followed by “resolves for good.” In 2 Thess. 1:11-12 Paul presupposes it is good to have resolves. God enables us to fulfill resolves for good (cf. Prov. 16:9). It is a “resolve for good” because we will it. It is a “work of faith” because we depend on Jesus to give us power to fulfill it. When you resolve something good and trust in the power of Jesus to help you do it, then “the name of our Lord Jesus is glorified.” If you depend on your willpower, your name will be glorified. This sets them apart from the world’s resolutions. We resolve in faith that we are called and loved and justified. http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TasteAndSee/ByDate/2009/4152_Lets_Make_Some_Autumn_Resolutions/

To the Romanist charge that sola scriptura is a ‘blueprint for anarchy’, Swan has been keeping track of all the times he has come across Rome's zealous defenders disagreeing with each other, and pointing out the lack of clarity within Roman Catholicism as well as the confusion: See Blueprint for Anarchy. Swan then goes on to enumerate a host of conflict, confusion, misunderstanding, and disagreement amongst Romanist e-pologists. Shall we conclude that an infallible interpreter + infallible tradition + infallible scripture = harmony? The facts speak for themselves. [i.e. NO.] The misuse of a sufficient source does not negate the clarity of that sufficient source. Romanists should clean house before making such a charge. Reminding Patrick Madrid of Rome's Blueprints

2008-08-11

Clint comments on a local Calgary coffee shop/ministry, and the lack of interest in evangelism expressed in the coffee-shop literature. i) All it seems they offer is a good cup of coffee, possibly with soy milk… does the nature of ‘outreach’ today reduce to fair trade, organic drinks, and service that goes beyond? ii) Ironically, the coffee is cheap – making them a competitor to the other coffee shops in the area. Does this leave them with the impression that a megachurch is trying to take over the coffee business with cut-throat pricing? iii) “Yet no gospel. No mention of the Savior. No real love. So concerned with treating with "dignity and respect" that the gospel was hidden in shame.” Saving the World One Soy Latte at a Time-

Spurgeon cautions against wasting time pursuing the innumerable number of men’s ‘cardhouses’ of philosophical arguments. He exhorting ministers to instead pursue the building up of the flock, dealing with real doubts and anxieties in converts, and to avoid the common sewers of skepticism. On Philosophical Apologetics

Engwer links to a lengthy thread where he responds to skepticism regarding the resurrection of Christ. Jesus' Resurrection And Historical Probabilities

Dan Wallace points out the significance of Codex Sinaiticus, which is the oldest complete NT in the world, one of the most important for establishing the autographic wording, and lacks the story of the woman caught in adultery and Mark 16:9-20. He then discusses some of the ‘mixed up facts’ the media has published regarding Codex Sinaiticus. i) It’s not the world’s oldest Bible. It’s incomplete in the OT; if an incomplete manuscript can be considered the oldest Bible, Vaticanus is a better candidate. ii) It’s not the oldest copy of the Gospels (e.g. P52, P75, P66, P45, Codex B are all older, by up to 200 years). iii) That Barnabas and Hermas are between its covers is no indicator that they were thought canonical by the church, and its extremely doubtful they were thought so in the fourth century, nor were they accepted in the earlier centuries. iv) Sinaiticus does not say Jesus was angry in Mark 1:41 (that’s Bezae). v) The Codex is not a new find, it doesn’t affect issues of canonicity, and the ‘alterations’ that will supposedly ‘upset fundamentalists’ don’t impact belief in the inerrancy of the original autographs. vi) It’s misleading to suggest that it excludes Jesus’ resurrection, since only Mark’s longer ending is missing, and even in Mark Jesus predicts His resurrection several times. vii)  Modern Bibles aren’t based on the ‘latest’ manuscripts, and factor in all sorts of things, like this. Wallace chides the sloppy journalism shown in this sampling of widespread bad reporting on Sinaiticus. “Codex Sinaiticus is of inestimable value. Its importance for establishing the text of the New Testament, as well as the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint or LXX) and the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas, for giving us a window on ancient bookmaking, for being a milestone in the cultural shift of the ancient world from the scroll to the codex, and for many other reasons cannot be denied.” Codex Sinaiticus Completely On-Line Now

Manata sums up (again) the argument by an Arminian who thinks that (a) choice in the dictionary is by definition libertarian, and that (b) this is the ‘common man’ understanding, which means (c ) that this is what the Scriptures mean in using the terms. Manata goes on to show numerous problems with it (including disagreement with the Arminian by libertarian philosophers). He cites a philosophical definition of choice that mentions alternative possibilities, showing that ironically the Arminian is using a philosophical definition, and not a ‘common man’ one! Manata thinks this definition of choice is good: “Choose = df to select freely out of a greater number of things, where this selecting is a mental action explained in terms of reasons, where a reason is a purpose, end, or goal for choosing one (or more) thing to make a selection out of a group of things, or an intentional object, which is about or directed at the future and opative in mood, i.e., wishing to pick x-thing and that it be good for x-thing to prevail in the world rather than y-thing being picked and prevailing in the world.” He notes that it is consistent with determinism. Calvinists won’t find the Arminian’s argument compelling because it simply assumes its own position in its foundation. Manata also notes that there are many good arguments that attempt to show that indeterminism does not provide us with the kind of control needed for freedom. He addresses a number of other points, like the idea that man is default libertarian, or the absurd notion (ad hoc asserted to attempt to save the Arminian’s argument) that God wouldn’t use a word without explanation if ‘common man’ might misunderstand it. Final Thoughts on the Choose Debate

Hays responds to an atheist’s question begging argument that miracles are ‘antecedently improbable’ (that miraculous reports must be ‘weighed against the prior improbability’ and that it’s ‘irrational to believe a miracle if it’s unprecedented’ and ‘since miracles are by definition extraordinary the evidence from the normal course of nature automatically outweighs any ostensible evidence for the miracle’) by making an observation. Hays notes a few analogies from life: i) the natural course of a man’s heart is to keep beating until old age. So if this atheist were a juror, he’d acquit a murderer because it’s antecedently improbably that a heart stopped beating by a knife stab, since hearts naturally beat until old age. ii) If he saw water flowing uphill, he’d deny it, question his senses, etc. but if you showed him a pump which did it, he’d still deny that the water flows uphill because of the towering presumption against this occurrence. “Left to its own devices, it’s antecedently improbable that water flows uphill. However, given a water pump, it’s not antecedently improbable that water flows uphill. Indeed, given a water pump, it’s antecedently probable that water will flow uphill.” “You can’t very well say there’s a presumption against miracles because there’s a presumption against unnatural events. For there is only a presumption against unnatural events given the absence of a countervailing factor, like a miracle. The ordinary course of nature does nothing, of itself, to create any presumption against the occurrence of a miracle.” The objection to miracles is ultimately tautologous: absent a miracle, it’s highly unlikely that an unnatural event ever occurs. Flyers or liars-

Hays has to reiterate (again) the essence of his cardplayer analogy, which illustrates whether you can make choices even when you don’t have them. Depending on the state of the game, several hypothetical alternatives are mathematically possible, but only one is a live possibility; i.e. the actual sequence. Yet the players are deliberating as if more than one possibility is live. Laughing with him...or at him-

Poythress comments on egalitarianism, noting the dangerous lure to project contemporary ideals (in this case on male and female roles) onto the consummate state, and then read them back into the present as moral ideals for moving the now to the then. For egalitarians, the ‘goal’ is then retrojected back into the present as an ideal to which marriage and the church should move; they aim to become ‘utopian’ in thinking and practice, and this damages rather than enhances Christian living for God’s glory. He reminds us that “We are living in the middle of God's program leading to the new heaven and the new earth."  A Steady Path Forward- Some Direction for the Gender Debate, Part 4

McKinley offers his thoughts on how preachers might speak on sex from the pulpit. i) Being frank is ok – the Bible has lot’s of stories/serious warnings about sexual immorality. ii) Careful, though: Some people have different comfort levels, and we need to be sensitive. Pastors should seek to be caring and loving at this point. iii) We should not be graphic, crude, or casual. iv) It’s a good idea to run things by those who are more conservative/sensitive than you are. He runs it by his elders. Preaching About Sex by Michael Mckinley

Payne answers the question, why don’t we sing [in church]? James wrote, “Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing.” He concludes, then, that the reason we don’t sing is because we are sad: as a society, we have lost some of the joy of being truly human because we have drained God and the gospel from our culture. Back in the day, even common men would sing about their work. G.K. Chesterton observed that there is something spiritually suffocating about our lives. “The very fact that we Christians do still sing makes us strikingly different in our world. That we don't sing more lustily means that the godless sorrow of our world is still too much with us.” Why we don’t sing

Burk notes an article in CT that reports that Christian camp ministries are in decline. Crossings Camps

Challies points to this article relating the story of parents finding out their baby would be disabled. It begins with this: “When I called the MFM specialist, she immediately rattled off the severe abnormalities found, the fetus' incompatibility with life, and the scheduling of an abortion. I interrupted: "If the baby is going to die anyway, why do you want to kill it before it dies a natural death?" There was silence on the other end. I went on to explain that the parents would not have to deal with the guilt of killing their child if it died naturally. There was a pause, then, "I hadn't thought of that," she said.” Here’s a better idea: "Perinatal hospice honors life. The woman carrying the disabled child receives extensive counseling and birth preparation involving the combined efforts of MFM specialists, OB/GYN doctors, neonatologists, anesthesia services, chaplains, pastors, social workers, labor and delivery nurses, and neonatal nurses. She carries the pregnancy to its natural conclusion." http://www.worldmag.com/articles/15726

2009-08-10

Hays briefly responds to the idea that 2 Tim 1:16-18 is a prooftext for prayers for the dead by a Romanist e-pologist. He notes that Paul is prayer that Onesiphorus will find mercy on the Day of Judgment, yet, in Catholic dogma, Purgatory is only for the heaven-bound, so why would Paul pray for mercy, since its a sure thing he’ll find mercy? Praying for those in Purgatory is to hasten their progress, not for postmortem salvation, as if their eternal fate were undecided. Scripture-twisting for Catholicism

Thabiti writes on the importance of local church membership: “The New Testament knows nothing of a creature reborn through faith in Christ, baptized in identification with Christ, communing with Christ at His table, and not a member of a visible, local, identifiable congregation of other born-again baptized believers.” He defines "membership" as “the way in which the individual is known to be intentionally committed to every other member of the congregation, and the congregation known to be committed to the individual.” He contrasts the radical congregational love in the apostolic expectations for the church with the cliquish love of friends. He points to pastoral ministry as requiring local church membership, cf. Heb. 13:7, 17. Some think simple attendance and serving in a ministry is sufficient evidence of commitment: i) Meaningful community does not happen where anonymity reigns. ii) Gospel commitments and imperatives are essential to meaningful membership, as members must agree to love across economic, social, linguistic, cultural barriers. iii) Churches need a practice that makes it clear that people are submitted to and desiring of pastoral oversight (1 Pet. 5:2). iv) Membership must maintain the temporal sequence of conversion in the Bible. Thabiti equates a lack of membership to the “spiritual equivalent of "shacking up" with someone not your spouse.” http://blog.buildingchurchleaders.com/2009/07/church_membership_yes.html

Hays notes that other religions than Roman Catholicism have prayers for the dead. This means that one can’t infer Purgatory from prayers for the dead, since distinct conceptions of the afterlife are equally convergent with prayers for the dead. Purgatory and prayer

White notes that Newman (before he became a Roman Catholic) recognized how Romanists deal with the church Fathers. If one provides specific citations that contradict their position, they see them as "individuals,” but constantly speak of "the Fathers" as if they were modern Romanists. White asks how one moves from individual writers, who expressed a variety of views, to the "unanimous consent of the Fathers" to which Romanists appeal constantly. Newman effectively notes that they only identify that which conforms to the Pope as Catholic. Basically, they start with their conclusion, and selectively attempt to read history and people to support it. Pre-Conversion Newman on Rome's Handling of Patristic Writings

AiG notes that how evolutionists, having changed their perception that chevrotains were not a good swimmer, now assume, comparing chevrotains to deer in order to fit their hypothesis about whale formation, that the animal is ‘evidence’ of whale evolution. But chevrotains aren’t deer, and there’s no reason to assume that they must originally have behaved like deer. The evolutionists speculate that perhaps all ruminants had aquatic capabilities, but many lost those capabilities over time. That loss of capability is the opposite of what molecules-to-man evolution would require; however, loss of genetic material fits the creation model well. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/07/11/news-to-note-07112009

2009-08-09

Mohler quotes Kostenberger that western civilization is for the first time faced with the need to define the meaning of marriage/family. Kostenberger et. al.’s new book, God, Marriage, and Family: Rebuilding the Biblical Foundation, which argues that the only way out of this societal crisis is a return to the biblical vision. He points out that the Judeo-Christian family unit is now only one ‘option’ among many, being replaced to a certain extent been replaced with a set of values that prizes human rights, self-fulfillment, and pragmatic utility on an individual and societal level. Marriage is under siege. Family/parental authority is compromised by the intrusion of state authorities, cultural influences, and social pressure. The rise of libertarian ideology and self-autonomy, etc. has become life’s central purpose. The book fills a gap in the volumes of Christian literature out there, where little looks at the whole of Scripture, or explores on a deep, thorough level the entire fabric of God's purposes for human relationships. The book affirms a complementarian understanding. "Our sex does not merely determine the form of our sex organs but is an integral part of our entire being." A Christian Vision of Marriage and Family, Part 1

Pike responds to someone asking whether regeneration precedes faith. Pike observes that Paul in Titus 3:5 is mentioning specific steps to an outcome. He then illustrates inferring logical order from such sequences with some simple examples. He shows how logically speaking, Titus 3:5-7 (regeneration precedes salvation); John 3:5 (salvation require regeneration); Romans 10:9 (regeneration precedes salvation); 1 Cor. 12:3 (confession depends on the Spirit, having the Spirit); 1 Cor. 2:14 (without the Spirit man thinks spiritual things are foolish – how can he believe in what he thinks is foolish?) require regeneration before faith, even apart from the explicit 1 John 5:1. The order is, Regeneration -> Faith -> Confession –> Salvation. He then evaluates the Arminian order, Faith –> Regeneration -> Confession –> Salvation, noting that if faith precedes regeneration, 1 John 5:1 can be false and 1 Cor. 2:14 is also false, because a man without the Spirit can believe spiritual truth prior to regeneration (also contra Romans 8:5-8, where non-believers are unable to submit to God’s law or please him). He points out that the only way to salvage the Arminian scheme in light of 1 John 5:1; 2:29; 3:9, is to argue that regeneration temporally coincides with faith but logically depends on it. However, if faith logically causes regeneration, then so too must righteousness and avoidance of sin logically cause regeneration: Faith, righteousness, and avoidance of sin are all treated identically by John in those statements.  Responding to Dan

Grimmond notes how its easy to think after decades that you believe in God’s word – but it’s also trivial to find passages which confront your latent unbelief. He uses his own anti-establishment mentality, and Romans 13:1 (authorities are from God), as an example (be it from his own consumer generation or his convict heritage as an Australian). One could list 1000 reasons to disbelieve Romans 13. The reality is that none of them are good, and the spirit of our age is against authority. The essence of sin is the assertion of autonomy, and the lie is that their is freedom therein. And we are led by this world to believe that this is all there is. There is a true Judge who will set things right. Do we believe Him? Authorities and the preacher’s unbelief

T-fan responds to the argument by a Roman Catholic that the Papacy didn’t ‘develop’, in that there were additions to the faith, but rather later statements were simply an explicit assertion of the old faith. The argument attempts to parallel this to Nicaea and the Trinity. However, the Nicaean definition can be shown historically to be simply a restatement of ancient doctrine. It can be shown from the Scriptures. This is not the case with Transubstantiation or the Papacy. And it isn’t just the silence - it has been shown that the early church fathers did not view the bishop of Rome as having the final word in matters of discipline. The declaration of papal infallibility by the First Vatican Council isn’t simply making explicit something held all along. T-fan quotes two historians in support. Also, according to the Council of Constance (1418), ecumenical councils, not the pope, had the final say in matters of faith. Even the approach taken by the Roman Catholic in making this argument, and the admission of presumption by Catholic Cardinal John Henry Newman, are indicative and affirmative of the reality that there is no clear teaching of such essential doctrines like the Papacy in the early church. Bellisario (by Proxy) on the Papacy - Part 2

Mohler continues reviewing Kostenberger’s book, writing: “marriage and the roles of both husbands and wives is grounded in Genesis and then traced through the entire Old Testament. Husbands are to love and cherish their wives, to bear primary responsibility for the marriage union and to exercise authority over the family, and to provide the family with necessities for life. The wife, on the other hand, is to present her husband with children, manage her household with integrity, and provide her husband with companionship. Contemporary readers may be shocked by the candor of Kostenberger's presentation, but he grounds his arguments directly in the biblical text.” Kostenberger also argues that within six generations from Adam people had engaged in polygamy, and that the OT clearly communicates this is a departure from God’s plan. Sin and disorder are produced by polygamy. Kostenberger also differentiates between "traditional" and "biblical" visions of marriage. And marriage is not merely a contract but a covenant, and a sacred bond. Citing Bock, the OT family unit is patricentric – centred around the father. Also, the biblical verdict on homosexuality as sinful is consistent throughout. The current crisis, assaulting the family, etc. is "symptomatic of an underlying spiritual crisis that gnaws at the foundations of our once-shared societal values." Mohler recommends the book. A Christian Vision of Marriage and Family, Part 2

This blog continues looking at a friendly atheist’s assessment of Edwards’ view of divine freedom. Rowe has issue with the idea that God cannot do evil, that it cannot be in God’s power to do less good than He can. Being perfectly good God cannot cease to be perfectly good. Rowe seems to know Edwards’ readers won’t have trouble with the idea that God can’t do evil. But he doesn’t like this idea of freedom – that a being is free in doing what he wills if he is free to do as he wills, and whether one is unable to do otherwise doesn’t matter. Rowe is unsatisfied with the libertarian account, and finds that compatibilism dispatches it nicely, but then he dislikes compatibilism: “he won't be satisfied with the compatiblistic account of God's freedom unless God is able to act in contradiction to his nature.” And why would this be an issue anyway? The Friendly Atheist on Edwardsian Freedom-Part 4

Leeman points to the dubious nature of the statistics on the number of “Christians” in a region. What do the statistics about the number of Christians mean- by Jonathan Leeman

(Manata?) responds to an Arminian, yet again. Most is repeats, but one notable point made is that libertarians are putting more and more distance between the body and soul (e.g. saying Frankfurt counterexamples don’t apply to the immaterial soul; i.e. it seems they need to decouple to find some place to put the idea of libertarian freedom in light of reality not quite fitting.) even though Christianity holds a very tight unity and coupling between the two. Physical things affect those things which are supposed to pertain to the ‘immaterial soul’. This is telling. Dan's Wrong . . . Again

Pike points out that it is important to not merely say that “God is sovereign”, but to show what this means. Hence, Pike enumerates a number of passages illustrating that God causes (he notes that Hebrew uses verbal inflection to indicate causality, so a word search won’t help you here). i) Weather/natural processes (Gen. 2:5-7; Ex. 9:18; Job 38:12; Ps. 78:16,26; Ps. 103:13; 105:29). ii) Birth (Is. 66:9). iv) Sleep (Gen. 2:21) v) Wandering (Gen. 20:13; 2 Kings 21:8). vi) Success (Gen 39:3; Is. 63:11-13). vii) Victory in war (Deut. 28:7). viii) Defeat in War (Deut. 28:25; Jer. 19:7; 49:2; Lam. 2:8; Ezek. 32:12; Zech. 11:6). ix) Prosperity (2 Sa. 23:5; Ps. 106:46; Ezek. 32:14; 36:11, 33; Zech. 8:12). x) Calamity (Ps 88:8, 18; Is. 30:30; Lam. 1:14; 3:32; Ezek. 31:15; 32:4). xi) His name to be remembered (Ex. 20:24; Ezra 6:12; Ps. 111:4). xii) Righteousness (Is. 61:1; Jer. 33:15; Ezek. 29:21). xiii) Regeneration (Ezek. 36:27; 37:5-6; 1 Peter 1:3). Pike then fields some objections to some of these. Many of these things are what libertarian Free Willers would characterize as nothing less than coercion (like God forcing Pharaoh to conform to His will, or His determining the outcomes of battles – how is that done except by killing some, giving others the right choices in battle, etc? The commander can’t choose that which would defeat him if God intends for him to win, and the loser couldn’t make that choice which would succeed. Pike uses the example of God declaring who will win a chess game, thus limiting the loser from playing a winning game).  Things God Causes

Here’s the fourth part in DeYoung’s Pilgrim’s Progress-esque narrative. Quite worth the read! Many are Called, But Few are Chosen (Part 4)

Bird summarizes a presentation from Tyndale Fellowship, bringing out these points: “1) If we accept the historical possibility of miracles, then don't we have to accept all "miracles" in all religions as well, be they Christian, Hindu, Muslim, etc.? Why or why not? (2) If you reject miracles and God/transcendence as part of an explanation of history, then you're buying into a perspective that is only 200 years old and limited to Western civilization. To say that they only reason why Muslims in the Middle East still believe in religious miracles is because they haven't had their enlightenment yet is a tad bit imperialistic.” Tyndale Fellowship - Part 2

2009-08-07

Pike talks about God’s ‘image problem’ – i.e. that you can’t see Him when you look for Him. Arminians say that God wants to save everyone. But God’s invisible. Yet, He’s also omnipotent. So He can make Himself visible. Pike points out that he saw a person and was fully convinced that person existed, and this didn’t violate ‘free will’. So all God really has to do is show up. Even if an atheist asks God to jump through some hoops to convince him, God’s omnipotent, so it’s not as if he’ll tire – so why doesn’t He? It seems self-evident that more people would believe in God if they could see Him and He responded to them. And simply seeing doesn’t violation Free Will (TM). And with ‘prevenient grace’, everyone can believe, so sin can’t be stopping people from believing under Arminian terms. Just a Few of the Trivially Easy Ways by Which God Could Get People to Believe in Him without Vi

Challies reviews Why We Love the Church here, which is written for ‘the committed, the disgruntled, the waffling and the disconnected.’ “they offer four reasons, or perhaps four groups of reasons that people are disillusioned with the church: the missiological (the church is simply not fulfilling her God-given mission); the personal (the church is anti-women, anti-gay, hypocritical, etc); the historical (the church as we know it is a product of paganism, not Scripture); the theological (the church as an organization, institution, hierarchy, etc is foreign to the Bible).” The book offers a biblical perspective on what God is doing in the church, and how it is central to all God is doing in the world and that without her there is no Christianity. It also responds to the tires and all-to-common arguments against organized religion. Challies generally thinks it’s a good book. Here’s a quote from it: "It's more than a little ironic that the same folks who want the church to ditch the phoney, plastic persona and become a haven for broken, imperfect sinners are ready to leave the church when she is broken, imperfect and sinful." Book Review - Why We Love the Church

T-fan argues against an article which claims patriarchy is a product of the fall and should be avoided at all costs. i) Adam was created first, Eve was created under his headship, and patriarchy is not the result of the fall. ii) Human government is necessary because of the fall. iii) The powers that be are ordained by God – including parents, husbands, kings, elders. Virtually every society in history until modern times has recognized the propriety of male headship. Also, “the Husband/Wife motif is one of the illustration of Christ's role to us, believers. To the extent that you seek to undermine the husband's headship role, you are (at least implicitly) undermining its analogy. If you think it bad for the husband to rule over the wife, you are questioning the model of Christ's headship over the church.” Opposition to biblical patriarchy inevitably seeks to dethrone Jesus. Biblical Model of Family Should be Avoided--

Pile writes that though Arminians believe in total depravity it doesn't cash out the same way as it does to Calvinism. Unlike calvinists Arminians still believe that grace can be resisted by the sinner. So they say that because of a man is sinful only the grace of God can enable the sinner to potentially believe.  When Calvinists speak of your resistible grace, they're only speaking about the regenerate power of God, the actual grace that must succeed in bringing the sinner to life. Thus Calvinists and Arminians are not speaking of the same thing. For it is impossible to resist being converted from death to life. The dead soul is set on death and cannot submit to God’s will (Romans 8:5-8). The living soul, however, is the slave of Christ (Romans 6, especially verses 11-14). Arminians believe that God it sets the soul to neutral. The idea is that if it’s up to man ultimately, it spares God the blame. But what kind of person would reject the grace of God? Is it not only a depraved person? The reason is that our nature determines our choices, not the other way around (Luke 7:16-20). A healthy tree can’t bear bad fruit. I one can choose to believe, then he’s already the healthy tree. If he resists, he’s the bad tree. Scripture eliminates the ‘neutral’ tree (Luke 11:23). On Why Those Who Hold to Resistible Grace Must Hold to a Strong Form of Depravity

Hays notes that animal pain is increasingly used as an objection to God, but that within secularism there’s hardly a monolithic view of animal rights. For example, “You say that some readers of Animal Liberation have been persuaded by the ethical arguments in the book, and not just by the facts and the pictures. But if so, it is probably so only because these readers do not realize the radicalism of the ethical vision that powers your view on animals, an ethical vision that finds greater value in a healthy pig than in a profoundly retarded child, that commands inflicting a lesser pain on a human being to avert a greater pain to a dog, and that, provided only that a chimpanzee has 1 percent of the mental ability of a normal human being, would require the sacrifice of the human being to save 101 chimpanzees.” God, godlessness, and animal pain

From Jim Elliot: “"Our young men are going into the professional fields because they don't 'feel called' to the mission field. We don't need a call; we need a kick in the pants. We must begin thinking in terms of 'going out,' and stop our weeping because 'they won't come in.' Who wants to step into an igloo? The tombs themselves are not colder than the churches. May God send us forth."” Calling and a Kick in the Pants

This post at Solapanel defines atonement as dealing with any obstacle to a relationship, especially between God and human beings. The two obstacles to relation with God are human sin and God’s holy wrath. Atonement happens through sacrifice in a temple. The place and means is the NT is Jesus Christ. This is different than expiation, which refers to simply dealing with sin. Some who found God’s wrath repulsive started translating ‘expiation’ at key points in the Scripture. But this begs the question – why does God need to deal with sin? The author also thinks ‘propitiation’ only focuses on the second side in those same key passages (e.g. ESV). [I’ll note that the word there is ‘propitiation’, and I refer you to Leon Morris’ Apostolic Preaching of the Cross for the cogent and thorough demonstration of this]. Improve your biblical word power 4- Atonement

Contra Arminians who just don’t like it, Gene Bridges writes that “one can cite example after example of historical instances in which Arminianism has led directly to theological drift and outright apostasy. The Socinians and Arminians were quick friends centuries ago. The Free Will Baptists nearly died out because of that union, and, if not for the New Connexion would have done so. After Francis Turretin passed on, Amyraldianism and then Arminianism arose in Geneva, and a generation later, Geneva was apostate. Today, we have Open Theists and Universalists.” Indeed, even neo-orthodoxy, a conserving movement in liberalism, is evidence that where Protestant theology moves in a more conservative direction, it tends toward more Calvinistic underpinnings. Theological Conservationism

“Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed today (Thursday) as the nation's first Hispanic Supreme Court justice by a 68-31 vote. She should be sworn in on Saturday as the 111th justice and the third woman in Supreme Court history. World Magazine has an article about it here.” Sonia Sotomayor confirmed for Supreme Court

Johnson writes that Evangelical doctrine and the evangelical movement are not the same thing: post-modern evangelicals don't really have any clear doctrinal identity. Martyn Lloyd Jones said, “One of the first signs that a man is ceasing to be truly evangelical is that he ceases to be concerned about negatives, and keeps saying, We must always be positive,” warning that doctrinal indifferentism was beginning to drive the movement. And today, the Emergent Movement signifies the triumph of neo-orthodoxy in evangelicalism. We see the demise of preaching, etc. Now, a lesson from history is that the Gospel has only rarely made great gains on the backs of massive popular movements. Whither Evangelicalism-

This posts writes of the ‘fateful’ years of Calvin, 1553-4, which involved the battle with the libertines and the Servetus affair. The libertines, unregenerate and immoral, wanted to partake of communion, and Calvin called for discipline and wouldn’t budge. This movement faltered, and then the Servetus incident took place. He denied the Trinity. He wrote to Calvin, and Calvin even risked his life to meet him in Paris, but Servetus skipped out. Servetus escaped from prison in Spain, where he was awaiting execution under the Catholics. He came to Geneva, and was there arrested. The city called Calvin to be prosecutor, because he was the expert theologian. “Servetus was condemned on October 26, 1553, and burned at the stake the following day. The details are sketchy, but some historians recount that Calvin took great pity on Servetus, visited him in prison, and pled with him to renege on his beliefs and embrace the Triune God. Calvin also seems to have asked for a lighter penalty for him in some form—whether it was no death penalty or to grant mercy by strangling him before the burning is not fully clear. It was likely the latter.” The post concludes that while this has been exaggerated and Calvin has been demonized, he did err here, as the church allowed the state to wield the sword for it. The Fateful Years- Life of Calvin, Part 8

T-fan points out that Hindus don’t think that their statue is a god, just like Romanists claim they don’t worship statues. Yet, they employ them. We don't worship statues

Peter Head has some observations on the work to put Codex Sinaiticus online, for those interested. Codex Sinaiticus Project- Some Observations

Cool! Here’s a new NT manuscript, 1 Peter 1.23-2.5 & 7-12, on papyrus, dated late 3rd/early 4th century. New fragment of 1 Peter (P. Oxy 4934)

“Sixty-four percent of American women who choose abortion feel pressured to do so by others.” DeYoung points out this is obvious. What is a 17 year old girl gets pregnant now, by her 20 year old boyfriend? He wants nothing to do with the child. He manipulates. And she is pressured by everyone to get rid of the baby. Here’s a potent point: “Prior to the legalization of abortion in the United States, it was commonly understood that a man should offer a woman marriage in case of pregnancy, and many did so. But with the legalization of abortion men, started to feel that they were not responsible for the birth of children and consequently not under any obligation to marry. In gaining the option of abortion, many women have the lost the option of marriage. Liberal abortion lawyers have thus considerably increased the number of families headed by a single mother, resulting in what some economists call the "feminization of poverty."” DeYoung concludes that restricting the choice for abortion, by societal pressure, stigma, and more limited access, actually helps the woman in the long-run. Conversely, he cites Stith, who writes "By granting to the pregnant woman an unrestrained choice over who will be born … we make her alone to blame for how she exercises power. Nothing can alter the solidarity-shattering impact of the abortion option." (Yet Another Way) Abortion Hurts Women

Apparently a mass murderer took comfort in the idea that Jesus died for every sin, even merging it into his justification for why he did what he did on his blog. Here’s what he said: “Maybe soon, I will see God and Jesus. At least that is what I was told. Eternal life does NOT depend on works. If it did, we will all be in hell. Christ paid for EVERY sin, so how can I or you be judged BY GOD for a sin when the penalty was ALREADY paid. People judge but that does not matter. I was reading the Bible and The Integrity of God beginning yesterday, because soon I will see them.” The Pittsburg Gym Shooter's Theology

2009-08-06

Challies notes that as he grows in the knowledge of the Lord, he is increasingly aware of the centrality and importance and preciousness of the local church in God’s plan for His people. In Does Grace Grow Best in Winter?, Ligon Duncan observes from Colossians that God may be building up the church through your suffering. Suffering id designed to mature believers, not only facilitating individual godliness and treasuring of Christ, but also that of the body. One person's suffering is every person's suffering; one person's maturing is every person's maturing. Even watching the perseverance of others in trials is formative. Duncan takes “what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions” as those sufferings not yet experienced by the body of Christ – when one believes he becomes a part of the body. Your Suffering Does Not Just Belong to You

McKinley notes anecdotally that the Proverbs do indeed give prudence to the simple (1:4), identifying all manner of foolishness, once one goes to them for this. He points to a number of resources: Bruce Waltke's commentary (in two volumes), Charles Bridge's Proverbs and William Arnot's Studies in Proverbs, Derek Kidner's Proverbs in the Tyndale OT Commentary Series. Graeme Goldsworthy has a chapter in Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture, CJ Mahaney recently posted thoughts on preaching Proverbs, Edmund Clowney's The Unfolding Mystery (pages 168-177). Confessions of a Recovering Proverbs-phobe by Michael Mckinley

Someone asks, how/when does one move a traditional church toward elders? i) You may think the congregation has ‘got it’, but one sermon series in a year may not cut it. Some forget, there are new people, and so on. So develop position papers, distribute frequently asked questions, and teach in print. ii) Sometimes you think you’ve been patient, but you haven’t been – “slow, deep move to a structural change is better than a rapid shallow one that can be ripped up by the roots”. iii) Sometimes we settle for some when we should strive for all. We shouldn’t think in terms of majority winnings but aim at unanimity, and not be too quick to dismiss it as ideal. To do otherwise can carry a vote and lose a church. A super-majority is a minimum. iv) Getting enough votes doesn’t finish the issue. Be gracious in making the position and direction known, not drawing party lines, etc. just because you won. Demonstrate concern for those who oppose it, etc. Remember, you’re hoping for a healthy church for generations to come. When to Make Changes by Thabiti Anyabwile

Swan cites Roman Catholic commentary on James 5:16 as illustrative of the vacuity of the claim that it is crucial to have an infallible magisterium to interpret Scripture correctly (esp. in light of their attacks on sola scriptura). i) A modern Romanist’s interpretation is that elders are priests (committing the root fallacy, e.g. ‘greek word presbyter is the root word of English priest’), and so this is clearly confession to a priest. Swan points out the problem that if elders are priests, then ‘priest's’ are married in Titus 1, 1 Tim. 3, contradicting the current practice of Rome. Also, to one another suggests mutual confession. Do confessors pray for priests? ii) Cajetan (16th century) denies that it is to priests. iii) Bede thinks it is to one another, with serious sins to an elder. iv) The Navarre Bible says "It's impossible to say exactly what type of confession is being referred to". v) Raymond Brown says that it is very disputed. vi) A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture doubts this is sacramental confession. vii) Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary says sacramental confession is not certain, though it may mean one confesses to the priest. Where is the infallible interpreter to clear up this mess?  We Have Apostolic Tradition - The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary #11

MacArthur comments on the primary purpose of the church. Some prominent views would be fellowship with believers, sound biblical teaching complete with helping believers discover/cultivate spiritual gifts in various service and leadership, and praise of God (exalting the Lord). All these are biblical and ought to be characteristics of every body. But “The supreme purpose and motive of every individual believer and every body of believers is to glorify God, and the supreme way in which God chose to glorify Himself was through the redemption of sinful men. It is through participation in that redemptive plan that believers themselves most glorify God.” MacArthur notes the centrality of a redemptive purpose in the promise to Abraham. The aforementioned purposes are most fulfilled in heaven, MacArthur argues, and our presence here indicates something else: to seek and save the lost. These purposes are preparation for the mission, not the mission itself. Inward, Upward, or Outward-

T-fan: “"Vatican newspaper praises French Protestant John Calvin" that's the AP headline for this article (link). The paper apparently called Calvin extraordinary and emphasized that Calvin was a Christian. Isn't interesting how times change?” Vatican Praise for Calvin-

Hays springboards off a paragraph which says Luther was dependent on Ockhamism. Hays notes that the real presence makes an incongruity between what you see and what you get, between the underlying reality of Christ’s body and the appearance of the bread and wine. Any version of the real presence is subject to this – that once you disconnect the primary qualities of blood and body from the secondary qualities of bread and wine, you really have no idea what the secondary qualities are actually representing. There’s no intrinsic connection. Appearances are deceptive

This blog continues a friendly atheist’s argument against Edwards’ assertion that moral inability is irrelevant to moral responsibility concerns one's ability to control their will. The atheist (Rowe) understands rightly that Edwards help that a person is able to control his own volitions. But Rowe neglects Edwards’ view, which is crucial, that a person is free when they act according to their strongest desire at the given moment. (e.g. a person can’t want a drink and not want a drink, but he can want a drink and not want to be a drunkard). A person can’t will something and not do it – that’s not how decisions are made. The will must come to a decision at any given moment on the desires in that moment for the immediate objects of desire. The Friendly Atheist on Edwardsian Freedom-Part 3

Creation.com notes a UK bill that could force churches to employ practicing homosexuals. What ever happened to 'sin'-- A response to the UK Equality Bill

Leeman posts a ‘page torn out of a church history book from 2109’, which looks at the ‘dark end of the Reformed Revolution’. Multi-campus churches allowed fast corruption via heterodox bishops. People didn’t notice the subtle pragmatic shifts. The ordinary pastor was a thing of the past, the man whose skills were not extraordinary, but sufficient to guide a ship with a hundred souls to safety. His sermons weren’t made for TV, his music wasn’t good enough for the studio, and churches, feeling entitled to all things professional, dismissed him, etc. Found- a church history book written 100 years from now! by Jonathan Leeman

Trueman begins to make a case for church history over at Solapanel. He argues for the importance of church history as a vital discipline for theological education, both in seminary training and in the day-to-day life of the church. He compares it to how criminal profiling helps police. Thus we have one of the primary purposes: there are few errors or heresies around today that do not have clear parallels and antecedents in church history. Indeed, the older heresies like Arianism, Socinianism, Unitarianism, which all have modern parallels, were more sophisticated. Church history is a time-saver, offering fruitful avenues of response. It’s not as if earlier generations did no exegesis! “Too often [a dismissive attitude of church history] also indicates a subtle anti-theological agenda that wishes to downplay or minimize the role of systematic theology in the church's witness over the years. Such an approach overturns, in the process, a pretty universal, almost two-millennia consensus on the importance of systematic theology as a discipline, and it does that by, ironically, sidestepping, rather than engaging with, the exegesis on which such was built.” “Evacuate Christianity of its history and you leave a dangerous vacuum that can be filled with any old nonsense. As the quotation from George Orwell on my office coffee mug says, “The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth”.” The theological importance of criminal profiling, or The case for church history, Part 1

Patton discusses a possible error in the Bible. He notes the ‘hermeneutic of inerrancy’, where one manipulates the text to make it conform to his idea of inerrancy, outright rejecting any inductive claim to error. Others don’t hold inerrancy as a presupposition (i.e. God is perfect/without error, the Bible is God’s word, ergo, without error), but rather because they find no errors. This is rare; many find what seem to be errors and reject inerrancy. Patton believes the Bible, rightly understood, is inerrant (re. history, science, etc), but denies that a denial of inerrancy is a denial of the faith. He then raises the “Abiathar problem” of Mark 2:26 (i.e. Christ says “in the time of Abiathar the high priest” but 1 Sam. 21 says Ahimelech was high priest). He cites five answers from Wallace: i) the textual tradition is wrong, needs to be amended. ii) Our interpretation is wrong. iii) Jesus is wrong. iv) Mark’s source (Peter?) is wrong. (v) Mark is wrong. (vi) The OT is wrong. He then puts it to the audience. [I recall that someone had cogently argues that this was a convention for referring to a particular text – Abiathar was a major character; hence, the ‘time of Abiathar the priest’ doesn’t refer to him being priest at the time, but rather this whole story in the text, in which he does become priest later.]  A Possible Error in the Bible-

Swan posts some interesting commentary from Ambrose (339-97), seemingly for its relevance to the real presence, etc. An Ancient Voice For The Day #28

Manata continues with another defeater to an Arminian’s ‘common man’ ‘the dictionary has ‘possible alternative’ as an essential element to choice so Calvinism is wrong’ argument. He notes 2 Kings 10, where Jehu commands the best of 70 men to be chosen. ‘The best’ implies out of the group, with the rest not being live options. Hence, they were to choose only the best, those that weren’t best weren’t actionable alternatives.  Choose The Best- More on a failed Arminian argument

Hays responds to the charge that Calvinists caricature free will as “some imaginary power that lets one do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, with no restraint whatsoever.” i) There’s can be a discrepancy  between what is said and thought, and between the logical consequences of what is said or thought. This isn’t an issue with what Arminians claim to believe, but what this believe commits them to logically. ii) LFW is the freedom to do (choose) otherwise. We have no empirical evidence of this, since no one has actualized the alternative to see if it was actually viable. iii) Hence, Arminians fall back on intuition. If they can contemplate alternatives, that is evidence of the freedom to do otherwise. But this is only viable if there is a 1 to 1 between conceivable choices and actionable choices. Many things conceived aren’t actionable though. So what’s the upper limit? We should be able to actualize whatever is conceived. iv) For Arminians, the future is open, the result of our choices. The past is unalterable. Hence, the only restriction on freedom would be what’s logically possible or compossible. We should be able to make any thing within this restriction happen. But real life doesn’t corroborate this. Hence, the intuition is false. v) There is evidence against LFW. “At best, the Arminian can only harmonize his position with the lack of evidence and contrary evidence by postulating that God imposes an arbitrary restriction on our freedom of opportunity.” Mutant-X Arminians

Hays recaps his point that a real presence reading of John 6 is anachronistic. He adds that liberal commentators admit this, and don’t have a problem with it, because they think John was historicizing a later doctrinal development. This at least has the virtue of self-consistency on its operating assumptions. And contemporary Romanist Bible scholars tend to be liberal. But Christians who think John 6 is a real situation need to match this belief with a realistic interpretation that matches the time, space, and audience. Engwer has noted that the physical feeding of the 5000 is used as a springboard to note the inefficacy of physical consumption by Jesus. The contrast is deliberate in the text, especially so since the feeding was miraculous, like the Manna. But if both meals are literal (on a eucharistic reading), the intended contrast is destroyed. Rather, what we have is a contrast between a literal meal and a figurative meal. I am the Bread of Life

Russell Moore discusses the negative stereotyping of the disadvantaged in the movie Orphan. Russell Moore Takes on ‘Orphan’ Movie

From Challies: “It seems that many adolescents are abandoning social media sites. "From uncles wearing skinny jeans to mothers investing in ra-ra skirts and fathers nodding awkwardly along to the latest grime record, the older generation has long known that the surest way to kill a youth trend is to adopt it as its own. The cyberworld, it seems, is no exception."” 6); It's SO Over

Here’s an interesting page by T-fan: Non-English Reformation-Era Bibles - Index Page

Dan Wallace is on the Dividing Line here. Dan Wallace on a Very Important Dividing Line