2009-09-03

T-fan responds to a Romanist question, ‘why say mass sacrifices again?’ The problem is that Rome doesn’t claim to represent the sacrifice of Christ, but to actually involve the sacrificing of Christ. While the Lord’s supper does illustrate these things, the historical event of the cross is finished, and cannot be continued or repeated. Why Say Mass Sacrifices Christ Again-

Sholl at Solapanel continues a series on Why Johnny Can’t Preach. Thus far, Gordon believes (preacher) Johnny can't read and can't write. Now, the content of preaching should be the person, character, and work of Christ. This will include shaping a Christian moral vision in a redemptive context and encouraging confidence in Christ. Without this, sermons reduce to moralism, a how-to (emphasis on how rather than ought), introspection (building up the self-righteous, berating the weak), or a social Gospel (focus on woes and cures of contemporary culture). These are failures because they fail to nourish the believer. While this is no new observation, Gordon does make the point that the issue is a literary issue as well as a theological one. The preacher must be convinced to read the text carefully, thoughtfully, and intensely. Sholl adds that in order to encourage literary engagement (and encourage we must), it must be informed by a robust theology of hearing God's voice. Why Johnny Can’t Preach (Part 3)

Timothy Paul Jones has written Christian History Made Easy for the individual who has no desire to study church history, thinking it complicated or irrelevant. Christian History and the Church

Haykin writes that all who desire to walk in Christ will suffer persecution and know the cross, but this is seldom mentioned, and churches hide behind, liturgy, tradition, and even doctrine. They continue to meet week to week, but its a shame, since people are afraid to get into each other’s lives in case they encounter suffering. Words remain merely theoretical. We need more than only theology, as essential as it is; we need the empowering Spirit of God to get past this, to take them up like the mountain like Isaac was taken by Abraham.. The Spirit of the Crucified One, true Christian community and being like Isaac

This post makes the point that Psalm 89 shows that “the path to honor is a path of shame. Ultimately it is our enemies who are put to shame, but this happens through the shame-bearing of the Messiah, God’s promised king who is nothing less than God himself. God’s honor is at stake in the salvation of his people. Thus he acts with great wisdom and might to remove the shame of his people so that they might be with him, relishing his glory forever and ever.” Honor and Shame in the Psalms (Zabur), Part 9 – We Need More than a Messiah

Turretinfan posts a set of links to a Mormonism 101 series done by James White recently. Lot’s of useful stuff here. Mormonism 101 - Index Page

DA Carson gives a five minute talk on inerrancy here. Christians throughout the centuries have different terms for the truthfulness of the Scriptures. One is inerrancy. It has been shown that, while every doctrine is disputed somewhere, inerrancy has been held by people throughout the years in different cultures all the way from the patristics to the present. Inerrancy means that the Bible is true. It is without error. Is what God originally said true? Now truth is conveyed differently by different literary forms. Now inerrancy describes the reliability of the Scriptures. Some have tried to drop the term ‘inerrancy’. Whatever the Bible speaks on, however, it speaks truly. And hyperbole, narrative compression, and so on are not untrue. Is it essential? The Bible doesn’t say that if you don’t believe in inerrancy you won’t be saved. We are to trust Christ. It’s not a condition of salvation in the way belief in Christ is. http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/resources/video/What-does-inerrancy-mean-Is-it-essential-to-Christian-belief#

2009-09-02

Claims are increasingly made these days that soft tissue, DNA, and even entire bacteria have been found in fossils supposedly millions of years old (dino marrow, magnolia leaf DNA, bacteria in ice, amber bacteria, salty microbes). However, the most recent estimates place an upper limit of 125,000 years on the survival of DNA and 2.7 million years on collagen at 0°C. (At only 10°C, the upper limits are much less—17,500 for DNA, 180,000 for collagen). The second law of thermodynamics means they will eventually break down, even in ideal conditions. Evolutionists, however, don’t allow these findings to question their dating of the items in question. These things are to them ‘obviously’ that old, as ‘everyone knows’, contra the experimental data. Since they are committed to evolution, the idea that these could not survive for millions of years gets thrown out as contamination, etc. (despite the fact that this is simply not the case). These things even surviving for thousands of years is incredible. http://creation.com/real-jurassic-park

Mohler writes that in "The Case for Early Marriage," sociologist Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas in Austin argues that far too many American evangelicals have attempted to deal with sex without understanding marriage. Evangelicals have talked a lot about sex and abstinence, but little about marriage, here they are slow and lax. Many young evangelicals are having sex prior to marriage. The median age of the first marriage is now 26 for women and 28 for men --  an increase of five years since 1970. Regnerus writes that asking people to refrain from sex until their mid-twenties is unreasonable, battling the Creator’s reproductive designs, and he argues for early marriage. Mohler notes that the moral standard of Christians is de facto unreasonable to secular people, arguing that the delay of marriage results in missing out on all God gives us in marriage. Young evangelical women outnumber young evangelical men three to two. Men delay marriage thinking they can marry whenever they are ‘ready’ (as a result of their lifestyles); women are often ready, as they watch their prospects for both marriage and fertility fall. Christians have given up far too much intellectual ground in the area of marriage. Sex is important; marriage is more important. “Marriage is the central crucible for accepting and fulfilling the adult responsibilities of work, parenthood, and the full acceptance of mature responsibilities.” http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=4161

Pike comments on Reppert’s defence of his idea that there is a reasonable doubt that a fetus before a certain stage of development has the same right to life as an infant. i) Reppert’s conclusions are no different than a pro-abort’s. ii) His argument about ‘reasonable doubt’ is ad hoc, and if the stage of development cannot be defined the argument is worthless. iii) If it’s linked to brain development, why the brain? If it’s cognitive ability, then it must follow that human rights are linked to intellect, and the smarter have more right to life than the dumber. iv) If it is argued that past a point of intellect there is equal right, what defines that point? It’s arbitrary. There is nothing logically consistent there. v) What defines ‘late-term’ and ‘early-term’. Each of the “standards” that the pro-choice advocate uses to try to distinguish between the born and unborn is completely invented by the pro-choice advocate himself. vi) That a legal ban on abortion may not stop all abortions is no argument against the law; current rape laws don’t stop all rape – should we repeal them? vii) The pro-life position is consistent because human rights are determined by human ontology. If it’s human, it has human rights. This seems to be the only way to consistently and non-arbitrarily apply ethics to humans across the broad range of various stages of development. Abortion and Reppert

This post argues that the LBCF and WCF, etc. do not in any way authorize or permit private revelation in their use of the phrase ‘private spirits’, noting their position to ‘doctrines of men’, which surely wouldn’t be considered legitimate. They may acknowledge that there were some claims to private revelation, but in no way authorizes or legitimizes them. Rather it is seeking to state comprehensively that there is nothing men may claim that is above or beyond Scripture. This question arises out of debates over personal revelation (influenced by Grudem).  Frequently Asked Symbolics Questions- Private Spirits

Hays observes that while Christian harmonizations of the Scriptures, in light of a presumption of inerrancy, appear as special pleading to unbelievers, unbelievers resist harmonization given their presumption of errancy, and are likewise engaging in special pleading. Moreover, there are examples of harmonization elsewhere. He notes an episode of River Monsters, where a bull shark likely attacked a horse. The problem is that a dam upstream would prevent any sharks from being in that area, and thus one could conclude that it wasn’t a shark. However,  a local knew that the water had flooded and crested the dam a few years ago – this was part of the oral tradition of the area. Harmonizing Scripture

Here’s an interview with Darrell Bock on the NT, etc. The points he makes. i) Ehrman exaggerates the issue. No key doctrine is jeopardized by variation. ii) The ‘other’ gospels have a completely different orientation toward God. Christianity came out of Judaism, and these alternative gospels cannot go back to the earliest generations of Christianity because of their radical difference from Judaism. The NT documents pedigree goes back to within a generation of Jesus; no one disputes this. iii) It’s really not that far to be 30-50 years. Bock can remember stories from a grandfather, stories which goes back to the 19th century. iv) The Gospel was originally through oral testimony by eyewitnesses. The Jews were quite competent at preserving an oral tradition. Inscripturation came when the apostles were passing off the scene. The next video is on historical problems in the NT. i) We have a small subset of history preserved to us. We can often explain differences in ways that make sense culturally and historically. Bock holds that the census issue in Luke can be resolved when one understands that a census would have taken quite a bit of time. ii) As to whether the early Christians just inflated the story of Christ, the Talmud, Josephus, etc. corroborate the crucifixion and the existence of Jesus. iii) More importantly, if you were inventing the resurrection, and trying to sell an idea, and you start out with women as witnesses, you’re undercutting your own objective. It makes no sense to try to sell an idea using witnesses who weren’t considered legitimate witnesses – this is culturally embarrassing. Also, the apostles were incredulous to the testimony of the women at first. iv) The Isaiah passage wasn’t seen as a virgin birth passage by the Jews, so there was no need to invent a fulfillment, debunking the critique that the virgin birth was just invented to fulfill Isaiah.  Interview with Darrell Bock

2009-09-01

Here’s a point by philosopher Roger Scruton that the reductionism in new developments of neuroscience misses quite a bit, having little to do with art, morality, philosophy, and even psychology. Part of the brain is associated with math, but this doesn’t tell us what numbers are, or answer the philosophical conundrum of the foundations of arithmetic. Neuroscience tries to reduce everything to neurons, tell the whole story in Darwinese, and create the impression that a mystery has been solved. It’s hardly earth-shattering to tell us that the love of God, neighbour, beauty, virtue, etc. are not dysfunctional from a reproductive point of view. Roger Scruton on Nonsensical Neuroscience

Interesting: “A new study by Angus Deaton uses an expansive dataset to analyze the determinants and benefits of religiosity around the world. Deaton confirms that women and the elderly are almost universally more religious. He also finds evidence that higher religiosity among the elderly may be due to aging effects as opposed to simply secularization of younger generations. Religious people view themselves as more fit, reporting better health, more energy, and less pain. (Perhaps prayer is a substitute for complaining?) They’re also less likely to smoke and more likely to be married, have supportive friends, and be treated with respect. Other economists have linked religiosity with voting and counteracting the effects of childhood poverty.” Worldwide Study on the Benefits of Religion

This clears up some myths about Galileo. i) Galileo’s Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, the source of controversy, previously had been read and approved by the Church’s censors; and Pope Urban VIII, who presided over the trial, was Galileo’s friend and admirer. ii) Galileo affirmed the inerrancy of the Scriptures in scientific matters, while Cardinal Bellarmine said that if it should be truly shown that the sun is at the centre of the world, etc. then the texts which may seem contrary must have been misinterpreted. Note that a geocentric view of the universe owed more to the Greek mathematician Ptolemy than to Scripture. Six Myths about Galileo and the Church

The interesting point is made here that while Obama’s health care plan may have behind it the greatest intentions, worse men may come to power in the following years, and the same government that runs the police, the armed forces, and the prisons should not also come to dominate medical choices. “Reasonable citizens must not plan for the saints who will govern us, but for the great sinners." Too Great a Good for Caesar. A la carte

T-fan notes that Greg Koukl’s statement, “Repentance has nothing to do with sin” is quite wrong. Repentance is a turning from sin to Christ. It has to do directly with sin. That the Greek term itself means a change of mind, and need not have to do with sin or God, these linguistic argument miss the mark. The kind of repentance that Christ preached is a turning from sin to God. T-fan cites numerous Scriptures illustrating this. Even when “repentance" does not refer to turning from sin, often the emphasis in those cases is normally on the negation of some prior course of action or behavior. Repentance is from Sin

Phillips notes this idiotic example of where the United States is heading. A judge orders a girl to be shipped to their government reeducation camps (i.e. public school) because, while she is excelling socially, has great marks, etc. in homeschooling, she’s just too Christian. Here’s the words of the ‘judge’: "Despite Ms. Voydath's insistence that Amanda's choice to share her mother's religious beliefs is a free choice, it would be remarkable if a ten year old child who spends her school time with her mtoher and the vast majority of all of her other time with her mother would seriously consider adopting any other religious point of view. Amanda's vigorous defense of her religious beliefs to the counselor suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view." Phillips concludes, “don't miss this as well: in the mind of the judge and the counselor AND the father, what's the best antidote to firm Christian faith in a child? Government reeducation camps”  Renegade judge to mom- Your homeschooled daughter is doing great, but she's too Christian

Creation.com notes that evangelical Christian leaders at four Christian training colleges (Laidlaw College, Carey College, Pathways College and the Bethlehem Institute) promote evolution, and reject Genesis 1-11, calling them myth. And the issue here isn’t whether they believe God exists. It’s whether God has spoken in the Bible, and if we’ll believe what He said. http://creation.com/christian-academics-promote-evolution-in-new-zealand

DeYoung quotes some conclusions from Charles Murray’s Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950. The book seeks to look at finding things you could put on a resume for humanity. Of note, he says (and he’s not a Christian) "Finally my position is not at odds with the obvious fact that great human accomplishment has been produced outside Christian cultures and, for that matter, in cultures where the creative elites are secular. I am treating Christian religious belief as one of the variables that help to explain how human accomplishment in the arts and sciences has been ignited. I am arguing that Christianity is an important variable, one of the most important in the story of modern accomplishment. I am not arguing that it explains everything–just as, for that matter, purpose and autonomy do not explain everything. But they do explain a lot (407-408)." Murray not only asks “Who has achieved the greatest feats in human history?” but “Why?” As we might guess, population, peace, and prosperity have a lot do with it, but so does Christianity. Christianity offers a reason to believe in one’s efficacy as an autonomous actor; it offers a purpose to have a devotion to a cause. Maybe then Christianity is not as mind-numbing and culture-degrading after all. Now, why are mostly men listed in his book? Becoming a mother is more profound for women than becoming a father is for men. “it is not so much that motherhood keeps women from doing great things outside the home as it is men’s inability to give birth that forces them to look for substitutes” Where Do Genuises Come From-

2009-08-29

GenderBlog responds to the rejection of historic Christianity in former President Carter’s article, "Losing My Religion for Equality." i) Baptists are people of the Book, and he rejects the reality that God created men first, that men and women are co-heirs in Christ and equal in value but have different roles as designed by God. Carter’s main authority is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted by the United Nations in 1948, a human document, and thus he rejects the authority of Scripture. ii) Carter rejects inerrancy, claiming that the Bible's arguments for male leadership are merely a product of its ancient cultural context, unjustly patriarchial, and should be rejected. He thinks we should understand them by exalting women according to current feminist sensibilities, yet the Bible already exalts women – biblically. This hermeneutic enables anyone to interpret Scripture as he sees fit. This undermines the Gospel itself. Dear President Carter - Part 1

Continuing to respond to Carter, GenderBlog writes: i) Christianity stands with Carter and others against the denigration of women, but Carter misses that it is unique among world faiths in its high regard for women as persons whom God has made in His image. Christianity rejects the denigration and objectification of women in pornography, the tossing aside of the pregnant girl by her boyfriend like garbage, and so on. God has rather woven into the fabric of creation a picture of the Trinity in the relations of men and women. God calls submission to authorities good; He calls a wife’s submission to her husband good, and such Gospel-saturated relationships by no means denigrate women. ii) Carter’s swapping of the Scriptures for a human document is of the likes of the great even in Rom. 1, the swapping "the truth of God for a lie." We dare note pronounce ourselves God, seeking our own autonomy so as to fabricate truth contrary to God’s word. iii) One’s views of manhood and womanhood hold profound implications for Christianity theology and the Gospel itself. Dear President Carter - Part 2

Hays responds to scattered objections against Calvinism by Perry Robinson. i) Hays notes that apologists like William Lane Craig are great scholars, but due to their inconsistent theology can at times undermine what they are doing (unlike White). ii) Saying that Calvinism holds that human actions are determined by their nature is a bit ambiguous – the claim isn’t that nature selects for a particular action, but for a range of action. The kind of nature selects for the kind of action. i.e. it’s more of an exclusionary principle. It’s not the nature, but the decree, which selects for particular actions. iii) What about pre-fall angels/humans? This is a valid concern – if they are good as to their nature, from where does the evil action arise? But this isn’t just a problem for Calvinism. Perry’s own suggestion “while good and innocent, they are not yet righteous. That is acquired through practice” doesn’t sever the link between nature or choice, but rather changes the output of nature by changing the natural input, nor does it explain how a good agent does evil. Indeed, Calvinist’s say Adam’s nature wasn’t “fixed” in goodness, so by objecting to Calvinism on these grounds Perry objects to his own argument. iv) Bringing the loss of free will into the debate brings in the philisophical issue of libertarian versus compatibilist/semicompatibilist free will.v) In Romans 9, Perry fails to distinguish between national election and soteric election. Paul draws that distinction in Romans. vii) If desires determine actions, how is it that Adam, with a good nature, had evil desires? Scripture uses a tree/fruit, cause/effect metaphor. Even if Adam is an exception to the rule, we can’t use that exception to overthrow the Scriptural principle in general. Hays has elsewhere offered his own solution [I believe in terms of possible agents], but there’s a difference between philosophy and revealed theology. The former is only as good as its intuitive reasoning; the latter stands irrespective of it. viii) It’s disanalogous to compare man and God in terms of choice because God is a se, and necessary. Walking on water

Hays continues to point out that while Perry says that agents with a beginning are not yet fixed in the natural goodness, and while good and innocent, they are not yet righteous, he says that Christ is the paradigm for humanity. i) Did Christ lack righteousness? Did he acquire it through trial and error? ii) Does this mean there was a time when He was not impeccable? Did He acquire impeccability through trial and error? iii) The divinity of Christ can’t be invoked to resolve this if He is the paradigm of humanity unless one holds the intrinsic righteousness and impeccability of all humanity in union with divinity via the hypostatic union. To sin or not to sin

Hays quotes Jim Hamilton on Genesis and Gospel inerrancy. i) As to Genesis, he is ok with Beale’s view that the creation narratives depict the creation as a cosmic temple because the universe is built for the worship of God and communion between God and his people. While there seem to be conflicting pieces of information, he’s content to give the Bible the benefit of the doubt given the amount he does not know. ii) A real contradiction in the Gospels would be, Jesus descended from David, yet in another, Jesus did most certainly not descend from David. But we don’t have those; we have bits of different pieces of information. Given what we know, it takes as much faith to assert error as it does to imagine harmonies. He is convinced that the Bible is totally true and trustworthy. Hamilton on inerrancy

This post at Sola Panel makes the interesting point that while there are apt illustrations in film, etc. of the ‘fundamentalist upbringing gone wrong’ scenario that led to outright apostasy for a child, this is only one warning that we need to heed. What about the less interesting and less ‘dramatic’ ways a child enters into apostasy? Apostasy lit, non-lit and not-yet-lit

This gives two examples of non-violent resistance in the 1st century having success; once against Pilate so as to remove idols from Jerusalem, where the Jews laid down before Pilate’s forces, and again when Caligula put a statue of himself in the temple of Jerusalem, and tens of thousands of Jews petitioned for its removal. Non-violent resistance does not mean a withdrawal from history. The Possibility of Nonviolent Resistance in the 1st Century

T-fan answers three objections to the Scripture’s teaching that women are not to be pastors. i) “The Scriptures are Culturally Conditioned” – the reason given goes back to creation. ii) “What if the woman is really edifying?” We don’t break God’s commands for practicality, even if she’s the best preacher since Whitefield. One may as well let his wife be a harlot to evangelize more people. The only reason that they find this objection persuasive is that they don't take God's prohibition on women pastors as seriously as they take the 7th commandment. iii) “Not enough Bible verses say it!” How many times does God have to say something? This is the worst objection. No Women Pastors

To the objection that Calvinism is flawed because it uses the greater good defence, because such a defence supposedly undermines God’s omnipotence because God could have used a direct way to attain His goals rather than rely on evil, Hays notes that the example of the use of Pharaoh and the sorcerers, and God’s engineering of the crucifixion, would then be contrary to God’s omnipotence (i.e. the Bible directly presupposes the greater good defence). Against the reformed theodicy

Patton goes after the statement, “I was going to preach on this, but the Holy Spirit led me to preach on this (at the last minute).” He calls this stupid. The assumptions required to adopt such homiletic detours are irresponsible to all and misunderstands the way God works in the life of the church. i) An assumption is that the Spirit is not/was not present in the preparation process. If He wasn’t, how will He be there when you deliver? If He was, then did God change His mind at the last minute? The delivery is simply the product of your life, study, preparation, and daily walk with God. ii) Perhaps you’re just blaming the Holy Spirit? You didn’t do sufficient prep, or you aren’t ready, and you’re hoping to shift responsibility for whatever comes out of your mouth (even to your own eyes)? iii) It’s manipulative. The third commandment has nothing to do with swearing and everything to do with protecting God’s reputation, and you’re basically saying, “This sermon is really from God,” You are using his reputation by way of putting a “hands-off” authentication on your teaching, especially since this means any criticism someone has of your sermon is shifted to being enmity with God! iv) This also arises from a gnostic bent, a separation between the mundane and the sacred, as if everything that is of God must have a halo around it. v) Those who point to Jude’s “I felt it necessary” miss his point. The reason for the change is not some last minute anointing of the Holy Spirit, but because of the expediency of the subject for the current situation; it has nothing to do with prep. He purposed to write one thing, then felt convicted to write another due to circumstances. “I Was Going to Preach this, but the Holy Spirit Led Me to This” . . . And other Stupid Statemen

Helm writes that for both Calvin and the Stoics, because the order of things is a causal, teleological order, we cannot be idle or imprudent if certain of our goals are to be achieved. The Stoics reject the ‘idle argument’ that if the future is fixed then there is nothing that we presently do that can affect or influence it. Neither hold the view that the future is fixed irrespective of causal connections. For the stoics, some events are causally necessary and sufficient. Sometimes they are logically necessary. Still, the relation of the elements that are co-fated may be weaker than such a necessary causal connection. For an action to be non-futile is need only be the probability that it is a necessary condition for triggering or preventing a prospective cause. In Calvin’s theism, the decree is necessary but not sufficient. The decree must take effect in time, and necessary factors must be ordained in the correct causal and teleological order. Note that in neither scheme, be it fate or decree, is “I’m fated” or “God decreed” a good reason for doing something. We have no (or very little) epistemic access to the future – all we know is that to do something we want there are necessary steps. It is no way to live to do nothing and hope your end is achieved - Effort is causally contributory to an envisaged end. Having reasons are explanations for why we act, and our actions are decreed. Also, in both schemes, if it were the ‘simple’ fatalism, then, if Joe is fated to climb a ladder, no matter what, then nothing else would causally explain why he climbed the ladder, and whether he wanted to or not has nothing to do with it. Calvin appeals to co-fatedness to answer the idle argument. Those convinced of the doctrine should view all life not only in terms of secondary causes ('means') but in terms of God's will, the primary cause, yet not forgetting or neglecting the place of secondary causes. Calvin notes that we have clear duties from God on living, guarding life, etc. Yet the one who thinks a danger isn’t to be guarded against, since if it’s willed, it will be, or vice versa, is way outside Scripture thinking, since God has commanded you to avoid it. The difference with Stoicism is that God is working through immanent causes and they have a transcendent source. That which happens is the result of God’s use of means to achieve his ends, means which he also decrees, of course, and also announces the connection between means and ends. Therefore, while the future is fixed, we approach it as if it is open. One should hope for the success of all endeavours of obedience to God’s commands. Later Stoics held Fatalism should promote a prudent approach to life. For Calvin, the ‘will of God’ is pivotal, encompassing both decree and command, and belief in his providence promotes confidence together with a willingness to do what he has commanded arm us against the “undeniable vagaries and (epistemic) uncertainties” of the decree. Also, God’s determination confers necessity to that which otherwise would not be. The prophesy that Christ’s bones would not be broken is co-fate and co-decreed with the necessary events to fulfill it. There is no causal series without the one who ordains it, and it is necessary. Calvin does not like immanent fatalism, and rejects astrological fatalism. Are there any contingencies? No. But God does decree in a way that is consistent with the varied natures of things, so the actions of agents are voluntary. ‘Chance’ is a purely epistemic idea – i.e. things seem fortuitous to us; they are really not. That which God has ordained is not in itself necessary, it must be the product of causes; Calvin rejects a deistic fatalism, and holds that God pays attention to the particular. Agents are not the mere product of external causes, but God works through the natures of agents. Calvin was less concerned, though, with theoretical issues than pastoral issues. He’d reject the “it’s ordained so I’m not to blame” not just because he has an argument against it, but because this is an immodest argument, seeking to safeguard wickedness. He warns against invalid inferences from the theoretical/speculative, and likely wouldn’t think appealing to a hierarchy of agents and the distinction between doing and willingly permitting are sufficient to explain God's relation to sin. Calvin and the Stoics

Helm writes that in Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision Bishop Wright claims that God’s righteousness is his covenant faithfulness. Think about it: i) This means there is no other way for God to express righteousness. God must establish a covenant and be faithful to it if He is to be righteous. This seems… restrictive? Could God not have established a covenant? ii) Wright doesn’t think making a covenant (with Abraham, say) is God acting righteously. But everything somehow changes when it comes to keeping it. iii) Now, Piper notes that this understanding starts and stops with God’s actions, and doesn’t go deep enough. God’s righteousness and love and faithfulness and goodness are not all synonyms. What is it about God’s righteousness that inclines Him to do this? Behind each there is the assumption that there is something about God’s righteousness that explains why He acts as He does. But Wright doesn’t ask this. iv) But this isn’t all – there is the question of the coherence of any understanding of God’s righteousness that doesn’t begin with who God is. Being comes before acting. God does righteousness because He is righteous. Acting faithfully is a consequence of being faithful. v) Helm notes the relevance of Piper’s point in general: it is at present hugely fashionable to think of theology in narrative form: in terms of covenant (Horton), speech-act theory and ‘theodrama’ (Vanhoozer), and of history (N.T. Wright), for example. This emphasizes history, redemptive history, biblical history, ‘biblical theology’, downplaying or abandoning the categories of systematic theology. But Piper has nailed the problem here. They all need what these cannot deliver – they need a doctrine of God. Piper isn’t shrinking the conversation, but broadening it! God’s righteousness is his resolve to be true to himself, in all aspects of his character, and this is the source of all of these acts of God. The holiness/glory of God is the ultimate standard of ‘right’. “God’s righteousness is no more defined by his covenant-keeping than a man’s integrity is defined by his contract keeping.” vi) Wright’s response, “‘God’s righteousness’ here is his faithfulness to the covenant, specifically to the covenant with Abraham in Genesis 15, and that it is because of this covenant that God deals with sins through the faithful, obedient death of Jesus the messiah” begins too far down the theological line, excluding any reference to a need for a covenant. Does God’s righteousness have nothing to do with the need for a covenant? Why is it necessary to deal with sin? Wright reduces God’s righteousness to a set of His actions - the fundamental question is, what character does the God who does all this have? vii) Wright says believers are declared to be ‘in the right’. But how do we know the court is righteous? How does this happen? What trespasses are not counted? What is is about Christ that results in them not being counted? Wright doesn’t like talking about the basis, but then answers the very question he doesn’t think we should ask – he says Christ’s substitutionary death is the ‘foundation’ (another word for basis). So Wright is much closer to the traditional view here, since once he sees the need for an account of the basis of justification, then the concept of substitution is pushed on him by Paul. So for Wright, God’s righteousness is seen in his condemnation of sin – so it’s more than covenant faithfulness. ix) Wright uses the term ‘reckon righteous’, which is the same as to impute! “Almost in spite of himself, Wright identifies three vital concepts which he sees in Paul – Christ’s death the ‘basis’ of justification; then substitution - Christ is substituted as the faithful Israelite; and the outcome - as a result God ‘reckons’ us to be ‘in the right’.” Why Covenant Faithfulness is not Divine Righteousness (and cannot be)

Rhology, debating an EO objector to inerrancy, notes that while this individual appeals to the tradition of the church and apostolic succession, his denial of inerrancy undermines this claim. After all, multiple people are the reason why there are errors – and inspiration doesn’t guarantee airtight synchronization, in his view. Yet multiple witnesses to the apostles are the reason why the church can apparently be trusted. Didn’t the Gospel writers hear? On what basis is the apostolic tradition (incl. teachings like theosis) faithfully transmitted but the Scriptures aren’t? if inspiration doesn't necessarily produce factual data, how do you know that the Resurrection, for example, actually, factually happened? How would you evangelize with this argumentation? Why is it better to ascribe error to a production of the Holy Spirit rather than to admit that you don't understand how it could all work together? EO folk talk about mystery a lot, but abandon it here! And if God-breathed Scripture is errant, what hope have non-theopneustos writings from men who were *not* "carried along by the Holy Spirit"? Eastern errancy

Phillips gives part one of his testimony. It’s a great read. Here’s the major flow: i) He grew up in a non-Christian home. ii) He passed through a very young atheist phase, to agnosticism, then at the start of the '70's to a pre-new-age cult known as Religious Science. iii) This told him all he wanted to hear: God was in all of us, expressed itself as all of us, demanded nothing, gave everything; there was no sin, only things people brought on themselves by their state of mind. iv) They sought the deeper sense of the words of Scripture, which was always the opposite of the plain sense. v) Jesus constantly needed ‘clarifying’; this seemed a minor snag (e.g. He meant to say that Hell was unreal, not a place of God's wrath, just a phase of consciousness; and that we could save ourselves from that consciousness at any time. But He kept speaking of it as if it were an objective place of immense and eternal torment; Jesus also kept harping on Himself instead of talking about how we’re all equal…) vi) The major catch was himself – he was a selfish wretch. What he found within was nothing like anything he'd ever want to call "God." vii) At 17, he came undone. February 11- the most pivotal day in my life (part one [requested classic re-post] )

Hays writes (for those not impervious to reason) in response to the idea that using evil equates to doing evil. i) Counterexamples are easy: A 22 year old in perfect health is murdered; the doctor saves six lives through organ harvesting. That’s using evil. ii) Say a scientist from an evil regime defects at the offer of asylum, and we use this information to oppose the evil regime. It’s evil to support an evil regime. Is it evil to exploit the situation to take it down? iii) Say we intercept communications between enemies plotting an attack on a city. Is it evil to use this information to thwart it? Using evil and doing evil

Hays notes, citing Matatics at length, that his two-step apologetic for Roman Catholicsm is to first establish that the church of Rome is the only true church in existence, and then establish that the only true church is nonexistent as we know it today (he rejects the Second Vatican Council). When Rome was built in a day

How do we forgive people? Most of the time we probably make a decision to forgive. Sometimes this is easy; the thing can be left in the past. Sometimes it’s not this easy: The sin committed against us continues to affect us in ways we might not have expected. Sometimes the sin isn’t anomalous but an expression of something integral to the offender. Sometimes feelings reemerge. i) Our forgiveness is not the same quality as God’s God’s is powerful and irrevocable, changing our status. This is the basis for our forgiveness of others. But ours is not this perfect. Sometimes we re-forgive. We need to work at it, like all other things, incl. love, and so on. This is a helpful reminder. ii) There are actions in line with forgiveness. Hyper-introspection will always tend to doubt; focus outside yourself on actions consistent with forgiveness, like prayer for the person, or seeking their welfare. iii) The practical way to depend on God is prayer; constant prayer is essential here. The nuts and bolts of forgiveness

DeYoung comments on the new heaven and earth, which is first depicted in Isaiah 65. i) The things of old will not come to mind. The ways of this world, with its sin and suffering, will be forgotten. ii) There will be no groans or cries, only joy and laughter and gladness. God will rejoice and be glad in his people. God will delight in his finished work of consummation. iii) There will be no death, nor fear of death. iv) There will be no predators, no thieves, no war, no poverty, no AIDS, no hunger, no relational animosity, no disappointment, no slander – none of it. v) Best of all, Jesus will be there, “We will be able to see him, touch him, talk with him, ask him anything, learn from him, and most of all worship him. We will love to praise him and laud him. We will love to sing with brothers and sisters in a thousand different languages. We will love to hear him say “Well done, good and faithful servant.” And we will love to shout as a great multitude, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne , and to the Lamb.”” God’s dwelling is with man.  The Holy Mountain 

Courtney at Gender Blog notes that there is a lot of talk about men being careful to guard their eyes, but not so much with women. The idea is usually, “it’s ok to watch this if the guys aren’t around,” usually referring to female nudity. i) God wants our minds to be free from immorality because what the culture is telling us about modesty and sexuality is never what he designed it to be. ii) We are to abstain from all sexual immorality (Eph. 5:3). iii) She lists three temptations in such cases: to comparison (leading to discontent), to a false understanding of beauty (godliness, modesty, and a quiet spirit is what God deems beautiful (1 Peter 3:3-4).), and to lust. Women lust as much as men, including looking a certain way to lust for attention. Such things lure us to the promise of the world, which turns out to be an unsatisfying a lethal lie. So be careful little eyes what you see. Be Careful Little Eyes What You See

Hays cites Gordon Fee on Thessalonians, to the effect that Paul is in no way talking about who will be alive at the second coming, but rather emphasizing that being alive or dead is of no advantage or consequence with regard to it. Elsewhere Paul reckons with either possibility. St. Paul and the Parousia

Hays enumerates a list of recent New Testament Introductions and Old Testament Introductions. Bible introductions

T-fan has a lengthy discussion of some of Harold Camping’s arbitrary and self-contradictory ideas which underpin his highly complex view of eschatology. This discussion notes his simultaneous rejection of the grammatico-historical movement and his employment of it; his imposing arbitrary connections on the text, which are then beyond criticism, and so on. His ‘Jenga tower’ on which his date of the second coming is based comes crashing down if any of his numerous tenuous, arbitrary, and erroneous points are disproved. This is worth a read if for no other reason than it serves as a caution against silly eschatology. Camping Jenga

Hays has some comments in debating with people over at the Stand To Reason blog. Hays responds to the objection to the probability of the resurrection which uses an analogy of a Muslim messiah dying and resurrecting, which asserts that Christians, based on the background knowledge alone, must think this is plausible. i) What background knowledge? What promises? ii) Mohammed already eliminated Islam as a contender by predicating his prophetic credentials on the claim that his message was merely a confirmation of former Biblical revelation: “he told doubters to consult the People of the Book (i.e. Christians and Jews). Hence, he falsified his prophetic claims by his own standards.” iii) The atheists simply assert that the Bible is unreliable. iv) All the NT writers assume Jesus rose. It’s not just the four Gospels. v) They claim to be able to ‘run the numbers’ but don’t precisely define their terms, nor admit their numbers are only as good as their assumptions. vi) Where is the advantage of being reasonable if your reasonable beliefs are just as wrong as your unreasonable ones? vii) To the claim that we’re all skeptical of the supernatural – except here – this is an admission of the think, dripping bias of the skeptic. Many Christians don’t de facto rule out supernatural occurrences. viii) Plausibility is indexed to worldview. These skeptics are dogmatic; they’ve made up their minds already, they aren’t observing reality, and their view isn't based on the evidence–since they automatically discounts any evidence to the contrary. ix) Why should we accept their skepticism as the standard? Running the numbers. Engwer also has some comments on the nature of the debate here. Jon Curry's Losing Hand.

This is a good quote from Warfield: "The Old Testament may be likened to a chamber richly furnished but dimly lighted; the introduction of light brings into it nothing which was not in it before; but it brings out into clearer view much of what is in it but was only dimly or even not at all perceived before. The mystery of the Trinity is not revealed in the Old Testament; but the mystery of the Trinity underlies the Old Testament revelation, and here and there almost comes into view. Thus the Old Testament revelation of God is not corrected by the fuller revelation that follows it, but only perfected, extended and enlarged." ...a chamber richly furnished but dimly lighted

Moore talks about the importance of telling stories to children, imagination, etc. Monsters under the Bed (and Other Biblical Doctrines)

In dealing with Harold Camping’s view that Christ died twice, T-fan makes some points on Revelation 13:8. i) It is legitimate to understand "slain" as modifying "Lamb" and "from the foundation of the world" as modifying "written,” which is in line with Rev. 17:8. ii) The expression "the Lamb slain" is a picture that John used previously in Revelation 5. iii) this ambiguity regarding the reference of "from the foundation of the world" is removed in many more recent translations. iv) Even if it did modify ‘slain’, why take this literally? “Lamb'” is symbolic – we can view him as "slain from the foundation of the earth" in the sense of that being his eternal purpose, not as him actually having been slain before the world was founded. Camping and the Atonement 

This post, citing a professor with respect to whether faith is irrational, observes that observation is a pillar of science, and observation must assume the reliability of the senses. Yet, how do we know they are reliable? Philosophers have long struggled with trying to find a non-circular way to defend the reliability of the senses. We cannot establish thisd through reason alone, and attempts to do it empirically rely on the very thing that needs to be proved. “The result is that we must trust our sense perception. We must have faith in our experience of the world.” Indeed, everything is ironically predicated on faith. Is Faith Irrational-

2009-08-24

Some Romanists quote Gregory of Nyssa, saying that this is against sola scriptura, “And let no one interrupt me, by saying that what we confess should also be confirmed by constructive reasoning: for it is enough for proof of our statement, that the tradition has come down to us from our fathers, handled on, like some inheritance, by succession from the apostles and the saints who came after them.” But they need to show what is meant by ‘tradition’ here. Swan points out that for the early Christian writers is usually referring to a basic, foundational outline of belief about God and Christ, or refers to practices and rites not doctrinal or dogmatic. For this to be against sola scriptura they must prove Gregory believed in another source of infallible truth. Gregory of Nyssa- We have a tradition coming down to us from the Fathers

Hays responds to Reppert, who simply asserts that God’s aim is always remedial, and not retributive, that God’s love is what confronts rebels, and that if it were up to God He would bring it about that a person repents. i) We don’t go to Lewis for Christianity; he’s not a prophet or an apostle. ii) There is a lot of retributive judgment in the Scriptures, and one cannot jettison it for only remedial punishment. Even the atonement is predicated on it. So Reppert’s theology involves jettisoning the atonement, and denies the Scriptures as a reliable source of information about God. He pins his immortal hopes on this optimistic mishmash of open theism, universalism, make-believe, and wishful thinking. These don’t quite fit: Dan 12:2; Matt. 25:41,46; 2 Thess. 1:5-9; Rev. 14:9-11. Lord Hunk-Ra

Hays notes that Walter Cronkite died. But anchormen are quickly forgotten: “It’s a good example of how trite and trival are the honors which the world bestows on its own. One moment you’re famous. Hot property. The world follows you around. Hangs on your every idle word. The next moment you’re an epitaph in a weedy graveyard.” (1 Jn. 2:15-17). The pride of life

Hays, responding to Reppert on issues of tone, etc. quotes Wesley calling the God of Calvinism worse than the devil. Roger Olson has also said this. It’s a phony distinction to say this merely goes after doctrine, for to say this about their God is to say something about Calvinists. It says they’re devil worshipers. Calling Calvinism blasphemous is to call Calvinists blasphemers. Arminians even spell this out – you become what you worship – so Calvinists become Satanic. Ironically, it’s Hays who has never faulted an anti-Calvinist for using “offensive” or “hurtful” language, while those who do make many assumptions about what motivates the Calvinist. Isn’t calling a fellow believer a closet Satan-worshiper the worst thing you could say to him? The talk of love is mere verbiage - “they actively discriminate against Calvinists–all the while spouting sanctimonious rhetoric about Christian charity.” Sons of Belial and brothers in Christ

T-fan, commenting on Harold Camping’s view of the Bible as a code book for the end times, notes that he misses that the intention of the Scriptures is that people would believe and have eternal life, and hopes that while he recognizes he’s not infallible, if another of his prophecies fails, he’ll awaken to the real focus of the Scriptures. Surprising Wisdom from Harold Camping

Hays comments on a blog by a would-be aspiring church historian who claims to be a revert from Calvinism. Sadly he misrepresents Calvinism, talking like one who seems betrayed by his former beliefs. i) Calvinism has no position on how many are elect. The ‘few are saved’ is actually dominical – Jesus said it! – even though this objector uses this against Calvinism. ii) God does not withhold mercy ‘merely because he decreed it’. He does so to demonstrate the gratuity of grace. God could justly damn all; His mercy is free. iii) His Arminian charity presumes to say that Calvinists think that since God deals people in such an “underhanded manner,” that authorizes us to do so as well. Indeed, for this individual, ‘if Reformed discourse is “un-Christlike” by his standards, then the Calvinist is blameworthy–but if Reformed discourse is “Christlike” by his standards, then the Calvinist is still blameworthy since his Christian discourse is at odds with his “un-Christlike” theology.’ iv) By the Arminians standards, is blanket imputations of ill-motives to Calvinists, impugning them as devil-worshipers, etc. in line with their view of Christian charity and the fruits of the Spirit? v) As to ‘harsh rhetoric’, one scholar has written, ‘we can recognize in Jude’s rhetorical strategy the use of techniques common to vituperatio, the ‘rhetoric of slander’… Jude doesn’t intend to persuade the heretics, but vilify them. The literature seeks to create heroes and villains. Thus such rhetoric is not de facto unbiblical. “In vituperatio, a person would employ well-known topoi in the denunciation of others…These themes were so well used that they even became part of the syllabus of rhetoric.” vi) Citing a few words from Paul, e.g. “You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy, will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord?”, Hays asks if this Arminian thinks Paul isn’t necessarily born again? vii) Here’s a sample of this Arminian’s ‘charitable’ discourse. ““Most versions of Calvinism where God's character is concerned are so reprehensible that it is likely to incite the baser parts of one's humanity.”” The Arminian fruit tree

Sola Panel posts a quote from a church-planter in Australia, who notes the remarkable nature of their biblical preaching to the Christians around them. Many churches have all manner of ministries, but the preaching of God’s word is not central, and many have never heard a passage explained! Biblical ministry is considered too bookish, etc. God’s word and church planting

GenderBlog continues discussing the reality of ‘sexting’ – using SMS/MMS for pornographic pictures, etc. Ministering to young women entails reckoning with this reality, and helping young girls to understand that they are not their own, to do with their bodies as they see fit, but rather they should consider their bodies to be temples of the Holy Spirit. Parents must protect their daughters from their own sin and the sin around them, not giving them unmoderated, unmonitored access to any social networking technology. Parents have a responsibility to protect them from predatory men and boys interested in only using them for their sexuality. Raise them to value purity. Because tech like social media can be used for evil or for good, parents must be especially diligent to protect girls from their own sinful hearts. Sexting and the Teenage Girl - Part 2

A Romanist says that Cyril never tells us that Scripture alone is how the church gets its divine revelation and its only authority from, to which Swan quotes, “Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.” The Romanist quotes in response Cyril's statement "if it be God's pleasure, proceed to treat, as far as may be, of those which remain out of the New Testament", which is supposedly an objection to Cyril holding sola scripture. The problem is that in the proceeding lecture indicates that Cyril is here referring to the Old Testament. Cyril's Proof for God's Special Revelation Outside of Scripture

Hays responds further to Reppert on the issue of retribution versus remediation. Reppert claims that since Hays holds that repentance in response to retribution is better than retribution alone then if God has it in His power, and God is good, then why isn’t God causing this outcome? i) Hays notes that Reppert begins with universalism and reasons from there. But we can reason from the actual outcome backward instead. If not all are saved, it’s not better than all are saved. If it were better for everyone to be saved, then God would save everyone – thus the outcome falsifies Reppert’s premise. ii) The Bible also treats retributive punishment as an end in itself – it has intrinsic value, not merely instrumental. iii) Biblical doctrines like original sin, justification, vicarious atonement, and eschatological judgment are all embedded within a forensic framework. To reject retribution in favour of remedial punishment results in a rejection of these doctrines. iv) Reppert is saying that retributive judgment is justifiable only if it has repentance as its end – which is basically saying that it’s only justifiable if it is remedial, not retributive! v) It’s futile to do as Reppert is doing and reject the revealed view of the afterlife in favour of what you’d prefer, since you’re lost at sea, and you have no reason to think you know what you’re talking about. Retribution or remediation-

Patton posts a story of internet ordination as illustrative of the reason for why he believes that evangelicals need some form of return to apostolic succession. The passing on takes on the form of approval of the next generation by the preceding to create an accountability and some degree of credibility. The Christian faith cannot be now what it never was before. He argues this will guard against novelty and heresy, and will “restore a healthy fear that all must have when we find ourselves as representatives of the faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3; )” This is not opposed to sola scriptura at all, but should mitigate the free church mayhem in protestantism that drives many to institutionalized traditions from which Protestants fled hundreds of years ago. Why Evangelicals Need Apostolic Succession

Patton goes on to explain a little of what he means by apostolic succession. i) There are no modern apostles. ii) It is continuity of teaching, not office. iii) Doctrines like sola fide aren’t novel, rather, their articulations lie more dormant. Nicea didn’t advocate a non-existent doctrine of the Trinity. iv) Such succession of teaching would immediately place things like health and wealth teaching outside the perimeter of evangelicalism. iv) It’s a ‘historic evangelicalism’. Those who wish to identify with it could but they’d need to subscribe to the boundaries or centre of beliefs which have anchored the church for two thousand years. v) This doesn’t mean being able to trace literal lineage, or that laying on hands is some sacred sacrament. Laying on of hands is important, but the continuity of teaching must balance it, as it’s no guarantee vi) He believes evangelicals can agree on what is essential, and he proposes these four criteria as all necessary: 1. Does the Bible speak clearly to the issue 2. Does the Bible explicitly identify this issue as an essential 3. Does the history of the church speak clearly to this issue 4. Does the history of the church identify this issues as essential. vii) This is not a denomination; it is a pervasive spirit and movement within all evangelicals. More on Evangelical Apostolic Succession

Burk notes the tornado of criticism from the blogosphere of the emergents, including Tony Jones, etc. He notes the common theme: “Now everyone can see what we Emergents have suspected for a long time. John Piper is a fundamentalist crackpot with a retrograde theology that offends unbelievers.” Tony Jones calls on Piper’s peers to shun him into the margins. To Piper’s credit, he has not responded in kind, instead quoting Ps. 141:5, and following up with the post on his prostate cancer. Burk is especially concerned at how the direction of outrage is so skewed in its priorities. “There appears to be little concern about the fact that an entire denomination has just taken a public stand against the Bible and 2,000 years of unanimous Christian teaching. There is scarcely a cross word about the fact that the ELCA Lutherans are walking away from the gospel of Jesus Christ. Instead, the critics are offended by Piper.” Indeed, they engage in the very mudslinging stumbling block to unbelievers these emergent types say they wish to avoid. They haven’t read Piper’s article charitably, and they have missed the point: Piper is applying Christ’s words to a calamity. “Jesus did in fact teach that God uses seemingly random calamities to remind all of us of our need for repentance.” And Piper said it’s a warning ‘to us all.’ God help us that this is controversial among evangelicals. A Second Tornado in Minneapolis

Clint enumerates three characteristic of missionaries of past days in China. They were itinerant evangelists, moving from town to town, they operated on the ‘faith principle’ of support, never soliciting financial aid, and they husbands and wives operated as a Ministry Team. While commendable in many instances on face value, a problem has arisen wherein these voluntary emphases became ingrained practices in Chinese churches. i) Pastors move from church to church, preaching only basic evangelistic messages, and the congregations are caught in perpetual immaturity, never having preaching on the whole counsel of Scripture (Paul, itinerant himself, established shepherds over churches; 2 Tim 2:2). ii) Pastors are poorly supported by their congregations and viewed as greedy if they solicit support (contra 2 Tim. 2:6; 1 Tim. 5:7). iii) Children are neglected by husband and wife in their pursuit of ministry (1 Tim. 3:4-5); many missionary kids grow up with a distorted view of family. iv) It is easy to be nostalgic about the greats of the past without reckoning with the ramifications of their choices. That’s a lesson for us now – are we putting out emphases in context, aiming at maturity, rather than merely thinking of the urgency of the moment? Unseen Consequences to Good Intentions- Missions in China

I think the philosophical attempts to define humour, as enumerated here, in the categories of incongruity, superiority, and relief theories, i.e. attempts to understand the nature of humour, have bearing on understanding its morality, as the Scriptures definitely speak to aspects of these definitions – something Christians should certainly ponder… Philosophy Word of the Day – Philosophy of Humor

JT: “Interesting article here from atheistic philosopher of science Michael Ruse, who says that Dawkins's The God Delusion makes him "ashamed to be an atheist," that the New Atheists are a "bloody disaster." In particular, he thinks that the New Atheists are doing a "grave disservice" to (1) the cause of science, (2) the cause of scholarship; (3) the cause of fighting Creationsim, and (4) the cause of fighting to keep Creationism out of schools. On Dawkins in particular: Ruse says that he would fail any introductory course in philosophy or religion.” Michael Ruse on the New Atheists as a Bloody Diasaster

If we understand a little of the ANE culture of the time during the contest between Elijah and Baal’s prophets, we can see that what was communicated to the people was that Yahweh had demonstrated Himself superior and had won on Baal’s terms. The fire indicated that God was listening to Elijah, as it was considered a theophany. The picture is that of warfare between Yahweh and Baal, as lightning was the weapon of the divine warrior. It is natural, then, that this should result in the slaughter of the prophets of Baal and Asherah. In the ancient world, this contest therefore made a lot of sense, and fit together as a whole. Elijah's Contest

Johnson asks, does Scripture permit us to regard any doctrine as secondary? What do Scripture and common sense tell us of the relative weights of doctrines? Some argue that every truth is primary and every disagreement worth fighting over and ultimately dividing, and you either agree with them on everything, or you’re going to hell. Others take the opposite extreme, viewing relationship as primary, and so no truth/proposition is ever worth fighting over. Does the Bible have any distinction in priorities? What about deciding what doctrines are primary? Johnson doesn’t think contemporary writers have dealt with this enough. i) Some errors are camels, others gnats; some are more weighty (Matt. 23:24-25). ii) There is truth of ‘first importance’ (1 Cor. 15:3). iii) Various truths are identified as fundamental (1 Jn. 1:6, 8, 10; 1 Cor. 16:22; 1 Jn. 4:2-3; Rom. 4:4-5; Jn. 17:3;1 Cor. 15:4). iv) The foundation is said to be Christ; it seems the superstructure was of different worth (Johnson takes 1 Cor. 3:11-13 as referring to doctrine). v) There were matters of opinion that Paul refused to lay down as hard-and-fast matters of truth (Romans 14:5). Indeed, Paul elsewhere does lay down truth about it (Col. 2:16-17) indicating he had an emphasis on tolerance in Romans. vi) Johnson is as eager to see evangelical unity as to attack ecumenical compromise. To keep the two straight it is crucial to have clear biblical reasons for treating various doctrines as either fundamental or secondary. Does Scripture Permit Us to Regard ANY Truth as Secondary -

Here’s an interesting and self-admittedly speculative thought on the connection between apostasy in the American churches among young people and their views on the War in Iraq. Because there was an illusion of consensus among evangelicals that supposedly affirmed the war in Iraq, this seems to have formed a point at which they ‘broke’ with evangelicalism, and it crystallized a loss of credibility about evangelicalism in their eyes. They became skeptics, and mixed with emergent theology. The War gave traction to emergent theology as these young anti-war voiceless dissenters “turned to leaders who would tell them the things they already secretly suspected ("We think the war in Iraq is immoral. Oh, and also, we believe that the Bible isn't inerrant, Jesus is not the only way to God, Hell is horrible and to be rejected on those grounds, etc.").” The Iraq War and Apostasy

Challies begins by discussing his all-too-intimate knowledge with anger. Anger is a strong feeling of displeasure to something wrong – or perceived wrong. It is triggered. Anger can be terrifying in proportion to the power of the one who is angry. It is not surprising that people have historically feared God’s anger (and much of ancient religion involved trying to appease gods). We can confuse human anger with divine wrath, imposing our own sinful, irrational, emotional anger upon God's just, perfect, holy wrath. “Charles Leiter has said it well: "God's wrath is not a temporary loss of self-control or a selfish fit of emotion. It is His holy, white-hot hatred of sin, the reaction and revulsion of His holy nature against all that is evil." God's wrath is revulsion.” It is not mere emotion and not at all irrational. It is a good and just and fair reaction to something that is absolutely, fundamentally opposed to God's very nature. God does not act rashly in anger, but justly. God must express His wrath against sin, and in His mercy did so for all who believe in Jesus Christ. The Reaction & Revulsion of a Holy Nature

Patton has a high endorsement for Tom Schreiner, and his sermon on Revelation 20, in terms of how he handles the issues of the priority of these issues. He includes the audio here. Tom Schreiner on the Millennium . . . and So Much More

Interesting point from Sandy Grant at Sola Panel: “What's the most dangerous excuse for avoiding a conference? I reckon it's the one that says, “I'm not going to that conference because I've heard what they're going to say before”. Maybe you don't go because because the particular conference speakers are not going to say anything new! But I go because the conference speakers are not saying anything new!” The most dangerous excuse for avoiding a conference

Carson talks about the trend to talk about God’s work to reverse the effects of sin in recent days, while depersonalizing God’s wrath, and collapsing God’s wrath and human rebellion into the single construct of the degradation of human life, all the while failing to reckon with the reality that from the beginning sin is an offense against God. Carson hammers Wright on this point, noting that his central idea of sin as somehow anarchic rebellion against shalom, and the triumph at the end is the restoration of shalom, ironically trivializes sin and loses the profound sense in which sin is personally against God. This is to lose something important in the storyline itself. Death, the consequences of our sin, and lostness are nothing other than preliminary manifestations of the wrath of God, and Christ’s death saves us from the wrath to come. Depersonalizing God's Wrath and Undermining the Cross

Patton has various anecdotes of misreading “God-sightings”, or thinking based on events that God is doing one thing, and then discovering that He was not, such as Patton’s own (mis)interpretation of providence as God’s intention to keep his sister alive. When You Go Right and God Goes Left – Reflections on “God Sightings”

The Total Church study guide is free and can be downloaded by following the links in this post. Total Church Study Guide

Hays writes that Arminians seem to think that as long as the human agent has libertarian freedom it’s a sufficient solution to the argument from evil. He illustrates the problem. Say he was a mad scientist, who created Frankenstein and endowed him with libertarian freedom. Frank is morally responsible. Say the scientist could foresee that Frank would go on a killing spree. Arminians think Frank is responsible for his own actions. But this hardly exculpates the scientist for knowingly creating a homicidal monster. He’s complicit. Arminius and Frankenstein

Spurgeon describes the atonement to an Irishman concerned about the justice of God in forgiving sinners. Atonement

God is the one who chose Saul and David to be king. The king was the earthly representative of God. “… the king’s anointing expressed his vassal relationship to the Great King, from whom his authority was derived, under whose protection he stood, and to whom he was beholden. Not only in the Bible but generally in the ancient Near East, "royal authority was seen to have a heavenly origin and destiny; where authority was at issue, the gods were believed to be nearby."… As a worshiper of the one true God, David is rightly respectful of the status of Yahweh’s anointed (cf. 26:9) and, despite the fact that Saul is clearly out to kill him, regrets having lifted his hand, even symbolically, against Saul.” V. Phillips Long on Ancient Kings Chosen By Deity

This post talks about ANE thought in 1 Sam. 2:1-10. i) There is a conviction of the sovereignty of God, that the fate of human beings is in the hands of God. Hannah adds a trust in a compassionate God to this view of sovereignty in her prayer. ii) Thundering from heaven – severe thunderstorms – were taken as a sign of divine power. The Psalmists employ this language as well, possibly in part to express the superiority of Yahweh in ancient terms. iii) Hannah anticipated the kingship in Israel. Kingship per se need not be a problem in Israel—only kings who refuse to rule as vassals of the Great King. iv) The king’s status as "the anointed" implied his divine enabling and his inviolability. Hannah's Prayer (1 Sam. 2) by V. Phillips Long

2009-08-22

Piper clarifies his words on the tornado a few days ago. He points to the ‘tornado’ in his life of a cancer diagnosis three years ago. The message of every calamity (Luke 13:1-5) and good day (Rom. 2:4) is a rebuke against worldliness and a thrust toward holiness; it is intended by God – but not Satan, who only intends to approve sin - to be a call to repentance, to be deepened in affection for Christ. Only the details change with different tornados. Clarifying the Tornado

Here’s ten interesting thesis on social action, which JT links to for fuller explanation. They include things like “We must not collapse the already/not-yet tension” and “We must realize that our actions are not self-interpreting” and “We must prioritize proclamation of the gospel without neglecting social action”. 10 Theses on the Kingdom of God and Social Action

Challies posts a quote to the effect that the whole idea of human progress is meaningless apart from a theistic reality. Commenting on the technological advancement of man over the millennia, “is that progress? Or is it merely change? What is the goal toward which human society is tending? Or are we too, like our 10,000 year-old forbears, only wishing to survive as long as possible with a maximum of comfort, pleasure, and security?” Human Development

Turk comments on a comment on Piper’s blog on the tornado. He notes that the direct one-to-one connection of individual sin and calamity is wrong, and then, speaking of Piper’s comments, says that the “difference is the Gospel-centeredness of this statement. It doesn't say, "because you did 'A', God punished you with 'B'": it says, "because Jesus said plainly that all sinners are is grave peril, all sinners must be on guard to repent."” i) Nuance is key, and there is a big difference between saying as Piper did "calamity in this world points sinners to a Holy God who calls them to repentance" (which is the Gospel) and "those punks got what was coming to them" (which is a self-congratulatory misapplication of the Law). ii) Piper does want to understand that all calamities that happen are signs – even those to ‘good Christians’, so its rather short-sighted to imply that Piper’s view, which is quite nuanced, simply wants to see a call of judgment on liberals. iii) It’s absurd to lump all evangelical views on sovereignty together. iv) It’s also absurd to deny people the possibility of comfort in the midst of tragedy by lumping all the quack notions of God communicating through toast together with those who, in agreement with Jesus in Luke 13 and Paul in Romans and the Psalmists say that God does communicate through pain. v) Piper believes in God’s sovereignty in a pervasive way, a way which preaches safety and salvation from sin. [I’ll note that the comments about speaking of both ‘scientific observations’ of how stuff works and God’s sovereignty in all things as being contradictory indicate that the writer has missed the elephant in the room, namely, that God upholds this world by His word, that the very consistency of such ‘natural’ processes depends upon God’s sovereign rule! As one who does engineering, the consistency which I take for granted when I do my work depends upon God’s sovereign will entirely]. vi) The author would rather curse the darkness, blame engineers and weathermen an so on for calamity, than see the Gospel light that can help us find comfort in tragedy. vii) There is a difference between falsely prophecying over the death of an infant and quoting Jesus about how we should see natural disasters. viii) Piper is not cherry-picking disasters. [having read much of Piper, I agree]. In which we end the summer with a bang

“There are five pillars in Islam, things that each Muslim is required to do. One of the pillars is the hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca, Saudi Arabia. A Muslim is to go on pilgrimage to Mecca once in his lifetime if he is able.” The Hajj & Unity in Islam

Why did Cain kill Abel? Because his own deeds were evil and his brother’s righteous. DeYoung writes that a sure sign of CHristian maturity is being able to root for each other and take joy in the surpassing successes of others, be it school, church, parents, etc. We want to have joy in this, but we all know the jealousy within us. Piper writes that while we may not kill our brothers, we keep away from those who make us look defective. Love doesn’t act like this. It rejoices in growth. And Why Did Cain Murder Abel- Because His Own Deeds Were Evil and His Brother's Righteous

Engwer points to a discussion on “whether passages like Mark 9:1 suggest that the earliest Christians believed that the second coming of Jesus was certain to occur before the end of His generation.” Did The Earliest Christians Falsely Predict The Timing Of The Second Coming-

Chan: Baruch Maoz is an evangelical, Reformed Messianic Jew. His website is well-worth checking out. The Maoz Web

Burk comments on Kourtney Kardashian’s (E! network reality show personality) rather public deliberations over an unplanned pregnancy and having an abortion. She reasons like a woman who thinks she should have a right to choose. But this is overridden by her maternal, pro-life instincts. For example, “I looked online, and I was sitting on the bed hysterically crying, reading these stories of people who felt so guilty from having an abortion. I was reading these things of how many people are traumatized by it afterwards… For me, all the reasons why I wouldn’t keep the baby were so selfish… My doctor told me there is nothing you will ever regret about having the baby, but he was like, ‘You may regret not having the baby.’ And I was like: That is so true. And it just hit me. I got so excited, and when I told Scott he was so excited.”” Kardashian’s Unplanned Pregnancy and Abortion Dilemma

Swan notes the intense disagreement within Roman Catholicism over the Immaculate Conception, between rival schools of Thomists and Scotists, and the rival orders of the Dominicans and Franciscans. Why It's Not Easier to Settle Things Without a Bible

Citing the Heidelberg Catechism on the question, “How does the Lord’s Supper remind you and assure you that you share in Christ’s one sacrifice on the cross and in all his gifts?” DeYoung writes that it should be a joyous thing to the Christian to hear the truth proclaimed by the Lord’s Table. God knows our faith is weak. He gave us the sacraments to remind us of the surety of His promises, and the work of Christ for the believer. In faith, as surely as you can see the bread and cup, so surely does God love you through Christ. As surely as chew the food and drain the drink, so surely has Christ died for you. Here at the Table the faith becomes sight. They give us a picture of our union with Christ – in partaking we literally have communion with him, not be dragging Christ down from heaven but by experiencing his presence through the Holy Spirit. Tears and the Table

Johnson writes that on the one hand, it’s sad that the history of the church is one marred with one doctrinal controversy after another. On the other hand, the apostles predicted precisely this. There are those in our ‘tolerant’ day who swing the other way, looking for any reason to be offended. On the other hand, there are those who are so ‘broad-minded’ and sinfully tolerant that they settle for any sort of false unity with people the Scriptures command Christians to avoid or whom Christians are morally obligated to refute. These two extremes are to be avoided. The only way to be biblically faithful is to have a sound understanding of how to distinguish between core and peripheral doctrines. Johnson identifies this as an oversight in the fundamentalist movement; they identified several key doctrines as fundamental, but didn’t do extensive work on how to deal with peripheral matters. Sometimes fellowship is better than a fight. Sometimes not

Bayly has some comments on the lack of a theology of the Church among many today. The glorious Bride of Christ

Turk has words for those who would leave their churches (as he always does). He asks, are there any important flaws in your theology? If you say no, then you probably haven’t considered your theology significantly. Someone else of the same stripe as yourself could use your unseen flaws as a reason to leave your church. There’s no reason to stay in a Mormon church or pelagian cult like Unitarianism, but you yourself are not a prize catch in the theological sea. You’re a stinky little sinner fished out of a stinky pond by a fisherman who has chosen to save you out of His love and kindness, and you shouldn’t be surprised that you’re in a fishbowl now with other smelly littler fish. This should give you cause to rejoice together. Flaws

Commenting on contextualization, this post at Reformed Baptist Press notes that historically it seems that Christians have actually contextualized pro-actively to teach the people something about God, be it the position of the pulpit or whatever. Some may have been wrong about their approaches, but  the church was proactive in creating a climate that would communicate something to the culture about what the church is all about. Some today have turned the historical practice on its head, and they may be right, but that’s what’s happening. Contextualizing

“Brent Littlefield reflects on Senator Benjamin L. Cardin (D [duh], Md) who, faced with the overwhelmingly negative reaction of real-life people to Obamacare, retorts, "I'm more resolved than ever.... I love debating. I'm sorry more of that couldn't happen this week because of so much of the shouting, but I personally believe the American people [his opposing audience was not composed of Americans?] still want us to deal with tough problems. We're not all going to agree, that's obvious, but we're at the point we need a specific bill." Translation: I'm from the government, I'm here to help you — by ramming something you don't want down your throat! Now get out of my way!” Hither and Tither

In light of the controversy over whether a girl who won an athletic competition but whose sex is being question, Bayly posts a commentary which notes that she’ll probably be shown to have taken steroids. Interestingly, the performances of women in the 70’s haven’t been matched since – and steroid testing was practically non-existent then. Here’s some results of long-term studies of East German athletes who received steroids: “-one in four (male and female) athletes got some form of cancer. -one in three showed some form of auto aggression: cutting, suicide attempt, etc. -one in nine withdrew from the study for psychological reasons. -most of the children of those who took the steroids have disabilities. This holds for fathers and mothers, but it is especially correlated with mothers who were given steroids during their athletic careers.” It is written, "Male and female He created them."  More on determining her gender

Bayly comments on the comments on Piper’s post on the Tornado: “Read the comments and you'll find John excoriated for making such a boringly Biblical point. Why are insurance companies permitted to call earthquakes and floods "acts of God" while pastors are denied this privilege? No pastor dare open the mind of God in notorious judgments, and yet he is expected to open the mind of God in blessings and may lose his job if he refuses.” It’s remarkable how no one goes after pastors for specific declarations of God’s blessings, but when you talk about His judgments? That’s a different story. Men have omniscience with regard to the will of God in mercy and blessing and grace, but when it comes to judgments, everything is inscrutable, and anyone who dares interpret these acts of God is a ‘monster’. Why God's blessings but not His judgments-

Here’s a post on Womanly Dominion, a book which calls for a recovery of true feminine strength, endowed by the Creator, redeemed by the Savior, and empowered by the Holy Spirit. It’s a call for women to play their position. People easily becomes scattered an confused and overwhelmed, losing the clarity of purpose in the Scriptures. Girltalk writes that women must be clear on what Scriptures says are the priorities of our “position”: our spiritual growth, service in the church, evangelism, love for our husband and children, caring for our home. What are you spending your time and strength on? Where are trying to ‘win’? Womanly Dominion Book Club- Week 2

Piper writes, “If I were to put my finger on one devastating sin today, it would not be the so-called women's movement, but the lack of spiritual leadership by men at home and in the church… Pride and self-pity and fear and laziness and confusion are luring many men into self-protecting, self-exalting cocoons of silence.” Piper on the Loss of Male Leadership

DeYoung, continuing on the two kingdom, etc. discussion, seems to take the position [me reading of what he says] that the church should refrain from directly engaging political issues except at the intersection of biblical morality and those political issues (e.g. slavery, abortion), and yet still refrain from partisan tethering, while speaking to the morality of laws, etc. He isn’t opposed to ministries on such issues, and thinks that the two-kingdom people who seem opposed to any program in the church except for weekly worship and pastoral care are taking a good instinct too far. White Horse Inn Weighing in on 2K

Rhology explains why Beggars’ All blog exists. The Beggars All blogteam regards the gospel that the Roman church preaches to be a Gospel that saves. We also find numerous Roman dogmas to be heterodox, blasphemous, and/or heretical. He notes that, if they were really anti-Catholic (and not merely anti-Roman Catholicism), then they would adopt an ecumenical, agreeable stance, since they would know they would be encouraging their Romanist friends to go further into darkness, since if they were really anti-Catholic they'd want them to go to Hell. They’d want them to spend their entire lives and eternity apart from Him. But they don’t want Catholics to go to hell. They aren’t anti-Catholic. So they argue against the Roman church. Hence the label is completely wrong. They are are pro-Catholic because we are anti-Roman CatholicISM. Pro-Catholic and Enjoying It!