|
||||||||||
|
|
Lies, damn lies, and statisticsPosted by steve - May 11, 2008 on 4:41 pm | In ReformedTheology | No Comments “But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death” (Rev 21:8).Speaking of damnable lies: robert said... “The Triablogers, especially Steve Hays, repeatedly attack and ridicule persons, not arguments.” That’s a demonstrable falsehood. In my response to Reppert and others, I’ve gone into great detail attacking their arguments. This is not a case of attacking the person instead of the argument. But this is my general policy. I begin by attacking the argument. I then see how the opponent responds. If the opponent is evasive, I continue to attack his arguments, but I also point out that he is not an honest opponent. And that’s directly germane to the debate. It’s far more time-consuming to debate an evasive opponent. You have to spend a lot of time rehearsing what you said before to remind the reader that he ignoring what you already said. The character of an opponent can get in the way of a constructive debate. “We all understand that attacks against an argument are OK, but that is not what the Triablogers repeatedly do.” The same damnable lie. I repeatedly attack arguments. My replies to Reppert have been far more detailed and substantive that his replies to me. Same thing with Manata. “The Triablogers are in fact mean and nasty and repeatedly violate biblical standards of how we are supposed to interact with each other.” What about Biblical standards? One Biblical standard is to be truthful. Robert regularly violates that biblical standard. Do ad hominem attacks violate biblical standards? The Bible itself can get very ad hominem. Look at what Isaiah says about the king of Babylon (Isa 14), or Ezekiel says about the King of Tyre (Ezk 28). The Bible is chock-full of ad hominem attacks. So commenting on the character of your opponent is by no means a violation of biblical standards. As usual, Robert picks and choose what parts of the Bible he is going to obey. Notice, too, that Robert is doing the very thing he denounces as unbiblical. Instead of attacking our arguments, he is attacking us. On the one hand, Robert tries to impose an unscriptural “standard” on his opponents. On the other hand, he refuses to hold himself to the same standard he urges on his opponents. And notice the way he goes about it. First of all, he uses guilt-by-association. He tries to tar Manata with something I said. Attempting to discredit Manata’s arguments as if any “sinful” statement I make rubs off on him. Not only is that an ad hominem attack—which he supposedly deplores—but a classically unscrupulous form of the ad hominem attack. Robert professes to take the moral high ground while he wallows in the gutter. Then there’s his stalking horse tactic. He uses a second party to attack a third party. He attacks Calvinism by defending Reppert. This makes Robert seem magnanimous. Like Bill Moyers interviewing Jeremiah Wright. You use the second party as a shield behind which you lob bombs at your opponents. And this ploy is designed to make you look like Mr. Nice Guy since you’re just coming to the aid of someone else. If you were attacking your opponent directly, that would be “mean and nasty,” but this way you can attack your opponent indirectly by oozing sympathy for the “victim.” Robert’s calculated performance may be convincing in front of the bathroom mirror, but not everyone in the audience is taken in by his thespian exploits. “But even then, if you are talking with another Christian brother or sister.” This involves a presumption about Reppert’s Christian identity. Given the number of heterodox positions he deploys to attack Calvinism, I wouldn’t presume anything one way or the other on that score. And I also don’t regard one’s Christian profession as a flack-jacket to deflect moral or intellectual scrutiny. “You don't attack them as not pursuing the truth because they think differently than you do.” What are some of the strategies that Reppert uses to attack Calvinism? We can never be sure what Scripture teaches. Even if we were sure, Scripture may be wrong. Even if Calvinism is correct, God may be the Omnipotent Fiend. Maybe God doesn’t know the future. Sometimes deploys universalism against Calvinism. Sometimes he deploys open theism against Calvinism. In the past I’ve let a lot of things slide where Reppert’s concerned because he’s useful on other issues. But when he keeps pounding away at Calvinism, I can’t very well ignore him. And, in order to pound away at Calvinism, he must pound away at other evangelical doctrines. Notice how quickly this discussion moved from a debate over reprobation to a debate over hell itself. So Reppert has now worked himself into the position where he’s defending the Christian faith on some fronts while attacking the Christian faith on other fronts. And it tells you something about Robert that he rushes in to defend a man who’s taken a chainsaw to core planks of the Christian faith. Reppert has a do-it-yourself theology. He only believes what he can intuit. Throw everything else to the sharks to lighten the load. “Since when is an argument personal enough to designate it as a **simpleton**.” Because it’s Reppert who originally cast the issue in “simple” terms. Remember what he said: “Go ahead and believe it if you want to, well, to avoid begging the question, if God predestines you to do so, or because you think that Bible teaches it. Just don't tell me that God is not the cause of sin. On a counterfactual analysis of causation, God's decrees cause sins. It's that simple.” Notice how Robert drops the context of my remark. That would require a modicum of honesty on Robert’s part. Of course, it’s not that simple. Paul Helm, for one, has explained in some detail why it’s not that simple. When Reppert tries to frame the Reformed position in such simplistic terms, he’s operating at the level of a simpleton. The fact that Reppert is not a simpleton makes his performance all the more inexcusable. “And it is completely unacceptable and according to biblical standards, sinful speech. People who profess to be Christians, to be following Jesus as his disciples, need to be obeying His Word.” I’m waiting to see Robert follow his own advice. “And the scripture is very clear on how we are to interact with other believers and unbelievers. I can cite the verses for you, and have done so with the Triablogers in the past, to no avail. They just ignore the scripture, continue to justify themselves and attack others with their verbal poison.” This is yet another damnable lie. Robert likes to quote Scripture out of context. He uses the Bible the way a Jehovah’s Witness uses the Bible. We’ve corrected his misuse of Scripture. How does he respond? By merely repeating himself. At this rate, Robert will need an asbestos wetsuit to insulate himself from the lake of fire. “I believe it is a great testimony to Victor that he does attack arguments here from a Christian perspective.” Is universalism a Christian perspective? Is open theism a Christian perspective. What about Reppert’s dismissive view of penal substitution? Is that a Christian perspective? What about his refusal to believe that God ever ordered the execution of the Canaanites? Is that a Christian perspective. Is there anything in Scripture which isn’t negotiable for Reppert? "Though it is unfortunate that certain calvinists, hate the open theists with a passion." Robert is projecting. "And regarding being a Christian and being mistaken, we all make mistakes; some of us just refuse to ever admit it." Sounds very humble except that Robert doesn't apply that disclaimer to his beliefs about Calvinism. "And regarding character, some of my friends who are open theists, display greater character than most of the calvinists that I know." How many Calvinists does he know, personally? I'm sure some of the Judaizers were nice guys. I'm sure some of the Gnostics were nice guys. Not to mention many Hindus, Muslims, Mormons, Buddhists, or backslapping Baal-worshipers. Indeed, a false teacher must generally have winsome personality to win converts to his position. If you want to be a successful heretic, it helps to be warm and charming. "These same open theists affirm all of the essentials of the Christian faith including the trinity, the deity of Christ, salvation by faith alone, etc. etc." Meaning that divine omniscience is inessential to the Christian faith, as Robert selectively defines it. "In my old age, :-) I look at people’s character first, beliefs second, especially if they are professing Christians. And if they are not loving people, but seem to hate everybody who thinks differently than them, well . . ." The funny thing about this statement is Robert's blindness to his own intolerance. He only likes people who are like him. His own kind of people. He loves others who happen to meet with his approval. Who fall within certain parameters. Some of his friends are open theists. But he doesn't speak in very friendly terms about Calvinists, now does he? No, they are the enemy. Take no hostages. "Is that what the bible calls us to in our dealings with other believers?" I've never thought we should lower the bar when dealing with someone who claims to be a fellow believer. Moreover, Reppert has now made it clear that he's never submitted his heart, mind, and will to God. "Hays continues to engage in this kind of sinful speech with those with whom he disagrees (whether they be believers or unbelievers makes no difference) with no accountability or evidence of repentance whatsoever. His speech is sinful and embarrassing to the cause of Christ. And he fancies himself an apologist. The 'god' of calvinism is a gruesome and sadistic person, and he is not the God revealed in scripture. They say that we become like the God that we worship, Hays illustrates this quite well: he is just as nasty and ornery as the 'god' he wants to believe exists. Neither Hays nor his conception of God reflects the character of Christ who is the true God, the one who died for all including sinners who will never repent and come to believe." Suppose I'm ever bit as bad as he says, and then some. What interests me is Robert's unconsciously humanistic outlook. On the one hand, he thinks that every human being should be treated with utmost reverence—unless, of course, he's a Calvinist. That's beyond the pale. On the other hand, he doesn't hesitate to blaspheme God. Infinite reverence for man combined with infinite irreverence for God. Of course, he defends his attitude by claiming that the God of Calvinism isn't the true God. But his objections are essentially ethical and aprioristic. His presuppositions are ultimately indistinguishable from Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens. He has certain interpretive strategies for blunting the passages of Scripture he can't stand. But the underlying animosity is the same. Take away his rose-tinted filters and Robert would view the God of Scripture in the same hostile light as Hitchens or Dawkins or Ehrman or Spong.
A Family PrayerPosted by Challies Dot Com - May 11, 2008 on 4:30 pm | In Evangelical Perspective, Think Christian | No CommentsI went looking this morning for a prayer for Mother's Day. I guess the Puritans didn't celebrate Mother's Day (wasn't Hallmark around back then?) but I did find this prayer for the family in The Valley of Vision. It is called simply "Family." O SOVEREIGN LORD, ![]()
Thou Shalt Not…Not JudgePosted by Dallas Carter - May 11, 2008 on 2:50 pm | In Dallas Carter | No Comments Matt 7:1 is one of the most misinterpreted passages in the Bible. It is often used by worldly people as a cover-up for evil. A closer study of this passage will reveal that not only is it wrong to use this text as a defense of moral relativism but that it is impossible NOT to [...]
One Reason We Celebrate Mothers DayPosted by Adrian - May 11, 2008 on 1:11 pm | In Biblical Counseling, counseling | No Comments
Celebrating Down syndrome - a Mother’s Day photo albumPosted by ProLifeBlogs - May 11, 2008 on 11:11 am | In Pro Life | No Comments Last year I unveiled a very special Mother's Day photo album, which has continued to grow this year - now with 95 mother/child portraits: You can see the photos and read the moms comments at Our Little Extras - A Mother's Day Down Syndrome Celebration. Or watch the slideshow: Please send me yours if you'd like to be included! The more, the merrier!
How a Grandmother KnitsPosted by Desiring God Blog - May 11, 2008 on 10:02 am | In DesiringGodBlog | No Comments(Author: John Piper)
For Noël on Mother's Day
She sits, the needles in her hands
Frankfurt SchmrankfurtPosted by Paul Manata - May 11, 2008 on 9:32 am | In ReformedTheology | No Comments In the comments section of Steve's post Victor Reppert asks if his "refutation" of Frankfurt Style Counterexamples, FSCs, was really as easy to refute as he thinks:Victor Reppert said:Victor, i) Let me give you four definitions of PAP from prominent libertarians who are *specialists* in this field (quotes taken from Moral Responsibility and Alternative Possibility: Essays on the Importance of Alternative Possibilities, eds. Widerker & Mckenna, Ashgate, 2006): "PAP: An agent is morally responsible for performing a given action A only if he could have avoided performing it" (Widerker, p.53). "PAP: An agent S is morally responsible for its being the case that p only if S could have made it not the case that p." (Ginet, 75). "Frankfirt-style cases (FSCs) were introduced to undermine 'the principle of alternative possiblities' or PAP. They were designed to show that a person could be morally responsible even though the person had no alternative possibilities (APs) or could not have done otherwise." (Kane, p. 91, see fn. 4 for an elaboration. Kane agrees that in *particular* cases FSCs show that an agent was morally responsible even though he could not have done otherwise just in case he had some libertarian free choices in his past that shaped his character.) "PAP3: A person is (libertarian) free in what he has done (= A) only if there is something he did (= B) which is such that (i) he could have done otherwise than B and (ii) it is (at least in part) in virtue of his doing B that he is (libertarian) free in doing A" (Hunt, p.167). ii) So, we must ask why you go against the experts on your own side? iii) We should note that there are libertarians who think Frankfurt has made his point. Some would be: a) W.L. Craig b) Dave Hunt (the philosopher) c) Robert Kane (for particular cases) iv) Did you even read my links? Your post at DI implies they left with the above questions unanswered. But Allen concluded in one I gave you: "Thus Frankfurt cases can be constructed involving mental acts such as deciding" (Alan, Re-examining Frankfurt-Cases, pp. 9-13). v) Apropos (iv), say an omnipotent fiend wants you to kill your wife. He knows you have chosen to do so. He lets you proceed, but just in case you have a change in heart, he makes sure that he will block any choice to do otherwise. It just so happens that you never change your mind. You're resolved. You couldn't have chosen otherwise, though. You hack your wife. Are you not responsible? vi) The control needed for moral responsibility as defined by libertarianism hasn't been able to answer the luck objection. So it would appear that the presuppositions inherent in libertarian definitions of PAP undercut moral responsibility. So, your "choice" constraint just might actually undermine responsibility (assuming you're using an agent-causation model). vii) Since God is essentially holy, perfectly good, he cannot choose (or do) evil. So on your score you just removed God as a proper subject of ascriptions of praise. Can't praise a "robot" for doing what its nature determines it will do.
Are Mormons really Christians? Are Christians really Christians?Posted by Neil - May 11, 2008 on 9:05 am | In Eternity Matters | No Comments A
Happy Mother’s Day!Posted by ProLifeBlogs - May 11, 2008 on 8:57 am | In Pro Life | No Comments The Hand That Rocks The Cradle Is the Hand That Rules the World Blessings on the hand of women! Angels guard its strength and grace, In the palace, cottage, hovel, Oh, no matter where the place; Would that never storms assailed it, Rainbows ever gently curled; For the hand that rocks the cradle Is the hand that rules the world. Infancy's the tender fountain, Power may with beauty flow, Mother's first to guide the streamlets, From them souls unresting grow-- Grow on for the good or evil, Sunshine streamed or evil hurled; For the hand that rocks the cradle Is the hand that rules the world. Woman, how divine your mission Here upon our natal sod! Keep, oh, keep the young heart open Always to the breath of God! All true trophies of the ages Are from mother-love impearled; For the hand that rocks the cradle Is the hand
On the Evils of Undue TolerancePosted by Phil Johnson - May 11, 2008 on 8:49 am | In Christian Mind, Evangelical Perspective | No Comments Your weekly dose of Spurgeonposted by Phil Johnson The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from The Spurgeon Archive. The following excerpt is from "Good Cause for Great Zeal," a sermon preached at the Metropolitan Tabernacle, first published in 1873. ![]() ourtesies are thrown away upon antagonists whose cause is treason. Nor are we the men who should practice reserve; for if we are maintained from the king's palace, we are cravens if we do not stand up for our king.There have been attacks made in modern times upon the doctrine of substitution. If the doctrine of substitution be not true, I am a lost man; therefore, tooth and nail, will I fight for it. No other hope beneath the skies have I, except in the expiatory substitution of the Lord Jesus Christ. If he did not suffer in my stead, the just for the unjust, then flames of hell must be my portion. Therefore I can never give up that truth, for it is giving up my own salvation. But it has been revealed, and I cling to it with the most implicit credit. Do you tell me that "modern thought" assails it? How, and with what weapons, I ask? Is it with argument, with proof, or with any counter-suggestion? Oh, no, it is merely met with vague questionings, idle quibbles, and impertinent sneersa style of answer that affects much, though it affirms nothing. I pray you, brethren, wherever you are, defend this fundamental doctrine of our most holy faiththat the Lord Jesus Christ has laid down his life to make atonement for the sins of his people. Or should we be confronted with any other form of false doctrine, or should we be haunted with any kind of scepticism(scepticism! an anomalous thing, which is without form and void)are we to stand with mealy mouths, and say, "Yes, brethren, you are of that opinion, and I am of the other." Nay, but opinion is light as a bubble, when judgment is pronounced by the supreme court from which there is no appeal. What, think ye? Is there no fact? Is there no truth? Is the word of God "yea" and "nay"? Has it come to this, that it is to be shuffled like a pack of cards, or shaped like a nose of wax, as every man may please? Oh, no! By the ever-living God there is truth somewhere, and that truth we will find out if we can; and, having found it, we will hold it fast. Let us, in the day of battle, use our standard; and if our arm be smitten off, we hope the standard will not fall, but that others will be found to hold it up as there were in the brave days of yorewhen our fathers burned at the stake for these things, or went to the galleys, or perished amidst the Alps, sooner than the truth of God's own word should be without witnesses among the sons of man!Hear none of these things in your hearts with tolerance; but hold fast to the things which ye have been taught, and hold them fast in faith and love to Christ Jesus. ![]() Thanks to Pyro-reader Janine for the Spurgeon vs. McLaren graphic.
Mother’s Day MessagesPosted by Desiring God Blog - May 11, 2008 on 8:05 am | In DesiringGodBlog | No Comments(Author: Abraham Piper) Read John Piper's tribute to his mother or other sermons from past Mother's Days.
Arminian Denies God has Libertarian Free Will(?)Posted by Paul Manata - May 11, 2008 on 2:31 am | In ReformedTheology | No Comments Dan at Arminian Chronicles gives some necessary and sufficient conditions for ascribing "libertarian free will" to an agent. Rather than write an entire post interacting with his post, I'm just going to draw attention to two statement. Dan said,"[Libertarian Free Will is not] The ability to create ex nihilo." But God's free will has this ability. "[Libertarian free will is] Being able to choose either option implies both options are possible, which implies neither option is necessary."But choosing evil, for God, is impossible. It is necessary that he choose good because he is necessarily good. Choosing evil is not a possible option, for God. If God doesn't have LFW, and man is made in his image, why think man has LFW?
The Art of Buying Politicians, The Facts about Institutional Campaign FundingPosted by JB Williams - May 11, 2008 on 2:00 am | In Conservative Views | No Comments The 2008 Presidential election promises to make history no matter who wins. It will cost more than $1 Billion dollars to fill a $400,000 a year job and not one of the three remaining candidates is qualified for that job. Now that's a history making event worthy of comment!
US Indicts Top Int'l Arms Dealer for Conspiracy to Kill Americans, TerrorismPosted by Jim Kouri - May 11, 2008 on 2:00 am | In Conservative Views | No Comments A major international arms dealer -- Viktor Bout, a/k/a Boris, a/k/a Victor Anatoliyevich Bout, a/k/a Victor But, a/k/a Viktor Budd, a/k/a Viktor Butt, a/k/a Viktor Bulakin, a/k/a Vadim Markovich Aminov -- was indicted for, among other things, conspiring to sell millions of dollars worth of weapons to the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (the FARC). FARC is designated by the US State Department as a foreign terrorist organization based in Colombia.
Living on the Edge of Destruction: Israel’s 60th AnniversaryPosted by Alan Caruba - May 11, 2008 on 2:00 am | In Conservative Views | No Comments “Trusting in the Rock of Israel we now place our signatures in witness to this proclamation, sitting as the Provisional State Council, on the soil of the homeland, in the city of Tel-Aviv, this day, Friday afternoon, the 5th of Iyar, 5708, the 14th of May, 1948.”
SPJ Suggests 'Omitting Race' in Crime ReportingPosted by Warner Todd Huston - May 11, 2008 on 2:00 am | In Conservative Views | No Comments The Society of Professional Journalists has decided that it is best to leave a suspect's race out of crime reporting except for "extraordinary" reasons. Of course, to the SPJ, "good reporting" means race info in a story about crime isn't "useful to people in the community" even if the race of a suspect is part of a police report apparently. Despite their claim that they aren't toeing the PC line, their explanation is filled with just the sort of reasoning based on PC thinking -- one of which is that all whites are racists.
Who Cares?Posted by J. Grant Swank - May 11, 2008 on 2:00 am | In Conservative Views | No Comments Children squealed with delight. Senior citizens gingerly stepped over one slippery rock after another. Teens splashed about as if they owned the place. It was a hoot!
Iran Won't Like Free Nations' Offer re NuclearPosted by J. Grant Swank - May 11, 2008 on 2:00 am | In Conservative Views | No Comments The Muslim messiah who disappeared years ago will not like the six major powers’ offer to Iran to cease nuclear uppage.
Paul on hellPosted by Patrick Chan - May 11, 2008 on 12:23 am | In ReformedTheology | No Comments Douglas Moo on Paul on hell (PDF).
What Is the Most Crying Need of the Church in America Today?Posted by JT - May 10, 2008 on 9:14 pm | In Christian Mind, Evangelical Perspective | No Comments I noticed tonight on the Gospel Coalition website that a number of the council members answered that question. Here are some of the answers:D. A. Carson: Much depends on the context of the question. If the context is hunting for a universal need, such that the phrase “in America today” assumes that whatever the local phenomena we should focus on human needs that are found everywhere (including “in America today”), then we must return to fundamentals: the most urgent need is to know God as he has disclosed himself, by the means he has given to know him, and thus be reconciled to him, both for this life and for the life to come. That means a focus on Christ Jesus, on the full-orbed gospel of which he is the center. But if the context of the question focuses on “in America today,” such that there is an implicit comparison with other places (e.g. Rwanda, France) or times (e.g. America in the nineteenth century), then one thinks of the sweep of challenges particularly characteristic in America at the beginning of the twenty-first century: rising biblical illiteracy, relativism steeped in the more extreme forms of postmodernism, formulaic forms of “evangelical” belief characterized by neither delight in God nor obedience to him, the seductive power of the strange mix of secularization and assorted “spiritualities,” the perennial invitation to live in fear or be snookered by visions of imperial strength, the world awash in an astonishing diversity of entertainments to fill up all the moments when we are not being seduced by either power or sex, and much more of the same. And finally, if the question becomes distributive — “in America today” demanding that we think through the various sectors of American life — then there are peculiar challenges in different geographical parts of the country (e.g. north versus south, coasts versus Midwest, etc.), in different racial sectors of the country (not only traditional black/white divisions, but the newer alignments triggered by recent immigration patterns), in different social arrangements in the country (especially rural/urban), in different theological loci in the country (e.g. Arminians attracted to “open” theology, Reformed people attracted to theonomy or the new perspective, and cultural conservatives, in a pendulum swing, to the “emerging” movement). Faithful pastoral ministry demands that we think through all of these contexts simultaneously.John Piper: One could answer at different levels of ultimacy. I choose to assume the urgency of the two ultimate levels (heart-felt passion for Christ, and radical obedience to Christ), and move one level down: To the end of pure and passionate lives of Christ-exalting mercy and world evangelization, the greatest need of the church is to know and understand the full biblical witness of God’s love (including the grace that raises the spiritually dead, Ephesians 2:4–5; and justifies the ungodly by faith alone, Romans 4:4–5; 5:8–9), the full biblical witness of God’s wisdom (including the knowledge of all future events, Isaiah 41:23, 26; 42:8–9; 44:7–8, 26–28; 45:21; 46:10; 48:3), the full biblical witness of God’s power (including his rule over every bird that dies, Matthew 10:29, and every role of the dice, Proverb s 16:33, and every act of man, Jeremiah 10:23), and the full biblical witness of God’s justice (including his everlasting wrath upon the impenitent, 2 Thessalonians 1:9). “My people go into exile for lack of knowledge” (Isaiah 5:13); “The ox knows its owner, and the donkey its master’s crib, but Israel does not know, my people do not understand” (Isaiah 1:3); “A people without understanding shall come to ruin” (Hosea 4:14); “Let us know; let us press on to know the LORD” (Hosea 6:3). The assumption here is that American Christianity is plagued by truncated views of all God’s attributes. And a truncated view of God will give raise to truncated Christian living and truncated awakenings. Therefore the awakening and revival that I pray for will be not just for the fullness of the Spirit’s power, but for the fullness of the Spirit’s illumination of God in the word. C.J. Mahaney: The greatest need in the American church today is the recovery of the church’s central message, the gospel. Far too often in evangelical churches the gospel is simply assumed and, being so assumed, its voice is muffled, its entailments are ignored, and its power is drained. More significantly, when the gospel is assumed it is in grave danger of being displaced. The church is, therefore, in great need of a thoroughgoing return to gospel-centrality. The measure of such centrality will be the extent to which the gospel is functional, determining the nature of the church’s life, the substance of its teaching, the content of its worship and the core of its proclamation.Mike Bullmore: Not just a biblical/theological literacy but a functioning biblical/theological literacy, especially a functioning gospel. I believe a local church is healthy to the degree that: 1) its pastor-teachers are able—accurately, effectively and broadly—to bring the gospel to bear specifically into the real lives of the people; and 2) its people have a deep personal understanding of and a deep personal appreciation for the gospel so as to be able to live in the good of the gospel daily and thus call attention to the glory of God. “Let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.” One of the greatest challenges, yet one of the most important tasks, of pastoral ministry is to help people actually see the connections between the gospel and the thinking and behavior that make up their everyday lives. We know well the centrality of the gospel message but in order for it to have a functional centrality it must be clearly, carefully and consistently connected to the real issues—issues of thought and conduct—of people’s lives. This kind of ministry is most greatly needed.Mark Dever: For pastors to know and understand what a local church should and can be and for pastors to teach this to their congregations. Much of the blessings and benefits of good teaching in evangelical churches in America goes into the hearts of individuals and then perhaps into the lives of their family and friend but is then largely lost in the sands of American individualism. If the preaching of the gospel and expositional preaching are the glorious founts of life, the local church is to be the bowl, the container, in which that life is caught and held up for display to a thirsty world. That pastors should know and understand and teach this is the most crying need in evangelical churches in America today.Ligon Duncan: There are many ways this question could be legitimately approached and answered. Furthermore, the condition of the Christian church in various parts of our nation and world would dictate different responses corresponding to the local situation. However, for this local church pastor, the biggest need is for a biblical doctrine of the church to be lived out in the local churches, and for a theological center to be restored in evangelicalism, under the steadying influence of Reformed pastor-theologians with a high doctrine of Scripture.Tim Keller: I’m throwing in with Jim Boice on this one (cf. his Two Cities: Two Loves.)
You Are Not a Tomb: Words to a Grieving MomPosted by KP - May 10, 2008 on 7:01 pm | In Christian Mind | No Comments
Piper On C. S. Lewis - How Not To Be Bored By PeoplePosted by Adrian - May 10, 2008 on 1:24 pm | In Biblical Counseling, counseling | No Comments
Book Review: Justification and Regeneration, by Charles LeiterPosted by Reformation Theology - May 10, 2008 on 12:51 pm | In ReformedTheology | No CommentsSynopsis: Dealing with the two major aspects of man's sin problem before God – objective guilt and moral corruption – and the two major aspects of the redemptive work of Christ that overcome these problems, Justification and Regeneration, by Charles Leiter, is a book that explains in clear, simple, and eminently biblical terms the very heart of the gospel. Its value can scarcely be overestimated, in a day when the true gospel has been all but forgotten in much of Evangelicalism, and many believers struggle to live a truly Christian life in spite of widespread confusion and ignorance as to what constitutes the foundation of Christianity. To anyone who may be discouraged by a seeming lack of progress and real substance in his walk as a believer, in spite of a ready familiarity with all the emphases and strategems of American Evangelicalism, I enthusiastically say, “Read this book!”. It may be the most important book you read this year or for many years.
Prewrath Story and SermonBy a Fundamentalist PastorPosted by Prewrath Rapture Dot Com - May 10, 2008 on 12:00 pm | In PreWrathRapture | No CommentsFundamentalist Pastor Vincent Sawyer gives an excellent expositional and pastoral sermon on the Prewrath view, as well as giving his Berean story of testing and thus leaving his Pretribulational Tradition. You can listen to his sermon here (He does an amazing job unpacking the Prewrath position in sixty minutes). For Pastor Sawyer, studying the nature of the Day of the Lord beginning with the key text Joel 2:31 was the start of his epiphany to God's truth on this matter. (For those interested, there are four articles that I have written that are relevant to the topics of his sermon here, here, here, here.)
New Idea in Mortuary Science: Dissolving Bodies With LyePosted by editor@covenantnews.com - May 10, 2008 on 11:38 am | In Pro Life | No Comments By Norma Love / The Associated Press CONCORD, N.H. -- A new option is generating interest - dissolving bodies in lye and flushing the brownish, syrupy residue down the drain. The process is called alkaline hydrolysis and was developed in...
Laura Ingraham adopts a daughter from GuatemalaPosted by ProLifeBlogs - May 10, 2008 on 10:15 am | In Pro Life | No Comments Laura Ingraham is a radio talk host worth listening to with her sharp insights into the state of politics, culture and faith. She is an outspoken Roman Catholic and defender of the pro-life movement. Also a survivor of breast cancer. After years of waiting for the Guatemala adoption process - which her listeners did not know of - she is now a mother. Click here to hear Laura's announcement of her adoption!
California effort to stop Planned Parenthood/abortion fundingPosted by ProLifeBlogs - May 10, 2008 on 10:10 am | In Pro Life | No Comments California citizens, reeling under their state government's rapid financial slide, are looking at Planned Parenthood's bloated budget and recently documented abuse of our federal and state grants abortion industry handouts and saying Enough is Enough. As a 30-7ear resident of California (I returned to Virginia in 2002), I can verify the truth of the saying "As goes California so goes the nation." While this has always meant a destructive slide, some citizens of California are determined that this budget crisis may be perfect timing for finally overthrowing Planned Parenthood's grip on state finances. Following is the beginning of an email I received last week from the Coalition to Eliminate Abortion Funding. During this state budget crisis, when our family healthcare services and children's school programs are experiencing drastic spending cuts, California taxpayers request the Elimination of Abortion Funding, especially from Planned Parenthood, from our state budget. The abortion industry does
Snowflake adoption - founders/first family interviewPosted by ProLifeBlogs - May 10, 2008 on 10:09 am | In Pro Life | No Comments First Snowflake Family by Devon Williams, associate editor 'God's plan was well in place for these embryos, and that was a plan of adoption instead of destruction.' After years of infertility and being diagnosed with premature ovarian failure, Marlene Strege of California began to explore adoption. Her doctor recommended embryo adoption, and she and her husband, John, posed the idea to longtime friend Ron Stoddart, executive director of Nightlight Christian Adoptions. Stoddart investigated the idea and eventually created the Snowflakes Embryo Adoption program. After prayer and research, the Streges adopted a frozen embryo, and on Dec. 31, 1998, they became the proud parents of the world's first snowflake baby, Hannah. Ten years after her first Mother's Day, Marlene Strege spoke with CitizenLink about the adoption of their little snowflake. Read interview here. Click banner below for more information on Snowflakes Adoption.
Duggar Family expecting #18Posted by ProLifeBlogs - May 10, 2008 on 10:08 am | In Pro Life | No Comments Michelle and Jim Duggar have just announced their 18th - due on New Year's Day. You can learn more about the Duggar family - and even enter a contest to name their next baby - with 17 beginning with J, they're running out of ideas - here. Michelle has been pregnant 135 months of her life.
Harvard prof says children bring unhappinessPosted by ProLifeBlogs - May 10, 2008 on 10:07 am | In Pro Life | No Comments From yesterday's UK Telegraph - a Harvard professor declares that children ruin our chances at happiness: Marriage without children the key to bliss By Kate Devlin, Medical Correspondent May 9, 2008 Married life is the key to happiness, but having children can ruin it all, an international conference has been told. Couples only recover their former blissful existence once their offspring have left the nest, according to an expert on what creates joy. Daniel Gilbert, professor of psychology at Harvard University, said studies across America and Europe had shown that while feelings of happiness spike during the early years of marriage, they fall heavily after having children. He told a Happiness and its Causes conference in Sydney that parents' desire to get a return on the time and money they have invested in their children is part of the reason they persuade themselves that their offspring are enhancing their lives.
Call for photos: Down syndrome on Times SquarePosted by ProLifeBlogs - May 10, 2008 on 10:05 am | In Pro Life | No Comments Dear Friend: Celebrate the Buddy Walk's 14th anniversary by entering the Times Square Video Contest. The video, which showcases individuals with Down syndrome from all over the world, will air on the Panasonic News Corporation Astrovision screen in Times Square on September 28 at 10:30 a.m. The New York City Buddy Walk™ will immediately follow the video at the Great Hill in Central Park. Each year, NDSS receives thousands of photo submissions for the Times Square Video Contest. Because the Buddy Walk™ promotes acceptance and inclusion of individuals with Down syndrome, the winning photographs feature children, teens and adults with Down syndrome working, playing and learning with friends and family. Please limit photos to no more than three per individual with Down syndrome. If more than three pictures are received, only the first three will be considered. For more information, or to submit a photo, please click here. The
Damned if you do, and damned if you don’tPosted by steve - May 10, 2008 on 9:51 am | In ReformedTheology | No Comments Why do many people feel that everlasting punishment is unjust?1.One factor may be social conditioning. In modern penology, there’s a correlation between crime and time. The convict is sentenced to serve a certain amount of time behind bars. He receives a shorter sentence for a lesser offense, or a longer sentence for a graver offense. But this is a modern development. And it has nothing to do with the retributive theory of punishment. Rather, it’s predicated on the remedial theory of punishment. Rehabilitating the offender by sending him to a “penitentiary” or “reformatory” or “corrections facility.” On the face of it, there’s no intrinsic correlation between time and crime. The original idea was to give the offender enough time to think over his crimes, experience remorse, and mend his ways. But the assignment of different intervals of incarceration for different types of crime is quite artificial. 2.Apropos (1), modern penology also metes out a harsher or more lenient sentence depending on whether the convict is remorseful. Why do we draw that distinction? Did, say, the Code of Hammurabi care about whether an offender was remorseful or not? Or is this another modern development? I suspect it reflects a residual Christian outlook. In Christian theology, we do distinguish between penitent and impenitent sinners. However, contrition is not, of itself, a mitigating factor. In Christian theology, a sinner is forgiven, not merely because he is contrite, but because he is redeemed. It assumes the principle of penal substitution, which is a form of (vicarious) retributive punishment. I suspect that both (1) & (2) reflect a secularized theory of redemption. They were influenced by Christian theology, but have lost sight of its necessary underpinnings. 3.I think opponents of hell also operate with the unquestioned assumption that the duration of hell is, of itself, punitive. That part of what makes a punishment punitive is the duration of the punishment. It’s possible that this is true. If, for example, you were to punish someone by torturing him, then it’s worse to be in agony for a longer period of time. BTW, I’m not saying that torture is an appropriate form of punishment. I’m just using this to illustrate the intuition that the duration of punishment is, itself, a punitive exercise. 4.But we might also question this assumption. After all, any punishment is going to take place in time. So the temporal aspect may just be a necessary, but incidental, mode of punishment. On the face of it, there’s no intrinsic relationship between time and peccancy. Mere passage of time doesn’t make you any less culpable. It may be that hell is everlasting precisely because peccancy is a timeless property. Once you do something wrong, that will always be true. It will not be any less true 10 years from now, or a 100, or a 1000. Since the lapse of time is irrelevant to your guilt, it’s irrelevant to your just deserts. You never cease to be guilty. In Christian theology, what absolves a sinner of guilt is not the passage of time, but atonement. And a sinner cannot atone for his sin. So unless a sinner is redeemed, he remains in his state of sin. 5.Human beings trivialize wrongdoing because we couldn’t survive unless we cut each other some slack. So it’s easy to forget that once wrong, always wrong. If I ever did something wrong, that never goes away. Of course, some people are wracked with guilt. It crushes them. But like a field medic who becomes inured to the sight of pain and suffering, many of us have become inured to our own wrongdoing. It’s a defense mechanism. That’s the only way an unbeliever can get through the day. This makes it difficult for a sinner to appreciate the justice of hell. 6.Finally, the opponent of hell may have it backwards. Everlasting punishment might actually be less than the damned deserve. For even though the punishment is unending, it’s not a punishment which the damned experience all at once. The perception of time is incremental. I can only suffer so much at one time because I can only process so much at one time. So my punishment is meted out small doses. Time is a limit. Time is linear. And the experience of time is successive. Hence, temporal punishment is always limited, even if it never comes to an end. For the intensity of the punishment is spread out over time. Diluted by time.
April Book Giveaway WinnersPosted by Challies Dot Com - May 10, 2008 on 8:45 am | In Evangelical Perspective, Think Christian | No CommentsA week ago I announced a giveaway of some great books. Today I want to wrap that up and announce the winners. This month’s sponsor was Reformation Heritage Books. RHB publishes and distributes Puritan and Reformed books. Soli Deo Gloria Publications, which you know as a publisher that has done more than just about any other organization to bring Puritan writings back into print is now under the direction of Reformation Heritage. The Prizes
3rd prize: the Profiles in Reformed Spirituality series
2nd prize: Soli Deo Gloria selections
1st prize: new and bestselling RHB titles
The WinnersThe winners are:
The winners need only send me an email and the prizes will be on the way. Stay tuned later this month for another great giveaway. Advertisement:![]()
Do People Bore You?Posted by Desiring God Blog - May 10, 2008 on 7:25 am | In DesiringGodBlog | No Comments(Author: John Piper) I'm working on a book on the new birth. The final chapter is designed to give encouragements for personal evangelism. I just added a quote by C. S. Lewis that I love. Here's the whole section to help you move toward people: Find People InterestingBe encouraged that simply finding people interesting and caring about them is a beautiful pathway into their heart. Evangelism gets a bad reputation when we are not really interested in people and don't seem to care about them. People really are interesting. The person you are talking to is an amazing creation of God with a thousand interesting experiences. Remember the words of C. S. Lewis:
Yet, most of us don't think this way. The gods bore us and we return to our video games. Very few people are interested in others. If you really find their story interesting, and care about them, they may open up to you and want to hear your story—Christ's story.
Bypassing False SeparationPosted by Collin Brendemuehl - May 10, 2008 on 5:31 am | In Evangelical Perspective | No Comments
Christian Sentenced for Carrying a Bible in AlgeriaPosted by John - May 9, 2008 on 9:57 pm | In Christian Persecution | No CommentsCompass Direct News reports that
Read the full story at Compass Direct News.
Home churchesPosted by Neil - May 9, 2008 on 8:48 pm | In Eternity Matters | No Comments A
Frankfurt-Examples and Moral ResponsibilityPosted by Paul Manata - May 9, 2008 on 7:57 pm | In ReformedTheology | No Comments When Reppert gives links for arguments I give links for counter-arguments.Robert Allen discusses criticisms of Frankfurt counter-examples: "Below, I respond to four recent attempts to show that "Frankfurt cases," as examples structurally identical to Frankfurt’s have come to be known, fail of their purpose. In the first, I expose a misconception of what it is to be disadvantaged. My challenge to the second stems from its reliance upon the notion of "moral luck." The third, while conceding that Frankfurt cases do falsify PAP in regards to "complex" actions like casting a ballot, argues that they can not be used to do the same vis-a`-vis "simple" mental acts such as taking a decision. By appealing to the connection between assessments of character and judgments of moral responsibility, I intend to show that this dichotomy does not hold. I close with a discussion of a libertarian alternative to PAP." Libertarian Robert Kane agrees that Frankfurt cases show that one can be morally responsible for a particular action even though he couldn't have done otherwise just as long as he was libertarian free in forming is character in the past. Robert Allen responds: "The consensus among free will theorists is that an agent can will freely to * without presently being able to form another volition. Frankfurt cases have helped to secure this agreement. It is still an open question, however, whether someone could be willing freely to * if there was nothing that she could have done to keep from forming that volition, her character having been determined." John Martin Fischer on Frankfurt-Examples and Moral Responsibility: Fischer's a leading expert in this field.
Christian mourningPosted by steve - May 9, 2008 on 7:10 pm | In ReformedTheology | No Comments “I was also intrigued by Georges Rey's paper ‘Meta-atheism: Religious Avowal as Self-Deception.’ Many of us skeptics have had occasion to wonder if some of the religious people we encounter really believe in what they insist they do. We get further suspicious when some of their behavior seems to fit badly with their beliefs: why, for example, all the devastation and mourning if a loved one really has gone on to a wonderful afterlife?”http://secularoutpost.blogspot.com/2008/05/philosophers-without-gods.html The social and theological naïveté of this objection is downright comical. 1.To begin with, orthodox Christians don’t assume that every loved who dies is heavenbound. Not every loved one is a Christian when he dies. So the expectation is that we will not be reunited with all our loved ones in the hereafter. We may, of course, be pleasantly surprised by what we find. But that’s not something we can count on. There’s no presumption that if I’m a Christian, then all my loved ones have a ticket to heaven. It reflects a self-reinforcing ignorance on the part of Edis and Rey that they operate with such a faulty knowledge of the faith they’re so quick to criticize. 2. Then there’s the absurd equation between belief and feeling. I wonder if it’s coincidental that both men are scientists by training. Is that why they’re so out of touch with ordinary human psychology? We have no direct control over how we feel. Suppose two friends love the same woman. That is going to put a strain on the friendship. Suppose she chooses to marry Jim instead of John. Logically, John should be happy for Jim. After all, Jim is John’s best friend. He should be glad that Jim got to marry the love of his life. It should make John happy to see his best friend so happy. That’s all very gallant, very noble. Be a good sport. May the best man win! And it’s also utterly and totally unrealistic. John is going to resent the fact that Jim married the woman John wanted to marry. He will be envious. Jealous. Maybe bitter. John knows that it’s wrong for him to feel this way. Jim didn’t cheat him out of this woman. She chose Jim over John. What was Jim supposed to do? Refuse her? Yet John can’t help feeling that his best friend betrayed him. Stole her away from him. He knows that isn’t true. But his head can’t silence his heart. 3. Suppose I do expect to be reunited with my loved ones in heaven? Is it irrational for me to grieve? Take a poor family in Ireland. Their only son decides to emigrate to America to make a better life for himself and his parents. When he’s made enough money, he’ll send for them. Does this mean that the parents shouldn’t grieve when they wave good-bye as they watch his ship leave port? After all, he’s going to a better place. The land of opportunity. After all, they hope to see him again. But of course they’ll mourn the separation. And while they expect to be reunited with their son in the new world, they don’t know when that will be—which makes the separation all the more painful to endure.
Christianity & LibertarianismPosted by Paul Manata - May 9, 2008 on 6:14 pm | In ReformedTheology | No Comments I propose three brief arguments against the conjunction of some fairly basic, historic, and (mainly) uncontroversial Christian doctrines with libertarian free will. Some of the cash value of these arguments can be applied to the current debate both Hays and I have been engaged in with Victor Reppert. Given his statements on freedom and moral responsibility, some highly problematic propositions follow. Propositions Reppert wouldn’t, apparently, want to jettison.I’ll quote some claims Reppert has advanced or agreed with in the context of our debate. “By libertarian freedom is meant freedom such that the agent who makes a choice is really able, under exactly the same circumstances, to chose something different from the thing that is in fact chosen [...,] this means that there is nothing whatever that predetermines which choice will be made, until the creature is actually placed in the situation and makes that decision” (Hasker, Debates in Philosophy of Religion, ibid, 219, emphasis original).And: “Determinism: For every event which happens, there are previous events and circumstances which are its sufficient conditions or causes, so that, given those previous events and circumstances, it is impossible that the event should not occur” (Reppert quoting Hasker).And: “if determinism is true everyone's actions are the inevitable result of causes outside the agent's control, and that if this is so, it is unjust to treat agents as if they were responsible for those actions in the final analysis” (Reppert).And: “In the cases given [cases whether someone is morally responsible], isn't it the case that you could have chosen otherwise” (Reppert)I also assume that because of his endorsement of Hasker’s definition of “determinism” Reppert would endorse Plantinga’s definition of “significant freedom.” Significant freedom involves the agent being free to perform or refrain from an action because no antecedent conditions and/or causal laws determine what the agent will do.” I will also assume that Reppert’s claims about moral responsibility do not just attach to blameworthy actions but praiseworthy actions as well. Just like someone cannot be blamed for doing what they were determined to do, they could not be praised, either. So, “moral responsibility” should be read in this wide sense. Pretty clearly, then, Reppert holds to libertarian freedom such that “nothing whatever that predetermines which choice will be made,” and this kind of freedom is required “to treat agents as if they were responsible for those actions,” because to be held morally responsible for your actions it is “the case that you could have chosen otherwise.” With these reasonable assumptions in mind, I’ll now offer three critiques. I. God’s Freedom Almost all Christians have agreed that God is perfectly good. When the question is posed to Christians as to if God could command that, say, rape is good, the response is that he could not because that would be contrary to his nature. When asked if God could sin, the answer is that he could not because he is necessarily good. The Bible even indicates that it is “impossible” for God to lie (Heb. 618). The Bible tells us that God is love (I John 4:8, 16). Universalists have stressed this so much (even minimizing other attributes) that God cannot not love anyone. Christians have agreed with premises that have been used to make up an Ontological Argument (even if they disagree with the argument as a whole). For example, many Christians agree that: [1] A being has maximal greatness in a given world only if it has maximal excellence in every world. [2] A being has maximal excellence in a given world only if it has omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfections in that world. (Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil, p. 108). Victor has objected to the Calvinist’s God on “moral grounds.” Such that a being who did the things we say God did (and does), could not be good. And, since God is necessarily good, he could not do those things. If he did, he would not be God but he would be an “Omnipotent Fiend.” Reppert has written, “God, by definition, is a being who is omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good. A being who predestines people for everlasting punishment doesn't meet the third requirement, and therefore isn't God.”Pretty clearly, a long standing and accepted view of traditional theism is that “it is impossible for God, in virtue of his nature, to sin. But this means that his nature determines that in moral matters he has only one option; he must always choose the good” (Feinberg, No One Like Him, p.730). The problem that arises should be self-evident by now. How does God bear moral responsibility? That is, how is he a subject of ascribing blame or praise? Indeed, since God cannot do otherwise that good in moral matters, then he cannot be morally responsible in the broad sense where praise can be given to him for his actions. Furthermore, since his nature determines his actions, then he does not have libertarian freedom (at the very least when it comes to matters of morality). If we knew what the good choice was in any given situation, we could, without fail, predict what God was going to do, every time. Would Victor call a human who did what he could not but help to do, good? Can we predict, without fail, the choices of an agent who had libertarian freedom? If something determined that I helped old ladies cross the street, Victor would not call me good. Would not see me as a subject worthy of praise (or blame if I did something wrong). Thus Victor’s infatuation with libertarian freedom has severe implications for holding to a God who is essentially good, who’s nature makes it impossible for him to sin or be the actor who commits evil. But all of this is absurd. Christians, like Victor, all agree that God is worthy of praise. That we can praise his good acts. Call him morally good. That when he doesn’t lie he’s not like a robot, but a free agent. That when he sends his son to die for people, he’s not acting as a robot, or a puppet. He is acting good, and can be praised for that action. This implies that a human can be held morally responsible, a subject of ascriptions of praise or blame, even if he could not do otherwise. If not, why the ad hoc move when it comes to God? Victor has claimed that if a belief interfered with his strong belief that God is good, or that God deserves praise from the heavenly choir, he would drop that belief. He would be ready to drop the belief in the inerrancy of Scripture, even. Therefore, he should, to be internally consistent, drop his belief in the necessity of libertarian freedom for free will or for moral responsibility. II. Jesus’ Morally Exemplarily Life This argument is fairly simple. Much of the leg work was done above. It is the predominate view that Jesus was impeccable. This means that Jesus was unable to sin. Jesus deserves all praise and honor (Rev. 5:13). He is to be commended for withstanding Satan’s temptation (Matt. 4:1-11; Heb, 2:18, 4:15). Jesus was truly human. As human as you or I (but without the taint of, or ability to, sin). Clearly, then, given the above constraints on morally responsibility and freedom, Jesus was not a morally responsible agent (or free, at least with respect to moral actions). He is not a fitting subject for praise or blame. But this is absurd. So if Jesus, a true human, can be held morally responsible for his actions (his perfect righteousness, law-keeping, role as the second Adam), even though he couldn’t do otherwise, then so can we. Thus there is not a problem of accepting moral responsibility and denying PAP within the Christian worldview. Indeed, it looks as if that constraint may be false given the truth of some basic and fairly uncontroversial historic Christian teaching. III. The Perfection of the Saints in Heaven It is standard fair to say that Christians will be unable to sin in heaven. That there is not a possibility of a second fall, as it were. We will never choose evil. This is certain. Out of two options, a good one A and an evil one B, choosing B will be impossible. There is no alternative possibility. No chance a sinful choice can be instantiated in the new heavens and earth. Given the above, it is fairly obvious what follows. Since we are morally responsible subjects in heaven, and we may properly be commended for our righteous behavior, and we will not be able to sin, and we will be free, Reppert’s necessary and sufficient conditions for what counts as freedom and moral responsibility do not fit within the Christian worldview.
Next Page » |