Archive for August, 2009
Determinism and Author of Sin
Here is a helpful post by Dominic Bnonn Tennant where he delves into the argument between Arminians and Calvinists about determinism. One critique levied against Calvinism and argument employed by Arminians is that Calvinism makes God the author of evil. Tennant examines this claim and show that in truth Calvinists are just open and consistent about this claim where as Arminians deny it but really are inconsistently as deterministic as Calvinists. It really brings me back to one simple truth: the only consistent Arminian is an open-theist. And as one apologist would say, “An inconsistent argument is the sign of a failed argument.”
Related posts:
No comments
James 1:1-15
My Translation
1 From James, a slave of God and the Lord Jesus Christ, to the Twelve Tribes in the Diaspora: Greetings. 2 My brothers and sisters, consider it pure joy when you fall into various kinds of temptations, 3 knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience. 4 And let patience have its full effect in order that you will be perfect and complete, lacking nothing. 5 And if any of you are lacking in wisdom, ask God who gives generously to everyone and does not reprimand, it will be given to him. 6 And he must ask with faith, not doubting, because the one who doubts is like a wave on the sea being blown and tossed about by the wind. 7 For that person must not think that he will receive anything from the Lord. 8 The man is double-minded, unstable in all his ways. 9 Let the humble brother boast in his exulted position. 10 And let the rich boast in his low estate because he will pass away like a flower in the meadow. 11 For the sun rises with the scorching heat and burns the meadow. The flower wilts and its beauty if gone forever. So also the rich man in his many pursuits will fade away. 12 Blessed is the man who endures temptation because having been approved he will receive the crown of life, which God promised to those who love him. 13 When tempted, don’t say, “I am tempted by God.” For God is not tempted by evil and he tempts no one. 14 But everyone is tempted by his own desires when they draw him out and entice him. 15. After desire conceives it gives birth to sin, and when sin has been accomplished it produces death. Read more
Related posts:
No comments
An Illustration
Dr. Mohler on Wednesday compared the SBC to PC in the “I’m a Mac, I’m a PC” commercials by Mac. He said that as Macs use a completely different logic than PC so does the new 21st century world use a different logic than the SBC. I just watched this compilation of some of these commercials and Mohler is right on I think. Macs play up that not only can they do what PCs can do, they do things that people want to do like make home videos and never randomly need to restart. My favorite commercial is where PC is budgeting between advertising and fixing Windows Vista. When asked why advertising is has so much money vs fixing Vista, PC just puts all the money into advertising. Mac thought they should just spend money to fix Vista, PC was thinking in a totally different light.
Related posts:
No comments
Oh! Missed It!
Yesterday I was reading Matthew 9:1-8
and the healing of the paralytic. Most people are familiar with the Markan account (Mark 2:1-12). In Mark’s account the paralytic’s friends bring him to where Jesus was ministering. Since the crowd was too big, the opened up the roof and lowered their friend down to Jesus. Jesus points out their faith and forgives the paralytic’s sin. The scribes were upset and questioned Jesus to themselves, in their hearts, and accused Jesus of blasphemy. To show that he had the authority to forgive sin Jesus healed the paralytic. The people were amazed and honored God because they had never seen anything like that. Read more
Related posts:
No comments
I Just Don’t Get It!
Thursday a twister hit downtown Minneapolis, MN at the time the Evangelical Luther Church of Amarica (ELCA) was holding a vote on whether they would allow homosexuals as pastors in their denomination. In light of several passages, John Piper concluded the following from this twister,
The tornado in Minneapolis was a gentle but firm warning to the ELCA and all of us: Turn from the approval of sin. Turn from the promotion of behaviors that lead to destruction. Reaffirm the great Lutheran heritage of allegiance to the truth and authority of Scripture. Turn back from distorting the grace of God into sensuality. Rejoice in the pardon of the cross of Christ and its power to transform left and right wing sinners.
I just finished reading Denny Burk’s blog this afternoon where he noted something that is quite sad,
What concerns me most about Piper’s “evangelical” critics is that the direction of their outrage indicates that something is askew in their 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 Lutherans are walking away from the gospel of Jesus Christ. Instead, the critics are offended by Piper. Moreover, the offended have responded with what amounts to a lot of ugly mud-slinging—the very kind of stumbling-block to unbelievers that Emergents say they wish to avoid.
I thought Piper lovingly and humbly called sin for what it was: sin. I thought Piper’s words were wise and pleaded with everyone to stop approving of sin. But Burk is right. I read Tony Jones’ response and Greg Boyd’s response as well (Here is the Heidelblog’s similar response). They are more concerned about attacking Piper (Boyd was more polite about it than Jones) and not once did they call the ELCA to vote for homosexuality to disqualify a person from being a pastor. Not once, and that was Piper’s point! They did not engage Piper and what his post was about. They were more interested in putting Piper down than engaging him in a meaningful way. Most of the counter-exegesis offered by Boyd, as Jones did not offer any, was unconvincing and did not get the whole point of what Jesus was doing and what was being said.
For example, Mark 4:41 the disciples said after Jesus rebuked a storm, “Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?” Boyd says of this text, “What’s interesting to me is that the disciples make this remark in response to Jesus having just rebuked a threatening storm. If Jesus was already controlling all storms, as John claims, why on earth would he need to rebuke this one?” The answer is that Jesus was demonstrating this control to his disciples. They did not know that he had authority over the storms. The gap between how Boyd and Piper conceptualize the Triune God’s authority and sovereignty is so vast that only an open-theist like Boyd would (or a Piper hater) buy it. No one who shares Piper’s belief in a sovereign God and Christ could buy into what he says without first having it out on the sovereignty issue.
I have no problems with people thinking Piper should not read into storms like he did, which was very humble and did not single out the ELCA but anyone and everyone who would read that post. I do have a problem when fellow Christians will not call the ELCA to repent of the sin they were considering adopting and to return to the Gospel and to the Scripture. I do have a problem when people are so bent on disproving anything Piper says that they will fail to actually read what he says and try to get his point, instead of just reading to find something to refute.
I really appreciated what Piper said in a rejoinder. He said the same thing about his cancer that he had three years ago as he said about the ELCA Tornado, the calamity and blessings are God’s warnings to sinners, even sanctified sinners, to repent of their sin. Piper concludes,
My tornado was a call to repentance. Yours will be too. But that is not Satan’s design. Only God’s. Satan’s design is that you approve your sin. God’s is that you let him forgive it and overcome it.
Related posts:
No comments
Thoughts on Chiefs vs. Vikings
"Welcome Back!" -- Corey Mays #51
Related posts:
No comments
My Favorite Difference
Last night I was watching the DC Animated Death of Superman special feature that brought the creative team behind the comic book where Superman met his tragic demise at the hands of Doomsday and his resurrection to defeat Cyborg Superman and Mongul with the help of the three other Supermen and members of the JLA (i.e. Green Lantern Hal Jordan). One of the things they wanted to accomplish when they started telling the story of Superman’s return was to show that three copies of Superman (Steel, Superboy, Eradicator, and Cyborg Superman) could barely do the job that Superman did by himself. They tried to pick up the torch of Superman and run with it, only to not live up to the expectation.
When Ed Brubaker gave Steve Rogers’ mantle to his partner Bucky the idea was to use Bucky as a foil for the reader to understand Steve Rogers better and what it meant to be Captain America. Unlike DC and the Superman team, Brubaker tried to get the audience to buy into Bucky and believe in him as Captain America. Every time Bucky took a step forward in his new role as Cap, the reader cheered him on and celebrated that the disgruntled man was living up to Steve’s legend and bringing him honor. Now that Steve is on the verge of his rebirth/resurrection, many Cap readers don’t want Steve back, or at least donning the shield and cowl again. They want Bucky to stay AS Captain America. A very different picture from what happened when Superman died.
My favorite difference between Superman’s death and Steve Rogers’ death is the fact that when someone tried to replace Superman, it didn’t work and Kal-El was needed back. When someone tried to replace Steve, it worked and the new Captain America was embraced the world–both within the comic and by readership. Bucky was able to carry on in Steve’s place where the four Supermen weren’t able to carry on in Kal-El’s. There are other differences, but I really love this one.
Related posts:
No comments
Video of Dr. Mohler’s Forum
Here also is a summary of Dr. Mohler’s address that will help the viewer through the various dichotomies that Mohler presents for the SBC to decide between.
Related posts:
No comments