Paul Tripp & Dan Taylor on DG 2008
Posted: September 24, 2008 Filed under: Desiring God Conference 2008 Leave a commentI had placed the Mark Discroll videos yesterday and will try to get up the number of trailers DG have done such a great job in doing on the coming conference this weekend. Here are a few more for you all.
Paul Tripp
- Paul Tripp: For Those Who Have Been Hurt by Words
- Paul Tripp on the Importance of Speaking the Bible
- Paul Tripp on Speaking the Truth in Love
- Paul Tripp on the Need for Silence
- Paul Tripp on How Sin Affects the Transparent Use of Words
- Paul Tripp on the Life and Death Power of Words
- Paul Tripp on Owning Our Words
- Paul Tripp: What Makes Bad Language Bad?
- Paul Tripp on God’s Role in the Words We Speak
- Paul Tripp: Does God Care About Every Word We Speak?
- Paul Tripp: What is the War of Words?
Dan Taylor
- Dan Taylor on Story in the Bible
- Dan Taylor on How Stories Shape People
- Dan Taylor on Transferring Values Through Story
- Dan Taylor on How Stories and Faith Relate
- Dan Taylor on the Significance of Stories
Mark Driscoll on DG 2008
Posted: September 23, 2008 Filed under: Desiring God Conference 2008, Mark Driscoll Leave a commentCalvinist Claims
Posted: September 22, 2008 Filed under: You Might be a Calvinist if..., You might be a Fundamentalist if Leave a commentYou might be a Calvinist if… You claim that anything less of 5 point Calvinism is not Calvinism at all.
You might be a Fundamentalist if… You claim to be a 3 or 4 Point Calvinist.
Forward!
Posted: September 21, 2008 Filed under: Sundays with Spurgeon Leave a commentBRETHREN, the substance of my address, this morning, will be found in the words of God to His servant Moses, “Speak unto the children of Israel, that they go forward.” “Forward” is the watchword of our Conference, let it ring through your ranks. Onward, ye elect of God! Victory is before you; your very safety lies in that direction. To retreat is to perish. You have most of you read the story of the boy, in an American village, who climbed the wall of the famous Natural Bridge, and cut his name in the rock above the initials of his fellows, and then became suddenly aware of the impossibility of descending. Voices shouted, “Do not look down, try and reach the top.” His only hope was to go right up, up, up, till he landed on the top. Upward was terrible, but downward was destruction. Now, we, dear brethren, are all of us in a like condition. By the help of God, we have cut our way to positions of usefulness; and to descend is death. To us, forward means upward; and therefore forward and upward let us go. While we prayed, this morning, we committed ourselves beyond all recall. We did that most heartily when we first preached the gospel, and publicly declared, “I am my Lord’s, and He is mine.” We put our hand to the plough then; thank God, we have not looked back yet, and we must never do so. The only course open to us is to plough right on to the end of the furrow, and never think of leaving the field till the Master shall call us home. But this morning you committed yourselves again to the Lord’s work; you did not deliberate, or consult with flesh and blood; but you plunged right in, renouncing all for Jesus; and except ye be reprobates, ye have enlisted for life in His service. You are the branded servants of Christ, bearing in your bodies His mark. You have now no liberty to serve another, you are the sworn soldiers of the Crucified. Forward is your only way; you are shut up to it. You have no armor for your backs; and whatever dangers lie in front, there are ten thousand times as many behind. It is onward or nothing; nay, onward or dishonor; onward or death.
2008 National Conference Trailer-The Power of Words
Posted: September 20, 2008 Filed under: Desiring God Conference 2008, Video of the Week Leave a commentReview of Five Views on Apologetics
Posted: September 19, 2008 Filed under: Apologetics, Book Review, Five Views on Apologetics Leave a comment
This is only a review of the section in which I agreed most within the book.
I. Introduction
The position I am most comfortable with writing about and defending is the one I agree with the most: the Presuppositional Method. In my opinion, John Frame’s writing on this subject in Five Views on Apologetics is the most logical and is easiest to read. At times it felt that the other writers needed to be more technical in order to grab the reader’s attention and better defend their stances and views on apologetics. Personally, I feel it is clear and unarguable that out of the five views the presuppositional method of apologetics uses the Scriptures the most – staying close to them and dealing with things in a very biblical way. One area of the presuppositional method that is most appealing, as explained through John Frame’s writing, is its emphasis on theology. Frame often correlated the study of theology alongside this branch of apologetics, which is something the other writers tended to keep apart in their articles. Frame’s view of depravity and national revelation is clearly and easily seen through his defense of the presuppositional method. He also not only looks at the end of the argument, but at the whole of one’s argument – both in the beginning and end – as God being the Creator and reason for existence. This is why Frame’s view of national revelation is of most importance, as it allows one to argue and carry discussions with non-believers.
II. Biblical Epistemology
In his sections in Five Views on Apologetics, John Frame’s focus is straightforwardly presented from the beginning as he states the ultimate purpose of apologetics, saying, “the most important thing is to glorify God.” Frame begins by giving a defense and showing how the Bible itself talks about epistemology. Here he explains the importance of recognizing that wisdom, knowledge, and understanding comes with the “fear” of the Lord.
• Ps. 110: 10 – The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; all those who practice it have a good understanding. His praise endures forever!
• Prov. 1:7 – The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.
• Prov. 9:10 –The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight.
• Prov. 15:33 – The fear of the LORD is instruction in wisdom, and humility comes before honor.
He expands on this to show the view of biblical knowledge, which is knowledge that comes from a life that allows the Scriptures to speak for themselves and interpret themselves as well. The presuppositionalist is to allow the Scriptures to speak for themselves so that he hears them first, in order that they (the Scriptures) may mold and shape his thinking, rather than being shaped by man’s mind and opinion. From there it is shown how in the presuppositionalist method this “fear” of the Lord in the Christian’s life of faith is for the purpose of reasoning. With this, the believer’s faith is to govern the reasoning in/of their thinking. Frame says that it must be seen where this reasoning, which stems from faith, comes from:
1. The cause of faith – God causes faith by His own free grace.
2. The rational basis of faith – That faith is based on reality, and on truth.
Frame makes the presuppositionalist way of seeing this clear in this sequence:
God’s Rationality → Human Faith → Human Reasoning
The presuppositional method sees faith as being in accordance with God’s rationality. The individual’s whole process in human reasoning is to image God’s own thought so that they are in line with that which God intended.
Lastly, when dealing with epistemology, the presuppositional method sees the content of Scripture and faith in three senses:
1. It cannot be proven by human reason alone.
2. It contains mysteries, and even apparent contradictions, that cannot be fully resolved by human logic.
3. Only the Spirit, not reason alone, can create belief.
III. The Noetic Effects of Sin and Conversion
The presuppositional method gives the reminder that because of the fall and the influence of sin, man’s reasoning will never be completely free from sin’s captivity. Here, the one who agrees with the presuppositional method must first look at how sin has affected mankind. We are shown that people’s minds are molded to sin in their fallen nature, and the wisdom of the world – which is fully man-centered – interrupts and clashes with the purpose for which we were created: to glorify God and focus on Him. The explanation of this process demonstrates how the unbeliever’s reasoning can become irrational to what God had intended.
It is important that the one who holds to the presuppositional method knows that although one may have the Holy Spirit, they still carry the effects that sin has on mankind. However, when the individual becomes a born again believer they are regenerated by the Holy Spirit and, as Frame puts it, are then able to “change in direction.” Frame also makes a good point in that one must realize that this change of the person does not ever make them 100% sinless, but they are in a process of fighting sin until the day of redemption.
IV. The Value of Apologetics
In explaining the value of apologetics, Frame expounds that it is not only meant for spiritual growth, but also for discipleship.
• Matt. 28:19 – Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
• 1 Peter 3:15 – but in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you.
The individual that wants to get the fullness of the value of apologetics must see that faith is always based upon certain evidence. Where that evidence comes from depends on many things; however, the presuppositional method sees this evidence as coming only from God. Frame here refers to Romans 1:18-32 which illustrates the evidence given to the natural world as man was given the knowledge of God. This value of apologetics comes as one sees correct reasoning. Frame explains the process this way:
God’s rationality → our faith → our reasoning
This reveals that it is not man that can clarify reason nor base reason on his experiences, situations or anything else besides the truth and meaning that God gives in His Scriptures.
Here lies the issue of how one is to deal with the unbeliever. How can a Christian ask a non-Christian to believe and have faith based on Christian presuppositions? Frame gives five answers as a solution of how the believer that agrees with the presuppositional method can address a non-believer and properly engage in presenting their argument. The following things must be referred to and remembered:
1. Faith is a demand of God. All of mankind is supposed to believe in God and repent. This requires the grace of God. Frame also adds to this that the apologist can do nothing more than tell the truth because it is God who plants the faith.
2. The apologist’s argument is based on biblical presuppositions that the individual ought not to be wavered from.
3. The non-believer was made originally with the intent of thinking with a Christian- theistic worldview.
4. The non-believer will hold beliefs that are not in coherence with the Scriptures. Because of this the presuppositionalist may present things that the nonbeliever does not acknowledge.
5. This then is where the presuppositionalist brings the unbeliever to reason on Christian presuppositions.
V. Apologetics Method
Apologetics focuses on the biblical truths that have been given to humanity from God for every area in the life of the believer. It is the individual’s responsibility when presenting and studying apologetics to seek out what God is saying in His Scriptures so that their end reasoning is correct and based solely on God’s truth which He has relayed to all of mankind. Frame gives eight truths and observations that one is to see and do in the apologetic method:
1. The goal of apologetics is to bring about or strengthen the individual’s faith in God.
2. Apologists must resist temptations of contentiousness or arrogance.
3. The method that the apologist uses must present God as He is.
4. The conclusions of arguments must present biblical truth, and not the thoughts and ideas of man.
5. The argument must consist of biblical principles so that it does not risk the chance of becoming man-centered thinking, but is always God-centered.
6. One must not say things to the individual (who may be an unbeliever) that will lead him back to his pretense or neutrality.
7. Apologetics is to look and think about whom one may be speaking with. Everyone is different and everyone must be handled differently. Frame says it best like this:
“We must ask where the inquirer is coming from, his educational level, previous philosophical commitments, interests, seriousness, specific questions, and so on.”
8. The apologist can show the errors that lie in a non-Christian worldview.
These are all part of the Christian view of how one sees the Bible and how one might carry a conversation with an individual who may not be a believer. Going into apologetics with a mindset of these eight areas will allow the believer to give their best effort in living to the glory of God in debating and arguing with those that are not aware of His glory.
VI. Sketch of an Apologetic Method
Lastly, Frame offers an example of an argument following the presuppositional method of apologetics. In this, Frame expresses that the presuppositional method may be addressed or presented in two ways – being either impersonal or personal. When looking at which one to choose, the method must ask which is more fundamental. In our current day and age it can be hard to debate – or even discuss – a number of different issues due to the influences that have been created by postmodernism. This is especially tricky when dealing with someone who may not even have a set of beliefs or a certain truth, but sees truth as an ever-changing thing. With this, it is hard to begin an argument at all with someone who does not see absolute truth. But from here, saying, “there is no objective truth” is not possible. That is why the gospel calls the believer to respond against such individuals and to react and stand for the truth in a postmodern culture. Here the believer sees the presuppositional method of apologetics as the way of dealing with man and, even more importantly, in glorifying God. Standing for truth must be done, and this truth must be spread so that others can then stand ground on biblical truths that God has given His people, for those who are in need of the gospel.
The Place of the Old Testament in the Formation of New Testament Theology
Posted: September 18, 2008 Filed under: Seminary Questions Leave a commentAsked: Please evaluate the following quote from Prof. Lindars.
The New Testament writers do not take an Old Testament book or passage and ask, “What does this mean?” They are concerned with the kerygma, which they need to teach and to defend and to understand themselves. Believing
that Christ is the fulfillment of the promises of God, and that they are living in the age to which all the Scriptures refer, they employ the Old Testament in an ad hoc way, making recourse to it just when and how they find it helpful for their purposes. But they do this in a highly creative situation, because the Christ-event breaks through conventional expectations, and demands new patterns of exegesis for its elucidation.”
Source: Barnabas Lindars, “The Place of the Old Testament in the Formation of New Testament Theology: Prolegomena,” NTS 23 (1976): 59-66.
My Answer: I will only my comment on the beginning of the quote due to time.
“The New Testament writers do not take an Old Testament book or passage and ask, “What does this mean?”
Paul, Christ, the writer of Hebrews did not do this? They seem to have known and asked them selves in a number of what the Old Testament passages meant. Paul being taught before, Christ himself knowing them entirely and all the disciples being Jews knew the Old testament and yes did ask themselves time and time again what things looked like. Paul in Galatians, the writer of Hebrews in dealing with what he did in his long sermon. The interpreter never conveys that there must be a new way of understanding in the Old Testament passage, but its’ message can bee seen as if there is more understanding to the whole scheme of redemption, once the revelation has been shown in the New Testament.
Redneck Grammar
Posted: September 17, 2008 Filed under: Just for Fun Leave a commentSituation: Going to BIGBY’s Coffee with a few boys
Andy Parker: What did you get Dewalt?
Dewalt: A Punkin Spice Latte
Andy: What is THAT! Oh, did you mean pumpkin?
Dirk: Yes, he did.
Ted: Ha-ha, ha-ha!!
The Sovereignty of God
Posted: September 16, 2008 Filed under: Uncategorized Leave a commentDaniel 4:34-35 At the end of the days I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High, and praised and honored him who lives forever, for his dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom endures from generation to generation; all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, “What have you done?”
Ephesians 1:11-12 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory.
The sovereignty of God must be boasted in because God, being in control over all creation, reveals His pre-eminence and shows the limitedness of humanity in its ability to know and control things.
Of all the doctrines regarding the attributes of God, His sovereignty is by far the most needed for the understanding of His character. As believers, this is crucial to living a life of glorifying God to His utmost height. The understanding that God is in control over all creation makes life easy to boast in Him. Without the understanding of His control, there is no room for boasting in God. Not knowing that the God who created all things is in control of all things can build a huge wall into the ability of boasting in His control. Being able to boast in such a divine truth that God is in control and is overlord of all things brings the believer to his knees in worship of the Creator’s supremacy over everything. In A.W. Pink’s great work called The Sovereignty of God, he states this:
The sovereignty of God! What do we mean by this expression? We mean the supremacy of God, the kingship of God, the Godhead of God. To say that God is sovereign is to declare that God is God. To say that God is sovereign is to declare that He is the Most High, doing according to His will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth, so that none can stay His hand or say unto Him, What does Thou?
This gospel truth of the character of God provokes nothing but humility in man. God is the only being that has total control over all things, and therefore deserves to be boasted in higher than anything else in this world. Man must lose sight of himself in troubles, afflictions, trials and suffering. To grasp the concept that God is in control over these areas of life brings only the most glory to His being.
To boast in God’s sovereignty is not only to understand or know that God is in control and appoints all things for a reason, but more so, to find it satisfying to the soul. This is how believers can grow in the gospel, knowing that their Creator has purpose for the glorification of Himself. When life’s struggles come into play and start to eat away the soul, a gospel-centered individual will first look at the sovereignty of God. No matter what health concerns men may have, they still have the sovereignty of God. No matter what financial concerns may come in the life of believers, they still trust in God’s perfect control of everything on this earth. No matter what they lost – house, pets, kids, parents, spouse, etc., God knows, and has allowed all of this, to give Himself the glory so that they would find Him – the highest treasure in the midst of all events, good or bad. One of the greatest areas to boast of in the sovereignty of God is the fact that humans do not always have control. Knowing that there is a Maker of the heavens and earth, and that He holds them in His hand, deserves the uttermost glorifications. As Abraham Kuyper famously said, “There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, Mine!” God’s sovereignty must be boasted in because man’s nature cannot – nor will ever – have the ability to be in control over all events, issues and circumstances in life. Realizing that God has allowed suffering and hardship for the sake of His name is when boasting in the sovereignty of God best glorifies Him. God, therefore, allows hardships, trials, suffering, and situations in which every man does not want to deal with, because only then can they see God in control over all things and there find gratification in knowing that they can enjoy the sovereignty of God.
Grapes or Aged Grapes?
Posted: September 15, 2008 Filed under: You Might be a Calvinist if..., You might be a Fundamentalist if Leave a commentYou might be a Calvinist if… you refuse to partake in the Lord’s Supper because it was being served with grape juice.
You might be a Fundamentalist if… you refuse to partake in the Lord’s Supper because it was being served with wine.
Faith
Posted: September 14, 2008 Filed under: Sundays with Spurgeon Leave a commentNOW that the time has come for me to address you, my beloved brethren, may God Himself speak through me to you!
The subject which I have selected for this address is FAITH. As believers in Jesus, we are all of us of the pedigree of faith. Two lines of descent claim the covenant heritage. There is the line of nature, human efforts, and works, headed by Ishmael, the son of Hagar. We own no kindred there. We know that the highest position to which the child of the flesh can attain will only end in the command, “Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.” We, brethren, are children of the promise, born not after the flesh, nor according to the energy of nature, but by the power of God. We trace our new birth not to blood, nor to the will of the flesh, nor to the will of man, but to God alone. We owe our conversion neither to the reasoning of the logician nor to the eloquence of the orator, neither to our natural betterness nor to our personal efforts; we are, as Isaac was, the children of God’s power according to the promise.
Now, to us the covenant belongs, for it has been decided-and the apostle has declared the decision in the name of God,-that “to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. . . . And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”-Galatians 3:16, 29. We are altogether saved by faith. The brightest day that ever dawned upon us was the day in which we first “looked unto Him, and were lightened.” It was all dark till faith beheld the Sun of Righteousness. The dawn of faith was to us the morning of life; by faith only we began to live. We have since then walked by faith. Whenever we have been tempted to step aside from the path of faith, we have been like the foolish Galatians, and we have smarted for our folly. I trust we have not “suffered so many things in vain.”-Galatians 3:4. We began in the Spirit, and if we have sought to be made perfect in the flesh, we have soon discovered ourselves to be sailing upon the wrong tack, and nearing sunken rocks. “The just shall live by faith,” is a truth which has worked itself out in our experience, for often and often have we felt that, in any other course, death stares us in the face; and, therefore, “we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.”-Galatians 5:5.
Now, brethren, as our pedigree is of faith, and our claim to the privileges of the covenant is of faith, and our life in its beginning and continuance is all of faith, so may I boldly say that our ministry is of faith, too. We are heralds to the sons of men, not of the law of Sinai, but of the love of Calvary. We come to them, not with the command, “This do, and thou shalt live,” but with the message, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” Ours is the ministry of gracious faith, and is not after man, nor according to the law of a carnal commandment. We preach not man’s merit, but Christ crucified.
The object of our preaching, as well as its doctrine, is faith; for we reckon that we have done nothing for sinners until, by the power of the Holy Ghost, we bring them to faith; and we only reckon that our preaching is useful to saints as we see them increase in faith. As faith is in our hand the power with which we sow, and as the seed we sow is received by us by faith, and steeped in faith, so the harvest for which we look is to see faith springing up in the furrows of men’s hearts to the praise and glory of God.
John McCain Denouncing George Bush’s Ties Bob Jones
Posted: September 13, 2008 Filed under: Video of the Week Leave a commentIf your Blogging Politics?
Posted: September 12, 2008 Filed under: Just My Thoughts Leave a commentI have been thinking a lot on the number of blogs (both “Christian” and non) that are blogging like there is no-tomorrow on politics. I am not saying that no one should, but it is getting a bet repetitive and “out-of-control” in a number of ways. This passage has come to my mind when reading the number of those who seem to care so deeply about vocalizing their opinions and thoughts on their blogs.
1 Corinthians 13:1-3 “If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.
The Sacredness of an Unborn Life
Posted: September 12, 2008 Filed under: Abortion 1 Comment
Proverbs 24:10-12If you faint in the day of adversity,
your strength is small.
Rescue those who are being taken away to death;
hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter.
If you say, “Behold, we did not know this,”
does not he who weighs the heart perceive it?
Does not he who keeps watch over your soul know it,
and will he not requite man according to his work.
This past week Michael and I stopped over at our friend’s Seth and Misty Huckstead’s house to pick up a wireless router. As we were standing their chatting, I was approached by Misty Huckstead, on being involved in an extraordinary ministry for the unborn. Misty explained to me with a light in her eyes and passion in her voice about the ministry of the Omega House. This is the letter that she sent out explaining this ministry that ministers to the life of the pregnant girls and women and of course the potentially life saving ministry to the unborn child. This type of ministry gives my heart hope for the millions of little lives that are in jepordy every day.
I would love to tell you all about the home, but I will make it short. God literally gave them this house and all of the funds to fix it up. It is now called the Omega House and is for a place to pray for the clinic next door, to educate people, and a place where they can have post abortion counseling, they are now hiring a professional counselor to come. There are many Reformed Churches represented who volunteer at the house. They now have 32 people there doing counseling Wednesday thru Friday when the abortions are performed and they also go to another clinic in GR two nights a week. So far this year 30 babies have been saved!! God is using this ministry in amazing ways.
I asked how I can help, given very limited time. Mary said they do not need money, they need people who would commit to praying for them. They sit there all year, even on those freezing mornings when I am cuddled in with coffee and a blanket, they are not loosing heart in the battle for the unborn. They are aware that the battle is not theirs, that God is at work.
Cosmic Drama
Posted: September 12, 2008 Filed under: Seminary Questions Leave a commentI was asked to do the following response in a short manner… so I tried, not as if I knew what I was talking about, but hey, I tried right?
ASKED: Comment on the following quotation of Bruce Waltke, noting where you agree with him and where not, and why?
“The cosmic drama of salvation history opens with an awe-inspiring display of theatrics. The palpable excitement and anticipation is pregnant in the text, available to all. Unfortunately, many readers today do not sense the drama nor understand these pivotal words, rich with meaning. This narrative of origins not only opens the cosmic drama of the Bible’s theme – God irrupting into chaos to establish his rule over everything – it also lays the foundation for the biblical worldview of ethical monotheism. God takes his rightful place on his throne in the heavens with the earth as his footstool, appoints human beings as his regents to rule his earth, and establishes laws for Israel in the order of creation” (An OT Theology, 173).
My Answer:
I feel as if I am post to find something here that I disagree with, however for the most part unless I pick apart things that may become too critical, I do not find anything “hugely” that I disagree with. I think I can find two areas that may perk the eyes/ears to the traditional reformist, however I do not know if Waltke is trying to say or bring about what the traditional reformed may believe he is saying.
• “cosmic drama” – I could see some that may get upset at calling the act of God in creation a drama. I can see that the reformed individual may look at seeing the fact that Waltke used the word “drama” relating in a exciting or emotional or unexpected events, because creation was altogether different from all of that. However, I do not know id Waltke is trying to say that the act of creation was unexpected as a drama as he is saying that the Lord played/planed a play-like series of events in creating universe.
• “God irrupting into chaos to establish his rule over everything” – This however is the most upsetting statement I can find in the short little paragraph, (unless I’m blind). That fact that he uses the word, “Chaos” to describe that of what God did in making that of the cosmos, simply is not at all in-line with God’s character, person, and most certainly does not portray a God whom I read about in the Scriptures. God is simply a God of order and planned methods in organization, in everything he has done; he is doing and will do.
Palin and the Pulpit
Posted: September 11, 2008 Filed under: Just for Fun 1 CommentSome have asked me today about the Voddie Video. Here you go.
Sick of Politics!?
Posted: September 11, 2008 Filed under: Just for Fun 3 CommentsIs anyone else sick of Politics? I am! I am only writing this post to give me opinion, that both parties suck tremendously this coming election and that I cannot believe the tremendous amount of Reformed and Evangelicals that jump on the “moral” band wagons of the Republican party, but then in electing a woman VP, we help her after just having a child, not fulfill her biblical role in the home.
Whether or not a woman should work outside the home is a frequent question. The Bible does have instructions regarding a woman’s role. In Titus 2:3-4, Paul gives these instructions as to how a young married woman is to be trained by older women: “…train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands so that no one will malign the Word of God.” In this passage, the Bible is clear that when children are in the picture, that is where the young woman’s responsibility lies. The older women are to teach the younger women and to live lives that glorify God. Keeping these responsibilities in mind, the older woman’s time can be spent at the Lord’s leading and her discretion.
Proverbs 31 speaks of “A wife of noble character.” Starting at verse 11, the writer praises this woman as one who does everything in her power to care for her family. She works hard to keep her house and her family in order. Verses 16, 18, 24, and 25 show that she is so industrious that she also moonlights with a cottage industry that provides additional income for her family. This woman’s motivation is important in that her business activities were the means to an end, not an end in themselves. She was providing for her family, not furthering her career, using her degree, or working to keep up with the Joneses. Her employment was only a sidebar to her true calling—the stewardship of her husband, children, and home.
The Bible nowhere forbids a woman from working outside the home. However, the Bible does teach what a woman’s priorities are to be. If working outside the home causes a woman to neglect her children and husband, then it is wrong for that woman to work outside the home. If a Christian woman can work outside the home and still provide a loving, caring environment for her children and husband, then it is perfectly acceptable for a woman to work outside the home.
Now how does the, Reformed, Fundamentalist & Evangelicals feel about helping a woman shortly after having a child take on one of the most hardest, toughest jobs in the world, being the Vice-President of America? To me, it is sicking to see Christians say, “they are against abortion, they are against stem-cell, and they are against gay marriage, they must be voted in.”
PS- I am not democratic in anyway and disagree with Obama in about every way, shape and form. However, I am most certainly this year not Republican either.This will be the only and last politic post you will see on this blog.
Living for God’s Glory
Posted: September 11, 2008 Filed under: Dr. Joel Beeke, Reformation Trust Leave a commentReformation Trust new title (Living for God’s Glory, by Joel R. Beeke) has come out today and can be bought at RHB for only $18.00.
Reformation 21 Funny
Posted: September 10, 2008 Filed under: Just for Fun Leave a commentReformation 21 made a funny today on Justin Taylor and it is quite funny.
More on the CRT Series
Posted: September 10, 2008 Filed under: Classic Reformed Theology, Scott Clark Leave a commentFor more information on the CRT Series by RHB, head on over to Scott Clark’s blog.
Review of Reason for the Hope Within
Posted: September 10, 2008 Filed under: Apologetics, Book Review, Reason for the Hope Within Leave a commentI recently read Reason for the Hope Within, edited by Michael Murray. I have decided to review chapter six of the book in dealing with faith and reason.
A Summary and Evaluation of Chapter Six of Reason for the Hope Within
While reading Reason for the Hope Within, chapter six stood out to me because it dealt with the topic of faith and reason. The book’s aim was to introduce a number of articles dealing with apologetics and Christian philosophy, and while I am sure that it is all well written, it lacks a number of younger audiences in contribution to Christian philosophy. Throughout this book there are often times that the chapter or topic leaves the reader wanting more information/further reading on it. Unfortunately, Reason for the Hope Within seems to be more of an overview of the subjects it deals with, and does not direct the reader to other titles that may contain greater detail for those wanting to advance in reading about Christian philosophy and apologetics.
Chapter six was written by Caleb Miller and is a section that focuses on Faith and Reason. Here Miller goes over the view of Christian Faith and Human Reason and gives attention to the issue of whether they are opposing to one another or if they work together. Miller gives Martin Luther, John Calvin and John Wesley’s view on how faith and reason work together. His purpose in doing this is so that the Christian can see the importance of defending the Christian faith and also understand that reason does have something to do with Christianity. Oftentimes, fundamentalists tend to forget about apologetics and when needed to defend the faith simply say, “The Bible is true.” However, this is not as it should be. Christians who do not defend Christianity both Scripturally and logically are nothing but stubborn.
Miller then addresses whether or not faith is opposed to reason. Here he approaches the problem of when reason makes the individual trust their own faculties. From there he deals with the objection that faith does not measure up to the standards of reason, and also deals with what Søren Kierkegaard says about this topic in his famous book, Concluding Unscientific Postscript. Miller then follows Alvin Plantiga in claiming that belief in God can be rational even though it is not the conclusion of one’s reasoning. This idea insists that the Christian argument gives good reason to think that belief in God can be grounded in types of experiences. Examples of this are: God’s Sovereignty played out in an individual’s life, God’s passing of judgment, or God’s providence where he leads them in life. Miller suggests that there are advantages to an individual basing their faith upon their experiences instead of reasoning. However, in my opinion, this seems to be very scary, especially in a time and culture where people tend to change their decisions based on any circumstance and not on truth.
Lastly, expanding on the topic of the objection of faith and reason, Miller deals with the apologetics of evidentialism. Here he gives a brief explanation of what an evidentialist is and how they try to prove theism by ways of rational arguments based upon evidence that they believe to be true. He explains that oftentimes the evidentialist’s proof unfortunately is merely an argument and needs to be examined deeper. Miller briefly goes over the Scriptural passages that evidentialist’s use for their argument: Romans 1:18-20. However, he tends to disagree with the evidentialist view concerning this passage, saying, “This passage does not seem to say that God’s existence and nature would, but for sin, be obvious to everyone.” Miller then presents some of the problems with evidentialism – one being that every argument demands that it follows the same premises that both sides agree upon. For example: if there is an argument about Creation, both parties must agree upon the reasoning of a Creator. In view of Romans 1:18-20 he says, “They may hold such beliefs but nothing in this passage assures us they do.”
Continuing on into section two, Miller expresses the importance of an individual’s understanding of faith and reason. Here he gives three clear meanings on the subject of faith. These are:
(1.) Christian Faith is a sect of beliefs that Christians typically hold to and that are central to Christianity.
(2.) Faith has a proper human response to God – this response ends up being in two parts: first, one believing that there is an important sect of claims that are true doctrine. And secondly an element of true thought that has to deal with a personal relationship with the Triune God.
(3.) Faith is a source of belief; this view sees faith as something that can be revealed either by Scriptures or the Holy Spirit by supernatural means.
Next he gives means of knowing reason:
(1.) Reason as our proper use of our cognitive faculties: This is the Christian asking himself if faith is either reasonable or rational in their thought process.
(2.) Reason as the proper use as a natural human faculty: This is only seeing the natural use of the human’s cognitive facilities in relationship in the natural world.
(3.) The faculty of reason is that which makes beliefs and reasoning logical.
In part three Miller details the topic of Christian epistemology and goes over the three major parts of it: creation, sin and redemption. With creation, Miller shows how God created humanity with a set of purposes so that mankind would give back (glory) to God. Here Miller alleges that Christians today do not have a good enough reason to believe that prior to the fall Adam knew truth infallibly. From there he then focuses on the human life in fallenness. Here he shows how the affects of sin have corrupted man’s mind in the process of reasoning, which he perceives is what gives humans the tendency to suffer from the inability to determine truth. Lastly, Miller shows that in epistemology the view of redemption is that it has helped cleanse man’s heart in order to improve the process of thinking and reasoning. In this section (which is quite long) he indicates that man best receives truth when indwelt with the Holy Spirit. My only fear in this all is that Miller may be allowing human experience to be the determining factor on things, rather than true propositions.
Lastly, Miller concludes his chapter by dealing with the central issue in his discussion of Christian theology. He does this by answering two questions:
1. Is Christian faith rational for those who accept it?
2. Is there a basis of persuading others rationally to accept Christian faith?
After explaining both of these issues he addresses the conflict between them, and also points out that mankind may make mistakes when living this out. He shows the importance of how a Christian is to identify what God has revealed, but recognizes that it is hard to do this in the fallen state. Miller’s mindset is clearly seen in the last two paragraphs when he reveals his thoughts on the process of the Christian seeking truth, as he ends saying,
“According to Christianity, I argued, we have reason to think that we have been cognately designed by God so that when we honestly seek the truth, our cognitive faculties are reliable and that God has graciously intervened in human life to compensate for the noetic effects of sin.”
Classic Reformed Theology
Posted: September 10, 2008 Filed under: Classic Reformed Theology, Scott Clark Leave a commentReformation Heritage Books is excited to announce a new series of books: Classic Reformed Theology. We are privileged to have the valuable editorial guidance of the R. Scott Clark (the Heidelblogger) on this series. We expect the first book of the series to be available this November. Here is the extended preface that will be printed in the initial volume. We post it here to give everyone an idea of what to expect.
If you would like to pre-order a copy of the first volume of the Classic Reformed Theology Series, you can do so buy calling (616) 977-0599 or by simply going to Reformation Heritage Books website.
The editorial board will consist of,
• Joel R. Beeke, Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary
• J. Mark Beach, Mid America Reformed Seminary
• W. Robert Godfrey, Westminster Seminary California
• Michael S. Horton, Westminster Seminary California
• Joel E. Kim, Westminster Seminary California
• Herman Selderhuis, Theologische Universiteit Apeldoorn
• Paul R. Schaefer, Grove City College
• Carl R. Trueman, Westminster Theological Seminary
Richard Muller says of this series,
“This is an important project that promises to make available in good editions and translations as series of eminent works of Reformed theology from the era of orthodoxy. These volumes will offer students of the Reformed tradition an invaluable resource and will hopefully stimulate interest in the highly refined and carefully defined thought of an era that was formative of the Reformed faith and that assured its intellectual and spiritual vitality for later generations.”
Methods?
Posted: September 9, 2008 Filed under: Seminary Questions Leave a commentDr. Bilkes: How does one avoid the allegorical method without falling into the rationalist method?
Dewalt: Allowing the Scriptures to speak for themselves as much as possible. I think often times we want to preach Christ so much or think he is in the passage one may be preach so much that we end up creating a Rationalist approach when they try to allegorize. How one can stop this is by carefully approaching the text, and preaching what is in front of them and not bringing about “New Ideas” to the text. If it hasn’t been said now in a commentary or in a good book, then don’t come up with something new from the passage.
Presuppositional pointers
- Allowing the text to speak for its’ self
- Not using man’s own mind to make his or her assumptions come from the Scriptures
- What God said and intended in his cannon of Scriptures may go against myself personally but does not give me the right to disagree. I then conform my thinking with that which that Lord has given.
Practical pointers
- If it is not clear, then do not try to add to the text
- Don’t try to fit Christ into the text, but find where Christ is in the text
- Making the text say something you may believe rationally and not scripturally, is only taking the scriptures out of context.
A THEOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF A SECULAR HUMANIST DECLARATION
Posted: September 9, 2008 Filed under: Apologetics, Article Reviews, Paul Kurtz, Secular Humanist 1 CommentRecently I have read a article at the following site. I decided to write a review of the following section that quite disturbed me, extremely! The article was written by Paul Kurtz on, A Secular Humanist Declaration, namely section 4, Ethics Based On Critical Intelligence. You can read below;
(written by Paul Kurtz)
“The moral views of secular humanism have been subjected to criticism by religious fundamentalist theists. The secular humanist recognizes the central role of morality in human life; indeed, ethics was developed as a branch of human knowledge long before religionists proclaimed their moral systems based upon divine authority. The field of ethics has had a distinguished list of thinkers contributing to its development: from Socrates, Democritus, Aristotle, Epicurus, and Epictetus, to Spinoza, Erasmus, Hume, Voltaire, Kant, Bentham, Mill, G. E. Moore, Bertrand Russell, John Dewey, and others. There is an influential philosophical tradition that maintains that ethics is an autonomous field of inquiry, that ethical judgments can be formulated independently of revealed religion, and that human beings can cultivate practical reason and wisdom and, by its application, achieve lives of virtue and excellence. Moreover, philosophers have emphasized the need to cultivate an appreciation for the requirements of social justice and for an individual’s obligations and responsibilities toward others. Thus, secularists deny that morality needs to be deduced from religious belief or that those who do not espouse a religious doctrine are immoral. For secular humanists, ethical conduct is, or should be, judged by critical reason, and their goal is to develop autonomous and responsible individuals, capable of making their own choices in life based upon an understanding of human behavior. Morality that is not God-based need not be antisocial, subjective, or promiscuous, nor need it lead to the breakdown of moral standards. Although we believe in tolerating diverse lifestyles and social manners, we do not think they are immune to criticism. Nor do we believe that any one church should impose its views of moral virtue and sin, sexual conduct, marriage, divorce, birth control, or abortion, or legislate them for the rest of society. As secular humanists we believe in the central importance of the value of human happiness here and now. We are opposed to absolutist morality, yet we maintain that objective standards emerge, and ethical values and principles may be discovered, in the course of ethical deliberation. Secular humanist ethics maintains that it is possible for human beings to lead meaningful and wholesome lives for themselves and in service to their fellow human beings without the need of religious commandments or the benefit of clergy. There have been any number of distinguished secularists and humanists who have demonstrated moral principles in their personal lives and works: Protagoras, Lucretius, Epicurus, Spinoza, Hume, Thomas Paine, Diderot, Mark Twain, George Eliot, John Stuart Mill, Ernest Renan, Charles Darwin, Thomas Edison, Clarence Darrow, Robert Ingersoll, Gilbert Murray, Albert Schweitzer, Albert Einstein, Max Born, Margaret Sanger, and Bertrand Russell, among others.”
Here is my personal response on this section, please be sure to read his article fully…
In the section entitled Ethics Based On Critical Intelligence, Paul Kurtz’s theological errors begin from the very first sentence. Regardless of whether or not Kurtz is a believer, one day he (and the entire human race) will indisputably be held accountable for the entirety of everything in his life, including his beliefs; no matter if an individual believes in a higher power or not, they will be judged (Rev. 20:11-15). Therefore, notwithstanding if Mr. Kurtz is a Christian or if he believes in any absolute truth, he still ought to be – and will be – held accountable for the theology he presents. However, there is much difficulty in revealing theological error to one’s writing and views on life when they have no personal knowledge of Christ, absolute truth, or the gospel. With this said, it is Kurtz’s first sentence in section four that stands out in a way that immediately places him on the defensive side. Kurtz says, “The moral views of secular humanism have been subjected to criticism by religious fundamentalist theists.” This may be the case at times in history – that is true – however, historically/theologically speaking, Christianity has been attacked from the beginning when man thought that they had a better plan of intelligence by partaking from the tree of knowledge (Gen. 3:1-7). Here is the first time that man thought for themselves alone and not for the glory of God. Historically, this is the first time that man went out on his own, so-to-speak, and with the intelligence obtained, began a fatality that all of humanity would be consumed by: the power of pride. This pride is that which critical intelligence is based and founded upon – it is man trying to find happiness in himself and not enjoying God completely. Adam’s intent was nothing less than trying to find intelligence in himself, and not the One who made him.
Next, Kurtz’s second sentence states, “The secular humanist recognizes the central role of morality in human life; indeed, ethics was developed as a branch of human knowledge long before religionists proclaimed their moral systems based upon divine authority.” If secular humanists recognize the central role of morality, then their systems such as detention centers, jails, prisons, and mental health hospitals would be able to fix the problem of humanity’s sin. But this is not the case, is it? No – they need men of God that live by a moral standard of absolute truth from the Word of God to come in and preach, pray, and teach biblical morals, because even the secular systems and men see something different about the Christian faith and Christian ministry. As a matter of fact, in a recent political forum moderated by Rick Warren between Senators Obama and McCain, Warren brought up the issue of faith-based ministries. The astounding result was that well over 70% of individuals would rather be in a ministry that deals with biblical morals and ethics than what the State, the nation, and mankind – such as secular humanists – have to offer. Theologically, Kurtz’s crucial problem is that he sees it as important to place the created above its Creator. This particular outlook is always at the very root of sin and is the cause of man’s failure in glorifying God to the utmost. The theological error in it is that man sees his own morals as his commandments rather than seeing and obeying what God has given to man to live by. Once again, this can be linked back to the fall with Adam, when he placed his moral values before that which God had ordained.
Further on in Kurtz’s fourth section he states another theological inaccuracy that is quite upsetting. When a person does not know the Lord, errors like this are in every way understandable due to a lack of basing ethics upon something that reasons as it ought to, but rather bases ethics upon something that reasons to get what is wanted, when it is wanted. This is seen when Kurtz says, “For secular humanists, ethical conduct is, or should be, judged by critical reason, and their goal is to develop autonomous and responsible individuals, capable of making their own choices in life based upon an understanding of human behavior.” Here Kurtz makes another theological error as he suggests that the correct way of reasoning is for individuals to make their own choices based on the understanding of human behavior. However, the real truth is that man was not created for the sake of his own name or for his own glorification; he did not have a will that made him aim to lift his name above the Lord’s; he was not made so that he may reason at any time to get his personal desires and wants. When the Lord created mankind He did not ask man what he thought about it; He did not ask man his opinion when He created them. Rather, in perfect wisdom and will, He made man to glorify Himself first and foremost above all else.
Lastly, there was one more sentence that stood out most of all in the later part of A Secular Humanist Declaration when Kurtz says, “As secular humanists we believe in the central importance of the value of human happiness here and now. We are opposed to absolutist morality, yet we maintain that objective standards emerge, and ethical values and principles may be discovered, in the course of ethical deliberation.” How can anyone find happiness in change? How does mankind find joy in what they do not know? This may give a temporary high or a season of getting a boost or taste of happiness, but only truth that never changes brings an everlasting happiness that results in morals that humans live by and that are joys to the human heart. Although ethical values may be found or may emerge, as Kurtz says, they only derive from the evil and sin of mankind. Therefore, this is why man must not look at his own fallen state to see what morals and ethical values to stand on, but rather he must look upon the perfect, blameless, and spotless Christ. This is the answer to every fallen need, every fallen want, and every fallen man that may think his mind is greater or thinks he has all the answers, and yet inevitably falls short in his needs. Christ is the answer to the secular humanist; He alone (and through the gospel) has a way of piercing the heart and humbling man before Himself.
In all, theological errors come as men try to be their own saviors – a mind savior, a moral savior, an ethical savior, a humanist savior – but in the end not one of these will save man from hell. There are even those who may know theology and the gospel, and yet rely on their own morals and ethics instead of acknowledging their need for the source of morality – Jesus Christ Himself. Why look for things that will fade away or fall in time? Why try to find answers in the mind that can change at any time? The answer is simple: because man wants to be their own savior and their own personal religion, and they do not want to give themselves up to a personal Christ – a Christ who has never changed, who perfectly lived by His own law, who was morally and ethically spotless, and who continues to be entirely perfect today as He rules from His throne until His return.
Even though my review may be barely read, thanks for reading if you have done so.
No Dancing!
Posted: September 8, 2008 Filed under: You Might be a Calvinist if... 6 Comments(Posted by Jessica Heikoop)
You might be and Calvinist if… you bail out of a wedding becuase there is dancing.
Gospel-Centered Musings 