Do We Have Free Will?
August 27, 2009 at 4:48 am | In Doctrines of Grace, Reformed Theology, Soteriology, Sovereignty | 2 CommentsAndy has some great thoughts on this. He gives, for free, his lecture and document addressing this issue.
This summer my church, CrossWay Community Church in Kenosha, Wisconsin, hosted a “Difficult Issues Series” on Wednesday nights, and on June 10 I addressed this topic: “Do We Have a Free Will?”
- MP3 (1 hour and 45 minutes including Q&A)
- Handout (7-page PDF)
- Condensed Essay (4-page PDF, which Reformation 21 reprinted today)
Brian McLaren the Muslim?
August 27, 2009 at 4:44 am | In News, Other Religions | Leave a CommentAs Brian McLaren has drifted further and further off the reservation, I have taken to using scare-quotes whenever referring to him as an “evangelical.” Truth be known, however, he’s no longer even a scare-quotes “evangelical.” If you think I’m overreacting, wait until you hear this.
On August 13, McLaren announced on his blog that he would be observing the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. This is not a joke. He writes,
“Ramadan is the Muslim holy month of fasting for spiritual renewal and purification. It commemorates the month during which Muslims believe Mohammed received the Quran through divine revelation, and it calls Muslims to self-control, sacrificial generosity and solidarity with the poor, diligent reading of the Quran, and intensified prayer.
“This year, I, along with a few Christian friends (and perhaps others currently unknown to us will want to join in) will be joining Muslim friends in the fast which begins August 21. We are not doing so in order to become Muslims: we are deeply committed Christians. But as Christians, we want to come close to our Muslim neighbors and to share this important part of life with them. Just as Jesus, a devout Jew, overcame religious prejudice and learned from a Syrophonecian woman and was inspired by her faith two thousand years ago (Matthew 15:21 ff, Mark 7:24 ff), we seek to learn from our Muslim sisters and brothers today.”
This explanation is so filled with dangerous and damning error, it’s difficult to know where to begin. For starters, one cannot observe Ramadan as a “deeply committed” Christian. Fasting in the Christian tradition is irreduciblyChristocentric. It involves praying to the Father of Christ (Mt 6:18) and longing for the return of Christ (Mt 9:15). The meaning and aim of the Muslim fast has nothing to do with Jesus. How can one observe Ramadan in any meaningful sense and do a Christian fast? The answer is that you can’t. If you try, you will end up distorting the Christian fast with syncretistic gobbledy-goop that is no longer recognizably Christian.
I would warn that McLaren is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, but he has dropped the ruse.
————————
P.S. Be sure to read Doug Wilson’s “pile-driving” of McLaren.
Does God Reveal Himself? Can we KNOW that?
August 27, 2009 at 4:42 am | In Apologetics, Christian Ethics, Gospel, Reading, Theistic Philosophy | 1 CommentI don’t quite agree with Sproul’s apologetical methodology, but I thought this post was pretty good!
Does nature reveal God? This question indicates a concern about a foundational issue to Christianity. The issue is, can God be known outside of the church or a religious environment?
The secularist of today answers this question with the negative. The world of nature is frequently said to be antithetical to a belief in God, presenting us with so many anomalies as to render the existence of God untenable.
Because of these claims either from the corner of the militant atheist or from the queries of the troubled agnostic, many Christians have retreated into a sphere of “religious faith” as the only framework within which God can be known. Here nature is negotiated in order to protect the arena of space.
The nature Psalms of the Old Testament indicate that the majesty of the Creator shines through the creation. God not only reveals Himself clearly in creation, but the revelation gets through. It is perceived by men. The judgment of God is not withheld because men refuse to receive the revelation (Rom. 1:18).
The problem is that not only does God reveal Himself, but that men perceive that revelation and refuse to acknowledge it. Paul says, “When they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful” (Rom. 1:21, KJV). Here man is said to know God. His sin is that he will not glorify or thank the God he knows exists. Paul contends that God so clearly manifests Himself in creation that all men know He exists. God’s revelation in nature makes honest atheism an intellectual impossibility.
The knowledge of God manifest in nature is by no means comprehensive. Natural revelation will never provide us with redemptive knowledge. It is one thing to know that God exists. It is quite another to have a personal, intimate knowledge of the God who exists.
Coram Deo: Do you have a personal, intimate knowledge of God? Ask God for a new and deeper revelation.
Romans 1:18-20: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.”
Theology Terms Tuesday – The Basic Presuppositions of Christian Ethics.
August 25, 2009 at 2:04 pm | In Apologetics, Christian Ethics, Theistic Philosophy, Theological Terms, Theology | Leave a Comment
This week for Theology Terms Tuesday we will be talking about some basic presuppositions of Christian Ethics taken from my Christian Ethics class by Dr. Charles McCullough, here we go:
The Starting Point: The Nature of God
God is by nature ethical, concerned with how men ought to act.
He reveals His person, power, purpose in history.
He is just, holy and righteous as well as gracious and loving.
The Core: Christ
Christian ethics is based on the example, teaching, and Spirit of Christ.
The imitatio Christi infers that the Christian is to demonstrate love and forgiveness and hope as well as justice and responsibility.
The Tangible Authority: Special Revelation
The Scripture is inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy
The whole Bible speaks to how man ought to live in light of his relationship to God.
Its contemporary relevance resides in broad principles and truths which underlie the narrative.
The Context: The Christian Community in the World
The world poses the questions.
The Church is the context for ethical reflection and deliberation for the Christian on those questions.
The Church offers a place for discourse on biblical content and promotes civil and respectful debate in the context of Spirit-created interpersonal relationships.
The Church is responsible for influencing the social order in the direction of conformity to the will of God. This is a transformative influence effected primarily by the presence of changed individual lives in the community and the combined voices of individuals toward shaping public policy.
The Power Source: The Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit is active in every phase of ethical decision and moral action, illuminating Scripture, speaking in and through the conscience, shaping decisions and empowering actions.
The Reality of the Situation: Tension
Christians are free to decide; they are responsible for their decisions.
Christians will face a constant tension between the ideal (God’s will) and the reality of a broken, sinful world; between what ought to be and what is.
Collision – The Movie / Debate.
August 21, 2009 at 5:19 pm | In Apologetics, Movies | Leave a Comment
From the Collision movie website:
COLLISION will be released on October 27, 2009. It will be available on DVD and will screen at theaters in New York and Los Angeles. The DVD is available now for pre-order on Amazon.com.
You can watch an exclusive 13 minute sneak preview.
The Best 6 Minutes of Your Week. WATCH This!
August 21, 2009 at 5:22 am | In Gospel, Love, YouTube, church, missions | Leave a CommentJustification by Faith – Warfield.
August 21, 2009 at 4:44 am | In Justification | Leave a CommentWarfield explains that our only hope is outside of ourselves. Our hope is not in our works, and it is also not in our faith. Our hope is in Christ alone, and that is faith!
Sometimes we are told that Justification by Faith is “out of date.” That would be a pity, if it were true. What it would mean would be that the way of salvation was closed and “no thoroughfare” nailed up over the barriers. There is no justification for sinful men except by faith. The works of a sinful man will, of course, be as sinful as he is, and nothing but condemnation can be built upon them. Where can he get works upon which he can found his hope of justification, except from Another? His hope of Justification, remember – that is, of being pronounced righteous by God. Can God pronounce him righteous except on the ground of works that are righteous? Where can a sinful man get works that are righteous? Surely, not from himself; for, he is a sinner, and all his works as sinful as he is. He must go out of himself, then, to find works which he can offer to God as righteous. And where will he find such works except in Christ? Or how will he make them his own except by faith in Christ?
Justification by Faith, we see, is not to be set in contradiction to justification by Works. It is set in contradiction only to justification by our Own Works. It is justification by Christ’s Works. The whole question, accordingly, is whether we can hope to be received into God’s favor on the ground of what we do ourselves, or only on the ground of what Christ does for us…. Justification by Faith means, that is to say, that we look to Christ and him alone for salvation, and come to God pleading Christ’s death and righteousness as the ground of our hope to be received into his favor. If Justification by Faith is out of date, that means, then, that salvation by Christ is out of date. …
Justification by Faith does not mean, then, salvation by believing instead of by doing right. It means pleading the merits of Christ before the throne of grace instead of our own merits.
In Selected Shorter Writings, vol. 1, pp. 283-84.
William Lane Craig Debates.
August 21, 2009 at 4:42 am | In Apologetics, Debates | Leave a Comment
Many of William Lane Craig’s debates can be found at the comprehensive debate list. However, it’s a hassle downloading them all piecemeal. Now you can download them all neatly within iTunes or your feedreader by using the WLC Audio Debate Feed. When new debates are available they will be added to the feed.
Subscribe directly in iTunes here. (opens iTunes and subscribes for you)
Regular feed here.Enjoy.
Berkhof’s Systematic for 10 Bucks!
August 21, 2009 at 3:01 am | In Books, Systematic Theology | 2 Comments
CBD is running this special for today and tomorrow, you can get Berkhof’s Systematic Theology for only 10 bucks. Heck of a deal considering that this volume normally cost about 40 bucks. If you don’t have it, it’s worth your Alexander Hamilton.
Theistic Arguments – Contingency of the Universe.
August 13, 2009 at 9:33 pm | In Apologetics, Theistic Philosophy | Leave a CommentThe Apologetics 315 blog is doing a weekly series entitled “Theistic Arguments.” If you are new to the realm of apologetics these posts are going to be worth while. They kick things off with these thoughts:
An Argument from the Contingency of the Universe
The universe didn’t have to be here, and even if it has always been here it didn’t have to be the way it is. This means the universe is a contingent thing. But all contingent things depend upon a cause which is itself contingent, but it is not possible that everything is contingent. Thus there must be a necessary (indeed, self-necessary) being which is the ultimate cause of the universe. God is the self-necessary ultimate cause of the universe.
Greatest Strength: Pure contingency is logically untenable, so it is difficult to believe that the universe is both contingent and uncaused.
Greatest Weakness: The contingency of the universe as a whole is difficult to establish convincingly unless one is already convinced that it has a cause.1
1 William C. Davis, Reason for the Hope Within (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdman’s Publishing Co., 1999), p. 25.
Presuppositional Apologetics – Bahnsen.
August 13, 2009 at 5:42 pm | In Apologetics, Books, Theistic Philosophy, Theology | 2 CommentsDr. Greg Bahnsen (1948-1995) is considered by many to be one of the best apologists to defend the concept of presuppositionalism. His debate with Gordon Stein is a powerful example of the strength of the presuppositional argument, and his book Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings and Analysis is considered to be a definitive volume on Van Til.
Joel McDurmon has edited a new book that is based on a manuscript from Dr. Bahnsen that was considered lost until recently. The book is published by P&R and is entitled,Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended (314 pages). This is new content that has not previously been published. The first part (130 pages) is a positive case for presuppositional apologetics. Bahnsen analyzes issues related to the Christian mind, apologetic method, neutrality, and autonomy. The second part (132 pages) examines those who critiqued presuppositionalism: Gordon Clark, Edward J. Carnell, and Francis Schaeffer. Here is an endorsement from John Frame:
“This book is an important part of the historical record. It is authentic Bahnsen, vintage Bahnsen. It displays brilliantly his intellectual gifts and his devotion to the Lordship of Christ in all areas of life. Despite my differences with Bahnsen, I revere him yet today as a great blessing of God to the church and as one of the most brilliant apologists I have known. He seeks to set forth the comprehensive lordship of Christ over the human mind as over everything else, and he does that effectively. In that goal, we should all be in agreement, and we should seek Bahnsen’s help to become more consistent in our commitment to the Lord. So I commend this book to all who seek to think God’s thoughts after him.”
You can purchase it here, as well as view some sample pages.
Theology Terms Tuesday – Thomism.
August 11, 2009 at 3:55 pm | In Historical Theology, Theological Terms | Leave a Comment
Thomism. The school of philosophy and theology following the thought of Thomas Aquinas (1255-74). It developed in various phases and has experienced periods of support and neglect.
When Aquinas died he left no direct successor, but his system was adopted by various individuals, most notably by many of his confreres in the Dominican order and by his own original teacher, the eclectic Albertus Magnus. Nonetheless, there was still much opposition to his Aristotelianism on the part of church authorities, and in 1277 in Paris and Oxford several propositions derived from Thomas’s teachings were condemned. It was primarily due to Dominican efforts that the system of Aquinas was not only eventually rehabilitated, but that he himself was canonized in 1323.
From this time period on, Thomism became one of the several competing schools of medieval philosophy, e.g., Augustiniamism, the Franciscan followers of Duns Scotus, and the nominalist disciples of William of Occam. Thomism distinguished itself with its Aristotelian doctrines of the unity of the human person (composed of the soul as the form of the body), the analogy of being, the reality of forms within particular entities, and the real distinction between a being and its essence. At the same time, the followers of St. Thomas did not remain uniform, but particular commentators took on individual traits.
V. J. Bourke, Thomistic Bibliography: 1920-1940
Yes, God Hardened Pharaoh’s Heart.
August 6, 2009 at 5:33 pm | In Historical Theology, John Calvin, Love, Reformed Theology, Sovereignty | Leave a Comment
Erik writes a great post, he says:
This question gets tossed around quite a bit and should definitely be thought through.
The text is quite clear. The context is the book of Exodus, specifically the revelation of God in the ten plagues against the nation of Egypt in order to bring about the redemption of Israel from bondage.
Walt Kaiser observes the following concerning the hardening:
“In all there are ten places where ‘hardening’ of Pharaoh is ascribed to God (4.21; 7.3; 9.12; 10.1, 20, 27; 11.10; 14.4, 8, 17). But it must be stated just as firmly that Pharaoh hardened his own heart in another ten passages (7.13, 14, 22; 8.15, 19, 32; 9.7, 34, 35; 13.15). Thus the hardening was as much Pharaoh’s own act as it was the work of God. Even more significant is the fact that Pharaoh alone was the agent of the hardening in the first sing and in all the first five plagues. Not until the sixth plague was it stated that God actually moved in and hardened Pharaoh’s heart (9.12), as he had warned Moses in Midian that he would have to do [4.21].”
So we see God actively acting in hardening Pharaoh’s heart. And we also see the clear responsibility of Pharaoh in the matter, as he hardens his own heart.
Well how did God harden Pharaoh’s heart? God simply revealed himself. He revealed his power, supremacy, love for his people, hatred of sin, etc.. through the signs and wonders of the plagues. It was this revelation of God that hardened his heart.
Some say it is not fair that God hardened his heart. Well God revealed, he showed himself to Pharaoh through the signs and plagues. It was this revelation that hardened his heart. It is a biblical axiom that revelation devoid of illuminating grace hardens sinful hearts. As someone else has said, ‘the same sun that melts the wax can harden the clay.’ You may be thinking of John 8.45 where Jesus said, “But because I speak the truth you do not believe me”.
So we come back to the old and familiar issue of unbelief. The primary reason for a hard and unbelieving heart is not God. The cause of a hard, calloused angry heart is an unbelieving (depraved) heart that bucks against divine revelation. The unbeliever hates and so suppresses the truth in unrighteousness. The issue is neither with the revelation nor the Revealer but instead it is the receiver of the revelation that is on the hook. It is the sinner that must be conquered and this is because he is a sinner!
And so the need for powerful irrisistable grace is clear! Once again the Christian is brought back to reality and escorted unto humilty as we are reminded that without God’s loving, merciful, conquering grace in our lives, we would stiffen our necks and harden our hearts in persistent devaluation of the God who powerfully reveals himself.
Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
