Friends, the time has come to say goodbye. No one ever likes saying goodbye, but sometimes it’s necessary. I’ve had a lot of changes since happen since I started this blog: job, family, church and the list goes on. It’s time for me to sign off (at least for now). I’m thankful for your reading, commenting and following. You’ve taught me a lot and helped grow this blog into something fun. When I started this blog almost exactly 4 years ago (April 27th) there were only about 20 of you visiting a day– now we are seeing about 200+ unique visitors daily in addition to any subscribed readers (161553 total views in 4 years, with 876 posts).  Thanks for making this fun, I hope to fire things up again sometime in the future, but for now will be focusing on my family, job and church. I ask for your prayers as we face some extremely difficult days ahead with our baby boy (who is due in August).

I will however continue blogging at our family blog: thelopezblog.com talking about our journey with 9 kids, adoption and now a baby (Lord sustaining) with Arthogryposis and Micrognathia.

If you’re looking for some other good blogs to read, I encourage you to check out some friends:

Take Your Vitamin Z
Veritas Domain
Apologetics315
The Resurgence
Triablogue
Redemption Church
Together for Adoption

Signing off,

B

–
Feel free to connect via Facebook | Twitter | Or the Family Blog 

via: Veritas Domain

Recently Mike Hutchinson had some critiques of the evangelical (Together for Adoption) movement. While I am thankful for healthy conversation and critical thinking, it appears that Mr. Hutchinson held some illogical conclusions that, in my mind, could potentially do damage in defense of orphan care / awareness. Thankfully Matthew Sims put together a fantastic response. Since this blog, as of late, is primarily about apologetics and we are passionate about adoption (having adopted 5 children now) seems fitting to showcase this. Here’s a snapshot of his response:

Moving forward the question is not should we be caring for orphans, but how we should be caring for orphans. We cannot make “orphan” only mean children who have lost their parents through death but we must also include children who have been left without parents for whatever reason. The church must act decisively on the behalf of all orphans that much cannot be denied whether that’s reunification of children/parent units (best case scenario), support of single moms in our covenant communities, or adoption into our own homes. But just as importantly we must fight against the abuse we find just like we do when we see abuse in other family structures. I cannot strongly enough recommend the work of Together for Adoption. I know Dan and the guys at T4A personally. These are men who have proven they are above approach. They love the gospel. They want to live out the objective realities of the gospel in their lives and their communities. And they have seen an opportunity to do so in the realm of caring for orphans.

Read the entire article here >>

via: Together for Adoption

When we talk about the vicarious aspect of the atonement, two rather technical words come up again and again:expiation and propitiation. These words spark all kinds of arguments about which one should be used to translate a particular Greek word, and some versions of the Bible will use one of these words and some will use the other one. I’m often asked to explain the difference between propitiation and expiation. The difficulty is that even though these words are in the Bible, we don’t use them as part of our day-to-day vocabulary, so we aren’t sure exactly what they are communicating in Scripture. We lack reference points in relation to these words.

Read the rest of his thoughts here >>

via: Ligioner Blog

Enjoy!

Purchase & Download

We have assembled 120 of our favorite theology quotes and formatted them for iPhone wallpaper or picture gallery usage. Authors include John Calvin, Martin Luther, Charles Spurgeon, John Owen, William Bridge, Ralph Venning, Augustine and many more. We have organized them in a color coded repetitive cycle – black (for sin), red (for pardon) and green (for growth) – which we believe is an effective way to keep three of the main tenants of reformed theology – sin, salvation and sanctification – at the forefront of the mind.

After purchase your download will automatically begin. Once you have saved the zip file to your computer, simply unzip the folder then connect your iPhone to your computer and sync the gallery via iTunes. If you have any questions please hit us up on Twitter @muthco or @bmuth.

Specs
Price: $1.99
Size: saved at 150 dpi each image measures 863 x 1275.
Quantity: 120 photos / quotes
*Note: this is not an app – you are buying downloadable photos which you will need to sync to your iPhone photo gallery using iTunes.

How to Read the Bible through the Jesus Lens

This review is part of the Jesus Lens Blog tour, other reviews may be found here.

I am thankful for Mason Slater and the team over at Zondervan (Koinonia Blog) for giving me a chance to review Michael Williams’ latest book entitled, “How to Read the bible through the Jesus Lens.” I was initially naturally intrigued with the title because I feel that reading the Old Testament from a historical redemptive perspective, that is Cristocentric, is often a presupposition that is lacking in the Church today. Not to mention the previous book, “How to Read the Bible for all its Worth” is a book that I recommend time and time again as an introductory text for individuals trying to get a better hold on how they should interpret what they read, from the bible.

The chapters consist of four sections:

Overall theme of the book

Here, in the case of Psalms and Proverbs, Williams discusses the origin and meaning of the book’s title. He then goes on to explain some of the context in which we ought to consider when reading various portions of the book. I found this particular portion of the text to be extremely valuable. I could see this being useful as supplementation during personal study for individuals wanting to get background or just have a better idea of what the general tone / direction of a given book.

The Jesus Lens

The Jesus Lens portion takes the overall theme of the book at relates it to the person, work and character of Christ. While I agreed with everything that Williams stated in the Psalms and Proverbs portions I wish this portion would have taken a different direction. I would have rather seen a direct tie back to some of the texts within Psalms or Proverbs, instead Williams takes the overall theme points to a relation of Christ or his work, and then gives New Testament scripture to further solidify his claim. Still this portion is Gospel saturated and a great reminder for new or seasoned believers that Christ is in all and is all.

Contemporary Implications

What I loved about this section of the chapter was that Williams engagement with the reader seems to be very pastoral. This section takes a general understanding of the theme and applies a personal and missional sermonette-like charge. Readers are sure to find this section rich in encouragement and application, yet still abounding in solid doctrine.

Hook Questions

This section had 3-4 questions of application for the reader to consider. I also found this portion to be helpful, I can see this book being used for home bible studies or small groups. What’s nice about the book is the chapters are concise and readable. An individual with little to no understanding of interpretation / context could walk away gaining a plethora of helpful knowledge. Yet, this book is not all head, there is a pastoral tone weaving though out the pages of the book that will encourage and challenge the most seasoned Christian.

Conclusion:

This is certainly a book that I will recommend to members in our church time and time again. One complaint I hear from Christians all the time is that they don’t know where to start with bible reading. This book, along with a good study bible, would be the perfect place. I am thankful for Dr. Williams and the hard work he put into this, surely this is a book to be treasured. You can purchase a copy of “How to Read the Bible through the Jesus Lens” here.

Before discussing the value of systematic theology, it needs to be said up front that systematic theology is not done because of the practical benefits derived from doing it. As Van Til writes,

When we speak of the value of systematics, or, for that matter, of the value of any other theological discipline, we do not take the pragmatic position. The question of value is not the first question we should ask. The question of truth and of duty is primary (21).

Having laid that fundamental foundation of why we do systematic theology, Van Til goes on to offer the practical benefits and fruit that come from doing systematic theology, which are summarized as follows (pages 21-25):

1. Systematic theology prevents us from becoming spiritually and theologically one-sided due to focusing on “hobby horses” that appeal to our temperament.
2. Systematic theology prevents preachers from preaching error/heresy (though often from ignorance rather than being intentionally subversive) and empowers the preacher to combat heresy.
3. Systematic theology empowers preachers to preach theologically, viz. the whole counsel of God. Preaching the whole counsel of God guards the church from the twin errors of worldliness and otherworldliness.
4. Systematic theology prevents the church from being led astray by false teaching, especially because much false teaching is based on appealing to isolated Scripture verses. As Van Til says, “One-text Christians simply have no weapons of defense against these people.”
5. Systematic theology gives the Christian the best apologetic defense, because the apologetic encounter involves two rival systems/worldviews.
6. Systematic theology will enable the minister to be an apologist to his flock, and especially the young adults in his church who will hear competing/rival worldviews in school (e.g. naturalistic evolution).
7. Systematic theology best enables the church to propagate the truth, because a church with a solid system is like a well-ordered army. Not only effective on the defense, but especially on the offense.
8. Systematic theology provides the depth in our evangelism, something entirely lacking in the “jerky evangelism” (Van Til’s words) of Revivalism.

Source

Fantastic post by Justin Holcomb on some Van Tillian presuppositional thought:

BORROWED ELEMENTS?

The non-Christian account of science falters under the weight of numerous internal contradictions. It should be remembered that non-Christians do science (and usually do so very well), but they cannot give an account for the very science they are doing without relying on the “borrowed capital” from the Christian worldview. According to Cornelius Van Til, unbelievers use the good gifts of God, which are spread throughout creation and on which they unknowingly depend in their thought and life, without giving God the glory. Non-Christian scientists are able to avoid utter nihilism and skepticism in science only by being inconsistent with their own worldview and borrowing some elements of God’s revelation.

What are those borrowed elements? What are some of the most important presuppositions without which scientific investigation should prove impossible? A brief list of such presuppositionsincludes:

 

1. THE UNIFORMITY OF NATURE

The laws, properties, or characteristics of objects and phenomena of a particular class do not vary over distance or time. Nature should be regarded as uniform.

 

2. INDUCTION

Since nature is considered uniform, one may, from a limited number of objects/phenomena of a class, properly induce generalizations about all objects/phenomena of that same class.

 

3. ONTOLOGICAL/EPISTEMOLOGICAL REALISM

Nature has an objective existence as an interdependent system, and is both intelligible and accessible to the human intellect.

 

4. MATHEMATICAL REALISM

Nature can be described accurately by the use of mathematics.

 

5. METHODOLOGICAL, EPISTEMIC, AND ETHICAL VALUES

Examples of these would be the common claims that some methods constitute good science, others bad or pseudo-science; good theories have certain characteristics; and scientists ought to report accurately and honestly.

 

6. THE RELIABILITY OF THE HUMAN MIND AND SENSORY FACULTIES

The human mind and senses “fit” the natural world, and the use of the laws of logic aids discovery of truth and tends to falsify error.

 

7. ONTOLOGICAL/CONCEPTUAL CATEGORIES

Observed phenomena and entities are defined a priori by known classes such as objects, facts, events, etc. and are construed in a scientific tradition as planets, waves, species, etc.

 

8. THE USEFULNESS/ADEQUACY OF HUMAN LANGUAGE TO DESCRIBE NATURE

Nature corresponds to the mind in such a way that human language closely “fits” nature.

 

9. THE EXISTENCE OF SINGULARITIES, ULTIMATE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS, AND BRUTE GIVENS

Certain features/constants of the cosmos are simply taken for granted (eg. the mass of a proton, some values for forces, free acts of moral agents, etc.).

 

THE NECESSARY PRESUPPOSITIONS

My argument is that only the Christian description of the world offers these presuppositions necessary for scientific inquiry. The philosophical preconditions for science are in the pages of the Hebrew and Greek scriptures. According to Scripture, God is the transcendent and almighty Creator of heaven and earth, and everything owes its very existence and character to His creative powers and definition (Genesis 1; Nehemiah 9:6; Col. 1:16–17).

He makes particulars in creation the way they are and determines that they will function as they do. According to Psalm 147:5, “His understanding is infinite.” Ephesians 1:11 declares that God sovereignly governs every event that transpires, determining what, where, when, and how anything takes place. This includes the motion of the planets, the molecular world, and the death of a sparrow. Isaiah 40:12–28 celebrates the power, creation, providence, delineating, and directing of Yahweh. God has the freedom and control over the created order as the potter has over the clay (Romans 9:21). Moreover, knowledge is possible because of a corresponding capacity created in us by God.

 

THE UNIFORMITY OF NATURE

The atheist worldview cannot account for the uniformity of nature on which to base the scientific process. David Hume has taught us that to say the future will be like the past is to beg the question. Since the uniformity of nature is an unjustified assumption in the atheistic worldview, there is no basis upon which to engage in scientific activities. Bertrand Russell succinctly states the problem of assuming the uniformity of nature in The Problems of Philosophy:

The problem we have to discuss is whether there is any reason for believing in what is called ‘the uniformity of nature.’ The belief in the uniformity of nature is the belief that everything that has happened or will happen is an instance of some general law to which there are no exceptions… But science habitually assumes, at least as a working hypothesis, that general rules which have exceptions can be replaced by general rules which have no exceptions… Have we any reason, assuming that they (scientific laws) have always held in the past, to suppose that they (scientific laws) will hold in the future.

The problem is that without a basis for the uniformity of nature there is no basis for induction. Russell continues that the business of science is to find uniformities, such as the law of gravitation and the laws of motion. Is it possible to formulate general laws of science in a world with no basis for the uniformity of nature? Russell answers this in the negative by writing the following:

Experience might conceivably confirm the inductive principle as regards the cases that have been already examined; but as regards unexamined cases, it is the inductive principle alone that can justify any inference from what has been examined to what has not been examined. All arguments which, on the basis of experience, argue as to the future or the unexperienced parts of the past or present, assume the inductive principle; hence we can never use experience to prove the inductive principle without begging the question. Then we must either accept the inductive principle on the ground of its intrinsic evidence, or forgo all justification of our expectation about the future.

Christians are not left with such a problem, precisely because the uniformity of nature and induction are compatible with the Christian view of the world. God, who is providentially in control of all events, has revealed to humans that we can count on regularities in the natural world. Because of this regularity, the endeavors of science will be fruitful. Science would be impossible without the truth of the Christian worldview.

ht: z

Some good thoughts from the puritans, by Dr. Joel Beeke:

The Puritan’s View of Sex in Marriage

There are many caricatures and missinformation when it comes to how Christians through the ages have viewed sex in marriage. In Dr. Joel R. Beeke’s Living for God’s Glory: An Introduction to Calvinism, he dedicates a chapter to marriage, in which he discusses the Puritan’s view.

Marital love must be sexual, so that both marital partners can give themselves fully to each other with joy and exuberance in a healthy relationship marked by fidelity. Reformers such as Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, and John Calvin established this aspect of marriage by abandoning the medieval Roman Catholic attitudes that marriage was inferior to celibacy, that all sexual contact between marital partners was a necessary evil to propagate the human race, and that a procreative act that involved passion was inherently sinful.

This negative view was rooted in the ancient church and based on the writings of such notables as Tertullian, Ambrose, and Jerome, all of whom believed that, even within marriage, intercourse necessarily involved sin.⁴⁵ This attitude toward marital intimacy, which dominated the church for more than ten centuries, inevitably led to the glorification of virginity and celibacy. By the fifth century, clerics were prohibited from marrying.⁴⁶ Two classes of Christians emerged: the “religious” (i.e., the spiritual clergy), which included monks and nuns who vowed to abstain from all sexual activity, and the “profane” (i.e., the secular laity), who, being unable to rise to the noble heights of virginity or celibacy, were conceded the right to marry.

Puritan preachers taught that the Roman Catholic view was unbiblical, even satanic. They cited Paul, who said that the prohibition of marriage is a doctrine of devils (1 Tim. 4:1–3). Even the Puritan definitions of marriage implied the conjugal act. For example, Perkins defines marriage as “the lawful conjunction of the two married persons; that is, of one man and one woman into one flesh.”⁴⁷ In contrast with Desiderius Erasmus, who taught that ideal marriage abstained from sexual intercourse, Cotton said in a wedding sermon that those who call for marital abstinence follow the dictates of a blind mind and not those of the Holy Spirit, who says that it is not good that man should be alone.⁴⁸

The Puritans viewed sex within marriage as a gift of God and as an essential, enjoyable part of marriage. Gouge says that husbands and wives should cohabit “with good will and delight, willingly, readily, and cheerfully.”⁴⁹ ”They do err,” adds Perkins, “who hold that the secret coming together of man and wife cannot be without sin unless it be done for the procreation of children.”⁵⁰

Perkins goes on to say that marital sex is a “due debt” or “due benevolence” (1 Cor. 7:3) that a couple owes to one another. That must be shown, he says, “with a singular and entire affection one towards another” in three ways: “First, by the right and lawful use of their bodies or of the marriage bed.” Such physical intimacy by “holy usage” should be “a holy and undefiled action (Heb. 13:4)… sanctified by the word and prayer (1 Tim. 4:3–4).” The fruits of God-honoring, enjoyable sex in marriage are the blessing of children, “the preservation of the body in cleanness,” and the reflection of marriage as a type of the Christ-church relationship. Second, married couples must “cherish one another” intimately (Eph. 5:29) rather than having sex in an impersonal way as an adulterer with a prostitute. Third, a couple should be intimate “by an holy kind of rejoicing and solacing themselves each with [the] other in a mutual declaration of the signs and tokens of love and kindness (Prov. 5:18–19; Songs 1:1; Gen. 26:8; Isa. 62:7).” In this context, Perkins particularly mentions kissing.⁵¹

Other Puritans stressed the romantic side of marriage as they compared the love of a husband to God’s love for His own. Thomas Hooker writes, “The man whose heart is endeared to the woman he loves, he dreams of her in the night, hath her in his eye and apprehension when he awakes, museth on her as he sits at table, walks with her when he travels and parlies with her in each place where he comes.”⁵² He adds: “She lies in his Bosom, and his heart trusts in her, which forceth all to confess, that the stream of his affection, like a mighty current, runs with full tide and strength.”⁵³

The emphasis on romance within marriage (rather than in extramarital relations, as was common in the Middle Ages)⁵⁴ has often been attributed to the Puritans. Herbert W. Richardson writes that “the rise of romantic marriage and its validation by the Puritans represents a major innovation within the Christian tradition.”⁵⁵ And C. S. Lewis says, “The conversion of courtly love into romantic monogamous love was largely the work of… Puritan poets.”⁵⁶

The Puritans took the matrimonial duty of sex so seriously that failure to extend “due benevolence” by either partner could be grounds for church discipline. There is at least one case on record in which a husband was excommunicated for “neglecting his wife” by not having intercourse with her for a long period of time.

---

⁴⁵ J. I. Packer, A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 1994), 261.
⁴⁶ Leland Ryken, Worldly Saints: The Puritans As They Really Were (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), 40.
⁴⁷ Perkins, “Christian Oeconomy,” in The Work of William Perkins, 419.
⁴⁸ Ryken, Worldly Saints, 42.
⁴⁹ Quoted in Ryken, Worldly Saints, 44.
⁵⁰ Perkins, “Christian Oeconomy,” 423.
⁵¹ Ibid., 423–427.
⁵² Thomas Hooker, The Application of Redemption (London: Peter Cole, 1659), 137.
⁵³ Thomas Hooker, A Comment Upon Christ’s Last Prayer (London: Peter Cole, 1656), 187. I am indebted to Packer, A Quest for Godliness, 265, for the last two quotations.
⁵⁴ William Haller, The Rise of Puritanism (New York: Harper, 1957), 122.
⁵⁵ Herbert W. Richardson, Nun, Witch, Playmate: The Americanization of Sex (New York: Harper & Row, 1971), 69.
⁵⁶ C. S. Lewis, “Donne and Love Poetry in the Seventeenth Century,” in Seventeenth Century Studies Presentedto Sir Herbert Grierson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1938), 75

Excerpt from Joel R. Beeke’s, Living for God’s Glory: An Introduction to Calvinism. Available fromReformationTrust.com.

HT: Ligonier Ministries