Al Mohler recently commented on the attention the media's given to Jimmy Carter's relationship with the Southern Baptist Convention. Though his column has now been making the rounds of the net for a few days, perhaps it's not too late to refer you to it. It's not a significant issue; Jimmy Carter is old news, and, as much as I love the Southern Baptists, the SBC is still insignificant in our Canadian lives. That said, I thought Mohler made a funny observation in it against Jimmy Carter: "[President Carter] straightforwardly rejects what he admits some texts of the Bible teach. Then, he opens and closes his article by citing as his main authority the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948" (emphasis added). I found it a funny read, even if it's irrelevant to most of us, because Dr. Mohler points out a number of strange things in the way the story's recently been covered. -- The story of Numbers 13-14, where the twelve Israelites go to spy out Canaan and see if it's conquerable (though God's already promised the land to them) and the reaction of Israel to the spies' report, this, is summarized by Dan Phillips (in passing—this is not what his post was primarily about) as: God said "Go" They said "No" So God said "No go" They said "Woe!" (Some tried... ...they died) -- Unborn babies can learn and use their memories in the womb! -- In Harry Potter V: The Order of the Phoenix, the Minister of Magic (the highest ranking official in the magical world), Cornelius Fudge, is paranoid that Dumbledore is fabricating the return of Voldemort. Interestingly, Rowling (the author) paralleled Fudge's paranoia to an historical figure, concerning the rise of the Nazis. She said, "My model of the world after Voldemort's return was, directly, the government of Neville Chamberlain in Great Britain during the Second World War, when he tried to minimize the menace of the Nazi regime for political convenience." -- Frank Leahy: "Egotism is the anaesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity." -- Aaron Menikoff at 9 Marks: "Yes, the Gospel is offensive and we can't think we have to 'earn' the right to share it. But our evangelism should be robust enough that our lives really are overlapping with non-Christians. We really should be getting to know them." After having read the title of the entry, A Challenge to Evangelism, it took me a while while reading the entry to realize he meant "challenge" in the C4C way. -- Taken from The Amateur Etymologist: Awhile is an adverb used after a verb. Its definition is "after a short period of time". Example: After the heavy lunch, Roger snuck into the bedroom and slept awhile before resuming his chores. A while, on the other hand, is a construction meaning "an indefinite period of time". Example: -- One friend recently said he wasn't sure how to interpret 1 Timothy 2:15, "Yet [a woman] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control." So I figured I'd make reference to a good blog entry by Dr. Andreas Kostenberger on the verse. Here's the conclusion: "In v. 15, Paul addresses the question, 'How can women today avoid the mistake made by Eve?' The answer: By adhering to their God-given boundaries and tending to their God-given responsibilities." What's really valuable about this entry is that afterwards there is dialogue between Dr. Kostenberger and Dr. Ben Witherington in the comments section. Dr. Witherington is a staunch egalitarian. In fact, he said that he really liked the ESV Study Bible except for the lack of female and ethnic scholars among the contributors. (They're complementarian, so in this case, the editors decided to allow men to fulfill this role of teaching. As for the charge of too many white guys, my guess, though I can't substantiate this, is that they're not conceding to affirmative action. They probably took the best men in each of the fields, and each of those men happened to be white.) Despite all the literature out there on this verse, I'm still not sure why Paul goes from the third person singular feminine ("she will be saved . . .") to the third person plural ("if they continue . . ."). -- In Isaiah 43:6 God calls Himself the "King of Israel": "Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.'" I wonder whether this was the main reason why the Jews didn't want Pilate to put the inscription above Jesus' head on the cross that He was King of the Jews in John 19:19-21. Of course, they may simply have wanted to deny that He the rightful inheritor of the throne of David. Also, there's more evidence in the Isaiah verse of the deity of Christ: God calls Himself "the first and the last." Given that the book of Revelation is loaded to the brim with Old Testament allusions and quotations (e.g., Revelation 12:9 and 20:2, "ancient serpent" compared with Genesis 3's serpent, or Revelation 14:14, "behold, a white cloud, and seated on the cloud one like a son of man," compared with Daniel 7:13, "behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man"), John probably wasn't ignorant of Isaiah's language when he recorded Jesus saying of Himself, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end" (Revelation 22:13, refer to v. 16 to see that it is Jesus making this statement). -- Is it possible for a legitimately democratic government (as opposed to the ancient monarchies, and the current communist regimes and Islamic theocracies) to steal from its people? -- Mohler's a "Mac guy" (as opposed to a PC, I'm not talking about MacArthur) (00:47).
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
Re: the Gospel being offensive: I appreciated that little article. I agree that it is offensive(Galatians 5:11, Romans 9:33, John 8:58, Luke 9:57-62, and the list goes on), but I think it can be overstated at times (ie., stated without recognizing other equally valid truths).
Our speaker at Staff Conference made a good point that in his experience, a lot of the time we make the ground sound a lot rockier than it actually is. He said as an example, sometimes staff/students will complain of how difficult the soil is, and then he'll go on campus and talk to some of the very same people and make huge progress in spiritual conversations within a half hour.
His point: approach matters. Often people aren't nearly as closed to the Gospel as we think, but they are opposed to our method (immediate proclamation/randoms) and desire authenticity, relationship, and a true listening ear (cf. Matthew 5:16, James 1:19).
The idea that the Gospel is offensive must be held in tension with the ideas that people are hungry for truth (Matthew 9:37, John 4:35, Acts 17:11) and that the Spirit is definitely at work in bringing people to repentance (Acts 16:14, John 16:8-11).
I actually posted the quote by Aaron Menikoff not to comment on the offense of the Gospel, but to quote him saying that we don't need to earn the right to tell a person the Gospel.
Reading the opening of your comment ("the Gospel being offensive") I wondered whether I had quoted the right thing; I had forgotten how the quote started.
It's interesting the different things different people will focus on. I should have made my intention in posting the quote clear.
As for your comment, you're absolutely right, approach matters.
Great post Peter! I think you will enjoy the 2nd year courses at IBS once you get there (and I suppose you have to take the 1st, which is viewed "easy" by some staff, but required). I'm sorry that we didn't get to play "Things" at Campus Days. We will have to the next time we see each other. =D
Re: Legit democratic governments.
I guess that depends on your particular notion of stealing. I would say most likely.
JWo: I'll hold you to that! It may end up being at WC!
Meredith: Interesting, that you lean that way. I lean in the direction of saying the government is theoretically unable to steal from its own people. If it appears to be stealing, I would venture to say it's likely one party (either an individual or several individuals) using the government to steal from people. Maybe that's what you meant.
Doug Wilson, a guy I really like, says taxes should be low because high taxes is stealing. While I'm sympathetic to that stance because I oppose high taxes, I don't think it's stealing. There's no clear line where at one time taxation is legitimate, and at another time it is stealing.
There are at least two non-white contributers to the ESV Study Bible.
Nobuyoshi Kiuchi from Tokyo Christian University contributed toward the notes on Leviticus
David Toshio Tsumura from Japan Bible Seminary wrote the notes for 1 and 2 Samuel.
I don't know if governments can be accused of stealing, because we are supposed to give to Caesar what is Caesar's.
But, I think they could be oppression/injustice if they abuse that right at the expense of their people.
Good word, Jer. That seems pretty straightforward.
Post a Comment