Curious about what Wright thinks about Carson, Piper, and Moo? All that and more here.
(HT: Jim Hamilton)
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Barth vs. Bultmann...because of Herrmann?
For you Barth fans out there, I just recently read this reveiw on Christophe Chalamet's book: "Dialectical Theologians: Wilhelm Herrmann, Karl Barth and Rudolf Bultmann." The review is by Ben Myers and even though contemporary theology isn't my strong suit, the review made me want to buy the book.
(HT: DET)
(HT: DET)
Some Thoughts on the Authority of Words
My son has finally reached the age that he is showing himself to be my son indeed, as well as one of Adam's sons; that is, his depravity has begun to bloom exponentially, if I may mix a few metaphors. Though he learned "Ma" and "Da" early on, as well as "Da" with a slightly different inflection that means "yes" (when you become a parent you do learn things like how to distinguish between "Da" and "Da" - it's kinda scary but largely intuitive). Yet, the first word he's really mastered, with regards to using it accurately in most situations, is "No". And he even sounds darn cute when he says it. Sometimes.
His accurate use of "no" likely stems from the fact that he hears us say it often when he's doing something we don't want him to do. He's put 2 and 2 together and determined that you say "no" when people either do something you don't want, or ask you to do something you don't want to do. And he says it just like we do. I was thinking about it the other day and was fascinated by the fact that he understands what it means and how to use it, yet there's still something missing. He doesn't quite get why when we say "no" it IS "no", while when he says "no" if WE say "yes" then his "no" get's overridden. I realized that it all boils down to power and authority. Without getting all metaphysical here, he just doesn't have the authority nor power to bring to pass what he demands; we do, at least in most things pertaining to him. We have God granted authority as his parents and power, because we're just plain bigger, faster and more coordinated (though he is pretty quick and strong for his age).
Of course the parallel here is blatantly obvioius. It is the same with God and that's why in so many ways our view of our God (be it right or wrong) often stems from our view of our parents. And though it's true of the "no"s that He may prohibit, it delightful to think that it is also true of His promises:
I bow before your holy Temple as I worship. I praise your name for your unfailing love and faithfulness; for your promises are backed by all the honor of your name. NLT Psalm 138:2
His accurate use of "no" likely stems from the fact that he hears us say it often when he's doing something we don't want him to do. He's put 2 and 2 together and determined that you say "no" when people either do something you don't want, or ask you to do something you don't want to do. And he says it just like we do. I was thinking about it the other day and was fascinated by the fact that he understands what it means and how to use it, yet there's still something missing. He doesn't quite get why when we say "no" it IS "no", while when he says "no" if WE say "yes" then his "no" get's overridden. I realized that it all boils down to power and authority. Without getting all metaphysical here, he just doesn't have the authority nor power to bring to pass what he demands; we do, at least in most things pertaining to him. We have God granted authority as his parents and power, because we're just plain bigger, faster and more coordinated (though he is pretty quick and strong for his age).
Of course the parallel here is blatantly obvioius. It is the same with God and that's why in so many ways our view of our God (be it right or wrong) often stems from our view of our parents. And though it's true of the "no"s that He may prohibit, it delightful to think that it is also true of His promises:
I bow before your holy Temple as I worship. I praise your name for your unfailing love and faithfulness; for your promises are backed by all the honor of your name. NLT Psalm 138:2
Sunday, November 25, 2007
The SBC on Contextualization
No it's not a sick joke, nor an oxymoron. The IMB drafted some statements on Contextualization. While I haven't had time to digest them all, Stetzer recommended them so they must be good :-)
Follow up on the Last Post
Ok, it's pathetic to think it's almost a month later, but with OT at work (and that ain't the former testament) and Thanksgiving and all I been out for a while. Tom tried to post some comments back whent the post went up but wasn't able to so he sent me an email and said I could post them if I wanted to, the greeting being the most important part :-) Since it's been so long, rather than put them in the comment section, I figured I'd make them a separate post:
"Was I absent the day I taught on worldviews, presuppositionalism and speech act theory (and evidently grammar according to your 'Oh What a Night …' post)? I applaud your 'honest' search for just one biblically faithful reason to be a teetotaler – but is there any biblical truth upon which you have a strong conviction (sorry for the overt fundy language) that is based on a singular, biblically-faithful argument? Would I be surprised to see that, even if I had a biblically faithful argument from the text, you would not read that text in the manner in which I do? Finally, do you really think that you are asking a question; I mean, am I really the only one who doesn't think this is an honest request?
Mihelis: "Here's my question, but play on my home field, by my rules, for my entertainment though I think you're pathetic for not holding my view – and by the way, if you do make it through all my hurdles, I get to change the rules."
tKd
(Logan-It's Dailey. I've been praying for you (and Baylor with his 15 minutes [and Mihelis]), but the latter keeps ticking me off!)
Ok, Nate again here. the question, summing it up at the end is legit - but that's the nature of blogs. I didn't feel like responding to said arguments, but was curious if there were anymore. Besides, my dictatorial rule of this blog is at least benevolent, hence the posting of these comments :-) Onto a whole nuther issue - the fact that both Mike and Tom got out of my original post some sort of looking to entice teetotlares into an argument was telling. Both of them are great friends whom I respect a ton and have learned immensly from. They are also two guys who know me well. Lessons learned: 1) I probably do have a bit more maturing to do when discussing fundy issues regardless of my motives on this isue. 2) No matter how hard you try, communication in cyberspace or the metaverse if you will (yes an intentional misuse baylor) is difficult at best.
"Was I absent the day I taught on worldviews, presuppositionalism and speech act theory (and evidently grammar according to your 'Oh What a Night …' post)? I applaud your 'honest' search for just one biblically faithful reason to be a teetotaler – but is there any biblical truth upon which you have a strong conviction (sorry for the overt fundy language) that is based on a singular, biblically-faithful argument? Would I be surprised to see that, even if I had a biblically faithful argument from the text, you would not read that text in the manner in which I do? Finally, do you really think that you are asking a question; I mean, am I really the only one who doesn't think this is an honest request?
Mihelis: "Here's my question, but play on my home field, by my rules, for my entertainment though I think you're pathetic for not holding my view – and by the way, if you do make it through all my hurdles, I get to change the rules."
tKd
(Logan-It's Dailey. I've been praying for you (and Baylor with his 15 minutes [and Mihelis]), but the latter keeps ticking me off!)
Ok, Nate again here. the question, summing it up at the end is legit - but that's the nature of blogs. I didn't feel like responding to said arguments, but was curious if there were anymore. Besides, my dictatorial rule of this blog is at least benevolent, hence the posting of these comments :-) Onto a whole nuther issue - the fact that both Mike and Tom got out of my original post some sort of looking to entice teetotlares into an argument was telling. Both of them are great friends whom I respect a ton and have learned immensly from. They are also two guys who know me well. Lessons learned: 1) I probably do have a bit more maturing to do when discussing fundy issues regardless of my motives on this isue. 2) No matter how hard you try, communication in cyberspace or the metaverse if you will (yes an intentional misuse baylor) is difficult at best.
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Coming Out of the Closet Without Falling off the Wagon
Ok, so I've been out of the blogosphere for more than a week, so come back with a bang right? Maybe not, but I've been toying with posting on this for sometime now and the time just seemed right. The majority of people who read this blog know I'm not a teetotaler (did I spell that right Logan?); never have been in fact, not even in my hyperfundy days. Of course, by saying I'm not a teetotaler, I'm not implying that I just think it's ok for people to drink alcohol, but rather that I am an active participant in one of God's good gifts.
I thought it would be fun to give 24 hours notice to other bloggers who read this blog and share my convictions to come clean before I posted a list of their names....but decided I'd be kind. Instead, I'd like to pose a question: Is anyone aware of a biblically faithful, logically coherent argument for a teetotalistic position? By biblically faithful, I have in mind both the passages that commend alcohol and passages that indirectly condone it (stuff like John saying that the first display of Jesus' glory was accomplished by turning water into wine...and the good stuff at that). There's a lot of data that just seems hard to get around to me. By logically coherent, I mean it does need to be consistent, but more importantly that arguments like "grape juice" and anything based on word studies alone are dismissed ipso fact as being logically fallacious. I'm not trying to open up a rant in the comments section, I'm just curious if there are any good arguments out there that I've overlooked. Sure, there are circumstances that might arise when abstinence might be appropriate (history of drunkenness, ministering to someone with a history of drunkenness), but I'm referring to a valid teetotaler position. Anybody?
I thought it would be fun to give 24 hours notice to other bloggers who read this blog and share my convictions to come clean before I posted a list of their names....but decided I'd be kind. Instead, I'd like to pose a question: Is anyone aware of a biblically faithful, logically coherent argument for a teetotalistic position? By biblically faithful, I have in mind both the passages that commend alcohol and passages that indirectly condone it (stuff like John saying that the first display of Jesus' glory was accomplished by turning water into wine...and the good stuff at that). There's a lot of data that just seems hard to get around to me. By logically coherent, I mean it does need to be consistent, but more importantly that arguments like "grape juice" and anything based on word studies alone are dismissed ipso fact as being logically fallacious. I'm not trying to open up a rant in the comments section, I'm just curious if there are any good arguments out there that I've overlooked. Sure, there are circumstances that might arise when abstinence might be appropriate (history of drunkenness, ministering to someone with a history of drunkenness), but I'm referring to a valid teetotaler position. Anybody?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
