Unfortunately, it’s because
1) He’s black
2) He’s accused of killing a cop
3) He lives in Georgia.
It’s basically the trifecta. If any one of those wasn’t true then it would be a different story entirely.
Unfortunately, it’s because
1) He’s black
2) He’s accused of killing a cop
3) He lives in Georgia.
It’s basically the trifecta. If any one of those wasn’t true then it would be a different story entirely.
Originally, I had proposed an argument that God cannot offer to forgive the non-died-for (NDF)
Any English dictionary will give the same basic meaning, such as, “an offer is a willingness to give something to someone, if they are willing.”
My argument is that given the proper and true definition of ‘offer,’2 God cannot sincerely, well-meaningly, genuinely, and legitimately offer to forgive a person for whom there is no basis of forgiveness available for that person.
God would just be mocking Harry. God would be playing with him. God would [be] tantalizing him with a lie.
The assumption throughout this paper is that an ill-meant offer is by definition insincere and a lying offer. This is obvious as the biblical offer, on its face, implies a willingness and a desire that the offeree take up the thing offered in order to be benefitted. Normal people reject the hypercalvinist notion that an offer to inflict suffering or to bring about affliction is not sincere and not well-meant. For this converts God into a monster, and such ideas are antithetical to mainstream Calvinism of both the standard high and classic-moderate wings.
“Therefore thus says the LORD concerning the king of Assyria: He shall not come into this city or shoot an arrow there or come before it with a shield or cast up a siege mound against it. By the way that he came, by the same he shall return, and he shall not come into this city, declares the LORD. For I will defend this city to save it, for my own sake and for the sake of my servant David.”Sennacherib is, of course, well-attested not only in various books of the Old Testament (2 Kings, Isaiah, 2 Chronicles), but in Assyrian texts and archaeology as well. Kenneth Kitchen (Reliability of the Old Testament, Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, © 2003) notes that “with careful observance of the features of both the Assyrian and Hebrew texts, a coherent picture of the whole episode emerges.” For some reason, Assyrian military history, especially their interactions with Israel, fascinates her.
And the angel of the LORD went out and struck down a hundred and eighty-five thousand in the camp of the Assyrians. And when people arose early in the morning, behold, these were all dead bodies.
Christian Life: My life growing in Christ with thanks and praiseWe were talking about this – in the context of “Union with Christ,” justification and sanctification. And she told me, “Roman Catholicism has really missed something very important.” What they’ve missed is God’s legal declaration of “not guilty” as foundational for everything else that happens in the Christian life. What she wrote above is a bookmark at page 54 (she is further along in the book) where Paul to the Colossians is quoted at length. Here she has highlighted, “When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.”
With joy I am a new creation in Christ. With humility I still have sin in my heart and need God’s grace today as much as I did when I first believed. The Spirit overpowers the things that once dominated my life. I am in Him, but not yet completely like him, so I commit myself to the ongoing heart change that is God’s loving focus.
As I mused on this question I returned to another. If Pat was in fact satirizing me, they why would he call me an ethical subjectivist? After all, as I noted in my article:
Obviously Pat knows I am a hard-nosed ethical objectivist if ever there was one. Consider, for instance, my rather uncompromising critique of traditional notions of biblical genocide based on our intuitions of absolute moral axioms.
Rereading the transcript of last night’s debate, I am struck that Rick Santorum did not thank Stephen Hill, a gay soldier in the U.S. Army currently in Iraq, for his service. Nor did anyone else on that stage. Whatever you think of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” or homosexuality, Hill is risking his life on behalf of his country. It is troubling, and revealing, that Santorum’s answer entirely defined Hill as a gay man first and as a soldier second, if at all.
A man was going down from Washington to Atlanta and he fell among Democrats who stripped him, beat him, and departed. Now by chance a bureaucrat was going down the road and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. So, likewise a Congressional aide- when he came to the place and saw him he passed by on the other side. But a capitalist, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him he had compassion. He went to him to help, but realized he was not licensed by the HHS Secretary to provide first aid. As quickly as he could he called the local ObamaCare agency. After listening to all the selection choices and being on hold for nearly an hour the capitalist finally was able to talk to a heavily accented Indian. After things finally seemed to be ironed out and help was on the way, the man waited by the injured traveler for help to come.
When the ObamaCare agent arrived, he made the capitalist fill out 39 forms, pronounced the traveler dead from blood loss and exposure, and left.
“Outside the Church there is no salvation”Pope Benedict XVI:
How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
“I can understand that in the face of such reports, people, especially those close to victims, would say ‘this isn't my Church anymore’,” the pope, 84, told reporters on his plane from Rome in reference to widespread abuse by priests.“The poor Church, the poor, poor Church. Please be patient with us…”
But he asked for patience as the Church grapples with enduring outrage over the scandals that has threatened to cloud his visit to Germany, where his election six years ago had met with an outpouring of joy.
Can put away the polemics and role play a bit? I'm not setting a rhetorical trap for an argument - I don't have any hidden agenda to get you to paint yourself into a logical corner. Just humor me a bit.
Suppose you were a pastor and I were a member of your congregation, all other things being the same. I am not one of your deacons or elders, I'm just a layperson, a decent enough ordinary member of your church who takes his faith seriously enough to have attended seminary, and who takes truth seriously. I've come to you because you are a friend whom I hold in high regard and someone whose judgment I respect.
I tell you that I believe the historic truths of the faith: the reality of human depravity and my own sin, my need of redemption which can be found only in Christ, that God is Creator and sustainer of all things.
But, I explain, I am also a student of God's creation, and everywhere I looked I found the evidence for an ancient universe and biological evolution overwhelmingly compelling and finally convincing, leading me to a quandary.
To this point my view of inerrancy has been intact, but there are real theological challenges. Genomic evidence seems settled that at no time was there a breeding population of modern human beings of less than 10,000 individuals. I can find no geological evidence for a global flood and myriads of evidence against one. So I've come to you to see what you think I should do with these ideas I find troubling.
I'm not out to engage in a campaign or to evangelize my ideas. I simply can't ignore data which seem to challenge the historicity of Genesis 1-11 and the idea of a historical Fall. I still embrace the Doctrines of Grace.
So what would be your counsel to me, pastor? I hope you'll answer that way because apart from not being a member of a church pastored by you, everything else describes where I actually have been and am in my walk with Christ.
So if I were a friend and not some anonymous Internet commenter, how would you respond in a way designed to comfort my doubts and reinforce my faith? An inner struggle in the life of the mind may not seem as real as struggle with divorce, sexual temptation, illness or hardship, but those who have doubts over intellectual matters are no less in need of wise and compassionate counsel, are they not? Can we not say alongside the father of the afflicted boy in Mark 9:24, "I do believe - help my unbelief!"
By contrast, the spouse in the case I mentioned is a PVS patient. That means that the spouse has no sentient awareness and thus no self-identity, no aches, pains, hopes or fears...Consider again the scenario that prompted Steven’s comments. A couple of twenty year olds are honeymooning when one of them has a massive stroke and is left in a coma with all higher brain function permanently lost. The one that is in a coma will now live for perhaps the next sixty years in a hospital bed with no conscious life at all. Is the other spouse morally obliged to stay with the spouse that is in a coma?
Being a Christian, my assumption is that God does not, nor cannot, mock a sinner.
20Wisdom crieth without; she uttereth her voice in the streets...24Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded; 25But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof: 26I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh (Prov 1:20,24-26).
The first is a brief response to Steve Hays of Triablogue. I feel obliged to respond to Hays, however briefly, because the poor fellow seems desperate for some attention. He keeps saying outrageous things about me. And even though I ignore him, he keeps prattling on like that persistent rattle in an aging Chrysler van.
Steve Hays summarized my position under the heading “Dump your ailing spouse.” I never said “dump your ailing spouse.” But I do advise dumping Mr. Hays’s moral commentary. And I also think that a three year chaplaincy internship at a busy hospital would do Mr. Hays a world of good. Unfortunately I cannot say the same thing for all the poor patients that would be subjected to his “care” during those three years as he slowly worked through all his personal demons.
First the background. I wrote a sympathetic commentary on Pat Robertson’s commentary on Alzheimer’s Disease which focused on Grant’s dilemma (from the film “Away from Her”). In the scenario the Alzheimer’s of Grant’s wife Fiona has progressed to such a degree that she no longer knows her husband. To make matters worse, she is now in a romantic relationship with a new beau at the extended care facility. I asked whether Grant was morally obliged to maintain his matrimonial ties to Fiona under these conditions and I suggested that he need not be.
The ubiquity of the vine and its products in the Old Testament gives sufficient testimony to the economic and social importance of wine in ancient Israel. In Numbers 13 the prodigious cluster of grapes that the two spies carry between them is symbolic of the prosperity of the Promised Land. Time and again in the prophets the vine, or its fruit, is used as a symbol of Israel.
Vines require an annual rainfall of between 400 and 800 millimeters, with most of the rain in winter and early spring. Temperatures need to be above 20°C during fruiting and below 10°C for some of the winter. Vines thrive best on loamy or stony soil that is not overly fertile. Most of Palestine is ideally suited for viticulture, and the vine had long been cultivated when the Israelite tribes first settled the land. Establishing a vineyard was a significant undertaking, and we are fortunate to possess a detailed account in Isaiah 5:1-7. The prophet describes the planting of vines and the building of a wall, tower, and winepress. Vines were cultivated in a number of ways, and we know that both allowing the vine to trail along the ground and training it upward were both used in Israel (Ezek. 17:6-8). It is likely that trailing vines were most common. After four or five years the vine would begin to produce a usable crop of fruit.
The grape harvest occurred around July and August. At the time the grape clusters were cut down and placed into baskets. With very little delay they were taken to nearby winepresses. Many presses carved out of rock have been discovered in Palestine. They are to be found out in the fields close to where the grapes were grown. At the presses the grapes were trodden underfoot, with the juice flowing through a conduit into a vat below. Mechanical means of pressing were probably not introduced until the Hellenistic or Roman period. A number of biblical texts refer to the joyful shouting and singing that accompanied the treating of grapes (e.g., Isa. 16:10; Jer. 48:33). The process of fermentation probably began in the collecting vats, and this first stage of fermentation probably took two to five days. After this the wine was purified, bottled, and placed in storage chambers for the second, slower stage of fermentation and maturing. This process lasted six months, during which time carbon dioxide was released through holes in the jars.
The frequent references to wine in the Old Testament suggest that it was not only the principle alcoholic beverage, but the principle drink, period. Whether it was watered down before consumption, as was the practice of the Greeks and Romans, or drunk undiluted is uncertain. Isaiah’s disparaging comparison of Judah’s righteousness to “wine mixed with water” (1:22) might suggest that there was a preference for undiluted wine. Estimates of the level of wine consumption in ancient Israel have been made on the basis of the remains of wine production facilities and storage rooms. Shimon Dar estimates up to a liter of wine per person per day. Even if wine was spoiled, it could still be used, as is evident from its use as an adjunct to bread in Ruth 2:14.
The climatic demands of the vine ensured that viticulture had a very small role in Egypt and Mesopotamia. Here beer was the principle beverage, and wine was restricted to the elites. Some scholars have equated the biblical shekar, which appears on a number of occasions in the Old Testament, with beer. It is perhaps more likely that this was a generic form for alcoholic drinks. The esteem of wine in Egypt and Mesopotamia led to wine being a profitable export for the Israelite states. At Ashkelon and Gibeon archaeological finds have demonstrated the existence of industrial-scale wine production in the eighth and seventh centuries B.C. These were developed to supply the neo-Assyrian empire. In a later period it is striking that the biblical historians draw attention to vinedressers being exempted from the exile by Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 25:12). It is likely, then, that Palestine was valued during the periods of the Assyrian and Babylonian hegemony principally for its ability to supply wine for consumption in the royal court and by elites.
Problem with this stereotype is that it becomes a vicious cycle. It’s often the same type of circular proof that’s used in Freudian psychology. Freud says sons suffer from a repressed Oedipal complex. When normal men deny this, the Freudian says that just goes to show the denier is in denial. His very denial of a repressed Oedipal complex proves the he’s repressed his Oedipal complex.
Likewise, if a Calvinist attempts to rebut the “angry Calvinist” stereotype, then the very fact that he defended Calvinists against the sweeping charge is treated as damning evidence that he must be an angry Calvinist.
It’s also like the stereotype of an “angry white male.” If you’re a white male, and you reject the accusation, then the accuser takes your very rejection as incriminating evidence that you must be an angry white male.
The whole thing takes on a Kafkaesque quality–where the allegation becomes unfalsifiable.
Which is why it is possible that the problem afflicting the evangelicals at the Gospel Coalition is one of sentimentality. That is, they value feelings more than doctrine. This is what Ken Myers called orthopathy instead of orthodoxy. This does not mean that the folks at TGC ignore doctrine. Obviously, they promote it. But they never let it function in a way that might make leaders, readers, or bloggers uncomfortable — that is, doctrine will never be offensive, especially to the co-allies. But they seem to have no problem patrolling the Christian world for incorrect emotions.
JT, not really simplistic, binary, or boilerplate here since those who have a higher regard for the church than the parachurch know that discipline, even if angered, is beneficial. The church, not a coalition, is the biblical way. Why is it you guys never seem to concede that confessionalists are more biblical than evangelicals on this one?
