RSS

What I Read Online – 05/09/2013 (a.m.)

09 May
    • “No one opens those drawers,” he said. “Absolutely no one. We are actually very surprised that someone did.”
    • “There were some other quite old, crumply books lying around here somewhere,” he said. “Well, not even books. Just piles of papers. But no writing on them. Just lots of weird scribbles. We burned them.”
    • The discovery is the second major religious find in recent days, coming after a group of excavators in Jordan angered the Muslim world when they found a centuries-old illustrated copy of the Quran.
    • Pharisees were moralists.  That doesn’t just mean that they believed in morality; if that were so, every member of every religion ever would be a Pharisee.  Rather it means that they saw personal morality as the path to redemption. 
    • Pharisees were legalists.  This means that they multiplied legal regulations never found in Scripture.
    • The Pharisees were antinomians.  That seems impossible, but look at what Jesus asked: “Why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?”  He then offered up one commandment out of the Ten and demonstrated that the Pharisees habitually broke it.
    • So that is what a Pharisee really is: a moralistic, legalistic antinomian.  Too many in our lawless age assume that this is oxymoronic, that legalism and antinomianism are and must be opposites.  This is simply untrue.  Legalism and antinomianism are instead the twin children of moralism.
    • R. C. Sproul powerfully sets the question within the context of the greatest and truest story ever told:

       

    • The WEA began forming an independent review panel last summer under the leadership of Robert Cooley, president emeritus of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. By the end of September, the WEA global review panel was finalized with 12 evangelical biblical scholars, theologians, linguists, and missiologists from around the world, including from majority-Muslim nations. The panel first met in Toronto, Canada, on November 28-30, 2012, and then in Istanbul, Turkey, on April 9-13, 2013, to conclude their report.

       

    • The panel concludes its rationale for recommendation 1 by arguing that avoiding divine familial terms may serve to support the erroneous Muslim belief that the Bible is corrupt. Not translating “father” and “son” in direct ways “could belie the Christian heritage of apologetics and add substance to the Muslim claim that Christians have corrupted the Bible
    • Tomorrow we will look at the cures Baxter suggests for this kind of melancholy, but note that at least part of it is medical. He says: “Choose a physician who is specially skilled in this disease, and has cured many others.” He advises against consulting “young, unexperienced men” and “hasty, busy, over-worked men, who cannot have time to study the patient’s temper and disease, but choose experienced, cautious men.”
    • Mysticism was once regarded as an alternative to Evangelical Christianity. You were Evangelical or you were a mystic, you heeded the doctrine of the Reformation and understood it to faithfully describe the doctrine laid out in Scripture or you heeded the doctrine of mysticism. Today, though, mysticism has wormed its way inside Evangelicalism so that the two have become integrated and almost inseparable. In an age of syncretism we fail to spot the contradiction and opposition.
    • At the very heart of Evangelical theology is the uniqueness and the supremacy of Scripture
    • The Bible will guide us not only in what we know of God but also in how we know God

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on 09/05/2013 in Current Issues

 

Leave a comment