RSS

What I Read Online – 07/09/2013 (a.m.)

09 Jul
    • which I would surmise that the children made themselves
    • In all honesty, though, the orchestra (largely made up of schoolchildren with a few members of Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra visible throughout) played superbly, brass fanfares pealing out with nary a bubble in the “Alleluia” following the storm. The handbell playing leading up to the conclusion was virtuosically well-coordinated. Conductor John Rosser had things well in hand directing the singers in the performing area as well as the “congregation” all around
    • Surprisingly, the children were actually often better at getting their words across than the seasoned operatic artists.
    • New Zealand Opera should be applauded for their series of Noye’s Fludde performances intended for community outreach. Any effort that gets children involved not only in hearing, but also participating in, classical music is valuable and especially so when performed at such a generally high standard as here. Here’s hoping that more such events can be planned for the future.
    • Noye’s Fludde on stage at the Auckland Town Hall, Sunday 7 July, 2013.
    • formidable
    • The colourful vicar of St Matthew-in-the-City, Glynn Cardy, is leaving his Anglican church to lead a Presbyterian church in Remuera.
    • Auckland University School of Theology head Dr Stephen Garner said there were few issues with Anglican, Methodist or Presbyterian ministers moving between denominations.

       

        There were agreements in place for that to occur, although Rev Cardy would have to apply to the relevant regional presbytery first. He would still remain an ordained Anglican priest even when he moved to St Lukes, Dr Garner said.

    • A number of good books have landed on my desk over the last month. 
    • A problem with that recommendation Evans is oblivious to his own anathemas and ad hominem arguments. His article betrays a bristling animosity towards Mohler and other “fundamentalists.” He needs to back up a few paces and cultivate the critical detachment to recognize in himself what he is so quick to fault in his opponents.

       

    • As we shall see, Evans (as well as Walton) merely pays lip-service to what ancient Near Easterners could know about their world
    • i) It’s revealing to see Evans quote this passage with evident approval. For Walton’s position surrenders the inerrancy of Gen 1. On Walton’s view, Gen 1 asserts a false conception of the world. That’s because the narrator was scientifically ignorant. He didn’t know any better. Likewise, that’s the position of Paul Seely and Peter Enns–among others. So Evans is tacitly admitting that he must sacrifice the inspiration of Scripture to defend his alternative. 

       

    • ii) Walton is trying to ride two horses. On the one hand, he attributes the depiction of Gen 1 to antiquated cosmological conceptions. On the other hand, he promotes a cosmic temple interpretation. But if the narrator is depicting the world in terms which foreshadow the tabernacle, then isn’t that the controlling paradigm rather than ancient cosmology?
    • iii) Did ancient Israelites not know that the sun and moon were farther away than flying birds? What that claim reveals is not how unobservant ancient Near Easterners were, but how unobservant Walton and Evans are. If you spend much time watching birds in flight, or gazing at the sky,  you’ll notice birds flying across the face of the sun. Likewise, at night, you can see bats or nocturnal birds fly across the face of a full moon. Therefore, ancient Near Easterners were certainly in a position to gauge relative distances in that regard. Walton and Evans aren’t making a serious effort to see the world through the eyes of an ancient Near Eastern observer. Rather, they make unexamined and untested assumptions about the original audience. Walton and Evans are clearly out of touch with the natural world. 

       

    • That’s true as far as it goes. But gaps in the genealogies won’t buy millions or billions of extra years
    • ii) The framework hypothesis cuts against the aural grain of the text. The text is directed at the ear rather than the eye. Most members of the target audience would hear the text rather than read the text. Hearing is linear, sequential. 

       

    • But as many critics have pointed out, it’s arbitrary to insist that Gen 1 is only concerned with functionality rather than material origins. Why assume ancient Near Easterners operated with that false dichotomy? 

       

    • ii) A basic problem with dating the origin of the universe is that we use natural processes to clock natural processes. If certain cyclical or periodic processes are already in place, then (assuming a uniform rate) we can use these to clock other processes. But when dealing with the absolute origin of the universe, those processes are not a given, for those processes are the result of God’s creative fiats. You can use a watch to clock the passage of time if you have a watch, but if the watch is under construction, you can’t use the watch to clock itself. 

       

    • iv) The measurement of time presupposes a temporal metric. but that, in turn, raises the question of whether time itself has an intrinsic metric, or whether any metric we use will be extrinsic to time. And since you have to use a temporal metric to measure time, you can’t derive the temporal metric from time.  Empirical evidence won’t settle that question, for the evidence presuppose an operating metric. As one philosopher explains, summarizing the argument of a great physicist and mathematician:

       

    • ii) Other than Philip Henry Gosse (or P. G. Nelson), who says “God embedded fossils in the rock strata in order to create the impression of great antiquity”? Evans is conflating omphalism with young-earth creationism, but these are hardly equivalent. Has Evans actually bothered to study the most astute exponents of young-earth creationism, viz. Jay Wile, John Byl, Jason Lisle, Andrew Snelling, Kurt Wise, Todd Wood, Jonathan Sarfati, Marcus Ross
    • Remember that the audience to whom Joshua was originally addressed knew nothing of Ptolemaic astronomy. That imports later models of geocentrism into a text that antedates those debates.  Josh 10 doesn’t contrast geocentrism with heliocentrism. It isn’t based on Greek astronomy.  The “Copernican revolution” simply stripped away an interpretive layer that postdates Josh 10 by centuries.
    • Mankind is defined by one of two representatives — Adam or Christ — neither of whom are “elected” or chosen by us; rather, both are unilaterally and sovereignly appointed by God himself
    • Being the image of God, all of mankind know, by God’s own revealing activity, who this God is who made them.
    • Once we broach the subject of a “basis” or “foundation” for what is taken to be true, we are now challenging the Adamite view of what he takes to be true, as well as of the world and of himself
    • Alert readers will recognize that what we want to do in discussions like this is expose, in order to focus on, the presuppositions that are thought to support the pseudo-world imagined by those in Adam, as well as the presuppositions that we all know to be true (though only those in Christ, by grace, will acknowledge this)
    • Not only are we appealing to the rot and decay on which every Adamite stands, but we are, as we appeal, reasoning with them, even in their irrationality. To reason with them means that we appeal, as persuasively as possible, (1) to those things which they already accept to be true (though they also suppress and reject why they are true) and (2) to those things which they do not accept to be true, even though, because of what God has done, they know they are true.
    • An ancient road leading from Yafo [Jaffa] to Jerusalem, which dates to the Roman period (second–fourth centuries CE), was exposed this past fortnight in the Beit Hanina neighborhood in northern Jerusalem. The road remains were revealed in an archaeological excavation the IAA conducted in Beit Hanina prior to the installation of a drainage pipe by the Moriah Company.

    • Stuart Anglicans 
    • Conforming Puritans
    • Presbyterian Puritans
    • Congregational Puritans
    • Determined congregational Puritans 
    • Militant congregational Puritans
    • Moderate separatists
    • Radical separates 
    • As John Piper has explained, the ultimate evil of abortion is not that it kills children or that it damages women—which it does. “The ultimate evil,” he said, “is that it assaults and demeans God.” But that, he says, “is what the gospel of Jesus Christ is about. How God planned and brought about a plan to forgive people who have committed the ultimate outrage of discounting his glory and treating it as less valuable than their own private preferences.”

       

    • Presid’ Edwards valuable Writings in another Generation will pass into as transient notice perhaps scarce above oblivion, . . . and when Posterity occasionally comes across them in the Rubbish of Libraries, the rare Characters who may read & be pleased with them, will be looked upon as singular and whimsical. . . .

       

    • Sinners” is indeed a great and striking sermon, fully deserving serious attention. But as an introduction to the full range of Edwards’ thought, it is highly misleading. The terror of “Sinners” has a legitimate place in Edwards’ universe, but it is far from the center
    • Tasting and seeing are the kinds of things that beget more tasting and seeing. Tasting and seeing beget desire. It is this desire that turns the Christian more and more fully to her Lord who is beautiful and glorious. It is a journey we will continue for eternity.
    • The word literally means to lose energy or passion. Discouraged children lose hope, stop trying, and give up
    • Mishandling the Rod of Discipline
    • Maintaining a Disorderly Home
    • Holding Inappropriate Expectations
    • Building a Joyless Home
    • Failing to Speak as “One Flesh”
    • Thus the Bible is a revelation of God teaching the importance of justice, human dignity and respect for one another while promoting values of fidelity, sacrificial love and stable family life. With that understanding we can talk past those who miss (or downplay) that understanding in favour of the Bible as a revelation of God teaching the importance of holiness, sexual discipline, the importance of marriage between a man and a woman as the cornerstone of society while promoting a gospel which both invites all to enter God’s kingdom and announces God’s judgment on those who refuse to repent and believe in Christ.
       
       Such understandings potentially could lead to a conversation about what the whole of the Bible says to the church today. Unfortunately that potential is not being reached because … well, there is quite a question to consider, is there not? We Anglicans love the Bible (we say). We read Scripture together (we say). Scripture is paramount in our life (cf. the Thirty-Nine Articles, our various constitutions, Lambeth resolutions). Yet somehow we are not reaching a common understanding about the Bible, about what God is saying through Scripture to the church today.
    • However, they are also deadly for preachers. Let me explain. I’ve heard lots of sermons (LOTS!) which go something like this: “Now, even though it’s not here in [Mark’s] account, [Luke] throws in some extra details which are worth considering.” (Substitute any gospel name). At the risk of sounding like the Preaching Taliban, I want to say NO! The gospels are Spirit inspired Scripture and if you are going elsewhere to add in some detail to the account you’re preaching, I would suggest you’ve rather missed the point

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

Advertisements
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on 09/07/2013 in Current Issues

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: