coComments related to schoolmann

I was actually pleased to see

2009-11-12T19:40:22.326+01:00

I was actually pleased to see that TNIV uses "Yahweh" instead of LORD. I hadn't known that before. My Hebrew prof made the point that in the OT, there is no suggestion that there is anything wrong with pronouncing the name of God. Evidently that was a development in Judaism after Malachi was written. I understand Jon's point that "Yahweh" lacks resonance if you're not used to it, though. But there's only one way to get used to it.... :-)

I'm really thrilled with the j

2009-10-12T20:55:38.309+02:00

I'm really thrilled with the journey God is bringing Ekklesia on. The venue at John Glenn High is beautiful. The band sounds fantastic, and best of all, we have room to grow! I think that God wants us to be attached to one another, not to a physical structure. As far as being disciples goes, the extra teamwork necessary to set up and tear down every week should give us valuable practice in godly cooperation and develop relationships. And some of the obstacles that some people have regarding traditional church buildings are moot--that and the extra space help us make disciples. I'm loving it.

What I'd like to know, Scot, i

2009-09-20T15:10:33.290+02:00

What I'd like to know, Scot, is why you, as a confessing Anabaptist, care whether any particular church group is "Protestant." The link you provide to Anabaptism explicitly denies being either Protestant or Catholic; and Anabaptism is also (arguably) the historic predecessor to present-day "low church evangelicalism." RJS - may I recommend some concert earplugs (should be available at any music store)? They're designed to lessen the volume without muffling everything.

Just a note on the argument th

2009-08-21T13:01:28.383+02:00

Just a note on the argument that "All the books of the Bible were written by men" (@Mike O'Dea, quoting Mark Driscoll): Driscoll most certainly knows better, which just shows how much our presuppositions affect our logic. Many, if not most, of the books of the Bible are formally anonymous; we only have tradition to suggest to us who might have written them. Of course, in a male-dominated society, in which most literate people were men, it is likely that most of them were written by men. But we do not know for sure. If a woman wrote one of the books, it's most likely that she would have left her name off, so as to secure a greater readership. Maybe that's why Hebrews is anonymous. (Priscilla, anyone?) :-)

@Chris Jesus not giving us ou

2009-08-21T01:53:44.560+02:00

@Chris Jesus not giving us our wanted "clarification" is an excellent point. I've been in Bible studies where the bulk of the discussion amounted to finding limits and exceptions to the main thrust of Jesus' message. We always want to find legitimate reasons to stand up for ourselves. While there are abusive situations that require such an approach, I wonder if we've factored in the power of nonretaliation. 1 Cor 6, esp v. 7, comes to mind: "Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?" Paul's point is that our witness is more important than whether we are wronged. "Take up your cross and follow me." Serious stuff.

Thanks for looking that up, Bi

2009-01-20T18:53:17.885+01:00

Thanks for looking that up, Bill.

Good stuff, especially about n

2009-01-20T06:40:57.663+01:00

Good stuff, especially about not "showing off" biblical language knowledge (often errant). It's practically never necessary in order to make a point, and essentially functions to render preachers' reasoning opaque--thereby unquestionable--to their listeners. I do have a question about the Greek and Hebrew words traditionally rendered, "fool." How are these words understood in extrabiblical literature, especially antecedent writings and other writings not directly interacting with the biblical literature? Do they still tend to have the meaning, "moral deficiency," or do they tend to mean intellectual deficiency when encountered in extrabiblical writings? In the former case (always meaning moral deficiency), perhaps "fool" was always a poor translation; perhaps "rake" or "reprobate" or "libertine" would have worked better. In the latter case (meaning mental deficiency in the extrabiblical literature), the biblical literature would be making a kind of wordplay. The point would be something like this: the true test of idiocy isn't lack of intelligence, but rather lack of moral and spiritual sense. In this case, "fool" or some such translation accurately preserves the intended meaning.

Let's put it this way: the per

2008-03-02T06:45:14.739+01:00

Let's put it this way: the percentage of population - percentage of contribution comparison suggests that there should be a 1:1 ratio between the two. So therefore, for example, the top 5% of income earners should pay 5% of the total tax burden, and the bottom 5% should also pay 5% of the total tax burden. Is that an argument you really want to make?

And I'm back to the misleading

2008-03-02T06:38:52.318+01:00

And I'm back to the misleading nature of that type of argument. What would be a fair share of the top 25% is directly related to the share of assets they control. "The top 25% are paying 86% of taxes." Sounds unfair. But what if the top 25% control 90% of the assets? Then it's suddenly not so unfair. It's all related to what proportion of wealth they control. I have no problem with people amassing capital through honest careful stewardship over time. But the top taxpayers are not workers with carefully invested 401Ks and IRAs. They are people whose hard work the market has deemed hundreds of times more valuable than the hard work of other people. So if we're going to talk about "fair share," lets pull the income side into the equation. I've heard all these arguments during my years of subscribing to National Review and listening to Rush. I don't buy them anymore. They say a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality. What do they call a conservative who has been mugged by reality?

"Something like 80% of million

2008-03-02T02:05:29.076+01:00

"Something like 80% of millionares live in homes near the median value of homes, drive cars that are four or more years old, and lead frugal lives. They are people who were good stewards with financial resources and invested them in ways that benefit countless others in society." Ah. The wealthy are more virtuous argument. As for the rest of the argument, I believe David Stockman had a term for it.

I find statistics like, "The t

2008-03-01T16:03:18.745+01:00

I find statistics like, "The top 1% of taxpayers pay 40% of federal income taxes," incredibly misleading. It's a comparison of percentage of population with percentage of contribution, with the hidden assumption that everyone is more or less able to contribute. The real comparison is proportion of contribution with proportion of assets controlled by a particular segment of the population. The top 1% control far more than 1% of assets. With regard to your final question, when US income taxes were first implemented, the top 1% did in fact pay all income taxes collected.

Hi Steve, You write, "Althoug

2007-07-20T03:44:51.252+02:00

Hi Steve, You write, "Although His love and compassion is stretched out to the sinner, his purpose is their destruction. I have found this particularly helpful in handling a difficult situation in a church I pastored. To be pastor and prosecutor is a difficult call. Yet the Lord does this every day." The difference, of course, is that presumably you would have welcomed the repentance and restoration of the one to whom you refer, but you had no power to compel it. On the other hand, God, as you conceive of him, has it within his power to obtain that very repentance and to confer that very restoration--but he doesn't. He has actually paid a price sufficient to do so, but he will refuse to apply that price to that soul. He will, instead, damn that soul to hell--for his own good pleasure and for His own glory. You may not like this characterization of what you believe. If so, I would appreciate you telling me on what particular points I have misstated your position. Until then, I shall remain grateful that God has seen fit to predestine me to be an Arminian.

Timotheos, It's only fair to

2007-07-11T14:52:33.177+02:00

Timotheos, It's only fair to note that since I am not Southern Baptist (or any kind of Baptist), I generally have no reason to comment on posts dealing more specifically with Baptist life and history. I found this blog doing a search on "Arminianism" (luckily, Peter was doing his interview with Roger Olson then, or I'd never have found it--I wouldn't have searched for "nonCalvinism"). It was the only site I've found on the internet that favorably discusses a view of soteriology similar to my own, except for a couple of ugly, mean-spirited, semi-biblically-literate ones. (I'd be happy to find more counterexamples.) And so of course that's what draws my attention. But I'm also wearying of the discussion, mainly because no one seems to be interested in the question except for the already-convinced. I note the irony: I'm also in that category, although I'm willing to examine arguments I haven't seen before. Our brother's recent pronouncement (ex cathedra) of my exegesis as simply "incorrect" doesn't count.

Hi, Emily. It's nice to see so

2007-07-10T14:32:50.087+02:00

Hi, Emily. It's nice to see someone else who isn't afraid of the term "Arminian." Mary, call yourself whatever you want, but just remember that all terms don't receive their final definition from the types of Calvinists you're writing about. Besides, if you're not One Of Them, they'll label you as an Arminian anyway. Richard, you are exactly right about the "potter's clay" in Jeremiah 18:1-13. As a matter of fact, in my own study of Romans 9 (shameless plug: http://schooleyfiles.blogspot.com/2006/08/new-perspective-and-romans-9-potter.html), I found that *every* time that image is used in the OT, it *always* has the meaning you discussed. The OT passages in which this type of potter-clay illustration is used *all* refer to people who are under judgment for their own false worship and disregard of God and His Law, and either imply or specifically offer restoration to those who repent. I've never seen Calvinists trace back the origins of the pastiche of OT quotes that Paul uses in Romans 9. Of course, I've been told that this is an "incorrect hermeneutical principle." ;-) Also I love the quote from Calvin, “First, it must be observed that the will of God is the CAUSE of all things that happen in the world; and yet God is NOT the author of evil.” That is the central contradiction of the Calvinist position that Arminians can't swallow. We don't want to take God's glory for saving us, as is asserted. Leaving space for free will of subordinate creations (humans, angels) also leaves space for the introduction of evil into the universe without it being ordained by God. Peter, with all deference to Dr. Olson (and what I wrote above regarding the definitions of terms), I think that "Reformed" has become so identified with Calvinistic theology that it really is misleading to call Arminianism a "Reformed" theological position. A "Reformation" position, yes. The real crux of the issue is, does God have to be a micro-manager in order to be sovereign? Does it not as well (or better) demonstrate sovereignty for God to be in control of the overall outcome, despite the existence of subordinate causes, many of whom are hostile to His will?

Peter, I think that you have g

2007-06-06T03:08:17.513+02:00

Peter, I think that you have gotten to a point where Pentecostals themselves disagree. The majority of classical Pentecostals would say that once you have received tongues as evidence of Spirit baptism, you would always have the ability to use it in private prayer, although you wouldn't particularly have to use it. It's volitional, which is something I think many people are confused about or fearful of. However, I think there are some who might believe that tongues is *just* initial evidence, particularly among those from the later charismatic and "third wave" movements. What seems like a simple question from a non-Pentecostal perspective ("Are tongues in Acts the same or different than tongues in 1 Corinthians?") is actually quite difficult to answer from a Pentecostal perspective. When we Pentecostals speak of the "gift of tongues," we mean the public use that Paul says is only given to some, is used in the gathered assembly, and must be accompanied by interpretation. The tongues in Acts 2, 10, and 19 are evidence of Spirit baptism, are available to all believers, and were being misused in Corinth, which is whyPaul had to distinguish between the two and tell them to stop using their "prayer languages" publicly in the gathered assembly. I know that Peter understands where I'm coming from; for everyone else, I want to make clear that I am not trying to argue anyone else into this position; I'm just trying to explain what Pentecostals believe.

Hi, Peter, I hope you enjoy y

2007-06-05T05:09:37.887+02:00

Hi, Peter, I hope you enjoy your time in San Antonio. I have an aunt who lives there, and have had two greatly enjoyable visits there. It's a nice blend of the American South, the American West, and Mexico. May God bless your trip. On the issue at hand, yes, we Pentecostals make a distinction between private tongues and public tongues, but we view them as different in function, not in kind. That is, tongues spoken privately is the same thing as tongues spoken publicly, although it is for a different purpose. We derive the private use of tongues from 1 Cor. 14, which is primarily intended to restrict and clarify the use of tongues in the gathered congregation. "For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit" (14:2). Contextually, Paul is saying that it is inappropriate to use tongues in a public sense (unless, as he clarifies later, the tongues are interpreted), precisely because they are intended to communicate directly with God. Paul goes on, "He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself.... I would like everyone of you to speak in tongues" (14:4-5). Of course, I'm dropping out what Paul has to say about prophecy here, in order to emphasize that what he has to say about tongues in counterpoint is not negative; it's simply inappropriate in the gathered assembly. But this is the purpose of tongues generally (to answer David): it is a means of speaking to God that builds us up individually. Paul goes on: "If I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind" (14:14-15). Tongues bypasses the mind (so it's good for when we don't know what to pray), but it's not thereby something we should avoid: Paul says that there is a place for both in his own practice--but not in the church, where intelligibility to other human beings is necessary. "I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue" (14:18-19). So Paul does speak in tongues--but not in the church. So the question would be, where then does he do it? Finally, he sums up: "Do not forbid speaking in tongues. But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way" (14:39-40). Paul's point in 1 Cor. 14 is about order in the service.And everything he has to say about tongues, essentially, is that aside from interpreted tongues, it has its place, but not in the gathered assembly. So if it's not in the gathered assembly, where is it supposed to be? I would assume, some place that is private. It's not my place to offer suggestions to the SBC on this issue. It seems to me that conservative Baptists, in general, are pretty much cessationist in practice, if not necessarily in theory. (I mean that merely as observation, not as criticism.) Restricting the use of tongues (private or public) is simply a means of maintaining that distinction. Whether it's an important distinction to maintain is up to you. God bless.

It's interesting to me that ch

2007-05-05T00:53:49.775+02:00

It's interesting to me that churches that practice believer's baptism have a ceremony called infant dedication, and churches that practice infant baptism have a ceremony called confirmation. It seems that we all understand the need to include children in some sense from the earliest ages, and yet there is a point at which we all understand that a person needs to make their own choice once they come to their own understanding of what salvation entails. (Yes, I used the colloquial singular "they." It's the best solution to the stupid indefinite gender conundrum.) So based on that, I think taking communion should be for those who have been baptized/confirmed. Oddly enough, most churches that have confirmation do make it a prerequisite to communion, while many churches that practice believer's baptism don't make baptism a prerequisite--so it appears that confirmation tends to be taken more seriously than baptism, respectively. I don't much like the idea of specific age requirements; I think that the person should be able to articulate a credible profession of faith. That will be at different ages for different children.

Timotheos-- My use of the ter

2007-03-27T13:28:54.475+02:00

Timotheos-- My use of the term "insensate" was a response to my seminary professors who insisted that the common "life preserver" analogy was wrong, and a better analogy would be someone drowned and lying on the bottom of the ocean. Or they would say that a non-regenerate person could no more respond to the gospel than a corpse could respond to a pretty girl. In short, what they made of the "deadness" metaphor was simply and wholly a matter of being, well, insensate: lacking sensation or awareness. The term was not intended perjoratively, but merely as a description of what my Calvinist professors, many of whom I respect deeply, taught me. To me, this was analogous to what Peter was calling "rock." However, if that were what Paul meant in Ephesians 2, he certainly has an odd way of describing the "dead." Frankly, I think this way of understanding "deadness" belies a modern materialistic mindset. We think of the dead body left behind; the ancients thought of the spirit in Sheol/Hades: unable to do anything, on their own, about their dead condition, but not unable to respond to stimuli. Timotheos, I've enjoyed our dialogues in the past, as well as your comments on Peter's blog and mine. I've thought of you as one person among a hundred (on both sides) who could discuss this issue with grace and charity. If I were ever to be persuaded that I was wrong, it would have been by someone like you. But you seem of late to be more inclined toward lofty pronouncements that insinuate dishonesty (or at least unfair rhetoric) on the part of those who disagree with you. Please be aware that Peter and I are describing Scriptural truth as we genuinely see it, and not without some understanding of the position we reject. Perhaps we do so badly. But I don't see where you have grounds to call words like insensate "perjorative," when you are employing "gossamer," "faeries," "mist," "netherworld," "imprecision," and "pseudo-dichotomies."

Nice analogy, Peter. One of th

2007-03-24T10:34:35.711+01:00

Nice analogy, Peter. One of the main sticking points, I find, is the description of us being "dead in sins" in Ephesians 2. Calvinists interpret "dead" as being insensate. But the description of being "dead" in Ephesians 2 is hardly insensate; it is simply not being spiritually alive to God.

Right on, Peter! Not only inte

2007-03-06T03:49:25.439+01:00

Right on, Peter! Not only internet discourse, but all theologizing and biblical interpretation should be done in the light, with accountability, as well as holistically, with our full selves (not just the Vulcan half) engaged. God inspired Scripture to touch our whole selves; it is not a series of syllogisms designed to engage merely our intellects. Over-rationalism is a root of many sorts of theological error. And though it is not generally my style to do so, tonight I wish you a pleasant evening and restful sleep, my brother. Grace and peace, Keith

The problem with "verbal footn

2007-03-03T00:04:54.976+01:00

The problem with "verbal footnotes" is that pastors use various sources for their sermon material beyond just issues with original languages. If they were to cite sources for everything they said, given the fact that a sermon is a linear auditory medium, it would clutter, confuse, and dilute the message. For one thing, a pastor should not consult merely one commentary to resolve a thorny exegetical issue; then the pastor would get sidetracked into why he prefers one commentary's interpretation over another. I do agree that pastors should give some indication of their sources when arguing a point that is less than intuitive, controversial, or in some other way out of the ordinary. They should also be available and non-defensive when asked where they got a particular point. With your interest in clarity of reason, you'll love Exegetical Fallacies. I'm very happy to pass it along.

The best thing learning Greek

2007-03-02T02:25:25.016+01:00

The best thing learning Greek did for me was to help me recognize bad uses of Greek in preaching. Occasionally, knowing some Greek can enhance one's understanding of a passage, but if someone ever says this in the Greek means that, and then proceeds to interpret as though it had been translated that rather than this, then he's either playing fast and loose or blindly following someone else who is. The translators of any reputable translation are really Greek scholars, and there's a reason they translated as they did. Donald Carson has a great book called Exegetical Fallacies, which catalogues common types of misinterpretations, many of them false assumptions regarding original languages. I don't quite agree about citing sources. There's no reason to clutter up sermons with verbal footnotes. But there's also no reason to try to impress a congregation with ostentatious displays of esoteric knowledge either.

It seems that this argument wo

2007-01-06T23:31:04.605+01:00

It seems that this argument would have prevented US entrance into WWII, at least in the European theatre. It wasn't Washington being bombed in the Blitz. Who were we to kill Schmidt in order to save Smith (never mind Goldberg)? I'm not, by the way, suggesting unqualified support for the present war. I simply think that your argument is a bit too broad.

I think you mean you're using

2007-01-05T13:47:21.492+01:00

I think you mean you're using a laptop "circa 1998." A Pentium 4 with 500 MB RAM in 1988 would have been considered something of a miracle, I think.

Let's try this again

2006-09-28T08:47:41.997+02:00

Let's try this again