Feed aggregator

by Dan Phillips

OK, I'll take the in-vite. Actually, a couple of them appeal to me, but let's start with the low-hanging fruit. In this challenge, I take the "you" as "you Christians," not "you, DJP."

10. You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.

Agreed! Next? 

Okay, not really, not entirely. If the point of the criticism is that a staggering amount of so-called Christians (A) have very little direct knowledge about the Bible, and, far worse (B) don't care a lick about it... how could I disagree? Don't every one of here lament that very fact, week after week? Isn't that why the professing church is overrun with nonsense and tomfoolery in the name of Christ? Isn't that why "churches" with no Biblical definition nor mission are filled to squeaking, to say nothing of the piles of claptrap that pockmark "Christian" bookstores?

So: guilty.

Though I'd not be as quick to grant the point about how much Bible "many" atheists and agnostics actually know. In my experience, the tally there isn't always much better.

I recall my first trembling encounter, as a young Christian, with an apostate neighbor. He was a much older man, well-educated, a former Christian. Myself very new in the faith, but wanting to speak with him of Christ, I asked him why he wasn't a Christian. I trembled inwardly as I anticipated the shattering blow he was sure to deal to my newborn faith.

"Those preposterous miracles," he said.

I blinked. "Oh?" I asked innocently. "Like... which ones?"

His answer: nothing. Blank. Not one example. So — as with most if not all atheists and agnostics — the presenting story was not the real story.

But let's grant for the sake of argument that 99% of professing Christians are dirt-ignorant of the Bible, and 99% of atheists and agnostics are experts.

So? What is that supposed to prove?

You see, for that to have any evidentiary force against Biblical faith,  you would have to find me a verse that says, "Everyone who names My name will be an expert in My words." Is there such a verse? There is not.

Now, there are verses like John 8:31-32, which reads:

So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, "If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

So here, Jesus does say that it is a mark of genuine Christian faith that one will continue in His word, know the truth, and be set free.

Now, turn that on its head. It would mean that —

• if one has not been set free, he has not known the truth; 
• if he has not known the truth, he has not continued in Jesus' word; and
• if he has not continued in Jesus' word, he is not truly His disciple.

So all we learn, granting the 99% figure, is that 99% of those who say they are Christians are not really Christians.

Which has zero evidentiary force against Biblical faith.


In fact, quite the contrary, from two perspectives:

1. The Bible itself is quite clear that many will claim to know Christ, but the claims will be false (Matthew 7:21-23). Calling Him "Lord" is meaningless, if the call is not adorned by obedience (Luke 6:46; John 14:15: 15:14). Yet many will do so, and will ultimately apostatize (Matthew 24:10-12). So actually, a high number of false professors confirms what the Bible says... sadly so, but undeniably so. But what's more....
2. This admission from the "skeptic" will come in quite handy later. Because, if he's true to form, pretty soon he'll fall to ad hominems. He'll want to talk about his loony Aunt Betty, and his hypocritical dad; and then maybe it will be the Crusades, or Benny Hinn, or some such. 

And when he tries this, well, we'll be all set, won't we? We'll just remind him that, as he himself said, a whole lot of people who say they are Christians really aren't.

Next?

The first thing you see when you open up Logos 4 is the Homepage. Your Logos 4 Homepage is an attractive and intuitive jumping off point for all your Bible study needs. From there you can do your daily reading, access your resource library, or do topic, passage, and word searches. You can also access Passage, Exegetical, and Bible Word Study Guides or go to Tools to make notes, highlights, adjust settings in Logos 4, as well a number of other important features. Familiarizing yourself with the Homepage is the first step towards truly making Logos 4 an extension of your personal Bible study method.

Today we want to feature a couple short videos intended to walk you through the features Homepage. These two videos combined are about four minutes in length and—after you have watched them—you should be able to give someone else a guided tour of the Logos 4 Homepage yourself!

In the first video Morris Proctor will help us get acquainted with the various parts of the Logos 4 Homepage.

In the second video we will take a closer look at some of the content found on the Homepage. We will learn to find the Ribbon, familiarize ourselves with the main page, or use Customize to adjust the settings on our Homepage.

Remember that you can access and watch tutorial videos anytime. You will be surprised at just how much more productive your Bible study can be by just investing time in these training tidbits.

You should follow us on Twitter here.

by Frank Turk

If you're looking at the new layout/template, you can see the "star rating" for each post now available as we enjoy each other's company.

Now, we all know that every post on this blog is a 5-Star post by common internet standards. DJP can write a 5-Star post if he was typing in asian characters with his feet on the topic of what he had for lunch, by the common internet standard; Phil has forgotten posts he never made which, but the standard of the average blog, would be 5+ stars. I am fortunate to usually contribute adequately.

HOWEVER, that said, I have two favors to ask of you groupies:

1. Try hard to rate the posts on the PYRO scale and not on the scale of, "well, compared to Hugh Hewitt or Perez Hilton, that post's like a 13.4 on a scale of 5". So for example, this post is probably a 2 or a 3 -- informative, mildly amusing, but it didn't rock your world. Rate it appropriately

2. When you have time, use the archive to find your favorite posts and rate them as well. I realize that we have over 2000 posts to pick from, but you probably have a handful of posts you really, really liked. Rate those.

Both of these requests are important because, eventually, there will be a "highest rated posts" or "most popular posts" widget for Blogger, and what a great resource that would be for the passers-by and the n00bs -- if you astute readers already rated the best of the best of the best and they showed up in the sidebar.

Just sayin': help a brother out.

Announced:

New College [University of Edinburgh] and the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam invite you to a two-day symposium on the Dutch Neo-Calvinist theologian Herman Bavinck (1854-1921).

Following the pattern of Bavinck’s work, the conference will first explore issues related to Bavinck’s theology before examining wider cultural and ethical applications of this doctrine.

The Conference will take place in New College 1-2nd September 2010.

More info here. Download the PDF flier here. The conference organizers welcome proposals for papers from graduate students.

by Frank Turk

So from the list of Redneck Atheist complaints, we have this interesting affirmation:

While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.
Some posts write themselves.

Listen: it turns out that Christianity actually appeals to "history, geology, biology and physics". That is: the simple claim of the Gospel is that something actually happened which a person ought to be aware of and take note of.

This is how John the Apostle says it:

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us -- that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete. [ESV, 1 John 1]

No tongues there -- no "Holy Spirit Hokey Pokey". Simply Jesus as a real person making God known, and witnesses making what they saw and touched and heard known.

Anything else I would say would be piling on. Which, really, is what the comments are for.

I have been introducing you to the team who will help make my next book a reality. First you met Ryan the Editor and then Chris Fann the Marketing Man. Today I want to introduce you to Agent Andrew (known to some as Andrew Wolgemuth). He is, as you may have guessed, my agent. His job is to represent me before the publisher (first to help find one who would like to publish my work, then to negotiate a contract and then with anything else that happens to come up). He will stay involved with the work from beginning to end.

I'll let Andrew introduce himself... 

I’m Tim’s literary representative. Or – a bit less dramatically – his agent. Though I didn’t set the course of my professional life after seeing Jerry Maguire (I’m sure a movie about a literary agent would be just as compelling) and while I didn’t grow up aspiring to be a member of the publishing industry, I’ve been surrounded, challenged, taught, and blessed by books and great authors for my entire life.

In fact, my first official paycheck came from Wolgemuth & Hyatt Publishers a couple of decades ago (the “Wolgemuth” in that company was Robert, the owner of the agency that I now work for; the “Hyatt” was Mike – now the CEO of Thomas Nelson; my dad, Dan, was CFO for this house. They published Orel Hershiser’s Out of the Blue, Max Anders’ 30 Days to Understanding the Bible, and Patrick Morley’s Man in the Mirror, among many other excellent titles). I helped W&H with mailings or marketing…or something that felt pretty big time for a seven-year-old.

My second employer was Can-Do Trash and Recycling Service. That was a good gig, but it’s significantly less relevant to my present occupation.

I now work for Wolgemuth & Associates with Robert Wolgemuth (my uncle), Erik Wolgemuth (my brother), and Susan Kreider (our assistant). We’re intensively collaborative and cooperative, and I’m honored to be a part of the (virtual) team (Robert and Susan are based in Orlando; Erik and I are in Denver).

In my role as Tim’s agent, I have the privilege of being involved at virtually every stage of the publication process. Describing the development of The Next Story (TNS) provides a pretty good overview of the work that I do. Tim and our team began discussing different book ideas about a year ago. As you can probably imagine, Tim had a number of solid concepts, but TNS rose to the surface as the best. Tim then developed proposal material, our team reviewed the documents and provided suggestions and guidance, and – within an iteration or two – we had material that was ready for publishers to review. I got Tim’s work to editors who our team believed would appreciate and enjoy it; we received a few publication offers, talked through the houses’ visions and proposals, evaluated the pros and cons of each, and settled on Zondervan. I then worked through contract details with Zondervan. Looking ahead, I’ll help Tim as he wants on the manuscript itself, and our team will provide input and guidance on various TNS items like cover design, jacket copy, and the marketing plan when we hit those stages down the road.

In short, no work day is like the previous. Most, however, are quite enjoyable and challenging.

My goal in all of them is to act as a good steward. I believe Tim has some book-worthy, reader-challenging, God-honoring things to communicate – I want to ensure that these messages are delivered to readers with excellence. This entails advising Tim throughout the process, serving as Tim’s advocate, sounding board, and representative, and doing my best to ensure that there’s follow-through and timeliness on all fronts.

On the personal side, I’m married to Chrissy and we have two little girls (Malia is two and Davey is almost four months). Chrissy and I met in the suburbs of Upland, Indiana, at Taylor University. Like lots (most?) folks in the publishing industry, I didn’t study English Lit. Instead I enjoyed Economics/Systems and Philosophy while excelling at intramural athletic mediocrity.

In the time since, we’ve lived in Kansas City (the Kansas side); Fort Wayne, Indiana; Orlando; and Denver. At each stop, we’ve been blessed with solid churches, good friends, wise mentors, and a bit of adventure. We love it here in Denver, and we’ve got parents, siblings, and a nephew close by, a wonderful church (Colorado Community), and good neighbors. The seasons are varied and enjoyable (with lots of sun all year round), the mountains are accessible and beautiful, and the professional sports teams are a pleasant change from my days in Kansas City (though Joe Montana’s years with the Chiefs were nice. And I haven’t really been able to shake my Royals fanhood…it’s slightly weird, rather irrational, postseason-free and fairly painful. However, my favorite NCAA basketball team hasn’t changed and cheering for the Jayhawks is [generally] emotionally rewarding).

In a book like TNS and with an author like Tim, the personal and professional blend for me. That is, I sit squarely in the middle of the target audience for Tim’s books and blog. His writing is of the sort that I’d read even if it weren’t my job. Consequently, I’m thrilled to be a part the project and I look forward to holding the final result and being challenged by the ideas it contains.

 Trolololo - You've probably seen that bizarre and yet strangely enchanting viral video known as "Trolololo." Here's some information about the singer, the song and the style. "The song he is interpreting, 'I Am So Happy to Finally Be Back Home,' is an Ostrovskii composition, and it is meant to be sung in the vokaliz style, that is to say sung, but without words. I have seen a number of comments online, ever since a flurry of interest in Hill began just a few days ago, to the effect that this routine must have been meant as a critique of Soviet censorship, but in fact vokaliz was a well established genre, one that seems close in certain respects to pantomime."

The Pastor as Evangelist - Earlier this week Joe Boot spoke at Toronto Pastors Fellowship on the subject of the pastor as evangelist. Though I haven't yet had time to listen to his talk, I've heard great things about it. It's available in MP3 and in PDF if you prefer to read it.

Biblical City's Location Discovered - "Scientists think they've finally found the real location of a city called Neta'im mentioned in the Bible. Based on its proximity to another biblical town, and archaeological ruins dating from the time of the biblical King David's rule, researchers think Neta'im might have been located at the modern site called Khirbet Qeiyafa, in Israel."

What Happens to Infants Who Die? - John Piper offers his take on this question, a take that seems to be pretty much the default Reformed position today.

Do you read Finnish? Or do you know someone who does? Or do you just like free books, even if you can’t read them? :)

We’ve recently released the Logos edition of Raamattu—a Bible from the Finnish Bible Society. Best of all, we’re able to offer it for free.

The first Finnish translation of the Bible appeared in 1548 by Mikael Agricola. He used Luther’s German Bible as the translation base. In 1632, the Bible was again translated into Finnish, but this time using the original language texts. The complete version appeared in 1642, and new editions were issued in 1685, 1758, and 1776. In the early twentieth century, the need for an updated translation of the Bible into Finnish had become apparent. Work on the new translation was begun in 1911 at the initiative of the Finnish Bible Society and the Finnish Lutheran Church. The first translation work was finished in 1933, and the completed version was published in 1938.

Here’s how to add this translation to your library for free:

Logos 4 Users:

If you have Logos Bible Software 4, adding resources to your library is easy.

Go the product page. Click Add to Cart (or just add it straight to your cart from here). Proceed through the checkout process and click “Submit Order.” If you don’t have a credit card on file, you’ll still need to enter your credit card information. Don’t worry, you won’t be charged anything. It’s the only way to finish the checkout process in our current system.

In Logos 4, type “Update Now” into the Command Bar. Logos 4 will find and begin downloading new resources, and the Logos icon will appear in your system tray while this is happening. When it’s finished, you’ll be asked to restart Logos 4.

After you restart Logos 4, you’ll be able to access your new Finnish Bible. If you have a Logos 4 base package, you can also access it on your iPhone or iPod Touch using the Logos iPhone app!

If you’re not a Logos 4 user yet, be sure to visit the custom upgrade discount calculator to see what discounts you qualify for on an upgrade to a brand new Logos 4 base package.

Logos 3 / Libronix Users:

If you’re still using Libronix, here are the steps to follow to get your free book:

Step 1: Log in to your logos.com account. If you don’t have one, you’ll need to create one.

Step 2: Make sure that your Libronix Customer ID is associated with your Logos.com account. Go to My Account, enter your Libronix Customer ID, and click "Confirm." If it's already there, no need to do anything. (If you don’t know your Libronix Customer ID, you can find it in Libronix by going to Help | About Libronix DLS.)

Step 3: Go the product page. Click Add to Cart (or just add it straight to your cart from here). Proceed through the checkout process and click “Submit Order.” If you don’t have a credit card on file, you’ll still need to enter your credit card information. Don’t worry, you won’t be charged anything. It’s the only way to finish the checkout process in our current system.

Step 4: Unlock and download your new book. If you're on a Windows machine, just click the orange "Unlock & Download" button. If you're on a Mac, just synchronize your licenses (Tools | Library Management | Synchronize Licenses) and manually put the book file in your resources folder (Macintosh HD/Library/Application Support/Libronix DLS/Resources on the startup volume).

Step 5: Start using your new book! Open Libronix, open My Library, then type Raamattu to find it.

Spread the word! If you have Finnish-speaking friends, let them know that they can get a Finnish Bible for free.

You should follow us on Twitter here.

I’ve been reading through the 4th century (probably) “Life of Polycarp”. This work includes several supernatural/fantastic stories supposedly from the life of Polycarp. Lightfoot’s big edition has the Greek text with notes and an English translation.

§27 has the story of Polycarp and one of his deacons, Camerius. They’re traveling one day, and a widow gives them a tiny birdie as an offering. So after the long day of travel, Polycarp and Camerius stop at an inn and crash for the night.

In the middle of the night, the angel of the Lord appears to Polycarp telling him that the inn is going to crash down. Here’s Lightfoot’s translation:

And when night was nearly half past, an angel of the Lord stood by him and smote his side and said, ‘Polycarp.’ and he said ‘what is it?’ The angel replied, ‘Rise and go out of the inn: for it is on the point of falling.’

So Polycarp tries to wake up Camerius. Polycarp is unsuccessful, Camerius is in some seriously deep sleep. Polycarp tries again:

And when the angel stood by him a second time and said the same thing, again he told Camerius to get up. And on his [Camerius’] saying in reply ‘I have trust in God that, while thou art here, the wall will never fall.’ Polycarp said, ‘I too have trust in God, but I have no trust in the wall.’

At that point, I laughed. Seems reasonable to me.

The majority of times one runs into αλλα in the NT (and the Apostolic Fathers, for that matter) it occurs with a negator of some sort. The default case is to negate something in order to highlight that which follows. That is, when we say “not that, but this” we’re typically wanting “this” to be the important bit in the context. There is typically some sort of implicit contrast between “that” and “this” (e.g., dark vs. light, big vs. small, etc.) as well. We bring “that” on the table, then negate it, then say, “no, not really that, but this other thing”. In the vast majority of these instances, the “not that” portion can be completely removed and the clause has no inherent change in meaning. It’s just dull.

Enter Rom 3.31, which ends a section that most are very familiar with:

νόμον οὖν καταργοῦμεν διὰ τῆς πίστεως; μὴ γένοιτο· ἀλλὰ νόμον ἱστάνομεν. (Rom 3.31 NA27)
So do we nullify the law through faith? Certainly not! Instead we uphold the law. (Rom 3.31)

Here αλλα is the hinge between nullifying the law and upholding it. So the contrast is between getting rid of something, and having that something remain in force.

Interesting here is how the negation happens. It isn’t a simple negative. We get the Pauline emphatic negation of μὴ γένοιτο or “Certainly not!”. This amps up the rhetoric even more. Talking about abolishing or nullifying the law was serious stuff, but it fit the context where Paul was talking about how the gentiles were justified by faith, not by works of the law. The logical conclusion is that the law is no longer necessary. But Paul anticipates this conclusion, baits his reader/hearer, and then smashes him back down with “Certainly not!” and then, using αλλα makes his contrasting conclusion, that the law is actually being upheld in all of this.

Note that the same exact facts could’ve been communicated with “Therefore we uphold the law.” But that would’ve been boring. Instead Paul not only used a point/counterpoint (cf. Runge’s DGGNT) he also amped up the negation. On top of an already rhetorically heated section.

I just started re-reading Paul after working through the Gospels and Acts. Paul, how I’ve missed you!

In 2006 Americans spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.6 billion on short-term missions. Some 2.2 million Americans were involved in one of these trips, up from just 120,000 two decades before. Such misson work has very nearly become a rite of passage for young American Christians. Many years ago I spoke to a missionary who was often asked if teams could come and visit his work in South America so they could help build a home or rebuild a church. He told me then that such trips often do more harm than good; that he actually dreads having yet another team show up, trying to help. I did not have time to ask him much more that day, but his words have long shaped my view of short-term missions. But now, having read Steve Corbett's and Brian Fikkert's When Helping Hurts I understand more. Too often our well-intentioned efforts to help actually hinder the work of alleviating poverty.

The title and subtitle of this book are deliberately provocative: When Helping Hurts: How to Alleviate Poverty Without Hurting the Poor and Yourself. It is difficult for us to imagine how our efforts to help can actually harm both ourselves and the people to whom we extend a hand. And yet those who work with the poor can testify to a great deal of harm done to both.

The great strength of this book is a holistic understanding of poverty which teaches that being poor is much more than simply not having money. God created each of us to have four foundational relationships: relationship with God, with self, with others and with the rest of creation. When these various relationships are functioning properly, people are able to fulfill their God-given mandate to glorify Him through their labor. But when one or more of these is out-of-place, as they tend to be in the post-Fall world, a person is unable to fulfill that calling. Because humans are so multi-faceted, we need to have a multi-faceted view of poverty-alleviation. If we address only economic needs, handing money to those who have less than we do, we do nothing to alleviate the greater poverty of spirit. "Poverty is rooted in broken relationships, so the solution to poverty is rooted in the power of Jesus' death and resurrection to put all things into right relationship again."

Standing in the position of the wealthy, we often feel like we know all the answers; that if the poor were just a bit more like us, they would be much better off. But "one of the biggest problems in many poverty-alleviation efforts," say the authors, "is that their design and implementation exacerbates the poverty of being of the economically rich--their god-complexes--and the poverty of being of the economically poor--their feelings of inferiority and shame." Or else we are too quick to act without understanding the nature of the poverty before us, without understanding whether people need relief, rehabilitation or development. According to the authors, "One of the biggest mistakes that North American churches make--by far--is in applying relief to situations in which rehabilitation or development is the appropriate intervention." There are times when giving money is the right thing to do and usually that is the easy thing to do. But far more often, we need to give time, attention and discipleship.

This book offers a much-needed dose of humility to missions, both long-term and short-term. America has the proud distinction of being the nation that gives more than any other for the alleviation of poverty. And yet Americans may have a sense of superiority, a kind of confidence, that causes them to do more harm than good, or as much harm as good, in many contexts. The authors warn their fellow Americans against the tendency to assume they've got all the answers and to assume that a quick fix is a good fix. The challenges facing those who are impoverished are nearly always far more than a few dollars, or a few thousand dollars, can easily fix. This book, with its holistic view of poverty and its eye on Jesus' power to renew and restore what is broken, offers true hope.

If you are going to go on a short-term missions project you need to read this book; if your church is getting involved in working with the poor in your community, you need to read this book; if your church is looking for involvement with missions work overseas, you need to read this book. Corbett and Fikkert tells what we've been doing wrong and offer solid, practical, biblical advice on what we can do to get it right at last.

by Dan Phillips

[First and appropos of little, peer-pressure has done its work on me, and I have now yielded to the siren call of Twitter. Why? Because the cool kidz are doing it. And now you know that.]

Last time we outlined the false teaching that loomed as a threat to the young church in Colosse. Now we begin to study how the apostle responded.


First, I notice that Paul does not detail the false teaching. This is why there has been such debate and variations among students of the letter, through the centuries, as to the exact configuration of “the Colossian heresy.” We are left with allusions, mostly in chapter two; and with hints we glean from Paul’s emphases.

Rather than laying out the opposing view in detail, and then refuting it point by point, Paul mostly issues a positive corrective. He does not say, “Teacher X says 123, but that’s not true, because of 456. The real truth is 789.” Instead, Paul says in effect, “The truth is 789. You know this. Why ever would anyone settle for 123?”

It would be false to conclude from this that there is never any place for doing what Paul does not do here. For instance, in Galatians and 1 Corinthians 15, Paul does dedicate more space to presenting and refuting specific error. That is not the case, however, in Colossians.

Second, I notice that Paul doesn’t name this single false teacher who is threatening the flock. Sometimes, he does name the false teachers (1 Timothy 1:20), and sometimes he doesn’t (1 Corinthians 15:12; 2 Corinthians 12:11; Galatians 6:12). I don't know a simple formula that will explains the apostle’s choices in each case.

I can, however, observe that what the apostle actually does has the effect of focusing attention on the cure, rather than the disease (or its carrier). It is as if Paul is saying, “This man is nothing. What he is saying is of no consequence. That’s precisely what puzzles me: given that Christ is who He is, and that He has done what He has done – why would you pay any attention to such things, rather than stay as far away from them as you can?”

So what does Paul do, to counter the false teacher? I’ll lift out two related facets today, and then (DV) develop more next time.

FIRST: Paul supports the teaching of Epaphras (cf. 1:4-7, 23; 2:7 [DPUV]).

...having heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and the love which you have for all the holy ones, 5on account of the hope which is laid away for you in the heavens, of which you heard before in the word of the truth, the good news, 6which has come to you, just as also in all the world it is bearing fruit of itself and growing just as also among you, from the day in which you heard it and came to know fully the grace of God in truth; 7just as you learned it from Epaphras, our beloved fellow-slave, who is a faithful servant of Christ for your sake,

1:23 assuming that you remain on in the faith, abidingly founded and settled and not being shifted away from the hope of the good news which you heard, which was announced in all creation which is under Heaven, of which I, Paul, became a servant

2:7 abidingly rooted and being built up in Him, and being confirmed by the faith just as you were taught, abounding in it in thanksgiving.

Paul speaks of their faith (1:4a), love (1:4b), and hope (1:5) — and then says that they had learned these truths from Epaphras. That is Paul's seal of approval on Epaphras' teaching. In this way, the great apostle tells the Colossians, "What you already heard from Ephaphras is the real deal. It is the one saving, sanctifying, and preserving and true Gospel. There will not be another. You have no need for another. There will be no second editions, no upgrades, no supplements. What there is to know, you have already heard. Epaphras is the man."

Then 1:23 reaffirms that they are not to leave nor shift from this faith that Epaphras had taught them. What is more, it is the "catholic" faith — which is to say that it is the one Gospel that is preached everywhere, without alteration: full salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. This teacher has nothing they need.

Then 2:7 again reaffirms that all the confirmation they need in Christ, they will get from the faith Epaphras had taught them. No new revelations are necessary.

So, they had already heard the right truth.

SECOND: Paul supported the character of Epaphras (cf. 1:7; 4:12, 13)

1:27 just as you learned it from Epaphras, our beloved fellow-slave, who is a faithful servant of Christ for your sake,

4:12 Epaphras greets you, who is one of you, a slave of Christ Jesus, always struggling on your behalf in his prayers, in order that you might stand mature and fully assured in every aspect of the will of God. 13For I bear him witness that he has much anguish for you, and for those in Laodicea, and for those in Hierapolis.

To say that Epaphras is "faithful" is to say that he is reliable, dependable, can be counted on — as opposed to this self-impressed upstart. Epaphras is committed (1) to Christ's service, and (2) to their spiritual wellbeing. Neither of these things is true of the false teacher.
Not only did they already have the right truth, but had already heard if from the right man.

This, then, is Paul's opening salvo. It speaks to us today. Epaphras was not an apostle, but he had grounded that church absolutely sufficiently, by laying the church's one foundation: the preaching of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 3:10-11). It was not necessary that he have special standing or special, supernatural, revelatory gifting. What was necessary was that he preach Christ — and he had done that.

This tells us who are pastors to preach Christ, and we can be assured that we stand within the apostolic tradition. This is the true apostolic succession: the preaching of the Gospel of Christ. If you are dedicated to Christ's service, and if you preach the Gospel, you could cherish the hope that Paul would also write a letter commending your ministry because and only if he could also commend your message.

SIDEBAR: don't miss the sad irony here. The sect which today most famously makes the biggest noise about "apostolic succession" — doesn't have it.

It tells all us sheep, as well, to stick with the Gospel. Hear it straight, then stick with it. Expect our adversary to send persuasive salesmen with "new and improved" versions to appeal to our restless discontent. Expect, and prepare to ignore.

As we shall continue to see, Colossians brings us a very contemporary, much-needed message: Christ is supreme and sufficient. Accept neither supplement nor substitute.

Inside the World of Obama's Secret Service - "In the 13 months that Barack Obama has been the occupant of the Oval Office he has been the subject of an extraordinary outpouring of emotion from the American electorate. At the start it was largely adulatory, though more recently the adoration has been drowned out by a cacophony of criticism from tea party activists, birthers, global-warming deniers and viewers of Fox News. At the same time, largely hidden from view, there has been a layer of antagonism towards Obama that lies well beyond the boundaries of reasonable political debate."

The More You Multitask - Matt Perman discusses the perils of multitasking. "Multitasking, in short, is not only not thinking, it impairs your ability to think. Thinking means concentrating on one thing long enough to develop an idea about it."

Grant Repentance -This week in Monday with Mounce, Bill Mounce looks at 2 Timothy 2:25. "Paul tells Timothy that he must stay away from senseless controversies, not be quarrelsome but rather kind, patiently enduring evil. Paul is thinking specifically of how Timothy should deal with the false teachers at Ephesus, men that I have argued in my commentary are the Ephesian church leadership."

Canada Loves Hockey - I got a laugh out of this, a chart tracking water consumption during the gold medal hockey game.

Pillar Commentary Sale
This is the last day you can take advantage of Westminster Books' sale on the excellent Pillar Commentary series (edited by D.A. Carson). They have the brand new Hebrews volume in stock. Buy two of the commentaries and you'll get a further 10% off any others you buy. This is a good time to stock up on the series while it is still young and you don't have too many volumes to catch up with.

I was flipping through the Esther volume of the Göttingen Septuagint and saw something unusual:

If you examine this page carefully, you'll see that the top section contains Greek text of a portion of Esther. Under that is a critical apparatus - a shorthand method of documenting manuscript evidence, showing which manuscripts agree with the text above and which manuscripts disagree, and how they disagree.

Then under the apparatus there is second section of Greek text (market by an L in the margin) followed by a second apparatus. We've seen something like this before. The ancient Greek book of Daniel, for example, exists in both the Old Greek and the Theodotion versions, and other editions of the LXX, such as Rahlfs and Swete, have presented both versions of that text either on facing pages or with one version on top of the other. Similar parallel texts are presented for the shorter and longer versions of Tobit and those parts of Joshua and Judges where codices Alexandrinus and Vaticanus disagree. But I've never seen this phenomenon in a printed edition of Esther before.

The marginal 'L' indicates that the text is thought by some scholars to be a Lucianic recension, or revision, of the Septuagint. Lucian was a Christian martyr who died in 312 AD and was famous for comparing the various Greek translations with the Hebrew Scriptures and preparing new Greek texts that were in greater agreement with the Hebrew originals.

However, the L-Text of Esther is different from the Septuagint text in some surprising ways that seem, to some scholars, inconsistent with the Lucianic reforms. The LXX and the L-Text both contain the so-called 'Additions to Esther' not found in the Hebrew Massoretic Text (MT), and the L-Text and LXX are significantly similar for those Additions. But in places where the L-Text and the LXX are clearly translating the same Hebrew, there is very little word for word correspondence. And at several junctures, it seems that the L-Text must be translating a different Hebrew source all-together. Carey Moore in his Anchor Bible volume on Esther, and elsewhere, has argued that the L-Text of Esther is really a fresh translation from a Hebrew original that is, at points, very different from the Hebrew (MT) that we have today. Followers of this line of reasoning usually refer to this as the Alpha-Text or A-Text of Esther, rather than the L-Text. If Moore is right, then the A-Text of Esther isn't so much useful for determining the original text of the Massoretic version of Esther, but is rather more valuable for illuminating a version of Esther that no longer exists in any Hebrew manuscript known today.

Right now the Göttingen Septuagint is gathering interest on our prepublication program, listed at less than 1/10th of the retail price of the print volumes! The prepub has been well received, but we still need a few more orders to confirm that there is enough interest in getting the best Septuagint available into Logos Bible Software. So if you were sitting on the fence with this one wondering what you'd get that isn't already in Rahlfs' or Swete's LXX, the A-Text of Esther is one example of the cool, useful things you'll only see in Göttingen.

P.S. If you're interested in the Septuagint, you might take a peek at Biblical Languages: Reference Grammars and Introductions (19 Vols.), which contains three volumes on the Septuagint: Swete's classic Introduction (which examines the Lucianic recension on pages 80-86), the introductory grammar and chrestomathy by Conybeare and Stock and the reference grammar by Thackeray. If you want to lock in the early bird price, now is the time.

by Frank Turk

Sorry for the dust and stuff. It'll get normal in a few hours.
_______________________

OK, as of right now we're running a blogger 2.0 template, and I think I have everything migrated from the old template to the new. It looks vaguely different. Except for the headlines which I have intentionally made sans-serif (at Phil's request).

So, enjoy insofar as you would enjoy something like this.

As anyone knows who has studied the life of Jonathan Edwards, he dedicated a large portion of his ministry to thinking, writing and teaching about the freedom of the will. And, of course, he eventually published a classic work dealing with the subject. In writing the book he thought back to the days when revival had swept his church, his community and the area around it. And as he reflected on the individuals who had been swept up in the revival, or those who had made professions of faith in the years following, he became aware of a fundamental flaw in many of these professions. “Self-controlled individuals, as he had observed in his parishes for the past fifteen years, would acknowledge guilt for particular sins, but not guilt for their fundamentally rebellious hearts.”

Little has changed. I have met countless people who consider themselves Christians and who admit to sin in their lives and feel guilt and remorse for individual sins, but who seem unable or unwilling to admit the incontrovertible fact that their hearts are in rebellion against God. The Bible tells us in plain terms that we are not sinners because we sin, but we sin because we are sinners. And I don’t think we can overstate what a fundamental difference this is! We do not need to seek forgiveness merely for the sins we commit, but for our fundamentally evil and rebellious hearts—hearts that, in their natural state, hate God and are fully and completely and gleefully and willingly opposed to Him.

In his oh-so-good biography of Edwards, George Marsden summarizes Edwards’ assessment of this problem. “Guided by conscience, they saw particular sins as failures of will power, which might be overcome by exercising greater self-control.” When sin has been defined merely as individual acts of the will, it is possible for humans, even devoid of God’s help, to overcome those evil acts and deeds. An unbelieving man who explodes in anger or a woman who grumbles against her husband can overcome those sins in their own power. Unbelievers can throw off addiction and poor behavior through an act of the will. But they can never address the heart of the issue. While they may make cosmetic changes, they can never overcome the deeper issues because they can never change their hearts.

Those who profess Christ can do the same thing; Christians are also capable of overcoming the appearance of sin and the outward manifestations of sin in their own power. When you sell your house, you almost always spend a few dollars and quite a few hours painting the house; a fresh coat of paint can do wonders in “cleaning up” a house. But it is merely a cosmetic change. Underlying issues, structural issues, can be masked for a time, but will show up again if they are not properly dealt with (as anyone knows who has had mould lurking behind those coats of paint). Similarly, Christians can dedicate great effort and go to great pains to remove traces of sin from their lives. But all the time they may have done this without the aid and assistance of the Holy Spirit. They may never have owned up to their fundamental sinfulness, their natural enmity towards God. They may never feel or acknowledge guilt not only for what they do but for who they are.

The evidence proves that many Christians, and most likely the vast majority of those who identify themselves as Christians in the world today, have a worldview that is functionally secular. Many people who go to church every Sunday, who read Christian books and who read their Bibles and pray every day, still think like unbelievers. Their worldview—their way of seeing and understanding the world—is no different from before they claimed to be Christians. Jonathan Edwards, looking to the refusal of the people of his day to own up to their guilt, realized that “the liberal Christianity of the new republic would be built around such moral principles.” Modern day evangelicalism is likewise founded on such lax moral principles.

A couple of years ago I spoke to the administrator of a church in the area. This person had been a Christian for several years and was active as a leader in the church. Discussing a recent and high-profile crime that had been covered by the media, this person told me, “I just don’t understand how anyone could do that. I don’t understand how anyone could be that bad. I could never be that evil!” As we spoke, I realized that this was a person who knew that he committed sins, and yet one who clearly did not understand his inherently sinful nature. He knew he sinned but refused to believe he was a sinner. Sin is what he did, not what he was. Recently my thoughts turned to a couple we know who seemed to become believers, but whose lives did not seem to show much evidence of true life change. They were quickly drafted into service in their church and were soon actively involved in leadership and service. They were baptized despite highly-visible and unrepentant sin in their lives (living together despite being unmarried). They became members. And yet their lives, including this one very obviously and blatantly sinful aspect of their lives, did not change at all. Neither did the church seem to require or expect them to change. They modified aspects of their lives, I suppose, but that fundamental change of heart just never seemed to happen. As of the last time we saw them, they still did not seem to think, act, talk and, in many ways, live like Christians. They knew they sinned but didn’t seem to know that they were and still are sinners.

Here is how Marsden concludes this short section of the book:

Even the most popular evangelicalism of the next two centuries tended to emphasize guilt for and victory over known sins. Although the submission of one’s will to God and a subsequent infilling or baptism of the Holy Spirit typically would be urged as necessary to achieve moral purity, God’s power was most often seen as cooperating with or working through the native powers of the sovereign individual will. While American Christianity in general and evangelicalism in particular came in too many varieties to allow easy generalization, we can at least say that Edwards was correct in identifying a trend toward what he called “Arminianism” in what would become “the land of the free.”

The foundational problem that led to this low view of sin and God’s expectation of holiness was a wrong view of the freedom of the will. People did not realize that the will is wholly bound by the sinful nature. They felt that they were able, in their own power and through their own freedom, to change their behavior. They did not understand or care to understand the depth of their depravity. They may have sought God’s assistance in doing this, but did not rely on His grace and power. God merely cooperated with man’s inherent ability. And sadly, even centuries later, little has changed across a large spectrum of Christianity. Take a book from the shelf of your local Christian bookstore and you should not be surprised to read that your fundamental problem is not your sinful nature but your individual self-destructive acts; not your sinfulness but your sin.

The solution today is the same as it was in Edwards’ day. “People needed to be properly convinced of their real guilt and sinfulness, in the sight of God, and their deserving of his wrath.” Every Christian needs not only to own up to his sinful acts, but to admit that he is fundamentally a sinner who is deserving of God’s wrath. No one has properly apprehended God’s grace until he has understood his own sinfulness and knows that he fully deserves God’s just and holy punishment. The evangelical church of our day tends to be a wrathless church—a church that speaks often of God’s love and grace, but rarely of the deepest necessity of this love and grace. The church today needs an infusion of the gospel, the whole gospel, which speaks not only of God’s love, but first of our desperate need of reconciliation. The gospel portrays us as we really are—as sinners who sin because of our fundamental guilt, our deep-rooted hatred of God. Only when we see ourselves as sinners can we truly see Christ as Savior. Only when we have identified ourselves as fallen in Adam can we truly and properly identify ourselves as raised up and set apart in Christ.

Brothers, We Are Not Figure Skaters - A good moment from Phil Johnson at last week's Shepherds' Conference.

C.H. Spurgeon: The People's Preacher - A few days ago I watched this docu-drama on the life of Charles Spurgeon. It is quite well done and provides a solid, hour-long overview of the life of the Prince of Preachers. It's a great item to add to your church library.

Hologram Preachers - It is sometimes difficult to know what is fact and what is fiction. "Holographic preachers are stirring another technology-gone-too-far debate among Christians. While the dust over beaming preachers on a video screen on multi-site campuses has somewhat settled, the new 3D tool is raising more questions and concerns among some believers."

 Climbing - This is an amazing photograph (or series of photographs stitched together).

The Decline of Vocational Evangelism - Trevin Wax asks why the number of vocational evangelists has declined, especially in the context of the SBC.

The Pastor's Worst Day? - David Murray: "What's the worst day of the week for pastors? Probably Monday. For the previous seven days we've poured ourselves into sermon preparation, pastoral visitation, counseling, evangelism, problem solving, prayer, etc. The Sunday climax (anti-climax?) has come and gone. We may have been discouraged by low attendances, limited or negative feedback, etc. Our mental, emotional, physical, and spiritual reserves are in the red. Yet we have to climb the mountain all over again. Monday “blues” can very quickly become Monday 'blacks.' However, without ignoring the real difficulties, let us also remember the joys of pastoral ministry. Here are seven I try to keep before me, especially on Monday mornings."

If any of you want to join the Yahoo fantasy baseball league I’ve created (head-to-head, not Rotisserie), send me an email: mshmichaelsheiser [at] gmail [dot] com.

Share on Facebook

That’s the question posed over at Uncommon Descent.  The answer is simple: Craig would destroy Dawkins, and Dawkins knows he’d look bad.  It’s one thing to debate journalists and ministers; it’s another to debate a professional philosopher with two PhDs who’d eat your lunch.

Share on Facebook

Technorati Tags: afraid, atheism, debate, Richard Dawkins, William Lane Craig

Mark Barnes has posted an excellent review comparing OliveTree BibleReader and Logos for the iPhone/iPod Touch. This is one of the most exciting areas right now for Bible software, and I’m sure...

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit http://www.bsreview.org for full links, other content, and more! ]]