T h e o • p h i l o g u e

Home » 2008 » November (Page 3)

Monthly Archives: November 2008

Contraception a Culprit to Denigration? :: Pope Paul VI’s Prophetic Warning

Sharon Hodde at She Worships claims that Pope Paul VI was a prophetic voice forty years ago in Humanae Vitae, and laments that we did not listen to him.  She’s not sure if the growing use of contraception is the causal mechanism to the objectification of women, but she thinks it is at least one small contributing factor.  Read her thoughts.

John 3:16 Conference :: Chris’ Copyright Crossexamination

Not long ago Todd reported indignantly that he had been unjustly accused of copyright infringement for posting John 3:16 Conference messages.  He complained that someone had gone to the authorities without confronting him personally (like Christians are supposed to do).  Now Chris shares his side of the story, and claims the recording of the messages was legal, but distributing them to others was illegal, and that he did in fact contact Todd personally.  Here are some excerpts from his comments:   

I am the one who posted on Todd’s site that the audio recording being posted on his site was illegal, You have been misinformed if you believe that it is legal. No notice has to be given. The speakers are the legal owners of the material and they granted Jerry Vines Ministries the right to record and reproduce the material. It does not matter that the recordings were made by an individual. He has the right to record the material (unless notice is provided), but he does not have permission to distribute unless he has permission from the copyright owner.

I am not the one that contacted the blog host and reported the activity. I did what was biblical and went to my brother in Christ and confronted him of his sin. He removed the material and in my mind the issue is/was settled. 

I would wonder why you would accuse Jerry Vines Ministry of having no integrity. What have they done…. Todd is the one that violated the law. And while he is the one that broke the law he has no been accused of having no integrity.

… I too am shocked by how Jerry Vines Ministries is being attacked when they have done nothing wrong and the way they are being treated despite the fact that they are the ones that broke the law. Why is no one condemning the actions of Todd? Todd is relying on the ignorance of his “tech guy” and he is getting wrong advice.

Chris

Chris … Glad you get your side of the story.  Maybe the Proverbs 18:17 principles applies here.  “The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him.”

If Chris is right, all those who recorded the John 3:16 conference and posted them or sent them to a bunch of friends may have broken the law (even if by ignorance).

A More Biblical and Sophisticated Approach to Christian Counseling

foundations-for-soul-care

Dr. Eric Johnson is an intellectual beast.  His approach to biblical counseling is more biblical than the “Biblical” Counseling approach.  It’s also more scientifically informed and thoroughly thought through.  (wow … look at those last three words) I recently heard that Johnson’s magnum opus,Foundations for Soul Care: A Christian Psychology Proposal, is only the first of a three part treatment.  I get goose bumps just thinking about it.  If Johnson is right, and Christians are living in the days of the “counseling wars,” I think Johnson’s counseling philosophy took Normandy with the publication of this one book.

John 3:16 Conference: Blogger Accused of Copyright Infringement

A blogger named Todd chimed in on a thread at the Crimson Window.  Here’s part of the discussion.

Todd: FYI, there was no notice that recording was prohibited so I actually have all of the messages from the conference (including the free Q&A session) available as MP3’s. Just email me at tburus@msn.com or comment on my blog at ToddOnGod.com and I can get you copies. They’re not the high-quality $50 variety, but you can hear what is said. Also, I am in the process of responding to the presenters myself. I have already posted up through David Allen’s message against Limited Atonement. Enjoy.

Me: bootlegger calvinist … cool

Todd: It’s not really bootlegging. I checked with my church’s tech guy about the legality of it and he said that if no signs were posted or remarks made to the contrary then speeches are public domain and can be recorded and distributed by whomever. Plus, isn’t $50 for a CD extortion? Especially for people who had already paid $95 to be there in the first place(!)

Me: I was making a joke … Thanks for making them available! ) Yes. It’s highway robbery! Amrinian extortionist!! It’s all about filthy lucre! (another joke)

Then … an ironic twist in the thread. 

Todd: All, I just wanted to let you know that I woke up this morning to find that my blog had been deactivated because of copyright infringement, one would assume over the conference audio files. As you may have noticed I had already moved to take down these files and so this is a little irritating to me. I am disappointed that the powers that be behind the John 3.16 Conference would move to do such a thing without even having the integrity to contact me first. Please spread the word about this as you see fit. Thanks.

Todd: All, It appears that I have regained my site, but I was right that it had come from someone accusing me of direct linking to the product being sold by Jerry Vines Ministries at $50 a piece. It’s unfortunate that personal gain and fear of accountability has taken us away from reaching out to contact our brothers before going to the authorities, which is the essence of 1 Corinthians 6. It appears that I am allowed to post these after all, but seeing what derision has proceeded from it already I am unsure if I will.

Have a nice day.

Interesting … Todd has a point.  Why didn’t someone contact him before going to authorities?  

——————————HT: The Crimson Window———————————-

Man Call’s Upon God at His Wedding

(HT: Fail Blog)

Atheism is Not A Religion? • An Atheist Perspective Critiqued

Vjack talks about his trouble with the facebook setup in a post. Here’s an excerpt:

… I was not sure what to make of the “religious views” line on my profile. Coincidentally, a reader e-mailed me and asked my opinion about this very issue just as I was confronting it myself. She did not want to put “atheist” under religion because she recognized that atheism is not a religion and did not want to pretend it was. This led her to think of simply putting “none” in the space. However, she wasn’t sure she liked this idea much better.

You see … vjack does not think of atheism as a religion.  He explains this in another post.

Thus, an atheist is one who does not believe in a god or gods. Note that “one who lacks belief in a god or gods” is not quite the same thing as “one who believes that there are no god or gods.” This distinction may be subtle, but it is important for reasons I will review below. 

As I have stated elsewhere, “Atheism is not a religion, a philosophy, a worldview, or anything similar. It is not the conviction that there are no gods, ghosts, angels, etc.” Rather, atheism simply refers to the lack of theistic belief. A young child or person living in an isolated community who has never heard of any gods is an atheist. In fact, we are all born atheists because we have not encountered any theistic concepts before birth.

… it is critical to recognize that atheism does not involve the assertion of any belief claim. An atheist is simply an individual who do not hold the theistic belief claim (i.e., that god or gods exist). … When the theist says, “God exists,” we are correct to expect evidence in support of this claim. Without such evidence, the claim cannot be accepted on rational grounds. 

But vjack can’t get away that easy.  You don’t escape the worldview nature of atheism just by stating it’s belief negatively as the absence of theism.  I could say that theism is just the absence of belief in atheism.  If vjack is not ready to assert positively that there is no God, god or gods, he is not actually an atheist, but a skeptic—–someone who doesn’t affirm theism but doesn’t leave out the possibility that God, a god, or gods exists either.  Is Vjack really only a skeptic or does he have strong convictions that belief in God, god or gods is irrational, and therefore that God doesn’t exist?  Based on his definition, he only wants to be considered a skeptic.  But if you just read a few posts on his blog, you will see that he thinks people ought to live as if there were no God.  He’s not simply unsure about whether there is or is not a God, he’s working out the implications of hard-atheism.  

Vjack’s way of defining things is not original.  Atheists have long argued for a distinction between hard-atheism and soft-atheism.  Hard-atheism as belief that there is no God, god or gods, and soft-Atheism as belief that there is no apparent rational reason to believe there is a God, god, or gods.  Either way, vjack’s claim that atheism is not a worldview, then, is unfounded.  Atheism actually demands presuppositions about the nature of knowledge (epistemological presuppositions) to even begin to evaluate whether there is or is not any evidence for the existence of God.  Read the last part of that excerpt again.

When the theist says, “God exists,” we are correct to expect evidence in support of this claim. Without such evidence, the claim cannot be accepted on rational grounds. [italics added] 

Epistemological presuppositions about how we ground true knoweledge is at the very heart of worldview theory and determines the outworking of what one accepts as true, false, right or wrong.  It’s the hinge on which one’s worldview turns.   

Therefore, for vjack to claim atheism is not a worldview may be a sly way of dodging theistic rhetoric, but it is also reveals a glaring logical blind spot.  Atheists tend to pride themselves as rational, but as I see it, they make foundational rational mistakes all the time.  This is one of them: Claiming that atheism is not a worldview when in fact, it either demands that one assert there is no God (which results in a different way of viewing the world as not created by God) or that there is no apparent rational reason to believe in God (which demands a non-theistic epistemology, such epistemologies being at the heart of worldview theory).    

———————————–HT: Atheist Revolution——————————–

What’s the Problem with Justification?: Karl Barth’s Answer

Barth attempts to explain in his Church Dogmatics, that the problem of justification consists in how man can be at the same time sinner and just.  Therefore, Barth surmises, the doctrine is unique and important.  Here are some excerpts: 

How can he be simul peccator et iustus?  And how can God for His part (the omniscient and righteous Judge of good and evil) give right to man when man is obviously in the wrong before Him, and God Himself has put him the wrong? … To what extent is this justification not a mere overlooking or hiding of the pride and fall of man, a nominalistic “as if”—which is quite incompatible with the truthfulness of God and cannot be of any real help to man—but God’s serious opposition and mighty resistance to the pride of man and therefore the real redemption of fallen man?  How in this justification can God be effectively true to Himself and therefore to man—to man and therefore primarily to Himself?  How can He judge man in truth and even in that judgment be gracious to Him?  How can He be truly gracious to him even in the fact that He judges him?  This is the problem of the doctrine of justification which we now have to develop.  (CD, § 61: 517)

But whether we are dealing with a divinely true actuality depends upon whether in this alteration of the human situation in the atonement—as the work of grace and mercy of God—we are dealing with that which is just and right.  It depends upon whether—however strange it may seem to us—there is a genuine justification: that is, whether the right of God which gives right to man and the right of man which is given by God to man is a true and indisputable right.  If we do not have an indisputable divine right, and (for all its difference) an indisputable human right, how can the conversion of man to God be true, and how then can it be actual? … [The task of the doctrine of justification] is the task of finding a reliable answer to the question: What is God for sinful man?  And what is sinful man before the God who is for him?  The basis of the community and the certainty of faith stands or falls with the answer to this question. (CD, § 61: 518)

There is no doubt that the unusual difficulty of the doctrine of justification is an indication of its special function.  In it we have to do with the turning, the movement, the transition of the existence of man without God and dead into the existence of man living for God and therefore before him and with Him and for Him. … There is no part of dogmatics, no locus, where we can treat it lightly.  At every point we are dealing with the one high Gospel.  What we can and must say is that in the doctrine of justification we are dealing with the most pronounced and puzzling form of this transition because we are dealing specifically with the question of its final possibility. … But in the doctrine of justification we have to do with the original centre of this crisis, and to that extent with its sharpest form, with what we can describe provisionally as the crisis which underlies the whole.  If we find it running through the whole with all kinds of repetitions and variations, at this point where we grapple with the peculiar difficulty of it, it has to be seen and handled as the main theme—the question: How am I to lay hold of a gracious God?  And it is from here, and along the line which runs from here, that in different ways it works out everywhere. (CD, § 61: 520-21)

  

I Wish All Calvinists Sang Praise Like Hillsong

Not even Sovereign Grace comes close to anything like this.

Don’t Stop Till It’s Over: Premature Rejoicing

(HT: Fail Blog)

::: Christ-followers who are also Obama-backers :::

Colin Kerr at God’s Eclectic warns Obama-backing Christians not to loose their prophetic voice and give unconditional support.  The following excerpt comes from his post, “Relating to Your New President (Part 1).”   

So Christ-followers who are also Obama-backers, don’t become the Left-wing version of our Right-wing past. Reverend Jeremiah Wright, for all his fruitcake comments, did get one thing right. He said that he would switch from a supporter to a critic of Obama the moment he entered the Oval Office. It was his prophetic duty to do so. Jim Wallis of Sojourners, the day after the election, sent a message to his organization’s members (of whom very few probably voted from McCain) to join him “in ensuring that these campaign promises become a reality.

What an opportunity progressive Christians now have to hold Obama accountable to his vision for a new way of doing politics that seeks common ground and compromises instead of wedge strategies and stirring up the base. If his actions deviate from that pledge, we have an obligation as modern-day prophets to call him out on it … Our support will not be unconditional. Our allegiance will not be tied to an earthly king. White House tours and trinkets will not placate us.Only justice finally being done in the land will.

———————————–HT: God’s Eclectic————————————-