oh, I’m much worse than that

I love this bit of self-deprecation and reliance on grace from Martin Luther as updated by Carl Trueman. This is some good stuff.

…..it has been brought to my attention over the last years that I am the hapless lackey of right-wing Christian America, the ruthless dismantler of everything good and virtuous at Westminster Theological Seminary (both the right and the left have advocated that one), a communist apologist for Islamic terrorism, a fundamentalist, a liar, a liberal (political and theological), an inveterate street fighter, a spineless girlyman, and a symptom of the crisis in American higher education whose very existence explains why so many young people leave college ill-equipped to deal with real life.

…..
Now, I have to confess that, in the early days, the web insults that were forwarded to me did hurt a bit. I suspect that anyone who says that such things do not hurt is a liar. I may have had my blood replaced with ice water when I took the job of Academic Dean; and I can confirm the rumours that I do not have a shadow or cast a reflection in the mirrored glass in Machen Hall; but, despite the hearsay, I do remember getting a lump in my throat at the end of Bambi when I was child; and I can enjoy the occasional episode of Dancing with the Stars as much as the next man. Yes, I am human and I have the feelings too.

….
Look, to repeat: the web is bandit country. Let the wild and the whacky compete with the sane and the measured, the incoherent and rambling with the logical and well-argued, the extreme with the moderate. If people believe you are really a lizard from the Planet Iguanadon who has assumed human form and infiltrated a church or a seminary to make it the base for an Iguanaman takeover of the entire Christian church, then let them do so. Nothing you can say to the contrary will do anything other than convince them of the depth and sophistication of the extraterrestrial reptilian conspiracy. Their emotional and psychological needs are clearly more serious than your own; and if you respond to such nonsense, you give it credibility and allow the parasitic nature of the attack to succeed. Ignore it and it may not go away, but sane people will see it for what it is and walk by, slightly embarrassed, on the other side of the virtual information highway.

There is, however, a spiritual dimension to blog attacks which is, ironically, conducive to spiritual health and growth. Here I have learned much (as elsewhere) from the master theologian, churchman, public figure, and normal Christian believer, Martin Luther. It is well-known that in his writings in table conversation Luther would often refer to visits from the Devil, how the Devil would come to him and whisper in his ear, accusing him of all manner of filthy sin: “Martin, you are a liar, greedy, lecherous, a blasphemer, a hypocrite. You cannot stand before God.” To which Luther would respond: “Well, yes, I am. And, indeed, Satan, you do not know the half of it. I have done much worse than that and if you care to give me your full list, I can no doubt add to it and help make it more complete. But you know what? My Saviour has died for all my sins – those you mention, those I could add and, indeed, those I have committed but am so wicked that I am unaware of having done so. It does not change the fact that Christ has died for all of them; his blood is sufficient; and on the Day of Judgment I shall be exonerated because he has taken all my sins on himself and clothed me in his own perfect righteousness.‘

go read the whole thing. Hat tip to vitamin z.

the Shack part I

I am reading the Shack. It took all the way to page 165 (out of 246) before I got completely angry. Up to that time I was reading at a relatively low grade frustration level. The prose was juvenile. the story was wooden. The theology was wrong. The emphasis was on Mack instead of God. All frustrating things.

But on page 165 Mr. Young finally made me mad. Here is what appears there, beginning at the bottom of 164 for some context:

“For love. He chose the way of the cross where mercy triumphs over justice because of love. Would you instead prefer he’d chosen justice for everyone? Do you want justice, ‘Dear Judge’?” and she smiled as she said it.

“No, I don’t,” he said as he lowered his head. “Not for me, and not for my children.”

She waited.

“But I still don’t understand why Missy had to die.”

“She didn’t have to, Mackenzie. This was no plan of Papa’s. Papa has never needed evil to accomplish his good purposes. It is you humans who have embraced evil and Papa has responded with goodness. What happened to Missy was the work of evil and no one in your world is immune from it.”

emphasis added.

The “She” above is Sophia, who is the distillation of God’s wisdom like Solomon portrayed in Proverbs.

Now just think one brief minute about what we know about God from the scripture. Revelation 13:8 says that there is a book written before the foundation of the world that is known as the book of the slain Lamb. It seems fairly obvious to me that God “needed” “planned” for some evil to occur that would result in the propitiatory sacrifice of His Son for the reconciliation of the folks whose names were written in that book.

The idea that God didn’t plan for things we don’t like is deeply offensive.

The thing about it is that this statement that Mr. Young puts in the mouth of God’s distillation of wisdom undercuts the whole central message of the book up to that point.

The Godhead was up to then taking turns convincing Mack that he had no right to sit in judgement of God’s actions or others. The author then does exactly what he is writing a book to argue against. He sits in judgment of God and decides that God would never plan or need what the author and Mackenzie agree to be evil. how arrogant is that? how stupid? how blasphemous?

Don’t get me started.

For a contrast between this kind of theology and the Bible’s portrayal of God see this post of mine regarding two approaches to the bridge collapse in minneapolis minnesota.

W. Paul Young is trying to do the same thing that Roger Olson wants to do which is to help God get off the hook for bad things that happen in the world that we humans don’t like.

Olson:

And God says, “Pray because sometimes I can intervene to stop innocent suffering when people pray; that’s one of my self-limitations. I don’t want to do it all myself; I want your involvement and partnership in making this a better world.”
It’s a different picture of God than most conservative Christians grew up with, but it’s the only one (so far as I can tell) that relieves God of responsibility for sin and evil and disaster and calamity.

emphasis added.

The Bible:

5 I am the LORD, and there is no other,
besides me there is no God;
I equip you, though you do not know me,
6 that people may know, from the rising of the sun
and from the west, that there is none besides me;
I am the LORD, and there is no other.
7 I form light and create darkness,
I make well-being and create calamity,
I am the LORD, who does all these things.

emphasis added.

So the question is, do we take God at His word or not? Do we think it is our job to “relieve God of responsibility” for things that happen to us that we don’t like?

we must get this

here again is a link to John MacArthur’s two part message on God and evil. if you only have 25 minutes, then listen to part two only. Unfortunately, the free listening of the message is no longer available. They cost money (2 dollars) to download, but are worth it.

originally posted on 8/27. everyone needs to listen to part two at this link. seriously.

if God is sovereign over all like He says He is in Ephesians 1:11, then it necessarily follows that God wills that evil exist.

“God wills evil to exist. (without being evil)” according to the Ligonier ministries blog, that is how John MacArthur begins the two sermons linked here. UPDATE: the quoted phrase comes at the beginning of the second message.

I am going to give these messages a listen this morning and this evening.

UPDATE: The first message was only 24 minutes long. Mainly it consisted of establishing with scripture that God is sovereign over all things. That everything is part of His plan.

oooo! part 2 starts out with a kick.

UPDATE II: Excellent 2nd message as well. as you would expect from John MacArthur, it is mostly just straight scripture. If you don’t start from the assumption that the Bible is God’s word to us and that our job is to figure out what it says and get under it, then you will not get these messages. if you do start from that assumption, then it is a wrasslin’ match. ding, ding. let the match begin.

the shape of evil

here is the shape of evil. Get a good look at its contours. Nicholas Provenzo has bought the Lie in its entirety.

Like many, I am troubled by the implications of Alaska governor and Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s decision to knowingly give birth to a child disabled with Down syndrome. Given that Palin’s decision is being celebrated in some quarters, it is crucial to reaffirm the morality of aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down syndrome (or by extension, any unborn fetus)—a freedom that anti-abortion advocates seek to deny.

A parent has a moral obligation to provide for his or her children until these children are equipped to provide for themselves. Because a person afflicted with Down syndrome is only capable of being marginally productive (if at all) and requires constant care and supervision, unless a parent enjoys the wealth to provide for the lifetime of assistance that their child will require, they are essentially stranding the cost of their child’s life upon others.

So while anti-abortion commentators such as Michael Franc of the National Review sees Down syndrome’s victims as “ambassadors of God” who “offer us the opportunity to rise to that greatest of all challenges,” for many, that opportunity for challenge is little more than a lifetime of endless burden. In this light, it is completely legitimate for a woman to look at the circumstances of her life and decide that having a child with Down syndrome (or any child for that matter) is not an obligation that she can accept. After all, the choice to have a child is a profoundly selfish choice; that is, a choice that is an expression of the parent’s personal desire to create new life.

yes, up is down and black is white. in nicholas’ deceived worldview having a child is “a profoundly selfish choice”.

But wait, there’s more:

So in the anti-abortion advocate’s eyes, a parent’s desire to raise healthy children by squelching unhealthy fetuses while the are still in the womb is little more than a pernicious quest, but it is not considered a pernicious quest to knowingly bring severely disabled children into this world. On the contrary, such a choice is held out as an great example of upstanding morality. For example, consider this recent press release from a conservative anti-abortion advocacy group which celebrated Plain’s birth announcement:

The Palin family is a wonderful example of a family who made the right choice to embrace their child and his future. Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America (CWA), commends Governor Palin, saying, “She is even more beautiful inside than out. Her proud and warm announcement of the birth of their special child revealed the depth of love and faith of this extraordinary woman. May God give America more women and statesmen like her.

“Special needs children can bring out the best in people. They draw out compassion, patience, a joy for the simple things in life in people around them,” says Wright. “In some ways, we need special needs people more than they need us.”

That is, we need the mentally retarded to teach us how to better sacrifice our lives and divest ourselves of our self-interested ways more than they need us to care for them. At Noodlefood, Diana Hsieh condemns such a stand as “the worship of retardation.” Given that Palin had complete foreknowledge of her child’s severe disability yet nevertheless chose to have it, it is hard not to see her choice as anything less.

here is where we get hung up

originally posted on 8/27. everyone needs to listen to part two at this link. seriously.

if God is sovereign over all like He says He is in Ephesians 1:11, then it necessarily follows that God wills that evil exist.

“God wills evil to exist. (without being evil)” according to the Ligonier ministries blog, that is how John MacArthur begins the two sermons linked here. UPDATE: the quoted phrase comes at the beginning of the second message.

I am going to give these messages a listen this morning and this evening.

UPDATE: The first message was only 24 minutes long. Mainly it consisted of establishing with scripture that God is sovereign over all things. That everything is part of His plan.

oooo! part 2 starts out with a kick.

UPDATE II: Excellent 2nd message as well. as you would expect from John MacArthur, it is mostly just straight scripture. If you don’t start from the assumption that the Bible is God’s word to us and that our job is to figure out what it says and get under it, then you will not get these messages. if you do start from that assumption, then it is a wrasslin’ match. ding, ding. let the match begin.

the agnotheist point of view

fascinating:

if I did have a firm belief in God, I’d have a hard time reconciling the following two principles:

1. There is an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent deity, and man’s highest destiny is to fulfill His purpose

2. I routinely ignore what this deity says because my neighbors disagree

I can’t see how you can have any sort of meaningful faith and divorce it from your voting decisions. Religious faith is supposed to tell you, among other things, what is right and wrong. How are you supposed to vote without reference to your notions of goodness?

Piper remembers Solzhenitsyn

John Piper has put up a remembrance of Alexander Solzhenitsyn with a quote from the Gulag Archipelago

here is a portion of the quote, but go read Piper’s post for the whole thing as well as John’s prayer of gratitude for this man’s life:

In my most evil moments I was convinced that I was doing good, and I was well supplied with systematic arguments. It was only when I lay there on rotting prison straw that I sensed within myself the first stirrings of good. Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either—but right through every human heart—and through all human hearts…. That is why I turn back to the years of my imprisonment and say, sometimes to the astonishment of those about me: “Bless you, prison!” I…have served enough time there. I nourished my soul there, and I say without hesitation: “Bless you, prison, for having been in my life!” (The Gulag Archipelago: 1918-1956, Vol. 2, 615-617)