The ‘natural’ man, who is without the Spirit does not accept things of the Spirit, thinking that they are foolish(1 Cor 2:14). The ‘natural’ mind is completely carnal and hostile to God (Rom 8:7). The natural man can do nothing to please God (also Rom 8:7). Repenting of sin believing the Gospel (Christ’s command), pleases God. Doesn’t that mean that ‘supernatural’ regeneration must, by necessity, precede faith?
1. The Word of God is a sword that pierces (Hebrews 4:12).
2. The Word of God is a mirror that reveals (James 1:23).
3. The Word of God is a seed that germinates (1 Peter 1:23).
4. The Word of God is milk that nourishes (1 Peter 2, 3).
5. The Word of God is a lamp that shines (Psalm 119:105).
6. The Word of God is a fire that consumes (Jeremiah 23:29).
7. The Word of God is a hammer that shatters (Jeremiah 23:29).
These 7 ‘The Word of God is…’ statements were the main points of Dr. Steven Lawson’s presentation at the 2015 Shepherd’s Conference hosted by John MacArthur at The Masters Seminary in Santa Clara, California. I leave it to you to examine the passages of scripture annotated with the ‘7 metaphors’. Dr. Lawson’s presentation included much more scripture and I encourage you to watch his entire presentation.
This year’s conference was devoted to the inerrancy of Scripture. As mentioned in an earlier blog post, the Domain of Truth blog has done us a favor and provided links to both the General Session videos and audio from the breakout sessions:
Twenty Ways to Answer a Fool?
The above title is borrowed from the title (minus the ’?’) of a series of posts written by Fred Butler over at the Hip & Thigh blog. They were written as a review of an online pamphlet by an atheist anarchist by the name of Chaz Bufe called Twenty Reasons to Abandon Christianity. Although it is not specifically stated in the introduction to the series of posts, the title Twenty Ways to Answer a Fool is scriptural:
The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”
Psalm 14:1 (ESV)
The following links connect to Fred Butler’s responses to Chaz Bufe’s 20 reasons to abandon Christianity. The numbers in parentheses correspond to the 20 reasons given to abandon Christianity.
Twenty Ways to Answer a Fool, Introduction
Is Christianity Based on Fear? (1)
Does Christianity Prey on the Innocent? (2)
Is Christianity Based upon Dishonesty? (3)
Is Christianity Egocentric? (4)
Does Christianity Breed Arrogance? (5)
Does Christianity Breed Authoritarianism? (6)
Is Christianity Cruel? (7)
Is Christianity Anti-intellectual? (8)
Does Christianity Have an Unhealthy Preoccupation with Sex? (9 & 10)
Does Christianity Have a Narrow View of Morality? (11 & 12)
Does Christianity Depreciate the Natural World? (13)
Does Christianity Model an Authoritarian Organization? (14)
Does Christianity Sanction Slavery? (15)
Is Christianity Misogynistic? (16)
Is Christianity Homophobic? (17)
Is the Bible a Reliable Guide to Christ’s Teachings? (18 & 19)
Is Christianity Borrowed from Other Ancient Religions? (20)
For all the Shepherd;s Conference fans out there. . .
Originally posted on hipandthigh:
All of the main sessions and breakout seminars from the Shepherd’s Conference 2015 summit on biblical inerrancy are now available online.
All of them can be found at the Master’s Seminary media hub located HERE.
The Domain of Truth blog has done us a favor and have linked each audio download at one place,
By the way, the main session linked at the Domain of Truth blog go immediately to the Vimeo videos of the sessions. If you want the MP3 audio, find the download at the TMS media hub.
I hope to be blogging a little bit on the doctrine of inerrancy here soon when I get caught up on other important and immediate chores. In the meantime, check out Michael Vlach’s message on presuppositionalism and inerrancy and Steve Lawson’s biographical sermon on the life of Tyndale. His message was…
View original 97 more words
Originally posted on The Domain for Truth:
Pay attention to the name Abner Chou as I believe he will be more well known in the larger Evangelical world of Scholarship in the next few years.
Abner Chou is Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies at The Master’s College and Seminary. From what I understand he turned down his college acceptance to Princeton or some other Ivy League School to attend the Master’s College. After the Master’s College he went on to the Master’s Seminary where he completed M.Div., Th.M., and Th.D. This year he was a speaker for the Truth and Life Conference and was a seminar speaker for the Inerrancy Summit. He is currently working on an exegetical commentary on the book of Lamentation for Logos’ Evangelical Exegetical Commentary.
Dr. Chou recently spoke at the Seminary’s Chapel from Acts 17 on the subject of the need for Christian Intellectual Engagement.
I’ve halfway through the video. What is your thoughts on…
View original 2 more words
Atheists either totally deny the existence of God or they claim they just don’t believe in God, or gods. I have met both types, however there are far fewer professing atheists who tell me that God doesn’t exist than those who merely tell me they just don’t believe in God. When it is suggested that to claim God doesn’t exist necessarily presupposes ‘all knowledge’, thoughtful God deniers will move into the ‘I just don’t believe in God’ camp.
We ask the above question because of what scripture tells us in the New Testament book of Romans, Chapter 1:
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity. . . 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
Note the following points about men in the above text.
1. Men suppress the truth (by their unrighteousness). (v. 18)
2. They (men) knew God. (v.21)
3. They (men) exchanged the truth about God for a lie. (v.25)
If you read the rest of Romans 1, you will also find out what the results are when men exchange the truth of God for a lie, but those results are not the topic of this post. The point of this post is the original question “Does the atheist merely deny that which he knows is true?” If the answer is ‘yes’, should it inform how we discuss the existence of God with professing atheists? If that’s another ‘yes’, how should it inform our end of the dialogue? What might change in the way we discuss the issue of od’s existence?
Food for thought and discussion.
Well, I finally listened to the Theonomy Debate between Theonomist Joel McDurmon and Pastor J.D. Hall. It took a bit of time before the audio and video was available online. I downloaded the audio from the American Vision website, but it required me to be already on their mailing list, etc., and going to their store and doing the ‘shopping’ thing. It was a free download consisting of three audio files, two actual debate segments and a Q&A segment. Then I did a little Googling and found both the video and some additional links concerning theonomy that are quite helpful.
Here is a link to the Sola Sisters page. I have already added some of the articles to my theonomy library, which contains both pro and con material.
I also found another interesting Podcast to listen to called “Bible Thumping Wingnut”. The Web page is here. Episodes #t52 (here) is an interview with J.D. Hall and #53 (here) contains reflections on the debate and social media conduct.
Since you are probably wondering my concerns had to do with the connection between theonomy, Christian Reconstructionism and Dominionism.