Justification

Tom Schreiner, professor of NT at Southern Seminary was interviewed recently on the issue of justification.  This was a major doctrinal difference during the Reformation between Rome and the Protestants.  Many of the recent converts to Catholicism from evangelical philosophical circles have cited a resolvable doctrine of justification as one of the things that permitted them to leave to Rome.

The new perspective on Paul, early Judaism (Covenantal Nomism), and justification has contributed to this conversation.  There is a brief introduction to the New Perspective at the Resurgence.  I just finished listening to this and found it a helpful introduction.  There are notes and the audio available.

This is a very important doctrine as it strikes to the heart of the biblical gospel - how are sinful human beings made righteous before God. 

Congrats to Rhett and Link

I wanted to drop a quick note to all of the POC readers out there and publicly congratulate my good friends Rhett McLaughlin and Link Neal - aka "Rhett and Link."  These guys have been burning up the web video and campus comedy world for some time, so those who know these guys the news I will share here is not surprising.

But for those who do not know them this video is a good place to begin.

I met these guys when they were juniors in high school when my girlfriend Kasey (who is now my wife) and I hung out at a beach weekend with some of their friends.  We were big time college folk and imparted some deep spiritual wisdom and gospel truth to the young brothers - obviously none of it stuck, so we needed to try again.  Fortunately, the next year Kasey and I got another at bat with the kids.  While we were building a support base to go into ministry with Athletes in Action, we decided to hang out with the high school kids again for another year.  We taught classes at the church with the high schoolers on Sunday and Wednesday nights, and also listened to Rhett and Link's Christian punk, alt, death metal, acoustic, confused sort of rock band affectionately known as the Wax Paper Dogs. We knew we had to make a difference in their lives, for they were about to go to college. Well obviously, none of it stuck.  But the guys did go to college, received engineering degrees from that red and black school whose mascot is the "Wolfpack" and then went off to launch a comedy/ministry life with students on college campuses around the mid south of the United States.

Well, the rest is history and they have gotten more and more props in the online comedy world.  Now, they have gone big time.  As if winning 3rd place in the Intuit Turbo Tax Rap competition (for this rap) and starting the ensuing rap battle wasn't enough, Rhett and Link recently announced that they are going to the show.  Their Melodelcious Vlog is up and rolling over at dotcomedy and they will be hosting a network television show entitled Online Nation on Sunday nights (7:30/6:30c) on CW.

Most importantly, all joking aside, these guys are good men, good fathers (well, this video may call Rhett into question), and they did listen back in the day. I am praying for them in these new endeavors to walk well and kick it strong in the entertainment world.  Godspeed to you brothers, and always remember who we represent...and where you came from.

For those who think differently about PC Guy

For all of you out there who actually like PCs and are sick of that little snotty Mac guy in the Apple advertising campaign, Laurie McGuinness has produced some fun adds where PC guy is more of the man.  These are pretty funny spots showing the Mac to be the 5% little weasel he is!

 

Mac Works for the PC Guy 

 

PC Guy gets the Girl 

 

Music - Mac Doesn't Like to Share 

 

Mac may be cool but PC has the money

Isaac Watts on Self-Discipline

Kairos Journal has a great little ditty on self-discipline by Issac Watts. Watts is know most a great hymn writer (for greats like:When I Survey the Wondrous Cross) , but he was also quite the scholar and thinker.  One of my oldest books is an original Logic text written by Watts given to me by a good friend in Virginia.   If you are in ministry and have not subscribed to Kairos Journal, it is a great resource.

The following is from His Discourse on the Education of Children and Youth, published in 1752:

The Importance of Self-Discipline—Isaac Watts (1674 – 1748)

Children should be instructed in the art of self-government. They should be taught, as far as possible, to govern their thoughts; to use their will to be determined by the light of their understandings, and not by headstrong and foolish humour;1 they should learn to keep the lower powers of nature under the command of their reason; they should be instructed to regulate their senses, their imagination, their appetites, and their passions . . .

Many children have such wild fluttering fancies, that they will not be easily confined to fix upon one object for any considerable time; every flying feather, every motion of any person or thing that is near them, every sound, or noise, or shadow, calls them away from their duty. When they should employ their eyes on their book or their work, they will be gazing at every thing besides their task; they must rise often to the window to see what passes abroad, when their business lies within . . .

Children should be also instructed to govern their inclinations and wishes, and to determine their wills and their choice of things, not by humour and wild fancy, but by the dictates of reason. Some persons, even in their mature years, can give no other account why they choose and determine to do this or that, but because they have a fancy for it, and they will do it. I will, because I will, serves instead of all other reasons. And in the same manner they manage their refusal or dislike of any thing. I hate to do this thing; I will not go to this place, nor do that work; I am resolved against it; and all from mere humour. This is a conduct very unbecoming a reasonable creature; and this folly should be corrected betimes, in our early parts of life, since God has given us understanding and reason to be the guide of our resolutions, and to direct our choice and all our actions . . .

The passions or affections are the last thing which I shall mention: these appear very early in children to want a regulation and government. They love and hate too rashly, and with too much vehemence; they grieve and rejoice too violently, and on the sudden, and that for mere trifles; their hopes and fear, their desires and their aversions, and presently raised to too high a pitch, and upon very slight and insufficient grounds. It becomes a wise parent to watch over these young emotions of their souls, and put in a word of prudent caution as often as they observe these irregularities . . . Shew them how unreasonable and unmanly a thing it is to take fire at every little provocation: how honourable and glorious to forgive an injury . . .

[M]en can hardly ever get so successful a victory over themselves, unless they begin when they are children

Here is the link to the article 

Palm and other announcements

Palm Inc, will make an announcement of a new mobile device tomorrow via a web cast.  What makes this different than, Blah, Blah, Blah...is that Jeff Hawkins is making the announcement via webcast. For those who don't know Hawkins, he founded the device category and the company when he created the first Pilot in the mid 1990s.  He also founded Handspring (oh, I loved my Visor Prism), a company which helped move the concept of mobile computing forward towards the Treo type devices we see today.  Hawkins is an intellectual and a creative dude so this should be interesting.  Here is what the press release reads:

Jeff Hawkins, founder of Palm, Inc. (Nasdaq:PALM), will host a live video webcast on Wed., May 30, to describe a new category of mobile device. The webcast will follow the announcement of this new product at the D: All Things Digital conference in Carlsbad, Calif.

A new category of mobile device?  I'm skeptical of this, but we'll see. The full press release can be found here.  Anyone excited?

History of these devices that I have owned over the last 11 years (Palm Pilot 1000, Palm Professional, Handspring Visor Prism, Dell Axim X5 - Pocket PC, Palm Zire...waiting for a convergence device worthy of time/attention)

 

Update: Apparently, if you are a Geek, tomorrow is a big day all around.  The following schedule from Engadget is indeed interesting

 

Wednesday, May 30
8:00AM - 10:30AM PST window
Steve Ballmer / Microsoft
Jeff Hawkins / Palm

11:15AM - 1:00PM PST window
Steve Jobs / Apple

7:15PM PST
Bill Gates & Steve Jobs 2getha 4eva

Thursday, May 31
11:00AM - 12:45PM PST window
Eric Schmidt / Google

A People of the Self

There is little doubt after any trip to a local bookstore that our culture is into "self" - I was working through my quote database (yes, I am a nerd) today and ran across this quote from AW Tozer: 

To be specific, the self-sins are self-righteousness, self-pity, self-confidence, self-sufficiency, self-admiration, self-love and a host of others like them. They dwell too deep within us and are too much a part of our natures to come to our attention till the light of God is focused upon them. The grosser manifestations of these sins--egotism, exhibitionism, self-promotion--are strangely tolerated in Christian leaders, even in circles of impeccable orthodoxy. They are so much in evidence as actually, for many people, to become identified with the gospel. I trust it is not a cynical observation to say that they appear these days to be a requisite for popularity in some sections of the church visible. Promoting self under the guise of promoting Christ is currently so common as to excite little notice....

AW Tozer, The Pursuit of God, 43-44. 

In what ways have do you see "self" promoted at the expense of the gospel?  In what does western Christianity work off of popularity?  When is popular, or well known-ness, not a vice?  Any prophets of the virtue "self-centeredness" out there who want to weigh in?

Out of the mouths of infants...

Al Mohler has a fascinating article discussing the research of two Yale psychologists up on his blog today.  One of the more interesting quotations is the following:

Our intuitive psychology also contributes to resistance to science. One significant bias is that children naturally see the world in terms of design and purpose. For instance, four year-olds insist that everything has a purpose, including lions ("to go in the zoo") and clouds ("for raining"), a propensity that Deborah Kelemen has dubbed "promiscuous teleology." Additionally, when asked about the origin of animals and people, children spontaneously tend to provide and to prefer creationist explanations.

Just as children's intuitions about the physical world make it difficult for them to accept that the Earth is a sphere, their psychological intuitions about agency and design make it difficult for them to accept the processes of evolution.

I recommend reading the post.  Science should proceed from observations in the world, which form hypothesis, which are tested.  But not anymore.  Conceptual philosophy is grafted onto all conclusions where even the most counterintuitive constructs must be accepted...why? Because this is the way it has to be if there is no purpose, no design, no God...we ought to listen to these kids...

Some scientific opinions today would have you believe the following:

• There isn't a conscious entity, which is not your brain, that IS you
  
• That the appearance of design in the world is an illusion
• That the experience of moral reality is the creation of a herd of apes...or philosophers.
  
• That belief in God is for silly, superstitious folks that have yet to pull up their metaphysical bootstraps
• That there is no transcending death

Sad...there is another way

Living or Dying in the "Gray Zone"

Peter Singer, the famed (or infamous) "ethicist" from Princeton University has another wonderful meditation out on life and death.  Singer is somewhat of a hero to some and a demon to others for his views on the termination of babies who have severe problems at birth and perhaps up to two years of age...only if the parents "want to" of course.  Singer is a utilitarian at heart and in his thinking. By that I mean he is a consequentialist in terms of his ethical reasoning.  He makes decision about right and wrong based on his understanding of whether suffering will be limited and happiness extended.  Now you may ask "how does one know the future and what a decision will or will not bring?"  Welcome to the wonderful world of consequentialism.  Let me give you some examples in a dialogue:

Lifescape 1

Doctor No: Your baby's chromosomes are abnormal, you will have a child with down's syndrome.  What would you like to do?

Parent Happy Me: [thoughts] this means lots of trouble for us, lots of money we will have to spend to care and raise this child - that will quell our happiness and quality of life.

Doctor No: Most children with downs life very painful lives and die very young.  What would you like to do?

Parent Happy Me: [thoughts] Well, that child will suffer, will not be very happy...after he will not be "normal" and bullies will pick on him.  He will not have high self-esteem because people are mean.  I think we want a do-over.

Lifescape 2

Doctor No: You baby is severely deformed and mentally retarded.  He will probably only life a few years and will need constant medical attention from the highest of professionals.  We are not sure if he will be in pain or not, but his quality of life will not be anything like a normal human being.  What would you like us to do?

Parent Happy Me: [thoughts] This is very hard, what will our lives be like with this child.  But what is the right thing to do?  We need some expert advice

Captain Singer Ethical Crusader: Well, it may be ethical to "end the suffering" of severely challenged human like creatures if it will alleviate suffering and promote the welfare of the parents, and not burden society's resources.

Parent Unhappy Now: Do you mean kill the baby?

Doctor No: Well, kill is a very loaded term, we like to say alleviate suffering for the common good.  To help society with unwanted burdens and make everyone's life better.  In reality, this is a very good thing you are doing for all involved.

Parent Sick to Their Stomach: We just don't know what to do...

Now Dr. Singer is weighing in on another potential problem we are seeing due to the advance of neonatal care and intensive units.  The survival of babies severely premature.  It is coming more common that children are surviving birth into the lower twenty week range (the range where abortions often take place).  Dr. Singer has written an op/ed piece over at the Council for Secular Humanism about one such astounding case (which people this is good by the way) of a girl named Amillia:

In February, newspapers hailed “miracle baby”Amillia, claiming that she is the earliest-born surviving premature baby ever recorded. Born in October at a gestational age of just twenty-one weeks and six days, she weighed only 280 grams, or ten ounces, at birth. Doctors did not expect Amillia to live, as previously no baby born at less than twenty-three weeks had been known to survive. But, after nearly four months in a Miami hospital’s neonatal intensive-care unit, and having grown to a weight of 1,800 grams, or four pounds, doctors judged her ready to go home.

These cases are problematic for Singer and like minded utilitarians.  You see, the care just to attempt and save one of these little ones is: 1) very expensive to society 2) will be very hard on parents and their happiness 3) should many not even be attempted in Singer's opinion.  So Singer's solution to this "problem" we face is to highlight research from out of the land of Australia which proposes a "gray zone" where doctors (see Doctor No above) should consult the parents on their "options" whether to treat the baby or not.  Now, we in no way can save every child - of course some will die with or without this care.  But what is troubling is Singer's disdain for the sentiment in America, that we ought to try and save everyone, despite the cost.  Some revealing portions of his essay.

In the United States, although the American Academy of Pediatrics states that babies born at less than twenty-three weeks and weighing less than 400 grams (14.2 ounces) are not considered viable, it can be difficult to challenge the prevailing rhetoric that every possible effort must be made to save every human life.

Emphasis added

So trying to save even the most hopeless cases is based only on rhetoric (empty, vacuous thinking, that has no basis in Singer world).  The essence of his reasoning is found in this paragraph.  I will highlight much of the sloppy thinking and crystal ball future predicting nonsense of some utilitarian reasoning:

In these circumstances, what should doctors—and society—do? Should they treat all children as best they can? Should they draw a line, say at twenty-four weeks, and say that no child born prior to that cut-off should be treated? A policy of not treating babies born earlier than twenty-four weeks would save the considerable expense of medical treatment that is likely to prove futile, as well as the need to support severely disabled children who do survive. But it would also be harsh on couples who have had difficulty in conceiving and whose premature infant represents perhaps their last chance at having a child. Amillia’s parents may have been in that category. If the parents understand the situation, and are ready to welcome a severely disabled child into their family and give that child all the love and care they can, should a comparatively wealthy, industrialized country simply say, “No, your child was born too early”? Bearing these possibilities in mind, instead of trying to set a rigid cut-off line, the workshop defined a “gray zone” within which treatment might or might not be given, depending on the wishes of the parents.

So here we are again - in the gray zone of life and death decisions which Singer says lands "on the wishes of the parents."  However, this is not very accurate.  We spent a week in the Neonatal Intensive care with our son Thomas in August, and I saw these very children. Tiny, precious, human persons.  In these scenarios the parents listen to the doctors. The parents are at one of the most vulnerable and most influenced places in their lives.  Saying it is "up to the parents" is a bit misleading as the parents will very much be influenced by the counsel from doctors and ethicists on these situations.  The question is which worldview will be brought to bear? The one who sees that all life is of equal value and dignity and worthy of our time and effort to love an nurture?  Or the one who thinks certain humans should survive based on their mathematical "good for society" calculations.  Some are amazed when they read of the eugenics movement which was common among intellectual elite less than 100 years ago in western culture.  We should not be surprised, as the seeds of that same thinking are alive and well today. It is found in the gray zone - a world created by people who desire to determine what kinds of persons shall live or die.  

(HT - thanks to Tim Dees for pointing me to the essay)

5 Reasons - 5 Ways

Ken Samples of the Science/Faith organization Reasons to Believe offers five philosophical reasons that God exists.  The presentation is sound and uses many standard a posteriori arguments for the existence of God.  The visuals are average, perhaps a little too many "white guy looking Jesus" pictures, but overall this is a solid and helpful 10 minute video. 

Not sure if he provided "5 ways" in honor of St. Thomas, but for those who have not read the 5 ways before, here is your homework assignment. 

The Gospel Coalition

In times throughout history the church of Jesus Christ has labored to clarify its doctrine and ministry in the midst of various cultures and controversies.  Today there is a working coalition which is meeting to unite theological convictions and missiological concerns for the confessional evangelical church es in America.  It is mostly made of up of people with Reformed theological conviction and a robust missiological compassion for the word.  It unites many of the passions of my own soul, so indeed I rejoice at its occasion.

This group of men has united under the banner of The Gospel Coalition and states its purposes in the preamble of their foundational documents.  The following is from this introduction entitled The Gospel for All of Life:

We are a fellowship of evangelical churches deeply committed to renewing our    faith in the gospel of Christ and to reforming our ministry practices to conform fully to the Scriptures. We have become deeply concerned about some movements within traditional evangelicalism that seem to be diminishing the church’s life and leading us away from our historic beliefs and practices. On the one hand, we are troubled by the idolatry of personal consumerism and the politicization of faith; on the other hand, we are distressed by the unchallenged acceptance of theological and moral relativism. These have led to the easy abandonment of both biblical truth and the transformed living mandated by our historic faith. We not only hear of these influences, we see their effects. We have committed ourselves to invigorating churches with new hope and compelling joy based on the promises received by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

In the foundational documents there is a robust confessional statement along with a theological vision for ministry.  The concerns in the later document touch many of the important issues facing the church in our day.  Epistemological issues relating to truth, issues dealing with contextualization and culture, how we read Scripture, and the uniqueness of the gospel and gospel centered ministry.  The focus on issues of justice, integrating faith and work, as well as the church living in culture as a counter-cultural community provides much needed wisdom for our day.

The full text of the foundational documents will be available on the web site soon. I commend it for your reading.   I concur that the effect of reading this has indeed brought about the intent of the authors - new hope and compelling joy based on the promises of God in Christ has taken root.

iPhone Phobias

 

(Photo from Mac Life) 

There are a couple of interesting articles on the coming iPhone (MacIdolater, cease worship now) I read this week.

• First, Information Week's Alexander Wolfe posted his top 7 iPhone Questions Steve Jobs Doesn't Want you to Ask
• Second, Mac Life asks a question that sends shivers down any Mac fan's spine - iPhone, Will it be the next Newton?  For those unfamiliar with tech history, the Newton can be studied here.  Basically Newton was technology before its time and it never really caught on - it was very cool, but did not sell so well.  It was too big, too expensive, and the handwriting recognition didn't work so well at first...but it did open a category that the PalmPilot stepped into in the late 90s to make some cash.

Anyway, the iPhone has buzz, but whether it will see longevity and market penetration remains to be seen.  My concerns:

• No removable storage can be added 
• Cingular network is Slllllooooow with data
  
• No removable/replacable/extra battery, which sucks if..
  
• Battery life may be weak
  
• Price very high (though Mac people will pay)
  
• 8mb is pretty small storage for iPod freaks and you can't stick a mini/microSD card in it because...well, no removable storage.
• Lack of tactile keys for texting - you have to look right at the screen to text/e-mail
  

My prediction is that it will sell many of these out the door, but it may underwhelm the owners.

Oh My Goddess

This is an interesting article on the recent (though not new at all) resurgence of goddess worship in our times.  If you have heard any buzz about interest in the "sacred feminine," the goddess within, etc. this is a good read.

The Goddess Unmasked - What every woman should know about the "sacred feminine"

Koons moves over as well

Robert Koons, professor of philosophy at University of Texas at Austin, has also just converted to Roman Catholicism - See his post at Right Reason - It is interesting to see how the new perspective on Paul has contributed to many peoples "re-vision" of justification by faith alone.

Dr. Koons, like Beckwith, is a trained philosopher (a very good one as well) - I am sure many Protestant thinkers may point the finger wholesale at the discipline of philosophy - I hope this is not the case.

POC Bundle 5.19.2007

Technology

• Palm Treo 755 is reviewed over at PalmInfocenter.  I have looked at smartphones for years...really.  I had the first PalmPilot in 1996 and used to follow the handheld market like a freak.  But none of the smartphones seem to have all I want - getting better, but they still cost a bundle.  Anyway, the new Treo is out.
• Cool looking new Dell Display
• This is a funny list of nightmare client requests from a web designer.  If you do web sites, you will feel a camaraderie in reading this one.
• Al Gore uses a Mac - how do this make you feel?

On Science

• Cool new possibility for hydrogen production for fuel cells in automobiles.  It would be great some day to grab a bucket of pellets made out of aluminum and gallium and throw them in the "tank" - then recycle the byproducts...Especially if they could some day get it to be less than 3 bucks a gallon.

The Church

• Joshua Harris, yes that Joshua Harris for those who grew up in youth groups, has an article up by Isaac Hydoski giving counsel for Christians and online dating.  I think it is worth checking out for single folks hanging out online.  Here is the link.
• Lauren McCain - one of the women shot at Va Tech last month was interviewed a few weeks prior to her murder.  The video is online here in flash - it is copyrighted so don't try to rip it off.

Gospel and Culture

• My little ditty on gender according to Scripture and Culture is now up on The Resurgence. If you are new to the Resurgence, book mark it.  It is a great resource.  

I Just Had an Epiphany

Eric Mason and The Ambassador are planting a church in Philadelphia.  I have been hearing the Ambassador for some years now through the works of the Cross Movement, now these guys have put together a sick video presenting the core values of Epiphany Fellowship

A shout out to the Epiphany fellas - great job representing the King... 

Scientology Smackdown

The "church" of Scientology is once again the subject of some investigative journalism.  The BBC has just produced a documentary on the movement that has made some sparks fly already.  See the following for the story and a link to a video where a BBC reporter goes a bit British on a Scientology spokesman.

Also YouTube has some of the video portions of the documentary directly...if you ever wondered who the men in black really are, you may just find out watching this documentary:

• Part 1 - A little under 10 minutes
• Part 2 - Right at 8 minutes
• Part 3 - A little over 10 minutes
• Part 4 - Just over a minute
  

Last summer I lectured on Scientology in Peru.  If you are interested in my brief speaking outline, drop me a comment and I'll e-mail to you directly.

The Word of God - The Roman Catholic View

Gregg Allison, professor at Southern Seminary,a personal friend and mentor, provided some clarity recently on the Roman Catholic view of Scripture and the revealed word of God. 

The following is a response to a question from Andreas Kostenberger, a fellow theologian.

Dear Gregg:

I am writing to see if you can clear up an issue for me about which there seems to be some confusion out there in the aftermath of Dr. Francis Beckwith’s departure from the ETS. Some have repeatedly made the argument in recent days that Roman Catholics could sign the ETS statement because, while they may hold to other sources of authority besides the Bible, they, too, only consider “the Bible alone” as “the word of God written.” In my view this may be true with regard to the Magisterium and ex cathedra statements, but not with the Apocrypha. Assuming that “the Bible” spoken of in the ETS doctrinal base is the 66 books of the Protestant canon, would it not be true that the reference to “the Bible alone” would rule out Roman Catholics since they consider other books besides the 66 books (i.e. the Apocrypha) to be the Word of God written? I would greatly appreciate it if you could shed any further light on this.

Cordially,

Andreas Kostenberger

Response from Gregg Allison:

Andreas,

I am including in this e-mail the entire second chapter of the Vatican II document entitled “Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation” (Dei Verbum, November 18, 1965). [NOTE: instead of including the second chapter here, a link to Dei Verbum is provided below.] This is the authoritative Roman Catholic statement on divine revelation, and chapter 2 addresses the issue at hand.

In my opinion, we should not assume that Roman Catholics can readily affirm the expression in our doctrinal basis that “the Bible alone … is the Word of God written,” because such an expression is not how Roman Catholics view this issue. They affirm that the Word of God is Tradition and Scripture.

Note the following (with my emphases): “Sacred tradition and sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the Word of God, committed to the Church” (section 10).

Again (from section 10): “But the task of authentically interpreting the Word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the Word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on. …”

The reason for this intimate union of Tradition and Scripture is spelled out in section 9: “Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the Word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the Word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this Word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known.”

In my opinion, Roman Catholics should find the wording of the ETS doctrinal basis strange at least, for it does not view the Word of God as consisting of both Tradition and Scripture. The statement “the Bible alone … is the Word of God written” is a woefully inadequate statement about what Roman Catholics believe about the Word of God, and I would seriously doubt that informed Roman Catholics would sign it.

On your second point - the canon of Scripture - I think you are right on target. Certainly, the founding theologians and biblical scholars of the Evangelical Theological Society, and those who formulated the doctrinal basis of our Society, were Protestant evangelicals who, when they made the statement about “the Bible,” made reference to the Protestant Bible that contains sixty-six books and does not contain the apocryphal writings.

If authors’ intent means anything, then the ETS statement concerning “the Bible” means that those sixty-six books constitute “the Word of God written.” Roman Catholics cannot agree with this, because for them “the Bible” refers to the seventy-three books (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees are included) with expanded editions of Esther and Daniel.

Thus, that to which the ETS statement concerning “the Bible” refers, and that to which Roman Catholics refer when they use that term, are different matters. This is a second reason that I would seriously doubt that informed Roman Catholics would sign the ETS doctrinal basis.

I hope this helps.

Gregg

For further reading, here is a link to Dei Verbum.

 HT - Theologica

iPhone-Schmiphone

The Microsoft guys are getting a bit funny in poking fun at the iPhone...

For those Apple people who love to bash on Microsoft...check out their fiscal 2007 profits

From the Yahoo Biz article: 

I have written extensively about Microsoft's problems. But last week, I got a stunning reminder about the company's power. It takes Microsoft only 10 hours of business to exceed Red Hat's entire quarterly profit. Skeptical? Check out the math, and nine other facts about Microsoft's most recent earnings report. Microsoft last week announced quarterly revenue of $14.4 billion and net income of $4.93 billion. In other words, Microsoft's daily net income is about $55 million. That's $55 million in pure profit every 24 hours. Do some quick math and you'll learn it takes Microsoft only about ...

• 10 hours or so (yes, hours!) to exceed Red Hat's (NYSE: RHT - News) quarterly net income of $20.5 million.
• four days to exceed Research In Motion's (NasdaqGS: RIMM) quarterly net income of $187.9 million.
• four days to exceed Starbucks' (NasdaqGS: SBUX) quarterly net income of $205 million.
• one week to exceed Nike's (NYSE: NKE - News) quarterly net income of $350.8 million.
• two weeks to exceed McDonalds' (NYSE: MCD - News) quarterly net income of $762 million.
• two weeks to exceed Apple's (NasdaqGS: AAPL) quarterly net income of $770 million.
• 18 days to exceed Google's (NasdaqGS: GOOG) quarterly net income of $1 billion.
• 23 days to exceed Coca-Cola's (NYSE: KO - News) quarterly net income of $1.26 billion.
• five weeks to exceed IBM's (NYSE: IBM - News) quarterly net income of $1.85 billion.
• 10 weeks to exceed Wal-Mart's (NYSE: WMT - News) quarterly net income of $3.9 billion.

That is a lot of cheese coming from the big ugly Washington company. Personally, I have become such an Office 07 fanboy, that I actually like Microsoft again.

Pablo Escobar - Desperado of Dope...

Today there is another Fact of the Day Installment from Power of Change guest author Tim Dees:

--------------------------------------------------------------

PABLO

Quick, who was the 7th richest person in the world in 1989?  According to Forbes magazine, it was Pablo Escobar, the Columbian drug dealer.  In 1989, Escobar's Medellín cartel had reached the peak of its profitability, bringing in $30 billion a year and cornering 80% of the cocaine market.  But who was this man, and how did he become so successful? 

Pablo Escobar began work as a small-time hood in Medellín, the town of his birth.  He began to amass an enormous cocaine empire.  His reputation became international when he killed Fabio Restrepo, a well-known drug kingpin.  Restrepo's men were then informed that they were now working for Escobar. 

Escobar couldn't have made it as long as he did, however, without significant support from government leaders.  To do this, he used a two-fold policy of bribing or killing everyone who stood in his way.  He once killed three presidential candidates in the course of one election, and his influence in Columbian society was wide and deep.  Even now, Escobar's cousin is the top advisor to Columbia's president, Álvaro Uribe.

There seemed to be no limit to the amount of carnage Escobar could get away with.  He bombed a plane, raided the Columbian Supreme Court, and was involved in a bloody zero-sum war with his chief rival, the Cartel de Cali.  But all this killing didn't hurt Escobar's public image, especially in Medellín.  Like many Columbian drug lords, he enjoyed enormous popular support, and he redirected much of the cartel's revenue into public works projects. 

Things changed for Escobar in 1990, when Columbia began extraditing drug offenders to the United States.  In the US, drug lords wouldn't be able to wield the same influence as they did in Columbia, and sentences would be much harsher, often including life imprisonment.  As leverage against extradition, Escobar began kidnapping prominent Columbians and killing those who supported extradition.  One of his hired assassins chased one man all the way to Budapest, and his kidnappers would often pull people out of cars in rush hour traffic and hold them for months or even years.

With the threat of extradition looming, Escobar eventually turned himself into the authorities in exchange for not being extradited.  He was put into a prison that was more like a private resort, and from that prison he continued to conduct business and was even spotted outside the prison's walls on a number of occasions.  Some reports suggest that he even murdered two rivals while they were on a business visit.  When the Columbian government decided to move him to a higher security facility, he escaped.

His escape launched a massive manhunt, that included everyone imaginable: United States Delta Force agents, right-wing militias, vigilante squads financed by the Cali cartel, and the Columbian military.  With this unprecedented use of manpower, Escobar's time was short.  In 1993, he was cornered in Medellín and killed in a shootout with the Columbian authorities.

Theistic Battle Royal

When one thinks of the great debates in Western culture about the existence of God, perhaps Copleston and Bertrand Russell's 1948 debate might come to mind. Even the more recent tussles between William Lane Craig and his interlocutors perhaps. Yet recently, two additional titans of philsophical prowess took to the playing field last night.

Here is the description from the New York Times:

You could tell from the background music that played beforehand – alternating recordings of James Brown and Gregorian chant – that this was going to be an unusual debate.

The question under debate (“Is God great?”) and the speakers — two men who are often depicted in harsh caricatures by their critics — might have caused some to expect something like a circus. Perhaps surprisingly, it turned out to be the public intellectual event of the evening, a bit like Bertrand Russell vs. C. S. Lewis.

Taking the atheist position was Christopher Hitchens, the journalist and author of a new book arguing that “religion poisons everything.” In defense of God was none other than the Rev. Al Sharpton, a man of the cloth who is perhaps even better known for his political and civil rights activism than for his training as a preacher.

A very strange and interesting reading can be found over at the Times. Though I prefer CS Lewis' moral argument, Rev Al seemed to try and make an argument for theism from the existence of moral values.  Go get em AL! But just in case anyone is wondering if the Reverend is a Christian, you can read this quote and decide for yourself.

I would say that many people, I among them, in our own lives have had experiences that make me believe that there is a God. And make me believe that my seeking God and seeking the guidance of a supreme being is real to me. I’m not going by Moses, I’m not going by Peter, I’m not going by the man that you said was a legend, Jesus of Nazareth. … I’m not here to defend Scriptures. I didn’t write those Scriptures. I live my life, and in my life the existence of God has been confirmed to me in my own personal dealings and in my own faith being vindicated and validated. That has absolutely nothing to do with Scriptures, whether they are right or wrong.

One final note and comment on this battle of philosophical and theological giants. Hitchens seemed to offer a very accurate statement in the following:

Mr. Hitchens added, “I didn’t say that God was misused. I said that the idea of God is a dictatorial one to begin with. A belief in a supreme, eternal, invigilating creator who knows what you think and do and cares about you, watches over you while you sleep … is an innately horrific belief.”

One hears his thinking that "belief in God's wrath/hell is horrific" but it is interesting that he finds God's omniscience and omnipresence "innately horrific."  In fact, if we are sinners in need of God's grace his statement is very accurate.  Indeed, if God does see the mind and hearts of people, it is a horrific thing to see ourselves in light of God's holiness and justice.  A word from Hebrews 4 is needed:

12 For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. 13 And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account. 14 Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. 15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

Thankful to Jesus, who rescues us from the wrath to come...to use Rev Sharpton's own words.  I do want to "go by Jesus of Nazareth" - for in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

(HT - Tim Dees)