- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous Post10 Questions with John MacArthur
- Next Post »5 More Questions with John MacArthur
A La Carte (2/10)
- 02/10/11
- 24
Yesterday I got to see the rough cut of the commercial/trailer they are making for my book The Next Story. I was really impressed. I can’t wait for it to be finalized so I can show it to you. Hopefully soon…
To Be Forgotten - Darryl Dash reflects on this: “Daniel, the senior pastor of Sojourn Community Church in Louisville, Kentucky, says his vision statement is, ‘Preach the gospel, die, and be forgotten.’”
Living With Regrets - At the CCEF blog Ed Welch writes about living with regrets. “It feels so right - so spiritual - to live with regrets. It means you feel bad for the wrong things you have done or think you have done, and that sounds like a good thing. If you forget those wrongs, you are acting like they were no big deal.”
Sexual Detox - David writes an encouraging review of Sexual Detox. “Sexual Detox makes a thoroughly biblical theological attack on the poison that is pornography. In doing so, it strikes at the root of the problem: the sinful human heart.” Meanwhile, here is a great review of Don’t Call It a Comeback.
R.C. Sproul’s Position on Creation - In this article R.C. Sproul explains his position on Creation.
How to Provoke Your Children to Anger - Mark Altrogge offers up a list of ways that parents can sin against their children and provoke them to anger.
Questions about the Superbowl - Have I told you lately how much I enjoy what Carl Trueman writes? “As usual, the Superbowl generates more questions for me than answers. How did a game of one hour develop over time into a game of between three and four hours? Who ever decided that a bunch of predominantly overweight men who stand around doing little other than posing in spandex should come to be regarded as `elite athletes’ [sic]? (And, in my opinion, nobody over 200 pounds should even be allowed in a spandex shop, let alone be encouraged to wear the merchandise.”
What Used to Be Normal - A friend posted this video under the caption “Things That Seem Insane That Used To Be ‘Normal.’”
Anxiety is not only a pain which we must ask God to assuage but also a weakness we must ask him to pardon—for he’s told us to take no care for the morrow. —C.S. Lewis
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (24)
It is refreshing to hear such solidly Biblical grounding for six-day creation. It’s something I find myself holding even more firmly each time it comes under debate.God, I believe, created not only light in that First Day, but also Time, as we know it, the 24-hour day marked off by light and darkness.
From the cigarette commercial:
“See how Camels agree with your throat.”
Unintentional ironic prescience?
I agree with Ed Welch on the “If Only” mentality. But disagree with the forget about and think no more on it slant he took. Here is part 1 of 6 of Voddie Baucham’s sermon on Brokenness.You got to see them all.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHqYbtxhKyM
Even back in the 50s and 60s though, my parents taught us that smoking was unhealthy and scandalous. When commercials like that came on, they were considered “naughty.” People who don’t smoke have always thought of smokers as disgusting.
Sorry, but Carl Trueman has apparently never played competitive football — or any other sport — in his life. This “bunch of adolescents playing a glorified game of playground catch” have put in more time, effort, training and dedication to hone their skills than Trueman can even begin to fathom. These “blimps in spandex” (I’m assuming he’s referring to the linemen) can routinely run a 40 yd dash in under 5 seconds. Would love to see Trueman do that.
Think of all the thousands upond thousands of high school football players in the U.S. A very small percentage of them will go on to play college football, and an even smaller percentage of them will ever play in the NFL. There are 32 teams with a roster (including practice squad) that hovers around 80 guys. Do the math. So of all the millions of kids that start out playing football when they’re kids and into high school, only 2,200 or so will end up as a professional in this sport. That’s pretty elite, regardless of what Trueman thinks of their appearance in spandex.
Sure, obviously there are worrisome issues in our society when we have such a huge fascination with 30 second, $3 million TV spots. But I wonder if Christians like Trueman aren’t partly to blame for that. According to him, if we’re not at church every Sunday evening or constantly in the Word, we’re wasting our life. Playing or watching football are, apparently, secular activities, not fit for righteous souls like him. Flippant remarks about running for, “oh, my, at least 5 seconds and six yards before taking a five minute breather” are derisive and belittle a profession in which many Christians (including some playing in the unsavory Super Bowl) work and minister.
This sort of holier-than-thou condescion undoubtedly turns many people off to the community of God’s body. He sounds like a pastor from the 1950s, telling his congretation they shouldn’t watch movies, play pool or go dancing. They only “fun” you’re allowed to have in life is when you’re in the pews.
I’m sure I’m over-exagerating, but that was a terrible post to link to. Apparently, the secular-sacred divide (in Nancy Pearcey’s words) is still alive and kicking in Christianity today. God made us physical as well as spiritual, and the beauty and wonder of our bodies in motion is a testament to His handiwork and creativity. And whether we’re playing football, writing a blog post, or giving a sermon, we’re suppoed to do all for God’s glory, because all of our pursuits — on and off the field — are under His domain.
If Trueman’s mission is to provide “constructive cultural engagement,” I believe this post can be flagged for unnecessary asceticism.
Fifteen yard penalty. Replay the down.
Why is Trueman so bitter? He’s either a) not from North America or b) a closet lover of soccer. Tim, I’m disappointed you liked that article. Do you love soccer too? :)
What I concluded from Trueman’s article is that his team didn’t make it. At least, that’s the impression he leaves in my mind.
Praise God for R.C. Sproul. He is man with integrity who lets Scripture speak for itself.
The CARL TRUEMAN post is one of the most egregious displays of ignorance I’ve ever encountered.
Gotta agree on the Trueman opinion. While many NFL linemen are in fact unhealthily overweight, that does not preclude their also being “elite athletes”. They’re strong, they’re fast, and they have way more endurance than someone that size has any business having. Basically take a large-framed guy with an amazing capacity for muscle development and speed, then make him eat a diet that adds a bunch of fat on top of that physique. He’ll be slower, sure, but he’ll also be a lot harder to move out of the way. Which is basically what you want from a lineman.
Only skimmed the Sproul essay, but read the last paragraph. I’m curious- given he winds up endorsing the six-day creation, does he also explain how he reconciles that with the empirical observations that seem to suggest a much older earth? One possible explanation is “they’re in error”, but, does he actually say that?
JPH, I think your question is answered in this part of Sproul’s essay:
“The church has always taken the position that all truth meets at the top, and that science should never contradict Scripture. Scientific discoveries, however, can correct the theologian’s faulty understanding of Scripture, just as biblical revelation can correct faulty speculations drawn from the natural order. When the scientific consensus on a particular point is on a collision course with the unmistakable teaching of Scripture, I trust Scripture before I trust the speculations and inferences of scientists. That is consistent with the history of the church and Christianity. We believe that sacred Scripture is nothing less than the Creator’s truth revealed.”
For Sproul, the bottom line is scripture. How observation is to be “reconciled” with one’s conviction of what the scripture teaches comes after, not before, understanding the scripture. He allows for observation to correct that understanding, but not to permit an interpretation that scripture cannot accommodate in itself. His explanation for why he believes scripture cannot accommodate a non-six day understanding is explained elsewhere in the essay.
I once heard it said that Sproul had cited Doug Kelly’s “Creation and Change” as something that greatly influenced his position on the boundaries of how Genesis can be understood.
If you’re going to read Trueman, you’ve got to 1) have a sense of humor, 2) be able to recognize humor unadorned by any insipid smilies or LOLs, and 3) be thick-skinned enough to appreciate a little biting sarcasm. Otherwise, as demonstrated here, you’ll probably miss the point altogether and go away pouting.
Packers Win!
That makes sense about Sproul’s beliefs. The question seems to boil down to this, on any given issue: which am I more sure of, that my understanding of scripture is “correct” or that the consensus scientific opinion is “correct”. Or, to put it another way, which is more likely to be faulty: my understanding of scripture or the consensus scientific opinion?
Side thought: a six-day creation seems to necessarily imply that the consensus view is wrong. Not just wrong, but fantastically wrong. The observations that support it must either be factually incorrect or, for whatever reason, don’t actually imply what they’re commonly thought to imply.
Assuming arguendo the consensus view is fantastically wrong, the scope of the error would argue for an easy and convincing scientific refutation. If none is forthcoming, doesn’t that argue against the notion that the consensus is, in fact, fantastically wrong?
Note: the question in the first paragraph is not equivalent to, “Which is more trustworthy: scripture or science?” It’s more, “Which is more trustworthy: my understanding of scripture that humble, reasonable believers frequently disagree over, or science?”
That is to say allowing one’s understanding of scripture to be influenced by empirical observations (i.e. science) is not the same as rejecting scriptural authority and inerrancy.
Tim, it’s a great quote from the guy at Sojourners. I looked him up, and found he’s stolen it from Zinzendorf.
Except he hasn’t - the Count actually suggested we should suffer, die and be forgotten. Just a wee bit different… and interesting what was omitted. Death for Christians is a promotion, and easy to say. Suffering…not so much.
I found the quote retweeted and cited all over the place, character for character. Does nobody ever check the source these days? Ad fontes, please!!
R. C. notes that, “Scripture nowhere explicitly teaches that the original creation was marred and then after many years reconstituted. The broader context of the whole of Scripture militates against the gap theory.”
A key word in his statement is “explicitly.” This is true. But I would love to see how he demonstrates his statement that: “The broader context of the whole of Scripture militates against the gap theory.”
I am a little nervous about RC’s line, “The day-age theory tends to accommodate a theory of biological macroevolution…” Biological macroevolution is the scientific basis for philosophical naturalism. I am sure RC knows that there are plenty of respected scientists who embrace either the gap theory or the day age theory (or both) but who firmly reject biological macroevolution.
As RC notes, “Macroevolution has never been substantiated by observation or experiment, and it places its faith in an endless string of extremely improbable, yet beneficial chance mutations.”
True. There is not a shred of scientific evidence for philosophical naturalism. Honest scientists (and there are plenty of them in the academy) know that it’s simply outside the function of science to resolve such matters. Faith is the only path to the conclusions of philosophical naturalism. But the social agenda has been to stretch science into philosophy (and consequentially into a form of religion) to give people the misleading impression that the science of evolution offers more than it is capable of telling us.
Science can describe in fascinating detail matters within the universe. Science can speak of purposes related to adaptability and survival in the physical world. Only God can speak to purposes of eternal significance beyond the limitations of the physical world. God prescribes what is beyond the descriptions of scientific inquiry. If someone tries to use science to prescribe on these matters, he has left science and turned to philosophy or religion.
Thank you for the R. C. Sproul article. I am very grateful for those who declare their belief in the literalness of the Genesis 1 account of the six-day creation. And I marvel at how God created so many aspects of our universe with a built-in “oldness” — even ancientness. Only God could do that!
JPH, the Holy Spirit never promised to guide scientists into all truth. “Science” is merely the existing consensus of the moment, with all the errors and fallacies possible in any human endeavor, minus the promise of spiritual guidance that the reader of scripture is promised.
So that’s something to add to your equation — not necessarily a slam dunk, because the promise is evidently not such a promise that error of understanding is impossible, but maybe it does lend a little more credence to the flawed human grasp of scripture than to the flawed human grasp of natural observation.
Trevor,
I agree the first half of Trueman’s article is simply an aesthetic argument taken to the max. And I’d also agree that the players are remarkably in-shape athletes. Frankly, I think the much sounder critique of football is not about how silly mega-huge men running into each other might or might not seem, but rather the health consequences to the players. Such a critique came from First Things recently: http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/12/football-and-the-limits-o….
The second paragraph I think a helpful critique on our materialism, especially as fed grotesquely by the commercials. It is a strange society that’s most richly entertained by the cleverest or flashiest attempt to part me from my dollars.
On the third paragraph, Trueman’s a Sabbatarian in the OPC and previously Free Church of Scotland. Two services or other evening church activities have existed for centuries in protestant circles and have been on the decline through this and the last century. It’s not a minor complaint of his. It is worth noting that there was severe controversy when the first pro football game was played on Sunday, late 1940s I believe. Now there’s severe controversy anytime someone objects to professional sports being played on Sunday. Even look at how much morning service attendance, sermon length, and post-service fellowship at church are affected by noon NFL games. A large chunk want to rush home so they don’t miss too much.
What should have been his first point is unfortunately his last. I think Trueman’s real problem with the Super Bowl is not that it looks silly, but that this event is happening on Sunday. I’m sure there are plenty of Christians in pro football, but they and their teams should not be engaged in their jobs on Sunday as its neither necessary or merciful to others.
“I’m sure there are plenty of Christians in pro football, but they and their teams should not be engaged in their jobs on Sunday as its neither necessary or merciful to others.” Trevor, I would respectfully disagree here. What of the hourly wage worker who has no choice but to work on Sunday? Also, when was Sunday designated as the only day for Sabbath rest?
@Ben
To your first question, I’d say that the one who is forced by his/her employer to work on Sunday should try to minimize the degree he/she still has to work Sunday and the degree to which corporate worship is conflicted. In these circumstances, the 4th Commandment is much more harshly addressed to individuals forcing their laborers to work for the employer’s benefit. Countless early Christians were no doubt forced to work on Sunday, out of enslavement or de-facto economic compulsion. Their work in these circumstances was I believe an oppression and a sin of their masters not of themselves. And I might add that unlike the laborer who struggles to even put food on the table with his job, professional football (and sports in general) are strictly luxury items and thus even harder to justify. At the very minimum, the players hindered from attending corporate worship for noon games simply by virtue of the need to ready for the game. I’d say the same about evening worship/study by the church. Being hindered from Lord’s Day worship almost every Sunday for a job that is neither a necessity or a mercy strikes me as a terrible burden to place on the players’ souls.
To the second question, I’d raise two thoughts. The first is the obvious issue of whether one thinks the Sabbath to still be part of the Moral Law, albeit altered, or whether this Commandment is completely fulfilled in Christ with no ongoing one-in-seven obligation. This issue of course has been wrangled with over and over and over in consciences, churches, and conversations. It is not an easy issue to tackle.
Though I believe the day is implied by worship gatherings occurring on the 1st Day, a change that would not have been made lightly in Jewish communities—-I Cor. 16:1-2, Acts 20:7, John 20: 19, 26—-I believe the overarching creational principle is 1 in 7 days being for rest from earthly labors. About Sunday in particular, I’d say that Scripturally the only evidence would be 7th or 1st Day, so that it’s possible Sunday-Sabbatarians are in the wrong, but if so it’s not that they should or arguably even could follow it on Wednesday for instance.
For reference, I’d note Larger Catechism Questions 115-21 on pages 259-63 http://opc.org/documents/LCLayout2.pdf (proof texts included)
Similar views of the Sabbath can be found in the 2nd London Baptist Confession, New Hampshire Confession, and Abstract of Principles. Less similar in theory but often far more Sabbatarian in practice is the Continental Reformed, with Question 103 of the Heidelberg Catechism.
I might add that my most overriding concern about the Super Bowl and pro football in general being on Sunday is simply how much the Christian players get deprived of being able to participate in Lord’s Day worship, and over a consecutive basis. Missing a consecutive one-third to half the year’s worth of worshiping with the Church for a job that’s neither essential/necessary or merciful has got to take a toll on the soul, whether recognized or not.
Scott,
Thank you for both of your thoughtful responses and I apologize for addressing you as ‘Trevor’ (Trevor you also have my apologies!). In my laziness I have not considered deeply how we should think and thus do w/r/t the Sabbath beyond a) there ought to be one day a week dedicated to rest and worship of the Lord as is evidenced in Genesis 2, b) the gathering of the saints must not be neglected and c) there is a measure of freedom as to what day those things occur.
I guess my thought has been that for the saint who is unable or, in your view, chooses to neglect the gathering of the saints on Sunday morning because of his or her occupation (e.g. pro football), it is a necessary evil. If I was in that place, my concern would be with my pattern of behavior and my heart. Do I miss the saints on Sunday morning? Do I long for the day when my Sunday mornings will be free to be with the body of Christ again? These are the questions that I think make sense and are most important. I am uncomfortable with a rigid view that says, “Leave the job you are in if it causes you to miss church.” In the case of a pro-football player, I think there is room for someone to be absent for a season and yet not neglecting or forsaking the assembly of the brothers. Do you agree?
Ultimately, I appreciate your references to the Scriptures and numerous catechisms and will take them into consideration. I hope that if I do come back with some minor protestations, you will be kind enough to continue the discourse. BL