Monthly Archives: January 2008

This really gets to the heart of the problem about some explanations for the need for the imputation of the active obedience of Christ

I don’t think I can discount this as an accidental slip because I’ve read the same thing from theologians writing for official publication.

Machen meant that in the hour of our death it won’t be the dirty sins of commission that will haunt us. It will be the sins of omission. All the good stuff we coulda, woulda, shoulda done but didn’t do. So it will be a great comfort to us in that hour to consider that Christ’s active obedience is reckoned as ours.

OK, there you have it. Jesus’ death is insufficient to forgive our sins of omission.

Machen was undeniably a great Christian hero.

But I’m not going to worship his remains.

Nor will I pray to him to intercede for me

And I’m not going to encourage anyone to follow his alleged example of denying on one’s death bed that the blood of Christ is enough to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

If the Gospel is really at stake here, it really looks like it lies on the other side of the issue.

No surprise at all: entrepreneurs are not likely to be capitalists

This is fine, but any claims to inconsistency or surprise simply don’t make sense.

Entrepreneurs are looking for huge payoffs.  They want locked-in mass markets.  Microsoft will make exponentially more money convincing the UN that poor people need computers and should subsidize their distribution than they will selling their product to free people in a market without any other adjectives.

I realize I could go into Microsoft’s own record here and show that they are as likely to advocate free market capitalism as a Detroit union leader is to advocate the unilateral end to all trade restrictions.  But why pretend that Microsoft is so exceptional.  Read tech business news.  When isn’t some company trying to make their living by taking some other company to court over intellectual property.  The world of global mega-corporations is a world of piracy and viking raids.  It is a world of government contracts.  It is a world where the Chines government is always right and if that means we turn over dissidents, then that is just the cost of doing business.  Except that the large businesses don’t even view it as a cost–it is just a freebie that lets them win favor.

I doubt very much that Gates credits the free market with any part of his success.  He saw opportunities and he took them.  Depending on who you read, some number of these opportunities were chances to break rules as much as prosper by playing by them.

If anything, I suspect Gates simply thinks that the thing itself, the computer and software industry, was simply the result of the inevitable process of progress.  It’s not about capitalism.  It’s not about freedom (beyond all the personal freedoms that statists want subsidized).  It is about Microsoft as the true messiah who brings us into the new era.

But, whatever is going on, opportunism is not capitalism.  If an opportunist appreciates a free market, it is only to the extent that he is in a position to use it.  But the free market limits the opportunity of the ambitious as much as it empowers.  So the opportunist moves on without inconsistency to appreciate whatever else might give him his chance to increase power.

Hat Tip: Bobber’s Del.icio.us links

Is there a more brilliant movie than the Incredibles?

Thankfully, my youngest daughter now wants to watch it. So I get to.

All the lessons I learned in a dark way from Frank Miller (and more) are taught with bright optimism (that doesn’t come across as escapist).

The world exiles its heroes and hates them.

The world will use the sins of heroes against them to cover for the world’s hatred of their virtues and gifts.

Situations will arise where, “Doubt is a luxury we can’t afford right now.”

Scanning for information in order to re-live the glory days is just pathetic.

Learn to come in second place, but a close second. Save your real talents for the time when they are necessary.

If everyone is “super” then no one is. (The same thing is said about “special,” but that depends in what sense the word is being used. I think there is something special about everyone.)

You have more power than you know.

“What will you do?” Is this a question? Remember who you are. Go confront the problem.

Jandy pwns FOX on computer game ratings

Unlike this blogger I do have a gripe about FOXNews, which I consider to be a condensation exclusively of all of Rush Limbaugh’s worst features, minus his talent.

But I still would have trusted the description of the game if she hadn’t set the record straight.

It always horrifies when I realize how shows I like are catering to much younger viewers. During the last season of Veronica Mars and Gilmore Girls I had to shut off the TV really fast lest I be tormented by some kind of girl pajama party that would “discuss” the shows and advertise clothing for that age bracket. As far as I am concerned, the show should have never solicited that demographic.

But, that being said, I notice no one at FOXNews reported that children were being exposed to sex, drinking, liberalism, adultery, and law-breaking of various kinds. Video games are somehow attractive for these sorts of hysterical and mostly inaccurate attacks. (Sometimes the attacks are accurate but the game itself is such a loser that the attention of the media is the worst thing that could possibly happen. If they had left it alone, no one would have played it.)

Of one mind

Paul writes this way three times.

First Corinthians 1.10

I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.

Philippians 1.27-28a

Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel, and not frightened in anything by your opponents.

Philippians 2.1-2

So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.

And Peter does so likewise once

First Peter 3.8-9

Finally, all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind. Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing.

Not once, looking at the context, is it possible to find either Paul or Peter using this phrase to exhort everyone to adopt some sort of precise agenda that might justify the formation of a denomination.  In every case, being of one mind means tolerating differences of opinion and being humble toward one another.

That’s how the New Testament speaks of “like-minded believers.”

Hasty generalizations last longest because they give the transmitters the most personal pleasure

Proverbs 18.8; 26.22
The words of a whisperer are like delicious morsels;
they go down into the inner parts of the body

How do you react to fresh brownies coming out of the oven? Does your mouth water as your nose inhales the aroma of warm baking chocolate?

God’s wisdom says that passing on gossip is every bit as desirable to us. This not only explains most forms of community life in churches and elsewhere, it accounts for easily over half of Evangelical books favoring “doctrine” or promoting “discernment.” My guess is that any honest and objective lexicographer would actually list “gossip” as a definition of “discernment,” if he were writing a glossary of terms as they are used in the Evangelical ghetto.

Ron Gleason has decided recently to continue attacking John Armstrong’s reputation on his blog. He writes,

John MacArthur (The Truth War) cites Armstrong saying, “I have been forced, upon deeper reflection about theological method, to give up what I call epistemological certitude.” Armstrong continues, “If there is a foundation in Christian theology, and I believe that there must be, then it is not found in the Church, Scripture, tradition or culture.” Those are highly interesting and telling statements—not to mention chilling statements. It might be helpful for Armstrong to move away from the via negative and tell us what that foundation is and where it might be found. If it is not to be found in the Church, in Scripture, in the Christian tradition, or the culture, many would be interested where it might be. Since Armstrong has moved his church membership to the long-since liberal Reformed Church in America, surely he cannot expect us to believe that the foundation is there.

It is far beneath Dr. Gleason to be writing this way. John Armstrong, as anyone who reads his writing will see, has over and over again shown that he is firmly loyal to God’s word in Scripture over against human traditions. That is, in fact, the main reason why he attracts criticism from confessional Reformed “discerners.” The above quotation is a statement about epistemological foundationalism, a philosophical theory. That is supposed to be a completely different question than whether the Bible is a “firm foundation,” and it is egregious error for MacArthur to act like they are one and the same. It is even more egregious for a Reformed scholar to simply pass this on with accompanying gossip.

Proverbs 18.7-8
The one who states his case first seems right,
until the other comes and examines him.

The words of a whisperer are like delicious morsels;
they go down into the inner parts of the body

John Armstong’s ministry has published a reply to MacArthur’s hasty generalization (I’m trusting that he was hasty and didn’t intentionally libel Armstrong) here. I highly recommend you read it. There are also interactions on a couple of blogs (here and here).

This all took approximately two seconds to find, thanks to the magic of Google.

As far as Armstrong’s church affiliation, do I even have to point out how stupid it is to judge a man on that sort of basis? We all know that denominations of all sorts have better and even worse congregations. And we all know that there are reasons for leaving one local congregation and moving to another that are extremely important and extremely unrelated to the wider denominational culture of either local body.

Full disclosure. I have personally met John MacArthur when he visited to teach at my alma mater. I like him because I found him to be a teacher with integrity. Afterward, I began sending him some of my writings and he published a couple (here’s one, that I suppose can give opportunities for more hasty generalizations: “Why Not Get Rid of Doctrine?”).

I am certain I don’t agree with everything Armstrong teaches. But that can be handled without passing on gossip about his church attendance in order to smear his character as a Christian utterly committed to God’s Word.