What Did Jesus Mean When He Said We Would Do Greater Work Than He Did? FROM R.C. Sproul

Found here. My comments in bold.
-----------------

Amazingly, this article was written by a pre-eminent theologian. 
-----------------

First of all, He said that to His disciples and only to us indirectly, if at all. He is speaking to the first-century church, and He makes the statement that the works they do will be greater than the works that He performed (John 14:12). (Why are these cessationists so unwilling to actually quote the Scripture? We shall do the job Dr. Sproul does not want to do:

Jn. 14:12 I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.

Now with the actual text in front of us, let's read on.)

Let me tell you what I don’t think it means.

There are many today who believe that there are people running around this world right now who are performing greater miracles, performing miracles in greater abundance, and actually doing more incredible acts of divine healing than Jesus Himself did. (What people are doing or not doing is not relevant to what the Bible says. It would be more profitable if Dr. Sproul explained the verse to us.)

I can’t think of any more serious delusion than that, that somebody would actually think they have exceeded Jesus in terms of the works He has done. (Again, let's quote the text:

Jn. 14:12 I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.

On what basis is it delusional to take the plain meaning of Jesus' statement and believe what He said?)

The Enslaved Woman - sermon by John MacArthur

Found here. I'm definitely not a fan of MacArthur, but I found this sermon excerpt to be excellent.
----------------

Acts 16:16–18

(...)

Let's look at the disfigured woman. And this is a sad, sad contrast...verse 16. Now, in the world's view, this may have seemed like a liberated woman. This woman probably would have been in on the women's lib movement. Definitely! Why?...because in the first place, she wasn't hung up on religion. In the second place, she wasn't tied to some man...some husband...having to fix meals. She wasn't having a bunch of screaming kids running around all the time. She was a professional woman. She was out there doing her own thing, making money, creating issues. The only problem was she was under control by Satan.

Now, the church began to grow. Old Lydia got saved and her household got saved, boy, the thing got off. Well, who do you know immediately is going to invade the situation?...Satan. It's inevitable. It's absolutely inevitable. He is not omnipresent, but he is fast. He is fast. He gets there and he got there in verse 16. Watch. "It came to pass, as we went to prayer"...they're going back to the same proseuche, the same place of prayer..."a certain maid possessed with a spirit of divination met us, who brought her masters much gain by soothsaying." We'll stop there for a minute. Now, they're going back to the same place and they meet another woman. Now, this woman has what the author calls a "spirit of divination." The literal Greek...I want you to get this, a most fascinating thing...the literal Greek is, she had a spirit, comma, a python.

That's the same as a python snake, the same term...a spirit, a python, or a python spirit. You say, well, what is a python spirit? Well, in Greek mythology...and this is all mythology...in Greek mythology, there's a place called Pytho, and Pytho was at the foot of Mount Parnassus. Now, at Pytho, there was a dragon. The dragon guarded Pytho...that area...and the dragon's name was Python. Stay with me. This dragon guarded the oracles of Delphi. Now you may have heard of that. Delphi was a place where oracles were given. Now, you say, what's an oracle? I'll give you the definition. The term "oracle," which is an occult term, means either a place where mediums consult demons or it means the revelation the demons give themselves. So it can refer to the place or the demonic revelation. The oracles at Delphi...Delphi was a place that was a monstrous temple and in this temple were all these medium priestesses and these priestesses were conjuring up demons and giving out information.

Does the Bible Support Female Deacons? No.- by Guy Waters

Found here. Our comments in bold.
------------------

Women in ministry continues to be a controversial topic. We're not so much desiring to examine that as to evaluate the author's presentation.

An in that presentation, the author rarely quotes Scripture.
--------------

Editors’ note: This article is part of a two-view series on deacons. For another perspective, see “Does the Bible Support Female Deacons? Yes.” by Thomas Schreiner.

Does Scripture permit women to hold the office of deacon? (Is there an office of deacon? The author presumes there is and bases his case on this premise.)

In addressing this important question, we must bear a couple of things in mind. First, Reformed pastors and theologians, fully committed to the authority and inerrancy of Scripture, have disagreed about what the Bible teaches concerning women and the diaconate. This state of affairs calls for particular humility in discussing this question. Second, all sides recognize that women in some way have served in the diaconate in various periods of church history. Believers who argue for women in the diaconate, then, should not be automatically accused of sneaking the Trojan horse of modernity into the church.

We must be clear as to what the question is and is not. The question is not whether the Spirit gifts women to serve in the church. He manifestly does, a point the New Testament underscores by way of principle (1 Cor. 12:7; Eph. 4:7) and example (e.g., Rom. 16:1–5, 6, 12). The question is not whether women may actively participate in the church’s service ministries. The New Testament highlights the hospitality of the women mentioned in Luke 8:1–3, of John Mark’s mother (Acts 12:12), and of Lydia (Acts 16:14–15), even as it commends the charitable service of Dorcas (Acts 9:36). The question is whether the Bible permits women to serve in the office of deacon. (The author seems to make an artificial distinction, that is, serving vs. holding an office. As mentioned, he needs to establish his premise that a deacon holds an office, and he needs to establish how serving is different than being a deacon.)

The Bible opens the office of diaconate to men only.

The Case for Men Only

The diaconate is one of two ordinary offices the New Testament prescribes for the church. (The author is referring to church leadership hierarchy. This is not a NT prescription.

And in fact, there are more than two offices. 

Ep. 4:11 It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers...

This is the proper biblical leadership structure, expressed through elders, for the church.)

Should I Still Read His Books (Or Listen To His Music)? - Bill Muehlenberg

Found here. My comments in bold. An interesting discussion regarding fallen Christians and whether or not we should value the work they did prior to their falling.
---------------------------

I go into this with some trepidation, because making judgments like these puts us in the position of ascertaining the validity of God's work in peoples' lives.

The author makes mention of Romans 11:29. Let's look at a longer portion: 

Rom. 11:21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. 22 Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!

25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: “The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. 27 And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins.” 

28 As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29 for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. 30 Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you.

As the author mentions in his linked article, this passage is talking about Israel's falling away. Notice that Paul is telling his readers that the "branch" of Israel was broken off to make room for us. Our branch can also be broken off and Israel's branch can be grafted back in. We also can be grafted back in.

In verse 28, Paul talks about Israel's election, that is, they are chosen of God. Paul's point is that those that "are loved" are always loved. Now he writes, God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. This is illustrative, because Paul expands the equation. Not only is His call to us and Israel irrevocable, so are the gifts he gives.

What are those gifts? The first is salvation:

Ro. 5:15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!

The gift of Jesus is irrevocable. God will never rescind the salvation He offers. It will always be available to mankind. 

We also have spiritual gifts:

Ro. 12:6 We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If a man’s gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to his faith.

Spiritual gifts are a manifestation of God's grace:

1Pe. 4:10 Each one should use whatever gift he has received to serve others, faithfully administering God’s grace in its various forms. 

His provision for us in natural and spiritual realms is also a gift:

2Co. 9:9-10 As it is written: “He has scattered abroad his gifts to the poor; his righteousness endures for ever.” [Psalm 112:9] 10 Now he who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will also supply and increase your store of seed and will enlarge the harvest of your righteousness.

Grace is a gift:

Ep. 3:7 I became a servant of this gospel by the gift of God’s grace given me through the working of his power.

Life is a gift:

1Pe. 3:7 ...the gracious gift of life...

It is by the goodness of God we have these and other gifts:

Ja. 1:17 Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.

This last verse ties in to the promise found in Romans 11:29, that the gifts God gives are enduring because God Himself is steadfast and faithful, even when we are not. (2Ti. 2:13).

We conclude, then, that Rom. 11:29 is talking about all the gifts, including spiritual gifts, as being irrevocable.

Therefore, it is quite possible to be gifted of God without being mature in faith. It is possible to continue to minister in the giftedness God gives, even in the midst of sin. The author makes a distinction between deliberate sin and incidental sin, but I don't think this distinction matters. God gives gifts as He chooses, regardless of the kind of sin involved, because gifts are not conditional upon deservedness.

So, the pointed question asked by the author is, can we enjoy the fruit of God's gifts operating in men, even in the face of deliberate sin? I think the answer is yes, because God is the source of the gift. It is God's work. It was intended to bless and edify. And if God is doing it, we would be wise to not reject it.
----------------------

Adventures in the Old Atheism, Part III: Freud - Edward Feser

Found here. A very good article.

Our sojourn among the Old Atheists was briefer than I’d intended.  To my great surprise, I see that the previous installment in this series dates from roughly the middle of 2016!  So let’s make a return visit. Our theme has been the tendency of the best-known Old Atheists to show greater insight vis-à-vis the consequences of atheism than we find in their shallow New Atheist descendants.  This was true ofNietzsche and of Sartre, and it is true of Sigmund Freud.  So lay back on the couch and light up a cigar.  And before you start speculating about what hidden meaning lay behind my sudden return to this topic, remember: Sometimes a blog post is just a blog post.

Mechanism and mind

Modern atheism is more than just the denial of God’s existence.  It is closely associated with a conception of nature as a vast, meaningless mechanism – to a first approximation, as nothing more than particles in motion, pushing and pulling against one another the way the metal parts of a machine might, but without any purpose of the kind that the machines we construct have. 

As I have often emphasized, the more precise way of spelling out this mechanical world picture is to start with its rejection of the essentialism and teleology that were central to the Aristotelian conception of nature that early modern philosophy and science replaced.  For the Aristotelian, as for common sense, there is a sharp and objective difference in kind between stone, water, trees, grass, dogs, cats, and all other natural objects.  Each of these things has its own distinctive essence or nature, which the human mind discovers rather than invents.  But the mechanical world picture treats them instead as just superficially different arrangements of the same one basic stuff.  There is no sharp essence or nature of being a tree or a dog per se.  These are just loosely cobbled together arrangements of particles.

For the Aristotelian, as for common sense, there are also ends or goals toward which things naturally aim or point, given their essences. Water aims at being liquid at room temperature, trees aim at sinking roots and growing leaves, dogs aim at eating and mating and running about, and so on.  But for the mechanical world picture, such aiming or teleology is illusory.  Objectively, nothing really aims at or pointsat or is for anything.

In short, the idea that anything has a natural purpose is an illusion, because natures and purposes are illusions.  Now, few thinkers push this idea through with total consistency.  Indeed, it cannot be made totally consistent, though eliminative materialists like Alex Rosenberggive it the old college try.  The Aristotelians were right, as I argue constantly and in ever greater depth.  The point for the moment, though, is that whether they work out its implications consistently or not, modern atheists tend to be committed to this general mechanical view of nature.

Now, perhaps if you could instead marry atheism to some broadly Aristotelian view of nature, as Thomas Nagel flirts with doing, then you could end up with an optimistic view of the human condition. Perhaps you could maintain the idea that human beings have an essence, that there is as a matter of objective fact an end or point toward which human beings aim given that essence, and that this can give human life meaning and purpose even in the absence of God. 

But what you can’t do is to defend such an optimistic position given the mechanical world picture.  If the mechanical world picture is correct, then there is no reason to believe that a human being is anything more than a roughly cobbled together aggregate, like the random pile of junk you collect from around the house and quickly toss into a closet in anticipation of guests arriving, or like the heap of various unrelated bits of debris you find on the beach after a hurricane.  There is no reason to think that the parts of human nature can ever cohere, and there can certainly be no point or purpose to human existence that isn’t an entirely made-up one (given the assumption that there are no purposes at all). 

Accordingly, any atheism that is informed by the mechanical world picture must, if it is realistic and honest, take a tragic and pessimistic view of human existence.  There ought to be no delusional happy talk of the kind that (as we saw in an earlier post in this series) one sometimes finds coming from New Atheists like Richard Dawkins. 

Worship Myth: Worship Must Be Spontaneous - BY JONATHAN AIGNER

Found here. My comments in bold.
----------------

Neither praise nor worship have a style. They are to be spontaneous, unrehearsed, and not synchronized with the way anyone else praises and worships the Lord. . .The most important thing is that we praise and worship the Lord when we come together. The thing to keep in mind is that His spirit flows more freely when worship is done spontaneously and freely. – comment on the Ponder Anew Facebook page


This is a common refrain from those who find liturgical worship too formal, rigid, or rote:

Worship must be spontaneous or it doesn’t count. (The author commits two errors. Error one is that the above quote is typical of all people who oppose the liturgy. Error two is that this particular person said that non-spontaneous worship doesn't count.)

Biblically, we need look no further than the heavenly liturgy recorded in Revelation 4 to see this is clearly not the case. (Why do the Doctrinal Police so often fail to quote Scripture? 

Re. 4:8 Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under his wings. Day and night they never stop saying: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come.” 

9 Whenever the living creatures give glory, honor and thanks to him who sits on the throne and who lives for ever and ever, 10 the twenty-four elders fall down before him who sits on the throne, and worship him who lives for ever and ever. They lay their crowns before the throne and say: 11 “You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.”

Is there anything here that resembles a liturgy? Is there any hint of something congregational happening here? Is there any indication that this passage is prescriptive for how churches should structure their worship?

But let's read farther. Look at Re. 5:9-10: 

And they sang a new song: “You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation. 10 You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth.”

Now we have some congregational singing, and they are singing a NEW song.)

Singing Lies in Church - by Doug Eaton

Found here. My comments in bold.
--------------------

We think the author sort of gets it right, but seems confused. In addition, it saddens us that the author cannot bring himself to quote or reference any Scripture.
-----------------

Aiden W. Tozer once said, “Christians don’t tell lies–they just go to church and sing them!” This is one of those quotes that jolts us to the core once it is properly understood. Without context, however, many people misunderstand what he is saying because they immediately begin to think of hymns and worship songs with bad theology, and there are plenty of song lyrics we sing that should cause us to scratch our heads, such as:

“Like a rose, trampled on the ground, you took the fall and THOUGHT OF ME ABOVE ALL.”

“So heaven meets earth like a sloppy wet kiss.”

“And in His presence, our problems disappear.”

(Are these theological statements? No, they are poetic expressions of ideas. Are they false? Well, probably not. Certainly they might be a hyperbolic or inelegantly expressed, but we should allow a measure of artistic license for songwriters, just like we would for pastors whose rhetoric sometimes comes up a little short.

So, did Jesus, as He hung on the cross, think of those He would save? We would say yes.

Ro. 5:8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

1Jn. 3:16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us.

"A sloppy wet kiss" is certainly hyperbolic, but in its essence is true. God in His lavish love came to earth as a man, and because of Jesus' death and resurrection the Kingdom of heaven has come to earth. Heaven certainly touches earth.

Do "our problems disappear" in His presence? It certainly seems so as we worship and focus on him.

2Co. 4:16-18 Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. 17 For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. 18 So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.

We conclude that though some of these lyrics might leave something to be desired, they are not heretical.)

Hillsong’s Judah Smith Says “Jesus is Not Your Judge” BY NEWS DIVISION

Found here. My comments in bold.

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

We don't intend to defend Judah Smith or Hillsongs, we intend to evaluate the author's statements.

Quick to sniff out any hint of heresy, this author smugly jumps to a conclusion not warranted by the facts or the testimony of Scripture. It's these sorts of things that discredit the Doctrinal Police, who apparently don't take time to think things through.

Or perhaps, the author is ignorant of the nature of God's judgment. He thinks Christians will be judged. But it is the unrighteous that will be judged, while it is the deeds of  Christians that will be judged.

Jn. 12:47-48 As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. 48 There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day.

1Co. 3:12-15 If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man’s work. 14 If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. 15 If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames. 

1Pe. 1:17 Since you call on a Father who judges each man’s work impartially, live your lives as strangers here in reverent fear.

Further, Scripture expressly states that those who believe His word have already received life and will not face condemnation.

Jn. 5:22-24 Moreover, the Father judges no-one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him. 24 “I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.

Christians are already in heaven when the unrighteous are judged.

Re. 6:10 They called out in a loud voice, “How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?”

Obvious conclusion: God judges the unrighteous, but He judges the deeds of the righteous. Judah Smith's tweet is 100% correct.
-------------------

Mere Calvinism - Tim Challies

Found here. Our comments in bold.
----------------------------

We published Mr. Challies' book review for a single statement: 

He makes it very clear that, while Calvinist doctrines are important, they are not necessary to be saved.

This is astonishing. We have had enough contact with committed Calvinists to know that their doctrines are extraordinarily important to them. So important, in fact, that they bristle at any criticism of Calvin at all. There is a militancy we've seen in Calvinists that is very unpleasant, and it's all for doctrines that Mr. Challies says are not relevant to salvation. Hmm.
---------------------

Justice Alito pens a bizarre love letter to Christian right - Following the law may soon be optional if you are a conservative Christian.- by IAN MILLHISER

Found here. My comments in bold.

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

Mr. Millhiser has appeared on this blog for various reasons. He is an inevitably hyperbolic leftist who appears to be content with spouting talking points with little desire to understand the issues beyond that.

The thing to note is, the Left loves government intrusion. They are happy to bring government to bear to defend someone's rights at the expense of someone else's rights. 

This is a critical understanding. When government intervenes, it chooses sides. It favors one party, and the other party suffers. It creates a hierarchy of rights, where expression of sexual preference trumps expression of moral preference, where objecting to religious practice is more important than engaging in religious practice, and where claiming someone else's money for your own is more noble than claiming your own money for your own.

Rather than let people associate as they see fit, rather than staying out of the free speech of people, rather than allowing people to decide for themselves what is moral, the Left wants government to install leftist preferences carrying the weight of law.
------------------

Be careful what you tolerate, you are teaching people how to treat you.

This was posted on FB:

It was a Christian friend that posted this, I suspect related to some past abuse she endured. On the surface the meme seems to make sense. But the more I thought about it, the more it bothered me. So let's analyze the post.

The implication of the meme is that there is some sort of line that cannot be crossed regarding how we let people treat us. If you search youtube, you'll find many videos about not tolerating ANY disrespect. So as we consider the matter, where that line is drawn is important.