Pastors Should Blog

Without giving extra-biblical mandates, Abraham Piper provides six winsome reasons why blogging is advantageous and fruitful for pastors. From the the DesiringGod blog (where else?), the son of John Piper encourages pastors about this online medium with words such as below:

There is no better way to simply and quickly share your writing than by maintaining a blog. And if you’re serious about your blog, it will help you not only in your thinking, but in your discipline as well, as people begin to regularly expect quality insight from you.

Piper continues by saying the blog is handy for further developing sermon points and recommending resources and materials to your people. He adds:

And more than just a catch-all for sermon spill-over, a blog is a perfect place for those 30-second nuggets of truth that come in your devotions or while you’re reading the newspaper. You may never write a full-fledged article about these brief insights or preach a whole sermon, but via your blog, your people can still learn from them just like you did.

Abraham's entire post can be found here.

For the "preacher boys," perhaps we're a step ahead--or maybe we just talk too much and are presumptuous to think others would even care about our thoughts on various topics. Probably a little of each.

Still, we should "fight the good fight" and keep blogging.

Apologetics Bible

I just read an article about the new Apologetics Study Bible released by B&H publishing Group of LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention. The article contained an answer to the question of Jesus’ resurrection from a historical standpoint.

The answer is from William Lane Craig a research professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, Calif. He has an irrefutable answer and is one of the best apologetics speakers I have ever heard on the existence of God, Jesus’ resurrection etc…

A few years ago I attended a debate at UT on the existence of God. He is a brilliant and articulate debater. He won hands down and the whole audience knew it.

(Now, you guys know I am all about apologetics, so do not take this the wrong way.)

To my total amazement when they opened the session for Q& A time, one of the questions was concerning Noah’s flood. Dr. Craig just bushed the question aside and said something like: I believe in a local flood anyway. I could not believe what I was hearing.

Scripture will not allow a local flood.

I don’t understand how somebody can be such an ardent defender of one part of Scripture and then when it comes to Genesis they just allegorize it, or explain it away.

John 5:46-6:1
46 For had ye believed Moses , ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Kent

Spurgeon's Writings

I was listening to a sermon today and the pastor was referencing Spurgeon’s books. He stated that Spurgeon had a great sense of humor and liked to use illustrations. However, he stated that all of his humor and illustrations had been deleted from his sermons. I had not heard this before. Maybe Elijah could check up on this at Southern, of course in all his spare time.

Kent

R.C. Sproul & Ben Stein: "Intelligent" Conversation

With the the release of the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed coming nationwide on April 18, R.C. Sproul sat down for a conversation with Ben Stein, the narrator of the film and an avid supporter of the Intelligent Design movement. When two conservative intellectuals like these hold a discussion pertaining the implications of Darwinian thinking and its academic bias, you can't afford to miss out! The video works as a great overview for any of you who want to brush up on your apologetics in arguing against evolution (or just want clearer thinking on the subject). The video can be viewed above or here.

Here is an excerpt from the the Ligonier Ministries blog describing the video:

Many of you may recognize Mr. Stein as the teacher in the 1986 film, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, but he is also a writer, public speaker, and political activist. Recently, he became deeply involved in a film project that challenges the neo-Darwinian scientific community and exposes their hostility to intelligent design and all those who believe in it. The producers of Renewing Your Mind caught up with Mr. Stein during a preview of his new film entitled Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. The movie opens nationwide April 18. (In this reviewer's opinion, the Stein/Dawkins face off at the end of the film is worth the price of admission.)

Ligonier was also sure to note the following:

It is important to note that during this free exchange of ideas, not all of the opinions expressed by Mr. Stein in the interview are the views of Ligonier Ministries. Christians should recognize that the argument from design does not necessarily prove the Genesis view of creation. We are not part of the Intelligent Design movement, but certainly share similar concerns for freedom of speech and inquiries into cosmology. Our foremost concern is to uphold the inerrancy and inspiration of the Bible and the authority of our Creator.

Don't let that discourage you from watching. This conversation provides an excellent overview of the philosophical and scientific reasons not to embrace Darwinian evolution as it's currently taught. Furthermore, Sproul mentions many of the same reasons for not holding to naturalistic materialism that he expounds upon in his introductory work on classical apologetics -- Defending Your Faith. At the clip's end, Ben Stein himself breaks into enthusiastic praise of Sproul's sharp wit and vast knowledge of Western philosophy.

Did Jesus "Descend into Hell"?

With the advent of Easter, or I should say "Resurrection Day," John Piper discusses whether or not Jesus went to hell in between His death and resurrection. From the DesiringGod blog, Piper writes:

The Apostles’ Creed says, “[He] was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell. The third day He arose again from the dead.” There are many meanings given to this phrase. I simply want to ponder the traditional interpretation that Christ went to the place of the dead to preach the gospel to Old Testament saints that he might set them free for the full experience of heaven. This is the view of the Catholic Catechism and many Protestants as well. I don’t think this is what the New Testament teaches.

Piper mentions two passages from 1 Peter from where this idea is derived, specifically 1 Peter 3:18-20 which reads, "... being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah..." Piper explains:

With regard to 1 Peter 3:19, I take these words to mean that Christ, through the voice of Noah, went and preached to that generation, whose spirits are now “in prison,” that is, in hell. In other words, Peter does not say that Christ preached to them while they were in prison. He says he preached to them once, during the days of Noah, and now they are in prison.

Before stating his solution to remove the phrase "descended into hell" from the Apostles' Creed, Piper summarizes his interpretation.

I would say, therefore, that there is no textual basis in the New Testament for claiming that between Good Friday and Easter Christ was preaching to souls imprisoned in hell or Hades. There is textual basis for saying that he would be with the repentant thief in Paradise “today” (Luke 23:43), and one does not get the impression that he means a defective place from which the thief must then be delivered by more preaching.

To read the entire post, click here.

Piper commented more on the idea of Jesus' descent to the netherworld on an edition of "Ask Pastor John." There, he deals with the Ephesians 4:9 verse that says Christ "descended into the lower parts of the earth" and explains the phrase as meaning the earth, which is the lower parts. To read or listen to Piper's explanation, click here.

Arminian Encounter in Crossville?

Don't let your eyes deceive you. I had an encounter this Wednesday with some of the most apparently Armenian people I've ever met. And of all places, I ran into them at a winery! I thought most Arminians were opposed to alcohol consumption. They must not have been Baptist.


Of course, if you've paid close attention, I was speaking of Armenians with an e rather than an i. The folks pictured are from the Repulic of Armenia, three of them at least. The other three are from the Republic of Georgia. I took the photo while covering the story for the Crossville Chronicle. These Eastern Europeans had been visiting the states to gain understanding of how American food processing and agriculture works.

I wasn't able to speak with them since they seemed to understand very little English aside from the translator from the Armenian embassy. Had I though, it would've been tempting to tell them I hailed from the "Republic of Calvin."

I say all this to segway into setting up a time where we can together as a blog view the most extensive and well-presented documentary on Reformed theology to ever be produced -- Amazing Grace: The History & Theology of Calvinism.

It would be beneficial for us as the DVD presents of the debate over God's sovereignty in salvation and man's responsibility through the course of church history--from Augustine to the Reformation and on--and then moves on to examine and defend each letter of TULIP by Scripture.

What's more, the second disc is a 45-minute overview of how we apply our understanding of God's purpose in election toward evangelism. It's likely the most comprehensive audio-visual analysis of Calvinism one could find.


Produced by the Apologetics Group, which is now The Nicene Council, the two-disc film runs around 3.5 hours, but it's well worth the investment of time. Since Calvinism is one of the main issues pertaining to the blog, and many of you have yet to see the DVD even though it's been in my possession for more than two years, I thought viewing it together as a blog might be the best way to organize a time we can collectively set aside for the film. Any ideas? Maybe a Friday or Saturday in the coming weeks?


I plan to be in Kingston Saturday, March 29, if everyone interested would want to try that date. Throw some suggestions out there until we can come to a consensus. This is way too exciting of a possibility for me to not to at least offer. With as much certainty as a finite, fallible human can muster, I can assure everyone they will not walk away from watching the DVD unsatisfied, if not, entirely impressed.

Is Plan B the Best Plan?

There has been a very interesting story taking place in Illinois over the past few weeks. A certain group of pharmacists are not wanting to sell the morning after pill also know as "Plan B," due to the fact that their moral obligations prevent them from doing so. They believe that this pill could potentially exterminate an unborn child from the potential mother's womb. Such a pill would be murder and they do not want to take part in this type of medical treatment.

Fox news has an interesting story by Radley Balko on this here and he makes some very interesting points yet I cannot agree with everything he says. He seems to have the idea that we should just not make people do something. He feels that this would solve the issue. He says:
It seems to me that a good remedy for most of today's contentious issues is to let everyone live his or her life as they please, so long as they do no harm to anyone else.
My biggest problem with that is that there is still the allowance of abortion. That allows the murder of unborn children continue. However here are a few other things that he has said:

...it seems there are some pharmacists who have moral objections to dispensing medication they feel would make them party to an abortion, or at least to the taking of a potential human life. Anti-abortion groups have latched on to their cause, noting that the decision to become a pharmacist doesn't obligate one to facilitate treatments he or she finds morally abhorrent.

On the other side of the debate are the abortion rights groups. They want widespread access to these medications, arguing that ending a pregnancy essentially before it has begun ought to be more acceptable to anti-abortion groups than ending one when the fetus is more fully developed. We can't allow rogue pharmacists to leave women in a lurch (some not only refuse to fill prescriptions, they sometimes destroy them), they say.

Notice that the abortion rights groups are wanting us to compromise what we believe. Saying that ending the pregnancy "before it has begun" should be more acceptable to us. The probelm with that logic is that most people that hold to the anti-abortion side believe that life starts at conception. We do not think that it is any less malicous to kill a baby that is only a few hours old than we do one that is seven or eight or nine months old before it is born.

He continues:

Abortion-rights supporters are pushing for laws that would require every pharmacy to stock controversial medication (laws requiring the morning after pill to be on the shelves are already in place in Illinois and Massachusetts). They argue that because pharmacy is a heavily-regulated field in an area as important as health care, the state is obligated to ensure that everyone has access to all available treatments. Further, they argue, in some areas of the country, there may only be one pharmacy. Consumers don't have other options. If the only pharmacy in town won't stock birth control, they say, women in that town have effectively been denied their reproductive freedom.

What about that child's right to live? Is a woman's personal freedom to not have children more important than the sanctity of human life? Balko answers these questions about women's "rights" when he says:

This too is nonsense. The rights guaranteed to us in the Constitution are only guarantees against government trespasses. There is no "right" to goods, services, or care that someone else has to provide. Suppose, for example, that there is only one doctor in town. Would it also be acceptable to require him to perform abortions, even if he found them morally repugnant? What about breast augmentation? What if there were only one pharmacy in town, but it had to close for economic reasons? Could the town pass a law forcing its owners to operate the business at a loss, under the same justification that residents have a "right" to medication?
The solution is simple: If you don't like a particular pharmacy's policy regarding birth control or abortion-related medication, don't shop there. And if you're a pharmacist? Don't work there. But stop using the law to force everyone else to think, act, and believe as you do.

I agree with much that Balko says here but I have my disgreements as well. Over all I did like his article.
One time I had a teacher in school tell us that a single asprin could act as birth control that was 100% effective. If a woman would put the asprin between her knees anytime that she felt like having sex and hold it there until the urge passed, there is no way that she would ever get pregnant. What my teacher meant was absolutely right. The solution was very simple: If you do not want the possiblity of having children, don't have sex!