Jul 182017
 

Do we really have to be mean to prove our orthodoxy?

Greg Boyd adjusts Martin Luther…

How to love a jerk like me…

“Evangelical” is not a political term…

Domestic violence in the name of God…

Why I went back to church…

The new allure of sacred pilgrimages…

Fewer persecuted Christians find refuge under Trump…

Facebook can’t replace church…

What should really concern us about the Eugene Peterson debacle…

Christian patriotism…

In praise of escapism…

Sometimes reading the Bible literally is literally wrong…

Mohler rips Peterson…

A wish list for Reformed Catholicism…

Dialoging with the Doc…

Don’t wait until you figure out grace and works before doing both…

A different take on how “dying for our sins” works…

Money doesn’t have to be stressful…

An impossible hope…

Is God a genocidal maniac?

Interview with Dr. Packer…

Remember to support EricL and his work at top right…

 

  12 Responses to “Linkathon!”

  1. “The God revealed in the Bible is not one dimensional. He is not reducible to the attributes of love or mercy. Any attempt to do so is shattered by reality. God is a righteous, holy, and just God. He does—and in fact, must—punish evil. If this was not the case, I do not believe God would be worthy of worship.” quoted from the genocidal maniac link…

    IMO and FWIW – the article is a good one and touches on a subject that we dance around here from time to time… we want God to be what we want Him to be, not what He must be and is

    a great collection of links again – thank you

  2. Evangelical is a political term. It has no other meaning.

  3. Thanks for including the first link above. I get tired of the hostility in comments sections on blogs.

  4. Now that I am at a computer instead of my phone, a little more about the first link. I really haven’t seen much if any hostility and meanness on this blog when disagreements arise (which they do thankfully – we don’t want an echo chamber here!). With other blogs out there, such as Charisma News, The Christian Post, Blog and Mablog, Christianitytoday.com (before they removed the comments sections), if you disagree with something posted, you can expect to be called a troll, an apostate, a fake Christian, a liberal, etc. I guess these are the Christian equivalents of insults the world uses. I am glad that this blog, for the most part, has been a safe place to disagree with people.

  5. Academically speaking, I agree with Neil J. Young, that the term evangelical is not historically political.

    But existentially, now it is. You have 70-80% of evangelicals supporting a man who’s a chronic liar, and says things that no parent would ever want their children to emulate.
    And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

    Can’t help but wonder if antinominanism could be a big factor in why so many voted for him. Or maybe it’s just old-fashioned selfishness.

    So going forward, evangelical will be political, at least from the outside.

    The marriage is complete.

  6. Mohler didn’t rip Peterson in the least.

  7. Bob1; maybe people voted for him because they wanted to stop the assault on the unborn and the break-neck speed at which our nation is being forced to abandon our sense of right and wrong regarding sexual issues. He was certainly the lesser of two evils and infinitely preferable to our previous president. Liar? For sure. At least the total transformation of our Supreme Court has been abated for now.

  8. Josh #6.

    I read Mohler and thought about the same thing. He made some good points but didn’t rip EP.

    I do think Mohler wants everyone to take the same stand the same way he does though. I get wanting people to see things your way, but I don’t agree that everyone needs to do it the same way.

    We are not clones. “Send in the clones!”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9lyT8UUw_I

  9. If you are no falling at Peterson’s feet weeping and praising, then you are ‘ripping’ him.
    I thought the article was very good and very fair – it seemed like a neutral information piece.

  10. Zahnd is both disengenuous and incoherent. He caricatures historic atonement theories into things I have never heard or read asserted and then he papers a nonsensical gibberish that sounds more politically correct than informative as a solution.

    I have studiously avoided BZ but it is becoming impossible. Read Denny, Dale, Forsyth, Mackintosh and won’t need to deal with BZ. He sounds like he is reacting to the “I should have been crucified’ bad musical atonement theories.

    His second to the last paragraph is useful as a beginning but the overall article is simply an attempt to shift the traffic to his own voice rather than serious historic treatments of atonement.

    I would guess he is a pacifist. Which is fine but it helps frame the matter.

  11. On the other hand I thank you for linking the Andrew Menkis article.

    I have never winced at the judgment of God. Nor am I troubled by judgment as a revelation of Divine prerogative. My notions of good and evil are self-serving.

    The renovations of theology to suit contemporary sensibilities is a flatulence in the wind.

  12. What saddens me about domestic violence is that no matter how much more awareness there is, it doesn’t stop. Even more sad is that female perpetrators seem to be increasing (borne out by data in multiple western nations), while society still seems to think it doesn’t exist. Nonsense: just ask children. In any case…

    “The first response of the church was to not hear, to not believe it was happening, he wrote. The second was to treat abuse as “a one-off moral failure”, which saw perpetrators moved from state to state, parish to parish, without being punished for their crimes.

    Another mistake was to think simply having a quiet word to the abuser and giving advice to the victim to forgive will solve anything, to fail to consult counsellors — and, surely, police.

    “We have been tempted”, he wrote, “to collude with offenders that their behaviour is nothing more than a matter of private morality”.

    “If the church colludes in this sleight of hand, it can find itself, as it did in the matter of sexual abuse of children,” he wrote, “ignoring the fact that these matters are criminal behaviours; and that they have very real long-term consequences for the victims”.

    One, the overall attitudes regarding DV-IPV and sexual abuse are little different than what goes on outside of the church “keep it in the family”— I have experience with this and know many who do.

    Two, these are indeed CRIMINAL matters and should be treated as such. Suffering behind close doors isn’t at all the same as being a martyr for The Gospel. The Kingdom of God certainly doesn’t benefit; it actually suffers, with every single victim of man’s (or woman’s) depravity.

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(required)

%d bloggers like this: