The Danger of Being Concerned with Academic Acceptance

This is a great quote from Carl Truman, professor of church history at Westminster.

As soon as I hear the phrase ‘but no biblical scholar believes that anymore’ my antennae go up; that’s not an argument, that’s a rhetorical ‘consent of the nations’ ploy, whatever the merits of the particular case in point. The desire to be thought well of by all is seductive; and evangelical success in the academy needs to be assessed not in terms of who is invited to speak on which scholarly platform, but who has remained faithful to God’s Word, despite all the pressure to do otherwise.

The quote comes from an interesting interview with Trueman that can be found here (it's on page 13 of 17)

As a philosophy student who hopes to worship the Lord through my academic work, I know that the temptation to be well respected in academia may tempt me to avoid defending a position that is out of academic favor. I must be careful that I don't back down from a position simply because I am told "no philosopher believes that anymore."

Thankfully, though, there are many Christian philosophers who are defending positions that flow out of their Christian world and life view with top-notch argumentation. So I can't think of any biblical position on a philosophical issue that is not being defended by a sharp Christian philosopher. Even so, Christian positions on many positions are going to be a minority view at best in academic philosophy.

So this quote is especially relevant for me if no one else.

Wisdom from Pascal

An apt quote from Pascal, especially pertinent for someone like myself who is a philosophy student with a particular interest in Philosophical Theology.

"What a long way it is between knowing God and loving Him!"

Pensees, # 377

Oman's "Grace and Personality"

I'm currently reading Colin Brown's Christianity and Western Thought in order to brush up on my history of philosophy. In Chapter 10 entitled "Old Questions and New Controversies," Brown discusses the debate concerning Divine providence and human freedom the took place in Catholicism (Molinism vs. Thomism) and Protestantism (Arminianism vs. Calvinism) in the 16th and 17th centuries.

In his footnote at the end of the section, Brown writes

"For the argument that models of physical power instead of love and personality have been wrongly used in the discussions of the past, see John Oman, Grace and Personality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1917)."

Intrigued, I wondered if this book was available on line, since the book is out of copyright. I was able to find it, and so I link to it for those who are interested in this subject. I haven't read it myself, but would like to at some time.

Grace and Personality

John Oman

The Fray Live

Who Needs Innovation?

http://www.thepalaceoflight.com/

John Lennox's Website

I've posted a couple of things here regarding the Oxford Mathematician and Christian apologist John Lennox. (See here and here)

Today I came across his website; it has several well done short videos with Lennox addressing a myriad of topics. Take a look!

http://johnlennox.org

I've added his page to my Christian philisophers list in the sidebar.

Catchy Song!

Piper - "God is the Gospel"

 For those of you who know, me, you know that I am not a huge fan of the John Piper and his Calvinism. I do think, however, that his book God Is the Gospel serves as an important corrective to the way that many Christians understand the "good news". Here's a good quote from the book that encapsulates his thesis...

Why is justification good news? What is good about being justified by faith alone? Or more broadly, why is the gospel, which has justification by faith at its heart, good news? Now this question is seldom asked, because being forgiven for our sins and being acquitted in court for capital crimes and being counted righteous before a holy God is so manifestly a happy situation that it seems impertinent to ask, why is it good news?

But I believe we must emphatically ask this question. For the answer to it is infinitely important. Every person should be required to answer the question, “Why is it good news to you that your sins are forgiven?” “Why is it good news to you that you stand righteous in the courtroom of the Judge of the universe?” The reason this must be asked is that there are seemingly biblical answers that totally ignore the gift of God himself.  A person may answer, “Being forgiven is good news because I don’t want to go to hell.” Or a person may answer, “Being forgiven is good news because a guilty conscience is a horrible thing, and I get great relief when I believe my sins are forgiven.” Or a person may answer, “I want to go to heaven.” But then we must ask why they want to go to heaven. They might answer, “Because the alternative is painful.” Or “because my deceased wife is there.” Or “because there will be a new heaven and a new earth where justice and beauty will finally be everywhere.”  

What’s wrong with these answers? It’s true that no one should want to go to hell. Forgiveness does indeed relieve a guilty conscience. In heaven we will be restored to loved ones who died in Christ, and we will escape the pain of hell and enjoy the justice and the beauty of the new earth. All that is true. So what’s wrong with those answers? What’s wrong with them is that they do not treat God as the final and highest good of the gospel. They do not express a supreme desire to be with God. God was not even mentioned. Only his gifts were mentioned. These gifts are precious. But they are not God. And they are not the gospel if God himself is not cherished as the supreme gift of the gospel. That is, if God is not treasured as the ultimate gift of the gospel, none of his gifts will be gospel, good news. And if God is treasured as the supremely valuable gift of the gospel, then all the other lesser gifts will be enjoyed as well.

Piper, God is the Gospel (Wheaton: Crossway, 2005), 44-45