[%] Clash of the Titans

If you are within 250 mile of this event, you must not miss it. And if you are a Southern Baptist within 500 miles, you need to go for the sake of your own convention.

I hear Ray Harryhausen is going to do the special effects and has already set his team to the animatronics. Toho, Ltd., is suing because they had a script in development but they didn't have a contract with Liberty University yet. I doubt it will stop the event.

[#] Baptism

Leave you comments here. Especially if you're coming here from Doug Wilson's blog and you're itchin' for a fight interested in fraternal dialog.

[%] Hewitt

Because I want to win the Crosley Solo, I have submitted the following to Hugh Hewitt:

No links to Hewitt. No endorsements. I just want that stinkin' radio.

UPDATE: Oh brother -- Greg Linscott is in on the action over at radioBlogger. THE Greg Linscott -- the SharperIron straight-man. That fundamentalist baptist guy.

Somehow I think there are a lot more funny people in the dour protestant ranks than anyone is allowed to know about ...

[#] Abdul Rahman: updated.

Here's the update on Abdul Rahman for those of you who haven't seen it yet. All the way at the bottom of the article, you can read this:

"Somebody, a long time ago, did it for all of us," he added in a clear reference to Jesus.

Rahman also told the Italian newspaper that his family — including his ex-wife and teenage daughters — reported him to the authorities three weeks ago.

He said he made his choice to become a Christian "in small steps," after he left Afghanistan 16 years ago. He moved to Pakistan, then Germany. He tried to get a visa in Belgium.

"In Peshawar I worked for a humanitarian organization. They were Catholics," Rahman said. "I started talking to them about religion, I read the Bible, it opened my heart and my mind."

I'm sure the meta will have a lot to say about this. I'll try to be back around later today to take my licks.

For the record, we're not done with Limited Atonement in the John 3.

[$] it's friday?

Shoot: I better do this before I run out of daylight:

Ladies and gentlemen, this clown head is for Kevin Johnson for closing the comments at Communio Sanctorum rather than substantiate his criticism of this blog. Going forward, it shall be called the Kevin Johnson Memorial ClownHaid. I'm only sorry that he doesn't have a cup of coffee on his lips.

pending review

[%] Pheh. baptists! [intro notes]

As I was thinking about this topic while walking in the icy breeze between buildings, one of the things that crossed my mind was the complaint that arguing about John 3 or John 1 and who is actually saved by Christ is distracting from, for example, the looming martyrdom of Abdul Rahman. The complaint would go something like this -- that Abdul Rahman's extraordinary show of faith should not be sullied by squabbling over whether (and the Boarsmen have tossed around) "all means all".

Let me suggest to you something, even though I have not interviewed Mr. Rahman myself: I think it matters to him whether "all means all". If "all" means "all men, including all who would be islamofascist jurists," then he's throwing his life away for nothing. If even the islamofascist is saved by the Son God gave, then dying a martyr's death rather than renounce Christ is overkill, to say the least.

But martyrdom is not portrayed that way in the NT, and the Gospel is not portrayed that way in the NT. If we are going to understand why Abdul Rahman is unwilling to say, "I renounce Jesus, because there is only one God and Mohammed is his prophet," we have to understand what John 3 says in detail and not just as a scattering of verses.

In that, I might have let the exchange at BHT go south on its own if there had not been two grossly-exaggerated statements made in the discussion. The first is this, by the redoubtable iMonk:

[the evangelist John did not believe] that the divine narrative was culminated in a series of technical definitions of words that indicate Jesus Christ came to limit salvation to a few Reformed Baptists.

The exaggeration is this: there not even any legitimately-called "reformed baptists" who believe this. One might want to paint with an acre-wide brush and call (for example) Fred Phelps a "reformed baptist", but those who are actually reformed baptists (you know: like John Piper, and James White, and Tom Ascol, and Albert Mohler, and Mark Dever, and ... oh, you get the idea ...) would have a somewhat-large problem with that over-generalization. It would be like calling iMonk an "emergent pastor", which can only be true in a world where iMonk is "emergent" because of his internet pulpit, and a "pastor" in the sense that he was one once.

Reformed baptists are confessional in nature, and conform themselves to a limited number of admittedly-limited documents. Many of them refer to the LBCF (1689) as a standard. Ad in that case, what the LBCF has to say about the number of the elect, and the scope of Christ's atonement, is 100% applicable to the discussion of whether or not the RB's think only RB's are saved.

The real question is this: even if RB's are that frankly-addled in their reading of John 3, did John have any specific intention in writing the Gospel of John? Or was he merely spinning a great story by which he thought he could get people to say, "huh. Can't wait for the Movie." (or in ancient terms, "O Iohannes! Enim non expecto dramae!") And particularly, does John 3 tell us anything about the work of Christ?

UPDATED: iMonk has delivered the correction in the meta of this post that his reference to "Reformed Baptists" was a funny, a gag, a jest, a quip, a wisecrack, a bit of waggery -- exaggeration made with a light heart.

I accept the correction and leave the note here for reference. Next time I'll try to read a little more closely and frankly, with an ounce more charity. I am quite sure, however, that his main line of reasoning is to agree with Dennis Laing and to argue against the {false} view that Jesus narrowed the scope of God's salvation rather than broadened it if one reads this passage as harmonious with the reformed view.

That is a question we shall deal with in the next post. First, let's deal with the second exaggeration in the exchange at BHT:

I'm certain Nicodemus wasn't blown away by the new found thought that God has narrowed to doors to salvation.

Again, who believes that? Could Dennis Laing name someone who does? I can't.

Look: even the HyperCalvinist -- the one who would say there's no reason for evangelism, and that you can tell God's elect from the time of their birth because of the the outworking of the Holy Spirit due to their election -- would not say that the assertion of particular redemption narrows the Jewish understanding of God's salvation of men. What Jesus has done specifically is to overturn Nicodemus' view that human birth dictates elective state. How do we know this?

Good heavens -- read John 3:

1Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him."

Now stop a second: who is "we" in Nicodemus's statement? Is it the royal "we"? I suppose Nicodemus, who is a Pharisee in the synagogue might use the royal we. But isn't it more likely that John, in saying "a man of the Pharisees", is setting up Nicodemus to be speaking for the group of Pharisees with whom he is in agreement? The "we" here is the Jewish religious leaders with whom Nicodemus would associate -- and in that, he is speaking for Jews who are waiting for a Jewish Messiah to restore the thrown of David.

3Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."

And think on it: Jesus doesn't say, "I'm so glad you guys see it my way." He says, "Nobody can see what I am doing unless you have something other than your human birth to inform you."

It is not the Jewish birth which informs you about the Messiah: it is the spirit of God, and Jesus makes that clear thus:

4Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" 5Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' 8The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit." (ESV)

In that, Jesus has radically broadened the scope of salvation from Jewish salvation to salvation wherever the Spirit wishes.

And it is in the extraordinarily-expanded view of God's saving grace that John 3 continues in Jesus' discourse on the salvation of the world.

Now, if dispelling these two gross overstatements were enough, we could stop here and say a blessing on the men who said them, having been corrected they would surely recant and either withdraw or rephrase their concerns. But there is so much more here which directly relates to why Abdul Rahman will not recant his confession of Christ that we will pick this up tomorrow and go through both John 1 and John 3 to have the Gospel by two hands and not to let it go for the sake of a political point.

[%] Pheh. baptists!

Adrian Warnock says this is "Spencer at his best":

At the risk of being taunted again, I fail to see that I would have spent three years with Jesus and come away believing that the divine narrative was culminated in a series of technical definitions of words that indicate Jesus Christ came to limit salvation to a few Reformed Baptists.

As I said, the reduction of the gospel to a series of logical problems to be solved by refined technical definitions and cross referencing is nuts. What would any 4th grader understand by the Gospel of John? The first 18 verses of chapter 1 summarize the whole book. I refuse to read these great verses as a discussion between universalism, a caricature of Arminianism, and advocates of a limited salvation. How did the Good News get to be the inner workings of interpretation, and not the plain meaning of the story?

To be utterly fair to the iMonk, he was responding to this gem:

How in the world John 3:16 can be isogeted [sic] as a proof-text for limited atonement is beyond the pale of understanding. I'm certain Nicodemus wasn't blown away by the new found thought that God has narrowed to doors to salvation. What's so revolutionary about that? Nicodemus already believed that!

(v15) "...that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life"
(v16) "... that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life"
(v17) "...to save the world through him"
(v18) "...whoever believes in him is not condemned"
(v20) "...whoever lives by the truth comes into the light"

Nicodemus already had a theology of limited atonement and particular redemption. I seriously doubt Jesus was bolstering what Nicodemus already knew!
Posted by Dennis Laing at 08:28 AM

I would post my comments but I have a meeting I cannot miss. When I come back, let's find out what Dennis is trying to say, whether he's right, and then if iMonk has shed any light on the subject worthy of praise.

Nurse: scalpel.

[!] Classic Gospel, tone-deaf world

Yes, I've been ranting about coverage regarding Abdul Rahman in Afghanistan. And I've been somewhat merciless to the megaBloggers who have jumped on this bandwagon. But this is being played off by them as a political human rights matter.

Here's what brother Rahman has to say about what is happening to him [translation, HT: Afghan Times]:

Being hanged to death! I accept it, yes I do, but I am not an infidel as I am branded and I am not an apostate. I am a Jesus Follower (Christian).

Listen: that's the kind of testimony that needs to be heard here. He's not pleading for his life, is he? He is preaching the Gospel -- that faith in Christ is not an act of falsehood or a matter of comparative religion but a matter of ultimate truth -- right up to the moment at which his life will either be forfeit or spared.

Yes: it is a horror that it is a crime to be a convert to Christ. It is politically unacceptable. But if this story becomes about the politics of this event and not about what Abdul Rahman is preaching as he is threatened with death, his testimony is muted by the partisan cotton in our ears.

There is a visitor to this blog who has asked, "does it matter if I sign the petition?" And I say it does matter. But the larger question is whether we use tis opportunity to clearly and concisely preach the Gospel.

Abdul Rahman is not willing to die for democracy or republican government: he is willing to die for the sake of Christ. That is the story. Do not miss that story. Do not fail to tell that story.

[*] It's like St. Patty's day

In one of my shortest blog entries to date, I have something to say about the blogosphere today:

I think today is like St. Patty's Day for "Christian" bloggers: it's easy to pull out the green gear and have a cabbage-and-corned-beef with a Guiness over Abdul Rahman today. Where are you the rest of the year?

With all these people suddenly with their Christian sensibilities in a bunch over Abdul Rahman, you'd think that it was a high-priority thing for them that the Christian message get out. For example, Michelle Malkin has mentioned Jesus Christ a total of 37 times in the history of her blog, and the word "gospel" only 12 times -- with only 2 of them refering to the message of Christ's work. Hugh Hewitt has mentioned the word "gospel" 18 times in the history of his blog (10 of those refer to the work of Christ), and mentioned Jesus Christ 28 times. Of course, if all they did was press the point that they will not deny Jesus Christ in any context, they might sacrifice their careers. Not their lives, right?

It is a fine political point that Abdul Rahman ought not to be killed for choosing Christ over Mohammed: that is hardly the actual point regarding what Abdul Rahman has done in choosing Christ over Mohammed.

UPDATED: here's the kicker -- Malkin is now angry that President Bush isn't taking notice that suddenly one person is going to be executed under Muslim law for converting to Christianity.

It seems to me that on the days Mrs. Malkin is awake and looking around, those injustices are important, but the rest of the year -- when there are literally hundreds of instances of reported persecution in non-Christian countries every month -- Mrs. Malkin is far more concerned with "moonbats", Cindy Sheehan, and the inane and obscure Al Franken.

The criticism of the White House may be morally correct: it has the timbre of shrill opportunism as it echoes on this side of the blogosphere.

[%] More persecution

This is the high profile example of persecution this week. Brian Mattson, high atop the ivory tower, has opened a petition for the sake of Abdul Rahman, Citizen of Afghanistan, who is currently under penalty of death for converting from Islam to Christ.

The shame is that right now he has only 380+ signatures. Will the readers of my blog please take the time to sign off and drive the count up -- it's a travesty that only 380 people can take the time to type in their own name in order to advocate for a man's freedom to accept the Gospel.

Get after it.