Bible & Tech
I’ve seen several treatments of the problem of evil around the blogosphere recently.
They all look worth a read or listen.
A few weeks ago, a friend informed me of this upcoming debate between Bruce Ware & Wayne Grudem and Tom McCall & Keith Yandell. It’s very relevant to my dissertation topic, so I’m looking forward to hearing the results. Hopefully audio and transcripts will be made available.
I read a paper from Tom McCall several months ago on this subject and was not very satisfied with his approach. I think he oversimplifies matters and confuses categories (especially regarding the notion of essence—much like Kevin Giles does). I have had the privilege recently of interacting with Bruce Ware a little on these matters. While I don’t necessarily agree with everything as he states it and am still in the process of working through some of these issues, I’m far more comfortable with Ware’s approach.
[Read more…] about Ware–Grudem vs. McCall–Yandell on the Trinity
Chad Knudson pointed out a new book from Baker Academic, A Case for Historic Premillennialism: An Alternative to “Left Behind” Eschatology. It’s edited by Craig Blomberg and Sung Wook Chung.1
Here’s the first paragraph of the book description:
Twentieth- and twenty-first-century American evangelicalism, particularly at the popular level, has been virtually saturated with the eschatology of dispensational premillennialism. The distinctive teachings of that system, in particular its affirmation of the pretribulation rapture of the church, have become so pervasive that many evangelicals would be hard pressed to identify an alternative approach. Popular novels that disseminate dispensationalism to a wider readership have only furthered that trend.
[Read more…] about Blomberg: Progressive Dispensationalist or Historic Premillennialist?
Those who are familiar with the writings of Cornelius Van Til are well aware of his strong criticism of Barth’s theology. He takes Barth to task in Christianity and Barthianism and The New Modernism: An Appraisal of the Theology of Barth and Brunner and avers that Barth’s theology is “in all fundamental respects . . . the same as the Modernism of Schleiermacher and his school.” In the theology of Barth we find “basically, the same sort of view of reality and of knowledge as marks the work of Schleiermacher or Ritschl” (The New Modernism, 2d ed.).1
One might infer from his severe criticism of Barth that Van Til considered him outside the sphere of God’s saving work. That’s what Richard Mouw thought—until Van Til himself set him straight.
[Read more…] about Van Til on Barth—and Doctrinal Sins
Ryan Burns, an MDiv student at RTS Orlando and the main guy behind the Going to Seminary website, posts his 17-minute video interview with John Frame on issues related to seminary education. The interview goes into Frame’s views on the traditional model of seminary as expressed in these two pieces: “Learning at Jesus’ Feet: A Case for Seminary Training” and “Proposal for a New Seminary.”
Here are the questions that Frame answers:
I just found out that a friend of mine, Brian Collins, has been blogging for a couple of weeks at Exegesis and Theology. Brian is a voracious reader and careful thinker. I’m sure his blog will be worth keeping tabs on.
HT: Andy Naselli
The nine speakers are set for the John Owen Today conference, which will be held on 19–22 August 2008 at Westminster College in Cambridge.
About two months ago I wrote a blog post on the subject of regret, in which I raised some questions about whether regret will be a part of the experience of the glorified in the new creation. I suggested with some uncertainty that I’m inclined to think that it will not be. My thoughts were in response to some of the things that Piper said in the second chapter of Life As a Vapor, “Suffering, Mercy, and Heavenly Regret.”
Recently, David Wayne, the JollyBlogger, picked up my post and expressed basic agreement with my concerns.
Just tonight Jon Bloom’s latest post at the Desiring God blog, 2 Kinds of Regret: Godless and Godly, caught my eye. Jon doesn’t address regret after this life, but some of his comments make me wonder if he’d agree with Piper. Here’s his conclusion: