On 20 May 2012, Dr. Alvin Plantinga gave a presentation on the relation between Science and Religion. Daniel Chew had the opportunity to attend and report on this event. He writes:
Plantinga’s presentation basically deals with the perceived conflict between Science and Religion, especially on the topic of Evolution. His thesis is that there is no conflict between evolution as a science eviscerated from its materialistic philosophy, and “mere Christianity.” Plantinga defines “mere Christianity” along the lines of C.S. Lewis and locates it in the Apostles’ Creed, probably having some version of the Vincentian Canon in mind (ubique, semper, omnibus).
In the island of Singapore that promotes the idea of religious harmony, religious intolerance and hostility towards the Christian faith has increased. Recently, a by-stander was offended by posters put up by the National Univeristy of Singapore (NUS) Campus Crusade for Christ which is aimed at promoting short term missions to various countries of the world including Thailand and Turkey. The offence came about because the posters insist that people of other religions need Christ. As a result of this complaint and the subsequent publicity, the university (NUS) has ordered Campus Crusade to cease all its activities.
In light of this act of religious intolerance against Christianity, you are invited to contact the Singapore embassy and the university and voice your opposition to this deplorable action.
You can contact the Singapore embassy at email@example.com, and you can contact NUS at firstname.lastname@example.org.
One major error of the New Evangelical Calvinism, and New Evangelicalism also, is its zeitgeist that generally does not want to deal with false teachers.
Carson and Keller, the representatives as it were of the Gospel Coalition (TGC), have published a response to the Elephant Room 2 fiasco. As a response in general, it attempts to be irenic yet firm in its doctrinal stand. I examine the response in this post.
Pastor Kevin DeYoung has written a follow up post to the Jeff Bethke video saga. In this post, Bethke has contacted him and the two of them had a cordial conversation via email. Such is being held out as the way Christians should resolve conflicts, but is that really the case?
You see this was me too, but no one seemed to be on to me
Acting like a church kid, while addicted to pornography
See on Sunday I’d go to church, but Saturday getting faded
Acting if I was simply created just to have sex and get wasted
See I spent my whole life building this facade of neatness
But now that I know Jesus, I boast in my weakness
(Jeff Bethke, in his video poem)
Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?
(Rom. 5:20-21; 6:1)
Christians ought to live godly lives. We are all sinners saved by grace alone. Yet, what is the nature of our testimony? What are we to make of Jeff Bethke’s idea of “boast[ing] in … weakness”?
But when you start bashing the idea that Christianity can actually be shared, that it is a public event, that is bigger than just your personal insights, spiritual journey; when you start attacking the corporate reality of Christianity, by knocking that word “religion,” you’re not doing anyone any favors and you’re setting up a path that will very swiftly steal the Gospel that you claim to love. … that video makes me sick, in spite of the fact that it preaches the Gospel. That’s because when you preach the Law, it didn’t attack me, it attacked my Mother the Church (11:13 – 11:39)
As I have said in my previous post on the subject, the main flaw in the viral video is its attack upon the forms of Christianity, setting up a false dichotomy between true spirituality and the institutional Church.
Recently, an “Evangelical” theologian William David Spencer has come up with a supposed “Evangelical Statement on the Trinity”, which can be found here. When the Statement is analyzed however, it can be seen that the Statement actually compromises the historic Christian doctrine of the Trinity as codified in the Athanasian Creed.
Historically, the two extremes in thinking about God has been either to collapse the three into one, or to deny the one in favor of three. The former is seen in Modalism or Sabellianism, the error of the heretic T.D. Jakes. The latter is seen in the error of Arianism and Subordinationism, where the distinction between the persons of the Trinity are so accentuated that they the three persons are not considered as three coequal and coeternal persons. The Athanasius Creed, the Nicene Creed and the Definition of Chalcedon forge a path through these twin peaks of error, and so they give the Church a firm foundation of the Doctrine of the Trinity.
As we shall see however, this supposed “Evangelical Statement on the Trinity” in its promotion of egalitarianism compromises the historic orthodoxy doctrine of God. Without further to do, here is the full response. An excerpt:
Recently, William David Spencer, in consultation with many theologians, has drafted a document which he has called “An Evangelical Statement on the Trinity.” Is this document however what it proclaims to be? Is this statement truly Evangelical, in the historic sense of the term? More importantly, is it biblical?
In this article, I would like to analyze this statement as it is made available online. Is this a statement that Christians and especially Evangelicals should embrace, or should it be rejected?
The theological commentary of the Statement is arranged according to a few themes, and we will therefore in part one first address these themes in the order they are written, then give an apologetic for a more biblical view of the Trinity in part two.