Monday, February 28, 2011

Barth Nearly Broke My Back

yes, I nearly broke my back carrying this box of Karl Barth's 14 volumes Church Dogmatics from the post office to my car and from my car to my study.

I intend to join Prof Daniel Kirk blog reading club on Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics. We aim to finish reading the whole series in about 11 years!


Labels: , ,

Saturday, February 26, 2011

The Double Effect of Double Effect

George Weigel's discussion on the biomedical discussion of "double effect" is bringing us back to square one. He seem to first set up a straw man and then demolish it by setting the principle of primum non nocere, first do no harm, against the principle of double effect. His article is worth reproducing here in full. This is published in First Things,

Clarifying “Double Effect”
The recent controversy over the termination of a pregnancy at Phoenix’s St. Joseph’s Hospital, which Phoenix bishop Thomas Olmstead determined to have been a direct abortion and thus a grave moral evil, has generated a secondary controversy over the meaning of the Church’s traditional moral principle of “double effect.” Some have argued—mistakenly, in my view—that what was done in Phoenix satisfied the classic double-effect criteria of Catholic moral theology.

The National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia, an indispensable source of Catholic information and analysis on bioethical and medical ethical issues, recently issued a statement on the Phoenix case. The statement clarified the double-effect issue in language that people without any special training in moral theology or moral philosophy can understand, and is worth quoting at length:

The principle of double effect in the Church’s moral tradition teaches that one may perform a good action even if it is foreseen that a bad effect will arise only if four conditions are met: 1) The act itself must be good. 2) The only thing that one can intend is the good act, not the foreseen but unintended bad effect. 3) The good effect cannot arise from the bad effect; otherwise, one would do evil to achieve good. 4) The unintended but foreseen bad effect cannot be disproportionate to the good being performed.

This principle has been applied to many cases in health care, always respecting the most fundamental moral principle of medical ethics, primum non nocere, “First, do no harm.”

The classic case of a difficult pregnancy to which this principle can be applied is the pregnant woman who has advanced uterine cancer. The removal of the cancerous uterus will result in the death of the baby but it would be permissible under the principle of double effect.

One can see how the conditions would be satisfied in this case: 1) The act itself is good; it is the removal of a diseased organ. 2) All that one intends is the removal of the diseased organ. One does not want the death of the baby, either as a means or an end. Nonetheless, one sees that the unborn child will die as a result of the removal of the diseased organ. 3) The good action, the healing of the woman, arises from the removal of the diseased uterus, not from the regrettable death of the baby which is foreseen and unintended. 4) The unintended and indirect death of the child is not disproportionate to the good which is done, which is saving the mother’s life.

In the wake of the Phoenix case, other Catholic hospitals have been asked what they would do in the rare and wrenching circumstance where continuing a pregnancy would put the lives of both mother and child at risk. The first answer usually given is the correct one: “We would try to save both lives.” But some have gone on to give a further answer: “But if that were impossible, we would save the life we could save”—by means, one assumes, of terminating the pregnancy.

This is not right. It violates the bedrock principle of “first, do no harm.” There is no moral casuistry that can justify doing the “harm” that is the intentional taking of an innocent human life—period. Attempts to justify termination in such circumstances by redefining the act of termination border on the Orwellian, further confusing the public discussion. (Recent horror stories from the Philadelphia abortuary should have taught us where the language of euphemism leads.) Furthermore, “we’ll save the life we can save” does not meet the standards of the principle of double effect, as outlined above.

The Catholic Church is one of the last major institutions defending the Hippocratic principle that the true physician’s first responsibility is to “do no harm.” Attempts to chip away at that Catholic commitment—by public authorities untutored in the meaning of religious freedom, or by theologians and philosophers advancing speculative views detached from clinical reality—damage the common good and impede the building of a culture of life.

George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C.

What do you think?



Friday, February 25, 2011

The Ehrman Project

Interesting that there is a website and project against Dr Bart Ehrman, appropriately named the Ehrman Project. Do visit the website.

Welcome to the Ehrman Project.
Dr. Bart Ehrman is raising significant questions about the reliability of the Bible. In an engaging way, he is questioning the credibility of Christianity. His arguments are not new, which he readily admits. Numerous Biblical scholars profoundly disagree with his findings. This site provides responses to Dr. Ehrman's provocative conclusions.

Anyone know whether there is a N.T.Wright Project?



Thursday, February 24, 2011

Is it Dangerous to Pray the Jesus Prayer?

The Mysteries of the Jesus Prayer newsletter answers the question.

“Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, Have Mercy on Me, a Sinner” or just “Lord, Have Mercy”

Some of our FaceBook friends have been discussing whether or not the Jesus Prayer is safe for “ordinary” people to practice.  Is it OK to say it if you are not a hermit, monk or nun?  Are there any dangers?  Is it necessary to have a Spiritual Guide? 

For answers, we look to the practitioners of the Jesus Prayer in some of the world’s oldest active monasteries, and to the spiritual guides we met while filming and writing.  Please see the "Mysteries of the Jesus Prayer" movie and book for more information. 

Sister Maria with V Rev Dr John McGuckin and Dr Norris ChumleySister Maria at Agapia Monastery in Romania described the prayer rope a novice nun receives when she is tonsured (officially accepted into the community, with vows) “They say ‘take brother or sister.  Take this Sword of the Holy Spirit’  and always wherever you go and walk, or when you eat and so on, and even in your sleep, always recite this prayer:  “Lord Jesus Christ Son of God have mercy on me a sinner.”  Father John asked her if ordinary people could pray the Jesus Prayer.  She said, “Of course, everybody could.  I heard spiritual fathers, famous spiritual fathers, even by radio say everybody should recite this prayer.  Why not?”  Dr. Norris Chumley asked her about the key points in the Jesus Prayer.  Sister Maria explained, “the key, the soul of the prayer is repentance.  If you repent yourself it is the beginning… repentance is a resurrection.  Repentance is the beginning until the end, repentance, repentance!”

Others, such as Father Ephraim, the Abbott of Vatopedi Monastery on Mount Athos, in Greece, cautioned us about the necessity of a spiritual father or mother.  He made the point that it is OK to occasionally say the Jesus Prayer, but that continued recitation of it, in combination with breathing exercises and special postures (that of a hesychast, or tonsured monk or nun) must be done with guidance.  He said in affect “it could be dangerous to try to be a monastic outside a monastery.”

Benedicta Ward, an historian of the religious life, tells us, “The monks went without sleep because they were watching for the Lord; they did not speak because they were listening to God; they fasted because they were fed by the Word of God.  It was the end that mattered, the ascetic practices were only a means.”

It is in this spirit that many monks and nuns today believe the practice of the Jesus Prayer is something that ought to be undertaken with expert guidance—and this presumes a monastic context where the novice can call upon the advice of someone who is deeply grounded in the spiritual life, who can steer the novice around the spiritual pitfalls that lie along the way. The monks and nuns have encountered people whose zeal perhaps exceeded their wisdom, who would accept no guidance in the delicate mental and ascetical paths that make up a spiritual psychology, and so they are reticent about encouraging inexperienced souls to begin a life of intense prayer.

The late Archimandrite Teofil, the Starets or Spiritual Guide of Brancoveanu Monastery in Romania rather rebelliously taught us that anyone can practice the Jesus Prayer.  He explained that it is not Jesus Christ’s prayer, but a prayer used by His followers, and possibly first uttered by an Apostle.  He went on to say that the purpose of the Jesus Prayer is “to make a link between prayer and mind, between mind and heart, between the power that thinks and the power that loves. So the mind that goes down into the heart is not an activity of the human being, it is a work of God. What we are doing is that we pray to God for the unity of our own being, the whole being.”

Both Father John (an Orthodox priest) and Dr. Norris practice the Jesus Prayer, but not as monks, and not employing the breathing and posture techniques advocated for monastics by such saints as St. John Climacus, St. Symeon the New Theologian or St. Gregory Palamas.  It might be of interest to you to research their writings on the subject of the Jesus Prayer, as well as in the “Philokalia.”  There are several good books on the Jesus Prayer, such as “The Way of a Pilgrim,” author unknown, “The Art of Prayer,” compiled by Igumen Chariton, “On the Prayer of Jesus” by St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, and a recent book, “The Jesus Prayer: The Ancient Desert Prayer that Tunes the Heart to God” by Frederica Mathewes-Green.
DVD’s shipping February 28!

Watch the Movie Now!

“Mysteries of the Jesus Prayer” book
by Dr. Norris J. Chumley coming April 5th from HarperOne


Labels: ,

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Dallas Willard's Sense of Ministry

I find this comment by Dallas Willard on his homepage of his website very relevant.

My sense of ministry is to judge the lay of the land for your times and shoot where the enemy is. The enemy in our time is not human capacity, or over activism, but the enemy is passivity - the idea that God has done everything and you are essentially left to be a consumer of the grace of God, so the only thing you have to do is find out how to do that and do it regularly. I think this is a terrible mistake and accounts for the withdrawal of active Christians from so many areas of life where they should be present. It also accounts for the lack of spiritual growth, for you can be sure that if you do not act in an advised fashion consistently and resolutely you will not grow spiritually.

There is a great collection of his articles and recordings on Dallas Willard's website


Labels: , ,

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Scripture is Electric

All scripture is inspired, but some of it is electric. The power of the Holy Spirit hums in the lines so thrillingly that you hardly dare to touch them. For me, the first chapters of Ephesians and Colossians spring to mind, especially the verses where Paul shows us Jesus Christ in his supremacy. God gave his one and only Son as "the atoning sacrifice for our sins" (1 John 4:10). But Paul sets that mighty work inside a mightier one. With trumpets sounding in his soul, he exclaims that through Jesus' sacrifice, God was pleased "to reconcile to himself all things" (Col. 1:20) as part of a still mightier plan for the ages when God will at last "gather up all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth" (Eph. 1:10).

Cornelius Plantinga Jr. is president of Calvin Theological Seminary.

Labels: ,

Paradigms of Spiritual Formation

evangelical piety turns upside down the medieval paradigm of a pathway to God. There the journey of faith began with purgation, moved to illumination, and finally, ended in unification, that is, union with God. In the evangelical understanding, we begin with union with Christ (the new birth) and move through Word and Spirit to illumination and the process of sanctification until, at last, in heaven we see Christ face to face

Timothy George
For All The Saints: Evangelical Theology and Christian Spirituality, p.4

Labels: ,

Saturday, February 19, 2011

Glimpses of Kota Baru (2)

Labels: ,

Friday, February 18, 2011

What is Spiritual Formation?


Thursday, February 17, 2011

Glimpses of Kota Baru (1)

Kota Baru town centre. Kota Baru is the state capital of Kelantan, Malaysia

The Siti Khatijah wet market

Labels: ,

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Work, Work, Glorious Work

Had fellowship with and spoke to a wonderful group of students and doctors from Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) in Kota Bahru, Kelantan, Malaysia.


Monday, February 14, 2011

A Fridge Full of Roses

Happy Valentine's Day



Thursday, February 10, 2011

A Letter to the Presbyterian Church (USA)

(the letter is printed exactly as received Wednesday afternoon)

A Letter to the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)

February 2, 2011

Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
To say the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is deathly ill is not editorializing but acknowledging reality. Over the past year, a group of PC(USA) pastors has become convinced that to remain locked in unending controversy will only continue a slow demise, dishonor our calling, and offer a poor legacy to those we hope will follow us. We recently met in Phoenix, and have grown in number and commitment. We humbly share responsibility for the failure of our common life, and are no better as pastors nor more righteous than anyone on other sides of tough issues.

Our denomination has been in steady decline for 45 years, now literally half the size of a generation ago. Most congregations see far more funerals than infant baptisms because we are an aging denomination. Only 1,500 of our 5,439 smallest churches have an installed pastor, putting their future viability as congregations in doubt. Even many larger congregations, which grew well for decades, have hit a season of plateau or decline. Our governing bodies reflect these trends, losing financial strength, staffing, and viability as presbyteries, synods, and national offices.

How we got to this place is less important than how to move forward. We are determined to get past rancorous, draining internal disputes that paralyze our common life and ministry. We believe the PC(USA) will not survive without drastic intervention, and stand ready to DO something different, to thrive as the Body of Christ. We call others of like mind to envision a new future for congregations that share our Presbyterian, Reformed, Evangelical heritage. If the denomination has the ability and will to move in this new direction, we will rejoice. Regardless, a group of us will change course, forming a new way for our congregations to relate. We hate the appearance of schism – but the PC(USA) is divided already. Our proposal only acknowledges the fractured denomination we have become.

Homosexual ordination has been the flashpoint of controversy for the last 35 years. Yet, that issue – with endless, contentious “yes” and “no” votes – masks deeper, more important divisions within the PC(USA). Our divisions revolve around differing understandings of Scripture, authority, Christology, the extent of salvation amidst creeping universalism, and a broader set of moral issues.

Outside of presbytery meetings, we mostly exist in separate worlds, with opposing sides reading different books and journals, attending different conferences, and supporting different causes. There is no longer common understanding of what is meant by being “Reformed.” Indeed, many sense that the only unity we have left is contained in the property clause and the pension plan; some feel like withholding per capita is a club used against them, while others feel locked into institutional captivity by property. While everyone wearies of battles over ordination, these battles divert us from a host of issues that affect the way our congregations fail to attract either young believers or those outside the faith. Thus, we age, shrink, and become increasingly irrelevant. Is it time to acknowledge that traditional denominations like the PC(USA) have served in their day but now must be radically transformed?

We need something new, characterized by:
1.A clear, concise theological core to which we subscribe, within classic biblical, Reformed/Evangelical traditions, and a pledge to live according to those beliefs, regardless of cultural pressures to conform;

2.A commitment to nurture leadership in local congregations, which we believe is a primary expression of the Kingdom of God. We will identify, develop, and train a new generation of leaders - clergy and laity;

3.A passion to share in the larger mission of the people of God around the world, especially among the least, the lost, and the left behind;

4.A dream of multiplying healthy, missional communities throughout North America;

5.A pattern of fellowship reflecting the realities of our scattered life and joint mission, with regular gatherings locally, regionally, and nationally to excite our ability to dream together.

Our values include:
1.A minimalist structure, replacing bureaucracy and most rules with relational networks of common purpose;

2.Property and assets under stewardship of the local Session. Dues/Gifts for common administration should only allow and enable continued affiliation among these congregations;

3.Rather than large institutions, joint ventures with specialized ministries as congregations deem helpful [PC(USA) World Mission may be a source of joint support, aspects of the Board of Pensions, Presbyterian Foundation, Presbyterian Global Fellowship, Presbyterians for Renewal conferences, Outreach Foundation, etc.];

4.An atmosphere of support for congregations both within and outside of the PC(USA).
We invite like-minded pastors and elders to a gathering on August 25-27 in Minneapolis to explore joining this movement and help shape its character. Our purpose is to LIVE INTO new patterns as they are created, modeling a way of faith: the worship, supportive fellowship, sharing of best practices, and accessible theology that brings unity and the Spirit's vitality.

1.A Fellowship: The most immediate change we intend is creating a new way of relating in common faith, a Fellowship (name to be determined). The primary purpose of this Fellowship will be the encouragement of local congregations to live out the Good News proclaimed by our Savior, increasing the impact of the Kingdom of Heaven. This Fellowship will exist within current presbyteries for the time being, but energies and resources will flow in new directions. It is an intermediate tool to bring together like-minded congregations and pastors, to enable us to build a future different than our fractured present.

2.New Synod/Presbyteries: In the near future we will need “middle bodies” that offer freedom to express historical, biblical values amid ordination changes in the PC(USA). More importantly, we long for presbytery-like bodies with theological and missional consensus rather than fundamental disagreement over so many core issues. We need new processes that identify and support the next generation of leadership differently than the current model, which unintentionally weeds out the entrepreneurial persons we so desperately need in our congregations. Many current functions should be removed; some, like curriculum and mission relationships, have become less centralized already. We will work with the Middle Governing Bodies Commission since changes to The Book of Order will be needed to step fully into this reality.

3.Possible New Reformed Body: Congregations and presbyteries that remain in a denomination that fundamentally changes will become an insurmountable problem for many. Some members of the Fellowship will need an entity apart from the current PC(USA). It is likely that a new body will need to be created, beyond the boundary of the current PC(USA), while remaining in correspondence with its congregations. The wall between these partner Reformed bodies will be permeable, allowing congregations and pastors to be members in the Fellowship regardless of denominational affiliation. All kinds of possibilities exist, and much will depend on how supportive the PC(USA) can be in allowing something new to flourish.

4.Possible Reconfiguration of the PC(USA): We intend to continue conversations within the PC(USA), and have met with both Louisville's leadership and that of the Covenant Network in the past few months. We believe the denomination no longer provides a viable future and perceive that the Covenant Network also sees a broken system. We hope to work together to see if some new alignment might serve the whole Church.

Any model that includes an entity outside the PC(USA) does mean fewer remaining congregations, pastors, and elders to fight the challenges of the current PC(USA). Votes will swing in directions that had not been desirable before. For many this outcome simply acknowledges that fighting is not the way we choose to proceed; our goal is not institutional survival but effective faithfulness as full participants in the worldwide Church. We hope to discover and model what a new "Reformed body" looks like in the coming years, and we invite you to join us, stepping faithfully, boldly, and joyfully into the work for which God has called us.

read more


Labels: ,

What You Should Know about Prebiotics and Probiotics

There is a lot of interest in prebiotic and probiotics generated mainly by companies producing infant milk formula on the beneficial effects of these two agents. Probiotics are the 'good' bacteria that is found in the intestines. Prebiotics are food nutritients for probiotics or the 'good' bacteria. The idea of giving a baby prebiotics is to provide nutrition to the good bacteria so that it will grow in the intestine. It is postulated that the presence of good bacteria (probiotics) helps the newborn's intestine to develop their immune response to infection and maybe allegy. Human milk contains prebiotics.

The newborn intestine is sterile. Colonisation of the intetsine begins almost immediately with different bacterias, differing by whether the baby is exclusively breast fed or formula fed. Nevertheless by six weeks, the organisms in the intestines of these two groups are the same. Does this warrant the addition of prebiotic and probiotic to infant formula? Apparently these companies think so because they are marketing the addition to infant formula of prebiotics and probiotics as directly responsible to improve the child's immune response and to reduce allergy.

What are the facts?
  • while probiotics is useful in the treatment of infective and antibiotics diarrhea, there is no evidence available that prebiotics and probiotics improve or strengthened a child's immunity.
  • a Cochrane review in 2007 conclude that there is insufficient evidence to warrant routine supplement of probiotics to either pregnant women or infants for prevention of allerguc disorders in infant. The Cockrane review is a database for evidence-based medicine.
  • The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recently issued an extensive Clinical Report: Probiotics and Prebiotics in Pediatrics authored by Dan W. Thomas, MD, Frank R. Greer, MD, and the Committee on Nutrition and the Section on Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition.
Medscape conducted an interview with Dr Thomas concerning this report,
Medscape: While the report makes clear that human milk is the preferred food for infants, what would you suggest primary care providers advise parents who choose to bottle-feed? Should infant formula supplemented with probiotics be recommended?

Dr. Thomas: No one can answer this question at this time. The health benefits of feeding infant formula containing probiotics and/or prebiotics are unproven. In essence, this report challenges industry and healthcare researchers to conduct high-quality, evidence-based studies to answer these questions.

The addition of prebiotics and probiotics to infant formulas is another example of industrial driven marketing based on doubtful or unproven scientific data. The inclusion of prebiotics and probiotics follow a trend of additional of supplements to infant formulas. As with prebiotics and probiotics, all these supplements have no or doubtful evidence that they are of actual value. With each inclusion, the price of the infant formula increase. This is a burden to mothers who are unable to breast feed because they could not produce milk or they have to work. In the meantime, these infant formula companies which are usually multinationals make millions.

Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, February 08, 2011

The Best Yee Sang in Malaysia

The best Yee Sang I have tasted this year is a take-away Yee Sang from Ichiban-boshi in Great World Shopping Mall in Singapore! It was brought across the causeway to my dining table in Malaysia.

More about Yee Sang, read my post here

The 13 components in the Yee Sang each has its significance

  1. Chuka kurage-Excellence
  2. Red Sweetened Ginger-Luck
  3. Peanut Crunch- Wealth
  4. Pickled Leek-Divination
  5. Sweetened Lime- Merit
  6. Pickled Cucumber- Advancement
  7. Winter melon- Harmony
  8. Fried Sesame- Prosperity
  9. Chuka Wakame- Youth
  10. Pickled melon - Tanquility
  11. Pok Chui Biscuits- Affluence
  12. Five Spice, cinnamon and pepper Powder - Fortune
  13. Salmon - Abundance

Labels: , ,

Reading Theological Memoirs

I was privilege to read Stanley Hauerwas, (2010), Hannah's Child: A Theologian's Memoir (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans) and Geoffrey Wainwright, (2000), Leslie Newbigin: A Theological Life (Oxford: Oxford University Press) concurrently in the last few days. It is an interesting experience reading about these two men and how the development of their theological thinking came to be. Hauerwas' is more personal as he is the author while Newbigin's was distilled from his works by biographer Wainwright.

Stanley Hauerwas is an academic theologian who is Gilbert T. Rowe Professor of Theological Ethics at Duke University, Dunhma, North Carolina. Coming from a family of bricklayers, Hauerwas overcomes a life of poverty to be named the "best theologian in America" by Time magazine in 2001. He studied at Yale and taught in both Norte Dame and Duke University respectively. A prolific writer and speaker, Hauerwas is influential in the ongoing dialogue about theology especially ethics which Hauerwas understands to be theology being lived out especially in communities. It is interesting to note that for that for all his writing on the church, Hauerwas did not take an active role in the church or on the mission field. His was a top down theological development even though he himself believes that his theology is developed from the grassroots upwards. His oft quoted statement is the enigmatic "The first task of the church is not to make the world more just but to make the world the world."

Newbigin was a pastor-missionary-theologian. He was one of the first bishops of the United Church of India, and had also served as pastor, evangelist, missionary strategist, ecumenist and bible teacher. He served mainly in India and later for the Council of Churches which gave him a wider scope of ministry. Newbigin's theology is also a theology of the church. Like Hauerwas, Newbigin argues that Christianity is to be lived in obedience to Jesus Christ. The 'how' and 'what' of the faith as lived out in community come before the 'why.'

Both faces challenges in their respective vocation. Hauerwas faces the conflicts and infighting of the academia while Newbigin, the scorns and distrust of his fellow clergy. What is interesting is that both are helped and supported by many faithful friends. I believe this bond of fellowship of like minded believers forms the foundation of their theological impetus.

The two books are good reading, even for a non-theologian. I loved the mentions of names of people and of books which was mentioned that influenced them. This give me a quest to seek out these authors. I however have two complaints about these books. One is that there is no bibliographies of books mentioned though the Wainwright's book is extensively footnoted. The second is that there is no author's bibliography. Since these are theological memoirs, I believed that a chronological bibliography of an author will allow the readers to get a sense of the development of their theological constructs.


Labels: ,

Saturday, February 05, 2011

Frederica Mathewes-Green on the Authority of Scripture

Here is a wonderful blogcast and comment from  Frederica Mathewes-Green on the authority of Scripture from the Orthodox perspective.

This week's podcast is about the authority of Scripture, and the assertion that it is "infallible."

Infallible R Us

It came about as a response to an email I received from a Protestant clergyman asking about the Orthodox view of the authority of Scripture. He said that in his own church there are debates about morality and theology, and those who want to adhere to a classic or traditional stand tend to do so on the basis of Scripture, and for that reason must defend the Scriptures as unimpeachable. He wanted to know how the Orthodox handle this question.

I think the main difference is that we see the Scripture as having the highest authority in our community--but it is read within a community, the community that originally wrote and originally heard these words. Everybody interprets the scriptures. It is not possible to read them and give the same weight to every passage. It is not even likely that anyone will read it all as uniformly literal--many Protestants think Jesus' words about his Body and Blood, in John 6, were meant metaphorically, while we liturgical Christians take them as literal.

The debates about what the scriptures mean are really a debate about whose interpretation you are going to follow--Luther, Calvin, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc. For us Orthodox, the Scriptures mean what the community says they mean, those who wrote and received the New Testament scriptures when they were new. So the bible is not seen as something independent of human readers and believers, like an object floating in space. It is always read in a context of human interpreters, and we think the original writers and readers are best equipped to have the accurate interpretation.

It's a different angle from one that would want to determine whether the words standing alone are "infallible." An interesting question. I got an email from an Orthodox priest this morning saying that I went too far, and that the Church Fathers (he quoted St. Augustine) see the words of the bible as literally true, and if there appears to be a problem, it is in the reader's understanding. Worth thinking about further--but this part, about being guided by the interpretation of the community, still holds.


Friday, February 04, 2011

Reformed Perspectives Magazine (Feb 6-12)

RPM Volume 13, Number 6 (February 6 to February 12, 2011), is now available. The following articles are featured in this issue:
A Dialogue
By: George Hawkins
Webpage  PDF  Word
The Ministry of the Gospel
The CALL and QUALIFICATIONS for the Gospel Ministry
By: Joseph Philpot
Webpage  PDF  Word
An Article
By: BB Warfield
Webpage  PDF  Word
The Doctrine of Repentance
Part I
By: Thomas Watson
Webpage  PDF  Word