Showing posts with label Frank Turk. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Frank Turk. Show all posts
Thursday, July 11, 2013
Wednesday, February 06, 2013
Frank Turk thinks I should put a sock in it
'Cause, see, I'm not only a mostly-presuppositionalist (though I appreciate a halfway-decent classical-type argument in favor of God's existence; see my left sidebar for a few I like and am willing to defend) but also an abolitionist of human abortion.
But shame on me for thinking that calling people to repent of their sin and their worthless arguments against God, whose lack of worth they can't see because their minds are twisted and their eyes are blinded, which twisting and which blindness are only removed through the proclamation of God's law and of God's Gospel, is the way to deal with sin. Because, you know, it also declares to the so-called fact-based advocate for this procedure that she's not immune to the power of a good story.
Sadly, Frank is not up to discussing this topic much, and that's why he closed the comments an hour or so after politely telling me not to talk anymore. OK, I can take a hint, bro.
Rhology said...
Rhology said...
Rhology said...
Rhology said...
Rhology said...
Rhology said...
Rhology said...
Rhology said...
Frank Turk said...
I missed where I said that, but it's not the first point I made that Frank neglected to deal with. Too bad.
But shame on me for thinking that calling people to repent of their sin and their worthless arguments against God, whose lack of worth they can't see because their minds are twisted and their eyes are blinded, which twisting and which blindness are only removed through the proclamation of God's law and of God's Gospel, is the way to deal with sin. Because, you know, it also declares to the so-called fact-based advocate for this procedure that she's not immune to the power of a good story.
Sadly, Frank is not up to discussing this topic much, and that's why he closed the comments an hour or so after politely telling me not to talk anymore. OK, I can take a hint, bro.
So you will excuse me if, on that basis, I will ask the presuppositionalist to stay out of it. He's most of the way out of it already anyway. If he wants to get involved, he should start where the person in question actually is rather than where he would rather they be.
Where the person actually is? You mean like a sinner in rebellion against God?
Frank, I often cite your comic book graphic guy saying "The Gospel is the solution to culture!" I loved that and still love it. In my mind, you coined the phrase.
The Gospel is the solution to abortion too. Not statistics, not societal trends. And people don't want to hear the Gospel b/c their minds are in rebellion to God. Better to show them the absurdity of their worldview than to cite "science". Skeptics are at their best when selectively ignoring facts. You know this as well as most.
So, respectfully, I will decline your invitation to put a sock in it. I will continue to preach the Gospel and reveal the worldview absurdity of those who persist in their hatred of God and try to justify it with worldly wisdom.
Peace,
Rhology
Where the person actually is? You mean like a sinner in rebellion against God?
Frank, I often cite your comic book graphic guy saying "The Gospel is the solution to culture!" I loved that and still love it. In my mind, you coined the phrase.
The Gospel is the solution to abortion too. Not statistics, not societal trends. And people don't want to hear the Gospel b/c their minds are in rebellion to God. Better to show them the absurdity of their worldview than to cite "science". Skeptics are at their best when selectively ignoring facts. You know this as well as most.
So, respectfully, I will decline your invitation to put a sock in it. I will continue to preach the Gospel and reveal the worldview absurdity of those who persist in their hatred of God and try to justify it with worldly wisdom.
Peace,
Rhology
the problem here is not establishing a plausible epistemological system
If I may, let me also add this:
A common criticism from presuppositionalists toward evidential/classical apologetics is that the ev/cl apologetics use the term "plausible".
Presupps don't - we talk about God's sovereignty and authority in all things and the utter worthlessness of the unbelieving worldview, of whatever stripe.
This evinces a bit of confusion here.
Grace and peace,
Rhology
If I may, let me also add this:
A common criticism from presuppositionalists toward evidential/classical apologetics is that the ev/cl apologetics use the term "plausible".
Presupps don't - we talk about God's sovereignty and authority in all things and the utter worthlessness of the unbelieving worldview, of whatever stripe.
This evinces a bit of confusion here.
Grace and peace,
Rhology
Frank,
But neither of us are post-millennials who think we will get a perfect world prior to the returns of Christ.
Well, I'm undecided on that. :-) My abolitionist friends are methodological post-mills, and that sounds fine to me as far as it goes.
In that: evangelism -cannot- be harnessed to political activism.
I don't see abolition as political activism. It is a moral issue, as you know. It is a choice a woman makes. It is an act of murder. And God has said "Don't murder" in His law. We express God's law and insist that women not murder their tiny babies. If they show repentance and brokennessas a lady and her daughter did just two weeks ago at the local abortuary then we preach the Gospel to them. It works great.
we can't expect people to first become Christians before they will stop killing babies, for example.
Either the Gospel is the solution, or it isn't.
But if you're wondering whether I'm in favor of illegalising abortion and making sure churches spend more on assisting women in crisis pregnancies, etc, than they do on lawn care and lighting, I'm right there with you.
the presuppositional point of retreat to Rom 1-2 utter supports /my view/ that the unsaved person has enough information to make a reasonable and informed choice to do what's right regarding, for example, the murder of babies.
True, except they suppress the truth in unrighteousness, and the law of God is that which breaks that suppression.
It is obtainably-good to eliminate 95% of all abortions.
That may be, and that's fine, but let's not stop there. (I'm not proposing you think we should stop there, mind you.)
We as abolitionists are indeed pursuing the total renewal of the culture to Jesus, as we are commanded to in the New Testament.
we can do that without deanding that first: people adopt all our preconditions of moral reasoning.
So... we can do that without people thinking that murdering babies is wrong? How would you propose that happen?
Does "murder is wrong" even make sense on a secular worldview? You and I both know it does not. And that is exactly what I'm saying.
Grace and peace,
Rhology
But neither of us are post-millennials who think we will get a perfect world prior to the returns of Christ.
Well, I'm undecided on that. :-) My abolitionist friends are methodological post-mills, and that sounds fine to me as far as it goes.
In that: evangelism -cannot- be harnessed to political activism.
I don't see abolition as political activism. It is a moral issue, as you know. It is a choice a woman makes. It is an act of murder. And God has said "Don't murder" in His law. We express God's law and insist that women not murder their tiny babies. If they show repentance and brokennessas a lady and her daughter did just two weeks ago at the local abortuary then we preach the Gospel to them. It works great.
we can't expect people to first become Christians before they will stop killing babies, for example.
Either the Gospel is the solution, or it isn't.
But if you're wondering whether I'm in favor of illegalising abortion and making sure churches spend more on assisting women in crisis pregnancies, etc, than they do on lawn care and lighting, I'm right there with you.
the presuppositional point of retreat to Rom 1-2 utter supports /my view/ that the unsaved person has enough information to make a reasonable and informed choice to do what's right regarding, for example, the murder of babies.
True, except they suppress the truth in unrighteousness, and the law of God is that which breaks that suppression.
It is obtainably-good to eliminate 95% of all abortions.
That may be, and that's fine, but let's not stop there. (I'm not proposing you think we should stop there, mind you.)
We as abolitionists are indeed pursuing the total renewal of the culture to Jesus, as we are commanded to in the New Testament.
we can do that without deanding that first: people adopt all our preconditions of moral reasoning.
So... we can do that without people thinking that murdering babies is wrong? How would you propose that happen?
Does "murder is wrong" even make sense on a secular worldview? You and I both know it does not. And that is exactly what I'm saying.
Grace and peace,
Rhology
Then, AS WE GO, we should preach the Gospel.
Let me share a bit of what I've learned so far about that.
We go, we preach the Gospel, and the Romanists that dominate the Pro-Life Movement turn on us and attack us with disturbing frequency. Since we preach the Gospel, we're "anti-Catholic".
We have to take that into account. Better to do what Jesus said in all cases and at all times, and let God take care of the consequences and the numbers and movement size.
Grace and peace,
Rhology
Let me share a bit of what I've learned so far about that.
We go, we preach the Gospel, and the Romanists that dominate the Pro-Life Movement turn on us and attack us with disturbing frequency. Since we preach the Gospel, we're "anti-Catholic".
We have to take that into account. Better to do what Jesus said in all cases and at all times, and let God take care of the consequences and the numbers and movement size.
Grace and peace,
Rhology
Because if they do, then whatever else you are doing is either ineffective and below the threshold of engagement, or way over their heads and therefore ineffective.
Preaching the law and Gospel and reducing competing worldviews to absurdity is ineffective or way over their heads?
No, Frank, that's just not the case. Plus, I'm not the best communicator in the world and I can easily lead people through the line of reasoning.
As a bonus, it's better than trying to lead people through a jungle of facts and figures and to jump over the naturalistic fallacy while you're at it.
As a double bonus, we get to preach the law of God the whole time. Imagine the potential.
I don't love your methodology, but you won't see me writing blog posts ripping you about it. I wish you'd returned the favor, and your critique isn't doing so hot.
Grace and peace,
Rhology
Preaching the law and Gospel and reducing competing worldviews to absurdity is ineffective or way over their heads?
No, Frank, that's just not the case. Plus, I'm not the best communicator in the world and I can easily lead people through the line of reasoning.
As a bonus, it's better than trying to lead people through a jungle of facts and figures and to jump over the naturalistic fallacy while you're at it.
As a double bonus, we get to preach the law of God the whole time. Imagine the potential.
I don't love your methodology, but you won't see me writing blog posts ripping you about it. I wish you'd returned the favor, and your critique isn't doing so hot.
Grace and peace,
Rhology
I don't think anyone said anything about accepting andbeing grateful for lesser outcomes than the ideal, but did you really mean to say we should be **SETTLING**?
Grace and peace,
Rhology
Grace and peace,
Rhology
I don't think we should expect the government should be a christian theocracy before it bans the convenient murder of babies.
Sure, neither do we, but that's in some extent our goal.
The example we should follow, since it was brought up, is the example of abolition
We follow those guys' example. You are not, really. Not in the way you're framing the conversation here.
Grace and peace,
Rhology
Sure, neither do we, but that's in some extent our goal.
The example we should follow, since it was brought up, is the example of abolition
We follow those guys' example. You are not, really. Not in the way you're framing the conversation here.
Grace and peace,
Rhology
I do wonder what the presuppositionalist would say to the Christian who is pro-choice?
We would proclaim the law to them, take them to the Word of God and call them to repent of their sin.
It's not very complicated, really. I doubt your approach is a whole lot different.
I'm wondering where all of this concern was last week when we were concerned with trying to bring shame to people because abortion is murder
B/c of the Gospel, an abortive woman can say she is a murderer without shame.
Grace and peace,
Rhology
We would proclaim the law to them, take them to the Word of God and call them to repent of their sin.
It's not very complicated, really. I doubt your approach is a whole lot different.
I'm wondering where all of this concern was last week when we were concerned with trying to bring shame to people because abortion is murder
B/c of the Gospel, an abortive woman can say she is a murderer without shame.
Grace and peace,
Rhology
Rho:
That you are willing to say you don't want something which is you goal points to the problem.
Seriously: step away. Let it be a request rather than a requirement.
That you are willing to say you don't want something which is you goal points to the problem.
Seriously: step away. Let it be a request rather than a requirement.
I missed where I said that, but it's not the first point I made that Frank neglected to deal with. Too bad.
Tuesday, February 08, 2011
Frank Turk and John Piper
This most recent phase of the issue I'll discuss here started when Frank Turk, aka centuri0n, wrote an open letter to John Piper last week.
Apparently his plan is to write one per week this year, and that's fine by me. I have enjoyed them all so far, but the letter to Piper left me scratching my head a bit. Apparently I am not alone.
Criticising Piper is still dangerous ground in many circles these days, but it is becoming more acceptable, and I think that is a good thing. He is good in many areas but there are also areas in which we must turn away from him.
I don't necessarily have a big problem with Mike Ratliff's post, tbh. If you ask me, Turk is in the wrong by giving Piper a pass. Warren is a bad, bad influence and we would all do well to give him the theological left foot of fellowship. Yes, we're not part of his church, but that doesn't mean we don't cut him out of ours!
Piper himself, as others have pointed out, has been devolving into the bizarre and even occasionally dangerous. Bizarre - inviting Warren to speak and looking past Driscoll's behavior (I'd say the Warren thing is worse).
Muddled - he apparently can't figure out whether he's a full Calvinist or not. I do not agree with everything in that video (in particular that the Arminian view of the extent of the atonement is heretical) but I post it for the sake of Piper's statements, particularly those beginning at 7m 16s.
And it's not so much the out of context "you must be born again into a Christian Hedonist" stuff - it sounds terrible, but I know what Piper means b/c I read the book "Desiring God". Didn't like the book much, but I read it.
The dangerous - Piper wrote "The Future of Justification", and it was a good rebuttal to the New Perspective on Paul. Then he writes "Future Grace" and seemingly takes it all back while muddying up the waters mightily. Now that's dangerous. http://trinityfoundation.org/PDF/197a-PiedPiper.pdf
Thing is, many of the commenters on Mike Ratliff's post should be ashamed of themselves for their behavior and quick triggers. Turk has his part in bringing this upon himself, however, in his inexplicably gentle treatment of Piper and Warren. If Turk had been in the mood to write an open letter praising someone, I can think of better addressees. Also, since it was an open letter, it would have been acceptable ISTM to throw in a few caveats about Piper, since Turk has said multiple times that he doesn't necessarily expect the addressees to read the letter. Further, there's nothing wrong with a mixed-bag letter.
For more on this issue, see my and Matt's from Vox Veritatis recent interactions with Defending.Contending. on the topic of separating from those who like Mark Driscoll. Let's just simmer down a bit, people.
Apparently his plan is to write one per week this year, and that's fine by me. I have enjoyed them all so far, but the letter to Piper left me scratching my head a bit. Apparently I am not alone.
Criticising Piper is still dangerous ground in many circles these days, but it is becoming more acceptable, and I think that is a good thing. He is good in many areas but there are also areas in which we must turn away from him.
I don't necessarily have a big problem with Mike Ratliff's post, tbh. If you ask me, Turk is in the wrong by giving Piper a pass. Warren is a bad, bad influence and we would all do well to give him the theological left foot of fellowship. Yes, we're not part of his church, but that doesn't mean we don't cut him out of ours!
Piper himself, as others have pointed out, has been devolving into the bizarre and even occasionally dangerous. Bizarre - inviting Warren to speak and looking past Driscoll's behavior (I'd say the Warren thing is worse).
Muddled - he apparently can't figure out whether he's a full Calvinist or not. I do not agree with everything in that video (in particular that the Arminian view of the extent of the atonement is heretical) but I post it for the sake of Piper's statements, particularly those beginning at 7m 16s.
And it's not so much the out of context "you must be born again into a Christian Hedonist" stuff - it sounds terrible, but I know what Piper means b/c I read the book "Desiring God". Didn't like the book much, but I read it.
The dangerous - Piper wrote "The Future of Justification", and it was a good rebuttal to the New Perspective on Paul. Then he writes "Future Grace" and seemingly takes it all back while muddying up the waters mightily. Now that's dangerous. http://trinityfoundation.org/PDF/197a-PiedPiper.pdf
Thing is, many of the commenters on Mike Ratliff's post should be ashamed of themselves for their behavior and quick triggers. Turk has his part in bringing this upon himself, however, in his inexplicably gentle treatment of Piper and Warren. If Turk had been in the mood to write an open letter praising someone, I can think of better addressees. Also, since it was an open letter, it would have been acceptable ISTM to throw in a few caveats about Piper, since Turk has said multiple times that he doesn't necessarily expect the addressees to read the letter. Further, there's nothing wrong with a mixed-bag letter.
For more on this issue, see my and Matt's from Vox Veritatis recent interactions with Defending.Contending. on the topic of separating from those who like Mark Driscoll. Let's just simmer down a bit, people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)