Don’t Miss List – 5.24.13

I’m starting a new feature called the Don’t Miss List. I haven’t decided how often to have it, possibly weekly, perhaps on an as needed basis. Anyway, here are the things I’ve found this week that I recommend you don’t miss!

No Co Ever: Episode 2

Pastor Mike Abendroth talks to apologist Dr. James White, blogger Phil Johnson and theologian Carl Trueman about many crucial subjects in this episode of No Compromise Ever. Topics include Sola Scriptura, the sufficiency of Scripture, the dangers of experientialism and mysticism, hearing voices from God and so much more. Beth Moore, charismatic theology, John Eldredge and Bible translations come up too. Check it out!

Letter: Elder forced to leave for standing against spiritual formation

Stand Up for the Truth provides this sad and troubling letter from a church elder who was forced out for confronting the practices and teachings of spiritual formation which invaded his church and seminary. I hate to be a pessimist, but I don’t think this man is alone and I think this is going to become even more common. Visit SUFT to read his letter.

Why Have Babies? 

Candice Watters of Boundless challenges people to think Biblically about childbearing in an age and culture where delaying is the norm. Read it here.

Did you spot a story you don’t think should be missed this week? Leave it in the comments section or tweet it my way.

5 thoughts on “Don’t Miss List – 5.24.13

  1. It’s a good idea. *thumbs up*

    I haven’t watched the “No Co Ever” video; I might later. I generally prefer to read things rather than watch videos or listen to sermons, because I have ADD and am impatient and am usually trying to do about ten things at once, and watching or listening to things necessitates focusing my attention; and also angry people talking makes me anxious. I have been reading James White’s book about Catholicism as you suggested (I stalled, but plan to pick it up again), so I do know some of what he argues, and how he argues, at least in print. I know many Reformed people take this “no compromise ever” attitude. But my question is this, and this is why I could never get on board with anyone in that camp when I was searching: How can anyone be so confident in their own interpretation of Scripture, their own understanding of God’s truth, as to warrant the total rejection and shunning of anyone who believes even somewhat differently? (If this isn’t what they are suggesting, then I guess I need to watch the video. But I know R.C. Sproul and the like have rejected even the “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” declaration, which acknowledges our differences in doctrine and doesn’t “compromise” any one of them; it is only “compromise” in the sense of agreeing to disagree for the sake of fighting our common cultural battles. This is the kind of “no compromise” attitude to which I’m referring.) How can anyone be so self-assured in something which, it must be admitted, leaves some questions open to differing interpretations — so as to say, “My interpretation is the only one, and anyone who interprets differently is not only wrong, but unworthy of my communion, and should be separated from any conversation or cooperation”? That’s my essential problem with sola scriptura: by what standing, what authority, can anyone proclaim to know the truth so absolutely?

  2. the name “no compromise” radio isn’t exactly what it might sound like. Abendroth says at the end of the video that people compromise, but Jesus never did. He never sinned. The title isn’t about the people on the show. Also, it isn’t an angry, ranting session. They are calmly and rationally asking questions and talking things out.

    I don’t think any of these men would suggest shunning people. I certainly don’t. I reject doctrine that goes against the Bible, not the people presenting it. I believe that the Bible is the inspired and inerrant revelation that was given to us by God. It is the authority for my life. My confidence is in the Scriptures themselves, not in me. I listen to teachers and preachers, but I compare what they say to the Bible (the whole of it, not just a given verse or chapter) because they are fallible people capable of mistakes. I personally think the Bible is clear on certain essential subjects, but may be difficult to comprehend in others. And in non-essential doctrines I can see room for differences as long as both views are Biblically informed.

    I’m not sure that answers your question, but I hope it helps.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s