Recap (Jun 20-26)

Saturday, June 26th, 2010 at 11:59 pm

On bekahcubed

Book Reviews:

  • The Courteous Cad by Catherine Palmer

    “I’ve mentioned my enjoyment of Regency romances at least once before. So when I saw what looked to be a romance from a Christian publisher (amazing how the covers just glare “Christian romance”, isn’t it?) with the title The Courteous Cad, I knew I wanted to read it. With the word “Cad” in the title, it had to be a Regency.”

    Read the rest of my review.

    • Whom Not to Marry by Father Pat Connor

      “Are you a single lady seeking to discover whether the man you’re dating is “marriage material”? Are you trying to decide whether you should commit to marriage with him?

      Allow me to summarize Father Pat Connor’s advice to you in three words: “Don’t do it.””

      Read the rest of my review.

    Photo Albums:


    On the web

    Books for the TBR list:

    • Scratch Beginnings by Adam Shepard
      What would you do if all you had was $25, a sleeping bag, and the clothes you’re wearing right now–and had to make a life for yourself? I hope I never find myself in that situation, but Adam Shepard chronicles his year long experiment in which he does exactly that. I’m eager to read this book!

    News to take note of:

    • Intimacy, empathy decrease as social media overtakes face-to-face communication

      “It’s possible that instead of fostering real friendships off-line, e-mail and social networking may take the place of them — and the distance inherent in screen-only interactions may breed feelings of isolation or a tendency to care less about other people. After all, if you don’t feel like dealing with a friend’s problem online, all you have to do is log off.”


    Thought-provoking posts:
    The following are a collection of three arguments about TULIP’s “L”–limited atonement (which states that Christ died for the sins of the elect, but not for the sins of the non-elect). I found all three of these articles via Justin Taylor’s Primer on Limited Atonement.

    • Justin Taylor weighs in on the “pro” side, citing logical arguments, quoting John Owens, Loraine Boettner, and John Piper

      “In other words, it is impossible to reconcile the proposition ‘Christ paid the punishment for all the sins of all people’ with the idea that ‘Some people will pay the punishment for their sin in hell.'”

      This argument is a very good logical argument for a theology of limited atonement. I can see the quoted authors’ perspectives that both Calvinism and Arminianism limit atonement: one limiting it quantitatively, the other limiting it qualitatively.

    • Randy Alcorn weighs in on the “con” side, citing Scripture.

      “Furthermore, 2 Peter 2:1 speaks of false teachers who bring swift destruction on themselves, and describes them as “denying the sovereign Lord who bought them.” Either Christ died for all men, including those who aren’t elect, or the false teachers who bring destruction on themselves are elect. I just don’t know how else to interpret this passage.”

      Very good point–the “whole world” doesn’t mean “whole world” argument doesn’t really hold up here.

      “Whether we like it or not, there seem to be two components in salvation, first Christ’s provision of the gift and second our acceptance of the gift. Regardless of our profound failure to understand how those work, and what we may believe about the extent of free will or how He empowers us to choose salvation, Scripture itself does not demand that Christ’s death to offer us a gift automatically saves us, only that it offers us salvation that we may or may not accept. “Whosoever will may come”—well, if Christ didn’t die for him, can he come or not? (Of course, I believe that due to depravity and election and grace, we cannot accept it on our own, but only through a drawing, convicting, supernatural work of the Spirit.)”

      My current viewpoint probably stands closest to this four-point position espoused by Alcorn (not that I’m not open to having God conform my mind!)

    • Doug Wilson weighs in on the “pro” side, citing postmillenialism (of all things).

      “So I don’t want Calvinists to throw away their logic, or as Alcorn put it, their “western” logic. I want them to pick it up. Follow it out farther. No points without five points, yes. And no five points without the sixth point of postmillennialism. This means the starchiest five-point amill guy is in the same logical position as the four-pointers.”

      I don’t have much of an opinion on eschatology (except that if premillenialism is correct, I’m gonna expect a post-tribulation rapture)–but I don’t understand Wilson’s line of reasoning at all. I don’t feel he developed his argument well enough that I can even comment on it. Okay, so postmillenialism is the answer–How?

    Yes, maybe I’m a bit obsessed with Calvinism these days–the joys of coming from an Arminian background but being profoundly dissatisfied with the low view of God (and God’s sovereignty) that the Arminian argument allows or even encourages.

    Videos worth seeing:

Reader Comments (1):

  1. Rachel says:

    You know what they call a “not quite Arminian” but “not quite Calvinist,” right? A Lutheran!

Leave a Reply