Today marks the sixth anniversary of the day the whole world knows as 9/11. Consequently, there are reflections and discussions circulating on blogs and news sites.
Here are some of the things I’ve come across:
John Piper writes about “Three 9/11’s We Need to Know,” 9/11/2001, 9/11/1857, and 9/11/20??. Abraham Piper points to several other resources by John Piper relating to 9/11:
The bigger issue, Page said, is that members of local churches have taken to using blogs to carry on bitter debates about problems within their own congregations.
“It just presents a very poor and very public airing of the dirty laundry in church business,” he said. “I’m trying to tell churches, please, let’s deal with our problems in a more civil and, yes, more private fashion.”
What started out as an interchange between Wayne Grudem and John Piper developed into a discussion involving 9Marks’s Mark Dever and Aaron Menikoff. The dialog—no longer really a back-and-forth debate—continues.
Abraham Piper raises the question of whether Baptists should consider paedobaptists as unrepentant sinners, which seems to be the necessary conclusion if, from the Baptist’s perspective, non-first-generation paedobaptists are failing to obey the Scriptural teaching to be baptized after conversion. It would seem logically that, if they are sinning unrepentantly, they are destined for hell.
Last week we highlighted the back and forth between Wayne Grudem and John Piper on the subject of baptism—particularly if Baptists should allow paedobaptists into membership.
The discussion was spurred by Grudem’s rewriting his section “Do Churches Need to Be Divided Over Baptism?” in his Systematic Theology. Piper didn’t like the changes that Grudem made. Grudem responded to Piper, holding his ground (even though his very own wife was on Piper’s side!).
There’s been a lot of buzz on the web about the New Perspective on Paul (Wikipedia | Theopedia) in the last couple of weeks. Here’s a roundup of what I’ve come across:
It’s hard not to miss it. There’s been a significant resurgence in Calvinism in both evangelicalism and fundamentalism. Blogs, websites, books, conferences—Calvinists are popping up everywhere.
At Bob Jones University where I received undergraduate and seminary degrees, dozens of men were going in with Arminian or middle-of-the-road leanings and coming out four- or five-point Calvinists. The trend was unmistakable, especially among the seminary guys and often after taking Systematic Theology. You might be suspecting that this was the result of the persuasive arguments of an unflinching five-point Calvinist faculty, but for most part the faculty members warned against the dangers of Calvinism—at least the five-point kind.
He has since changed his position and rewritten the section—seeing the position of compromise at inherently problematic based on the fact that two views on baptism as mutually exclusive.
We often take a very negative approach to fighting sin: don’t lie because it is wrong, or don’t lust because God forbids it. These are true, but don’t go far enough, nor do they represent the fullness of the teaching of Scripture. Furthermore, they often prove ineffective. Our sinful hearts bristle at naked restrictions.
Today marks the sixth anniversary of the day the whole world knows as 9/11. Consequently, there are reflections and discussions circulating on blogs and news sites.
.
The 
Here are today’s bullet points:
What started out as 
Last week 
There’s been a lot of buzz on the web about the New Perspective on Paul (
It’s hard not to miss it. There’s been a significant resurgence in Calvinism in both evangelicalism and fundamentalism. Blogs, websites, books, conferences—Calvinists are popping up everywhere.
We often take a very negative approach to fighting sin: don’t lie because it is wrong, or don’t lust because God forbids it. These are true, but don’t go far enough, nor do they represent the fullness of the teaching of Scripture. Furthermore, they often prove ineffective. Our sinful hearts bristle at naked restrictions.