Here are a couple of new blogs to add to your blogroll...

First one is Andreas Kostenberger's blog which you can find here, though you can't comment in the usual way or permalink to posts. He has a couple of interesting posts on there, including a response to Ben Witherington's proposals about the role of women in 1 Timothy and also a post on the authorship of John.

He argues for Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel, though I'm not so sure myself. I certainly think it's likely that John was the source behind the Gospel, but that John himself wrote it has one or two problems in my view. Why no mention of the transfiguration, for example? It was a crucial event that only Peter, James, and John were eyewitnesses to, and it would seem odd that John would choose to omit if he did write the Fourth Gospel, though there are many other details in the Gospel that do point to eyewitness testimony. It's an interesting discussion...anyone care to post on it? (Hat-tip Jeremy Pierce)

In theology there's a new blog (to me anyway) dedicated to the study of the work of P T Forsyth run by Jason Goroncy who is engaged in doctoral studies at St. Andrews. Two very good posts are this one on biblical inerrancy and this one made me chuckle.

I'm overwhelmed by essays and deadlines at the moment so most of my blogging is going to just be posting essays. This one is on the warning passages in Hebrews, which are always interesting to read and write on because they're so controversial. I took the interesting (though still perhaps slightly dubious) view that the fiery judgments that the Hebrews are in danger of are not referring to eternal judgment but to the destruction of Jerusalem and the rest of the Land in AD 70. It seems to make sense in many ways, though its still problematic in others.

I had a little chuckle to myself while researching this one. Wayne Grudem argues a conservative Reformed viewpoint that Heb 6:4-6 does not refer to genuine believers, since it is impossible for the truly saved to fall away. Tom Schreiner (also conservative and Reformed) disagrees with Grudem's exegesis and says it makes no sense of the warning passages - but then goes on to say that Grudem has his theology right, but that he's just using the wrong texts to prove it (!). Is it just me or is that incredibly odd? I mean if texts don't support your theology, then surely you should just change your theology rather than simply choose a different set of texts? Hmm.

Anyhow, you can read my paper here.

If only we'd been taught the canons of the Council of Orange in Sunday School, we would be rid of silly and time consuming debates about how our free-will decisions for Jesus saved us. They didn't:

CANON 3. If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of human prayer, but that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God, he contradicts the prophet Isaiah, or the Apostle who says the same thing, "I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me" (Rom 10:20, quoting Isa. 65:1).

CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, "The will is prepared by the Lord" (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, "For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13).

I like this one the best: 

CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, "For apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, "Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God" (2 Cor. 3:5).

I spent the whole weekend revising for my Greek test which actually didn't go too badly in the end, though it's nice to have it out of the way. I'm not surpised that Greek civilisation died out, they probably had to spend so long parsing their verbs and figuring out what tense they were all speaking in that they never got anything done and were woefully unprepared when the efficient Latin speaking Romans decided to conquer them.

I have another essay to write by Friday on the warning passages in Hebrews which has proved to be quite a challenge on several levels and it's taking ages to finish so blogging might be a bit light this week.

Ever wondered how the Bible went from being a collection of ancient papyri into the text we have now? Well here's a fascinating cartoon that er...'explains' how we're basically all going to hell because we don't read the KJV. Such arguments hardly need refuting but they're fun to read. Go here and see how:

* The Apochrypha were devised by Satan to support Roman Catholic doctrine.

* Codex Vaticanus is proof that Satan is active in the formation of the canon of scripture

* Westcott and Hort were 'closet Catholics' and thus tools of Satan, obviously.

I especially like the scene where the guy who hears criticism of the KJV says "now I don't know what to believe anymore." Hehe. How about "in the Lord Jesus Christ?" Remember kids: "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and then he turned into the Textus Receptus instead."