A link or two a day...

It's nice to see Peter Kirk blogging again, especially when he says things like he did today:

The furore about Rob Bell’s book “Love Wins” has drawn a lot of attention to hell. But surely we Christians should be focusing our attention elsewhere. For John Wesley was surely right...

By salvation I mean, not barely, according to the vulgar notion, deliverance from hell, or going to heaven; but a present deliverance from sin, a restoration of the soul to its primitive health, its original purity; a recovery of the divine nature; the renewal of our souls after the image of God, in righteousness and true holiness, in justice, mercy, and truth.

— From John Wesley’s “A Further Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion

<idle musing>
Yes. We would do well to dig a bit more into Wesley; he had a better grasp of salvation than many today. Of course, when you look at the reformers, you find they were not just concerned with salvation by grace, but with sanctification by the power of the Holy Spirit, too. Why did that part get lost by many who claim descent from them today?
</idle musing>

Wise words from Larry Hurtado and David Meadows about the latest "find" in the Middle East—and just in time for Easter, too. How convenient. Here's Hurtado's words:

I don’t like being played with when it comes to scholarly issues. I don’t see the point of fellow scholars speculating in the press as to what these items “might” be. Why play into the game of those who hold the items and could, if they really wish to do so, simply make them available for competent analsys? I understand that it’s flattering for scholars to be approached by the press for comment on something (anything!). But instead, we should all simply say, “No comment until the items are placed into the hands of competent experts.” I tire quickly of the self-serving antics of the people who claim to be in possession of items of great scholarly significance but prefer to conduct their business through press releases instead of inviting competent testing and analysis.

<idle musing>
Maybe Eisenbrauns should publish everything in lead? Our tomes are weighty enough :)
</idle musing>

Roger Olson is clarifying the difference between a neo-fundamentalist and what he calls postconservative Evangelicals (I would just call them traditional Evangelicals...):

The neo-fundamentalists are recognizable among the conservatives by their aggressive behavior toward fellow evangelicals, their willingness sometimes to use underhanded means to “win,” their inclusion of non-essentials of doctrine among the essentials of Christian orthodoxy and their obsession with “evangelical boundaries” with the clear intention of excluding people from evangelicalism who grew up in it, have always been part of it, are influential within it, but whom they consider doctrinally unsound using extremely narrow definitions of doctrinal soundness.

<idle musing>
A sane voice! Do read all of this and other recent stuff he's posted. He may be a voice crying in the wilderness, but he needs to be heard.
</idle musing>