http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=1122

For a quick review, a worldview is a set of lenses which one looks through to understand the world around him.  It is a person’s understanding of how matter works, what is the nature of the supernatural, what is at the core of human existence, what happens after death, etc.

Materialism is the view that attempts to explain everything by purely natural phenomenons and does away with the spiritual- ie: man is just matter- salts and minerals- and will return to salts and minerals upon death.  This view shaped the policies of Soviet Russia, and has been addressed prayerfully from the Christian perspective in Richard Wurmbrand’s Tortured for Christ. 

One powerful refutation of materialism comes in the book where a simple factory worker stands up against a lecturer stating that man is only salts and minerals and will return to such on death.  The worker asks to speak after the lecture.  Permission is granted and he stands up, throws his chair down and stares at it.  Then he walks up to the lecturer and strikes him in the face.  The lecturer becomes irate and demands his arrest.  When questioned about his actions, the worker explains, “When I threw the chair down, it did nothing, it was just matter.  When I struck you, you became angry.  Man is more than matter, we are spiritual beings!”

The pateint has the trauma.  You treat them.  You are not the one with the overdose or trauma at the end of the day.  It is someone else.

The praticality comes when applying this to theology.  As I’ve put my ear to the culture and listened to doctrines, more influenced by the spirit of the age than the Spirit of Christ, I’ve come away feeling the maladies.  Denial of Hell, diplomacy on the virgin birth, denial on the penal substitutionary atonement, mitigation sin, mitigation of the deity of Christ, etc.  I’ve come away feeling queasy myself.  Then I remembered, at the end of the day, the patient has the problem.  I remembered, you don’t defend a lion, you turn it loose; you loose the cure for all maladies of theological traumas, the Word of God, and let it speak itself.  God’s breath cuts and pierces and treats these maladies better than any surgeon’s scalpel.  I don’t need to address every scoffer that comes around, but I need to be ready to turn the scalpel loose on those who would here and be quickened under its power.

“Call-Girl Centerfold? Penthouse magazine wants woman at center of Eliot Spitzer call-girl scandal”

Shameless exhibition is too trite of a phrase to describe this situation, but nothing more fitting is coming to mind.  It’s sad that the sin that will change the life of three daughters and a wife is now being exalted and spread, to dissolve more marriages and marr more lives.  What good came from it the first time?  Why is it still being spread?  Paul’s answer two thousand years ago is timely.  We have forgotten God and been given over to his gifts, which we have in turn exalted and made our Gods.  Like the plague that fell on Israelite exiles who were given meat until they could eat no more because of their complaining, we are in a land diseased with its lusting.  It’s no longer secret, it’s no longer shameful.  Listen to Paul’s words:

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

Romans 1:24-25

Paul’s solution to our problem:

•  if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved (Rom 10:9-10).
• So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! (Rom 10:21-25a). 

Sex has become an area of life like life itself.  Rather than asking why it is there, we jump in and indulge.  Science asks some questions, but is too satisfied with the superficial answers and misses the question. 

It’s clear that human suffering is bad.  It’s clear that STDs are a form of suffering and are bad for us.  Like science’s bent on evolution, it observes and takes note of species mutations, then sidesteps the profound inquiry of the child, “What came first, the chicken or the egg?”  Science traces a line back in time past the chicken, past the egg, and then fading into obscurity as time and matter and chance simmer into primordial goop.  It misses again on why human languages differ, sidestepping the basics of Babel and appealing to ape dialectics.

But maybe in the end STDs aren’t a result of inadequate screening or vaccination.  Maybe if we taught and saw and felt that long ago we turned away from God to create our lives and ended up under his curse, we might get further than if we put a screening facility in every high school and vaccinated every child.  Maybe we’d identify the result of depression and disease and a thousand other anomalies resulting from plundering the prize of sex from the trophy house of marriage to the squalor of the slums.  Maybe, just maybe, if we taught and ackowledged that sex outside of marriage should be opposed as the desire to murder and rape and steal, we might find a backbone to fight it and reduce the devestations of STDs and abortions.  There is to sex the creative force that tells us we were ourselves created and are ourselves accountable for our creating.  And Jesus is the creator of us and sex and the one to heal and clean us from any sexual sin, if only we would acknowledge to him our sin and struggles- that we can never vaccinate or screen or prevent enough- having made such a pollution of his gifts, and ask for him to teach us who he is and who we are and to follow his prescribed limits for his gifts. 

“Yet you are he who took me from the womb; you made me trust you at my mother’s breasts,”  (Ps 22:7-9).

As Easter nears, remember that Jesus always trusted God during the incarnation.  From his mother’s womb, from his mother’s breasts.   And remember, ’no deceit was found in his mouth’… ever. 

Jesus’s trusting of God allowed God’s will to be accomplished through his life.  God’s will was his death. 

Sometimes if circumstances seem unjust, unfair, overwhelming- not as a cause of disobedience but a result of obedience - it may be God’s hand moving to bloom the fruit of fruition. 

William Cowper, a sickly saint acquainted with a suicidal darkness noted on the mysterious movements of God, ”His purposes will ripen fast, unfolding every hour.  The bud may have a bitter taste, but sweet will be the flower.”

Don’t lose hope of the divine flower of God bringing his work to completion in your life.

Enjoy:

The state of men in many places:

In Seattle, the young men are, generally, pathetic. They are unlikely to go to church, get married, have children, or do much of anything else that smacks of being responsible. But they are known to be highly skilled at smoking pot, masturbating, playing video games, playing air guitar, free-loading, and having sex with their significant others… If there is any hope for a kingdom culture to be built in Seattle, getting the young men to undergo a complete cranial-rectal extraction is priority number one.[1]

 Leadership

P.T. Forsyth says that hierarchy- the placing of one above another-not was meant not for privilege, prerogative, favoritism, or dominion, but for leadership.  And leadership means service, sacrifice, help, uplifting, redemption, and a cross.  Leadership is not meant to exploit, but to lift; not to exterminate, but to rescue; not to rend, but redeem; not to devour, but to carry; not for primacy, but for priority.  It means, in the last analysis, obedience, service, even death, for the sake of others.[2]

 Can women still influence men for Christ in areas of deep passion and conviction?

It is obvious that we cannot and should not prohibit women from influencing men.  For example, prayer is certainly a God-appointed means women should use to get men to where God wants them to be.  Praying women exert far more power in this world than all political leaders put together.  This kind of powerful influence is compounded immensely when one considers the degree to which the world is shaped and guided by the effects of how men and women are formed by their mothers.  This influence is perhaps more effective than all the leadership of men put together[3]

Women, then, have engaged in significant ministries, even if those ministries were unofficial.  One thinks of Abigail in I Samuel 25.  Abigail was not a prophetess and had no other official ministry that we know of.  Nevertheless, her humble and gentle advice to David persuaded him not to kill Nabal.  How many unrecorded events there must be of women persuading men, humbly and gently, to pursue a more righteous course!  What a good model this story is for traditionalists who think being a leader means they must always know the truth and that their opinion is always right.  David was certainly the leader in this account, but his humility is evident in that he listened to Abigail and was persuaded.  For women, Abigail is a model of gentle and humble persuasion.  There was no stridency or imperiousness about her manner.  She was winsome, yet bold.

            The unofficial ministries of women, therefore, are of great importance, and some men, by desiring leadership for its status and power as the Gentiles do (Mark 10:42ff.), have contributed to the idea that these ministries are insignificant.  Such a secular concept of ministry has done great damage in Christ’s church.[4]

- pg 210

There are so many ministries today in which a woman can advance the cause of Christ and righteousness!  I will list a few here so that one can get some idea of the wide scope available: engaging in personal witnessing and joining campus organizations committed to spreading the gospel, ministering to the sick and elderly, fighting against abortion, fighting against pornography, helping with literacy, writing to government leaders to support the cause of righteousness, helping with disabled, aiding the poor, ministering in prisons, counseling and praying with the troubled and confused, supporting missionaries and the church financially, visiting newcomers to the church, extending hospitality to the lonely, using artistic gifts by ministering in music, the visual arts, drama, and theater, helping in youth ministry, etc.[5]

Have you realized that most of your unhappiness in life is due to the fact thyat you are listening to yourself instead of talking to yourself?  Take those thoughts that come to you the moment you wake up in the morning.  You have not originated them but they are talking to you, they bring back the problems of yesterday, etc.  Somebody is talking.  Who is talking to you?  Your self is talking to you.  Now this man’s treatment [in Psalm 42] was this: instead of allowing this self to talk to him, he starts talking to himself.  “Why art thou cast down, O my soul?” he asks.  His soul has been depressing him, crushing him.  So he stands up and says: “Self, listen for a moment, I will speak to you.”

The city of Mansoul is visited by Diabolus (Satan) and Incredulous (Unbelief) in this classic.  With Innocence and Resistance destroyed by the enemies of Mansoul, the city soon is taken captive through the Eye Gate and Ear Gate.

Lord Will be Will takes charge as Reason and Understanding are deposed and imprisoned.

This is the stage in John Bunyan’s Holy War.  An allegory depicting the story of stories- the creation of man, his exile from Eden, and God’s ensuing, pursuing love to deliver him from the corruption of his rebellion even as evil is leavened throgh the flesh of man.  With sobering scences and comical characters- the diabolianians, once identified within the city, crucified atop the city gates in full view of Diabolus in the vein of Colossians 3 “mortify your members” (KJV) ”put to death whatever is earthly inside of you” or of Mr. Godly Fear and Mr. Carnal Delight- it can be explained to children and doubles as a primer on spiritual warfare. 

The story being told in terms like this is one of the best ways to awaken a knowledge to the truth and a sense of urgency.  As Bunyan commented elsewhere, Praying in the Spirit, one of the best ways to teach children [or anyone] to pray isn’t giving them some creed or scripted prayer, but to tell them, “of damnation and of salvation… of how to avoid the one and enjoy the other…”  This manner of teaching, he says, will be the quickest way to elicit hearty groans flowing from their hearts and chests, to teach them to pray in the Spirit, and to deliver them from the hypocrisy of those who “honor God with their lips while their hearts are far from him.” 

Before picking up the latest “bestseller” think about what are some of the best sayers of the truth.  Will that book on the New York Time’s list persist as a wealth of wisdom and warning in 100 years, or will it crumble away within a generation awaiting the next fad?  Take a step back in time and see that as we hit the big themes, “there is nothing new under the sun.” 

When it comes time to read, Joel R. Beeke says in Feed My Sheep, ask yourself whether or not that book will increase your love for God, help you to conquer sin, or if your time could be better spent reading another book.  For me, this book has been instrumental in appreciating the spiritual war in the heavenlies all around-seeing the enemy of soul’s tempting and entreating entrance at each of the five sesnes-, in awakening an urgency to the battle, equipping with a practicality against it, and in sensing the love and joy of God for his people.

Find out now! 

The Egalitarian view seeks the inclusion of women in all areas of ministry based on the following observations from Scripture:

1) Calling roles or distinctions into question based on gender is wrong and like doing so based on ethnicity (Jew or Greek) or social status (slave or free)

• Galatians 3:28- No distinctions in Christ between men and women

2) A woman apostle is acknowledged by Paul

• Rom 16:7- Junia, the latino disciple

3) Women play a prophetic role in the Old Testament (ex: Deborah, Miriam, etc.), and are foretold to prophesy after the Ascension (Acts 2:17-18).

4) Women are referred to as “fellow-workers” with Paul, the same way Timothy, Titus, and other male disciples.

5) Women serve in the office of deacon in the New Testament (Rom 16:1)

The complementaria argument views men and women as being designed to fit together not only biologically in marriage, but also emotionally and in various roles.:

Humans are created male and female as nature is night and day, sea and land. 

Both are:

• Equally valuable
• Equally fallen
• Equally needing of a savior

Men are designed to initiate and lead

Women are designed to nurture, receive, and affirm

  Questions for Discussion:

• Is the egalitarian interpretation of Galatians 3:28 the best one?
• What else is suggested by the immediate context of Galatians 3:28?
• How do these observations relate to Paul’s instruction for church governance?

On the other side:

• Do complementarians realize we are in the 21^st century?
• Doesn’t the complementarian view just continue to exploit, demean, and repress women?

Brief Response to points 1-5 of Egalitarian position

1) Context in Gal 3 is not addressing / defining what it means to be a man or woman.  This does not, for example, mean that no distinction should be made between men and women, say in marriage (ie: “No longer male no female” does not apply to marriage covenant and does not throw out Paul’s advice to husbands and wives in Eph 5, it does not mean since there is no longer male nor female, that marriage can now apply to a man and a man or a woman and a woman).

Elsewhere (Titus 2, I Timothy 2, etc.) Paul lays out clear distinctions for structure of church. 

Gal 3:28 in context is referring to equal fallenness, need of savior, and value in God’s eyes of Jews, Gentiles, slaves, masters, men and women.

This does not support egalitarian position.

2) Woman apostle can have several different translations.  Jesus had no woman apostle.  Was his failure to due to cultural / traditional structure and pressure?  If so, why did he heal on a Sabbath, not have his disciples observe washing before eating, feed “crumbs” to a Gentile, etc.?  Was having a woman disciple too controversial for him? 
One phrase that is obscure, is not enough to base the egalitarian position on.

3) Women did play role of prophet and will continue to prophesy.  However, they never were priests or elders in the Old Testament and are forbidden from teaching / usurping power from men in I Timothy 2:12.  It’s unlikely that Paul’s argument against women teaching over men in I Tim 2:12 is only cultural, because he follows it up by appealing to the order in Creation (I Timothy 2:13-14).

4) Women are fellow workers and should be treated as such.  This does not mean each worker has the same role.

5) Women may have been deacons, and were definitely instructed to teach each other and younger women in the faith (Titus 2)

Spiritual gifts: Spiritual gifts are given generously throughout the church (I Cor 12-14), but they are still regulated.  Women are still endowed with spiritual gift of teaching, but that should come in proper context, just as speaking in tongues has a certain context where, when it’s not obeyed, is not building up Christ’s body (I Cor 14:6-25).

Many of the above points were researched and clarified, much more exhaustively by Tom Schreiner in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem.

1) Egalitarian- There should be no gender distinction in roles of men and women in the function or leadership of the church, to include ordination of women, or in society in general; in marriage the wife and husband not only are created equal as female and male, but there is no biblically-prescribed hierarchy giving the husband any authority over the wife.

2) Complementarian- God has created men and women equal in their essential dignity and human personhood, but different and complementary in function with male headship in the home and in the Church.”  Men are expected to take spiritual responsibility, often called “headship,” for leadership in the home and in the church. Women are restricted from holding the teaching office of the church and from spiritual leadership in the home and in marriage.

I am a complementarian.  I believe that is what the Bible teaches.  I am ok with people disagreeing with me.  I don’t see its teaching as a salvation issue, but I do see it as an issue of healthy doctrine and I would divide from a church with a woman pastor.

Egalitarian Approach

Men and women are each created with authority over nature, Men and women are created inherently equal in their capacities to serve and lead, and negating an office of authority based on gender parallels the horrors of owning slaves and the horrors of racism.

Here are some points and Scriptures egalitarians frame their theology on:

1) Calling roles or distinctions into question based on gender is wrong and like doing so based on ethnicity (Jew or Greek) or social status (slave or free)

• Galatians 3:28- No distinctions in Christ between men and women

 2) A woman is acknowledged by Paul as an apostle

• Rom 16:27- Apostleship given to a woman

 3) Women play a prophetic role throughout the Bible

• Exod 15:20-21- Miriam is a prophetess and led the assembly of women in song
• II Kings 22:14-20- Huldah is a prophetess and is consulted by messengers of Josiah
• Judges 4:4-5- Deborah was a prophetess and a judge over men
• Luke 2:36-38- Anna served as a prophetess and spoke to the people of the savior who would redeem Jerusalem
• Acts 2:17-18; Joel 2:28-32- God’s spirit would cause both men and women to prophesy, both men and women to dream dreams

 4) Women are referred to as “fellow-workers” with Paul

• Romans 16:3- Priscilla referred to a fellow worker in Christ.  The same term is used for Timothy (Romans 16:21), Apollos (I Corinthians 2:9), Titus (II Corinthians 8:23), etc.

 5) Women serve in the office of deacon in the New Testament

• I Timothy 3:11
• Romans 16:1- Phoebe is referred to as a deacon

 Summary:

To summarize the egalitarian position, positions of authority are now obliterated based on gender as are racial and social positions (Galatians 3:28) in Christ.  Women serve throughout Scripture as prophetesses, are referred to as fellow-workers, serve as deacons in the church, and one was also noted as an apostle. 

 NEXT TIME:

• Is the egalitarian interpretation Galatians 3:28 the best one?
• What else is suggested by the immediate context of Galatians 3:28?
• How do these observations relate to Paul’s instruction for church governance?

Complementarian Approach

Complementarian view starts by looking at created structures in the beginning of Genesis and how they fit together or complement each other:

• Night and day (Gen 1:5)
• Sea and sky (Gen 1:6)
• Dry land and sea (Gen 1:10)
• Sun and stars (Gen 1:16)
• Day 6- Men and women (Gen 1:27)

 Other ideas of complements are:

• Peanut butter and jelly
• Hot fudge brownie and ice cream
• Bert and Ernie

 Gen 2- God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve

Gen 2:20- There was not a suitable helper fit for Adam.

Gen 2:18- God said he would make a helper fit for Adam

• Woman comes from man. 
• Woman fits man
• Man is given responsibility in naming woman

• Question: Is the way woman fits man only biological?
• Question: What, if anything, does Adam’s naming of Eve represent?

 Though both sinned, Adam is called out by God and is identified later in Scripture as the one in whom all sinned (he bears a special responsibility)

• Gen 3:9
• Rom 5:12-15

 Gen 3- Complementary curses

Curses attack strengths of each character

• Gen 3:16- curse on woman- pain in childbearing, desire for husband’s rule power (manipulation), he shall rule over her, woman will desire to rule over her husband
• Gen 3:17- curse of man- Will work ground in pain, in sweat of face fighting weeds, thorns, etc.

 Isaiah 3 Woman

Women in positions of authority over men is spoken of as being chaotic and an inversion of order

• Isaiah 3:12- Women ruling paralleled to infants in charge of the people

 Authority and vows

Men bear responsibility for their vows before God while women’s vows can be negated by their husbands or fathers

• Numbers 30

 Other issues to look at: Instructions for church governance (qualifications for elders / overseers, headship in marriage- Eph 5) FOR NEXT POST:

• Do complementarians hate women? (No, next question)
• What are the implications of this view / How does this play out in everyday life?
• Is complementarianism really just modern misogyny?

How are the roles, outlined in the egalitarian view for women of prophetess, apostle, deacon assimilated into the complementarian view?

Much of the analysis of this is taken from Tom Schriener in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.  ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem.  Thanks for the great work and analysis by the men and women in that book.

At a recent meeting, I saw a mock sketch of the church budget:

• 30% building fund
• 20% facilities maintenance
• 25% missions and community outreach
• 25% staff salaries

20% of every offering dollar going to repalce light bulbs and clean toilets and take out garbage?  Could we just run this off of volunteers? 

“Well no,” the pastor said, “in my experience that hasn’t worked.”

For the gospel to be preached and taught on a regular basis, order and structure is a really valuable thing.  To have gas, electric, phones puts the church in touch with the community and a place for the community to come in and fellowship.

Then it hit me.  Not all of my life is prayer or small groups or Sunday sermons or teaching Bible lessons.  Those are good things, but there are bills to be paid, a house to be maintained, etc.  In everything of life, do it to the glory of God.  It cleared my conscience of the guilt of not spending more time in the Bible when I need to fix a broken appliance or do laundry or do some little things, but those are part of the ~20% of my budget to maintain my life.  Aside from that, there’s the physical body to be a steward of as “You are not your own, you were bought for a price,” and “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit?” 

So though I’m a little slow, I’m learning and having my conscience cleared to be ok doing some of the more mundane things in life.

Tonight at Communion as I was thinking about Jesus and his disciples, I thought soberly about God’s forgiveness.   Jesus knew what Peter would do, he knew of his coming denial, he knew of the abandonment of the rest, the betrayal by Judas, but he still ate with them. 

A couple weeks ago, my pastor asked a question for reflection, “Would God love me if he really knew me?”

Jesus really knew Peter.  Peter was about to curse and deny him.  But Jesus really loved Peter.  Jesus really loved his disciples.  Jesus really loves his disciples. 

Looking at this, can anything, as Paul asked, separate us from the love of God, the past or present, angels or demons, rulers, authorities or anything else in creation?

Run to God with your denial and fear and shame.

He already knows. 

Perhaps in this act, by Peter being sifted like wheat, Jesus agreed to the terms of Satan, that the hypocrisy might be filtered from Peter’s life.  So, by the pulverizing and filtering of this man did Jesus purify and use him, ground to a powdery consistency, to spread his kingdom.  So does he rid Paul of grounds for boasting by allowing a demon to torment him and tell the apostle, “my power is sufficient for you… my power is perfected in weakness.” 

And so does He take us, with this, that, or another pride or boast, leavened through the life, and purify the heart.  Praying for our faith and holding us sure as the enemy assaults, in some hour of darkness, does he then pull out the leaven from the broken pile of dust that would not be extracted from the whole life.  So does brother James admonish and encourage disciples to “be joyful when facing trials of many kinds” and Paul encourage us that, “suffering ends in hope, filled with the love of God.”  And it says, “no discipline at the time seems pleasant, but later it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness,” because the purifying is humiliating and painful.  But later, when we have a more fair estimation of ourselves, do we thank God and enter into trials with, or at least learn to come from them in hindsight, with joy. 

“Strike the shepherd and the sheep will be scattered,” Isaiah tells us.  Make it look like God is in a vice and can’t get escape, as Peter watching his master betrayed, and we are robbed of hope and curse and deny.  But God’s always was and always is the power and he knows what he is doing.  And his power, even in it’s foolishness, is wiser than the wisdom of men.  Follow him and let him do the sifting and disciplining, and trust him with what he is doing.  Amen

You don’t defend the doctrines of Scripture, passed down from God through angels and miracles and his Son, to men, you turn them loose.

The virgin birth is one of the clearest teachings in Scripture.  Listen to the words of God:
 

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

…In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin’s name was Mary. And he came to her and said, “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!” But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.”

 And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?”

 And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy— the Son of God. And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. For nothing will be impossible with God.” And Mary said, “Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.

Luke 1:1-4,26-35

Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”  All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:
  “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us). When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.

Matthew 1:18-24

A few observations:

• The angel of the Lord visited a virgin
• Mary was assured she would conceive by the power of God. 
• Joseph was not yet married to Mary
• Joseph was ready to leave Mary because it appeared she was pregnant in the natural way.
• Jesus, son of God, son of man, came to take away our sins!

Between several jobs (two to three) and not having internet at home, blogging has not been the most accessible tool or relevant use of my time.  That, and I’ve had to take a step back from the books and theology I love to read and step into other’s lives. 

Some questions for you to chew on:

What is “the gospel”?

What would be the one or two overarching takeaways you would want to instill into a disciplee?

Is the difference between men and women only physiological?

What, if anything, are the differences in roles of men and women in the ministry?

I recently (a month or so ago) left my cushy engineering job and have been working 2 part time gigs locally, while continuing my seminary studies. I also moved apartments this summer and no longer have internet access at home. Further, my wife is 1 week overdue w/ our first child.

So, somewhere between working two jobs, learning more greek and starting hebrew, and prepping the house for the first child, I have haven’t found time to write. I hope you haven’t been heartbroken without your (bi?) weekly dose of Chesterton. But here’s something that is encouraging that I read for class last night:

E. Earle Ellis in his contribution to Interpreting the New Testament Text (eds. Bock, Fanning), Chapter 23 on Colossians 1:12-20, says the following regarding the corporate and individual visions of redemption in the New Testament:

“Col. 1:12-14 sets forth the same present eschatology [as other corporately salvific passages in Paul], but does this not, as in Romans 5-8 and in Ephesians 2, in terms of a corporate inclusion of all God’s chosen ones in Christ’s death, resurrection, and exaltation in AD 33, but in terms of an individual incorporation into him at one’s conversion. (footnote to O’Brien, Colossians…pg. 27)… In God’s gracious purpose the individual actualization, although temporally separated, does not exclude the prior corporate reality. Nor is the prior corporate reality independent of the later individual actualization. Both are complementary parts of one inseparable whole whose fulfillment is as certain as the character and the word of God himself.”(pg. 424)

I don’t know if anybody else will dig this quote, but Ellis’ exposition in Interpreting was 13 pages of dynamite. If you’re preaching on Col. 1:12-20, check this chapter out.

Here’s another indispensable basic truth you must know and understand about healing: It’s never God’s will for us to be sick; He wants every person healed every time. That’s nearly-too-good-to-be-true news, but that’s the Gospel. Most Christians don’t know or believe that. They think the Lord makes them sick, or at the very least, He allows Satan to make them sick to either punish or correct them. That kind of thinking will get you killed; it’s not what the Bible teaches. Full article here

If a person really believed that God is the one who put sickness on them because He is trying to work something for good in their life, then they should not go to the doctor or take any medicine. That would be resisting God’s plans. They should let the sickness run its course and thereby get the full benefit of God’s correction. Of course, no one advocates that. That is absurd. It is even more absurd to believe that God is the one behind the tragedy. Full article here

Even with the new blog, I still plan on blogging here (as the groans come-a-flying). Lord willing, I would like to post something on here about once a week, maybe more.

Anyways, feel free to stop by my blog and say hi!

Whenever I do an in-depth study of a text I like to read it without headings, chapters, and at time verse numbers. This makes it easier for me to focus on the text and connect the thought flow of the writer.

Before, I would copy the text into a word file and go off and delete all the headings, chapters, etc. This process, at times, proved cumbersome. Now, I have discovered that you can do this on-line all by the simple click of a couple buttons.

First click on the options ling at the upper right hand of the page.

.

Next, it will bring you to an option menu, where you can customize the text that you’re reading or searching.

I have found these options to be very helpful for studying the Word.

Idolatry in my own life- I’ve always loved football growing up.  I felt God tug on my heart in college and barely watched football and specifically did not watch the Super Bowl in college.  Spending time with Jesus in the Word was better and that has not been taken away.  Many have much better examples and experiences, but I have found Jesus 10,000x better than the biggest sports game of the year.  May we continue to find Jesus better than sports or anything else. 

Idolatry to be done away- Driscoll hammers it with the restaurant and food illustrations.  Paul warns in Philippians 3, “many walk as enemies of the cross of Christ, their God is their belly, their end is destruction, with minds set on earthly things.”  It is a severe thing to seek first after food.  Where do I cross the lines in living to eat rather than eating to live?  I get up and am lethargic until I start to eat.  May I (and we) seek to eat to the glory of God (I Cor 10:31) with what he’s given, and not make an idol of food.

Each of us needs a model to process and deal with criticism.  We need to be able to process that which is true on the one hand while filtering out that which is bad and does not define us.  The Bible’s words to “be slow to speak and slow to anger,” are good to remember in moments of criticism.  There may be a grain of truth or a heap of truth in what we are being told. 

In the end, here are a few things to process comments.  First, we should remember that Satan means Accuser and he continually stands by to accuse Christians, BUT his power is gone.  The blood of Jesus, being washed in and refreshing your mind in what it means to be washed in the blood of Jesus means more than just we’re not condemned, but that we have a right standing with God (Rev 11:12, II Cor 5:21, Rom 8:1).  So if the comment is paralyzing you, plead the power of and refresh your mind on what is the power of Christ’s blood, repent of unrepented sin, and trust in God to justify you.  Study the Armor of God (Eph 6).  Are you saved from Hell and for Heaven (helmet)?  Are your words and actions girded with truth and integrity (belt)?  Study the rest of the armor!

So that is first.  But keep a few other practical notes in mind when being criticized.  How important is the comment?  Is dismantling something central to your beliefs, or is it rebuking a word of sarcasm, stylistic preference, or something else?  One of the above may have to be reconsidered, one may have to be repented of, and one can be shrugged aside and personal preference.  Next, consider the source- who is providing the criticism?  A close friend will require a much more thorough answer than a stranger off the street. 

With these as a few notes, may we be able to press on in heavenly journey and receive, process and throw off those criticisms which prod, pain, and paralyze and follow Christ as ones who have been set free!

            Last year when I tried to lead an 8^th grade small group, I found the boys were not often interested in what I had to say.  They were interested in kicking sand into a cloud of dust that blocked them from my view, blowing air horns when I talked, and turning their memory verse bookmarks into anything from aeronautical instruments to New Year’s Eve confetti.  How could I break through to them?

            The answer was easy but challenging.  I needed to step into their lives.  I went to one and then another one of their basketball games.  The tone changed in the small group and they started to listen and interact.  I needed to step into their lives, to see what they were passionate about, and to start to know who they were

            That time spilled over into this summer as they have gone into high school.  On a trip back from Colorado one of them asked me, “Larry, can we have small group tonight.”  I knew he was serious and I started to laugh and give thanks as we gathered and they led conversation discussing what changes they wanted to make and what they wanted to apply from experiencing God at camp.       

            Since a real faith is a practical faith and impacts those around thus, discipleship has meant leaving church for Bible study and getting something that will brighten someone’s day immediately after study.  It has meant accountability in setting goals- physical, social, and spiritual- each week.  It has meant pressing into the lives of students and seeing if and where there are areas they need to reconcile with a sibling or parent and to exhort them to do that.

            I could have talked about so much with the senior high ministry, from the garage sale where we raised over $4000, to the trip to Colorado where the power of the worship left several of the boys in tears, to the trip to New Orleans where strangers bought groceries for us in gratitude they had not been forgotten, to the service of students in anything from vacation Bible school to picking up trash at the Taste of Tippecanoe.  But as I review our work with them, discipleship, stepping into their lives, has been a crucial bridge to direct them on the Christian journey.

“The dichotomy which postmodern epistemology wants to force is one between knowing everything exhaustively or knowing nothing certainly at all.  And since it would be arrogant in the extreme to claim to know what God alone knows the only other option, it seems is to accept the fact that our knowledge is so socially conditioned, so determined by our own inability to escape our own reality, that we are left with no certain knowledge of reality at all.  This is the epistemological position accepted by Richard Middleton and Brian Walsh. All attempts at `getting reality’ right, they say, have proved to be failures and Christians should concede as much.”  Above All Earthly Powers, p. 158 (footnote 46)

For encouragement that we can be certain in what we know about God, see I John 2:26-27, “I write these things to you about those who are trying to deceive you.  But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you.  But as his anointing teaches you about evreything- and is true and is no lie,  just as it has taught you- abide in him” and also I John 5:20, “And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ.  He is the true God and eternal life” and Luke 1:3-5 “it seemed good to me… to write an orderly account for you… that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.”

Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.-Jude 3 One popular Christian author and pastor summarizes the idea of viewing doctrine (teaching) and specifically the virgin birth, the following way:What if tomorrow someone digs up definitive proof that Jesus had a real, earthly, biological father named Larry, and archeologists find Larry’s tomb and do DNA samples and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the virgin birth was really just a bit of mythologizing the Gospel writers threw in to appeal to the followers of the Mithra and Dionysian religious cults that were hugely popular at the time of Jesus, whose gods had virgin births? But what if, as you study the origin of the word “virgin” you discover that the word “virgin” in the gospel of Matthew actually comes from the book of Isaiah, and then you find out that in the Hebrew language at that time, the word “virgin” could mean several things. And what if you discover that in the first century being “born of a virgin” also referred to a child whose mother became pregnant the first time she had intercourse? What if that spring [doctrine] were seriously questioned? Could a person keep on jumping? Could a person still love God? Could you still be a Christian? Is the way of Jesus still the best possible way to live? Or does the whole thing fall apart?  This sounds different than what the Bible says:Luke writes a letter to his friend and begins it telling him how time and detail he took to make sure he had his facts right

“Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account… that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught”  (Luke 1:1-4).

Halfway through the chapter, an angel appears to Mary and tells her she will have a child.  Her response?  She says, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” (Luke 1:34).  The angel of GOD responds “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy- the Son of God”  (Luke 1:35).Son of God above indicates that Jesus is God’s Son, or God is one of Jesus’s parents (ie: Father).   Jesus’ disciple Matthew also found the virgin birth of Jesus miraculous and important enough to tell us (see Matthew 1:18-25). Isaiah prophesies how Jesus will come into the world hundreds of years before: “behold, the virgin shall conceive…” (Isaiah 7:14). From the fourth century, the church had a unified statement of truths about God the Christian faith called the Nicene Creed.  This has been endorsed by all different denominations of Christians since.  It has defined who God has revealed himself as- the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.   The virgin birth is both taught clearly in the Bible and upheld historically.  Doing away with it obscures the way God came into this world and lived as a man.  It is not open to negotiation.

The Resurrection

Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.-Jude 3 In popular Christianity, statements come up like the following:I have friends who I am quite sure are Christians who do not believe in the bodily resurrection…Marcus Borg really does not believe Jesus Christ was bodily raised from the dead. But I know Marcus well: he loves Jesus and believes in him passionately. The philosophical and cultural world he has lived in has made it very, very difficult for him to believe in the bodily resurrection.Borg, mentioned above, has spent decades denying the virgin birth, miracles of Jesus (turning water to wine, walking on water, feeding multitudes, and more), and even that Jesus was God.  These exclude him from orthodox Christianity, but what if we limit the above statement to just the resurrection?  What does the Bible say about it? Although this comes from a popular writer, is it Christian??The Bible tells us:If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God rasied him from the dead, you will be saved.  For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. -Romans 10:9-10Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you- unless you believed in vain.  For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures            I Corinthians 15:1-4 Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all affirm the empty tomb, Jesus’ physical resurrection, and his interactions with the disciples after his death.  In his life he proved his power of nature (calming of storm), over the spiritual realm (casting out of demons), over the physical realm (turning water to wine), over knowledge (knowing all that was done by the Samaritan woman); in his resurrection he proves his power over death itself, the last enemy.  Death is swallowed up in victory.  O death, where is your victory?  O death, where is your sting –I Corinthians 15:54-55 The take away-

See to it that you are rooted and grounded in Christ.  See to it that no one, ‘takes you captive by human ideas (Colossians 2:6-8). 

G.K. Chesterton from The Everlasting Man, pg. 47.

The ministry that shares the Gospel and cares for physical needs that I’d like to draw your attention to is the Christian Veterinary Mission USA. Now I have never been on a trip with them, or even been to a seminar or conference. But my father in law is a veterinarian and has made me aware of their work.

The exciting piece is that sustainable healthy living in 3rd world communities can be brought about in part through the foundation of healthy and productive livestock. In fact, Jared Diamond in his popular Guns, Germs, and Steel argues that the technological and political primacy of Europe during the last several centuries is directly related to available crops and domesticatable livestock being available to that region for the last several thousand years.
A sustained shift out of crippling poverty and famine in the third world through healthier livestock, in Jesus name – that’s a group we need to support.

CVMUSA

Want to listen in on the thoughts of a current missionary to one of the world’s largest unreached people groups? Now is your chance! Check out Alan’s blog here. Drop him an encouraging line while you’re at it – learning Japanese and communicating the Gospel cross-culturally is hard!

Jonathan Edwards: A life, by George M. Marsden is a brilliant biography that goes deep into the life of a theological giant. One of the many things I liked about this biography was it brings you into the reasons and motives for most of his works.

Classics:

Count of Monte Cristo, by Alexander Dumas is an excellent adventure novel. I usually don’t like to read books after I’ve seen the movie (the one that came out several years ago), but this was well worth it. The movie and the book are nothing alike except for the similar themes of revenge and imprisonment.

Treasure Island, by Robert Louis Stevenson is another adventure novel that was a joy to read. If you want to find out where the name “Long John Silver” comes from, I would suggest reading this book.

Persuasion by Jane Austen was my fourth Austen novel. Though it wasn’t as good as some of here other works (IMHO), it still displayed the good ole Jane Austin style of writing that I’ve come to like. I find her to be a very talented and witty author.

Gospel:

God is the Gospel by John Piper, is a typical piper book, loaded with scripture and a strong theological foundation. This may be one of my favorite Piper books because God used it to give me a better and deeper understanding of the gospel.

Living the Cross Centered life by C.J. Mahaney is another book that gave me a better understanding of the gospel. The book was loaded with gospel truths and practical advice that encourages you to live the cross centered life.

Recent Fiction:

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince by J.K. Rowling. Yes, I am a Harry Potter fan and I don’t just read them to engage the culture! Rowling is a brilliant author who has brought us one of the most popular serious of all time. She brings to life a story that is very intricate and always throws you for a loop.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows by J.K. Rowling is the final book in the Harry Potter series. Does Harry and Voldermort live or die? Is Snape good or bad? What is the seventh Horcrux? Those are all questions that are answered in this book. And yes, I was one of those people who spent all of last Saturday reading it. All I can say is Wow!

read on here.

I appreciate any help and would like to study and discuss Hebrews on this blog if anyone else is interested.

The larger part of womankind, however, have had to fight for things slightly more intoxicating to the eye than the desk or the typewriter; and it cannot be denied that in defending these, women have developed the quality called prejudice to a powerful and even menacing degree. But these prejudices will always be found to fortify the main position of the woman, that she is to remain a general overseer, an autocrat within small compass but on all sides. On the one or two points on which she really misunderstands the man’s position, it is almost entirely in order to preserve her own. The two points on which woman, actually and of herself, is most tenacious may be roughly summarized as the ideal of thrift and the ideal of dignity.

Unfortunately for this book it is written by a male, and these two qualities, if not hateful to a man, are at least hateful in a man. But if we are to settle the sex question at all fairly, all males must make an imaginative attempt to enter into the attitude of all good women toward these two things. The difficulty exists especially, perhaps, in the thing called thrift; we men have so much encouraged each other in throwing money right and left, that there has come at last to be a sort of chivalrous and poetical air about losing sixpence. But on a broader and more candid consideration the case scarcely stands so.

Thrift is the really romantic thing; economy is more romantic than extravagance. Heaven knows I for one speak disinterestedly in the matter; for I cannot clearly remember saving a half-penny ever since I was born. But the thing is true; economy, properly understood, is the more poetic. Thrift is poetic because it is creative; waste is unpoetic because it is waste. It is prosaic to throw money away, because it is prosaic to throw anything away; it is negative; it is a confession of indifference, that is, it is a confession of failure. The most prosaic thing about the house is the dustbin, and the one great objection to the new fastidious and aesthetic homestead is simply that in such a moral menage the dustbin must be bigger than the house. If a man could undertake to make use of all things in his dustbin he would be a broader genius than Shakespeare. When science began to use by-products; when science found that colors could be made out of coaltar, she made her greatest and perhaps her only claim on the real respect of the human soul. Now the aim of the good woman is to use the by-products, or, in other words, to rummage in the dustbin.

A man can only fully comprehend it if he thinks of some sudden joke or expedient got up with such materials as may be found in a private house on a rainy day. A man’s definite daily work is generally run with such rigid convenience of modern science that thrift, the picking up of potential helps here and there, has almost become unmeaning to him. He comes across it most (as I say) when he is playing some game within four walls; when in charades, a hearthrug will just do for a fur coat, or a tea-cozy just do for a cocked hat; when a toy theater needs timber and cardboard, and the house has just enough firewood and just enough bandboxes. This is the man’s occasional glimpse and pleasing parody of thrift.

But many a good housekeeper plays the same game every day with ends of cheese and scraps of silk, not because she is mean, but on the contrary, because she is magnanimous; because she wishes her creative mercy to be over all her works, that not one sardine should be destroyed, or cast as rubbish to the void, when she has made the pile complete.

The modern world must somehow be made to understand (in theology and other things) that a view may be vast, broad, universal, liberal and yet come into conflict with another view that is vast, broad, universal and liberal also. There is never a war between two sects, but only between two universal Catholic churches. The only possible collision is the collision of one cosmos with another. So in a smaller way it must be first made clear that this female economic ideal is a part of that female variety of outlook and all-round art of life which we have already attributed to the sex: thrift is not a small or timid or provincial thing; it is part of that great idea of the woman watching on all sides out of all the windows of the soul and being answerable for everything. For in the average human house there is one hole by which money comes in and a hundred by which it goes out; man has to do with the one hole, woman with the hundred. But though the very stinginess of a woman is a part of her spiritual breadth, it is none the less true that it brings her into conflict with the special kind of spiritual breadth that belongs to the males of the tribe. It brings her into conflict with that shapeless cataract of Comradeship, of chaotic feasting and deafening debate, which we noted in the last section. The very touch of the eternal in the two sexual tastes brings them the more into antagonism; for one stands for a universal vigilance and the other for an almost infinite output. Partly through the nature of his moral weakness, and partly through the nature or his physical strength, the male is normally prone to expand things into a sort of eternity; he always thinks of a dinner party as lasting all night; and he always thinks of a night as lasting forever. When the working women in the poor districts come to the doors of the public houses and try to get their husbands home, simple minded “social workers” always imagine that every husband is a tragic drunkard and every wife a broken-hearted saint. It never occurs to them that the poor woman is only doing under coarser conventions exactly what every fashionable hostess does when she tries to get the men from arguing over the cigars to come and gossip over the teacups. These women are not exasperated merely at the amount of money that is wasted in beer; they are exasperated also at the amount of time that is wasted in talk. It is not merely what goeth into the mouth but what cometh out the mouth that, in their opinion, defileth a man. They will raise against an argument (like their sisters of all ranks) the ridiculous objection that nobody is convinced by it; as if a man wanted to make a body-slave of anybody with whom he had played single-stick. But the real female prejudice on this point is not without a basis; the real feeling is this, that the most masculine pleasures have a quality of the ephemeral. A duchess may ruin a duke for a diamond necklace; but there is the necklace. A coster may ruin his wife for a pot of beer; and where is the beer? The duchess quarrels with another duchess in order to crush her, to produce a result; the coster does not argue with another coster in order to convince him, but in order to enjoy at once the sound of his own voice, the clearness of his own opinions and the sense of masculine society. There is this element of a fine fruitlessness about the male enjoyments; wine is poured into a bottomless bucket; thought plunges into a bottomless abyss. All this has set woman against the Public House–that is, against the Parliament House. She is there to prevent waste; and the “pub” and the parliament are the very palaces of waste. In the upper classes the “pub” is called the club, but that makes no more difference to the reason than it does to the rhyme. High and low, the woman’s objection to the Public House is perfectly definite and rational, it is that the Public House wastes the energies that could be used on the private house.

As it is about feminine thrift against masculine waste, so it is about feminine dignity against masculine rowdiness. The woman has a fixed and very well-founded idea that if she does not insist on good manners nobody else will.

Babies are not always strong on the point of dignity, and grown-up men are quite unpresentable. It is true that there are many very polite men, but none that I ever heard of who were not either fascinating women or obeying them. But indeed the female ideal of dignity, like the female ideal of thrift, lies deeper and may easily be misunderstood. It rests ultimately on a strong idea of spiritual isolation; the same that makes women religious. They do not like being melted down; they dislike and avoid the mob That anonymous quality we have remarked in the club conversation would be common impertinence in a case of ladies. I remember an artistic and eager lady asking me in her grand green drawing-room whether I believed in comradeship between the sexes, and why not. I was driven back on offering the obvious and sincere answer “Because if I were to treat you for two minutes like a comrade you would turn me out of the house.” The only certain rule on this subject is always to deal with woman and never with women. “Women” is a profligate word; I have used it repeatedly in this chapter; but it always has a blackguard sound. It smells of oriental cynicism and hedonism. Every woman is a captive queen. But every crowd of women is only a harem broken loose.

I am not expressing my own views here, but those of nearly all the women I have known. It is quite unfair to say that a woman hates other women individually; but I think it would be quite true to say that she detests them in a confused heap.

And this is not because she despises her own sex, but because she respects it; and respects especially that sanctity and separation of each item which is represented in manners by the idea of dignity and in morals by the idea of chastity.

from G.K. Chesterton’s What’s Wrong With the World

This first truth is frankly banal; but it is so perpetually ignored in our political prosing that it must be made plain. A little boy in a little house, son of a little tradesman, is taught to eat his breakfast, to take his medicine, to love his country, to say his prayers, and to wear his Sunday clothes. Obviously Fagin, if he found such a boy, would teach him to drink gin, to lie, to betray his country, to blaspheme and to wear false whiskers. But so also Mr. Salt the vegetarian would abolish the boy’s breakfast; Mrs. Eddy would throw away his medicine; Count Tolstoi would rebuke him for loving his country; Mr. Blatchford would stop his prayers, and Mr. Edward Carpenter would theoretically denounce Sunday clothes, and perhaps all clothes. I do not defend any of these advanced views, not even Fagin’s. But I do ask what, between the lot of them, has become of the abstract entity called education. It is not (as commonly supposed) that the tradesman teaches education plus Christianity; Mr. Salt, education plus vegetarianism; Fagin, education plus crime. The truth is, that there is nothing in common at all between these teachers, except that they teach. In short, the only thing they share is the one thing they profess to dislike: the general idea of authority. It is quaint that people talk of separating dogma from education. Dogma is actually the only thing that cannot be separated from education. It is education. A teacher who is not dogmatic is simply a teacher who is not teaching.”

~G.K. Chesterton from What’s Wrong With the World

G.K. Chesterton, from What’s Wrong With the World.

Have you always wanted to give that special someone (named Mark) the Piper books he doesn’t have?  Now is your chance!

Ok, really, this is incredible.  I’m emailing my small group to see if we want to give away books to people, etc.

This reminds me of 2 things:

1. If you’ve never tasted the biting sarcasm of the Sacred Sandwich, you should do so here.

2. I’ve seen some other pirates about recently… but they’re the kind that affirm Sola Scriptura.

In the Johanine Epistles class I’m currently taking, I have to write a little research paper (7-10 pages). The topic I picked last night is “The Atonement in 1 John.” There are plenty of meaty verses in 1 John to cover the page limit, and some interesting statements to wrestle with (e.g. “not only for our sins, but also for the whole world” or “the Son of God appeared to destroy the works of the Devil” or “he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins”).

If you have any resources I should consider while researching these passages (and others), please let me know about them in the comments!

Here’s a list of texts (off the top of my head) that I will consult:

Lexicons/Dictionaries: TDNT, BDAG

Commentaries: Bruce, Marshall, Stott, Thompson, Boice, Carson (Gospel of John)

Themed Works: Owen (Death of Death), Murray (Redemption), Pinnock (Grace Unlimited), Olsen (Beyond Calvinism…)

Thanks for your input. And if my paper is any good I’ll put some of it online. 

Also, if you think of it, I could use your prayers as I research and write.

I have been way behind in reading all the posts on Pros Apologian on LDS stuff, but I’ll get to them eventually. Meanwhile, I hope this resource helps you in sharing the Gospel.

(HT: ACS)

Clearly, this is a place where the Brits and Americans have it on the French. A half-frenchman (Wallonie, right?) makes a joke, and the French can’t take it. C’est la vie.

I know I could work against this frenchness in me and be less concerned with what others say about me, such that I’m not going to pounce on somebody to justify myself after thier joke.

Whether the history of the English aristocracy, from the spoliation of the monasteries to the annexation of the mines, entirely supports this theory I am not now inquiring; but certainly it is our theory, that wealth will be a protection against political corruption. he English statesman is bribed not to be bribed. He is born with a silver spoon in his mouth, so that he may ever afterwards be found with the silver spoons in his pocket. So strong is our faith in this protection by plutocracy, hat we are more and more trusting our empire in the hands of families which inherit wealth without either blood or manners. ome of our political houses are parvenue by pedigree; they hand on vulgarity like a coat of-arms. In the case of any a modern statesman to say that he is born with a silver spoon in his mouth, is at once inadequate and excessive. He is born with a silver knife in his mouth. But all this only illustrates the English theory that poverty is perilous for a politician.”

From G.K. Chesterton’s What’s Wrong with the World.

In the picture below, you can catch a glimpse of Joel, the “Lord of Catan.” I think he easily won by two points. Congrats Joel!

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to ride my bicycle home.

I began to smile; first in sleep, then waking: for so it was told me of myself, and I believed it; for we see the like in other infants, though of myself I remember it not. Thus, little by little, I became conscious where I was; and to have a wish to express my wishes to those who could content them, and I could not; for the wishes were within me, and they without; nor could they by any sense of theirs enter within my spirit. So I flung about at random limbs and voice, making the few signs I could, and such as I could, like, though in truth very little like, what I wished. And when I was not presently obeyed (my wishes being hurtful or unintelligible), then I was indignant with my elders for not submitting to me, with those owing me no service, for not serving me; and avenged myself on them by tears. Such have I learnt infants to be from observing them; and that I was myself such, they, all unconscious, have shown me better than my nurses who knew it.

And here.

“Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.  For we all stumble in many ways, and if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body.”

James 3:-1-2

One part that completely caught me by surprise was the average marrying age of Northampton in the late 1720s and early 1730s.  From my previous understanding of marriage history (which is very limited), I would assume people during this era would have been married by, at the latest, their twentieth birthday.  I’ve always been under the impression that “back in the day,” people were marrying a lot younger and today’s marriage culture is a new phenomenon.  The “new” concept of marriage at an older age may not always have been the norm.  As Marsden points out, most men and women in Northampton around 1730 were in their late twenties when married (Edwards was early/mid twenties).  Now, this may have been a fluke and a rare occurrence, but shows that our “new” marriage culture may not be so new after all. 

Now, for the bad news.  Champaign has repealed the ban on smoking in restaurants and bars.  Some bar owners have complained about loss of profits.  The rest of society complains about rising health care costs…so what does our city council do?  5 to 4 they act like they weren’t using Giro helmets (see above).

The good news: the state of IL will likely place a statewide ban on smoking in public places later this year. 

(HT:Unashamed Workman)

…in all of the effort to free the Bible from domesticated categories, it is sometimes forgotten that the taming of Christianity is not limited to the biblical text. For example, once theological education became competitive big business, the marketing of it turned into something well beyond the simple description to prospective students of what goes on at a seminary or a college. There is a complex relationship between traditional curricula, the demands of the church, the expectations of the students, and the ability of the marketplace itself not simply to satisfy needs but also to create needs and open up new markets. The implications of theology as commodity have not yet been self-consciously addressed by educational institutions; and, given the nature of the free market as something of a sacred cow in current Western thinking, such questions are unlikely to be pressed in the foreseeable future.

(HT: JT)

We’ve all heard it, something like: “doing the same thing and expecting a different result is a definition of insanity.” I’ve heard it from college profs, read it in magazines and blogs – it seems to be accepted in our culture. The problem is, that if we stopped and actually considered it, we’d realize either it’s an unsatisfactory definition, or we’re all insane.

Everybody goes to sleep each night and wakes up in the morning. Do we expect a different result after a night’s rest? Do we expect today to be different from yesterday? Yes. We’d be crazy not to.

The reason why many people give the wrong answers to questions about the cross, and even ask the wrong questions, is that they have carefully considered neither the seriousness of sin nor the majesty of God (Stott 91)

All inadequate doctrines of the atonement are due to inadequate doctrines of God and humanity. If we bring God down to our level and raise ourselves to his, then of course we see no need for a radical salvation, let along for a radical atonement to secure it. When, on the other hand, we have glimpsed the blinding glory of holiness of God and have been so convicted of our sin by the Holy Spirit that we tremble before God and acknowledge what we are, namely “hell-deserving sinners,” then and only then does the necessity of the cross appear so obvious that we are astonished we never saw it before. (Stott 111)

Stott, John. The Cross of Christ. 20th Anniversary Ed. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006.

What are those two beautiful and industrious beings,” I can imagine him murmuring to himself, “whom I see everywhere, serving me I know not why? What fairy godmother bade them come trotting out of elfland when I was born? What god of the borderland, what barbaric god of legs, must I propitiate with fire and wine, lest they run away with me?”

Why do a lot of Christians who go off to college find non-church organizations (i.e. Campus Crusade, Navigators, IV, etc) more attractive than a local church?

Now I humbly ask for your thoughts and opinions!

Soli Deo Gloria, Adam

Tim Keller

Philip Ryken

Voddie Baucham

Excerpt from Baucham,

7. What are the greatest perils that preacher must avoid?

Laziness, pride and the fear of men. Laziness will keep us from plumbing the depths of the Word. Pride will keep us from prayer, and the fear of men will keep us from preaching the hard things.

Carson describes the shift away from devotionally minded Bible reading into critical biblical study as experienced by a fictitious seminary student. Most seminarians probably come from just such a situation – fluent in their tradition’s interpretation and eager for devotional insights, yet unacquainted with critical issues in the text and variant theological perspectives. The jarring process the exegete undergoes in studying a text Carson describes as “distanciation.” (Both my computer dictionary and my old red Webster’s failed me on that one!) If you look up distanciation on the web, in English, you should find that it describes the process of being confronted with views that differ from your own, after which you must evaluate critically and reestablish your own view. This process of alienation must happen when we come to the biblical text, otherwise we are just reading our own views or our preferred tradition into the text.

It is clear how this could contribute to some negative effects in the lives of seminarians! Three responses Carson identifies are “a defensive pietism that boisterously denounces the arid intellectualism… all around” or “the vortex of a kind of intellectual commitment that squeezes out worship, prayer, witness, and meditative reading of Scripture” or one “may stagger along until he is rescued by graduation and returns to the real world.”(pg. 23)

Carson does not leave us with these three common responses, but suggests that we can enjoy the best of both worlds – intellectual and devotional satisfaction. “Work hard at incorporating your entire Christian walk (practical/devotional) and commitment (intellectual), and the topic of this study (exegesis, specifically pitfalls therein) will prove beneficial.(pg 24)” [parenthesis added by me.]

So, this post has three encouragements: 1. Wrestle with the text and embrace the shifts in your worldview on account of interacting with Scripture, to be more conformed to it. 2. There is in fact good stuff in the introductions to books! 3. Seminary need not be Cemetery!

1. Ungodly regret (2 Corinthians 7)

It is easy to sit back and dwell upon things I should have said or clarifications I should have provided. During this time I seem to become focused upon my words and how I could have done better. There is nothing wrong with evaluating and using it as a time for God to teach and mold you, but when the focus is on yourself and how you could improve to make yourself look better, then that is when your trust is resting in yourself. On Saturday evening this was the case, I cared more about how good of job I did, which resulted in disappointment and regret in the worldly sense. My pride was more important than the glory of God.

2. God is Sovereign (Philippians 2:15-18)

I am a huge proponent of sound doctrine and accurately handling the word of truth, and I try by the grace of God to do so as well. Though I desire this, I know that I haven’t been perfect. Thinking back to some of the things I’ve believed and shared in the past, I can quickly point to instances where those things weren’t biblical. Though God commands us to have healthy doctrine, it is His doctrine and He is in control of His word. He can take the little truth that is there and use it for His glory.

3. Disagreement

Whether it comes from a misunderstanding or different beliefs, people may not agree with you. It is easy for me to become unsettled if someone doesn’t necessarily agree with what I had to say. This once again comes from a man centered focus rather than a Christ exalting one. Not everyone is going to agree with you, regardless, if you’re right or wrong. Paul and other heroes of the faith were always being opposed and opposing people frequently. Though I’m not comparing my self to Paul and others, by any means, it is a fact that if you preach the truth there will be opposition. Now, disagreement should always take you back to the Scripture. God will use His word to confirm a truth or reform you to the truth. And if you’re wrong praise God that he has used someone to draw you closer to the Truth.

4. Can’t expect everyone to understand right away

When you think your talk makes perfect sense, it may not make sense to others. Some people may be tracking with you right away, but others may have a hard time following. I know, for myself, I have to take time to process information and that may take days or weeks to comprehend what was shared at a talk. So, if someone isn’t registering with you right away, that’s OK. The Spirit works in His own time and that’s different for each individual.

I’m sure there are other things that I’m learning, but those are some that are sticking out right now. I have found it fascinating that God continues to teach you as you’re teaching others.

Soli Deo Gloria

This helped me focus on the broader scope of what is at play when I read.  For example, consider what genre you are drawing from- is it allegory, prose, poetry, satire, etc.?  What might some of the elements symbolize in the book?  And then as I stepped back to consider the question, Why read literature?  I was helped by my professor’s response: read for entertainment- because you enjoy reading.  It’s a toold to help us teach and help us learn.  And it’s helpful to understand the present time, past times, and what vantage point the author is coming from.  

To demonstrate how this has helped me, I’ll explain a few areas I noticed when watching the movie Amazing Grace.               

            To move from the bill stopping 80% of the trade to the final bill abolishing all of slavery, the director simply doesn’t flash us from success in Parliament to success two years later.  He shows that Wilberforce’s wife is expecting.  Then she talks of him playing with the child in the garden which demonstrates a future time and new birth.  The darkness after the passage of the first bill is drowned out by the singing and laughing with the child two years later in the garden.  Instead of constructing a sheer gulf between the approval one bill and the final abolition bill, the director walks us along a graded path, easing us, through the darkness of night, through the child, through the light and joy of the garden, through the visit to William Pitt, that old power is waning and that new life has begun.    Another structural element present is that of allusions- references to other forms of literature or other works.  For example, symbols within the movie can be read different ways depending on the background of the listener.  In one scene the former slave Oloudah Equiano, when asked how he survived his trafficking across the ocean replied, “Your life is a thread.  It breaks or it doesn’t.”  As I heard that, I ran a quick internal check of what it meant for life to be “a thread.”  In Greek mythology, the three sisters of fate determined life span.  The first sister drew out the thread of life, the second sister measured it and the third sister cut it.  Therefore, it quite possibly meant that the fates had not decided for Equiano to go yet; his thread of life had not reached its end.  Yet another way to understand this thinking is understanding more of Equiano’s background.  In West African thinking, likely Equiano’s origin due to his history and accent, not all questions are returned with linear answers.  So when Equiano is asked how he survived, he doesn’t simply say he adjusted his hips to keep them from dislocating or collected droplets of sweat to keep himself hydrated or fell back on some other instinct.  He replies that his life simply did not break.  It seems that, here too, the element of fate is involved, though coming from a different cultural landscape.  And yet even modern molecular biology and the cellular components it elucidates, coming into existence more than a hundred years after this story, can enrich Equiano’s analogy.  This understanding of life as a thread has to do with cell replication.  Inside the nucleus of each human cell, DNA is stored which serves as the genetic blueprint of life.  At the end of DNA is a region of repeating DNA, called telomeres, of which a fraction get lopped off following each replication.  The DNA is getting cleaved and some scientists speculate that this action plays a role in our aging and dying.  Whether or not this theory holds, it remains established that though DNA is wound up in the nucleus, when it is unwound, it becomes a long strand- like a thread.  Even the term biologists use to indicate DNA- single-stranded double-stranded, leading-strand, lagging-strand, etc.-alludes to the idea of a thread.  And encoded in each thread of DNA, fates are determined.  They predispose one to early mortality or to chemical dependency or to immune-deficiency and numbers of other fates.  Each of these frameworks helps explain Equiano’s reply.  Although they were likely not the writer’s intent, they demonstrate that literature makes a thread whose ideas and allusions span generations and cultures.  Why have some of the strongest and ablest perished in their prime while some of the sick and diseased have continued to live has not been answered on a linear scale.  How did Equiano survive when often two-thirds or more of the slaves would die?  His answer points to fate.              And so literature is not just a form relevant to a select few.  It has and does make up the culture we live in.  Understanding its techniques and methods enhances our enjoyment of literature.  And just like a basic understanding of framing architecture does not denude the beauty in well-built houses like a dissection does to the life of an animal, so too a basic understanding of literary elements does not rob us of the different components that give life to stories.  These basic elements enhance the experience of plays and music, movies and novels.  They are devices to teach and learn, applicable in the sciences and essential in the arts. 

Complementing the Bounded Set is a theory more emphasized recently called the Centered Set theory.  It allows for various stylistic components and forms of worship, and takes as its litmus test the various fruit of the Spirit, that no one will condemn.  Are you loving?  serving?  growing in patience?  etc.  It’s emphasis is on lifestyle.

Unfortunately, some of the contemporary and emerging church emphasies have thrown away the bonded set, or so muddied its boundaries that heresies come in unchecked leading to death.  And unfortunately, it can define love in such a way that asks whether or not we are accepting people and making them feel comfortable at the expense of truth.  A good definition of this comes from John Piper, “Relationships trump truth.” 

We need both the Bounded and Centered Set views.  We need the proper knowledge of Chirst.  We need the proper response to Christ yielded from it, including living out a life worhty of the gospel (Phil 1) that highlights the Spirit’s transforming power in our lives.  Here are some of the Bounded Set propositions I have come to.  The essential nature of a select few may be debated, but it would be wise to view anything else with a critical eye from someone denying one of them:

God

• One God- existing in three persons (Is 9:6)

• Holy, perfect, sinless (Mt 5:48, Ps 24:3, Isa 6:3, Lev 19:2)

• Created everything from nothing (Col 1) 

Jesus

• Always was, begotten NOT created (Col 1, John 1)

• Born of the Virgin Mary (Luke 1:26-38, 2:6-7)

• Substitutionary Atonement- God’s sacrifice to God for sin- Lamb of God (John 1:29)

• Lived sinless (Heb 4:15)

• Fully God / Fully Man (The Bible)

• The one way to God (John 14:6)

• Lord / King / Master (Rom 1, et al.) 

Who is Man

• A creature created in God’s Image (Gen 1:27)

• Given authority over nature (Gen 1:28-31)

• Created as Male and Female- Two COMPLEMENTARY not interchangeable stewards of his creation (Gen 1:27)

• Born into sin- (Rom 5:12, Ps 51:5)

Who is the Holy Spirit

• God- person of the Trinity (I Cor 12:4-6, II Cor 13:14)

• The promised counselor from Jesus to lead us in the way (Is 9:6, John 16-17)

Satan

• Powerful / Personal Evil

• Father of Lies, Liar from the beginning (John 8:44)

Hell

• Hell- An eternal punishment that most of humanity will enter  

What is the Bible

• Inerrant in its original manuscript (Num 23:19, Ps 12:6, Prov 30:5)

• Inspired by God (Ex 31:18, 32:6, Deut 31:24-26, Isa 30:8, John 14:26, Isa 30:8)

Feel free to comment or add anything on the above.  Loving Jesus for who He is.

Larry

Last fall, I came across the following statements by N.T. Wright in The Australian:

“[N.T. Wright] An eminent theologian, an expert on the historical and biblical Jesus and a staunch believer in the resurrection, he baulks at denouncing those who are not.  

“‘I have friends who I am quite sure are Christians who do not believe in the bodily resurrection,’ he says carefully, citing another eminent scholar, American theologian Marcus Borg…

“‘Marcus Borg really does not believe Jesus Christ was bodily raised from the dead. But I know Marcus well: he loves Jesus and believes in him passionately. The philosophical and cultural world he has lived in has made it very, very difficult for him to believe in the bodily resurrection. ‘” (Article by Jill Rowbotham, Apr 13, 2006 Not all Christians believe in the resurrection)

I saw some bloggers immediately condemn Wright and I started to lean in that direction.  Then I started to ask questions.  What if Borg does believe in the resurrection in a spiritual sense and affirms most everything else about Jesus?  Would he be excluded as he tried passionately to follow the Jesus his philosophical and cultural worldview would not allow?  Be slow to speak…

Wright defends the historical Jesus and especially the resurrection voluminously, eloquently, and passionately.  He also reaches out to and engages his academic brothers of the liberal persuasion.  He challenges the liberal world to consider his Jesus.

But his statements are provocative.  They were the more so coming near Easter last year from a scholar who has spent decades on the first century period and historical Jesus.  And being provoked, I picked up one of Marcus Borg’s most recent books, Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary.  It was an uncomfortable process leading me to evaluate the skeletal system of the faith.

Here are several observations about the Jesus that Borg knows:

• Not the second person of the Trinity[1]
• Fully man, Not God before Easter
• Not the Son of God[2]
• Not raised to life from the dead[3]
• Not born of the Virgin Mary[4]
• Not sinless[5]
• A wisdom teacher on level with Buddha and Lao Tzu[6]
• One among many ways to God[7]
• Not necessary to be believed in
• Jesus did not die FOR the sins of the world[8]
• Jesus’ crucifixion was NOT necessary[9]
• Jesus died for political reasons[10]
• Didn’t perform miracles like changing water to wine, walking on water, etc.

In contrast to Borg’s Jesus, the testimony borne in the Scripture of Jesus is contradictory on almost every point:

• Always was, begotten NOT created (Col 1:15-19, John 1:1-5)
• Rose from the dead (I Cor 15, Mark 16, Matthew 28, Luke 24, and John 20-21)
• Born of the Virgin Mary (Luke 1:26-38, 2:6-7)
• Died for the sins of the world (John 3:16) as a Substitutionary Atonement- God’s sacrifice to God for sin- Lamb of God (John 1:29, 3:14)
• Lived sinless (Heb 4:15)
• The One way to God (John 14:6)
• Necessary to be believed in (Rom 10:9)

What is obvious is that these are two radically different pictures of Jesus and by Wright saying he has friends who don’t believe in the resurrection but he is quite sure are Christians, and then identifying Borg as one, is profoundly troubling.  There is no doubt, from his construction of Jesus and his denial of the testimony that led to the death of many of the apostles that Borg is preaching another gospel (the severity of which is highlighted in Gal 1:8). 

At best, this demonstrates fuzziness as far as Wright’s understanding of the gospel.  Borg’s own autobiographical sketch identifies growing up in a traditional Lutheran community and fails to liberate him from having a cultural or philosophical worldview from which he can deny the bodily resurrection.  Wright is quite wrong about the standing of his friend.

Practically, it is one thing to say Wright should not waffle on the eternal standing of his liberal friends.   It is quite another for us to do the same, being ready to have friends and family who drive us out and hate us for the name of Christ because we ourselves have a better hope (Matt 10:34-39, Luke 6:22, Heb 10:34-36). 

[1]Borg 136 “Was Jesus- the pre-Easter Jesus- God?  No.”  also Pg 321.

[2] Ibid 135-136

[3] Ibid 274-276

[4] Ibid 60-63.

[5] Ibid 120 tells us Jesus “decided to undergo, “John’s baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins,” and on pg 173 Borg entertains as an interesting possibility the notion that Jesus was the prodigal spoken of in Luke 15.

[6] Ibid 166

[7] Ibid 328

[8] Ibid 274 “According to the gospels, Jesus did not die for the sins of the world.  The language of sacrificial substitution is absent from their stories.  But in an important sense he was killed because of the sins of the world.”

[9] Ibid 274 “Did Good Friday have to happen?  As divine necessity?  No.  As human inevitability?  Virtually.”

[10] Ibid 274

We’ll I just want to confess and say that I’m a terrible blogger and slacker, but I’m still alive and kicking.  How about the other bloggers?  You there?

I see Mark’s still alive, sorry for bumping you brother.  Your post is much better than mine.

Speaking of controversy…  Jacobus Arminius is my Homeboy!

Grab the feed of the Crescent Project podcast and keep these necessary things in front of yourself. Fouad Masri publishes the podcast once a month – and you know you’ve got a spare 15 minutes this month. It’s worth it.

(By the way, if you’re really pumped, check out thier staff opportunities, too!)

This is too obvious to need illustration—I wish. If there is a sound downstairs during the night and it might be a burglar, you don’t say to her: This is an egalitarian marriage, so it’s your turn to go check it out. I went last time.” And I mean that even if your wife has a black belt in karate. After you’ve tried, she may finish off the burglar with one good kick to the solar plexus. But you better be unconscious on the floor, or you’re no man. That’s written on your soul, brother, by God Almighty. Big or little, strong or weak, night or day, you go up against the enemy first. Woe to the husband—and woe to the nation—that send their women to fight their battles.

I found myself visualizing this scenario in my head, which brought out a good chuckle.

On a more serious note, I have thoroughly enjoyed his series on marriage even though I’m still single. The series has provided great biblical truths about men, women, and marriage. The world has seriously rejected and reinterpreted these biblical truths, and ashamedly I’ve done so also. May my understanding of marriage come from the Bible and not from my presuppositions based on worldly, man centered knowledge.

On another note, I’m done with the preparation for my talks tomorrow and I praise God for the strength, wisdom, and perseverance to complete them. I really enjoyed preparing, even though there were some rough patches. Sorry for not posting any of it on the blog, I quickly realized that I wasn’t going to have time to post. Lord willing, I’ll post some things from it next week.

To God be the glory

12 Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. 13 But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,” that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. 14 For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end.

OK, now I want you to make some observations about this text.  Don’t be shy, give me at least 5 observations and feel free to bring in more context as well.  Different perspectives will be useful, but if no one participates, this may be the last time I ask for your help in my preparation.

Over the course of the next couple weeks I’ll post parts of the talks so you can get a flavor for what I’m going to share.  And feel free to give your two cents worth as well.  Maybe this will bring the blog back to life…

Another book I’ve been working on for a while and almost finished is “Overcoming Sin and Temptation” by John Owen. If you haven’t read this book or don’t plan too, you need to put down your Hardy Boys or Nancy Drew and get some meat.

“The church does not exist for itself alone any more than God has not chosen to exist for God alone.”

If you’ve never been there you should check it out!

www.monergism.com

“If you don’t make it a rule, people who love money don’t start there. If you make it a rule, legalists stop there.” (http://www.bethelweb.org/sermons/2006/060219.pdf)

The overriding theme in worship at youth retreats I have helped lead is that the louder the music, the better the worship. Now this view presupposes several things: first, that worship is only or primarily singing and not praying, pouring over God’s Word, telling people about God, or stuyding the lives, teachings, and wisdom of bygone saints. Second, this view seems to presuppose that God is honored more by a destructive decibal level than the hearts of those singing and the choice of lyrics in the songs. Now I would like to proceed carefully, because the best way to be rid of a fly is not to pound it against the wall with a sledgehammer, but to swat it with a rolled up newspaper or magazine; if I come down too hard, I find my critique of this peripheral issue doing more harm than good, all the while missing the fly.  If I miss the “fly” with the newspaper, it still stands as little more than a minor nuisance, but a nuisance nonetheless.

Hearing is one of those God-given faculties that, like the ability to run or speak, the gift of a wife or a child or a godly mother and father, is not given to all, but is a grace from God. It is unique and helpful to us as is seeing or tasing or smelling or touching. Now my contention is this- when the music gets too loud, I can neither hear the person next to me, nor in front of me, nor even myself.  Damage is done, permanent damage is done, to my hearing.  I, for the choice of several minutes of worship, have lessened the worship I can do later by listening to the hand of the Creator in the song of a carol of a bird or the lullaby of a cricket or the roar of a waterfall (all your breakers and your waves have rolled over me -Ps 42).

The other struggle I have is that when the music gets so loud, I stop thinking about singing to God and start focusing more on the singer. I can hear nothing else, and the intensity of the beat points back to the musician, and in my experience, away from God.  And does playing the music so loud that one can hear nothing else cause us to be more reflective of the words, or mindlessly repeat them as they have been burned into our brains. Would we do this with another sense?  Would it be advisable that, upon making a worship video, the graphics editor would intensify the light source of the media to watch, thereby burning our retinas?  And one may, it seems, counter that God did this very thing to Paul, focusing his eyes on Christ whom he was persecuting. Paul we are told, possibly as a result of this, struggled with very real problems with his eyes, but he never forgot how God changed his life one day to Damascus. Yet I would respond this that it was God who blinded Paul, and man did not work as an agent in that act  (excepting the prayers likey lifted up on Paul’s behalf); and secondly, Paul did not want this ailment, and we are told that many would have given their eyes to him (Gal 4:15).

Finally, there is a carnality at work in this that leads away from maturity in Christ, but back towards more experience with spiritual excesses.  Music and TV at home are turned to levels that keep people from talking in regular voices.  Music in cars is blasted to recreate that worship feeling so that people, feet away from each other, can be worlds away emotionally and otherwise.  Though there are many other factors at play, I have found the previous two to be true. 

I maintain that raising the volume to levels similar to those of industrial machinery does damage and creates a tolerance for such noise that will detract from other worship and carry over to other environments, hampering dialogue and relationships.

“The real use and purpose of the [Active/Passive Obedience] formula is to emphasize the two distinct aspects of our Lord’s vicarious obedience. The truth expressed rests upon the recognition that the law of God has both penal sanctions and positive demands. It demands not only the full discharge of its precepts but also the infliction of penalty for all infractions and shortcomings. It is this twofold demand of the law of God which is taken into account when we speak of the active and passive obedience of Christ. Christ as the vicar of his people came under the curse and condemnation due to sin and he also fulfilled the law of God in all its positive requirements. In other words, he took care of the guilt of sin and perfectly fulfilled the demands of righteousness. He perfectly met both the penal and the preceptive requirements of God’s law. The passive obedience refers to the former and the active obedience to the latter. Christ’s obedience was vicarious in the bearing of the full judgment of God upon sin, and it was vicarious in the full discharge of the demands of righteousness. His obedience becomes the ground of the remission of sin and of actual justification.”

From John Murray’s Redemption Accomplished and Applied, pg. 21 & 22.

Chapter 1: The Transaction

Zinsser explains that the transaction between author and reader is the communication of the “humanity and warmth” of the author. What is the vehicle of this transaction? The language used. This is startlingly obvious, and yet helpfully insightful.

This insight comes after Zinsser explains that we write to be known. I’m struck by the vanity of the writing endeavor. It reveals me as selfish, but it’s true. Where this vanity persists, there is also, subtly, a God-likeness.

Am I saying that we are like God by being vain? Well, God is not vain, but he is the most God-focused person in the universe. (How else would you understand passages like Isaiah 48:11?) So, in this sense, in wanting to be known, by expressing ourselves to others, we are like God. The chief difference of course is that we are creatures and not God. Further, God is good to us by revealing himself to us. In fact, the greatest good in the universe – knowing and delighting in God – is achieved by the revealing of God to us. I’m sorry to disappoint you, but my self-revelation in this text is not your greatest good. Hence, my writing teeters on vanity, while God’s writing is a blessing of the first order.

Once again, this seems startlingly obvious, and yet insightful. We bear the image of God, so of course our creative activities will be marked by a similarity to his. He has written his name on his creation, and his incarnation. As people made in his image, it should be expected that we would follow suit in what we make.

Zinsser’s identification of “humanity and warmth” as best communicated with “clarity and strength” in ‘writing well’ ignites two additional thoughts:

1.) God’s writing (the Scripture) communicates the ‘divinity and life’ of God to us.

2.) As writers (even casual ones like me) we desire communication of the “humanity and warmth” within us. What is my humanity? What is the warmth of my life? Indeed, it is the Man, the Definer of Humanity, Christ Jesus.

Zinsser seeks and teaches a transaction through non-fiction writing of the personhood of the author. Redeemed humanity bears forth Christ, the image of the invisible God. May our writing share Christ through us, in such a transaction.

Augustine had a great image (Chapter 40). He developed the scene- God moved on the hearts of the Egyptian people and the Israelites plundered them of their gold.  Where heathen philosophy, moralism, etc. lines up with what we know to be true, we shouldn’t just ignore it or defame it.  We should take that which we find to be true and liberate it.  In this way, the Israelites plundered the Egyptians for their gold as they left Egypt.  The gold articles and “gold philosophies” erected to serve idols and demons had no idea they would eventually go to serve the one true and living God.  And in this way, Augustine quotes Acts, “Moses was learned in ALL the wisdom of the Egyptians” (Acts 7:22). In the same way we can take the gold studies from biology, built on an evolutionary principle, and use them to understand the world and help cure diseases, etc.  We don’t just throw out the whole field because it serves a Darwinian model.

If the historical research done by E.P. Sanders is really that great, then it should be liberated and refined to honor the God of the Bible.  There’s an old Latin proverb that says, “There’s no book so bad that it has no value.”  Now I’d not side 100% with this quote, but see it as a challenging principle.  Therefore, I find it a bad argument to fault Wright for reading / engaging Sanders and adopting principles from his studies.  My perception is that he has done enough to separate them / liberate them from the agenda Sanders was serving.

The first time I skimmed through the article and set it aside.  I understood Piper was likening the NPP folks the Pharisees of Christ’s day.  I reread the same points and same thing.  BUT THEN, as I read it again, slowly, I saw this was not his point in writing.  He was appealing to Romans to refute one of the main claims of the NPP; that the Jews of Christ’s days weren’t trying to work themselves into the people of God, they were already born into it and under grace.  The Judaism of Christ’s day, they say, wasn’t about moralism so much as racial distinction and being the true people of God.  One lesson I learned- READ SLOWLY and CAREFULLY, especially as the stakes and import of what is being read rises. 

In a class I took, one student heckled another, “In the footnotes it says??  WHO READS THE FOOTNOTES??” and a couple weeks later, “Hey, I was making fun of you the other night for reading the footnotes.”

Carfeul, assiduous study leads to engaging the author- understanding what he did say and not purporting what he did not.  I am guilty of being sloppy and assuming in my study.  As I’ve seen it in others, I commend all the more reading less and understanding more.  My resolution is to not  pat myself on the back for volume of material conquered, but to aim more for depth and engagement with the author and material.

Click for

 

Joy Born at Bethlehem

“And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.”—Luke 2:10-12.

On the birth…

The joy which this first gospel preacher spoke of was no mean one, for he said, “I bring you good tidings”—that alone were joy: and not good tidings of joy only, but “good tidings of great joy.” Every word is emphatic, as if to show that the gospel is above all things intended to promote, and will most abundantly create the greatest possible joy in the human heart wherever it is received. Man is like a harp unstrung, and the music of his soul’s living strings is discordant, his whole nature wails with sorrow; but the son of David, that mighty harper, has come to restore the harmony of humanity, and where his gracious fingers move among the strings, the touch of the fingers of an incarnate God brings forth music sweet as that of the spheres, and melody rich as a seraph’s canticle. Would God that all men felt that divine hand.

On Christmas…

WE HAVE NO superstitious regard for times and seasons. Certainly we do not believe in the present ecclesiastical arrangement called Christmas: first, because we do not believe in the mass at all, but abhor it, whether it be said or sung in Latin or in English; and, secondly, because we find no Scriptural warrant whatever for observing any day as the birthday of the Saviour; and, consequently, its observance is a superstition, because not of divine authority. Superstition has fixed most positively the day of our Saviour’s birth, although there is no possibility of discovering when it occurred. Fabricius gives a catalogue of 136 different learned opinions upon the matter; and various divines invent weighty arguments for advocating a date in every month in the year. It was not till the middle of the third century that any part of the church celebrated the nativity of our Lord; and it was not till very long after the Western church had set the example, that the Eastern adopted it. Because the day is not known, therefore superstition has fixed it; while, since the day of the death of our Saviour might be determined with much certainty, therefore superstition shifts the date of its observance every year. Where is the method in the madness of the superstitious? Probably the fact is that the holy days were arranged to fit in with heathen festivals. We venture to assert, that if there be any day in the year, of which we may be pretty sure that it was not the day on which the Saviour was born, it is the twenty-fifth of December. Nevertheless since, the current of men’s thoughts is led this way just now, and I see no evil in the current itself, I shall launch the bark of our discourse upon that stream, and make use of the fact, which I shall neither justify nor condemn, by endeavoring to lead your thoughts in the same direction. Since it is lawful, and even laudable, to meditate upon the incarnation of the Lord upon any day in the year, it cannot be in the power of other men’s superstitions to render such a meditation improper for to-day. Regarding not the day, let us, nevertheless, give God thanks for the gift of his dear son.

My song shall bless the Lord of all,
My praise shall climb to His abode;
Thee, Saviour, by that name I call,
The great Supreme, the mighty God.

Without beginning or decline,
Object of faith and not of sense;
Eternal ages saw Him shine,
He shines eternal ages hence.

As much when in the manger laid,
Almighty Ruler of the sky,
As when the six days’ work He made,
Fill’d all the morning stars with joy.

Of all the crowns Jehovah bears,
Salvation is His dearest claim;
That gracious sound well pleased He hears
And owns Emmanuel for His name.

A cheerful confidence I feel,
My well placed hopes with joy I see;
My bosom glows with heavenly zeal,
To worship Him who died for me.

As man He pities my complaint,
His power and truth are all divine;
He will not fail, He cannot faint;
Salvation’s sure, and must be mine.

-William Cowper

First, a lot of my thoughts were being based off of ungodly emotions.  What I mean by this is that my response to the two events had elements of anger and frustration as the driving force for the posts.  They wouldn’t have been full of grace, love and humility, even though the foundational premise for these posts was biblical.

Second, a lot of the thoughts were being directed at the persons rather than the principles of their arguments.  Pride was taken over my heart with the I’m better than you attitude.  If I went through with the two posts at that time they would have been man centered rather than gospel centered.

God is most gracious and I thank him for his always convicting gospel.  It’s amazing how blogging has been spiritual rewarding.  In all my reasons for taking up blogging, I never would’ve thought God would use it to reveal areas of sin in my life.

As I continue with blogging, hopefully more than what I’ve been doing, I think there are some (not exhausted) basic principles I should follow before I start outlining a post (And all of life for that matter).

1.  If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. (2) Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth.  Col 3:1-2

2.  Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. (6) On account of these the wrath of God is coming. (7) In these you too once walked, when you were living in them. (8) But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth.  Col 3:5-8

3.  Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, (13) bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive.  Col 3:12-13

4.  And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony. Col 3:14

5.  And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body. And be thankful. Col 3:15

6.  Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.  Col 3:16

7.  And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.  Col 3:17

8.  Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another. Eph 4:25

9.  Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, (27) and give no opportunity to the devil. Eph 4:26-27

10.  Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. Eph 4:29

11.  Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Eph 4:31

12.  Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.  Eph 4:32

13.  So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.  Matt 7:12

*All references are from the ESV.

I pray that our blogging will be glorifying to God!

I’ve been reading ahead for next semester in some of the courses for which I am registered. One required text is Mark Noll’s Turning Points: Decisive Moments in the History of Christianity. Through the first quarter of the text, it is delightful – and I expect the rest to follow suit. Regardless, the third chapter is introduced with a poem written by Aurelius Clemens Prudentius of the same title as our hymn. Clearly the hymn’s forebear is this ancient poem. Compare the two, and consider that we’re singing the same praise that was lifted up 1600 yrs ago.

Prudentius’ version, as shown in Noll:

Of the Father’s love begotten
Ere the worlds began to be,
He is Alpha nd Omega,
He the source, the ending he,
Of the things that are, that have been,
And that future years shall see.
Evermore and evermore.

O that birth for ever blessed!
When the Virgin, full of grace,
By the Holy Ghost conceiving,
Bore the Saviour of our race;
And the Babe, the world’s Redeemer,
First revealed his sacred face,
Evermore and evermore.

O ye heights of heaven, adore him;
Angel hosts, his praises sing;
Powers, dominions bow before him,
And extol our God and King;
Let no tongue on earth be silent,
Every voice in concert ring,
Evermore and Evermore.

Modern Version:

Of the Father’s love begotten, ere the worlds began to be,
He is Alpha and Omega, He the source, the ending He,
Of the things that are, that have been,
And that future years shall see, evermore and evermore!

This is He Whom heav’n-taught singers sang of old with one accord;
Whom the Scriptures of the prophets promised in their faithful word;
Now He shines, the long expected,
Let creation praise its Lord, evermore and evermore!

O ye heights of heaven adore Him; angel hosts, His praises sing;
All dominions, bow before Him, and extol our God and King!
Let no tongue on earth be silent,
Every voice in concert ring, evermore and evermore!

Christ, to Thee with God the Father, and, O Holy Ghost, to Thee,
Hymn and chant with high thanksgiving, and unwearied praises be:
Honor, glory, and dominion,
And eternal victory, evermore and evermore!

The point for which Noll used this poem was illustrating the Christological view hammered out at the council of Chalcedon. I guess I don’t give my elders enough credit, as the sermon this week was on Colossians 2:9-10, and emphasised the (orthodox) Chalcedonian view of the hypostatic union! Go to the sermon for 12/17/2006 here. And you thought us Protestants paid no attention to church history… 

Well, for those of you in the Northern regions of the United States this could provide a chance to see the Auroa Borealis (Northern Lights).  The further north you are the better shot you have of seeing this phenomenon.  According to the forecast found on the Geophysical Institute website you may be able see it overhead as far south as Minneapolis and on the horizon as far south as Chicago.  A comment from the forecaster also suggest a chance of seeing it into the middle sections of the U.S.

For those of us in the Lafayette, IN area the Kp index must be between 7 and 9 to see the auroa.  This map shows the U.S. and where each Kp indexes needs to be for your area to see the lights.  To check out a short term forecast of the Kp index this site may be useful.

For best chance at veiwing I would suggest to get as far away from city lights as you can.  Let me know if you see the lights?

Also, I saw this link from JT today to CJ Mahaney’s guy gift ideas. I think it is interesting as a window into who he is more than anything else.

Consider this juicy quote:

One design of God in the gospel is to bring us to make God the object of our undivided respect, that he may engross our regard [in] every way, that watever natural inclination there is in our souls, he may be the center of it; that God may be all in all.

You can read it for free here.

First, my ten year-old brother informed me that he was joining a band:

Bro: I’m joining a band.

Me: Really! What instrument are you playing?

Bro: The triangle. Actually, the Electric Triangle. [Followed by guitar distortion sounds produced from brother's mouth, alongside the striking of an "air triangle."]

–

Secondly, I’ve been growing a beard. Rather, I’ve attempted a beard for a good 6 weeks or so. Today at work, a coworker (honestly) asked me if I was Amish. Bear in mind that I am a type of software engineer.

I informed her that in my cubicle I have a wooden laptop.

When pressed, I mentioned that I “used to be, but just wasn’t plain enough for them.” We’ll see how far this goes.

He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: 10 “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’ 13 But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.” Luke 18:9-14 (ESV)

Piper argues that the Pharisee was NOT a Legalist (my previous understanding), because he is thanking God for his own “righteousness” and not seeking to earn favor with God on his own merit. Excerpt:

He is not presented as a legalist—one who tries to earn his salvation. That is not the issue. One thing is the issue: This man was morally upright. He was religiously devout. He believed God had made him so. He gave thanks for it. And that is what he looked to and trusted in for his righteousness before God—for his justification. And he was dead wrong. (emphasis added)

The idea that this man rightfully thanked God for working in his life, looking to God as the means to his right living and yet went home UNJUSTIFIED (verse 14) is fascinating, perplexing, and terrifying. The problem is not that his morality or religion are wrong, but that these works of righteousness are insufficient for salvation and leave him condemned in the Judgement.

This is of coarse the problem with removing the imputation. A problem that Piper clearly explains in the rest of the sermon. No matter how “righteous” you are, how much “good” is in your life even by God’s provision, Justification is on the BASIS OF CHRIST ALONE!

The summary: make sure you bring the right currency to the judgement. I can’t hear this message enough. Just thought you might enjoy reading or listening to it if you have time. I would be interested in any discussion on the implications this Pharisee’s view would have on Christian Living – What does it look like to trust in yourself?

Peace

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,228107,00.html?sPage=fnc.foxlife/spears

Did you catch that?  Britney’s divorce is a good business decision AND it will allow her to return to her charitable ways.  Well in that case…it MUST be good.  As long as we can break our vows for the good of humanity we are in the clear, in fact, it may make more sense for us to do so. 

 Very, very, very sad indeed.

If you are interested in joining us, please contact me (mark dot 5pointers ‘at sign’ gmail dot com) ASAP as we are arranging hotel accomodations and travel times. The details of the seminar can be retrieved here.

Our current plan is to head down Friday, December 1st, during the afternoon. We’ll be coming back in time for Sunday morning worship in Urbana.

Costs are solely: food, shared gas, and shared lodging.

Let me know if you are interested via the comments or my email address!

But something that I noticed today as I went in to to delete the filtered advert spam, was a new use or benefit of spam. You see, advertisers are selling products in ways that appeal to people’s needs and desires, right? I posit that the more clear the connection between product and benefits, the more likely a customer will purchase said product. Not surprisingly, most spam is aimed at private desires and deep seeded needs. The good thing about this is the window it provides to what advertisers think is the desire of the modern american heart.

What do people want, truly? More money, more stuff, nicer stuff, better sex lives, US citizenship, prestige (through degrees, cars, aforementioned stuff), etc. The constant stream of spam is a ticker-tape of the american heart. Sadly, the barometer of human desire does not indicate a rising of affections to God.

Fortunately I am not bombarded with Theological and Puritan Book Spam, as I would probably max out our credit card in a day… but I digress.

I suppose the point I’m getting at is how, if we are not tempted by the spam, we can use it as social commentary. Advertisers are doing thier darndest to sell stuff to people, and they aim at the heart. They are doing my work for me! If I want to know what’s on my neighbor’s mind, I could get a clue from just looking through the spam. And this is somehow noteworthy to me and valuable enough to share, go figure!

What do you think?

After I wrote this I popped over to Amazon and looked at thier 25 top selling books (which updates every hour,) currently they are:

You: On A Diet: The Owner’s Manual for Waist Management
by Michael F. Roizen, Mehmet C. Oz

The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins

The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream
by Barack Obama

Cross
by James Patterson

The Innocent Man: Murder and Injustice in a Small Town
by John Grisham

For One More Day
by Mitch Albom

I Like You: Hospitality Under the Influence
by Amy Sedaris

The End (A Series of Unfortunate Events, Book 13)
by Lemony Snicket, Brett Helquist (Illustrator)

Joy of Cooking: 75th Anniversary Edition – 2006
by Irma S. Rombauer, Marion Rombauer Becker, Ethan Becker

Martha Stewart’s Homekeeping Handbook: The Essential Guide to Caring for Everything in Your Home
by Martha Stewart

Wild Fire
by Nelson DeMille

Culture Warrior
by Bill O’Reilly

YOU: The Owner’s Manual: An Insider’s Guide to the Body that Will Make You Healthier and Younger
by Michael F. Roizen, Mehmet Oz

Dear John
by Nicholas Sparks

Living Divine Relationships
by Zhi Gang Sha

The Shape Shifter (Joe Leaphorn/Jim Chee Novels)
by Tony Hillerman

Marley & Me: Life and Love with the World’s Worst Dog
by John Grogan

State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III
by Bob Woodward

Nature Girl
by Carl Hiaasen

Lisey’s Story
by Stephen King

A Photographer’s Life: 1990-2005
by Annie Leibovitz (Photographer)

Letter to a Christian Nation
by Sam Harris

America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It
by Mark Steyn

Next
by Michael Crichton

The World Is Flat [Updated and Expanded]: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century
by Thomas L. Friedman

Truly a pretty depressing lot. However, I find this to be another social barometer, if you will. While I think the only one I’d care to read is Morley and Me or maybe The End, but what do you glean from this list? What does this tell us about the American population? (Assuming Amazon.com customers accurately represent the American population.)

To help the hurting, I’m posting this link to a cached view of Purgatorio dated Nov. 6th, 2006. I hope that this will help you manage the headaches, dizziness, boredom, fear, manic depression, fits of rage, and panic attacks that may have afflicted you as Heinrich’s comedic genius has been absent over the last several days.

Do not fear little one. Either Purgatorio will return, or a new Satirical Prophet will arise in Blogisrael.

Update: Speculation is rampant in many quarters that either a.) the Rapture already happened OR b.) we all have (unbeknownst to us) recieved an indefinate Get Out of Purgatorio Free card or c.) Marc’s server is down.  Time will tell.

Writing. I need practice, and the blog is an easy place to do so. Well, here are two posts that should encourage you in it; here and here.

“Reading makes a full man; speaking makes a ready man; writing makes an exact man.” ~Francis Bacon

“21 He changes times and seasons;
he removes kings and sets up kings;
he gives wisdom to the wise
and knowledge to those who have understanding;
22 he reveals deep and hidden things;
he knows what is in the darkness,
and the light dwells with him.”
Daniel 2:21-22

“1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.”
Romans 13:1-2

I am very thankful that we have a sovereign Lord!

Random thought that just brought about a chuckle…
Who said, “Elected because I selected?”

• Desiring God has a “Taste and See” article up by Dr. John Piper: Why Vote If you are Disillisioned? I found it encouraging and interesting as someone who has consistantly not voted due to lack of confidence in all participants. (I have a stellar record of inactivity – 6 years of voting eligibility and Zero votes cast for anything outside of College Dorm councils…not something to be proud of.) Yes, I am going to the polls tomorrow, and I encourage you to do so as well. Check out this article by Piper on the matter, and if you are in IL, this might be useful too.
• The Evangelical Textual Criticism blog interviewed Dr. Bart Ehrman here. Dr. James White has interacted with some of Ehrman’s material on the DL and in posts like this one.
• Just up the road in Chicago is the University of Chicago’s Oriental Institute Museum. Anyone interested in an ANE fieldtrip in the next couple of months? I’m going to try to make it up to Chicago around “New Years”, it would be a great place to rendezvous and and opportunity to learn!
• Spring Courses are online at UTS for those who are interested.

Pursuing Methuselah: A Theological Response to Anti-Aging Science will be presented by Assistant Professor of Theology at UTS, Todd Daly.

The lecture will be followed by a panel discussion featuring:

George Pyle, Three Hierarchs Greek Orthodox Church

Christine A Weaver, Phsician and Geneticist, Carle Clinic Association

David Delaney, Scholar at the Newman Institue of Catholic Thought

I hope you can come as it should be an interesting and stimulating lecture and discussion!

I started with the english translations and how they render this verse. The grossest offender that I saw was the NLT:

For when we died with Christ we were set free from the power of sin.

As opposed to the ESV (footnoted) translation:

For one who has died has been justified from sin.

Wycliffe got it right though:

For he that is dead [to sin], is justified from sin.

Also of interest is the Greek used here. Even if you don’t know anything about Greek, check out the parsed version at Zhubert.com, here. Just run your mouse over the terms to get the parsing and a definition. Of course the word is shaped by the context, but this isn’t an exegisis paper, we’re just perusing the Greek.

My tendency is to be patient in situations I like. And that’s no patience! Patience is endurance through things that challenge us, and it is rooted in humility, as surely as my impatience is rooted in pride.

This reminded me of John Piper’s chapter in Future Grace on patience. Here’s a snapshot of Piper’s connection between faith and patience:

Patience is the evidence of an inner strength…That is why Paul is praying for the Colossians. He is asking God to empower them for the patient endurance that the Christian life requires. But when he says that the strength of patience is “according to [God's] glorious might” he doesn’t just mean that it takes divine power to make a person patient. He means that faith in this glorious might is the channel through which the power of patience comes.(Future Grace pg. 173)

Things to think about as we confess our pride and plead for faith today.

Some other cool Reformation day items are this post by ENielsen, this post by Isaiah543, these Justification book recommendations, the 95 theses, and here’s the Resource Sheet and 95 Theses from the party if you are interested (in PDF).
Finally, the trivia question we couldn’t answer, and I hope you answer in the comments is: In what language were Luther’s originally posted theses? (German? Latin? Engligh? ah, yeah, citation requested!) Oh, and if you think of it, what is your favorite thesis? Mine is #62.

Also, Justin Taylor posted a link to a presidential interview on foriegn policy that was very interesting. We could have a lot of commentary on this, but I’ll see what develops.

The plot alternates between two Jewish men, Woody Allen and Martin Landau playing Clifford Stern and Judah Rosenthal respectively. Clif is a struggling, idealistic, documentary film maker while Judah is a successful, philandering, opthamalogist. The film follows thier seperate exploits concluding with them attending the same party and a dialogue recapping Judah’s struggles – as a pitch for a new film. Like I said, interesting and challenging, and probably due for another viewing in a few years. So here are my random thoughts (topics marked by ‘~’.)

~One of Clif’s brothers-in-law is a rabbi who argueably has the most biblical worldview in the picture. But he goes blind. Is Allen saying in some hamfisted way that the rabbi is blind to reality? Is Allen saying that the rabbi is the one who really sees – showing spiritual insight through physical seperation? I’m given to think the former, judging by the rest of the film. Regardless, an interesting presentation.

~Immorality blooms in the fields of self focus and rationalization (relativism.) Incredibly Clif asks a collegue to marry him while he is struggling through the last throws of his current unhappy marriage. Everybody is meeting somebody and giving up on thier marriages it seems – aside from Judah who from self-preservation orders the murder of his mistress to keep his wife in the dark. Repeatedly throughout the film I found myself thinking: “If you didn’t have an affair in the first place, you wouldn’t be in this crisis.” The little decisions set the course for the tectonic shifts! It is not crazy then for me to think in my own life, but it is very real. The little things matter.

~In the midst of Judah’s soul searching (following his realized sins), he goes to his boyhood home. Judah then enters a conversation at a past Seder, in which his aunt stresses the relative nature of morality and the absence of god (as illustrated by the holocaust – clearly there is no justice in the world…) The religious Rosenthal patriarch argues that even if there is no god, it is still better to pursue him and live according to his statues so that one has some moral ground to stand on. That is, apart from a revealed diety, life is meaningless. Allen draws out the dialogue to the point that the elder Rosenthal is forced to say “Yes, if required I will choose god over the truth.”

Meanwhile the struggling Judah hears both sides that replay in his head from childhood. The conversation concludes with the father stressing that the wicked will be punished. This really looses it’s punch with Allen constantly suggesting that god is our intellectual and emotional placebo.

The resolution later in the film is that Judah shows he is dead to the god without, and only worships the god within. He can live with the murder of his mistress, he is the center of the universe. Clif laments “I don’t think anyone could live with that.” Judah goes on living with it, claims “this is reality”, and it looks like the happily ever after.

~Taking in the sum of available arguements on morality and God, the film left me in the gloom of a false dichotomy between truth and God. But the startling fact was that while Jesus’ name was on everybody’s lips as an expression of surprise or dissent, no-one recognized him. The fact that changes everything, that dominates the landscape of the discussion, is that the Son has been lifted up and illumines the truth of God, which is the truth. But the film presented the Jewish soul as lost between God’s denial (in the face of Holocaust induced doubt and suffering) on the one hand, and pandering to empty traditions on the other. You’re either right and hopeless or happy and thoughtless. This reminds me of something Tim Keller recently said at the DG conference: “The resurrection of Jesus Christ is both intellectually credible and existentially satisfying.” Amen.

The answer for the athiest Jew or the “faithful” Jew is found in Christ. What the Jews have missed for a time, and (professing) athiests dismiss, and christians too quickly forget, is that Christ is risen and is Supreme in all things.

Romans 3:28 (ESV)
VS.
You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
James 2:24 (ESV)

OK, which verse wins the match? Hmm… I think I’m going with…

This week with my small group at church we’re going over James 2:14-26 . This section of James is a treasure trove that some have buried and sealed in a lack of understanding or thoughts of contradiction. Martin Luther wasn’t too keen on James as I’m sure others weren’t as well since it seems to go against Paul’s teaching. When most Christians (myself included) finish reading this section of James they are somewhat perplexed, especially if they’ve spent a lot of time in Paul’s letters, primarily Romans and Galatians. Nevertheless, Once you finish James multiple thoughts could be going through your mind, “What does he mean by faith with out works is dead” or “Is he talking about salvation by works” or “this isn’t what Paul meant by justification” or “does the bible contradict it’s self?” Without going into it too much I’m going to quickly rule out contradiction because we know that the Scriptures are pure (Psalm 12:6 ), true (Prov 30:5 ) and God breathed (2 Tim 3:16 ). J. Gresham Machen says this about James not by faith alone statement, “But like other apparent contradictions in the Bible, it proves to be a contradiction merely of form and not of content; and it serves only to lead the devout reader into a deeper and fuller understanding of the truth.” Machen is accurate in his remarks about James. Ruling out contradiction then leads us to some type of paradox, one which some people [1] really want to understand or [2] have no desire to dive deeper into and ignore it all together. But there are some beautiful truths in James 2:14-26. Studying this has been helpful in giving me a better understanding of genuine faith and pure religion (James 1:27 ).

 

14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? 17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. 18 But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! 20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. 24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? 26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.

James 2:14-26 (ESV)

I hope to include much from godly men of the past and present from here on out, who have been very helpful in not only affirming my thoughts but also taking it to another level. Here is how Calvin sees this section of James :

It appears certain that he is speaking of the manifestation, not of the imputation of righteousness, as if he had said, Those who are justified by true faith prove their justification by obedience and good works, not by a bare and imaginary semblance of faith. In one word, he is not discussing the mode of justification, but requiring that the justification of believers shall be operative. And as Paul contends that men are justified without the aid of works, so James will not allow any to be regarded as justified who are destitute of good works. Due attention to the scope will thus disentangle every doubt; for the error of our opponents lies chiefly in this, that they think James is defining the mode of justification, whereas his only object is to destroy the depraved security of those who vainly pretended faith as an excuse for their contempt of good works. Therefore, let them twist the words of James as they may, they will never extract out of them more than the two propositions: That an empty phantom of faith does not justify, and that the believer, not contented with such an imagination, manifests his justification by good works.

J. Gresham Machen describes this difficulty as following:

The solution of the difficulty appears in the definition of the word “faith.” The apparent contradiction is due simply to the fact that when James in this chapter says that “faith” alone is insufficient, he means a different thing by the word “faith” from that which Paul means by it when he says that faith is all-sufficient. The kind of faith which James is pronouncing insufficient is made clear in the nineteenth verse of the same chapter: “Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.” The kind of faith which James pronounces insufficient is the faith which the devils also have; it is a mere intellectual apprehension of the facts about God or Christ, and it involves no acceptance of those facts as a gift of God to one’s own soul. But it is not that kind of faith which Paul means when he says that a man is saved by faith alone. Faith is indeed intellectual; it involves an apprehension of certain things as facts; and vain is the modern effort to divorce faith from knowledge. But although faith is intellectual, it is not only intellectual. You cannot have faith without having knowledge; but you will not have faith if you have only knowledge.

C. H. Spurgeon says this in an excerpt from the sermon Fruitless Faith, he preached February 21st, 1861.

What James does mean, however, is this, no doubt, in brief and short, that while faith saves, it is faith of a certain kind. No man is saved by persuading himself that he is saved; nobody is saved by believing Jesus Christ died for him. That may be, or may not be, true in the sense in which he understands it. In a certain sense Christ died for all men, but since it is evident that many men are lost, Christ’s dying for all men is not at all a ground upon which any man may hope to be saved. Christ died for some men in another sense, in a peculiar and special sense. No man has a right to believe that Christ peculiarly and specially died for him until he has an evidence of it in casting himself upon Christ, and trusting in Jesus, and bringing forth suitable works to evince the reality of his faith. The faith that saves is not a historical faith, not a faith that simply believes a creed and certain facts: I have no doubt devils are very orthodox; I do not know which church they belong to, though there are some in all churches; there was one in Christ’s Church when he was on earth, for he said one was filled with devils; and there are some in all churches. Devils believe all the facts of revelation. I do not believe they have a doubt; they have suffered too much from the hand of God to doubt his existence! They have felt too much the terror of his wrath to doubt the righteousness of his government. They are stern believers, but they are not saved; and such a faith, if it be in us, will not, cannot, save us, but will remain to all intents and purposes a dead, inoperative faith. It is a faith which produces works which saves us; the works do not save us; but a faith which does not produce works is a faith that will only deceive, and cannot lead us into heaven.

John Piper preached a sermon called Does James Contradict Paul On August 8th, 1999 and here is a excerpt:

Now that, I think, is what James was trying to get across to his churches. Loveless faith is absolutely useless; and anybody that comes along and says “We are justified by faith alone, and so you don’t have to be a loving person to go to heaven” is not telling the truth.

Let’s see how James corrects this distortion of Paul’s teaching. Here’s where you have to watch out for words – what does James mean by the words he uses? Even when his words may seem to be in conflict with Paul, is the meaning in conflict?

James’ concern is with a kind of counterfeit faith that does not produce love. This faith cannot justify anybody. Verse 14: “What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?” You see his concern. “Can that faith save him?” Such faith is not going to save. What kind of works is James interested in? The same kind Paul is – the works of love. Verses 15-16: “If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,’ and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?” So James’ concern is that people have real saving faith, not counterfeit faith. And the difference is that the real faith produces loving behavior.

He has three ways of describing this counterfeit faith. First in verse 17, he says it is dead: “Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.” It is dead faith. If faith does not “work through love” as Paul said, it is dead. Second, in verse 19 he says, “You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.” There is a faith that even devils have, namely, belief in right doctrine. The faith that justifies and works through love is not simply belief in right doctrines like, “God is one.” Devils can be orthodox at the intellectual level. They believe. But it doesn’t save them. So there is dead faith and devil faith. Third, he says in verse 20, “But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?” So there is useless, idle, ineffective, vain, empty faith.

So there are three ways in this passage that James talks about faith to show that the faith he says cannot justify is a faith that Paul would totally agree cannot justify – dead faith, devil faith, and useless faith -faith that has no vital life that works through love.

I trust that these excerpts have either opened your eyes or reaffirmed the truths and beauty of James as they have for me. Let us continue to be doers of the word and not just hearers.

But something troubled me with my translation methodology. You see, my engineering undergrad taught me to learn enough to get through the test, not to learn the material for it’s own sake. So difficult exams would involve all manner of processing the information given, and sparsely remembered, to produce the most points.

How does this affect Greek? Well, instead of translating a Greek phrase or sentence, my engineering conditioned mind tries to decode it. The instant some phrase sounds like a Scriptural caption – ZING – I write out the rest of the verse! What nonsense! Instead of using the Greek I know to translate into english, I find myself relying more heavily on english translations to reverse engineer the Greek! Wretched man that I am, who will deliver me from this mind of death?!

Fortunately for me, God is gracious and I am actually learning some Greek, and the exam wasn’t that much of a tragedy. And the good news is that with these catagories, if the test went well, it will be a comedy.

The question is, are they exclusive (not the people – the atributes of God)? Can God be both loving and just? I suppose a further question could be raised: Can I even ask these questions? I have spoken with folks who say that beyond “God is love”, we can’t really define God if we remain biblical. (Nevermind every book in the Bible that ascribes or implies things about the Lord… but I digress.)

A while back I realized that we are given catagories besides love even in this verse with which to understand God. In fact, it is necessary in order to understand “God is love” that we think of him as holy. The context of “God is love” demands it.

“…God is love. In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” (1 John 4:8b-10, ESV)

So a critical part of “God is love” is how we know it, that is, in the person of Christ. This seems obvious, but apart from God’s sending his Son we would not know him as loving – we would still be children of wrath. But notice the emphasis of this loving incarnation is on the propitiatory work of Christ! The love of God is known through the coming and sacrifice of Christ to take away the wrath of God and make us pleasing to him.

Why is it so important that God’s love is tied to propitiation? Plainly, his wrath is what is expiated, carried away, with Christ’s sacrifice. Why is God wrathful towards us? We are sinners, hopelessly corrupt in our ungodliness and unrighteousness. God is rightfully furious against us in ungodliness and unrighteousness because he is perfectly holy and good. So the banner statement of “God is love”, is couched in the context of God’s holiness here by John.

I suppose that leaves us with a little more to consider when we causually reference God’s love. His love really isn’t seperated from the majesty of the rest of his character. When talking with my pastor recently about this, he said it well: any understanding of ‘God is love’ that denies his wrath is biblically unsatisfactory. (Note the lack of quote marks there.)

So, the next time someone beats you with the prooftext stick of “God is love”, lovingly ask them read a little further, and explain propitiation with the “my idea of love is god” theology.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,222363,00.html

Rather, I am excited about a new day for me. That’s right, I’m refering to Reformation Day. I’m excited because it is a reality, and it actually commemorates something that happened on October 31st – Luther’s nailing of the 95 Theses to the Wittenburg church door.

I know one of the elders at my church celebrates this day with his family, and I hope this post can drum up some support. Without consulting my wife, I’m announcing a Reformation Day Party at my place October 27th at 8PM (it’s a Friday, I know.) So, if you are interested in hearing all 95 theses, dressing in period (the 16th century), and raising a glass (stein?) in thanks for the purifying work God kicked off in his church with that action nigh 500 years ago, join me in saying

– Hooray for Reformation Day! –

Let me know in the coments if you are interested in coming.

Oh…that makes me a Dispensationalist!

 I suggest Gerstner’s “Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth” on the subject, great book and very funny!

C. J. Mahaney
Erik Thoennes
Philip Ryken
Sam Storms
Jim Hamilton

Reading was never a hobby or an activity that I wanted to do until a few years ago. After Christ came into my life, He not only opened me up to the Word but also to the words of others. Up until this past year, I never considered reading anything other than books on theology, spiritual disciplines, and any other type of Christian work. Then I picked up Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen and loved it. It opened my eyes to the beauty of fiction. I think Al Mohler sums it up quite well.

“I believe that literature and the fictive imagination are among God’s gifts. I read a great deal of fiction, and try to keep up on what the culture is reading. That does not mean that I always have to read what the world is reading, but I do read enough to know what is shaping the minds of those around me. Beyond that, I truly enjoy losing myself in a story. I am a big fan of authors such as Flannery O’Connor and Walker Percy, and I read quite a bit of contemporary fiction. Of course, one must choose carefully here, and fiction is recreational reading — not study.

One of the main values of reading fiction and great literature is that it develops the imagination and enhances literary style. Just admit that you like fiction, if you do — but keep it in its place. I keep a literary project going at all times, but it falls last in priority. Plunder the Egyptians, and read the classics of literature.”

What sparked this post was once again I find myself reading Jane Austin, this time it’s Sense and Sensibility. It has been a very enjoyable read thus far and look forward to reading some more of her and other fiction works in the years to come. So take some time and pick up a good fiction book, I would recommend a classic like Pride and Prejudice.

*And yes I am a guy

*And yes I like to read Jane Austin and I am not ashamed of it

A couple of questions to spark some discussion…

What fiction books would you recommend?

Is there any other “guy” out there who likes Jane Austen?

Books that piqued my interest for the first time were: God and Other Minds by Alvin Plantinga and Money, Possessions, and Eternity by Randy Alcorn.

I went through an counted that I have, or have read, only 8 of the 50 shown! I’ve got some reading to do…

Update!
50 Books You Should Leave on the Shelf…

Sadly I’ve read at least 3 of these and own 2 of them. I’ve even held a Ryrie Study Bible before but, but I quickly washed my hands… honest.

Do try, as far as you can, to make the very way in which you speak to minister to the great end you have in view. Preach, for instance, as you would plead if you were standing before a judge, and begging for the life of a friend, or as if you were appealing to the Queen herself on behalf of someone very dear to you. Use such a tone in pleading with sinners as you would use if a gibbet were erected in this room, and you were to be hanged on it unless you could persuade the person in authority to release you. That is the sort of earnestness you need in pleading with men as ambassadors for God. Try and make every sermon such that the most flippant shall see without any doubt that, if it be an amusement for them to hear you, it is no amusement for you to speak to them, but that you are pleading with them in downright solemn earnest about eternal matters. I have often felt just like this when I have been preaching,—I have known what it is to use up all my ammunition, and then I have, as it were, rammed myself into the great gospel gun, and I have fired myself at my hearers, all my experience of God’s goodness, all my consciousness of sin, and all my sense of the power of the gospel; and there are some people upon whom that kind of preaching tells where nothing else would have done, for they see that then you communicate to them not only the gospel, but yourself also. The kind of sermon which is likely to break the hearer’s heart is that which has first broken the preacher’s heart, and the sermon which is likely to reach the heart of the hearer is the one which has come straight from the heart of the preacher…

~C.H. Spurgeon (referenced here)
Bad Gun:

Somebody is attacking me because of something I am teaching. Let me tell you something brother, you watch it! …Sometimes I wish God would give me a Holy Ghost machine gun, I’ll blow your head off!

~Benny Hinn (referenced here)

Last night a quote of his struck me with great force. This is a strong word, so I caution you before reading it. I hope the comments produce a conversation on this topic of Short Term Missions. Well, with very little context (first provided by Anderson), here’s what Judson said:

The opening of 1833 brought additional missionaries from the United STates – one of them Miss Sarah Cummings, an unmaried woman. Later there were to be accessions to the mission forces. But as usual, they could not be of much real use until they became fluent in the language; and that would be a matter of years. At least one of these had come out with the understanding that his service was to be for a limited period of years. Adoniram was disturbed, like all his experienced colleagues.

I much fear [he complained to the Corresponding Secretary at home,] that this will occasion a breach in our mission. How can we, who are devoted for life, cordially take to our hearts one who is a mere hireling?… I have seen the beginning, middle, and end of several limited term missionaries. They are all good for nothing. Though brilliant in an English pulpit, they are incompetent to any real missionary work. They come out for a few years, with the view of acquiring a stock of credit on which they may vegetate the rest of their days, in the congenial climate of thier native land… The motto of every missionary, whether preacher, printer, or schoolmaster, ought to be “Devoted for life.” (Courtney Anderson, To The Golden Shore, Pg. 409. Emphasis present in Anderson.)

What do you think of Judson’s comments? Are they true for all short term missions opportunities? Is his grim outlook purely a reflection of the incredible hardship and difficult times in which he lived? Does he neglect the fruit of trips in the lives of the short termers themselves (and those back home)? Is this only true when the cultures and languages are so vastly seperated for missionaries?

Another thing I’m excited about (maybe more the conference) is the discounted books!  Feel free to let me know if there is a specific book you want me to pick up.  I should have access to the Internet, so shoot me an email or leave a comment on this post and I’ll try to accommodate you.

Sometime next week I’m planning to do a post on the conference.  It may take me a few days or so to process some of the information so don’t wait expectantly for it.

May the Lord be glorified this weekend!

W hile anger towards God is not right (this friend didn’t think so either by the way), I have had a different reaction while reading Courtney Anderson’s To the Golden Shore. I have wept after reading of Judson’s dying loved ones, imprisonment, mental anguish, and brutality recieved at the hands of the people he longs to see awakened. However, I have not gotten angry with God (praise him for that!), instead I have become irate at the Burmans. In my mind I argue with them; “You foolish Burmans! How could you treat Judson, an envoy of Christ, like this! How could you be so wicked and wrongheaded!” On and on I could go about thier stupidity and wickedness.

But last night it hit me, all my anger towards the Burmans showed my own heart’s emptyness. Was I not an enemy of God once? Did I not hate him and his elect not too long ago? Was it not men just like me who murdered the Son of God?! By the very measure I applied to the Burmans, I was condemned. Suddenly I remembered:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven.”(Matthew 5:43-45 ESV)

“but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”(Romans 5:8, ESV)

“And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience– among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ–by grace you have been saved– and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.”(Ephesians 2:1-10, ESV)

May God change my heart and yours to love our enemies as a result of Christ’s work in us – the giving of new, gracious, merciful, Father-like, hearts.

All the work and effort is appreciated! Not to mention it looks good!

TEN virgins, clothed in white,
 The Bridegroom went to meet;
Their lamps were burning bright
 To guide his welcome feet.

Five if the band were wise --
 Their lamps with oil filled high;
The rest this care despise,
 And take their vessels dry.

Long time the Lord abode -
 Down came the shades of night -
The weary virgins nod,
 And then they sleep outright.

At midnight came the cry
 Upon their startled ear -
Behold the Bridegroom nigh,
 To light His steps appear.

They trim their lamps; in vain
 The foolish virgins toil -
Our lamps are out, O deign
 To give us of your oil!

Not so - the wise ones cry -
 No oil have we to spare;
But swiftly run and buy,
 That you the joy may share.

They went to buy, when lo!
 The Bridegroom comes in state;
Within those ready go,
 And shut the golden gate.

The foolish virgins now
 Before the gateway crowd;
With terror on their brow
 They knock and cry aloud:-

"Lord open to our call -
 Hast Thou our names forgot?"
Sadly the accents fall -
 "Depart, I know you not."

Learn here, my child, how vain
 This world, with all its lies,
Those who the kingdom gain
 Alone are truly wise.

How vain the Christian name,
 If still you live in sin:-
A lamp, and wick, and flame,
 No drop of oil within.

Is your lamp filled, my child,
 With oil from Christ above?
Has He your heart, so wild,
 Made soft and full of love?

Then you are ready now
 With Christ to enter in;
To see His holy brow,
 And bid farewell to sin.

Sinners! Behold the gate
 Of Jesus open still;
Come, ere it be too late,
 And enter if you will.

The Saviour's gentle hand
 Knocks at your door to-day
But vain his loud demand -
 You spurn His love away.

So, at the Saviour's door
 You'll knock, with trembling heart
The day of mercy o'er,
 Jesus will say - depart.

Criteria:
1. Must be dead
That’s it and that’s all!

1. Introduce a food item lovingly garnished with Tabasco(c) sauce to my environment.
2. Let me look at this, this, this, or this. [Caution: Theological Books!!]
On the note of building a puritan library, I found Tony Reinke’s series to be informative thus far.

Now for something completely different:

If you haven’t already, read Piper’s suggestions on ministering to your pastor. I think every christian should read and apply this.

“For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.” Romans 8:13 (ESV)

“Hatred of sin as sin, not only as galling or disquieting, a sense of the love of Christ in the cross, lie at the bottom of all true spiritual mortification.” – John Owen from Mortification of Sin in Believers

• Zechariah 3 on Imputation here.
• Bunyan on Imputation here.
• Edwards on Justification here.
• Romans 3:21 part 1 here.
• Romans 3:21 part 2 here.
• Romans 3:22 here .
• Anybody out there? (on NPP) here.
• Romans 3:24 and Imputation here.
• Romans 4:2 and Boasting here.
  

As I mentioned previously, I’m perusing N.T. Wright’s Paul for Everyone commentary on Galatians. Frequently in reading it, I’m left asking, “Wha Happan?” So what is the source of my befuddlement? Wright specifically organizes the thought of this passage, and selects words such that his interpretation is quite perspicous. I think the highlighted sections below are telling of his emphasis. Allow the Scripture translations to tell the rest of the story:

First from the ESV:
23Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Now from N.T. Wright’s translation in Paul for Everyone:
“23Before this faithfulness arrived, we were kept under guard by the law, in close confinement until the coming faithfulness should be revealed. 24Thus the law was like a babysitter for us, looking after us until the coming of the Messiah, so that we might be given covenant membership on the basis of faithfulness. 25But now that faithfulness has come, we are no longer under the rule of the babysitter. 26For you are all children of God through the faithfulness which is in [of] the Messiah, Jesus.” (N.T. Wright, Paul for Everyone. SPCK, London England, UK. pg. 39. Emphasis added by me.)

God moves in a mysterious way
His wonders to perform;
He plants his footsteps in the sea,
And rides upon the storm.

Deep in unfathomable mines
Of never-failing skill,
He treasures up his bright designs,
And works his sovereign will.

Ye fearful saints, fresh courage take,
The clouds ye so much dread
Are big with mercy, and shall break
In blessings on your head.

Judge not the Lord by feeble sense,
But trust him for his grace:
Behind a frowning providence
He hides a smiling face.

His purposes will ripen fast,
Unfolding every hour;
The bud may have a bitter taste,
But sweet will be the flower.

Blind unbelief is sure to err,
And scan his work in vain:
God is his own interpreter,
And he will make it plain.

[part of William Cowper's contribution to the Olney Hymns, compiled by John Newton.]

Mark Denver: Why should this (New Perspective on Paul) be a matter of concern for pastors and church leaders, I mean is it or is it really just a matter for concern for a few professors who read and critique each others concern?

Ligon Duncan: I think it’s a matter of broad concern and I think that the amount of ink that’s being spilled over that is proof of that fact I don’t think it’s a tempest in a teapot and for me the proof is this, some of the best students that I’ve taught in seminary over the past dozen years have fallen hook line and sinker for it and consequently in my opinion they are fuzzy in their presentation of and understanding of the gospel and for me that’s a serious issue.

Mark Denver: How are they fuzzy in their presentation of the gospel?

Ligon Duncan: Well they are confused about what justification is, one, and in my view you don’t really do a good job of presenting the gospel unless you understand justification and what Paul is is talking about when he says justification. Two, um, they become unsure of whether justification is really a very important issue in relation to the gospel, but the gospel becomes redefined. Ah, N.T. Wright himself will often say the gospel is not in Romans 3 in the section from 3:22-28 on justification; the gospel is in Romans 1:3 and 4, which is the declaration that Jesus is Lord and Messiah that’s the gospel, not that we are justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

Listen to the rest here.

“Can cussing be good for you?…Studies show that cussing can relieve stress…we are the only animals capable of using such words…think about it if you were to get cut off in a car, simply saying a cuss word to yourself or in your head is better than the alternative…after all, if you bottle it up you can let it go and border on Terretts Syndrome which is a neurological disorder…while we don’t encourage you to teach your children that they should do this, it can be a good thing” (this is a paraphrase of his words…I couldn’t write them all fast enough)

Wow…I would like to know what kind of doctor this guy is…perhaps him and Kavorkian meet up for coffee and discuss philosophy and ethics.

This sort of worldview is permeating our society, our education and media institutions, our political system and even our churches. We must be vigilant in our churches and daily lives to prove the transforming power of the Holy Spirit AGAINST this sort of depravity. Cussing doesn’t relieve stress, it is SIN and causes more anxiety (instead we should “Cast our anxiety on him because he cares for us”). Even cussing in our heads isn’t a ‘good thing’ (But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca, ‘ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.)

Indeed we need to be transformed. Oh Lord help us NOT to conform but be transformed by the renewing or our minds and sanctified by your truth, YOUR WORD IS TRUTH!

“Some of the more conservative Christian groups continue to speak of America as a Christian country, or at least that it should be a Christian country, or at the very least that in its origins it once was a Christian Country. The reality, however, is that America is the world’s most religiously diverse nation now and from a Christian point of view it is as fully a mission field as any to which churches now are sending their missionaries. This is true, not only because of the arrival of these new immigrants with their diverse religions, but also because of the postmodern decay in American culture.” (page 108)

“Beginning in the 1960s, and blossoming in the 1970s and 1980s, “spirituality,” for a significant number of people, came into its own and became preferable to “religion.” The distinction that quickly took root was that religion stood from organized belief in its public form. It stood for participation in worship, support of the church or synagogue, and acceptance of its doctrines. Spirituality, by contrast, has come to stand for what is private and internal. What this typically means is that those who are spiritual accept no truth which is not experientially grounded. In the one, there is doctrine which is part and parcel of the church; in the other, mystical encounter which may often be accompanied by an unorthodox disposition. In the one, faith is lived out with a religious structure; in the other, there is suspicion of, if not hostility toward, religion which is organized.” (page 109-110)

Wells, David. Above All Earthly Pow’rs: Christ in a Postmodern World. Grand Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge, U.K. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 2005

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi

Webster Definition for pragmatism:
1 : a practical approach to problems and affairs pragmatism>
2 : an American movement in philosophy founded by C. S. Peirce and William James and marked by the doctrines that the meaning of conceptions is to be sought in their practical bearings, that the function of thought is to guide action, and that truth is preeminently to be tested by the practical consequences of belief

I was involved with the Navigators for the past 3.5 years until my recent retirement this past summer. God has blessed the Navigator ministry at Purdue and through that has blessed me as well (and I’m sure all the rest of the bloggers at 5_pointers agree). I’m very thankful for the ministry He has set up at Purdue and, especially, for the leaders He has placed there. It is a true blessing to have a gospel centered and glorifying to God ministry at Purdue. That said this post has nothing to do with the Navigator ministry at Purdue being pragmatic, but one that is in deep contrast.

My first contact with pragmatism occurred a couple different times last year at Nav Rally’s or our large group meetings that are held every Friday. On a couple different occasions people would come up to me and mentioned how much the attendance had dropped since the previous year. After a few minutes of discussion with each, it was quite clear that they were getting at the question of, “what’s wrong with the ministry?”

Both times I was caught aghast, because knowing the solid Foundation of the ministry and the fruit that it produces, left me to ponder their ideology of a successful ministry. It was clear that their mindset was this, if the ministry wasn’t growing and the attendance was dropping something was wrong with the ministry. I’m learning that this is an all too common theme in the postmodern world that we live in and an all too wrong understanding of a successful ministry.

The book of Jeremiah is a gold mine in refuting pragmatism. Through out his whole ministry nations and his own family were at war against him and it had a lack of converts. Also, if you read the first two chapters of 1 Corinthians you see the gospel message producing mixed results. Just because your ministry isn’t growing doesn’t mean there is something wrong.

My question to you is what is a successful ministry?

Also, ENielsen recently lent me the DVD of the James White/Douglas Wilson debate – “Is the Roman Catholic my brother or sister in Christ?” I never thought 2 hours and 48 minutes of debate on the Federal Vision and the meaning of trinitarian baptism per the New Covenant could be so fascinatingly exciting! If you have no idea what I’m talking about, watch this DVD (get it here.) It is very informative and worth your time.

A couple of years ago I plunged head first onto the Facebook bandwagon. Not really knowing anything about it except that all my friends were joining, my curiosity and desire to be apart of the “in crowd” lead me to signing up. Initially it was fun and interesting, looking up old high school friends to see what they were up to and where they were at was a good hobby. Also, learning more about current friends and acquaintances seemed to be a good way to spend time. There was also a lot of amusing bantering that took place on friend’s wall. Another feature that appeared good was putting your class schedule up so you can find other people in your class.

All of these things at first seemed like good things and were reason enough for me to continuing to be apart of the growing craze. Then I started to really think about Facebook and the implications it has had on me and could have on others.

I have nothing against those who use Facebook, most of my friends are members. I hope that those who do use it would, first, evaluate why they use it and if they are using it in a way that glorifies God (2 Cor 10:21). Second, if you do decide to use it set up precautions that protect you.

Some issues with Facebook:
1. Safety: It relates to guys and girls, but more specifically for girls. You may think stalking is not a big deal, but after the incidents at Purdue last year and many more outside of Purdue, it’s a serious issue. Most people put up way to much information, such as addresses, place of employment, phone numbers, etc. Another big one that most people probably don’t realize is class schedule. You may be thinking, “Are you serious,” how can this pose a problem. Any intelligent stalker can find out the time and place where that class meets from most universities websites. This is probably one of my biggest problems with Facebook, though I know most of it can be prevented with due diligence. To see that I’m not crazy read this.

2. Purpose of use: A question you should ask yourself is what is my purpose for using it? Most people would probably say to keep up with friendships. But if you really prod yourself there may be some more serious sin issues at hand. One may be pride played out in many different ways such as, I want to have the most friends linked to me or I want to taunt my personal resume to show others how good I am (Phil 3:1-11). Going even further is to show someone “specific” how good I am. I’m not saying everyone’s purpose is not edifying to God, but after talking with a lot of people this seems to be a more prevalent issue.

3. Waste of time: I use to spend a couple hours each day wasting time searching through facebook. I’m sure that there are some people who spend a lot more time on there than that. Whose time is it, is it our time or God’s time? Let us continue to honor God with every hour of our day.

These are just a few of the issues I have. I’m sure there are more, but these are the one’s that are currently on the top of my head.

I hope this can generate some good discussions!

1. Pragmatism at Purdue
2. Postmodernism at Purdue
3. Down-Grade Controversy

Even though these topics may appear on the outside very different, the root of all these issues has a common theme. I hope this will generate some good discussions over the next couple weeks!

This past weekend I took a little trip with my wife to Atlanta to visit family. The same old song and dance was paraded before us… unfasten your belt like so… breath through your mouth or nose like so, etc. The trouble was that the flight attendant had the most annoying voice. It was really quite a marvel, half “Charlie Brown’s teacher” – half microphone feedback. Needless to say, I covered my ears.

Now picture this for a moment, someone is telling you this vital safety briefing, and you are ignoring them! There I was, fingers in my ears refusing to listen to what was best for me to hear. What a bloke!

If you haven’t already caught the illustration, allow me to elucidate. The plane is going down – your plane. You will die, and it will be soon. God is angry with you, he is bringing your plane out of the sky. All of us are closing our ears to the witness of God in the things he has made as well as the Gospel herald through his Word from his people. As an athiest (practically or ideologically) we plug our ears to avoid disrupting our false comfort – every thought is “there is no God.” Someone, perhaps in a uniform with a pin, is telling you what you need to know. If you are annoyed by thier voice – perhaps the light of thier message is blinding to your dull eyes so accustomed to the darkness of your false world (a la the Cave Allegory) – you will shut your eyes and ears to them.

A sad picture indeed. The absurdity of the situation should impress on the athiest the fooly of such a way. Meanwhile, those brought to life should see the task – avail yourself of the Lord. Who can open blind eyes and unstop dull ears? Who can soften hearts to love God? Who can clothe you with the (purple=regal?) wedding clothes of righteousness* (Matt. 22)?

*You knew the purple suit had to make it in somehow. White shoes baby! Gospel of Peace?

For the past several months I’ve been itching to get into this blog thing, but due to my schedule there hasn’t been time. Now God has blessed me with more free time, my desire to take the gigantic step into the blogsphere has come. A great deal of thanks go out to Mark_5 and the rest of the cast for inviting me to be apart of 5_Pointers. It is an honor and privilege to be apart of a team whose godliness far exceeds that of mine.

The emphasis on gigantic is by no means an exaggeration for me. I must confess that in the past (and present) writing has not been my strong suite. Through out all my years of education, except for the last semester of college, I had no desire to write and if it was required the effort was minimal. Thankfully my degree didn’t require much writing

During the past couple years God has done some amazing work in my life and along with that has changed my attitudes toward writing in general. As God is leading me to my next phase of life where writing is both essential and required, I’m excited to hone my skills on this blog. I hope to use this blog not only as a place to polish my writing skills, but more significantly a place to share my passion for the King with y’all. I trust God will continue to bless you and me through this blog.

As I was reading CS Lewis’s The Abolition of Man (which today would be of humankind because of the offensive nature of the word ‘man’ in reference to humanity), I was struck by how Lewis’s criticism of the growing deconstruction movement and “post-moderns” is applicable to the current “emerging church discussion” (not movement…they are merely talking not acting). What is more, Lewis also castigates those skeptics of emotion (i.e. dispensationalists) and shows how they too have adopted a false worldview and propagate impossible doctrines. Lewis in typical fashion, confused me and then delighted me with his poignant commentary of lunacy disguised as philosophy. Here are a few quotes to illustrate:

On Extreme Fundamentalism

“They see the world around them swayed by emotional propaganda-they have learned from tradition that youth is sentimental-and they conclude that the best thing they can do is to fortify the minds of young people against emotion. My own experience as a teacher tells an opposite tale. Of every one pupil who needs to be guarded from a weak excess of sensibility there are three who need to be awakened from the slumber of cold vulgarity. The task of the modern educator is not to cut down jungles but to irrigate deserts. The right defense against false sentiments is to inculcate just sentiments. By starving the sensibility of our pupils we only make them easier prey to the propagandist when he comes. For famished nature will be avenged and a hard heart is no infallible protection against a soft head.”

“And all the time-such is the tragic-comedy of our situation-we continue to clamor for those very qualities we are rendering impossible. You can hardly open a periodical without coming across the statement that what our civilization needs is more “drive,” or dynamism, or self-sacrifice, or “creativity”. In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.”

“From proposition about fact alone no practical conclusion can ever be drawn. This will preserve society cannot lead to do this except by the mediation of society ought to be preserved. This will cost you your life cannot lead directly to do no do this: it can lead to is only through a felt desire or an acknowledged duty of self preservation. The Innovator is trying to get a conclusion in the imperative mood out of premises in the indicative mood: and though he continues trying to all eternity he cannot succeed, for the thing is impossible.”

On Subjectivism in Modern Thought

“Let us regard all ideas of what we ought to do simply as an interesting psychological survival: let us step right out of all that and start doing what we like. Let us decide for ourselves what man is to be and make him into that: not on any ground of imagined value, but because we want him to be such. Having mastered our environment, let us now master ourselves and choose our own destiny. This is a very possible position: and those who hold it cannot be accused of self-contradiction like the half-hearted skeptics who still hope to find “real” values when they have debunked traditional ones. This is the rejection of the concept of value altogether.”

“Traditional values are to be “debunked” and mankind to be cut out into some fresh shape at the will (which must, by hypothesis, be an arbitrary will) of some few lucky people in one lucky generation which has learned how to do it. The belief that we can invent “ideologies” at pleasure, and the consequent treatment of mankind as mere specimens, preparations, begins to affect our very language. Virtue has become integration and diligence dynamism.”

“What I most fear is the reply that I am “only one more” obscurantist, that this barrier, like all previous barriers set up against the advance of [philosophy] can be safely passed. Such a reply springs from the fatal serialism of the modern imagination- the image of infinite unilinear progression which so haunts our minds. Because we have to use numbers so much we tend to think of every process as if it must be like the numeral series, where every step, to all eternity, is the same kind of step as the one before. There are some progressions in which the last step is sui generis—in-commensurable with the others-and in which to go the whole way is to undo all the labour of your previous journey. To reduce [absolutes] to mere natural product is a step of the kind. Up to that point, the kind of explanation which explains things away may give us something, though at a heavy cost. But you cannot go on “explaining away” for ever: you will find that you have explained explanation itself away. You cannot go on “seeing through” things for ever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it. It is good that the window should be transparent, because the street or garden beyond it is opaque. How if you saw through the garden too? It is no use trying to “see through” first principles. If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To “see through” all things is the same as not to see.”

My first reaction was to say “You’ve got it wrong.” But after considering the arguement, I see the germ of truth. In fact I was recently talking with my pastor about this phenomenon which has manifested itself in a slightly different form. A cadre of monergistic fundamentalist bloggers suffer from the same problems that this article outlines. It is so very easy for me to point the finger at others rather than looking in the mirror.

Our monergism and love for God must come from the same work of the Spirit. We will avoid the absurdities White has cited when we seek Christ in his Word, rather than seeking vanity.

May God grant us repentence where we’ve erred, and give grace to walk the Calvary road.

The benefits of the BB are clear though, it cultivates (in my estimation) two blessings – 1. it was part of Edwards habit of thinking while reading. This developed his critical thinking and allowed him to return to thoughts later (see Piper’s bio of Edwards here.) 2. insights from the text are easy to find, they’re right next to the text! Without being a christian (much less a thinking christian) for very long, I have already lost notes on all kinds of topics – and I can’t hold a candle to such a prolific writer as Edwards! We’re all thinking about something when we read. Clearly this is a tool for everyone.

You can check out the three-part Blank Bible Project at the Shephard’s Scrapbook – 1,2,3.

While we’re on the subject of book binding, I drove past the local Lincoln Bookbindery the other day. If you have any book binding needs, I hear they are good (certainly thier webpage shows some sweet bookbinding action.)

Also of interest for the snobs amoung us is this piece on quality imported leather bound Bibles (ht:jt.) The author’s prefered Bible bindery is Allen’s of Oxford. Please feel free to read the website with a decidedly British accent.

As I have recently filled my girly-man purple flower spiral journal, it may be time to embark on a BB project of my own. Certainly Shephard’s gives a clear road to Edwardsian hardware! If anyone has any suggestions on paper considerations (I currently use Pelikan 4001 ink) for such a project, I would appreciate it. I know of some good legal pads that take the ink well, but I am ignorant of quality looseleaf brands. Trail and error is my present plan of evaluation.

[pics taken from Shephard's Scrapbook, Wikipedia, and Pelikan respectively]

I know I don’t have a stated policy of comment moderation here at 5pointers, mainly because it has never been an issue… let’s face it, it’s usually pretty slow around here. I hope this does not discourage commenting, but instead encourages discussion relevant to the topic.

So, if you comment on 5pointers on a post with respect to a different post on a different blog, simply because you are responding to a 5pointers contributor, your comment will be deleted. No hard feelings, I just want to keep things on topic. Send me an email (via my profile) to get ahold of me if you don’t think I’m taking the time to keep up w/ my part of the discussion on your blog. Please keep comments relevant to the topic being discussed, if the comment is (by 5pointer’s discretion) sufficiently off-topic, it will be removed.

Thanks,
Mark

1. Know the Gospel

2. Without Fear

Stay tuned for future installments.

Also, if you are looking for a good “hands-on” resource I strongly recommend A Muslim’s Heart. Sorry, my copy is currently lent out.

(HT:JT)

If you haven’t already, you can read a great post on imputed righteousness from Zechariah 3 over at Mike’s blog.

If you want some rabid discussion of Piper’s sermon, you can get it here.

If you want critical commentary on Piper’s sermon, you can get it here. (Note, I respect A.B. Caneday after reading his contribution to Beyond the Bounds, edited by Piper, Taylor, and Helseth. His chapter on anthropomorphism in God’s self-revelation is awesome.)

If you’d rather just take a deep breath and watch a video example of “plundering the Egyptians”, you can do that here.

Well, on to the thought I wanted to share. After mulling over (subconsciously, it’s great to be an N!) the article I linked to yesterday on Wright, some issues came to mind. One of the “problems” with Wright from the conservative evangelical community (according to the article) was that foundational thoughts in the NPP interpretative scheme have the wrong academic pedigree. This simply means that liberal scholars thought these things up, and as conservatives (and liberals!) are often disposed, the conclusions are rejected out of hand. The point is then made that we should be glad old Tom saw the diamonds in the rough over there in liberaldom.

At first read I accepted that point and moved on. However something James White said in his lecture series on Wright* from (Wright’s text) What Saint Paul Really Said, stuck out to me. Having read that first chapter of WSPRS, I found White’s (not Wright’s!) point to be valid. Namely, the charge of the ‘wrong pedigree’ may be motivation for some, but if you examine Wright’s recounting of the last century or so of Pauline study, the liberal presuppositions directly affect the outcome. Allow me to get to the point. Reading the text from the perspective of literature (or whatever liberal scholars call it, what I mean is not as Scripture, all of it… inerrant God breathed Word, roger?) produces conclusions that are then invalid. I am not going to listen to Bultmann tell me my interpretive scheme is not properly recognizing all of Scripture if he takes passages that do not fit into his scheme as gloss (or Paul’s own mistakes!) Does Wright do the same thing? I’m not sure. Word on the street is that he is not an inerrantist, but all I know now is that he is building (heavily) from the conclusions of Sanders and his ilk. The charge of “wrong pedigree” sure seems like a strawman, untill I realized, wait, they produce bad stuff! Sadly, it is from that ‘bad stuff’ that much of the so-called NPP takes shape.

These theories are from the other side of the tracks, sure, but it doesn’t matter if they are from my block, they fail the test. If John Piper tried to pass this stuff off on me, I’d reject it. Could you imagine? “Well, Paul didn’t actually write this bit” or “Paul didn’t mean to say that, he was still figuring that part out, but I’ve put it together.” Errrnt. Wrong answer, thanks for playing.

As far as the NPP is concerned and Wright in particular, I’m now weighing the opportunity cost of continuing much farther in his work. I may comment on his Galations commentary that I find fascinating, although sketchy. It may just be me, but in reading it I can’t shake the feeling that there is a lot of agenda alongside the text.

*download the zipped mp3s, scroll down to check the title over those three talks.

*Another Victory for Superdupont in what was once the heart of Anti-France.
French people everywhere may rest easy.

*An insightful and sympathetic post on N.T. Wright that, if you are interested, is good.

*A great post on offense in society from Al Mohler deserves some attention.

*And for the furious among us, you can go to a bar in eastern China to vent your frustrations. (Note that the alternative listed in the article is treatment from psychology students volunteering from local universities – yikes.)

When was the last time you read through what your church is ‘about’? For me it has been several months since I read through the ‘core commitments’ of my church. During the process of joining the church these were covered in the “New (Potential?) Members Class.” At the time I read through them and seriously thought about what this body has set up as their goals and methods. Nobody wants to hitch their wagon to a sinking ship or sign the line underneath unbiblical doctrine. So in that regard, for the visitor, for the prospective member, these commitments are great.

But wait a tic! These aren’t just for new people are they? If these are the commitments of the local church, that implies they are at the forefront of her mind. These are the things that we love and are convinced are our duty that we set them before us as commitments. We are going to strive for these things, this is serious and requiring our thought, effort, and dreams.
As I alluded to above, when was the last time I looked at them? I can’t give a specific time, only the vague reply: ‘months.’ This can’t be right. This must be changed! Therefore, it’s time for action on these very points!

At this point, God gave me a devotional idea that is the entire purpose of sharing this rant. Why not pray through these ten commitments over the coming days (weeks, months, years, [eek] decades) for our church? We know that the chief end of man is to glorify God by enjoying him for ever (christian hedonist tweak), why not pray for myself and the church that this commitment would be on the forefront of our minds, and be the desire of our hearts in the days ahead? Why not pray that the “commitment to knowing, loving, and obeying Christ” would burn in our hearts such that it would be the evident passion of our existence.

So would you join me in praying through these over the next ten days? Even if you are not a member of my church, go search through that dusty drawer, pull out that forgotten folder, track them down on that deserted derelict disk (“ok ok” you say, “I got the point, stop the misdemeanor alliteration”), find the commitments of your congregation and ask God to bless you in those areas.

A further devotional exercise is to find the verses upon which the commitments were framed. What is the Scriptural foundation of the commitments? I think praying through those verses are a mighty blessing in addition to the pleading for the application of them to the body.