The Christian Pint

A Message to Women From a Man: You Are Not "Crazy"

2011-11-14T22:47:00.004-05:00

Do I have your attention? Good Recently Yashar Ali wrote an article by the same title. In this article he states that men are conditioned to "gaslight" women. "Gaslighting," he explains, finds its origins in the 1944 film Gaslight where the main character tries to convince his wife she is crazy by causing his gaslight to flicker. Or something. He then boldly claims this is what men do when they disregard a woman's emotions by saying "you're over reacting" or the like.

Now I am not a feminist, mainly because I believe there are biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women, go figure. The most obvious one is women can bare children and men cannot. Now if you ask me that is a pretty big difference between the sexes. However in an effort of fairness, not wanting to stereo-type all women as being able to bare children, we must ask ourselves why it is that when a heterosexual man shows up to meet another heterosexual man say half an hour late for a dinner, say beer and wings at B-Dubs, it is no big deal to either party. However when the same man shows up to meet a lady friend, girlfriend, spouse, 30 minutes late, it is a huge deal to the woman and not a big deal to the man? Different wiring. She has invested time, effort, etc, into this meal the two were going to spend together, she is emotionally attached to it. He is running late from work and it is just an average Tuesday to him. They both have different emotional wiring for what this meal means. Her reaction is different than the friends, thus his response is different. Lets look at another example, one more stark in contrast.

A man in a bar is pissing you off, then smashes your beer to the ground in the heat of the argument. (Probably over who's football team is better. See men can be emotional.) The man who had his beer smashed promptly punches the other in the face. Now if what Yashar is trying to say is that we should treat men and women identically. In a heated emotional argument about why Joe isn't home at 5:30 for dinner, Joe should pop Judy in the face, the same way he would any man that got in his face for being home half an hour late. I am sure this is not what Yashar is intending to have happen, however this is the problem with many forms of feminism, (of course those that hold that men are inferior to women would also say is is wrong for an inferior being to strike a superior one), the logical trajectory leads to a point where it will eventually decay into misogyny. Women will be treated by men as men treat men, which is barbaric at times.

An alternative is of course the biblical modal of man and woman, where though both are equally human beings, they are functionally different, (hence they, generally speaking, have different biology, physiology, and psychology). This would mean that men treat women differently than men. Back to our first example, the man is treating the man and the woman the same, if the late man to dinner was given flack about being late from the early man, I dare say he would "gaslight" the early man too. "Dude, quit being such a whiny little ..." Or something to that effect. The problem is not that men treat men differently than women, it is that men treat women the same. The solution is a return to treating men and women differently, not pressing men to treat women even more like men.

The Human Condition - or I'm a Hipster and I Know It.

2011-09-02T03:41:00.001-04:00

It's unfortunate that these days I seem to be almost entirely unable to find stimulating intellectual discussions. Now I understand that saying such is not only arrogant but also offensive to a majority of the people I converse with on a daily basis; even so, I don't think it is untrue or that many of them would disagree. Talk about nothing often fills my days and nights. It's quite silly when I think about it. However this concept kept coming up over and over and over. It was this subject of the human experience. Well (insert something bad or good here) is all part of being human. We know that X is part of the human condition. Now I have come to expect such talk from non-Christians, they come from a different set of presuppositions and a different understanding of the world. Yet it is Christians who are spouting off this nonsense.

Now before you all get on me for being harsh, insensitive, or just a jerk allow me to explain. Most of the comments I am talking about stem from that old adage, "to err is human." Let me be frank here. No. To err is not human. It is not human to make mistakes. It is not human to screw up. It is not human to fail. It is in losing our humanity that these things happen. Do I have your attention? Good. You see the problem with the idea "to err is human" it must be universally true for all humanity. Now before you jump in and say Matt everyone makes mistakes! Let me remind you of the one man, one Human, that never made a mistake. never erred. Jesus.

Unless we have a very weak Christology every statement we make about all of humanity we must also make about Christ when concerning what it is to be essentially human. Something that is part of the human condition, say a body, can be said of Christ. Jesus did have a body. Go figure he was fully human. So then we must ask did Jesus sin? No. So being sinful isn't essentially part of the human condition. Making mistakes isn't essentially part of the human condition. Failing isn't essentially part of the human condition. Jesus never failed. Some might look to the cross as a failure. A great guru died nailed to some Roman lumber, but if that was the plan from before the foundation of the world can we really say he failed? Let's be real people.

So what about this less than human bit. The adage should read "to err is less than human." The essential nature of man is to be image bearers of God. The one man, Jesus Christ, did this perfectly, he was the True man, as it were. Now if we are to reflect God, be His image in this world, then whenever we deviate from, or obscure that image, by erring, making mistakes, failing, we in a very real sense, become less human. Put another way our essential nature is marred by our fallen nature. I'm not so mean as to say there is nothing called grace in the omnibenevolent God of scripture, I am merely pointing out that, "to err is less than human," or as Peter put it "Men, like irrational animals, creatures of instinct, born to be caught and destroyed, blaspheming about matters of which they are ignorant, will also be destroyed in their destruction."

The Dan Phillips and His Witty One Liners!

2011-08-04T14:45:00.006-04:00

So it's been a while what wanna fight about it? So, now that that is behind us, Today I was rolling through my feedburner and came across a short one sentence post directed at continuationist's by Dan Phillips. Continuationists are those who believe that the spiritual gifts exist to the present age and were not simply signs for the early Church. I rarely weigh in on such topics as my own theology in such places isn't entirely set. That being said Dan Phillips over at team pyro ought to be more careful with his words. Here allow me to quote the entire post for you.

"The very fact that "continuationists" acknowledge the need to make their case to Christians by argument is, itself, a devastating and sufficient refutation of the position." - Dan Phillips of Pyromaniacs (Emphesis Original)

Did you catch the problem there? Now I don't think Dan is intending to slam argumentation, he is a Calvinistic Dispensationalist after all. Two things that are argued pretty widely in the Christian tradition. Rather I think he is saying, "If continuationists actually had these spiritual gifts then why don't they simply demonstrate them. If they did wouldn't the argument be over? I don't think so, honestly. The bible is clear in its teaching on other hotly debated topics. Lets choose one Dan and I, for the most part would agree on. The Sovereignty of God in Salvation. Now scripture is quite clear on this point. John 6 being a classic text in this regard; however, when showing such a text to someone, even someone in the church, who cannot or will not believe this. Case and point. The second reason this concept must be rejected is that it would limit God to a toy used to show off to other Christians.

Perhaps the toughest thing to do here is admit that one group is less sanctified in this specific understanding of scripture than the other. Note I did not say one group was less sanctified in general, but just as a consistent Calvinist would say in the area of Soteriology my Arminian brother or sister is less sanctified than my Calvinistic one, so too both the Continuationists and Cessationists must view their brothers and sisters in Christ this way, as siblings needing help.

P.S. I rank this topic way way way lower on my list of importance than Soteriology, so don't slam me for the comparison.

So you wanna be a rock star?

2011-06-19T23:30:00.004-04:00

It is interesting how often we, as young Christians, rationalize our sin with the sins of others especially the sins of older Christians. We can plainly see their hypocrisy yet our own escapes our eyes. I am the chief sinner among this younger generation in this respect. Partly because I have a strong background in theology, and mostly because I am evil. Just to use an example, we as younger believers often don't fellowship with other believers in a corporate (aka going a building where believers gather on Sundays) setting because, "they gossip," "I don't have to be part of a church to be a Christian," "They are too judgmental," etc. However we so often fail to realize that we by making these excuses we are also being very judgmental. We don't like their sins, they don't like ours but neither of us are willing to examine ourselves first. We find it much easier to point out the sins of others. It also gives us this wonderful satisfaction, makes us feel morally superior. I'm a better person because I do this and not that. In a word bullshit. You're a prideful person who is substituting one sin for another. Get over yourself and shame those other, older Christians by your good works so they will see them and glorify your Father who is in heaven. I'm not a rock star, You're not a rock star, there is only one, the Rock Himself, Jesus Christ.

P.S. A buddy of mine and I came up with this analogy for post-modern philosophy but it also seems to work for post-modern off the cuff theology. Post-modern off the cuff theology is like midgets standing on the shoulders of giants punching them in the head. Lets try not to be these midgets.

Oh I Just Can't Wait To Be King! (Part 5)

2011-06-04T01:00:00.001-04:00

Conclusions

Some of us fall by the wayside, and some of us soar to the stars, and

some of us sail through our troubles, and some have to live with the scars.

- The Circle of Life - Elton John Version.

The philosophy behind and expressed Disneyʼs The Lion King is expressed in a ways that not only explore the different elements of many different philosophical views, but also answers the questions as to which are better. On the philosophy of religion level of the ﬁlm, while there is a clash of eastern verses western ideas, the ﬁlm replies that the western religion is more correct than the eastern; however eastern religion does have its place in the world. The making of this pluralistic society is expressed in the ﬁnal scene where Timon and Pumbaa are seen on Pride Rock with Simba and Raﬁki. All of these views come together in a climactic moment, the baptism of Kiara. Though Simbaʼs responsibility has beaten out Timonʼs “Hakunah Matata” there is still a place for Hakunah Matata, just not in itʼs pure form. The reason the ﬁlm resonates with the soul so well is because of this melding of worlds. It provides a catalyst for the discussion of religion in a pluralistic world.

Furthermore the ﬁlm itself asks a number of questions of the audience before giving the aforementioned answers. Questions such, is it okay to simply run from the past or leave it behind? Such a question assumes much however the philosophy behind such an idea is quite important. It presupposes a past, and in doing so argues that the past can and does affect us. This is perhaps a linchpin in the entire philosophy of Hakuna Matata.

Finally the ﬁlm encourages discussion with regards to the values of a society. What sort of ethic does a society seek to promote in the children of its age? What does
being a good father look like? Ought we be a care-free society as long as its not hurting anyone? While the ﬁlm does provide answers to many of these questions within, it brings these ideas to the the minds of the viewers and in some sense helps them think through the issues.

Oh I Just Can't Wait To Be King! (Part 4)

2011-06-03T01:00:00.002-04:00

Value Theory

There's a calm surrender to the rush of day, when the heat of the rolling world can be turned away. An enchanted moment, and it sees me through, it's enough for this restless warrior just to be with you.

- Can You Feel The Love Tonight? - Elton John Version

There are many teachable moments throughout the story. While it does not have a systematic view or expression of ethics there are certain inferences that can be drawn from the ﬁlm. Each of these ideas has an ethical element to them.¹ The story gives great value to the transcendental idea that there is something greater than oneself. That may be the idea of a kingdom, or even the spiritual life as seen with Mufasaʼs appearance in the clouds. This idea is of great consequence in a modern world that has all but lost the appreciation of the mysterious other. The ﬁlm, through the use of different spiritualities, restores seeks to restore an appreciation for the other, or at least bring the other back into the philosophical conversation of the day. One might suggest that in some sense it has succeeded since the generation that would have seen this ﬁlm as children are now embracing the transcendental more readily.

The idea of a father is very important in The Lion King. This is especially true considering the age in which the ﬁlm was created. Mufasa, while representing God, also represents a good father that is not distant, as was the case in other Disney classics such as Bambi. The importance of the eminent father brings up a discussion of family. Mufasa is intimately involved in the life of Simba, teaching him, protecting him, caring for him. The ﬁlm opened the discussion of the value of fatherhood and not just masculinity for the sake of masculinity. Interestingly enough, this ﬁlm promotes an idea many christians sympathize with. That the father is the head of the home, he rules while the mother tends the children and cares for the den. Also interesting is the emphasis on obedience. Simba is disciplined when he disobeys Mufasa and suffers the consequences. This brings the concept of punishment back to the table in a psychology of family discussion.

The ﬁlm also insists that families have both good and bad members, but they are still family. Even when confronted with the truth of Mufasa murder at the paws of Scar, Simba does not take vengeance, choosing to exile Scar rather than kill him. Simba shows mercy to his family, because family is family no matter how they wrong you. While on the topic of family it would be remiss to leave out the idea that friendship is a good basis for marriage. Simba and Nala are best friends, they are also married at the end of the ﬁlm.

Perhaps the most important idea in the ﬁlm to be expressed is the idea that good and evil are real and do not depend upon prospective. Minkoff uses light and dark to draw a clear contrast between good and evil. Scar is the only lion with a black mane. The elephant graveyard is very dark. Pride Rock is only seen at night when Scar is ruler, yet when Mufasa rules it is covered in light. This light returns when Simba regains the throne from Scar; beauty returns to the land.

Everyone dies. In the ﬁlm both the good father and the bad uncle face the same fate. This seems to show the value of life, and that death is not understandable. Simba shows that he does not understand death when he curls up under the paw of Mufasa after the stampede. Again he is ﬁlled with grief at the death of Scar though not to the same extent. However after the death of Scar, Simba knows life goes on. After the death of his father he ran into a life of no worry living. The movie also emphasizes that Hakuna Matata does not work. If it did Simba would not have returned to Pride Rock. Unfortunately the upbeat nature of the song “Hakuna Matata” might detract from this point, for though it was just a stage for Simba, it is a favored song of those who see this ﬁlm.²

Guilt and dishonesty will keep one from achieving who they ought to be. Simbaʼs guilt and hiding what he thought he had done to Mufasa caused him to go into exile. Furthermore it kept him from his relationship with Nala, at ﬁrst. It was only after he faced his guilt and was honest about his past that the truth of Scarʼs treachery came to light. There is a great value in honesty and the moralism of the story would say that sometimes shadowy words might appear dishonest at times but they are not necessarily. Simba all but accuses Mufasa of lying because he is not always with him, however Mufasa, with the help of Raﬁki shows this as merely a wrong view, not a lie.

1.) Christine Evely and Murray Evely. "The Lion King." Australian Screen Education 30 (2003): 143+. Academic OneFile. Web. 16 May 2011
2.) Annalee R. Ward, Mouse Morality: The Rhetoric of Disney Animated Film (Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 2002), 30-32

Oh I Just Can't Wait To Be King! (Part 3)

2011-06-02T01:00:00.001-04:00

Lyrical Philosophy

Let me get this straight. You know her, and she knows you, but she wants to eat him. And everyone's okay with that? DID I MISS SOMETHING?

- Timon

The score of the ﬁlm adds a great amount of insight to the understanding of the ﬁlm as it is classiﬁed as both an Animated Feature and a Musical. “Nants ingonyama agithi Baba Sithi uhm ingonyama Siyo Nqoba Ingonyama nengw' enamabala” the opening lines to the ﬁlm are Swahili meaning “Here comes a lion, Father. Oh yes itʼs a lion. Weʼre going to conquer, a lion and a leopard come to this open place.” This chant is repeated for more than a four minutes as the sun rises and Simba is christened. This opening song informs the view as to what the story is going to be about. It also displays an idea that the earth is one, there is some spiritual other that directs life but persons walk in. This form of compatabilism is evidenced by the later lyrics “It's the Circle of Life and it moves us all, through despair and hope, through faith and love, till we ﬁnd our place on the path unwinding.” Through the ﬁlm Simba is moved by the circle of life, yet he must “take his place in the circle of life.” There is indeed room for some Hakuna Matata, but not to the extent that apathy wins the day. One can see where Pinski gets the idea that Hinduism inﬂuenced this ﬁlm. Life is cyclical in this ﬁlm, however the Hindu concept of reincarnation is not found interestingly enough. Instead there is a concept of disembodied immortality found in the later portion of the ﬁlm which seems to draw more on a neo-platonism than Hindu concepts. Mufasa has escaped the body and is “guiding” his son Simba. One can see a link to the Star Wars series where though apart from the body Obi-wan Kenobi guides Luke Skywalker.

“I Just Canʼt Wait to be King” captures the ideal of absolute independence, even though it is used as a distraction in the ﬁlm. “No one saying do this... No one saying be there... No one saying stop that... No one saying see here... Free to run around all day... Free to do it all my way.” This is the childish idea of complete independence; actions without consequences. It is important that this song is placed just before Simba and Nala enter the Elephant graveyard. Minkoff brings Simbaʼs idea of a life without consequences and independence to a state of complete dependence on Mufasa for salvation. Also Simba is forced to face the consequences of placing not only his own life in danger but also Nalaʼs. He must face his disappointed father and learn his small paws are not ready to ﬁll Mufasaʼs prints. Unfortunately for Simba this lesson must be learned over and over. It takes the death of Mufasa, years in exile, a stern word from Nala, and the advice of Raﬁki to allow Simba to ﬁnally understand what it means to be King. That with that greater independence he so longed for, come greater responsibilities. This harkens back to the words of Christ, "Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.”¹

All great ﬁlms have a villain and The Lion King does not disappoint in this respect. Scar is a pinnacle of treachery and villainy. The song “Be Prepared” shows the depths of evil the human (or lion) heart can attain. Arrogance, cunning, and deceit are all displayed in the lyrical philosophy of this song. Scar sets himself above the Hyenas, calling their minds “warthog's backsides.” He continues to display cunning and deceit when he states he is planning “the coup of the century.” This of course he fulﬁlls when he kills Mufasa in the gorge scene. While Simba in “I Just Canʼt Wait to be King” was seeking independence, Scar represents blind, cut throat ambition. While the two songs have much in common, their starting points are different.

Another philosophical song is “Hakuna Matata.” Indeed Hakuna Matata “means no worries” and is a “problem-free philosophy.” This is the philosophical outlook of Timon and Pumbaa which can basically be summarized as “Stuff Happens.” After the death of his father Simba seems to try to deal with the pain of that death by avoiding life. Here Minkoff seems to be delving into the psychology of loss. Simba grows up, literally and ﬁguratively to the tune of this song. This is a very common way for many people to deal with loss. Unfortunately if the story of The Lion King teaches us anything, it is that the philosophy of Hakuna Matata does not work and is not fulﬁlling. It is merely the band-aid placed over the soul. It lacks the power to be lived. It is for this reason that Simba returns to Pride Rock. In this sense, in the aformentioned clash between the east and the west the west comes out ahead.

The ﬁnal lyrical song of this ﬁlm is a piece called “Can You Feel the Love Tonight?” This is the only lyrical song that takes place when during Simbaʼs adult life.² Exploring the nature of what can be expressed in a relationship this song deals with brotherhood, the past, and coming of age. The song is less of a love song that one might expect for a song with that title. Nala is seeking to see Simba become great, but Simba is unable get over his past. The song asks the question why lies, or omissions of truth are acceptable in a relationship? There is also some verbal irony in the lyrics Timon opens the song with a statement about disaster being in the air, Nala and Simba are in a silent ﬁght yet the song continues “Can you feel the love tonight? The peace the evening brings. The world, for once, in perfect harmony, with all its living things.” All the characters at this time are in conﬂict, even if it is only a minor one. Minkoffʼs inclusion of this song suggests that in the course of interpersonal relationships persons often view them with rose colored glasses on.

1.) Luke 12:48 (English Standard Version)
2.) The Circle of Life is repeated at the end but only the chorus and no new lyrics are added.

Oh I Just Can't Wait To Be King! (Part 2)

2011-06-01T01:00:00.001-04:00

Plot View Points

I'm gonna be the ruler of most everything around, from the grandest of the

mountains to the humble common ground, my reign will be a superawesome thing. Oh, I just can't wait to be king!

- I Just Canʼt Wait to be King - Elton John Version

While many ﬁlms may seek to expand philosophy or show different philosophical views The Lion King touches the soul in a way that these other ﬁlms can only hope to do. This seems to be due to its ability to connect to an audience on different layers. The ﬁrst layer is, of course, the basic story outlined above with fun little lion cubs instead of people. This layer appears to be made to resinate with children, yet it is this layer that allows the ﬁlm to grasp the depth needed. A smooth lake often hides its true depth from its viewers until the waves begin to crash. The second level of understanding is where the ﬁlm gets interesting. Annalee R. Ward suggests that much of the story resembles the Creation, Fall, Redemption paradigm of the Christian Tradition.¹ She believes that there are several places indicating this the ﬁrst of which is the opening scene where the good king Mufasa, representing God, having a son and ruling over a beautiful land where everything appears to be at peace. The second motif is when Simba is told where he can go, “everything the light touches is our kingdom,” however Scar, representing the tempting serpent, twists Mufasaʼs words stating that “only the bravest lions” go to the “shadowy place.” A place expressly forbidden to Simba by Mufasa. In a step away from the biblical narrative, likely for feminist reasons, Simba tempts Nala to go to the “shadow places,” a reversal of the biblical story. Yet true to the bible, both Simba and Nala know what they are doing is wrong and do it anyways, much like Adam and Eve. This is the beginning of Scarʼs plot to kill Mufasa and Simba, taking his place as king.² Indeed, Simba is exiled from Pride Rock and Scar does become the King, much like Adamʼs exile and Satanʼs reign as the God of this world.³

The third motif is Simbaʼs ﬂight, he is in the desert wandering and is saved by Timon and Pumbaa, much like Mosesʼ ﬂight from Pharaoh in Exodus 2. However the story would not be complete without a return of the King. After years of carefree living, Simba, like Moses, receives a vision from God, that is Mufasa, telling him to “take his place in the circle of life.” So Simba journeys back to Pride Rock to claim his throne. He ﬁnds that the beautiful world he loved was destroyed, however he must ﬁght for it because if he doesnʼt “ﬁght for it who will?” Simba ﬁnally defeats Scar, but does not deal the killing blow, rather the hyaena hordes betray Scar. The story ends with Simba returning from the dead, metaphorically speaking, as the hero and warrior savior of the Pride Lands and a new creation of Pride Rock, much like the new Jerusalem of
revelation.⁴

Yet there is also an eastern element to the story. This element is represented by the lifestyle of Timon and Pumbaa. Their way draws upon the Taoist idea of Wu Wei, or living at harmony with nature.⁵ Timon and Pumbaaʼs philosophy takes over Simbaʼs life from the time he is very small until he is all but fully grown. This lifestyle, epitomized in the song “Hakuna Matata” shows a real and working philosophy of apathy. That is a philosophy that will not go contrary to nature but rather much like Wu Wei go with the ﬂow of lifeʼs river.⁶

Moreover, Raﬁki the wise shaman is the bridge bringing these eastern and western ideas together. He is the priest who preforms the “baptism” of Simba, but also teaches Simba that his fatherʼs spirit lives within. Raﬁkiʼs major scenes seem to involve the combining of these two worlds into a more pluralistic world. The “baptism⁷” of Simba occurs while the “Circle of Life” is playing in the background. When Simba meets Raﬁki before his vision of Mufasa, Simba is engaged in a crisis of existential proportions. He is at a moment where he cannot simply “Hakuna Matata” away his past. Raﬁki from the Lotus position begins to explain to Simba who those touching the lives of others live within. This image seeks to combine the western idea of God living within, with the eastern idea of ancestor worship. Finally at the end of the ﬁlm, Raﬁki once again dons the mantle of priest to preform the “baptism” of Simbaʼs daughter Kiara again to the tune, the circle of life.

Still the religious east-west reading of the ﬁlm is only the second of many levels within the ﬁlm. There is a different east-west reading that some critics ﬁnd attractive. This reading see the ﬁlm as one of conquest. Mufasa was the good king reigning over Africa. He and his ancestors represent many years of unadulterated reign over the African continent. Scar symbolizes western nations ruining this unspoiled land. Simbaʼs journey is then to be understood as Africaʼs struggle to ﬁnd itself and his return as the regaining of Africa by Africans. This may be seen most clearly in the election of Nelson Mandela, who was of African Royalty and elected in the same year as The Lion Kingʼs release.⁸ While this is an interesting reading it does leave certain portions of the ﬁlm unexplained. There is also a LGBT reading of the ﬁlm emphasizing the relationship between Timon and Pumbaa is not one of mere friends.⁹ Others believe there is a large element of racism being promoted through this ﬁlm, due to the casting of the hyenas.¹⁰ This seems rather strange as James Earl Jones was cast to play Mufasa.

Mark Pinskiʼs view on the story is much different from that of Ward. Pinski sees the story as much less inﬂuenced by the Christian tradition; instead his view is that Minkoff is drawing on the Hindu tradition, citing the lyrics of the opening song, “The Circle of Life.”¹¹ He also sees certain aspects of the of Scar and Mufasa as economic ideas. Scar is viewed as a welfare state, promising free meat to the hyenas. Scarʼs rule is symbolic of the Soviet Russian state, with the hyenas as the proletariat and the lions as the bourgeoisie.¹² This view is quite interesting as it ultimately condemns communism as a bad system that will cause ruin to the land. The emphasis on strong and wise authority is shown to be of the utmost importance since Scarʼs state falls to pieces in the few short years of his rule. Accordingly many Marxists would suggest that Scarʼs reign was not a pure communism, rather a Stalinism.

1.) Annalee R. Ward, Mouse Morality: The Rhetoric of Disney Animated Film (Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 2002), 14-17.

2.) Ibid.

3.) Genesis 3:23-24 cf. 2 Corinthians 4:4

4.) Ward, 17.

5.) Jennifer Moore, Understanding Taoism Origins*beliefs*practices*holy Texts*sacred Places (London: Watkins Publishing, 2011), 34.

6.) Ibid.

7.) This “baptism” appears similar to those seen the the Anglican, Roman Catholic, or certain Presbyterian churches. However rather than crossing Simba, Raﬁki simply creates as single line across his head.

8.) Mark I. Pinski, The Gospel According to Disney, (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 159.

9.) Ibid., 157.

10.) Henry A. Giroux, The Mouse That Roared, (New York: Rowman & Littleﬁeld Publishers, 1999), 105.

11.) Pinski, 154.

12.) Ibid., 154-55.

Oh I Just Can't Wait To Be King! (Part 1)

2011-05-31T01:12:00.003-04:00

Introduction

From the day we arrive on the planet and blinking, step into the sun.

There's more to see than can ever be seen, more to do than can ever be

done. There's far too much to take in here, more to ﬁnd than can ever be

found. But the sun rolling high through the sapphire sky keeps great and

small on the endless round.

- The Circle of Life

“Oh I just canʼt wait to be King!” proclaims Simba, the young lion prince of the “Pride Lands” in Disneyʼs The Lion King.¹ This Disney classic has captured the hearts and minds of millions of children and adults around the world. Yet at its core this ﬁlm is ﬁlled with deep philosophical truths that everyone wrestles with in their daily lives. Issues such as pride, our relationship to the world, a sense of community and duty, vengeance, love, it even contains a philosophy of apathy. These ideas are conveyed through the dialogue, imagery, and especially the music of the ﬁlm. The score is wonderful and adds such depth to the story and the ideas being expressed that not mentioning it ﬁrst would be remiss.²

The story sightly resembles a tale we might hear of in Shakespearean theater, the greedy uncle kills the king, and appears to have killed the prince, blaming a disaster. Years after assuming the throne, the self-exiled prince returns with some encouragement of a mystical guide. After showing mercy to his uncle, the uncle turns once again on the prince only to be killed at the hands of his own minions. The prince reclaims the throne and reigns as a good king. Indeed the story is rather boring on its own merits, yet the movie grossed over seven hundred seventy-ﬁve million dollars worldwide³ and took home the Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Comedy or Musical.⁴

There must be something more to this story than the simple plot, and while it was well animated, the animation alone would not be enough to captivate the millions it has. The ﬁlm does not fall into the what Film-Philosopher Slavoj Zizek would call “Pornography” therefore the question as to the captivation is of the utmost importance. This is where the philosophical resonance that other ﬁlms seek to achieve comes in.

1.) The Lion King. Theater viewing. Directed by Rob Minkoff. Burbank: Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment, 1994.

2.) The Lion King won the Academy Award for best score in 1994 as well as the Golden Globe. See: http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org

3.) "The Lion King (1994)." The Internet Movie Database (IMDb). http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110357/ (accessed May 10, 2011). It is also the highest grossing Animated Disney ﬁlm world wide to this day.

4.) "HFPA - Awards Search." OFFICIAL WEBSITE of the HFPA and the GOLDEN GLOBE AWARDS. http://www.goldenglobes.org/browse/ﬁlm/25384 (accessed May 10, 2011)

This seems appropriate for this blog.

2011-05-10T08:41:00.001-04:00

Is Grape Juice for Communion a Sin? from Canon Wired on Vimeo.

Love Et Cetera.

2011-03-25T22:50:00.000-04:00

Through my current situation and changes in my life I have been contemplating the difficult concept of love. Moreover while there are 18 inches between the head and the heart this idea has captivated both. Through it all I remain convinced that true love is eternal and unconditional. Love is a commitment not merely an emotion. Some commitments are forced. We often love our family not because of a physiological imbalance of chemicals in our brains, but because they are the ones who we must deal with, we must talk to. We develop a desire to love these people for their own sake and not what they can do for us over time. When a father loves his son it is not out a need of the father for the son, however when the son is young he needs his father. It is only later in life that children begin to love their parents not for what mommy and daddy can do for them but because of who they are. Don’t get me wrong it is not that the children are not still grateful for all their parents have given them and will continue to give, but they do move past this contractual form of love to something greater.

There are really only two types of love, though each has certain subcategories. The first type is that contractual form of love. I dare say this is not love at all, it is more of a business arrangement. The two people involved in the relationship get something from one another and thus only love each other in so far as their end of the deal has been met. You could perhaps fit all human relationships into this category though many will strive to be free of it.

When it comes to the relationships between two members of the opposite sex the most basic form of contractual love is chemistry as love. Chemistry is not love. Chemistry will come an go throughout any relationship. However when chemistry is strong and confused with love the relationship becomes very, very contractual. It is as if each partner is saying to the other, “I will continue to love you so long as I have these urges.” People who can move from one relationship to another very quickly often view simple chemistry as love. This is the lowest form of love and does not even deserve the title. It is lust. While no one can deny in a truly loving relationship there will be chemistry to define the entire relationship by it is to doom it from the start. Also it is not clear to the one who holds this view that this is the view he or she holds, we often flatter ourselves into thinking we are far nobler or loving than we actually are.

The next pitfall people face when entering a contractually loving relationship is that they are forced into love or feel like they should fall in love. They want to fall in love. To quote Anberlin “you’re in love with love.” This understanding of love is the idealist view of love. I love the idea of being in love you with you as the cliche goes. This version of love again is simply a modified view of lust. It breaks down to chemistry. Love should feel like this or that. The idea of the person in the mind of one who holds this view regarding love is often that the other is a princess in a castle or a white knight ready to rescue her. It is more difficult to break off this form of love because while the idea and reality clash, the one who holds this view, will see the ideal as the reality. They will fight with their entire being to hold on to the ideal which was never there in the first place, or they will throw the relationship away because their partner cannot live up to the ideal. This form generally starts when a partner chooses the things about the other they like and views them as the entirety of the partner.

The next view of love is what i would call the truest form of human love. This form loves the other person for who they are. This love is as unconditional as a human can get. They love the other for their sake. The best example we have of this type of love is Christ and his Church. Christ’s particular redemption of sinners shows us the great depths of this love. This love is self sacrificing and always seeking to bring the beloved into a closer relationship with the lover. This is the love that according to Paul never fails. This tricky statement does not mean that the lover will always succeed in bringing the beloved into a closer relationship with them. We are not God and do not know perfectly what will bring specific people into a closer relationship with them. However that is the aim. That the person loved is brought into a closer relationship with the person loving, and also with God. Some might argue that this too is a contractual form of love. I must disagree. This form of love, while seeking the betterment of the relationship is not contingent upon it. The only contingency is the well being of the beloved. I should note that the well being foremost involves their relationship with God through Christ. Yet even if the other rejects both you and Christ, the love for them does not cease. This love is a commitment not a contract. This love says, “even if you wrong me, even if you leave me, even if you kill me I will love you and do what is best for you. While it is my hope that you will grow more and more Godly each day, that our relationship will grow and change into something far more and far better than we can imagine, even if it does not, I will love you.” Someone once equated being in love to walking into a candy store, “you walk in when there’s candy (chemistry, the ideal, etc.) and even when there’s no candy (chemistry, the ideal, etc.) you still stay until the candy (chemistry, the ideal, etc.) is back.” I would simply add that being in love means you stay in the candy store even if it shuts down. Anything else would simply be a business arrangement, a cold contract.

*Disclaimer* I do realize that there are certain situations where a relationship needs to end or be placed on hold. Home violence being chief among them. I am not advising people in such situations to simply stick it out for the sake of love. No indeed i would advise them to get out of that situation but not stop loving the abuser and hoping they would repent and turn to Christ.

Let me know what you think.

What does Porneias in Matthew 5:32 mean?

2011-02-20T12:13:00.002-05:00

In any study of marriage one must deal with this verse first because it comes from a passage right after Jesus says lust is adultery, but also because depending on how porneias (πορνειας: often translated sexual immorality, or marital infidelity) is defined we may have a contradiction in the Bible!!! I of course am talking about Paul allowing for divorces for something else, abandonment or separation (χωριζεται) from a Christian by an unbeliever. So here not only do we have a problem of lust being considered adultery, which would in some sense make lust porneias, but we also have Paul going against Jesus! Jesus only allowed divorce for porneias, and only porneias; Paul is now allowing divorce for other things? There are three possibilities either Jesus lied, Paul was mistaken, or our interpretation/translation of porneias is often wrong. I am going to opt for the third, since I want to maintain if at all possible that Paul was writing holy scripture, and Jesus is truly God's only unique son.

I feel that the easiest way to deal with this apparent contradiction in the bible is to look at the usage of porneias. Has it been defined to narrowly by good bible translations such as the, ESV, NASB, NIV(2000), KJV, NKJV, HCSB, and better translated by translations that I might not prefer such as the NIV(1984), NLT, GWT, have gotten it right? This is a question we will have to answer. The best way to answer this may be to look at the usages of porneias (porne) in both the New Testament and the Greek Old Testament. Porne and it's derivatives occurs only 56 times in the New Testament and a mere 161 times in the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament). However if we look specifically at porneias it appears only 12 and 15 times respectively. We will start here.

Starting with the Old Testament porneias appears in three basic categories:

In Genesis 38:24 it is used to mean sexual immorality.
In Tobit 4:12 (a non canonical book) it is used as mere sexual urges.
In Hosea 4:12 it is used as unfaithfulness or apostasy (toward God.)

In the New Testament we most clearly a reaffirmation of sense 1 (1 Corinthaisn 5). We don't see any affirmation of the Tobit passage, I would argue because mere sexual urges are not sinful. It is unclear from current bible translations if there is any place in the New Testament where unfaithfulness or apostasy would be how the word porneias ought to be translated. I would argue that there are at least two passages where this is the most preferred translation the first is Hebrews 12.:16 (Hebrews 12:16 is not the identical word, but they share the same root, and same idea, for our purposes we can simply say that pornos (πορνος) means a porneias man.) Yet was Esau sexually immoral? Was it sexual immorality to sell his birth right, as the context would suggest? No, Esau was not sexually immoral to sell his birth right, however he was unfaithful when he sold it. First he was unfaithful to himself, he was also unfaithful to God. God had given him this good thing, yet in His providence God saw fit to allow Esau to be unfaithful with the stewardship of this good gift from God.

Likewise I think this is also a better translation for the Matthew 5:32 passage. First because Jesus is all about high standards in Matthew 5, notice his you have heard it said, but I tell you statements. Looking on a woman with lust, that's adultery, being angry at your brother, that's murder. Divorcing your spouse for anything but sexual immorality, while that is a high standard for the victim, it is a very low standard for the sin spouses can commit.

Follow me on this thought experiment for a moment. In a marriage covenant a spouse promises love, honor, cherish and protect their spouse, forsaking all others and holding only unto her or him, in sickness and in health, for richer or for poorer, as long as they both live. Pretty basic vows for a wedding. Now lets say that the husband beats his wife. Is that sexual immorality? No. Is it marital unfaithfulness? Of course! Let us take Paul now, if an unbelieving wife leaves leaves her believing husband; she goes and joins a Buddhist monastery, has she committed sexual immorality? No! Has she committed marital unfaithfulness? Yes! Therefore do Paul and Jesus agree, of course they do!

"But Matt, doesn't this open the door too wide, isn't this the type of thinking that brought the No-Fault Divorce to America in the first place?" Perhaps it played a roll; however there is a big difference between I am not happy with my marriage I will try a new one and my husband beats me or my wife abandoned me but has not been sexually immoral therefore I cannot divorce him or her.

Just some food for thought, later I will hopefully get in to unpacking what I really wanted to touch on today which was unpacking Matthew 5:27-29. Yes this kinda was backwards, get over it.

If something no longer works should it be removed from the equation?

2011-02-07T22:29:00.002-05:00

Man: My armor does not crack, it has no holes nor weak spots. It is not prone to rust; yet while it protects perfectly from without it traps me perfectly within.

Voice A: Did you think you could obtain the joys of love yet never suffer its pains?
Voice B: Of foolish man, you are worthless and dumb. You do not matter and cannot even see you're nothing more than a beggar.

Voice A: You have become commonplace.
Voice B: An interesting book placed upon the coffee table of life, often talked about, but rarely, if ever, used and read as you once were.

Voice A: Your purpose has changed.
Voice B: You no longer captivate, you cannot command, you now look pretty, like a single tile of a mosaic. While necessary, never so necessary that you might not be replaced by other stones.

Voice A: Indeed. You used to be the entire picture.
Voice B: A single piece is all that remains.

Voice A: Will you recapture your former glory?
Voice B: In doing so you may destroy the artwork altogether.

Voice A: Indeed you must replace the other tiles.
Voice B: Will this not make them as you are now? Angry? Frustrated? Ready to sacrifice the portrait for the sake of self?

Man: Wretch that I am! Oh Lord what should I do?

The Complimentarian/Egalitarian Debate...

2010-12-08T18:30:00.004-05:00

I feel that the Complimentarian vs. Egalitarian is merely a Trinitarian debate with four or five basic positions that could be taken:

1)If the Father is ontologically greater than the Son then Patriarchy is more biblical.
2)If the Father is ontologically equal to the Son and could not have been/be the Son then Complimentarian is more biblical.
3)If the Father is ontologically equal to the Son and could have been/be the Son then Egalitarianism/Christian Feminism is more biblical.
4)If the Son is ontologically greater than the Father then Matriarchy/Pure Feminism is more biblical.
5)If the Father is the Son then a pantheism is more biblical.

A different way of writing positions 2 and 3 would be:

2)If the Father is ontologically equal to the Son and functionally different than the Son then Complimentarian is more biblical.
3)If the Father is both ontologically and functionally equal to the Son then Egalitarianism/Christian Feminism is more biblical.

These of course ignore the entire debate of Economic Trinity vs. Ontological Trinity; but I think that debate is really a debate about Sola Scriptura. Also it rather silly as it seeks to know God as Himself in eternity thinking he might reveal a different ontology of himself in time.

Biblical Theology of Creation - Part 3.

2010-11-19T00:00:00.000-05:00

IV. “Created” - How?
1. By Divine Action - ברא
The universe was created by God’s exclusive divine action; no partners can be ascribed to God, not even matter.¹ This contrasts the ancient near eastern tales of creation which occurs due to sexual procreation as well as pantheism, emanation, and immanence. Bara seems to indicate that God actually wanted to create and didn’t create out of necessity to him.

This concept that God “created the heavens and the earth” seems very important to the prophets, especially Isaiah’s “council of the gods.” Rather than necessarily emanating the world, God created it for his own glory. This glory is not only for the father, but also for the Son as “all things were created by him and for him.”²

Paul’s new creation is also by divine action since “no one seeks after God” and “that is set on the flesh … does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot.”³ Thus for Paul the new creation is not a synergistic union between God and a partner, rather God recreated man by his grace and for his glory.⁴

2. By Divine Word - אמר
The world was also created by divine word.⁵ God simply spoke and there was light, he spoke and the grass grew. This sentiment is repeated in the psalms, where the psalmist, speaking of the love of God, exclaims the might of the LORD in creation. Who else has ever spoke and it came to be, commanded and all creation stood firm?⁶ Such implies that the word of God is absolutely powerful to fulfill all that it goes out to do.

In a similar fashion the new creation by the foolishness of the proclaimed gospel. It is not by the weapons of this world, but the divine word working in the hearts of men that they are recreated. The word will not return empty but accomplish that which God purposes and succeed in that which it has been sent for. Hebrews phrases it this way: “the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.⁷

3. Dramatically and Aesthetically Joyful and Beautiful
This means that God took the initiative to create the world not because He had some extra stuff lying around but to share Himself with others. One might say that God created the world that creation could experience the joys of the divine love. Solomon tells us that God is a joyful craftsman, rejoicing in his inhabitant world, and that He has made it absolutely beautiful in its time.⁸ The psalmist sings that creation declares the glory of God and such glory is beautiful.⁹ Also we see a highly poetic structure in the genesis creation accounts.

Further the new creation is something that is intended to be beautiful, that God takes joy in. Nehemiah writes anticipating the fully revealed new creation that our not only is the joy of our redemption God’s but that joy is our strength that we partake in. With the victory won we rejoice in the Lord.¹⁰

V. “The heavens and the earth” - What?
1. Entire Material Universe
“The heavens and the earth” of Genesis 1:1 may refer to simply our galaxy, however it is more likely that this includes the entire material universe because of the parallel in John 1:1-3. Genesis 1:14 suggests that the lesser and greater lights might have been created “in the beginning” and not on the fourth day of creation. Rather on the fourth day they were given a purpose, which is to define the months and seasons.¹¹ Psalm 104’s creation account supports this conclusion since there is no reference to the greater and lesser lights, however on the “fourth day” the moon marks the seasons.¹² Creation culminates in God’s personal creation and planting of a garden for man.¹³

In the new creation scripture appears to teach that all of creation will be reborn. Paul wrote, “the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.”¹⁴ This new freedom approaches its climax with the new heavenly garden city of Jerusalem. Being very similar to Eden with the tree of life at the center giving life and healing. Rather than yielding one fruit it yields twelve. There is no sun but the city is eternally lit. This is the telos of all of scripture and creation.¹⁵

2. Nature of Creation
All of creation was made good. This includes matter, which stands opposed to the neo-platonic notions of Gnosticism and eastern religion. Thus even the physical world corresponds with the divine intent and is empowered to fulfill its divinely intended functions. God had a purpose for his world, from the lilies of the field, to the sparrows of the sky, to mankind. Man does however play a special role in the creation. Man was created in the image of God; with dominion over the world that we might guard and serve creation. Being created in God’s image we have his sense of moral character.¹⁶

Due to the fall of Genesis 3, the image of God is marred in man but not all together lost. Thus men are being conformed to the image of the perfect man, the image of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. The new self is being put on that their minds might be “renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator.”¹⁷ While men in the original creation had dominion over the earth the new man will be reign as king and priest over the earth, being already seated in the heavenly places with Christ.¹⁸

V. Conclusion
Creation is not just a one-time act for God, though his methods might change, he is constantly acting and recreating men in his image. In all things it is essential to remember that God is sovereign over creation, forming it and shaping it for his purposes according to his will. Perhaps the most difficult thing for many people to grasp is the simple words “In the beginning God,” because it puts God on a level entirely different than our own.

1) While some might note that the etymology of bara deals with cutting, during the creation account it is never with accusative of matter. - Return to text
2) Isaiah 43:7 cf. Colossians 1:16 - Return to text
3) Romans 3:11; 8:7 - Return to text
4) Romans 5:2 - Return to text
5) Genesis 1:3; John 1:3 - Return to text
6) Psalm 33:6,9 - Return to text
7) Hebrews 4:12 cf. 1 Corinthians 1: 18ff; 2 Corinthians 10:4-5; Isaiah 55:11 - Return to text
8) Proverbs 8:30-31 cf. Ecclesiastes 3:11 - Return to text
9) Psalm 19:1 cf. Psalm 48:2 - Return to text
10) Nehemiah 8:10; Psalm 20:5 cf. Romans 8:37 - Return to text
11) John Sailhammer, “Genesis” in The Expositor's Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1990), 33-34. - Return to text
12) Psalm 104:19 - Return to text
13) Genesis 2 - Return to text
14) Romans 8:21 - Return to text
15) Genesis 2 cf. Revelation 21-22 - Return to text
16) Genesis 1:26-27; 2:15 - Return to text
17) Colossians 3:10 - Return to text
18) Revelation 5:9-10; cf. Ephesians 2:6 - Return to text

Fin.

Biblical Theology of Creation - Part 2.

2010-11-17T00:00:00.003-05:00

III. “God” - Who?
1. Character of God
The creation accounts emphasize the character of God as both transcendent and eminent. This accounts for the back to back creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2.

a) אלהים – Genesis 1
The general flow of Genesis 1 indicates that God is before all creation.¹ God is not seen as engaging in specifics of creation but the universals. In verses 3-5 we see God creating time,² then in verses 6-8 God creates the waters and the air. This pattern of general creation continues throughout Genesis 1. The term Elohim is used to express God as the transcendent creator of the universe, distinguishing his otherness from it. It has also been noted that this plural usage in the singular might be seen Trinitarianly, or simply that Elohim is the supreme being.³ Sometimes this is called the greatness of God.

God’s greatness is echoed elsewhere in scripture. God through Isaiah proclaims rhetoricly:

Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and marked off the heavens with a span, enclosed the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales and the hills in a balance?⁴

Further the Psalmist explains the that “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.”⁵

b) יהוה – Genesis 2
In Genesis 2 we see a second account of creation, unlike the first account. Here we see God taking a particular interest in the specifics of man and where man is to live. We see God planting a garden⁶ rather than simply speaking it into existence.⁷ Furthermore in contrast to Genesis 1 we now see the word YHWH being used of God.⁸ This is the personal covenantal name of God⁹ used throughout the Old Testament.¹⁰ This second rendition of creation brings the reader to grips with the eminence of God, interacting and caring for His creation.

God is relational; the first thing in all of creation that He says is not good is that man is alone and thus not in relationship. God remedies this problem as a great surgeon.¹¹ The care of God in the garden and the specific detail a close and loving side to Him.

c) Consistency of Genesis 1 and 2
Some theologians seem to pit Genesis 1 against Genesis 2,¹² however if such were the case the foundation for our whole doctrine of God would fall apart. If one takes the view of Genesis 1 alone they would see God only as Voltaire’s watchmaker and not from the beginning relational. If one takes Genesis 2 alone we may see God as a grandfather type in the sky, without ever seeing the majesty of God. The two stories are consistent as they bring the universal and the particular together.¹³ This is in contrast to many ancient gods who are either personal or infinite but only the Judeo-Christian God is both.¹⁴ We also see God’s character show up as one who is willing to die for sinners in order to bring about his new creation.¹⁵

2. God as Foundational
The Bible does not give any background for the creation or formulation of God rather it begins with a bold assertion that God exists.¹⁶ The writer of Hebrews picks up on this notion, “whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists.”¹⁷ The nature of such an account requires one to approach the text in faith. It also breaks with the ancient near east being monotheistic and not poly and pantheistic.¹⁸

This also breaks from the man centeredness of what most new creation stories entail. Jesus said, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.”¹⁹ If new creation is a synonym for the entire process of salvation, then it is only by God’s active will that men are made new and not by their own fruition which is at such utter odds with the mindset of both the Pharisees of Christ’s day and the culture of our own.²⁰

This is prophesied when Ezekiel writes, “And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.” Here God is speaking about his restoration efforts in the new covenant, and he attributes the work of new creation to himself, and not to man in any way.²¹ Paul echoes this when he states that we are “God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works.”²²

3. Trinity in Creation
All the members of the Trinity are both present and active during the creation of the world. God (the Father) and the Holy Spirit are explicitly presented in Genesis 1:1-2. There is also an allusion to the Trinity in Genesis 1:26, “let us make man in our image.” The grammar suggest that one being is actually saying this, therefore the distinctness of personalities, a plurality within the unanimity of being can be argued from here. However other interpretations suggest that the “us” are angels of some form or even other gods.²³

In the New Testament Christ is the agent through which God creates the world. The most obvious parallel to Genesis 1:1-3 is John 1:1-3. Paul also picks up on this in Colossians 1:16-17 asserting that Christ is not only the creator God but also the sustainer God.

Furthermore we see Trinitarian formulas tied with the new creation, in many of Paul’s letters. In Galatians Paul wrote that it is the Father who sends the Son, gives the Spirit to redeem and recreate sinners.²⁴ The classical view of the atonement, which brings salvation, echoes these verses, in that the Father gives the Son, the Son buys the saints, and the Holy Spirit indwells them.²⁵

1) This idea is echoed in places such as Isaiah 45:18 - Return to text
2) While specific time references are not used Earthly creations tell time by the movements of the sun and the stars. - Return to text
3) BDB, s.v. “430”, 43. - Return to text
4) Isaiah 40:12, All Citations ESV unless otherwise stated. - Return to text
5) Psalm 90:2 - Return to text
6) Genesis 2:8 - Return to text
7) Genesis 1:11 - Return to text
8) LORD God statements beginning in Genesis 2:4 - Return to text
9) BDB, s.w. “3068-9”, 217-218. - Return to text
10) Genesis 15, 17, Exodus 3, etc. - Return to text
11) Genesis 2:20-2 - Return to text
12) This is mostly liberal scholarship though one theologian of note might be Dr. Michael Welker of the University of Munster, as seen in his article: Michael Welker, “What Is Creation? Rereading Genesis 1 and 2”, Theology Today 48/1 [1991]: 56-71. - Return to text
13) R.Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981), 141-217. - Return to text
14) The pantheon of the Canaanites and the unmoved mover of Aristotle express this point, the former being personal but not infinite, the latter being infinite but not personal. - Return to text
15) Romans 5:7-8 - Return to text
16) Genesis 1:1 - Return to text
17) Hebrews 11:6 - Return to text
18) Ancient myths such as Enuma Elish contain many gods who are part of the creation. - Return to text
19) John 6:44 - Return to text
20) John 5-6 - Return to text
21) Ezekiel 36:25-8 - Return to text
22) Ephesians 2:10 - Return to text
23) The position of other gods is defended mostly by Dr. Michael S. Heiser of www.thedivinecouncil.com where much of his work is available. - Return to text
24) Galatians 4:4-6 cf 2 Thessalonians 2:13-15 - Return to text
25) Westminster Confession of Faith, xvii, 1. - Return to text

...To Be Continued...

Biblical Theology of Creation - Part 1.

2010-11-14T23:40:00.006-05:00

I.Introduction
A biblical theology of creation often encompasses only the process by which God created the world. While such studies are important they often miss a fundamental thought of New Testament, that is New Creation. A biblical theology of creation, and new creation, can be expressed in the fundamental of Genesis 1:1. This provides the framework of “when”, “who”, “how”, and “what” that are dealt with in creation and new creation.

II. “In the beginning” - When?
1. Absolute Beginning?
There are two major positions when it comes to if this is an absolute beginning or not. This argument springs from the translation of בראשית. The first position translates this word as an independent clause or “In the beginning God created...”¹ The second position translates this word as a dependent clause or “When God began to create…” ²
The implications of these two different translations is of great importance, insomuch that being mistaken here will take effect not only creation but also God.

a. Independent Clause
The independent clause implies that creation is ex nihilo, that God is before matter and creates the heavens, earth, darkness, deep, and waters. Thus the beginning spoken of is the absolute beginning of time and space. This is the traditional view of creation. Support for this position includes all ancient translations of the text, the grammar and syntax of the text,³ the styalistic structure of Genesis 1,⁴ and the obvious parallel in John 1:1-3. This view leaves us with a theology of the transcendence of God. He is Lord over all that is not He, since no partners can be ascribed to Him.

b. Dependent Clause
This view is based mainly on a theory that Moses, or the writer of Genesis⁵ borrowed from neighboring cultures when writing the creation account in Genesis. Since most other ancient near eastern creation accounts start “when on high” an independent clause in Genesis 1:1 would make the Biblical account absolutely unique when compared to other ancient views of creation.⁶

c. Conclusion
The evidence leads to the affirmation of the historical view of creation unless one is willing to set the standard for biblical interpretation by ancient parallels to scripture. However holding such a position the biblical writ would amount to nothing more than a slightly demythologized version of ancient theologies and philosophies. Thus the stark contrast against the cynical view of reality and eternal view of matter supports the independent case against unbelievers who suppress the truth about God.⁷

2. Literal Beginning?
One might not think this is important after establishing that creation was an absolute beginning; however without the literal beginning there is no literal end. Also while the Doctrine of God was largely dependent upon the absolute beginning, the doctrines of man, sin, salvation, judgment, and the Sabbath all hinge upon the understanding of the literalness of the beginning. The use of תולדות (generations) in Genesis 2:4 seems to indicate that the author intended the creation account to be just as literal as any other narrative in Genesis. Further it would appear that the historicity of an event is often underscored by a poetic nature. Thus most historic accounts in Hebrew thought are filled with theological implications.⁸

Furthermore the usage of “morning and evening” tends to lead us to believe that this creation took place in seven literal days. Also while the word יום (day) can be used to express and extended period (e.g. Genesis 2:4) when ever it is used with an ordinal number it is always a literal twenty four hour day, also when it is plural it is always literal.⁹

Additionally if these days were not literal then the Sabbath law of Exodus 20:8-11 would make little sense at all. Here we find Moses equating the days of the of the work week with the days of creation, if the seven day creation were simply figurative periods or epochs then such an exhortation would seem out of place. Also the New Testament writers seem to affirm a literal history of Genesis.¹⁰

Finally some who hold to a non-literal position submit that Genesis 1:1-2:3 is simply a mythology. Others seem to think of it as poetry, while still other regard it as symbolism or theology.¹¹ The only consistency among these is that Genesis 1:1-2:3 cannot be literal. Now those who hold to a literal creation do not assume that it cannot be literal, symbolic, poetic, and theological. In fact the more one studies the text the more they will be inclined to believe that it is indeed all of these things.

Some have suggested that verse 1 and verse 2ff are two different acts of creation. This is known as the “Active Gap” or “ruin-restoration” theory. The theory essentially assumes that God had a first act of creation in verse 1. Then for billions of years creation was perfect. Then when Satan fell from heaven (Luke 10:18) sin entered the universe. God judged the rebellion and sent the creation into the chaos of verse 2, “the earth became without form and void.” This brought about a second act of creation starting in verse 3. Unfortunately the grammar of verse two contains three circumstance noun clauses that describe a state and not a sequence, therefore they must be translated “was” and not “became.”¹²

The more traditional view sees a unity between verses 1 and 2. Verse 1 declares God’s general creation out of nothing of the original matter that is called heaven and earth, thus their absolute beginning. Verse 2 then clarifies that when the earth was first created it was in a state of being unformed and empty.¹³ Finally verses 3-2:3 describe God’s forming the unformed and filling the empty matter.¹⁴ There are two variations of this view, the first, referred to as the “no gap” interpretation sees verses 1-3 as the first day. The second sees verses 1-2 chronologically separated by a gap of some amount of time from the first day described in verse 3. This is usually called the “passive gap” interpretation. The author will assume the passive gap interpretation though both views are solidly within orthodoxy and fit the grammar of the text as it is ambiguous in this matter.

3. Recent Beginning?
The Genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 are very unique and are unlike all other genealogies in the Bible. Unlike other genealogies these have unique features that seem to indicate a specific chronological time to make it clear that there are no gaps between generations. The form is very particular¹⁵ in that its interlocking features suggest that there cannot be generational gaps, rather there is a complete chronological sequence from Adam to Abram via direct biological fathers and sons. This evidence suggests a recent beginning to the earth of around 6,000 years ago.¹⁶

Creation culminates itself in the new creation of the New Testament. Paul indicates that this creation process was at least planned for from before the foundation of the world.¹⁷ This creation started with Christ at his resurrection and begins in the believer at their conversion.¹⁸ Thus new creation is littered with the already not yet tension of the New Testament where the new creation is constantly being formed in the image of Christ, yet it is already raised with Christ and seated in heaven. ¹⁹

1) As seen in the King James Version (KJV), Revised Standard Version (RSV), New International Version (NIV), English Standard Version (ESV), Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB). - Return to text
2) As seen in the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB), New American Bible (NAB), New English Bible (NEB), Anchor Bible Project (ABP). - Return to text
3) Millard J. Erickson , “God’s Originating Work: Creation,” in Christian Theology: Second Edition [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2007], 394-396. - Return to text
4) Charles E. Hummel, “Interpreting Genesis One,” Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 38.3 [1986]: 178. - Return to text
5) JEDP and Tablet theories do not attribute authorship of Genesis to Moses; this however is moot at this juncture since the underlying presupposition is that “all scripture is God breathed.” - Return to text
6) See Plato’s Tiamus, the Babylonian Enuma Elish, et cetera. - Return to text
7) Romans 1:18 - Return to text
8) R.M. Davidson, “In the Beginning: How to Interpret Genesis 1”, Dialogue: An International Journal of Faith, Thought, and Action 6/3 [1994]: 9-11. - Return to text
9) The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2006) s.v. “3117”, 398-401. (BDB henceforth) - Return to text
10) While very reference the seven day creation specifically they do reference the Sabbath (Mark 2:27, Matthew 12:28, Hebrews 4:4,9), the creation of Man (Mark 10:7, 1 Corinthians 6:16, 11:8-9,12) , and the Flood of Noah (Matthew 24:37-38, Hebrews 11:7, 1 Peter 3:20, 2 Peter 2:5 - Return to text
11) Scofield Reference Notes: Genesis 1:2 - http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/ScofieldReferenceNotes/srn.cgi?book=ge&chapter=001 - Return to text
12) H.F.W. Gesenius, Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 454. - Return to text
13) This lends to the poetic structure as תהו andובהו rhyme in Hebrew. - Return to text
14) Hummel, Interpreting Genesis One, 179. - Return to text
15) Form: patriarch lived x years and begat a specific son; after he begat that specific son he lived y more years begetting sons and daughters; all of the years of patriarch were z years. - Return to text
16) This of number can vary by 1,000 years depending on the text being used of the difference in the dates. However for our purposes 1,000 years really does not matter since even a 10,000 year old earth is still a young earth. - Return to text
17) Ephesians 1:4 - Return to text
18) Colossians 1:15; 18; 2 Corinthians 5:17 - Return to text
19) Romans 8:29; Ephesians 2:6 - Return to text

...To Be Continued...

The Legacy of the Reformers on Courtship, Engagement and Marriage - Part II

2010-11-13T17:00:00.003-05:00

John Calvin: The Making of a Covenant.
Calvin’s basic understanding of marriage as is covenant. The concept of covenant has long been taught in western Christendom and Calvin applied this structure to the contractual obligations of marriage. Using Malachi 2:13-16, he insisted that the relationship of a covenant was not simply on the vertical plane between God and man but also on the horizontal relationships between husband and wife. As God draws the elect into covenant with him, he also draws man and wife into covenant with one another, by their mutual consent as well as through other regulations, or as Calvin put it:

But in order to press the matter more on the priests, he calls their attention to the fact that God is the founder of marriage. Testified has Jehovah, he says, between thee and thy wife… Hence Solomon, in Proverbs 2:17, calls marriage the covenant of God, for it is superior to all human contracts. So also Malachi declares, that God is as it were the stipulator, who by his authority joins the man to the woman, and sanctions the alliance: God then has testified between thee and thy wife, as though he had said, "Thou hast violated not only all human laws, but also the compact which God himself has consecrated, and which ought justly to be deemed more sacred than all other compacts: as then God has testified between thee and thy wife, and thou now deceivest her, how darest thou to come to the altar? and how canst thou think that God will be pleased with thy sacrifices or regard thy oblations?"

Unlike Rome and Luther, Calvin saw some separation of the Church and the State as a biblical and good thing, which informed his theology of marriage. Marriage was not a divine institution but the social one. Calvin, like Luther did not see a sacramental purpose in marriage rather it served the function of procreation as well as a way to build and strengthen love between husband and wife. Celibacy was the exception not the rule, and that it was an equal calling as marriage, not more, nor less.

Calvin also sought the consent of both parties involved in the marriage, which was radically different from the Popish tradition which only required permission and consent of the parents. Though Calvin wished for consent from both the parents and the lovers, he did not require parental sanction. He did however believe these brash marriages to be ill advised. Calvin drew on the story of Caleb as justification for this view, since it was Caleb who held his daughter out as a prize without her consent. This was despicable in the Frenchman’s eyes.

Calvin however was not without his own brand of impediments and he even agreed with Rome on many of them. In his 1546 Marriage Ordinance he declared that marriages of young people were null and void, that is women under the age of 18 and men under the age of 20, though the age of consent with parental approval may have been younger than that.

Another barrier Calvin set up was one of mental ability or inability. While not a clause as we might assume in our modern times, this allowed for the annulment of an engagement contract by those who were drunk or had their minds temporally impaired. There is no record of Calvin ever actually annulling a marriage or engagement for the reason of mental deficiency as defined in the twenty-first century.

A third impediment was against that of polygamy or even previous engagement. In the case of previous engagement this was not another engagement that had been annulled, but one that was current. If such a contract were found then the latter would be annulled. Other than this Calvin wrote little on the subject, however when it came to polygamy Calvin wrote extensively. This is probably because the Anabaptists and Lutherans of the day began to practice it and delve into a theology allowing it. Most sources seem to generally agree that the theologians were drawing on the examples of Old Testament patriarchs and kings. Calvin thought that men ought not to follow the example of these heroes of the faith in this manner because God created monogamy as part of the order of creation. The basis of his argument comes from Genesis 2:24 where God institutes marriage as a holy ordinance condemning polygamy with the imperative “the two shall become one flesh.”

To marry more than one wife was not simply to mock God but also to court trouble. Calvin drew upon the patriarchs showing that they lived in disorder and their lives were filled with strife and hostility. Further that not only was the marriages horrific on the husband but also upon the wives paying special attention to Leah and Rachel, two sisters who hated each other and competed with each other for their husbands love.

Another impediment Geneva set up was the fitness for marriage, that is a barrier against one who lacks virginity, is sexually incapable, contagion, or disparity in age. For Calvin, one’s virginity was not necessarily essential for marriage. If one presumed to be a virgin and was found to have lied about this to their potential spouse, on this Calvin did not discriminate. This was not the same as premarital sex between the two, which Calvin also spoke harshly against, but rather this was deemed premarital adultery, which Calvin thought desecrated the body and soul of the adulterer.

The 1546 Marriage Ordinance restricted marriage to “capable persons.” Those who were deemed incapable were those unable to produce children for any number of reasons including emasculation, impotence, permanent injury to genitals, etc, were seen as "incapable." The ordinance called for the annulment of all such marriages and by implication engagements. Calvin deemed all those with such disabilities as eunuchs and drawing from the words of Christ in Matthew 19:11-12 inferred that they were not men (or women) and were not fit for marriage. Thus, all marriages involving such were automatically annulled.

Those with incurable diseases, especially contagious ones, were also not allowed to enter into marriage in Geneva. That being said if one were to contract a disease that were not contagious the spouse was not allowed to annul the marriage or abandon their partner. For Calvin marriage was “in sickness and in health” as the saying goes. Therefore, it was only engagements which were annulled. However, if disease was contracted during the marriage that threatened the safety of the spouse or children, separation was allowed but not annulment or divorce.

As for those whose ages were drastically different and seeking an engagement and marriage, Calvin often saw it as a lust after the flesh and not something fit for the church of God. Calvin was so vehement about this that he risked losing his life-long friendship with William Farel, when he sought to marry a girl four decades his junior. Calvin sought to find a way to automatically annul this engagement, which took quite a toll.

On the taboo subject of incest Calvin also weighed in. However on this subject he threw his lot in with Luther, mostly. Taking a more “protestant” view of incest, and limiting the degrees of separation to those specified in the biblical write, (e.g. Leviticus 18, plus three, prohibiting marriages between fathers and daughters, uncles and nieces, and first cousins.) Geneva was stricter, still calling for prohibitions against not simply a son’s widow, but a grandson’s, a nephew, and a grandnephew’s. Likewise it paralleled this with a by forbidding a woman to engage her daughter’s, granddaughter’s, niece’s, or grand niece’s widower. Further, fathers and mothers were not allowed to have relationships with their step children. Calvin once again drew upon biblical stories, mainly that of Moses who delivered the Law, including the law which forbade incest, though He himself was a product of an incestuous relationship.

Calvin’s final impediment was that of interreligious marriage. The Protestant ought not to marry a Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Jew, Muslim, Pagan, or unbeliever. However if one found that they were married to a member of these other faiths they ought to remain married. This position comes from the biblical passages of 2 Corinthians 6:14 and 1 Corinthians 7:12-16.

Calvin breaks this into a before and after picture of marriage. In the former passage he says Christians are to do everything they can not to marry one who is not a Christian. Further, they ought to seek to marry pious Christians. On the flip side though he sees those who have already entered into an interreligious marriage as required to stay within it, because a zealous, pious Christian will sanctify the marriage far more than the unbeliever will disgrace it.

For Calvin the joining of opposites seemed to glorify God in many ways. The husband, with the “helpmeet” of his wife, was appointed to look up to God in reverence. The two would complete each other, steering one another from sin, preserving integrity, build and fortify love, sanctify and edify the members so long as the remained in the faith.

Marriage in American Evangelicalism
We believe the bible not the traditions of men. Again and again we hear this refrain, but do those who espouse it actually believe what they are saying? Perhaps if they did there wouldn’t be such a high divorce rate, just over 45%, among Americans and 32% amongst professing Americans Evangelicals. It is time that we sought to develop a theology of engagement and marriage that resembles any of our forerunners. Pulling from the traditions of the Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed, as well as other traditions, such as the Anglican or pietistic and formulate a proper theology of marriage rather than a theology where marriage is very easily annulled almost any reason.

This theology of marriage would include a covenantal setting between the members as well as the approval of their pastor. Further unlike Luther an ample courtship ought to be required. Much of the modern divorce mess is because the two people do not know one another nor do they understand the gravity of the covenant. Restoring the understanding that their marriage is not about their happiness but God’s glory is vital to the success of that marriage. This alone will allow frustrated husbands to love their wives. It will also allow those upset wives to respect their husbands.

A final improvement on the marriage system in the American Church would be an increased difficulty to divorce. The any rhyme or reason annulment system in place currently does not take to heart the notion of a Covenant between man, wife, and God. If a contemplative period were required I believe that the divorce statistics would drop dramatically in America.

FIN.

The Legacy of the Reformers on Courtship, Engagement and Marriage - Part I

2010-11-12T17:00:00.004-05:00

The Western Epidemic.
Western civilization owes much of its culture, values, and advancements to the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century. However what affect, if any, did this movement have upon the thought of sexuality and gender roles? How did Luther’s priesthood of the believer affect the home life and what effect did Calvin’s semi-theocratic Geneva have upon a culture breaking away from years of sexual renunciation? While not a central or even a tertiary tenet of the Reformation, the sexual ethics and attitude in the west owe much of their freedoms to the Reformers, their legacy is as inescapable in the history of sex as it is in the history of theology.

We believe the bible not the traditions of men. This is and other similar sayings are often the cry of western evangelicals who are ignorant of their history, from the King James Version Onlyists to Baptist perpetuity movement to the anti-intellectualism prevalent in many denominations. Courtship, engagement and marriage are no exception to the rule. Our tradition shapes our thought even in this aspect of theology. However because of our “tradition-less” tradition we have lost a sense of where we come from and even why it might be that we ought to return at least portions of our history unto our thought and theology about marriage.

Canon Law: From Whence We Came.
The canon law of the Catholic Tradition had a great affect on the reformers in this specific area of theology. Foremost the Catholic Church distinguished between an engagement contract and a marriage contract, the former being much easier to annul than the latter. The engagement contract often had many clauses and could be added to often and for many reasons, such as job security, parental conceit, and time limits. Furthermore there were fourteen main reasons that the engagement might be annulled, including youth of the members, polygamy, incest (including sisters of your brothers wife and spiritual sponsorship), disease or deformity, physical desertion (consisting of two years or more), failure to meet the terms of the contract, expiration of the contract, cruelty, fornication, special affinity (a more serious form of fornication), entry into the clergy, entry into a religious order, or mutual consent.

Clearly it seems rather simple to annul, engage, and it was also rather simple to consummate a marriage. A couple did not need the blessing of a priest or patristic or even a public ceremony if an engagement contract had been accepted. A marriage was considered consummated if the engaged couple acted out their marital relations. Though for two who were not engaged this would have been considered premarital sex, and would fall under the same punishment as fornication. Of course, a woman could escape the marriage if she could show that her fiancé raped her.

Once a marriage had been consummated it was far more difficult to annul. Many of them were simply retroactive versions of the engagement impediments. The first was the ability of either of the parties to choose to enter into the marriage. If one of the parties was shown to have entered the marriage under compulsion of sort then the marriage could be annulled. The second defined if either the members could actually have given their consent. If one of the members was not a baptized member of the Catholic Church they could not enter into the sacrament of marriage. The third impediment dealt with the sanctity of marriage, this included the use of contraception or promiscuity among either partner. The final impediment forbade bigamy and polygamy in all forms. This included any prior marriages, which were not annulled by the previous spouse’s death.

Martin Luther: The Beginning of Reform.
Martin Luther owes much of his theology of marriage to the Canon Law and rightly so as he was an Augustinian Monk who sought, not to break from the church, but reform it to scripture. He brought many of the same impediments to marriage, though he did not list as many for the contracts of engagement. He insisted on a less separation of incest moving out of the context from four degrees of blood separation to only forbidding those listed in Leviticus 18:6-13. He also denounced the further use of incest which forbade marriage to a brother’s wife’s sister or the like, seeing this as neither commanded nor forbidden by scripture. Further Luther could not understand why anyone who was baptized by another could not be married to him or her nor his or her son or daughter? If all were baptized into the death of Christ then were they not all spiritual sisters or brothers by the common baptism? Thus he rejected this popish stipulation upon marriage:

So away with this foolishness; take as your spouse whomsoever you please, whether it be godparent, godchild, or the daughter or sister of a sponsor, or whoever it may be, and disregard these artificial, money-seeking impediments. If you are not prevented from marrying a girl by the fact that she is a Christian, then do not let yourself be prevented by the fact that you baptised her, taught her, or acted as her sponsor.

Luther further saw no merit in the premise that one might not be able to marry their adopted children or non-believers, criminals, those who had at one time taken a vow, such as nuns or monks, servants, priests, the formally engaged, et cetera. Perhaps the most interesting objection is to those who are engaged to one and marry another, because he takes a relative view of this marriage. In his opinion the man should stay with the first girl if at all possible, however, he cannot forbid the man from accepting the latter as his true wife and rejecting the former engagement.

Luther also simplified divorce, stating that adultery was the main grounds for divorce in staunch opposition to the Canon Law of the Catholic Church. He also taught that the state ought to make adultery a capital offense as it was during the theocracy administered by Moses. His other allotment for divorce was the failure to fulfill the marital duties. This could consist of many things, including marital relations, provision, and child rearing.

Luther thought that marriage ought to be for the glory of God and the sanctification of the believer however not sacramental as the Catholic Church held. Luther rejected the notion that marriage was simply for procreation and a form of lust control. While he did see childbearing as a main tenet of marriage he also submits that “he who recognizes the estate of marriage will find therein delight, love, and joy without end.” Thus, to Luther marriage is a holy institution and ordinance. Where the Roman Church saw marriage as what was often bestowed upon those who could not endure celibacy, Luther saw it as a place in which to display the glory of God.

...To Be Continued...

Dangerous Christians...and other Scare Words!!! - Part 1

2010-11-10T22:38:00.006-05:00

StumbleUpon is a great tool to find useless information online. However the other day when stumbling across the internet I came across this article on "The Guardian." The title, Some Things Children Should Not be Taught, amused me. Here we are at a liberal website where the only heresy seems to be intolerance being itself intolerant. Ironic how that works. So I read Thomas Prosser's article fully expecting to find something about how teaching children Christianity amounts to their intellectual anathema. I did find that however I found something even more interesting. Thomas writes:

Such figures should make the antennae of secularists twitch, for they suggest that taking on religious faith is often done by minors who are emotionally and intellectually vulnerable to the claims of adult religious authorities.

Did you catch that, Mr. Prosser is suggesting that faith is a result of emotional and intellectual vulnerability. I agree.

Now before you get the stake light the fires allow me to elaborate. Would a Christian have a problem with the following statement:

Such figures should make the antennae of Evangelicals twitch, for they suggest that taking on atheistic prospective is often done by minors who are emotionally and intellectually vulnerable to the claims of adult secular authorities.

Notice anything? Different statistics, same argument. This is the same argument about Christian children turning to atheism that is being used by Ken Ham of AnswersInGenesis.org. Ken argues that the decision is made by middle school concerning how trustworthy the bible is, and the kids are being told it is not trustworthy five days a week and it is on average one or two. He then argues that this decision directly relates to why Christian Children loose their faith in college, perhaps even at Christian schools. But I digress.

My point is that on both fronts, the religious and secular, faith in either, autonomous human reason and its doctrine, or the Bible and its doctrine, is established very early and when children are emotionally and intellectually vulnerable. I do have one question for Mr. Prosser and Mr. Ham, intellectually speaking for what reason ought we not teach, form, and inform a child's emotions and intellect based upon Christan or Secular ideas respectively? I can answer this from the Christian prospective however I have yet to find a persuasive reason to not teach Christian ideas, such as the final judgment, from a secular prospective. Indeed most is empty rhetoric.

... To Be Continued...

Two Blog Reviews

2010-10-03T20:00:00.000-04:00

Yesterday Roger Olson posted what he believes is "The first fatal flaw in the Calvinist system" it is a rather interesting position. The basic argument is that the statements "God has predestined all things for his Glory" and "certain heresies (probably all heresies) detract from, diminish, demean God’s glory and rob God of his glory" are incompatible. I assume the specific Calvinist he is referring to is Bruce Ware and the specific heresy is Open Theism. It is no secret that Olson is sympathetic toward Open Theism, and finds Reformed Theology less than biblical.

At first glance this does look like a very tough situation for the Calvinist. However I believe that this is more of a rhetorical argument than an actual one. I believe that the word glory is being used in two different ways in the previous resolution. In the first statement the Calvinist would be speaking of God's self Glorification, the second statement would be perhaps better worded, something like "certain heresies (probably all heresies) dishonor God or perhaps more strongly are sins against God." This I believe is Dr. Olson's real problem with Calvinism, the idea that God can be completely sovereign over creation, and still hold men responsible for their actions. However isn't this just what God does with regards to Assyria and Israel? God uses a wicked people to punish his people and then punishes this wicked people for the sins they committed. (Isaiah 10)

Also the Christian cannot escape the cross of Christ. Clearly this even was foreordained by God, and in one sense is the most dishonorable act ever worked by the hands of men, yet in it God is glorified. These men are still held responsible for their sins against the Creator, but God is glorified in their sin. (Acts 2:23) Furthermore Dr. Olson is simply asking the question that Paul answered almost 2000 years ago, "shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? By No Means!" Allow me to rephrase it "If God predestined our sin should we continue in sin that his glory might abound? By No Means!" "How does God still find fault, for who could resist the will of God? Who are you oh man to answer back to God?"

So to recap some Calvinist's could have been a little more precise with their language, indeed are we not all guilty of this at some point or another? The real problem for Dr. Olson is not heresy at all it is how God can find fault in men when he has foreordained them to do the sins they do. Perhaps Dr. Olson would like the explanation given by the late Dr. Greg Bahnsen, "Men will always do what God predetermined, but God has predetermined that they do it freely, that they do it according to their own wishes." This is indeed mysterious but to go past this understanding is to escape the limits of scripture, and to deny one or the other is to deny scripture, something that is not an option for the christian.

My second blog review comes from someone by the name of Dwayna Lizt, who is the president of Lighting the Way Worldwide. Dwayna is a CCM singer (forgive me if she identifies with some other genre) who appears to have been raised Southern Baptist, and through some trying times in her life was introduced to the doctrines of Grace, from what I read on her organizations site she has had a pretty rough life.

Unfortunately she has started labeling a good, Christian pastors, as new aged heretic. Just a word on this, I doubt she has read the book considering she is judging it by its cover. Even so is the subtitle "Practices that Transform" necessarily "New Age"? This understanding is a very limited understanding of how God works. God uses the means of preaching to bring sinners to him, however I somehow doubt she would be against a book on preaching with the subtitle, "Preaching that Transforms." Such a book may be far very heretical, but it might also be a great text on the art of biblical preaching. Likewise Paul tells us, "brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you." Philippians 4:8-9 Emphasis mine. It would seem that Paul is instructing the Christians at Philippi to use these practices so God can transform them through them.

The real reson Ms. Lizt showed up on my radar was because she posted a blog condemning us heathens who can enjoy Porter while meditating on the word of God. This is to be expected coming from a lady raised in the bible belt, as noted before the reason for the removal of wine is churches was a marketing scheme that took hold like wildfire in the south. Also people often forget that Jesus started his career preaching the gospel as a bartender to drunk men and women, in part by making them more wine. Although she quotes scripture, never cited, on why we "shouldn't" drink at a bible study she conveniently neglects the passages which show us that wine is a gift and indeed a good thing. Also she pictures the Bride of Christ sitting on a barstool with whiskey and beer all around, saying the Bride is worth a lot more. I agree the Bride of Christ deserves the best wine, strong drink, and beer not the light beer nor well whiskey that she is trying to portray her around.

Some drink for though for Ms. Lizt.
But the vine said to them, ‘Shall I leave my wine that cheers God and men and go hold sway over the trees?’ - Judges 9:13

You cause the grass to grow for the livestock, and plants for man to cultivate, that he may bring forth food from the earth and wine to gladden the heart of man, oil to make his face shine and bread to strengthen man's heart. - Psalm 104:14-15

Then Ephraim shall become like a mighty warrior, and their hearts shall be glad as with wine. Their children shall see it and be glad; their hearts shall rejoice in the LORD. - Zechariah 10:7

Give strong drink to him who is perishing, and wine to those who are bitter of heart. Let him drink and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more. - Proverbs 31:6-7

“Come, everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and he who has no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. - Isaiah 55:1

On this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine, of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined. - Isaiah 25:6

And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. (He was priest of God Most High.) - Genesis 14:18

And of course:
And if the way is too long for you, so that you are not able to carry the tithe, when the LORD your God blesses you, because the place is too far from you, which the LORD your God chooses, to set his name there, then you shall turn it into money and bind up the money in your hand and go to the place that the LORD your God chooses and spend the money for whatever you desire—oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves. And you shall eat there before the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household. - Deuteronomy 14:24-26

As you can see while being drunk is not a good thing, drinking in moderation is. It is holy and good and blessed by God for the children of men, do not let your tradition blind you to this.

Ethics and Babies...

2010-05-25T21:38:00.008-04:00

I ran into this interesting post today when stumbling across the internet. I would simply like to point out the rhetorical argument that is based upon equivocated terms.
Notice first picture. This is not a Chicken? Isn't it? Would this be a Chicken? When does a chicken become a chicken? No one is saying that the fertilized egg is an adult chicken, we're not. Now if the egg is not fertilized then of course it is not a chicken, however if it is, why is it not a chicken?

Now the next picture is of an acorn. Now is an acorn a tree? No, of course not. Better question; is an acorn an oak? By all means. An acorn is an oak but not an "adult" oak.

Okay as to the silk worm, I agree it is not a dress... you got me here. And if left in it's natural habitat it will never be dress. This is simply a red herring meant to obscure the issue.

Now as to the picture of the egg being fertilized, why isn't it a human. Again no one is arguing that a fertilized egg is the same as an adult human, but if an zygote is not a human, is a baby? A teenager? A ninety-five year old man? Or are you holding that only Adults in the prime of life are humans? While a zygote is not an adult it is as human as an adult just as an acorn is just as much of an oak as the tree. Thanks for coming out.

More on Moral Subjectivism

2010-05-05T01:30:00.000-04:00

Mr. Anthony Hauser responded to my previous post through a facebook message. I am unsure why he didn't choose to leave the comments here for everyone to read, however in an effort of fairness I will post his rebuttal here, again with my commentary:

Actually the three debates mentioned, and make the bulk of the case (as they are only the first ones of those types within the past two weeks) are Youtube-exclusive debates; in fact Neither Seth's [Seth Fordham] nor your ideas are mentioned outside of what the Youtube-posters stated as their ideas.

Mr. Hauser has sent me links to the comment threads on two youtube videos in scanning them he does interact with three different user names and I have no reason to believe that these are not the discussions he is referring to.

"Why is it wrong for the first man to kill?" It is more beneficial to keep people alive instead of killing them (unless they are a drain on the economy, but that's another issue to discuss).

This answer is simply pushing the question of to another level, why is it more beneficial to keep people alive? Mr. Hauser's naturalistic materialism presuppositions are showing here. Furthermore he assumes it is beneficial to keep people alive, on what grounds? Or in subjectivist terms, from what prospective? It seems strange that Mr. Hauser himself has not used the language of subjective moralism, rather moral objectivism. It would seem that Mr. Hauser would think it not moral of someone to murder him (unless he is a drain on the economy). The moral subjectivist would say they are unable to determine the rightness or wrongness of the murdering Mr. Hauser until we first determined from what prospective we are viewing the murder from. Only once we determine the prospective are we able to declare the murder of Mr. Hauser right or wrong. If the prospective chosen was that of the murder, then not only does the murderer believe that the murder of Mr. Hauser is right, but relative to the murder's prospective it actually is right or moral. The same is true of Mr. Hauser's prospective against his murder, it is only right relative to his prospective. Mr. Hauser seems to be arguing the opposite though. He seems to be stating that his murder would be wrong objectively, not subjectively.

"Only because then he will be killed in return." You ignore my statement that [Centrally, comparative advantage.] AND that [Worst case, what's the benefit of your death by revenge?]

The question then is why is one thing more advantageous than the other? For what reason, Mr. Hauser assumes that one thing is, the question becomes why? Furthermore I was specifically dealing with his revenge clause.

"Again Mr. Hauser shows a way of enforcing morality yet does not show why something is morally wrong." More people to protect and improve society. More specialization (an economic reason), more possible mates/genetic mixing (a biological reason), more to protect against predators and/or catch prey (a biological/survival reason), more to survive a massive change (50% of 10 is 5; 50% of 20 is 10.)...Morality that supports more of a population such that these various reasons (and others) are performed; each person would generally determine that they are moral because they would generally help the person.

The little word "they" at the end of this paragraph is referring to, is it the people or the prepositions? If it is the people what if they don't determine that these propositions are moral, are they wrong? If it is the prepositions what is some or most persons determine that they are not moral, does this make them not moral?

"This is much like the argument a five year old makes on the playground" Not at all; this actually has (if you even thought for half a minute on it) several determinations for what is 'moral'.

This is an assertion not an argument.

However, you (in your ignorance) assume that morality must be declared by one single thing that can't be questioned; that it begins only objectively. However, morality begins SUBJECTIVELY; being a part of someone's "character" and "manners" by eytmology.

Here Mr. Hauser seems to be quite irritated, assuming that I have not studied moral subjectivism. However even if that were the case he is equivocating the noun morality for the adjective morality. The difference would be something like how people should act and how they actually do. This is what I was getting at in my last post when I stated that Mr. Hauser had a way of enforcing morality but could not account for it. This may be part of the reason Mr. Hauser does not seem to be engaging the argumentation I have provided.

"What I said was why ought we do unto others?" Lead by example; prevent someone doing it to you; etc. Come on. This was presented by him ~470 BC in at-best-spiritual China. And he did not invent it; merely made it popular again.
However, having read Analects XV.24 where he 'proposes it' to a student, he specifically uses "reciprocity" as ONE WORD that can guide someone throughout life. Hence "do unto others...": expect what you do to be done to you; if you won't like it (SUBJECTIVE MORALITY) then don't do it.

Ghandi lead by example and followed the Golden rule, it did not prevent someone from shooting him in the head. Come on? This does not explain the rightness of doing unto others, it gives us a good way of acting moral though.

"Would murder, or holocaust be immoral?" Given the biblical reasons for murder, holocaust, genocide, homicide, rape, slavery, and other things along those lines, which most people (especially the religious) would tend to call immoral...Don't see how an animalistic nature makes it worse.

This is nothing more than a red herring.

"would rape be immoral?" Depends on if it harms the victim either mentally or physically (since rape is sexual intercourse WITHOUT CONSENT).
"then it is morally necessary for me to do so." No where did I state absolutes such as "necessary". It may be morally-supportable, yet given a trial against those harmed by the action, I would doubt they would stand up as acceptable reasons.

These statements are some of the most telling about Mr. Hauser. Rather than being a moral subjectivist he seems to be a moral objectivist, as explained earlier and as I have suspected since our first encounter, who specifically holds to a harm based morality, that is he places the temporary absolute that something is unethical or immoral if it causes unnecessary harm. We can certainly say that though giving chemotherapy to a cancer patient does cause harm, the harm is necessary now so that less harm, namely death, might not happen later. However this does appeal to the temporary absolute, my question is where does this absolute come from?

"taken to its logical conclusions," Nope, you take it to the extreme (specifically this fallacy is the "slippery slope") and negate socially-instinctive behavior that others will help the less-fortunate/unlucky for the betterment of the population.
Remember: Vampire bats will offer unlucky individuals some of their food supply; this way the 'unlucky' bats will be more able to get food on their own and help society (defense, possible surplus, more sharing, etc.).

One need only look at the empirical evidence provided by amoral societies(not necessarily immoral, though I would argue they are) to show that this is not taken to an extreme. Mr. Hauser does however engage in the fallacy of "hasty generalization" applying a trait of a specific group of bats to mankind.

"Let us take it down a notch, is it wrong to steal? Mr. Hauser would say yes" Alas, a false assumption based on a non-sequitur.
It is (mostly) up to the victim whether it is "moral" or not. If they are harmed or percieve that they are harmed by it, then they will judge it as "immoral". Yet they may be persuaded if given reason (which begs the question: why not persuade/ask before taking?)

It does not follow? Fair enough. So then we must ask if ones do not know another is stealing from them is it wrong?

However, if you yourself judge that the act was immoral and you didn't have sufficient reason to support the act, then that makes it "immoral" by your standards...and then begs why you did it in the first place.

And if one thinks that stealing is moral, is it?

"if something being illegal means it is immoral as he seems to assert" I never assert that illegality and immorality are the same.
In fact, if you actually read instead of quote-mining and using straw-men...My words: [Keep in mind it was to this - tied to the Economic reason - I first brought in the 'your death by revenge' concept.]...
Even if it were not illegal, the family/friends/etc of the person you killed would get revenge on YOU, unless you hid ALL TRACES THAT IT WAS YOU, and ensured that they couldn't discover you to get revenge; because they judge revenge as providing justice/fairness/equality: the scale needs to be balanced.

I misread this statement " illegal is not immoral" as "illegal is immoral" and thus retract the portion on the equivocation of legality and morality. The question here of course becomes why do the scales need to be balanced? Why do the family/friends/etc need to get revenge? This way is quite contradictory to your golden rule way.

If it were illegal (meaning the townspeople collectively decided it would be 'immoral' amongst them), then those wronged/harmed (save the victim if killed) could turn to the law to enforce 'justice' and 'balance the scale'.

Could the townspeople collectively decide that murder was moral amongst them?

Your entire debasement of the presented ways (which was not even towards your direct ideas on morality) is filled with putting words where they don't exist, the preconceived AND FALSE notion that basic morality is NOT SUBJECTIVE, and slippery-slope arguments that ignore observation. Not to mention the "objective morality" of the Bible is filled with what blatantly exposes itself as bigotry and arrogance expressed by a maniacal tyrant.

Allow me now to dissect this paragraph because there is a lot in there. "Your entire debasement of the presented ways ... is filled with putting words where they don't exist." Aside from the section where I misread Mr. Hauser's words, and the other portion where he seems to have different standards form murder and theft, he has not shown that I added to his argument, equivocated, or ignored anything other than a hasty generalization. I quoted the entire note! I didn't remove one word nor did I add one, there is no way this could be considered quote mining or placing words in your mouth. (Screenshot)"the preconceived AND FALSE notion that basic morality is NOT SUBJECTIVE" Mr. Hauser has yet to prove that morality is not subjective, he is simply continuing to assert that it is. More ironic is the fact that he makes a non-subjective value statement about non-subjective morality. "and slippery-slope arguments that ignore observation." Mr. Hauser is the one ignoring observation, his argument from vampire bats is the epitome of hasty generalization, yet when asked to observe real world morality in amoral societies he turns to red herrings. "Not to mention the "objective morality" of the Bible is filled with what blatantly exposes itself as bigotry and arrogance expressed by a maniacal tyrant." This again is a red herring and a false claim. However even if it were true Mr. Hauser would not have shown that morality is subjective.

-----

"I am unsure of who this person is" Aside from being a Youtube-exclusive commentor/poster.
"then there is no need for the rude remarks about him." How about when you respond three times (each to seemingly-willful ignorance, by definition, even) expressing the concept he is getting wrong.

That might be a product of the difference in our view of morality.

-----

"Get back to me if you feel that such an exchange would be profitable."
Honestly, given the amount of errors, flaws, and fallacies you make in trying to examine what I put, I would venture to say it seems not-likely-profitable.
I do admit some stuff I put could have been worded clearer and elaborated more. (And if the point of that post were merely to discuss such topics as those five methods of SUBJECTIVE morality, I would have elaborated more on them. Even shown evidence, definitions, and examples to support them.)

I am willing to grant that Mr. Hauser have not been precise, and perhaps not as clear as either of us would have wanted however aside from the bit on Illegality and Immorality and my mistake in thinking that Mr. Hauser would be consistent when relating to the immoralities of crime he has not shown I have misrepresented his arguments, at least from the reading given. He may have meant something different but that does not mean the fault lies with my reading but his ambiguity.

Grace and peace.

"Idiots. Morality. Shit like that."...ad hominem, ignoratio elenchi, and inconsistent comparison

2010-05-02T22:27:00.006-04:00

A friend of mine directed me to this facebook post because he felt the author, Anthony Hauser, was referring specifically to me. I am inclined to agree. However because I am not friends with Mr. Hauser I am unable to comment on his post to defend my position, therefor I will write here and also leave an open challenge to him for a public, formal, oral or written debate on this subject. I will also quote his post in full here so that he cannot accuse me of selective citation, I will however add my commentary throughout.

Mr. Hauser writes:

Recently, I have been "debating" idiots with no philosophical, theological, or even logical basis for any thought they have.

The "debate" he is referring to is another facebook post on Mr. Seth Fordham's wall from April 11, 2010 at 8:45 pm EST. Just another note he enters his monologue with ad hominem remarks about the people discussing these epistemic questions with. We must hope that Mr. Hauser will back up this universal negative with some documentation.

Mr. Hauser continues:

The one person claims to be God/Jesus...
And that the Second Coming was in 1992...
And don't get me started on how he avoids explaining Genesis 3, Genesis 6-9...
Or his literal-yet-metaphorical interpretation of Genesis 1-2. [Each day of creation was 7000 years, and he created on specific days but didn't create on them because he was like busy or something dealing with things that didn't exist at that time...]

This is quite interesting and I would agree that the person claiming to be God/Jesus hasn't the grounds for intelligibility, outside of what he borrows from true Christian belief, if that is indeed what they hold to. Also if the citation on genesis is accurate I would probably disagree with him on exegetical grounds. However this portion is not directly against me so this is all the commentary I will provide.

Going on Mr. Hauser seems to write of me: "Another claims that morality fails subjectively despite five different ways:" This is the part that specifically deals with me and the argument I put forth against how he can make any moral statement at all. My point was not that there are not ways to enforce morality, even subjective morality, but that he cannot give an account as to why anything is wrong. He in his 5 ways is answering how one might enforce morality but not why morality is necessary at all. The name for this in logic is Ignoratio Elenchi or missing the point. However for your sake I will examine each of his ways here and show you how each of them commit this common fallacy.

Mr: Hauser:

Economic -- Centrally, comparative advantage. Worst case, what's the benefit of your death by revenge? (Keeps saying that it's more beneficial to kill someone, and ignores the entire idea of revenge.)

Here we see that Mr. Hauser would like to enforce morality economically, that is one way of doing so, however this does not answer the question as to why it is more economic to be moral than not? Why is it wrong for the first man to kill? Only because then he will be killed in return. Yet wont this second killing invoke a revenge killing of its own, ad infinitum. Furthermore if the first killing is wrong why is it wrong? Why isn't the second?

Mr. Hauser:

Defensive -- Protection in numbers. (Has yet to challenge this one.)

Again Mr. Hauser shows a way of enforcing morality yet does not show why something is morally wrong. This view simply enters the logical fallacies of Argumentum ad Baculum and ad Populum. This is much like the argument a five year old makes on the playground "Everyone knows that Sesame Street is the best show on TV and if you don't agree my big brother and his friends will beat you up." While this may be a good way to enforce morality, it does not give a reason why something is moral and something else is not just as my above argument does not show why Sesame Street is better than any other show on TV.

Mr. Hauser:

Empathetic -- Do unto others. (He calls empathy an emotion as though it's a counter to this method of morality.)

What I said was why ought we do unto others? For what reason should we? It seems as though Mr. Hauser assumes that we should because we should, yet isn't that by definition Petitio Principii (begging the question)?

Mr. Hauser:

Selective -- Let the only competition be for food, sex, and safety.Animals follow this (for the most part) and have gotten along fine for a long time before us. (Didn't respond to this one.)

This does not give us morality, furthermore if we were to exist in such a world would rape be immoral? According to this definition no, because it would simply be competition for sex. Would murder, or holocaust be immoral? No, one could just say they were trying to keep themselves or their country, tribe, what have you safe. Rather than create or give us a morality this system, taken to its logical conclusions, seems to produce a completely amoral society where as long as I can define my immorality as competition for food, sex or safety then it is morally necessary for me to do so.

Mr. Hauser:

Clean hands -- Why get your hands dirty killing someone? Why even use the time for killing someone and not something more productive? (He says that it doesn't take time to kill people [despite all the planning, finding, stalking, killing, and cleaning], and that you don't need to clean the scene because illegal is not immoral...Keep in mind it was to this - tied to the Economic reason - I first brought in the 'your death by revenge' concept.)

How do you know that killing someone is not the most productive thing to do? Mr. Hauser would say something along the lines that it takes away from the number of people trying to help society. I must ask then if it would be wrong to kill a mass murderer, you are going to get your hands dirty by doing this. Let us take it down a notch, is it wrong to steal? Mr. Hauser would say yes, when asked why he would appeal to revenge, someone would kill you if you did, as he stated before. If such were the case then it would run into the same problems as the "Economic way."
Also if something being illegal means it is immoral as he seems to assert by including it in what he understood my rejection to be, then is it immoral to have more than one child? If Mr. Hauser were a citizen of the People's Republic of China then he would have to answer yes, yet as a citizen of the United States of America he must answer no. So it is moral of US citizens to have more than one child, but not for Chinese citizens, that is of course only if illegal means immoral.

Mr: Hauser

A third idiot got a simple math concept wrong. I explained his error, and he kept up not understanding. Now he claims that he accepted help and "understood it the first time", but deleted the posts in question that he put that showed the concept went over his head and he wasn't taking advice.
Even worse an act of stupidity, he told me to read the posts that he DELETED, as though he forgot that he deleted them. What did he have to hide from public view that he deletes a series of posts and claims as one of the first things he said what was actually one of the last things?

I am unsure of who this person is however if there is a simple math concept that he got wrong then there is no need for the rude remarks about him. I agree that one should leave things said in public open so there might be accountability one the part of all parties involved.

Mr. Hauser:

Now, I know that no one will read this section. Or at least don't plan on anyone reading this. So here it goes: I will answer any questions anyone has on what I think about them. Either in person, through text, or through Facebook/email. I will also deeply consider what you think about me, if you choose to let me know. This goes to everyone, because I value (almost) everyone's opinions.

Mr. Hauser, as I said in the opening paragraph of this post I would be willing to engage you in a discussion of debate on any of the subjects you mentioned either in the title of this post (Morality) or in the opening line (Basis for Intelligent Thought). Get back to me if you feel that such an exchange would be profitable.

Grace and peace
Proverbs 18:17; 26:4-5

New Calvinism...

2010-04-06T21:11:00.003-04:00

The theological system called Calvinism is one of the latest trends sweeping the nation. The form of this "New Calvinism" as it is called is characterized quite nicely in a recent blog post my C. Michael Patton entitled "What Is The New Calvinism?... And Are You Part of It?" In this article Dr. Patton does a very nice job of summarizing what New Calvinism in America is and I suggest if for that, however I do find his final paragraph to be slightly disturbing.

The only critique that I have of the movement is one of perception, not one of intention. It is that the New Calvinist movement is just that—New Calvinist. As strong as I am on the reformed doctrines of grace and as much as I love the Evangelical attitude, Calvinism is not what we are about. Calvinism simply represents one interpretive component of the Gospel. No matter how important we might believe this component to be, it pales in comparison to the bigger picture of Gospel. I am a Christian who believes in the atoning death, burial, and resurrection of Christ first. My Calvinism comes forth or fifth.

Did you notice the problem, or what I am taking issue with? It is not that his "Calvinism" comes fourth or fifth, but that it seems his "Calvinism" is bifurcated from the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Now I am sure that Dr. Patton would never view his Calvinism apart from the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Christ it does seem odd that he can view those aspects of his faith apart from his Calvinism as though they were two different compartments in an ice tray. If the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ are of first importance, which they are, what gives them meaning? Wouldn't it be the person of Christ, who God is, and if belief in Christ actually saves?

Over a hundred years ago C.H. Spurgeon responded to something along these lines during what is now called the Downgrade Controversy where doctrine took a back seat to "felt needs" and the like. Spurgeon actually was as bold as to proclaim that the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, that is the things of first importance are not only the Gospel but also what has been nicknamed Calvinism. He puts it far better than I would:

"Salvation is of the Lord." That is just an epitome of Calvinism; it is the sum and substance of it. If anyone should ask me what I mean by a Calvinist, I should reply, "He is one who says, Salvation is of the Lord." I cannot find in Scripture any other doctrine than this. It is the essence of the Bible. "He only is my rock and my salvation." Tell me anything contrary to this truth, and it will be a heresy; tell me a heresy, and I shall find its essence here, that it has departed from this great, this fundamental, this rock-truth, "God is my rock and my salvation." What is the heresy of Rome, but the addition of something to the perfect merits of Jesus Christ—the bringing in of the works of the flesh, to assist in our justification? And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here. I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor.
C.H. Spurgeon - A Defense of Calvinism - Emphasis Mine

Calvinism is so tied up in the death and resurrection of Christ because it is the doctrines that explain that Christ died for my sins, not some concept out there that if I am good enough I will get into heaven, not to make a way for me to be saved but to actually save me. This is what every Christian believes even if s/he does so inconsistently with the rest of their theology. Furthermore they believe that Christ's payment was accepted by God and thus Christ was raised. Another "Calvinistic" concept, Christ actually bought me from God, not almost paid for me and I have to add something but actually bought me, paid in full. That is the Gospel. That is Calvinism. So yes while some aspects of Calvinism are not by necessity of First Importance, the aspects of "New Calvinism" are, namely the doctrines of grace which is the main emphasis of the "New Calvinism" and secondarily the Nature of God.

I hate the doctrine of Hell... or What the hell is wrong with me?

2010-03-17T18:15:00.003-04:00

Dr. C. Michael Patton of Credo House recently wrote over on The Parchment and Pen Blog a brief summery of eight of his biggest beefs with Christianity, or perhaps western evangelical subculture. While I agree with many of his main points, when he comes to his finale he seems to change his post from the quarks often found in evangelicalism to a doctrine of the Christian Faith, that is Hell.

To be fair to Dr. Patton I will quote the relevant text here:

Hell. This is hands down the most difficult doctrine in the Christian faith. We believe in a loving God who sees fit to allow his creation (his children) to suffer in a place we call hell—a place, by the way, that affords more suffering and than anything imaginable. A place, by the way, that is never-ending. It is not as though I don’t believe it. I do. It is not as though I look at God in judgment. I don’t. It is simply something that confuses me. While I completely disagree with any form of “Christian” universalism (i.e. all people are going to make it to heaven), second-chance theories (i.e. unbelievers will experience a second chance to escape hell in the after life), or the idea of annihilation ism (i.e. the belief that hell, along with all its inhabitants, will eventually be annihilated forever), I understand and sympathize with the reason why they go in this direction. If I could find some sort of loop-hole to get out of believing in the doctrine of an eternal hell, I would. If there was such a thing as a Christianity that did not necessitate a belief in hell, I would submit my resume. (And believe me, I have tried). Oh, closely connected to this are the cliché answers Christians give about hell. Many Christians I have encountered act as if hell does not bother them in the least. Of all the things you can be cliché about, don’t do so here.

Dr. Patton states that hell is a difficult doctrine of the Christian faith, even the most difficult doctrine, I agree that it is a very "difficult" and even "confusing" doctrine. I don't think it is good for the Christian to hate any doctrine found in Scripture.

Just for a moment imagine if we applied this to other "difficult" or "confusing" doctrines of Christianity. It would look something like this:

I hate the Trinity, it is a "difficult" and "confusing" doctrine and I don't like it. Oh I'm not looking at God in judgment for being who He is. Far be it from me. I also don't believe that any of the Trinitiarian heresies have any validity not that I haven't tried to prove them.

I don't believe that we as Christians have the right to hate God or what He has chosen to reveal to us about Himself. We ought to turn to Him in faith when something is difficult or confusing instead of hating Him for it. Now I am not saying that we as Christians ought to be anti-intellectual, in that we don't try to work through these difficult and confusing doctrines, rather when we reach the end of the limits of our minds we turn to God in faith. We trust, that while we now don't understand fully, God in His wisdom has a plan and a reason for everything, including Hell, which will result in His glory and our good.

For a much more thorough and philosophical article on the topic of Theodicy or The Problem of Evil by Dr. Bahnsen. While Dr. Bahnsen does not deal directly with the doctrine of Hell in the article his logic concerning the existence of Evil can be used for Hell also.
Grace + Peace.

P.S. I just realized I could have saved a lot of space if I had simply said the doctrine of Hell may make you hate yourself for not understanding God's mind about it but must never make you hate God.

Calvinism, Hyper-Calvinism, and Arminianism

2010-03-14T21:47:00.004-04:00

Well they are at it again. "Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism", a tome put out by B&H Academic publishing and edited by David Allen and Steve Lemke, seems to once again mistake historic Calvinism with Hyper-Calvinism. You may remember that David Alan made this mistake a few years ago at the John 3:16 Conference. Anyways rather that entering the fight I would once again simply like to show the differences between Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism also I would like to show the similarities between Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism, since they spring from the same philosophy.

Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism.
First thing that ought to be noted is that both Calvinists and Hyper-Calvinists will both affirm the so called five points of Calvinism (Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints). Yet this is often where the similarities in the two systems part ways. The Calvinist affirms human responsibility, in that all men are commanded to repent and believe the Gospel where as the Hyper-Calvinist would say that because men are unable of their own accord to turn to Christ they are not under obligation to repent. Furthermore some Hyper-Calvinist's believe that God has no love for the reprobate at all. No Calvinist would say this, no matter how high their theology is. Furthermore some neo-gnostic Hyper-Calvinist's would say that only those who adhere to a Calvinistic understanding of the Gospel are saved. The Calvinist on the other hand can affirm that there are many who are with the Lord that held to Arminianism or Wesleyan theology, though they might say they held to it inconsistently. A final distinction, though there are a few more, would be that Hyper-Calvinists are anti-Evangelistic or anti-Missional. No one can make that claim of Calvinists as many of the greatest Missionaries ever have held to Calvinist Theology, e.g. William Carrey, Jonathan Edwards, David Brainard, George Whitefield, John Eliot, et cetera.

Arminianism and Hyper-Calvinism.
While Arminians and Hyper-Calvinists would differ on a lot of things including the so called five points of Calvinism (see above), the philosophical presupposition behind each of these systems is identical. It stems from the belief that Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility are incompatible. They simply differ on which portion of the premise to reject because of their presupposition that "mans ability and responsibility must coexist." The Arminian will see that the bible teaches all men are to repent and believe, saying, given their previously stated presupposition, "See all men are commanded to repent and believe the Gospel," which is true "therefore all men must be able to do so of their own accord," which is false. The Hyper-Calvinist will see that the Bible teaches that no man has the ability to to repent and believe, and thus say given their previously stated presupposition, "See men are unable to repent and believe the Gospel on of their own accord," which is true, " therefore all men must not be commanded to repent and believe," which is false. This is when the true Calvinist steps in and takes the true portions of their statements and puts them together saying that "All men are commanded to repent and believe the Gospel, yet of their own accord they cannot do this." In this the Calvinist rejects the incompatiblism of Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility as well as the presupposition that "mans ability and responsibility must coexist," turning from Philosophy to Scripture as the final authority in this matter.

I hope that clears some things up. Grace and Peace.

P.S. Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism have been confused twice by the Dean of the School of Theology at Southwest Baptist Theological Seminary and a Professor of Philosophy and Ethics New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary once in print, once at a conference I cannot recommend anyone attend either of these Seminaries. To be mistaken on a basic area of Historical Theology is lazy at best and outright deceitful at worst.

Some more people who aren't reformed.

2010-02-21T20:02:00.003-05:00

Neil Cullan McKinlay over at Show Off The Ben recently posted about what it means to be reformed and why no baptist can be called reformed. (link) In his basic argument he surmises that to be reformed or a Calvinist, (he seems to use the terms interchangeably after the second paragraph) one must be a pedobaptist, presbyterian, and a theonomist. It seems that these are fundamental features of what it is to be reformed in his mind. Rather than enter the debate, which is expanded upon here from R.Scott Clark's version, I would simply like to list a number of folks who are not reformed by these standards.

Johnathon Edwards (Congregationalist), John Owen (Congregationalist), George Whitefield (Methodist), Richard Baxter (Non-Conformist), John Milton (Congregationalist), C.H. Spurgeon (Baptist), John Frame (Non-Theonomist), AW Pink (Baptist), John Flavel (Non-Conformist), John Eliot (Congregationalist), John Piper (Baptist), James R. White (Baptist), Graeme Goldsworthy (Anglican), Henri Blocher (Baptist), Dr. Ligon Duncan (Non-Theonomist), Isaac Watts (Congregationalist), J.I. Packer (Anglican), strangely enough The Presbyterian Church of America (Non-theonomist). and ironically R. Scott Clark (Non-Theonomist since his two kingdoms theology is inconsistent with theonomy as described). Now it is best not to call any of these people reformed... or we could take reformed to mean adherents to Covenant Theology, the doctrines of grace, the concept of "semper reformanda," rather than a specific sect of presbyterian churches. Hey that's just me.

Philosophy of Pastoral Ministry: Part 3

2010-02-10T23:03:00.004-05:00

The private aspect of ministry refers to the small group or one on one instruction. While the prevailing portion of ministry is the public ministry, unless this is followed with training in a more intimate sense it will fail to “equip the saints.” This type of teaching not only shows the personal care for the soul of the member or parishioner, but will also lead to more gentle correction, as the Lord’s servant must. (2 Tim 2:24-26) This also allows for the specific tutelage in any area that is personally difficult for the child, guarding them from the snare of the devil. This concept of biblical discipleship is of second importance, only to the proclamation of public ministry of the word.

A pastor must be able to defend the faith as all Christians are called to do so. (1 Pet 3:15) In Acts 6, where we acquire the concept of the ministry of the word, we see that the apostles are not only preaching to the believers but the unbelievers as well. As pastors the primary focus is teaching the congregation, we are also called to evangelism and reasoning from the scriptures in the marketplace. (Acts 17:17) Thus defending the faith and engaging in conversation about it we must “destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ.” (2 Cor 10:5)

The apostle puts it simply that if one is to be a pastor he must be above reproach. (1 Tim 3:2) This is plain; we are to practice that which we preach. Without this our teaching will be empty at best and utter hypocrisy. Pastors must be able to echo Paul’s words “be imitators of me as I am of Christ.” (1 Cor 11:1) Furthermore Peter encourages pastors “to be examples to the flock.” (1 Pet 5:3) For this reason pastors teach by their faith (Jas 2:26) and give credence to it.

If a pastor is to be effective in the ministry of the word he must be a pastor that prays. Without the power of prayer no matter how the pastor tries he will fail to properly “equip the saints.” James tells us that the prayers of a righteous man are powerful (Jas 5:16) and as imitators of Christ we must pray for those in the flock under our care that they might not go astray, (Luke 22:32) making intercession for them as Christ does for us, that we might be equipped to equip them. As men we must also inquire the counsel of God in all things that we might properly teach that which He has revealed to us. This is the bedrock of any ministry and especially pastoral ministry.

There are many other things pastors could do at any given church, and this would vary from local body to local body. Pastors are not to do everything in the church as clearly stated in Acts 6. Rather they are to labor teaching the whole counsel of God and taking watch over the church of God, bought with His own blood. Thus we are “to equip the saints for the work of ministry, building up the body of Christ,” for that is the very heart of pastoral ministry.

FIN.

Philosophy of Pastoral Ministry: Part 2

2010-02-09T07:39:00.004-05:00

The pastor must “study to show himself approved unto God” that he may “rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Tim 2:15) Only when a pastor “searches the scriptures” (John 5:39) can he declare the “whole counsel of God.” (Acts 20:27) Thus the study of the scriptures is principal in the life of a pastor, (Ezra 7:10) or shall we receive the same rebuke as Job “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?” (Job 38:2) Therefore let the pastor not be like the Jews with a zeal for God yet not according to knowledge.

This personal ministry of the word leads to the ministry of the word to others, both public and private. Rightly ministering the Word as the Apostle declares, requires us to “not shrink from declaring … the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27) holding back nothing that “was profitable, and teaching … in public and from house to house.” (Acts 20:20) As one charged with the ministry of the word a pastor must preach the entire book, as it all testifies to Christ. (John 5:39) Also this teaching must be both in the public arena and the private one. Finally a pastor must live the word that he preaches leading by example. (Acts 20:18)

The public aspect of ministry refers to be the preaching from the pulpit, though it is not limited to pulpits. This is where the pastor teaches the majority of the congregation and parishioners by declaring to them the whole counsel of God. This must be built upon a firm foundation of the study of the word. All preaching from this venue must be linked to Christ, as the scriptures all concern him. (Luke 24:27)

For this reason Pastors are set apart from other Christians as to have the gift of teaching, (1 Tim 3:2, Titus 1:9) as this is one of the two tasks in the “equipping the saints.” This is key to the role of a pastor, and for this reason they are will not only be judged more harshly (Jas 3:1) but are worthy of double honor if they “work hard at preaching and teaching.” (1 Tim 5:17) Thus this platform is one of the venues through which we feed the sheep with “knowledge and understanding.” (Jer 3:15)

Good teaching will also protect and guard the souls of those in the body from the treachery of the evil one. The pulpit is a platform for exposing, warning, rebuking, and correcting err and sin. Truth breeds truth, therefore when spoken from the pulpit the truth will guard the little ones in it.

Philosophy of Pastoral Ministry: Part 1 Overview

2010-02-07T09:37:00.007-05:00

The purpose of the Christian life is to glorify God in all things. (1 Cor 10:31) To that end the pastorate is no different than the layman. All of the tasks of the pastor must flow from this mindset, lest they all be in vain. Thus the heart of pastoral ministry is “to equip the saints for the work of ministry” (Eph 4:12) that they might “to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3) by “teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ,” both “in the temple and from house to house.” (Acts 5:42) Therefore the ever-advancing kingdom of God is paramount in pastoral ministry. If anything other than the Glory of God as the center of our pastoral ministry then we are in sin.

Few men should aim to be teachers, as they will be judged with greater strictness. (Jas 3:1) Thus to take up the calling of a pastor one must be sure in God, and qualified. Foremost the pastor should be above reproach. (1 Tim 3:2) The apostle here is clearly stating the pastors are to be morally excellent, that men might see our good works and glorify our Father in heaven. Paul also adds the qualification of the husband of one wife. (1 Tim 3:2) This does not mean that a pastor must be married, rather that he must be of marrying age though he may be single as Paul was. (cf. 1 Cor 7:7) However this does mean that if a pastor does marry he is to do so in the biblical fashion, “the two shall become one flesh, ” (Gen 2:24) ergo monogamy.

Paul further exhorts the good behavior and character of pastors; that they might not be drunkards nor quarrelsome, nor violent, nor full of greed, for such are the deeds of the flesh. Rather a pastor is to display the fruit of the spirit, and manage his household well for how can one that is unable to keep his own house keep the Church of God? Finally they must be able to teach sound doctrine. Far too often today this quality is neglected or overlooked in a church’s search for a pastor. If they cannot teach then they are not qualified to be a pastor. This cannot be pressed enough, lest men who by their smooth words and blessings deceive the naïve. (Rom 16:18) Sound doctrine must be taught.

The New Testament is very clear about the plurality of pastors in the Church, following the pattern Christ set when he sent the disciples out two by two, (Luke 10:1) as two can withstand the adversary and three are not easily broken. (Ecc 4:12) Furthermore a reading of Titus 1:5 draws this picture as crystal. This also helps keep heresy from the pastorate, as two cannot walk together lest they agree. (Amos 3:3) This provides the much needed accountability in an age when the “Christian Church” is so plagued with sin.

A pastor is likened to a shepherd (Eph 4:11, 1 Pet 5:2) in the New Testament, giving an image of guarding and feeding sheep. Therefore the two main aspects of “equipping the saints” are the oversight of souls (Acts 20:28, Heb 13:17) and teaching with knowledge and understanding. (Jer 3:15, Titus 1:9) These two aspects flow from a healthy ministry of the Word and prayer life as the Apostles stated in Acts 6:4.

What, an Update? Blog Review.

2009-12-19T04:34:00.003-05:00

What a new post... yes, I know your feed readers are burning...

Anyways The Seeking Disciple over at Arminian Today posted a blog about the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism entitled "Discipleship: Where Arminianism and Calvinism Clash." This is my response.

In paragraph 3 He says: "Calvinists would insist that the person was saved by irresistible grace whereas the Arminian would say that the sinner was saved by surrendering to the grace of God that they could have resisted but instead surrendered to (Acts 16:14-15, 30-34)." Actually a Calvinist would agree with both of those statements. A member of the elect can resist God's saving grace it is just God's saving grace can over come all resistance. Furthermore a Calvinist will say that all the elect will surrender to God's saving grace, though the reason for this would differ from that which Arminianism gives.

In paragraph 4 he says that "the Calvinist would encourage the person to abandon a life of sin (at least I hope they would and feel confident many would do so)" but wouldn't by definition "stress that true repentance is not just feeling sorry for our sins but actually leaving a life of sin and pressing toward the higher calling of Christ Jesus". It seems that he is creating a strawman, I hope unknowingly. I agree that the issue of the mortification of sin in the believer is different between the Calvinist and the Arminian, but not at this point. The Calvinist will say that this side of heaven no sin will ever be slain completely but must continually be mortified. There will never be a day when anyone wakes up and says, "Yes! I mortified all my sins completely so now I do not have to continue to fight sin." For more on this from the Calvinistic Prospective see The Mortification of Sin in the Believer by John Owen.

In paragraph 5 he states that: "Jesus didn't die to preserve sinners in sin but He died to make saints out of sinners". This seems to be a complete misunderstanding, or misrepresentation of the doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints. A brief summery of the doctrine would state that "when we speak of “once saved, always saved,” we are not taking into account the full scope of salvation. We have been saved (justification), was are being saved (sanctified), and we will one day be saved (glorified). You cannot claim to have been “saved” (justified) unless you are being sanctified. Jesus Christ is Savior and Lord." (Michael Horton, Putting the Amazing Back into Grace, 171) Thus according to the Calvinistic position God continuely works in the lives of those who are elect that they might grow in holiness.

Finally in paragraph 1 he assumes Calvinism to prove his Arminianism. Allow me to explain. He stated that part of the Gospel is that a person places their "personal faith in the Lord Jesus for the remission of sins (Ephesians 2:8-9) and that without faith it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6)." However wouldn't this coming to faith be an act that pleased God? How is it that the carnal minded unbeliever pleases God by coming to have faith without first having faith? You must either assume Calvinism, that God is the one who gives the faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), or deny Romans 8:7-8 and ironically Hebrews 11:6, not to mention the words of Jesus in John 6:35-51,8:39-47,10:25-29,17:9ff.

Just one more thought. Antinominism is a problem that has plagued both Arminianism and Calvinisim in the past and that both theologies must fight it and it's brother legalism in order to remain within the Faith.

Too Poor for Seminary

2009-09-23T22:08:00.005-04:00

For those of us who love theology and learning theology but are unable to afford to go to seminary at this time for any number of reasons I have compiled a list of FREE online theology courses and other resources to keep oneself sharp. Oh, this list is in no way, shape, or form exhaustive, and if you have anything you think would be good to add just leave it in the comments.

Theology:
Gordon-Conwell Theological's foundational teaching in the areas of Old and New Testament, Biblical Interpretation, Church History, Theology, and Missions and Evangelism. - http://ockenga.gordonconwell.edu/ockenga/dimensions/

Biblical Training Institute Foundational Classes - http://www.biblicaltraining.org/foundations

Wayne Grudem's Lectures about his Systematic Theology, a project five years and counting - http://www.christianessentialssbc.com/messages/

Covenant Theological Seminary's Free Seminary Courses in their Worldwide Classroom - http://worldwide-classroom.com/

Biblical Training Institute - http://www.biblicaltraining.org/

Reformed Theological Seminary on iTunesU - http://itunes.rts.edu/

Concordia Seminary on iTunesU - http://itunes.csl.edu/

The History and Theology of Calvinism by Dr. Curt Daniel - http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/histtheocalvin.html

The White Horse Inn with Dr. Michael Scott Horton - http://www.whitehorseinn.org/

John Piper on Monergism - http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/bio/johnpiper.html

Greek:
Bill Mounce's Resource site that is complementary to his Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar - http://www.teknia.com/

Jonathan Robie's Greek Course - http://www.ibiblio.org/koine/

A list of the best Greek grammar text books - http://www.ntgreek.org/books/grambook.htm

A list of online Greek grammar learning tools and study aids - http://www.biblicalgreek.org/grammar/

Hebrews - Introduction

2009-05-24T21:55:00.000-04:00

The letter written to the Hebrews is often one of the most mysterious books in the bible to westerners. We Americans as a whole are rather biblically illiterate, rather ironic since we also have the most "bible onlyist" churches in the world. So let's take a look at Hebrews.

What better place to start than at the beginning? Well perhaps before the beginning? The author of this book is not explicitly or even implicitly known. Some in the past have suggested Pauline authorship however since this book does not follow the Pauline framework found in his other epistles this is most likely not the case. However whoever wrote this letter probably did have direct contact with Paul and was familiar with his teaching style. (A comparison of Hebrews and Romans shows us this much.) They also had an intimate knowledge of the Old Testament since it is quoted, alluded to, made reference to, and summarized far more extensively than most other biblical books. (Matthew references the Old Testament more but is also twice as long.) So we can say with some confidence that this letter was written by a learned in both the Old Testament and Pauline Theology and was perhaps written by Apollos. (Acts 18:24ff)

The book was likely written to Jewish believers, though it may have been to the Hellenic Jews. The concepts that this book speaks to would suggest this since the Greco-Judaic mind loved issues such as the veneration of Moses, Mediation of angles, the Old Covenant Law, and the role of Wisdom in creation. Further this book was addressing those who were seeking to return to the synagogue or temple system, which Gentile Christians wouldn't be returning to but coming to the first time. (See also Galatians) Furthermore this was letter was very likely addressed to the Jews of Rome, since in the farewell the author mentions greeting from those in Rome who are not of Rome.(13:24) Finally the concept of "leaders" (hegoumenoi) is mentioned a concept subsequent church leaders from Rome will pick up on and use. So to recap this letter was probably written to a community of Jewish Believers in Rome who were struggling with Christianity and remaining within Christianity.

The overarching goal of the book of Hebrews is to encourage the believers to endure in the faith. The author does this by moving back and forth from a theological concept to how we ought to live in light of such a concept, with the basic point as Jesus is the best(only) basis for relating to God and enduring in a relationship with Him. Those who reject Jesus are in trouble!!!

Finally this Book was probably written before the fall of the temple in Jerusalem but after Christianity had been well established in Rome. This is because there is no mention of the temple falling, which would have been another key that the writer assuredly would have picked up on. At the same time there had been Christians there for some time so (5:11-6:3) therefore we can safely assume that this letter was probably written sometime in the mid 60's.

Hopefully that helps. Next time we dive into Chapter 1.

Soteriology - Quick and Dirty

2009-04-15T02:38:00.005-04:00

Often when one is in an unwanted place it is good to change places. Thus when affliction sets in within the mind it may be good to get away into a good bit of theology; and what better topic than one that will start a heated debate among almost everyone I know? Instead I think I will simply summarize (emphasis on simply) the differing views of soteriology (doctrines of salvation) that have rooted their heads within the Christendom.

Heretical Systems:
Pelagianism - Named for a Fourth century British Monk named Pelagius who first formalized this teaching. (Pop culture reference, King Arther's hero in the 2004 film starting Clive Owen, which on this point was historically inaccurate.) Pelagius taught that men were not corrupted in any way by Adam's sin, he was merely a bad example for us. Christ was a good example who taught us how to live morally. Through hard work following Christ's good example rather than Adam's bad example one might achieve salvation. Furthermore without grace or faith man can choose to move toward God without any prompting by the Holy Spirit. Therefore in this view of salvation man is the effectual agent, but he is also the only acting agent, faith and grace are unnecessary. This does not mean that the atonement of Christ was unnecessary for the forgiveness of sins, however, it did not compel anyone to actually seek the forgiveness of those sins, nor does it play a role in sanctification.

Semipelagianism - After Pelagius was defeated in debate by St. Augustine, a new breed of his teaching popped up. This view held that man was still in most ways unrestricted in what he can and cannot do with his relationship to God. The difference between this view and the fully Pelagian view is that man cannot make it to God apart from grace. This view does hold however that man can turn to God apart from any act of Grace on God's behalf. Again in this view the effectual agent of salvation is man. Both Pelagianism and Semipelagianism were condemned as damnable heresy by the Council of Orange in 529 AD.

Hyper-Calvinism - Hyper-Calvinism is not John Piper sitting in starbucks after five vente lattes. This is a view that believes the command of the Gospel is not for every single person but only for the elect. Further this system also denies God's love for mankind as a whole and that evangelism is necessary at all because God has predestined some to life and others to death.

American Decisionism - This view picks and chooses what it likes from all of the major views and rejects what it doesn't like. Therefore it is often hard to pin down what this view is actually espouses. However the majority takes Arminian or Palegian free choice and combines it with half of the Calvinist's Perseverance of the Faith. This creates the mentality that "I chose Christ at one time in my life so I'm saved and can live like a pagan if I so choose," or as I call it "decisional once saved always savedism," or "conditional unconditionalism" e.g. that salvation is by a one time admittance that Jesus is Lord that being said I can do whatever I want. One could liken this position to the argument, "well my spouse loves me unconditionally so its okay if I go and have an adultery."

Systems Within Orthodoxy:
Arminianism (Wesleyanism) - A theological system named for Jacob Arminius and better articulated by John Wesley. Far to often zealous, though well meaning Calvinists, will wrongly overgeneralize this position labeling it as semipelagian or even pelagian. (Though sometimes this analysis is correct of the individual or group.) However this seems to come from a lack of knowledge of what this system actually teaches. There is much that Arminians and Calvinists agree on, first that men are born spiritually dead, unable to come to God outside of His grace, and that salvation is only possible by grace through faith. They also agree that men must actually choose to follow Christ. Finally they agree that if one is saved they must continue in the faith. However after this the two part ways.
The Arminian believes that while all men are dead in their tresspasses and sins that through prevenient grace, (common grace) can be made alive by submitting to it rather than resisting it. (The Calvinist also believes in common grace, but believes it serves a different function.) This prevenient grace is granted to all men allowing all the capacity to turn from their wickedness to righteousness. On the cross Christ died for all men in the same way so that, among other things, this grace could be given to all men. However as fore mentioned this grace can be resisted and rejected, and by this condition one obtains their election. Finally in this system one who does not continue on in the faith loses the salvation they once had. So in this view while the major agent of salvation is God, the ultimate agent of salvation is the individual man who continually makes the choice not to resist the grace of God so that they are able to choose Him.

Calvinism (Reformed) - This theological system named for John Calvin, which was greatly influenced by St. Augustine, and was later made into an acronym by those tulip obsessed dutch. This view is often wrongly overgeneralized by zealous, well meaning, Arminian Christians as Hyper-Calvinism, which I believe again comes simply from ignorance of the system. (Though sometimes this analysis is correct of the individual or group.) As mentioned in the above paragraphs about Arminianism, Calvinists believe that all men are born spiritually dead, unable to come to God outside of His grace, and that salvation is only possible by grace through faith. However for the Calvinist there is no prevenient grace in the sense that it quickens men to life. Rather the common grace of God to all men is displayed in every good thing that every man has. God does grant some men the gracious gifts of repentance and belief to the elect. Now to be sure these gifts of grace can be resisted and rejected but the Holy Spirit can overcome any resistance man might build up.
This factors into the way in which the Calvinist views the atonement; Christ died for all men, to be sure however he did not die for all men in the same way. He did not die for Judas the same way He died for Peter, so while the cross of Christ is sufficient for all the world, it is effective for only the elect, therefore election is not based upon the condition of "making a decision for Christ." That being said, if you remember I wrote both Calvinists and Arminians believe that once a Christian is saved they must remain in the faith. Where they differ is that while the Arminian believes one can lose their salvation, since they might fail to continue, the Calvinist does not, because God will continue to work in the Christian transforming him into the image of Christ. This however does not mean that a Christian will never stumble, only that when he does he will be granted the grace of Repentance and Belief again.

Modified View, 4 Point Calvinism - There are many forms of this and to try to touch on all of them here would be quite a task however what they all try to accomplish, some more than others is a bridge between Arminiansm and Calvinism. This group might also include the Lutheran view though putting it here seems funny to me.

Yaayy for Quick and Dirty - Unfortunately far to many within the American Church fall outside the realm of orthodoxy on this core issue of the Gospel. Work for reformation in those churches and pray for their revival. Oh also if my facts are mistake please feel free to comment, however try not to turn this into a huge debate over which view is most correct. There are plenty of other places for that.

Soli Deo Gloria!

What is "that"?

2009-02-06T15:37:00.006-05:00

τῇ γὰρ χάριτί ἐστε σεσῳσμένοι διὰ πίστεως: καὶ τοῦτο οὐκ ἐξ ὑμῶν, θεοῦ τὸ δῶρον: οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων, ἵνα μή τις καυχήσηται. - Ephesians 2:8-9
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. Ephesians 2:8-9 (NASB)

In these words, the Apostle Paul destroys all notions of salvation by works. We are saved by the grace of God which is received through faith, and works play no part at all. As the next verse (v.10) makes clear, God has indeed planned for believers to do good works, but as this and many other passages in scripture would affirm, the works are the fruit and not the root of our salvation. True believers do good works, but works play no role at all in how we receive salvation, for it is "not as a result of works."

This much is clear, but questions have arisen as to what exactly is meant by the one word "that" in Ephesians 2:8. We know that whatever it is, it is the gift of God, but can we determine exactly what this gift is?

Some say that the gift is "faith" while others say it is "grace" and still others say it is "salvation." What may be a point of dispute from the reading of the English translations becomes settled when looking into the original Greek text.

Putting it in terms we can hopefully all understand, the Greek word for "that" is transliterated into English as touto (τοῦτο) and is in a neuter form. The way to determine what it refers to is to look for the other neuter in the immediate context. That's how the issue would normally be resolved, except that in this particular case, there isn't one. "Grace" is feminine; "have been saved" is masculine, and "faith" is also in a feminine form. In this case then, what the "that" refers to is all in the preceding clause. The grace, the salvation and the faith - all of these things - is the gift of God.

Paul is making it clear that nothing in our salvation comes from ourselves. Salvation, grace and faith - from start to finish, all of this is the gift of God, not as a result of works. God has designed salvation in this way for the very purpose of eliminating all grounds for human boasting. Boasting is not merely discouraged, or kept to a minimum, it is completely removed. That is because the entire work of salvation is God's work from start to finish - "this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" as the ESV renders it. The grace by which we are saved and the faith that is the mechanism through which we receive it - yes, even this faith - is the gift of God. Salvation is of the Lord and all the glory for it goes to God alone.

HT : Reformation Theology

Romans 1:24-25

2009-01-19T22:11:00.003-05:00

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

If you long to see your boyfriend, girlfriend, husband, wife, or anyone else naked rather than see them grow in holiness these verses are describing you. P.S. you don't love them you lust them, repent.

Just a quickie!

The Nicene Creed and Definition of Chalcedon According To Scripture!

2008-12-23T18:32:00.005-05:00

Rob Bowman of The Religious Researcher.org recently posted a blog with a portion dedicated to outlining the Nicene Creed and the Definition of Chalcedon with their scripture references. Here is the relevant portion:

The Nicene Creed (381)
We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. [Matt. 23:9; Acts 4:24; 17:24; 1 Cor. 8:6a; 2 Cor. 6:18; Heb. 11:3; Rev. 21:22]

And in one Lord, Jesus Christ [1 Cor. 8:6b; 12:4; Eph. 4:5],
the only-begotten Son of God [John 1:12, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9],
begotten of the Father before all ages [John 1:14, 18; 5:26; 6:57; 17:5; Gal. 4:4],
God of God [John 1:1, 18; Titus 2:10, 13; 2 Peter 1:1-2],
Light of Light [John 1:4-5; Heb. 1:3],
true God of true God [John 1:1, 18; Col. 2:9; 1 John 5:20],
begotten, not made [John 1:14, 18],
being of one substance with the Father [John 1:14; Heb. 1:3],
by whom all things were made [John 1:3, 10; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:2, 10];
who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven [John 13:3; 16:28],
and was incarnate [John 1:14; Rom. 8:3; 1 John 4:1]
by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary [Matt. 1:18-25; Luke 1:35],
and was made man [Phil. 2:6-7],
and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate [Matt. 27; Mark 15; Luke 23; John 18-19].
He suffered [Matt. 16:21 par.; 17:12 par.; Luke 22:15; 24:26, 46; Acts 1:3; 3:18; 1 Pet. 3:18]
and was buried [Matt. 27:57-66 par.; Acts 13:29; 1 Cor. 15:4],
and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures [Luke 24:44-46; 1 Cor. 15:5],
and ascended into heaven [Acts 1:9-11],
and sits at the right hand of the Father [Mark 14:62; Luke 22:69; Acts 2:33, 34; 5:31; 7:55-56; Rom. 8:34; Eph. 1:20; Col. 3:1; Heb. 1:3, 13; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Pet. 3:22].
And he shall come again with glory [Matt. 16:27; Heb. 9:26-28; Titus 2:13; etc.]
to judge both the living and the dead [Matt. 25:31-46; John 5:22-23, 28-29; Acts 10:42; 17:31; 2 Cor. 5:10; 2 Thess. 1:7-8; Rev. 2:23];
whose kingdom shall have no end [Luke 1:33; Eph. 1:19b-21; Heb. 1:8; Rev. 11:15].

And we believe in the Holy Spirit [Matt. 28:19],
the Lord [2 Cor. 3:16-17]
and Giver of Life [Ps. 104:30; Ezek. 37:14; John 3:5-8; 6:63; Rom. 8:2, 6, 10-11; 2 Cor. 3:6; Gal. 5:25],
who proceeds from the Father [John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7],
who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified [Matt. 28:19; Phil. 3:3; cf. Matt. 12:31-32; Mark 3:29],
who spoke by the prophets [Acts 1:16; 28:25-27; Heb. 3:7-11; 10:15-17; 1 Pet. 1:11].
And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic church [Eph. 2:18-22; 3:5-6; 4:4].
We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins [Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Eph. 4:5].
And we look for the resurrection of the dead [John 5:29; 11:24-25; Acts 4:2; 23:6; 24:15; Rom. 8:11; 1 Cor. 15; etc.],
and the life of the world to come [Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30; 20:34-35; etc.].
Amen.

The Definition of Chalcedon (451)
We, now, following the holy Fathers [Matt. 16:18; 28:20; 2 Tim. 2:2; Jude 3]
all with one consent [1 Cor. 1:2; Eph. 4:5, 11-16],
teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ [2 Cor. 11:4; Eph. 4:5],
the same perfect in Godhead [Col. 2:9; Heb. 1:3]
and also perfect in manhood [Phil. 2:7-8; Heb. 5:8-9];
truly God [John 1:1, 18; 20:28; Acts 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Tit. 2:13; Heb. 1:8; 2 Pet. 1:1]
and truly man [Acts 2:22; 1 Cor. 15:21; Heb. 2:5-9],
of a reasonable [logikes] soul [Matt. 26:38-39; John 11:33; 12:27; Acts 2:27, 31]
and body [Matt. 26:12; 27:56-59; John 2:21; Heb. 10:10];
consubstantial [homoousion] with the Father according to the Godhead [theoteti, Grk.; deitate, L.] [John 1:1; 10:30; 14:9; Col. 1:19, cf. 2:9; Heb. 1:3];
and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood [John 1:14; Acts 2:31; Rom. 1:3; 8:3-8; 1 John 4:2];
in all things like unto us, without sin [Heb. 2:14, 17; 4:15; 5:8-9];
begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead [John 1:14, 18; 5:26; 6:57; Gal. 4:4],
and in these latter days [Heb. 1:1-2],
for us and for our salvation [Luke 2:10-11],
born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God [theotokos], according to the Manhood [Matt. 1:18-25; Luke 1:27, 31, 34-37, 43; 2:7];
one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-Begotten [Luke 2:11; John 1:14-18],
to be acknowledged in two natures [phuseon] [Rom. 1:3-4; 9:5; Phil. 2:6-8; Col. 2:9],
inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably [Heb. 1:10-12; 13:8];
the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person [prosopon] and one Subsistence [hupostasis] [Luke 8:22-25; John 8:57-58; 1 Cor. 2:8; Gal. 4:4; Phil. 2:6-8; Heb. 2:14-18],
not parted or divided into two persons [Eph. 4:5],
but one and the same Son, and only-begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ [John 1:1-3, 14-18];
as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning him [Heb. 1:1-13];
and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us [Matt. 28:19-20; John 3:16],
and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us [1 Tim. 3:16; Jude 3].

Grace and peace.

Penn Jillette On Proseletyzing

2008-12-19T04:28:00.002-05:00

This is an interesting video of Penn Jilette of Penn and Teller, the comedic magic show. Penn is an outspoken atheist who has never shied away from ridiculing Christianity and the bible. You might ask why I am posting such a video here, you will have to watch it to see, but his words will surprise some of you:

Bible Study Tip.

2008-12-19T04:12:00.004-05:00

How to Learn:

The learner, who wishes to try the question fairly, whether this
little book does, or does not, supply the materials for a most
interesting mental recreation, is earnestly advised to adopt the
following Rules:

Begin at the beginning, and do not allow yourself to gratify
mere idle curiosity by dipping into the book, here and there. This
would very likely lead to your throwing it aside, with the remark
`This is much too hard for me!', and thus losing the chance of
adding a very large item to your stock of mental delights . . .
Don't begin any fresh Chapter, or Section, until you are certain
that you thoroughly understand the whole book up to that point
and that you have worked, correctly, most if not all of the
examples which have been set . . . Otherwise, you will find
your state of puzzlement get worse and worse as you proceed
till you give up the whole thing in utter disgust.
When you come to a passage you don't understand, read it
again: if you still don't understand it,
read it again: if you fail, even after three readings,
very likely your brain is getting a little tired
In that case, put the book away, and take to other occupations,
and next day, when you come to it fresh, you will very likely
find that it is quite easy.
If possible, find some genial friend, who will read the book along
with you, and will talk over the difficulties with you. Talking is
a wonderful smoother-over of difficulties. When I come upon
anything—in Logic or in any other hard subject—that entirely puzzles
me, I find it a capital plan to talk it over, aloud, even when I am
all alone. One can explain things so clearly to one's self! And then
you know, one is so patient with one's self: one never gets irritated
at one's own stupidity!

If, dear Reader, you will faithfully observe these Rules, and
give my little book a really fair trial, I promise you, most
confidently, that you will find Symbolic Logic to be one of the most,
not the most, fascinating of mental recreations! In this First Part
I have carefully avoided all difficulties which seemed to me to
beyond the grasp of an intelligent child of (say) twelve or fourteen
years of age. I have myself taught most of its contents, viva voce,
to many children, and have found them take a real intelligent
interest in the subject. For those, who succeeded in mastering
Part I, and who begin, like Oliver, `asking for more,' I hope to
provide, in Part II, some tolerably hard nuts to crack—nuts that
will require all the nut-crackers they happen to possess!

Mental recreation is a thing that we all of us need for our mental
health. Symbolic Logic will give you clearness of thought—the
ability to see your way through a puzzle—the habit of arranging
your ideas in an orderly and get-at-able form—and, more valuable
than all, the power to detect fallacies, and to tear to pieces the
flimsy illogical arguments, which you will continually encounter
in books, in newspapers, in speeches, and even in sermons, and
which so easily delude those who have never taken the trouble
to master this fascinating Art. Try it. That is all I ask of you!

Carroll, Lewis. The complete works of Lewis Carroll (New York: Random House, 1939), 1116-19.

This method might also be applied to the study of a book of Scripture.

Jesus Christ and Santa Clause

2008-12-16T16:18:00.001-05:00

I saw this and had to share it.

Testimony of realizing the Lordship of following Christ

2008-11-30T18:02:00.002-05:00

If we truly realize the Lordship of Christ why is it that sin boldly against the knowledge of God? If Christ is Lord how can we even entertain the idea that He might not be deity or even exist?

Related Articles:
Lordship of Christ - John MacArthur
Slaves to God, Sanctification, and Eternal Life: Romans 6:20-22 - John Piper
Letter to a Friend Concerning the So-Called “Lordship Salvation” - John Piper

Recommended Books:
The Doctrine of the Christian Life: A Theology of Lorship - John M. Frame
Future Grace:The Purifying Power of Living by Faith in Future Grace - John Piper
The Gospel According to Jesus: What is Authentic Faith? - John MacArthur

Would you be satisfied?

2008-11-26T04:10:00.003-05:00

John Piper once said something to the effect of:

Would you be satisfied to go to heaven, have everybody there in your family that you want there, have all the health and restoration of your prime, and everything you disliked about yourself fixed, have every recreation you've ever dreamed available to you, and have infinite resources and money to spend, would you be satisfied... If God weren't there?

Would you be satisfied if God weren't there?

That's a question that hits most people right between the eyes, myself included. Perhaps a different way of phrasing it is would you be satisfied if only God were there?

Most today would not be able to answer these questions as we ought. Do we love God as we ought, or do we love ourselves, our families, our money, our health more than our Creator?

God's love is such that through the death of His own Son, He works in us by His Spirit so that we no longer feel loved by our self deification that makes much of us. We come to realize that such is a cheap imitation of love. We then start feeling loved in the way we were created to feel loved, by glorifying God and making much of Him in all we do forever.

Is God enough? Ought we to answer as the Psalmist did?

Whom have I in heaven but you?
And there is nothing on earth that I desire besides you.
My flesh and my heart may fail,
but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever.
- Psalm 73:25-26

Such should be the prayer of our hearts; that we might say that without God I am never be satisfied and only with Him am I whole! Jesus is my portion! Jesus is my all! My strength will fail me. My heart will deceive me. My friends and family may abandon me. I will be laughed at and scorned by men yet I am more than conqueror through Him who loves me! God is my strength and portion! Christ is my life! So long as He enables me I will glorify Him because He is worthy!

Think about it.
Grace and peace.

Why Postmodern Philosophy Fails!

2008-11-20T00:16:00.003-05:00

The "depthlessness" of this philosophy as a world view where nihilism and narcissism reign supreme and one does not need to know things that simply do not affect them at this very moment is why we should reject this anti-intellectual view where truth doesn't exist and its practitioners are nothing more than intellectual charlatans.

Educate yourselves, seek Truth.

HT: HowObamaGotElected.com

Beer Review Monday - Budweiser American Ale

2008-11-10T09:32:00.003-05:00

Today is an interesting day. I am going to rate a beer made by Anheuser Busch. Budweiser's American Ale was first revealed to the public during the 2008 Olympic Games, where skeptics and fans alike expressed interest. A few days ago I received a pint from a friend who thought it was worth a taste, so reluctantly I drank it. It poured with a reddish brown color and had a decently think head, not a Guinness head but few beers can match that. Unfortunately the aroma is almost indistinguishable from your classic Budweiser, rather sweet malt with a hint of citrus hops. The taste is rather bland and lacks flavour, the malt overwhelms the hops as with most mainline American brewing. Furthermore this beer is utterly thin, perhaps even thinner than a light beer. This beer is essentially Budweiser 2.0 and the slight improvement is not worth the price increase from normal Budweiser. If you're going to spend the extra three dollars I'd suggest a beer in that pay grade, such as Killian's Irish Red.

The Christian Pint Rating: 1.5 out of 5

Commercial Description:
Since 1876, we've been brewing Budweiser, the great American lager. This year, we're brewing something new - Budweiser American Ale. Carefully brewed with caramel malted barley from America's Heartland for a rich, amber color and sweet malt character, and dry-hopped with Cascade hops from the Pacific Northwest for a noticeable citrus aroma, it's more than a new taste... it's a whole new tradition. Cheers!

As always remember do not become drunk on wine (beer) but be filled with the Holy Spirit, and do not cause your brother to stumble. (Ephesians 5, Romans 14, 1 Corinthians 8)

Grateful for (Almost) Any Government

2008-11-05T03:00:00.004-05:00

Dr. John Piper reminds us that we are to be grateful for our government even if the candidate we supported wasn't elected.

How does the Bible instruct us to pray for “all who are in high positions”? It says,

First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1Timothy 2:1-4).

A few observations:

1. Giving thanks “for kings” is hard when they are evil.

And, as Calvin said on this passage, “All the magistrates of that time were sworn enemies of Christ.” This shows us that anarchy is a horrible alternative to almost any ruler.

We should give thanks for rulers because “non-rule” would unleash on us utterly unbridled evil with no recourse whatever.

Again Calvin: “Unless they restrained the boldness of wicked men, the whole world would be full of robberies and murders.” The better we understand the seething evil of the human heart that is ready to break out where there is no restraint, the more thankful we will be for government.

2. The effect we pray for is “that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly, and dignified in every way.”

Dignified means “serious and reverent,” not stuffy. I suspect what Paul means is not that we can’t live godly and serious lives during times of anarchy. We can. I suspect he means that peaceful and quiet lives, which are the opposite of anarchy, are often wasted in ungodly and frivolous actions.

So he is praying for a government that would give peace and quiet (not anarchy), and that Christians would not fritter away their peaceful lives with the world, but would be radically godly and serious about the lost condition of the world and how to change it.

3. Using our peace for radical godliness and serious action will lead to more effective evangelism and world missions.

This last observation is confirmed by the hoped-for outcome Paul mentions. Paul says that the reason God delights in such peaceful, Godward, serious action is that he “desires all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.”

More people will be saved if our government restrains the horrors of anarchy, and if Christians use this peace not to waste their lives on endless entertainment, but seriously give their lives to making God known.

Voting

2008-11-04T17:11:00.002-05:00

Since such drama has been launched in this voting season I suggest we all step back and listen to the man who wrote the dictionary.

“When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers, 'just men who will rule in the fear of God.' The preservation of government depends on the faithful discharge of this duty; if the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws; the public revenues will be sqandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizens will be violated or disregarded. If a republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws.”¹

Words for any wise man to ponder, pray, and meditate on prior to voting.
Grace and Peace.

1) Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), pp. 336-337, 49. - Return to text

Halloween as Pagan as Christmans

2008-10-31T20:25:00.005-04:00

For all my dear Christian brothers and sisters who adorn the hypocrisy of criticizing Halloween but celebrate "The Christ Mass" (Christmas) and "Ēostre" (Easter).

"If the Church is going to rise up against Halloween because of its pagan influence and roots, we ought to equally rise up against Christmas and say- well it is also equally pagan, and recognize it for what it is."
-Jim McClarty

Happy Reformation Day!

HT: Reformed Voices - Christmas Traditions

Creedless Christianity

2008-10-31T16:26:00.001-04:00

It seems to be a growing fad amongst "evangelical Christians" mainly of the "Emergent form" to adopt a form of "Christianity" without any bounds, doctrines, or creeds. Often touted by these men and women is "Jesus is our creed" or "all we need is the bible." On the surface such statements seem admirable. However when asked about the specifics of their belief system such "boundless" theology is reckless. Now I'm not the type to try to put God in any "boxes" that He hasn't already placed Himself in. The fact of the matter is He has spoken and told us what He is like and what He is not like, thus He has placed Himself in a "box" so to speak.

Now I am sure you will argue, "Matt isn't the Bible good enough for you?" supposing that by believing a creeds or confessions, those creeds or confessions are somehow an authority over the bible. This is not the case. Rather a creed, confession and especially catechism are statements of belief based upon and subject to Scripture. They are snapshots of the beliefs of a group. This is biblical, since the New Testament speaks often of "The Faith," the objective element of what a person actually believes. It seems to many modern "churches" will speak of belief in Jesus, but when you try to define who Jesus is, they would suggest that such destroys "the Faith."

This might seem silly to say, but the Orthodoxy, the Ecumenical creeds are a summery of the beliefs that encapsulate "Mere Christianity." Strange as it is, the Arians, Unitarians, Socinians, Jehovah's Witness', Etc. all claim to be Bible believing groups. Further they all would defend the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible. If we cannot say that God is Trinity then we surly destroyed mere Christianity and created another form of religion, which is nothing new. This form of thinking ends in a rejection of the Church as a divine institution, and ultimately the rejection of the Bible, the very thing these churches are seeking to hold fast to, yet without bounds.

I does seem strange that even most "emergent" of "emergent" have what they call a statements of faith, however slim they may be. Unfortunately these statements of faith essentially defines themselves as boundless, such thinking is idolatry. God has set up boundaries for Himself. He set up boundaries for Himself, and when we seek to remove them we end up like Aaron in the wilderness of Sinai. (Exodus 32:1ff) This is silly to think that this form of the worship of God would be acceptable to Him.

I pray that we might repent of such idolatry and turn to Christ, as preached by the apostles, defined in scripture, attested to by the saints, and summerised in the Ecumenical Creeds.

Soli Deo Gloria!
Happy Reformation Day!

How Wide the Divide? - Craig L. Blomberg & Stephen E. Robinson

2008-10-19T17:40:00.003-04:00

Clearly there are differences between Mormon and Christian thought. The question is how far apart are the two? This book is an attempt to answer that question and is rather quick read. Unfortunately this book draws some conclusions that the reader could never draw. The book is divided into four main sections each comprised of two main sections as well as a conclusion. This is all explained in the introduction. The four main sections are essentially the Doctrine of Revelation, Theology Proper (Doctrine of God), Christology (Doctrine of Christ), and Soteriology (Doctrine of Salvation). The differences and similarities are summed up in a final conclusion that is in list format.

This list is to say the least shocking, and I believe it would be to both evangelicals as well as latter day saints. So for this review I will essentially start there and work our way back to the other chapters. The first conclusion that the book comes to is that both Christians and Latter Day Saints believe that "The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit are one Eternal God."¹ In theory everything looks kosher and if we don't define the term "one Eternal God" then no one will have any complaints. To be fair they do scratch below the surface in the text of the book however it seems the differences do not play into the conclusions. By this definition one could say that Latter Day Saints agree with Oneness Pentecostals or Christians with Jehovah's Witness', clearly not the case. Even a Hindu could say they believe the same thing.

The Latter Day Saint belief about the oneness of God is limited to an oneness of mind and purpose. Dr. Robinson quickly will throw power and glory into this equation but due to his subordination view of Christ to the Father² such a view cannot be truthful. The Evangelical view is that God is Ontologically one, that is His being is one. Thus, while the statement makes a big "bang" in the see were really not that different, if we define the terms we see we are really miles apart.

The second view that we supposedly have in common is that "Jesus Christ is Lord. He is both the Son of God and God the Son."³ Again if words have no meaning the of course this looks fine and dandy and both Evangelicals and Latter Day Saints would affirm this. However if we were to look at definitions of who Jesus is, we would see that the Latter Day Saint belief and the Evangelical belief are radically different. The Latter Day Saint belief is that God the Son is a literal Son, through sexual acts, of God the Father and Mary.⁴ Evangelicals on the other hand believe that Christ was formed in the womb of Mary by God through the power of the Holy Spirit, not through a physical act.

Number four was of particular interest to me because it dealt with the atonement. "Jesus Christ suffered, bled and died on the cross as a substitutionary atonement for the sins of the world."⁵ This one is simply interesting because with two radically different views of heaven I am not sure that a Latter Day Saint can agree to this. The concept of substitutionary atonement would mean that Christ is your substitute when it comes to your sins. However with the Latter Day Saint view of a three tiered view of Heaven⁶ true substitution is not possible, or is at least contingent upon something. If true substitution happened then even the sins of unbelief, disbelief, or more importantly in Latter Day Saint thought, not preserving to the end would be substituted from you to Jesus Christ. Thus all men would gain celestial Glory. Unfortunately this is not the case because the Latter Day Saint view of the atonement is very limited in it's power.

I could go on, and the book would have been good had the final two chapters not been written and the conclusions been left out for the reader to decide his or her own opinion of How close or "Wide the Divide." Over all I would not recommend this book to a new Christian or someone dealing with Mormonism for the First time, rather I would recommend Mormon America by Richard and Joan Ostling, The Gospel According to Joseph Smith by Ethan E. Harris, and Mormonism Explained by Andrew Jackson (Read it online) from the Christian Prospective and The Miracle of Forgiveness by Spencer W. Kimball, Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie, or The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith by Joseph Fielding Smith from a Latter Day Saint prospective.

Footnotes:
1) Craig L. Blomberg, and Stephen E. Robinson. How Wide the Divide?: A Mormon & an Evangelical in Conversation. [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997], 195. - Return to text
2) Ibid., 130-1,8 - Return to text
3) Ibid., 195 - Return to text
4) Ibid., 139 - Return to text
5) Ibid., 195 - Return to text
6) Ibid., 149-51 - Return to text

Ryan Ferguson quotes Hebrews

2008-10-18T01:49:00.002-04:00

Scripture can be wonderfully powerful when quoted. I pray that you will seek to work on your scripture memory and be convicted to do as Ryan has, loving the word and hiding it in our heart.

Grace and Peace.

The Son of Man Came Drinking: Was Jesus a Social Drinker?

2008-10-09T02:12:00.004-04:00

Our friends over at the Reformed Baptist Fellowship Blog have posted a two part series on Jesus Drinking. In light of recent comments I thought it might be pertinent to link to these articles. Part One is a basic exegesis of a few key passages about our Lord and Savior's drinking habits. This really helps us to understand the issues surrounding drinking. Part Two is more application and follows the same stance taken by the Christian Pint when it comes to drinking alcohol. Dr. Robert Gonzales makes some very wonderful points, and I hope you take the time to read his articles.

The Son of Man Came Drinking: Was Jesus a Social Drinker? Part I
The Son of Man Came Drinking: Was Jesus a Social Drinker? Part II

Phil Wickham - Singalong

2008-10-08T22:29:00.006-04:00

Phil Wickham, the guy touring with Fee has a new album out called Singalong that you can download for free at http://philwickham.com/singalong/ It's a live album here's a preview if you want watch.

1 Corinthians 8:5-6

2008-10-07T12:22:00.010-04:00

For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

This is a common passage used by anti-Trinitarian groups to prove that the Father and the Son are different beings. First we must understand that this passage is first about food offered to idols. (v1-4, 7-13) Second we must understand that no Christian actually believes that God the Father is the same person as God the Son. That is an ancient heresy called Sabellianism. With these two understandings up front, we can examine the Trinitarian argument Paul infers in the passage.

First we must see that Paul is in no way speaking of a plurality of Gods, he calls these idols, "so-called gods." That is things which by nature are not God. Then speaking to Christians he states that there is "one God, the Father." If the passage ended there then it would be an open and shut case, yet it does not. Paul goes on to say there is "one Lord, Jesus Christ." Anyone who has a small understanding of the Old Testament would then see this as a restatement of the "Shema," Hear O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one. This is the earliest creed in the Judaism.

Further more Paul parallels what the Father does with what the Son does. Note, "from whom are all things and for whom we exist," compared to "through whom are all things and through whom we exist." The first is speaking of the Father, "from whom are all things," this languages is echoed in the statement about the Son, "through whom are all things." So all things are from the Father through the Son, yet Paul goes even further stating that we exist for the Father, yet how do we exist for him, through the Son. Paul echoes this statement in Colossians 1:16-17 where he states that "all things were created through him" and "in him all things hold together." This is not something you could say of a mere man, or a mere prophet. These statements are something that could only be made of God.

Finally if we are to exclude Jesus from the title of God we must also exclude the Father from the title of Lord. By this logic the Shema makes absolutely no sense nor does half the Old Testament where God is referred to as LORD God. This leaves us with only one conclusion that can be drawn, Jesus is as John wrote, the Word become Flesh. God incarnate, God clothed in Humanity.

Soli Deo Gloria

Romans Flash Cards.

2008-07-01T14:11:00.005-04:00

"Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path." - Psalm 119:105

"This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success." - Joshua 1:8

"Jesus answered, "It is written,"'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.'" - Matthew 4:4

"For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart." - Hebrews 4:12

Here is a link to some Flashcards you can print out to help you memorize the book of Romans so that you can work to say with David, "I have stored up your word in my heart,that I might not sin against you." - Psalm 119:11

Grace and Peace

Beer Review Monday ... On a Tuesday - Ellicottville Blueberry Wheat

2008-07-01T10:00:00.004-04:00

Today I am going to review a fruit beer made in Good Old Upstate NY. I know what you're saying, "Matt your first week back and you're reviewing a fruity beer?" Yeah, but not just any fruity beer, one that was made for my Grandmother, it was originally called "Barb's Blueberry Brew" ... "Oh, that's ok then." Anyways this beer pours light yellow with a hint of orange, and contains almost no head. There is a distinct aroma of what else but ... Blueberries with a mix of a floral smell in it. It tastes very fruity (blueberry) with a tiny malty hop finish. It is a good beer to satisfy ones thirst on a warm summer day. Unfortunately blueberry does get tiring after one or two bottles, so don't plan on drinking this all day when working on the deck or in the yard.

The Christian Pint Rating: 3 out of 5

Commercial Description:

Our newest addition to our family of craft beers. A light golden ale, crisp on the palate with a refreshing blueberry aroma and flavor. Surprisingly different that most people expect. A sure winner!

As always remember do not become drunk on wine (beer) but be filled with the Holy Spirit, and do not cause your brother to stumble. (Ephesians 5, Romans 14, 1 Corinthians 8)

Tis Been Along Time - Uncivilized Worship

2008-06-30T02:20:00.022-04:00

Well well, I am posting again, sorry for the two month absence I know you were heart broken in being unable to read my thoughts for that long. *cough/laugh* Anyways, most people would expect me to finish the Mormonism series (which I should hope to do this week), or break out a new beer review Monday (later today). No my first post back is something far more imminent in my life at the moment. That is the concept of worship.

When preparing for an up coming event at my home church the very concept of worship was challenged causing me to meditate deeply on the subject. Unfortunately "worship" has been reduced to the concept of three or four songs on a Sunday morning rather than a lifestyle praising God. However the argument continues over style of music therefore when I refer to worship thus that will be what I am referring to.

First we must destroy the disillusion that any music performed by Christians is "Christian" Music, as this is simply not the case, not to mention bad theology, Christian is not an adjective but a noun. This would be the equivalent of saying that Makoto Fujimura is a Christian Artist, he is not. He is an artist who happens to also be a Christian. In the same way just because the members of Anberlin and As I Lay Dying are Christians, that does not make their music innately laced with the Gospel, nor does it make their songs "worship" material. At the same time just because an artist like Phillips, Craig, & Dean music is threaded with such as "grace" and "worship" does not make it fit as praise for our king either.

I will celebrate, sing unto the Lord,
Sing to the Lord a new song.
I will celebrate, sing unto the Lord,
Sing to the Lord a new song.
With my heart rejoicing within,
with my mind focused on Him.
with my hands raised to the heavens,
all I am worshiping Him.
I will, praise You,
I will sing to You, a new song.
I will, praise You,
I will sing to You, a new song.

Vs.

my life was in the dark
disgusted with the light
when I heard my sin
it made me want to fight
I hated those who loved him
yet they loved me back
I was in a corner
I ran but could not hide

crucified with Christ

dying to myself
giving up control
killing the old man
rejuvenate my soul

crucified with Christ

not my life
Christ lives in me
the life I live
I live for his glory

Now out of those two songs, which lyrically is better theologically, the first or the second? They both speak of doing things, they both use "churchy" words, the first is about something I am going to do, thus it is in essence praise of self, the second however looks at the sinfulness of sin in men and what Christ has done. It is pretty much ripped from Romans 6-8 and Galatians 2. However while the first has horrible theological implications it will very often be played in church building across America and though the second is about the sinfulness of men and the holiness of God one would be hard pressed to find it played not because the laity is theologically weak in the west, though it is, but because of its style of music.

The first can only be classified as a 70's pop song where as the second was one of the songs that started the Hardcore movement in music. Thus the conclusion that 70's pop songs are acceptable for worship no matter theological implications of the song, while heavier and more theologically sound songs are rejected due to style. Now I do agree with Alister Begg and others that for corporate praise we must be able to both hear the word and, though often out of tune, sing along with the worship team. Thus while I may be in the "moderate left" with my opinion on worship. Thus while I do not feel "screemo" is acceptable for corporate worship in certain settings, I see no problem with the genre in general, nor am I against them playing in other setting at the church building.

That being said I do not think all music of the harder genres preformed by Christians should be played in churches. This again goes back to the theology. I could see Redemption by August Burns Red being played in a certain church worship setting however I could not see Bury Us All by As I Lay Dying, both bands are comprised of members who are Christian.

This spreads across all genres of music unfortunately the hardcore scene seem to be growing less than hardcore and more civilized speaking less about God and His grace as they did when they burst onto the scene in the late 1980's and early 1990's (Unashamed/ The Crucified). This is unfortunate as bads such as Underoath, Norma Jean, and As I Lay Dying are in the same vain as Killswitch Engage, Hawthorn Heights, and Atreyu, with people utterly unaware that the first three bands are comprised of Christian members.

Now I am not simply trying to knock Christians who play Hardcore because I do see a good message in their music, but it is the same good message I saw in Linkin Park (prior to their Jay-Z move). It is not intrinsically law or gospel it is at best spirituality and other softer bands are often slipping into this spirituality, higher being helped me but I'd better not mention that it was Jesus or people might not like me trend.

Go ahead and say it, "Matt if we are overtly Christian they will stop coming to our concerts and we wont be able to reach them." If that is true then clearly Jesus and His Gospel were not the reasons for them coming to the shows anyways. We are to be Light and Salt (Matthew 5:13), this is not just a call for pastors or spiritual leaders but all men everywhere who take for themselves the name of Christ. If only the Christians within the Hardcore movement would go the way rappers who happen to be Christian have, that is make their music about Christ. In a genre seems to speak only to sensuality and drugs these men stand up for truth and are a light in this dying world. Rappers such as KJ-52, The Voice, and Flame, who have a sound and style that is in the opinion of some better than mainstream rap yet they are lyrically all about Christ and Him Crucified (1 Corinthians 1:18). If you are trying to say that your music is to be used as an outreach then why would you speak of anything other than our great God and Savior? (Though that may be reached through expressing the falleness of the world.)

I am thankful for bands such as August Burns Red, and The Devil Wears Prada, though not all of their songs are about Jesus they will at least sing about Him for a substantial portion of their music. Unfortunately bands like these are few and far between even in the realm of those started and comprised of Christians. I pray that others in this genre would follow their example of Glorifying Christ in their music.

In Acts 2 we see the disciples of Christ proclaiming Him, His death and resurrection, in a most uncivilized manner, so uncivilized that they were mistaken as being drunk because they just couldn't shut up about Jesus. We ought to be the same way, especially in lyrical music, brought as corporate worship to Jesus. Utterly uncivilized in that everything is politically incorrect proclaiming the Truth about Jesus that He alone saves.

"I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes,to the Jew first and also to the Greek." - Romans 1:16

UPDATE: I think I sent a mixed message. So I will comment here and do so shortly. I am not bashing Tim Lambesis or any other Christian in the industry who writes about their personal struggles, in fact I listen to many of them. However the point of the post was that a song about a personal struggle that does constitute a song for corporate worship, and how I don't understand why one would not want to write about their great God and Savior. The problem with these songs is that far to often the One who gets the artist through the struggle is never mentioned. Hence the comparison to rappers, though they rap about their struggles they never forget to mention Jesus was the One who brought them through. I just wish that it was the same way with all Christians. Now some will compare what they are doing to that of Bach but if you look at what Bach actually wrote you could see that it is utterly about Christ. Again I believe this concept springs from a lack of proper theology being taught to the church today. Anyways I am not saying that these musicians are not Christians just that most music in this genre made by them cannot be used for corporate worship. Furthermore this is not a rant against Hardcore in general, I like the music and if you do also check out my friend Joe's Band, Perpetual Burn they are more in the "metal" vain than the "screamo" but they are good nevertheless. Warning Explicit Lyrics.

Polygamy Series - Biblical Case for Monogamy

2008-04-23T02:11:00.008-04:00

I often try to stay away from confrontations with other religions on this blog, as there are far more suitable places on the internet to express such views. That being said polygamy came up in a conversation last night with a good friend who lives across the hall from me. Not simply polygamy but also the differences between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints (LDS), often called Mormons and Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints (FLDS), often called Fundamentalist Mormons, Churches. As this topic raises a lot of confusion among both Christians and Mormons I have decided to write a short series of three possibly four part on the subject of polygamy, Christianity, the LDS, and FLDS. Today I will start with the biblical case for monogamy.

The Biblical case for Polygamy begins in of all places the book of beginnings, that is Genesis. We see in the Second Chapter that "a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."¹ Jesus cites this verse and Genesis 1:27 in Matthew 19:3-6. Note the wording, and the two shall become one flesh. Jesus is exhorting monogamy, yet some objectors will say, well yes they will become one flesh but that does not condemn polygamy.

Paul writes to us in Ephesians that a husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for her.² This model for biblical marriage falls apart if men are to have more than one wife.

Furthermore Paul wrote "each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband...For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does."³ Here Paul uses singular nouns for wife and husband, then proceeds to explain the marital duties of men and women including giving your bodies wholly to each other. Also, it should be noted that polygamy is forbidden to elders of the church.⁴ Good examples of godly marriage include Adam and Eve, Isaac and Rebekah, Joseph and Asenath, Moses and Zipporah, as well as all eight the survivors of the Flood.

Now we must note that while polygamy is mentioned in the bible not everything mentioned in the bible is condoned by the bible. The stoning of Stephen⁵ and Murder of James⁶ are mentioned in the bible, however they are not condoned by it. Therefore we must look at it's origins to learn how it was introduced.

In Genesis Four we find polygamy being started from the line of Cain. Lamech, a murdering son of Cain is the first polygamist mentioned in the bible.⁷ The next mention of this is Esau whos pagan polygamy caused great grief in the hearts of his parents.⁸ Some will argue that Abraham was a polygamist I will get to him in a few lines.

God did forbid kings from practicing polygamy in His Holy Law.⁹When David disobeyed this it lead to fighting among his sons from different wives for the kingdom,¹⁰ and Solomon was lead into idolatry due to his.¹¹ Hannah, Samuel’s mother, was humiliated by her husband Elkanah’s other wife Peninnah.¹²

Now it is true that some men who were considered Godly were "polygamous." First I Abraham. Yes Abraham was a polygamist, more specifically a bigamist. However we must note that the root cause was sin, or lack in faith in God.¹³ Thus Abraham's bigamy was not ordained by God but the result of sin against Him. Jacob the other bigamist patriarch of Judaism was actually conned into marrying Leah, though he had wanted Rachel,¹⁴ not that it was an excuse but also Jacob was not the most spiritual of people at that time either. Likewise David was no epitome of holiness when he took Abigail and Ahinoam of Jezreel to be his wives,¹⁵ and Lord knows he took Bathsheba in sin.¹⁶

God often allows the sinful practices and choices of men, and often uses them for His good and His glory.¹⁷ He also tolerates the sinfulness of men and their hardness of their hearts. This is seen when Jesus explains divorce, though God hates it,¹⁸ He has permitted it, though that was not the way it was intended in the beginning.¹⁹ Ironically this teaching on divorce by Jesus condemns polygamy, because if polygamy is legal then this argument fails. Jesus' entire argument is that if one divorces one's spouse without valid grounds, the marriage is not truly dissolved and subsequent marriage is adulterous.²⁰ While God tolerates polygamy and has made provision for it,²¹ it was never encouraged. God put numerous stipulations on polygamy to discourage it and after the Babylonian exile it was virtually unheard of in Jewish culture, and monogamy was the rule.

Please note while I do believe polygamy is a sin I also believe that the blood of Christ cleanses all the sins of a believer. I also am not simply trying to slam Mormon's who often take offense to such posts, and will openly admit that there are as many, if not more people claiming to be Christians today living in polygamy than there are Mormons practicing it. This is of course one of the sad states of men who do not understand the Gospel in America. To see the utter depravity of men who no longer wish to keep with the sound doctrine of our Lord and would rather give way to their youthful passions click here. Please note sites promoting "Christian Polygamy" are not Christian but are heretical, or at best heterodox.

Footnotes:
1) Genesis 2:24 - Return to text
2) Ephesians 5:22-33 - Return to text
3) 1 Corinthians 7:2;4 - Return to text
4) 1 Timothy 3:2 - Return to text
5) Acts 7:54-60 - Return to text
6) Acts 12:1-2 - Return to text
7) Genesis 4:23 - Return to text
8) Genesis 26:34 - Return to text
9) Deuteronomy 17:17 - Return to text
10) See the Books of 1 and 2 Kings - Return to text
11) 1 Kings 11:1-3 - Return to text
12) 1 Samuel 1:1-7 - Return to text
13) Genesis 16:1-3 - Return to text
14) Genesis 29:20-25 - Return to text
15) 1 Samuel 25:42-43 - Return to text
16) 2 Samuel 11 - Return to text
17) Genesis 50:20 - Return to text
18) Malachi 2:13-16 - Return to text
19) Matthew 19:8-9 - Return to text
20) Mark 10:11-12 - Return to text
21) Exodus 20:10 - Return to text

So let's talk about God, ok? - Intro

2008-04-21T12:11:00.005-04:00

So it seems today far to many people do not feel that it is necessary to engage is Theology Proper. That is the doctrine of God, however this is the doctrine from which all theology flows. Atheists have a doctrine of God in such a way that there is no God. This theology will shape the way that the person lives. Theists all agree that there is a God or gods. Christianity falls into this category thus our doctrine of God should shape how we speak, write, study, breath in short live.

Unfortunately in America while many people claim to be Christians, even Christians of Orthodoxy, many bow the knee to Baal and far to often we create for themselves a graven image. This comes from a few misconceptions about God, which result from both a lack of teaching, improper teaching, and good teaching that lacks earnestness. Therefore I have decided to start a new series that I will update every so often about God and God alone. God's attributes, God's decrees, God's nature and how that ought to affect how we are to live. This is simply an introduction, I hope you enjoy the future posts.

Grace and Peace.

Beer Review Monday - Saranac Imperial Stout

2008-04-21T11:01:00.005-04:00

Today I feel like giving you a treat. A nice dark New York Beer. This beer pours very dark with a nice lacy head. This is a wonderful chocolate coffee aroma. The taste is a wonderful blend of chocolate, malt, and hops. It finishes with a bittersweet after taste. Not the greatest stout out there but definitely a worth while stout, and I'd suggest it anyone dropping by New York. Pick it up it is worth a try.

The Christian Pint Rating: 4 out of 5

Commercial Description:
Mt. Marcy, Skylight, Algonquin...Majestic Adirondack High Peaks - They are the inspiration for our "High Peaks" series, a line of beers that are bigger, more complex and flavorful; beers that are meant to be sipped and savored. The second in our series, Saranac Imperial Stout, is brewed with eleven malts to balance a delicious chocolate and coffee roasted flavor with the spicy herbal character of the generous kettle and dry hops. At 50 IBU's this beer captures the essence of the Adirondacks. Enjoy!

As always remember do not become drunk on wine (beer) but be filled with the Holy Spirit, and do not cause your brother to stumble. (Ephesians 5, Romans 14, 1 Corinthians 8)

Philosophy of Evangalism

2008-04-19T19:09:00.002-04:00

Philosophy of Evangelism - Paris Reidhead
If you cannot see the video click here

ESV Study Bible!!!!

2008-04-17T11:35:00.006-04:00

Well the ESV Study Bible is coming out in October and one of my professors is the key contributer on the Pastoral Epistles, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus for those that don't know. That's right Dr. Ray Van Neste wrote the reference notes for this "filthy" and "sick" study Bible, which was apparently well received by the new converts it was shown to at Mars Hill Church Seattle.* So props to Dr. Van Neste for being "filthy sick" and contributing to this new Study Bible. Maybe he can get me a copy before October. I'll have to ask him in class today. For more on the ESV Study Bible Click Here. For Dr. Ray Van Neste's blog on pastoral ministry Click Here. Further endorsements are as follows:

“The ESV is a dream come true for me. The rightful heir to a great line of historic translations, it provides the continuity and modern accuracy I longed for. Now the scope and theological faithfulness of the ESV Study Bible study notes is breathtaking. Oh how precious is the written Word of God.”: John Piper, Pastor for Preaching and Vision, Bethlehem Baptist Church

“The ESV Study Bible is the most important resource that has been given to the emerging generation of Bible students and teachers. The ESV Study Bible is the best. Period.”: Mark Driscoll, Preaching Pastor, Mars Hill Church; President of the Acts 29 Church Planting Network

“The ESV Study Bible is the finest study tool I have seen in fifty years of Bible teaching. The notes, articles, maps, and illustrations are all of the highest quality. It is a great achievement!”: Jerry Bridges, speaker, bestselling author of The Pursuit of Holiness

“Outstanding! The ESV Study Bible is a treasure—a beautiful volume, filled with a wealth of resources. It will be just as useful for the seminarian and long-time pastor as it will be accessible to the brand-new Christian.”: R. Albert Mohler Jr., President, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

“I can’t imagine a greater gift to the body of Christ than the ESV Study Bible. It is a potent combination indeed: the reliability and readability of the ESV translation, supplemented by the best of modern and faithful scholarship, packaged in an accessible and attractive format. A Christian could make no wiser investment for himself, a pastor could recommend no better resource for his congregation.”: C. J. Mahaney, President, Sovereign Grace Ministries

*Note: For those of you who wear khaki pleated pants and tuck in your shirt, this is a really good endorsement. This is according to Mark Driscoll's blog on the Vox Pop Network.

Paul Washer - Shocking Message + Works Salvation

2008-04-17T01:59:00.004-04:00

Paul Washer Evidence of Salvation Video (offsite)

Paul Washer on works based salvation.
For those who cannot see the video Click here (0ffsite)

The Gospel in Sixty Seconds or Less (with scripture proofs)

2008-04-14T11:39:00.005-04:00

God, He created the world and everything in it, including humans to serve and glorify Himself for His own good pleasure. (Genesis 1:1ff; 1:27; Isaiah 43:7; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 11:3)

Our first parents being very silly thought that they could find more fulfillment if they ruled themselves rather than being ruled by their creator. (Genesis 3:1ff; Romans 5:12)

Thus because of our rebellion God has vowed to righteously yet lovingly judge us on an account of what we do, to which we all fail His holy standards and earn eternal death.(Psalm 7:11; Psalm 9:8; Acts 17:31; Romans 3:23; 6:23)

But God being rich in mercy and love toward us, for His own good pleasure sent His Eternal Son, who emptied Himself and was made into the likeness of man that He might fulfill the perfect requirements of God’s standard.(Isaiah 9:6; John 1:1-3;14; Philippians 2:5-11)

Furthermore the Son, Jesus Christ, bore the eternal judgment of God against sinners on the Cross of Calvary; thus satisfying the eternal anger of God at sinners. God treated the perfect one Jesus Christ as a sinner that He might be just in declaring sinners perfect. (Isaiah 53:10ff; John 19:30; 2 Corinthians 5:21)

This wonderful exchange of our sin and His righteousness takes place when a sinner places their faith, fully trusts, the Lord Jesus as their substitute. Then God sees the sinner as an adopted son covered in the righteousness of His perfect Son, not a rebellious sinner. (Psalm 32:1-2; Mark 1:15; John 3:16-17; Ephesians 1:5)

God showed that the sacrifice was acceptable by raising His Son Jesus from the dead. (Luke 24:5; Romans 4:24)

God will judge the world in righteousness and all of those who are not covered in the righteousness of Christ, depending on Him alone to be their righteousness and for forgiveness, will be forced to stand on their own to bear the eternal anger of God. Thus it is either all on Christ or all upon us. (Romans 4:1-8;16; Ephesians 1:3-2:10; Titus 3:3-7; Revelation 20:11-15; 21:27)

Therefore repent and believe. (Mark 1:15; John 6:35; Acts 16:31; Romans 1:16; 3:22)
_____
Supposedly if you cannot convey the Gospel in sixty seconds or less you probably do not know it well enough or at all. Oh the simplicity a child can understand, oh the complexity even the greatest mind could drown in. Now I have not timed myself on this but those of us from New York speak rather quickly.

Beer Review Monday - Pilsner Urquell

2008-04-14T11:17:00.004-04:00

This fine Monday we have a delectable treat for you, the very reason that the Pilsner, drinking glass, was invented. I give you the Pilsner Urquell. This is a Czech beer which resembles a lager and in fact most lagers in the world are based upon this beer. This unfortunately includes most major American beers though they serverely lack the quality of Pilsner Urquell. It pours a pale golden color with a thin but fluffy white head. It is consistently carbonated with a smooth, dry, malty taste. It is mild in the hops category, with only a slight bitterness in the end. A mild aroma with little skunk completes this beer. If at all possible acquire this brew on tap or in the can as it otherwise comes in green bottles which can destroy the flavor.

The Christian Pint Rating: 3.25 out of 5

Commercial Description:
It is called the "model of meter" among beers. All other pilsners are a better or worse attempt to copy the original - the first ever Pilsner Urquell. Its unparalleled exceptionally is guaranteed by the same recipe dating from 1842.

As always remember do not become drunk on wine (beer) but be filled with the Holy Spirit, and do not cause your brother to stumble. (Ephesians 5, Romans 14, 1 Corinthians 8)

Why do I so often fail.

2008-04-12T22:24:00.005-04:00

Often I wonder what if. What if I had been better, what if I had "prayed harder," what if I had presented the Gospel in a way that they were more ready to receive it? The clear answer is that which John the Baptist said, "He must increase, but I must decrease." Oh how the good book helps us and leads us to peace.

It is "neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth." - 1 Corinthians 3:7

To do all that I can I must have faith that God may call those whom I love that are lost to repentance all the while if that is not His purpose saying, thy will be done. While I might intercede and plea to God for them without the Father drawing power by the Holy Spirit to Christ they will never come. Therefore even though I as Paul and Moses before him might seek to be accursed and set apart from Christ for the sake of my beloved friends I must learn to trust their salvation to Christ alone, that they might see the err of their ways and the foolishness of their wisdom. God please grant me the courage to change that which I can, the serenity to accept that which I cannot, and the wisdom to know the difference. This is how I must live, doing everything I can and trusting God to do what I cannot, sleeping in the sovereign grace to know that He works all things for the good of those who love Him.

Are the reformed against evangelism or do they actually do it?

2008-04-11T02:00:00.004-04:00

For those of you who cannot see the videos here are links to them.
Part One
Part Two

Beer Review Monday - Rogue Dead Guy Ale

2008-04-07T13:57:00.006-04:00

For those of you new to the micro-brewery circuit this is a wonderful example of what can be made through great time and effort. It pours a nice murky copper and though light does pass through it it is in no way transparent like most American beers, hence the beauty of good micro-brewery. There is a lacy medium head and a sweet hoppy aroma. The flavor is somewhat sweet and fruity with a hint of caramel and a slightly bitter finish. Theses flavors wont overpower though as they seem fairly well balanced. Though labeled a Bock this beer lies more in the range of a pale ale, yet regardless of the miss labeling this is a good beer.

The Christian Pint Rating: 4 out of 5

Commercial Description:
Dead Guy is a German-style Maibock made with Rogue's proprietary "PacMan" ale yeast. It is deep honey in color with a malty aroma, rich hearty flavor and a well balanced finish. Dead Guy is created from Northwest Harrington, Klages, Maier Munich and Carastan malts, along with Perle and Saaz Hops.
In the early 1990s Dead Guy Ale was created as a private tap sticker to celebrate the Mayan Day of the Dead (November 1st, All Souls Day) for Casa U Betcha in Portland, Oregon. The Dead Guy design proved popular and was incorporated into a bottled product a few years later with MaierBock as the elixir.

As always remember do not become drunk on wine (beer) but be filled with the Holy Spirit, and do not cause your brother to stumble. (Ephesians 5, Romans 14, 1 Corinthians 8)

Who Truly Limits The Atonement?

2008-04-05T13:37:00.004-04:00

A good presentation of the reformed doctrine of the Limited Atonement.

Calvinism Debate

2008-04-04T23:22:00.015-04:00

Dr. James R. White is in the middle of a radio debate with Christian radio host Steve Gregg on the topic of Calvinism. Days 1 and 2 are finished if you need to catch up click the links below.
Day 1
Day 2

There are 3 more sessions in this series, listen at 4pm-5pm CST, April 7th, 8th and 9th at:

http://www.thenarrowpath.com/
or
www.kkmc.com
or
www.aomin.org

Dr. White of Alpha and Omega Ministries will likely post each debate session available for download on his blog. if you miss the live show. I would also suggest listening to Dr. White's biweekly internet radio program The Dividing Line. It usually airs Tuesdays at Noon CST and Thursdays at 5PM CST. However if you miss the live show he usually posts a free download version and a high quality version in his blog. It is a wonderful resource and I highly recommend it.

Born Again?

2008-04-03T14:11:00.000-04:00

This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him." Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?" Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit." - John 3:2-8

All Christians say we must be born again in order to be in Christ yet what does that actually mean? It seems to me that many among the Christian world think or feel that to be born again is the same thing as being saved, that is justified. However if we note the words of the Apostle I must submit that this is not the case. I do agree that they are intimately linked, one to another however as the Truth in person says, "unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." If justification comes by faith, which the Book clearly states, and prior to our rebirth we cannot even see the kingdom how can we put our trust in its King? John states that it is not according to human qualms or faith knowing where it comes from rather it is as the wind blows. To more fully understand rebirth we must see it in light of the other similar analogies which Christ's apostles wrote about, being quickened from death unto life (Ephesians 2:5), and being made into a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17). The similarities between all three is that they all happen outside of the will of the individual to which they are happening. No one chooses to be born, no one chooses to be created, and while many can wish to be resurrected, the choice to do so lies outside themselves, hence why the centenary business is never out of commission.

The Truth Himself states "You must be born again" note that He does not say "Born yourself again." Again we look to the birth of the flesh to which we must ask at the risk of repetition, what roll did you play in your own birth? Were you a causality of your own existence, even in part? Did you cause yourself to be conceived in your mothers womb or like all others ever born on this earth are you the product of that which you had no control over? I submit that you are like the latter.

Thus we must not construe this to mean that the Truth Incarnate is saying we must choose to be born again, or that if a person believes in Him, he [the person] will be born again. The teaching is very clear in the first chapter of the Gospel according to John, "But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1:12-13) Here we see that it is because they are born of God that they did receive Him and were given the right to become children of God. Thus if we are to be fair to language and logic we must assert that the rebirth comes prior to our faith and that this rebirth is not caused by man but by God as the Apostle Peter wrote:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. 1 Peter 1:3-5

Now you will ask, "Brother Matt, I don't know if I have this, what should I do?" In one sense, nothing; however in another you can humble yourself before the Lord and stop trying to make yourself a new creature. Acknowledge that you need to be made new, remade into a person without the bloody stain of sin upon your spirit. Remember and admit that God and only God, by sending His Holy Spirit to you from heaven can make you new.

It is after this rebirth that faith and repentance come, as a newborn cries out moving from the darkness of the womb to the light of the world so too does the newly reborn and they move from the darkness of the world into the Holy Light of Christ and thus cry out for salvation. This is because in the light of Christ the newly reborn sees the utter sinfulness of them self and their total dependence upon God's forgiveness and grace. Thus when hearing the message of Jesus Christ they thrust themselves totally upon Him trusting wholly in the redemption of the Son. From this point forward the newborn lives a different and new life, not a perfect life (1 John 1:8), but a new life in Christ never the less.

Have you have truly confessed your iniquity, your sin before God, knowing that you are deserving of His Holy Wrath? Have you truly trusted entirely upon Jesus the Christ who died for sinners to justify you before God? Can you truly see the kingdom of God? Then you have been born again, you are not born again because you have done these things.

Grace and Peace

Beer Review Monday - HeBrew Jewbelation Eleven

2008-04-01T00:36:00.004-04:00

Last week we were off, I was back home in the State of New York, so I have decided to give you all a treat. HeBrew Jewbelation Eleven is a wonderful beer with eleven, yes eleven different hops and eleven different malts. It is dark brown in color and has a full off-white head. The aroma is a very chocolate malty and hoppy. It drinks with a chocolate and toffee flavor with a hint of bitterness. This is a wonderful desert beer that would go great for cooler evenings after sunset, and it is by far the best beer I have ever tasted that is brewed in the United States of America. This beer very well could be the wine Jesus made at Cana, and is most assuredly the strong drink Moses referred to when He penned Deuteronomy 14:24-26. A word of caution to those who the Lord has not granted the tolerance of an Irishman, this beer contains eleven percent alcohol, thus if you become drunk easily remember to cut your portion respectively.

The Christian Pint's Rating: 5 out of 5

Commercial Description:
Hitting stores in early October, the limited release of Jewbelation Eleven continues in its fourth year of production. Given a “5 Star” rating by Celebrator Beer News, brewed with 11 malts, 11 hops, and soaring to 11% alcohol, Jewbelation Eleven is the most extreme Chanukah beer ever created.

As always remember do not become drunk on wine (beer) but be filled with the Holy Spirit, and do not cause your brother to stumble. (Ephesians 5, Romans 14, 1 Corinthians 8)

What! You're Reformed?

2008-03-29T14:45:00.014-04:00

Well my dear readers I have been on vacation for Easter in the sunny state of New York, hence no Beer Review Monday this past week and no updates to the Pint. However my sister and I had a wonderful little conversation this past week about theology. She is from a more Wesleyan /Arminian tradition and I am as many of you know more reformed in my theology. She made a number of accusations against me which unfortunately are not true of reformed theology. Actually these comments are about something the reformed tradition considers heresy, that is hyper-Calvinism. Hyper-Calvinism is not John Piper sitting at Starbucks after four espressos. However since there is much confusion about this subject let me list a definition of Hyper-Calvinism from the New Dictionary of Theology published by the IVP:

1. [Hyper-Calvinism] is a system of theology framed to exalt the honour and glory of God and does so by acutely minimizing the moral and spiritual responsibility of sinners . . . It emphasizes irresistible grace to such an extent that there appears to be no real need to evangelize; furthermore, Christ may be offered only to the elect.

2. It is that school of supralapsarian 'five-point' Calvinism [n.b.—a school of supralapsarianism, not supralapsarianism in general] which so stresses the sovereignty of God by over-emphasizing the secret over the revealed will of God and eternity over time, that it minimizes the responsibility of sinners, notably with respect to the denial of the use of the word "offer" in relation to the preaching of the gospel; thus it undermines the universal duty of sinners to believe savingly in the Lord Jesus with the assurance that Christ actually died for them; and it encourages introspection in the search to know whether or not one is elect. [Peter Toon, "Hyper-Calvinism," New Dictionary of Theology (Leicester: IVP, 1988), 324.]

This is not what I believe, this is not what the reformed tradition believes, this is actually a rejection of Historical, Augustinian Theology, and Calvinism. Thus when a Wesleyan rejects reformed theology on the grounds that we reformed do not see a need to evangelize they are actually rejecting hyper-Calvinism, something the reformed do as well. It is in ignorance that many of the Arminian tradition reject the reformed tradition. Therefore allow me to bring up a couple of her objections to which I will respond.

She said, "So you believe that you don't have to evangelize?"
This is not the reformed position at all, how else are men to come to Christ but through the foolishness of preaching the Gospel. (1 Corinthians 1:21) I do not know who the elect are so I must preach to all men (Matthew 28:19-20) that the Lord God might grant some repentance leading to the knowledge of the Truth. (2 Timothy 2:24-26)

She said, "You believe that there is some reason you are better than others who are unsaved?"
Again this is not the reformed position, this is actually the Arminian position stating that they chose to follow Christ of their own accord, thus have something intrinsically better than those who reject Christ. The reformed position is that there is nothing intrinsically better in the believer than the unbeliever (Romans 3:9ff) and that the only reason the elect go to heaven and others go to hell is because of a five letter word called GRACE. (Titus 3:3-8)

She said, "You believe that God hates people?"
The only way I can respond to this is with scripture.

And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, "The older will serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." - Romans 9:10-13

Yes God hates unrepentant, unregenerate sinners and prior to conversion we are enemies with God and He with us. (Romans 5:6ff; Isaiah 63:10)

She said, "You believe that some believers will fall away from the faith."
This is actually the fifth and final point of Arminianism, the reformed position is the Preservation of All Saints. This means that if you are truly a saint and have truly accepted the gift of God, by grace through faith, then you will preserver.

Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about Me, but you do not believe because you are not part of My flock. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one." - John 10:25-30

She said, "So you don't believe that Christ died for the whole world?"
Well that depends entirely upon what you mean, do I believe that Christ's death has benefited the whole world then yes, it has stayed the wrath of God against mankind so that Adam did not die the moment he partook of the fruit of the tree in the center of the garden, and all sinners since then. However if you do not believe in some sort of universalism, which would go against scripture, as scripture clearly states that some will be raised to the second death, (Revelation 21:8) then one must believe that God only died for those who will be saved or there is unjustice in God as both Christ and the sinner bear the eternal penalty for the same sin. The reformed position stems from Hebrews 10:14 "For by a single offering He has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified" which is often called limited atonement or particular redemption. This does not mean that Heaven will be close to empty as scripture clearly speaks against that as well. (Revelation 7:9) The question is did Christ through this offering fail to perfect some, or did He do the will of the One who sent Him as He clearly states:

"All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to Me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will but the will of Him who sent me. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that I should lose nothing of all that He has given Me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in Him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day...No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day." - John 6:37-40;44

That is really what it all comes down to isn't it, did Christ actually accomplish all that He set out to do, or did He fail at all the points where sinners do not repent and come to Him? I believe that many today who claim to hold to an Arminian/Wesleyan Soteriology actually do not understand their own depravity or are actually reformed yet see hyper-Calvinism as the reformed position and as such side with the Arminian position in their ignorance of what both positions truly teach.

Grace and Peace.

The Testimony of Paul Washer

2008-03-19T02:15:00.003-04:00

This is the testimony of Paul Washer, a great Christian Preacher speaking about his conversion to Christianity. It is scary how much his parallels mine. Enjoy.

Beer Review Monday - Smithwicks Irish Ale

2008-03-17T18:38:00.004-04:00

On this fine St. Patrick's Day what better to do than review an Irish Ale. Smithwicks is a wonderful dark ale which is copper in color and has a full head though it dissipates rather quickly, unfortunate for an ale brewed by the producers of Guinness. The aroma is a very roasty caramel malt. The flavor is somewhat sweet with very roasty caramel following the aroma. Unfortunately this ale is a bit on the light side, so it makes a wonderful beer for the warmer months of the summer, think of this as Guinness light. The carbonation is right on and while this is not the best beer out there, for its price it is wonderful.

The Christian Pint Rating: 3.5 out of 5

Commercial Description:
Smithwick’s is Ireland’s number one ale. Its exceptional taste, distinctive colour and purity of ingredients make it unique. Its rich, satisfying taste has earned it five gold medals in the famous Monde Selection Beer Tasting Competition. Smithwick’s is produced using the finest hops and special roasted, malted barley. In 1998 a new enhanced draught product with improved head retention was launched along with redesigned glassware.

As always remember do not become drunk on wine (beer) but be filled with the Holy Spirit, and do not cause your brother to stumble. (Ephesians 5, Romans 14, 1 Corinthians 8)

Thank God for St. Patrick

2008-03-17T11:33:00.015-04:00

It is a very unfortunate day when the world begins to believe that Patrick is the patron Saint of Leprechauns and Green Beer. While there is nothing inherently wrong with either to reduce what God did through this man for both Ireland and the world is something that sickens me. This is as horrible as reducing St. Nicholas to Santa Clause, St. Valentine to Cupid, and almost as grotesque as reducing Easter and Christmas to days about fuzzy animals and simple presents. It is a mockery.

St. Patrick's story is one of the Gospel. Patrick an unbelieving Roman born in Britain who was taken into slavery by the invading Irish Celts. It was in Ireland that God found Patrick and after six years of slavery as a shepherd, God allowed Patrick to escape and return to Britain. There he joined the church and began to study the Word of God. Feeling God calling him to return to Ireland to take the Gospel of Christ to the Irish people, his capturers. In one dream he heard God say, "We beg you, holy youth, to come and walk among us once more." In 433 AD he did just that.

Thinking he would convert his old master for whom he was a shepherd to his new Master for whom he remained a shepherd under the tutelage of the Great Shepherd, he returned to the place of his former bondage. Unfortunately due to the pagan influence upon Patrick's former master caused him to commit suicide and destroy his lands. Patrick horrified by this superstition began to minister to the pagan Celts.

At the druidic festival Beltane, a yearly ritual of fire, Patrick began his ministry. The ritual was commenced by the King lighting the first fire of ritual from whence all other fires in the Kingdom would be lit. Patrick on an opposing hill light his Easter fire prior to the King's. This was blasphemy against the druidic gods. Seeing this fire the druids told the High King, that were that fire not quenched prior to the rising of the Sun it would never be put out. Therefore the King sent druids and soldiers to put out Patrick's fire.

Like Elijah and the prophets of Baal, Patrick mocked the druids, and the more they tried they could not quench the fire. At this sight the King accepted Patrick and allowed him to preach the Gospel in his lands. Later the King became a believer. After this time the Gospel flourished throughout Ireland. This is the reference of where Patrick drove the snakes from Ireland, driving the druidic paganism out of Ireland.

St. Patrick is credited with explaining the Trinity to the Gaelic culture through the use of the shamrock, an herb used in many druidic rituals. He often held one up and asked if the shamrock was one leaf or three, to which the common reply was, it is both one leaf and three. Patrick concluded to them so it is with God. Of course the pagan mind cannot comprehend the things of God so Patrick was sure to emphasize to the pagan mind that the Christian belief was not that of polytheism.

With the Christianizing of Ireland Patrick set up monastery after monastery, through out Ireland and these Irish monks would take what little money they had and bought the classic works of antiquity and copied them in their monasteries. This became very important after the fall of Rome to the barbarians. The barbarians torched most of the written works in the Roman empire. Had it not been for Patrick we would not have many of the works of antiquity. Therefore even if you do not believe the Christian Gospel you must at least than Patrick for his roll in preserving the works of Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, and many others. Therefore today when drinking a pint of Guinness remember to thank God for St. Patrick and his contribution to the world we live in.
Happy St. Patrick's Day.

Languages

2008-03-15T16:15:00.003-04:00

It has been said that the listening of a language even without understanding it will help in the acquisition of that language. As Hebrew has been difficult to pick up I've started to listen to Shma-Israel Radio, it's an internet radio station that puts the Psalms to music in the original language, Hebrew, it is a wonderful resource if you are trying to pick up the Hebrew language, and even if you are not it does display the beauty of the Psalms as they were meant to be, sung to the Glory of God. Anyways here is the link if you are interested.
http://shma-israel.org/

Faith & Works - James vs. Paul

2008-03-11T12:35:00.008-04:00

There are many people today who do not understand what is written in the bible, mainly because they read it through a certain lens and do not believe Paul when he wrote, “all Scripture is breathed out by God.” (2 Timothy 3:16) If we as Christians are to believe that Scripture is the Words of God in written form, as Paul suggests then there should be no contradictions correct, as “God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind.” (Numbers 23:19) However there appears to be just such a contradiction between two of the writers of the New Testament. Both Paul and James paraphrase Genesis 15:6 which states that Abraham “believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness.” Yet both apostles take this to different ends, James says, “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” (James 2:24) Paul holds to something appearing to be totally different, “to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness.” (Romans 4:5)

Well that proves it, the Bible is not inspired right? Well being a bible believing Christian I don’t think so. We must look at the texts more closely along with Paul’s other writings. If scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35) then these two must coincide somehow. Both James and Paul quote Genesis 15:6 thus we must ask if James is correcting Paul, or if he is correcting an abuse of Paul. These are two very different things, yet if we are to believe that both what Paul and James wrote was scripture and breathed out by God then we must state that the latter is true, which scripture agrees with.

Paul was not a foolish man, he understood that His teaching of grace alone would be abused and twisted by some false brothers. This is why he wrote in Romans 3:8, “And why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just.” And Romans 6:1,2 “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means!”

In Galatians 5:13 Paul tells us, “For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.” Does this mean that we are justified however we must work to be justified? Is grace simply the starting point from which we work to be fully saved? Is that what Paul meant?

No, if we look back a few verses to Galatians 5:6 we see James and Paul in harmony “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.” Note that it is not the works that count for anything but the faith working through love. It is not faith plus works rather it is the correct type of faith that counts with God. What is the correct type of faith, the faith that justifies? Faith from which love flows.

That is what James was trying to correct in the churches he was writing to. Faith without love is useless, it is the sort of faith that at best the demons have. James 2:14, “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?” Note the concern of James is not the works, but the faith. If I simply believe yet do not love can I be saved, as James later asks, “If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 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?” (v.15;16) According to James such faith is dead, as it does not work through love. James addresses this dead faith in other ways, those with perfect doctrine such as the demons (v.19) and useless faith that is empty (v.20). These passages agree with Paul that faith that does not work through love is dead, useless, and cannot justify anyone as it has no life.

As I previously stated both Paul and James quote Genesis 15:6 (cf. James 2:23, Romans 4:3), both state that it is the belief, the faith that is reckoned as righteousness. However James also makes reference to where Abraham’s faith is tested on Mount Moriah in Genesis 22:1ff, stating that if your faith does not work through love and you simply have correct doctrine, the faith of the Demons, dead faith, that which does not work through love, and useless faith which is idle, empty, or ineffective it will not stand God’s testing of faith. However one must understand what was being tested; it was the faith of Abraham. This was not where Abraham was justified though, that was back in Genesis 15:6.

Therefore in James 2:21 which states that Abraham was justified by works, James means something different from when Paul denies that man is justified by works (Romans 3:28; 4:2; 4:5) If asked the following question, does the ongoing and final reckoning of Abraham’s righteousness depend on works as the evidence of true faith? Both James and Paul would answer the same way. Yes. However if you asked how an ungodly person become justified and receive the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus as a gift? Both would answer as James did in James 2:23 “believe God, and it will counted to him as righteousness" (paraphrase mine)

To ask if justification is dependent upon works of love in order to have a final right standing with God, Paul will answer no, if by works of love you mean anything done to show that we deserve God’s blessings. James will answer yes, if by works you mean evidence of faith or fruit such as that Abraham’s obedience showed on Mount Moriah.

Thus for Paul justification by works means gaining a right standing with God based upon the merit of our works, Paul rejects this notion. James on the other had when speaking of justification by works means maintaining a right standing with God by faith alone with the evidences of faith, works of love. However based upon each others definitions they would agree.

We are justified by faith alone but Christ works in us through that faith to make us a new person, a new creation that is works through love. Paul describes this relationship of faith and works in Ephesians 2:8-10 “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.”

The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

Beer Review Monday - Killians Irish Red

2008-03-11T00:49:00.006-04:00

This is a good beginners beer for those just starting out and beginning to take an interest in beer drinking. It is a sweet beer with a little white head. A weak aroma caramel accompanies this brew. There is a mild hoppiness mixed with a light caramel in this beer but not a lot of after taste. The good thing about this beer is it is best chilled but not cold. a little warmth brings the flavor right out so a new drinker can enjoy this beer for quite some time and still get full flavor out of it. Like most beers this is best on tap.

The Christian Pint Rating: 3.25 out of 5

Commercial Description:Rich amber color and a thick, creamy head. Introduced into the U.S. in 1981. Gold medalist (amber lager) at 1998 World Beer Cup.

As always remember do not become drunk on wine (beer) but be filled with the Holy Spirit, and do not cause your brother to stumble. (Ephesians 5, Romans 14, 1 Corinthians 8)

Richard Baxter - The Reformed Pastor

2008-03-04T16:27:00.004-05:00

The work of any Pastor is never complete until he has been called home and gives an account of those whom he was called to shepherd. As one called to such a commission Richard Baxter presents the roll of what a true pastor should look like in his classical work The Reformed Pastor.
While this book is an older work on the subject of overseeing God's flock, it is still very relevant today. Pastors are called to know their congregation on a personal level and instruct them in such a way as to leave no reason for them to be of unsound doctrine and faith. Things often missed in the current era of mega Churches and televangelists. While neither of these things are inherently evil, they do fail to oversee souls biblically.
I urge any who are thinking they are called to be a pastor, as well as all current shepherds of God's flock to read this book. It is an asset to the library of all Overseers of Souls.

Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you. - Hebrews 13:17

Grace and Peace.

Beer Review Monday - Guinness Draught

2008-03-03T18:47:00.016-05:00

A friend of mine suggested that I begin to review beers I have tried here so I'm going to start posting reviews of beers starting off with one of the best. The Famed Guinness Draught, what else did you expect?

If there ever was a man's beer this is it. A dark medium body and a creamy full head, and a delectable aroma of coffee and chocolate. It drinks with a creamy malty texture that drinks almost like a meal. This beer as most beers is best from the tap yet with that is not an option the bottles and cans do make a decent substitute.

The Christian Pint Rating: 4.75 out of 5

Commercial Description:Available in cans, kegs and bottles with nitrogen and carbon dioxide. Pasteurised. Usually called Draught; sometimes called Cold or Extra Cold - same beer, but served colder.`Launched in 1961.
Ingredients: Pale ale malt, about 25 to 30% flaked barley, and about 10% roasted barley, with no other grains or sugars; several hop varieties, mainly Goldings (pellets and isomerized extract); a flocculent head-forming ale yeast.

As always remember do not become drunk on wine (beer) but be filled with the Holy Spirit, and do not cause your brother to stumble. (Ephesians 5, Romans 14, 1 Corinthians 8)

The Prosperity Gospel

2008-03-01T19:11:00.006-05:00

A short message from John Piper on the Prosperity Gospel and how it should sicken Christians. Please do not buy into the lie of the Prosperity Gospel.

I pray that you consider Dr. Pipers words.
If you cannot see the video click here.

Saving Faith - The Intimacy of Subjective and Objective Faith

2008-02-29T03:14:00.006-05:00

There is far too often a total misconception of the word “faith” in the Bible. Many liberal theologians will argue that a subjective faith only matters in so much that you believe in something. They see faith only as the subjective believing rather than both that and that which is the belief. It is very easy to see the subjective side of faith however if that faith is not in “the faith” then it is futile. This is clearly evident in texts such as Jude 3 and 2 Timothy 3:8. If we are to “contend for the faith” are we simply to contend that people simply believe something, or do we contend that they believe something specific, namely the Word of God? If it were not an objective faith that we are to contend for then why were Jannes and Jambres disqualified for “the Faith” for opposing Moses?

This is why “faith is the assurance of things hoped for,” that is the promises of God, the objective faith “the conviction of things not seen.” (Hebrews 11:1) That is the subjective faith. What is “hoped for” is the object of faith and the conviction is the subjective portion of faith. These two things are intimately related in the nature of Christian Saving Faith. The Heidelberg Catechism states it this way:

It is not only a certain knowledge by which I accept as true all that God has revealed to us in His Word, but also a firm confidence which the Holy Spirit creates in me through the gospel that, not only to others but to me also God has given the forgiveness of sins, everlasting righteousness and salvation, out of sheer grace solely for the sake of Christ’s saving work.

Throughout Hebrews chapter Eleven, often referred to as the Faith chapter we see the intermingling of the subjective and objective faith “By faith we understand [the subjective] that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible [the objective].” (v.3) This is explained in more detail through of the Saints of the Old Testament, “For by it the people of old received their commendation.” (v.2)

First we see that “By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he was commended as righteous, God commending him by accepting his gifts.” (v.4) It was the subjective faith of Abel in the objective faith of what God had taught about sacrifices and “that without the shedding of blood there can be no forgiveness of sin.” (Hebrews 9:22) Abel’s sacrifice pointed forward toward the coming of Christ and His perfect sacrifice.

Next we see “By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death, and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was commended as having pleased God.” (v.5) Here we must remember the words of the text in Genesis 5:24, “Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him.” Amos 3:3 states “Can two walk together, unless they are agreed?” If he simply had faith and not the faith then how could he have walked with God? Note that the following verse of Hebrews (v.6) states: “without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists” there is the subjective faith in the first half of the verse and the objective portion in the latter half.

Verses Seven through Eleven speak of the faith of three heroes of the Faith. First we see that Noah believes [subjectively] God’s proclamation of the rains [the objective]. Next we see that Abraham responds to God’s call to go by faith, believing [subjective] in the reward promised by God [the object]. Finally we see the faith of Sarah who believed [subjectively] the promise [the object] of God that she would, in her old age bare a son.

We could continue this for the next thirty-two verses pointing that the subjective faith of these saints of the Old Testament had their subjective faith rooted in the objective truth of God’s promises, “the Faith.” Their faith [subjective] was not simply a feeling, trance, institution, or anything other than trust in that which God revealed.

“And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.” (v.39-40) Note these Old Testament saints did not receive the fullness of the promise in their lifetimes but instead looked forward to the coming of Christ and what He would do for them, just as we look back at what He did for us. We must remember how this section on faith concludes in Hebrews 12:1-2 “Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.”

Christ is the perfecter of our faith, both the subjective and objective. It is in His objective Word that the object of “the faith” which we as Christians profess, giving substance to our objective faith. Subjective faith is not saving faith unless it is intimately involved with the objective faith that is the doctrine of Christianity. (Hebrews 4:2) Saving faith is only saving faith when it is the subjective faith, that is believing, being rooted in the objective faith, that is the Word of God. Therefore I encourage you as the saints of old to look to Jesus as described in the Word of God, “the author and perfecter of our faith” for it is in Him alone that we are made perfect.

Grace and Peace

The Trinity - Rectifying God's Love, Omnipotence, and the virtue of Humility.

2008-02-22T18:15:00.008-05:00

Christianity is a religion all about relationship, that relationship is one with the Creator God of the entire Universe. The basis of this relationship is Love as Christ Himself put it "The most important is, 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.”' (Mark 12:28-30)

No one will argue that this passage means that we are to love God, however the issue I wish to discuss is not that we are to love God, but where Love itself originates. For this I of course turn to the first letter of John chapter four.

Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because 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 4:7-10

That is the question then is if God is one, as stated by Jesus and Moses (Deuteronomy 6:4) then how is God love? Would He not rely upon something outside of Himself in order for this Love to be expressed? Would He either be completely and totally self-centered or partially reliant upon His creation to express His love, that is His nature? This seems folly for God to be so utterly arrogant, if that were the case how could humility be a virtue expressed perfectly in God as well? It also seems foolish that God would be so reliant upon others to express something so natural to you and I. You and I require others to express love or we love ourselves and become extremely conceited. How do we justify the Love of God without sacrificing humility or omnipotence? The answer is the Christian Doctrine of the Trinity.

There is one God eternally existent in three separate and distinct persons. Thus the Love of God is eternally expressed in the relationship of these three persons of God, Father, Son, and Spirit. This is seen in the Father’s love for the Son, giving the Son all authority in Heaven and on Earth, (Matthew 28:18) However the Son does nothing on His on accord but only that which He sees the Father doing (John 5:19ff) and only does the will of the Father who sent Him (John 6:38) though He had the authority to do whatever He wished. Thus only those who love the Son as they love the Father truly know and honor the Father. The Holy Spirit does not speak on His own authority nor bring glory to Himself but only speaks what He hears and brings glory to the Son (John 16:13-14). Likewise the Father does not draw glory to Himself but draws men to the Son (John 6:44). Yet as these men are drawn to confess that Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the Father whom the Son gives all glory too (Philippians 2:11). The love seems evident and humility is just as evident. The Son made Himself nothing, though in the form of God (Philippians 2:6-7) not seeing equality with the Father as something to be grasped, yet because of this the Father highly exalt Him and gave Him the name above all names (Philippians 2:9). The Spirit likewise only testifies to the Son and not Himself (1 John 5:6-10). The Son in turn does everything not for His own glory but to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:11).

Three self-giving, self-effacing persons compose the very God that we as Christians worship. This aspect of God’s eternal character we as the Church of Jesus Christ must seek to reflect in our lives and our walk with Him to whom all glory and honor is due. Seek the humility and love exhibited by our wonderful God.

Grace and Peace.

Who Did Christ Die For?

2008-02-18T21:15:00.003-05:00

The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either:

All the sins of all men.
All the sins of some men, or
Some of the sins of all men.

In which case it may be said:

That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so, none are saved.
That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth.
But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?

You answer, "Because of unbelief."

I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!"

by John Owen.

I make success and create disaster; said the LORD.

2008-02-07T15:30:00.001-05:00

"I form light and create darkness, I make success and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things."
Isaiah 45:7

These words have never rang more true to the students at the campus of Union University than last night. At around 7:07 PM on February 5, 2008 a massive tornado ran through the campus tearing the roof off of Jennings Hall and destroying many of the dorms, in a word disaster. And this evil was not like the evil of terrorists bombing buildings but was from nature itself, leaving many to wonder where God was in this. How could God allow something so evil to happen? How could He allow some of His blessed children to be hurt and trapped for hours, where were you God?

The answer lies in the center of the storm, because we know that nothing comes to pass without our Father in Heaven knowing about it, for the LORD Himself creates disasters to call people to Him according to His good purpose. Jesus said “Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?” Where are you God is the wrong question to be asking, the question we should be asking is God how are you going to work this for the good of those who love you? You promised you would in Your word, oh God, that you would never leave us nor forsake us, how will this work for your Glory and our benefit.

If we truly believe that the LORD is sovereign then how are we to deny that He was the author of this storm and using it for His glory and praise. We should be asking ourselves if we truly trust Him as supreme in all things. For even through the disaster we must humbly, for we are humbled by His awesome power, fall before Him and give Him all glory in this trial that He might increase our faith remembering “every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.” Please Father reign in the aftermath of this storm and rain down blessings and grace on those who You will because You are in control.

Grace and Peace.