ryan.the.calvinist

Christ & His Bride & My Wife

2011-11-19T17:19:00.001-08:00

"Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself."

Christ's love for his bride makes me look like the most pathetic husband ever.

What?? Yes. Recently married - about 5 1/2 months now - and already I'm learning about how selfish human beings are. She will not want to be cuddly with me and insist on having space. I will complain that I'm too tired to cook dinner and that I'm hesitant to do it, as I don't have a clue what I'm doing. k

Selfishness. Two sinners living together. Yowssah!

Compared to Christ... I'm a pathetic example of Christ's love for his bride. He died for her. Am I willing to lay down my time for her? Christ hasn't called me to endure anything CLOSE to the suffering he went through for HIS bride... so why am I so ... so ... lacking?

It is frustrating. When we decided to have Ephesians 5 read as part of our wedding ceremony, it was because I wanted the gospel to be proclaimed to those who were in attendance - both those who have never repented and trusted in the gospel AND those who had, that they may look to Christ continually (the preached word as a means of grace). I wanted to emphasize the union between a man and his bride as a visible gospel depiction of Christ's union with his bride - the redeemed - the Church.

The picture of Christ and his Bride does not end after the wedding and reception ends, however. It continues THROUGHOUT the marriage.

The entire marriage, not just the ceremony, is to be a visible picture of Christ's love and sacrifice for his Bride that he showed and performed on the cross to redeem many sinners.

This is particularly challenging to me this week. Christ is long-suffering. I am self-serving. When His Bride goes against his desires, He remains ever-faithful. I easily get spiteful and sinfully irritated.

As frustrated as I get with my wife at times... I have done infinitely more to against my Savior I am in covenant relationship with. When I sin against Christ, does Christ, in turn, sin against me?? No. As a visible gospel-picture, I am to treat my bride with the love, care, and faithfulness that Christ treats his that he foreknew.

God, give me the will and ability to visibly show the gospel in my marriage to Kacey. I can never be the gracious husband toward Kacey that you are to your Bride. Yet this is what you call me, as one you have saved by grace through the gift of faith for works, to do. I desire to place my wife above myself, to die to self, and live to serve and sanctify her, as you are sanctifying and purifying your church. Amen.

I was born this way (BUT GOD...)

2011-10-29T16:13:00.000-07:00

I just read the lyrics to the Lady GaGa song "Born This Way" for the first time. I would rather not post the lyrics... but you can find them in their entirety here.

I will post the climax of the song, found in the bridge:

Don't be a drag, just be a queen
Whether you're broke or evergreen
You're black, white, beige, chola descent
You're Lebanese, you're orient
Whether life's disabilities
Left you outcast, bullied, or teased
Rejoice and love yourself today
'cause baby you were born this way

No matter gay, straight, or bi,
Lesbian, transgendered life,
I'm on the right track baby,
I was born to survive.
No matter black, white or beige
Chola or orient made,
I'm on the right track baby,
I was born to be brave.

Wow.

All I can think about is the way I was born - in sin. I was stillborn, dead in sin. A rebel against God. That's how I was born. A child of wrath by nature. I'm so thankful that God sovereignly and lovingly had mercy on me - while I was still his enemy - and took the blunt of the wrath I deserved, giving me his righteousness and forgiving me of my sins.

Christ can wash your sins away whiter than snow. It matters not what the sin is; lying, theft, porn addiction, homosexuality, gossip, and self-righteous attitudes included.

Repent and trust in the good news of Christ - that he lived a perfect life and died a perfecting death for the many who trust in Him. It does not matter how think you were born. You were born in sin and remain in that sin apart from Christ. Turn from your sin and trust in him to have peace with God.

Quick look @ New Covenant & the changed heart

2011-09-06T21:23:00.000-07:00

I hope I don't tick off my Presbyterian brothers... esp. since I like their churches (as a whole) generally more than Reformed Baptist ones...

In light of my diving into Covenant Infant Baptism arguments, I found this defense from Dr. James White regarding Hebrews 8 and the New Covenant to be useful.

He asserts that the Old Covenant was a mixed covenant - that the covenant sign was correctly administered to those whose hearts were changed (like David) and those whose hearts remained corrupt (like Ahab).

The New Covenant, however, is not a mixed covenant. ALL in the New Covenant know the Lord. The text looks not to a future fulfillment, but is speaking as a present reality. The New Covenant is better now; It won't be better later, it is presently better, in a similar way that Christ is a better mediator now, and the sacrifice of Christ is better now than the sacrifices under the Old Covenant.

I must say, this is what I keep coming back to in my focus on Infant Baptism. The nature of the New Covenant. I understand that the Old Covenant contained both the regenerate and unregenerate. Still, when I read Hebrews 8, arguably the most extensive look at the New Covenant in its makeup, I see that those who are in the New Covenant are those who have had their sins forgiven - the elect.

Look at Hebrews 8:

Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man. For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, “See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.” But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.

    For he finds fault with them when he says:
    “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord,
        when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel
        and with the house of Judah,
    not like the covenant that I made with their fathers
        on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt.
    For they did not continue in my covenant,
        and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord.
    For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
        after those days, declares the Lord:
    I will put my laws into their minds,
        and write them on their hearts,
    and I will be their God,
        and they shall be my people.
    And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor
        and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
    for they shall all know me,
        from the least of them to the greatest.
    For I will be merciful toward their iniquities,
        and I will remember their sins no more.”

    In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

In light of this, I would argue it is wrong to administer the sign of the covenant AND claim that a child is a member of said covenant when there has been no repentance or faith on the part of that infant.

No sins forgiven = no covenant membership.

I'm continuing to look into the matter... And honestly, I wish I could be convinced and just become Presbyterian. But the biblical evidence continues to get in the way.

On a comedic side note, my good buddy Jeremy has a friend (I'd like to think of him as a mutual friend now, actually) who attends Southern Theological... and stated that Presbyterians have three kinds of verses that they look to dealing with Infant Baptism:

Verses on Baptism, but lack children
Verses on Children, but lack baptism
Verses that lack both baptism AND children!

... and these three somehow all come together and mean you should baptize your infants.

Hah. Simplistic analysis? Sure. But the question really is: Is it accurate? ...

Bad Wine from Isaiah 5

2011-09-01T19:09:00.000-07:00

Let me sing for my beloved
my love song concerning his vineyard:
My beloved had a vineyard
on a very fertile hill.
He dug it and cleared it of stones,
and planted it with choice vines;
he built a watchtower in the midst of it,
and hewed out a wine vat in it;
and he looked for it to yield grapes,
but it yielded wild grapes.
And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem
and men of Judah,
judge between me and my vineyard.
What more was there to do for my vineyard,
that I have not done in it?
When I looked for it to yield grapes,
why did it yield wild grapes?

(Isaiah 5:1-4 ESV)

I have read most of the Bible... but am only now tackling some of the Old Testament books I have never read front to back - Jeremiah, 1 & 2 Chronicles, Ezekiel, and Isaiah to name a few. Presently, I am going through Isaiah.

I used to try and find passages and verses that had special life application and draw wisdom from those texts. But now I know... the Bible isn't about ME. The Bible has a historical context in and of itself. It is about God first and foremost - God and how he worked out his plan of redemption of a people for his (God's) own glory. Because of this, many passages may seem lost on the contemporary consumerist "Christian" in America. After all, if I can't make the verse about ME, it must not be very relevant, right?

Isaiah has a context and a point outside of Ryan.The.Calvinist. That context and subject is God's judgement to his disobedient children in exile. Portions of the book are pre-exile looking forward, while others were written at the time of the exile. In either case, Isaiah boldly proclaims God's judgement against those disobedient covenant members.

The specific passage in Isaiah 5 cited above is concerning the bad fruit of God's vineyard - covenant Israel. Yahweh had planted Israel is a vineyard, took great care of it, yet it continued to yield a great deal of bad fruit. We later learn this bad fruit included greed, drunkenness, mockery of God, moral corruption, pride, and perverted justice. What is God to do with this bad vineyard he planted? He removes his grace and allows it to come to destruction. (Isaiah 5:5-6)

All hope is not lost, however.

R.C. Sproul's Reformation Study Bible notes point out something I took note of in the text... the Isaiah 5 passage is echoed again from the voice of our Lord Jesus Christ, as recorded in Matthew 21:33-44. God plants a vineyard, and finds that its tenants are corrupt, unwilling to give God his rightful fruit from his vineyard. The vineyard owner of the parable sends many to the tenants... even his own son (ie: Jesus Christ) ... whom the tenants delight in killing.

The result? God turns the vineyard over to new tenants.

"Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits." (Matthew 21:43 ESV)

God sovereignly used the means of the vineyard of bad fruit / the wicked tenants to bring about the gifting of the kingdom to the Gentiles - all non-Jewish Christians. We are, as Paul writes in Romans 11, grafted into the vine after some other branches were broken off.

Such a recognition should lead us not to boast or prideful arrogance that we are better than national Israel, who produced bad fruit in the days of Isaiah, who killed the messengers of God to the keepers of the vineyard, who God cut off of the vine, but instead it should lead to humility and thankfulness to our sovereign Lord, that he should be willing to graft us in at all.

I in NO way deserve to be in the vine of Christ. I of no higher caliber than the branches removed from the vine and tossed away by God. I did nothing to earn it. It was all of the work of Christ. As a result, let us remember that our being part of the vine is entirely apart from anything we have done, and yet let us pursue the good fruits of the vineyard that Christ would have us produce. Let us look to Christ and live in a way that is reflective of our identity as grapes in the vineyard of the kingdom... producing not bitter wine, but sweet and luscious wine.

<><

Exploring the New Covenant Pt 1: Introduction

2011-08-31T20:05:00.000-07:00

While things have been fairly quiet on the blog here, thoughts have been racing through my head of late.

Particularly, thoughts relating to the New Covenant ... what is is... what the benefits are... and especially who makes it up: Is it comprised of believers only? Or are nonbelievers included in this New Covenant as well?

The Evangelical Presbyterian Church emblem.

Growing up from a slightly Pentecostal and then a standard evangelical background, I grew up recognizing that the New Covenant was comprised of believers. I have no recollection of learning anything to the contrary.

However, while investigating churches in the O'Fallon / St. Peters / St. Charles, MO area, my wife and I have spent the last month or so at Mercy Road Fellowship, an Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC) plant near Mid Rivers Mall in St. Peters. Aside from a small Acts 29 church plant of maybe 15 people, this is by far the smallest congregation I've been involved in on any capacity. at least 1/3 of the warm bodies that make up the place are young children (it seems) and there are only about a total of 30 or so adults any given Sunday thus far.

Despite its small congregation size, the worship and liturgy is very Christ-centered. The teaching portion of worship is also commendable. The song portion of worship is organized AND you can hear the people next to you singing ... which we had not experienced together since the move until we visited Mercy Road. This congregation has a deep desire to proclaim the forgiveness of sins found at the cross of Jesus Christ.

So why am I discussing an EPC congregation in the midst of a post seemingly concerning the New Covenant??

I'll outline it briefly:

Mercy Road Fellowship is a Presbyterian church
Presbyterians baptize both adult converts and children of believers
The aforementioned baptism is seen as a sign of the New Covenant, and therefore
The doctrine of the New Covenant should be investigated, to ascertain whether or not children of believers are to be admitted into the New Covenant prior to repentance and faith.

The issue of baptizing babies in and of itself is not what irks me so. IF children of believers really do have "covenant status" under the New Covenant, it would seem logical they receive the sign of the New Covenant - that is, baptism. However, if the New Covenant is NOT to include the unrepentant individual (regardless of the age), it would necessarily be wrong to administer the sign of the covenant purposefully to an individual not under said covenant.

These are my concerns as I move forward into looking at the New Covenant. In future posts, I will look at Scripture dealing with the New Covenant and bring up some points laid before me by my Presbyterian brothers in the faith.

<><

Answering Objections [Pt 2] : God's Eternality / Origins

2011-05-15T14:11:00.000-07:00

//In this series, I look at a few common objections I have received regarding Christianity and attempt to give a defense for the hope that is within me.//

Objection #2: Everything comes from something, so something had to create God. God must have an origin.

This goes back to a conversation I’ve heard posed between two children: “Who created the trees?” one child asks, to which the second replies “God.” “Who made the birds?” “God.” “Who made God??” The second child pauses for a bit and replies: “God made himself.” Cute storey, but the kid needs a bit more time of schooling in the beliefs of the Christian faith. ;-) Where did God come from? He always existed. If he did not always exist, he would not be God. Definitionaly, he was not created.

As dumb as this example sounds… Saying that God was created is like saying there can be an all-green painted room that is colored orange. I’m sorry if that did not hit the target I was aiming at. The question itself of who created god implies that God had to be created. However, he is not part of the created order. He is creator. If he had to come from somewhere, he would be part of the creation. He’s not. I’m not meaning to argue from authority… only from definition. Definitionaly, God was not created. God didn’t “come from nothing.” He didn’t “come” from anywhere. He always was; eternal.

Scripture makes God's eternality very clear. Psalm 90:2 declares:

Before the mountains were brought forth,
or ever you had formed the earth and the world,
from everlasting to everlasting you are God.

In Genesis 21:33, Abraham is said to have cried out to "the name of the LORD, the Everlasting God." In writing his epistle to Timothy, Paul breaks out into a doxology and declares: "To the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen." (1 Timothy 1:17)

God has no beginning. He did not come from anywhere or out of something. That which is created has origins. God, as creator, always was, is, and will be.

... more to come...

Answering Objections [Pt 1]

2011-05-03T18:35:00.000-07:00

1 Peter 3:15

"...but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is within you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,..."

I am a fan of apologetics. One of my favorite apologists ... nay... my favorite one is Dr. James White over at Alpha & Omega Ministries. I am used to hearing 1Peter 3:15 every week on his twice-a-week show The Dividing Line. Be ready to give a defense for why you have hope in Christ... but do so not with arrogance, but with respect and a gentle spirit. This is something God has been working on in my life I think. Before I get to that... something else should be mentioned in passing...

I think I am, more or less, past my "cage stage." What is THAT, you ask? A stage in every Calvinist's life, just after he becomes a Calvinist, when he is a very angry and bitter person, filled with arrogance, and a demeanor that wants to keep people from coming near him or her. I will right about this topic more another day perhaps. But often fresh Calvinists can be real jerks in how they deal with their Arminian brothers and sisters. Being right doesn't give you license to be a jerk. If anything, Calvinism should make you MORE gracious, since you more fully understand the wondrous undeserved grace of God. In any case.... I'm really moving past that stage I think.

Back to apologetics. Recently I have been in contact with a few non-Christians via email and facebook, one of whom I have never met. I have had an opportunity to address some of their objections to Christianity. Some of these objections are quite common. That is not to say they are to be diminished in importance. Common objections deserve respect and accuracy in reply, after all. I hope I have been able to address some of these individual's concerns about the Bible and the Christian faith.

The goal is not to argue them into Christianity. How silly is that?? After all, how does one wish to argue a spiritually dead person into anything? Only the Holy Spirit has the power to grant regeneration and repentance in the life of a rebel sinner. The purpose is to try and answer objections so that, in the end, the gospel may be proclaimed with fervor. It isn't for the purpose of winning an argument... but for exulting Jesus Christ as King and Savior.

For the next few posts, I will summarize some of these questions and post my responses. May this be edifying to believers in providing these replies, and to the skeptic who seeks to have such questions answered.

Objection #1: "Jesus was not resurrected because we KNOW that people do not raise from the dead."

Beginning with the natural law argument against Jesus’ resurrection (which is a boring place to start, because I would rather deal with the textual criticism stuff… it’s more fun for a Religious Studies person such as moi), in light of the Bible being consistent with itself, it would seem that a *physical, bodily* resurrection IS indeed possible. True, this does not happen every day. If it were an everyday occurrence, naturalistic materialists would certainly form a “scientific” and “rational” explanation that would not require God to be involved anyway. But that isn’t really where I am going with this anyway. If you consider the possibility that Genesis 1:1 is true – that God *did* create the heavens and the earth… and the myriad of other texts of God’s self-revelation that state that he is the sovereign Lord who sustains the world and does as he pleases… would that not at least *allow* for the possibility that Jesus could have risen from the dead? If God created the world with a mere word… instantly… how difficult would it be for him to raise someone from the dead?

I am aware I have written much about “possibility” and have not proven the resurrection at this point. Saying resurrection COULD happen is NOT the same thing as saying it DID happen, and then staking my entire life (and even eternity perhaps) on that proposition. Still, your statement was a definitive “people don’t rise from the dead” refusing to allow for the possibility. My point was just that just because it doesn’t happen in nature doesn’t mean it is outside the realm of influence of a sovereign creator God. Again, if Gen 1:1 is true, the rest of the Bible – with all of its supernatural and miraculous happenings: Red Sea parting, plagues, healings, rising to life the dead, and even the very act of regeneration/Salvation – kinda falls into place.

Furthermore, I would challenge the basis for which we "know that people don't raise from the dead." Using the Bible as the authority, I would assert that we know people DO raise from the dead, as Jesus is the first fruit of this, and all believers will follow some day. The reason the objector claims that we know it can't happen is because he or she is assuming a naturalistic materialist presupposition. The naturalist has the presumption that miracles CAN'T happen based on their worldview of materialism, which precludes the existence of God, or at least a God who can be and is active in his creation. As long as they operate unchallenged from this assumed worldview of naturalism the individual will always be able to look at the claims Scripture makes regarding things like the resurrection and say "nuh-uh! because science says no."

Jesus was raised from the dead. His resurrection is proof that his propitiatory sacrifice on the cross was pleasing to God. Death no longer had any claim on him. Death was defeated at the cross. The hope of the resurrection is one that truly exists for all who repent and trust in Christ's finished work to save.

... more to come...

Christ Is Risen!! He is Risen Indeed!!

2011-04-24T07:43:00.000-07:00

But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here, for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead, and behold, he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him. See, I have told you.”

(Matthew 28:5-7 ESV)

Jovan's Journey

2011-02-23T21:02:00.000-08:00

I really wish I could find the lyrics to this song. It has been in my head for the last several weeks. The name of the song is JOURNEY, from the Jovan MacKenzie album Strangers and Pilgrims, and features both Serene and my favorite theologian/apologist: Dr. James White of Alpha & Omega Ministries. But... I did find it on YouTube (via jesusoverbeatnetwork)... and I figured I'd post it here.

Hebrews 11:8-16 ESV

By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God. By faith Sarah herself received power to conceive, even when she was past the age, since she considered him faithful who had promised. Therefore from one man, and him as good as dead, were born descendants as many as the stars of heaven and as many as the innumerable grains of sand by the seashore.
These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.

In Search of a Christ-centered Home Church

2010-10-01T19:23:00.000-07:00

I need to try... I need to write on this blog more frequently. Lately though, I don't feel like I have that much to contribute any more. However, I want to still serve my Lord and use this blog for his glory.

Of late, I have been trying to search out a home church. Truthfully, I really miss my home church in Springfield, MO of Boulevard Baptist Church. Kacey and I loved attending there. Sadly, we were not as connected as we could/should have been. (Part of that, I think, is because Kacey was baptized as an infant in the United Methodist Church and therefore to be admitted as a member, she would likely have had to be re-baptized.) But we adored the preaching from Pastor Doug Shivers. He truly sought to preach Christ from all of Scripture. You don't seem to get a lot of that today; even when pastors verbally endorse such a practice, this doesn't mean they actually put it into practice much. Pastor Doug did.

Since moving home, I have had a difficult search for a home church. At Pastor Doug's recommendation, I checked out First Baptist Church of St. Peters. The parishioners seemed friendly enough, but it was difficult to gather what the sermon's point really was. I only went once, and never went back... though perhaps I should have given the preaching another shot. More or less, I have been bouncing between The Journey (Hanley Road campus) and Central Presbyterian Church, both in Clayton, MO.

The former is a flagship Acts 29 Church Network congregation, pastored by Darin Patrick, the VP of stated organization. And while I have sat under good teaching at this church, I recognize that on more than one occasion (many more than one) I have heard a social gospel be pushed. I would not say that the church shouldn't help the poor. FAR from it. There seems to be an over-emphasis on the city around the church that can easily lead to social-gospel hype. I don't want a social gospel - because there is no good news in such a works-based theology.

The later is fairly on theologically. Bad sermon here and there? Meh... more like "not awesome"than "bad" as a label. The sermons are also, for what is is worth, preached in more of a lecture fashion. Such it is with Presbys... and I'm still not very used to it. And then finally there is the whole... Presbyterian thing... (lol) While I am reformed, I generally lean more toward a baptist theology when it comes to the role of the covenant and regeneration... and therefore in the purpose and scope of baptism (though I won't really quarrel too much over the mode). (As an aside, in theory I can ignore the baby baptism thing as a minor issue... until I've been confronted with it during a service... a fairly difficult thing for me to sit through and go along with.)

So where do I go from here? I NEED a home church. I do go to church weekly... but I am not in a true community of believers. I have recently been attending a Bible Study in South St. Louis led by good friend Brady Hardin (whom I met on Facebook, actually!) I've been really blessed by this Bible study. Most small group studies ... well MANY of them anyway... are focused around pooling of ignorance. Everyone gets a say, with no real leader. NOT the case with this group. Brady is the group leader... and he preaches sermons, pretty much. We're in 1 John, and I was NOT prepared for it when I first went a few weeks ago. But MAN! He can really preach. Like for real. He and that entire group have been a blessing of fellowship, and I hope will continue to be so. I thank God for my time with them.

Still, a small group is no substitute for community in corporate worship. Why don't I just attend church with them? The 40 or so minute drive is a bit of a reason I think. It is quite a distance to Arnold, MO from where I live in St. Louis. Still, I definitely need a home church.

It isn't like there aren't churches around... but finding a good Christ-centered one can be difficult. The area I live in is ripe for prosperity gospel preaching and how to have your best life this week mini sermon series. There is a church I found recently... NORTH CHURCH here in North County... I found them through the GOSPEL COALITION church finder page (the Sr. Pastor did not even know their church was listed on this page!!), and I hope to visit soon. Actually, the associate pastor is Dave Kuntz... who was on staff at Chatham Bible Church for a number of years. Small world; didn't even know he was an associate pastor. I have subscribed to their podcast, but have yet to listen to a sermon. Maybe this weekend will be a time to check them out.

Reading through the Journey's Bible Reading plan is going fairly well. True, I get behind easily... but am now only 2 days behind. The books of Samuel and Kings are very interesting. Particularly Solomon... the man had such great wisdom from God... and yet compromise was made time and again and as a result he became an idolatrous king, rather than one devoted to YHWH. Idolatry is SUCH an easy snare. We at nature are not only spiritual beings who are designed for worship... we are by nature enemies of the God we ARE to worship. It is so easy, as Christians even, to fall and forsake Christ for idols. Not little statues of false gods necessarily... but anything else that takes the place of our affection that should alone be for God.

Personal confession: I am a geek. One of of my geek attributes is tech-enthusiast. I'm into it a lot. So much so, I will spend hours total looking up reviews for the latest smart phones... or watch unboxings of iPods... or watch product intros for the hottest new laptops.

I am NOT saying that it is a sin to be into tech. NOT at all. The sin comes from when it becomes an idolatrous pursuit, thinking your salvation from your troubles or predicament will be found when you possess the tech gadget. Or book. Or whatever. Idolatry is the root of most sins I'd venture to say... but for me personally, it is one of my biggest sins I must fight and for which I must daily flee to the cross of Christ.

Sorry for the disjointed nature of this post. Again. :-)

Quick Take >> Hebrews 10:11-14

2010-08-17T20:49:00.000-07:00

"And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting for that time until his enemies should be made a footstool under his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified." - Hebrews 10:11-14

This is probably one of my favorite verses in all of Hebrews.

It is important to note that it is a ONE TIME sacrifice... not one repeated every day when a host is lifted up. There was no chair in the Temple b/c the priest's job was NEVER DONE. sins were constantly committed and constantly having to be sacrificed for. Not so with Christ's finished work.

He lived out his perfect obedience, took our sins upon himself at the cross, and clothes us perfectly - imputes - his righteousness to us, so that WE are counted as justified apart from ANYTHING we do; it is ALL of Christ's work. He offered up that one sacrifice, and then SAT DOWN; his work was completely accomplished; "It is finished."

Mere Arminianism – Part Six (Lewis’ Liberty Over Election [Pt 1/2])

2010-07-09T15:05:00.001-07:00

This continuing series is a look at C.S. Lewis’s views on Predestination and Free Will…

Lewis’ Liberty Over Election

Turning now to the famed Oxford and Cambridge scholar, what exactly were Lewis’ positions on these highly controversial topics of predestination and free will, Calvinism and Arminianism? While no professional theologian,[1] Lewis was most decidedly an Arminian, though he asserted he held to Anglican theology.[2]

In writing Mere Christianity, arguably his most theological work, it was Lewis’ goal to bring out the essentials of the Christian faith – essentials which spanned geographical and denominational boundaries, creating a kind of Christianity 101. Yet rather than keeping the hallway of his mere Christianity wide enough to include both Calvinistic and Arminian understandings of free will and predestination, the hallway seems to not be big enough for both perspectives. In Book 2: What Christians Believe, specifically Ch. 3: The Shocking Alternative, Lewis begins this chapter by recapping what Christians believe about Satan’s relationship to this world: that it is currently ruled by Satan. A critical question then arises: Is it God’s will for Satan to be in control currently, or not?[3]

Rather than pointing to sacred Scripture, Lewis then uses his favored tool of analogy to describe what he considers a spiritual reality – that something may be God’s will in one way but not another – in ordinary terms. It may be a mother’s will that her son to clean up his room. The child has the ability to obey, but he also has the freedom to disobey and violate his mother’s command. Lewis then asserts that this is God’s relationship with human beings – God gives commands that people are able to obey, but the human race freely violates God’s commands. Lewis the proceeds to explain that God created things that possessed free will, and that they currently have the ability to make correct or wrong decisions.

There are some issues with the picture painted by Lewis. First of all, it is true that God gives commands, and that his creation frequently disobeys. Judging as how Adam had not yet fallen when creation occurred, it is true “God created things which had free will.”[4] However the error lies in the ability of obedience since the Fall. Lewis not only supposes a free will, but that human beings can use an “incompatibilist freedom where one is truly free to choose good or bad, God’s will or sin.”[5] The proverbial child in the example has the full ability to obey his mother and clean his room. His ability is not hindered by his nature in any way. Contrast this with the ability of a sinner to make a choice to come to Christ. A slave cannot free himself by the use of his “free will.” A corpse cannot choose to resurrect itself from the dead. Yet these are the biblical descriptions previously discussed in dealing with the state of unrepentant humanity. If the child were chained to a tree outside, for example, he has no resources or ability to free himself and obey his mother. Additionally, the mother instructing her child to clean is not very sovereign in her ability to have her purposes accomplished, whereas God’s purposes are accomplished to his desired end.[6]

The very notion that creatures now can still go either right or wrong reflects at best a Semi-Pelagian view, if not a more Pelagian view of humanity, rather than an Augustinian view, with creatures possessing a moral neutrality. The fact that Lewis held a more or less Pelagian position should be no surprise, in light of his views on the doctrine of Total Depravity.

If [God] is not (in our sense) ‘good’ we shall obey, if at all, only through fear – and should be equally ready to obey an omnipotent Fiend. The doctrine of Total Depravity – when the consequence is drawn that, since we are totally depraved, our idea of good is worth simply nothing – may thus turn Christianity into a form of devil-worship.[7]

Lewis clearly had disdain for the notion of Total Depravity – at least what he thought the doctrine stated. In his discussion of Lewis’ stance on the topic in The Problem of Pain, John Alexander asserts, “According to Lewis, humanity knew its depravity because it never completely forgot the holiness of God.”[8] Alexander correctly summarizes Lewis’ own view, though also brings to light Lewis’ own misunderstanding concerning Total Depravity. By claiming humanity would, under Total Depravity, have absolutely no worth, Lewis confuses the doctrine of Total Depravity with what is considered Utter Depravity – that humanity has been corrupted by the Fall to the extent that we are as completely bad as we can be. Total Depravity, or more accurately Radical Depravity, states not that we are as bad as we can be, but rather every part of our being is affected negatively by the fall. Reformed theologian, Dr. R.C. Sproul, explains: “No vestigial ‘island of righteousness’ escapes the influence of the fall. Sin reaches into every aspect of our lives, finding no shelter or isolated virtue.”[9] Lewis’ understanding of Total Depravity seemed to be mistaken at best.

… to be continued…

[1] C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, ix. “The questions which divide Christians from one another often involve points of high Theology or even of ecclesiastical history, which out never to be treated except by real experts.”

[2] Ibid, x. Anglican theology, as defined by The Articles of Religion, are decidedly more Calvinistic than Lewis himself. See Articles X, “Of Free Will” and Article XVII, “Of Predestination and Election.” <http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1571-39articles.html>.

[3] Ibid, 47.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Zach Dawes. C.S. Lewis: Calvinist or Classical Arminian? 8.

[6] Job 42:2; John 6:44; John 10:29

[7] C.S. Lewis. The Problem of Pain, 29.

[8] To Choose or Be Chosen, 11, in summarizing The Problem of Pain, 61.

[9] R.C. Sproul, What Is Reformed Theology? 118.

Mere Arminianism – Part Five (Consulting the New Testament)

2010-07-04T11:53:00.001-07:00

This continuing series is a look at C.S. Lewis’s views on Predestination and Free Will…

Consulting the New Testament

The New Testament is by no means silent on such matters, either. Though the command had repeatedly gone out, to everyone, to repent of sin and believe the gospel,[1] individuals do not, of their own decision, have the ability to obey this command. Jesus had claimed to be that which truly gives life and satisfaction – the bread of life from Heaven. The Jews then began to grumble about this – as they understood him to be the child of Joseph and an earthly mother. Jesus, however, assures them it is not worth grumbling about, because it is impossible for any person to come to Jesus, by repentance and faith, unless the Father draws him, and that person will be raised up on the last day.[2] This drawing is not a kind wooing or enticing attraction, but rather a dragging by the Father.[3] Furthermore, Jesus does not say, “No one may come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.” Jesus says no one can come to him – denoting not merely a willingness of God to allow individuals to come to him, but rather the ability of those to come to Jesus. Without the Father dragging the individual to Jesus, no one would ever repent and believe. The ones who do not believe are not granted to do such by the Father.[4]

Elsewhere in the Gospel of John, Jesus takes on for himself the identity of “the good shepherd” who “lays his life down for the sheep.”[5] The sheep are understood to be those who repent and believe, and have been given permanently to the shepherd by the Father.[6] By contrast, Jesus explains to the Jews doubting him in that instance that they do not believe because they are not part of his flock. Sheep do not choose their shepherd; these individuals had not been given to Jesus to be part of their flock, therefore they do not follow him.

Though there are several other examples available for investigation, the writings of the Apostle Paul to the churches at Rome and Ephesus are incredibly helpful in this area of election and predestination. In the opening of Ephesians, Paul expresses his gratitude that Christ had chosen them in eternity past that they should be sanctified. Paul reminds the saints that God had lovingly predestined them “for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace.”[7] In the next chapter, Paul lays out the situation any Christian has experienced. Paul declares human nature is one of spiritual death in sin, earning the distinction of “children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.”[8] A physically dead individual is by nature unresponsive; a spiritually dead person is unresponsive when it comes to spiritual things. God’s mercy is shown in bringing new life into the wicked individual, even by giving the individual faith as a gift, rather than the result of any human effort.[9]

Paul’s letter to the Romans was, by far, his most theologically thick work. It is no surprise these issues were addressed by Paul in this letter. Of particular interest is a rather lengthy passage spanning from Romans 8-11, especially the whole of Romans 9. Within this section, Paul lays out what is known commonly as “the golden chain of redemption”:

And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew[10] he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.[11]

Continuing in Romans 9, Paul discusses God’s sovereign choice in his purposes throughout redemptive history. God chose Jacob over Esau before either had been born or done anything good or bad. God chose to raise up Pharaoh for the very purposes of his own glory. God alone hardens some and softens other. Salvation is not a result of human effort or will – but instead on a merciful God. The relationship of God to man is that of a potter to a pot. For a human being to say, “God, you are not fair for what you have chosen to do,” is equal to a pot declaring to its maker that it should have been made a different shape, or for a different purpose.

…. to be continued…

[1] Mark 1:15

[2] John 6:44.

[3] Gk, ἕλκω. In John 21:6 & 11, the term is used to describe dragging caught fish onto the shore. There is no wooing in this action of the fishermen bringing fish to the shore – the fish do not cooperate with the action, but are dragged by the one performing the action. In Acts 16:19 and 21:30, it is used by the author to describe an angry mob grabbing Paul, and dragging him where they saw fit. That which is drawn does not cooperate with the drawer; the one drawing is performing the entire action upon the one being drawn.

[4] John 6:64-65

[5] John 10:11

[6] John 10:28-28

[7] Ephesians 1:4-6

[8] Ephesians 2:1-3

[9] Ephesians 2:8-9. Commonly this is read in a way that the salvation is not of the individual’s own doing. However, as the salvation is already of grace, it would be sloppily repetitive of Paul to state that it is a gift, when grace already implies an unearned gift. Rather Paul is indicating that while salvation is a gracious gift, even the faith itself a person possesses is a gift from God too, so that no one can boast.

[10] Foreknowledge is not foresight –knowledge concerning an individual’s future actions. Rather it is a preexisting intimate and relational knowing of the individual.

[11] Romans 8:28-30

Mere Arminianism – Part Four (Consulting the Old Testament)

2010-05-25T09:44:00.001-07:00

This continuing series is a look at C.S. Lewis’s views on Predestination and Free Will…

Consulting the Old Testament

A discussion of any Christian theology necessarily requires consultation with an authoritative text: the Bible. Throughout the biblical narrative, there are numerous examples of God sovereignly electing individuals for his purposes. An early example, found in Genesis 6, is that of God showing grace to Noah. God’s choice to spare Noah and his family from his righteous judgment was not the result of any first action on Noah’s part. God did not save Noah because he was a righteous man who kept God’s commands. While the text records “Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God”[1], it does so only after first declaring that God had given grace to Noah.[2]

Several other examples are prevalent throughout the Hebrew Bible – from Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, to Joseph. Having been sold into slavery by his older brothers, Joseph was truly on the receiving end of wickedness. The brothers’ actions were freely performed on their part – no one caused them to behave in an evil manner. And yet in Genesis 50, the reader learns that all of this had been God’s plan all along. Speaking to his brothers who had previously betrayed him, Joseph remarks, “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive as they are today.”[3] The text does not claim that God knew in advance what the brothers would do and then successfully found a way to “make it work out” for him in the end. No – the brothers had an evil intent in what they did, but their evil actions were a part of God’s sovereign decree in redemptive history.

There is also much contained in the Bible dealing with the natural state of human beings and their relationship to a Holy God. Again, looking at Genesis, it is clear that human beings are neither morally good nor morally neutral. In the early chapters of Genesis, the reader learns of the purpose or motivation of every thought a human being has is, in God’s sight, “only evil continually.”[4] Additionally, the person’s heart has evil intentions from the time they are a young child.[5] The Psalms themselves echo man’s lack of inherent goodness, in a passage quoted by Apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”[6] Far from being free, the unregenerate sinner is actually enslaved to sin,[7] utterly unable to do anything that is pleasing to God.[8]

[1] Genesis 6:9b

[2] Genesis 6:8 : “But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.”

[3] Genesis 50:20

[4] Genesis 6:5

[5] Genesis 8:21

[6] Psalm 14:1-3; 53:1-3; Romans 3:10-12

[7] John 8:34

[8] Romans 8:8

Mere Arminianism – Part Three (TULIP or Not to TULIP)

2010-05-10T09:17:00.001-07:00

This continuing series is a look at C.S. Lewis’s views on Predestination and Free Will…

The Arminian and Calvinist Positions Compared

Having defined terms relevant to the discussion of Reformed Theology and Arminianism, one may now be able to approach how these two very distinct theologies contrast with one another on five major parts of contention between the two camps: human ability to obey God, the cause of an individual’s election, the scope and intent of Christ’s atoning work, the efficacy of the grace of God, and whether or not a Christian can lose his salvation. These five areas of theology and soteriology[1] are the major reasons there is disagreement between the monergists and synergists. While the details of Calvinist and Arminian positions are greater than this paper allows for discussion, the following chart[2] offers a brief comparison between the major differences and the emphasis held by each position.

Arminian Position

Calvinist Position

Human Ability

The Fall has damaged human nature, but not rendered it totally disabled. Human nature is not enslaved to sin, and is more or less sick. As a result, the unrepentant sinner’s ability to either freely choose or reject Christ is unaffected by the Fall.

Total Depravity

The Fall has not only damaged human nature, but has rendered it completely corrupted. Human nature is enslaved to sin, and even spiritually dead – unresponsive. This deadness makes him utterly unable and unwilling to ever choose God.

Conditional Election

God’s choice to save the sinner is based upon his knowledge of that sinner deciding to come to him, freely at a point in the future. The sinner’s choosing God does not depend on God’s first choosing him or her.

Unconditional Election

God’s choice to save the sinner is not contingent on any prior action or decision of the sinner. Nothing merits this election – God elects on the basis of his own pleasure. Because the will is depraved, God must elect for any to be saved.

Indefinite Atonement

Jesus’ death was for the redemption and forgiveness of sins for the entire world – every individual. However only the believer reaps the benefits of Christ’s work. Because this atonement is for all, the individual sinner is the one who ratifies, or actualizes, the work on the cross. The effect of this atonement is limited.

Limited Atonement

Jesus’ death was intended to fully accomplish salvation for the elect and for the elect only. Jesus atones for the sins of the elect, but not for the sins of those who never come to faith in him. There is nothing the sinner does to ratify the work of Christ – as he offered himself as a perfect substitute on the cross, finishing his redemptive work. The intent of this atonement is limited.

Resistible Grace

All who hear the good news of the forgiveness of sins as a result of Jesus’ work on the cross are called to trust in Christ, not only outwardly but inwardly. God speaks to every sinner’s heart to persuade them to repent and trust in Him; however the individual is free to resist this wooing, and will not be regenerated unless they first repent. The Holy Spirit cannot cause someone to be “born again” without the sinner’s permission.

Irresistible Grace

While the outward call to respond to the gospel via repentance and faith is made to all, this call is insufficient to save the sinner (due to his depraved nature). As a result, the Holy Spirit actively works within the heart of the elect sinner, and successfully draws (or drags) that person to Christ. In this process, the Holy Spirit takes away the unregenerate “heart of stone” and gives him or her “a heart of flesh.”

Perseverance of Some Saints

Those who believe in Christ are truly saved; however a genuine Christian may commit apostasy and lose his salvation. The faithfulness of Christ to the believer is the result of the believer’s faithfulness to Christ.

Preservation of the Saints

As a result of Christ’s finished redemptive work on behalf of the elect, Christ is faithful and refuses to give up those for whom he bore the wrath of God. Apostates prove themselves to have never been truly regenerate. The faithfulness of the believer is the result of Christ’s faithfulness to the believer.

…to be continued…

[1] Soteriology is that which deals with the doctrine of salvation – how one is saved.

[2] This chart, rather than one particular source, has utilized several sources, including Doctrines of Grace, What Is Reformed Theology, and a chart available at http://the-highway.com/compare.html. Multiple sources were reviewed in order to make sure the Arminian Position was represented in the best possible light, that no one source would paint it in an unfavorable fashion.

Mere Arminianism - Part Two (Pelagius & Augustine)

2010-05-06T12:21:00.001-07:00

This continuing series is a look at C.S. Lewis’s views on Predestination and Free Will…

The History of the Discussion – Pelagius & Augustine

While obviously connected to the Protestant Reformation, much of the framework for the Calvinist-Arminian debate, in terms of the freedom and nature of the will, had been laid by St. Augustine of Hippo in his dealings with the teachings of Pelagius – who was later condemned by the Church as a heretic for his teachings. Pelagius had taken great exception to a prayer in Augustine’s Confessions, which read: “Give what you command, command what you will.”[1] His objection was that God would never command something if man was utterly unable to accomplish that command.[2]

What stemmed from this debate was a view that came to be known as Pelagianism. This position holds that man’s ability to obey God, indeed his very nature, was unaffected by the Fall of Adam.[3] An appropriate analogy for Pelagianism would be that human beings are all born as blank pieces of paper – white and crisp. There is no stain of sin resulting from the Fall.[4]

Augustine dramatically disagreed, and used this opportunity to more fully develop a doctrine we know as “Original Sin” – the actions of Adam negatively affected the human nature and made him by nature sinful. The “human paper,” in the case of Augustine, was not blank at all – it was terribly marked and even a bit singed as a result of original sin.[5]

While the exchange between Pelagian and Augustine did not directly relate to the issue of predestination, it did provide a necessary framework in that it established that human beings are, indeed, negatively affected by the Fall – making them inherently sinful, as part of humanity.

[1] Augustine. Confessions, trans. Albert C. Outler. Book X, Ch 29.

[2] Amazing Grace: The History and Theology of Calvinism

[3] It is interesting to note, that while it is popular to assume that Christianity blames Eve for sin entering the world, theologically speaking she is generally not held responsible for the Fall. The blame for the Fall generally falls on Adam and his rebellion rather than on Eve and her having been deceived.

[4] James Montgomery Boice. The Doctrines of Grace, 81.

[5] While Augustine is credited with the creation of the doctrine of “Original Sin”, it is not without a biblical basis. For instance, in Romans 5:17-19, Paul draws a comparison between humanity being condemned as a result of Adam’s sin and humanity being saved as a result of another’s righteousness (that is, Jesus).

Mere Arminianism – Free Will, Predestination, and CS Lewis – Part One

2010-05-05T08:44:00.001-07:00

“My toaster doesn’t have a love button!”

“No! And neither does a robot!” [1]

This exchange, neither written nor uttered by C.S. Lewis, certainly represents his theology concerning the notions of God’s sovereign decree in election and of man’s autonomous will to freely choose God. Discussions concerning the freedom of the will, and by contrast divine election, are visible throughout Lewis’ writings - from his fictional works to his BBC broadcast-inspired theological Mere Christianity.

In his unpublished paper To Choose or Be Chosen: C.S. Lewis’ Contribution to Free Will and Predestination, Georgian pastor John Alexander attempted “to reconcile predestination and free will through Lewis’ works and examine Lewis’ impact on modern Christianity through this reconciliation.”[2] Such “reconciliation,” however, is not necessary to understand the impacts of both Reformed Theology and C.S. Lewis’ theology on Christendom as a whole. Lewis’ relevant writings clearly point to a synergistic soteriology, while the Reformed to a monergistic one. These views stand opposed at their roots of the nature and ability of man to obey God of his own free will.

This series will first give an introduction to the opposing views of Calvinism (predestination-based theology) and Arminianism (free-will based theology). Next, consideration will be given to the overall thread of predestination throughout the Biblical texts. Then, Lewis’ own writings relevant to the discussion will be brought out an analyzed in light of the given biblical texts. Finally, occasions of Lewis’ writings giving support to the opposing view he did not hold will be brought out, and attempted to be clarified.

Defining Terms

Before delving into either the biblical texts or what Lewis’ remarks directly related to the controversy at hand, it is important to first define the terms used in the discussion. Concerning this discussion, theologian Millard Erickson brings clarity to the relevant theological terms: “’Predestination’ refers to God’s choice of individuals for eternal life or eternal death. Distinction between the two is in that predestination deals with the foreordination of both salvation and reprobation; election is a part of predestination, focusing specifically on those chosen for salvation. ‘Election’ is the selection of some for eternal life, the positive side of predestination.”[3] In contrast, the notion of autonomous free-will is “the power of an individual to make free choices, not determined by divine predestination, the laws of physical causality, fate, etc.”[4]

There are two additional categories by which the discussion may be divided into: that of the monergist and that of the synergist. Both of these terms deal with the work of salvation in how it relates to God and the sinner. The monergistic position holds that only God works for the justification of sinners, with the sinners themselves playing no part in the process whatsoever.[5] In contrast, synergism is the view that justification is, to some extent,[6] the process of God and the human being working together. Plainly, the Calvinist position declaring God alone elects to be saved is the monergistic position, while the Arminian position is the synergistic position.

… to be continued…

[1] What’s In The Bible? #1: In The Beginning. Tyndale House Publishers 2010

[2] John Alexander. To Choose or Be Chosen, 1.

[3] Millard J. Erickson. Christian Theology, 908.

[4] Oxford English Dictionary Online, s.v. “Free Will.”

[5] While the term “monergistic” does refer to God being the only one who works, as mentioned above, this term could, in theory, be used by the Pelagian to describe salvation in terms of man’s work – apart from God’s grace.

[6] To what extent this synergism is – whether 50% God, 50% human or 99.9% God, 0.1% human – varies greatly depending on the individual Arminian. No such God-to-human work ratio has ever been officially declared.

The Cult of Caner

2010-05-04T18:27:00.001-07:00

Here is an example of how irrational the followers of ~~Ergan~~ Butch Caner can be.

This is an exchange I partook in via Facebook with a student who, while claiming to be at least somewhat Reformed, attends Liberty University.

I don’t know if I would believe this mess if I had not been involved in it directly… and even then I am bewildered. You would think that, just because someone is a “Christian leader”, they get a free pass to lie and do anything they want – and NO ONE can question them when they are caught in their lies! This is nuts and cult-like at the very least.

(btw… the exchange ended because I was promptly removed from Leah’s friends list, making it impossible for me to reply.)

This is nuts!

New Hymns from Page CXVI

2010-05-03T22:40:00.001-07:00

Head on over to Justin Taylor’s blog @ http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2010/05/04/new-hymns-from-page-cxvi/

There you can preview the new album from Page CXVI – HYMNS 2.

Visit PageCXVI.com for more info on buying the cd.

If you like the old hymn lyrics with new music … this may be for you!

Five Points of Arminianism VS Five Points of Calvinism

2010-05-02T22:06:00.001-07:00

This is a chart I created for my paper on C.S. Lewis, Free Will, and Predestination, comparing the 5 Points of Calvinism to the 5 Points of Arminianism.

- Arminian Position -

- Calvinist Position-

Human Ability

Total Depravity

Conditional Election

Unconditional Election

Indefinite Atonement

Limited Atonement

Resistible Grace

Irresistible Grace

Perseverance of Some Saints

Preservation of the Saints

We’ve Already Flunked That Test

2010-05-02T21:22:00.001-07:00

This past week, I caught up in my Bible reading calendar… and came to John 14:18-21 a few days ago:

I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. Yet a little while and the world will see me no more, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.

In all honesty, the thought of this saying of Jesus causes me to tremble a bit. If it doesn’t cause you to tremble, look at your own life for a bit.

Why do I tremble? I do not obey Christ perfectly. We know from Scripture that God’s law – his statutes – his commands demand perfect obedience. I can’t wonder, how many people can I be really unjustly angry with and NOT be counted a murderer? Or how many girls can I lust after and NOT be counted an adulterer? That isn’t how it works.

My love for Christ is not perfect – I still disobey. But that I have any love for him at all does give evidence that I am his child. I am redeemed… though not perfectly sanctified. I am convinced from Scripture that this will not happen until the glorification on the other side of eternity.

Praise God that his faithfulness to me is not contingent on my faithfulness to him. That he is faithful even when I play the whore. That he is in Heaven interceding on my behalf always. That he bled and died for me who caused his pain, and clothed me with the righteous robe only he was deserving of. That he is a gracious and merciful savior. Amen.

Having been asked about my thoughts about homosexuality…

2010-04-26T09:35:00.001-07:00

Recently I was catching up with a somewhat lost friend from my days at Larimore Elementary and Kirby Jr. High via email correspondence. The conversation went fairly quickly from the likes of "how are you? where you you working these days?" to "what are your thoughts/feelings about homosexuality and those who are practicing homosexuals?" hah. that's quite a jump. But then again, as theologically minded as I am... I thought I’d give it a shot… and post my response here.

Question: “What are your feelings about gay people?”

First, I think i should state what my views are not: my views are NOT those of the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas... the rude "congregation" of "christians" who protest the funerals of dead service men and women and homosexuals holding signs that read "God Hates Fags." Such a view/practice is very sad and unbalanced in its view of God's holiness AND his loving kindness/mercy/grace. That church only preaches "turn from your sin, asswipe!" (paraphrasing, of course), but there is NO (and I have heard interviews with the daughter of the "pastor", and have a copy of it on mp3, where this is confirmed) proclamation of the good news of Christ's perfect lived life, death on the cross to pay the penalty for our sin in our stead and resurrection on the third day. They do not proclaim this... and therefore, by default, cannot even begin to be classified as "Christian". So... just so we're on the same page... that "God Hates Fags" group does NOT represent me... b/c I am very much a Christian and they are not. :-)

Now that what I don't think is out of the way... well there will be more comparisons to what I do and don't think/believe/ know is true.... but that will be dispersed throughout I suppose...

This question begs me to ask another question - one of clarification: What do you mean by "what are my feelings about gay people?" The use of "feelings" is not something I'd prefer to talk about - I care more about truth. I can feel a cup is red all day... but if it is blue, not red, then my feelings on the matter aren't worth much. but that is a minor issue. But about what my thoughts/feelings are... what do you mean by this? You could mean several things - what do I think about homosexuality, in general? what do I think about those who are attracted to the same sex - yet do not give into these passions? what about the act of gay sex? and what do I think about practicing homosexuals - ie: gay sex? the question may intend to cover all of these bases, but these are very different questions.

As I view the Bible as the inerrant, infallible Word of God, I think consulting it may prove useful to know where I do come from. As far as the act of engaging in homosexual activities - especially gay sex, though it may also include gay dating and affection (kissing, etc) shown toward the member of the same sex - it is clearly a sin from the biblical perspective. The apostle Paul lists it twice within lists of specific sins in both Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6, along with idolatry, adultery, drunkenness, greed, theft, and others. These all are actions that actively break God's holy (set-apart) moral law. They are all deserving of condemnation and sentencing from a just judge (God).

Note also that homosexuality is not the worst sin, is is popularly understood by some. In Proverbs when God spells out the "7 things the Lord detests," homosexuality is no where to be found on that list even. I am not saying homosexuality is not a better sin... but it is not the unpardonable sin either - it is not unforgivable.

Furthermore, I think it could be argued, accurately and biblically, that the sin of homosexuality is NOT the attraction one may have to another of the same sex... or the presence of temptation to engage in gay sexual activity. Temptation to sin is not sin. I may be tempted to have sex outside of marriage - but the fact that I am tempted does not mean I am guilty of adultery. Temptation to commit theft does not make me a thief. Likewise, for the homosexual, the temptation to engage in gay sexual activity is not the sin of homosexuality.

So yes... gay sex (and other such activities) is seen biblically as breaking God's moral law. This is the view I hold - it is sin.

As I mentioned earlier, it is not the unpardonable sin, either. And if the unrepentant homosexual dies in his or her sin, there is judgment for that sin, b/c God, being a just judge, cannot let crimes go unpunished - this is not justice. Likewise, if I were to die in an unrepentant state (even though I have never engaged in homosexuality, God knows I'm guilty of lying, petty theft, adultery (via lust) and murder (via hatred for another) of the heart. And I would deserve every bit of the wrath against me and my sin that I would receive for my actions. BUT ... and this is the good news ... because of God's love and mercy, while I was still steeped in my sin, Christ died for me as a substitute in my place - God took the wrath that was being stored up against me and poured it out on Christ at the cross. Furthermore, Christ takes the perfect life he lived and credits it to my account in my stead. I did nothing to save myself - it was all of Christ's perfect work on my behalf. And this offer of forgiveness for sin and newness of life is offered to any who would respond by turning from their sin (repentance) and trusting in Christ's perfect work to save them on their behalf (faith).

So yeah... I see homosexuality (gay sex, etc) as a sin... but the good news is that Christ died even for that sin, and his forgiveness is offered to any and all who trust in him. It is not the unpardonable sin, though. And as far as the person attracted to the same sex - whether or not they have gay sex or not - I care about that person and desire that person repent and trust in Christ for the forgiveness of their sins - all of them. If I didn't care (or worse, hated the homosexual), I would keep the good news to myself and want them to go to Hell. But this is not the case. I truly desire to see them as the Bible describes "born again" (Jn 3)

The individual who posed this question to me thought it important to mention she has gay friends. I work with quite a few gay individuals - and while I would not consider them best friends, I do not consider them enemies. I have a family member who is both a Christian and attracted to the same sex - though this individual does not engage in any form of homosexual activity - sex, dating the same sex, etc. And I do consider this individual to be one of my closest friends out of all my friends.

I hope none of it came off as smug or holier-than-though. that was not my intention in writing what I did at all. I know very well that I am not holier than you or anyone. In fact, I'm pretty sure I may be the worst person I know. But my set-apart-ness (holiness) comes not from me or anything I do... but it is all from the finished work of Christ for my account. :-) So yeah... I'm not holier-than-anyone or self-righteous at ALL.

He Is Risen!

2010-04-04T07:12:00.000-07:00

He Is Risen Indeed!

"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. ...

"Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain." (1 Corinthians 15:3-5, 13-14)

Four Views On The End - Timelines

2010-03-28T22:04:00.000-07:00

Recently Vimeo user Puritan Reformed posted several videos giving an easy-to-understand look at the timelines involved in each of the four main eschatological systems: Premillenarianism, Dispensational Premillenarianism, Postmillenarianism, and Amillenarianism. They give a good basic look at each view, and I thought it would be beneficial to share.

Premillenial Timeline

Premillennial Timeline from Puritan Reformed on Vimeo.

Dispensational Premillennial Timeline*

Dispensational Premillennial Timeline from Puritan Reformed on Vimeo.

Postmillennial Timeline

Postmillennial Timeline from Puritan Reformed on Vimeo.

Amillennial Timeline**

Amillennial Timeline from Puritan Reformed on Vimeo.

I hope you found these insightful. Thanks to Puritan Reformed for posting them!!

*This is the view represented by Tim LaHaye and the Left Behind books/movies

** This is the view that I find to be the most biblical. For a further look into Amillennialism, please check out Kim Riddlebarger's mp3 lecture series: Amillennialism 101.

Christian faith: five points of New Calvinism (from the christian science monitor)

2010-03-27T22:59:00.000-07:00

Two Calvinist-themed articles were posted today @ the Christian Science Monitor. I will copy and paste the first... and then link to the 2nd tomorrow with some of my favorite quotes.

//

From total depravity to grace, the tenets of a theology undergoing a revival of Calvinism in America's Christian faith.

By Josh Burek / March 27, 2010

Calvinism generally refers to five doctrinal points – Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints (or TULIP) – that were established after John Calvin died. Scholar Allen Guelzo, putting his interpretation on TULIP, says the doctrines explain the most basic questions any theology or philosophy can ask:

•Why are people the way they are? Total depravity – you're fully corrupted by sin.

•How can people ever change? Unconditional election – God chose some people to be saved without regard to their behavior or character.

•Who benefits from this change? Limited atonement – only God's chosen.

•How does this change happen? Irresistible grace – you can't thwart God's effort to save you.

•What guarantees the change lasts? Perseverance of the saints – once saved, you'll continue in faith.

Faith + Works of the Law = Severed from Christ (A look @ Galatians 5, its meaning in context, and how the TNIV/NIV muddies the meanings yet again)

2010-03-23T17:11:00.001-07:00

The more and more I try to like the TNIV, the more and more I find that I dislike it. And the more I discover I dislike it, the more I realize that my disdain is not limited merely to the TNIV… but extends to the Evangelical’s favored version: the NIV.

A while back, I published a brief article on one of the many reasons someone should avoid (or rather use with caution) Today’s New International Version. After I hit the PUBLISH button, I thought I should double-check and see if the same translation error made in the TNIV was present in the NIV. It was. So today when I encountered yet another translation biff, I decided to check in advance. And guess what – it was poorly translated both in the TNIV and NIV. At least I know in advance.

Now once again, I am not accusing anyone who uses the NIV (or even the TNIV) of being a heretic. It is, after all, a translation of God’s Word. Neither the NIV nor the TNIV are among the absolute WORST Bible versions offered today (and I pray the same applies to the 2011 revision of the NIV, which will replace both the ‘84 NIV and the ‘05 TNIV). I would say in a lot of cases they are OK or even decent.

And yet I continue to run into issues in the translated text… ones that are important for understanding exactly what God said. Today I encountered a muddied-meaning… but in a slightly different capacity than the last one.

The confusion comes from how both the NIV and TNIV handle Galatians 5.

While the last entry on the TNIV dealt with a glossing over of a theological hot-button issue like God’s foreknowledge, this issues is concerned with subtle nuance being lost on the reader of the Biblica-translated versions (TNIV & NIV). All because the committee chose to use a weaker word: “alienated.”

Context

Paul’s letter to the churches in Galatia are clearly concerning the necessity of the sufficiency of the Good News that God’s people are saved by the sovereign work of God alone – that we add nothing to God’s work. Anyone who preaches a gospel that involves faith + ANYTHING… even the circumcision commanded previously are required by Jews… are anathema – damned – under God’s wrath (Gal 1:6-10). No, we who are justified are “justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified” (Gal 2:16).

However, it is clear that within the churches in Galatia, some had begun teaching Faith + something… in this case: circumcision. Circumcision is, of course, the act of cutting off the foreskin, in accordance with the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 17. “Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant” (Gen 7:14). This mark of the covenant was binding for the Jew. Yet in Galatia, certain individuals were proclaiming that Gentile believers, to truly be Christian, MUST be circumcised in the flesh also. Only by this will they truly be close to Christ.

Sarah vs Hagar – Who is enslaved, and who is free?

Paul dramatically, as we have seen, disagrees with this imposing the Law on the Gentiles for entrance into the New Covenant. We see in Galatians 4 that the Jews, thinking they were the children of the promise from Sarah, are allegorically children of Hagar – the slave. A slave to what? A slave to the Law! And it is the one who is in Christ who is truly free! The Jews, priding themselves on being children of the promise are actually in slavery rather than freedom.

Galatians 5: Cut Off

The Law = slavery. Any attempt to earn justification by ANY OTHER MEANS apart from the grace of God through faith is the very opposite of the good news. There is no good news in this – only slavery to the Law. In Galatians 5:1-4 we read:

“For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.”

If you want to try to add a little bit of the Law to the work of Christ you must add the ENTIRE LAW! If you desire to justify yourself to God as a result of even the slightest bit of your good deeds then you actually must follow the law in its entirety. Those who insisted circumcision + faith= salvation were preaching a damnable heresy. The Jew insisted the Gentile severe the piece of foreskin to be acceptable before Christ… to be close to Him. Yet, from verse 4, we see that this person has NOT, by his act of cutting, brought him closer to Christ. It has actually SEVERED him from Christ! The cutting did nothing to please God – it rather cut them off from Christ. Attempting justification through the law, rather than trusting entirely on God’s glorious grace, will result in being cut off from Christ – like the act of hacking off a limb.

A disturbing/shocking picture indeed. (If you want to see just HOW disturbing this severing is… feel free to search Google Images for “severed.”)

Where the TNIV/NIV Falls Short in Galatians 5

I realize that I have written quite a lot of background, going over briefly the argument in Galatians up to Galatians 5. I actually have since gone back to earlier in the article to give a taste of where I would be going… and now I wish to go there.

This discussion now turns to the translation of the Greek word καταργέω in Galatians 5:4, particularly paying attention to the context in which Paul is writing.

See how the this verse is rendered in the TNIV/NIV:

“You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.”

There is nothing exactly wrong with this translation in and of itself. Certainly “alienation” does carry with it the notion of distance and being put out of or away from. The one who trusts in his own works to save, rather than in Christ’s finished work is put away from Christ.

But in the context… there is a better translation choice. This is the choice made by the ESV and the NASB. Rather than being “alienated” from Christ, these translations convey our being “severed” from Christ, emphasizing a violent cutting off. Even the NRSV, which I do not generally recommend, translates this being as being “cut off from Christ.”

So what?

Some of you reading this (if you have made it this far) may be wondering what the big deal is. Both “alienate” and “severed” convey the notion of separation. Yes. However, the NASB/ESV, being literal translations rather than functional translations, both convey a subtle nuance that is just not present in the TNIV/NIV.

The discussion throughout the letter is circumcision. The severing of the foreskin. By doing this to earn merit before Christ, the individual is doing the opposite… he is instead severing himself off from Christ. The theme of cutting/severing is carried throughout in these literal translations. The TNIV/NIV, wishing to be a more functional and easily-understandable (though I’m not sure how being alienated is more understandable than being cut off or severed from Christ) drops the more violent notion of being severed from Christ in favor of a somewhat less-offensive “alienation” theme, which does not flow literarily from Paul’s earlier discussion of circumcision.

In Conclusion

I am not meaning to make a “whole lot about nothing.” However I think that Paul’s point in Galatians 5 is more correctly conveyed in the NASB, the ESV, and even the NRSV. The notion that we are alienated or even shunned from Christ does not carry… the kick of being cut off – severed – from Christ. It is a shocking thought – being as cut off from Christ as Luke was from his hand in The Empire Strikes Back. And yet, that is the comparison that Paul (and the Holy Spirit) conveyed to us. Shocking and even offensive? Yes. But the literal translations correctly paint a picture of how important it is to not add anything to the gospel – be it circumcision, baptism, or any other works of the Law.

**For further discussion on Galatians, head on over to the White Horse Inn. Michael Horton and the gang recently did a 5-part series on Galatians, which was what I was listening to just before I began this post.**

Some GOOD Podcasts Worth Listening To (Pt 1: Sermons)

2010-03-21T16:35:00.000-07:00

I can remember my first real exposure to podcasting. It was back in 2005 if I am remembering correctly -- for some reason I was with my brother in his van (at the time), driving.... somewhere in Florissant. And I remembered my brother was playing his iPod over the stereo system via tape-deck adapter. I was listening to someone talking about Dan Brown's book The DaVinci Code, which was being released as a major motion picture right around that time. I inquired what we were listening to (I don't remember if I made it seem like I was bored in doing so - I would have rather been listening to music at the time, but I became interested the more I listened) and my brother described what I would later realize as being a podcast.

Ah... podcasting. No, your iPod (or Zune) is not JUST for listening to music on. Personally, I have grown in the faith and in maturity QUITE A BIT due to teachings I've heard from podcasts. Theological shows and sermons alike have driven me deeper into the love and grace of the Lord. Sermons and other good podcasts can truly help you grow and redeem your time during the day. How? You spend 20-30 minutes commuting to and from work... or you walk across campus throughout the day ... why not use that time for something useful? Get something more out of your time rather than just exchanging oxygen for carbon dioxide! Here are some of the podcasts I would recommend for getting into the Word and the Christian Faith...

Sermons / Teaching...

Boulevard Baptist Church (Pastor Doug Shivers) - I am biased yes... this is the church Kacey and I attend in Springfield, MO. But the preaching is outstanding and very Christ-centered. The congregation is Southern Baptist, but the pastor is Reformed. This particular podcast may be a great place to start - there are only two episodes per week (Sunday morning & evening sermons), each somewhere between 35 - 40 minutes long. Pastor is known for bringing Christ and the gospel out of the text of Scripture as being witty w/out being a stand-up comic found in many congregations today. Recently Pastor Shivers has been doing a weekly survey through the entire Bible – one book a week (more or less, with some breaks when he was out of town, and a mini-series on worship in between the testaments). Highly recommended.
Desiring God (Pastor John Piper) - The pastor of Bethlehem Baptist, this man hardly needs an introduction, nor does his ministry. Among attendees at many Christian conferences, John Piper's books are always among the tops of people's reading lists. Piper's mission is thus: God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him. Texts are exegeted with clarity in a way that is easily understandable to all. Sermons also range somewhere in the 40 minutes range. However, the podcast has not been updated for a number of months. SermonAudio (also available on iTunes) has a podcast going with his sermons - though they do not seem to be recent sermons and are instead sermons from his preaching archives.
Renewing Your Mind (Dr. R.C. Sproul) - Sproul is one of the leading Reformed theologians of the 20th century. This podcast is more Sunday school lecture than pulpit preaching, so be prepared for more topical and meaty theological discussions rather than proclaiming Christ and Him crucified for the forgiveness of sins. Still, Dr. Sproul is a wonderful Bible teacher coming from a Presbyterian background rather than a Baptist one. This podcast is by no means a dry listen... but it is definitely deep. This is somewhat more show-like in format, as there is an episode every day - each is 26 minutes long, with about 19 minutes of actual content.
Mars Hill Church (Pastor Mark Driscoll) - Driscoll is no stranger to controversy in the Evangelical world. He is one of the leaders of the "NeoCalvinist" movement and an excellent communicator to all. Theologically on the major issues - this guy is spot on! My growing concern is over the relationship between his Resurgence ministry and the performance/endorsement of Contemplative Prayer ... which may include the goofyness known as Lectio Divina. ::eye-roll:: I would faithfully follow Driscoll on a weekly basis, sometimes his being the only sermon I would listen to. I have since cut back a bit, as I do want to get in other teachers as well. I have yet to hear any serious contemplative content in his sermons though, and he is VERY outspokenly AGAINST the Emergent Church. Only one sermon is out per week... but sermons range from 70 - 90 minutes at times.

… Continued in Part 2: Shows… (coming soon!)

Common salvation equation fail... and the correction

2010-03-17T10:14:00.000-07:00

FAIL:

Jesus' work on the cross + repentance+faith ≠ my salvation.

WIN:

Jesus' work on the cross = my salvation --> repentance+faith.

Currently Reading: "How To Read The Bible For All Its Worth"

2010-03-16T09:45:00.000-07:00

I do not read as much as I should. That is probably true for a large part of my demographic... I am easily distracted by technology and blogs. I can devote over an hour to a good sermon, sure. But blocking out time to read is very difficult. It is also troublesome for me to retain what I read. Most of what I learn I do get from podcasts and sermons.... but I KNOW that I'd be able to retain MORE if I could retain from what I read.

That's outa the way.

I was recently listening to an episode of Fighting For The Faith in which Rosebrough was playing a lecture from respected New Testament scholar Gordon Fee. The lecture was on studying the Bible and how to do so properly. It was a very well done lecture and I knew rather quickly I would want to read Fee's book: How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth.

And I must say, so far, I am very pleased with my experience in the book.

I am only on chapter 4... but I am already learning a lot. (Though since I am in accounting class now, and I don't have my clicker to get points for being here today, I cannot really go in-depth as to what I've learned so far at this time.)

The second chapter was a bit difficult. Why? Because it was basically a love story to a particular version of the Bible. It isn't difficult to figure out which one. Fee is on which translation committee? The Committee on Bible Translation (CBT). What translation(s) have CBT pushed out recently? Oh... and who published this book? (Zondervan!) So... it is easy to see that the first chapters would be a ... a love story to Today's New International Version - the TNIV. (I have mentioned the TNIV a lot recently on this blog... And I really need to write a compact "My thoughts on the TNIV" blog. But not today.)

It is interesting the authors spend so much time in the beginning on using a moderate functional equivalence translation... such as the TNIV (surprise surprise!)... when the book is concerned with proper exegesis. Now while it has been a while since I've taken REL 321 - Paul (which I took with my brother in Spring '06), I seem to remember the importance of words from the original Greek (or Hebrew). How can I properly exegete a passage as to the original meaning of the text, when I have a functional translation which gives me a meaning that may or may not reflect the translation committee's bias as to what the meaning of a text is??

This is where a faithful dynamic translation is necessary - preferably the English Standard Version (ESV) in my opinion. Sure, the ESV may not be as easy to understand as some sentences in the TNIV, but why do we think the Bible will read as easily as something in the Twilight Saga?? I'm not saying you need to be a scholar to have to understand the Bible. But even Peter tells his audience in 2 Peter that Paul has written some things that are rather difficult to understand. The Bible does take some work to understand. But many things worth doing are not the easiest things to do. But once we learn how to read the Bible correctly and interpret the Bible using the three rules of interpretation: 1) Context 2) Context 3) Context, the rewards of knowing the Word of God are incredibly beneficial to his people.

Does God Save Every Baby Who Dies In Infancy?

2010-03-09T11:12:00.000-08:00

Would you think God as more gracious if you knew that babies who die in infancy go to Heaven?

Would you think him less gracious if that they went to Hell?

Does not God deserve our glory and honor and praise either way? Whatever God decides to do in this case, it is just and good because God is just and good.

On Bible Translation Preferences

2010-02-28T02:50:00.000-08:00

Here is the preference of my English Bible translations... hopefully in some accurate order:

1) English Standard Version (ESV) - Highly accurate yet easily readable. Recommended by John Piper, Mark Driscoll, Joshua Harris, etc.

2) New King James Version (NKJV) - Revision of the King James, yet some language has been eased over to make it more accessible.

3) New American Standard Bible (NASB) - VERY strict translation from the original language to the English language. The problem may occur, however, when some of the meaning may get lost in the translation itself, due to the rigid translation of words.

4) Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) - Slightly loser than ESV, but still very accurate. If I remember correctly, this is a publication of LifeWay - the publishing and retail arm of the Southern Baptists.

5) New International Version (NIV) - Most read English translation today and has been for several years. It is more of a functional or meaning-driven text, and some of the passages I depend on to be translated clearly for my discussion of reformed theology are glossed over in delivering a meaning that sometimes seems to try to pander to a wider Evangelical range of audience. Still can be useful for devotional times... but not necessarily serious Bible study.

This is probably to be understood though as more... idealistic. Why? I do not own so many translations myself. What versions do I physically have? Several ESVs, an NIV Study Bible, and a paperback outreach TNIV I got for free before it was released from Biblica... as well as an NRSV only because I found it in a book recycling bin at the end of the school year, and I figured I should have one, as my school uses the NRSV as their Bible translation.

For whatever reason... I am fascinated by the TNIV. No, it is not the most accurate version. However I do find myself drawn to it first if there is a passage that is somewhat confusing in the ESV. It is about as loosey-goosey of a version I will use - I won't touch the Message or NLT or CEV or anything like that unless I have to... but they are not reliable enough for me to use or recommend using.

Truthfully there are problems with all English versions... but I would recommend the ESV for a very accurate yet readable version. Still, keeping that NIV around to compare confusing passages is not a bad idea either.

Reasons to use the TNIV (and NIV) with caution: Muddied Meanings

2010-02-27T23:52:00.000-08:00

Reason #213 why use great discretion when using the TNIV (Today’s New International Version): Though it may clarify some passages, it muddies up others, and attempts to draw a distinction where one need not be in the original Greek.

Specifically, see 1 Peter 1:2 and 1:20 in the TNIV (and NIV).

Christians are said to have “been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father.” Fair enough translation. Yet when the same meaning is conveyed to be speaking of Christ a few verses later, the translators opted to use “chosen” only, and leave out “foreknowledge“… even though the actual word in Greek both instances is explicitly foreknowledge!

Understand… I am not quibbling that the TNIV (or any other version) is taking words OUT of the Bible… as many KJV Onlyists do. I recognize that difficulties in translating between Hebrew and English and Greek and English exist. The problem is that the meaning of the text itself seems to be different than that of the original Greek.

Why has this been left out? Why are the Christians said to have been “chosen according to the foreknowledge of God”, yet when speaking of Christ, the translators leave out any instance of foreknowledge of God? While I cannot claim to know the exact reason, I think this poor translation on the part of the TNIV shows a stark theological bias away from the Reformed understanding of foreknowledge.

People like to think that foreknowledge implies God looks down the hallway of time and sees what you will do… so then he chooses you to do it! This is the obvious Arminian perspective. However… while such an understanding seems to work initially in verse 2… it is easy to see this would break down once verse 20 is reached. Are we to understand then that Jesus is the Christ because the Father looked down the corridors of time, saw what Jesus would do, and then made him the Christ to redeem a people unto himself?
This understanding just doesn’t work.

I really have tried to like the TNIV … I really have. It isn’t the worst translation available… and certainly it is more accurate than the NLT at least. Still, in instances like this, I can’t bring myself to switch. Not that I would ever switch away fully – but be more inclined to use it alongside my ESV as a more readable translation. But I cannot do this if while it may clarify some language it creates a distinction between two instances of foreknowledge and choosing, when the original Greek implies actually a comparison, not a contrasting.

May the 2011 NIV keep the good of the TNIV… and lose the bad translations… and the political correctness. (Seriously, whenever I run into “they” in the TNIV, I HAVE to consult either an ESV or NIV to see if the meaning is really plural or singular.)

*UPDATE*
I figured I should double check something… I just looked on BibleGateway.com @ the NIV rendering of 1Peter… and yes… they made the same error the TNIV did in drawing a distinction between “chosen according to the foreknowledge” and just “chosen”.

This may have come across as me just ranting against the TNIV itself… but this was because at the time I wrote this, I was reading from the TNIV rather than the NIV. Still… the issue remains the same. The bad translation choice used in 1 Peter by CBT muddies the truth of God’s foreknowledge, allowing for one to understand it as foresight rather than a sovereign and loving relationship with a specific group of people.

Common questions on Calvinism ... part four

2010-02-24T09:57:00.000-08:00

Because these questions are quite common inquires into Reformed Theology, I figured it would be profitable to the body of Christ for me to post my answers here as well. Perhaps I will continue on beyond her questions in writing on/replying to other objections common to Calvinism. Again, I hope this is useful to all who read this.

Question #4:
Who would be more loving - someone who chooses to be with you because that person loves you, or someone who is forced to be with you?

I am fairly familiar with this question, though in a different way: the "divine rapist" argument. I would state this is far from a genuine description of the Calvinist argument. I say "divine rapist" because famed apologist Norman Geisler says Calvinism turns God into a "divine rapist," forcing himself upon people who did not choose him of their own free will. It would seem, from this argument, that the one who chooses to love and serve the lover "of their own free will" is happier than the one who is forced by a kind of rape into the relationship. I kindly reject this notion.

I pose another, perhaps more biblical question.

A blind man is walking toward the edge of a cliff. You plead with him to stop... to turn around... to REPENT, as it were. He refuses. He continues walking. Is it then LOVING for the man who sees the danger to say "Okay... you made your choice of your own free will... I offered love, but you didn't take it. Enjoy"?? Would the person, falling to his death from the edge of the cliff, say of the one who just let him make the choice to fall "well, surely THAT was the LOVING thing to do, rather than actually save me"??

Or would Pastor Mark Driscoll have been loving if he had allowed his infant daughter to exercise her will over and above his? Please please watch.

As to the notion of "free will" of the blind man... I offer this up...

Jump to...
Part One
Part Two
Part Three

If God's foreknowledge is merely foresight...

2010-02-23T09:20:00.001-08:00

If God’s foreknowledge is merely foresight… or future-seeing… and God is truly actively trying his hardest to save everyone – but will ultimately fail b/c not all will abide in him… doesn’t God know that his attempts are futile? Why is he then wasting his time?

Common questions on Calvinism ... part three

2010-02-22T21:10:00.000-08:00

Question #3:
How does this affect your approach to ministry (ie: the homeless guy sitting on the side of the road)?

It gives me a great boldness in the presentation of the gospel. I can firmly proclaim the truth, unwatered down, because I am assured that all the Father gives to Jesus will come to Christ; that person shall never be cast out, and that Christ will raise that person on the last day (John 6:35-44). I have assurance that God will use my sharing the gospel to accomplish all of his purposes. It isn’t my fault if they don’t respond to the gospel… they are not rejecting me, they are rejecting God. I offer them the good news of Christ’s saving work to atone for sin, that if they repent and believe they will believe, they will be adopted into the family of God. I share them the law of God – which shows their wickedness and that they are actually bad, not good. Then I share the news of God’s glorious grace.

The gospel is just that: good news. Not good news about me – I am not the gospel! The gospel isn’t something that happened to me. It happened 2,000 years ago. The sharing of the gospel is telling the wondrous news of what CHRIST did to save sinners: his death, burial, and resurrection, atoning the sins of all who repent and believe. Because of the Doctrines of Grace, as it were, I can proclaim this message with boldness, without fear. Will some be turned off by the message? Yes, because their hearts are hearts of stone. But I know God, not I, will not allow his word to return void. He is the one who can take my pitiful voice or words, proclaiming a “foolish” gospel, and turn their hearts of stone into hearts of flesh.

We don’t talk people into becoming Christian… we share the good news of God’s glorious grace when they are made aware of their wretchedness before a Holy God, and God does the work of bringing them to repentance and faith.

O The Genealogies!

2010-01-15T13:45:00.000-08:00

Catching up on my Scripture reading according to the ENGAGE plan from The Journey in St. Louis, I came to Genesis 10. A genealogy. A long list of names of members in the family. So and so begot so and so. This guy has 3 sons, A, B, and C. To A was born G and H, from which the Ginitites were from. ... etc. When arriving at one of these genealogies, there is GREAT temptation to skip over it... or skim over it. I did read it... but I admit I had the help of the ESV Listener's Bible on my iPod as I read along. This made it easier to read through, for certain.

Yet there is no denying the importance of these genealogies. It is part of what separates the Bible from fairy tales and folklore in many cases. When you sit down to hear the story of Hansel and Gretel, there is no mistaken it is a mere fable. These stories are set, for good reason, Once Upon A Time, In A Land Far, Far Away... (George Lucas would masterfully remix this famous opening to: "A Long Time Ago, In A Galaxy Far, Far Away..."). It is because they have no real setting in reality. The stories themselves exist not within reality, but only in the context of a make-believe story.

The Biblical narrative, by stark contrast, is firmly grounded in reality. The Genealogies in Genesis, in Matthew and Luke attest to this. It is not as if these characters, for the most part, appear out of thin air. This is not to say that everyone in the biblical story are given a deep back story. They aren't. But the core of the biblical narrative is grounded, if read plainly, in a historical reality. Noah really did live - here is his family line, and here are his list of children and family line after him. Jesus really existed and was born of Mary. Here is his family tree to show the legitimacy of him being a real figure. It gives enormous credibility to the Bible.

So don't just read over it as fast as you can or merely ignore it. The Holy Spirit chose to reveal it in this way for a reason, and it is therefore important. The Bible is not a mere collection of fables and folklore. It is truth - the most important truth to ever be conveyed in this history of the universe.

Various thoughts on the cross of Christ

2010-01-11T21:45:00.000-08:00

While attending The Journey this summer, I received several inserts in bulletin inserts containing amazing quotes. Currently I am using one of these inserts to read CS Lewis' Surprised By Joy: The Shape of My Early Life. In any case, this particular collection of quotes are amazing reflections/insights into the importance of the cross of Christ, where the gospel resides. I will proceed to post these as status updates on facebook, but I wanted to write them down in a more organized location also. Here they are, in the order presented on the page.

"The essence of sin is man substituting himself for God, while the essence of salvation is God substituting himself for man. Man... puts himself where only God deserves to be; God... puts himself where man deserves to be."

- John Stott, The Cross of Christ.

"Learn to know Christ and him crucified. Learn to sing to him and say, Lord you are my righteousness, I am your sin. You took on you what was mine; yet set on me what was yours. You became what you were not that I might become what I was not."

- Martin Luther

"Man is alienated from God by sin and God is alienated from man by wrath. It is in the substitutionary death of Christ that sin is overcome and wrath averted, so that God can look on man without displeasure and man can look on God without fear. Sin is expiated and God is propitiated."

- David Wells

<><

Christ came to save sinners... thoughts on 1Tim 1:12-17

2010-01-03T17:21:00.000-08:00

This was the responsive reading today @ Boulevard Baptist, where Kacey and I currently attend. When I sat down this evening to read 1 Tim, I did not know that I would choose this verse, necessarily, to write about on here. Interesting.

I will not take the time to quote the verse in length... feel free to look it up yourself and then proceed. As always, I recommend the ESV, but also see the benefit in the NIV, NASB, and NKJV, depending on the verse.

I do want to focus, however, primarily on verse 15: "The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost." This seemingly simple statement boldly proclaims why Christ came in his humble incarnation, which many Christians around the world celebrate between December 25 - January 6. It wasn't to merely show us an example of how to live and love. Did he live a perfect life, free from sin? Absolutely. Did he also love perfectly? Yes. (It is interesting, then, that Christ's perfect love included the action of calling false teachers and the Pharisees "vipers" and accusing them of being children of Satan... we in 21st century America do not see this as a very "loving" thing to do... but that is a problem not with Christ but with our fallen understanding of what true love indeed is.) To say that he did not provide a perfect example would be to say that he was sinful.

Providing an example was NOT, however, his reason for coming to this fallen realm. Even if that was our goal as Christians - for us to follow and to get others to follow Christ's example... guess what? We just epically fail. We can't follow his example. We can't. Do you love perfectly? Yeah, neither do I. Even if we started now in following his example... and could do it perfectly... the old bag/bird lady from Home Alone 2 is wrong... good deeds do NOT erase bad deeds, whether or not it is Christmas Eve. So you are still stuck with x # of years of crap you've done prior to your pathetic attempt to follow Christ's example.

I am thankful that this isn't the gospel, after all!! If it were... who would be saved? To say nothing about those who died in their sins before the incarnation... if the good news of Christ consisted of: "Hey y'all! Follow me! Walk this way!"... who could be saved? That would not be good news... it'd be pathetically bad news, because we can't do it. That'd be like Jesus coming to me and saying "Okay Ryan, to be saved, just use your free will and teleport to New Zealand and you'll be saved! Oh... you can't telport anywhere? TOO BAD! Guess you're screwed and damned to Hell! See ya!" I hope I was not too crass concerning our Lord, but I find the example still remains. (It is this same example I would use to describe why I'm so gracious for God's sovereign choice in electing and saving me rather than leaving it up to my own free will to somehow choose what is inherently contrary to my nature as a sinful spiritually dead creature.)

Jesus as an example? Not his mission. What is it? To save sinners. How does he do this? The cross of Christ. 1Corinthians 15 provides and excellent, if brief, summary of the Gospel. Romans 3 is another amazing example. Christ came, lived the perfect life we could not live, died the atoning death we could not die as an acceptable atoning sacrifice on our behalf, and he rose on the 3rd day conquering death and the grave, and now is seated at the right hand of the Father, until the day he comes again in his second coming to judge the quick and the dead. Our response to this is repentance and trust in Christ's work on our behalf to save us and bring us new life - not new life in terms of freedom from financial trouble or a better more fulfilling sex life with a spouse... but new life as in no longer enslaved to the sinful nature. This is the gospel in its beauty.

Especially beautiful about 1Tim 1:15... even though I may not spend as much time on it as it may deserve... is the phrase "of whom I am the foremost." The term, "I am" here is, in the Greek, eimi, and conveys a present indicative. Paul did say "Christ came to save sinners... of whom I was chief." Do you see the difference? Numerous YouTube nuts, such as OpenAirPreacher, try and preach this horrid teaching that you can just, by your will power, stop sinning. It is semi-Palagian at best... and out and out Palagian heresy at worst from the pit of Hell. Paul himself here and in Romans 7 identifies himself presently as as sinner. Not as a former sinner. Truly, there is a sinner and saint distinction in the scripture... often "sinner" is the one who is unregenerate, while "saint" is the one who is saved by grace through faith and therefore is in Christ. But as far as perfect sanctification... someone ceasing sinning all together... not found here or anywhere else in Scripture preached aright.

Paul himself identifies himself as a sinner... a sinner Christ came to save. Christ's blood is not only effectual up until the point you repent and believe... and then the rest is up to you. Christ's blood is sufficient for me even in my present sinful state. It is not someone that just gets me in the door of Christianity... it is the whole of Christianity in many ways! It is all about Christ's atoning sacrifice, period. Christ came to save sinners... of whom I am, presently, one of them. I do not boast in my sin... rather I boast in Christ whose blood is sufficient to cover my sin. I boast in Christ who daily intercedes on my behalf.

To the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.

Common Questions On Calvinism ... part two

2009-12-09T11:29:00.000-08:00

I recently received a series of questions from a good friend dealing with some issues/objections she had with Calvinism/Reformed Theology. I truly appreciated the opportunity to share what I explicitly believe in the realm of the Doctrines of Grace with her, and humbled she came to me to know how a Calvinist deals with each of these questions.

Because these questions are quite common inquires into Reformed Theology, I figured it would be profitable to the body of Christ for me to post my answers here as well. Perhaps I will continue on beyond her questions in writing on/replying to other objections common to Calvinism. Again, I hope this is useful to all who read this.

Question #2: How do you know Ryan Gill is a chosen one (a member of the elect)?

How do I, Ryan Gill, know I am "numbered among the elect"? Simple: I have responded to the Gospel call (to turn form my sin and believe/trust in Christ's atoning work alone to save) by repentance and faith. I do not trust in my work to save, but only in God alone to save me. I do believe in Christ, and therefore I have eternal life (John 3:15; 6:47). In light of John 6:44 & 65, I know I CAN'T come to Christ unless the Father draws me. I came to faith in Christ as a direct result of the Father drawing me... like a fisherman draws his net full of dead fish upon a shore. ... And this may not be very "Baptistically correct" ... but I can also look toward my Baptism... for in my Baptism I was "buried with Christ in baptism, in which I was also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised me from the dead" (Colossians 2:12). And because of this, I also have assurance that I have been sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, a guarantee of our inheritance (Eph 1:13-14). I know I am "chosen" because I desire the God of Scriptures... and I would hate him if I were still in my sins.

For a more articulate explanation... check out the following video.

Common Questions On Calvinism ... part one

2009-11-19T15:07:00.000-08:00

"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

:-) Our mandate as Christians are to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ - announce his death which atones for sins and his burial and resurrection (and subsequent ascension)... and that this is offered to all who turn from their sin (repent) and trust in (believe/ "to faith") Christ's work alone to save them.

b. The "all" in "all nations" yes could be the same "all" as "all authority." The Greek in both cases is "pas". I would note, however, there are several uses of the term "all" in the Bible, and those who would proclaim "All means all, and that's all [that] all means" are mistaken. Certainly "pas" can mean every single individual... but it can also mean "collectively - some of all types."

Please permit me to quote at length from our mutual great BAPTIST (hehe) friend, Charles H. Spurgeon, known as the Prince of Preachers:

... 'The whole world is gone after him.' Did all the world go after Christ? 'Then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan.' Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem baptized in Jordan? 'Ye are of God, little children', and 'the whole world lieth in the wicked one.' Does 'the whole world' there mean everybody? If so, how was it, then, that there were some who were 'of God?' The words 'world' and 'all' are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture; and it is very rarely that 'all' means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts—some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted his redemption to either Jew or Gentile. --Charles H. Spurgeon, Particular Redemption, A Sermon, 28 Feb 1858).

I would not assert (nor would dear Mr. Spurgeon) that pas never means every single individual. Only that the context should allow us to interpret the verse. Certainly, we are to make disciples of all nations. Heaven will have, as Rev 5:9-10 says, people out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation! Every nation will be "represented" (as it were) in Heaven. We are not to discriminate who we share the gospel with based on color of skin or region they live or what their last name is.

By the way... "pas" ... "all" in the Great Commission is the very word used that is translated "men from every" or "people from every" in Rev 5:9.

... more to come...

You shall go out running like ... a running beagle after a bath!

2009-11-15T18:22:00.000-08:00

Malachi 4:1-3
For behold, the day is coming, burning like an oven, when all the arrogant and all evildoers will be stubble. The day that is coming shall set them ablaze, says the LORD of hosts, so that it will leave them neither root nor branch. But for you who fear my name, the sun of righteousness shall rise with healing in its wings. You shall go out leaping like calves from the stall. And you shall tread down the wicked, for they will be ashes under the soles of your feet, on the day when I act, says the LORD of hosts.

Thanks to a good friend of mine named Jim, Kacey and I learned of a church down here in Springfield that is attempting to join the OPC - Orthodox Presbyterian Church. The congregation is fairly small; even smaller than the Sovereign Grace church in town or South Creek... and considerably smaller than Boulevard Baptist. But it is also full of people who love God... and who use the Trinity hymnal. ;-)

The sermon text today was from Malachi, as I have posted above. Though the text is largely concerning the first advent of Christ, it could also see fulfillment in the second coming... at least this portion of the chapter - not the last few verses of the book, which clearly find fulfillment in John the Baptizer. The text points to Christ's coming... and his judgement. For those who are enemies of God - that is, all of humanity apart from the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit - it is a day to be mournful over. After all, this fallen world is as close as they will ever get to Heaven in their unrepentant state. Christ comes again and... well, it's all over.

We know from Matthew 25, the sheep - those who trust in Christ's saving work on the cross & his resurrection ALONE to save them - are to be with Christ; the goats - those who continue in their sin, refusing to turn from their sin and trust the saving gospel of God's glorious grace - they will hear the Lord utter these words that should cause all to tremble: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels." Christ continues, "And these will go away into eternal punishment..." This is really bad news for the goat.

But for the sheep? For the one redeemed by the shed blood of the lamb of God, who alone takes away sin? Christ assures the believer, "... but the righteous [will go] into eternal life." It will not be a day of sorrow... it will be a day of ... wow. My pathetic words cannot contain how full of awe that day will be for those who love God, the called according to his purpose! It will be a glorious day of rejoicing! What kind of rejoicing? "You shall go out leaping like calves from the stall." Now I was not raised on a farm, and the closest I have come to it is I have seen my girlfriend spend FAR too much time playing the Facebook waste of time known as FARMVILLE. But as the pastor began to describe what the text means concerning the calve... I was able to put it into a context I am quite familiar with in my own life. (As it turns out, the next thing the pastor spoke on was a similar example I thought of... only mine was better I think... hah!)

Our family dog, Katie, was recently put down, after living a life with us for approximately 14 years. As a beagle, she would get so filthy... oh gosh. Beagles, being hound dogs, feel the compulsion to roll around in their own poo, to smell like the outdoors to mask their scent, helping them sneak up on their prey better. As our dog never actually formally was a hunting dog, this was more of an annoyance than anything, considering she was an inside dog. After many muddy escapades, she would NEED a bath. Her feelings toward baths ranged from misery to tolerance through the years. Still, she often had this pathetic look in her eyes during the tub. But as she stood in that tub, taking her "tubbie"... and she would watch me place a towel or two down near the door for her to stand on that I can dry her off... she would hobble out of the tub and wait (VERY impatiently) for me to dry her off a bit.

But when I had dried her off as much as I thought I could... and that bathroom door opened... WOOOOSH!! Even at the age of 13 or 14, you'd think she was a pup of one year!! She would zoom around the house in an array of energy, jumping on furniture, running around in circles throughout the house... partly to dry off, and a larger part because she was THRILLED to no longer be in the tub! That little dogie had arthritis and a really bad leg. But after a tub, she thought she was the Flash Puppy! She was so thrilled she could nearly not contain herself. It was similar also when she knew my dad was carrying up her dog food for feeding time. She would be jumping around on her bad legs, howling only the way a beagle can howl... because she KNEW good things were coming and/or here!

Christian, THIS is how it will be when Christ returns for his church! This is comparable to what we will feel and how it will be for us! At Christ's return, we shall go out running like Katie after a bath!! For those of us who are in Christ... it will be an amazingly glorious day.

Maranatha.... come quickly, Lord Jesus!

Difficult 1 Kings passages illuminated by good Study Bibles

2009-11-12T09:48:00.000-08:00

Even though I tend to own a fair number of Study Bibles, I tend to often read the text of Scripture by itself. I do not know if this is out of a desire to read the passage uninterrupted by stopping every few verses to read the commentary, OR if is due to my not wanting to re-read an entire section a second time, this time actually reading all the commentary provided on the given selection. OR it could be that both the ESV Study Bible and the Reformation Study Bible are fairly hefty, and I would rather carry around a thinline Bible. Either way, generally these helpful tools stay at home when I read.

Yesterday, however, as I was reading through 1 Kings, I was in great need of good study notes. (Actually even mediocre study notes would have done, and did do for my own curiosity, as I read the notes in the NIV Study Bible, just to see what was written there). I am sad to admit I had never so much as opened my Bible up to 1 Kings or 2 Kings for that matter that I am aware of. No, I never completed a trek through the Bible in a year or 3. And while I have read through the entire New Testament, a fair number of times probably, the Old Testament remained as somewhat of an intimidation to me. However, as it is all God's Word, I decided to get over it. And while it is useful to read Romans and Ephesians a great number of times, I found it difficult to concentrate in these amazing books when I knew there were other words breathed out of the mouth of God I had never read and studied.

My first instance of "needing" the study notes of my Study Bibles came from 1 Kings 2:13-25. A relative of the newly kinged Solomon requests for the hand of a woman in marriage. This request came from Bathsheba, Solomon's mother, as Adonijah did not have the guts to make the request in person... and he was sure that the king would not deny his own mother's request. The king even himself said he would not deny her (v. 20). However once the request is made, Solomon (seems to) overreact and order for Adonijah's death! I read this, and I was fairly confused by this ordeal. Why kill over such a question? Isn't that a little harsh? My faithful study notes (all the notes from my Bibles agreed with this reasoning) pointed to Adonijah's request for this particular woman, how he was requesting to marry a virgin from the late King David's harem. This would seem to legitimate some claim to power and pointed to political aspirations Adonijah had against the king. Clearly, Solomon saw this request as being a wicked one (1 Kings 1:52) and killed Adonijah under suspicion to conspire against the sovereign king. A surface reading of this seemed to indicate Solomon was a little grumpy that morning... rather than his good reason for putting this man to death, as is brought out in the notes.

My second reason for thankfulness toward the study notes comes from a little later on in the book. In 1 Kings 6-7, the reader is treated to a very detailed blue print, in essence, of the Temple and its furnishings (as well as Solomon's palace, of course). This is great for the person who can visualize dimensions and designs with great ease in his or her mind. For a more visual person? Not so much fun. I had a very difficult time visualizing what was being described on the paper...After all, the building is meant to be seen, not merely read about, right? Amidst my frustration, I remembered a beautiful painting within the pages of the ESV Study Bible... depicting the Temple in GREAT detail...

Yes, the words have been cut off, because at this size no one would be able to really read them anyway. However, THIS gives a great indication as to what the Temple Solomon built really really looked like. Most Study Bibles... including my Reformation SB... only give maybe a sketch of the building from above... the basic lay out. Or maybe there is some more detail, but surely it is not in color with any amount of detail. But this depiction is... wow. Amazing. I did not have to wonder any more what exactly I was reading. I remembered this layout and suddenly what I was reading on the page of God's Word made sense. Additionally... what other Study Bible would make such a resource available to owners ONLINE for use anywhere you have a connection? Amazing.

I greatly encourage the use of a good Study Bible... and while they may be a bit too hefty for some, they are amazing resources for the body of Christ to use and cherish.

I'll include a couple of introductory videos to a couple of my favorites...

ESV Study Bible

ESV Reformation Study Bible

Is there a reason to quote a heretic?

2009-11-09T11:45:00.001-08:00

I am not sure there is ever an excuse to quote a heretic from the pulpit... not unless you are giving an example of their bad theology. For example... if a pastor ever gave a quote from Joel Osteen... one that wasn't followed by "this is an example of horrible theology!" then I think there is a right to be concerned. The congregates may assume that the quote is coming from a sound and biblical source... and journey down that rabbit hole and arrive at the verge of heresy without knowing it.

Today a red flag went up when I heard a preacher at a church in town quote from mystic Brother Lawrence. For more on this mystic see here: http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/brotherlawrence.htm I have to wonder... why? Is there NO ONE else in the history of Christianity who has spoke on prayer at any length who isn't a heretic? Someone who was not engaged in contemplative practices that are more pagan than Christ-centric?

Why is there a desire in ANY way to reconnect with the mystics today? I mean... what was the reason for the Reformation of 400-500 years ago? What, after all, did we LEAVE when Christianity moved beyond Rome? If we left it, why attempt to allude to it in a positive way?

It's just... troubling.

On the Suppressing of the Truth (Romans 1:18-19)

2009-10-21T17:19:00.000-07:00

Romans 1:18-19 (ESV)
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them."

Recently I got into a rather uncomfortable conversation with a fellow religious studies major. It actually began by discussing Freud's insane views on the origins of religion, which my 580 class was to read for the following class time. I will not go into great detail at this time... but Freud's view as to the origin of religion itself has NO historical basis whatsoever. It is just nuts.

However the conversation somehow got much more uncomfortable. My classmate, Ben, charged me with not understanding people. This is somewhat puzzling... as I am a person actually. But when Ben asked me "what is the number one reason people become atheists," I answered truthfully and honestly: They are suppressing the knowledge of God. Ben practically dropped his jaw and stared at me. He asked me what I thought would happen if I told that to an atheist, perhaps a Pastafarian when they protest on campus. I recognized that they would punch me and deny it. OBVIOUSLY if they are suppressing the knowledge of YHWH, they are NOT going to ADMIT they are suppressing that knowledge!! They claim their IS no God... how could they SUPPRESS what they do not believe even EXISTS?

So will the atheist deny that he is suppressing the knowledge of God? Totally. And.... why exactly should I trust the testimony of an atheist as to whether or not he suppresses the knowledge of God over the testimony of that very living God? I cannot exegete the person's personal experience. Am I saying there are not other factors that contribute to someone's unbelief? As far as basic belief in deity (which is NOT the same as belief and trust in Christ to save from sins)? Sure... there may be conventional notions of that person being "hurt" by legalism or religion, etc. (Which is not a very compelling argument... I'm not going to NOT use an iPod just because there are a lot of Apple fanboy nuts who are jerks who insult my Windows 7-loving ways!) However, ULTIMATELY they are indeed engaged in a constant and fairly draining sin.

It must be exhausting for someone to be constantly suppressing the knowledge of God... whether you suppose it is ingrained somehow within us in some God-shaped hole, as Augustine wrote of... or you want to categorize it biblically and recognize the heavens and the sky proclaim God's majestic handiwork. Yet as you read on in Romans 1, that is just what they did... they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped ANYTHING else they could to help them suppress the guilty knowledge they have of their sin and of the existence of the true living God. Even looking around today, we see little difference. The unregenerate believer worships a functional savior rather than repenting and worshiping YHWH, maker of heaven and earth. Whether they worship technology, relationships, sex, substances, or their job... their idols are in place to blot out the truth of their sin and of the truth of God's existence.

Praise God for his love and is mercy... Christian, even when we were actively denying the very existence of God, he died for us. And nonChristian, though you are currently suppressing the knowledge of God, you need to know that he died to pay for sins - he actually atoned for sins on the cross, paying the fine for everyone who turns from their sin (repentance) and places their trust in Christ's finished work (death on the cross, burial, and resurrection) to save from sin and God's holiness.

A scandle with God's sovereign plan to save?

2009-09-03T22:24:00.000-07:00

Today in my REL 580 "Theories of Religious Studies", Dr. Given brought up something interesting that the Deists and Natural Religion gurus of the 18th century were bothered by. something called "The Scandal of Particularity." This "scandal" deals with their rebellion against the notion of God choosing to save a VERY SMALL group of people throughout History - taking true form in Abraham and throughout to those in the New Covenant today. This seems to be the minority today, in our world of fast and easy communication. But consider how many people have lived on this planet... and in places where the gospel never reached... or even a word of the Torah uttered. It is quite clear that the VAST majority of people, according to biblical Christianity, will be in Hell after the final judgment for all eternity.

These more "enlightened" thinkers (oh brother!) gauge that if there was really any justice in the world, religion must be natural and available to everyone, making salvation available at all times in all places. These men saw it as unjust for a god to only make salvation available to a select few, and to condemn several worlds full of people who do not have an option to be saved. After all, how can those who do not know about the gospel be held accountable for not being saved? Thus, this is the "scandal of particularity." That God would only save a particular people within a particular time. And somehow this doesn't sit well with human beings and their (fallen) concept of what is just and good.

Actually, this is Palagianism, run amok

The very "problem" itself is nothing more than the complaining of sinful, wretched, rebellious creatures who HATE their creator and are using this as an excuse to not repent and trust the gospel to save. It if fundamentally flawed. It presupposes that we, as sons and daughters of our first father Adam, are morally neutral (or even good) creatures, who deserve salvation... who are not responsible for their damnation if they can't accept a way out of it.

This is not just unbiblical, it is counter-biblical! It spits in the face of the gospel of divine grace.

Their dichotomy begins with their selfish man-centered concept of "justice" they have cooked up and are forcing upon our Sovereign Lord. Yet while they scream WE WANT JUSTICE!!! they deceive themselves. They do not want justice. They do NOT want JUSTICE!! JUSTICE would mean that Adam and all of his offspring would spend an eternity experiencing God's righteous wrath in Hell! That is what we deserve. By nature we are in fact children of WRATH (Eph 2). We are not morally neutral beings who have gotten a bum deal for being born at a time or place absent from Christianity... we are at enmity with God from birth... nah, from conception, as we are sinful from the moment we are conceived (Ps 51). THAT is what is JUSTICE. That is what we all deserve by our nature.

And yet... God does not give us justice. THANKFULLY he does not. He is a God of justice... but he does not pour out his just wrath on me for my sin... he poured it out 2000 years ago on Christ Jesus, who was the Godman... lived a perfect life... and gave his life as a ransom for many. His righteousness was imputed to me, and my sinful wretchedness was imputed to him. He gave me his righteousness to wear as a pristine pure white coat... and in love he took on my disgusting dung-covered jacket as his own. I do not deserve salvation. It OWED to me or to you or to ANYONE. It is not owed by those living in nations where Christianity is prevalent, nor is it owed by those who live in jungles unaware of the gospel... nor was it owed by those living prior to the free offer of the gospel!

That is the thing about GRACE... it is never earned. Never deserved. It is given out freely, graciously by the giver. God would have been 100% PERFECTLY JUST to not offer salvation to ANYONE. But he chose, because he FELT LIKE IT, because it pleased him to do so, to save SOME. He chose to save a particular people for himself... to give to the Son (Jesus Christ) as a payment for his selfless humiliation - the death on a cross. Because God foreloved he chose to shed his blood for all who repent and believe the gospel - for the elect, chosen before the foundation of the world.

I do not scream out for JUSTICE. Instead I thank God for his glorious, marvelous GRACE. Completely undeserved, applied to my account.

<><

A coherent picture resulting from the Gospel accounts

2009-08-24T22:33:00.000-07:00

Yes. Believe it or not... it is possible. Actually don't "not" believe it. If you do (or don't?) then you are just wrong. So stop it. Or do it. I forget.

Moving on.

One of the "drums" my extremely liberal professor Boyer was banging away at this past intercession course was that there is no way to generalize about an event or teaching of Christ from the pages of Scripture. We can, according to Boyer, only say with any certainty what Mark says about Jesus doing _____ or how John characterizes Jesus during ______. Each account exists isolated from each other; it would be foolish to attempt to reconcile these accounts into one coherent account of the life and teachings and death and resurrection of Jesus... as... "Then you would be creating a gospel that is unlike ANY of the four canonical Gospels: a gospel that does not even exist!!"

Right. I call shenanigans.

It sounds profound, after all. I mean, if I were to take clips from various films or television episodes... and attempt to edit them together into one story line... I would not have anything resembling the original... rather I would have some strange concoction of Top Gun/Back to the Future/Batman Forever/The Naked Gun/Monsters Inc/Tin Man... right??? The end result of the edit would be essentially a film freak... not fitting into any of the categories of films we started with. The end result of the piecing together project would be a NEW story that the films themselves, in their contexts, never attempted to tell. Any attempt to splice them together would be to rape them from their historical and meaningful and artistic contexts.... RIGHT????

I would put to you, this is the summary of the argument Boyer presented in class concerning ANY (and I do mean ANY) attempt to harmonize the material presented in the four canonical Gospels to arrive at any coherent look at the Gospel accounts. Pardon me while I throw up... the argument is severely flawed at its core. The film example he briefly alluded to (and which I have faithfully, i would argue, expanded on) presupposes that the gospel accounts are of completely different events and story lines. Top Gun has little in common with Back to the Future (aside from the fact they both were made in the mid 80s), and even less in common with Tin Man and Batman Forever!! Each film is looking at its own fictional story to entertain the audience, completely separate from one another. And therein lies the error.

The film example uses distinctly different fictional stories and a hack job to attempt to make a brand new story from various pieces. However, NO ONE would suggest this is the case when reading or watching the daily news. When reading about an event - historical or current - it is often helpful to gain multiple perspectives on the news piece at hand. Multiple papers may show a wide array of opinions and perspectives on a single issue or occurrence. Fox News will include details of a story that are not to be found on CNN... and the BBC or The Telegraph (a British news outlet) are likely to include perspectives on a single story rarely spelled out clearly in an American newspaper.

I think you see my point, but I will put it to you another way. I just hope this example is not too crass.

Some of us can probably recount the various camera angles on the World Trade Center crashes on 9/11 by heart. Different media outlets got a different perspective on the plane crashes. See bellow (disturbing images)

Now I ask you... is there something particularly wrong or DRASTICALLY INSANE about piecing this footage together to show the unfolding of events on 9/11? True... camera A did not see things camera B was able to include. Does this mean that camera B made things up that A did not know about? This is a stupid question. The answer is clearly no. Additionally, you probably know the majority of footage we have of the first plane crash that occurred is not from the major news sources but from independent amateur footage. What of this then? Using Boyer's (and other liberals') logic... we can not POSSIBLY string together the amateur footage with the footage from Fox News of the second plane crash to arrive at a clearer and truthful look at what happened on 9/11, CAN WE??? After all... Fox News Channel MUST have been meaning to tell the ENTIRE story of 9/11 with their cameras from their perspective, as if it is the only perspective to see the footage from. Or... is this not the case?

If we are to be HYPER-critical of harmonization of the Gospel accounts to give us a clear and concise record of the life, teaching, death, and resurrection of Christ, then we MUST be consistent and be HYPER-critical of ANY attempt ANYWHERE to harmonize an account of an event or teaching. Just as the liberal Boyer wants to look at the crucifixion of Christ, and come away from it claiming any form of harmonization does damage to the artistic and cultural context in which the story was composed and told... so we would HAVE to look at different footage from 9/11 and resist putting together that footage to understand what happened that fateful day.

I am unaware of CNN's cameras claiming to provide the entirity of angles when it comes to a given news story. I am not familiar with Fox News' declaration that every camera angle it provides DEFINITIVELY tells each and EVERY story to the fullest, with NOTHING left to uncover from any other possible camera angles on a given story. Similarly, Matthew does not claim to pen the FINAL WORD on the teaching. life, death, and resurrection of Christ. Luke does not claim for itself that ONLY what is recorded in the pages of his Gospel is what actually happened during Jesus' ministry and mission to redeem a lost people. Quite the contrary. Even John wrote in John 21 that Jesus did MANY OTHER things that are not recorded in this particular book. No gospel is comprehensive in and of itself on the life and death and resurrection of Christ!! No gospel even claims this for itself.

Despite what the liberals want you to think/believe... the Gospel accounts CAN be reconciled with each other. One CAN look at the three "options" for Jesus' final words and come up with a definitive last phrase by Christ: "It is finished," as described by John. (For more on this, see below)* Coming so this conclusion is fairly simple once we understand that each of the gospel writers had a unique vantage point of the events which unfolded. Though the vantage points, or camera angles, differed slightly, there is plenty of evidence to piece the different points in such a way that a fairly clear and accurate depiction of Jesus is carefully edited together to give a clear picture of the historical reality of what occurred, as recorded in the New Testament. Historical documents and records are often needed to be harmonized to show a complete picture of what happened, as no single account claims to be the final say on said event. If we are willing to be wisely charitable with other ancient and modern historical accounts... there is absolutely NO reason to not apply this method of harmonization to another ancient document - The Holy Bible.

Of course... seeing as the Bible is literally God's breathed-out Word... this gives even more reason to have trust in the reliability of the documents and in harmonization. But I suppose that is a slightly separate (though indeed important) issue.

*The last words of Jesus recorded by Matthew and Mark are "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" This is not to be understood as Jesus' last words, but they are the last words that these two gospel writers, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, recorded. Mark, for instance, also records that "Jesus uttered a loud cry and breathed his last" (15:37). Luke, then, gives the reader WHAT that loud cry was. "Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, 'Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!'" Again... Jesus then, having said this, breaths his last. So what was uttered with his final breath? "It is finished." After this, Jesus bows his head and gives up his spirit, for he is now actually dead, having accomplished redemption.

Christ's Pefect Obedience for My Account

2009-07-25T21:10:00.000-07:00

Toying w/ this idea... so hang in there with me...

If the work of Christ was limited to the cross in the forgiveness of sins and the wrath of God being transferred to Christ on my account... this does me ZERO amount of good. Ok, I'm forgiven of my sin by God, and God isn't justly furious with me because of my sin... so what? This would do me NO good because ... if I only had my sins forgiven and wrath for me staved off... that doesn't mean I get anything GOOD out of it. Nothing inherently positive. Sure, God not being mad is ok. But is it good?

Think about it. Just because someone isn't pissed at you doesn't mean you have a good relationship with that person, does it? You can not hate someone, but then again not have that individual be your favorite person. Just because you don't want to burn their face with a hot iron doesn't mean you want to give them a hug and let them use your favorite robe when they come over for a late night of pizza & Star Wars (the real trilogy, not that prequel nonsense).

Christ's death on the cross was marvelous. Christ was our substitute!! He died the death we should have died. God's wrath abides on us, but Christ took the punishment for us. Amazing love.

And yet, there is more to justification than that.

The cross doesn't just put me "not on God's bad list" anymore. It actually puts me on the "good" list, if I can call it that (though it is not MY goodness). How? Because Christ didn't just die the death I should have died... He lived the life I could not live.

Romans 5:19 speaks greatly of this truth. "For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous."

Through Christ's perfect obedience - his sinless life - he wasn't ONLY able to fulfill the requirement of the sacrificial lamb without blemish as a symbol... His blemish-less life BECOMES mine. His life of perfect law keeping - something NO mere man has a hope of accomplishing - is what is granted to me and all who repent and trust in Christ for their salvation from sin and the wrath that is to come.

Again, I know this is orthodoxy... but I'm trying to put it all together in my head. Hope I'm on the right track in understanding this glorious doctrine of justification.

I love this glorious gospel of grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone for the glory of God alone, as detailed in Scripture ALONE.

Are You Wasting Your Life?

2009-07-15T19:25:00.000-07:00

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those who also have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. if in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.
- Paul, 1 Corinthians 15:12-18 (ESV)

Paul said if Christ ain't resurrected then we wasted out lives /
but that implies that our life's built around Jesus being alive.
-Lecrae, "Don't Waste Your Life"

The lyric penned by Lecrae above should really cause you to think. It really causes the passage in 1 Corinthians 15 to stand out I think. I was aware of the portion very well that says if Christ is not resurrected, we should be pitied. If it could be shown that Jesus was not actually raised, then we are FOOLS for worshiping to resurrected Jesus! Heck, if Jesus was not raised... would you still be a Christian? If it could be proven... there is no way I would persist in the faith. Hedonism, I would greet thee with open arms! If Christ has not been raised, we are the dumbest people to walk the planet.

But the second line from Lecrae caused me to think about the Scripture in a clearer way. For us to be considered fools for thinking Jesus has been raised, if he had not been raised in truth, our lives would HAVE to be FOCUSED on Jesus actually being risen!

I wonder how many professing Christians would affirm with their mouths that this is true- that Jesus is risen, but they do not have their life truly centered ON that wonderful truth? What we do is to be focused on Christ. What I do should be focused on Christ. God has given me the ability to write for the cause of Christ... yet I have not blogged in quite a while... have not used this God-given tool to proclaim Christ and him crucified for our sins and resurrected from the grave for the glory of God. God has given me the mouth to speak, but how often have I remained silent about the gospel I cling to for my salvation?

It is certainly easier to sit and not work for the cause of Christ. Personally I dream often about building a better computer... getting a new iPod... seeing the next movie I am interested in... etc. So many distractions are available to us. But our lives are but a flash in the pan of eternity. And I'm not interested in wasting this life the God has graciously given me.

I am not trying to be legalistic about this or come down on anyone else's case.... I'm talking about where I'm at in this point in my life. I really don't want to waste my life chasing the wind. I want to be working for the cause of Christ... to grow in His righteousness.

<><

A helpful resource would be checking out John Piper's book "Don't Waste Your Life."

"Don't Waste Your Life" - Lecrae

The Gospel Is Not To Be Compromised.

2009-06-16T23:31:00.000-07:00

I am pretty much on the verge of leaving the congregation my parents attend. This may seem of little importance, but with the exception of college, I have faithfully been with them in the church I was raised, the mega church, and finally now the small Bible church. However, something has happened that has caused me to question my role in the congregation, so to speak.

I do not want to go into details... who knows who will be reading this post... and I don't want to bore you or gossip.

So here's the gist, as it were.

June 7, 2009 - guest speaker "preaches" at the church. his gospel is an urgency message of sorts, charging us the importance of being fishers of men to spread the gospel, by fishing and catching men for God, essentially. the problem came though from his lack of gospel in the sermon. he told more stories about himself than I thought possible. Much of the sermon was him preaching about himself, rather than him preaching about forgiveness of sins in Christ. In fact, the cloest thing he ever even came to the "gospel" was his mentioning he shared with one gentleman "the four spiritual laws." If you are unfamiliar, law #1 is "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life." ::tries not to puke:: This is NOT the gospel! It is not really even true for that matter... but anyway.

Well I messaged the church group I started on Fb and told them that s sermon where the man preaches about himself and tells jokes is not a sermon. One where Christ crucified is not proclaimed is not a sermon. But the person who spoke apparently is an alumni, so to speak, of the congregation, and so no one saw it fit to out and out identify what (if anything) was wrong with the sermonette. My reaction in the message was a bit harsh, i recongized that and repented. Only then my repentance was called (unjustly) into question, and I found out that the leadership felt "more action" should be taken. They wanted to meet with me, but I declined. They seem to want me to repent of not just HOW I said what I said, but for SAYING what I said.

NO. The Gospel if of FAR more importance than man's feelings.

So as a result, I am looking at various churches... some Acts 29, Reformed Baptist and Presby in America for the summer. I don't want to be a loser and up and leave like that over something that may seem so trivial. But then again, the gospel is not trivial... it is CENTRAL.

I know I haven't written much lately. But I don't have the processes anymore to write really long blogs. And If i can't produce GOOD material... why produce half-thought out crud? lol.

2009-06-05T22:15:00.000-07:00

... This list is by NO means comprehensive... but is still fun I think. :-)

Let's face it... most "American Christians" are incredibly shallow when it comes to theological truth and Bible knowledge. Why else do books by Rick Warren and Joel Osteen and Rob Bell sell ANY copies whatsoever, much less sell out in many cases in "Christian bookstores"?? It's nuts!

However in the deep end of the pool today (one of the ends anyway) is the Reformed Christian. Christians who are in-line with the theology of the Reformation (Lutherans and Calvinists) are definitely going against the grain in terms of theology and the gospel and HOW we talk about the Bible. Well, historic Lutherans anyway... can't say much (good) about the ELCA. Anyway... oh yes. So while I recognize that many Lutherans get (a lot) RIGHT on... I am not Lutheran, SO I cannot speak so much for what language they do and don't use... say for what I hear from Rosebrough. lol.

Anyway... with my ignorance in mind and aside (does that even make sense to say? i doubt it), I have decided to compose some words that if used in a conversation by an individual (and that person is not a confessional lutheran)... that individual is MOST LIKELY a Calvinist. Since we have to use big words because our heads are so big from studying a lot of great books and sermons. ;-)

No... but seriously. It does take considerably more work to BE a Calvinist, considering that it goes counter to both sinful man's nature and the theological spectrum as a whole from where we are today in our man-centered forms of Christianity. We study to get at least a basic graps on what we believe from Scripture because... WE HAVE to, as we will undoubtedly be soon challenged by Arminians who think we never witness and eat our babies... or something.

anyway... on to the list:

WORDS / PHRASES THAT IF YOU HEAR, YOU ARE PROBABLY TALKING TO A CALVINIST...

- "deceitfully wicked"
- "dead in trespasses and sins"
- "regeneration"
- "elect"
- "

On the Marketing of God's Word...

2009-05-02T17:05:00.000-07:00

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (ESV)
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

I am a big fan of the ESV. I find it to be a very word-for-word accurate translation yet understandable. I like that while it is similar to the NRSV, the version the Religious Studies Dept. uses here @ MSU, it reflects much more theologically conservative and faithful readings of many a passage that the NRSV... well... theologically butchers. I've often wondered back and forth on the issue, however of the TNIV - Today's New International Version. I know some personally who use this version... but I know there is quite a bit of controversy surrounding the translation, and not from just the KJV-Only nutjobs. Many of the men I respect most - Al Mohler, John Piper, J.I. Packer, etc. are very distrusting of the TNIV for various reasons. (One of the more damning aspects of the TNIV is its translation of Psalm 34:20 in such a way that actually REMOVES the prophetic reference to Christ - "[God] protects all their bones, not one of them will be broken," changing the singular "his" to the generic plural "their".)

However, this post is NOT about the TNIV. (though I have spent too much time already rambling about it!)

While listening to a podcast by Rev. Al Mohler (here), I noticed something that the good Reverend pointed out. The Bible is the Word of God, yes? to equip for every good work... to teach... etc.? Well...







Do you get the point???

SO many "specialty" Bibles to fill market niches...

I have, for instance an NIV Student Bible... something more or less for teens with its level of notes... but I have it LEATHER BOUND. I even had my name engraved... for WHAT? a Bible that basically "expires" after I turn 18 or 19?? Does that seem... off to anyone? It does to me.

There is NOTHING wrong with study bibles. I have an ESV Study Bible AND an ESV Reformation Study Bible... both of which are amazing tools for study! I often feel lost if I do not have either of those Bibles with me, ESPECIALLY when I am working through the Old Testament, with so many cities and terminologies I am unfamiliar with. However many MANY of these I am skeptical of go beyond the scholarly emphasis. They often will have study notes that focus on... well... me. The Bible for the 12 yr old boy who plays Nintendo Wii... where does it end??? The focus isn't on helping the reader understand the given Bible passage. It is on meeting the individual's felt NEEDS.

Scholarship and theology has been exchanged for self-help Bible programs. ... and i'm not even TALKING about the "translations" themselves... from the TNIV to the NLT... I'm not saying we have to have NO study notes and NO designs on the Bibles... that is fine. But a camo Bible? I mean really...

What are your thoughts??

My Will is Not Free...

2009-04-24T15:37:00.000-07:00

Colossians 2:11-15
In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, but the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcis of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.

If the law has not passed away, what then of grace?

2009-04-03T01:16:00.000-07:00

Personally, I am in the process of working my way through the Gospel of Mark in preparation/repentance as we move closer and closer to Good Friday and Resurrection Sunday. However, a question came up today from a professor of mine that I had to address.

Matthew 5:17-20 {ESV}
[Jesus taught, saying:] "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever laxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

I am fairly certain that a few months ago I did a rather lengthy 2-part blog about the later portion of this verse -- "exceeding the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees." This post however will try to briefly (ha! yeah right) look at the earlier portion of this verse, particularly v 18-- the bit about NOTHING of the law is passing away with Christ's coming.

What exactly brought about the gears in my head turning in regards to this verse? I started focusing a bit on this verse as a result of a brief conversation I had with one of my professors and a fellow Religious Studies Major. I do not exactly know HOW we got to talking about it... but Travis mentioned a student in his youth group had asked about why they were no longer bound to the levitical law. Travis gave the answer, "Because we are under the new covenant," yet admitted he did not have, at that moment, a better answer than that and began to wonder a bit for himself what the answer was. My Prof. alluded to Matthew 5 in stating that Jesus had said he did not come to do away with the law, and not one "jot or tittle" would pass away from the law.

The next words (as close as I can remember) were "Now, this is in complete contradiction to what is written in Galatians! Yes it is -- Complete contradiction... [Christians] pick-and-choose which rules to follow and which ones to not."

For better or for worse, I did not respond to that comment. Possibly for worse. I had no desire to get into a theological discussion / argument with her however. Not only does she come at scholarship from a more secular angle, her coming at the conversation from a... well... NOT Reformed tradition means we are coming to the table from utterly different presuppositions about what the purpose of the law is, how man is saved, etc. Furthermore, if I do not chew on something for a while, my tendency to stutter really gets in the way. Either way, I figure I could pseudo-respond in blog-fashion. Certainly my prof's noting that Jesus said that not one bit of the law would pass away. However, I would take GREAT exception to the rest of her statement. To claim Jesus' words are contradictory of Paul's?

So what is my response?

I will first state the presupposition I am coming from. I and a Reformed Christian and hold to the inerrancy and infallibility of the Holy Bible. I hold to the actual authorship of the Bible-- that is, if a book in the cannon says it is written by St. Paul... it WAS written by St. Paul. This goes for ANY book of the Bible, btw... even Daniel! I believe the Bible as being, as Paul wrote to Timothy, "theopneustos" -- breathed-out of the mouth of God. And as it is theopneustos, and our God is a God of order, not confusion or contradiction, then the Bible never contradicts itself. Any "contradiction" that we may observe IS either able to be harmonized with clear Scripture or may be beyond our comprehension as fallen man to understand. Again... no true contradictions in the Scripture. No double-talk from the Holy Spirit.

Now that that's out of the way...

Again, Jesus DID say that not one bit of the law is to be thrown away with the coming of Christ. This only makes sense with what Jesus was doing in the sermon of the mount - showing the TRUE nature of the law in the first place! Again, the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5, 6, & 7) is NOT some sweet little sermon about good morals. Not at all. You think you're only guilty of murder if you actually KILL a guy?? HAH! If you even are P-Oed with someone, you are a murderer at heart! You think you can get a divorce?? If you get any sort of divorce other than sexual immorality, you are an ADULTERER! You think you are to only love those you like? Love EVERYONE! Oh and by the way... adultery isn't only what you do ... it includes your THOUGHT LIFE!! Not the nicest most encouraging sermon I've ever read, I'll tell you that! But this is completely in line with what Christ himself said about the law. Not only was he not abolishing it... he was showing that the TRUE nature of the law is SO MUCH more tedious and demanding on man than once thought! What does the law demand? Jesus tells us: "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Mt 5:48).

Just in case his disciples and those listening to his sermons thought Christ had come to do AWAY with the laws, he makes them IMPOSSIBLE to follow, by saying that through the law, Christ demands PERFECTION!

So... How does this fit in with salvation by grace, apart from the law? Easy. The law was never meant to save anyone. It was to point toward the Savior-- Christ Jesus. "Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes the knowledge of sin" (Romans 3:19-20). Paul writes here that the law was NOT to justify anyone in the sight of God; it can't be done!

How then are we justified? Romans 5:9 - "Since, therefore, we have now been justified by [Christ's] blood, how much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God." Galatians 2:16 - "We know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified."

Romans 5:18-21: "As one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Furthermore, as written throughout Paul's letters and in Hebrews, we know that Christ's sinless perfect life allowed him to be the perfect atoning sacrifice for our sin to be made "once for all," as in NO more sacrifices are needed. That's it -- "it is accomplished/finished" as Christ said on the cross. His death atones for our sin, and HIS righteousness in life becomes OUR righteousness, imputed to all who repent of sin and place their trust in the gospel!

There is NO contradiction between what Christ spoke of concerning the law in the Sermon on the Mount -- that not one part of it would be done away with -- and the gospel of grace through faith, apart from the law. The law has not passed away... but its purpose was never to save us through obedience. For salvation via obedience to the law, PERFECT OBEDIENCE is required; this is something we are utterly unable to accomplish because of our utter sinfulness.

The law has not passed away. Its purpose is now what it always has been -- to bring about the knowledge of our sin. It is a signpost pointing toward Christ Jesus. The law points out our utter sinfulness and inability to obey the law perfectly and be righteous of our own doing. However... there is one who DID fulfill the law by perfect obedience -- Christ Jesus. And his righteousness and death on the cross purchases salvation for all who will repent and believe. This salvation is by grace through faith, not a result of works... so that no one may boast (Ephesians 2:8-9).

The law is still there... still showing us our need for the Savior. And the fulfillment of the law is Jesus Christ-- our needed Savior. Salvation is not through the law that condemns. It is in the lived-out righteousness and perfect atoning sacrifice paid on the cross for the sin of all who would repent and believe.

It is a beautiful and glorious gospel.

Grood Stuff @ Boulevard Baptist

2009-02-22T19:51:00.000-08:00

1 Corinthians 2:1-5 (ESV)
And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.

If truth be known, I would probably be accused of being a "church hopper" by some (or many). This is unfair. I have not been hopping for the sake of hopping or until I find a church that has the right color of carpet or that only sings Charlie Hall praise choruses ('cause Chris Tomlin is better anyway... lol), etc. Someday I will write a lengthy blog about my journey through (more or less) Evangelical churches, starting with my parents being raised in the Oneness cult and then onto a Pentecostal-Evangelical church, then to a watered-down-gospel-less mega-church, and beyond. But not tonight.

I think I mentioned in a previous blog that Kacey and I were looking at churches, trying to find a good one (rare in any town I am convinced, Springfield or no). Well, without going into too much detail about the search (which consisted of mostly MAJOR misses, and only two good hits), I think we have finally found the congregation God would have us be in for the dividing of His Word. Boulevard Baptist Church.

Kacey and I have been attending there for about a month now or so, and we are really happy there. Even though I am not really Baptist (I would consider myself a "Baptistyrian"), but I recognize good Christ-centered preaching. Pastor Doug Shivers definitely preaches a Christ-centered gospel. I will admit, I am a HUGE fan of expository preaching - going into the meaning of the text with the Greek and Hebrew. Currently, Boulevard is not doing this. However, this is because they are doing an overview series on the ENTIRE Bible - one book a week. One cannot go into every Hebrew or Greek term in a book in an hour long sermon. However, he does give a very succinct overview of the book the congregation has been reading the past week, picking out the key passages that sum up the author's intention in writing the book.

There is something else that is amazing about Boulevard though, something rare in Evangelicalism today. Pastor Doug preaches Christ in every sermon. Yes, every sermon includes the gospel. I am not talking about a mere invitation at the end of the hour. I mean, he shows the book's place in God's redeeming a people unto Himself, and points to the gospel - Christ and the atoning work of the cross. A couple of weeks ago, Pastor Doug pointed this out as something pastors rarely do, and how it is needed for preaching. I did not want to be overly skeptical, but I wanted to be discerning and asked myself, "Okay, so he gives this principle lip-service. But does he actually do it in his sermons?" YES!! He does! Take today's sermon on Jeremiah. After giving the core of the book, he focused attention to Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is a CLEAR presentation of the gospel and God's promise of a new covenant!! So many could have missed this. But this church's focus is on proclaiming Christ and him crucified.

This church feels as though it could be a home for Kacey and I, and this is something I consider a blessing. Next weekend, Kacey and I will start attending Sunday School there, as they start a series through the Book of Hebrews. (I will be sure to bring my ESV Study Bible for help... )

<><

Currently Listening To:
Live Unplugged
By Jeremy Camp
see related

"How Can God Be Good and Still Allow Bad Things to Happen?"

2009-01-26T22:38:00.000-08:00

It was sometime last week I was sitting next to my friend Elise during our Apocalypses course when the issue of Theodicy came up. It arose when our instructor mentioned the question that many must struggle with: "How can God be just/good and allow bad things to happen to people?"

This question is odd to me. I am not truly sure if I am relaying it correctly, or if my memory is going bad. But if I had related the "problem" correctly as previously stated... it is something I struggle with. It is not something I struggle with as most people probably struggle with. I would venture to guess most people who struggle with such a question are at odds with some apparent contradiction between God being a good/loving God and a just God and his action of permitting evil or bad things to occur. I suppose these individuals who are baffled by such a conundrum fret over God's inability or unwillingness to wipe evil away off the face of the earth for good... RIGHT NOW (or a long time ago... whenever it would be done). If God really loved us, then things would be better on this planet in this life, right?

I have a problem not with trying to solve the problem the question asks. I have a problem with the question itself. A problem with what the question implies about God, his justice, his sovereignty, his goodness, and the state of man.

I would continue, but nothing I could possibly say would spell it out as beautifully as Preacher Voddie Baucham did in this video. He speaks the truth. So to get my thoughts on this "problem" of theodicy... check out the video posted below.

<><

Striving to proclaim & defend biblical truth and yet NOT be a grade-A jerk in the process

2008-12-28T00:43:00.000-08:00

1 Peter 3:13-17 (ESV, emphasis added)
Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good? But even if you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God's will, than for doing evil.

I wish I could remember 100% the quote I am about to reference, but I do not really know where to begin to look for it. I know it was said by the guys who are on The White Horse Inn--one of my favorite podcasts to date. Though I will be unable to regurgitate the quote word-for-word, the essence will be there.

The best thing to do to someone who has JUST become Reformed (aka Calvinist) in his or her theology is to immediately lock them up for a period of time, so they can work out the rest of their theology and mature in the faith without killing anyone.

You know, the more I tried to remember EXACTLY what was said and write that, the more I realized I pretty much mangled the exact words. Like I said, it would not be verbatim. But the point is there.

Now you may be wondering why I, a Reformed Christian/Calvinist (basically a mix between Presbyterian & Baptist... a "Baptistyrian"), would desire to have been incarcerated for an undisclosed period of time after my acceptance of the truths established by the Word of God, brought back to light in the Reformation. It seems to go against conventional wisdom and desire. If someone has just been given the TRUTH, should he not shout it for all to hear, regardless of the form this proclamation takes and is perceived?

No. Well, not exactly. We SHOULD be proclaiming the truth--the gospel BOLDLY. We are assured of this gospel not merely through some supernatural experience or a perceived "burning in the bosom" but by the Word of God itself. We, as Christians, place our hope in nothing less than Jesus' blood and righteousness. We repent of our sinful ways which are part of our nature and fling ourselves upon the mercy displayed by Christ Jesus at the cross. We go and proclaim this message, that God uses our foolish proclamation to call his sheep to himself.

We proclaim boldly. This does not mean we be jerks in the process. This is something I have been growing in and am still continuing to grow in during this process of sanctification I think.

A friend of mine, an Evangelical Christian and fellow Religious Studies major, once shared some of his thoughts as to why I have had trouble getting along with other professing Christians in the past. Specifically noting a tendency to drive some outright away. This brother in Christ did not miens words with me: "Ryan, you flat out used to be a jerk about theology and religion." When I would later share this with another friend, she agreed that I had an air of jerkness about me.

At the time I learned this, I did not really want to consider it. ME? A JERK ABOUT THEOLOGY? I honestly was outraged to be accused of such a thing! I was the one proclaiming truth and attempting to be discerning with great fervor... not feeding off of Emergent theology, Rick Warren, or spreading Osteenisms. I wanted the Church to be Christ-driven, not "purpose-driven." I stressed the need to be aware of Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, and Doug Paggit. These men did not proclaim the biblical gospel, but heretical lies... and I would quote a fairly accurate translation of Galatians 1:9: "If anyone preaches a different gospel, to Hell with him!" The error came not with what I was saying, but the manner in which I was saying it.

As Christians, we are to "give a defense for the hope that lies within us." Certainly, YES! This is done too little in 21st century American Christianity. As Sola Scriptura is attacked by the "progressive Christians" and the way is paved for a man-centered "Christless Christianity", too few today have a smidgen of discernment needed to tend to the sheep... much less SHOOT THE WOLVES that would devour the sheep! Truth is to be proclaimed. But in what manner is this truth to be proclaimed? Is it to be proclaimed in a manner that is hot-headed and ill tempered? Certainly not... for the fruits of the Spirit include patience, kindness, gentleness AND self-control. And as Peter wrote in his first inspired letter, we are to give this defense "with gentleness and respect." This is what I have had a habit of not displaying--the proclamation of truth "with gentleness and respect."

So then, going back to the previously mentioned quote, WHY should Calvinists be locked up for a period of time? Because upon realizing the truth of God's sovereignty, man's depravity, and God's divine election, there can easily be a stint of ... anger. Anger at the church for not properly proclaiming the gospel of salvation by Grace through faith ALONE. Anger at the pastor for preaching a gospel of God's work + man's effort in choosing to accept the gift of Jesus, denying God's sovereignty in election and glorifying a misunderstanding of man's "freedom of choice" as "freedom of will." Anger that the whole of biblical truth was not proclaimed because the message of free man being subject to a Sovereign is unfamiliar and incredibly unpopular in America today. Anger that the truth of God's Word in respect to man's total depravity and God's sovereign election of his own people was glazed over from the pulpit. I certainly can ascribe to having felt these feelings of anger over what I was taught in a megaChurch that cares more about appealing to the unregenerate sinner than pleasing a Holy God in the manner the Word is preached.

And while this anger was and can be/is a righteous anger... a GOOD reason to be angry/frustrated with the condition of "American Christianity," my own reaction has been unbiblical. Yes congregations and pastors/life-coaches sin when they abuse, mangle, and twist the Scriptures... using the Word of God as fortune cookie statements to aid in life improvement. And I also sin in my response when that response is that of a complete jerk. Responding in harsh manners to those who read certain books or use BAD "bibles" (Message, CEV, NLT, etc). When I learn someone is reading _____________, I should respond with a kind, "I see. What about that do you like? Do we find this in Scripture?" NOT with an angry, "WHAT?! WHAT THE CRAP IS WRONG WITH YOU?!!! WHY WOULD YOU READ HIM--ARE YOU AN IDIOT OR SOMETHING???!!!!!"

This less-than-godly response to those who are subjecting themselves to bad teachers is sinful. And it may have been better to, upon submitting to the doctrines of Grace, have been whisked to some tower, where I would continue to study God's Word, get over my jerkness phase, and be ready and willing to respond biblical to those who are in a position that I myself was in, not four years ago. I too was into Purpose-Driven poo not too long ago... just 4 or 5 years ago really. That's all. God saved me out of that BAD theology. I should be less quick to look at a follower of these bad teachers and write the follower off as "heretic," as they may not know better at this point. I am sure that I do NOT have total biblical discernment (despite what I may let on... lol). God has brought me to where I am now in discerning truth from error and heresy over the course of a few years. I do not know what God is doing along those lines in my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.

This does not mean we are to back down from the truth. Rich Warren is in error, and needs to be confronted. Joel Osteen is in error, and needs to be confronted. Rob Bell... Tony Campolo... Brian McLaren... Tony Jones... Max Lucado... Joyce Meyer... Benny Hinn... the Pope... the Mormon Church... these are those who are in error and need to be confronted. Their teachings are often false and must be challenged. Even Evangelical "hero" Billy Graham preaches a "wider-mercy " view of Salvation... a dressed up version of Universalism, believing men and women are saved by God though they never repent of their sin and place their trust for salvation in Christ Jesus' redemptive work on the cross. [This is not made up... click here to watch the video on YouTube about this.] Where there is error proclaimed and false gospels preached, the GOSPEL MUST BE PROCLAIMED. The Word must be preached and the wolves be exposed and be taken care of (even "shot" so-to-speak)! I do not deny nor will I ever deny, by God's grace, that the error and heresies of the past, of our day, and of the future MUST be addressed.

I also stress however, as God has been teaching me through His Word and the teaching of Godly preachers, there is a wrong way to go about doing this-- to be a jerk in the process. It is difficult when I get SO angry by heresy... SO ANGRY by the American Christianity we see today, which does not proclaim Christ and Him crucified. But even in my anger, I should not sin. And I have found many of my responses in the past to such errors HAVE been very sinful. It may have been better for me to have been locked away until I learned to be gentle and respectful than to have shot my mouth off so frequently as I have in the past.

Thankfully though... this close friend of mine and Kacey have seemed to indicate that while I was a jerk about it more in the past... they have seen improvement. I do not come across as much of a jerk as I have in the past... by the grace of God. I am thankful for this, and I hope to be able to continue in my serving God by proclaiming truth... yet doing it with gentleness and respect for others.

<><

Temptation to dress up the gospel

2008-12-20T04:23:00.000-08:00

John 3:36
Whoever believes in the Son [Jesus Christ] has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

2 Timothy 4:1-5
I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

I recall last summer, I prayed with Nolan about my roommates for this current school year I am in. We prayed that God's will be done and that it may mean being paired with nonChristians, so be it that I may share the good news of Christ Jesus with them. Well, I am thankful Nolan encouraged me to pray God's will be done... because that was his will, and it was done.

Neither of my two roommates happened to be believing Christians. One actually is a member of the Mormon Church, and he and I have recently had some interesting conversations/discussions about Christianity, the origin of the Scriptures, and the personage of Christ. I must remember to write a bit more in-depth about what happened there. Never the less, I did share the gospel with him, sharing the law and the free grace of God with him. This individual, William, is no longer my roommate, as he graduated yesterday. Please keep William in your prayers, that he would respond to the gospel call to repent and believe... not in the Mormon Jesus but in the true Triune God of the Bible (Mormons deny the Trinity, if you did not know. In doing so, they worship a false deity of their own making).

My other roommate, Zhu (pronounced "Jue") is a bit more interesting. After noticing early on that just about every Sunday morning William and Kacey and I would head to our respective church services, Zhu stated he would be interested in going to church, because it was "the good thing to do." I carefully explained to him Kacey and I did not attend church services to "do good" or to earn spiritual points. We go to worship God for who He is and what He's done-- for his mercy in choosing to seek and save the lost who are utterly unable to save themselves. It's not about our spirituality being furthered or earing good points. It's about worshiping YHWH alone. I shared the law and gospel with him as well, encouraging him to consider the things we'd talked about.

Yet when I've tried to speak with him about Christianity recently, his response is to shake his head with a smile on his face and say "No, no." There is no ... interest in the things of God. He once came back from his REL 100 (Intro to Religion) course after learning about Hinduism and their deities very enthused about what he had learned. "I think I like the gods of Hinduism much more than the God of Christianity! I mean, the gods of Hinduism have many arms, and look VERY COOL! Where as Jesus is just a man... and very boring!" is what he told me.

:-\ How do you respond to that? How do you respond to someone who is primarily interested in how COOL God looks or seems to him... how relevant He seems? How do you respond to someone who wants a religion that is pleasing to his eyes and his ears? Do you give him what he wants?

Do you scratch his "itching ears"? The Bible is clear: NO.

Now this seems to go against human wisdom. In advertising and other mediums, you learn to make things attractive so people buy into what you are selling. This is a commonly used tactic in the world... make things flashy, sexy, cool and people will buy into the product so they will seem flashy, sexy and cool.

However this is worldly wisdom... not the way God works.

There has been a lot of temptation to try and dress up the gospel. Take him to a church he would be amazed and wowed by the service. (As if the service is for HIS enjoyment and not for the worshiping of God) Try and suggest campus ministries that reach out to unsaved individuals by preaching "relevant" lessons. This seems like it would do some good from a worldly perspective in getting him saved! right? If you want to see how God saves men... see Romans 10:5-17. God uses preaching the Word of God... the truth of the gospel. Not marketing tactics, but the truth through boldly preaching. This will seem to be the foolish thing to do (1 Corinthians 1:20-25) from a perspective of the unregenerate world. But "the foolishness of god is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men" (1 Corinthians 1:25).

We, as Christians, are not called to scratch the itching ears. We are called to preach the Word, in season and out of season. To preach the gospel of Christ and Him crucified. Not to wow and amaze by how cool or relevant we can seem. But to call all men everywhere to repent and believe the gospel.

Tempted as we may be to dress up the gospel in a way that seems relevant and / or hip to the world, we must remain obedient to God's truth that is the Word. Preach the Word... when it is popular and unpopular to do so--in season AND out of season.

<><

On the Nature of the Gospel

2008-11-18T16:12:00.000-08:00

John 3:3
Jesus answered him [Nicodemus], "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."

1 Corinthians 15:1-5
Now I [Paul] would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you--unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

John 14:6-7
Jesus said to him [Thomas], "I am the way, and the truth, and the life No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him."

Ephesians 2:4-9
But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ--by grace you have been saved--and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not of your own doing; it is a gift from God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

From the previous post, looking at the Scriptures, we know the following

God gave his law to man: to love. To love God and to love our neighbor.

We break God's law daily. We should love God and love others... but we DON'T! If we really loved as we are COMMANDED to love, we would not sin.

Because of our wretched nature, it is utterly impossible to keep God's law. Spiritual disciplines do not help. Helping the poor won't help. Good works do not erase bad deeds.

Basically... left to our own works to save us... we're screwed.

When you look at the mirror of God's law... the result is disgust. I really do not comprehend how wretched and evil I am until I compare myself not to my neighbor's standards or even the actions of my brother in Christ... but compare myself to God's commandments for how I am to live... for what I am to be: PERFECT. I am very-not-perfect. I am a lustful, adulterer-of-the-heart, lying, thieving, covetous, murderous, hatefully wicked man.

If any man deserved to go to Hell and experience the wrath of almighty God, it is I.

But as I stated previously... there is good news... there is the GOSPEL (which translated means "Good News")!

This gospel won't mean you'll have your best life now... it won't mean you'll have a better marriage... it won't mean you will have perfect relationships with others... it won't mean you will feel your life will be driven by a new purpose or that your troubles will be mended and healed.

Then... what?

The Gospel is this: 2,000 years ago YHWH (God) became a man: Jesus Christ, born of a virgin named Mary. Jesus was not merely in human form, nor was he a man who ascended to godhood. He is not, as Mormonism teaches, "the only begotten Son in the flesh," making him a created being, the spirit brother of Satan, who was born of Elohim, who himself used to be a man, who ascended to godhood. This is nonsense, as it is unbiblical. The Gospel of John opens with these words:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made though him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it... And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth" (John 1:1-5, 14).

Later, also in the Gospel of John, Jesus tells the Jews after they ask him how he has seen Abraham, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am" (John 8:58) This "I AM" title is a title that God uses for himself (Exodus 3:13-14). In responding to the Jewish people's questions, Jesus proclaimed, "My Father, who has given them [the elect] to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them [the elect] out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one" (John 10:29-30). And how did the Jews respond to Jesus' claim that he was God? not A god, but ONE with the Father? Repeatedly, they attempted to stone him.

I go into this in detail not to beat the point into the ground... but to make clear that I am not speaking of the Mormon concept of "Jesus." Or the Jehovah's Witnesses' concept of "Jesus." I am dealing with the BIBLICAL Jesus-- the Christ. Does it matter what the nature of Jesus is? ABSOLUTELY! You cannot point to a chair, and say "THAT'S JESUS!!" You would be wrong (and blasphemous) to do so. WHO Jesus is matters. I am not, as a Mormon friend of mine claims, "splitting hairs," when I proclaim that WHO Jesus is actually matters. He is the 2nd person in the Trinity. If you worship another Jesus... you have the wrong god, and you do not know the Father either (1 John & 2 John). [For more on Christ's deity and the doctrine of the Trinity, visit here, here or here.]

This Jesus who came to "dwell among us" (John 1:14) is "the God-man." 100% God, 100% man. He came to Earth to "save his people from their sins" (Mt 1:21). He proclaimed, boldly, that if you want to get to Heaven, there is no other way but by him. Jesus Christ is THE way (not A way), the TRUTH (not one truth among many), and THE LIFE (without him, there is no eternal life). NO ONE comes to the Father, but through Him. Here is how that was accomplished: the cross.

Again, we are all lawbreakers. And the worse news is that "it it is appointed for a man to die once, and after that comes judgment" (Hebrews 9:27). If you die in your sins, you will be judged by those sins. Time cannot wash away a crime. Those sins are still your burden to bear. And if you die in your sins, you WILL spend an eternity in Hell. This is not me trying to use a scare tactic, this is Scriptural. There is a real place called Hell, and it is where lawbreakers go. "But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, the sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death" (Revelation 21:8). All this talk about Hell being temporary... dies. All this talk about Hell ONLY being "separation from God?" Well... yes, but it isn't JUST separation from God. You are separated from Him... and also you are paying for your sins for eternity in Hell.

But again, there is GOOD NEWS! Christ displays his love in dying and becoming the atonement for the sin of sinners. I have been saved by grace through faith in what Christ has done for me... He took my place, dying for my sins. He suffered the wrath of God so I would not have to. This is AMAZING LOVE if there ever was! He died as the atonement for sin... to make things right between God and man. Furthermore, Jesus rose from the grave on the third day, proving his conquering of Death and sin. His resurrection is the evidence of this victory over the sin --yours and mine--that put him in the position to die.

This is the good news... Christ died for sin, was buried, and resurrected from the grave. He paid the price of ALL who would respond in faith. What does it mean to respond? To REPENT of your sin... not to just ask God to forgive you... but to forsake and turn from your sin, and to place your trust in Christ Jesus for your salvation. He offers forgiveness of sins. He offers an escape of the wrath that is to come. Run to him! Run to him out of thanksgiving for all he has done--purchasing EVERYTHING that is necessary for your salvation.

I urge any and all of you... REPENT AND BELIEVE THE GOSPEL! (Mark 1:15) Do not carry the burden of your sin any longer... turn from your sin and fling yourself upon the mercy of Christ and Him crucified. Scripture says that all who call on the name of the Lord will be saved (Romans 10:10). I beg of you... repent and trust in His work to atone for sin. I may seem judgmental in all this that I have written. Is it judgmental for someone to urge a blind man to halt before he falls off of the cliff he is headed for? Surely not. God is no liar... His word is truth... Repent and have faith in Christ's atoning work. When God grants you the gift of faith and gives you saving grace... this is ALL of God.... it is not a result of your works. You cannot bribe God with your good works. They cannot save you. If they could, Christ died for no reason (Galatians 2:21). In fact your "good works" that you trust to save you?... In God's eyes, they are filthy rags (Isaiah 64:4-9)... or more accurately, USED BLOODY TAMPONS. God offers you salvation from sin and His wrath... and you hand him old tampons.

Do not trust in your goodness or your works to save you. Repent of your sinful ways and fling yourself upon the mercy of Christ, the atonement bought by his crucifixion. THIS IS the Gospel... the Good News of Christianity.

As I bring this to a close, the lyrics of a new hymn "In Christ Alone" are powerful in their description of the gospel message.

"In Christ Alone"

In Christ alone my hope is found
He is my light, my strength, my song
This Cornerstone, this solid ground
Firm through the fiercest drought and storm
What heights of love, what depths of peace
When fears are stilled, when strivings cease
My Comforter, my All in All
Here in the love of Christ I stand

In Christ alone, who took on flesh
Fullness of God in helpless babe
This gift of love and righteousness
Scorned by the ones He came to save
‘Til on that cross as Jesus died
The wrath of God was satisfied
For every sin on Him was laid
Here in the death of Christ I live

There in the ground His body lay
Light of the world by darkness slain
Then bursting forth in glorious Day
Up from the grave He rose again
And as He stands in victory
Sin’s curse has lost its grip on me
For I am His and He is mine
Bought with the precious blood of Christ

No guilt of life, no fear in death
This is the power of Christ in me
From life’s first cry to final breath
Jesus commands my destiny
No power of hell, no scheme of man
Can ever pluck me from His hand
‘til He returns or calls me home
Here in the power of Christ I’ll stand

[[To go into the details of the cross and act of crucifixion and atonement would take up more time and space than many would care to read. For more on that in GREAT detail please check out Driscoll's sermon on the Atonment and / or his series on the cross.]]

Exceeding the Righteousness of the Pharisees

2008-10-23T13:57:00.000-07:00

Matthew 5:20
[Jesus said,] ”For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”

My name is Ryan. And I am a law breaker. Yes, I have broken God's law. I am a filthy wretch. I am a liar, a hypocrite, and adulterer at heart... I am a murderer even.

Yes. A murderer. As recorded in Matthew 5:21-26, Jesus explained the sin of murder is not limited only to the actual act of slaying someone with a blade. "Everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment." Have you been angry with someone? You are liable to judgment by Almighty God, who is free to judge you as though you HAD murdered someone. "Whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire." I can say, with confidence, I have insulted others. My parents... my family... my close friends... my enemies.

Now, I COULD make a case that the use of "his brother" means these offenses are only applicable to the act of murder in God's eyes, IF the offense is toward a FELLOW BELIEVER. The term "brother" is often used in the New Testament to speak of fellow believers, so this could be extended to this passage (though of course in the ORIGINAL context, the "brothers" would be Jews... however, we Christians are grafted into the vine... so we are all BELIEVERS). However, I find this irrelevant for 2 reasons: 1) later in the same sermon, Jesus says to love and to greet not only your brothers, but also your enemies (v. 47). If you are murdering or insulting your neighbor, enemy or not, is that very loving? Can you flick someone off in love? I think not. 2) Even if this command is to be concerned ONLY with believers... OK! So... have I been angry with a fellow believer? Have I insulted a fellow Christian? YES... ok... so even so, I've STILL not kept that law... and I'm guilty as a murderer in God's eyes, from his standard.

So under the Law, what is the standard to enter the kingdom of heaven? What is the requirement we must keep, "so that [we] may be sons of [our] Father who is in heaven?" (v. 45) The answer: Our righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees. Or... as Jesus restates in v. 48: "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

:-(

Under the law... the only thing that can save us is perfection. Keeping the law PERFECTLY. Time doesn't blot out sin. There is no statute of limitations when it comes to God's perfect holy law. If you want to get into Heaven, there's is ONE thing you HAVE to do to get there: BE PERFECT. Problem: I am not perfect. I look at the mirror of the law, and I only see my own sin. Any attempt of self-justification is futile. No amount of convoluted reasoning can change the fact that I am a law breaker. A transgressor against YHVH. I sinner. I sin because I am a sinner. You sin because you are a sinner.

Left to my own, there is no possible way I would ever inherit the kingdom of heaven. It's impossible, I am stained by my sin. And if you think you can earn your way into Heaven, you MUST be PERFECT. But you know you are not perfect. Like me, you are a law breaker. A liar... a hypocrite... one who lusts... and a murderer. Left up to yourself, you are screwed. You WILL NOT get to Heaven. It is IMPOSSIBLE for YOU to DO ANYTHING to make it so that YOU can get to Heaven. I don't care how much you cared for the orphan and the widow... I don't care how much you gave... how much you read your Bible... how you only had sex within marriage... how you gave up porn... how you don't drink underage... how often you took communion... or if you were baptized... how often you pray... how you say you don't watch filthy movies... the fact is IT IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH! YOU ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGH! If you think you are good enough, you are a LIAR... and right there alone you are disqualified from the inheritance. Because guess what? YOU ARE NOT PERFECT! YOU ARE NOT RIGHTEOUS! YOU WILL NOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN ON YOUR OWN BY YOUR WORKS! I cannot stress this enough.

Nothing I do will make me good enough to inherit the kingdom of heaven.

I have noticed a growing confusion with the law and the gospel. SO often people are presenting the law AS gospel. I have encountered pastors saying that the gospel is all about LOVE--Love God, and Love Your Neighbor. PROBLEM: I DO NOT LOVE GOD WITH ALL MY HEART! If I did, I would not sin! Same with my neighbor...if I REALLY loved my neighbor, I would not lust for her... I would not be guilty of murder against him or her by insult. Did Jesus say, "On love does the gospel hinge?" NO! On these things (love God, love neighbors) does the LAW hinge. These 2 things are COMMANDS. They are part of the LAW. Loving God doesn't save you... if it did, do you love God PERFECTLY? Nope. So you are disqualified. The law cannot save you. Or if it could, you MUST keep it perfectly. If you don't you are disqualified from working your way to the kingdom.

However... praise God... there is good news...

...to be continued...

Searching for a (GOOD) Church... pt 1

2008-10-20T22:15:00.000-07:00

Titus 2:1
"But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine."

I attend a university in Springfield, MO. For those of you not in the know, Springfield, MO is smack in the Bible Belt. We are just down the road from Southwest Baptist University... have the 2nd largest Assemblies of God church in America (James River Assembly... jokingly referred to by some locals as "Hillsong USA")... we even have the HQ of the Assemblies of God, a Protestant Pentecostal denomination. And while this place is not like some I've seen in Northern Texas/Southern Arkansas, having a church literally on EVERY corner... it is filled with congregations galore.

So then, you would think finding a church would be really simple... that all you would have to do is walk on into a church, sit down, and you've found one. Well, that is true for finding a church. However... finding a good church?... that takes a bit more doing.

What constitutes a "GOOD CHURCH"? One where sound doctrine is taught (Titus 2:1). One that preaches a gospel of grace, not just law (Ephesians 1:6-10; 2:8-9). One that boldly proclaims Christ and him crucified (1 Corinthians 1:23). One that is more interested in proclaiming truth than on tickling peoples' ears, telling them only what they want to hear to suit their felt-needs (2 Timothy 4:3-4). One that teaches the condition of man prior to the new birth as being evil, not basically good (Ephesians 2:1-3). One that does not perform for the masses to be cool and relevant, but instead worships God in spirit and in truth (John 4:24). One that proclaims Christ as the way, truth, and life--that except through him, there is no salvation (John 14:6). One that teaches that to see the Kingdom of God, a man must be born again (John 3:3). One that cares more about feeding the sheep than attracting goats (John 21:16). One that will guard the congregants from false teachers, who are wolves (Matthew 7:15). One that proclaims the gospel of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-5). One that teaches that salvation is an act of God--monergism, and not an act of man--synergism (Ephesians 1:4-12, John 6:44, Romans 8:28-30).

Again... one would think this would be an easy task to find churches that did all these things. But as Kacey and I are finding out first hand... few "churches" care about such things any more.

...to be continued...

Abortion, God, Man, and the Gospel of Christ’s Atonement

2008-10-16T13:48:00.000-07:00

The following is a slightly-altered response I made to someone on Facebook… concerning the topics of abortion, sin, the nature of God, and man’s need for a Savior. I hope it is a blessing to those who read it.

I have heard the desires to make exceptions when it comes to abortion for cases of rape or incest. However, there is still a fundamental issue: There is a living human being inside of the mother, with DNA and a heartbeat distinct from the mother's own. Is rape a horrible crime and sin? YES. However, I think it is just as much of a crime/sin to slaughter the unborn child that results. Truth be told, pregnancies resulting from rape are less common than those resulting from Tom and Linda not being able to keep it in their pants. I would say the child deserves to live either way. Adoption is always an option. the 9 month journey is difficult, but having the blood of the innocent on the mother's hands is far worse.

"What about if the mother's life is in danger and the mother will die?" Well, I do not say that is an abortion. That is worded wrong. When that is the case, we do EVERYTHING we can to save both lives... and if in the process of saving the life of the mother we lose the child, we mourn for that child. Also, many would just LIE and say they were raped to get permission to kill their child. So yes, I am very anti-abortion and I support a constitutional amendment to ban it nation-wide. Will there be back-ally abortions? perhaps. I think though far fewer women would go through with abortions KNOWING the risks of back-alley abortions... look at the jump abortions took when Roe passed... suddenly women who wouldn't risk a back-ally one were now getting them. the numbers would, likewise, drop if it was suddenly made illegal. "People will still get them anyway." Yes, maybe... but people will ALWAYS break the law... people will speed and always go 10 miles over the limit, so let's not have a limit. People will always go ahead anyway and do meth... so let's make meth legal. it's not the best argumentation. BTW... I believe women (and EVERYONE) have rights. I do not support some groups having SPECIAL rights or higher-priority rights. Which is why I believe the unborn have a right to live.

Now... on to the issue of sin...

Would "God create something he wasn't proud of?" Well, no. In the beginning, he did not create anything he was unproud of. Every day of creation God said two things: "Let there be," and "It is good." However, this was only in creating paradise for humanity to originally dwell in. There was no sin... no fall of man at this point. There was no rape... there was no theft... there was no homosexuality... there was no murder. There essentially was no creation of evil or sin. Prior to man's disobedience, it would seem he was not inclined to sin (I hesitate to say MORE about Adam's nature prior to the fall... as Scripture is rather silent on this issue). However since the fall, since man's sin, his nature has been tainted since. Man is not created basically good or neutral (as it could be argued Adam and Eve were)... but rather we are all born as sinful creatures... spiritually dead, as the Bible describes us (Eph 2:1-3, Col 2:13)... unable to do what is good. We are, within us, plain bad (Gen 6:6:5-6, Gen 8:21, Psalm 51:5).

WAIT? Am I saying something was created that was not created by God? Not really. Evil or sin is not a THING. It isn't really an object. For more on this question "Did God create evil" I would direct you to a short article here: http://www.gotquestions.org/did-God-create-evil.html

What of us being made in the image of God?

I would direct you to http://voxpopnetwork.com/vision/2008/04/20/image-god-loves/#more-64 It is a bit longer than the other link I sent, but it goes into the question of "What does it mean to be made in the image of God." It doesn't mean we look physically like God. Or that we are sinless in our current state. What does it mean? BRIEFLY...
* Moral likenesses – decision-making power, dominion over lower creation, social ability, emotions, communication, etc.
* Non-moral likenesses – intellect/reason, immortal, spirit, ability to create, etc.
We have a moral likeness... we can make decisions, we have a conscience God gave us to understand basic ideas of right and wrong... we show love for others, etc. Again, there are other ways, but it does not mean we never sin. Remember, we are inclined to sin because of our human nature. I would think it may be correct (don't quote me on this) to say that while we are still in the image of God, that image has been stained up a bit by sin.

This brings me to something you said earlier: "God created you, and you're good." You think I am good? lol either 1) you don't know me that well or 2) your standards of "good" are less than stellar and accurate (no offense).

I used to think I was good, really. Then I saw what it meant to be good. And I am NOT a good person. And I'm guessing, if you are anything like every human being, you aren't doing so hot either. If we look at what it means to be good by God's standards... I fall terribly short. (I would encourage you to also examine yourself likewise in this exercise.) Have I ever told a lie? Heck yes. Many times. What do you call someone who lies?-- a liar. Have I ever stolen anything? Yes. Someone who steals things is called... a thief. I've taken God's name and used it as a cuss word... that's blaspheme. I've looked at someone with lust... in Matthew 5, God labels that as having committed adultery of the heart. I've only gone through what... 4 of the 10 laws ... and I've broken all of them. I am not a good person. I'm a lying, thieving, blasphemous adulterer at heart. I'm a law breaker. On the day of judgment, I would not be found innocent, I'd be found guilty. I have broken the laws, and deserve to be punished and sent where law-breakers go: Hell. I utterly deserve Hell, because I sin against a Holy God.

But the good news is this: 2,000 years ago God became a man--Jesus Christ, and provided himself as an atonement for the sin of man. Jesus was the blood sacrifice that was needed to pay the penalty for sin. God could not just look at me and simply say "You are forgiven, you are free to go to Heaven." This would not be just. Imagine an earthly judge saying that to a man who raped and murdered a 10 year old girl... would that judge be a just judge? no, he'd be corrupt! Law breakers need to pay for the crimes they commit. this is justice. someone has to pay the debt our crimes against God demand-- and Jesus Christ alone is that sufficient sacrifice. He paid the debt so man need not pay the debt in Hell. An eternity in Hell may SEEM to be unfair to us for sins committed in this finite life... but believe me, it only SEEMS that way. It seems that way because we do not, in our sinful state, have the ability to comprehend how HOLY God is, and how HORRIBLE and wretched sin is.

This work Christ paid on the cross to atone for sin is freely offered to ALL who repent--that is, turn from sin, and believe the good news of Christ, placing their trust/faith in his saving work. Not mental agreement that Jesus died, but placing trust in the finished work of Christ. If you jump out of a plane, you do not simply acknowledge the parachute exists... you place your trust in it and put it on. Likewise, anyone who turns from their life of sin and "puts on" the work accomplished by Christ Jesus in his death and resurrection is "Born Again" (Jn 3:3).

Also, it is of utter importance that Christ is the only way, truth and life. no one comes to the Father but through Him (Jn 14:6). There are not many paths... there is only one, paved by the blood of Christ, which covers sin and takes it away.

You may say you do not believe in a wrathful God. However, God is a God of Wrath-- Psalm 5:5, Rom 1:18, Rom 5:9, Eph 2:3. He is a JUST God, and he must punish evildoers, otherwise he would not be just. At the same time, God is a God of mercy, providing salvation through the finished work of Christ to all who will receive it. This idea that is so prevalent in American Post-modern Christianity that "Jesus loves you JUST the way you are" is really wrong. Does God love us? Yes. But it isn't some pampering, God-will-wipe-our-butts-for-us-and-he-can't-get-enough-of-us kind of love. It is a perfecting love... a love that brings about the salvation of man, desiring man to be in right relationship with Him. God is a God of Wrath. And of Justice. And of Mercy. These are not contradictory, and are all attributes of God. To cling to the Bible verse that says "God is love" while rejecting ALL other verses about the nature and attributes of the Holy God is irresponsible. How is it we'd cling to the part about "love" but nothing else?

God has a common love and common grace for creation. He gives us our breath, food to eat, water to drink, a place to lay our heads, etc. He was responsible for you not getting hit by a bus today just before you logged into Facebook. However, his specific love and mercies are only for those who repent and believe in the Savior's work.
-------------------------------------
I would say this though in closing: have there been wars fought in the name of Christianity? YES. Have there been scandals by some men and women who claim to be His followers? Yes. This is a sad fact. However, if some random person came up to me and kicked me in the gonads... and I asked WHY DID YOU DO THAT??? and they responded "because I love and obey [you, the reader]!", EVEN THOUGH you do NOT know them at all, do not have a relationship with them, and they do not know anything about who you are... Would it then be fair for me to say "I HATE [you, the reader]!"? Surely not. Likewise... don't be quick to make a judgment on Jesus based upon the actions of some who CLAIM to be his followers. Just a final thought. Hope you made it to the end. if you did, you get a prize. This half-empty red pen i am looking at on my desk. YAY! :-P

I hope your fall break is a safe one. :-) Thank you for indulging me in (hopefully) reading this.

<><

Why I do not use Safari

2008-09-20T02:00:00.000-07:00

"Yes, I love technology; but not as much as you, you see. But I still love technology. Always and forever."
-Kipp Dynamite

It is true. I love technology. It is this love for technology for me to be a bit of both a mac and PC guy. Part of my mac-ness shows in that while I have tried to get into both Windows Media Player and iTunes, I am just a larger fan of iTunes. The interface makes more logical sense to me, and it is easier to play the music I want and listen to the radio stations if I wish. And while I would like to get a Zune 4 gig in the future, I now have an iPod which syncs very nicely with iTunes (duh).

This attitude of desiring to try different apps from different companies just because of my fascination with technology also extends into which web browser I use. I recall when I was a youngin using Netscape to browse the web exclusively. Netscape died recently, never having fully recovered from her defeat in the First Browser War (between Netscape and Internet Explorer). However, we are now in the Second Browser War... and there are many more players this time around.

Microsoft's Internet Explorer 7 is a great improvement over IE6, and is currently available as IE8 beta 2. I have not yet tried it out, but I will soon. I have been an avid Mozilla Firefox addict since I discovered it upon receiving my first computer in college. My dad was very much into Mozilla's suite browser-email, but I only got into the Mozilla scene with the use of Firefox 1.5 when it came out. And I fell in love instantly! I will go into some of my favorite features later... but since version 1.5, version 3 has come out (with 3.1 being released in a matter of months), and it has only gotten better!

However I have been knowing to try out other browsers. I used Opera for a time (9.x series)... and did try out Google Chrome the first few days of its release. I will perhaps go into these browsers at a later day, but I no longer use either (perhaps a future release of Google Chrome will change my mind though).

One browser that has much hype revolving around it is Apple Safari. Users boast of its speed and its ability to render pages quickly and efficiently (it passes the Acid 2 AND Acid 3 tests with a 100%... something none of the other two market leaders (IE7 and Fx3) can do as of yet). Furthermore, I am ever greatly impressed by not just what is under the hood, but the hood itself. It has one of the (next to the new Google Chrome) CLEANEST user-interfaces for a web browser around Not just the mac version, but also the one that runs on Windows. Very slick and clean. There is no status bar at the bottom of the screen, allowing viewers to view even the slightest bit more of the desired page on the screen. The brushed design of the browser too is very visually appealing. Simple and elegant.

And lastly (possibly one of my FAVORITE features about this browser)... it renders text differently for websites. What do I mean by different? I just mean different.

For instance... here is how our lovely Facebook is rendered in Firefox 3 (similarly it is also rendered in IE7):

And now... here is how it is loaded in Safari 3.1...

Some of you (like our little-old-lady friend "WHERE'S THE BEEF?") may be asking "WHERE'S THE DIFFERENCE? The font. The font is rendered differently. Most noticeably in the status updated, which reads "What are you doing right now" as well as in the text for the link to the mail: "Inbox." It is in a different typeface... a different font. A font that is slightly rounder, but also more inviting to the eye. Fare more appealing I would say to look at.

So if I am so thrilled about this web browser, why would I not use it exclusively?

Compatibility with websites. Yes, Safari may win the highest score in the Acid 3 test. However, this does not mean the vast majority of sites are rendered properly as they should be. I have noticed numerous sites with scroll bars overlapping the area in which they belong. Can Mozilla Firefox 3 also have this problem? Yes. And it does from time-to-time. But how I get around THAT is I use IE Tab as an extension... which allows me to view a page using the IE rendering engine WITHIN a Firefox tab. SO I don't need multiple browsers open when I am visiting a site that is not rendered properly in any browser but IE. Which brings me to my #2 reason....
Customization. Safari is very beautiful and functional by itself. However, it has zero customization ability. As I mentioned previously, IE Tab is one of my favorite extensions and the most useful, I would say, to any Firefox 3 user. In Fx3, one can customize the look and feel of the browser by applying different themes (it can be made to even look like IE or Safari!)... as well as given different functionality. I can add ANY search-bar feature on a website with the add-on "Add To Search Bar," even if Fx3 doesn't recognize it as a search bar from the page load. I can view HomestarRunner.com pages in full screen with Full Screen Runner (granted not the MOST USEFUL add-on, but certainly a FUN one!). I have added tab-preview functionality (which I first saw in AOL's AOL Explorer). I can add a "new tab" button similar in function and look to IE7's button, right on the tab bar. Other add-ons include a download accelerator, a download helper for getting YouTube videos loaded onto your computer... hundred of customization options. However one stands out...
Adblock Plus. Yes, I know it is an extension, and the previous reason was about the various extensions/add-ons... but this is different. Adblock Plus is THE extension. I could not imagine a world with Firefox in it that did not include this glorious add-on. If you have spent any time surfing the web, you notice various ads on pages that are likely to lead you into an epileptic fit if you are not careful, with all the flashyness that drives you nuts. OR... especially if you frequent hit social networking sites MySpace and Facebook... various ads for Tru and other "singles dating" sites (which are basically just inappropriate pornographic ads to prey on people's lusts) are frequent. This is often annoying and even embarassing exposing yourself and those around you to such advertisement. This is where Adblock Plus and the EasyList (USA) subscription come in! This causes Firefox to block these ad's images. No longer are you subjegated to "dirty ads" ... or even any ads at all. Also helpful is the Adblock Plus Element Hiding Helper, which blocks not only many visual ads, but also the space on the page that the ad takes up, getting rid of blocked empty sections of the site. I would encourage caution though. This particular tool may screw up how you view web pages if you are not careful and do not know what you are doing. Thankfully, these hiccups are completely reversible :-) And alas, no such tool is used for Safari.
This last one may not seem as big a deal as the previous few... but I think it is also worth mentioning. In IE7 (and 8) you may click the NEW TAB button to the right of the open tab in order to open a page. In Firefox you can open a new tab by either putting a NEW TAB button ONTO the Navigation Toolbar (near the Home button), OR (via extension) make it similar to IE7, as I mentioned earlier. Now it is true... in IE, Fx, and Safari, you can add a new tab by pressing Ctrl+t. However, in Safari, this is practically the ONLY way to open a new tab. Yes, you can double click on the empty space in the tab bar (as you can also do in Fx). But when the tab bar is FULL and there is no space to click, appart from going to File>New Tab, you must enter in the Ctrl+t key for a new tab to appear. There is no New Tab button for the Navigation Toolbar. I find this nearly unacceptable. Sure, the interface may look cleaner without it. However, there are times when you are in a "clicking mode" with the mouse, that it would be faster to click some sort of button than to remove fingers from the mouse and press Ctrl+t in order to open a new tab. Again, this issue is NOT huge... but I think it is a substantial problem considering my trends in browsing.
Firefox 3 is VERY fast. While Safari 3.1 kicked Firefox 2 in speed... Firefox and Safari are just about equal in speed now. One may be faster depending one what system you are using, but over-all, Firefox's speed is another reason to use it over Safari 3.1 or IE7.

I know this list may not be for everyone. And that's fine. Safari is a FINE browser. Really, one of the best out there. But when it comes down to it... Firefox has SO MUCH going for her, I can't imagine switching over to Safari permanently. Especially when it comes to Adblock Plus. Amazing stuff not having to look at ads, dirty or just annoying.

I encourage you to download both and give them a test drive. Which browser do YOU prefer?
These reasons for not using Safari may not seem that important to some of you. But these reasons all together ... especially considering Adblock Plus... mean I use Firefox 3 and not Safari.

Where I Take My Refuge

2008-09-16T20:51:00.000-07:00

Psalm 118:8-9

It is better to take refuge in the LORD

than to trust in man.

It is better to take refuge in the LORD

than to trust in princes.

I read this passage while doing my quiet time in the Word a few days ago. It really struck me in a comforting way, especially considering the election season we are in. I know I have at LEAST spoken on this issue of being comforted and the election... but I feel I should blog on it again. It is easy to forget that God is sovereign and in control. I think that is why we are often refered to in the Bible as "sheep." Sheep are not the brightest animal on God's green earth. Really. They're kinda dumb. You have them stay in an area and they wander off... the shepherd has to go over, pick them up and set them back down. Then sooner or later, the process is repeated when the sheep wanders off again... over and over this happens. So it is NO surprise that God would have to keep reminding me through His word of His sovereignty and control.

I am terrified of Obama. Really. I am terrified of anyone who can get SO popular with people (especially "Evangelical Christians") while affirming the mother's right to slaughter her helpless defenseless babe, because of where the pre-born is located. I am terrified of his HUGE amount of tax increases. I am terrified of how his empty rhetoric filled with basically "Change" and "Hope" stir people into a frenzy. What substance is there? How about none? The thought of him becoming our next president honestly terrifies me.

It would probably keep me up at night if it wasn't for this fact: it is better to take refuge in the LORD. It is better to rest in God's grace than place our hope in political leaders. People are following Obama as if he is their savior who can fix EVERYTHING that (they perceive) is wrong with America. Really? I do not mean to say this ONLY about Obama... any politician who people get UBER enthused about... Now, am I excited about this election? yes. Do I support McCain? Yes. However, there is messianic language surrounding Obama that few (if ANY) candidate for President has had thrown his way.

Again though... while I am enthused about this race, and PRAY that McCain wins the office... I cannot allow myself to become absorbed entirely by the process. But the pundits... by the commentators... by the Fox News polls... I can't. If I do, I will begin to place my hopes for society and economy... my hopes in our way of life in one man: the President. I will look to him as the refuge to keep me safe. I will look to him to supply my needs. This robs glory from God, and it is idolatry (which is WHY I support minimalistic gov't involvement in our lives... ala no universal health care, nixing welfare, etc).

I cannot place my full hope in a man... a prince... or in our case a president or congressman. I would much rather place my trust in Christ alone.

A mighty fortress is our God,
a bulwark never failing;
our helper he amid the flood
of mortal ills prevailing.
For still our ancient foe
doth seek to work us woe;
his craft and power are great,
and armed with cruel hate,
on earth is not his equal.

"Jesus I know... but who are you?"

2008-08-26T20:02:00.000-07:00

Acts 19:15-16
But the evil spirit answered them, "Jesus I know, and Paul I recognize, but who are you?" And the man in whom was the evil spirit leaped on them, mastered all of them and overpowered them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.

A lot has been going on within "charismatic evangelicalism" until recently with Todd Bentley. Supposedly, there was a revival in Lakeland, FL where the Holy Spirit was attributed for healing people and men were casting out demons in Jesus' name. Now, do I believe the Holy Spirit heals people of disease and illness? Absolutely. God is sovereign and does as he pleases. And can/does the Holy Spirit work through men to cast demons out of others? ... I refuse to limit God's ability to do such a miraculous act. Whether or not it actually happens in 21st century ... that is another story. Still, God can do this sort of stuff if he pleases and wills it. However, I think it is clear that Bentley's violent ministry... involving kicking people in the face... leg-dropping people... kneeing men who have stomach cancer ... and baptizing people in the name of the BAM!... this is NOT of God. The fruit of the spirit include kindness, gentleness, and self-control. That fruit is not there in Bentley's ministry.

So what is going on? And for that matter, what happens at other crusades where this kind of "move of the Spirit" is found, ie: Benny Hinn? Mass hypnosis? Quite possibly. I have heard reports from a former pastor who used to be in deep in this healing crusade trend, and he recognized what he was doing was truly unbiblical. Knocking people over? Hitting them with coats and causing them to "fall out"? This is quite unbiblical.

So while those may also be, largely, mass hypnosis, I am convinced this is a VERY dangerous game that Bentley and his buddies are playing. It is easy to say "I do this in the name of Jesus (or rather JEEESUSSS!)!" But to just carelessly invoke Jesus' name in something of which Jesus is not a part of? Very dangerous and possibly blasphemous. Actually, no. It is blasphemous. And it is not without consequences. I do not know if someone who does this, trying to cast a demon out of someone who ispossessed, will necessarily then become possessed himself. However, it is not unheard of to God remove the common grace on a person and for this to occur. Just read Acts 19:11-20. Some tried to just add Jesus' name to their pagan-style magic to cast out spirits. Instead of performing a miraculous act, the magicians themselves became possessed.

Again, whether or not this WILL happen today is besides the matter. What is the issue is this: God's name is holy and unique. Do not use it casually to seem appealing to others or because you think it has some sort of power for those who do not know Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Jesus' name is not a magic charm. It is holy.

<><

ryan.the.calvinist

Christ & His Bride & My Wife

I was born this way (BUT GOD...)

Quick look @ New Covenant & the changed heart

Bad Wine from Isaiah 5

Exploring the New Covenant Pt 1: Introduction

Answering Objections [Pt 2] : God's Eternality / Origins

Answering Objections [Pt 1]

Christ Is Risen!! He is Risen Indeed!!

Jovan's Journey

In Search of a Christ-centered Home Church

Quick Take >> Hebrews 10:11-14

Mere Arminianism – Part Six (Lewis’ Liberty Over Election [Pt 1/2])

Mere Arminianism – Part Five (Consulting the New Testament)

Mere Arminianism – Part Four (Consulting the Old Testament)

Mere Arminianism – Part Three (TULIP or Not to TULIP)

Mere Arminianism - Part Two (Pelagius & Augustine)

Mere Arminianism – Free Will, Predestination, and CS Lewis – Part One

The Cult of Caner

New Hymns from Page CXVI

Five Points of Arminianism VS Five Points of Calvinism

We’ve Already Flunked That Test

Having been asked about my thoughts about homosexuality…

Question: “What are your feelings about gay people?”

He Is Risen!

Four Views On The End - Timelines

Christian faith: five points of New Calvinism (from the christian science monitor)

From total depravity to grace, the tenets of a theology undergoing a revival of Calvinism in America's Christian faith.

Faith + Works of the Law = Severed from Christ (A look @ Galatians 5, its meaning in context, and how the TNIV/NIV muddies the meanings yet again)

Some GOOD Podcasts Worth Listening To (Pt 1: Sermons)

Common salvation equation fail... and the correction

Currently Reading: "How To Read The Bible For All Its Worth"

Does God Save Every Baby Who Dies In Infancy?

On Bible Translation Preferences

Reasons to use the TNIV (and NIV) with caution: Muddied Meanings

Common questions on Calvinism ... part four

Question #4:Who would be more loving - someone who chooses to be with you because that person loves you, or someone who is forced to be with you?

If God's foreknowledge is merely foresight...

Common questions on Calvinism ... part three

Question #3:How does this affect your approach to ministry (ie: the homeless guy sitting on the side of the road)?

O The Genealogies!

Various thoughts on the cross of Christ

Christ came to save sinners... thoughts on 1Tim 1:12-17

Common Questions On Calvinism ... part two

Common Questions On Calvinism ... part one

You shall go out running like ... a running beagle after a bath!

Difficult 1 Kings passages illuminated by good Study Bibles

Is there a reason to quote a heretic?

On the Suppressing of the Truth (Romans 1:18-19)

A scandle with God's sovereign plan to save?

A coherent picture resulting from the Gospel accounts

Christ's Pefect Obedience for My Account

Are You Wasting Your Life?

The Gospel Is Not To Be Compromised.

On the Marketing of God's Word...

My Will is Not Free...

If the law has not passed away, what then of grace?

Grood Stuff @ Boulevard Baptist

"How Can God Be Good and Still Allow Bad Things to Happen?"

Striving to proclaim & defend biblical truth and yet NOT be a grade-A jerk in the process

Temptation to dress up the gospel

On the Nature of the Gospel

Exceeding the Righteousness of the Pharisees

Searching for a (GOOD) Church... pt 1

Abortion, God, Man, and the Gospel of Christ’s Atonement

Why I do not use Safari

Where I Take My Refuge

"Jesus I know... but who are you?"

Question #4:
Who would be more loving - someone who chooses to be with you because that person loves you, or someone who is forced to be with you?

Question #3:
How does this affect your approach to ministry (ie: the homeless guy sitting on the side of the road)?