Musings of a Seminary Washout

Dave Letterman Should Stick to Comedy

2008-12-11T23:23:00.005-06:00

Dave had John McCain as a guest on his show tonight. I know he loves politics, but the man just doesn't understand the markets. They were speaking of the 15 billion dollar "loan" to the Big Three.

Dave recited the Reed/Pelosi mantra: if we give them the money, then the Big Three must devote half of their production to hybrid/alternative energy vehicles, for this will create a plethora of jobs in the industry.

There is one problem: the market. Expansion of jobs within a company require an increase of revenue. This revenue can come in the form of sales, bonds, or government subsidy. The first is the problem: sales. There is simply not enough demand to warrant that much production. People buy what they can afford, and these cars are more expensive to make. Moreover, it will take 5+ years to break even if gas prices stay low. If people don't buy those cars, Big Three is right back in the place they are now, and with a depreciating stock of cars.

So, in order for this bright idea to work, one of two things must happen: Gas prices skyrocket (and if the do, it is probably due to the dollar, meaning car prices will also increase) which will fuel some demand...or [the more likely solution] the government will force us to buy them by coercive methods

Neither is desirable. Trust me, if gas goes up to a point at which it is economically worth the cost for a hybrid, demand will increase for it. Markets will take care of the problem when the problem manifests...

...also, global warming is such a serious problem, it snowed in South Louisiana yesterday, so lets bring more expensive regulations on the already struggling car industry, because New Orleans can't handle this snow.

Economic Commentary Just Stinks...

2008-12-10T17:10:00.006-06:00

I need to get a job writing for AP or Yahoo! Finance... Today on Yahoo! Finance, there was a headline titled "Inaction on Big 3 would Cost Taxpayers Billions". This peaked my interested, because it is obviously intended to get public support of the bailout. At the very beginning, I find this brilliant thought:

The U.S. auto industry's problems will cost taxpayers plenty whether or not the government helps Detroit.

Just walking away and letting the struggling Big Three automakers go under would drain government coffers by about as much as the $15 billion bridge loan that lawmakers are preparing, and perhaps much more, according to outside analysts. The costs would come from lower tax collections by the federal, state and local governments and the payment of extra unemployment, pension and other benefits to unemployed or retired auto workers.

This is plain nonsense...

First, lost revenue to the government is not taxpayer expense. It is taxpayer cost when the government spends money. If the government doesn't get the money, it should cut back and not spend what it didn't get.

Second, why should the government take on the insurance of the pension plans? Yeah, there will be some unemployment, but not 15 billion dollars worth. These folks will find other jobs if given the incentive to, and prolonging unemployment benefits rids them of the incentive. People are going to lose out because of this recession, but government intervension socializes the losses to everyone. If the government would just get out of the way, the recession will be shorter and recover haster, and the losses will be focused to a lot fewer people.

What Is Really at Stake in this Election: Liberty and Personal Independence

2008-11-03T18:51:00.003-06:00

For those of you who wish to prosper, for those of you who wish to be financially independent, for those of you who desire to contribute to society in the way you desire—in the field you choose, for those you who do not want to be slaves to the powers that could well be...

Ensure that you vote.

Listening to the rhetoric of the Obama campaign, one clearly sees that this candidate wishes to create a society in which each person becomes dependent on the government in all ways and for all things: from healthcare to retirement, education at every level, even jobs and income. In such a society, individuals are not to be responsible and provide for themselves, but they are to look to the government as provider, as the master and creator of jobs, as the healer in healthcare, as dean of education, as caretaker of the elderly.

Do not be fooled, the sovereignty of the individual ends where the sovereignty of government begins. Hence, as the power of government grows, individual liberty fades away. The Obama government will respect neither the freedom of the individual nor his property, and the strides one may take to prevent or overcome a dependency of government--whether through hard work, innovation, success, or the accumulation of wealth--will only penalize and marginalize him in this society. You can see this in Obama's definition of wealth: wealth is measured only in terms of income. What about savings, assets, or net-worth? In the utopian society these are not necessary, and the one who has them is deemed covetous and evil. "He's greedy and his selfish hoarding withholds from us our rightful due! We are entitled the result of his work--he is to work not for himself but for us all!"

Why strive to succeed if the prize of your success will only be stripped from your hands in the name of equality?

Stop and ask yourself, What does it mean to say that all men are created equal? Does equal mean equally entitled or equally free? Freedom and entitlement cannot coexist, for entitlement is nothing more than dependency, and dependency is slavery. To call government handouts "entitlement" and "compassion" is nothing more than sophistry and propaganda. The government's "compassion" comes only through the confiscation of another's gain. You cannot call charity that which is actually theft and coercion.

This utopian dream has one fatal flaw: human nature. It assumes that people are altruistic and selfless. The assumption is a wonderful picture and it might work in the movies, but it doesn't represent reality in the slightest part. Our founders understood that all people are self-seeking and greedy—perhaps to varying degrees, but selfish nevertheless. They designed a market and political system that kept this flaw in check through practically natural mechanisms, and Obama has expressed frustration and hostility in the constraints on government set forth in the wisdom of the constitution. In fact, he sees the Constititution in terms of the rights of government, not the rights of the people.

If people were altruistic, this utopia of socialism would just "happen." People would voluntarily spread the wealth around, and it wouldn't have to be forced upon us by the governmental powers that be. However, socialism has never "happened" without force, and the ones who wish to subject us to it act as is they do not suffer from the same greed as the corporate executives. Trust me, they do, and they will use socialism to their own gain and our expense.

"You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig!" These remarks were Obama's reference to Sarah Palin. It matters not if it refers to her person or to her ideas; the comment is nothing more than hypocrisy when he is putting lipstick on a different pig. One can dress oppression in terms of hope, change, and opportunity, but is it still oppression. To "spread the weatlh" will only ensure universal poverty. Governments are no different than corporations in the fact that both are institutions composed of individuals. Therefore, governments are as susceptible to greed as corporations; the only difference is that the former is expressed primarily in the quest for power and domination, the latter in the pursuit of money. Unfortunately, this thirst for power hasn't an ounce of accountability other than the vote, and this vote shall have been bought by the redistribution of wealth. Socialism is nothing more than political bribery and economic slavery.

A veil is being passed over our eyes by the Obama campaign, and we must see through it. This election has more at stake than the hypnotized masses realize.

Vote wisely, and know what you are voting for.

Defining and Knowing God’s Will

2008-07-08T00:40:00.002-05:00

This post is a follow-up to the FBCTW College Bible study on 7/6/2008.

“My name is will, God’s will!” “It’s not in God’s will for us to be together anymore.” “I don’t know which color carpet God wants me to have?”

The term God’s will has become a rather nebulous concept within Christian circles, mostly because the term will has several meanings in and of itself. Will can refer to one’s desires, purposes, plans, intentions, and motives. The same is true of God, and when we or the Scriptures refer to His will, in one sense we refer to his desires, law, and precepts. At other times, the reference is to his purpose, plans, intentions, and counsel. Although God’s attribute of purpose is distinct from God’s other attributes, it is strongly related to his other attributes, especially that of His holiness, love, independence, omnipotence, and omniscience.

When we fail to note the distinction between God’s will of purpose from that of His desire or precept, confusion is the common result. Often times, when we think of us following God’s will, we think of some spiritual tightrope that God has set before us that if we do not precisely follow, we fall to our doom—not to mention frustrate God in his purposes. Just listen to the way many describe our place in relation to God’s will! These descriptions of God’s will make Him seem so dependent on human beings! This is simply not biblical.

First, we will cover God’s will in terms in his purposes, decrees, and plans. Then we will cover it in terms of desire, law, and precepts.

God has a unified purpose in the creation of the world and all that happens in it—and that purpose is to reveal his glory and majesty. Like the plot of a great book or movie, God’s overall purpose has many “sub-plots”—individual persons and events—that piece together to produce His masterpiece that accomplishes its chief end. The main character in His plot is Jesus Christ and the climax is His life on earth. Everything centers on this event. [Eph 3:11]

God, in his grace, involves us in his purposes and plans, but we as the creature cannot frustrate the plans of the Creator! Compared to greatness of God, I am but a drop of water compared to the vastness of earth’s oceans, and all of humanity might be slightly more than a bucket. Therefore, if I or the entire human race were to oppose God in his purposes, we would be like a penny stopping a freight train! Whatever God purposes, He does. We must know, understand, and accept this. That is why Paul says:

33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! 34 "For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has become His counselor?” 35 "Or who has first given to Him And it shall be repaid to him?" 36 For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen. Romans 11:33-36

This is the foundation of Romans 12:1-2. There is no one sovereign over God—He is the sovereign. He has no need for our advice or service to accomplish his ends. The counsel of Scripture allows for no other interpretation: Job 12:13-25, 23:13, 42:2; Psalm 33:1-22, 115:1-3, 119:89-91, 135:6, all of 139; Daniel 4:34-35; Proverbs 19:21; Acts 2:23, 4:27-28; Romans 8:28; Ephesians 1:11. [Many others]

Whether we are in submission to or rebellion against God, God will accomplish his purpose through us—and judge us for our rebellion if that be the case.

However, when we view God’s will in terms of his desires, precepts, and law, it is clear that this is not always done. Only in terms of God desire for our behavior can we be “out of God’s will.” God consistently commands us to obey his will, so obviously He desires our obedience. However, even as believers, we consistently rebel against God’s laws! Paul confirms this in Romans 12:1-2:

1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. 2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove [test, determine, or evaluate] what is that good and acceptable and perfect will [purpose] of God.

Clearly, God is commanding us through the apostle Paul to be transformed [metamorphoomai] by the renewing of our minds. God desires that our minds be transformed by the disciplines of the Christian faith: the study of the Word of God, prayer, and service in the body of Christ. This is also not always done.

This brings us some interesting questions. Does God purpose evil? Clearly by his hatred of it, God does not desire it! Therefore, how can God purpose something that He does not desire? If He does purpose evil, is not God responsible for it? How can I trust a God who is responsible for evil? If we cannot thwart God’s plans, how does that relate to our freedom of choice?

These are substantial questions that will be addressed in coming FBCTW Bible Study, and a short answer here will not do justice to the questions themselves. However, some of the questions must briefly be addressed in order to complete the topic of God’s will and purpose.

God Himself does not commit evil, nor does He tempt people to commit evil. His nature is good—and his knowledge is perfect. He knows the inclinations and motives of our hearts, even better than we do! Evil has a place in God’s overall perfect plan, and God purposefully allows men to act in evils ways, knowing exactly what they will do, with the intention to bring about a greater good and reveal a greater glory of Himself by His use of those actions!

Although the commission of sin stirs up anger is displeasure in God, in patience God permits it to exist for a greater good. How this is so lies within the unsearchable wisdom of God, and when these horrendous acts of wickedness take place, God is not obligated to reveal to us how they are a part of his plan. However, we must know they are for our [believers] and His good!

Take note of the parent who must let his child do something that might hurt him in order that the child may learn an important lesson that would not be learned if the parent kept trying to protect the child. Both the parent and the child are hurt by what takes place, but it is for the child’s good. So it is with God and us.

The story of Joseph and the crucifixion of Christ are clear examples of this. Think of how much it hurt God to see His Son experience what He did on Calvary! On the other hand, what a glorious revelation of God’s love, grace, wrath, and justice in Christ’s Work!

Now, how are we to know and be in God’s will? From Romans 12:1-2, it is clear that in order for us to know, test, examine, and prove God’s good, acceptable, and perfect purpose, we must continually be transformed by the renewal of our minds. What does “be transformed by the renewing of your mind” mean?

It means first and foremost that we must be born-again—regenerated by the power of Christ’s resurrection. That is the beginning of the metamorphosis. That means we must have trusted Christ and His work alone as the only means to a relationship with the Father and eternal life! If we have not done so, we cannot be “in God’s will.”

It means that we must study His Word so that it becomes the guiding principle of our lives. We must be in surrender to the wisdom therein.

It means that we should be in prayer, fervent and consistent prayer.

It means that we serve the body of Christ—the church—through a local congregation of genuine believers.

When we are doing these things, we are in “God’s will”—regardless of what career we may choose, or the person we marry. In fact, when we are truly conformed to Christ’s image, we tend to make wise decision in these major choices—even when God doesn’t clearly show us the decision to make. When we conform to God’s desire, we have freedom in knowing that we cannot frustrate God’s purpose.

To sum it up: To be in God’s will is to do God’s will. To do God’s will is to live like Christ. The rest falls into its place by the awesome sovereignty of God.

Updates

2007-04-16T09:59:00.000-05:00

I am sorry it has been two months since my last post. A ton has been going on, and now that everything is official, I can make mention of it here. Due to a transfer at my company, my wife and I are moving to The Woodlands, TX, a community 30 miles directly north of Houston. My new position will be greatly involved with IT project management. Due to all business due to the move, I have had and will have little time to post anything of substance. I hope to pick back up after June 10th or so.

Before I mention the prayer request for my wife and I, I wanted to make mention of a few prayer requests for some friends, and some folks that I do not personally know:

Pray for Sam Seidel. About four weeks ago, this little boy fell into a pool and was underwater for 15+ minutes. He still is recovering...
Pray for Patsy Parker. She has been in and out of the hospital for the last several months, with surgeries. She still has a long road ahead.
Pray for my friend's (Brian Daniel) mother, she has cancer and is going through a round of chemotherapy.
Pray for Maggie Liner, our friends Marja and Shawn daughter. The family is changing houses, and Maggie has started day-care and has been struggling with staying well. Nothing severe or life-threatening--she just hasn't been able to get to 100%.

For me and Laura, pray that the transition goes well, that we sell our current home and get the contract on a house on which we have placed an offer, and that Laura is offered a job in a nearby school district, either Klein, Spring, Tomball, or Conroe. Lastly, and most importantly, please pray that we find a solid, biblical church that has strong preaching and fellowship.

President's Day...

2007-02-19T08:29:00.000-06:00

If you have ever been so lucky to have debate a secularist or atheist on the religion of the Founding Fathers, undoubtedly you have heard the retort, "All of the Founding Fathers were diests."

Likewise, from Christians--particularly evangelicals--you will hear that the all of the Founding Fathers were Christian...

Neither is true. The only Founding Father that could be labeled deist--actually believing something compatible with classic deism--is Thomas Paine, and Paine could be easily interpreted to have been atheist or agnostic as well. The rest were obviously theist. How do I know this?

Most of the prominent Founding Fathers that the secularists claim to be deists were George Washington, Thomas Paine, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and occasionally John Adams. However, when you read the consensus of all of these men, there is a theme and word that shows up in all of their writings: Providence.

Washington was not an evangelical. Frankin and Jefferson were not even orthodox to historic Christian beliefs. The secularist are right on this point. However, all of these men consistently use the word Providence (of God) in their personal writings. Mentioned also is God's favor towards the United States.

This poses a problem for the secularist: the concept of a provident God is incompatible with deism. One cannot be a deist and believe in the providence of God, for the former holds that God does not interact in the affairs of the world and the latter requires such action on God's part.

To read more: http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=878

I Do Have Readers...

2007-02-06T10:47:00.000-06:00

Laura and I were talking with her parents last night on the phone, and her father, Dennis Sims, pastor of Ellerbe Road Baptist Church in Shreveport, LA, told us a hilarious story...

To set the context, Laura had them on speakerphone, and Laura and I were lying in our bed...

This past Sunday, I expressed in the midst of my sermon, as I have on several occasions, my frustration with people who have some theological training and express their dissapointment in the Sunday School material for "being too shallow", among other things...

At this point in time, I am literally shrinking under the covers, because I have expressed my sentiments on Sunday School material on multiple occasions, although I can't remember if I had done so within earshot of Dennis before. The funny thing was, Laura and I had "productive conversation" along those lines the day before.

Don't get me wrong, I don't expect to get a seminary education from Sunday School, so "shallowness" isn't really my beef with the material...I get frustrated when I see unbiblical (something totally different than shallow) teaching in the Sunday School material.

...and use this as an excuse to not go to Sunday School at all. Like I said, I have said this before, and no one has ever told me anything in the past. This week, a person who attends our church misunderstood the comments and thought I was talking about him/her. Now this person has complained in the past about the shallowness of material, but he/she attends Sunday School, so she was not the target of my comments. We easily resolved the misunderstanding.
There is another man in the congregation who has a seminary education who hasn't been coming to Sunday School for a while, but he has medical reasons for doing so. However, just in case there was any misunderstanding, I went to visit them [or call them, I [Brent] can't remember].
His wife answered the door/phone and I began to speak with her. She assured me that there is no problem, and the conversation changed paths to another subject. She attends a BSF study, and the subject of the material is the book of Romans, and I have also been preaching through Romans--but the study is a bit ahead of where I am. She told me that the most recent study was on Romans 9. I said, "You all must be dealing with some significant issues, such as the sovereignty of God, election, and predestination. Now from what I understand, you can't address demoninational issues in this study can you?"
She said, "We can deal with any topic the passage addresses. Besides, there are a lot of Calvinistic Southern Baptists. In fact, I believe your son-in-law is a Calvinist, at least that is what it seems from reading his blog."
So I've said all of this merely to say that I ran into someone who has come accross your blog.

I found this to be hilarious! And, if you are reading again, thanks!

"You Are Too Cynical"

2007-02-05T16:43:00.000-06:00

My wife and I had a real heart-to-heart yesterday. I love her to death, but she aggravates me when she makes me face reality ;-) One problem we have faced in our marriage comes from by incessant habit to criticize practically everything spiritual. She is an optimist and sees the good in things, and I am quite the pessimist when it come to spiritual matters.

Most of the time, when I read books on Christian theology, or "Christian spirituality", I keep my guard and I don't trust the source immediately. Theologians and preachers have to earn my trust by being reverent and true to God's word--and not sacrificing the careful interpretation of Scripture (or reverence to God's character) to drive home an emotional point. All fail in doing this at some point, others are blind squirrels trying to find a nut--they do so only by accident.

When trying to explain why I am so critical to Laura, I make no sense. None. I've had a hard time justifying it--but this article explains why so well:

Why do we espouse such outlandish concepts as "don't throw the baby out with the bath water"? A better comparison of how we are being told to pick through the bad theology often being put forth today is not the baby/bath water analogy but it is the broken clock analogy. How convincing would it be for those same people who use the baby/bath water analogy to say, "Don't throw out the broken clock because it will be right sometimes"? How many of us would give a hearty amen to that kind of mentality?
Perhaps the reason we are more likely to agree with the baby/bath water analogy is that no one wants to picture a baby being thrown out, but how about the broken clock? I personally don't want to have to pick through a bunch of rancid humanistic philosophy to get to the bits of good theology that might be buried in most of these trendy preachers preaching.

In all honesty, I am really frustrated with the church today. Either one cares about ministry, or she cares about theology. Hardly ever do they meet in the same church congregation. I find completely theologically irresponsible claims in some of the study material that has come across my eyes lately, and would love to be in a situation in which error is not so commonplace.

Just this past week I read material in which these claims were made:

"God loved me most when I deserved it least."
"God accepts me even though I am guilty...Faultfinding is not God's style."

Why are they irresponsible? When does God love me the least? When did I deserve God's love the most? Would God be just in accepting me despite my guilt? Am I still guilty in they eyes of God as a member of the body of Christ? What would God be doing at the Great White Throne judgment?

These claims are filled with sappy feelings, but they lack significantly in biblical truth--and more of us would see this if we stopped reading with our feelings and engaged our minds some.

The sad thing is this: the point of the material was good...it was about demonstraing grace and mercy to our spouses, but my trust of the authors has been severely damaged, so now my guard will be even higher when I read on. I feel that I will have to sift away most of what's there in order to find the nugget of truth.

Daniel Hixon on Calvinism - Part 2

2007-02-02T15:15:00.000-06:00

Here is Daniel's explanation of Unconditional Election:

Unconditional election - those who are elected by God for salvation are not elected based upon any work or quality of their own. There are no conditions they must meet in order to become the elect, God simply chose them (apparently arbitrarily since "there is no partiallity with him," which is very problematic). This is necessary because our depravity and the corruption of our wills is SO total that if God did not choose for us, then no one would be saved at all. Unconditional election is aimed at the same problem (our broken will) as Wesley's prevenient grace. If Unconditional election is true, then surely God, who wants everyone to be saved according to 1 Tim. 2:4, would therefore act in accordance with his own will and elect everyone for salvation unconditionally, to do otherwise would seem to imply some imperfection in God if he wills one thing (universal salvation) and then acts to ensure it can never happen. Thus if I believed in unconditional election I would immediately be a universalist Calvinist. I am of the opinion that we are elected according to the foreknowlege of God on the condition of our faith in Christ and our consequent and necessary participation in the covenant and the covenant people of God, and that all humans are called to do that by the grace of God, though many reject this calling.

The Scriptures are clear that God has chosen those whom He would save and did so before the foundations of the world, and these are "predestined" to be conformed to the image of his Son: (Ephesians 1:1-11, 2 Timothy 2:8-9, Romans 8:28-30; 1 Peter 1:2). This choice is not arbitrary, and no Calvinist would ever say so. When the Scripture says that "there is not partiality with God, " particularly in the New Testament, it is in the context of the comparison of peoples, Jews to Greek or slaves to free. (i.e. Romans 2:10-11, Acts 10:34, Ephesians 6:9). We are chosen and predestined according to God's purpose and for His good pleasure. God had a purpose in choosing whom He does for salvation, but the basis of this choice is not any foreseen quality, attribute, or work of that person--it is by grace and grace alone.

1 Timothy 2:4 is the best verse in the Scripture to support Daniel's point, but the comments in 2:4 are made in passing. They are not the primary point of the text. The point of the context of 1 Timothy 2 is not that God wants every human being to be saved--it concerns godly practice and behavior. It could be credibly argued that "all men" of 2:4 could contextually mean "all kinds of men" for Paul is urging Timothy to pray "for kings and all who are in authority" (1:2). In most cases that the term all men (or whole world, all people, all, etc) is used, it is qualified by the context to a specific group of people. Rarely, save the cases in which all of man is described as fallen, does "all" or "world" refer to literally everyone. Not even in John 3:16.

There are passages in which the entire point concerns the doctrine of election by grace. Romans 8:28-30, Romans 9, Ephesians 1:1-11 with the support of 2:1-10, John 6:37-40,44,65, John 10:1-30, for examples.

First, let's look at these passages. In Romans 8:28-30, Paul tells us that "whom (or those) He foreknew, He predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son." The predestined are then called, and the called are then justified, and the justified are then glorified. The word foreknew is proginosko in the Greek. It is simply a compound word combining pro (before) and ginosko (know). In both the English rendition cited and in the Greek, "those" or "whom" is a plural term acting as the direct object of "know." The object of God's foreknowledge isn't a mere choice or act, quality or merit; it is a set of persons. In every case that the word ginosko is used with a human being as the object of that verb, it refers to a relationship of some sort. It could be an acquaintance, or it could even be sexual, but it never refers to a knowledge of a set of facts. In fact, the word ginosko is used in Matthew 7:23 when Jesus says, "I never knew you, depart from me!" Therefore, from the context, it is clear that there are those that God does not foreknow. The same "those" that are foreknown in verse 28 are the ones who are glorified in verse 30. From this passage, it is clear that not everyone is called, either.

This verse is telling us that God knew us in a relationship with Himself in eternity before [the best term we can use to describe the eternal nature of God's knowledge] that relationship came to be in time.

Romans 9 is even stronger: Paul begins by lamenting that the Jews do not know Christ, that he would surrender his own salvation for that of his kinsman. If there were a group of people that should have known that Christ was the Messiah, it should have been the Jews, they had the Law, the service of God, and the covenants--and were the race through which God chose Christ to come. But then Paul tells us that "they are not all Israel who are of Israel." The first Israel refers to the descendents of Abraham, the second refers to God's chosen people. This is a bold statement on Paul's part.

To substantiate this claim, Paul uses the Old Testament. God rejected Ishmael, but chose Isaac--both were sons of Abraham. Then Paul refers to Isaac's children and says God chose Jacob over Esau: "for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works [grace] but of Him who calls." Paul has just demonstrated that mere kinsmanship to Abraham does not make you one of the chosen of God. Then Paul, in response to a possible objection ("Is there unrighteousness with God?"), uses the story of Moses and Pharaoh as an example for God's sovereignty in election and concludes in verse 18:

Therefore He [God] has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.

In other words: God can save whoever He wants to, and this salvation is not in a response to action by men. It is initiated by God and is applied to particular individuals. Paul knew people would say that it is not fair for God to not give everyone a chance--especially if it is God who hardens the hearts of men. "You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?'"

Paul's answer is not one that satisfies the modern-day critic of Calvinism, who often poses this very objection when confonted with the doctrine of reprobation. Paul essentially says this: We are property, and God is the property owner. Because of our status as creatures, God can do as He wishes with us. "Who are you to reply against God? Shall the thing formed say to him who formed it, 'why have you made me like this?' Does not the potter have power over the same lump of clay to make one vessel for honor, and another for dishonor? What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endure with much longsuffering those vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?"

Pauls couldn't be more clear. More to come on the UE in Eph 1 and 2, John 6 and 10, and others.

Daniel Hixon's Refutation of Calvinism, Part 1

2007-01-23T09:58:00.000-06:00

Take some time to read my friend Daniel Hixon's criticism of Calvinism. The criticism is brief and broad, covering a lot of topics an a short amount of space, so he doesn't develop some of his arguments as much as I would like. Daniel is a brilliant guy. In fact, I respect him very much because of his honesty when we have discussed issues in the past.

I was one of the "real-live" Calvinists Daniel engaged at LSU. I was let out of my cage from time to time, so that I can roam to-and-fro and debate to pesky Arminians. ;-). Of all the non-Calvinists I have ever debated, Daniel was one of the most gracious and honest opponents. We talked about it on many occasions, too.

To be honest this movement distrubs me a little...Reaction to this Calvinistic trend has been varied. Young and zealous Calvinists with their tight rational system with all of its certainty can come of [off] as (and sometimes may actually be) arrogant and narrow, not respecting the rest of us...

I cite this section because Daniel is right...and this arrogance is not limited to the young and the zealous. My wife and I have discussed this elitist tendency among Calvinists on many occasions, and because of this, we avoid "Reformed" churches. I know that some of my Calvinist friends might gasp at me saying this, but it is the general tendency when Calvinists get together. It's not that they "come off" as arrogant--the most vocal Calvinists typically are arrogant and elitist. This is ironic to me, because elitism is inconsistent with Calvinist theology, although it is often it an outcome when people let sinful arrogance reign in their hearts. I will explain this inconsistency more in a moment.

This elitism does not come out of the doctrine of election itself--it simply comes from thinking that we are right and the rest are wrong. It comes from the belief that we preach the truth and the rest preach blasphemies, and the arrogance is most apparent when we think that we have nothing to learn from Christians outside of the Reformed circles. You can see that I am speaking from experience...

Daniel gives his summary of the 5 points of Calvinism:

Total depravity - this expression does not occur in scripture, but if it means that "every inclination of all the thoughts of their hearts were evil, and that continually" that causes me to wonder why so many non-Christians do so many apparently good (or at least refrain from even more evil) things. Calvin himself addressed this problem with what he called "restraining grace" which is in my opinion very similar to what Wesley called "prevenient grace." Both of them ended up saying the same thing: we are totally depraved in theory, but it doesn't play out that way in practice (Calvin says we are able to refrain from some evil and Wesley says we are also able to freely choose to accept/reject Christ) all because the grace of God is already at work in every person.

When Daniel said, "this expression does not occur in scripture," he was attempting to bias his reader against Total Depravity. The term "prevenient grace", a term coined by John Wesley (the founder of Methodism, Daniel refers to his sermon against Calvinism) and central to his theology of man, also does not occur in Scripture. Neither does the word Trinity. Just because the actual term does not exist does not mean the concept is not taught in God's Word.

His quoted definition is the correct definition of Total Depravity: every inclination of all the thoughts of our hearts, apart from the redeeming work of Christ, are evil, and on that continually. The definition is a citation out of Genesis 6 and 8. Reformed theologians qualify this "restraining grace" a bit more than Daniel does, and most common term is "common grace." Common grace comes several forms, with the most evident one being human government. The influence of the church upon society is another form of common grace. It is common grace that prevents the human heart from plunging into anarchy, as can be seen when the presence of certain forms of common grace, such as government, are removed.

However, common grace more often affects man's action rather than his motive. It keeps people from doing evil, but it doesn't necessarily stop man from desiring it. Most Calvinists, myself included, believe that altruism in an unbeliever is rare at best, if not impossible. Even when good is done, it is done with corrupt motives. Common grace also does not save; it does not change the obstinate heart of the sinner to be able to accept Christ.

In fact, Wesley's "prevenient grace" is an outflow of his belief in something similar to total depravity. Wesley did believe in severe noetic effects of sin; sin impeded man's ability to come to Christ. In Wesley's doctrine of prevenient grace, God temporarily removes the effects of sin when the gospel call is made so that a persons response to the gospel is truly his own without any influence from God or sin. Prevenient grace is what make a "free choice" possible. In common grace, God does not remove the corruption of sin, he merely limits its capabilities through external means. In prevenient grace, the corruption is removed for the purpose of "free choice." Hence, these concepts are not one in the same.

Total depravity is not a "theory." It is a consistent teaching of Scripture, and it is the basis of biblical grace (Eph 2). Before Christ, my will was a slave to sin to do its bidding. It's reality can be seen, for we all know what we are truly like we no one is looking, and we see what people (and governments) can do when accountability is removed.

There is a biblical basis for Total Depravity and Common Grace. Genesis 6 and 8 cite Daniel's definition almost verbatim. Psalm 14, John 6:44; Romans 1-3; Isaiah 53:6; Ephesians 2:1-10; Romans 13; among many others. If you need more, let me know.

More to come...wifey says it's time for bed.

Blue Like Jazz -- Review Final

2007-01-21T19:40:00.000-06:00

In chapter 16, we come to Miller's idea of worship. He begins with saying that there are many things in Christian spirituality that are confusing. Well, he says that they are more than confusing, they are contradictory:

There are many ideas within Christian spirituality that contradict the facts of reality as I know them...Love...beauty. Jesus as God.

If these ideas contradict the facts of reality, are they even real? Essentially, Miller is trying to say that many ideas and concepts within the Christian faith are difficult to understand--and some are impossible to fully understand. I would certainly agree with this, but I would not use the term contradiction to categorize these difficult ideas. Tense, of course. Indescribable, in some ways, yes. Contradictory, never. The definition of contradiction is this: if statement A is true, then statement B is false, and if statement B is true then statement A is false. One must true and the other false. If both can be false, but at most one can be true, then we have concepts that are contrary, but not contradictory. In a contradiction, one statement must be true and the other false.

A married bachelor, a circle square, a smart Democrat (little joke at my friend Donald Miller's expense): these are contradictions. Three Persons in one Godhead? Not a contradiction. It is a difficult concept to comprehend and explain, but categorically, it is not a contradiction. Love is not a contradiction simply because it is not a tangible thing, and neither is beauty a contradiction because of its subjective nature.

I have a friend who is a seminary student who criticizes certain Christian writers for embracing what he call "mysticism." I asked him if his statement meant that he is not a mystic. Of course not, he told me. I asked him if he believed in the Trinity. He said he did. I asked if he believed that the Trinity represented three separate persons who are also one. He said he did. I asked him if that would be considered a mystical idea. He just stood there thinking.
You cannot be a Christian without being a mystic.

Three separate persons in one God would certainly be a mystical (as in impossible) idea--but it is not the definition of the Trinity. This is an uninformed statement on Millers part, and it doesn't prove his point. First, no orthodox theologian would ever say that the Persons of the Trinity are separate--that would be tritheism. The proper term is distinct: three distinct Persons of the one divine essence.

Second, Miller hijacks his friends argument by redefining mysticism. There is an ancient form of philosophical practice and belief called mysticism, and these ideas have influenced many Christian thinkers. The Christian form of mysticism is most often expressed in gnosticism, although there are other forms of mystic Christianity. There are teachings in mystic and gnostic practices that are contrary to Christian belief. Miller redefines mysticism in etymological terms alone: mysticism is the belief in anything mysterious and unexplainable. Of course, we Christian have many beliefs that are mysterious...but that is not the mysticism Miller friend is talking about.

In the entirety of this chapter, Miller seems to think that he knows he is right because he "feels awe." We essentially should never engage God intellectually, only emotionally. Fearing God and being in awe of God are the path to wisdom, says Miller. However, the intellectual engagement of God's nature is not an act of reducing God to math (something Miller accuses theologians of doing), in fact, it can spark incredible feelings of awe, wonder, fear, and humility. In fact, Solomon says in Ecclesiastes that with much wisdom comes much despair...

At the end of the day, when I am lying in bed and I know that the chances of any of our theology of being exactly right are a million to one, I need to know that God has things figured out, that if my math is wrong we are still going to be okay...I don't there there is any better worship than wonder.

Miller, there is no possible way for you to know that God has things "figured out" (as if He has to think through these things) if your theology has a "million to one" chance of being "exactly right." This is purely emotional rambling...

Also, God isn't sitting up in heaven trying to get us to sit down and wonder all day long. Worship is best expressed in obedience. We can wonder all day long, but if we fail to obey God's commands, we do not respect Him, and wonder and disrespect can coexist. Reverence and obedience together cannot coexist with disrespect.

Lastly, which will be the final critique I make in this book (although I could make many more), Miller tells us in the next chapter:

I began to attend a Unitarian church...The people were wonderful...I was comfortable there...I did not like their flaky theology, though...

In respect to his "million to one" comment, he has no right to criticize the Unitarians of flaky theology. If he can't be certain of his own, then he forfeits his ability to judge the theology of others--unless Miller wants to be a hypocrite...

All in all, I judge this book to be a great glimpse into shallow emotionalism, but as far as a source of spiritual growth, it's not a good resource. Miller is inconsistent in his own theology and offers us nothing of real substance outside of his demand to "feel God." In fact, I think this book can be dangerous to someone who doesn't think critically about spiritual issues. He advocates an perspective of anti-intellectualism (thinking about God is dangerous) and fails to engage God's revelation in the Bible at all. Not one verse is cited verbatim, some are alluded to, but no unbeliever will ever know which words are Scripture and which are Millers. When Miller does directly attribute his words to a biblical source, he doesn't tell you where to find it.

The gospel that Miller presents is a social gospel intended to save us from our own "self-addiction" to an awareness of social causes that we need to follow. There is no demand for repentance, no explanation of God's wrath and anger, and no discussion of what Christ actually did on the cross. Christ is here to fix up the mess of my life and make me feel good about myself. It's all about me and what I can gain from "Christian spirituality"; The god of this book looks nothing like the God of the Bible. He is passive, waiting, drunk with love, figuring things out, incapable of truly revealing Himself to a point where we can be certain, risking Himself--among other near-blasphemous ideas. Hence the reason I use the word dangerous.

Sorry about the delay in response...

2007-01-21T17:13:00.000-06:00

Things have been hectic this week at work (more details to come on that when they are sorted out), and Laura's birthday was on Friday. So, I didn't have time to address all of the stuff I wanted to, nor did I respond to comments on my last post.

I apologize. I will try to get better about posting, but it will be more difficult in the next few months as things are going to get very busy for Laura and me...

Blue Like Jazz, Chapters 13-16

2007-01-14T22:51:00.001-06:00

Chapter 13 is titled "Romance." It's was one of the most humorous chapters in the book to read. In it, Miller presented the analogy of human marital love with that of God's love for us. His anecdotes of dating and "finding the one" were hilarious and easy to empathize with, but again, we should not use romance as a metaphor of God's love. He does not seduce us with flowers, a nice restaurant, and candles. His love is expressed in terms of action and commitment, not mere romantic feelings.

"I mean that to be in a relationship with God is to be loved purely and furiously. And a person who thinks himself as unlovable cannot be in a relationship with God because he can't accept who God is; a Being that is love...," Paul says... [Pages 146-147]

In order to understand the theological implications of this comment (which is spoken by a married friend of Miller's, but Miller's tone indicates that he buys into it), one must understand that this comment is an enthymeme--a conclusion drawn from unmentioned premises. The premise is this: God's love for mankind is rooted in man's "being lovable." In other words, God's love in not rooted in God's character alone--despite whatever condition in which man may be. No, rather, it is also grounded in qualities that man possesses that make him lovable. Several times in the book Miller has qualified God's love as "unconditional", but now he tells us that man is "lovable." God's love cannot be unconditional if we deserve it, and if we do not deserve God's love, then we are not inherently lovable.

If God's love is truly unconditional (which it is), then it matters not that man is lovable (which he is, in fact, not). If man were lovable, possessing the qualities that deserve God's love, then the idea of free grace is completely obliterated. If you need more proof that Miller buys into this man-centered theology, listen to the closing words from a play Miller wrote, which are also the closing words of chapter 13.

God risked Himself on me. I will risk myself on you. And together, we will learn to love, and perhaps then, and only then, understand the gravity that drew Him, unto us.

Miller completely has it backwards here. Biblically speaking, it is God who draw us to Him. Here, Miller seems to think that somehow we have something, some quality, some attribute, who knows what, that created a "gravity that drew [God] unto us." It is God who is drawn to us in Miller's theology. We are the center of God's universe.

Moreover, I hate the word "risk" in relation to God. In order to truly say that God took a risk, one must also say that God does not know something. The concept of risk depends on the concept of chance, and chance depends on a lack on knowledge. These words of Miller's are an appeal to warm fuzzies that carry severe theological consequences. For you logicians and mathematicians:

God + Risk < Omniscience

For the rest of you, this means that if God could take a risk, God cannot be omniscient--He knows less than everything.

Chapters 14 and 15 deal with the importance of community. This is decent content, besides the endorsement of profanity [Page 179]. The devil's goal is to get you to cuss. ;-) (See my previous reviews to get this joke). Chapter 16 concerns the importance of faith involved with giving. This is also decent material, besides the bashing of conservatives on page 188.

Next review will complete chapters 17 - 20, and thus finish the book.

New Format and Some Updates...

2007-01-14T16:37:00.000-06:00

As you may be able to see, I've updated the look of my site--thanks to Chris Barnette, who has a creative touch that I don't have time to have ;-). He develop the blogger template for me, and gave it to me a week ago.

I've also linked to a Wesleyan friend of mine, Daniel Hixon. I known him for some time and we had some very good and constructive theological conversations in the past.

Last thing, Laura and I have formally joined Instrouma Baptist Church. We've been visiting the church since late August, and it is a great church with friendly people.

Coming in the next few days, the final review or two of Blue Like Jazz, some more discussion on Christian Existentualism, and a review of Daniel's criticism of Calvinism.

Happy Anniversary...

2007-01-06T23:04:00.000-06:00

Today, (well actually, tomorrow), January 7th is Laura and my first anniversary. We are staying in New Orleans, at the Block-Keller House B&B right on Canal St. Stalkers, stay away. It's been a while since I've been to uptown NO--since before hurricane Katrina. Construction is everywhere, and places that I once loved to go are now either out-of-business or under reconstruction.

My idea of marriage is now completely different than it was a year ago. Laura and I were fortunate to get fantastic premarital counseling, which has helped us immensely. Also, the relationship that Laura and I have has always been strong in communication. I know I hardly get personal on this site, but given the occasion, I think I should, especially for my single readers out there (wishful thinking, I know).

Laura and I married under the best of circumstances. Financially, I have a steady job with Chevron Phillips Chemical as an Applications Analyst (Applications/Web Applications Developer). The company is very good to me and had provided more than we need. I have been able to own a home and pay for her graduate school without going into any other debt besides a mortgage. Emotionally, we are both (I think, at least) stable and well-centered. Spiritually, we have the same beliefs. I married into a wonderful family, and I love her parents, and she loves my family--we have very little in-law tensions compared to most marriages. And we were (and are) in love, but the substance of our relationship was never purely grounded in emotion, but in committment.

Why do I say this? Because, even when you marry in the best of circumstances, marriage takes more work and patience than you could ever possibly imagine. She leaves drawers open, and for me, the interior decoration isn't complete unless I leave a pair of shoes in every room. I also shed body hair, and one bathroom sink just isn't enough room for her. Oh yeah, I snore sometimes, I can also be very inconsiderate at other times (but I never snore and be inconsiderate at the same time), and she demands that I tell her that she's not bossy (True story, but it happened before we married, but the demanding still stands).

I remember a few months into our marriage, Laura and I were having a hard time communicating about something, and afterwards she said to me, "Marriage has shown me how selfish of a person I am." It was such a profound and convicting statement--and true for the both of us. I'm only a year into my marriage, and I have been able to experience the spiritual sanctification and purification it brings. Privacy and secrecy are things of the past, so hiding anything is difficult in the short-term--and impossible for the long-term. If you are able to hide anything from your spouse, then true intimacy is an impossibility, and your vulnerability is an illusion.

But the best part is the intimacy that comes by truly being vulnerable to another human being by placing a strong trust in her (which is impossible without a faith in Christ to work through her), surrendering the responsibility to care for your needs to her--and her to you. When God's brings the person He intends for you to marry, it is for the good of both of you--and greatest good often comes through working through the most difficult times of marriage. These times demand our selflessness and patience as spouses--a Christ-like character which comes only by God's grace--in order for the marriage to survive them. The strongest and most intimate marriages I know have survived terrible times that forced the couple to demonstrate committment to God and the marriage.

To often people ground relationships purely on emotion. In such a relationship, one would have an eaiser time "grasping for the wind" than meeting the naive expectations of the other. Sure, the connection is strong at the start and it seems like you both think the same thoughts, but it will tire out after a time, and the both of you will certainly start thinking different thoughts. These things always happen, and marrying will only make them come faster, because one is forced to see the other's flaws. Without committment, the relationship will die as fast as a whale out of the water--and this committment must exist in the heart and expressed to the other before the marriage vows are taken--and it must transcend emotion.

How does one know that the relationship is purely emotion? If you don't see any flaws in the other's habits and character, then you have the emotional filter lenses on. If you are afraid to have your flaws exposed, and if you have not seen any imperfection (besides the pimples) in the other, then DON'T GET MARRIED!!! You need stop wading in the shallow pool of superficiality and dive into the deep waters of reality before you even consider marriage. Trust me, both you and your significant other are deeply flawed and selfish, and your illusions of intimacy at this point are nothing more than two people selfishly high on emotion.

Blue Like Jazz, Chapter 12

2007-01-02T07:00:00.000-06:00

Happy 2007 to all!

In chapter 12, Miller gives us his idea of the institution of the church. He begins the chapter with the admission of his antipathy for institutions--especially corporations. (Who published this book?) He is not saying that institutions are bad, just that he doesn't like them. Some people have a dislike for pizza, Miller doesn't like institutions. "Those people never want to just talk; they always have an agenda." What would your agenda be, Don?

He does admit to the necessity of institutions and corporations, but he still doesn't like 'em. "It's my right." Yes, Miller it is. You have a right to dislike institutions, but then use them for your own personal gain and notoriety. Thomas Nelson (the publisher of your book) is a corporation. The newspapers and magazines that run your columns are institutions. This hostility for institutions also was for the church--until he found on he liked, Imago Dei in Portland.

"It doesn't do any good to bash churches." Yet between here and the end of the book, he caricatures politically conservative evangelical churches on a regular basis--even on the next page.

I felt like people were trying to sell me Jesus. I was a salesman for a while, and we were taught that you are supposed to point out all the benefits of a product when you are selling it. That is how I felt about some of the preachers I heard speak. They were always pointing out the benefits of the Christian faith. That rubbed me wrong....Did they have to talk about spirituality like it's a vacuum cleaner. I never felt like Jesus was a product. I wanted Him to be a person. Not only that, but they were always pointing out how great the specific church was. The bulletin read like a brochure for Amway. They were always saying how life-changing some conference was going to be. Life-changing?... [Page 131]

If this isn't bashing, I don't what is. I also hold in suspicion similar marketing tactics churches use to win converts. The presentation of the gospel should be based upon Scripture alone. However, isn't Miller also trying to "sell" his version of Jesus in this book? Why write a 240 page book to "sell" "Christian spirituality"? That rubbed me wrong. Miller can't have his cake an eat it too. In all honesty, Miller comes off as a hypocrite throughout this book. I agree that people often turn Jesus into a product, but is it intentional? Do the churches here in the South see Jesus as a nonperson product? Of course not. This is nothing more than a caricature--a straw man. If you need more evidence of Miller's hypocrisy in light of the citation above, take a look at the endorsements on the back cover of the book.

"Think of Donald Miller as ... Anne Lamott with testosterone, and this fresh memoir-like collection of essays as his version of Traveling Mercies. Miller's words will resonate with any believer who has ever grappled with the paradoxes of the faith." -- Christianity Today
"It's hard to find people who write about God from a position of commitment but still sound as if they're being human and honest ... Donald Miller is such a person." -- John Ortburg
"Donald Miller writes like a good improv solo--smooth, sweet, surprising, uplifting, and full of soul and fury and joy. When I finished the last page, I felt warmed, full of hope, and confident that this great book will echo with beauty in many, many lives just as it is doing in mine." -- Brian McLaren
For anyone wondering if the Christian faith is still relevant in a post-modern culture,
For anyone thirsting for a genuine encounter with a God who is real,
For anyone yearning for a renewed sense of passion in life...
Blue Like Jazz is a fresh and original perspective on life, love, and redemption.

Do I need to say anymore? To me, this is pure hypocrisy. He should have thought twice about allowing endorsements such as these on the cover of his book when he criticizes churches for advertising a conference as "life-changing" (a practice that bothers me as well) inside its covers.

From here, Miller discusses Mark Driscoll, Pastor of Mars Hill is Seattle who is known for vulgarity in his sermons. In this section [Pages 135-136], Miller dismisses as superstitious those who might object to Driscoll's vulgarity. "I think some of my friends believed that that is was the goal of the devil to get people to say cusswords, so they thought Mark was possessed or something, and they told me I should not really get into anything he was a part of." Nice preclusion, Don. Of course, no one might have legitimate concerns about vulgarity in the pulpit and pastorate. You can't criticize someone for being authentic--and cussing is authentic.

Read 1 Timothy 3. A bishop (office of clergy/pastor) should be above reproach, in control of his impulses, modest, decent, and well- behaved. The interesting thing about Driscoll is that his theology is good--but is behavior is questionable at best, and indecent at worst. Driscoll then introduces Miller's current pastor, Rick, to Miller. "At the time, we [Rick and Miller] both chewed tobacco" and Rick "said a few cusswords but not as bad as Mark." Rick is the pastor at Imago Dei, a church that now has a substantial congregation. Do these men have the characteristics outlined in 1 Timothy 3?

Miller then talks about how great a church Imago Dei is [Page 136]. Isn't this doing the same thing as those churches he didn't like?

On page 137, Miller tells us, "I speak from the pulpit at Imago from time to time, and I am completely comfortable saying anything I like." This is very troubling to me, especially as one who preaches from time to time. II should never feel "completely comfortable" saying my thoughts from the pulpit. The pulpit is not meant to be a forum for the exchange of trendy ideas, it is meant to the the place in which men of God preach the Word of God. Nothing more, and certainly nothing less. Miller has made it clear that he does not sense a responsibility to preach and teach truth when he enters the pulpit. It's more important that he be "authentic."

I've read the rest of the book now. For this point on, I will address any issues that I really liked or issues of grave concern for me. Honestly, I had more issues of concern than things I liked--simply because of the book's inconsistency and popularity.

Blue Like Jazz, Chapter 11

2006-12-31T18:00:00.000-06:00

First, Happy New Years. You can see that my wife and I have no life, because I am blogging on New Year's Eve. But, it could be worse. I could be reading my blog on the evening of New Year's Eve ;-).

Chapter 11 is titled "Confession." It is an interesting chapter, to say the least. In it, Miller defines "Christian spirituality" for us. In my opinion, Miller hijacked the term Christianity to mean something that it does not mean. He tells us, "Stop ten people on the street and ask them what they think of when they hear the word Christianity, and they will give you ten different answers." I'm sorry, but in all likelihood, the ten people you stop on the street probably are not going to be Christians either. Should we use the ignorance of a lost world to dismiss using a term rich with both diversity and history?

Sure, many people in the past have had horrible experiences with those who claim to be ambassadors of "Christianity", but that doesn't mean we should abandon the term Christianity. In fact, when we define the term correctly, we must face and address the sinful parts of our faith's history.

For me, the beginning of sharing my faith with people began by throwing out Christianity and embracing Christian spirituality, a nonpolitical mysterious system that can be experienced but not explained. Christianity, unlike Christian spirituality, was not a term that excited me. And I could not in good conscious tell a friend about a faith that didn't excite me. I couldn't share something I wasn't experiencing. And I wasn't experiencing Christianity...It felt like math, a system of rights and wrongs and political beliefs, but it wasn't mysterious; it wasn't God reaching out of heaven to do wonderful things in my life... [Page 115-116]

If Christian spirituality "can...not be explained", then why write a 240 page book about it? I couldn't, in good conscious, tell a friend about a faith I couldn't explain, either. There are aspects of the Christian life that are subjective to one's own experience. If there is no experience of conversion, it makes no sense to say that conversion took place. Every good and honest theologian has experienced the Christian life, the difficulties and the blessings. There is no feeling in the world like that of knowing that you have been redeemed from your sin and that you stand approved and love in the sight of God. Before that feeling, there must be a inward experience of conviction, remorse, and dread due to sin, "Turn your wrath from me, a sinner." (Luke 18:13)

But, a good theology is not rooted in experience, rather it is meant to explain the experiences of the Christian life--to define what experiences are of God and which are not. To Miller, experience defines truth. Biblically, truth should define and qualify experience. To me, Miller is an intellectual and attempts to portray himself as an intellectual, but he embraces contradiction at many turns. We wants to tell his friends about an unexplainable faith. Belief is something that chooses us and something we choose. He tries to make fashionable a belief that is, by nature and his own admission, unfashionable. This is either anti-intellectualism or doublespeak to please all of his readers.

For the rest of the chapter, Don tells us of the time when he and his friends built a confession booth on Reed's campus during Ren Fayre, a festival in which the campus is shut down and the students party to their hearts' content. Anything goes, too. Sex, drugs, binge drinking, all sorts of stuff. The confession booth is not what you may think, though. The booth is for Miller and his friends to confess the sins of the church to the students at Reed. An interesting idea, but it bothers me that he feels obligated to apologize on behalf of the Christian faith in order to share his faith. I understand the need to break the ice, but this is not the way. Nowhere in the New Testament do you see preachers and evangelists apologizing on behalf of those Jews who got things wrong about the Messiah. This approach to win converts is to make the unbeliever feel good about the Christian faith, not to make unbeliever aware of his sin and understand his need for God's provision.

Blue Like Jazz, Chapters 9 and 10

2006-12-29T00:55:00.000-06:00

Chapter 9 is titled "Change." In this chapter, Miller discusses his transformation from a fundamentalist variety of Christianity to one that is more "personal" and "authentic"--the time in which he made his true commitment to Jesus Christ. Miller paints a nice picture with his words concerning his experience in the Grand Canyon, under the vast amounts of stars, making his peace with God.

However, the interesting part for me came at the end of the chapter.

As I lay there, it occurred to me that God is up there [beyond the stars in the sky] somewhere...this time I felt it, I realized it, the way a person realizes that they are hungry or thirsty. The knowledge of God seeped out of my brain and into my heart. I imagined Him looking down to this earth, half angry because his beloved mankind had cheated on Him, had committed adultery, and yet hopelessly in love with her, drunk with love for her...
...I am wanted by God. He is wanting to preserve me...

To describe God as "drunk with love" more than bothers me. To me, this sentiment makes God seem emotionally out of control. God's actions are not driven by emotion. If this is Miller's "knowledge of God", then He doesn't know the God of the Bible very well. God is not "in love" with creation. Matter a fact, God is more than "half-angry"; He is wrathful. To say that God is "in love" transforms God's love from something that is expressed in selfless action to that which is expressed in mere romantic feelings. Such romanticism may make the reader have warm fuzzies, but it does not express God's hostility, wrath, and judgment towards sin. A depraved sinner has little problem believing in a God who overlooks sin, but only those sinners convicted by God's grace accept a God whose holy (a word yet to be discussed by Miller) love still demands a propitiation for sin...

Miller opens chapter 10 like this:

My most recent faith struggle is not one of intellect. I really don't do that anymore. Sooner or later you just figure out there are some guys who don't believe in God and they can prove He doesn't exist, and some other guys who do believe in God and they can prove He does exist, and the argument stopped being about God a long time ago and now it's about who is smarter, and honestly I don't care.

This is one of the most arrogant and judgmental statements in the entirety of the book (besides the consistent stabs at Republicans). The now all-wise Miller dismisses--in a mere half-paragraph--the need of a field of study that generations of brilliant Christians have devoted their entire lives to: apologetics. Augustine, Anselm, Pascal, Luther, Calvin, C. S. Lewis, Van Til, Clark, Ravi Zacharias (a name mentioned favorably by Miller later in the book), and a host of others all have wasted their mental capacities in demonstrating that they are smarter than the atheists. Of course they had no genuine devotion of Christ--as least not a strong as Miller's.

Honestly, I wanted to stop the book review at this point. This run-on sentence is completely irresponsible and hypocritical--the smugness of the tone implied that he was smarter than those whom he was critiquing.

...I realized that believing in God is much like falling in love as it is like making a decision. Love is both something that happens to you and something you decide upon.

This is the definition of synergism without using theological terms. There are many astute theologians (Norman Geisler, for example) that are synergists; they believe that conversion is the result of a cooperation of the human will with the divine. If the human will does not cooperate, there is no conversion. I am a monergist; I hold that the human will cannot cooperate with the divine influence, unless the divine manifests a change within the obstinate heart of the human being. Ultimately, conversion is the result of God's providential influence over the heart of the sinner--not the sinner's cooperation.

According to Miller, belief is something that "happens to you" [the divine will] and something "you decide upon" [the human will]. To justify this theology, Miller cites no Scripture, no astute theologian; only anecdotal evidence based solely in his experience as a Christian.

Can you imagine if Christians actually believed that God was trying to rescue them from the pit of their own self-addiction? Can you imagine? Can you imagine what Americans would do if they understood over half of the world was living in poverty? Do you think it would change they way they live, the products they purchase, and the politicians they elect? [Page 106-107]

God is not trying to rescue us from "the pit our own self-addiction." God does not try to do anything--He does all He intends to do (Isaiah 46:10). He does not need us to cooperate in order to rescue us, and when He does rescue us, He saves us from the pits of a fiery and eternal hell!

Don, I forgive you for the shameless liberal plug in the second half of this excerpt--even though it is a non-sequitur.

The problem with Christian belief--I mean real Christian belief, the belief that there is a God and a devil and a heaven and a hell--is that it is not a fashionable thing to believe. [Page 107]

Miller then goes on to criticize the attempts of the church to make Christian belief to seem cool--which to me completely undermines a purpose of this book. The whole book is an attempt to make Christianity seem more appealing to his audience--to make it seem exciting, cool, and something that agrees with the political left. Yet again, Miller comes off as a hypocritical to me, and if I were an unbeliever, I would not only think this repackaged Christianity as uncool, but dishonest as well. Kudos on finally mentioning hell, though. It's about time.

All great Christian leaders are simple thinkers. Andrew [an activist friend of his who is known for protesting conservative politics] doesn't cloak his altruism in a trickle-down economic theory that allows him to spend fifty dollars on a round of golf to feed the economy and provide jobs for the poor. He actually believes that when Jesus says to feed the poor, He means that you should do this directly.

More conservative caricatures. Most evangelical Christians who are politically conservative, that loathsome Religious Right, are so because of moral issues like abortion, euthanasia, and gay-marriage--not for economical issues. Most of them don't even know what trickle-down economic theory is. Some do. However, contrary to Miller's stereotype, when compared to any demographic in the nation, this group gives more in direct charitable contributions to churches and organizations that give to the poor--both in numbers and percentages of annual income. They are extremely generous on the whole--save the prosperity theologians. Honestly, these subtle condemnations of Republican Christians are too numerous--and I needed to get this off my chest. I promise to stick to theology from now on.

From here Miller makes some great points: Miller criticizes postmodernity (although he seems a bit post-modern in his theology). It's "another tool of Satan to get people to be passionate about nothing." Agreed. On the last page of Chapter 10, Miller tells us, "Jesus is the most important figure in history, and the gospel is the most powerful force in the universe." Again, agreed. However, what is the gospel? What gives the gospel it's power? These questions Miller has not clearly answered.

James White Answered One of my Questions...

2006-12-20T14:16:00.000-06:00

I am honored to have James White, a well known Christian apologist and Reformed theologian, answer a question I submitted to him on his radio broadcast. Here is a link to the recording, and he answers my question starting at 18:43. (18 min and 33 seconds).

As I was reading Matthew, I came across this in 11:20-23:

20 Then He began to rebuke the cities in which most of His mighty works had been done, because they did not repent: 21 "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades; for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. 24 But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you."

Those of you who read my blog on a regular basis know that I am Reformed in my theology, and have been so since 2002. I believe that the whole counsel of Scripture supports the Calvinist position, and I have heard few credible arguments against it--and no "unanswerable" ones.

However, there are times that I come across verses that seem to support the opposing position. The first "point" of Calvinism is Total Depravity, which describes humankind as completely fallen and depraved in nature. His inclination is always toward sin and rebellion, and because of this nature, man has not the ability to choose God on his own. Left to his own devices and given a choice between himself, an idol, or God, God would never be his choice.

I noticed that an implication could be drawn from the passage above that undermine the doctrine of Total Depravity. So I sent James White this email:

As a Calvinist, I have a question about Matthew 11:23..[Citation of the Verse]...and its implication on Reformed Theology, particularly Total Depravity. I've heard Reformed preachers say that it shows that God does not intend for all to be saved, which I agree with, I see that it demonstrates that God chose not to show them such mighty works and not give them the opportunity to repent.
However, if an opponent of Reformed theology were to use this verse in connection to Total Depravity--not necessarily God's election--and argue the verse in this manner:
"This verse implies that man is not totally depraved, for Jesus even said that if the people of Sodom would have seen his works, they would have believed--implying that they have the ability to believe."
How would you respond?
I haven't personally recieved this objection, but I as I was reading this verse, I noticed that it could be taken in such a way.
Thanks.
Brent Railey, Baton Rouge, LA

Dr. White's response was quite lengthy, about 7 minutes, and it was quite good. It was the approach I would have taken with my deficient ability to analyze the Greek, and the approach is called the Analogy of Faith--let Scripture interpret Scripture. No Scripture should ever be interpreted in isolation to a point that it is contrary to the general teaching of the Bible. Essentially, the opponent has tried to unpack the assumptions behind Jesus' words, and has not done a good job of it.

I know that there aren't cookie cutter answers for every Arminian verse in the Bible, and I wasn't looking for one. I only wanted to see if I was overlooking something obvoius in the text. The overall concern of the text is the proclamation of judgment. Christ makes a comparison of the Jewish cities to those of Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom, and Christ deemed it important to tell them that those cities would have repented had they seen Christ's works. Hence, because the Jews were more hardened, they face harsher judgment.

The works of Christ are not the works of a mere man--they are the work of God. Christ said that it would have taken a work of God to penetrate the hearts of those in Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom and cause them to repent. Without them, they obviously didn't repent. Hence, there is no implied ability in this text, or else Christ would have said "some did believe all on their own." In fact, there is an equal, if not a heavier, implication that it would have required a work on God's part to cause those in Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom to repent.

Even if the above implication [that man has the ability to repent] were true, the opposing postion has not gained any ground on this passage. If God intends and desires all to be saved, why didn't God show Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom his mighty works?

Why "Seeker Sensitive" Does Not Work...

2006-12-19T11:16:00.000-06:00

...If by work one means eternal accomplishment. Yeah, it might draw in fantastic crowds and fill the heart with warm fuzzy wuzzies, but "seeker sensitive" pragmatism fails on one of its primary assumptions: the seeker knows his true needs.

Modern day seeker sensitive practices can trace some roots back the pragmatic revivalist movement that began in the 1800s, pioneered by a heretic named Charles Finney.

On this post at www.oldtruth.com, Jim cites Ichabod Spencer's (a contemporary to the mid 1800s) comments on the revivalist movement. My favorite part:

It is better to trouble his conscience, than to please his heart. A convicted sinner is the last person in the world to judge justly, in regard to the kind of instruction he needs. He will seize error more readily than truth, and if his tastes are consulted, his soul will be endangered. In consulting such tastes lies the cunning art deceivers, who lead crowds to admire them, and run after them, and talk of them, while they care not for the truth, "deceiving and being deceived."

Decisions Always Have Consequences

2006-12-18T15:14:00.000-06:00

A couple of years ago, I was listening to a radio program on a New Orleans radio station (it could have been a syndicated show) featuring a guest "relationship expert." On this show, a young lady called in seeking advice in her current relationship. She was cohabitating with a man and she wanted to marry him, but he kept refusing. This "relationship expert's" advice was to "get pregnant."

I was completely shocked at the selfishness of this advice. My first thought was, what if that doesn't work, then she is stuck pregnant and alone--and now there are three people involved in the dilemma, not just two. What is she supposed to do, abort? To use a pregnancy to manipulate another person to commit to a relationship is beyond selfish--it foolish depravity without the slightest foresight of the consequences to all those who would be involved.

Last year, my step-brother, who is truly a compassionate liberal seeking to better society through noble causes, asked my advice in an unusual circumstance. He and his wife wanted to adopt an African-American baby, and our shared family was not to excited about that. When he called, he seemed intent on doing it despite the prejudices of our family, simply because he and his wife wanted a child and they wanted to make a statement to both family and society. While I agreed that the cause is noble and such prejudices shouldn't exist, I appealed to the child's perspective. The prejudices do exist and will bring unusual difficulties to parenting that wouldn't otherwise exist. I asked my step-brother if he was prepared to handle the difficulties in raising a black child being white parents, to answer the questions, to comfort the child when he will be teased for having "white parents." I asked if they were prepared to help this child in his or her impending identity crisis, being a black raised by white parents of a wholly different culture with the likelihood of isolation by those of his own race. I noted that the child does not have a choice in participating in my step-brother's cause. I also said that despite our family's prejudices, this child will become a part of it, and he would be choosing for that child a life of great familial tensions that would also not exist if the child were not black.

Unlike the foolish "relationship expert" above, out of compassion, my step-brother decided not to go through with the adoption and place a child in a preventable and difficult circumstance.

Today, I read a great article on the Washington Post (found through this post at Slice of Laodicea). It shows the incredible lack of foresight on the part of the feminist movement in intentional single motherhood. It is quite touching and a great find, and it show how selfish people can be when they consider having children, forgetting to consider the cost of their decision to conceive or adopt on the child. We are called to procreate, if able to do so--but we are also called to sacrifice our own selfishness in considering the prospect of children.

Good Article on Emergent Movement

2006-12-18T09:02:00.000-06:00

Dr. John MacArthur has begun a series called "Brian McLaren and the Clarity of Scripture". In this article, Dr. MacArthur discusses McLaren's hesitancy to make any theological assertion with any certainty--which implies that he does not believe the Scripture to be clear in revealing God's nature and purposes.

For those of you who have heard of the emergent movement and have questions about it, this is a good starting point.

To deny the clarity of Scripture (by criticizing those who are certain in their beliefs about God), is to undo one of the principal arguments of the Protestant Reformation. If it were not for the Reformers, such as Luther and Calvin, we would not have translations of the Bible in our own language to read for ourselves. Before the Reformation, the Catholic Church held that biblical interpretation could only be done by the clergy, it did not belong in the hands of the laity. They never translated the Scriptures out of Latin to the languages of their consituency--and never let them read it for themselves.

Luther and many, many other Reformers held that the Scriptures, by the inward dwelling of the Holy Spirit, are clear to all believers, and it was the believer's responsibility--if he could read--to search the Scriptures for themselves. Hence their drive the translate the Scriptures into the language of the people...all of it driven by a dogmatic conviction of the perspecuity of God's Word.

Blue Like Jazz, Chapters 6 - 8

2006-12-11T17:35:00.000-06:00

The title of chapter 6 is "Redemption." I was hoping for some discussion of the theology of Redemption (I know this is not a theology book, but even in devotional and inspirational reads, theological concepts are dealt with on a consistent basis). One would think a chapter titled "Redemption" would include a discussion of the purchase that took place at Calvary, but Miller doesn't discuss it at all. It wasn't his intention: The chapter began with the experience of redemption, but never discussed its mechanics, and ended with the struggle with sin for the believer.

Some of the content was good. I loved the honesty about the struggle of sin after conversion, and I appreciated his candid discussion of the particular vices with which he struggled. Conversion does not make the believer sinless. In fact, it amplifies the struggle to level unknown before. Before conversion, the new believer was unaware as to how sinful he truly was. After conversion, God's holy love reveals to us the innermost depths of our sin for the rest of our life. It can be most despairing, to say the least, in the midst of such struggle with sin.

On page 60, Don tells us, "Joy is a temporal thing. Its brief capacity, as reference, gives it its pleasure." Biblical joy is never meant to be a temporal thing, for it rests in the grace and everlasting promises of God to his creatures. Moreover, Miller seems define every Christian experience in merely subjective and emotional terms. Faith is "something we feel." Joy is compared to a new couple "feeling" in love.

The closing paragraph of chapter 6 is one that I empathized with:

My answer to this dilemma [of loving to do sinful things] was self-discipline. I figured that I could just make myself do good things, think good thought about other people, but that was no easier than walking up to a complete stranger and falling in love with them. I could go through the motions for a while, but sooner or later my heart would testify to its true love: darkness. Then I would get up and try again. The cycle was dehumanizing.

This was a nice a segue into the next chapter [7], titled "Grace." At the beginning of this chapter, Don discusses his experience as a "fundamentalist." Then he discusses the experience of his pastor's similar experience. This is the first time that Miller mentions the death of Christ for the forgiveness of sins. [Page 82] It was mentioned during Miller's telling of his pastor's conversion experience--but it was mentioned as a part of the story with no explanation as to its necessity. From this point on, I get a confusing message as to what the grace of God is. Miller does not describe God's grace as necessary for conversion, and he never describes grace in terms of our complete unworthiness of it. Although he does asks himself, "Who am I to think myself above God's charity?" [Page 85], not once does he say that he is completely undeserving of God's charity. He does imply that it can't be earned, but that is something entirely different than saying that man deserves the opposite of charity and love: condemnation.

On the final page of the chapter, we get an interesting message from Miller as to what enables us to love God.

...Rick loves God because he accepts God's unconditional love first.
Rick says that I will love God because he first loved me. I will obey God because I love God. But if I cannot accept God's love, I cannot love Him in return, and I cannot obey him...The ability to accept God's unconditional grace and ferocious love is all the fuel we need to obey Him in return...God woos us with kindness, He changes our character with the passion of His love.

From whence does this ability to accept God' grace and love come? Is it something within the capacity of fallen humanity to do? In reference to Ephesians 2:1-10, Can the dead in sin raise themselves to life? From this, I must assume that Miller thinks that man must enable himself to love God by accepting the free gift of grace. However, biblically speaking, the acceptance of grace by faith is a part to the grace itself. Apart from God's calling, we could neither experience nor desire his grace.

Let me clarify: Is my ability to truly love and obey God contingent upon my ability to accept God's grace? Or, is my ability to accept, love, and obey wholly dependent on the grace of God in which He tames my rebellious heart even when I would not come. In Miller's theology, God apparently cannot change our character unless we let Him. Biblically, God must change our character for us to even trust Him.

Miller is correct in saying that our ability to obey God is wholly dependent on the grace of God--Miller is wrong in saying that accepting God's love is what grants this grace. In fact, accepting God's love is an act of obedience itself, so how can we do it apart from God's grace?

In chapter 8, Miller makes some of the strongest points of the book insofar--and he makes one of his strongest theological assertions yet. He discuss the Christian tendency to use God for their own ends and egos--instead of serving Him for his purposes. In a story in which he dialogues with Moses, Miller says this:

"Don," Moses responds, "...I want you to understand that God has never been nor ever will be invented. He is not a product of any sort of imagination. He does not obey trends. And God let us out of Egypt because you people cried out to Him. He was answering your prayers because He is a God of compassion. He could have left you to Satan. Don't complain about the way God answers your prayers....Your problem is no that God is not fulfilling, your problem is that you are spoiled." [Page 92]

Amen. Then we come to this:

...God is not here to worship me, to mold Himself into something that will help me fulfill my level of comfort.

Not much to more I could say. I only hope this is what Miller actually practices throughout the rest of the book, for the god he has presented so far is a god more of human imagination than revelation.

Update on Recent Events...

2006-12-10T00:08:00.000-06:00

I will continue the Blue Like Jazz discussion this week. As for now, I am guest blogging with Jim B. of www.oldtruth.com discussing Michael Bronson's work on "Selective Salvation" at www.biblehelp.org. Here is the blog: http://nobiblehelp-org.blogspot.com/.

Also, my birthday is on Friday...I will be twe--well I'll be a year older ;-).

I'm Famous Again...

2006-11-29T14:31:00.000-06:00

Well...not really.

This time I was linked by Melissa McNarma (that's what she gets for calling me "Brent Raily") at www.cbsnews.com.

I've gotten a little traffic from this link ;-).

UPDATE: She corrected my name, so I'll give you the correct spelling of her name: McNarama.

Blue Like Jazz, Chapter 5

2006-11-27T15:55:00.000-06:00

Previous Reviews: Chapter 2, Chapters 3 and 4.

In chapter five, titled "Faith", Miller expresses his understanding of faith. This was a difficult chapter for me to understand--and I think that was Miller's intention. He apparently does not want every theological issue in this book to make sense. In remembering further conversation with a friend, Laura, Miller tells us:

I had no explanation [as to why Miller believes] for Laura. I don't think there is an explanation. My belief in Jesus did not seem rational or scientific, and yet there was nothing I could do to separate myself from this belief. I think Laura was look for something rational, because she believed that all things that were true were rational. But that isn't the case. Love, for example, is a true emotion, but it is not rational. What I mean is, people actually feel it. I have been in love, plenty of people have been in love, yet love cannot be proved scientifically. Neither can beauty. Light cannot be proved scientifically, and yet we all believe in light and by light see all things. There are plenty of things that are true that don't make any sense. I think one of the problems Laura was having was that she wanted God to make sense. He doesn't. He will make no more sense to me than I will make sense to an ant. [Page 54, emphases mine]

Miller then goes on to explain faith using the illustration of penguin mating rituals. They have an innate sense as to what to do in order to procreate. To Miller, is faith is an innate sense to believe Jesus:

...They have this radar inside them that told them when and where to go and none of it made any sense, but they show up on the very day their babies are being born, and the radar always turns out to be right. I have a radar inside me that says to believe in Jesus. Somehow, penguin radar leads them perfectly well. Maybe it isn't so foolish that I follow the radar that is inside of me. [Page 57]

Miller does not believe that the workings of faith can be explained. It is a mystery--inexplicable, yet "beautiful and true." Faith is "something you feel, and it comes from the soul." [Page 57]

I don't know where to start in the analysis of this chapter. I assume from this chapter that an analysis of faith would be ridiculous to Miller. So much of Miller's perspective on love and faith and the groundings of them have been exposed in this chapter, but it's so amorphous it's difficult to determine a starting point. I'll start with a comparison of Miller's presentation of faith with that of biblical terms.

To me, Miller seems to have contradicted himself at this point. In chapter 3, the climax of a person's story is his "decision" to follow Christ. In chapter 5, Miller was compelled internally to believe. "There are things that you choose to believe, and there are beliefs that choose you. [Belief in Jesus] is one that chose me." [Page 55] Which is it? Also, I am quite uncomfortable with the emotional orientation of his explanation of faith. That is not a biblical explanation of it. Faith is neither an emotion nor a feeling (neither is biblical love for that matter), but something that is lived. Feelings come and go; that is why I can't stand the "in love" analogy above. Everyday, people abandon marriages because they are no longer "in love." Faith and love are both lived commitments, lived even when it is not felt. It is a trust and reliance upon Christ--and in Him alone. Faith is both objective [as in definable] and subjective [as in experienced], and the experience of faith is mysterious.

However, the reason faith is mysterious is not due to it being inexplicable, but due to the amazing fact that people believe at all. If God were not to move in the hearts of men and draw them, no one would believe. Not one person. Not me, not you. That is the mystery--our faith is of God and He has given it to us (Eph 2:8-9) when we could not believe of ourselves--and he didn't give it do us because we wanted it or searched for it, because we didn't. We may have been wanting or searching, but it was not for a belief in the true and living God. We were looking for an idol to worship. Had God not come to us, we would be worshipping ourselves or an image of God that is creaturely rather than a sovereign Creator. Our innate instinct as fallen creatures is to disbelieve God.

The Bibles does explain why people believe, and it does so quite clearly. This "cause" of faith is not some mysterious, innate instinct; it's God's working in our hearts and drawing us to Himself by an inward calling. (John 6:37-40, 44, 65; John 10:1ff [Christ calls His sheep by name, people do not believe because they are not of His sheep]; Ephesians 2:5ff; 1 Corinthians 12:3; among others) Faith is a trust, assurance, and hope in something not seen (Hebrews 11:1).

Miller tells us that God doesn't make any sense. However, if Miller believes the Bible to be true, and if he believes that God is its source, then why does God go through such great lengths to explain Himself? Why even speak to us if we can't understand it? Bible study would be a fruitless endeavor if God makes no sense at all. What could we possibly learn of God if that were the case? Don't misunderstand me, The fullness of God thoughts and nature are unsearchable and beyond our comprehension--but that doesn't mean that God makes no sense at all. I hope this is what Miller is trying to say.

Blue Like Jazz - Chapter 3 and 4

2006-11-23T23:32:00.000-06:00

Review of chapter 2.

I enjoy Miller's style of writing, and I can see why many people can relate to this book. His tone is personal and seemingly honest. His metaphors illustrate his points quite well. I can identify with the disconnect people feel when trying to understand Christianity from a contemporary perspective, especially when so much of Christianity's traditions are so antiquated--and no one knows why they are taught or done.

In chapter 3, we get a glimpse into why Donald Miller felt so disconnected with typical evangelical Christianity. In fact, I felt a whole hearted "amen" when he discussed some church practices and attitudes:

I associated much of Christian doctrine with children's stories because I grew up in church. My Sunday School teachers had turned Bible narrative into children's fables. They talked about Noah and the ark because the story had animals in it. They failed to mention that this was when God massacred all of humanity.
It also confused me that some people would look at parts of the Bible but not the whole thing. They ignored a lot of obvious questions. I felt as if Christianity, as a religious system, was a product that kept falling apart, and whoever was selling it would hold the broken part behind his back trying to divert everyone's attention... [Page 30]
I couldn't give myself to Christianity because it was a religion for the intellectually naive... [Page 31]

Miller is more than just right here.

Evangelicals, pretty much on the whole, have abandoned an intellectual engagement of Scripture. I understand that not everyone is an intellectual (that is not to say that they aren't smart), but when the church fails to engage her mind with the Scripture, she cannot possibly derive answers to the most pertinent questions facing humanity today. In fact, the much of "Christianity" is rightly mocked by the world because it is truly incoherent silliness. The church has failed in her responsibility to teach her members how to think, because she is to busy trying to spoon-feed her members what to think. I can agree with Miller wholeheartedly here.

Miller then uses the elements of a story--using his life story--to explain what his understanding of the gospel: setting, conflict, climax, and resolution. Setting: America, on earth, in a room of a house with roommates. Conflict: "The rebellion against God explained why humans experienced conflict in their lives..." Climax and Resolution:

Climax is where a point of decision determines the end of the story...If the human heart uses the tools of reality to create the elements of story...this means that climax, the point of decision, could very well be something that exists in the universe. What I mean is that there is a decision the human heart needs to make...Christianity offered a decision, a climax. It also offered a good and bad resolution. In part, our decisions were instrumental to the way our story turned out.
...I would always hate hearing about [big-haired preachers demanding a decision to follow or reject Christ] because it seemed so entirely unfashionable a thing to believe, but it did explain things. Maybe these unfashionable ideas were pointing to something mystical and true. And, perhaps, I was judging the idea, not by its merits, but by the fashionable or unfashionable delivery of the message. [Pages 32-33]

Before I come across as over-critical (which I very much can be), I credit Miller with the attempt to make the gospel relevant here. What troubles me is that he loses the essential parts of the gospel message in the attempt to be relevant. I'm nearly fifty pages into this book, and all I've learned of Christ is that He was the Son of God, became a man, an he loved people. I've yet to hear of His cross or His suffering for our sake.

Our sin nature brings more than just conflict--it also brings condemnationbefore God. Moreover, the rejection of Christ brings more than a "bad resolution." It means that one remains guilty of the sin he has committed and faces the penalty for it. Moreover, does the Bible say that fallen man has it within himself to choose to follow Christ? John 6:44 and 6:65 tell us that in order for a man to come to Christ, it must be granted by the Father, and the Father must draw him. John 10 says that only the sheep hear the voice of Christ and follow him. Acts 11:18 and 2 Timothy 2:24-26 say that repentance must be granted.

What also troubles me is that the analogy (and message) is man-centered. (I say this knowing that many are won by such presentations, but this book is used by many as a means for "Bible study.") My story a teeny-tiny part of a larger history that God is bringing to fruition. It should be this: Setting: the entire scope time and creation. Conflict: the Fall of man and his resulting inability to seek God. Climax: the cross and resurrection of Christ. Resolution: the salvation of his people by means of the atonement of Christ--and the judgment of the lost. The gospel, pure and biblical.

In chapter 4, Miller explains his decision to audit a Greek lit class at Reed College, one the most hostile, anti-Christian campuses on the North American continent. Again we get a glimpse into Miller's understanding of a typical evangelical church:

At the time I was attending this large church in the suburbs. It was like going to church at the Gap. I don't know why I went there. I didn't fit. I had a few friends, though, very nice people, and when I told that I wanted to audit classes at Reed they looked at me as if I wanted to date Satan. One friend sat me down and told me all about the place, how they have a three-day festival at the end of the year in which the run around naked. She said some of the students probably use drugs. She told me God did not want me to attend Reed College. [Page 38]

If this is Miller's experience with church, I understand why he thinks the way he does. Those of us who attend Southern Baptist churches can relate to this...but it is typically done by little old ladies with the best of intentions. However, I too get frustrated when people tell me what God wants me to do with my life--as if they are more spiritual than I and can receive special revelations from God. Specific to Miller's experience here: Didn't God want Jonah to go into Nineveh, the most pagan place on earth at that time?

Miller then discusses a friendship with girl name Laura. He met her on Reed's campus, and she was an atheist. He saw her heart and her passion for people. Then Miller goes on to say:

I could sense very deeply that God wanted a relationship with Laura. Ultimately, I believe that God loves and wants a relationship with every human being, but with Laura I could feel God's urgency. [Page 41]

First, This seems a bit hypocritical for Miller to say this, when he had just made a girl at a suburban church look like an idiot for speaking on God's behalf just three pages earlier. She might have felt "God's urgency" to tell Miller not go to Reed. Second, and most importantly, we have the issue of a weak god I discussed when I announced that I'd review the book. In Miller's theology, God desires to have relationship with everyone, but refuses to do anything about it other than wait on us. He hopes that we might come, but doesn't necessarily cause to happen. It's totally up to us to be saved--and the wiser, less depraved, and more worthy ones of us are the ones who accept. It is ultimately human attribute and ability that brings about salvation.

To paraphrase Spurgeon, it if were God's intention to save everyone, how sorely disappointed He must be. In Miller's theology, God provided the means to be saved, but He cannot possibly take credit for anyone's conversion-- for it is man's decision that causes it.

Throughout the rest of chapter 4, Miller chronicles his time at Reed, meeting the Christians at Reed (a secretive bunch), and discussed the conversion of a girl named Penny. What I liked about this narrative is that it demonstrated that God's grace extends to people of all sorts--even hippie drug-addicted smokers like Penny. God saves the most outrageous of sinners--Paul was one of them. My disappointment is that by the end of chapter 4, the cross of Christ is still MIA (Missing in Action).

Blue Like Jazz, Chapter 2

2006-11-22T13:45:00.000-06:00

Last night, I read the first few chapters of Blue Like Jazz--chapters 1-4. I must say that it has been an interesting read insofar.

On the positive, it enlightens the reasons that many Christians feel disenfranchised from rank-n-file evangelicalism. He discusses the tendency of evangelicals to avoid intellectual engagement of theology and the reading of Scripture, and the tendency of us evangelicals to ignore serious social problems that face both our nation and world. Politically, Donald Miller is obviously liberal, with an apparent disdain for the Republican party (see pages 18-19, 43, 46), and that perspective must be taken into account since most evangelicals tend to be politically conservative (which seems to bother Miller). It certainly correlates to the disconnect Don felt with church and his tainted concept of a typical evangelical Christian.

The image of the typical Christian that Don has portrayed so far (as of the end of chapter 4) is not very positive. In fact, it is rather stereotypical--along the lines of the world's portrayal of Christians. Much of it is deserved (the hypocrisy), much of it is not (the pigeonholing).

Chapter 2

In this chapter, Miller discusses his realization of mankind being "flawed." He recounts the way he felt when he heard of the mass genocides taking place in Africa, and he also recounts a few conversations he had with friends--conversations about the necessity of cops and having to teach children to be good (but not to be bad). He then remembers the realization of his own "self-addiction." Miller is on to the truth here. However, his formulation of "flawed" humanity is completely from personal observation. His explanation is only in terms of observed evil, not from the revelation of Scripture. Because of this, Miller stops short of the complete, biblical truth of human depravity.

The most common form used to describe the human condition is flawed. Twice in chapter 2 he uses the term depravity, and once perverse. He doesn't use the word rebellion until chapter 3. However, Millers usage of the stronger terms--and even the term sin--is weakened by the context of their usage. He recalls a conversation with "Tony the deat poet":

"What you are really saying is that we have a sin nature, like the fundamentalist Christians say."
Tony took the pipe from his lips. "Pretty much, Don. It just explains a lot, you know."
"Actually," I told him reluctantly, "I have always agreed with the idea that we have a sin nature. I don't think it looks exactly like the fundamentalists say it does, 'cause I know so many people who do great things, but I do buy the idea that we are flawed, that there is something in us that is broken. I think it is easier to do bad things than good things. And there is something in that basic fact, some little clue to the meaning of the universe." [Page 17, emphasis mine]

In this book, Donald Miller is documenting a spiritual journey, and in the context of this excerpt, he is at the beginning of his realization of the "flaw" in humankind. The bolded sentence does not reflect the biblical teaching of the sin nature in Scripture--and I hope that Miller moves from this position on the sin nature of man later in this documented journey. Here, humankind is presented as a little broken, flawed, perhaps a little perverse and depraved--but there is still good in him. A theology of man that is grounded in a view as this can only lead to a salvation based on human attribute, effort, or merit.

Biblically, we aren't just broken and flawed, but we are in outright rebellion against God, self-seeking, dead in our trespasses and sins, enemies of God, and deserving of the dreaded word (*gasp*) judgment. We have no desire to please or know God--he is our enemy and we are his. Understanding any spiritual truth (including the gospel) is outside of our spiritual capacity, for we are slaves to sin. This is the scriptural presentation of the human condition--we aren't broken, we are dead. (Isaiah 53:6a; Psalm 14, 53; John 8:34, 12:37-40; Romans 1:18-3:23, 5:10 (enemies of God), 6:20-23; 1 Corinthians 2:14; Ephesians 2:1-18; Colossian 1:21; many others)

...It is hard for us to admit that we have a sin nature because we live in this system of checks and balances. If we get caught, we will be punished...It is as if the founding fathers knew, intrinsically, that the soul of man, unwatched, is perverse.

People all over the world, regardless of who governs them, innately cannot admit to their true sinful state, not because of checks and balances, but because of their own self-deceit. That the point in Romans 1:18ff: mankind willfully suppresses the knowledge of God and his statutes and makes for himself gods that are more like him. This is what we do by nature. The founders of the U.S., both Christians and theists--many of whom were Reformed--did understand that man's soul is depraved. They documented it: "There is no government capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion," said John Adams. Moreover, this depravity exists in all men, even when being watched. Depravity is not based on action and works--it is the condition of the human heart, watched or unwatched.

At the end of chapter 2, this little sentence intrigued me: "I think every well-adjusted human being has dealt squarely with his or her own depravity." I have no idea of what Miller means by this. What defines a "well-adjusted human being"? What does he mean in saying that they have dealt squarely with their own depravity? The Scripture tells us that the unbelievers have not dealt squarely (which I assume to mean addressed) with the depravity within, but have swept it under the rug and ignored it. The have filed it into the darkest area of their mind so that it no longer bothers them.

The average unbeliever has no problem admitting to not being perfect, or perhaps being a little flawed. The offence of the unbeliever comes when the gospel of Christ tells him that he is totally unworthy of God's love and that he will face judgment apart from Christ. Moreover, this offence is compounded when the unbeliever is told that Jesus is the only way. Insofar, this has been absent in Miller's explanation of the "PROBLEMS" of humanity. Miller seems to want to bring discomfort, but not offence. I hope my further reading persuades me otherwise.

Science and Religion

2006-11-21T10:03:00.000-06:00

Cody Willhite, a good friend of both me and my wife, asked me to facilitate discussions for the SCMA at LSU (A pre-medical students' Christian organization). The topic was Medical Ethics ( a nice and narrow subject matter, of which I am the most knowledgeable person in Baton Rouge ;-) ). I've had a wonderful time interacting with brilliant college students on some heavy issues. In our first couple of meetings, we discussed the ability of the scientific method to arrive at any truth, much less metaphysical or moral truth.

Today, Albert Mohler posted some commentary on a New York Times article (reader comments to article) he read that covered a recent conference at a California University known as, "Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival." These rabid scientists have more than a little hostility toward us minions that have faith--which of course is something they apparently do not have. Below are some of the brilliant moments of this intellectual feast:

"The world needs to wake up from its long nightmare of religious belief." [Steven Weinberg, Nobel laureate in physics]

I'd like to know how Weinberg can call religious belief a nightmare. That term is a pejorative, a term intended to belittle his opponent and it's hardly scientific in its usage. It's also loaded with moral value, for nightmares are bad things that scare us--and they aren't real. I'd like to know what empirical evidence Weinberg has that justifies using nightmare as a metaphor.

"Anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done and may in the end be our greatest contribution to civilization." [Weinberg]

Anything? This isn't science--it's ethics. In fact, it is a utilitarian ethic (the ends justify the means, provided that it is for the greater good). The problem is: what is good? Does science have the means to determine the moral or ethical value or worth of any claim or assertion? What is assumed here is that religion is bad and science is good--but the scientific method cannot test this assumption, so it's something Weinberg accepts without "reason" to accept--he "believes" this, but he cannot "know" this by means of the scientific method.

"We should let the success of the religious formula guide us. Let's teach our children from a very young age about the story of the universe and its incredible richness and beauty. It is already so much more glorious and awesome -- and even comforting -- than anything offered by any scripture or God concept I know." [Carolyn Porco, Space Science Institute, Boulder, CO]

How can Porco know that the universe is "rich" or "beautiful" or that the story of the universe is "glorious" or "awesome"? These are subjective, aesthetic claims, not "objective", scientific ones. The terms rich, beautiful, glorious, and awesome are placing value and worth on the universe, but she has no means of deriving this value other than her subjective feelings. How does one scientifically determine that the universe is beautiful? One ought to be able to do this in order to mandate telling our children of her beauty in a secular worldview.

"I am utterly fed up with the respect that we -- all of us, including the secular among us -- are brainwashed into bestowing on religion . . . . Children are systematically taught that there is a higher kind of knowledge which comes from faith, which comes from revelation, which comes from scripture, which comes from tradition, and that it is the equal if not the superior of knowledge that comes from real evidence." [Richard Dawkins, Oxford University]

Question, Dr. Dawkins. What knowledge, other than her methods, has science actually brought us? Each and every conclusion about any scientific subject is tentative at best--likely to be replaced within a few years with better explanation that fits the later evidence we may obtain. Science claims to be on a quest for truth, but what truths have science brought us? What we know now by means of the scientific method is an estimate at best, and when this current "knowledge" is replaced by a better one, is it still truth or knowledge? Knowledge by means of "real evidence" will change when the evidence becomes better. I offer that that the conclusions of science are not a knowledge of truth.

Update on BLJ Review...

2006-11-21T08:56:00.000-06:00

I've finally recieved my copy of Millers' Blue Like Jazz. I will be making periodic reviews in the coming weeks.

Nothing Says...

2006-11-21T08:52:00.000-06:00

..."I want my inheritance" any better than getting your parents a McDonald's gift card for Christmas.

That was my first thought after seeing a TV ad for them a couple of days ago.

How Times Have Changed...

2006-11-10T12:40:00.000-06:00

It's only been five years since I've graduated college, but how times have changed in these short years...

Sunday, after church, Laura and I ran into a friend of hers who is still in college. She was speaking on her cell phone, and what I heard speaks for itself...

"Tell Casey to leave me a message on FaceBook."
[Pause...]
"What? What do you mean she doesn't have FaceBook? Everyone has FaceBook!"

I laughed for at least a literal two minutes...

Blue Like Jazz

2006-11-06T10:47:00.000-06:00

Note: Click links to view more recent reviews: Chapter 2, Chapters 3 and 4, Chapter 5.

Over the last year, I've heard the mention of a book Blue Like Jazz on several occasions. I was invited via email once to a study on it, and several other times, I've heard the mention or recommendation of it. It's author is Donald Miller, from Portland OR, and he is associated with a growing (actually, it's now a rather large) movement called "emergent." In fact, when you look up the book onBarnes and Noble, the other books associated to the purchase of this book are all by emergent/emerging church authors of the likes of Brian McLaren and Rob Bell (who is a favorite among emergents, but to my knowledge has not publicly associated himself with the emergent movement).

It's not hard to find criticism of these emergent authors. Slice of Laodicea and Apprising Ministries are two Internet blogs that are often critical of Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, and Donald Miller. What is frustrating about these sites is that it is difficult for me to know how honest the criticism is. It some cases the information is obviously third-hand. The writer at Apprising Ministries cites excepts of the authors, or random quotes, and critiques them, but it's hard for me to see that the citations are truly heresy or a poorly formed explanation--which all ministers have been guilty of doing at some point. I know I've poorly worded explanations in my writings and sermons, and they were understood to mean something that I did not mean.

I now intend on getting the book Blue Like Jazz, to both analyze it and critique it--simply because this book is the most read of the emergent books among the evangelical churches here in Baton Rouge.

I did find an article by asecular [Warning: there are a couple of cuss word in this link] writer local to the Portland area who interviewed Donald Miller. There were two sections of the article that interested me:

Some of Miller's critics go after him for theological reasons. Vince Bissey, the Missouri Presbyterian who vehemently criticized Blue Like Jazz, believes Miller gets the Bible dead wrong when he writes, for example, that "something inside me…caused Him to love me." Bissey, who's entering seminary training next year, believes God loves humanity despite humanity's total lack of worthiness. "I really believe there can only be one correct view," he says.

And later:

As different as Miller is from the stereotypical evangelical, make no mistake: Miller's no poseur.
At Starbucks, after I close my notebook, Miller looks at me. "So you've been talking to people, working on your stories," he says. "Has anyone explained to you what the Gospel is?"
I say, no, not in so many words.
"I could give you the sales pitch," he says. "Because maybe, who knows, 10 years down the road…"
Then Miller proceeds, in the most low-key and friendly way, to explain that God loves me, wants to have a relationship with me-and, for that matter, everyone. The relationship was damaged in the Garden, but Christ came to earth to fix it. The invitation, Miller says, is always open.

If Miller does say in Blue Like Jazz, "Something inside of me...caused [God] to love me," then He is treading dangerous waters. From a biblical standpoint, there is no basis to say such a thing in any context, save the context of arguing against it. To say that God loves me because of something about/inside me is to say that God's love is based on human merit or attribute. Biblically, God's love is rooted in God's character, not my attributes. God loves his people because God is love, not because man is worth loving.

Miller's gospel presentation to Zach Dundas [the Portland journalist] is indicative of a watered down, human-centered, theology that is rampant in evangelical Christianity. Read that second excerpt again. I've made gospel presentations almost identical to this before I really began to study the Scriptures. Now, my convictions do not permit me to tell an unbeliever that "God loves you." Moreover, it is clear in Miller's presentation that the center of God's affections in his theology is man. The Fall was not in God's purposes, so He sent Christ to "fix" the mess that man made. In essence, Christ is no more than a bandaid to help heal creation's wounds--to mitigate the damage of the Fall. He was not God's primary and eternal purpose in creation. The atonement was a God's reaction to the Fall, not God's predetermined purpose in revealing the glory of His nature to His people.

Be careful, because such a theology distorts true nature of God's sovereignty and devalues to Work of Christ to one of mere damage control. The distortion of God's sovereignty is not explicit in Miller's gospel presentation, but it is accessible. Think about these theological expression: "God wants a relationship with everyone, and the gospel invitation is always open." Who is ultimate control in this picture? If God has the power to do anything that pleases him, and if it pleases God to have a relationship with all men, then why isn't every man in a relationship with God? The god of this theology is a passive and waiting god, hoping that man will come around to realize the truth. The God of the Bible is a God who pursues and conquers the hearts of the men and women he desires to possess. This may seem distasteful to the likes of many evangelicals, but it is the portrait painted by the words of Scripture.

More on Blue Like Jazz to come when I get a chance to start reading it.

Roll out the Red Carpet--I'm Now Famous

2006-09-18T11:04:00.000-05:00

Almost, but not really. It seems I've been blogspotted on TeamPyro for my last post.

(Confession: I tried to get blogspotted. My plan for world domination is working perfectly...)

On a Relative Note

2006-09-15T08:17:00.000-05:00

The day after I put up my post titled "Conquering Doubt", Dan Phillips over at PyroManiacs posted an article titled "My night at the preachapalooza." In it, DJP tackled the same issue that I did from a different perspective.

Confidence is not something that rests in itself. No one is confident in something without reason, however rational or irrational that reason may be. No one is confident simply because they are confident; they are confident because they may have extensive knowledge on a subject matter, or because they are physically strong, or simply because they "have a good feeling about this."

Confidence is derived from a foundation, and this is especially so in spiritual matters. The imagery in Dan Phillip's revamped sermon introduction pictures this so perfectly:

I love to hike in the Sierra. One time recently I was on a hike, by myself. I had gone four or five miles back to a beautiful lake. Circling around to the back side of the lake, I took some pictures. Up the rocky shore, I saw a spot that looked like it would be a perfect vantage point for a great picture. So I started to make my way across the rocks to this spot -- when suddenly the bank gave away under my feet! The rocks tumbled and rolled, and so did I. In a flash, I found myself dunked in the lake.
I was fine, but what a terrible feeling it was. It's a terrible feeling to trust yourself to something, to put all your weight on it, confidently, and then find that it can't hold you. It's a terrible feeling when your support collapses from under you. It's a terrible feeling when the very ground gives way beneath you, and you fall.
To what shall we trust our souls? To whom? Who or what can bear our weight, the weight of our sin and guilt, of our immortal selves? If we trust our souls to any mere mortal, no matter how holy or saintly, no matter how godly -- they are sinners, too, and they cannot hold us. They will collapse. Joseph cannot hold us. He would collapse. Mary cannot save us. She would give way. No mere child of Adam can hold the weight of our sin and need. All would dissolve into rubble beneath us.
Only Jesus can support us. He shows us this in His cry from the Cross: It is finished!
Know well: this is no cry of despair. Jesus does not say, "I am finished." No, it is a cry of victory. The Greek tetelestai means that it has been brought to consummation, to perfect completion. The word was used of bills that had been "paid in full."
When our Lord cries thus on the Cross, He is signifying that He, He Himself, He alone in His own person, had fully paid every last farthing, every penny, of His people's debt to God. He had left nothing undone of what the Father's plan of salvation required. Alone, unaided, hanging on the cross, under the holy wrath of God for sinners, Jesus Christ made full atonement for all the sins of His people.
And now we believe Jesus, or we do not. If we look to "Jesus-and" -- to Jesus and our pastor, to Jesus and Mary, to Jesus and any other mortal or any other sect or any other practice or any other thing -- then we do not believe Jesus. We do not accept His word, "It is finished."
We must look to Jesus, to Jesus alone, for salvation. We must trust ourselves to the One who cried "It is finished!"

Again, confidence is derived from something--It must rest on something. It has to put its full weight upon something. I would offer this: To rest your confidence in anything other than Christ and his Work is to essentially tell Jesus, "No, it is not finished."

Conquering Doubt

2006-09-11T14:12:00.000-05:00

Most true Christians have struggled at some point in their walk—especially in the times in which they constantly stumble and succumb to temptation—with doubt as to the reality of their salvation. I know I’ve been there, and I know my wife has been there as well. There is a reason for this: we are constantly, albeit unconsciously, inserting our merits and qualities into the work of salvation. You can see this is true in the questions we ask ourselves and the thoughts of our minds in our times of overwhelming doubt.

“Did I really commit my life to Christ?”
“Did I walk the aisle for the right reason?”
“I simply sin too much to be saved.”
“I do not do enough good things.”
“I certainly don’t have the Christian life that John or Sally has.”

Look at these typical thoughts of doubt. Analyze them. Think of the other contemplations you’ve had in times of doubt and analyze them.

In such thoughts, who is indicated as the object of our trust? I would offer that it is not Christ, but ourselves. When we have such thought of doubts, we are actually trusting in a commitment we have made, or perhaps a prayer we once prayed, or in the works of our hands to bear evidence to ourselves of our own salvation. We are not trusting on the unchanging, immutable promise of God manifested in his Word (and I mean both the Person of Christ and the Scripture).

19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. 29 Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, 30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law. Romans 3:19-30

This is one of my most favorite passages in all of the Bible, and it is one among many that helped me put away my struggle with doubt forever. Most of us who partake in an evangelical church, particularly Baptist, can quote Romans 3:23 by heart. However, that is the concluding remark and summarizing statement of a point that has taken Paul nearly three chapters to make: The purpose of the Law was to bring the knowledge of sin, and the all the world (and in this case world refers to all of its inhabitants) is guilty before God by the judgment of the Law. Romans 3:24 starts Paul's next point—redemption in Christ.

Look a the terms used in verses 24-26: justified, grace, redemption, propitiation, blood, faith, and righteousness. These words paint a picture of substitution—especially the word propitiation, which refers to an offering that becomes the object of God's wrath in the place of the offender. At Calvary, God made Jesus Christ, "who knew no sin to be sin for us." (2 Corinthians 5:21) In the Greek, "for us" uses the term huper, which indicates that God made Christ to be sin on our behalf. As Spurgeon would put it: Christ became sin in our stead. God took the guilt of sin and placed it upon perfect and blameless Christ, and then He released his wrath toward sin upon Christ. Christ bore within Himself the penalty that was due us. He paid the price on our behalf.

His Work accomplished that which we ourselves could never accomplish.

How does this connect to the doubt of our salvation? To doubt our salvation is to essentially say this: The accomplishment of Christ is not enough. We must do something to add to it—something to perfect it.

In fact, our faith and commitment to Him are part of the redeeming effects of Christ's work—particularly of His resurrection. In order for grace to be grace, there can be no work or effort on our part to perfect that which Christ, the everlasting Son of God, has accomplished. By the power of His resurrection, we were by grace brought to life from spiritual death so that we may come to Christ through faith. By the power of Atonement on the cross, our sin has been forever removed from our account. Every aspect of our conversion to and salvation in Christ is a miracle powered by completed work of Christ Jesus, in His life, in His death, and in the resurrection.

To doubt our salvation is to say that we had some work in it; that some choice or action of ours can perhaps revoke it or make it void; that our conversion was not a miracle of resurrection accomplished by the living God, but something we accomplished on our own. It is to say that Christ Himself did not do enough to effect our salvation.

Therefore, doubt is an offence to the cross of Christ. Once I understood this, I've never struggled with doubt since. In fact, the placement of my trust has further centered toward the Living Christ and his completed, imperishable Work and further away from any merit, work, or quality of my own. If salvation were dependent upon me in any way, doubt is what should reign in the vacuum on my sinful heart.

Christian Existentialism - Part 3

2006-09-01T13:24:00.002-05:00

Click for part 2.1, part 2, part 1.

Materialist Conception of God

Exist~dissolve and Deviant Monk both have have charged Reformed theology of pantheism, the belief that there is no distinction between God and the creation--God is all and all is God. Exist tells us:

If one begins from the foundation of the "eternal decrees of God," I see no way in which one can avoid a thoroughly materialist conception of God’s relationship to creation. Related to this, I object to the way in which the Reformed crowd explicates the "sovereignty" of God. As the language which the Reformed crowd utilizes betrays, the Reformed conception of God’s sovereignty is utterly materialist, for it proceeds from the basis of phenomenological investigation. In other words, my experience (and actually the necessary conclusions of Reformed confessionalism) of Reformed sovereignty-speak is that God’s sovereignty is ultimately expressed through expression in the temporal/causal sphere. However, by doing this, Reformed theology has ultimately (although perhaps not consciously) reduced God’s sovereignty to that which exists—but if this happens, there is no way in which to separate that which is created from the being of God, for the very description of the nature of God is based upon creation. While I will be the first to admit that it is difficult, if not impossible to speak about God’s sovereignty apart from that which is created (for our language is ultimately linked to our createdness), I also do not believe that this admission requires the gross reduction of God’s sovereignty to causality and over-power which I understand Reformed theology to advocate.
It is this fundamental presupposition which leads to the rest of the errors which I see within Reformed theology, whether one is speaking of Christology, atonement, soteriology, etc. They can all be traced back to this fundamental assumption about the nature of God’s relationship to creation, a relationship which I cannot but see as a philosophical pantheism.

The charge of pantheism is not something that we should take lightly. However, according to exist, our concept of the sovereignty of God is a "fundamental assumption." He tells us that the Reformed explication of God's relationship to creation is not a conclusion of Sola Scriptura, but the opposite--a presupposition. I cannot agree with such a claim. The Reformed "sovereignty-speak" is entirely derived from claims of the Biblical authors, some within quotes of "Thus says the LORD." I give an abbreviated list of examples (all NKJV):

12 "And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you, but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all His ways and to love Him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, 13 and to keep the commandments of the Lord and His statutes which I command you today for your good? 14 Indeed heaven and the highest heavens belong to the Lord your God, also the earth with all that is in it. 15 The Lord delighted only in your fathers, to love them; and He chose their descendants after them, you above all peoples, as it is this day. 16 Therefore circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and be stiff-necked no longer. 17 For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality nor takes a bribe. 18 He administers justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the stranger, giving him food and clothing. 19 Therefore love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. 20 You shall fear the Lord your God; you shall serve Him, and to Him you shall hold fast, and take oaths in His name. 21 He is your praise, and He is your God, who has done for you these great and awesome things which your eyes have seen. 22 Your fathers went down to Egypt with seventy persons, and now the Lord your God has made you as the stars of heaven in multitude." Deuteronomy 10:12-22
1 Then Job answered and said: 2 "Truly I know it is so, But how can a man be righteous before God? 3 If one wished to contend with Him, He could not answer Him one time out of a thousand. 4 God is wise in heart and mighty in strength. Who has hardened himself against Him and prospered? 5 He removes the mountains, and they do not know When He overturns them in His anger; 6 He shakes the earth out of its place, And its pillars tremble; 7 He commands the sun, and it does not rise; He seals off the stars; 8 He alone spreads out the heavens, And treads on the waves of the sea; 9 He made the Bear, Orion, and the Pleiades, And the chambers of the south; 10 He does great things past finding out, Yes, wonders without number. 11 If He goes by me, I do not see Him; If He moves past, I do not perceive Him; 12 If He takes away, who can hinder Him? Who can say to Him, 'What are You doing?' 13 God will not withdraw His anger, The allies of the proud lie prostrate beneath Him." Job 9:1-13
1 Then Job answered and said: ... 13 "But He is unique, and who can make Him change? And whatever His soul desires, that He does. 14 For He performs what is appointed for me, And many such things are with Him. 15 Therefore I am terrified at His presence; When I consider this, I am afraid of Him. 16 For God made my heart weak, And the Almighty terrifies me; 17 Because I was not cut off from the presence of darkness, And He did not hide deep darkness from my face." Job 23:1,13-17
1 Then Job answered the Lord and said: 2 "I know that You can do everything, And that no purpose of Yours can be withheld from You." Job 42:1-2
4 For the word of the Lord is right, And all His work is done in truth. 5 He loves righteousness and justice; The earth is full of the goodness of the Lord. 6 By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth. 7 He gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap; F26 He lays up the deep in storehouses. 8 Let all the earth fear the Lord; Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him. 9 For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast. 10 The Lord brings the counsel of the nations to nothing; He makes the plans of the peoples of no effect. 11 The counsel of the Lord stands forever, The plans of His heart to all generations. Psalm 33:4-11
1 Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, But to Your name give glory, Because of Your mercy, Because of Your truth. 2 Why should the Gentiles say, "So where is their God?" 3 But our God is in heaven; He does whatever He pleases. 4 Their idols are silver and gold, The work of men's hands. Psalm 115:1-4
5 For I know that the Lord is great, And our Lord is above all gods. 6 Whatever the Lord pleases He does, In heaven and in earth, In the seas and in all deep places. 7 He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth; He makes lightning for the rain; He brings the wind out of His treasuries. 8 He destroyed the firstborn of Egypt, Both of man and beast. 9 He sent signs and wonders into the midst of you, O Egypt, Upon Pharaoh and all his servants. 10 He defeated many nations And slew mighty kings-- 11 Sihon king of the Amorites, Og king of Bashan, And all the kingdoms of Canaan-- 12 And gave their land as a heritage, A heritage to Israel His people. 13 Your name, O Lord, endures forever, Your fame, O Lord, throughout all generations. 14 For the Lord will judge His people, And He will have compassion on His servants. Psalm 135:5-14
11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also He has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end. 12 I know that nothing is better for them than to rejoice, and to do good in their lives, 13 and also that every man should eat and drink and enjoy the good of all his labor--it is the gift of God. 14 I know that whatever God does, It shall be forever. Nothing can be added to it, And nothing taken from it. God does it, that men should fear before Him. 15 That which is has already been, And what is to be has already been; And God requires an account of what is past. Ecclesiastes 3:11-15
24 The Lord of hosts has sworn, saying, "Surely, as I have thought, so it shall come to pass, And as I have purposed, so it shall stand: 25 That I will break the Assyrian in My land, And on My mountains tread him underfoot. Then his yoke shall be removed from them, And his burden removed from their shoulders. 26 This is the purpose that is purposed against the whole earth, And this is the hand that is stretched out over all the nations. 27 For the Lord of hosts has purposed, And who will annul it? His hand is stretched out, And who will turn it back?" (Note: God is speaking in first-person) Isaiah 14:24-27
5 "To whom will you liken Me, and make Me equal And compare Me, that we should be alike? 6 They lavish gold out of the bag, And weigh silver on the scales; They hire a goldsmith, and he makes it a god; They prostrate themselves, yes, they worship. 7 They bear it on the shoulder, they carry it And set it in its place, and it stands; From its place it shall not move. Though one cries out to it, yet it cannot answer Nor save him out of his trouble. 8 Remember this, and show yourselves men; Recall to mind, O you transgressors. 9 Remember the former things of old, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me, 10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, 'My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,' 11 Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man who executes My counsel, from a far country. Indeed I have spoken it; I will also bring it to pass. I have purposed it; I will also do it. 12 "Listen to Me, you stubborn-hearted, Who are far from righteousness: 13 I bring My righteousness near, it shall not be far off; My salvation shall not linger. And I will place salvation in Zion, For Israel My glory." (Note: God is speaking in first-person) Isaiah 46:1-11
24 So when they heard that, they raised their voice to God with one accord and said: "Lord, You are God, who made heaven and earth and the sea, and all that is in them, 25 who by the mouth of Your servant David have said: 'Why did the nations rage, And the people plot vain things? 26 The kings of the earth took their stand, And the rulers were gathered together Against the Lord and against His Christ.' 27 For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together 28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done. 29 Now, Lord, look on their threats, and grant to Your servants that with all boldness they may speak Your word, 30 by stretching out Your hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be done through the name of Your holy Servant Jesus." Acts 4:24-30
22 Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, "... 24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25 Nor is He worshiped with men's hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. 26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings...for in Him we live and move and have our being" Acts 17:22,24-26
20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" 21 Does not the potter have power [gk: exousia] over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? Romans 9:20-21
To God our Savior, Who alone is wise, Be glory and majesty, Dominion and power, Both now and forever. Amen. Jude 25
Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created. Revelation 4:11

Exist tells us that we "reduce God's sovereignty to that which exists." As opposed to what? What else is there for God to rule--Himself? How can God be sovereign over something that does not exist? Even if it does not materially exist, and is a mere thought of God, it still exists in a non-material way and is a creation of sort subject to God's authority. Exist goes on to say, "I will be the first to admit that it is difficult, if not impossible, to speak about God’s sovereignty apart from that which is created." Then where is the argument? How are we to speak of God's rule and reign over all of creation (the meaning of sovereign), if doing so only reduces his sovereignty to that which exists? Do not the verses quoted above, some even attributed as direct citations of God, relate God's sovereignty to that which is created? It seems to be that Moses, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Job, John, and Paul all are guilty of the same charge of pantheism. Even if you totally deny the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, which exist does not, we have at minimum an expression of what the human authors thought of God's sovereignty.

The definition of sovereign concerns power, right, and authority. In personal correspondence, exist stated that he would rather not use the term because it had been hijacked by the Reformed crowd. However, do not the above passages demonstrate that God rules and reigns over his creation? In fact, does not the term sovereign imply a relationship between ruler and subject, even if it is between a person and himself as some new-agers would say?

They may respond to my answer in this manner: The way that the Reformed explain God's will practically restricts God to doing what He wills--thereby defining His will and actions by what comes to pass in time and space. How then do you differentiate that which is necessarily God and that which is creation?

Let me begin with an illustration: When a playwright writes a play, he is sovereign over it. By his pen he determines all the qualities of the play, he develops the characters, he dictates the events through the plot, and determines an end. If we were to look at that play, we would gain some insight into the personality and attributes of the playwright, such as style or intelligence. We may also be able to determine a theme or moral to this play. However it does not follow the play is the playwright. Although, by his pen, he determined the entire course of events for that play, that play does not define or limit him.

The relationship between God and his creation is as a the relationship between the playwright and his play--even to a greater extent. If God has determined in eternity what would happen within His creation in time and brought those plans to fruition, it is a huge logical fallacy to conclude that God is the creation. The sovereignty of God is not something merely "expressed." It has far greater implications than that. God's sovereignty is something that necessarily is by the very nature of his being. We experience it in the spatial/temporal sphere, but it is not limited to that realm. All that and who exist belong to God and are subject to his authority--this is Paul's inescapable point in Romans 9.

How are we to tell that which created from that which is God? Any material object, created being (other the man Jesus), event in time is not God, although his "pen" has brought them pass. God himself is completely unobservable and invisible, hence the necessity of revelation both through his word and by his Son. God is not the god of pantheism, totally imminent and not at all transcendent. God is not the god of deism, totally transcendent and not at all immanent. God is both transcendent--above, beyond, and totally distinct from the creation--and immanent--working behind and in all the affairs, events, things, and beings in creation to bring his purposes of creation to fruition.

However, in humility, we must admit the difficulties of explicating the actions of an eternal God within a creation in bondage to time. We limited in our expressions to temporal and spatial terms--and there are many aspects of God that we can neither know nor express because they are beyond comprehension, nor have they been revealed to us. On the other hand, what God has revealed to us by his words and his Word, we can claim as truth and trust the message of them to be true.

Christian Existentialism - Part 2.1

2006-08-31T15:07:00.000-05:00

Epistemology Continued...

Click here for Part 2

Click here for Part 1.

In my last post I said this:

Ultimately, exist~dissolve and deviant monk have an outright unquestioned authority. I am not sure what it is.

I know I said that I'd take on the "Materialist Conception of God's Relationship to Creation" charge, but there are a few more things I need to note on the epistemological differences that fueled the debate a couple of weeks ago. I am now sure, as I noted in a comment in my last post, what his authority is, and I want to mention it, openly and clearly, and then pull some implications from it.

At one point in the correspondence, exist noted this as his "authority."

In my perspective of authority, something does not have to attain an absolute value in order to be considered authoritative. After all, in the kind of “authority” we are speaking about in relation to the Scriptures and councils, this value is applied, not inherent...
...the Scriptures and the affirmations of the councils are not authoritative simply because they “are,” as if they have an absolute, eternal value-set that has been lowered on the church. Rather, they are an authority because the church has placed itself under their rule, imbuing them with an authority to outline and delineate the parameters of proper belief. In this way, the “authority” of each is an act of faith that chooses to place itself under the teaching of the apostles, deliberately choosing to believe that they have delivered unto the church, through the guidance of the Spirit, a trustworthy message regarding what they have learned from Christ.

Note the words I emphasized above. I completely overlooked the implications of his notion of "authority" when I addressed them in the last post. If the authority of the Scripture, councils, and creed is derived from our "deliberate choosing" individually and corporately, then I must ask: who is really the authority? Logically, we are. Moreover, it follows from his comments that the Scriptures, councils, and creed are authoritative only if we give that position to them. I have two objections for exist in light of this.

First, exist~dissolve alluded that if we call the Scriptures the "self-revelation" of God, then the Scriptures must logically be consubstantial with God, and that would be idolatry. His position of authority permits him to decide for himself what idolatry is, but it annihilates any right for him to tell us what idolatry is. For him to do so, especially since he defines authoritative as a entirely subjective ideal, would imply that there is an objective authority by which he may judge us against. However, if he were to follow his premises to their logical outcomes, then it should not matter to him what I believe. Since he so ardently tells us how wrong we are, the Reformed creeds do seem to matter quite a bit.

Second, as noted in my comment on my previous post, Christ on several occasions mentioned that "His words shall never pass." Also, in John 12, Jesus tells us this:

44 Then Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes in Me, believes not in Me but in Him who sent Me. 45 And he who sees Me sees Him who sent Me. 46 I have come as a light into the world, that whoever believes in Me should not abide in darkness. 47 And if anyone hears My words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. 48 He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him--the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day. 49 For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak. 50 And I know that His command is everlasting life. Therefore, whatever I speak, just as the Father has told Me, so I speak."

Before I begin, the word "authority" in verse 49 was added for clarity by the translators of the NKJV; it does not appear in the Greek. However, when you read this text, you cannot escape the conclusion that, according to the words of Christ, men who do not receive the words will be judged those very words. If follows then that the words of Christ have intrinsic authority due to the fact that the Father is the Source of them. Two aspects of exist~dissolve's epistemology would not permit Christ to say this: (1) If the authority of Christ's words is a status granted by man, what right does Christ have to judge those who do not receive, and hence do not grant them such authority? (2) If language cannot convey literal truth, then (a) I shouldn't take them literally and (b) Christ again has no right to say that his words will judge me, because human language cannot communicate absolute, transcendental truth.

Reformed Cosmology is the Real Reformed Epistemology

Exist~Dissolve asserted this:

I would disagree with [Sola Scripture being the base presupposition of Reformed Theology]. The ultimate foundation of a Reformed worldview is its cosmology, one marked by materlialist conception of God’s sovereignty.

Deviant Monk tells us:

While I believe reformed cosmology is indeed the underlying theological presupposition, the ability of the individual to be the ultimate arbiter of truth would be the underlying epistemoloigcal presupposition.

In other words, they are accusing the Reformed of imposing a presupposed cosmology (concept of the universe's relationship to God) onto the Scripture. The authors of the Bible never intended their words to birth a "materialist conception of God" that we Calvinist--and most evangelicals at that--possess.

Both experience and a basic read of Genesis, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, the prophets, the gospels, the Pauline epistles, the general epistles, and especially Revelation tell me otherwise.

First, I rarely meet a Calvinist who became one without struggling for months to years with the issue. It took me about a year before I understood the significance of it--and Calvinism offended me greatly beforehand. Dr. R Stanton Norman, the professor of theology at New Orleans Baptist Theological seminary began with a quest to obliterate the claims of Calvinism and eventually became convinced of its truth. I can name countless names of established Calvinists--all of whom struggled with accepting it. In other words, none of them started with a "cosmology" they pressed on to the Bible. In fact, they all will tell you that it was Scripture that uprooted their previous "cosmology" at its foundation.

Second, I would like for them to demonstrate how Calvinists impose its beliefs on to the Scripture.

Next, I will address "a materialist conception of God and His sovereignty."

Christian Existentialism - Part 2

2006-08-29T09:39:00.000-05:00

Epistemology

Note: This part two of the series. Click here for part 1, and click here for part 2.1.

Epistemological concerns are by far the most difficult, but most important, issues to address in theological debate. When reviewing the correspondence that took place last week at the Gadfly, differences in epistemology between the Reformed and exist~dissolve/deviant monk were certainly the cause of debate as well as difficult communication. For those of you who may be unfamiliar with the philosophical/theological term epistemology, let me briefly explain it. Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that is concerned with defining the concept of knowledge. Often in our lives we ask the question, "How do you know?" That is basically what epistemology concerns, but it is more difficult than it seems. For those of you who have never studied epistemology before (and I am by no means an expert), to answer the question How do I know? is not as easy as it may seem. When one studies how one knows, he becomes very aware of the fact that mankind takes the concept of knowledge--the fact that he knows anything--for granted.

The foundation of a worldview in epistemological terms is the concept of authority. Authority concerns sources of truth or knowledge. All worldviews appeal to some sort of authority, and each worldview has a fundamental authority that is taken without question. It could be the scientific method, the Koran, the Book of Mormon, or personal experience. From whence do we obtain truth? In the Reformed perspective, our authority is the Canon of the Old (Torah, Prophets, Writings) and New (Gospels, Epistles, Revelation) Testaments. Exist~dissolve's epistemology was and is very difficult to ascertain, and I had to directly correspond with him to get some clarification. The closest "authority" I received from them was "both ecumenical councils and Scripture." However, exist~dissolve qualifies his understanding of authority in this manner:

In my perspective of authority, something does not have to attain an absolute value in order to be considered authoritative. After all, in the kind of “authority” we are speaking about in relation to the Scriptures and councils, this value is applied, not inherent. As an example, Jerome Modell (a world-famous drowning researcher) is not an “authority” on drowning simply because he has studied it, or even because he has reached a certain level of proficiency that automatically registers authority. Rather, he is an expert and authority because others have imbued him (and his abilities) with such. The same is true of government. Government in not an authority simply because it “is,” or even because it exercises over-power. Ultimately, government is “authority” because it has been granted such.
In the same way, the Scriptures and the affirmations of the councils are not authoritative simply because they “are,” as if they have an absolute, eternal value-set that has been lowered on the church. Rather, they are an authority because the church has placed itself under their rule, imbuing them with an authority to outline and delineate the parameters of proper belief. In this way, the “authority” of each is an act of faith that chooses to place itself under the teaching of the apostles, deliberately choosing to believe that they have delivered unto the church, through the guidance of the Spirit, a trustworthy message regarding what they have learned from Christ.
With that being said, my considerations about language and Scripture outlined previously would also apply to the councils and creeds; although they are authoritative to belief, their language does not encapsulate truth absolutely and transcendently. Rather, the authority which they exercise is equally an act of faith of the Church.

In other words, Exist considers the Scripture to be authoritative in a relative sense, and only because the church has thrusted that authority upon them. He and deviant monk do not believe that the Scriptures themselves claim to be authoritative absolutely. The Bible is not intrinsically authoritative due to its "inspiration" of the Holy Spirit, it is authoritative because traditionally, the church gave it its authority. Therefore, his understanding of Scripture as authoritative is limited to persuasion at best, but the canon of Scripture is not absolute and final. Moreover, exist~dissolve and deviant monk have other epistemological claims as well. First, they consider propositional truth problematic, because "it creates the allusion of correspondence between the divine and human (language)." Why? Because human language is incapable of the expression of transcendental divine truth. It is as if God's truth and man's truth are mutually exclusive, which is a theme in the writings of Emil Brunner, Soren Kierkegaard, and other existentialists. In fact, exist~dissolve limits human language even further here, here, and here.

What is interesting to me is this: It seems to me that for exist~dissolve, God is only transcendent (or God's existence is above and beyond the material world) and minimally immanent (existing in, and extending into, all parts of the created realm). It doesn't appear that exist believes that God could be both transcendent and immanent. If he does, that immanence is apparently limited to Person of Christ--the only true "self-revelation" of God. The Bible may be "revelation". but for them, it is not "self-revelation." My best estimate of their epistemology is this: Divine truth is communicated to a man only in an experiential, relational, intimate encounter with the Person of Christ--and it is not obtained through propositional, logical language.

Critique

Concerning Human Language -- The intent of epistemology is to demonstrate that knowledge is possible, and in the realm of theology, its goal is to demonstrate that God is knowable. Exist has admitted the difficulty of explaining how that is possible in the context of his presuppositions, and that difficulty is due to the limitations of human language. The late Gordon H Clark, a Reformed theologian and philosopher, has addressed the above issues quite directly. For example:

Theories of the origin, nature, and purpose of language have been recently developed that would prevent God from speaking truth to man on the ground that language cannot convey literal truth. Some writers say that all language is symbolic or metaphorical...Other writers make more restricted claims and say only that all religious language is metaphorical; from which it follows that if God uses language, he cannot tell the literal truth, but must speak in symbolism or mythology.
Those who defend the Bible as a true revelation must insist that it conveys literal truth. This does not mean that God cannot sometimes use symbolism and metaphor...God might have even used mythology or fable. But unless there are literal statements along with these figures of speech--or at the very least, unless figures of speech can be translated into literal truth--a book conveys no definite meaning.
Suppose the cross is selected as a Christian symbol, and suppose some flowery speaker should say, Let us live in the shadow of the cross. What can he mean? What does the cross symbolize? Does it symbolize the love of God? Or does it symbolize the wrath of God? Does is symbolize human suffering? Or does it symbolize the influence of the church? If there are no literal statement to give information as to what the cross symbolizes, these questions are unanswerable.
Let a person say that the cross symbolizes the love of God. However, if all language or religious language is symbolical, the statement that the cross symbolizes the love of God is itself a symbol. A symbol of what? When this last question is answered, we shall find that this answer is again a symbol. Then another symbol is needed, and another. And the whole process will be meaningless...
...In order to have meaning, an analogy, a metaphor, or a symbol must be supported by some literal truth. If Samson was as strong as an ox, then an ox must literally be strong. If Christ is the lion of the tribe of Judah, then something must be literally true about lions and about Christ also. No matter with what literary embellishment the comparison be made, there must be a strictly true statement that has given rise to it. And a theory that says all language is symbolic is a theory that cannot be taken as literally true. Its own statements are metaphorical and meaningless...
...The possibility of rational communication between God and man is easily explained on theistic presuppositions. If God created man in his own rational image and endowed him with the power of speech, then a purpose of language--in fact, the chief purpose of language--would naturally be the revelation of truth to man and the prayers of man to God...language was devised by God; that is, God created man rational for the purpose of theological expression...
...If reason, that is, logic, which makes speech possible is a God-given faculty, it must be adequate to its divinely appointed task. And its task is the reception of divinely revealed information and that systematization of the propositions of dogmatic theology.
To sum up: Language is capable of conveying literal truths because the laws of logic are necessary. There is no substitute for them. Philosophers who deny them reduce their own denials to nonsense syllables...
(God's Hammer: The Bible and Its Critics, 82-85)

Dr. Clark is right. If language is nothing more than an approximation of truth, then that claim is also an approximation. If language can only produce metaphors, then that too is a metaphor. The only logical outcome when pushed to extreme is theological skepticism--knowing God in any way is impossible. I presented this criticism to exist. He responded by redefining approximation and metaphor, while defending against the charge of skepticism. My objections to his response are as follows: (1) When he says that "human language is metaphorical", that proposition does not operate as metaphor. In fact, It seems to communicate his point quite directly. (2) He defines approximation as a "shadow of what could be, of that which we have scarcely brushed with our epistemological abilities before it explodes our capacities for comprehending. It is a deliberately self-deconstructing utilization of language." I would offer that definition as more than self-deconstructing, but as self-defeating. If an approximation is a mere shadow of what could be, then the term approximation is a misnomer and skepticism is the only logical outflow.

If I assumed his premises of language, I honestly would not be able to say that the knowledge of God is possible, and it would be inconsistent for me to accuse anyone of idolatry. The sin of idolatry is the worship of a false image or concept of God, and if the human mind in incapable of expressing the transcendental truths of God thereby producing a measure by which I can judge idolatry, then how am I supposed to know what idolatry is? Better yet, why even praise God? If my words cannot express divine truth, then I can seemingly speak only in blasphemies.

Exist~Dissolve takes the "Human Language" theory even further than those whom Dr. Clark is rebutting. Exist says that if propositional language can capture and define God, then it is consubstantial with God. This is not a presupposition with which I can agree. Human language cannot "define" God in the sense of limiting God and his actions, but it does not follow that language cannot express aspects of God's personality and attributes. When John tells us, "God is love," I see a direct explanation of God's character. It is even in propositional form. Several times in the correspondence, exist~dissolve describes God as infinite and transcendent, which is also a proposed truth claim expressing attributes of God. If exist is correct in his theory of language, he could not even say that God is infinite and transcendent and expect that to mean anything at all to me. I agree with exist when he says that human thought and expression cannot capture the fullness of God, but it does not follow that human language cannot convey truth about God. Is not the claim, "God is love" truthful? If I were to say that my wife is smart, I may not have defined who she is entirely, but I did convey a truth about her.

One last point on the capacities for human language; Gordon H. Clark also made a great point when he said the theories of language are useless in isolation, but need to be a part of a larger philosophical system. A theory of language should determine the origin, nature, and purpose of language and should be rooted in the presuppositions of the system at large. Exists theory is ultimately derived from philosophy system with naturalistic, evolutionary premises. However, this question must be asked. What does it mean to be created in the image of God? Exist has stated that volition is one aspect. Are not also the human capacities for thought, communication, reason, and language part of that image? Exist seems to think that we define God's image by "infinitized" human attributes, but, in fact, it is the other way around. We define the human attributes in limited forms of the divine attributes, and we do not share all of them with the divine. When we describe God, it does not follow that we are limiting God's existence within human language. I am not confining my wife's existence to my words by describing her as tall or beautiful.

Concerning Revelation -- Exist~dissolve seems to misunderstand the Reformed position on authority and revelation when we say, "The Bible is full revelation of God." We do not mean full in the sense of all that God is, we mean full in the sense of all that God has given us. The source of Scripture is God, and I would say God is capable of expressing aspects of himself to us in words. There are aspects of God's purpose and will that are not revealed to us in Scripture, for example, "no one knows the day or hour," says Christ concerning his return, hence, that has not been revealed to us. In the Reformed tradition, the baseline presupposition is this: all that God intends for us to know of Him has been revealed in the Bible.

"Christ is the only self-revelation of God." The question must be asked, how is Jesus the self-revelation? How does the revealing take place? It is implied through some of exist's correspondence that it is by "a bloody cross." Why is a bloody cross significant? How does self-revelation take place? Let me give an illustration stolen from Dr. Clark: If I were to sit in a room with another person, how does a relationship form? He may do nice things for me, but if he does not express himself verbally, I cannot get a glimpse into his higher thoughts, his desires, his likes, his dislikes, his passions, his dreams, his hope, or his opinions. In order for me to better know him relationally, he must voluntarily self-disclose information. If we sat in a room and looked at each other, I cannot say that I've made acquaintance with him.

With Christ, I come to know him personally and relationally through the words he has spoken and the words that I speak. I pray to him using words, and I learn of Him by his words. It is not merely Christ's actions that reveal God's nature, but also the teaching of his words. "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass." (Matt 24:35)

Moreover, in the context of the Reformed premise of the "verbal plenary" inspiration of the Bible, the Bible itself is God's self-revelation--for it is God's Spirit who, through the human author, inspired each word stroked by his pen. Thus, ultimately we have God's words that reveal what He intends for us to know of his nature and purposes. Christians are not convinced of the Inspiration of Scripture by reason, they are convinced by a faith given to them of God--and that faith is the basis of all our belief. Since we have what we hold to be a God-given faith--a faith trusting that the ultimate source of the words of Scripture is the Holy Spirit, who is God-very-God--the Bible is the "self-revelation" of God and it is intrinsically authoritative due to the Source. We do not hold that level of authority to creeds and councils, although we may agree with some of the councils' conclusions--and, in fact, are indebted to them for their wisdom.

Divergence from Biblical Authors -- Exist also does not follow the lead of Christ and the apostles. Even if we take Exist's presuppositions concerning biblical inspiration and authority, or even if the Bible is merely historically accurate, we have an idea of what Jesus taught concerning the written words of God. He quotes Deuteronomy in Matthew 4, "Is is written, 'man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.'" How many times does Jesus say, "it is written" or "it is [not] written?" Why rebut the Pharisees with Old Testament Scripture if exist~dissolve's understanding on authority were true? Why were the authors of the New Testament so concerned with Christ "fulfilling the Scriptures"? (Mark 12:10, 15:28; John 7:42, 13:18, 17:12, 19:24, 19:28; Acts 1:16, among others.) Why does Paul consult Old Testament so very often in his writings? Why use the word theopneustos (All Scripture is God breathed) in 2 Timothy 3:16? Why does Jesus say "The Scripture cannot be broken" in John 10:35? It seems to me that Jesus thought that the Old Testament conveyed literal truth. Why is Peter concerned with people "twisting" Paul's letters (2 Peter 3:16) "as they do also the rest of the Scriptures" if there is not a knowable, literal truth communicated in Paul's letters and the Old Testament? In all honesty, how can Peter accuse them of "twisting" if there were not literal truth being communicated?

It seems that exist and deviant monk depart from New Testament's expressed high (as in absolute) view of Scriptural authority and inerrancy. If the words of the Scripture are "God breathed," why couldn't they communicate divine truth?

Conclusion on Epistemology

Ultimately, exist~dissolve and deviant monk have an outright unquestioned authority. I am not sure what it is. What I can tell you is this: the logical, reasoned outflow of their epistemology can only be skepticism. I am not accusing them of being skeptics. If your read their blogs, you will see that they believe in God and in Christ as the eternal logos of God. They are certain that particular forms of Christianity are idolatrous. What I am saying is that it is inconsistent for them to assert as they do about the incapability of human thought and language to express divine truth and then to claim a genuine, relational knowledge of God.

In the Reformed perspective, we take the Bible as Inspired on faith, and derive the rest from the claims of Scripture, albeit we do make mistakes. However, a misinterpretation of Scripture only brings discredit to the interpreter, not the source. We do have unquestioned, unreasoned presupposition (sola Scriptura), but the presuppositions do not collapse under their own weight. One may disagree with the premise, but it is not a matter of logical fallacy as it is a matter of distaste.

Next, a response to the charge of a "materialist conception of God."

New Link...

2006-08-28T08:05:00.000-05:00

My friend, Chris Barnette, finally got his blog up an rolling, and it looks like it will be quite good. In fact, he just got linked at TeamPyro, with is quite a good thing.

Here is his site:

http://www.christopherbarnette.com/

It will also be linked on my sidebar...

Crazy Week

2006-08-24T16:23:00.000-05:00

I am sorry that I have not begun to address the item below that I said that I would. I promise to start on the epistemological differences tomorrow.

However it has been an interesting week, actually few weeks...

1st. Laura and I resigned from Brownfields Baptist as the youth minister 'n wife. There are a few reasons for doing so.

Why did we resign the position? Our residence, and particularly my job, in relation to the church just became too cumbersome to be able to get to BBC during the week. I would spend over two and a half hours in a vehicle on weekdays that I went to BBC. That made my availability minimal, and my aggravation maximal. It is simply not fair to the youth(s) that I be the youth minister, I can't put in the time to produce the growth they need. Most importantly, I now know for certain that my ministry calling is not youth ministry. For that reason also, it would not be fair to the church and youth that I serve in that capacity.

Why are we leaving Brownfields? It is not for bigger and better positions. Laura and I don't know where we will go to church. It is specifically this: We want to be able and available to serve whatever church to which we belong. That availability part is the problem with BBC. We lose an entire Wednesday night for a 30 minute prayer meeting, for which we are seemingly always late due to my job and Baton Rouge traffic. There are some personal reasons, too. Laura and I have no young married friends with which we fellowship. Because of our location, fellowship with the congregation seems impossible, and we felt out of the loop with what was going on there.

2nd. A few weeks ago, a man named Barry Thibodeaux began to attend Brownfields on Sundays, and some Wednesdays. In fact, the first Sunday he attended was when I preached out of Ephesians 2. This man had a very interesting story. He worked sound for several well-known celebrities over the last couple of decades, spiraled down a life of drugs, alcohol and debauchery...and then God brought a huge event in his life that changed him. I spoke with him about the gospel, and he knew it in his mind, and I am very convinced that he belonged to Christ because of the recent changes in his life, and the fact that he said that he has no doubt where he would go. He forsaked it all. Money (he was well paid by the celebrity musicians), women, drugs...all to work a $10 an hour construction job...all because he wanted a change in his life and to be close to Christ. I saw his and spoke with him about his work last Sunday.

Yesterday, on my way home, I heard about a body that was found on the Comite river, and with it was a black SUV. Payed no mind to the broadcast. Then my wife came home from prayer meeting to tell me that it was Barry that was found... Talk about wake you up. I don't know the details as to what happened. I will do my best to find out.

3rd. On the way to work this morning, my car broke down due to overheating. I had to stop in Gonzales, a little town south of Baton Rouge, at a gas station. The motor was steaming! My boss sent two of my coworkers to help me, Lance and TJ. TJ has worked on cars and saved me who-knows-how-many hundreds of dollars by find the problem and fixing it for me. It was a broken hose--all the coolant had leaked from that hose. It was a $10 part--Nice! So, I will be looking for a nice way to get him back for such kindness--no good deed goes unpunished.

I'll get on the "important" (seemingly unimportant now after Barry) tomorrow.

"Genetic" Outlaw

2006-08-22T09:08:00.000-05:00

I remember when I was in grade school and I first learned about the ancient Greek city-states of Athens and Sparta. I remember being appalled at one aspect of Spartan culture: the abandonment of babies with physical or obvious mental defects. They would just leave them to die outside of the city. In fact, the whole class was upset at the Spartan cultural norm.

Times have changes in the 20 years since my elementary school days, and I am sad to say that Western Society has come to the same point. Check out this article I found through Dr. Mohler's site. Don't just read the article, read the comments, too. The writer of the article, Elizabeth R. Schiltz, did something unusual for a pregnant woman to do in the Western world: she did not abort a fetus that had a prenatal diagnosis of Down Syndrome. She is considered a "genetic outlaw." The article was very interesting, but the comments were even more interesting, and saddening.

Many of the readers of the article disagreed with Schiltz's decision, calling her arrogant. They accused her of bringing of "suffering" child in the world for her own needs. One commenter said: "We're not talking about euthanasia, we're talking about preselection," as if the act of abortion doesn't involve the destruction of life, since the fetus is inside of the woman. There are even more overtones of arrogance in some of the comments: Society has a right to decide who gets to be born.

My question is this: Who gets to decide the health/mental/medical criterion for birth? Lawmakers? Doctors? Judges? An amendment to the Constitution voted in by the people? From whence do we determine the criterion? What do we use as an authority to decide who is a person and who is not worthy of life? Advocates for mercy killing/abortion may disguise this immorality in clothes of good intentions. "We won't bring someone in the world who will only suffer in life." However, this deceptive language only hides the true intentions behind this culture of death: In a society driven by convenience, nobody-not even the government-wants the emotional and financial burden and inconvenience of children with special needs. We may not leave the children outside of our cities to be consumed by wild animals or the elements, we just kill them in the womb before it comes to that.

Christian Existentialism

2006-08-21T11:53:00.000-05:00

This is the first part of an I-don't-know-how-many part series.

Note: Part 2 is here.

Last week, Alan Kurschner of the Calvinist Gadfly posted this article titled "Removing the Doctrine of Election is Cause for Boasting in Ourselves." It was a brief excerpt from a linked article by John Hendryx from www.reformationtheology.com. The second post was from a person with the screen name "exist~dissolve." I linked to his blog site in a post below, and it is on my list of links. This is important to note: when someone disagrees with Calvinism on the Gadfly, it is not mere discussion and dialogue, it is war! The Reformed crew jumped on exist and his ally of sorts, deviant monk, like flies on feces...But exist and deviant monk held their own and responded to pretty much every objection thrown at them by the Reformed folk. I even put my two cents in at times, but exist and deviant monk quickly responded to me too.

The Reformed constantly asked exist and deviant to openly state their position, and they did, albeit in a philosophical vernacular that is above the average layperson's head. In fact, their—particlarly exist's—loquacious (a big, ironic word for wordy) language is intimidating for those unfamiliar with the terms, which I think is intentional for three purposes: (1) to boost the perception of their intelligence resulting in the (2) intimidation of their audience and (3) to obscure their position behind a seemingly impenetrable wall of words. The previous statement is not meant as a jab to exist's and deviant's intelligence. Both have brilliant minds, but everyone likes to look smarter than they are, and superfluous ;-) wordiness does the trick.

From the post and from some personal correspondence with exist, I was finally able to understand their objections to Calvinism and the Reformed worldview, which I will summarize below:

Epistemology - They object to the Reformed presupposition of Sola Scriptura. First, they dismiss the notion of inerrancy and find it completely unnecessary. Second, they redefine inspiration to something drastically different than the Reformed understanding of the Spirit's Inspiration of Scripture. Third, a redefinition of the concept of authority. They do not hold the Bible to be revelation, and a recurring theme in their writings and correspondence is that the only true revelation of God in the Person and Work of Christ. Another recurring theme: the limitations of human language—particularly propositional language—to describe and communicate literal truth concerning the divine nature. In fact, exist denies that "Sola Scriptura" is a Reformed presupposition, much less the base presupposition of Calvinism. He thinks that our "cosmology" is our foremost presupposition.

"Materialist Conception of God's Relationship to Creation" - In exist's opinion, Reformed theology leads to a defining of God's nature and actions on the basis of the creation itself. In other words, we in the Reformed tradition make the mistake of defining God and his nature by things other than God. This includes everything "other" than God: phenomenology (observing physical phenomenon to define God) and particularly propositional language (the infinite divine nature cannot be expressed in human terms). If that which is other than God has the capacity to define and truly describe God's eternal nature, then that which is other than God is, in fact, God. Therefore, since the Reformed folk define God's nature using human propositional language, which is something other than God, then that human language and thought is itself consubstantial with God—thus exist accuses Reformed theology of a pantheism (the belief that God is all) of sorts.

God's Relationship to Evil - Though exist may encapsulate this objection in heavy words, he shares this objection with many non-Reformed. Logically, the Reformed presentation makes God responsible for evil. Often times, Reformed theologians make a distinction between the words responsible and culpable. The former refers to the proposition that God is the ultimate cause for all that happens, including that which is evil; the latter refers to the proposition that responsibility does not necessitate guilt on the part of God. It is still man by his own will who commits the acts of evil, not God, although God ordained for it to happen. Exist does not buy that distinction, and he does "not see...the ability inherent to [the Reformed] philosophical methodology to accurately maintain fidelity both [God's] decrees (which are eternal, efficacious, and exhaustive) with the denial of God's culpability for the origin of sin..." This is not a
new charge per se, but it is the most sophisticated version of this charge I've seen in a while.

Unconditional Election - This objection is relative to the above objection. Here are exist's words from his first post at the Gadfly.

It is curious that you believe the claim that a denial of the concept of “unconditional election” is somehow tantamount to an equal affirmation that one "adds” something to their salvation. I see no reason that would make this statement either self-evident or logically necessary. The positing of the role of the human will in salvation is not indicative of a theology that suggests that humans must “add” something to salvation.
Moreover, I would suggest that the very doctrine of “unconditional election,” which is built upon the necessary corolary doctrines of absolute predestinationism, is itself a denial of salvation. After all, if God has eternally determined those whom God will save, from what are we being saved? If we are honest in light of predestinationism, the only answer is that we are being saved from the God that has created the necessary conditions by which we required salvation in the first place. If God wouldn’t have eternally determined to cause our fall, there would be no need to save us. The fact that we must be saved, in light of predestinationism, reveals that 1.) God is either inept from keeping those whom God has eternally “elected” for salvation from sinning and even falling under God’s condemnation or 2.) God is truly neurotic in choosing to predestine those whom God has chosen to save to first become that which God despises, merely so that God can then save them… Of course, as their fall and sinfulness is predestined by God from all of eternity, we cannot literally say that God despises sinfulness and rebellion, for who despises that which one freely chooses?

This comment is what caused the storm of objections from the Calvinist militants. Exist's mistake? Not expressing his presuppositions and views. No one had any idea how to answer him in a way that addresses his ultimate objections, particularly because exist did not state them.

There were several other objections, but that is all that I will have time for this week. Over the next few days / weeks, I will attempt to answer the objections set forth above by exist and deviant monk.

This must be said: From reading his blog, corresponding with him in email, and even his name, "exist~dissolve", it is apparent that he is primarily an existentialist with influences of the likes of Soren Kierkegaard and perhaps Emil Brunner (whose writings posses similar views concerning human language).

A New Link

2006-08-15T14:13:00.000-05:00

I am going to link a person I've seen show up at two other websites: Calvinist Gadfly and Pyromaniacs. His Internet presence is known as exist-dissolve. I've placed a link to the left.

Exist is not your rank-n-file evangelical or Protestant. I haven't quite figured out how to classify him. He completely and openly denies the Reformed faith, but his critiques bear much more force than the typical anti-Calvinist. If you want to question what you believe, check out his blog. Don't be intimidated by his command of language, just read and think.

I'll post some responses when I get some time...a lot of time. To respond to him actually requires thought, otherwise he will note your inconsistencies.

Reality Television Got It Wrong

2006-08-11T16:20:00.001-05:00

My wife, Laura, and I have moved into our new condo. It's really nice, and we love it. Scarlet, our dog, loves her little yard, too.

Today, we had to go to the DMV to update the addresses on our vehicle registrations and drivers' licenses. It was the "express" DMV office--but its DSL connections to the main office were down, so it wasn't too "express" at first. While standing in line, Laura and I were observing the other people in the line...It was better than reality television. Quite entertaining.

Seriously, the conversations we heard between the people in the line as well as the cell phone conversations were crazy. Scripted "reality" television wastes money on the "creativity departments" they employ. Just stick a hidden camera in the DMV when the computers are down--that would be good reality television.

A Tale of Two Churches

2006-07-31T13:01:00.000-05:00

I am going to post a couple of links from Slice of Laodicea. To my readers (if there are any) this blog is a very good blog. I know the blog is very critical of the contemporary Christian church, but it makes undoubtedly strong cases for its points. As a Calvinist, a subscriber to the five "solas" or "alones" (grace alone, faith alone, Christ alone, Scripture alone, to God be the Glory alone), I am bothered by what I observe in the Christian churches today...

...and the Holy Spirit by this blog often brings conviction of my and my church's complacency in its labor of worship...

In these following two posts, Ingrid of Slice gives us a parable of two churches, and each church in the evangelical world is represented largely by one of the two.

Here is church 1.
Here is church 2.

Which one is best represented by your church? Do the members of your church have any inckling of or respect for Whom they are coming to worship? Who does the music actually praise--regardless of its style? Men or God? Do they even try to engage in *gasp* church discipline? One of the Ingrid's points that I greatly enjoyed is this: Does the church service attempt to connect you with the heritage of Christianity's history by the recitation of creeds? How much Scripture is read during the Service?

Look, I understand the hesitancy of a traditional mindset, but Ingrid's point is correct. Every church adheres to a set of traditions; it is a matter of which ones. It is also a matter of whether or not the traditions can be substantiated by the authority of Scripture.

People, we come to church, week by week, going through the motions. We come for the opportunity for socializing. We come to be entertained. Speaking from mine own experience, we do not come to worship the Almighty God, the One Who spoke our beings into existence, Who sustains us by the power of his Word, Who judges evil and wickedness, Who hates sin in its most minute forms, who quickened us from the dead by his grace and love and joined us in union to Christ...

Last night, at our fifth Sunday singing service, I had to face this harsh reality as I listened to a poem titled "Desiderata" distributed by our church leadership and read from the pulpit by a person who was not a member of our church. Its closing stanza began with this: "Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you concieve Him to be..." Where was the discernment and why was this endorsement of mental idolatry allowed to be read? My answer to this is a mere speculation: we didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings.

The Miracle of Conversion (Sermon from 7-23-06)

2006-07-24T11:24:00.001-05:00

1 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.
4 But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that or of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.
(Ephesians 2:1-10)

Introduction

What a wonderful experience it is to be saved by the grace of God! Look back upon your life before Christ came to you, and then look at your life now in Christ. My hope and prayer this morning is for you to be able to see that the gross error of your past has been replaced with the passion to know the Lord and his righteousness and the pursuit to walk worthy of Him who called you out from the grave!

And if, this morning, Christ knows you not, it is my heart’s desire that through my words, He comes and performs the miracle of quickening to you as He has to me—that you may know the Lord and the riches of his mercy and the assurance of eternal life.

In the passage of Scripture I have selected, we have a clear picture of what must take place for the soul to be converted to Christ.

Exposition
What Christians Were and What the Lost Are
It is commonplace in evangelical churches to hear the quotation of verses 8 and 9 of Ephesians 2. The words are powerful and clear for those of us who are alive: “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not by works, lest anyone should boast.” However, these verses are often isolated out of the context to a point that they convey the wrong idea. When these verses are scrutinized in the context of Ephesians 1 and 2, they become much more powerful and clear. The necessity of grace—our need of grace—becomes as clear as the waters of the Caribbean.
In the Scriptures, the unbelieving world is often referred to as “the perishing” as they are in 1 Corinthians 1:18, in which Paul claims: “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” I want you to understand something: those who know not Christ and believe not in the message of the cross are more than just perishing. They are dead. They are perishing, but only in the sense that perishable foods sour or spoil, or in the sense that a dead corpse corrodes and decays back into dust. These are nonetheless corpses: with no spiritual breath and life. It is interesting that the Greek work pneumos is used to refer both to spirit and breath, for the lost and unbelieving have no spiritual breath! They are dead: dead as body in a casket, dead as the cadavers studied by students of medicine, dead as the road kill on the side of the highway.

As the perishing world is, so were we who are now alive in Christ. We were also once dead. The passage tells us that “we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.” We were then no different than those who are now dead without Christ. We were in rebellion, sowing the perishing seeds of corruption and sin. Our hearts and minds were opposed to God, at war with Him, and resisting Him at every opportunity.

Our lives before Christ smelled as rotten in the nostrils of God as a carcass withering away in the sun. Do I have your attention?

Let me further clarify.

Not all dead bodies look alike. Some are clearly dead. There are bodies that are mangled and dismembered when they encounter harsh ends like that of an auto accident or a depraved murder. Some are left out in the elements, and begin to decompose, rot and decay, like those in the battlefields of war. However others are not as clearly dead: such as those who have just died of sudden, quiet heart attack, or those who have been kept and preserved for a funeral.

Regardless of their appearance—they are all dead.

So are those who are perishing: Some seek to win God’s approval by abiding to a code of ethics. They are admirable men and women, respected in the word for some reason or another. Nonetheless, if they know not Christ, they are dead. However, others lead lives enslaved to alcohol and sexual immorality, murder or slander. These are no more—or less—dead than the former. A sinner of small trespasses is as dead as a sinner of gross perversion. As the late Charles Spurgeon noted, the lost and ruined—those who have not been touched by the grace of God—are nothing more than corpses without graves.

How Conversion Takes Place
When Paul reveals the nature of those who lie in the death and corruption of sin, he means it. This is no mere analogy: those without Christ are spiritually dead. In spiritual matters—including the gospel—they are deaf, blind, and numb. They cannot smell or taste of the wretchedness of their current state.

When a man physically dies, he has no power to raise himself from the grave. Likewise the lost man, spiritually dead in his trespasses, cannot raise himself from his condition. He cannot breathe spiritual life into himself. This is important to understand: Man, in his natural state, has no spiritual ability. He cannot desire to please God, much less actually please Him. He cannot be convinced to be saved by clever words from a sermon or by emotional intimidation. As the physically dead man cannot will himself to life, the spiritually dead man cannot even will himself to be saved unto eternal life! He is by nature a child of wrath, dead in sin, and in desperate need of reconciliation unto God—a reconciliation he cannot accomplish!

Church, hear me on this. There is no evangelism program that will win souls by its own power! There is not one preacher who has effected the salvation of any man’s soul by his own words! Nothing of man can cause the soul to be born again—to be resurrected unto eternal life. This is why prayer is important, because when we pray for the salvation of the souls of men, we are asking God, the sovereign life giver, to cause them to be saved. This is exactly the business that God is in: quickening the souls of men so that they will come to Christ.

Evangelism without prayer is like a guitar with no strings. Without the strings, the guitar is unable to make a melody. Likewise when the church fails to sustain her evangelism efforts with prayer, she cannot expect souls to be saved. If I preach the gospel to a group of people without praying, it would be better to preach to a graveyard! It is not as if God can’t save men without our prayer, it is that He usually won’t!

It is only by the power of God that men are saved! Listen to the Scripture: “But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive (or quickened us) together with Christ (by grace you have been saved).” In verse five, Paul attributes the rebirth and regeneration of man’s soul to God’s grace. In order for us to respond to the gospel call, we must be quickened—we must be made alive.

In preparation for this sermon, I noticed something that I have never noticed before. In the Greek, the word translated in verse 6 as “raised us up together” is a form of the word commonly associated elsewhere in Scripture with God raising Christ from the dead, the only difference is the prefix “sun”—meaning “with.” When God quickens the soul of man, bringing him from death unto life, He does so by the power of Christ’s resurrection! I understood that Christ’s resurrection demonstrated Christ’s conquering of the grave. I understood that Christ’s resurrection is the guarantee of our coming physical resurrection, the proof that our hope has reason. However, I never connected the resurrection of Christ to the spiritual resurrection of our souls. On the cross, God made Christ “who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in [Jesus Christ].” The guilt of our sin with its corruption and death was laid upon the shoulders of Christ at Calvary. Bearing the wrath of God in the flames of hell for eternity is the outcome of man’s spiritual death. That same wrath was released upon Jesus on the cross, and on that day Jesus died as a man both physically and spiritually. God then quickened Him from the grave, both spiritually and physically, and that power of resurrection takes place every time a soul is saved!

Every soul that is saved is a miracle of resurrection! Men do not have power to perform miracles, only God. Yet we so often rob God of his glory when He calls someone unto himself through our ministry efforts! Each and every time that God uses us to bring someone to conversion we should give all the glory to God! He the only one who has the power to make alive the hearts of men so that they do come when called in the proclamation of the gospel!

Now we come to verses 8 and 9: “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not by works, lest anyone should boast.” Connect these verses to the ones that precede it. God’s grace—his unmerited, undeserved, and unsolicited favor—has saved us through faith. Earlier, Paul said we were quickened by that same grace. Can a man believe when he has not been quickened? If man, in his natural and sinful state, cannot understand any spiritual message of God, and if the gospel is a spiritual message (which it surely is), then the answer is no! Hence the reason Paul says, after he mentions salvation by grace through faith, “and that not of yourselves.” When we came to trust Christ, we did not do so by our own power, but by the enabling of the Holy Spirit. Even our faith is a gift, hence the phrase “it is the gift of God; not by works.” “The gift of God” refers back to everything up to this point, even before this verse: the quickening, the grace, and the faith. There is no work, no merit, no attribute of man that caused his salvation; all of it is of God.

The last phrase is most important, “lest anyone should boast.” Some translations say “so that no one can boast.” Tell me, if a man has within his own power to believe in Christ, does he not have reason to boast in himself? If tell you that I believed Christ out of my own choice, then I am telling you that I am not as spiritually darkened as the others. There was something about me that effected my salvation. Is this grace? If I said such a thing, then I contradict what the Bible teaches about men. How could I be any less dead than the rest? Either I am dead or I am not! If I am, then Christ must come and quicken me, for I cannot will to come to Christ!

The quickening of God is what causes belief in men. It is not the contrary. My faith is the result of God’s quickening of my soul, not its prerequisite. If I must believe in order to be born again, then salvation is not wholly of God’s grace and doing and I do have reason to boast—for I had more sense as a lost man and I was less spiritually hardened than many others. However, if I were unable to come to Christ because of the corruption of sin and Christ must come and do a work in me in order for me to believe, the salvation is wholly of God’s grace and I cannot boast in myself, I can only in Christ.

The Result of Conversion
So often we stop at verse 9. We will not do so this morning. Verse 10 reads, “For we are His workmanship created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.” At this point I must step on some toes—perhaps stomp on some feet.

Because of this verse, I fear many who sit in pews every Sunday morning may be dead—and they do not know it. Friday night, my wife and I went to watch M. Night Shyamalan’s new movie, Lady in the Water. As I watched this movie, and as I was thinking of this text, I remembered one of M. Night Shyamalan’s earlier films: The Sixth Sense. In this movie, a child is able to see the ghosts of dead men and women, and he whispers to Bruce Willis’s character, “I see dead people, and the worst thing is, they don’t even know they are dead!”

Folks, I see dead people sitting on the pews of churches—and they don’t even know they are dead. I know they are dead because their lives show no evidence of God’s grace. They name the name of Christ, but act worse than the average unbeliever. They think of only themselves. Profanity commonly crosses their lips. They continually give in to the lusts of the flesh, and they have no desire to come to church and find any excuse not to.

We are not saved by works, but we are saved unto works which God has ordained for us to accomplish. Those who claim to be Christ’s and show no evidence of change in their lives only make a mockery of the power of God’s grace! If their souls have been resurrected from death, how can they show no signs of life?

There is a reason why Paul’s conversion is so powerful: He was a persecutor of Christians before Christ came to him! When word came to the churches of his conversion, the churches praised God for his grace because they knew only He could accomplish such a thing. Did Paul go on persecuting the church after his conversion?

Likewise, when we observe the conversion of those who were once vile men and women, sexually immoral, alcoholics, drug addicts, and even murderers, we give glory to God for his grace when we the change in their lives! Do they continue as they were before? No! They may struggle with ghosts from the past, but God grants them power by his quickening over the lusts of the flesh.

Men and women, I want you to survey your lives this morning. On judgment day, when God asks you as to why He should let you into heaven, several, if not many of you, may say, “I was lead by a preacher to pray a prayer once.” God in return will only tell you this: “Your trust is not in my Son, but in a prayer you prayed—a mere work of words you made with your tongue.” You prayed this prayer expecting to use it as a magic feather, and went on living your live as you did before, having no change. That is not what the quickening power of God accomplishes.

When God quickens you, you do not come merely to receive a “get out of jail free” card! When God makes you alive, alive you are! Changed you are! There should always be a desire for more of God, and sin should become a loathsome thing. So many have prayed a prayer having no conviction of sin; such a prayer accomplished nothing at all. When God makes you alive, the wretched, rotten stench of your sin is the first thing you notice. It horrors you and you begin to despise it. It causes you great pain to continue in it. The most miserable men on earth are Christians who have fallen into sin—and if you lead a life of sin and it bothers you not, you may be dead!

Call of Invitation
If you realize that you are one of the ones who are dead, and if that pains you and you want to live, then Christ working in your heart. Wait not this morning, delay no longer! Run to Christ and He will embrace you in His great love and save you from the death of your sin forever!

My hope this morning is not that you come to Christ of your own willing, but that Christ comes to you and conquers the grave of your heart, and if that so happens, then He will give you no opportunity to resist.

To Be Fair...

2006-07-03T13:52:00.000-05:00

Here is a link from the President of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary about the resolution to abstain from alcohol. He supports it, but it is a good description of why he does.

Knowing the Will of God -- Part 3 of 4

2006-07-03T11:21:00.000-05:00

Click here for Part 1.
Click here for Part 2

The difficultly in making decisions comes when we are confronted with choosing between rights or between evils. The example questions above demonstrate those difficult decisions. However, let me add a few more examples: Which jeans should I wear? Should I eat Sonic or Wendy’s? What color should I paint my wall?

These questions are apparently trivial. In most cases they are trivial. However, if one of the pairs of jeans is too revealing or immodest, you still have a choice between a right and wrong. If one of the restaurants happens to donate a portion of profits to abortion research, the choice is still between a wrong and a right.

If these stipulations don’t exit, should the choice be difficult? Should I spend an hour in prayer to determine the hamburger joint for the night? As moronic as it may sound, there are people who are in bondage to this type of thinking. They look for a heavenly sign to decide which shoes or boxers to wear. They worry if the color of their carpet pleases almighty God—who we all know loves LSU purple and gold. (Sarcasm)

People in these circumstances are in bondage. They do not understand what it means to be free in Christ. Look at Look at Galatians 5:1-12. Paul was directly addressing the issue of legalism, the adding of requirements for any aspect the Christian salvation or living. After Paul’s departure from the churches at Galatia, some Jews began to corrupt the gospel message of “Christ alone!” These Jews were teaching “Christ plus the law.” In order to be spiritual, you needed to be circumcised and eat kosher and observe Jewish holidays, etc. Paul in return tells these corrupting Jews that he wished for their castration. (“cut themselves off” is a polite rendition of the Greek)

Why was Paul so angry? In Christ, we have been set free from the legal requirement of the law. This is not a call for anarchy or antinomianism, nor is this a license to sin. It is call to confidence, realizing that God’s pleasure in us is due to Christ’s work on our behalf on the cross and in our lives—not in our efforts and feeble attempts to win God’s pleasure. In Christ we are free—free from the bondage of our sin nature and free from the obligation of the Law. We live by faith now. Therefore, we don’t need to fret over the every trivial decision we make.

When we fret about nothings, we place ourselves in a bondage that enslaves our conscious to legalism. In Gal 2:20-21, Paul status, “(20) I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ live in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. (21) I do set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the law, the Christ died in vain.” Paul knew that the work that pleases God is the work that Christ accomplishes through us when we trust Him in faith. Verse 21 not only talks about our position of righteousness in Christ Jesus, but also the righteousness of the works of our hands. In Christ, we stand justified in the eyes of God because He has declared us righteous, and that decree of righteousness on our behalf rests in the atoning work of Christ. However, only in Christ will any good work performed by my hands be pleasing to the Father. No set of laws or regulations or rituals will make my works acceptable.

Fretting over the trivial issues is an expression of doubt. When a man worries about the color of his shirt, he trusts not in the merit of Christ’s work—but rather his own deeds. However, if there is any way other than Christ to stand righteously or to do righteously in God’s sight, then Christ wasted his time dying on the cross. It is offensive to the cross to make mountains out of molehills—to worry frivolously over the smallest of decisions.

Tommorrow, Part 4 of 4. Remembering the Sovereignty of God in both the small and big choices.

Knowing the Will of God -- Part 2 of 4

2006-06-30T13:37:00.000-05:00

Click here for part 1.

How then do we discern God’s will? A better question is this: What do we mean by the phrase “discerning God’s will?” Are we referring to God’s purposes decreed from eternity past? Because of the way I see the phrase used, I have my doubts. Are we referring to making day to day decisions? That seems to be correct. When most Christians say, “I want to discern God’s will,” they are simply asking this question: What ought I do?

Do I take this job or that job? Should I go out with/marry this person? Should I return to graduate school? Am I called to ministry? Should I rent or should I buy? Which college should I attend?

When the question is phrased in the form, what ought I do?, it much easer to approach because it is much less intimidating. Removed are the mysterious overtones of the concept of “God’s will.” In fact, it is easy to answer in the case when the decision is between a right and a set of wrongs.

When a Christian is confronted to make a decision between a right (as in good) and a set of wrongs (as in evil), the correct choice is easy. Choose that which is righteous. Two sets of friends invite you for a Friday night outing. One set wants to frequent a brothel, the others want to attend a worship service. Which choice honors God?

Even in more complex decisions, there is almost always a set of evil choices—these should be excluded from the list of viable options. Do your best to limit your choices to those that honor God.

From the aforementioned, the responsibility of the Christian to know what is morally right and wrong is clear. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the Christian to be a student of the Bible and person of prayer. Ignorance of the Word leads to sin, and the sloth in prayer communes not with the Holy Spirit. Because many Christians fail to know the Word and pray, they cannot see the will of God—what they ought to do.

For example, there are many Christians who are debating if they belong in the dating relationship in which they currently reside. The other is not a Christian, or is a fleshly Christian. Many aspects of the relationship have been compromised, and there is a strong sense of guilt or conviction. The obvious answer is to get out—and fast. If they knew the Word, they would know 2 Corinthians 6:14 (perhaps not by reference, but its content): “Do no be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?” Yet they do not obey because of their strong emotional connection, which they interpret to be a divine revelation to remain in the relationship. Their judgment is impaired, and they see as good that which is easily judged harmful.

Tommorrow, Part 3 of 4. "What about the small things?"

Knowing the Will of God -- Part 1 of 4

2006-06-29T13:30:00.000-05:00

In their day to day lives, many Christians are enslaved to a subjective means of “discerning God’s will.” I know that theological discussion on the will of God is a controversial issue in and of itself, but the way many Christians use the term “God’s will” or “will of God” in conversation is almost blasphemous. Some rely on subjective feelings to determine “God’s will” for their lives, and others use the term—which includes the name of God—as a means to their own selfish and manipulative ends.

What comes to mind is a “Christian” pickup line that I read couple years ago. The man approaches the woman in a British, debonair manner—with all class and sophistication—and introduces himself. “My name is Will…God’s Will.”

As amusing as that pickup line is, it is also representative of the ignorant arrogance of the average Christian in knowing God’s will. I’ve been that foolish in the past. However, after reading the Scriptures, God by his grace has corrected me of such foolish thinking. The pickup line also demonstrates the danger of the phrase “will of God.”

Why is it so dangerous? First, it is a very intimidating phrase. When the words “God’s will” vibrate the eardrums of many Christians, they are immediately reverent to them and the words that precede or follow them. Christians can be a trusting, but naïve, bunch, and many predatory vultures can use this to their advantage. Countless immoral relationships began with a guy—or girl—saying, “God told me that…” Even more heresies began with similar sayings. The Christian who is a babe in the Word will be easily convinced to comply.

Not only do these words lead many astray, they are also blasphemous. Many predators know how manipulative the words “God’s will” can be, and it troubles not their conscious to use the name of God to their advantage. Essentially, they are heralding words on God’s behalf that God did not speak. This is a direct violation of the Third Commandment, “Thou shalt not take the Lord thy God’s name in vain.”

Tommorrow, Part 2 of 4. "How do we discern God's will?"

New Blog Links

2006-06-27T14:43:00.000-05:00

I have put some new blog on my BlogRoll under links on the left:

1. Slice of Laodicea
This blog comments on the contemporary church and the watering down of the biblical gospel of Jesus Christ. This has great commentary on the mega-church, church growth, church marketing movement.

2. The Calvinist Gadfly
This blog typically comments on Calvinism/Election doctrine questions. It's a good blog, explaining well the differences between predestination/free-will debate.

When the World is Right...

2006-06-21T21:24:00.000-05:00

This week, the Southern Baptist Convention resolved to ban alcohol--declaring that all practicing members of the demonination should abstain from it. Now, neither my wife nor I drink anything whatsoever, so the resolution doesn't bother me because it convicts me.

What bothers me is the legalistic nature of the ban. Are we not drawing lines where the Lord has not? Anyway, I ran into a new blog that cracks me up: Purgatorio. This post concerning this issue made me laugh out loud. It's Anhieser Busch's response to the SBC ban, and we should be humbled that a beer company made a nice jab.

Justification—the Heart of the Gospel

2006-06-21T15:33:00.000-05:00

Salvation is a word that embodies within its own meaning many marvelous doctrines concerning our redemption in Christ: Election, effectual calling, adoption, regeneration and sanctification, perseverance and preservation, eternal life and glorification—among others. However, there is but one doctrine that supplies the lifeblood to all the others; that gives the redeemed hope, assurance, and all confidence. There is but one doctrine that is necessary to understanding the gospel message, and if the sinner were not to understand it—or to understand it and deny or reject it—he cannot be saved.

That doctrine is the doctrine of justification by faith alone. All of the other doctrines that pertain to our salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ are nourished by substance of justification. Election ordains its coming to the sinner, and the effectual calling of the Holy Spirit convinces the sinner of its need. It is the basis of our reconciliation to God and His adoption of us as sons, and It marks the point at which the sinner is reborn, thus embarking the process of sanctification—by which the sinner becomes more and more an image of its [justification] decree. Its effect is the preservation and security of the sinner in his salvation, and by its decree, he is assured that upon his resurrection he will stand in glory with Christ for eternity.

It has one, sole foundation upon which it stands: The Person and Work of Christ Jesus—in his life, in his death, and in his resurrection. In the act of justification, God pardons the sinner of his sin and decrees him to be righteous and acceptable in his sight—on the basis of Jesus Christ and his finished Work. By my trust in His Son alone, my sin is credited to the account of Christ and His perfect righteousness to mine. Therefore, for me to stand justified, Jesus must be my substitute. He had to live perfectly in my stead; He had to endure the wrath of the Father in my place; and, He rose again to demonstrate that His work is complete and accepted of the Father, has effected our redemption, and shall forever stand. Justification is entirely the work and doing of God; it is not the product of my achievements.

Do not take my mere word, for it is the proclamation of the Scriptures! Throughout all of God’s Word, justification by grace through faith alone is taught. We sinners can only find approval in the sight of holy God by his grace. Let us let the Word of God speak for itself.

In Genesis, we are told that “Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD,” then we are told that “Noah was a just man.” (Gen 6:8-9) Later we are told that Abraham “believed [faith] in the LORD, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.” In Psalm 32, we are told, “Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man to whom the LORD does not impute iniquity…I acknowledged my sin to You, and my iniquity I have not hidden. I said, ‘I will confess my transgressions to the LORD,’ And You forgave the iniquity of my sin.” In Isaiah 53, “Surely He has borne our griefs And carried our sorrows…He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed…the LORD has lain on Him the iniquity of us all…For the transgressions of My people He was stricken…He shall bear their iniquities…He was numbered with the transgressors, And He bore the sin of many…”

Jesus tells us in the book of John, “He who believes [faith] in Me is not condemned, but he who does not believe is condemned already.” (John 3:18) In Acts, Paul preaches, “By him [Jesus] all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.” (Acts 13:39) Paul proclaims to the Romans, “…But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed…even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe…[those who believe are] being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by his blood through faith….that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” (Rom 3:21-26) “Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work, but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness.” (Rom 4:4-5) “Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace God through our Lord Jesus Christ…Much more, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him [Christ]. For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.” (Rom 5:1, 9-10) To the Corinthians, Paul pleads “…be reconciled to God, for He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” (2 Cor 5:20b-21)

In Galatians, Paul writes, “I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.” (Gal 2:21) “If there had been a law which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe…Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.” (Gal 3:21-24) In Ephesians, Paul again tells us that the grace of God “made us accepted in the Beloved [Christ].” (Eph 1:6)

There are countless others in the Scriptures that declare this wonderful doctrine of justification! Upon it our confidence and assurance rests, for in our confession of Christ as Lord by faith in Him, God pardoned us from all sin. He declared us acceptable and righteous! He laid the guilt of our trespasses upon the shoulders of his Son, and He crushed it under the weight of His everlasting, infinite wrath! The He clothed us—those who have trusted in his Son—in the righteousness of Christ.

The effects of redemption are clearest in the results of justification. Sin? Removed! Guilt? Pardoned! Wrath? Satisfied in the cross! Enmity? Gone. Righteousness? Given. Through the atoning work of Christ, by the grace of God, and in my trust in Him, God gives me a legal, forensic status change in His eyes. No longer am I guilty, but innocent and righteous. No longer am I an object of His wrath, but an object of His love and mercy. No longer should I fear the flames of hell, but I am assured the hope of an everlasting salvation resulting in eternal life—for God has eternally declared my righteousness in his sight through the blood of his Son, Jesus.

Bloverwhelmed

2006-06-20T11:14:00.000-05:00

There are so many good blogs in the Blogosphere, which is hopefully not an outdated term. It is easy to sink hours in the evening trying to catch up on them--which gets me thinking.

How do these blogger keep up with everything? Where do they get the time? Not only do they track other blogs, but they also read heavy books and the Bible--as well as hold and work secular jobs. It is quite amazing to see how fast information travels through this realm. It overwhelms me to try to keep up with it all.

Over the next few days, I am going to link to the very resourceful blogs out there as I find them. I will post them over to the left under "Links".

Interesting Read

2006-06-19T08:53:00.000-05:00

Al Mohler was on Larry King again this past Thursday as a representative of the evangelical movement. The discussion centered on the ordination of homosexuals into the clergy. Here is the transcript of the discussion, it makes for an interesting discussion on epistemology within the church. There is a huge divergence of opinion between that of Mohler that of Andrew Sullivan and Gene Robinson--The openly gay bishop in the Episcopalian church.

It is a must read. The only persons in the entire interview who has his sight set upon the word of God as revealed in the Scriptures are Al Mohler and David Anderson. The rest used their sense of the "Spirit of God" to be the authority in matters of faith and practice.

You can see the supporters of gays in church leadership "crawfish" (a cajun term for wriggling) out of the clear condemnations of homosexuality in both the Old and New Testaments. I am also surprised at the arrogance of picking and choosing of what God really said in the Bible.

Here are a few select quotes, and we'll start with Andrew Sullivan, the openly gay, Catholic, Time columnist:

I am a Catholic and people often ask me, how can you be openly gay and be a Catholic? And my response is always I'm openly gay, because I'm a Catholic, because God taught me not to bear false witness to who I am and my faith is something that I really have no choice over. I've tried. I've had a terrible struggle with my own faith, but God wouldn't let me go and he keeps bringing me back and he keeps saying to me, in the Eucharist and in the church I love you and you belong here. And I want you to have a loving relationship and I feel that my own relationship is a gift from God. I cannot alone in my conscience before God believe otherwise. So I can do no other. I'm here because I have no choice.

Interesting... He seems to think that as long as he admits he's gay, his homosexuality is perfectly fine in the sight of God. What about the other commandment not to commit adultery? What about the Genesis account defining marriage as between man a woman for the purpose of procreation?

Later, Sullivan interjects when Anderson presents the reason he is not in support of the ordination of gays.

Larry, may I say the scripture is clear and scripture says that I should be put to death. The very verse that says that shalt not lie with another man as one does with a woman, says that I should face the death penalty. That's clear. Is that the policy of Reverend Mohler and the other gentlemen? Why is that not taken seriously?

Yet he did the exact same when he said "God taught me not to bear false witness." Why choose that commandment over the sexual condemnations? This question also changes the subject to a matter that can't be discussed in a five-person panel interview in five minutes. These liberals don't directly deal with issues, the only dodge and redirect.

I'll give one more quote, from Gene Robinson, the openly gay bishop of the Episcopalian Church:

Yes, Larry, I think it's really important to understand that being certain about something does not necessarily -- even if you're certain about it for 2,000 years doesn't make it right. The church was pretty certain that scripture justified slavery and that only changed about 150 years ago. We were pretty certain for 2,000 years that women had no place in the leadership of the church. But we worship a God who is not locked up in scripture 2,000 years ago, but continues to reveal God's self to us. It's not God that's changing. It's our understanding. We're being led by the Holy Spirit to understand in a new way what God was intending. The question before us right now is, might God be intending something different in our welcome of gay and lesbian people that's not been true for the last 2,000 years? And would that not be God's will for us?

How do we know that the messages we are getting now are from God? How do we know that Paul and Moses messes up on the issue of homosexuality? Is God a schizophrenic?

Robinson is correct in saying that a 2000 year-old interpretation could be wrong, but he has no idea that his hermeneutical approach brings every moral statement of the Bible into question of its source--not just the laws concerning sexuality.

New Blog Location

2006-06-14T13:43:00.000-05:00

I've now moved my blog to blogger.com due to the constant advertisement comments I had at my .Text blog. I will eventually repost the best of my earlier articles, but I will put my new posts here at this new blog.

Hopefully, I will have time to post more often than I have in the recent past. This whole "settling down" concept of marriage is a farce, man. I've never been busier.