Piper on Prayer

I squirmed, but I needed this.

The telos of Christmas

..."though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,  but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.  And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.  Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,  so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,  and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."


- from Phillippians 2 (emphasis mine)


____________________________


As we celebrate Christmas this year, let us rejoice in the birth of our Saviour and his coming, so many years ago, to our rescue.  Let us rest in the peace that comes when we realize that he is as present with us today, thru the Holy Spirit, as he was to the shepards on that night.


Mostly, let us look now to Easter and to the cross, because as wonderful as Christmas is...it is the Easter celebration which should remain the unclouded focus of our faith.  Jesus came into this world for a purpose.  Let us not forget that purpose as we rejoice in his coming.


Merry Christmas

Ice Cream and Free Will

I was recently asked what I thought of autonomy.  I replied...

It does not exist on the macro level.

At the core, autonomy means self-determination.

The idea that we make rational, unbiased, intelligent, free choices is
untrue.  Our destinies are controled by one of two outside forces.

We are always making choices influenced by either our pre-disposed depraved nature or our
regenerated ontological being.

That is, we are either doing what we do under the lordship of
Original Sin
or
under the Lordship of Christ.

Its like ice cream (to paraphrase Greg Koukl)...

When you go to a creamery and choose a flavor, you ARE making a "free
will" decision. However, your will is dictated by your nature. If you
have a positive disposition towards chocolate and a massive aversion
towards vanilla - you will awlays choose chocolate.

What flavor you like wasn't a free will decision, it was an already
established fact of who you are, outside of any choice. Your choices in
the creamery included vanilla or chocolate - but you could really only
choose the one you have a taste for.
 
For your preference to change from chocolate to vanilla, that would require something outside of yourself - something you are not in control of.
 
This is the parallel of our salvation.  We are born drenched in sin according to Psalm 51 and unable to choose fellowship with God.  We do exercise our free will everyday, our free will unto sin. 
 
The good news is that God in his mercy comes and changes our desires, he changes our heart.  After that intervention, we still exercise our free will - free will in accordance with our new preferences for the things of God.
 
I know this isn't perfect as an illustration.  We could dig into it and find problems - but, I hope you get the general point.  Free will is not thrown out by the Reformed view, it is simply seen in its proper context - that is, subservient to our nature.

Jesus Storybook Bible

We got this for our little ones this Christmas.  Several people (including our pastor) recommended it.

If you have little ones, and don't have this, make buying one a priority today.

This kids bible is the best around at presenting the bible stories in a Christ-centered, faithful manner.

Cartoons

A friend helped me locate some funny Calvinist cartoons this morning.  Enjoy.

What I'm reading...

Recently I read a good book on apologetics that really influenced the way I see that discipline. Adam let me borrow:

I also have been looking back thru my favorite book in the 7th grade...

Awhile back I read a historical fiction about Cicero...

Finally I have recently re-read Chapter 11 of this:

What have you been reading?

Comment Response

Recently I posted a few thoughts entitled "Was Adam a Literal Man?" Yesterday, I received a comment on that post. Here was the comment:

Slippery slope.... The theology doesn't matter? Really??? So are you saying that it would be ok to go out and evangelize with some Mormons if you are both talking about Jesus? Who cares that they believe Jesus is the brother of Lucifer, thats not the point. You need to stop relying on your own flawed wisdom and rely fully on God and the council provided in the inspired Word of God, i.e. the Bible.

To be honest I was abit put off by the tone of the comment and I immediately responded with:

Respectfully, you should probably man (woman) up enough to fill all of us in on your identity if you want to be so critical of my post. I will post my response tomorrow.

That was probably not the most charitable way to handle my angst, but it is a good lead in as I type a few points of reply to the comment...
______________

I don't mind challenges to my beliefs - I welcome them. I may be wrong about YEC or any number of things - I have been before. However, this comment was a great example of exactly how NOT to dialogue about important issues. Here are some rules that I have drawn up after looking over the comment for future reference as "anonymous" or anyone else decides to make comments on my (or any other) blog.

Rule 1
Reveal yourself

Posting anonymously is lame and appears cowardly. If you have the answers and I am mixed up, why not tell us who you are. Why be afraid to give your identity. Walk in the light so to speak. Generally, only bellicose blog trolls who are trying to stir up trouble hide behind the curtain of Oz. It also implies a lack of confidence in your own argument IMO. Perhaps it was an accident and you meant to give your name - if so, let us have it and disregard rule 1.

Rule 2
Fallacy Follow Thru

The first words of the comment accuse me of a logical fallacy in my argument. However, the subsequent breakdown of how my argument is a slippery slope is missing. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact. My argument was that overemphasis on a literal 6 day creation and/ or a 100% uber-literal reading of Genesis 1-3 will, more often than not, have a more negative affect on evangelism than if we only require a person to assent to the underlying principles and then push ahead to the Gospel itself. If my argument is a slippery slope then my first premise (we should abandon uber-literal interpretations of creation as a requirement for initial faith) must lead to some major negative impact. How? I don't see that spelled out. It is implied that my thoughts might lead to an abandonment of the deity of Christ. If thats the point that anonymous is making, where the beef? That is to say, where are the connecting points that take my argument from point A to point B and how do they relate?

Rule 3
Don't misquote people

I never said that "theology doesn't matter." I said that "...making secondary issues the forefront of one's evangelical convictions can be far more harmful than helpful."

Rule 4
When you disagree with someone, that doesn't necessarily make them a heretic.

Then, in the middle of the post I get questioned (feels like an accusation) about my agreement with the Mormons. How this comes up...??? We went from my argument regarding Genesis 1-3 to talking about the nature of Christ and his relationship to God. It looks sorta like a minor ad hominem since it doesn't get flushed out with any explanation, but instead simply comes out of left field.

Rule 5
Learn abot someone before you assume their beliefs

If the question about my willingness to go knock on doors with Mormons is a serious one (as opposed to a theological insult) then anonymous didn't do their homework about me very well. A 10 minute browsing of my blog would indicate that I am fully committed to the tenets of Reformed Faith, which certainly include a far different view of Jesus than Mormons and a rigidity about holding firm to the penal substitutionary atonement of the god-man Christ as the Gospel message.

Rule 6
Don't try and be super-spiritual

The last sentence in the comment informs me that I rely too much on my own reason and that that I need to get with the program (as anonymous is, I persume) and only trust in the Word of God. Of course, I thought I did hold to revelation pretty well. I actually thought that my quest to bring both natural and special revelation in agreement so that we can get to the Gospel was God-honoring. It always seemed more God-honoring and Christ-centered to me to work with Jesus at the core of evangelism than to try and convince non-believers that all science is false and the world is 6,000 years old before I could tell them the Good News. Using the "you are not spiritual enough" argument is a last ditch effort when one realizes that they don't actually have a counter-point.

FINALLY, the comment by anonymous is truthfully a perfect example of what I said in my original post "Why I am not a YEC." Too many believers get hung up on uber-literal Genesis interpretations and they make them of equal weight with the essential aspects of the faith. When clear-thinking is abandoned for knee-jerk reactions, structured arguements are dropped and baseless critical remarks ensue.
_______________________

I hope that anonymous reads this reply and that he/ she will know that I love them as fellow members of the body as they seek to defend truth even as I think that they are deeply confused about theological priority and thoughtful debate. I also hope that they will use the suggested rules to compose another response that more accurately explains why my thoughts are unbiblical and how they contribute to a low-Christology.

I also hope that my other readers will benefit from this exchange as they seek to study Scripture, pray about truth, and trust in God's grace.

My apologies if anything in this reply has been antagonistic towards anonymous. I really don't intend to slam the individual, just to critique the comment that was made. However, I know that I struggle with my own argumenative nature and how I can best express what I believe is truth "in love." I am usually somewhat aggressive in my manner (thanks to the Marines) and I have a hard time being pastoral with my advice.  Hopefully, I have not been rude in this post.  I look forward to more (hopefully helpful) discussion.

5 Hard Questions

The following 5 questions are the ones that I have had the most difficulty with in life.  Several were questions that I had before I came to faith, some are things I still struggle with.

I didn't get near satisfactory answers to these until I came to the Reformed understanding of biblical truth.  I have attempted to provide the answers as I have now grasped them, in the case that my thoughts might help you or spark new thoughts.

1)  Who made God?

"Noone.  Its a category error.  You can't classify an eternal and timeless being in the same terms with the temporal state that he has created.  God is outside time, thus there was noone or nothing 'before' him."

2)  How did people before Jesus get saved?

"By grace thru faith in Jesus, just like us.  God elected them and they subsequently exhibited faith.  We both  have the same object as our faith - the promise of God to redeem his people. The difference is that we (of the post New-Testament era) have seen that promise in the flesh as Jesus.  Those in the B.C. world looked forward to the incarnation, but they still had faith in God's promise."

3)  What about people who never hear of Jesus?

"They will sadly perish in their sins, as we all deserve.  God doesn't save everyone - if he did so, his justice would be eclipsed by his love and both must be displayed.  If one never heard of Jesus they cannot be saved.  We should be affected by this news to take up the banner of the Great Commission and bring the good news to all people."

4)  Why does God allow horrific crimes to occur?

"Well...this one is hard.  We do know that he has subjected the world to this fallen state, but he has done so in hope.  We also know that he works the evil acts of men for ultimate good.  These things tell us that he has a plan and its the best plan to show his glory and draw his elect to himself.  Not very satisfying in the midst of great loss perhaps, but true and worth holding firm to."

5)  How can I be sure that I am saved?

"You intellectually believe biblical truths, your actions begin to look more and more like those of Jesus, the ultimate joy of your heart becomes glorifying Christ, others observing you confirm your redemption, and an inward testimony of the Holy Spirit brings you peace."

Paul was married!

A new and profound exegetical Biblical Study has now proven that the Apostle Paul was actually married.

See HERE

(I kid, I kid)

The Right-Hand Side...

I am not a great writer.  I write in far too conversational a tone, I do not proof read before I post, and I tend to ramble.

However, I see my blog as a two part entity.  Yes, I try and provide my thoughts to those of you who care - but, I also try and provide resources to you (my reader) of people far better at this than I am.

If you haven't yet, be sure and navigate to my actual blog.  On the right hand side of the page I have over 50 links to various blogs that are great reading.  The title of the most recent post is also there for each one.

I also have a small section of webpage links to some interesting sites further down on the right.

Finally, be sure and check out our other blogs:

http://everettandean.blogspot.com/
Our boys blog (I have been remiss at updating this)

http://simplyyoursphotography.blogspot.com/
Tiffany's photography
...better yet,
http://www.simplyyoursphotography.net/

http://mmaandmore.blogspot.com/
My blog on Mixed Martial Arts

http://ureact.blogspot.com/
A starter blog to introduce my new self-protection system
coming in 2010

Was Adam a literal man?

Back in October, I posted this blog "Why I am not a Young Earth Creationist."

The point of my post was to say that too many evangelicals plant a flag on YEC and then stand willing to make it of first importance (or so it seems to me.)

I wrote to say that making secondary issues the forefront of one's evangelical convictions can be far more harmful than helpful.

Ultimately, how long it took God to create the world is not an essential point of doctrine.  Maybe it was 6 days...although natural revelation seems to suggest otherwise.  However, if it took 14 billion years - so what?  The emphasis is that GOD created.  I'm even willing to concede theistic evolution if it gets me past the issue and on to the Christian nucleus.

That is, I want to clearly point out that I refuse to make creation an issue because I want to be able to stay off the rabbit trails and get right to the Gospel (which is the core of our faith).  I want to talk with people about Jesus instead of explaining my view on if men and dinosaurs lived contemporaneously.

Recently, Ben posted a comment/ question to my post:
If you have non-literal days, was Adam a literal man?

Let me say a quick word about my thoughts on that here.

YES, Adam was certainly a literal man.

How was he created...???  The Bible says that God made him from dust and breathed life into him.  Pretty vague.  Maybe it was special, independent, supernatural creation.  Maybe God used natural processes to bring forth the first homosapiens and then "breathed" a soul/ spirit into that flesh. 

I am not sure on how, but I definately believe that Adam was literal.  Even though I don't think God made all things in 6 human days, I do think that God made all of creation.  Likewise, even though I am unsure of how God made Adam, I think he did make him.

I didn't talk about this issue in my post because there is no evidence to suggest that God making Adam in a one time act of imagination or thru natural means would go aganist natural revelation, as one faces in the creation debate.  One choice is simply unproveable, the other could be fairly consistent with humanistic fossils.

T push further, I am also unclear about how exact the Eden story is.  Could parts of it be simplified or embellished for literary flare...yeah, they could.  Moses could have conveyed the creation story (which I believe he was inspired to write about) in a narrative that isn't 100% literal...does that necessarily impact the truth therein...no.

The early chapters of Genesis tell us 6 main things:

1)  God DID make man (and woman).
2)  God made them in His image
3)  God made them in fellowship with Himself
4)  Through their own volition (at the temptation of Satan), they chose to leave the fellowship of God
5)  This choice impacted all their descendents and we are therefore born into the curse of sin
6)  God promised and planned to restore that broken relationship

The whole rest of the Bible tells the story of His love and our redemption at His hands.

Those 6 things listed above MUST be literally true in their content (even if the account is overly-colorful) or else the rest of the story means nothing.

If Adam wasn't literal, or if the fall wasn't real - we wouldn't need Jesus.
We do need Jesus.
Therefore, Adam was literal and the fall was real.

Try that syllogism with other stuff:

If a 6 day creation isn't literal - we wouldn't need Jesus.
We do need Jesus.
Therefore, the 6 day creation is literal
NO

Does the thing we are debating about impact the reality or importance of Christ's death on the cross and subsequent ressurection? - Will our debate topic actually impact whether or not a person understands their own personal need for redemption? If not, I call it secondary and I ask that we not get hung up on it, lest we lose track of our ultimate joy in Jesus and our ultimate mission in spreading the Good News.

Thats my message about YEC and the literalness (is that a word) of the early Genesis accounts.

My testimony

I was raised in Atlanta in a nominal Christian home.  When I was very small we attended a local Southern Baptist church.  The "old people in power" at that church ran off the pastor that my mom liked and we quit going.  My parents never went to church regularly again.

Occasionally, I would go to church with my grandmother.  She attended another SBC in the area.  I remember listening to Charles Stanley on her tape player when I was young.  When I was about 13, I went with her to a Billy Graham Crusade.  I walked the aisle and said the "Sinners Prayer."  I figured I was good and my "ticket out of hell was purchased!"

I had no subsequent discipleship, growth, or passion for God.  I doubt now that I was ever saved.

I was a moral enough teenager.  I did some bad things but the outside world would have thought I was a "good boy."  When I joined the Marines, that changed.

I spent my military years in a bad place...sin upon sin.  During this time I would study Christianity and the other religions, I would have identified as Christian if someone asked, but I was really just a Moralistic Deist.

When I left the military, I came back to GA and moved in with my family.  Shortly after that I met a girl who loved God and she introduced me to her friend, a pastor who was able to answer my serious questions about Jesus and the ressurection.

In April 2005, I came to faith and I was baptized.  I got married to that girl who loved Jesus and we were attending a local neo-charismatic church.  I was all about some tongues and some Holy Spirit!  Slowly, it clicked for me that the things I was learning at that church were different than what I was reading in Scripture.

I was hurt, we left that church and began attending a SBC.  To counter-balance my initial charismatic side, I delved into evidential apologetics.  I became filled with a head knowledge of what the Word said, but I was still in a selfish and sinful place as I resisted the power of the Gospel in transforming my heart.

I was brash and arrogant.  I used my new understanding of Reformed teaching the same way I used apologetics...to hit people over the head with doctrine and truth.  I had little love.

My wife and I went through a rough patch.  I was a poor leader and a poor father.  We had divorce papers drawn up when God spoke to her.  She showed me grace and we reconciled. 

Through the difficulties of my marriage, I came to understand the Gospel.  I came to see how all that we do for truth must be rooted in love.  I came to a realization of the things that had to die within me so that I could be a biblical man.

We left the SBC church to get a new start.  We attended a PCA church for a year before finding our spiritual home, Momentum Christian Church.

I have spent the last 3 years in a phase of slow growth.  Over time, and by the grace of God, I am maturing in my wisdom, my compassion, and my role as a leader for my wife and kids.

I still fail alot.  I struggle with internal sin much more now, as I have cut out the most of the external behavioral aspects of my depravity.  I fight against pride as I gain more knowledge and more recognition within my local body.  I struggle against selfishness as I try and juggle work, a wife, and three small children.  I struggle with lust as all men do.

I need your prayers and your recognition that anything good I do is only because of our merciful and loving Father.  He deserves all the glory for who I have become and am becoming.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Jason

National Satan Awareness Day

I didn't know...

From Stuff Christians Like

20 Best Theological Works

From Feeding On Christ

From 1 down to 20
_________________________

Geerhardus Vos Biblical Theology

Geerhardus Vos The Pauline Eschatology

Geerhardus Vos The Teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews

Geerhardus Vos The Eschatology of the Old Testament

Jonathan Edwards A History of the Work of Redemption

T. Desmond Alexander From Eden to the New Jerusalem

John Fesko Last Things First

O. Palmer Robertson The Israel of God

O. Palmer Robertson The Christ of the Covenants

O. Palmer Robertson God’s People in the Wilderness

G. K. Beale The Temple and the Churches Mission

Theophilus Herter The Abrahamic Covenant in the Gospels

William J. Dumbrell Covenant and Creation

O. Palmer Robertson Christ of the Prophets

Ray Ortland Jr. God’s Unfaithful Wife

T. Desmond Alexander From Paradise to Promised Land

Michael Horton Covenant and Eschatology

Meredith G. Kline Kingdom Prologue

Dennis Johnson Him We Proclaim

Edmund Clowney Preaching Christ in All the Scriptures
_____________________
 
I imagine that Fites is digging this list. 

I signed it...

WHAT:
The Manhattan Declaration:
A Call of Christian Conscience

Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.
We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:
the sanctity of human life
the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
the rights of conscience and religious liberty.
Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
 
WHY:
To quote Ligon Duncan:
"I believe that it is important for individuals from the major quadrants of the historic Christian tradition to speak on these pressing matters in solidarity.  Furthermore, I believe that the explicit assertions and emphasis of the documents relate only to areas of principled social-ethical agreement between evangelicals and non-evangelicals."
 
HOW:
Go HERE
________________________________
 
There has been lots of controvery regarding this declaration and men I respect have come down on both sides of the issue.  I completely understand the concern that many have regarding this document and the potential for it to be seen as an agreement on the Gospel. 
 
To be clear, I do not agree with the Arminian, the Catholic, or the Orthodox views on what the Gospel is or on what Justification is.  However, I do find agreement with these "believers" regarding the 3 things expressed in the Manhattan Declaration and I think it is vital to fight for such values - even as I understand that the true mission of Christians is not to subdue the world with good morality, but to transform the world by the message of Jesus' death and ressurection as a penal substitutionary atonement.
 
I feel that I can both focus on the Great Commission as my first priority and still stand united with those whom I disagree for the sake of proclaiming the biblical truth about pressing moral issues of our day.
 
Thats why I signed it...how about you?

Krampus

At least this weird Christmas tradition hasn't caught on in America yet. 

Meet Krampus, the companion of St Nicholas.  He is responsible for scaring the "bad" kids while Santa gives gifts to the good kids.

Europe has issues...

Santa?

What do you do about about balancing Santa with the Nativity during this holiday season?

I have friends who hold different views ranging from not telling their kids about Santa at all (cause they don't want to lie to the kids) and not talking about Santa (cause they think he is a secular invention that overshadows Christ) to those who run with all things Santa (and put Jesus at a distant second place).

I grew up with the Santa myth. I don't remember thinking that my parents were horrible lying monsters when I found out the truth. I also have no reason to believe that their advocacy of the jolly old elf caused me to be less likely to trust in Christ. I didn't come to faith as a child but that was due to my parents lack of engagement with the faith in general, not because I was disillusioned by the falsehood of Santa.

Therefore, I have decided (with my wife) that we would carry on the Santa tradition in our house. We have a couple of conditions though...

- Santa is always secondary to the birth of Jesus. Thus we keep our Little People Nativity right next to the tree, this allows us to actually play out the nativity story with our boys on a regular basis, thus opening the door for conversation about who Jesus is.

- We never stress the "better be good" aspect of Santa. I think that notion is pure legalism that actually could impact a childs understanding of grace in later years. For us, Santa brings presents regardless of behavior.

I have been pretty happy with this middle ground where we engage with the culture and also keep Christ central. I wonder how others view the issue and what basis they have for their take on it.

___________________

In a related note:

- We were watching "Santa Buddies" with Everett the other night and I got pretty upset inside. The whole movie is about a talking puppy who is the dog version of Santa Claus. He decided he doesn't want that job and he tries to go live a normal dog life. In his absence the North Pole falls apart. Elves and other dogs work hard to get him back to the Pole so that Christmas can continue. The moral of the movie centers on learning that the "true meaning of Christmas" is about selfless giving and not selfish receiving.

Uh...no. The true meaning of Christmas is the birth of Christ, which could be seen as God's great gift to us I guess. Unfortunately, the movie never mentions Jesus. It struck me wrong.

However, we did watch the "Nativity Story" movie as a family the other week. Everett liked the wise men and he is funny imitating Mary as she gave birth with squinted eyes and grunts.

- Lastly, I saw this commercial for something called "Elf on a Shelf." The premise is that Santa's elf sits on your mantle and keeps track of your behavior thru December. If you're good, he'll report that to Santa and you get gifts...obviously, if you are bad - nothing.

Holy mackrel. That is freaky to me regardless of the theological issues I have with it. I can see his elf eyes following me around the room now...

Afghanistan

Usually I write on theological issue and I leave politics at the door.

Please allow me a quick digression this time...

Pres. Obama sending more troops to Afghanistan is a mistake.

This is an unwinnable war which is costing far too much in both our soldier's blood and our nation's coffers.

When you look at the lack of preexistent infrastructure, the corrupt government, the incredibly harsh terrain, the guerilla nature of the enemy, the Pakistani location of the enemy leadership, the experiences of other major powers when they fought in Afghanistan, etc...

When you add up all of those factors, you get an impossible victory.  We can't nation build in that place (and Obama did agree to that), but we can't fool ourselves into thinking that we can hang around just abit longer and prepare the Afghans to run the country on their own either.

We should pull out all combat troops immediately, minus special forces.  We should leave the special forces there with air support to continue surgical strikes.  This will prevent the country from becoming a "safe haven" for terrorists again.

We can leave trainers in country as well if we want to try and lend the Afghan army/ police a helping hand.  We CANNOT continue to put our boys in the combat arms out on the front lines to be killed and wounded for a vague mission that has unattainable goals.

Afghanistan will make Iraq look easy.  We need to get out now.

Intervention

Sometimes people will balk at the Reformed doctrines of total depravity and unconditional election. 

These teachings can be summed up as "we are so addicted and entranced by sin that we will never exercise our will to turn towards God - thus, God must sovereignly act to elect and save those whom he will aganist their natural desires"

Those offended will argue that such beliefs equate to God raping our free will.  I would offer another way to look at it.

You ever see that TV show Intervention?  Its on A&E I think.  The premise revolves around drug and alcohol addicts who are far gone on a self-destructive road.  As a last resort, the family of the person turns towards psychologists and doctors to ask for an intervention.

The crew comes in and attempts to persuade the addict that they need help.  Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

It seems to me that we are all addicts.  We are addicted to sin and filth.  God is our loving Father who desires to see us "clean."  Who can't understand that?

The big difference is that God doesn't have a "sometimes" success rate.  By his nature, if he will it, it occurs.  Thus - God sees our need for intervention and he comes to us and makes us clean (the the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross)

Its not volitional rape, its overwhelming love and amazing grace.  Thank God that he saw fit to make him who did not knwo sin, sin.  That means we might become righteous in God's eyes and therefore able to enter his presence with a new, pure, heart.

Thanks Lord for intervening in my life.

Pope's Post

My friend Andrew, who was my first mentor in the faith, recently wrote a blog that I wanted to link to here.  I hope he is not offended by my distibution of his material, but I had to share his story.

Andrew and I will often disagree on secondary and tertiary issues in Christianity, but he is an excellent writer and an interesting chap.  This blog of his details how 2009 went for his family and what God has shown him through the year.

Take the time to read his post HERE!
__________________________________________

Hebrews 12: 3-11

Consider him who endured from sinners such hostility against himself, so that you may not grow weary or fainthearted.  In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood.  And have you forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as sons?


“My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord,
nor be weary when reproved by him.
For the Lord disciplines the one he loves,
and chastises every son whom he receives.”

It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Besides this, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as it seemed best to them, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.
____________________________________________

Dominion

And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
Genesis 1:28


Yesterday was my first time hunting.  


My friend John from church asked me to join him on his family land near LaGrange and I met up with him around 3pm at their camp.  We shot a test round from by rifle (to check the zero) before we headed into the thick.


My uncle died in 2006 and I inhereited his Ruger M77 (300 WinMag) and a Glock .45 - as well as a Mossberg shotgun (don't try to break in my house :)

The rifle zeroed good and we were off.  John took me out to a big feed plot and he showed me the tree stand I was supposed to climb into.  That was the most nerve-racking part of the trip.  I am not overly fond of heights and I was definitely worried about getting us a foot wide ladder thats chained to a medium sized pine tree.  But, at the end of the harrowing climb, I was seated comfortably.


John has two way radios and we were able to quietly chat about life as we sat up in the trees on opposite ends of the plot.  Time passed quick the first hour, then the cold began to show itself and we were both quiet until just before dark.  


Right as the light began to fade into that haze of twilight, two deer came out onto the plot about 100 yards and 180 degrees of me.  I heard John say "theres deer on the field" and then he asked me if I had a shot.  I replied "yes" and he said "take it."  


As I was quietly inching my rifle into place, two more deer arrived.  Now there were 4 deer on the plot and I was in place.  John told me to "shoot the biggest one."  I lined up the crosshairs and began a slow steady trigger squeeze.  I was terribly excited and my breathing was way too sporadic to hit my target (or so I thought).  


BANG!


The gun went off, the deer jumped up in the air and ran off the field.  I observed her flight and I was for sure that I missed.  Then I heard John shoot twice.  I realized that deer were still on the field and I told John as much - he replied "Shoot them!"


I reploaded and set back up.  Unfortunately, by the time I was ready again - the field was clear.  I began to talk with John and tell him that I felt I had missed.  Just then, two deer peeked out back onto the feed plot about 80 yards away from me.  I took aim on one of them  and hastily fired.


BANG!


I was positive that I hit him even as he ran off.  The crash in the woods just ahead of me confirmed my shot.  John radioed me to carefully get down outta the stand.  We met up on the field.


Tracking consumed about an hour.  We found both of my deer via the blood trails.  We also found a lobe of liver from one of them which had fallen out.  As we looked them over we pieced together the scenario...


My first shot was dead on and it felled a 140 lbs doe.  

My second shot went in at an angle and it exited low and back (making it a gut shot - hence the organs falling out)  That kill was a young buck - which is a no-no...of course, in the low light I thought it was a female.

Not bad for my first time out John told me.


We went back to the camp and I soon realized that "the fun ends when you pull the trigger."  Skinning, gutting, and slinging around dead deer is less than stimulating.  I was bloody up to my elbow and the smell was horrible.  


We ended the night by dropping the deer off at a local deer processing establishment.  Meat should be ready middle of the week.


THE VERDICT:


I enjoyed the hunt.  I do not consider hunting a sport however.  I consider it a skill.  Its a skill that is mostly dead in the "civilized" west and I was happy to reconnect with some of that pioneer spirit.  I imagine that I will pester John to go once a year in the future.  


Two shots, two kills...the US Marines taught me well.  Semper Fi.


Thanks John!

Reformed Rap

Most of you have tomorrow off...spend 15 minutes exploring my favorite think to listen to at work...Reformed Rap.  I know it sounds cheesy given all the hokey Christian music out there - but you might be surprised.

Reach Records is the home of my favorite artists: Lecrae and the 116 Clique

http://www.reachrecords.com/

Here is an example of 116 Clique. They did an album where they rapped each of Paul's 13 epistles.

This link is to the rap on Titus:




And to the Colossians rap:



LeCrae teamed up with John Piper for the "Don't Waste your Life" campaign:

http://dontwasteyourlife.com/

This is the music video associated with that:



Here is Thabiti Anyabwile discussing Reformed Rap:

http://www.youtube.com/user/DGdwyl#p/u/11/Sp-8-C9954Q

Also, there are some really good local guys, The Plumbline Collective. A guy at Southpoint works with one of the members of that group.

Check them out:



AND

http://theplumblinecollective.com/

If you want more info or if you want me to burn you a sample CD, let me know.

T-Giving Cartoons

Thanksgiving

Thankful to Who
Thanks be to God for his inexpressible gift!
2 Cor 9:15

Thankful for What
But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.
2 Thess 2:13

Thankful When
...giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Eph 5:20

Ultimately Why Thankful
For it is all for your sake, so that as grace extends to more and more people it may increase thanksgiving, to the glory of God.
2 Cor 4:15

How to express Thanksgiving
...but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God.
Phil 4:6
Out of them shall come songs of thanksgiving, and the voices of those who celebrate.
Jer 30:19a
___________________________________

Like so many of our American holidays, Thanksgiving has largely become a commercialized and humanistic model of familial idolatry.

Break that mold tomorrow. 

Be purposeful in centering your day around thanksgiving to God.  Eat lots of food, hang with seldom seen relatives, watch football...but don't let Jesus slip into obscurity as you do those things. 

Don't be like those of Romans 1:21
"For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened."

Make your blessing (grace) before the big meal count.  Use that 30 seconds when everyone is willing to close their eyes and listen to lavish praise and honor on our glorious king.  Without the gift of His Son, the notion of thanksgiving would be of much less importance.

Thanks be to God for his inexpressible gift!
2 Cor 9:15

Great Resource!

The H. Henry Meeter Center for Calvin Studies has funded a project at Calvin College that looks to be of monumental importance to theologians, students, pastors, and Christian intellectuals.

Click HERE to go to the "Post-Reformation Digital Library"

As they say on their webpage...

Nescire autem quid ante quam natus sis acciderit, id est semper esse puerum. Quid enim est aetas hominis, nisi ea memoria rerum veterum cum superiorum aetate contexitur? Cicero, Orator XXXIV [120].


translated:
"Not knowing what happened before you were born is to be stuck in childhood forever. What does a person's life amount to without the historical consciousness that weaves one's life into the life of earlier generations?"

Somethings not right...

I took a momentary break from scanning documents this morning to look up some gift ideas for myself.  This time of year people are always asking what I want for Christmas - much of that has already been decided for 2009...

We're getting a Nintendo Wii from my parents, a video camcorder from my wife's parents, and gift cards from my wife's siblings.  That leaves the gifts from my aunt and the gifts that my wife and I exchange to think about.

I looked over a few pages of MMA fight tee shirts.  I liked this one from Fairtex Muay Thai.

Then I thought about getting a shirt to express my faith.  I headed over to cafe press and found this nice, simple tee that captures the 5 points of biblical truth in subtle way.

As I kept looking at the webpage for Reformed apparel, I ran across something that disturbed me...

Yes, those are TULIP panties...correction, TULIP thongs!

I am all for sex.  Its an awesome gift of God in marriage to bring spouses closer together (and make babies of course!)

I am just fine with a wife wearing a thong or anything else she wants to don for her man...well most anything else...

Something seems wrong to me about putting a TULIP on a thong.  Why would one do that?

I am sort of a theological nerd, but seeing a TULIP on my wife's underwear would NOT be stimulating.

I know we are suppossed to do whatever we do to the glory of God, but some things are best left at the proverbial theological threshold.

Weird.

The New Gospel

I saw this at Kevin DeYoung's blog this morning.  Worth a look. - sorry for the weird format, can't get it straight??
_____________________

The Gospel, Old and New

Have you heard the New Gospel? It’s not been codified. It’s not owned by any one person or movement. But it is increasingly common.

The New Gospel generally has four parts to it.

It usually starts with an apology: “I’m sorry for my fellow Christians. I understand why you hate Christianity. It’s like that thing Ghandi said, ‘why can’t the Christians be more like their Christ?’ Christians are hypocritical, judgmental, and self-righteous. I know we screwed up with the Crusades, slavery, and the Witch Trials. All I can say is: I apologize. We’ve not give you a reason to believe.”

Then there is an appeal to God as love: “I know you’ve seen the preachers with the sandwich boards and bullhorns saying ‘Repent or Die.’ But I’m here to tell you God is love. Look at Jesus. He hung out with prostitutes and tax collectors. He loved unconditionally. There is so much brokenness in the world, but the good news of the Bible is that God came to live right in the middle of our brokenness. He’s a messy God and his mission is love. ‘I did not come into the world to condemn the world,’ that’s what Jesus said (John 3:17). He loved everyone, no matter who you were or what you had done. That’s what got him killed.”


The third part of the New Gospel is an invitation to join God on his mission in the world: “It’s a shame that Christians haven’t shown the world this God. But that’s what we are called to do. God’s kingdom is being established on earth. On earth! Not in some distant heaven after we die, but right here, right now. Even though we all mess up, we are God’s agents to show his love and bring this kingdom. And we don’t do that by scaring people with religious language or by forcing them into some religious mold. We do it by love. That’s the way of Jesus. That’s what it means to follow him. We love our neighbor and work for peace and justice. God wants us to become the good news for a troubled planet.”

And finally, there is a studied ambivalence about eternity: “Don’t get me wrong, I still believe in life after death. But our focus should be on what kind of life we can live right now. Will some people go to hell when they die? Who am I to say? Does God really require the right prayer or the right statement of faith to get into heaven? I don’t know, but I guess I can leave that in his hands. My job is not to judge people, but to bless. In the end, God’s amazing grace may surprise us all. That’s certainly what I hope for.”

Why So Hot?

This way of telling the good news of Christianity is very chic. It’s popular for several reasons

1. It is partially true. God is love. The kingdom has come. Christians can be stupid. The particulars of the New Gospel are often justifiable.


2. It deals with strawmen. The bad guys are apocalyptic street preachers, Crusaders, and caricatures of an evangelical view of salvation.

3. The New Gospel leads people to believe wrong things without explicitly stating those wrong things. That is, Christians who espouse the New Gospel feel safe from criticism because they never actually said belief is unimportant, or there is no hell, or that Jesus isn’t the only way, or that God has no wrath, or that there is no need for repentance. These distortions are not explicitly stated, but the New Gospel is presented in such a way that non-believers could, and by design should, come to these conclusions. In other words, the New Gospel allows the non-Christian to hear what he wants, while still providing an out against criticism from other Christians. The preacher of the New Gospel can always say when challenged, “But I never said I don’t believe those things.”

4. It is manageable. The New Gospel meets people where they are and leaves them there. It appeals to love and helping our neighbors. And it makes the appeal in a way that repudiates any hint of judgmentalism, intolerance, or religiosity. This is bound to be popular. It tells us what we want to hear and gives us something we can do.

5. The New Gospel is inspirational. This is what makes the message so appealing to young people in particular. They get the thrill and purpose of being part of a big cause, without all the baggage of the Church’s history, doctrine, and hard edges. Who wouldn’t want to join a revolution of love?

6. The New Gospel has no offense to it. This is why the message is so attractive. The bad guys are all “out there.” This can be a problem for any of us. We are all prone to soft-pedaling the gospel, only presenting the attractive parts and failing to mention where Christ does not just comfort but also confronts. And it must confront more than the sins of others. It is far too easy to use the New Gospel as a way to differentiate yourself from all the bad Christians. This makes you look good and confirms to the non-Christians that the obstacle to their commitment lies with the hypocrisy and failure of others. There is no talk of repentance or judgment. There is no hint that Jesus was killed, not so much for his inclusive love as his outrageous Godlike claims (Matt. 26:63-66; 27:39-43). The New Gospel only talks of salvation in strictly cosmic terms. In fact, the door is left wide open to imagine that hell, if it even exists, is probably not a big threat for most people.

Why So Wrong?
It shouldn’t be hard to see what is missing in the new gospel. What’s missing is the old gospel, the one preached by the Apostles, the one defined in 1 Corinthians 15, the one summarized later in The Apostles’ Creed.
“But what you call the New Gospel is not a substitute for the old gospel. We still believe all that stuff.”
Ok, but why don’t you say it? And not just privately to your friends or on a statement of faith somewhere, but in public? You don’t have to be meaner, but you do have to be clearer. You don’t have to unload the whole truck of systematic theology on someone, but to leave the impression that hell is no big deal is so un-Jesus like (Matt. 10:26-33). And when you don’t talk about the need for faith and repentance you are very un-apostolic (Acts 2:38; 16:31)

“But we are just building bridges. We are relating to the culture first, speaking in a language they can understand, presenting the parts of the gospel that make the most sense to them. Once we have their trust and attention, then we can disciple and teach them about sin, repentance, faith and all the rest. This is only pre-evangelism.”
Yes, it’s true, we don’t have to start our conversations where we want to end up. But does the New Gospel really prime the pump for evangelism or just mislead the non-Christian into a false assurance? It’s one thing to open a door for further conversation. It’s another to make Christianity so palatable that it sounds like something the non-Christian already does. And this is assuming the best about the New Gospel, that underneath there really is a desire to get the old gospel out.

Paul’s approach with non-Christians in Athens is instructive for us (Acts 17:16-34). First, Paul is provoked that the city is so full of idols (16). His preaching is not guided by his disappointment with other Christians, but by his anger over unbelief. Next, he gets permission to speak (19-20). Paul did not berate people. He spoke to those who were willing to listen. But then look at what he does. He makes some cultural connection (22-23, 28), but from there he shows the contrast between the Athenian understanding of God and the way God really is (24-29). His message is not about a way of life, but about worshiping the true God in the right way. After that, he urges repentance (30), warns of judgment (31), and talks about Jesus’ resurrection (31).


The result is that some mocked (32). Who in the world mocks the New Gospel? There is nothing not to like. There is no scandal in a message about lame Christians, a loving God, changing the world, and how most of us are most likely not going to hell. This message will never be mocked, but Paul’s Mars Hill sermon was. And keep in mind, this teaching in Athens was only an entre into the Christian message. This was just the beginning, after which some wanted to hear him again (32). Paul said more in his opening salvo than some Christians ever dare to say. We may not be able to say everything Paul said at Athens all at once, but we certainly must not give the impression in our “pre-evangelism” that repentance, judgment, the necessity of faith, the importance of right belief, the centrality of the cross and the resurrection, the sinfulness of sin and the fallenness of man–the stuff that some suggest will be our actual evangelism–are outdated relics of a mean-spirited, hurtful Christianity.

A Final Plea

Please, please, please, if you are enamored with the New Gospel or anything like it, consider if you are really being fair with your fellow Christians in always throwing them under the bus. Consider if you are preaching like Jesus did, who called people, not first of all to a way of life, but to repent and believe (Mark 1:15). And as me and my friends consider if we lack the necessary patience and humility to speak tenderly with non-Christians, consider if your God is a lopsided cartoon God who never takes offense at sin (because sin is more than just un-neighborliness) and never pours out wrath (except for the occasional judgment against the judgmental). Consider if you are giving due attention to the cross and the Lamb of God who died there to take away the sin of the world. Consider if your explanation of the Christian message sounds anything like what we hear from the Apostles in the book of Acts when they engage the world.

This is no small issue. And it is not just a matter of emphasis. The New Gospel will not sustain the church. It cannot change the heart. And it does not save. It is crucial, therefore, that our evangelical schools, camps, conferences, publishing houses, and churches can discern the new gospel from the old.

The Gospel in 3 words...

“Were I asked to focus the New Testament message in three words, my proposal would be adoption through propitiation, and I do not expect ever to meet a richer or more pregnant summary of the gospel than that.”
—J.I. Packer, Knowing God (Downers Grove, IL: 1993), 214

(I grabbed this from Of First Importance)

evangelicals/ catholics NOT together

The new issue of Christianity Today arrived in the mail this week. It contains an article titled "Not all Evangelicals and Catholics Together." The article explores the renewed debate on justification between the two facets of the faith.

It brought to mind something I have long tried to comprehend. Despite my play-acting on this blog, I am no theologian and I have a difficult time grasping the nuiansces between Protestant and Catholic views of salvation. I am hoping to give a brief sketch of my thoughts here and the I will stand back and wait for some of my friends (Adam, Doc, Aaron) to weigh in on the matter and set me straight!

I think this is an important issue because I sense that the two sides see the issue more differently than the vast majority of people realize. I also think its important because we need to understand what is believed in each camp to make sound judgments regarding who is a (duh,duh,duh) heretic. Through the years each side has accussed the other of being outside the true faith. I am undecided on the issue of whether or not I think Catholicism is unbiblical. Dialogue here may help sway me one way or the other.

I have a rudimentary understanding of this...

In Protestant theology, we are saved by grace alone thru faith alone in Christ alone. That is determined to mean that by God's grace, Christ died and took our sin upon himself for punishment, then he rose from the grave after conquering death and "imputed" his righteousness to us as a holy covering. In this imputation he doesn't just forgive us for being dirty as we stand before him dirty - he actually washes us and declares that we were never dirty. This declaration is the "justification" of our soul before the Father as worthy to be in his family. Its a one time deal, many Protestants can refer to that moment of "justification" in their life when they were "saved" by God...in obedient response to Christs work they expressed their faith.

So, everything that is done in Protestant soteriology is done by Christ, we have no part to play in our "justification" other than subsequent, declaratory, affirmation of what has been done for us . Afterwards, as we still live out our mortal drama, we stand as "justified sinners" - relying upon the Holy Spirit to guide our lives into a more Christ-like model. This is explained as "santification." Finally, upon our death, we come into the presence of God and all affects of sin are removed as we become wholy clean, in body and spirit, before the Father. That is our "glorification." Thus is my understanding of the basics regarding Protestant salvation.

On the other hand, I understand the Catholic view to be that Chirst does remove our sin on the cross and then he "infuses" his righteousness to us. That is, he doesn't give us his holiness that we might be seen in Gods eyes as pure as he is, he gives us his power to cooperate with God's grace. Here is why so many Catholics are accussed of seeing salvation as being of "faith and works."

This means, at least as I get it, that justification is not a one time deal. Catholics run justification and sanctification together. I think that they would argue that we are never declared pure before God until after our death - when we have finished a life of divine cooperation and when we have been purged of the last bit of our sin.

I wonder if I understand the Catholic view correctly - they say they espouse "salvation by grace alone thru faith alone," but the teaching of cooperation with grace as a necessity for salvation appears to contradict that view. If you have to cooperate, thats an addition to grace/ faith - a "Jesus plus______" position on getting saved.

SO...

Where did I get it wrong, in either view, and how can I better understand this issue?

Selling Birthdays, Smoke Rings, and a Right Hook to some Ants.

Odd title I know.  I was trying to encapsulate my weekend with a quick phrase.

On Thursday night I was up until 1:30 am getting ready for our big Friday yard sale.  Then I was up at 4:30 on Friday to finish the prep.  It paid off pretty well thought - $400.  All of that went to Tiffany for her to buy a new lens that she has been wanting for her photography business.  

The rest of Friday night was prepping for my youngest son's 1st birthday party.  We decided to host the festivities in our backyard - that required some work.  I also got up butt-early on Saturday to finish the arrangements for the celebration.  It was worth it though, things turned out GREAT!  And we made our ritualistic Chic-Fil-A birthday meal run that night for din-din.  Check out the photos HERE.

After those exhausting 2 days you might think I would go home and crash.  Not so, the fights were on...StrikeForce MMA was being broadcast live on CBS from 9 until 11 and a friend from church invited me over to watch the action on a projector - NICE.  Two other friends from church were there, and artist and an accountant.  Also present was a blog buddy I had yet to meet in person.  Good men, one and all.  I blogged about the results at one of my other thought arenas.

As Presbyterians, we enjoyed some fine brewed beverages and some tobacco in moderation.  It is so nice to belong to a denomination that loves Jesus and the Gospel so enormously while also knowing how to enjoy all of Gods good creation in responsible liberty.

In fact, it was my first foray into smoking a pipe.  I had some difficulty keeping it lit, but thats apparently par for the course as a newbie.  I certainly felt like a hobbit and that made me very happy.

On a last note, we got invaded by ants again.  They took over my boys bedroom.  I waged war on them with the Terro gel that my friend recommended.  Great stuff.  They eat it, take it back to the hive, then hours later it hardens in their belly and they die.  Its nice having dominion.

UPDATE:  I checked on-line.  The new ants are carpenter ants.  The bait might not always wipe them put completely, they have some tricks up their sleeves - I will get them though!