Quote of the Week - 6/28/09

Watch constantly against those things which are thought to be no temptations. The most poisonous serpents are found where the sweetest flowers grow. Cleopatra was poisoned by an asp that was brought to her in a basket of fair flowers. Sharp-edged tools, long handled, wound at last.

—Charles Spurgeon

John Piper is BAD

This is what I thought of when I heard MJ passed away...

The obligations of God

I had a talk with an atheist friend at work today. He said that he would be glad to believe in God if there was a sort of "contract" in play between God and us. He expressed that he would like it if we were obligated to worship God and subsequently, God was obligated to keep us safe and prosper us.

I told him that it is impossible for God to be obligated to anything or anyone. To be obligated to a thing is to be under its power. Obligation denotes that the obligated action is involuntary, one is required to do the thing. As the supreme and ultimate reality from which all things flow, God cannot be "under" his creation. For God to be obligated - he would have to cease being God.

He told me that many people view God different ways and then he asked how I knew God was the way I thought he was. I explained that logic, reality, and revelation show me that God could not be the way he wanted him to be...

Logic shows us that it is impossible to be the source of ALL things and then be obligated to ANY thing that comes from it.

Reality does not match with a God who always protects and blesses his people. Despite what the prosperity and health/ wealth folks say - believers often suffer the pains of this fallen world...in the hope of our future glory with Christ!

Revelation (thru the Bible) tells us the nature of God and it is clear that he is the great "I AM." He is under no obligation to anyone, note his response to Job.
At the end of the conversation he told me that my view of God, which I described in the traditional reformed sense, was one he could not stomach. It reminded me that:

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge;
fools despise wisdom and instruction."
Proverbs 1:7

I know that it would be easier to think of God as our slot machine - we put some faith in and out comes our long life, BMW, and miscellaneous other blessing. But, the views of God which see him as a means to our success are ultimately man-centered.

Our theology must be biblical. It must be Christ-centered. It must make the natural and sinful man inside us revolt. Otherwise, we are only believeing self-created lies about God so that we can feel better about ourselves.

Seek the truth, thru Christ, and be ready for the war that will follow as you submit to who God is and what he is not. By the power of the Holy Spirit you will find each day full of more joy than the last as you consider the fact that this story we are all playing a part in stars God in the lead, not us!

The devil versus...

I just found out that a man sued Satan in 1971. This is true...

United States ex rel. Gerald Mayo v. Satan and His Staff, 54 F.R.D. 282 (1971), was a court case in which a man attempted to sue Satan. It was dismissed on a technicality.

Gerald Mayo filed a claim before the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in which Mayo alleged that "Satan has on numerous occasions caused plaintiff misery and unwarranted threats, against the will of plaintiff, that Satan has placed deliberate obstacles in his path and has caused plaintiff's downfall" and had therefore "deprived him of his constitutional rights". This is prohibited under several sections of the United States Code. Notably, Mayo filed in forma pauperis - that is, he asserted that he would not be able to afford the costs associated with his lawsuit and that they therefore should be waived.

In its decision the Court first noted that the jurisdictional situation was unclear. While no previous cases had been brought by or against Satan and so no official precedent existed, there was an "unofficial account of a trial in New Hampshire where this defendant filed an action of mortgage foreclosure as plaintiff", a clever reference to the short story "The Devil and Daniel Webster". The court suggested that the defendant (who had claimed in that story to be an American), should he appear, might have been therefore estopped from arguing a lack of personal jurisdiction.

The Court also noted that the case was certainly appropriate for class action status, and it was not then clear that Mayo could properly represent the interests of the entire (immense) class. Ultimately, though, the Court refused the request to proceed in forma pauperis on what might be considered a technicality: the plaintiff had not included instructions for how the U.S. Marshal could serve process on Satan.

See this link for the official documentation:
http://kevinunderhill.typepad.com/Documents/Mayo_v_Satan.pdf

I guess that the official position of the US Government is that Satan may well exist AND he is probably living in New Hampshire. Cool?

CS Lewis once said:
"There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them. They themselves are equally pleased by both errors and hail a materialist or a magician with the same delight."
The Screwtape Letters

Thats a good quote!

Jesus IS God

Today a Muslim friend of mine at work was asking where the Bible recorded that Jesus called himself God. I directed him to John 10:22-33. I hope that he will be challenged in his beliefs by this passage which is very clear on the divinity of Jesus.

[At that time the Feast of Dedication took place at Jerusalem. It was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple,in the colonnade of Solomon. So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ,tell us plainly." Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe.The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father,who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one."

The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?" The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God."]

Fathers Day 2009

I am very blessed to be the dad of two awesome, smart, and loving little boys. Thanks to my heavenly dad for entrusting me with this joyous responsibility!

I got a new grill for fathers day amongst other things, including that Piper book I wanted. I have the best family!


Here is what Adrian Warnock said about the book:

“'Have I been born again?' is not a question to be answered hastily. In John Piper's new book, Finally Alive, expect to be challenged. Piper strips away our complacency, arguing that many people falsely believe they are Christians. He begins by arguing that many who claim to be "born again" today are actually not, and that statistics demonstrating that so-called born again Christians are morally indistinguishable from unbelievers only demonstrate that many who think they have been regenerated actually are still on their way to hell.

By examining the Bible’s teaching on the new birth, John Piper shows us how to be certain our faith is genuine. Because no issue could be more critical, I believe this is the most important book Piper has written. It could be the most important book outside of the Bible that you or your loved one will ever read. I was privileged to have the opportunity to read this prior to launch and it moved me profoundly, challenging me once more to be sure of my own salvation and to appreciate more fully what God has done for me.

Quote of the week - 6/21/09

As men cherish young plants at first, and fence them about to keep them from hurt, but when they are grown, they remove them, and then leave them to the wind and weather, so God besets His children first with props of inward comforts, but afterwards exposes them to storms and winds, because they are better able to bear it.

Therefore let no man think himself the better because he is free from troubles. It is because God sees him not fit to bear greater.

—Richard Sibbes

To TAT or not to TAT?

Yesterday, my wife went to visit some family members. These older individuals are very warm and caring people. I love them very much and I can only imagine that my wife must have even greater affection for them. However, something was said by them which I believe warrants my detailed response.

BACKGROUND

As my wife stood outside with "Joe", she was asked why she allowed my son Everett to have a fake tattoo on his arm. This was a "Cars" tattoo that I put on him the day prior at his request so he could "look like daddy."

My wife was then told that tattoos are wrong and we shouldn't be teaching our kids to do wrong. She disagreed and Joe summoned "Jane." Joe asked Jane to tell Tiffany about tattoos.

Jane told Tiffany that tattoos were a sin and we shouldn't allow them. My wife said she disagreed. Jane told my wife that her opinion didn't matter. It was clear in the bible that tattoos were a sin.

My wife asked for the passage and Jane said that it was in the Old Testament in her King James Version. My wife said that we didn't read the KJV. Jane said that there were many different translations, but the KJV was the most accurate.

The conversation concluded when Joe and Jane told me wife: "its ok I guess, we are sinners too and we sin everyday as well" - implying once again that tattoos, even my toddlers fake tattoo, were morally wrong in themselves.

My wife was really upset by their dogmatic attitude about the issue and the condemnation that they portrayed about tattoos in front of my boy. She told me about the incident and I felt the need to respond with the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15).

RESPONSE

1) I agree with Joe and Jane that my wifes opinion does not matter, only what scripture says. Beware the two-edged sword however since that also means that their opinions don't count. To get past the rhetoric, we need to do some serious investigation into both sides of the tattoo issue with the Bible as our reference.

2) Lets assume that we can find a bible verse or two that seem to prohibit tattooing. I do not think that verse would necessarily apply to us today. We have to look at the scripture verse by verse to determine what is currently applicable and what was contextual or traditional. There are many bible passages which command or admonish against things to the audience of that particular book, which we might not adhere to today. Some examples include:

Women should not wear gold or pearls (2 Tim 2)
Men should have short hair, and women long hair (1 Corinth 11)
Its better to go live on your roof than with a quarreling wife (Proverbs 25)
Death to those who break the Jewish Sabbath: Friday sundown to Sat sundown (Exodus 31)

We don't follow all of those today. Why?

3) All scriptural commands and prohibitions must be judges in light of the historical context relevant to that writing and the wholeness of Gods redemptive plan. Some things were given for a season to carry out the Mosaic Law (Sabbath), to provide general advice about civil life (living on the roof), or to address a particular group of people due to their contemporary conditions (women and jewelry in Corinth).

That said, some commands are obviously moral in nature and thus transcend all time and culture. Do not kill, do not steal, do not lie...these are general moral commands that are never seen as anything but applicable to all circumstances.

4) The big question then is what are the verse(s) that are used against tattoos and do they appear to be part of the always enforced moral code of scripture. Most people cite Leviticus 19:28 as the key text in this issue:

Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD. - KJV

Lets address this verse...

Leviticus 19:28 condemned tattoos in ancient Israel. This prohibition was part of the “holiness code,” a large section of Leviticus dedicated to laws that were given to Israel in order to distinguish the people from the nations around them. The Gentiles used tattoos, therefore Israel was not to use them in order to provide a visible demonstration of the fact that Israel was “holy” (that is, set apart as special unto God). It would seem from the context of Leviticus 19:28 that the tattoos that were specifically forbidden were those received as part of a pagan ceremony, though some have taken it as a broad prohibition against all tattoos.

When Christ came, however, he tore down the dividing wall between Jews and Gentiles (Eph. 2:12ff.). Specifically, this means that the laws that were given in order to separate Israel from the rest of the nations are now counter-productive if applied in the same way that ancient Israel observed them. We must adapt our application of the Law so as to follow its original purpose in light of the changes that Christ brought.

Consider the example of circumcision. This stipulation distinguished Israel from the Canaanites in the Promised Land. But the New Testament clearly tells us that being holy unto God no longer requires us to be circumcised (e.g. Rom. 2; Gal. 2; 5). Circumcision was an outward symbol of dedication unto God. But that outward symbol, dividing people along racial lines, is no longer helpful. The people of God are from every nation, and the symbols of holiness that we now must bear are things like a pure heart (e.g. Rom. 2:28-29, which was also required in the Old Testament) and baptism (which does not have any racial connotations, and has replaced circumcision as the covenant sign; Col. 2:11-12).
Now, this is not to say that everything that appears in the “holiness code” pertains only to such separation - there are other factors at work too, such as moral ones (Israel’s morality was to help distinguish her from other nations). If one is convinced that tattoos are a moral issue, then one ought to abstain from them. I, however, cannot think of any reason that a tattoo would be a moral issue - certainly the Bible does not state that there are moral failings involved in getting a tattoo no matter what the context. The case would seem to be very similar to the commands that we not round off the edges of our beards or cut the hair on our temples (Lev. 19:27). These are innocent practices in and of themselves. They were wrong in ancient Israel because of their association with pagan practices (such as divination, death rituals, cultic prostitution, etc.; cf. Lev. 19:26-31). If these actions do not have evil associations in our own time, there would seem to be no reason to forbid them.

(http://www.thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/99786.qna/category/pt/page/questions/site/iiim)
5) So, it appears that there is a very rational explanation for why Leviticus prohibits tattoos. Given this understanding I think we can see that the tattoo itself is not a sin. Rather, use of the thing in a sinful, blasphemous, or idolatrous manner is the issue. I cannot see where a tattoo is a universal moral wrong equal to murder, rape, or theft. However, I do not mean to advocate that we should all have a bunch of tattoos or anything. This question is one that we must all deal with individually. Letting our own conscience be our guide, we should deal with our personal view on non-essentials in private...

Instead of asking, "Is it okay for a Christian to get a tattoo," perhaps a better question might be, "Is it okay for me to get a tattoo?"

Since tattooing is such a controversial issue today, I think it's important to examine your heart and your motives before you make the decision.

Self Exam - To Tattoo or Not To?
Here is a self-exam based on the ideas put forth in Romans 14. These questions will help you decide whether or not getting a tattoo is a sin for you:
How does my heart and my conscience convict me? Do I have freedom in Christ and a clear conscience before the Lord regarding the decision to get a tattoo?
Am I passing judgment on a brother or sister because I don't have freedom in Christ to receive a tattoo?
Will I still want this tattoo years from now?
Will my parents and family approve, and/or will my future spouse want me to have this tattoo?
Will I cause a weaker brother to stumble if I receive a tattoo?
Is my decision based on faith and will the result be glorifying to God?

Ultimately, the decision is between you and God. Though it may not be a black and white issue, there is a right choice for each individual. Take some time to honestly answer these questions and the Lord will show you what to do.

(http://christianity.about.com/od/faqhelpdesk/f/tattoochristian.htm)

The questions above are good and they could actually apply to a vast variety of subjects; the car you buy, the clothes you wear, the way you tip waiters, etc...

6) Sometimes folks want to use the verse in 1 Corinthians 3 to also prove that tattoos are wrong;

Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, and you are that temple. - ESV

But, how far can we go with this very broad statement. What about piercing ones ears? Drinking COKE? The list could go on and on. We could make up all sort of legalistic rules based on such a general verse. Ultimately, the issue is one of the heart. When you do what you do in life (regardless of what it is) are you seeking to glorify God, rebel against him, or simply act in a neutral manner. For example, going to the bathroom is a neutral act. It neither gives glory to God in any purposed sense, nor does it lend itself to rebellion per se. I think that tattooing can be in that neutral position also.

7) What about the stumbling block aspect - some people will ask. There are individuals who would argue that having tattoos somehow impedes one from sharing the gospel.

I find the truth to be quite the opposite. In the culture today, having a tat can open doors for the spread of the gospel to communities that would be put off by the stuffy shirt and tie evangelist. The tattoo lends street credit in those situations and allows conversations to take place that might not have taken place if the tattoo was absent.

Ultimately, there is no definitive nature of a tattoo that either makes it essential for evangelism or which makes it a serious impediment to sharing faith. The truth is that we must evaluate who we are and who can most effectively reach for Jesus based on our own personalities (tattoos included.) Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 9 that he became all things to all men that he might save some - perhaps we should follow his example. Rather than condemning people who have tattoos, lets encourage them to use who they are to bring the good news to those who need it in their demographic.

8) As for the translation issue that seems to have been part of the discussion. I read the ESV and the NASB. My wife has a NIV. I respect the KJV, but I hope that Joe and Jane were not advocating for "King James Onlyism." I am unsure, so I won't speak to that very much. Read more about my ideas on translations here:
http://words100.blogspot.com/2009/02/i-believe-that-words-matter.html

9) Finally, I am most distressed by what happened to my wife because it was done in front of my son. He is getting old enough to understand these concepts now. We teach him about Jesus, offending God, forgiveness, etc... He sees his daddy with tattoos. When anyone goes off on how tattoos are wrong and how they are a sin while he is standing there - his little brain is getting confused.

If anyone has a personal conviction about any topic and they wish to bring it up to another individual - I would suggest praying about the propriety of that move. If they decide after prayer to still discuss the matter - it should be done with the husband and the wife (minus the kids.)

To rain down condemnation on the wife, in front of the child, is bad judgement and can be far more devastating than a fake CARS tattoo will ever be.

I pray that Joe and Jane will ease up on the dogmatic view they have of tattoos. As Saint Augustine says:

"In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things - love."

Tattoos are not an essential subject of the faith.

How many Christians does it take to change a light bulb?

Charismatic:
Only 1
Hands already in the air.

Pentecostal:
10
One to change the bulb, and nine to pray against the spirit of darkness.

Presbyterians:
None
Lights will go on and off at predestined times.

Roman Catholic:
None
Candles only.

Baptists:
At least 15.
One to change the light bulb, and three committees to approve the change and decide who brings the potato salad and fried chicken.

Episcopalians:
3
One to call the electrician, one to mix the drinks and one to talk about how much better the old one was.

Mormons:
5
One man to change the bulb,and four wives to tell him how to do it.

Unitarians:
We choose not to make a statement either in favor of or against the need for a light bulb. However, if in your own journey you have found that light bulbs work for you, that is fine. You are invited to write a poem or compose a modern dance about your light bulb for the next Sunday service, in which we will explore a number of light bulb traditions, including incandescent, fluorescent, 3-way, long-life and tinted, all of which are equally valid paths to luminescence.

Methodists:
Undetermined
Whether your light is bright, dull, or completely out, you are loved. You can be a light bulb, turnip bulb, or tulip bulb. Church wide lighting service is planned for Sunday. Bring bulb of your choice and a covered dish.

Nazarene:
6
One woman to replace the bulb while five men review church lighting policy.

Lutherans:
None
Lutherans don't believe in change.

Amish:
What's a light bulb?

- Author unknown

Word/ Faith

Please read this powerful personal post from a blog I follow on the false gospel associated with Word-Faith teaching in American Christianity.

http://junkerjorge1.blogspot.com/2009/06/my-daughters-death.html

Quote of the Week - 6/14/2009

I want to begin a new weekly tradition on my blog. At some point during each week (Sunday to Saturday), I will post a quote which I pray will provide some food for reflection and prayer. I am not going to add my own two cents when I post these, just the quote. Hope it proves useful...

"Grace" is more than mercy and love, it superadds to them. it denotes, not simply love, but the love of a sovereign, transcendly superior, one that may do what he will, that may wholly choose whether he will love or no. There may be love between equals, and an inferior may love a superior; but love in a superior, and so superior as he may do what he will, in such a one love is called grace: and therefore grace is attributed to princes; they are said to be gracious to their subjects, whereas subjects cannot be gracious to princes. Now God, who is an infinite Sovereign, who might have chosen whether ever He would love us or no, for Him to love us, this is grace.

—Thomas Goodwin

Man Overboard!

Soteriology is the study of the Christian doctrine of salvation. I believe it is a enormously fundamental thing to properly understand. Having an informed and biblical worldview regarding the particulars of getting saved can make a massive difference in all aspects of ones life and faith.

In culture today, that is culture within western Christendom, we have reduced our soteriology into a bumper sticker that says "Jesus Saves." While I agree with that notion completely and I admire the impact that such basic truth conveys, I am concerned that most churches/ pastors don't go into any further depth on this matter. We are too content with knowing the "What" of salvation without investigating the " How and Why."

I want to use this blog to lay out a very basic illustration that describes the 4 basic understandings of salvation within the historical context of theology and debate. I look to Christ in the scriptures and I see him using stories, allegories, and metaphors to bring understanding on difficult issues. I like that approach and I try to use it as much as possible. However, I know that all illustrations are limited in some aspect and thus, I will also use this post to back up my understanding of salvation with some biblical proof. Finally, I want to provide a few resources towards the end that I believe can be of great assistance if you find yourself looking for additional (and more thorough) information on the topic.

Special thanks to John H. at my church for first introducing me to a form of this allegory. I have tweaked it abit as I decided to use it, but I need to confess it was not my original idea.
___________

Background
A man is lost at sea. He was a sailor who got too close to the edge of the deck as he tried to peer into the ocean. The Navy has realized that this sailor is "man overboard" and a rescue operation has begun...

Scenario 1
The sailor is a strong swimmer. He wasn't wearing a life jacket but it was ok because he didn't really need it. He has the ability to stay afloat by himself and he can even make forward progress with his breaststroke if he chooses. As he sees the rescue boat drawing near, the sailor swims hard to the boat, hauls himself up inside, says thanks for the blanket he receives and prepares to rejoin his ship.

Scenario 2
The sailor can just barely swim which is good because he didn't have a life jacket on when he fell in. As he treads along the surface of the water, the rescue boat draws near. Once they are within sight, the sailor yells out and decides to go ahead and haul himself in the boat as he desires to return to the ship. He grabs the side of the boat and pulls himself partially up, a rescuers hand comes down to assist in getting him all the way in. He is thankful that the boat was there so he could get in it, and he is appreciative that the rescue crew is so helpful in aiding him as he tried to get in.

Scenario 3
The sailor can't swim but he did have on a life jacket when he fell in. As he bobs along the surface of the water he realizes that the cold water has made his muscles go numb and he is now incapable of any real effort. Suddenly, he sees the rescue boat drawing near. Once they are within arms reach, the rescue boat asks the sailor if he would like them to go ahead and pull him out of the water. The sailor chooses to have his rescuers grab him and bring him up into the boat. He thanks them for coming out and giving him the chance to be pulled into the rescue boat. Wrapped in his blanket, the sailor ventures back to the ship.

Scenario 4
The sailor fell off the ship with no life jacket and no ability to swim. He hit the water and was dead from drowning within minutes. As the rescue boat arrives at his location, they prepare to send down a dive team to bring up the sailors lifeless body. Once they get him into the boat they perform CPR on him and soon he is brought to life. Incredibly thankful that his rescuers went to so much effort, the sailor is overwhelmed with joy on his way back to the waiting ship and the land of the living.
___________

The first scenario is Pelagianism. This is the view that original sin does not exist. We are essentially born as blank slates with the ability to choose God and work towards communion with him in complete independence. In this view, God is not necessary or active in the process of salvation, he is simply our end goal. Jesus is seen as a "good example" for us in contrast to Adam's "bad example." This was condemned as a heretical view in the early church.

The second scenario is semi-Pelagaianism. In this view we also see beliefs about the non-existence of original sin. It is looked at as man and God cooperating in salvation. It is man who makes the initial choice for God (without any grace at all) and based on that act of volition, God agrees to work in the man's life and complete the process. Here we see God as helper in salvation, but not author. This too was declared to be heretical by the church.

The third scenario is Arminianism. In this viewpoint, man is fallen through original sin - yet God gives just enough grace to allow us to do one thing; we can chose salvation (or not). If we make the choice to be saved, then God will swoop in and do all of the work for us, we must only open the door. Many evangelicals today hold to this belief about salvation. It is we who choose God and God knowing the choice we will make, chooses us.

The fourth scenario is Reformed theology. In this take on salvation, we are born into sin and we are completely unable to even make a decision of our will towards God. We rebel against him continuously and the only way for us to have relationship with him is if he acts as the initiator of our faith. Only when God moves us to be changed can we begin a relationship with him It is God who saves us before time and subsequently it is we who choose God.
____________

I am a strong advocate of the fourth view. Reformed soteriology or Calvinist salvation is based on the biblical teachings that tell us we made no effort towards God before he decided to change our very ontological nature. Only when the essence of our being was moved from loving the darkness to loving the light, did we begin to see God as holy and worthy of adoration. I think that scripture has a lot to say about this, including:

John 6:44:
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. " - Jesus speaking

Romans 9:6-16:
"But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad-in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls- she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy."

John 15:16:
"You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you."

Acts 13:48:
"And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed."

Ephesians 1:4-5:
"even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,"

Ephesians 1:11:
"In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,"

Philippians 1:29:
"For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake"

1 Thessalonians 1:4-5:
"For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction. You know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake."

2 Thessalonians 2:13:
"But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the first fruits to be saved, through sanctification [by the Spirit] and belief in the truth."

2 Timothy 1:9:
"who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began,"
_____________

There is certainly much more that could be discussed on this issue and those who disagree with me might be able to spend hours debating me on salvation. Ultimately, I see the Reformed interpretation of Scripture as the only view that can cohesively hold the entire redemptive plan of the Bible together. It is also the most God-centered (the least man-centered) take on the "how" of our salvation.

I know many of you reading this already agree with my understanding of Scripture, I hope that the illustration I provided will be of use to you as you encourage others to consider their convictions on the topic.

I know that some of those who agree with this point are far better equipped to discuss the nuisances associated with historical Reformed soteriological teaching. Adam - I look forward to learning more depth myself.

I imagine that some of you do not agree with Reformed views on salvation. I hope that I have sparked your interest to examine more closely the reasons behind your beliefs on the subject.

Above all, I want all people to understand that this is not a fruitless theological debate. Our actions and attitudes in life are directly influenced by the specifics of what we think on issues like this one. We don't always see the conscious link between the two, but it certainly exists. How one sees soteriology will have enormous impact on their relationship to God, their personal evangelism, and their submission to the Holy Spirit in the ongoing process of sanctification.

It wasn't until I embraced Reformed thinking that I became aware of the depth of my own rebellion and the subsequent enormity of Gods grace. Only after I trusted in God as the motivating agent in salvation did I fully comprehend the meaning of 1 Corinthians 3:5-9 as I spread the gospel. Lastly, as I realized what Christ did for me despite my ultimate unworthiness, I found joy in loving and obeying God instead of somber duty. These practical attitudes and applications in my daily life as a Christian were deeply influenced by my soteriology.

I challenge you to think about your own ideas about salvation, what the scriptures say, and how that view affects your own faith.
____________

And a few resources for further study into Reformed soteriology...

Monergism
http://www.monergism.com/

Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics
http://www.reformed.org/

Desiring God Ministries
http://www.desiringgod.org/

Westminster Confession of Faith
http://www.pcanet.org/general/cof_preface.htm

More tales of the Archives

A recent email exchange at work with a member of another Federal Agency:
__________

I said:

I recently began to service your request when I discovered a
problem. You did not note which specific documents you needed scanned
from the file. Can you please inform me of which documents you want
OR
if you desire the entire folder to be scanned. Thanks."

Reply:

"Need entire folder mailed to the court.........thanks"

I then said:

"Mailed? You populated the "Shipping Method" field as "Scan and email"

If you want to have requests physically mailed (as opposed to scanned
and digitally sent) please be sure to mark that field as either USPS
(for FedEx Ground) or FedEx (for overnight service). I will change it
on this one if you tell me which one you need."

The reply to that:

"Mailed.................thank you"

Frustrated, I responded:

"You said:

'Mailed.................thank you'

In my previous email I explained that there were two options for having a file physically sent to you. It seems that I may have miscommunicated or you may have misunderstood.

When you want a file physically mailed to you, the options are:

1) Populate the ARCIS "Shipping Method" field with "USPS" - this tells
us to send the file to you via FedEx Ground. Typically this courier
service takes 3 business days. We will pay for the shipment up front
and then charge your agency on the backend.
OR
2) Populate the ARCIS "Shipping Method" field with "FedEx" - this
tells us to send the file to you via FedEx Overnight. In this instance,
we need you to provide us with a FedEx account number to charge for the
shipment. You will find a field in ARCIS directly below the "Shipping
Method" to place the account number in.

Please select one of the two options detailed above. I will be looking
for your response so that I may begin preparing this folder for
shipment."

This was the reply to that very unambiguous outline:

"Please mail the entire file to the court.......................thank you"
__________________

Does everyone now understand why I have the angst I mentioned in my recent post?
http://words100.blogspot.com/2009/06/national-archives.html

I had to call the court employee in order to sort this one out. During our phone conversation I continued to be assailed with a few incoherent statements and other nonsense. It finally was taken care of. I need LOTS of prayer to keep trucking along at this job. On top of everything, think about this fact: the current administration wants the government to take on the operations of nation-wide healthcare - that would go well.

Stand to Reason

This morning I was able to listen to a new podcast of Stand to Reason. The host of that show is Greg Koukl. Greg is a wonderful defender of reasonable Christianity. The mission statement of his organization is:

"Stand to Reason trains Christians to think more clearly about their faith and to make an even-handed, incisive, yet gracious defense for classical Christianity and classical Christian values in the public square."

I have been listening to Greg for some time. He was the first guy to plant Reformed thoughts in my head, Piper watered them, and praise God they are growing more each day. A weekly listen to Greg's show is always a treat.

The show I heard today featured an interview with Michael Horton of the White Horse Inn radio show. Dr. Horton is a professor at Westminster Seminary in CA. He is editor of Modern Reformation journal and he is the author of many books as well. I just got done reading one of his books on covenant theology.

The show today centered on his newest book, "Christless Christianity". I have not read that book, but after the interview today - I want to. It was a great discussion between Greg and Mike. I heartily commend it to everyone who reads this blog. Just go to the Stand to Reason webpage and you should find the audio pretty easily.

www.str.org

Also, be sure to get a copy of Greg's new book, "Tactics". I got a copy for my birthday in January and it was awesome. The synopsis goes like:

"Tired of finding yourself flat-footed and intimidated in conversations? Want to increase your confidence and skill in discussions with family, friends, and coworkers? Gregory Koukl offers practical strategies to help you stay in the driver’s seat as you maneuver comfortably and graciously in any conversation about your Christian convictions.'

Good stuff, both the Horton interview and the Koukl book. Check them out soon! You will be edified and inspired to go after life and faith with more zeal for the Glory of Christ thru these two recommendations!

The National Archives

According to a recent survey of Federal employees across all Federal agencies, conducted by the Office of Personnel Management, my job ranks second to last in terms of "the best place to work in government."

I feel some vindication in regards to my loathsome view of the National Archives. I guess it wasn't just me being negative after all. Now, I know that having a pessimistic attitude about my occupation is wrong. In fact, I have gotten much less cynical about the work I do since the economic crisis hit and as the Holy Spirit has worked on my heart. I used to bring my woes home each night and pour out my frustrations on my family. I have almost completely ceased doing that and I have felt much better because of the switch.

All of that said, I do spend most days battling in my heart an overwhelming feeling that my job sucks and I don't want to be here anymore. Perhaps it is the lack of air conditioning in the warehouse, or maybe its the mundane and simplistic work that each day brings, it is most probably the poor pay I receive for my time. A host of reasons come to mind on why I despise my job so much.

However, I want to take a moment to reflect on the benefits of my job in these last 4 years. I do believe that I have had some opportunities that few others get on their jobsite and I feel that I should share those...

- I was hired as a college student and they were extremely flexible in working with my school schedule.
- When I completed school they offered me full-time employment (they didn't have to).
- I have lost weight here in the summer, by virtue of manual labor in 95 degree heat.
- I get to listen to an iPod for 6 out of 8 hours each day (on average). That has allowed me to gain so much theological and practical knowledge about the faith, in the form of podcasts from Piper, MacArthur, Begg, Sproul, Driscoll, Kokul, and Zacharias.

Most of all, due to the lack of anything interesting to say about our actual jobs, the employees here are constantly engaging in discussions about politics and religion. This has opened the door for me to share Christ in ways that most jobs would not allow. Despite the fact that no one from my work has yet come to be justified by faith, I feel that I have been planting and watering seeds. I look to God for the growth of these deposits in his providential timing.

In reflection, there are positive aspects of this job and I don't want tio be overwhelmed by the negativity which I am so naturally inclined to exhibit. Yet, it is my prayer that I would either be promoted here or other ventures would open up soon - my family is expanding, my boys are growing up, I am getting older, and I have many worries about the ability we will have to sustain ourselves on so paltry an income.

Ultimately, I desire that God would place me in a more financially stable place with work that I enjoy, but his will and not mine should be done. If I am to endure here for awhile longer I ask for the grace to sustain my battle against despair.

Please pray for me to "not be anxious" as you examine your own occupational attitude. Thanks.

Matthew 6:25-34

Torture and Abortion

I don't think that having US military and intelligence personnel torture suspected terrorists is a good idea.

However, my line of reasoning may not be what you are thinking. In principle, I actually have no problem with a government that tortures people whom it has good reason to believe are plotting aganist its citizens. In fact, I would argue that it is the duty of government to engage in any and all practical and effective actions to keep its people safe, provided they are acting on good evidence. The government does not bear the sword in vain (Romans 13). I am not saying that it would be appropriate for Christians to be in the position of "torturer," but there are plenty of secular individuals who could fill the bill quite nicely. Obviously, I do not advocate a Christian theocracy.

My actual issue with Americans peforming torture on suspected terrorists is that it does not appear to work. Despite what we see on "24" and in Hollywood, the reports coming from the FBI and the CIA after 7 years of secret torture show that it is largely ineffective. In addition, now that our methods have been publicized, the "hearts and minds" of the global community and even some US citizens have turned aganist us. If the torture was working, I would say damn the general concensus. However, there is very little point in engaging in activities that hurt our reputation while gaining almost no actual intelligence.

It is odd to me how many people in society are burdened and concerned about the rights of men who have been known to engage in terrorist activities. The guys at Gitmo did not get there by racial profiling or vague associations. The few hundred men detained there were documented as engaging in acts dangerous to national security. Yet, there are whole "civil rights" movements that have sprung up to push for the "fair and just" treatment of those suspects.

At the same time, thousands of innocent little lives, humans in the earliest stages of development, are being snuffed out everyday. Abortion does completely disregard the rights of a human being, the natural rights endowed to every person at birth (as our Constitution and the Gettysburg Address remind us). Abortion does involve destroying the image of God (Genesis 1:27) for nothing more than selfish motives. Abortion, which is murder, is a far more egregious action than any civil rights violation I know of.

I feel that if people are of transcendent worth, we shouldn't torture or kill them without very good reason to believe that they are an uncorrectable danger to our society. On the other hand, many organizations and individuals seem to think that we should never treat any human being poorly or violently, even if they are a danger to our fellow man. One might ask, how could people like that stand by without even blinking their eye as countless babies are being slaughtered if we shouldn't hurt each other? The only answer could be that they don't see the "thing" inside of mom as a human.

There is the fundamental question...what is that "thing" inside mom. If it is human, then no amount of rationale could prove adequate to destroy it. If it not human then no justification is necessary to wipe it out of existence. This is the only real issue at hand. No amount of rhetoric about choice or God will answer the question. It is a scientific inquiry that can be logically answered. The "thing" inside mom has separate and unique DNA from Mom and it is growing and developing according to its own internal direction. According to the law of biogenesis, any organism can only reporduce an offspring of its same kind. Therefore, if Mom and Dad are human, the offspring is human. Regardless of the fact that it is in the earliest stages of development, the "thing" inside Mom is fully human.

Anyway, I was struck by the seeming contradiction of those who fight for "terrorist rights" and who simultenously lobby for the pro-choice movement during my drive this morning. I think that they are ignoring the blatant fact that inside Mom is a baby human, not a tumor to be removed because of inconvenience. I don't think many people who think that way will be persuaded by good sound reasoning about the subject, but they might. A good resource is:
www.prolifetraining.com

More likely, they will only come to see the humanity of innocent babes and the proper role of government if they are moved to have their hearts regenerated. The only resource fo that is:
Jesus

___________________

My son, if sinners entice you,
do not consent.

If they say, “Come with us, let us lie in wait for blood;
let us ambush the innocent without reason...
throw in your lot among us..."

My son, do not walk in the way with them;
hold back your foot from their paths,
for their feet run to evil,
and they make haste to shed blood...
but these men lie in wait for their own blood;
they set an ambush for their own lives.

- Proverbs 1

New Book

Thanks to Adam, I will be embarking on a new book this week...



"A noted evangelical scholar presents a serious treatment of the doctrine of the love of God and an honest, biblically sound handling of its difficulties and problematic passages. He critiques sentimental ideas such as "God hates the sin, but loves the sinner" and provides interesting perspective on how God loves us. This discussion is blended with consideration of God's sovereignty and His wrath, both of which are important elements of His love, and does away with trivialities and cliches to get to the heart of the matter."

Marriage and Divorce

I have been thinking a lot about marriage recently. That is probably due to the fact that one year ago I was in the process of filing for divorce from my wife. We were having some rough times and we were both ready to bail. We had been separated for several months and it looked as if we would just be another statistic.

However, by the grace of God alone, we were reconciled. My wife was moved to approach me with the idea of patching things up and I was moved to accept. Now, a year later, we are doing incredibly well. With the help of a wonderful counselor, solid friends, and a new church family...we have become a beautiful example of mercy, reconciliation, and redemption (instead of a statistic).

In the midst of my personal reflection on the issue of marriage and divorce, I had a conversation with a friend at work. Both of us lamented the fact that the American evangelical church has neglected any strong condemnation of adultery, divorce, or remarriage while simultaneously holding up a megaphone on the issue of homosexuality. I believe that the current lazy attitude of Christians about divorce is just as harmful (probably more so) than any homosexual agenda in America.

With all of this in mind I felt compelled to briefly lay out my view on what the Bible says about marriage, divorce, and adultery. I speak to this with first-hand (painful) experience and I welcome any comments:

_________________

MY POSITION

The intent of God in making a man and a woman was for them to be bound together in covenant love (marriage) as an earthly example of the relationship between Christ and the church.
Genesis 2 and Ephesians 5

The covenant promise of marriage is unretractable unless one member dies.
1 Corinthians 7 and Romans 7

Any issuance or acceptance of divorce by human beings is a result of man's depravity and not God's eternal plan.
Mark 10 and Matthew 19

If a man and woman divorce thru earthly administration, they are still married in God's eyes and any remarriage while the spouse is living amounts to adultery.
Luke 16 and Mark 10

The words of Matthew 19:9 are not intended to be a loophole that creates the one way out of marriage...particularly in light of the absolute statements of Jesus mentioned in Luke and Mark. Instead the passage refers to the dissolution of a betrothal (engagement) when the bride to be OR groom to be is found to be engaging in fornication. In that ancient context, the commitment to be married was far more serious than we take it today and the prospective couple were expected to both be virgins. Jesus is explaining that it is legitimate to halt the proceedings towards marriage if one partner is found to be unpure before the consummation occurs. This is backed up by the use of the Greek word for general sexually immorality and not the word for adultery, in translating the phrase "except for sexual immorality."

If you have been divorced, your spouse is alive, and you have remarried - stay in the new marriage. Despite the fact that your remarriage is adultery, it is also another covenant relationship. If you took these points to mean that you had to jump ship on the new marriage, it would only amount to breaking your oath twice opposed to once.

_________________

Practically, I think it may be legitimate to undergo a civil decree of divorce if continued civil marriage would be physically, emotionally, mentally, or spiritually harmful to a spouse. However, it should only be done when reconciliation and separation will not work and only when it is done with an understanding that the marriage is still in effect by God's eyes...therefore, prohibiting remarriage.

I understand that these views are counter-cultural (even within the faith) and they can be hard to swallow in the realization of logistical hardship associated with the admonishment of no remarriage while the spouse lives. Nevertheless, if this interpretation of God's word is correct - the difficulties incurred do not overcome the truth of the matter.

I began holding this view a couple of years ago and when I was first vocal about it, I underwent a very practical test of my beliefs. I failed that test and I was ready to divorce my wife. God's mercy kept us together and I am thankful for that. I am hoping that God will move within his people to bring us into agreement about this issue so that we might make as strong of a stand on marriage, divorce, and adultery as we do on homosexuality for the sake of families everywhere.

As I researched background material for developing this view, I was sad to find few pastors and theologians willing to address the issue. It was a heartbreaking to find John MacArthur holding a different position, but heartwarming to find John Piper in agreement. See his detailed paper at:
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1986/1488_Divorce_and_Remarriage_A_Position_Paper/

The lack of preachers speaking up on the tragedy of divorce, the correlation of adultery and remarriage, and the issues associated with fornication and co-habitation (within the church) may be explained by the fact that few congregations have any substantial group of homosexuals amongst them (so we can rally all we want aganist that sin) - yet, almost all churches have multitudes of people who have been engaged in the other situations. It takes courage to speak up against these things when the audience is directly affected. It might even mean that the attendance and tithe go down hill...

I hope that this post has sparked some thought, moreover I hope it might be beneficial in dissuading anyone who might be thinking of divorce. Even though I only experienced the tip of the iceberg with my separation and filing, it was the most painful experience of my life.

Current Books

I have alot of friends who blog and who are on a new kick of displaying the books they are currently reading. I decided to jump on the band wagon...

I am reading these now:



I just finished these:



I asked for this for Father's Day - we'll see:

Losing LOST!

This afternoon I listened to a sermon by a preacher named Paul Washer from San Antonio Texas. I don’t know hardly anything about this guy. I haven’t even “googled” him yet. I simply saw his podcast in the podcast directory next to some others whom I listen to and I had a sudden vague remembrance of someone at church saying something about him once. Curious, I downloaded his sermon.

I was somewhat offended when he advocated to keep our TVs off. I have heard this idea from Piper before, but this time it was more stringent. Washer went on to say that he has a TV that only plays DVDs, no cable. He said that TV was full of things that grieve the Holy Spirit. Then he said that no believer who wants to have strong fellowship with God can watch ABC, NBC, or FOX.

Uh…that means I can’t watch LOST. Not cool.

Maybe I am in gross sin by watching TV. I don’t know. I do limit my TV and we have a very basic cable package (main channels, church channels, and kid’s channels). Perhaps that is not enough. It might be that I need to stop watching the best TV ever – LOST. But, since the show only has one more season left (next year), I will probably abstain from judgment regarding the dissolution of all cable TV watching until 2011. Pray for me.

On a similar note…he did have a good point in his sermon. He said that too many believers (especially pastors) are nothing more than parrots who can quote the doctrinal principles of the faith and who can mimic other pastors. He talked about the whole nation of young men who are entering service to the Lord with little more than a notebook of quotes from Edwards and a tattered copy of Brainerds diary. All the while, Washer says, these young men are lacking in the time they spend tarrying before the Lord and delighting in his presence the way which their heroes did. We should seek to imitate the zeal of the Puritans, not just talk about them reverently is his point.

I was convicted by this part of the message. I have basic doctrine under my belt and sermons from Piper, MacArthur, and Driscoll filling my ears everyday – yet, I do not spend much time alone and on my knees before God. I don’t wrestle with the Lord in the way that Jacob did over the difficult issues of my life. I too often “talk the talk” without enough walking. I pray that the Lord will work in me thru his Spirit to bring me before him more regularly and more deeply.

“...You shall worship the Lord your God
and him only shall you serve.”
Matthew 4:10

Keep it Simple...

I was engaged today by two subjects which prompted me to once again admonish my fellow Christian brothers to keep the main thing, the main thing. The good news of the glorious grace of God in the death and resurrection of Jesus is the subject that we must plant our flag on. Too many secondary and tertiary issues are taken as primary points of debate by Christians when they talk with unbelievers. If the body of Christ gets bogged down in trying to convince unregenerate people about the age of the earth, specific eschatological views, or mode of baptism…the central message of the gospel will not be communicated. By giving the two examples below, I hope that we will be reminded to put aside the non-essentials of the faith and focus on the graciousness of a loving God as we interact with the lost people around us.

My first issue today was when I heard about the recent discovery of a fossil that is being hailed as the “missing link” on the evolutionary tree. You can read about this at National Geographic’s webpage HERE. I found out about this as I listened to a podcast from a Christian thinker that I regularly glean insight from. He is an old earther, yet he is not a theistic evolutionist. Therefore, he was working hard to discredit the data about this fossil which is being reported. His audience is primarily Christian and I felt that his discussion of the subject was in an appropriate “in-house” setting. However, it reminded me of the many ardent Christians out there who are young earth creationists and who believe that man walked with dinosaurs, too often they are willing to die for their specific views. In fact, I know a gentleman who once told me that if all of creation wasn’t made in (7) 24-hour periods then we might as well not believe anything in the Bible…???

It is exactly that kind of dogmatic position on these issues that I find so despairing. I have had many conversations with non-believers who will often bring this issue up to me. I am more than willing to concede that God may have orchestrated evolutionary means to bring about life over billions of years. I will explain that he could have personally interacted with his creation in order to develop hominoids and that these animals came to a point where God decided to infuse one with a soul (his breath) – thus birthing Adam, the first human. The point is…how Adam got to be is not important to comminicate the gospel, only that he DID get to be. If we will concede some non-essential points for the sake of discussion, then we can move beyond them to address the real hurt, the deep longing, and the honest questions that people experience about their lives. That is where we can bring in the message of mercy as played out through the passion of Jesus.

Secondly, I was talking with a non-believer today and he told me about his friend who came to visit him for the weekend. The friend brought his wife and the three of them planned to go to the movies. Apparently, there was some confusion and miscommunication in the situation because the friend’s wife thought the movie was Monday and my co-worker had already bought tickets for Sunday. When they tried to work it out, the wife told my co-worker that she couldn’t go to the movies on Sunday because of the Sabbath. She suggested that he go to church with her instead. My co-worker was gracious and he attended church with the couple (a local PCUSA church). Then, as my co-worker suggested that they go to the store and grab some groceries for lunch, the wife responded that she couldn’t shop on the Sabbath because it caused others to work…???

The bizarre beliefs of this woman had an obvious impact on my co-worker. He asked me if that was the regular understanding of the Sabbath. I explained the difference between the Jewish Sabbath and the Lords Day. I then explained her apparent confusion since she was a Christian strictly observing the Sabbath on the Lords Day. I asked him if they had any other religious discussion. He said that they had a short talk about women preachers (another contentious subject). Apparently, this woman never spoke to my co-worker about Jesus and our need for salvation. She was so busy with her legalistic mentalities that she missed an opportunity to have any impact (positive impact) on his view of faith. I hope that my conversation with him today will be the beginning of some more open dialogue about weighty matters.

To conclude, I was hit today with two examples of making minor things out to be major things and it troubled me. I am not suggesting that the details of doctrine are not important – they are. But, debating the secondary and tertiary issues should be reserved for discussion within the body. When talking to unbelievers, we would do best to address their physical, emotional, and spiritual needs through simple gospel proclamation in word and in deed.

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes..."
Romans 1:16

The picture says it all...

I have no idea where this was or what was going on - but I like it. I wish I could be in on that conversation with John Piper.

"...I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings."
1 Corinthians 9:22-23