tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-70810934432689727522024-03-12T19:58:41.601-04:001189 ChaptersThe books I'm reading in light of the Book I'm livingUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7081093443268972752.post-16441927326873355562010-04-08T15:26:00.000-04:002010-04-08T15:26:14.541-04:00Moved to WordpressWordpress now seems as easy to use as Blogger, and the layouts are more conducive to careful reading. Please go to <a href="http://www.1189chapters.wordpress.com/">www.1189chapters.wordpress.com</a> to access the further posts of <i>1189 Chapters</i>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7081093443268972752.post-3036632235739842752010-04-07T14:21:00.002-04:002010-04-07T14:27:11.053-04:00The Human Context of the Preached Word, circa 1982<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img src="http://www.internetchurchcampus.com/vsImages/Layout/SLV.jpg" />"It is difficult to imagine the world in the year A.D. 2000, by which time versatile micro-processors are likely to be as common as simple calculators are today. We should certainly welcome the fact that the silicon chip will transcend human brain-power, as the machine has transcended human muscle-power. <b>Much less welcome will be the probably reduction of human contact as the new electronic network renders personal relationships ever less necessary. </b> In such a dehumanized society the fellowship of the local church will become increasingly important, whose members meet one another, and<b> talk and listened to one another in person rather than on screen</b>. In this human context of mutual love the speaking and hearing of the Word of God is also likely to become more necessary for the preservation of our humanness, not less"</div><br />
<br />
-John Stott, <i>Between Two Worlds, </i>written in 1982.<br />
<br />
Also, this is why I won't ever preach via video or recommend a church where a member only sees his pastor on a giant TV screen.<br />
<br />
"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us" - John 1:14Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7081093443268972752.post-23755556240085858572010-04-07T14:02:00.000-04:002010-04-07T14:02:09.865-04:00Reading Jesus by Mary Gordon<i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: normal;"><img height="320" src="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41nY1PSAbEL.jpg" width="212" /></span></i><br />
<i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: normal;"><br />
</span></i><br />
<i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: normal;"></span>Reading Jesus </i>is not all I was hoping it could be. Mary Gordon is an excellent crafter of phrases, and has written both fiction and non-fiction. She goes back to read the Gospels after she realizes that she considers herself Catholic but has never actually read the Gospels.<br />
<br />
In all fairness, I read the first 1/3 of the book, and then browsed and flipped through. It didn't end up being worth my time. <br />
<br />
She approaches each chapter in a cut-and-paste method: all the miracles of Jesus, all the hard sayings, etc.<br />
<br />
I am impressed with her commitment to reading and analyzing the Gospels, multiple times, and in different versions, too. I like that.<br />
<br />
This would be a good book for an evangelist in a literary world - it reveals the questions and discomfort that skeptics, particularly well-educated and well-read skeptics - might ask about the Gospels. <br />
<br />
However, in the end, Mary Gordon writes without faith. She can read about Jesus but in her skepticism, she can't <i>know </i>Jesus. The book reads like an Emergent Church Pastor's sermon - lots of questions, lots of discomfort, but not much real insight into her subject. No one can know the Jesus of the Gospels apart from faith, so a complete non-mastery of the Gospels by an intelligent and talented writer makes for interesting, but not worthwhile reading.<br />
<br />
Jesus said, "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life." (John 5:38-39). Mary Gordon, lifelong Roman Catholic, is here confronted with her fatal flaw. Were she to abandon the idols she holds to and embrace the risen Christ as Savior and Lord, and allow Him alone to dictate her values, the book she would <i>then </i>write would, I'm convinced, light the world on fire.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7081093443268972752.post-88573729017687551822010-04-05T14:09:00.002-04:002010-04-05T14:09:42.713-04:00See the booklistThe most interesting part of this blog is the booklist page, to your upper left.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7081093443268972752.post-87519167231768811932010-04-05T13:48:00.000-04:002010-04-05T13:48:04.193-04:00The Treatise on the Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus of Rome<img src="http://l.yimg.com/g/images/spaceball.gif" /><img alt="Св. Иполит Римски, руска икона. Източник: oca.org." src="http://www.pravoslavieto.com/life/icons/01/01.30_sv_ipolit.jpg" /><br />
I finished this a while ago but haven't had the chance to write about it.<br />
<br />
St. Hippolytus was bishop of Rome, and wrote the treatise in 217AD. I read the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Apostolic-Tradition-Hippoly-Gregory-Dix/dp/0700702326/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1270487672&sr=8-6">Dix and Chadwick</a> edition, if there are others, I don't know of them. <br />
<br />
This edition is particularly technical, dealing with various version of ancient manuscripts; it would add a great deal for a true scholar, and doesn't take away from those just interested in the early church.<br />
<br />
It offers one of the few insights of the early church practices still available. Some interesting points for modern readers:<br />
<br />
1. A distinction between Bishops and Presbyters is already firmly established.<br />
2. Worship was liturgical and prayers were read as well as spontaneous. Anglicans and Catholics will certainly recognize elements of their liturgies.<br />
3. Oil, cheese and olives were used in worship; milk an honey were used at the time of the eucharist as well as the obvious bread and wine.<br />
4. The Lord's Supper was central to worship.<br />
5. Deacons seem to have been essentially servants of the bishop. There is no sense of autonomy of a deacon board.<br />
6. Ordination was the bishop laying on his hands, and no others.<br />
7. Widows seem to have been like an early female deaconate, but "she shall not be ordained, becasuse she does not offer the oblation nor has she a <<i>liturgical</i>> ministry [sic]"<br />
8. A virginal office was a personal choice and not ordained. This is voluntary chastity and obviously an order of early nuns.<br />
9. "Subdeacons" served the deacons, but were not ordained.<br />
10. "If any one among the laity appear to have received a gift of healing by a revelation, hands shall not be laid upon him, because the matter is manifest." So healing was a gift, and was present in the early church (or permitted, at least) but not ordained, because if you had the gift, it was obvious. Lots of questions here for me.<br />
11. Certain professions and activities were barred from the church: if you wanted to join as one, you had to either "desist" or "be rejected" as a candidate for instruction and baptism. They were:<br />
<br />
<ul><li>A "john" to prostitutes or a prostitute.</li>
<li>An idol-maker, either in sculpture or image.</li>
<li>An actor (I think this was different than today? Not sure.)</li>
<li>A charioteer, gladiator, <i>animal hunter</i>, or anyone, even a public official, involved with the gladiatorial games or the circus.</li>
<li>A priest of idols.</li>
<li><b>A soldier in the pagan state. You can't take a military oath.</b></li>
<li>A whore or sodomite.</li>
<li>A magician "Shall not even be brought for consideration"</li>
<li>Charmers, astrologers, interpreters of dreams or mountebanks.</li>
</ul><br />
12. Certain professions or activities were permitted in a limited way:<br />
Schoolmasters should desist unless they have no other way of making a living. Then, they receive forgiveness.<br />
A man with a concubine was to marry. I don't know if that meant to enter into a second marriage.<br />
13. The renunciation was a part of baptism: "I renounce thee, Satan, and all they service and all thy works" was said by the candidate.<br />
14. Catechumens did not sit at the agape meal with the baptized.<br />
15. Deacons and presbyters met daily for prayer. (!!!)<br />
16. Prayer was made at set times. The modern Christian seems to have continued this tradition with either Bible reading, "devotions", or most frequently nothing at all. And certainly not at fixed times.<br />
<u>The Times of prayer:</u><br />
<br />
<ul><li>Morning prayers: at dawn, rise, wash, and pray, then go about work.</li>
<li>Spiritual reading of a holy book was read if there was no instruction that day.</li>
<li>Prayer was offered at the third hour (9am), </li>
<li>the sixth hour (noon) </li>
<li>and protracted prayer and praise in singing offered at the ninth hour (3pm). </li>
<li>Prayer was also offered before going to sleep at night (the modern "compline") </li>
<li>and <i>at midnight - </i>if you can believe that! (You actually woke up to pray, then went back to sleep).</li>
</ul>Tertullian later wrote, "<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">"As regards the</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"> </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">time, there should be no lax observation of</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"> </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">certain</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"> </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">hours—I mean of those common hours which have long marked the divisions of the day, the third, the sixth, and the ninth, and which we may observe in</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"> </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Scripture</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"> </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">to be more</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"> </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">solemn</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"> </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">than the rest" ("De Oratione", xxiii, xxv, in P.L., I, 1191-3)."</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><br />
</span><br />
17. When tempted with sin, make the sign of the cross on your forehead.<br />
<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><br />
</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7081093443268972752.post-19927759512665881582010-03-29T13:42:00.000-04:002010-04-05T14:10:57.520-04:003 types of Youth GroupsMark Devries writes "Every church I looked at was using one of three distinct models. I haven't seen a youth program yet that doesn't fit into one of these three categories . . . Either of the first two can be quite effective. The third is the model used by the majority of churches and almost always results in a sense of frustration and failure."<br />
<br />
1. Fortune 500 / Wal-Mart approach<br />
-This ministry does everything well. It has many staff members, and costs $1K-2K annually <i>per student.</i><br />
2. The Starbucks approach [Remember that Devries is writing in the 90's: since then Starbucks has diversified]<br />
-This ministry does one thing well: choir, youth meetings, Bible studies, missions. They focus on that one thing.<br />
3. Comparative confusion / Going out of business sale<br />
Tries to do everything like the fortune 500 approach, but places demands on the youth ministry that are not realistic for the church's budget. Perpetual frustration and failure ensues. The standard is what other churches are doing.<br />
<br />
He goes on to mention a youth minister who says that frustration comes from people saying "You are doing a great job with our kids" as if it is the minister's job to raise the children. This minister wasn't even overwhelmed with the "adminis-trivia;" it was the parent's attitude that was difficult.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7081093443268972752.post-13100046569938083542010-03-18T15:06:00.000-04:002010-03-18T15:06:09.788-04:00Guess the AuthorOne of the main reasons for this is that our churches do not (on the whole) teach ethics. We are so busy preaching the gospel that we seldom teach the law. We are also afraid of being branded 'legalists'. 'We are not under the law', we say piously, as if we were free to ignore and even disobey it. Whereas what Paul meant is that our acceptance before God is not due to our observance of the law.<br />
(scroll down)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
John Stott, <i>The Message of 1&2 Thessalonians, </i>76.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7081093443268972752.post-1240628709133786192010-03-11T14:35:00.001-05:002010-03-11T14:52:21.085-05:00Accommodating Culture"When religious groups compromise their foundational beliefs in order to coexist with the late sensate culture rather than challenging it or standing against it, they in effect consent to their own liquidation" (Harold O.J. Brown, The Sensate Culture, p. 67).Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7081093443268972752.post-32012231021167831222010-03-06T20:17:00.000-05:002010-03-06T20:17:17.227-05:00The Burden of LegalismA "Snowpacolypse" in NYC has taken down the strings that constitute the local eruv - the boundary hung by orthodox Jews to indicate the boundaries in which one can carry household goods, kleenex, babies, water bottles, pencils, etc. The eruv is an extension of the home, essentially saying that "this neighborhood is my home." However, it has to be marked by this special string upheld by telegraph poles. <br />
<br />
Not only are orthodox Jews incorrect in asserting that God doesn't want people to carry their babies on Sabbath, they have added onto the law (like Eve) in such a way that they can't even have a map to indicate where the eruv is. It <i>HAS </i>to be the string. If the string falls down, the eruv falls as well.<br />
<br />
What a sad state. To take the Living Word of God and reduce it to a series of laws and strings. Tragic, tragic. Oh, that they would be liberated by the blood of Christ!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7081093443268972752.post-40528010632700590222010-03-01T18:41:00.001-05:002010-03-01T18:41:49.896-05:00Didactic worship in the Reformed traditionOne of the threats of Reformed worship is that we turn every element<br>of worship into a "teaching moment." We explain the Lord's Supper, we<br>explain baptism, confession, assurance. To we threaten to turn the<br>entire worship service into one long series of sermons punctuated by<br>music by our constant explaining, exhorting, and reflecting? Can<br>worship be, to some degree, self-explanatory?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7081093443268972752.post-7661899041059895622010-03-01T14:13:00.001-05:002010-03-01T14:13:47.930-05:00Jesus Calling?Description of <u>Jesus Calling</u> by Sarah Young, from <a href="http://amazon.com">amazon.com</a>:<div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; "> After many years of writing in her prayer journal, missionary Sarah Young decided to "listen" to God with pen in hand, writing down whatever she believed He was saying to her. It was awkward at first, but gradually her journaling changed from monologue to dialogue. She knew her writings were not inspired as Scripture is, but they were helping her grow closer to God. Others were blessed as she shared her writings, until people all over the world were using her messages. They are written from Jesus' point of view, thus the title Jesus Calling. It is Sarah's fervent prayer that our Savior may bless you with His presence and His peace in ever deeper measure.</blockquote> </div><div><br></div><div>This book has 160 5-star reviews, 16 4-star reviews, and 1 each of 3, 2 and 1-star reviews. A simple reminder to me, as a Pastor, how important it is to review basic doctrine: inspiration, Christ's divinity, the physical resurrection, etc. There can be no more words of Jesus until He speaks them Himself at the last day. Despite the comment that "her writings were not inspired as Scripture is," there is an implicit idea that they are, in fact, inspired in some way. This confuses the whole concept of inspiration. You might read the Bible and be "inspired" to go do a painting, but the inspiration of Scripture means that God was superintending the words of Scripture, something that Sarah Young thinks was happening when she wrote in her journal.</div> Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7081093443268972752.post-90427133634157089082010-02-12T19:35:00.000-05:002010-02-12T19:35:27.128-05:00Antony Flew responds to Richard Dawkin's critiqueFlew: atheist become theist<br />
Dawkins: critic of his hero's theism<br />
<br />
Flew spoke at Biola University when he received the "Philip E. Johnson Award for Liberty and Truth" Dawkins said he was used. Flew writes:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>"Finally, as to the suggestion that I have been used by Biola University: If the way I was welcomed by the students and the members of the faculty whom I met on my short stay in Biola amounted to being used, then I can only express my regret that at my age of eighty-five I cannot reasonably hope for another visit to this institution."</blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7081093443268972752.post-88999620419184087282010-02-12T19:30:00.001-05:002010-02-12T19:31:30.826-05:00A little common ground with atheists<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Maybe Van Til wasn't so great after all . . . Hitchens is interviewed by Sewell, a Unitarian minister. (On her own blog she complains that Hitchens drinks too much, and became acerbic because of it.)</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Maryiln Sewell: </span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">The religion you cite in your book is generally the fundamentalist faith of various kinds. I’m a liberal Christian, and I don’t take the stories from the scripture literally. I don’t believe in the doctrine of atonement (that Jesus died for our sins, for example). Do you make and [sic] distinction between fundamentalist faith and liberal religion?</span> <b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Christopher Hitchens:</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> I would say that if you don’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah, and that he rose again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, you’re really not in any meaningful sense a Christian. </span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span> </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span> </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span> </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Atheists love this quote as much as Christians. </span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7081093443268972752.post-56109262508341754862010-02-04T00:40:00.000-05:002010-02-04T00:40:02.818-05:00Trouble at Coral RidgeIf you're not aware of the troubles at Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, I won't tell you, because I don't want to ruin your day. <br />
<br />
But let's look at what has gone wrong:<br />
<br />
Rev. Tullian Tchividian (did I spell that right?) takes to <a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/septemberweb-only/138-41.0.html?start=1">Christianity Today</a> to defend himself. I can't help but notice Tullian's Christ-like willingness to forgive. But no sense of any willingness to ask for forgiveness.<br />
<br />
One group has formed a faction, and taken that faction on to plant a new church. Do people not realize that factions and divisions are reckoned by the Bible in the same category as orgies and witchcraft? <br />
<i>Galatians 5:19-21 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, 21 envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. <b>I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. </b></i><br />
<i><br />
</i><br />
When we hear that a group of the church - including the late Dr. Kennedy's daughter - formed a breakaway group, we ought to hear that as if they had protested Tullian's new call by having a drunken orgy. Outrageous! Scripture says, "People like you will not go to heaven - you will not inherit the kingdom of God."<br />
<br />
I am far from impressed with Rev. Tchividian. He is slick, he courts the press, and he seems to have packages the "unpackaged" motif. He's accidentally cool, and should be far more willing to, say, wear a robe because the people want him to wear a robe. <i>Submit in love, </i>Tullian! And stop broadcasting your humility all over <i>Christianity Today</i>, the mag grandpa Billy started.<br />
<br />
But that still doesn't excuse people for <s>divining Coral Ridge's future by slaughtering a sheep and reading its liver </s>strife, rivalries, dissensions, and divisions. I mean, we are talking about two separate congregations with the <i>exact same doctrine. </i>If they can split over admitted non-essentials, what hope is there?<br />
<br />
This could have been handled so many ways but this.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7081093443268972752.post-92044323477819276162009-10-07T14:23:00.003-04:002009-10-07T14:25:10.921-04:00Bring them home. All of them.<img src="file:///C:/Users/jkrulish/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot.png" alt="" /><img src="file:///C:/Users/jkrulish/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-1.png" alt="" /><img src="file:///C:/Users/jkrulish/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-2.png" alt="" /><a href="http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local-beat/Little-Soldier-Girl-Didnt-Want-to-Let-Go-63629627.html?yhp=1">http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local-beat/Little-Soldier-Girl-Didnt-Want-to-Let-Go-63629627.html?yhp=1</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7081093443268972752.post-40038646905505127562009-10-01T17:23:00.001-04:002009-10-01T17:23:28.404-04:00My response to 9 marks and mentally retarded adultsThe 9 marks blog has some insane comment policy, so this will probably never show up.<br><br>Response to <a href="http://blog.9marks.org/2009/10/church-membership-for-the-mentally-handicapped.html">this</a>.<br><br>We have this same issue at our church with an 18 year old. Here's how we figure it:<br> <br>No Jewish family ever had a baby whom they thought was a Philistine. Jewish families had Jewish kids. Sometimes those kids grew up to be Baal worshippers, and proved that they were not faithful Jews after all. But we don't admit only the elect to the visible church, because we don't know who's elect. We do our best at making a decision.<br> <br>If it is impossible to know, as in this man's case, exhort the family to raise him and train him in the fear and admonition of the Lord. Remind them that the Word of God does not come back void, even in the case of the disabled, and that Jesus loves the little children (e.g. those who don't have the ability to speak like adults). Then admit him to full membership, sing with him, read him the Scriptures, and if he should ever need it, bring him under church discipline.<br> <br>You wrote, "We're not saying he is not a Christian; we're simply saying it is nearly impossible for us (the church) to discern."<br><br>That's actually true for everyone. Seemingly faithful brothers have left their wives and the faith. Why did we let them be pastors and elders and Sunday school teachers? Because it is ALWAYS impossible to discern with CERTAINTY. We're ALWAYS just doing our best. Sometimes that's easy, and sometimes that's hard. But it's better to, with the best of intentions, allow an unbeliever to the discipline and sacraments of the church then to keep a true Christian away from the font and the table forever. It would be better to go swimming with a millstone around your neck. <br> Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7081093443268972752.post-33765335229278476722009-09-30T16:13:00.001-04:002009-10-01T12:09:21.089-04:00Gore Vidal on American Education<a href="http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article6854221.ece">Link</a><br /><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote"> Does anyone care what Americans think? They're the worst-educated people in the First World. They don't have any thoughts, they have emotional responses, which good advertisers know how to provoke.<br /></blockquote><br />How critical it is to raise a generation of people who know how to <i>think, </i>not just how to <i>feel.</i>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7081093443268972752.post-10051154298277711002009-09-14T16:50:00.002-04:002009-09-14T16:54:33.068-04:00False teachers?I've been going back and forth a bit with my friend Brenden on his <a href="http://brendenlink.wordpress.com/2009/08/21/vi-marks-of-a-false-teacher/#comment-107">blog.</a> <br /><br />At issue is "what is a false teacher?" Is a false teacher easy to recognize? How should the term be used?<br /><br />Thus far, here's me, then him, then me.<br /><br /><ol class="commentlist snap_preview"><li class="comment odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="comment-105"><div id="div-comment-105"><div class="cmtinfo"><cite>J.Kru</cite></div> <p>Hey Brenden – just found your blog. And I thought it was just a Facebook thing.</p> <p>I recognized the phrase “false teacher” – it shows up in the second Helvetic confession ch. 18.</p> <p>“For, if they be false teachers, they are not to be tolerated at all.”</p> <p>And of course 2 Peter 2:1 says, “But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.”</p> <p>It seems that your description of “false teachers” is a little softer than either the 2Helvitic or the Bible. Are you using “False Teachers” in a different sense?</p> <br /> </div> </li><li class="comment byuser comment-author-takeblue bypostauthor even thread-even depth-1" id="comment-106"> <div id="div-comment-106"> <div class="cmtinfo"><em> on <a href="http://brendenlink.wordpress.com/2009/08/21/vi-marks-of-a-false-teacher/#comment-106" title="">September 14, 2009 at 11:37 am</a> | <a rel="nofollow" class="comment-reply-link" href="http://brendenlink.wordpress.com/2009/08/21/vi-marks-of-a-false-teacher/?replytocom=106#respond" onclick="'return">Reply</a></em> <img alt="" src="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/c8ff7099adb21698451150ab9759cf75?s=48&d=identicon&r=G" class="avatar avatar-48" width="48" height="48" /> <cite><a href="http://brendenlink.wordpress.com/" rel="external nofollow" class="url">Brenden</a></cite></div> <p>Jarid – Yeah, that’s a good question. I think I may have been using a different sense. My intention was more to bring out the ‘hypothetical’ false teacher and identify him via certain strains of ‘false teaching’ more specifically. False teaching rarely is conspicuously apparent, but rather veils itself through sophisticated reasoning and wordplay. Mine was an attempt to unveil the spirit of the age by identifying some of its underlying motivations. </p> <p>Your criticism is quite well-founded. However, my question then would be: if he’s dong false teaching, when does he become a ‘false teacher’? Thanks for the comment. We should catch up sometime soon.</p> <br /> </div> </li><li class="comment odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="comment-107"> <div id="div-comment-107"> <div class="cmtinfo"><em> on <a href="http://brendenlink.wordpress.com/2009/08/21/vi-marks-of-a-false-teacher/#comment-107" title="">September 14, 2009 at 12:50 pm</a> | <a rel="nofollow" class="comment-reply-link" href="http://brendenlink.wordpress.com/2009/08/21/vi-marks-of-a-false-teacher/?replytocom=107#respond" onclick="'return">Reply</a></em> <img alt="" src="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/f3a06cdff9368792647b45ce6c881bd0?s=48&d=identicon&r=G" class="avatar avatar-48" width="48" height="48" /> <cite><a href="http://1189chapters.blogspot.com/" rel="external nofollow" class="url">J.Kru</a></cite></div> <p>Well, there’s a sense in which the identification of false teachers is the work of the church, not the individual. It’s not a complete sense, i.e. we should be able to discern truth from error, but it’s there.</p> <p>I would say that someone is a false teacher as soon as they start teaching what it certainly false. </p> <p>It’s the evaluation of the falsehood that is the trouble. </p> <p>I’m not sure that false teaching is quite so veiled. For example, is Baptist sacrementology false teaching? I believe it is, in fact, in error, but it’s not “false teaching.” Every theological is a matter of error or not-error, but that doesn’t mean that either all Baptists or all Presbyterians are false teachers. </p> <p>False teaching is a statement that salvation is not by faith but by circumcision. Arianism, Docetism, Sabellianism, or Pelagianism are all false teachings. JW’s and Mormons are false teachers.</p> <p>It seems from Scripture and the Reformed confessions that a “false teacher” is someone outside of salvation, an damnable heretic who is, apart from heartfelt repentance, going to go to hell, and all who follow him shall go with him.</p> <p>They often attempt to be sophisticated in the description, but the error is plainly seen. </p> <p>What caught my attention was the word “emphasis,” which certainly apply to #s 1-4, and maybe 5. I remembered John Frame’s essay “evaluating theological writings.” He mentions 3 unsound criteria for theological evaluation, the first one being “emphasis.” He writes, “In this kind of criticism, one theologian attacks another for having an improper ‘emphasis.’ But there is no such thing as a single normative emphasis. An emphasis becomes a problem only when it leads to other sorts of problems.” (John Frame, _The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God_, P&R Publishing, 1987), p. 370. He refers in this section to chapter 6, where he discusses problems of evaluating “emphasis” – a. Emphasis is a matter of degree. Exactly how much has to be done before a proper ‘emphasis’ has been achieved? b. Scripture has a “central message,” but valuable theological work can be done in areas that are distantly related to this central message. For example, the veiling of women in 1 Cor 11 is not illegitimate because it is pays little attention the Scripture’s central message. c. Theology cannot have precisely the same emphasis as Scripture, because it does more than simply repeat Scripture from Gen. to Rev. Theology exists to apply Scripture. </p> <p>Finally, he suggests that a problem of “emphasis” is better understood as either a problem of truth, clarity or cogency.” (182-183).</p> <p>There are a couple of points in Frame (just the above part) I’m not sure I agree with, but his final point is the best – instead of looking for the man’s emphasis, let’s look to see if he’s wrong, unclear, or unconvincing.</p></div></li></ol>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7081093443268972752.post-73621822807148803112009-09-10T17:11:00.001-04:002009-09-10T17:13:48.187-04:00Machen on the Meaning of Freedom, Gal. 1:3-7The Christian does indeed live still in this world. It is a travesty on this Pauline doctrine when it is held to mean that when he escapes, inwardly, from the present evil world by the redeeming work of Christ the Christian can calmly leave the world to its fate. On the conrary, Christian men, even after they have been redeemed, are left in this world, and in this world they have an important duty to perform.<br> <br>In the first place, they do not stand alone, but are united in the great brotherhood of the Christian Church. Into that brotherhood it is their duty to invite other men by the preaching of the gospel; and they should pray that that preaching, through the supernatural operation of the Holy Spirit in the new birth, may be efficacious, and that the great brotherhood may expand yet more and more.<br> <br>In the second place, Christians should by no means adopt a negative attitude toward art, government, science, literature, and the other achievements of mankind, but should consecrate these things to the service of God. The separateness of the Christian from the world is not to be manifested, as so many seem to think that it should be manifested, by the presentation to God of only an impoverished man; but it is to be manifested by the presentation to God of all man's God-given powers developed to the full. That is the higher Christain humanism, a humanism based not upon human pride but upon the solid foundation of the grace of God. <br> <br>But these considerations do not make any less radical the step of which Paul speaks. It remains true that the Christian has escaped from this present age - from this present world with all its sin and all its pride. The Christian continues to live in the world, but he lives in it as its master and not as its slave. He can move the world because at last he has a place to stand.<br> <br>J. Gresham Machen, <i>Machen's Notes on Galatians, </i>ed. John H. Skilton (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1972), 32-33.<br> Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7081093443268972752.post-49239004726441313062009-06-03T21:22:00.005-04:002009-09-12T17:27:54.787-04:00The Real Cost of Television<a href="http://www.baylyblog.com/2009/06/turn-off-the-tv.html">A great little entry about TV</a> from the Bayly Bros.<br /><span class="trackbacks-link"><br /><br />"</span>No one ever looked at the PBS anchor and said, "I've got to get a blazer like that!"<br /><br />Right in line with my current email tagline:<br /><br />The U.S. has now proved beyond any doubt that it is not possible to maintain civilization in a country with commercial television. - Clyde N. Wilson<br /><br />When Paul writes,<br />2 Corinthians 10:5 "We . . . take every thought captive to obey Christ,"<br /><br />He doesn't mean in his own personal life, he means as he argues and debates. But it's tough to recognize the flesh when all you do is fill your head with manure.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7081093443268972752.post-51442174087646729392009-06-03T16:44:00.000-04:002009-09-10T17:13:25.976-04:00Exodus from the Government Education Facilityhttp://afterthebasket.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/exodus/Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7081093443268972752.post-49365022151707174422009-06-03T16:36:00.004-04:002009-09-12T17:29:11.606-04:00The Year of Our Lord for Queer FolkIt just strikes me as funny that as our President declares that it's Gay-Lesbian-Trangendered-Bisexual Pride month,he can't help but include reference to Jesus, as he says,<br /><br /><blockquote>NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim <span style="font-weight: bold;">June 2009 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Mont</span><span style="font-weight: bold;">h.</span> I call upon the people of the United States to turn back discrimination and prejudice everywhere it exists.<br /><br />IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of June,<span style="font-weight: bold;"> in the year of our Lord two thousand nine</span>, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.</blockquote><br />I'm sorry, the year of <span style="font-style: italic;">whose </span>Lord? This one?<br /><blockquote>Colossians 1:9-10 And so, from the day we heard, we have not ceased to pray for you, asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, <span style="font-weight: bold;"> so as to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord,</span> fully pleasing to him, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God.</blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7081093443268972752.post-47353621335070088812009-05-22T13:22:00.004-04:002009-05-22T13:35:17.543-04:00Washington State's 1st Suicide<p style="font-family: verdana;">OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — A 66-year-old woman who had stage 4 pancreatic cancer is the first person to die under Washington state's new assisted suicide law.</p><p style="font-family: verdana;">Linda Fleming of Sequim died Thursday night after taking drugs prescribed under the "Death with Dignity" law that took effect in March. Assisted suicide group Compassion & Choices of Washington announced Fleming's death Friday morning.</p><a style="font-family: verdana;" href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g0NuoNUMdWuL_AQUOMA-RuMRcpuAD98BDBN01">LINK</a><br /><br /><span style="font-family: verdana;">In Scripture, it is always and only the ungodly who take their own lives:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: courier new;font-family:arial;" ><span style="font-weight: bold;">1 Samuel 31:4-6</span> 4 Then Saul said to his armor-bearer, "Draw your sword, and thrust me through with it, lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and mistreat me." But his armor-bearer would not, for he feared greatly. Therefore Saul took his own sword and fell upon it. 5 And when his armor-bearer saw that Saul was dead, he also fell upon his sword and died with him. 6 Thus Saul died, and his three sons, and his armor-bearer, and all his men, on the same day together. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: verdana;">It's sad that we have come to the point in which suicide - the ultimate acts of despair and hatred - is now viewed as "compassionate," particularly with the sorts of pain management that is available today.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: verdana;">A fine sermon on the subject of the Assisted Suicide law here in Washington State - preached just before the vote - is available </span><a style="font-family: verdana;" href="http://www.faithtacoma.org/content/2008-10-19-pm.aspx">here</a><span style="font-family: verdana;">.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7081093443268972752.post-78660654689155464292009-05-20T17:42:00.003-04:002009-05-22T13:35:57.042-04:00Work and money<blockquote style="font-family: verdana;">When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. - Dr. Adrian Rogers</blockquote><br /><span style="font-family: verdana;font-family:georgia;" >Dr. Rogers explains the natural results of disobedience to these commands:</span><br /><br /><p style="font-family: courier new;font-family:arial;" ><span style="font-size:85%;">Thessalonians 3: For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.<br /></span></p><p style="font-family: verdana;font-family:arial;" ><span style="font-family: courier new;font-size:85%;" >Genesis 1: "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."</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span>Indeed. When men set aside their God given obligation and right (yes, "right" in the sense that "it is something we should <span style="font-style: italic;">want </span>to do") and think that somebody <span style="font-style: italic;">else </span>will do all the work and then hand it over, neither nation nor family can survive.<br /></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7081093443268972752.post-67936759869331330372009-05-20T17:33:00.004-04:002009-05-29T14:43:32.244-04:00Problems with the ESV?A problem with the Reformed World's faaaaavorite Bible translation?<br /><br />I think the ESV is a great translation. Neither my Hebrew nor my Greek are good enough to start offering critique of actual translation choices, other than to say that I understand the difference between formal equivalence, in which the text is translated word-for-word, and dynamic equivalence, in which the text is translated thought-for-thought. I think that missionaries should be using dynamic translations as they seek to win and inform non- and new Christians.<br /><br />There are a few places where I would like to see the ESV retain the Authorized Version's word-for-word literal translation philosophy, or that of the NASB . . . see how the ESV takes the teeth out of Ezekiel's proclamation -<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">KJV </span>- Ezekiel 16:25 Thou hast built thy high place at every head of the way, and hast made thy beauty to be abhorred, and <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">hast opened thy feet to every one that passed by</span>, and multiplied thy whoredoms.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">NASB </span>- Ezekiel 16:25 "You built yourself a high place at the top of every street and made your beauty abominable, and <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">you spread your legs to every passer-by </span>to multiply your harlotry.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">ESV </span>Ezekiel 16:25 At the head of every street you built your lofty place and made your beauty an abomination, <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">offering yourself to any passerby </span>and multiplying your whoring.<br /><br />How lame. The raw, crude offensiveness of the KJV and NASB are neutered by the ESV. <span style="font-style: italic;">But</span> overall, I can't complain about the ESV.<br /><br />I wouldn't complain about the ESV.<br /><br />After all, I'm Reformed.<br /><br />The <a href="http://www.esv.org/translation/committee">Translation Oversight Committee</a> consists of 9 men whom I know to be Reformed, particularly Packer, Collins, Grudem and Polythress. Some of the others may be as well. As for the <a href="http://www.esv.org/translation/team#team">Translation Review Scholars</a>, I can't say.<br /><br />But this I do know: this is the Reformed Translation of the Bible. Reformed and Calvinist churches love it, use it, reccomend it.<br /><br />Now, again, I'm reformed, and I do the same thing. But it does worry me that now the Baptists have the Holman Christian Standard, and Calvinists have the ESV, and Rick Warren has The Message, etc. <br /><br />We are so divided as Christ's One Holy Church that we now all have our individualized Bibles. <br /><br />We've already done it with study notes and marketing. Women's Devotional Bible, Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible, Teen Study Bible, etc. etc. It was only a matter of time before we all started getting our own translations as well.<br /><br />How long until we have nothing in common at all?<br /><br />I love the ESV but sometimes I wish that we all still had nothing but the King James Version, and we would have to learn to make do, and we would all be happy with our Bibles in basic black.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0