I think my fellow bloggers have taken off early for the Christmas season. Today is another slow day.
John Piper reminds us that today is the 200th anniversary of John Newton's death. If you want to read Piper's biography on Newton you can do so here, or you can buy Josiah Bull's excellent work The Life of John Newton, or if you are feeling really saucy you can buy his Complete Works for only $127. You can read his letters for free at Grace Gems and his Olney Hymns for free at CCEL. Ever minute and every dollar you spend getting to know this man of God is well spent.
Old Truth sounds like John Piper today: Worship, Not Evangelism, The Most Important Task. Piper says that Missions exists because worship does not. This article echoes that sentiment as it points us to a quote from Robert Reymond's New Systematic Theology. His central thesis is this: For decades now evangelical churches have been conducting their services for the sake of unbelievers. Both the revivalistic service of a previous generation and the "seeker service" of today are shaped by the same concern--appeal to the unchurched. Not surprisingly, in neither case does much that might be called worship by Christians occur. As a result, many evangelicals who have been sitting for years in such worship services are finding their souls drying up, and they have begun to long for something else.
Yesterday it was announced that Alex and Bret Harris will be releasing their new book, Do Hard Things, in April. Right now it is retailing for 16.99. I am hoping it is discounted quickly, I would love to do a small group on this book in youth group! (HT: JT)
Showing posts with label Blogworld. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Blogworld. Show all posts
Friday, December 21, 2007
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Borrowed Light: Today in Blogworld 12/19
Today seems to be a little slow in blogworld.
Of all the books I have read one of the most frustrating has to be Frank Page's Trouble with the Tulip. Of all the articles I have read one of the most encouraging has been Frank's Page's recent article in the Baptist Press: Calvinism and Southern Baptists. (HT: Founders) Page will be the first to admit that he is not a Calvinist. In fact he believes it is a manmade doctrine. He is cited in his Tulip book as saying, "It is also important to remember that man-made doctrines always hurt God's work" (74). Also he believes that, "manmade doctrines always give way to God's Word" (75). Yet in all of this Page also says, "Most everyone who knows me knows that I am not a Calvinist. However, I have made it clear that I would be fair to those who are Calvinists in appointments in our convention. I have been true to my word. I believe that the issue of Calvinism is one that can be discussed within the family of Southern Baptists. I believe we need to have honest, open dialogue." Although I must question why a man, convinced that Calvinists hinder God's work and give way to God's Word, would appoint them to important posts in the Convention. I still respect his willingness to be open and to dialogue. I praise God for this and pray along with Page that we might have a Christ-like spirit and be diligent in our studies.
Do you ever wonder what the answer to church-wide immorality is? Brian Thornton offers a suggestion. His answer? Simple. Regeneration. Thornton also gives 9 suggestions for combating church-wide-immorality. Of his 9 suggestions one I especially like is #4, "Teach kids the same things as the adults". One that I might have worded differently is #7, where he suggest making the center of our worship the Word and Sacraments. I know that by making Word capital he is pointing us to Jesus, but I would have worded it a little differently. My suggestion: "make the Triune God as revealed in the Scriptures and displayed in the Sacraments the center of our worship".
Also today, Josh Harris continues his study on Affluenza, we are now on Part 4.
That's it so far today.
Of all the books I have read one of the most frustrating has to be Frank Page's Trouble with the Tulip. Of all the articles I have read one of the most encouraging has been Frank's Page's recent article in the Baptist Press: Calvinism and Southern Baptists. (HT: Founders) Page will be the first to admit that he is not a Calvinist. In fact he believes it is a manmade doctrine. He is cited in his Tulip book as saying, "It is also important to remember that man-made doctrines always hurt God's work" (74). Also he believes that, "manmade doctrines always give way to God's Word" (75). Yet in all of this Page also says, "Most everyone who knows me knows that I am not a Calvinist. However, I have made it clear that I would be fair to those who are Calvinists in appointments in our convention. I have been true to my word. I believe that the issue of Calvinism is one that can be discussed within the family of Southern Baptists. I believe we need to have honest, open dialogue." Although I must question why a man, convinced that Calvinists hinder God's work and give way to God's Word, would appoint them to important posts in the Convention. I still respect his willingness to be open and to dialogue. I praise God for this and pray along with Page that we might have a Christ-like spirit and be diligent in our studies.
Do you ever wonder what the answer to church-wide immorality is? Brian Thornton offers a suggestion. His answer? Simple. Regeneration. Thornton also gives 9 suggestions for combating church-wide-immorality. Of his 9 suggestions one I especially like is #4, "Teach kids the same things as the adults". One that I might have worded differently is #7, where he suggest making the center of our worship the Word and Sacraments. I know that by making Word capital he is pointing us to Jesus, but I would have worded it a little differently. My suggestion: "make the Triune God as revealed in the Scriptures and displayed in the Sacraments the center of our worship".
Also today, Josh Harris continues his study on Affluenza, we are now on Part 4.
That's it so far today.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Borrowed Light: Today in Blogworld 12/18
The Shepherd's Scrapbook has released its Top 30 books of 2007. Topping the list this year is the ESV Literary Bible and Waltke's OT Theology. As I scroll through this list I see about 5 or 6 that are on my wish list. Looks like I need to update my list.
Dan Philipps has an excellent post at Pyromaniacs; where he considers the Danger of Confessions. Philipps central contention is this: "while I find much help, encouragement, and instruction in the great confessions, I have to remember: Satan may sift the body of which I am a part. I may find myself alone. Will I be able to say "I believe, and I have come to know"? This is a great question to ask ourselves. I have great fellowship with many of my Reformed brothers, but if they go south on matters of ecclesiology am I am able to stand up for what I believe?
Why do so many men not write like this anymore: "And as often as we muse on Christ the fire burns with us also. And the longer we muse on Him, and the deeper our musing goes, the more the fire burns. And this fire never sinks low, far less ever dies out, as long as we so muse. Think enough, meditating enough, musing enough on Christ, will do it. Thinking that always ends in prayer, and in praise, and in repentance unto life, and in ever new obedience, that will do it. Think you see Christ all through the Four Gospels. Think you see Him die at the end of the Four Gospels. Think you see Him rise again. Think you see Him ascend up into heaven. Think that it is the day of judgment. And think you see the books opened, - till you cry to Him continually day and night, Rock of Ages, cleft for me!" The words are from Alexander Whyte and come to us via The Vossed World. Now it seems like many have abandoned "musing" for "doing". Could it be possible that deep musing creates deep doing? Could it be that the reason we often only see superficial change is because we spend a vast majority of our time thinking and doing that which is superficial?
Brian at Voice of the Sheep has a great article on the visible church. He wonders how often does the world see the church gathering in a public setting. Even on Wednesday's and Sunday's all the world sees are our cars. Therefore, his suggestion is this: Do more things in public with your church body so that the world will see you together with one another. (HT: Challies)
Dan Philipps has an excellent post at Pyromaniacs; where he considers the Danger of Confessions. Philipps central contention is this: "while I find much help, encouragement, and instruction in the great confessions, I have to remember: Satan may sift the body of which I am a part. I may find myself alone. Will I be able to say "I believe, and I have come to know"? This is a great question to ask ourselves. I have great fellowship with many of my Reformed brothers, but if they go south on matters of ecclesiology am I am able to stand up for what I believe?
Why do so many men not write like this anymore: "And as often as we muse on Christ the fire burns with us also. And the longer we muse on Him, and the deeper our musing goes, the more the fire burns. And this fire never sinks low, far less ever dies out, as long as we so muse. Think enough, meditating enough, musing enough on Christ, will do it. Thinking that always ends in prayer, and in praise, and in repentance unto life, and in ever new obedience, that will do it. Think you see Christ all through the Four Gospels. Think you see Him die at the end of the Four Gospels. Think you see Him rise again. Think you see Him ascend up into heaven. Think that it is the day of judgment. And think you see the books opened, - till you cry to Him continually day and night, Rock of Ages, cleft for me!" The words are from Alexander Whyte and come to us via The Vossed World. Now it seems like many have abandoned "musing" for "doing". Could it be possible that deep musing creates deep doing? Could it be that the reason we often only see superficial change is because we spend a vast majority of our time thinking and doing that which is superficial?
Brian at Voice of the Sheep has a great article on the visible church. He wonders how often does the world see the church gathering in a public setting. Even on Wednesday's and Sunday's all the world sees are our cars. Therefore, his suggestion is this: Do more things in public with your church body so that the world will see you together with one another. (HT: Challies)
Monday, December 17, 2007
Today in Blogworld 12/17
The first article I read this morning is probably the most sad. Dr. Mohler addresses a new agenda-filled T-shirt worn by toddlers. The T-shirt reads "My Daddy's name is Donor". No, that's not Donner, one of the 8 reindeer; it is a reference to a sperm donor. What is communicated to this little guy is that his daddy does not matter. Mohler sites Catherine Bruton of The Times in London who says: The T-shirt is offered by a company called Family Evolutions, founded by a lesbian couple whose son modelled the shirt. The co-founder, Stacey Harris, says that the T-shirt is empowering. "We want to lift the taboo surrounding donor conception so that kids don't feel that their coming into the world is a shameful secret," she says. "Kids who are empowered will grow up well-adjusted." Despite my concern over the political agenda behind this, I am most pained for this little child and the host of other little boys. What does it communicate to a male child when he is told that daddy doesn't matter? It means men do not matter. It means your masculinity does not matter. Truly sad.
John Piper reminds us that we need to feel homesick: "The likelihood of dying because you are a Christian is closer than it used to be for Americans. The freedom from such threats has generally existed in this country for a tiny portion of history (about 400 years). We have gotten used to it. It seems like the way things must be. So our first reaction to the threat that things might be otherwise is often anger. But that anger may be a sign that we have lost our sense of being aliens and exiles (“Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles . . .” 1 Peter 2:11). Perhaps we have settled in too much to this world and this country in particular. We don't feel as homesick for Christ as Paul did..." Continue reading
In Acts29/MBC news, Founders has posted an interview with Kevin Larson. Larson is one of the 3 churches that will be deeply affected by this decision. The St. Louis Post has ran an article as well. My friend Sam of Believers Church, also deeply impacted by this decision, was interview for this article. My only regret is that in the Post article the author refers to these churches as "Emerging". That is not helpful to the discussion.
Josh Harris has parts two and three now posted on his affluenza series.
Pulpit Magazine attempts to answer a very good question about being unequally yoked: Question: Some people have told me that being unequally yoked is talking exclusively about marriage. Others have said that it applies also to business partnerships and other situations. Could you please expand on this? What does it mean to be unequally yoked and what type of a guideline should I have if it is okay for me to have a business partnership with a non-believer? Read the answer here.
And finally Thabiti Anyabwile, from Pure Church, tackles the Satan (I mean Santa) Claus debate. I am hoping that my friend Will accepts my invite to begin writing on this blog. If he does I would love to see him address this issue--I appreciate his stance on Christmas. As for Thabiti he says Down with Santa Claus. Here is his conclusion: "I'm not arguing a dogmatic causality here. I'm simply asking the question, "Why include Santa Claus at all?" Is the imagined upside of following the culture here worth what we think it's worth? And are our justifications helping us to point our children to Christ or masking the reality that we may be pointing our children away from Him? Personally, I doubt Santa Claus is worth it, and pointing our kids away from Jesus at Christmas may be the worst form of child neglect I can imagine."
John Piper reminds us that we need to feel homesick: "The likelihood of dying because you are a Christian is closer than it used to be for Americans. The freedom from such threats has generally existed in this country for a tiny portion of history (about 400 years). We have gotten used to it. It seems like the way things must be. So our first reaction to the threat that things might be otherwise is often anger. But that anger may be a sign that we have lost our sense of being aliens and exiles (“Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles . . .” 1 Peter 2:11). Perhaps we have settled in too much to this world and this country in particular. We don't feel as homesick for Christ as Paul did..." Continue reading
In Acts29/MBC news, Founders has posted an interview with Kevin Larson. Larson is one of the 3 churches that will be deeply affected by this decision. The St. Louis Post has ran an article as well. My friend Sam of Believers Church, also deeply impacted by this decision, was interview for this article. My only regret is that in the Post article the author refers to these churches as "Emerging". That is not helpful to the discussion.
Josh Harris has parts two and three now posted on his affluenza series.
Pulpit Magazine attempts to answer a very good question about being unequally yoked: Question: Some people have told me that being unequally yoked is talking exclusively about marriage. Others have said that it applies also to business partnerships and other situations. Could you please expand on this? What does it mean to be unequally yoked and what type of a guideline should I have if it is okay for me to have a business partnership with a non-believer? Read the answer here.
And finally Thabiti Anyabwile, from Pure Church, tackles the Satan (I mean Santa) Claus debate. I am hoping that my friend Will accepts my invite to begin writing on this blog. If he does I would love to see him address this issue--I appreciate his stance on Christmas. As for Thabiti he says Down with Santa Claus. Here is his conclusion: "I'm not arguing a dogmatic causality here. I'm simply asking the question, "Why include Santa Claus at all?" Is the imagined upside of following the culture here worth what we think it's worth? And are our justifications helping us to point our children to Christ or masking the reality that we may be pointing our children away from Him? Personally, I doubt Santa Claus is worth it, and pointing our kids away from Jesus at Christmas may be the worst form of child neglect I can imagine."
Friday, December 14, 2007
Today in Blogworld 12/14
In less than a month I will get to see my son for the first time. How exciting. Articles like this one, "Delighting in Delight", are especially dear to my heart. I am anxiously awaiting God to teach me more of his gospel through my son. "Delighting in Delight" is the story of a father giving an expensive gift to his son. Especially gospel is this line: "I explained to him that it was my privilege to give him the castle as a gift and that he could show me gratitude not by attempting to pay me back, something he could not do despite his best efforts, but by playing with the castle and receiving from it a great deal of joy." I pray that we remember that our "great gift" is not a castle (as was Tim's son's) but God Himself! What a great gift that Christ has secured for His sheep!
It's flu season, and has been since the day after Thanksgiving. I'm not talking about the type of flu you think though. I am talking about affluenza. Josh Harris gives us part one on affluenza.
You should also check out a really interesting article by Anthony Bradley: Preaching to Smothered Mama's Boys. It's a good one for mothers to read (to know what NOT to do) and for men and fathers to read (to know the need to rescue the young men entrusted to you).
It's flu season, and has been since the day after Thanksgiving. I'm not talking about the type of flu you think though. I am talking about affluenza. Josh Harris gives us part one on affluenza.
You should also check out a really interesting article by Anthony Bradley: Preaching to Smothered Mama's Boys. It's a good one for mothers to read (to know what NOT to do) and for men and fathers to read (to know the need to rescue the young men entrusted to you).
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Today in Blogworld 12/13
One of my first stops is usually Challies. Yesterday he posted a very interesting article on The Death of Shame. "Aileen and I have continually returned to the question of why so many young people these days seem unwilling or unable to grow up. It is a question that has confused us, especially as we look to many of the young people we know. There was a time when young people seemed eager to grow up, to mature, and to head out into the world to make their mark on it. Or that is how we remember it (we were, after all, married at 21 and parents by 23). But those people now seem to be the exception more than the rule. More and more, it seems, young people (and increasingly older young people) are choosing to stay home, to stay in colleges, to earn a second or third or fourth degree. They are, it seems, refusing to grow up." To find out his conclusion continue reading.
A few days ago I mentioned my confusion about a recent post by Mark Dever. Perhaps Jonathan Leeman has provided an answer. See it here.
Jim at Old Truth has found himself in the midst of a discussion ("argument") over whether or not we should question professions of faith. This morning he pulled the Mark Dever card. "Sometimes I get the feeling that people think there's something wrong with questioning the reality of a profession of faith. It's legalistic, or judging, or holier than thou. Or something. But if evangelists want to see lost sinners saved, and if evangelists know that we sinners can deceive ourselves, then it's not surprising that we want to try to make sure (with all appropriate qualifications about our limitedness) that conversions professed are conversions possessed. Or is it just sour-faced theologians who think about such things? Are preachers who think about such things unevangelistic?" Continue reading for the answer.
A few days ago I mentioned my confusion about a recent post by Mark Dever. Perhaps Jonathan Leeman has provided an answer. See it here.
Jim at Old Truth has found himself in the midst of a discussion ("argument") over whether or not we should question professions of faith. This morning he pulled the Mark Dever card. "Sometimes I get the feeling that people think there's something wrong with questioning the reality of a profession of faith. It's legalistic, or judging, or holier than thou. Or something. But if evangelists want to see lost sinners saved, and if evangelists know that we sinners can deceive ourselves, then it's not surprising that we want to try to make sure (with all appropriate qualifications about our limitedness) that conversions professed are conversions possessed. Or is it just sour-faced theologians who think about such things? Are preachers who think about such things unevangelistic?" Continue reading for the answer.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Today in Blogworld 12/11
Dr. Mohler has written about the mainline Protestant concern with homosexual pastors. "Yes, They Said It" gives two exhibits (quotes) that point to the reason we are concerned. One of the men that he quoted is a Lutheran. When we compare that pastors comment to a quote by Martin Luther we see just how far some churches have strayed from their origin. Brian Schmeling said this: "People aren't coming to church to hear that their sins are forgiven; they are coming to experience connection to God, to the people sitting with them in the sanctuary and to people around the world. My theology has thus become more incarnational and relational." In other words, he no longer preaches the Cross. Contrast this with what Martin Luther said about preaching the gospel, "The gospel cannot be preached and heard enough, for it cannot be grasped well enough...Moreover, our greatest task is to keep you faithful to this article and to bequeath this treasure to you when we die". Schmeling and folks like him have exchanged that treasure for a false gospel.
Michael Spencer, the Internetmonk, has made a very thoughtful post about Name Tags. In effective irony he points out the hypocrisy of many who call the Emerging Church (Conversation, Emergent, whatever they are called) vague. His point is that we [insert your affiliations here] are just as guilty as the emergent of being slippery and unidentifiable. His solution serves as a fitting rebuke...we should just wear name tags that spells out who we follow. "Maybe we could just try using the names of favorite teachers, like “Keller types” or “Macarthur types.” What do you think? “I am of Paul.” “I am of Apollos.” It would make everything much simpler."
I will take his rebuke and grow from it--I know I do sometimes follow "Piper", "Sproul", "Edwards", "Spurgeon", etc. And defining my theology by a name tag is wrong, I confess. But I do have to disagree with Spencer on one point at least. What many decry Emergent for is not that they are slippery in defining their names or giving a definition to their theology. Granted, it is frustrating not knowing what to call them (it makes writing more difficult). Slippery name tags is not the problem. Slippery theology is what the problem is. When their leaders refuse to make a stance on homosexuality (something the Bible is clear about) and clothe their border-line (sometimes outright) heretical views with deliberately confusing arguments then they become slippery, and that is what people have a problem with. Nonetheless, the rebuke still stands.
New Attitude points us to a C.J. Mahaney article on "Cravings and Conflict". Every time I read or hear something by Mahaney my level of respect for him grows. After reading this article I wanted to comment on it but found myself only able to say, "Wow". I highly recommend you read this article--you will be blessed. In it Mahaney reminds us that we will face conflict, the question is are we ready for it? This article will certainly help us.
Michael Spencer, the Internetmonk, has made a very thoughtful post about Name Tags. In effective irony he points out the hypocrisy of many who call the Emerging Church (Conversation, Emergent, whatever they are called) vague. His point is that we [insert your affiliations here] are just as guilty as the emergent of being slippery and unidentifiable. His solution serves as a fitting rebuke...we should just wear name tags that spells out who we follow. "Maybe we could just try using the names of favorite teachers, like “Keller types” or “Macarthur types.” What do you think? “I am of Paul.” “I am of Apollos.” It would make everything much simpler."
I will take his rebuke and grow from it--I know I do sometimes follow "Piper", "Sproul", "Edwards", "Spurgeon", etc. And defining my theology by a name tag is wrong, I confess. But I do have to disagree with Spencer on one point at least. What many decry Emergent for is not that they are slippery in defining their names or giving a definition to their theology. Granted, it is frustrating not knowing what to call them (it makes writing more difficult). Slippery name tags is not the problem. Slippery theology is what the problem is. When their leaders refuse to make a stance on homosexuality (something the Bible is clear about) and clothe their border-line (sometimes outright) heretical views with deliberately confusing arguments then they become slippery, and that is what people have a problem with. Nonetheless, the rebuke still stands.
New Attitude points us to a C.J. Mahaney article on "Cravings and Conflict". Every time I read or hear something by Mahaney my level of respect for him grows. After reading this article I wanted to comment on it but found myself only able to say, "Wow". I highly recommend you read this article--you will be blessed. In it Mahaney reminds us that we will face conflict, the question is are we ready for it? This article will certainly help us.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Today in Blogworld 12/10
I am sitting here trying to figure out how to interact with Time Magazine's article on Rob Bell. (HT: JT) In it he is heralded as potentially "one of the most important leaders of the 21st century". Indeed with a church that tops 11,000 he has considerable influence. My concern lies in this quote: "the faith needs someone who can defend its tenets in the argot [specialized vocabulary] of the day". If Bell is hoping to be that man then he is falling way short. If you want a little more information on Bell's doctrine I suggest checking out Mark Sohmer's review of Velvet Elvis. In it he categorizes the errors as follows: Under heresy we see a wrong view of the Trinity, Exclusivity of Christianity, mankind, and the gospel; under aberrant theology we see a wrong view of Jesus' purpose, heaven and hell, rabbinc judaism, hermeneutics, and influences.
So, as I am trying to think of how to interact with this article I am struggling with knowing whether or not to dismiss Bell as a dangerous heretic or a brother with aberrant theology. All I know is this--I will not be suggesting his books or Nooma videos to the sheep God has entrusted to my care.
Also, over the weekend Mark Dever wrote an article about the gospel. To be honest, I am not certain I understand it. His central thesis is this: "It is very important to [mentally] divorce the gospel from its implications and entailments. [Do NOT divorce these in your life and practice--that is James 2 hypocrisy!]" I think my problem lies in wondering what Dever means by "implications and entailments". If you read the comments I apparently am not the only one. I await Mark's response. My take so far is this: Dever is simply saying that our ministries should be comprised of preaching Christ and Him crucified and THAT is the gospel. It seems to me that his "rebuke" is not aimed at social gospel adherents or vague presentations of the Emerging Church. It seems to me that his rebuke is towards those of us who are so passionate about saying all of the right words that rather than just preaching the gospel we go into really lengthy discourses and reject formulations such as the God-man-Christ-response. All in all, I am awaiting Dever's more in depth explanation of this comment. It is probably a profound one but as it stands it is far too vague and leaves open far too many questions.
That's all that we have so far today. I would also like to give a woohoo! to the Cleveland Browns who are now 8-5!! For those Chiefs and Rams fans who tease me for being a Browns fan I will not gloat that the Rams and Chiefs combined have 1 less win than the Browns. The Brownies are playoff bound and I'm happy--and I am hoping that it's first round Pittsburgh vs. Cleveland. How sweet it would be to walk into Pittsburgh and beat them senseless! (By the way, I think being a Cleveland Browns fan is proof that I have a big view of God--what hope could I have unless I believed in the sovereignty of God?!?!?) Oh, also if you are a lover of fantasy baseball then go to Fantasy Baseball Heaven and join a winter league comprised of all those old-timey players...looks like it could be fun.
So, as I am trying to think of how to interact with this article I am struggling with knowing whether or not to dismiss Bell as a dangerous heretic or a brother with aberrant theology. All I know is this--I will not be suggesting his books or Nooma videos to the sheep God has entrusted to my care.
Also, over the weekend Mark Dever wrote an article about the gospel. To be honest, I am not certain I understand it. His central thesis is this: "It is very important to [mentally] divorce the gospel from its implications and entailments. [Do NOT divorce these in your life and practice--that is James 2 hypocrisy!]" I think my problem lies in wondering what Dever means by "implications and entailments". If you read the comments I apparently am not the only one. I await Mark's response. My take so far is this: Dever is simply saying that our ministries should be comprised of preaching Christ and Him crucified and THAT is the gospel. It seems to me that his "rebuke" is not aimed at social gospel adherents or vague presentations of the Emerging Church. It seems to me that his rebuke is towards those of us who are so passionate about saying all of the right words that rather than just preaching the gospel we go into really lengthy discourses and reject formulations such as the God-man-Christ-response. All in all, I am awaiting Dever's more in depth explanation of this comment. It is probably a profound one but as it stands it is far too vague and leaves open far too many questions.
That's all that we have so far today. I would also like to give a woohoo! to the Cleveland Browns who are now 8-5!! For those Chiefs and Rams fans who tease me for being a Browns fan I will not gloat that the Rams and Chiefs combined have 1 less win than the Browns. The Brownies are playoff bound and I'm happy--and I am hoping that it's first round Pittsburgh vs. Cleveland. How sweet it would be to walk into Pittsburgh and beat them senseless! (By the way, I think being a Cleveland Browns fan is proof that I have a big view of God--what hope could I have unless I believed in the sovereignty of God?!?!?) Oh, also if you are a lover of fantasy baseball then go to Fantasy Baseball Heaven and join a winter league comprised of all those old-timey players...looks like it could be fun.
Friday, December 7, 2007
Today in Blogworld 12/07
About everything in blogworld today mandates an HT: to Challies. First of all we are pointed to an article by the BBC concerning the Pope's approval of the sale of indulgences at Lourdes. The sale of indulgences is one of the atrocities of the 16th century that sparked the Protestant Reformation. Britannica offers an informative article on Luther and the Indulgences that might be helpful for those who are not familiar with either indulgences or why they are so unbiblical. The Pope granting these indulgences is another reminder that the Evangelicals and Catholics Together document/movement is bunk.
Challies also points us to an interesting article by Don Whitney on Asking People How You Can Pray for Them. Whitney encourages us to ask people who you can pray for them. He suggests that it is an easy 6 word way to turn a conversation to spiritual matters. I have also heard it suggested in the past that a good conversation turner is to ask you waitress how you can pray for them before you pray over the meal. I have done this a few times with mixed reactions. This is a great idea and one I would like to put into practice even more. I would like to add two suggestions to Whitney's article. One is necessary for people who are selfish like me--actually pray for them, and maybe not only once. My prayer life is way to general and not specific enough. Perhaps, adding something like this could help us to pray more specifically. Secondly, I would suggest keeping a note pad handy and writing down the persons name and request. Imagine what will be communicated if you ask about Aunt Gertrude's gangrenous toe or that job your waitress' husband was applying for the next time you see her. It's actually quite sad that we have to be reminded like this to not be so wrapped up in our own little world. We would really reflect Jesus more if this were not an "evangelistic strategy" but if it came from an overflowing heart that actually cared. (Then I might not struggle with names and I certainly would actually pray for them).
Unless you are interested in Mitt Romney's speech on "Faith in America" then there is not too much going on in blogworld today (at least not in mine).
Challies also points us to an interesting article by Don Whitney on Asking People How You Can Pray for Them. Whitney encourages us to ask people who you can pray for them. He suggests that it is an easy 6 word way to turn a conversation to spiritual matters. I have also heard it suggested in the past that a good conversation turner is to ask you waitress how you can pray for them before you pray over the meal. I have done this a few times with mixed reactions. This is a great idea and one I would like to put into practice even more. I would like to add two suggestions to Whitney's article. One is necessary for people who are selfish like me--actually pray for them, and maybe not only once. My prayer life is way to general and not specific enough. Perhaps, adding something like this could help us to pray more specifically. Secondly, I would suggest keeping a note pad handy and writing down the persons name and request. Imagine what will be communicated if you ask about Aunt Gertrude's gangrenous toe or that job your waitress' husband was applying for the next time you see her. It's actually quite sad that we have to be reminded like this to not be so wrapped up in our own little world. We would really reflect Jesus more if this were not an "evangelistic strategy" but if it came from an overflowing heart that actually cared. (Then I might not struggle with names and I certainly would actually pray for them).
Unless you are interested in Mitt Romney's speech on "Faith in America" then there is not too much going on in blogworld today (at least not in mine).
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Today in Blogworld 12/05
Blogworld seems to be asleep today. One of mention is a post by Tim Challies, concerning Christians and "dialogue" with other faiths. From what I have gathered his central thesis is that as Christian we are not called to dialogue. This is a great article for the age of the postmodern idea (be a pansy and do not stand firm on anything except not standing firm on anything). As Challies comments:
Nowhere in the Bible do I find Jesus telling us to find common ground with other faiths—with people who chase false gods and who are wholly committed to the downfall of the Christian faith. Nowhere do I see the Apostles, as Christ’s representatives, engaging in dialogue or seeking common ground in which to pursue God together. Rather, I see the promise of division and hatred. “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth, “says Jesus.” “I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.” “Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division.”My friend Garrett also posted a very helpful article for us passionate Calvinists. It is an article by a man named Darryl Erkel entitled Practical Wisdom for Calvinists. Here are some highlights from the article, but you are encouraged to read the entire thing:
- A quote by Spurgeon wherein he said, "The doctrine of election, like the great act of election itself, is intended to divide, not between Israel and Israel, but between Israel and the Egyptians – not between saint and saint, but between saints and the children of the world."
- Point #2--Don't make the mistake of accepting everything Reformed or Calvinistic
- When encouraging us not to idolize the past the author says that when we do so, "We fail to see the progression of church history and end up chained to the past – not recognizing that each period of history has its own unique contribution and blessing (including ours in the twenty-first century)."
- Calvinists should be given the model of humility and love (Ouch!)
- Do not major in the minors. Because if we do, "...end up majoring on things not truly essential, you will either ignore those that are important and worthy of your efforts – or – people will tend to not take you seriously on vital matters because of your propensity to make a big deal over insignificant issues."
- Seek to be a man/woman of the Text of Scripture
- Don't settle for low levels of grace in your life
- Develop a theology of listening
- Recognize that your greatest power is in prayer
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Today in Blogworld 12/4
Have you gotten the e-mail yet? The e-mail to which I am referring is the DON'T WATCH THE GOLDEN COMPASS e-mail. Today Dr. Mohler has addressed the formidable challenge this movie will give to Christians. I love Dr. Mohler's advice that we should not run away from this challenge nor does he feel that boycotting is the answer. I agree with the sending of the e-mail and letting people know what this book is about. The books author is not subtle. He really is attempting to "kill God". My response to that is a tongue in cheek, "good luck". People have tried for centuries to take God off the throne and it's not going to be happening now nor ever. And I am very grateful for that--I tend to love my "oppressive" King. This movie is giving us another opportunity to display the greatness of God compared to the paltry pleasures anything else has to offer. I encourage you to read Mohler's article. He gives great advice and encouragement.
Also today the folks at Pyromaniacs have made an interesting distinction for evangelicals to use. The distinction to be made is between fire-in-the-belly evangelicals and fire-sale evangelicals. A fire-in-the-belly evangelical is defined as, "those gripped with the Biblical vision of God's holiness and man's sinfulness, humbled by their own depravity to the point where inerrancy is not an inconvenient doctrine but God's indispensable lifeline, awed by the atonement of Christ to the extent that its doctrines are neither periphera nor adiaphora, but life itself." The fire-sale evangelicals on the other hand are those that are "'everything-must-go' evangelicals, who will sell out on the cheap. Nothing is too precious to retain, everything is on the auction block, for a pittance."
After reading this article I am forced to admit that in my orthodoxy I am a fire-in-the-belly evangelical. But I am sadly forced to admit that hypocritically in my orthopraxy I inch closer and closer to being a fire-sale evangelical. Jeremiah 23:29 is true whether I believe it or not. God's word is like a fire and like a hammer. I lament that Jeremiah 20:9 is not more true. "If I say, 'I will not mention him, or speak any more in his name,' there is in my heart as it were a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I am weary with holding it in, and I cannot". As I sit here I can shake my head on everything but that last point. I feel the word burning inside me like a fire, and I feel the guilt and weariness of holding it in. My prayer today is that Jesus might so take hold of me and stoke the fire until it burns so hot that I cannot hold it in. May I become like Peter and John who could not help but speak of that which they had seen and heard? Therefore, I am always hoping that my orthodoxy might match my orthopraxy and that both might match the beauty of the gospel!
Also today the folks at Pyromaniacs have made an interesting distinction for evangelicals to use. The distinction to be made is between fire-in-the-belly evangelicals and fire-sale evangelicals. A fire-in-the-belly evangelical is defined as, "those gripped with the Biblical vision of God's holiness and man's sinfulness, humbled by their own depravity to the point where inerrancy is not an inconvenient doctrine but God's indispensable lifeline, awed by the atonement of Christ to the extent that its doctrines are neither periphera nor adiaphora, but life itself." The fire-sale evangelicals on the other hand are those that are "'everything-must-go' evangelicals, who will sell out on the cheap. Nothing is too precious to retain, everything is on the auction block, for a pittance."
After reading this article I am forced to admit that in my orthodoxy I am a fire-in-the-belly evangelical. But I am sadly forced to admit that hypocritically in my orthopraxy I inch closer and closer to being a fire-sale evangelical. Jeremiah 23:29 is true whether I believe it or not. God's word is like a fire and like a hammer. I lament that Jeremiah 20:9 is not more true. "If I say, 'I will not mention him, or speak any more in his name,' there is in my heart as it were a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I am weary with holding it in, and I cannot". As I sit here I can shake my head on everything but that last point. I feel the word burning inside me like a fire, and I feel the guilt and weariness of holding it in. My prayer today is that Jesus might so take hold of me and stoke the fire until it burns so hot that I cannot hold it in. May I become like Peter and John who could not help but speak of that which they had seen and heard? Therefore, I am always hoping that my orthodoxy might match my orthopraxy and that both might match the beauty of the gospel!
Monday, December 3, 2007
Today in Blogworld
Today we will introduce a new feature to our blog. Friday, I posted what my mornings typically look like. Now I will give you the fruit of my labor. I will be posting links and a short summary to articles that I found interesting. Note: I may not agree with every article I link to. These will be linked to in the hopes to spawn thoughtful interaction. So, without further ado here are today's blogworld posts:
Remember a few months back when Christendom was in an uproar of the Gospel of Judas? Just as in the past this too has been shown to be a fraud. Dr. Mohler points us to a new book by April D. Deconick which accurately points us to National Geographic's misrepresentation of the text in the Gospel of Judas. Turns out Judas still is not a hero and is actually portrayed as a demon. The full blog post can be found here: Revising the Revisionists
Also in the news today is yet another controversial booking by Saddleback Church (Rick Warren's church). The Christian Post covers the 'gutsy appearance' of Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton. This, frankly, sickens me for a number of reasons. 1) It is awesome that the church is involved in trying to alleviate suffering and such tragedies as AIDS. Might we continue. However, to link up with those who are strongly pro-death (er, I mean pro-choice) is ludicrous. I am fairly certain that 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 addresses such unholy unions. 2) The continual sell-out of the church into the political arena. There are numerous other reasons for my disdain, but these two will suffice for now.
I am encouraged that as we are beginning a study on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood that material is becoming readily available. Last week the Shepherd's Scrapbook posted an excellent interview with C.J. Mahaney on biblical masculinity. Also of note, Between Two Worlds: Man Up where Justin Taylor points us to an article by Ray Van Neste on young guys growing up to be men. Voddie Baucham's address to Charleston Southern University about biblical manhood is also now available. I encourage all of our parents and young men to check these out. It may even be beneficial to our young ladies who want to know what a godly man looks like.
The Blazing Center gives us 8 Tips to Get More Out of Bible Study. It's actually more of a "how to do an effective quiet time", but it is very helpful. I especially appreciate pointing us to journaling and responding to what we have read. Insights like this keep us from legalistically doing quiet times and redeeming them in the hopes of seeing Jesus.
Founders has some helpful links for the Building Bridges Conference that was held at Southeastern. I am so excited to hear that a group of Southern Baptist are together discussing theology. I am especially encouraged that what was debated was not Hyper-Calvinism vs. Arminianism. It has been my experience that many people who come from an Arminian persuasion disagree with hyper-Calvinist and very seldom engage the belief of Calvinist. This conference will help. It will especially help to dispel some of the main myths concerning Calvinism. 1) It is not counter-evangelism. In fact some of the statistics at the conference show that Calvinist and Arminians are about equal on evangelism--neither are doing it like we are called to. 2) It is not, nor does it inevitably lead to, the heretical Hyper-Calvinism. I am excited to see the fruit from this Conference. Tom Ascol provides summary thoughts as well as links to other posts about the event.
That's it for today...join us tomorrow for more from Blogworld
Remember a few months back when Christendom was in an uproar of the Gospel of Judas? Just as in the past this too has been shown to be a fraud. Dr. Mohler points us to a new book by April D. Deconick which accurately points us to National Geographic's misrepresentation of the text in the Gospel of Judas. Turns out Judas still is not a hero and is actually portrayed as a demon. The full blog post can be found here: Revising the Revisionists
Also in the news today is yet another controversial booking by Saddleback Church (Rick Warren's church). The Christian Post covers the 'gutsy appearance' of Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton. This, frankly, sickens me for a number of reasons. 1) It is awesome that the church is involved in trying to alleviate suffering and such tragedies as AIDS. Might we continue. However, to link up with those who are strongly pro-death (er, I mean pro-choice) is ludicrous. I am fairly certain that 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 addresses such unholy unions. 2) The continual sell-out of the church into the political arena. There are numerous other reasons for my disdain, but these two will suffice for now.
I am encouraged that as we are beginning a study on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood that material is becoming readily available. Last week the Shepherd's Scrapbook posted an excellent interview with C.J. Mahaney on biblical masculinity. Also of note, Between Two Worlds: Man Up where Justin Taylor points us to an article by Ray Van Neste on young guys growing up to be men. Voddie Baucham's address to Charleston Southern University about biblical manhood is also now available. I encourage all of our parents and young men to check these out. It may even be beneficial to our young ladies who want to know what a godly man looks like.
The Blazing Center gives us 8 Tips to Get More Out of Bible Study. It's actually more of a "how to do an effective quiet time", but it is very helpful. I especially appreciate pointing us to journaling and responding to what we have read. Insights like this keep us from legalistically doing quiet times and redeeming them in the hopes of seeing Jesus.
Founders has some helpful links for the Building Bridges Conference that was held at Southeastern. I am so excited to hear that a group of Southern Baptist are together discussing theology. I am especially encouraged that what was debated was not Hyper-Calvinism vs. Arminianism. It has been my experience that many people who come from an Arminian persuasion disagree with hyper-Calvinist and very seldom engage the belief of Calvinist. This conference will help. It will especially help to dispel some of the main myths concerning Calvinism. 1) It is not counter-evangelism. In fact some of the statistics at the conference show that Calvinist and Arminians are about equal on evangelism--neither are doing it like we are called to. 2) It is not, nor does it inevitably lead to, the heretical Hyper-Calvinism. I am excited to see the fruit from this Conference. Tom Ascol provides summary thoughts as well as links to other posts about the event.
That's it for today...join us tomorrow for more from Blogworld
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
