Posts
When you argue with almost anyone, the whole argument is reduced from all the subtle points of either side to the pride of both debaters. It happens everywhere. When you argue with intellectuals, they are sure they are as smart as you, or have something to prove in their arena of study and so once they have taken a side, usually based on little or no data and much opinion, they proceed to defend it regardless of its actual strength or validity.
But this isn't just with those in intellectual circles. I have heard those that tend to sneer at the intellectuals doubt whether proven history actually took place because the place where they usually hear about it is from "those other people." These unlearned are proud that they have not pursued greater things. They hold to their ground as fiercely as anyone because they must not only prove their point but also that they as an unlearned have just as valuable a voice as the learned.
It is pride that gets in everyone's way. It is not a true seeking of truth. It is pride. I'm too proud to admit I am wrong. I'm too proud to admit their is value in pursuing the education you have pursued. I'm too proud to admit that you do not need my education to have a viable opinion. Pride gets in all of our way. Everyone is proud.
I was going to write an article once on Arminianism: The Christian's Pride. As Christians we need to have something we can boast about. Everyone wants to boast about something, so Arminians chose to boast about their free will.
Calvinists understand the futility of this, but then always find something else to boast in. We need to save that life because if we don't God can't do it. They don't say it like that, but that is the end result. They can boast that God needs them. It is up to them to ______. Foolishness.
Then, we see all of this pride and are proud that we are not misinformed like others. We are proud that we understand those hidden mysteries while others do not. We are proud of _____. You see? It goes on and on.
So, arguing is pointless, unless their are others around to hear. Further, it has never been our responsibility to change hearts. It hasn't. It is our responsibility to speak the truth, no matter how "pointless" it may seem. We speak the truth because the Word will never return void. We speak the truth because God can use it to minister how He sees fit. We argue for the people who are not pridefully stuck in the issue. Since they have not divulged their side, then they can listen and without hurting their pride they can change opinions when reasonable rational rhetoric has been presented.
I need to enhance my vocabulary. I have read and heard that a good way to do that is to read. I have read 2.5 books this summer. I have not felt my vocabulary being enhanced. Granted, the two I have actually finished were both fantasy fiction. The next three I finish will be theologically based, and so I should see some enhancement...right? Maybe I will gain something from the "Philisophical Word of the Day" blog I am following, or the Theological counterpart. . .maybe.
It is late and I should be in bed. However, the last three nights have all been late leading to sleeping in later, and creating an even later evening and so the cycle continues. I was in bed at 11:40 but alas, sleep escaped me, and so the cycle continues. Though, it isn't even 1:30 yet, and last night was 3.
Well, goodnight.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Spoken to Americans
"In the rise of your university education . . .; in the decentralized . . . character of your local governments; . . . in your championship of free speech, and in your unlimited regard for freedom of conscience; in all this . . . it is demonstrable that you owe this to Calvinism and to Calvinism alone."
-- Lectures on Calvinism by Abraham Kuyper
I want the book. I'm glad that I have found a desire to read. It is still hard at times. I have read 2 books through thus far this summer, and am working on two more with a 5th in the mail. Hopefully I can keep reading.
-- Lectures on Calvinism by Abraham Kuyper
I want the book. I'm glad that I have found a desire to read. It is still hard at times. I have read 2 books through thus far this summer, and am working on two more with a 5th in the mail. Hopefully I can keep reading.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Fundamentalism
The first time I heard the strong opposition which I now see much more wide spread was in my own home. Now, I am aware that there are many of my generation who look at the churches of America, or look at Fundamentalism and feel disgust. This is because of what has become popular from "Bible-thumpers."
Don't drink.
Don't smoke.
Don't dance.
Don't go to theater.
Don't get tattoos .
Don't get piercings.
Men's hair shouldn't touch their ears, or the collar of the neck.
Don't listen to rock/jazz/country/etc.
Well, isn't this what is preached? In some circles it is seen as churches preaching rules. Others see a slightly broader perspective and claim that this isn't happening outside fundamentalism and attribute this "rule preaching" to us. This is what makes the leaders worried. They think the movement is dying...in honesty, I have no reason to doubt them. I am not "up" on Fundamentalism. If the leaders are talking about whether it is going to survive, I'm pretty sure we can think about it that way.
Well, I think that its true that we preach that way. Somehow through the last several decades the church has grown lethargic. Pastors worry about their people and instead of trusting the Word of God to work in hearts they begin to preach more and more application. They see the types of activities that the unsaved are involved in, and preach against it. It doesn't help, so they continue to preach application, application, application. Instead of allowing the Spirit of God to work in the hearts through the power of the Gospel, they preach keeping rules. But then, the next generation does not know how to preach doctrine. They don't know how to preach the whole counsel of God. They only know to preach rules.
I'm not doubting any one's salvation, but instead of being able to handle strong meat, they struggle with anything but simple milk. The pastors see this, and probably partly in fear shy away from anything difficult. With so many pastors being kicked out of their churches why risk talking over their heads. Continue to preach the application/rules.
Of course, it would be wrong to assay that the decline of the church these past decades has been solely the fault of the elders. If the sheep had themselves kept to the word of God, if they had done their responsibility to live holy separated lives, if they had kept themselves unspotted from the world. In all, the church is at fault for the mess we are in. Whether you say "the church" or "fundamentalism" it doesn't matter. We are where we are through our own laziness and unbelief.
Something else that occurred to me earlier is that even if Fundamentalism as a movement died, it wouldn't phase little GFBC. In all likelihood, it would not phase Southshore Baptist Church. Fundamentalism will continue for years to come. At least for some years, since I am a fundamentalist. While there are not as many younger folk here in Edmore, there are enough in my generation within my family who are also Fundamentalists, who would continue to be so even if the movement just died. But that implies a movement can just die. I don't know much about movements, but I think that they slow down, rather than just fall over. I think Fundamentalism had a fiery start (wouldn't be a good movement without it), but its been a century almost. Of course it is waning. Multitudes have considered starting a new movement, but why start a new fire when you have coals still burning? Easier to stoke an existing fire. . .and that has been the conclusion often arrived at.
Still, many are leaving. They see the rule preaching, and in the foolishness of Rehoboam's counsellors, they perceive that in order to escape this they must abandon all they have been taught. They begin to build again the foundation testing every thought, every creed, every statement of faith. They want to preach Christ (to their credit), but they do so with the dropping of everything their parents held dear. Now, we must with Paul rejoice when Christ is preached and as I think of some whom I have seen leave MBBC and go to preach, though I wonder at their doctrine and liberality, I do believe that they can preach the Gospel. So, while I rejoice that the Gospel is going forth, I regret that it be with such means and accompanying stubble.
Who am I to judge? Most of you will know that I am often a quick judge (slowing down as I grow up, but often still quick). Is it my place to sit here and judge them? Why do I not look inward and judge? Simply put, I do. I know many of my faults and behind them I know lurk a multitude waiting to show themselves.
This does not neglect me however from seeing and commenting on the way the church is going. The church is the Bride of Christ. I was speaking with my cousins a few weeks back, and one of them brought this fact to my mind yet again. How can we look at our Lord's bride and see the weak, lazy, sin filled pews and not grieve? How can we not desire it to be spotless?
Side note: I hesitated significantly to even mention the church as Christ's bride. It is not a thought for loose consideration. My quick judgment judged me immediately. I fear to write because I fear that I will sound like some old reformed or puritan writer. That doesn't bother me. What does is that I will be judged because of that. I would rather that my words got across their meaning rather than people finding me falsely pious. But I mean no false piety. I believe what I write. . .It is just a hesitation that often besets me. I have found that as I age, I feel more inclined to use such terminology. I remember being afraid to speak my mind for fear I was copying others. But if I truly mean it, then why would I fear? The insecurities of being human, and a lack of trust in God. I find that I have often dumbed myself down, and now, when I reach for the right word it is well beyond my grasp. Something that I could not have seen coming, nor could I have prevented. It is still often subconscience and it stems from laziness.
The Puritans recorded their prayers, and they are read now giving insight into how these men thought and felt. But were someone to stand and open the worship of God in such a prayer, I think the church would be in shock. Perhaps it is my cynical judgmentalism.
I won't discuss the above mentioned rules. I may at some point. People put too much effort into following rules.
Every now and then someone will tell you something they have learned spiritually, and when you take that in sincerety it can be an incredible exhortation/encouragement. One of my cousins was entirely and Biblically convinced of something once. He was right, but at the time he told me it still had the hold on him that it was something to strive daily for. It made an impression. It is rare that something like that takes hold of me. I remember one time more vividly than any other. And it changed my life. Changed my actions. I had been saved for years, but this message opened my spiritual eyes. Anyway, back to my cousin. He told me that life was not about any of those rules. It was about a relationship with God. First, he said it and I said, "yes, you're right." Then he said it again, "No Dave[realizing that it wasn't just a fact for the mind], that is all that matters. Abraham was the friend of God." It doesn't sink in the first time. It probably didn't the second time. He told me several times. Those are the times when I see (I don't just know the definition in my head) what Christian fellowship and exhortation among the saints are. I see it. All of this due to the short sentence above: It isn't about rules. It isn't. Never has been, even back to Exodus 20. It isn't a secret either. It isn't some brilliant riddle that I uncovered and can now share with you. It is about a relationship. It is about faith. You all know this too. Oh, but how often I forget. What kind of relationship can you have with someone you barely talk to? I persuaded my father-in-law before he was such with just those words. I wasn't wrong then, nor am I now.
Don't drink.
Don't smoke.
Don't dance.
Don't go to theater.
Don't get tattoos .
Don't get piercings.
Men's hair shouldn't touch their ears, or the collar of the neck.
Don't listen to rock/jazz/country/etc.
Well, isn't this what is preached? In some circles it is seen as churches preaching rules. Others see a slightly broader perspective and claim that this isn't happening outside fundamentalism and attribute this "rule preaching" to us. This is what makes the leaders worried. They think the movement is dying...in honesty, I have no reason to doubt them. I am not "up" on Fundamentalism. If the leaders are talking about whether it is going to survive, I'm pretty sure we can think about it that way.
Well, I think that its true that we preach that way. Somehow through the last several decades the church has grown lethargic. Pastors worry about their people and instead of trusting the Word of God to work in hearts they begin to preach more and more application. They see the types of activities that the unsaved are involved in, and preach against it. It doesn't help, so they continue to preach application, application, application. Instead of allowing the Spirit of God to work in the hearts through the power of the Gospel, they preach keeping rules. But then, the next generation does not know how to preach doctrine. They don't know how to preach the whole counsel of God. They only know to preach rules.
I'm not doubting any one's salvation, but instead of being able to handle strong meat, they struggle with anything but simple milk. The pastors see this, and probably partly in fear shy away from anything difficult. With so many pastors being kicked out of their churches why risk talking over their heads. Continue to preach the application/rules.
Of course, it would be wrong to assay that the decline of the church these past decades has been solely the fault of the elders. If the sheep had themselves kept to the word of God, if they had done their responsibility to live holy separated lives, if they had kept themselves unspotted from the world. In all, the church is at fault for the mess we are in. Whether you say "the church" or "fundamentalism" it doesn't matter. We are where we are through our own laziness and unbelief.
Something else that occurred to me earlier is that even if Fundamentalism as a movement died, it wouldn't phase little GFBC. In all likelihood, it would not phase Southshore Baptist Church. Fundamentalism will continue for years to come. At least for some years, since I am a fundamentalist. While there are not as many younger folk here in Edmore, there are enough in my generation within my family who are also Fundamentalists, who would continue to be so even if the movement just died. But that implies a movement can just die. I don't know much about movements, but I think that they slow down, rather than just fall over. I think Fundamentalism had a fiery start (wouldn't be a good movement without it), but its been a century almost. Of course it is waning. Multitudes have considered starting a new movement, but why start a new fire when you have coals still burning? Easier to stoke an existing fire. . .and that has been the conclusion often arrived at.
Still, many are leaving. They see the rule preaching, and in the foolishness of Rehoboam's counsellors, they perceive that in order to escape this they must abandon all they have been taught. They begin to build again the foundation testing every thought, every creed, every statement of faith. They want to preach Christ (to their credit), but they do so with the dropping of everything their parents held dear. Now, we must with Paul rejoice when Christ is preached and as I think of some whom I have seen leave MBBC and go to preach, though I wonder at their doctrine and liberality, I do believe that they can preach the Gospel. So, while I rejoice that the Gospel is going forth, I regret that it be with such means and accompanying stubble.
Who am I to judge? Most of you will know that I am often a quick judge (slowing down as I grow up, but often still quick). Is it my place to sit here and judge them? Why do I not look inward and judge? Simply put, I do. I know many of my faults and behind them I know lurk a multitude waiting to show themselves.
This does not neglect me however from seeing and commenting on the way the church is going. The church is the Bride of Christ. I was speaking with my cousins a few weeks back, and one of them brought this fact to my mind yet again. How can we look at our Lord's bride and see the weak, lazy, sin filled pews and not grieve? How can we not desire it to be spotless?
Side note: I hesitated significantly to even mention the church as Christ's bride. It is not a thought for loose consideration. My quick judgment judged me immediately. I fear to write because I fear that I will sound like some old reformed or puritan writer. That doesn't bother me. What does is that I will be judged because of that. I would rather that my words got across their meaning rather than people finding me falsely pious. But I mean no false piety. I believe what I write. . .It is just a hesitation that often besets me. I have found that as I age, I feel more inclined to use such terminology. I remember being afraid to speak my mind for fear I was copying others. But if I truly mean it, then why would I fear? The insecurities of being human, and a lack of trust in God. I find that I have often dumbed myself down, and now, when I reach for the right word it is well beyond my grasp. Something that I could not have seen coming, nor could I have prevented. It is still often subconscience and it stems from laziness.
The Puritans recorded their prayers, and they are read now giving insight into how these men thought and felt. But were someone to stand and open the worship of God in such a prayer, I think the church would be in shock. Perhaps it is my cynical judgmentalism.
I won't discuss the above mentioned rules. I may at some point. People put too much effort into following rules.
Every now and then someone will tell you something they have learned spiritually, and when you take that in sincerety it can be an incredible exhortation/encouragement. One of my cousins was entirely and Biblically convinced of something once. He was right, but at the time he told me it still had the hold on him that it was something to strive daily for. It made an impression. It is rare that something like that takes hold of me. I remember one time more vividly than any other. And it changed my life. Changed my actions. I had been saved for years, but this message opened my spiritual eyes. Anyway, back to my cousin. He told me that life was not about any of those rules. It was about a relationship with God. First, he said it and I said, "yes, you're right." Then he said it again, "No Dave[realizing that it wasn't just a fact for the mind], that is all that matters. Abraham was the friend of God." It doesn't sink in the first time. It probably didn't the second time. He told me several times. Those are the times when I see (I don't just know the definition in my head) what Christian fellowship and exhortation among the saints are. I see it. All of this due to the short sentence above: It isn't about rules. It isn't. Never has been, even back to Exodus 20. It isn't a secret either. It isn't some brilliant riddle that I uncovered and can now share with you. It is about a relationship. It is about faith. You all know this too. Oh, but how often I forget. What kind of relationship can you have with someone you barely talk to? I persuaded my father-in-law before he was such with just those words. I wasn't wrong then, nor am I now.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
third
Yes, the title is a subtle reference to Ender's Game which you should all read if you haven't yet.
But it also happens to be my third blog of the day. Yes, count em three blogs in one day.
Earlier today I mentioned two different things that I might get back to later:
1. Time travel being Theologically impossible.
2. Fundamentalism preaching doctrines for commandments of men.
Let's start with the first one. As I have not fully developed this thought pattern prior to this blog, you will be seeing the raw product as I work through it here. Though I am not sure there may be much more to develop.
Time travel requires change and flux. And as I sit here thinking about this it seems incredibly obvious to me why time travel is not possible. So much so that to put it into words seems a bit too much. Time travel is not possible because time travel means traveling forward or backward in time. Let me also state that the reason this is a big problem is because of the biblical events. (And I'm beginning to struggle...I will enlighten briefly) No one can go back in time and change history. They can't stop Christ from dying, nor can that event take place again. The same with the future. An unbeliever cannot travel to the future and be involved in or change a whole host of things. My hesitation/struggle arises from the popular views of time travel. That one actually transverses time, and can participate and act within the time frame. What if there are different views of time travel? What if time travel is not a matter of acting but a matter of viewing?
Well, I decided it doesn't really matter. There is no biblical way that anyone (Christian or not), would be able to go back and see pre-Eden, the flood, the tower of Babel, or the cross, or go forward and see the end of time, the 2 prophets, the millennial reign, or the new heaven/earth. Well, anyway, there was very little good reasoning there. I think its because I lack a verse or two. What I know is that it seems illogical for God to allow anyone to see these things. HA! Ending Revelation!! There it is. The verses/theological system.
It is the same reason we don't believe in speaking in tongues. The reason we don't dream or see visions. We believe that all revelation has ceased. Christ came to show us the Father and He sent the Spirit to show us Him. Revelation apart from Scripture has ended. Therefore, for anyone in this present day to go back in time to see Revelation of God is impossible. To go forward and see revelation of God is impossible. Thus, time travel is impossible.....yea? nay? I would appreciate your thoughts on that last part. That is the raw thought pattern. I started completely different and I think, now, that I have finaly come to a conclusion. Revelation being given by God has ceased. Men in this age will not be given more than the Scriptures. There is my time travel theory.
2. I will have to get back to this one. Burn Notice just ended and its on tape DVR or something so I'm gonna watch it and maybe get back to this tonight....possibly tomorrow though. If it's tonight I'll edit. If tomorrow, I'll put a new post up.
But it also happens to be my third blog of the day. Yes, count em three blogs in one day.
Earlier today I mentioned two different things that I might get back to later:
1. Time travel being Theologically impossible.
2. Fundamentalism preaching doctrines for commandments of men.
Let's start with the first one. As I have not fully developed this thought pattern prior to this blog, you will be seeing the raw product as I work through it here. Though I am not sure there may be much more to develop.
Time travel requires change and flux. And as I sit here thinking about this it seems incredibly obvious to me why time travel is not possible. So much so that to put it into words seems a bit too much. Time travel is not possible because time travel means traveling forward or backward in time. Let me also state that the reason this is a big problem is because of the biblical events. (And I'm beginning to struggle...I will enlighten briefly) No one can go back in time and change history. They can't stop Christ from dying, nor can that event take place again. The same with the future. An unbeliever cannot travel to the future and be involved in or change a whole host of things. My hesitation/struggle arises from the popular views of time travel. That one actually transverses time, and can participate and act within the time frame. What if there are different views of time travel? What if time travel is not a matter of acting but a matter of viewing?
Well, I decided it doesn't really matter. There is no biblical way that anyone (Christian or not), would be able to go back and see pre-Eden, the flood, the tower of Babel, or the cross, or go forward and see the end of time, the 2 prophets, the millennial reign, or the new heaven/earth. Well, anyway, there was very little good reasoning there. I think its because I lack a verse or two. What I know is that it seems illogical for God to allow anyone to see these things. HA! Ending Revelation!! There it is. The verses/theological system.
It is the same reason we don't believe in speaking in tongues. The reason we don't dream or see visions. We believe that all revelation has ceased. Christ came to show us the Father and He sent the Spirit to show us Him. Revelation apart from Scripture has ended. Therefore, for anyone in this present day to go back in time to see Revelation of God is impossible. To go forward and see revelation of God is impossible. Thus, time travel is impossible.....yea? nay? I would appreciate your thoughts on that last part. That is the raw thought pattern. I started completely different and I think, now, that I have finaly come to a conclusion. Revelation being given by God has ceased. Men in this age will not be given more than the Scriptures. There is my time travel theory.
2. I will have to get back to this one. Burn Notice just ended and its on tape DVR or something so I'm gonna watch it and maybe get back to this tonight....possibly tomorrow though. If it's tonight I'll edit. If tomorrow, I'll put a new post up.
what is significant?
If you haven't been here a while, this is the second blog in one day, and so if you are curious about "the coming thing" then scroll down to the previous blog.
When speaking/thinking within "christian" circles, what is important? I remember living with my great grandparents who I loved dearly, but I remember my mom having to explain to her grandpa why she didn't agree with Billy Graham. He was good when he was younger but not anymore. Where do we draw the line on ecumenicalism? Many in our cicles would want to stay as far away from it as possible, yet we all find reasons to come together for something. Those that won't even come together with us in these areas we label as hyper-somethings because even we who hate ecumenicalism will join together for something. But where is the line of that something? Are they right to avoid our gathering? Are we right to join the gathering, setting aside our differences for one common goal? Isn't that what Billy Graham did?
Yeah, yeah, you aren't going to be standing on the platform with Catholics. But...be careful. My advice, warning, and admonition, is to be careful.
One of my friends let me know there was a big bruu-haha at the FBFI (Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International. . .that "I" seems out of place imo) in April. So one of the speakers, Pastor Dan Sweatt preached about how Calvinism was the bane of fundamentalism. (I didn't actually take the time to listen to it, thought it is online if you want to. I read some reviews of it.) It was a poor, illogical, and slanderous message. There were more than a few people who wrote rebuttals. I read a couple of them. It was assumed that one of the reason it was preached such is because many of my generations fundamentalists are leaving. They see no reason to stay in a dying movement that emphasizes rules over Christ. Whether or not Fundamentalism does this we will save for another time. One of the men who is a non-fundamentalist calvinist is John Piper. Very big name in evangelical circles and has written some good stuff, though I cannot recommend him entirely knowling little about him.
This, seeming plainly obvious fact to many familiar with the situation makes me believe it to be true. And it probably is the reason for Piper's recommendation of Dr. Kevin Bauder's rebuttal of the message.
Dr. Bauder is the persident of a Central Seminary in MN and writes regularly. I am on the mailing list and when I take the time to read the emails I often find them informational and good. He took his regular email and turned it into a response to the message. It rebuked Pastor Sweatt and also challenged the board of the FBFI to make it clear that they are not heading this direction. Dr. Bauder is (from my limited knowledge) a strong voice in the "fundamental movement." He always tends to push towards standing on the fundamentals and not deviating from each other over the doctrines of grace etc. He wants the movement to be open to differing belief's in these areas so that as fundamentalists we stand together on the fundamentals.
I don't know where I stand. I mean, I have seen a good size group of guys my age leave fundamentalism. They grew up in fundamentalism, but apparently it was not the same fundamentalism I grew up in. Whether completely accurate or not, I have a sense of understanding that the old ways are generally better, and a reason should be found to abandon them rather than most of my generation which is looking to abandon all and wants a reason to keep them. Why throw out everything? It is rarely if ever good to reinvent the wheel. Sure, if a spoke needs to be replaced than prove it and replace it. Don't throw the wheel out and then say, "Well, that spoke is ok, and that substance is nice and solid." Bah!!
My generation has seen too many people preaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Too many! But we are running away from everything we have been taught thinking that there is nothing behind these commandments. Don't drink/smoke/dance/theater/etc. Ok, so you can't find these commands in the Bible. But there ARE principles in the Bible that DO require actions or abstinance, and you are throwing it all out.
Perhaps our parent's generation has gone too far. That does not give us excuse to swing the other way.
Back on track....is there a track? Bauder's argument was good. Piper's was short, but approved of Bauder. The next FBFI is the 16-18th in IL. Yes, I did consider going, but I have plans to be somewhere I don't want to be instead. Bauder is currently scheduled to speak, so I am waiting to hear what happens. More of a curiosity matter atm. I am not involved. I am a nobody.
At times I regret that. Writing this blog I wished that I had my MA, ThM, and PhD, and that this was not read by just a smattering of maybe 6-8 people. But God knows what He is doing. When I am unhappy with my situation as such I am complaining against God's plan and when viewed that way, things change fast.
Side note: Michael Phelps' life was Providentially directed by God for him to accomplish the things he did. I remember during the Olympics many times considering what would have happened had his parents not allowed him to swim. Many would not have even thought about it. Not all parents involve their kids in swimming. Even among those that do, it is for a time period and even if asked to compete, for one reason or another they are not permitted by their parents/circumstances. Then there are the other thousands of kids who do and who are not blessed with the physical capabilities God had given Phelps. When I look at my life, what do I see? Some wasted potential here. Some wasted time there. Where could I be were it not for those things? Right here where I am. God wants me in FL teaching at CCS. I don't know why. Its not my job to know why, but to know that that is where I am wanted. To understand that despite what I think my potential is/was, that God has a plan for me and that I need to be content in whatever situation I am in. At the same time, we know God gifts people and expects them to use those gifts. But someone with the gift of leadership who could be a CEO of a billion dollar corp, or the President of the US may utilize his gift by running a mission board, teaching teens, or being a pastor. Just because God gives the ability to run huge things doesn't mean that His plan is to run huge things. Exercise the ability where God places you. End Side note.
Together for the Gospel. The title eats at me. Bleah!!! Yes, it expresses what the goal is, but it sounds as ecumenical as you can get. (Shorter note: One of the reviews I read referenced Dr. Phelps message in the same vein as Pastor Sweatt's. So I listened to the message. He has a problem with the conference, and with Piper. A big Problem.)
The conference (in short summary or long commentary; not sure which yet): Four men of some differing theological stances met together for the purpose of furthering the central theme of the Christianity, "the Gospel of Jesus Christ." They admit they differ on baptism, and charismatic gifts. It is easier to copy and paste the paragraph of the names so I did that below.
"The four long-time friends, Mark Dever, Ligon Duncan, C. J. Mahaney, and Albert Mohler, also asked their friends Thabiti Anyabwile, John MacArthur, John Piper, and R. C. Sproul to join them for these conferences, since each of these men has been contributing so valuably to the church today."
The website turns me away. The wording bothers me. The pictures send hints of worry. Yet, their doctrinal statement is good. Its problem obviously would be the lack of detail. We do not find a strong Eschatological stand, a church polity/officer stand, an ordinance stand, etc. We do find the Lord's supper/church discipline required. We find the Trinity, the Authority of Scripture, the Incarnation (though not the virgin Birth...implied? or purposefully left out?), the Deity/humanity of Christ, the Gospel as we would define it, the necessity of the local church, the roles of men and women in the church, and Calvinistic theology (which is what bothers some...fundamentalism is falling apart, but people can lay aside all these other problems as Calvinists to work for the Gospel. I see their frustration, though I won't say they are right.)
So, in the end I wonder. Some of our close circle would probably come together with them for the Gospel. Btw, the website is www.t4g.org They meet biennially; the next conference is April 13-15 in Louisville, KY. (I didn't know KY was the abbreviation...hmm.)
If we almost abandoned the first "T" in our distinctives, I'm sure if we haggled over some things we could fall in line with this. The problems to me are obvious.
Any large gathering with men who lead is dangerous. So is any small gathering with men who lead, but you know what I mean. That I think is the more obvious thing. We don't want to idolize anyone.
Secondly, a person's views on truth will always influence their preaching. People will be attending these things with less than their normal guard and since people are stupid and gullible they will be expecting messages about the Gospel. I would not accuse any of the speakers of taking advantage of this, however with their views being different their messages cannot but hint of who the person is. What you believe inside is what comes out the mouth. People will not be on guard and as the differing views will not be blatant they may even go home and propagate them as something good: they hadn't heard that verse that way before. But in fact that verse interprets that way because the preacher thinks there is continuing revelation and that people are speaking with tongues.
I sense danger all around, yet I think warnings are more sufficient rather than denouncings. Am I getting soft? Am I wavering? Someone slap me if I am. Seriously, I need to know. Those 6-8 of you reading this are Biblically responsible in this matter.
Wow....Biblically responsible. The truth project which I discussed a month ago is nearing. I had a discussion with some family about it over the get-together weekend. I had thought of myself as getting careful and possibly wiser but maybe I'm getting scared and spineless. I think I am beginning to fatigue. I don't WANT to argue with someone who is obviously wrong, who will not change their mind, who will redefine Scripture, and twist Christ's words. I don't want that! It isn't just an uncomfortable feeling or a dislike, it is becoming a great distaste to me. As opposed to 6-9 years ago when I would have jumped in unprepared, now I would just as soon walk around those arguing and talk to someone else. What is happening to me?!
I was reminded however that I do not argue for me. Nor do I argue for the stubborn fool. (Fool? Is that ok? I think so...stubbornness is foolish, right? Ah, but foolishness does not make a fool. Fools are foolish, but not everyone who does something foolish is a fool. I should probably retract that fool up there.) Nor do I argue for the stubborn. (The wonders of the English language -- I remove a word and my adjective turns into a noun. Yeah, its not just English, but meh.) I argue for the people around who do not understand. I argue for the ignorant, and the naive. I argue for those who are too gullible. I argue for those who refuse to study for themselves; remaining babes when they should be eating strong meats.
Thus, if this attitude keeps up, the truth project will be fun. I do miss those days when it was fun.
Good to blog again...I may be back later...I am away from home without my wife. . .The first time since our weddiny day that we have been apart.
Darling, I miss you. Have fun and hurry back to me. <3
To the rest, goodday.
When speaking/thinking within "christian" circles, what is important? I remember living with my great grandparents who I loved dearly, but I remember my mom having to explain to her grandpa why she didn't agree with Billy Graham. He was good when he was younger but not anymore. Where do we draw the line on ecumenicalism? Many in our cicles would want to stay as far away from it as possible, yet we all find reasons to come together for something. Those that won't even come together with us in these areas we label as hyper-somethings because even we who hate ecumenicalism will join together for something. But where is the line of that something? Are they right to avoid our gathering? Are we right to join the gathering, setting aside our differences for one common goal? Isn't that what Billy Graham did?
Yeah, yeah, you aren't going to be standing on the platform with Catholics. But...be careful. My advice, warning, and admonition, is to be careful.
One of my friends let me know there was a big bruu-haha at the FBFI (Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International. . .that "I" seems out of place imo) in April. So one of the speakers, Pastor Dan Sweatt preached about how Calvinism was the bane of fundamentalism. (I didn't actually take the time to listen to it, thought it is online if you want to. I read some reviews of it.) It was a poor, illogical, and slanderous message. There were more than a few people who wrote rebuttals. I read a couple of them. It was assumed that one of the reason it was preached such is because many of my generations fundamentalists are leaving. They see no reason to stay in a dying movement that emphasizes rules over Christ. Whether or not Fundamentalism does this we will save for another time. One of the men who is a non-fundamentalist calvinist is John Piper. Very big name in evangelical circles and has written some good stuff, though I cannot recommend him entirely knowling little about him.
This, seeming plainly obvious fact to many familiar with the situation makes me believe it to be true. And it probably is the reason for Piper's recommendation of Dr. Kevin Bauder's rebuttal of the message.
Dr. Bauder is the persident of a Central Seminary in MN and writes regularly. I am on the mailing list and when I take the time to read the emails I often find them informational and good. He took his regular email and turned it into a response to the message. It rebuked Pastor Sweatt and also challenged the board of the FBFI to make it clear that they are not heading this direction. Dr. Bauder is (from my limited knowledge) a strong voice in the "fundamental movement." He always tends to push towards standing on the fundamentals and not deviating from each other over the doctrines of grace etc. He wants the movement to be open to differing belief's in these areas so that as fundamentalists we stand together on the fundamentals.
I don't know where I stand. I mean, I have seen a good size group of guys my age leave fundamentalism. They grew up in fundamentalism, but apparently it was not the same fundamentalism I grew up in. Whether completely accurate or not, I have a sense of understanding that the old ways are generally better, and a reason should be found to abandon them rather than most of my generation which is looking to abandon all and wants a reason to keep them. Why throw out everything? It is rarely if ever good to reinvent the wheel. Sure, if a spoke needs to be replaced than prove it and replace it. Don't throw the wheel out and then say, "Well, that spoke is ok, and that substance is nice and solid." Bah!!
My generation has seen too many people preaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Too many! But we are running away from everything we have been taught thinking that there is nothing behind these commandments. Don't drink/smoke/dance/theater/etc. Ok, so you can't find these commands in the Bible. But there ARE principles in the Bible that DO require actions or abstinance, and you are throwing it all out.
Perhaps our parent's generation has gone too far. That does not give us excuse to swing the other way.
Back on track....is there a track? Bauder's argument was good. Piper's was short, but approved of Bauder. The next FBFI is the 16-18th in IL. Yes, I did consider going, but I have plans to be somewhere I don't want to be instead. Bauder is currently scheduled to speak, so I am waiting to hear what happens. More of a curiosity matter atm. I am not involved. I am a nobody.
At times I regret that. Writing this blog I wished that I had my MA, ThM, and PhD, and that this was not read by just a smattering of maybe 6-8 people. But God knows what He is doing. When I am unhappy with my situation as such I am complaining against God's plan and when viewed that way, things change fast.
Side note: Michael Phelps' life was Providentially directed by God for him to accomplish the things he did. I remember during the Olympics many times considering what would have happened had his parents not allowed him to swim. Many would not have even thought about it. Not all parents involve their kids in swimming. Even among those that do, it is for a time period and even if asked to compete, for one reason or another they are not permitted by their parents/circumstances. Then there are the other thousands of kids who do and who are not blessed with the physical capabilities God had given Phelps. When I look at my life, what do I see? Some wasted potential here. Some wasted time there. Where could I be were it not for those things? Right here where I am. God wants me in FL teaching at CCS. I don't know why. Its not my job to know why, but to know that that is where I am wanted. To understand that despite what I think my potential is/was, that God has a plan for me and that I need to be content in whatever situation I am in. At the same time, we know God gifts people and expects them to use those gifts. But someone with the gift of leadership who could be a CEO of a billion dollar corp, or the President of the US may utilize his gift by running a mission board, teaching teens, or being a pastor. Just because God gives the ability to run huge things doesn't mean that His plan is to run huge things. Exercise the ability where God places you. End Side note.
Together for the Gospel. The title eats at me. Bleah!!! Yes, it expresses what the goal is, but it sounds as ecumenical as you can get. (Shorter note: One of the reviews I read referenced Dr. Phelps message in the same vein as Pastor Sweatt's. So I listened to the message. He has a problem with the conference, and with Piper. A big Problem.)
The conference (in short summary or long commentary; not sure which yet): Four men of some differing theological stances met together for the purpose of furthering the central theme of the Christianity, "the Gospel of Jesus Christ." They admit they differ on baptism, and charismatic gifts. It is easier to copy and paste the paragraph of the names so I did that below.
"The four long-time friends, Mark Dever, Ligon Duncan, C. J. Mahaney, and Albert Mohler, also asked their friends Thabiti Anyabwile, John MacArthur, John Piper, and R. C. Sproul to join them for these conferences, since each of these men has been contributing so valuably to the church today."
The website turns me away. The wording bothers me. The pictures send hints of worry. Yet, their doctrinal statement is good. Its problem obviously would be the lack of detail. We do not find a strong Eschatological stand, a church polity/officer stand, an ordinance stand, etc. We do find the Lord's supper/church discipline required. We find the Trinity, the Authority of Scripture, the Incarnation (though not the virgin Birth...implied? or purposefully left out?), the Deity/humanity of Christ, the Gospel as we would define it, the necessity of the local church, the roles of men and women in the church, and Calvinistic theology (which is what bothers some...fundamentalism is falling apart, but people can lay aside all these other problems as Calvinists to work for the Gospel. I see their frustration, though I won't say they are right.)
So, in the end I wonder. Some of our close circle would probably come together with them for the Gospel. Btw, the website is www.t4g.org They meet biennially; the next conference is April 13-15 in Louisville, KY. (I didn't know KY was the abbreviation...hmm.)
If we almost abandoned the first "T" in our distinctives, I'm sure if we haggled over some things we could fall in line with this. The problems to me are obvious.
Any large gathering with men who lead is dangerous. So is any small gathering with men who lead, but you know what I mean. That I think is the more obvious thing. We don't want to idolize anyone.
Secondly, a person's views on truth will always influence their preaching. People will be attending these things with less than their normal guard and since people are stupid and gullible they will be expecting messages about the Gospel. I would not accuse any of the speakers of taking advantage of this, however with their views being different their messages cannot but hint of who the person is. What you believe inside is what comes out the mouth. People will not be on guard and as the differing views will not be blatant they may even go home and propagate them as something good: they hadn't heard that verse that way before. But in fact that verse interprets that way because the preacher thinks there is continuing revelation and that people are speaking with tongues.
I sense danger all around, yet I think warnings are more sufficient rather than denouncings. Am I getting soft? Am I wavering? Someone slap me if I am. Seriously, I need to know. Those 6-8 of you reading this are Biblically responsible in this matter.
Wow....Biblically responsible. The truth project which I discussed a month ago is nearing. I had a discussion with some family about it over the get-together weekend. I had thought of myself as getting careful and possibly wiser but maybe I'm getting scared and spineless. I think I am beginning to fatigue. I don't WANT to argue with someone who is obviously wrong, who will not change their mind, who will redefine Scripture, and twist Christ's words. I don't want that! It isn't just an uncomfortable feeling or a dislike, it is becoming a great distaste to me. As opposed to 6-9 years ago when I would have jumped in unprepared, now I would just as soon walk around those arguing and talk to someone else. What is happening to me?!
I was reminded however that I do not argue for me. Nor do I argue for the stubborn fool. (Fool? Is that ok? I think so...stubbornness is foolish, right? Ah, but foolishness does not make a fool. Fools are foolish, but not everyone who does something foolish is a fool. I should probably retract that fool up there.) Nor do I argue for the stubborn. (The wonders of the English language -- I remove a word and my adjective turns into a noun. Yeah, its not just English, but meh.) I argue for the people around who do not understand. I argue for the ignorant, and the naive. I argue for those who are too gullible. I argue for those who refuse to study for themselves; remaining babes when they should be eating strong meats.
Thus, if this attitude keeps up, the truth project will be fun. I do miss those days when it was fun.
Good to blog again...I may be back later...I am away from home without my wife. . .The first time since our weddiny day that we have been apart.
Darling, I miss you. Have fun and hurry back to me. <3
To the rest, goodday.
The coming thing
Phones. I think two generations ago they may not have even imagined phones as we know them today. Yes, TV introduced the shoe-phone and there it was imagined, but at my age, my grandparents would not have thought about it. They could not have imagined being "online" on a pocket-size phone. The Internet was new enough. Broadband, DSL, etc. didn't even exist. It was plain old dial-up. And we are logging on with our phones.
And with that attention grabbing introduction I will proceed to talk about the future. (In normal writing it isn't a good idea to point out your attention grabbing introduction...fyi) This is not the pessimistic somewhat dreary future that was discussed not ten days past, but the future of invention. Further, I would like to discuss this with a theological world-view. Because I don't really know what meanings any of you will assign to that, I'll try to clarify that I only mean I will comment on the theological significance of something if it calls for it.
The first problem we have in looking for the coming thing is put simply by Brisco: "If I knew what it was it wouldn't be coming, it would already be here!" We don't know what future inventions and things will be coming. Our (or my) imagination is somewhat limited. We can easily imagine scenarios similar to things we have been shown. Thus, screenless TVs, Virtual Reality, terminator vision (internet/TV/computers in our glasses/contacts), etc.
Time travel has been imagined, but theologically I believe this can be shown to be an impossibility. The very idea tends to contradict truth and absolutes. I won't go any farther with this post.
What of AI? AI as portrayed in many films is imo highly probable since I see no theological reason it could not happen. Recall however that a united humanity as portrayed in Terminator/Matrix/etc is not possible. Thus, though we may encounter AI in a form, it is improbable that it will ever become as large an issue as the above or I Robot.
What about a chair you can sit in that will send impulses through your body targeting muscle and causing genuine muscle fatigue so that "working out" no longer requires working out, but rather you sit down for however long and get up soar. Physically, I don't know if this is possible. I am not knowledgeable enough to know if this could be done electrically, or if our bodies would react right. But it could happen. Seems like it would be one awkward machine since for example the tris are flexed with an extended arm and the bis are flexed with a curled arm. But yes, it could be an invention.
But all of the above have been thought up by someone with a better imagination than mine. I am stuck reading/thinking secondary thoughts. I read fantasy and I don't come up with original. I come up with a copy. Originality tends to be difficult. I don't think that its just me, but I could be wrong.
So, now you are all disappointed because you read all that and you didn't learn anything or learn of the coming thing. Sorry. I don't know what it is. Sci-fi is full of inventions. Are these things the coming things? Or does my generation and the next already understand that though these things are only Sci-fi now, they will (most likely in our lifetime) become reality. I don't know what previous generations have thought regarding their own imaginations, but I don't see a halting to the inventing of what we have imagined aside from the theologically impossible. As we continue to imagine we will continue to invent.
But where do all these ideas come from to begin with? They are imagined by someone. The imaginations stem from something stable and solid that is familiar. This can then be transmuted into something new and foreign yet just familiar enough for belief. Then, eventually, down the road, it is invented. Or not. I'm really not an expert on the subject. Just writing because it is on my mind.
Obviously this is all contingent upon true eschatology. But we all know that.
Well, any ideas of the coming thing? Lmk, I would love to hear them.
And with that attention grabbing introduction I will proceed to talk about the future. (In normal writing it isn't a good idea to point out your attention grabbing introduction...fyi) This is not the pessimistic somewhat dreary future that was discussed not ten days past, but the future of invention. Further, I would like to discuss this with a theological world-view. Because I don't really know what meanings any of you will assign to that, I'll try to clarify that I only mean I will comment on the theological significance of something if it calls for it.
The first problem we have in looking for the coming thing is put simply by Brisco: "If I knew what it was it wouldn't be coming, it would already be here!" We don't know what future inventions and things will be coming. Our (or my) imagination is somewhat limited. We can easily imagine scenarios similar to things we have been shown. Thus, screenless TVs, Virtual Reality, terminator vision (internet/TV/computers in our glasses/contacts), etc.
Time travel has been imagined, but theologically I believe this can be shown to be an impossibility. The very idea tends to contradict truth and absolutes. I won't go any farther with this post.
What of AI? AI as portrayed in many films is imo highly probable since I see no theological reason it could not happen. Recall however that a united humanity as portrayed in Terminator/Matrix/etc is not possible. Thus, though we may encounter AI in a form, it is improbable that it will ever become as large an issue as the above or I Robot.
What about a chair you can sit in that will send impulses through your body targeting muscle and causing genuine muscle fatigue so that "working out" no longer requires working out, but rather you sit down for however long and get up soar. Physically, I don't know if this is possible. I am not knowledgeable enough to know if this could be done electrically, or if our bodies would react right. But it could happen. Seems like it would be one awkward machine since for example the tris are flexed with an extended arm and the bis are flexed with a curled arm. But yes, it could be an invention.
But all of the above have been thought up by someone with a better imagination than mine. I am stuck reading/thinking secondary thoughts. I read fantasy and I don't come up with original. I come up with a copy. Originality tends to be difficult. I don't think that its just me, but I could be wrong.
So, now you are all disappointed because you read all that and you didn't learn anything or learn of the coming thing. Sorry. I don't know what it is. Sci-fi is full of inventions. Are these things the coming things? Or does my generation and the next already understand that though these things are only Sci-fi now, they will (most likely in our lifetime) become reality. I don't know what previous generations have thought regarding their own imaginations, but I don't see a halting to the inventing of what we have imagined aside from the theologically impossible. As we continue to imagine we will continue to invent.
But where do all these ideas come from to begin with? They are imagined by someone. The imaginations stem from something stable and solid that is familiar. This can then be transmuted into something new and foreign yet just familiar enough for belief. Then, eventually, down the road, it is invented. Or not. I'm really not an expert on the subject. Just writing because it is on my mind.
Obviously this is all contingent upon true eschatology. But we all know that.
Well, any ideas of the coming thing? Lmk, I would love to hear them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)