More

Many things to think about right now.

I have been considering Acts 19:1-7 in great detail lately. I have several commentators and references on the floor by my desk. I have spoken to several people. I need to write a paper for my class and this is my topic. I intend to talk more about it later after I have written it so that I can offer my conclusive thoughts rather than something that perchance may change. I have changed my mind a couple times on this already. ;)

I have been introduced to an alternative to both Dispensational and Covenant Theology. I haven't had too much time to read into it yet. It is Promise Theology. So far, I'm not terribly impressed or disappointed. (Does the adverb "terribly" apply to both impressed and disappointed in the previous sentence with the current grammar? Or do I need to retype "terribly" so that it is understood that I am not "terribly" disappointed, but that I can still be minimally irked? Am I incorrectly using quotation marks in the previous two sentences? Won't some English teacher explain it to me?)

I spoke to someone who offered an interesting perspective on what it really means to "believe God." Abraham believed God. That was enough. Though it was interesting, it was not correct. There was too much logic and theological perspective rather than Biblical theology.

I have been debating, internally, what makes a good/effective teacher. Much to think about there. I don't know that I am a good teacher. People tell me I am. My boss tells all of us collectively that each of us is great at what we do. I don't know if that is so much an individual encouragement or her way of telling the every other person that the people sitting next to them DO know what they are doing contrary to what you may believe. /shrug So, what makes a good teacher? Is it the person that connects to the outlying kid, and gets him to partake and interact? Is it the person that connects, in a less personal way, to every person in his classroom? Is it the person whose kids leave his room having mastered completely the subject area, though they hate the teacher? At what point is the teacher to connect on an individual level? At what point does a teacher bend on the course material? The answer on that must be the curriculum designated by the state that the class must cover, but really, who honestly knows that curriculum perfectly (perhaps besides AP teachers)? Who knows what a state official would say is permissible to skip? Really, as objective a profession as this should be, it seems too subjective to me.

Of course, then I begin to think that a logical occupation would probably be one involving law. But really, can anything get more objective than Math? Law can be subjective, math cannot. There is a correct answer and an incorrect answer. Often, though probably not ontologically, Theology seems more subjective than Math. Theology is my passion more than Math. Math is fun. And I find myself telling the kids that. "This is a fun part." "This stuff is fun to do." etc.

But theology is better than "fun." It is fun, but it is life changing. It is glorious. It is amazing. And then I hear a friend's voice telling me that all Christians are to love God's Word. Theology -- the study of God -- is to be precious to all His children.

On my "future intentions" sheet I selected that I was planning on teaching another year, Lord willing. We shall see what God has for me in the future. As this school year started, I had high hopes that I would end up in Washington at the end of 2010. This was not a dream in the sky, but actual possibility. I'm sure its gone. Things change and plans move, and God closes and opens doors.

God is good. No matter what we encounter; no matter what our trials; no matter our tribulations; no matter our circumstances; no matter whether or not we believe it or accept it; no matter the calamity in the world; no matter the economy; no matter the ruination of all America; God is good. We forget this. This is fact. People tend to think that if God allows them tribulation He isn't good anymore. Or if God really does hate sin, He can't be good then. If God intends to send sinners to Hell, He can't be good. This is from faulty theological logic. Biblical Theology says God is good. It also says that trials come into our lives. It says that God hates sin, and that sinners go to Hell. /sarcastic-gasp! God is good. Accept it. Believe it. Live it -- thank Him for his goodness. We have too much to be grateful for. I am spoiled enough to have a pitcher that filters my water for me. Really? People all over the world that would love to have running water like we have, and then we have pitchers that further filter it. (I have a sneaky suspicion that the water is just better from the pitcher because we put it in the fridge and it gets cold. Cold water is better, am I right?) I am tired of people assuming that theological, historical, or experiential truths proof God is not good, or rather that the fact is no longer fact. These aren't just the lost apostates. These are believers. Shame on you! Let the Bible dictate your system, and not the other way around.

We have revival services at church this week. We will have to leave immediately after I get home. The church is doing meals at 5:30 each day, but since I volunteered for the babysitting job, we will instead be rushing just to make the service. The evangelist is good though. Good preaching today; good preaching the last few weeks.

We ordered a digital piano. I used to play a little and I want to play again. My wife plays and I want her to be able to keep playing. I want Arielle to hear the piano as she grows up. I want her to learn to play it. I was recommended one from someone at school. We had considered buying an acoustic piano, but really, how many of you wanted to come help us move that up our stairs on some Saturday? Or maybe the question is, did we really want to have you at our place on a Sat? Ha! Just kidding. With everyone's schedules, it just seems hard to ask people to come by for something as simple as moving a piano up a flight of stairs.

It seems to me that favors were more common, and thus easier to ask for back before I was born. I would be happy to help people move stuff. I don't get asked. Maybe people still do this type of thing a lot; maybe it just has to do with the circle of friends you are in. I don't have a circle of friends like that. My close friends are spread around with a few here, and a few there. If we were all in the same town, I have no doubt I would have no problem getting them to my house to move a piano. Anyway, there was a bonus commentary on me.

We stopped by a music shop so Kaylynn could actually play the piano we were looking at. It was $50 more in the shop, and we had free shipping so we just ordered online. I am excited for it to get here.

Yes, we could have bought a Playstation 3 and pre-ordered FFXIII, but a piano is the more mature decision. This should not be misunderstood that I did not want the piano. I did. We are still thinking about a PS3 or an XBOX-360. I don't know. Its so much. But I know so many people who are going to be playing FFXIII. I would love to be one of them. When the last one came out, I had it in hand on release day. I waited a few days to play it when I went home on Thanksgiving break to play it with my siblings. It is one of the few games I try to keep with. I got behind on Metroid, Zelda, and Ninja Gaiden. No hope on catching up on those -- maybe Ninja Gaiden if I go Xbox.

A PS3 is the better machine. An XBOX I can play online, play Halo, and get Ninja Gaiden black. FFXIII comes out on either machine. Overall, I know inside that the PS3 is better, and yet I feel myself drawn to the Xbox. Of course, then I would be bugged to play COD -- Call of Duty, for those of you that don't sit with kids who talk about it all the time -- and that means the yearly subscription for $50. Either system, I need a second controller, for another $50. Games are about the same for either one. And really, even though I would probably get the new street fighter, who would I play it with? =( I wonder if my gaming life is coming to an end. Or, is it past coming to an end and its just ending now? /shrug

The thing is, that I often find myself looking for a game. In the past few months, I have played, won multiple times, and hacked KOTOR, and LoM2. Played Facebook games extensively, and then gave them up; started travian. Slow game by the way. Still waiting for book two in the King Killer Chronicles. I'm beginning to think the WoT series may finish before we get a book two. Go Sanderson! (~82% of the next book done. Each % representing 3,000 words.)

I was invited to a writing group. I'm started working on a short story and found I can't write. Phooey on me. I'm going to keep working on it. I would like to write a book, and that means I better be able to write a short story. My problem tends to be in the writing, not the plot. I can figure out an "ok" plot, at least in my opinion.

I recommended a movie with little qualification to someone to whom I definitely should have added qualification. For whatever reason I didn't. If I would have thought about it, I would have know she would not have liked the movie, yet I recommended it anyway...sorry mom; I'll be more careful next time.

Having a baby is great. Isaac always told me it was. It was just one of his things. He would say, "It is great! I can't describe it. It is the best thing ever. She's just the best." Every time I would see him he would tell me this. He advised we don't wait to have kids because they are just the best. She is. Arielle is just that -- great, perfect, adorable. She makes me speechless.

And while I had my suspicions, it is now confirmed that my great wife is also a great mother. She is fantastic. God has blessed me greatly, and I am very grateful. While I'm bragging, let me add that Arielle doesn't cry unless there is something very wrong. And usually, that is a just a whimper. She is so good. I don't know...if I didn't know the theological implications, I might assume that she didn't have a sin nature. Somehow it must have missed her. Just kidding... ;)

streamlining a little

As I wrote my last blog, I had this feeling that I was writing haphazardly. I felt I was beginning to lose my coherence. I reread it, and though it might seem a tad off, it doesn't read poorly, in my opinion.

But, it started me thinking. While my blog has been my private journal, I want to keep moving it from less of a journal/diary and into more of a teaching tool, and/or a more efficient way for me to catalog my thoughts. (Besides, when I write my logical thought process works out its kinks.)

I have mentioned stuff like this before. God has given me things to think, write, and say. (Not in direct revelation or commission of course, but anything worth thinking on my mind is not of my own.) I have thought in detail about a newsletter or a journal publication, but that is not in my sphere of possibility right now. And so, I blog.

I would like this to become scholarly, but that involves more than I have the resources for. Scholarship necessitates citation and review. It won't be scholarly for me to write something good. If I write the same thing citing many scholars and submit to a publication it becomes scholarly. I would love to do that, but in order to cite people, I need access to them. MBBC had a great library in my opinion and I had heard it was great compared to others. There isn't anything down here comparable from what I know. I heard things down here weren't good. I haven't tried the University here in Tampa (whichever one it is), maybe that would work.

Another option is a $400-600 program that includes 10,000s articles on theology. No money eliminates that for now.

I had mentioned something in my past blog that might be worth more discussion but I forget now what it was and so I will be done for tonight.

Goodnight, goodnight, and goodnight.

baby, church, doctrine, and more

I have a baby girl! She is the most precious thing. She is cute, sweet, adorable, and angelic. Yes, she is angel-like. Thanks to everyone for praying.

We joined a church. It took over a year of looking and praying, but God led us to one. Fellowship Baptist in Thonotosassa, FL. It is a little ways driving, but it is where we believe God wants us. We spent 2.5 hours talking with the pastor and his wife two Mondays ago. It went well from my perspective. Of course, my wife and sister told me that I was not very responsive, so we don't know what the pastor and his wife thought.

I'm not a very responsive individual. People at my job tell me that. People at home tell me that. I just don't respond to things. I sit and listen without a response, and without changing my facial expressions (for the most part). Sometimes, I am in complete agreement, and sometimes I am arguing vehemently on the inside. But you couldn't tell the difference from my countenance. Of course, if you know me and what I believe you would be able to know from the conversation how I was feeling. Anyway, overall I am happy with this aspect of me. I do not see a need to change it. I'm sure that there will be times where the outcome is negative because of it, but that is the same with almost everything, and it fits me better to remain quiet.

Ignorance. I am ignorant of quite a bit. It drives me insane.

Side note: You know why Socrates was killed (according to Plato's apology)? He claimed to be wiser than all other men. Yet, his wisdom was not in that he knew more, but in that he recognized his ignorance. They thought they knew, and he knew he didn't know. I'm not saying others don't know, but I am acutely aware that I do not know.

Back on track. Acts 19:1-6. Disciples, saved or not? I have generally held strong opinions on stuff like this because I am a black and white law person. But, then I start reading on what it means to be a dispensationalist, and I realize that I was probably wrong on my opinion of that passage. This is another instance of pointing out something that I am going to be wrong about. Obviously we aren't all going to be right about everything. I think we all would admit this, and yet, I also think that we act the other way about it. We know we can't be right about everything, and then we argue tooth and nail for something small where there is every possibility that we could be wrong. /sarcasm-on I have never done that...ever. /sarcasm-off

Another interesting thing that I recently found/figured out was the inconsistency in the Reformed/Covenant position.

Slight Digression: To be reformed almost certainly means 5-point Calvinist and maybe hyper Calvinist. I only say "almost certainly" on the off chance that someone tries to be Reformed and not Calvinist, but that doesn't happen. On the other hand, you can most assuredly be Calvinist, and NOT be reformed. So, Reformed includes Calvinist. Calvinist does not include Reformed. They are not equivalent terms. Often however, it is not entirely inaccurate to equate the terms Covenant and Reformed. Covenant is a system of theology that is held by almost all reformed denominations. Again, the almost all is in case there is a rare case out there. Lastly, even after some searching, the general stance of a Reformed Baptist is a hard one for me to pin down. Does it mean they are covenant and yet believe in immersion? The combining of those two is humanly irreconcilable, like the hypostatic union. But, assuming they believe it is what the Bible teaches, then they would practice it on faith and not worry about the logic. Or (back to the previous "does it mean" sentence) does it mean, rather erroneously, that they are Calvinistic Baptists? I don't know, and I don't have the time to try to find a consensus on it right now.

So, what was this inconsistency I stumbled upon? Well, since reformed are Calvinist, often many see the logical outworking of Calvinism in Scripture as double-predestination, that is, the predestination of the elect to Salvation and the predestination of the lost to damnation. Since this is the case of belief for many, it fights strongly with the Covenant system whose grounding principle, indeed the one they brag about, is that everything throughout all eternity is leading to the glory of God as evidenced in the Salvation of the elect. However, damnation is the opposite of salvation and fits the argument of the dispensationalist much better. (not the predeterminate counsel to damn, but rather the act itself) The dispensationalist argues that the end and beginning of all eternity is God's glory. Not just manifested in Salvation, which, though it is a large part, is not all God has done, nor is doing. God created angels and there is no plan of Salvation for them, and yet God receives glory from them. The basic premise that everything works for God's glory is simple and will not be argued even by many Covenant theologians. However, they do argue the means by which this glory is accomplished and they believe the center to all history is solely salvation, diminishing all God has done apart from that.

Note: Do not misunderstand the Dispensationalists view upon the matter of Salvation. We hold salvation to be by God, for God's glory, and we hold it to be one of the major ways in which God demonstrates His glory. However, it is not the only way, and we believe that God is working history for the end of his glory, not for the conclusion of his salvation plan.

The oddity here, amongst all the reviews and overviews of belief is that the Calvinist is the one who believes God is active in damning, while at the same time holding the position that God's working in history is primarily for the accomplishing of Salvation. Many dispensationalists will argue (wrongly) that man has the ability, apart from the electing grace of God, to determine to get saved, and yet argue that God's goal in history is his own glory, and this end is furthered by his just damnation of the wicked. Interesting stuff.

Thoughts on systematics. Generally, there are different types of ways of studying the Bible. Biblical theology is basically Bible study. It attempts to use the context, and what is going on in the text to determine what is happening in that text. It used the previous texts to look at what has happened and then looks forward to the coming texts. Using "Biblical Theology" we have different methods of interpretation. We have literal, that is the historical grammatical, interpretation. That is what Dispensationalists try to use consistently. Covenant theologians also use this type of hermeneutic, yet they abandon it for allegorical interpretation when in contrasts their system. The allegorical interpretation is when they begin to interpret a text, often prophecy using allegory instead of the literal, historical, grammatical hermeneutic.

Still with me? Hopefully some of the was familiar. Ok, then from the "Biblical Theology" we also have "Systematic Theology." I have heard negative things said about systematics, but there are reasons for them. Anyway, a systematic deals not with a passage, but with a topic. So, the systematics often deal with things like Theology Proper, Christology, Neumotology, Ecclesiology, etc. So a system may analyze a topic throughout the entire Bible. We use a system on Christ to study him in depth, rather than look at individual passages. The benefits would seem to be immediately obvious. An in depth study on any particular topic is necessary in order to have greater understanding. Instead of seeing God as just a jealous God, and an consuming fire in one passage, we also see God as gracious, merciful, and love. It causes us to see God in a more complete picture than any single passage would do.

Systems impact everything. The general covenant theologian does not put stock in infant baptism because of the life giving power of the water. However, their system says that to enter the covenant community of God, the children of the community need a sign/symbol/ordinance to enter -- thus baptism. As the OT had circumcision, so the NT has baptism. Therefore, it requires far more than just proving baptism is for the saved, or the elect, or the children of God, because they argue that the children of saved parents enter the covenant via their parents and their parents faith in baptizing them.

Systems can be good and bad. Systems lead to details and intricacies that often are not seen with just Bible theology. Acts 19 for example, is not clear in and of itself on whether the disciples were saved or not. However, looking at the way God has worked across dispensations, and will allow us to examine what some may say was an exception, and yet, exceptions do take place.

I fear I am lacking clarity as I continue. We all know we need to compare Scripture with Scripture. A system allows us to work through Scriptures in a logical order, in accordance with what we find in the Bible. A system allows us to logically approach a passage in biblical study. A system leads us to an understanding of some of the deeper issues. Christ's death was a substitutionary atonement, a vicarious sacrifice, a propitiaion, etc. The full range of implications of each of these is not derived from a single verse or passage.

However, systems are dangerous too. Turretin's system allowed him to state with authority that The Fall happened in Autumn. Last night I read how someone calculated the beginning of the Earth at 4004BC, Oct. 23, 9am. At some point, these men were mistaken in their systems. A system involves both theological facts, and the logic used to reach the next fact. So, their facts are off on something actually bigger, or their logic is off. And when you read someone who is generally really good and you are in agreement and then you hit something like the above two instances, you need to stop and wonder. Is he (and if you are in agreement, you) off on a fact of theology? Or is it the logic involved in getting there?

FYI, I like Turretin, and though he is strongly Covenant, and allegorizes, he is worth reading. That brings up another fact: even people who are wrong about stuff, often say good things. It does not mean you endorse the person wholeheartedly, but it does mean you can recommend what he has written or done.

Note: While reading a popular Covenant book, I began to realize that his beginning chapters of defining terms and expressions were actually very dangerous to agree with. If I had lent assent to his beginning definitions, I feel as if his logic would have been accurate to lead to his ending system. It was the definitions that were off in this case.

So, to sum up a bit. Covenant theologians put themselves into a large dilemma using two of the systems they are most known for. It is admitted on all sides that Dispensational theology is derived from consistent application of the literal, historical-grammatical hermeneutic. Systems are extremely helpful in interpreting Scripture. We must be careful when using them that we do not allow either poor logic or an inaccurate theological fact to drive our system somewhere the Bible does not go. Even people with wrong systems are correct in parts of their systems. Therefore when a theological fact is accepted on all sides, it is the logic that must be analyzed in order to avoid encountering the same errors.

I think that is all for today...sorry I don't blog enough. I want to write a newsletter or something...but I think that many people would sign-up, perhaps out of courtesy, but few would read it. That is not what I want. I want a few people who would read, and want to read. I have a desire to learn, and I want to appeal to that desire in others, though I don't even know if it is really there. And then again, who am I to try to impart anything? Thoughts for anther blog perhaps.

Oh, by the way, my dad built a welder, and an arc-welder because he wanted to and he could...he just built them...how awesome is that? Pretty awesome.