Isaiah 8:16

Well Here I Am Again

2011-11-25T01:39:00.001-06:00

New Blog Post, "Well Here I Am Again" http://byroniac.blogspot.com/2011/11/well-here-i-am-again.html

2011-11-25T00:44:00.001-06:00

Long story short, I am no longer a Christian. This blog, Isaiah 8:16, was intended solely as a Christian's blog, to document spiritual progress, theological pondering, and spiritual meandering, as it were. Actually, I had originally intended this blog as an expression of my fundamental Christian worldview and to document the expansion of my spiritual perspectives. Now that I am no longer a believer, and cannot claim a religion, this blog's purpose no longer applies, and the blog has no reason to exist. I pondered transforming it into a freethinker/skeptic blog, with some perhaps pun or play on the idea contained in the verse Isaiah 8:16, but I decided to do such would violate the intended spirit behind the blog's creation. So, I will move all such matters to my more personal blog, at Byroniac. It's been dead for awhile, too, but I'm thinking of blogging again. Just a trickle, mind you, is all I've planned, and I'm not even promising to deliver that much, but it certainly won't be here any longer. Join me over there at Byroniac if you wish. Good Bye.

No Longer a Christian

2011-02-02T22:18:00.002-06:00

OK, everyone. I'm no longer Christian, and I'm tired of pretending and sorry for lying. I guess I am agnostic, perhaps Deistic in my thought patterns. I apologize for not telling everyone sooner, especially family, but there were very few people who knew this. Now I wish to make it public. I admire my Christian friends even if I do not share their religion. Best wishes to all, and to everyone a good night I guess.

Sorry We're Closed

2009-08-07T17:24:00.003-05:00

Well, I've decided to close this blog indefinitely. I would use the word "forever" but even "indefinitely" might only last a week or two. Basically, because I am fickle at heart and love hopping around, I am moving to WordPress (want to check out that platform again, even though I have no complaints with Blogger, it's just a "curiosity killed the cat" thing). Unfortunately, I am closing down the Isaiah 8:16 blog there, too, in terms of new posts that is, and will combine everything into one blog from here on out, found here:

byroniac.wordpress.com

Quick Blurb about Inerrancy

2009-07-02T18:42:00.005-05:00

I just wanted to write a quick blurb about some of my thoughts on inerrancy. I mentioned three areas of Scripture that I don't believe are genuine. I don't know, however, if any of them for sure are not authentic, so this is just my opinion. Just beware the mindset that sets up the KJV as the gold standard and compares all other translations as incorrectly "subtracting" verses or differing in interpretation.

The first of these is the Comma Johanneum in 1 John 5:7, which if memory serves me I read that Erasmus only included this in his work because there was one Greek manuscript that included it, but the origin of that Greek manuscript was dubious (there are several Latin manuscripts which include it but of course they are older, and the lack of Greek witnesses seems to indicate that the Comma is not original). The doctrine of the Comma is explicitly Trinitarian, so I endorse it without reservation and have no desire to oppose it based on its Trinitarianism. I only reserve skepticism about it because I've referenced it before in defense of the Trinity without knowing the problems behind its origin.

The second is the pericope of the woman caught in adultery. It is troubling to me because though I like the story a lot, it seems rather strange that the guilty male party of adultery is never mentioned or brought to Jesus (so I am left wondering, how did the Jews KNOW unless they were possibly in on it maybe?). Other problems include having a Lukan syntax so I have read instead of really fitting in syntactically with John. Another problem, worse in my opinion, is the fact that the passage has moved around from different places in manuscripts. So it could be a later addition to Scripture.

The third is the Longer Ending of Mark in Mark 16:9-20. There are three different endings for Mark. One is the normal (perhaps original ending) at 16:8. There is a Shorter Ending which I am not real familiar with which includes one additional verse. The Longer Ending adds twelve different verses (the 16:9-20 in the KJV, for example). I remember a seminary student telling me who was studying Greek who told me that the Greek vocabulary and syntax is completely different in the last twelve verses as opposed to the rest of Chapter 16. If that's true, then that is troubling (but could be just a later addition of actual Scripture by an amanuensis who had different style of writing Greek, perhaps).

My problem with the Longer Ending of Mark is a possible Bible contradiction. Mark 16:12-13 says, "12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. 13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them." The commentaries I remember reading all suggest a link to Luke 24:13-34, either in suggestion or outright. The only problem is, this cannot truly be a reference to Luke 24, that I can see. Luke 24:33-36 mentions nothing about unbelief or rejection of the message of the two witnesses by the others, and simply says, "33 And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, 34 Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon. 35 And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread. 36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you." It is true however, that verse 11 says, "And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not." but this concerns an angelic appearance and not one of Christ (verse 6 begins in the KJV with "He is not here" implying his personal absence at that particular instant but more importantly that the Resurrection had indeed occurred). This does not mean that the last twelve verses of Mark 16:9-20 are not genuine, but it does cause me to seriously doubt that the episode I referenced has anything to do with the episode in Luke which seems to bear a similarity to it. If it truly is referencing Luke, then it seems to me to be difficult to harmonize. But it could be referencing history lost now to us but known to the apostles at the time (seems unlikely?).

Well, guess this wasn't a short blurb. But anyway, I have been thinking about this for several days, and unless I've missed something somewhere, I think it's legitimate to mention. It certainly seems interesting.

I do believe in inerrancy after all

2009-06-08T10:54:00.002-05:00

First, a plug for James White's debate with Bart Ehrman:

http://www.aomin.org/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=870&osCsid=22d466a3d9be208ce8091c8ee52e97ea

This is an excellent debate (easy for me to say since it's the only debate on this topic I've ever watched, and I liked it, so my approval is a given).

I do believe in Biblical inerrancy, after struggling for a couple of months with this issue. I just do not accept certain passages are truly genuine and canonical (such as the pericope on adultery in John 7:53-8:11, the last twelve verses of Mark in 16:9-20, and the Johannine Comma in 1 John 5:7). Though I grew up with the KJV, and still tend to prefer it by habit if nothing else, my favorite translations now would focus on the ESV, NASB, and NRSV probably (I like the NKJV too, to a lesser extent).

This is just a personal observation; it's not a statement of personal inerrancy (I could be wrong, and I admit it). So, if you disagree with me, please don't write me off as without hope.

The dark side of Dubai

2009-04-11T20:31:00.001-05:00

This is a very interesting news article on Dubai:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/the-dark-side-of-dubai-1664368.html

Demolishing The Shack

2009-04-05T13:54:00.004-05:00

Today I changed my opinion concerning The Shack, by Paul Young. If you have not read it yet, do not bother. I cannot recommend it, after being pointed to excellent resources which discuss this book. I just read the 39-page book review found at www.theshackreview.com on the right-hand side under the title, "Back of The Shack." Though not of the Sovereign Grace persuasion, the reviewer does an excellent job of demolishing (bulldozing?) The Shack (there is a shorter review available, but I have not read it). Also recommended is the website alwaysreformingtoscripture.blogspot.com. I am troubled at The Shack, and that is putting it mildly.

*EDIT* The name of the author on the book jacket is William P. Young.

Modern Church Membership

2009-04-01T20:44:00.002-05:00

Biblical Church Membership
A Look at the Modern Practice of Church Membership
www.batteredsheep.com/biblical_church_membership.html

I only just now skimmed this, so I have not taken the time to carefully read this. My initial first impressions are that this falls in line with my current ecclesiogical thinking. Modern church ecclesiology is too much like the "Borg Collective" for my tastes, and I think if you read this article you will see why.

Free Grace Broadcaster

2009-03-28T22:57:00.001-05:00

www.mountzion.org/fgb.html

OK. OK. I know. "This isn't a blog post; it's a bookmark!" you say. True. Guilty as charged.

Five-Points of Calvinism by John Piper

2009-03-08T12:59:00.006-05:00

I love John Piper's theology and this is a great article on Five-point Calvinism (as it is called), also known as "Doctrines of Grace" and (my chosen term) "Sovereign Grace."

Incidentally, I do not care for the term "Doctrines of Grace." I do not know about other translations, but in the King James, the English word "doctrines" in the plural is always negative, and always signifies either the doctrines of men, or of demons. I believe this is because there are many "doctrines" just as there are many paths of falsehood, but there is only one truth, which is indivisible in unity, and it belongs to God alone as its author (so I could say, "Doctrine of Grace" but there is more than just Grace to that doctrine, and the phrase is not used as far as I know). It is only when the word "doctrine" is singular that any good comes of it, and not always then in the Scriptures. On the other hand, I think "Sovereign Grace" is redundant (what other kind of grace is there? I mean, even in the secular world by its own definitions I would think grace has to be sovereign in order to be grace). And I do not like the word "Calvinism" for the obvious reasons that I do not believe the "theological system" is man-made (though the term is, I grant that), and the theology would exist whether or not John Calvin had ever been born or come to faith in the first place. But, I will usually call it "Five-Point Calvinism" in public because that term is well-defined, and can be properly understood. In private, I seem to prefer "Sovereign Grace." Whatever the case, I echo the praise of Jonah, "Salvation is of the Lord!" (Jonah 2:9b).

www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TopicIndex/105/1487_What_We_Believe_About_the_Five_Points_of_Calvinism/

EDIT: Typos. Additional comment.

A plan to resume blogging

2009-02-27T23:47:00.003-06:00

I plan to resume blogging, but only in a very low-key way. What I mean by that is this, I do not promise to blog regularly, or about anything necessarily interesting, or even that I will follow through on this promise at all, for that matter. And mostly, I will be blogging over at byroniac and not here, and most of the time, I will NOT be blogging about theology (at least, I do not plan to do so). So I am considering consolidating the two blogs and doing away with this one.

If you read this and care, please write me a comment. Thanks!

Crucial Questions for Catholics

2008-10-11T09:58:00.003-05:00

Crucial Questions For Catholics

The link above goes to a very interesting article I recommend to all Catholics. There is more material available on the site. Full Disclaimer: I am not Catholic, and I do not believe in Catholicism. I have some Catholic friends, and mean offense to no one, but I have a very different view of salvation. Perhaps you (the reader) will never agree with me theologically, but please take time to read and consider what has been written with Catholics in mind.

Tired of Blogging

2008-07-17T09:21:00.002-05:00

I've noticed something about bloggers. Some are born to blog, some blog because they can, and others just blog. I have finally come to the conclusion that I belong to that third category. What I had expected to be a source of fulfillment has mostly proved just to be a drain of energy. I actually enjoy reading the writing talents of others and commenting much more, so from here on out I will focus almost exclusively on that.

Removed Two Posts

2008-07-15T11:30:00.003-05:00

After taking time in reflection, I have removed my two posts concerning Liberal Baptists. What I said was in anger and scorn, and not in Christ-likeness. Though I believe very differently from those whom I would identify as "liberal" or even "moderate," my proud, arrogant tone was sinful and the only solution I know of is to remove my posts and admit my error.

I do not know if anyone actually reads any of these, but if so, you have my apologies for posting them. I pray for wisdom to not repeat this mistake. And above that, I pray for wisdom in seeking to teach and proclaim the Word of God accurately, under the Lordship of Christ and guidance of the Holy Spirit. Please pray for me in this regard.

Theme Song For Cain

2008-07-09T19:31:00.002-05:00

Genesis 4:10-14 (King James Version)

10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.

11 And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand;

12 When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.

13 And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear.

14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.

One of my favorite songs is "Wherever I May Roam" by Metallica. If there was ever a theme song for Cain, this is probably it. Maybe it's not an exact match, but I sense the same strains of spiritual lostness and unsettledness here. Or at least, I think so.

The Blessed Gift of Salvation

2008-05-23T21:11:00.003-05:00

The necessity and excellency of God's gift of salvation have both weighed heavily on my mind in recent days. The world is lost and dead in sin. Without Christ there is no hope, no light, and no rescue. My personal belief and full conviction is that only Christ can give us redemption, and the redemption He offers is perfect and complete. He has offered to God the perfect sacrifice, Himself who knew no sin, to make us who believe in Him acceptable to God and to separate us from our sins which in Him are paid in full. We are sealed with promise by the Holy Spirit of God waiting for a sure home in heaven in the bosom of the Father with all our hopes resting and wonderfully satisfied in Christ.

I am making a personal exception and posting this message to both blogs, even though the Byroniac blog is technical in nature, because of the importance of this message.

Please, if you are not a Christian (or even if you are!), take the time to read this site and consider it carefully.
Beginning Steps

Gene Edwards Books

2008-05-14T22:32:00.009-05:00

I'm interested in books by Gene Edwards.

Especially, I'm interested in Beyond Radical.

*EDIT* 05/16/2008 You really should read the first chapter here. I read it and immediately ordered the book (with others by this author). This should be an encouraging read.

Together For The Gospel 2008 Conference

2008-04-18T20:47:00.001-05:00

Together For The Gospel 2008 Conference
www.t4g.org/08/media/

Be Skeptical of the Skeptics

2008-04-11T23:12:00.005-05:00

I came across an interesting article on the website of the Skeptic magazine.

www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-04-09.html

Now I don't want to make a regular habit of this certainly, but the linked article interested me, and probably will you as well. However, as a Christian, obviously I approach this from a critical perspective. But I admit, I have learned something.

You should be skeptical of the Skeptics.

I'll keep my commentary on this fairly short, by my standards anyway. I only plan to make a few comments, and then write a few words in closing at the end. Please understand one thing, however. Though I attempt to persuade to my perspective, feel free to disagree. I admit to having a minority view.

Quote:

Gold begins his book with a series of chapters detailing the Old Testament’s failure to live up to the Orthodox claim that it is the word of God rather than the writings of men. This begins with the failure of biblical claims to match archaeology. There is, despite exhaustive attempts on the part of biblical archaeologists — many of whom were and are either committed Christians or devout Jews — no evidence of the presence of large numbers of Hebrews in late Bronze Age Egypt (i.e. the Egyptian captivity), nor is there any evidence of either the Exodus or the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites as detailed in the Book of Joshua. Nor is there any evidence of the united monarchy under David and Solomon. Further, while the Bible claims that the army of Sennacherib, King of Assyria, which was besieging Jerusalem, was miraculously annihilated by the angel of the Lord in a single night and that King Hezekiah triumphed over the Assyrians (2 Kings 19:35–37), [1] history and archaeology instead support the Assyrian version of events, that Sennacherib sacked and devastated every city of Judah but Jerusalem, and [2] that Hezekiah paid a huge tribute to the Assyrians just to hang on to Jerusalem and its environs. [emphasis and enumeration mine]

Response:

I cannot comment on the first part concerning the historical evidence as I am neither an archaeologist nor a historian. But rather than responding in my actual state as an amateur "armchair" theologian, I will simply respond to number one above by referencing the Bible itself as a piece of literature. An omission in the article has been made. I do not know whether it is intentional or accidental, but it certainly is an omission worthy of note. Refer to 2 Kings 18:13 for the answer. Does not the Bible itself admit as such? If so, and especially if agreement comes from the very text under discussion in their critical perspective, why not use it? This is at the very least an error of ignoring or failing to research the literature itself.

The second part is easily answered by the same chapter of Scripture. 2 Kings 18:14-16 are the very next verses to note. And this charge is also admitted here, though in a different sense (however, the spiritual error on Hezekiah's part in doing this is beyond the scope of this post). So why not refer to this as well?

Quote:

Gold also details the failure of the biblical claim of divine retribution and the failure of biblical prophecies. [1] A spectacular example of the good being punished, while the bad obviously get off free is to be found at the end of 2 Kings. Manasseh, the evil king of Judah who worshipped other gods, and consulted soothsayers and wizards, enjoyed a long and peaceful reign (692–639 BCE, 53 years), while King Josiah, the greatest among Judah’s reformers was killed in battle when he was only 37. Josiah was only eight when he took the throne. He reigned from 638–609 BCE, a total of 29 years, much of it when he was in his minority. So why did the evil King Manasseh prosper, while the good King Josiah was cut off in his youth? [2] The Bible explains it this way (2 Kings 23:25–26): [emphasis and enumeration mine]

And like unto him there was no king before him, that turned to the LORD with all his heart, and all his soul, and all his might, according to all the law of Moses; neither after him arose there any like him. Notwithstanding, the LORD turned not from the fierceness of his great wrath, wherewith his anger was kindled against Judah, because of all the provocations that Manasseh had provoked him withal.

Response:

Both of these parts suffer from a similar type of very important omission. I believe the persons responsible for the article I quote from above have been careless in the use of their one and only literary source. The answer here is not to be found in the book of 2 Kings, but over in 2 Chronicles which references the same historical events from a different perspective, sometimes giving more information as it does here than what is found in the parallel passage of 2 Kings. Again, these omissions are vital.

Omitted is the fact that Manessah, as evil as he was, repented before the Lord and appears to do so genuinely, according to 2 Chronicles 33:9-19,22-23. Again, please understand this is not necessarily offered as a theological explanation (though it certainly could serve as that for the subject matter of a future blog post), but simply as a reference to the literature itself and its content on a particular subject matter. On this note, it does not matter if you are a Christian, or a Jew, or if you even believe this passage of the Bible at all. But looking at the given literary evidence honestly and objectively should make the omission of the e-Skeptic article readily apparent. The question at this point is not, what do you believe, but, will you honestly admit what the literature says and quote it not only accurately but sufficiently and in context?

Again, concerning Josiah in the second part, I will speak of the final omission (for the scope of this blog post) which must be answered. 2 Chronicles 35:20-25, especially verses 21 and 22, answer this, primarily from a theological perspective, but adequately even from our pure literary perspective. The Bible here, as a piece of literature, asserts that Josiah disobeyed a commandment of the Lord and faced the divine punishment warned in the text and described as destruction. Verse 26 affirms even more firmly than the article (in my opinion) that Josiah was to be considered a very good person, based at least on the authority of the piece of literature in question. These are important points that should not be overlooked or casually dismissed.

If the article had taken just these points alone into consideration, a very different article would have been the result. I cannot say with any authority what quality the resulting article would have when compared to this original, of course. I am not even saying that such corrections to the article need to be requested. I believe they do need to be made, personally, and as I approach the article from an admittedly critical perspective, I must reject its conclusions as well as much of its content, as I have demonstrated above. However, I do not have hope that the article itself will be revised or removed.

Now I have a question for you, the reader. Are you a Christian? Do you claim to believe in Christ and profess His name? Do you care for the things of God and especially His Word? Wonderful, and very good! Remember that ultimately you cannot prove that the Bible is true (which I believe requires the new birth by the Spirit in order to fully believe). However, also remember that God can use you or even me or anyone He chooses to explain and defend His Word, in any situation. His Word is more important than we are. And Christ reigns supreme over us.

If you are not a Christian, may I please refer you to Alpha and Omega Ministries website (with whom I have no affiliation other than financial support and strong endorsement of their materials) at www.aomin.org which has the excellent audio message, "Why I am a Christian". This is a short audio message of less than 30 minutes, and I strongly recommend it. It is a free MP3 download and if you have never heard it, I hope and pray you will listen today and consider carefully what you hear.

Last Edited: 04-Apr-2008 12:56 A.M. Reason: Fix typos and etc. And felt like it.

Absolut Nonsense

2008-04-08T10:42:00.003-05:00

(OK. Here's another one screaming, "Blog me!")

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080408/us_nm/mexico_absolut_dc

First of all, it's a beautiful map and very pleasing to the eye (ignoring actual content and contemporary implications of course).

But, let us go to the Absolut blog site (if you want; I'll quote the relevant portion below):
http://www.absolut.com/iaaw/blog/in-an-absolut-world-according-to-mexico

And I quote, "This particular ad, which ran in Mexico, was based upon historical perspectives and was created with a Mexican sensibility. In no way was this meant to offend or disparage, nor does it advocate an altering of borders, nor does it lend support to any anti-American sentiment, nor does it reflect immigration issues. Instead, it hearkens to a time which the population of Mexico may feel was more ideal." [emphasis mine]

Boy! Talk about speaking out of both sides of your mouth at once! Seems like this happened once before, though, when white men made empty promises to Native Americans and one of these "Indians" accurately (if cynically) assessed the white man as speaking out of both sides of his mouth. However, it's not just white men with this problem, but the entire human race. We should really call it what it is, lying. We're all guilty of it, more often than we think.

I understand where Absolut is coming from. They are trying to sell a product. In doing so, they are appealing to (or taking advantage of) the target market's sensibilities. That means throwing a believable sales pitch aimed at acquiring money from a buyer for the product which is being sold, within legal and hopefully ethical boundaries. So of course the advertising wasn't intended for America, not because of American sensibilities, but because offending those sensibilities also hurts sales of your product in the American market. Read between the lines, and follow the money (if you do, you'll see this applies for any market anywhere, including and especially for my perspective the American one).

What offends me about this advertising is not so much that Absolut is trying to make a buck or two by appealing to "Mexican sensibilities" (whatever that means, which most likely means advertising that appeals to Mexicans and offends Americans when targeted to the Mexican market, at least here I think). What offends me is that they expect me to believe the nonsense above, that such advertising concepts should not be offensive to Americans and are not designed to offend Americans (of course not, only because they were not targeted to our market, and Absolut deliberately and wisely did not make us aware of their existence, but I digress). That is ridiculous.

I have another phrase for this, and here's what it's called.

Absolut Nonsense.

Free Good News

2008-04-02T18:47:00.002-05:00

This is not an endorsement (have not had time yet to investigate more thoroughly), just a link to an interesting page with free Christian resources.

Am I Too Cynical?

2008-04-02T09:00:00.008-05:00

Goodness gracious.

Sometimes life just hands you blogging material and demands, "Blog Me!" It is not really the quantity that counts, but the quality. Today's post is short but potent.

This morning, I read that John McCain thinks Americans are too cynical. Directly beneath this, I read news of THIRD graders plotting a physical attack against their teacher. Well, at least they are well out of kindergarten now, and no sir, I do not believe I am too cynical quite yet. Thanks, though, for the concern.

P.S. Look at the picture in the news story for an idea of what these kids had in mind. Wonder if TV and movies are a bad influence in our culture? But then again, we are all basically good, and these are good kids. Most certainly. We adults are indeed far too cynical!

Are You Going To Share This Clip

2008-03-02T10:38:00.002-06:00

Paul Washer clip on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBAcrDiITJ0

The Bible And Alcohol

2008-01-28T08:39:00.000-06:00

The Bible And Alcohol (an excellent short article):
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=988

When God Wears You Out

2008-01-25T22:26:00.000-06:00

Job 42:1-6 (ESV)

1 Then Job answered the LORD and said:

2 “I know that you can do all things,
and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.

3 ‘Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’
Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand,
things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.

4 ‘Hear, and I will speak;
I will question you, and you make it known to me.’

5 I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear,
but now my eye sees you;

6 therefore I despise myself,
and repent in dust and ashes.”

This has truly been a blessed evening.

We're having a Bible conference at the church I belong to, which started Thursday night and will continue through Sunday morning. And I haven't really cared until tonight, after the services. I came to church in bitterness and rebellion against God, and left filled with mercy and grace in Christ, with I hope more than a little genuine repentance.

That brings me to my point, and I hope this post will not be overly long.

God can and will wear you out.

When you finally get tired of pleading your own will to God, when you finally have enough trying to bargain your will against His, when you finally give up trying to get your way, struggling to move the Divine Hand of mercy and grace away from His channel of blessing, just like Joseph attempted at his father Jacob's blessing of the two boys Ephraim and Manessah, you realize that God can and did wear you out. When you have ground down to the last bone-dry measure of stubbornness, and collapse wearied and spent, you find Him and His will unchanged. Exhausted, drained of stubbornness and rebellion, with no where to go but down on your knees in prayer and up in humble reverence and submission to the One who sits on the throne, Christ Jesus the Lord and Redeemer of His own, the time finally arrives that you humble yourself, quietly submit, and worship Him who alone is Lord and God, who rules in Sovereign Majesty and Eternal Dominion, who sits enthroned, exalted, and eternal in the Heavens, without needing or requesting your permission or recognition of His right to be exactly who He is: Jesus Christ, Lord and God.

Praise God! Hallelujah!!

Why Christ Offends Men

2008-01-19T23:56:00.000-06:00

Why Christ Offends Men
Just an interesting post I stumbled across.

Alcohol: Sinful or Not?

2008-01-19T22:17:00.000-06:00

The Bible takes the position that the consumption of alcohol is not sinful, when done righteously without drunkenness.
ISSUE: Does Scripture Permit Us to Drink Alcoholic Beverages?

In the interest of fairness, the entire exchange can be found here:

When Some Baptists Get To Heaven

2008-01-18T19:21:00.000-06:00

It's time for a silly rant (well, maybe not, but I just can't help myself).

When some Baptists get to heaven, and find out Heaven doesn't look like a Baptist church, they will start off eternity in a state of shock. They'll look around, and pews, pianos, and people in three-piece suits will be nowhere to be found. And the last straw just may well be legions and legions of angels doing praise and worship, instead of all those nifty old hymns.

I'm making humorous exaggeration, of course. I actually enjoy many hymns. Many could use some speeding up, and maybe some more musical instrumentation. But some of these hymns are beautiful (like "Man of Sorrows"), and will always be cherished in my heart.

Rats. I messed up a good rant. I must be in a better mood than I thought.

*EDIT* I do not believe that angels can, or at least do, sing. Luke 2:13 (ESV) says, "And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying," According to this, the angels at the birth of Jesus were not singing. And to the best of my memory, no angel anywhere in Scripture ever sings.

Come Out Of The Catholic Church

2008-01-05T11:51:00.000-06:00

I read this excellent short article on the Ankerberg Theological Research Institute, titled Come Out Of The Catholic Church. This article briefly explains the profound errors in Catholicism, and is well worth the read. (EDIT: also recommended is Just For Catholics)

Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

2008-01-01T13:18:00.000-06:00

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy is an important document which is now almost 30 years old. What better way to start out the new year than by reaffirming God's Word. Hopefully you will find this both interesting and helpful.

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/chicago.htm

Others by Google (and no offense to any I didn't include here).

Should The Church Teach Tithing?

2007-12-29T15:22:00.000-06:00

I believe the Biblical answer is no. The essay on the site below is excellent! Please read this in light of the Scriptures, not Baptist traditions. I believe an honest examination will agree.
http://www.tithing-russkelly.com/

The Golden Calf of the Reformation

2007-12-27T08:02:00.000-06:00

"The Golden Calf of the Reformation" is one of the best articles I have ever read. If you want to know what is wrong with "Reformed" Christianity, this is a must read, and I believe it will be spiritually helpful. The Reformation by itself, in my personal opinion, did not go nearly far enough.

(To read this article, please click on the following link, then click the link of the article itself on the resulting page, which is a Microsoft Word document):

The Golden Calf of the Reformation
Vol 24-3 October, 1998
http://graceandtruthenterprises.homestead.com/gatepost95to2001.html

Disclaimer: I am not in any way directly affiliated with this site or its author, and I am not responsible for its content.

Happy Birthday, Jesus?

2007-12-26T16:15:00.000-06:00

I wonder...

How many Baptist churches sang the nonsense, "Happy Birthday, Jesus" yesterday?

How exactly do you sing such a ridiculous song?

Happy Birthday to you...
Happy Birthday to you...
Happy Birthday Dear Sovereign Lord Jesus...
Happy Birthday to you!

(I only inserted a little truth in the song above... I've noticed the more truth you add, the more ridiculous the song gets.)

How many true Baptist churches are left, unmixed with Roman Catholicism?

A friend just told me that Conrad Murrell, of Grace and Truth Enterprises (G.A.T.E.), calls this time the "hollow days." How true! (By the way, he has a great theological site. Highly recommended!)

www.graceandtruthenterprises.homestead.com

I have a friend who's been a sovereign grace believer for 25 years now. He was converted by God's grace at age 24. He was born and raised in the Roman Catholic church.

He told me that he lived in a mostly Catholic community, with the exception of a Seven Day Adventist family, a Baptist family, and a Pentecostal family. Everyone else in the general area was Catholic.

He very vividly remembers being laughed at by the non-Catholic children for celebrating Midnight Massacre on Christmas Eve and sunrise services on Ishtar Sunday Morning. Now most of the Baptist churches in the whole county where he lives just about fall over themselves to announce Christmas Eve candlelight services and sunrise services on Ishtar Sunday.

Are there any real Baptists left?

Or does it really even matter any more?

It seems like we have come full circle and have learned the way of the heathens, Jeremiah 10:2. (Please don't get mad at me; I'm just the messenger.)

Bah, Humbug!

2007-12-25T15:25:00.000-06:00

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebenezer_Scrooge
'Nuff said.

Keep Christ Out Of Christmas

2007-12-24T12:21:00.000-06:00

Christ was never in Christmas in the first place!

Christmas is nothing more than a Roman Catholic holiday, whitewashing many of its pagan origins with a more respectable "Christianized" veneer.

I believe you will find these links interesting:

http://users.aol.com/libcfl/xmas.htm
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/Xmas_ch1.htm
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/xmas/celeb.htm

On Christmas hymns:

http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/xmas/xmas_car.htm

And on "Xmas":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xmas
http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/xmasabbr.asp
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/xmas

Disclaimers: I do not necessarily agree with everything at these sites (for example, Landmarkism and KJV-onlyism in the first one). Please consider these links within the context of the blog posting only for reference to my views.

Don't take my word for it. Research this for yourself (start with the Catholic encyclopedias!). And perhaps an honest investigation into the truth of the matter will free you from this unholy, grotesque creation known as Christmas.

RTS on iTunes

2007-11-22T22:36:00.000-06:00

Oh! Lest I forget, here are some free RTS (Reformed Theological Seminary) audio material available on iTunes.

itunes.rts.edu

Covenant Seminary Free Audio Lectures

2007-11-22T22:24:00.000-06:00

Happy Thanksgiving to all! I'm very thankful for God's blessings, especially the gift of His Son. Why God should show mercy and grace to a worm like me I'll never understand: it must be left to the supreme wisdom of God's providence for His own glory.

I just discovered that 20 free audio lectures are available from Covenant Seminary (which I know nothing about, except that they are a Presbyterian seminary, PCA). I'm very grateful for God's blessing to find this at an opportune time, when I've regained interest in theological education. Perhaps you will find this a blessing as I do.

www.covenantseminary.edu/worldwide/default.asp

A Measure Of Faith

2007-10-25T22:13:00.000-05:00

Rom 12:3 (NASB) For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith.

Here's a quick thought.

Let me begin with the end of the verse, the foundation for Paul's argument, and work backwards for a second. Each of us has a measure of faith, no more or less, given to us by God. Because of and through this measure, we are to execute good judgment with clarity. This also prevents us from self-exaltation, while not denying God's grace working in and through us as believers, with whatever honor God has bestowed upon us in His church. And, we are reminded in a very gentle way that fundamentally we are who and what we are solely by the grace of God. Even Paul, who in my opinion was the greatest of the apostles, had his apostolic calling and spiritual gifts by the same grace of God: God's gift without human merit. And it is by this same grace that God revealed to Paul the truth he wrote as part of the Holy Scriptures for the benefit of all Christians: first for the Romans, and also for us today.

Spiritual Struggles (A Devotional of sorts)

2007-10-23T11:26:00.000-05:00

First, let me state the obvious (if anyone is actually reading this):

I have not posted in a good while.

Yes, I have reasons. They are multiple, and varied. Some of them are even good, if not scrutinized too closely. But the main one, while certainly not being a good reason, is still a very important one.

So this it: expressed in very general terms, what follows is the main reason for not blogging in a long time.

I have had many spiritual struggles over the last 12 months. Some of these went to the core of my faith. I have been guilty of doubting, and I have questioned almost everything that I believed in, and stood for.

Most of it has probably been rooted in my unhappiness and dissatisfaction in life in general. Those few who are left of my family (my parents and grandparents have long been deceased, and I never had that large of a family to begin with) have suffered health problems, or are simply not even present in my life. I have been sometimes disappointed in friends and acquaintances (and I have sometimes disappointed them as well!). Work had lost some of its satisfaction and reward, and had at times, become simply a series of jobs to be done. Even church, once the highlight of my life, at times became simply a spiritual vacuum, an emptiness of soul that no measure of preaching and teaching, in a small but attractive sanctuary holding many warm and friendly fellow churchgoers, could fill.

Perhaps the turning point came at the end of one such service, when a horrifying thought surfaced from my hidden innermost springs of doubt: "What if this is all bogus?"

I would like to say that I immediately discounted that thought and repented of that sinful and condemning doubt. The truth is, I entertained that thought for several seconds. And I cannot explain why, but I believe the Holy Spirit in me would not allow me to fully accept it, but revealed to me the knowledge that I must reject it, because it is not of the truth. A few minutes later, I repented for it before God, silently, but not with a perfect heart. I did not realize it at the time, but my repentance came not from myself but from God, working in me by the Holy Spirit.

I have been discovering in my life since that point that repentance is not merely a confession of wrong, a profession of right, and a decision to pursue what is good. Rather, repentance is more: it is a true turning of the heart and the affections away from what is evil, towards that which is good, is brought about only by God through the Holy Spirit, and should be a part of daily life: a core part of my identity as a Christian.

I can report with joy what I have discovered and continue to affirm: Christ is still the answer! I cannot adequately explain what it means to turn to Christ and submit to the Holy Spirit, in obedience to the Word. But I can tell you that if you are a Christian, you must. And more importantly, you already know how: the Holy Spirit is your teacher, and brings you to Christ, and to the Father, through the Son and the Holy Spirit.

I still have some spiritual struggles. I have had to repent of many sins of doubt and disobedience. But through it all, Jesus Christ has been patient with me. And He is certainly a faithful High Priest. And strangely enough, the Bible seems to contain all the answers I need for worshiping in spirit and truth, and for doing service in obedience and submission to God.

Jesus is all I really need, or ever needed. Now I hope to learn to seek Him first, with devotion. I must learn to first seek His kingdom and His righteousness.

Mat 6:33 (NASB) "But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you."

Genesis 1:1 - 2:4

2007-08-28T18:22:00.000-05:00

I never did get around to doing what I promised: blogging my way through the OT. I started in Genesis, made two or three posts, and then quit. I really meant to keep going. But I found myself distracted by my personal life (a friend told me recently, and he was right, that I am horrible at multitasking).

I haven't stopped thinking about it. It's a good way to keep a blog busy. No one besides me will probably care, but I hope to learn more by reading and studying God's word.

[I am reposting my older posts, from August 22, 2006, and August 31, 2006]

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

First Thoughts on Genesis

(Edit: fix typos and other irritations)

Reading Genesis 1 has made quite an impression on me. I began blogging my thoughts on it and realized I was churning out a book from my keyboard. So I have resolved to state my thoughts on the subject as simply and concisely as I can (Edit: as it turns out, not very). I begin with a very powerful presupposition which I will not attempt to defend: that the Bible is perfectly true. Period. All of my commentary will assume that context, with the aim of discerning the truth taught in the Scriptures.

1. The first four words of verse 1 are the thesis statement for the entire chapter. "In the beginning" or "in beginning" (as a friend tells me the Hebrew says) shows the ultimate origin of the creation and even time itself. The very first "who" in Scripture is right here: God. And we see that God exists outside of the "beginning" and transcends it, and indeed, authors it into being. The first statement in Scripture is NOT a defense of God or proof of His existence. God Is. He has always been. He will always be. He has no beginning or ending, and depends on nothing for His existence (implied by the solitary, independent authorship spoken in the first verse). I am reminded here of Christ speaking in Revelation 1:8 (ASV): "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

2. In verse 2, we see the person of the Holy Spirit in operation in darkness and over the Earth which is then formless and void, all preceding the creation of light. The powerful truth taught here is that the profundity and magnitude of God's power, besides being self-authoritative and self-existing, is here unseen and invisible. Mortal eyes do not see this, appreciate it, or critique it. But God revealed it to Moses, to teach him and God's people truths about God.

3. Verses 3-4 show the creation of Light and its separation from Darkness, on the first day of Creation: Sunday. Notice it does not say, God created light and darkness. God created light, speaking it into existence. This teaches us another powerful truth. We define darkness as the absence of light. God is the only source of this light, and it exists by His pleasure. Just as light either is, or is not, and darkness is in relation to light as a secondary reference, I believe we too (and all Creation itself) has only one ultimate reference point: God Himself. Notice too, before the separation of light from darkness in verse 4, that God simply spoke light into being, and there was light. God's word cannot fail, and no explanation is given here. We naturally want to know the how, but this is not given to us here. We are told instead the Who, what, when, where, and why.

4. The second day, Monday, sees the division of waters above from the waters below by an expanse. I'm not sure what the theological significance here is, but I would hazard to say that the division by the expanse known as heaven is meant to be humbling to us: there is a division here we cannot easily cross, a threshhold that God has reserved for Himself. Even now, when God has granted such wonders as space travel and space stations, we are still reminded of our humble nature and humble dependence on the Earth which forces our return to being underneath the division God made. Though this is speculation, as dry Earth did not yet even exist. Incidentally, today is the only day in Creation about which nothing is said to be good. Make of that what you will.

5. On the third day, Tuesday, God creates dry land (Earth) and the herb and fruit of the field. It is very interesting to note that each contained seed after its kind. By this seed, these plants have sustained the existence of their species since the beginning of Creation, and will, barring extinction, continue it until the Lord's return. I believe here you can see the suggestion of the concept of eternal life and self-existence, ultimately found in God alone. God is the source of life and self-exists. But more importantly as a Christian, I see in the seed a teaching of death, burial and resurrection. The seed "dies" and is buried, and a resurrection of life comes forth (this is from the commentary of others but I do agree). The Lord Himself used this same concept to teach His resurrection, in John 12:24 (ASV), "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a grain of wheat fall into the earth and die, it abideth by itself alone; but if it die, it beareth much fruit."

6. On the fourth day, Wednesday, God created the sun, moon, stars, and other heavenly bodies from my understanding. God created day and night, signs, seasons, and days and years. I believe that in these verses, reminding us of the changing states of creation, that we are taught two things about God: that God's work is not static or limited, that it is ongoing, and that God is in complete control of it (though we don't fully understand the "how" we have some understanding of the who, what, when, where, and why). That many of the things mentioned here cycle (seasons, day/night. etc.) give witness to both the logical order of God's arrangement and His ceaseless existence and control of all things, even by His unseen hand. Only God could create the cycle itself, and only God can keep it continuing, even smoothly flowing from one to the other. God does not change, and He is not cycling through patterns of strength and weakness as the false gods the heathen worship (who worship nature and not its Creator). God's work is continuous, mostly unseen, and could not be predicted beforehand (who would have invented seasons, for example?). But its reliability itself points to the constant unseen hand of God. Incidentally, "He made the stars also" according to commentary I read is a well-earned swipe against pagans, the simple heathen who ignorantly worship nature and glorious celestial objects such as stars that merit merely a passing reference in a passage centered on the excellency and supremacy of God, who transcends the highest, most glorious objects of Creation with an infinite degree of superlative existence.

7. On the fifth day, Thursday, God created the sea creatures and the birds. I find it interesting that God speaks both blessing and command upon these creatures to fill and multiply on the planet. This divine command is built into their very nature: be fruitful and multiply. I suppose I can say here that God's blessing gives and intends life. And that life itself is a gift from God who authors it and sustains it. Though I confess, I forgot that Scripture even said that sea creatures and birds were blessed by God.

8. The sixth day, Friday, sees the creation of cattle and other creeping things on the Earth. Man is created last. Man is created in "Our likeness," a plural here referring to the God who we know is a unity. Is this simply a plurality of majesty? Or a reference to the Trinity? The Holy Spirit is seen in 1:2, as a separate person but of the same essence as God the Father in verse 1, perhaps. And we know from other Scriptures the eternal Son of God, who created all things (Colossians 1:12-16). Man is given authority over the other life of all creation, because he is made in the likeness of God. And male and female are both created in the image of God, showing a fundamental spiritual equality between the genders in our essential personhood and souls. However, the male is mentioned first, showing (I believe) an authoritative superiority in the created order, and a difference in role and function. God also gives as food to them and all other creatures on the earth the herb of the field and other plants (curiously enough, not mentioning the food of sea creatures). Man would sustain his life by food outside of himself (showing dependence and ultimately complete dependence on God the author) and that this food did not consist originally of animals, who according to the literal Hebrew (ASV footnote, as I know no Hebrew), are "living souls." I'm not sure how much to make of this, but I think it simply means they are alive and possess breath, at the very least. I think the choice of food, here, however, is to show man in his original holy state of perfection, before the Fall (and I'm *not* suggesting vegeterianism is a moral requirement; but I do feel it was God's original perfect plan for the pre-fallen creation, now stained by the Fall).

9. Last, I count seven times that "good" appears in the Scriptures, ending with a superlative "very good" that demands recognition of the Holiness and perfection of God, who creates out of His own goodness, by the only standard of goodness and righteousness that has ever existed or ever will exist, Himself. The seven "good" statements are found in 1:4, 1:10, 1:12, 1:18, 1:21, 1:25, 1:31 (with superlative prefix "very"). Seven is a number of perfection. How do I prove this? By proving it from Scripture, starting here. :) And I believe in this, that God was most pleased, and His goodness was best expressed, in the creation of Man (and to a lesser extent, of land animals which appear first on the sixth day before Man).

10. Lastly, I want to note the "evening and morning" as the separation of days, with a night inbetween two portions of days. This is deliberate, as God first created light, and day and night, which together formed the first day of 1:5. There is no other way it could be when you stop and think about it. Though I'm not sure how this worked before the creation of the Sun and Moon on Day 4. But the concept is simply this: that God created and is master over Day and Night together is inescapable, in my opinion. The totality of every thing is under God's control. And more importantly, God is sovereign over everything: Day and Night exist at His pleasure, not ours, and for His purpose, not ours. God's strength is not limited to Day, or Night, or creation itself, or to time in which creation operates. And also this points to God as the first and best recordkeeper, and knower and sustainer of all things, before Whom all are ultimately accountable.

I apologize for the book-length of this blog post, but I wanted to fully express my thoughts. I love the depth and richness of Scripture, and how God uses it to point to and teach about Himself. Yet, the feeling never leaves me that our understanding is like that of schoolchildren who learn only a little at a time and very gradually over a long period of time. We cannot comprehend God's infinitude of Being or Sovereignty. But it is God's good pleasure to condescend to us and teach us, focusing our eyes on Him, and granting us the deep desire and privilege to humbly approach Him and worship with reverential awe.

I feel led to close this post with Paul's wonderful doxology in Romans.

Romans 11:36 (ASV)
For of him, and through him, and unto him, are all things. To him be the glory for ever. Amen.

Thursday, August 31, 2006

Thoughts on Genesis 2:1-4

This chapter begins what is known as the second Creation story. Some have completely distinguished this second account from the first. Some distinction must be acknowledged simply due to the fact of its separation from the first account. My personal view is that this second account is simply a continuation of the first, with further details and a different perspective (more on this later). In fact, I am of the view that this so-called second Creation story does not actually start until verse 5 of this chapter, and that these first four verses should actually be in chapter 1 (which I say in the knowledge that the chapter and verse divisions are neither inspired nor infallible, though the actual contents of Scripture are divine in origin and inerrant). But my judgment is of course not infallible; it is simply offered as the personal opinion of a Bible student on the matter.

Verses 2:1-4 end the first Creation story in Scripture, with the perspective focused on God as Creator. Verses 5 and following begin the second Creation story, and I believe the focus is centered upon God's highest creation, Man. This helps explain the two creation accounts, and each has important lessons for the believer.

Verse 1 follows immediately after the benediction of the previous chapter in which God judged His work to be "very good" in six days of Creation. That work is now completely finished, including all the "hosts" or contents of the heavens above and earth beneath. This verse seems like an insignificant summary at first glance, but I believe what it teaches about the creative power of God is important: God finished His work. That is, God's work in its entire scope was brought to completion, nothing was left undone, and most importantly, God Himself is not changed or lessened or weakened by the creative process which has just been finished. This is a very implicit reference to the infinite power of God as an argument from silence I think, because God is not described here as having changed (become tired, lost strength, decreased in creative ability, etc.) but the Creation is described as finished, and with completeness. This is very important for understanding the next verse.

Verse 2:2 brings the full force of this thought to bear upon the mind. God's work, unbelievably vast, is finished, and God rests from the work He has done. Because God has not been described as being wearied in His task here (a very important omission!) the "rest" here must be understood as a ceasing from activity, the reason for which is given first: the work is completed. Again, seven is used here as a number of perfection (see previous blog entry). So three ideas are evident here after some careful thought: God's work is completed, He ceases from the activity of Creation, and its initial created state is complete and perfect.

The third verse tells us that God blessed the seventh day, perhaps meaning that it is marked for divine praise in contradistinction with the other days. He also sanctified it, which means to "make holy" and refers to the only source of Holiness there is in this passage, Himself. In other words, this day shows us and represents the Holiness of God in some important way. I think that this important way is what I will call the Static Perfection of God: God's eternal, perpetual state of static changelessness and unalterable perfection. Because I know from other Scriptures that Christ is the Creator, I can recall Hebrews 13:8, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever" (though the verse is used in a different context there).

Now I confess that I am not a Hebrew scholar, and know no Hebrew, so I want to warn the reader that I am plunging on a tangent in this paragraph which can probably be ignored. I noticed that the "created and made" at the end of 2:3 have two different Strong's numbers, so I read both (created-1254, made-6213. Click on the numbers to see what I found). I am going to merely repeat some teaching I received on this: I cannot vouch for its accuracy, but I believe it makes sense. "Created" refers to what God created Ex Nihilo (out of nothing) by His power, while "Made" refers to God using some of the created things in some form or fashion to produce other things. I think this is seen for example back in 1:24 where God says let the earth (which He created) bring forth the living land creatures, and in 1:25 which says "God made [Strong's 6213] the beast of the earth after his kind" (KJV). The earth was "created" but the animals here were "made" in some manner referential to the earth. Perhaps this is wrong, but if so, it is a minor point, and I currently believe it to be true.

Verse 4 makes me want to rethink my terminology of the different perspectives between the two Creation stories. Here, it makes me think that the focal reference is in the creation of the heavens and the earth themselves as the handiwork of God, whereas 2:5 and following speak more about the creation of Man and his involvement with God. So, I believe at least that two perspectives on the same Creation event are recorded in Scripture, and that both are true, correct, and in ultimate harmony simply because they are presented as such in the Scripture covering both chapters (and given my stated presupposition of the Bible's truth and accuracy mentioned previously). Verse 4 says that this is the account of the Creation of the heavens and the earth, with no uncertainty, nothing left out, and no defense offered for the given explanation. For one who believes the Bible to be true, this is the authoritative account to be believed and cherished. A defense is simply not expected or required, at least according to this context (which I unreservedly accept as completely true).

Lastly is the idea of the Creation of the heavens and the earth "in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven" (NASB). Now, if this is a literal day, then we have a contradiction here with the six days of Creation which Scripture explicitly testifies to taking place. Rather, I believe that this verse is explained by the previous verse (3), in which all of Creation is viewed from the finished perspective of God's completed, perfect work which is blessed and sanctified in the seventh day (Saturday, the Jewish Shabbat). I believe this verse is not contradiction the explicit teaching of the previous Scripture which detailed the six Creation days, but that a very important idea is communicated here for the believer. The entire Creation in all of its scope was complete and perfect first in the mind of God before Creation even started.

Thus, we have the summary "very good" of 1:31 (judged by the only standard, His Holiness of being and perfection of understanding), and the fact (I assert) that all of Creation is viewed from the vantage point of the meaning of the Sabbath. This Sabbath day ultimately is not so much about rest (though it is for that in the Old Testament), but about the perfect completeness of God and His worthiness to be Worshiped simply for the essence of His being, His total majesty, and His excellence of character (I admit I'm preaching here). Therefore the Sabbath day is really about worship, when viewed from Man's perspective, and about perfection and wholeness centered in the person of God, when contemplating the divine perspective given (sometimes implicitly) in these verses.

This Thing Called Calvinism

2007-08-26T17:11:00.000-05:00

[UPDATED]

First, some links are in order.

Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism
R.L. Dabney: www.spurgeon.org/~phil/dabney/5points.htm
Comparison between Arminianism and Calvinism: www.the-highway.com/compare.html

Calvinism

I don't like this title, because it makes it sound as if we followed a man. I don't like Augustinianism, because it's simply too long to type, and doesn't go far enough back in history (much older than Augustine or even Christ [well, the time of His incarnation at least]). It gives the mistaken idea that this soteriological system was invented, as some of its opponents would have you believe.

Sovereign Grace

Redundant. This is so not just because of the Reformed concept of the idea, but because "grace" itself must be sovereign by its very nature and operation. That is, it cannot be coerced or earned, or it is no longer grace but something else. I cannot show someone else grace if they have coerced it or earned it (though if I am a good enough actor, I can make it to appear to be grace I suppose).

Doctrines of Grace

Forgive me for referring back to the KJV, here, but I haven't looked in the modern translations (yet). The English word "doctrines" appears in the KJV translation a total of five times, all in the New Testament, and all with a negative connotation (Matthew 15:9, Mark 7:7, Colossians 2:22, 1 Timothy 4:1, Hebrews 13:9). Three of those are in reference to the doctrines or teachings of men (Matthew, Mark, and Colossians), one is in reference to demons (1 Timothy), and the last one is in reference to falsehood in general (though in context, of men, I believe). I shy away from the terminology because of this.

There is really only one doctrine anyway, and that is the Word of God. I believe it can be referred to be a singular doctrine of Grace, revealed in the Word, centered on Christ, and glorifying to God. As believers, we seek to teach the entire truth of the Scriptures as accurately and faithfully as we can.

Monergism

I actually like this term. It is defined here. I think (though I haven't verified this) that it literally means "one energy or force." But, it does not exactly roll off the tongue. In fact, the word "Synergism" is more pleasant to pronounce and to hear, and much more agreeable to our self-will and pride. But it is no more truthful than the idea that there is salvation outside of Christ.

[updated the section below]

Old:
So, I suppose I am stuck with the term Calvinist for the time being. It sounds menacing, like I have some dark and sinister agenda, and some equally twisted and heretical doctrine as its underlying foundation. I don't. I am just displeased that Arminianism is the new Baptist orthodoxy, at least in the SBC world, and considered unbiblical and barely tolerable (if that), when in actual truth I believe it is the more Biblical and Christian position to take.

New:
I never should have written the above (under the Old: heading) in hindsight. I was just getting on my soapbox, and my comments there were unhelpful. I like what my pastor told me, that Christianity is a lot larger than Calvinism, and to preach the Scriptures and focus on Christ, which is where all the truth is. I have known many good Christian men who do not accept Calvinism, but fortunately do not make it a fellowship issue. We have fellowship together as Christians, because we believe Jesus Christ is Lord.

Jonah 2:9
But I will sacrifice unto thee with the voice of thanksgiving; I will pay that that I have vowed. Salvation is of the LORD.

I can claim no credit to my salvation. Yes, I did cooperate with God. But I did that after God circumcised my heart, took out the heart of stone, and put in a heart of flesh. God opened my ears to hear the Gospel. Praise God! God gets all the glory!

Romans 10:17
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Soli Deo Gloria! (Glory to God alone).

Abstinence or Moderation in Alcohol?

2007-08-23T23:10:00.000-05:00

This is for reference. This is a very interesting discussion on alcohol use. Currently, I fall into the "moderation" camp. Read the comments here to find out why. :)

http://guardian-ministries.blogspot.com/2006/07/dr-jerry-vines-article-on-abstinence.html

Baptism and Church Membership

2007-08-23T15:33:00.000-05:00

If you've never read anything on the connection between Baptism and Church Membership (or even if you have), then read this:

http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/enjoying-god/piper-grudem-dever-et-al-on-baptism-the-lords-table-and-church-membership-just-how-together-for-the-gospel-are-we/

It is possibly the best article I've read so far on this issue (ok, I admit---not many). One that is probably just as good is Wade Burleson's on the matter (and of course, John Piper's, to which he links):

http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/2007/08/sectarians-focus-more-on-church-than.html

I do not agree with paedobaptism, and I believe it to be doctrinal error. However, I would not exclude a paedobaptist brother from church membership or participation in the Lord's Supper on that basis, though I would (as would John Piper) exclude that person from church leadership. But, I am not in a position of church leadership, so this is simply a stated opinion on my part. The union we have in Christ, and the spiritual baptism we share in the Holy Spirit, is far more important than the physical sign of water baptism or political union in the local body of believers, I think. Those in the SBC who would refuse membership and the Lord's supper on these grounds are forgetting the membership and baptism which is in Christ.

It just strikes me as odd, like a bunch of children telling one of their own, "We like you. We'll even let you play with us in our treehouse. You just can't join our club."

Prayer 2

2007-08-20T15:31:00.001-05:00

I like what I heard Adrian Rogers preach once, concerning people who only wanted to bring the "big" problems in life to God in prayer. He put it this way, as best as I can recall, "Take the biggest problem you have. Now put it in God's hands. It's ALL small to Him." Amen!

Along with this idea, I've begun to realize that prayer is not simply the process of forming the right words in our brains and shooting them heavenwards, occasionally tweaking our methods to enhance our results. Yes, such should be obvious, I know, but for some reason it wasn't (spiritual ignorance is often like that). My brain is currently focused on the idea that prayer should not be some impersonal spiritual activity like it all too often is in my personal walk, in the spiritual pattern of the habitual monologue like I've so often thought of it. Prayer like this is a tiresome chore of an activity to produce, and though I cannot know the mind of God thoroughly, I do not believe such can be reverent or pleasing in the Divine Ear.

That brings me to another point. I thought: I do not want to insult the intelligence of God with my prayers. I should put all of my reverence and intellect into such an activity, with holy passion and humility, and plead for the grace I so desperately need and could never earn. So far, so good. But do you see the flaw in my thinking? That is, can any of my prayers be of worth to God intellectually (or otherwise)? It humbles me to think that I pray to a Divine, Infinite, Omniscient intelligence who knows all the stars by name, yet still hears my prayers with all my petty frustrations, silly ignorance, foolish hopes, and immature dreams. How can I ever hope to pray a worthy prayer, any more than a grasshopper's mental capacity could impress Einstein, except perhaps by the humbleness of its lowly state? My only hope to be heard and answered must lie solely in Christ, depending solely on His grace and His wisdom as my intercessor, to communicate to the Father according to His will. And that is indeed my hope.

I am still learning precisely what this activity called prayer is all about. An appropriate question arises: if I believe God is sovereign, why pray? But if I believe God is sovereign, why not pray? Who better to ask requests of and place hope in than a fully sovereign God, who has all things under His control and brings all things together for good for those who love Him and are the called according to His purpose (Romans 8:28)? If God is Sovereign, Gracious, Merciful, Long-suffering, Salvation, and my only Hope, I hope to pray to Him and that He would teach me to faithfully trust Him more.

But also, I do not believe that prayer changes the mind of God, or alters His plans. If I have a holy desire, and pray, if it is truly holy in nature, how is that different from being God's ultimate will, which is inherently holy and good? And how did such a desire arise in my heart? If it is holy and good, would not the Holy Spirit have placed such there? Did I ever invent a holy or good thought on my own? I cannot see that I ever did, because fundamentally I was unholy, fallen in Adam and dead in trespasses and sins, but in Christ I have been born again, given a new circumcised heart and a new nature. It must all be of God and therefore of grace, or it would be of works. So if salvation itself is all of God's grace, does it not follow that every righteousness in my life also comes from Him? And further, because there is only one God, who is absolutely Holy and Good, does it not follow that all righteousness is ultimately from Him, that He is the author and defender of it? It truly should be a joy to pray to God: when done righteously, I believe it is no less than praying God's righteous and holy desires back to Him through Christ our Lord and Savior. And knowing that if we are praying the will of God, that His will is certainly done. My hope and prayer that I will begin praying for is that God would place His holy and righteous desires in me that such would form the foundation of all my prayers, and that all my prayer would be both Christ-centered and Christ-glorifying.

P.S. OK. I'm sorry, but occasionally I try very hard to be and sound "spiritual" and I think it's showing here. Well, I really need to apologize to God for it. Currently, I'm very frustrated with my life and spiritual walk in some things, but I am learning to surrender to Christ, pray about it, trust Him for the answers, and most of all wait---as patiently as I possibly can (which is almost impossible for me, and contrary to my basic nature)---and then things work out differently than I expected if they do at all. I suppose what I am learning and need to learn most is humility and trust in prayer. Again, that's extremely hard for me, as I seem to have the idea that I need to first try it on my own, and then if (but really, "when") I have problems, pray to God for help. No surprise to the reader, but I trip and fall on my face a lot with that approach. You'd really think I'd learn faster.

P.P.S. OK, more than occasionally.

Prayer

2007-08-19T09:50:00.000-05:00

The other day I was listening to a radio preacher in the morning on my way to work, and he made a statement that lodged itself directly into my brain: (the following quote is not exact, but a paraphrase) "Prayer is a skill you need to develop over your whole lifetime." I cannot help but think this statement and its underlying thought patterns do nothing better than trivialize the spiritual exercise of prayer, and more importantly, the reverence due to God and His very sovereignty.

The problem with this type of thinking is simply this: it is no more developed, no more sophisticated, no more mature than the equivalent thinking of a small child honing her skills of manipulation and questioning to get something she desires from mommy or daddy. Prayer is no more a skill to be developed, than God is a cosmic vending machine in the sky on which to operate with that same skill until one receives all that one desires, without respect to the divine will or His omniscient wisdom. Well, perhaps the TV preacher didn't carry the idea that far, but that's the logical conclusion of it based on what I remember. I remember also being completely disgusted with those particular parts of the message.

Has anyone bothered to ask themselves whether God, who is infinite and omniscient and omnipotent, particularly desires to be treated like some cosmic slot machine in the heavenly faith casino of man-centeredness and self-will?

(The title links to some Puritan prayers I found in a recent Internet search. My hope is you will find them interesting and helpful.)

Romans 9 and Predestination

2007-07-31T16:37:00.000-05:00

James White of aomin.org has an excellent discussion of Romans 9 as relates to the topic of Predestination.
http://www.aomin.org/index.php?itemid=2126

And now I've moved back.

2007-05-20T16:17:00.000-05:00

Funny things, our minds are. I make mine up, only to change it later. At any rate, I am back on Google, as I feel myself attracted lately to all things Google.

Moved to isaiah816.wordpress.com

2006-12-18T13:21:00.000-06:00

I moved to isaiah816.wordpress.com and everything should be mostly set up soon (apologies, I couldn't help myself).

Are You Sure You Like Spurgeon?

2006-12-15T14:57:00.000-06:00

I had been looking for this article, and I finally found it.

Why I don't want to be a Southern Baptist At Times

2006-12-14T11:32:00.000-06:00

There are times when I don't want to be a Southern Baptist. The post I linked to above is the first in a series of 16 articles (no, I have not read the others). I think he makes some good points. But I think his main point is that we have lost the Gospel in the SBC. The latest blog entry of Dr. Tom Ascol of Founders is the first blog posting I read on this issue and is short but well worth reading.

http://www.founders.org/blog/2006/12/nathan-finn-on-what-ails-sbc.html

Please understand, this is not (necessarily) a Calvinism issue, nor should it be. This is an issue of the Gospel itself and calling sinners to redemption and transformation in Christ. Though I have serious doubts about the future of the SBC, I have strong hopes as well. We have many excellent young men resolved to live lives of obedience and faith to God, and determined to make a difference. We have many older Christian gentlemen who serve us as wise mentors and veteran soldiers in the fight of faith against the deadening effects of sin in our culture. God reserved 7,000 to His name who had not bowed the knee to Baal or kissed him (1 Kings 19:18 and Romans 11:1-5), and they were completely unknown to the greatest prophet Israel had at that time apparently. So there remains hope. But as always that hope must be centered in God and in His Son Jesus Christ.

The Baptism of Disciples Alone

2006-12-11T13:04:00.000-06:00

Fred Malone's book "The Baptism of Disciples Alone" would be another fine book to have in a theological library (why is it that I only seem to find these books when they go out of print?). I am of the Credobaptist persuasion, though my friend ManyMarius (whose article I posted in the blog entry previous to this one) leans towards the Paedobaptist position. Needless to say, we don't agree, though I pray we can always express that disagreement in a Christian and gentlemanly manner (somehow somewhere I read a proverb, authored by someone unknown to me, that I really like which said, "Make your words sweet, because you may have to eat them.").

Edit: Perhaps the best place to start researching this issue is here: http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/babtism.html

To Reformulate Credobaptism

2006-12-09T15:20:00.000-06:00

[Ed: email the author of this blog entry at manymarius@aim.com. I will reserve personal comments on this entry for a future blog posting.]

TO REFORMULATE CREDOBAPTISM

I am proposing that our view of baptism must be reformulated. If we say that we don't baptize infants, only people who have been able to make, and have made, a confession of Christ, then I believe we must reformulate our understanding of baptism.

It does no good to repudiate Paedobaptists because they are baptizing infants who cannot make a confession, and yet allow for the fact that people can be baptized who are not saved themselves. The Credobaptist argument is that only those elected can be baptized, yet we can't say that if we allow for the fact that we CAN, even if by accident, baptize non-elect people.

The reason, I think, is that we are using baptism to be a sign of a prior conversion. How can it be a sign of someone's already having been converted if: A) We can't know that the said person has indeed been born again-for it's an invisible work. B) Someone can lie and say they have and get baptized-yet not having been born again.

It seems to me that under these auspices a Credobaptist has no reason to argue against a Paedobaptist that is baptizing infants that can't make a confession of faith, and therefore have been born again. For if we argue that one can't know if the baby is elect, then the logical rebuttal is that the Credobaptist can never KNOW if the recipient of baptism is truly regenerate either.

So, what did baptism mean in the New Testament, and for us today? I am proposing that it must mean something more than an acquiescence to a creed! What is what I want to work out and formulate. With God's grace I can come up with something that is at least Biblically provable,and hopefully Biblically grounded. So now I set out to reformulate baptism in a way that eliminates the need for infant baptism, and allows for the baptism of only believing people.

I think that one place we must look at is the difference between the "Old Covenant" and "New Covenant." Also, we must find a way in which these two are found to be connected to the Covenant of God to Abraham to bring about "the" seed, Christ. In so doing, I want to formulate a doctrine that allows for continuity between the Old and New testaments within the Abrahamic Covenant of Election through Christ; and one that makes a distinguishing between the Old and New Covenants from the Old to the New Testaments, and the difference that Christ's ascension to his long awaited and prophesied place of Glory and rulership.

Another place we might look at is not only the beginning of God's covenant with Abraham, but also the continuity between the protoevagelion of Genesis 3:15 and the Abrahamic Covenant. This would show that Christ has always been the plan throughout the Bible, from the beginning. And therefore, our understanding of NT baptism can in some way be influenced by the fact that God has always planned to bring about the work of Christ on the earth, and that the elect were chosen in Christ before the foundation of world.

Calvinism

2006-12-07T00:08:00.000-06:00

I'm in a Calvinism mood right now (whatever that is).

This Theopedia article on Calvinism is excellent, as is Theopedia itself in general I am sure. Also, check out this page on John Piper stuff at Monergism.com. And finally, don't miss this Spurgeon gem, "A Defense of Calvinism."

So, if you're not a Calvinist, you should be. I can't promise you that you'll be happier, but I can almost guarantee that I will like you more as a result. :) (Of course, please understand this is not a fellowship breaker between Christians, or at least should not be). Though I am completely convinced that Calvinism is true, Christianity is far larger than Calvinism by itself (a subset at best), and greater still is our Lord Jesus Christ, the author and finisher of our faith of Christianity.

What's Wrong With This Picture?

2006-12-06T09:32:00.000-06:00

Well, first off, it's not a picture, but a collection of verbal statements. But that was intentional. What the page actually contains is a list of important "victories" for the American Family Association (AFA) for the year 2006. At first glance, what true Christian would not immediately approve of its message? So I ask again, what's wrong with this picture? Here's a helpful hint: what's missing is truly the more important.

What message is really being communicated here?

Here is what is NOT being communicated here. There are no references to salvation anywhere on this page that I can find. So there are no genuine conversions to Christ and His Lordship mentioned anywhere on here, which should without any argument be supremely important to a Christian organization seeking real change in society. So there are no genuine changes of heart. What do we see instead? We see changes of behavior, surely, but brought about by massive organization of vocal opposition and economic pressure. At best these are hollow victories. But is it wrong to engage in these methods when seeking to make our voices heard and presence felt? No, I do not believe so. But my point is this: such changes are brought about quickly, and disappear just as quickly, because they are not based upon lasting transformations such as proclaiming the Gospel and educating those who are already Christians in the Scriptures, but in socio-economic influence and political muscle which have both proven only as strong as the number of people in your activist collective and their resolve to pursue goals of policy change for the welfare of those affected.

It is not my intention to merely be critical of the American Family Association for the sake of being critical. That is, I'm not simply out to find fault for some ulterior motive, such as making myself feel better about the condition of society I find myself in or out of some secret desire I do not actually possess to put down Christian conservatives. The good people at American Family Association and its associates are my fellow Christians whom I love; I count them as brethren in the Lord and would be honored to claim friendship with any of them. No, I simply intend this missive in the spirit of constructive criticism meant for spiritual help. Proverbs 27:6 (KJV) says, "Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful."

If anyone from AFA ever sees this, please consider these words carefully as they are intended in the spirit of "speaking the truth in love". Social change is not just a good idea. It is a must. But it only comes in a lasting fashion in the form of repentance, in turning from old dead works to living faith in Christ. Put your trust not in the wisdom of man, not in the success of political maneuvers or social and economic pressure, but in the Gospel of Jesus Christ and His sovereign power to redeem lost sinners and transform them into children of God. As Christians our message must once again be, Jesus Christ is Lord!

Sophie's World

2006-12-05T00:32:00.000-06:00

Note to self: buy this book on philosophy sometime in the future.

DataRat Theological Glossary

2006-12-03T23:55:00.000-06:00

Love the name. Love the site. Someone was nice enough to inform me of its existence and I'm finally blogging about it on my theological blog.

"Paedobaptism Versus Believer's Baptism" by Hal Brunson

2006-12-03T00:44:00.000-06:00

Though currently out of stock, this will make a fine addition to any theological library.

Debating a Paedobaptist

2006-12-02T00:17:00.000-06:00

The following article has been thoughtfully submitted for your consideration by a friend of mine named ManyMarius (click on his name to send him email). I am posting its contents verbatim below this paragraph, without necessarily endorsing any viewpoints expressed therein. However, I do value this friend's judgment and thoughts on the matter (though I politely disagree with the paedobaptist position and hold to the credobaptist position personally).

Debating a Paedobaptist

Hello. I hope all are well today. I have been looking over and considering the pro and con infant baptism debate. I am very much inclined to agree with the reformed infant baptism side, but nothing is in stone for me yet. I do not wish to discuss why I think one is true and the other false. Instead, I would like to make a comment or two about how the debate should take place. It seems to me there are some problems when people begin to debate the topic, or any topic. I have listened to the debate by fames white, and read many papers on the pro and the con from people like: Dr. C. Matthew McMahon, Louis Burkoff, James White, etc. I have read more articles from the con position than the pro. And this is what leads to my comments here. In listening to James White, which I admit was the first time I had ever heard a formal debate, I found that he came at the debate wrong. I'm not saying his ideas are invalid, just that he didn't do anything to disprove the infant baptist's view. I want to say this: If you are gonna debate someone else's viewpoint; know it, and disprove it on it's terms. If I come to you and say: "I don't agree with credo baptism.", I had better come up with refutation based on why YOU believe in creedo baptism, not why I believe in infant baptism.

Likewise, if someone comes up to me and tells me: "infant baptism is wrong", that person had better know why I believe it, and show me how, based on my own suppositions, they are wrong. If you come to me with a bunch of scriptures that are your own proof texts, and use that as your refutation, all I have to do is show you mine. This will do nothing more than prove to me I'm right, and prove to yourself that you're right. However, if the person who wants to debate me can start at the point of my suppositions, and debunk THEM, rather than tell me why he believes he is right, then that person may very well change my mind. Remember, both sides believe in the New Testament as authoritative. So my point is this: Don't say someone is wrong because of your assumed right, but prove him wrong on his own rightness.

Conversation Between Two Former Catholic Priests

2006-11-30T01:30:00.000-06:00

Looks interesting (and an hour-long almost).

New (Smaller) Paedobaptism debate MP3s available

2006-11-29T23:14:00.000-06:00

Well, the fine folks at Alpha & Omega have their own (shorter and/or smaller) version of the Paedobaptism debate MP3s available. w00t! Go AOMin! (Credobaptism is the side I hope won, though I still haven't listened to the debate yet)

EDIT: Or, if you prefer the more direct link to the page: http://www.aomin.org/BaptismDeb.html

Paedobaptism debate free MP3s

2006-11-22T16:42:00.000-06:00

The two parts on this web page are both very large MP3 files. The debate was between the Reformed Baptist James White and the Presbyterian Bill Shishko. Worth a listen, I think (I plan to eventually).

Realms of Faith: Comparing Bible Translations

2006-11-14T14:40:00.000-06:00

This is an interesting page on Bible version differences.

Acts 29 Network Doctrinal Statement

2006-11-04T21:29:00.000-06:00

This site was referred to me by a friend and fellow blogster, JST. The link provided above displays the doctrinal statement of the Acts 29 Network, which is probably one of the best statements of faith for a missional network I have ever read. I'm quoting the very first part of the statement below.

What does Acts 29 believe?

The short answer is that we are first Christians, second Evangelicals, third Missional, and fourth Reformed.

Did God Harden Pharaoh's Heart, or Did Pharaoh?

2006-10-13T20:37:00.000-05:00

Interesting James White article.

How can Jesus be both God and man?

2006-10-12T13:17:00.000-05:00

Read this. Then bookmark it. Or vice-versa.

More Christian Linux stuff

2006-10-12T00:25:00.000-05:00

Jesux, the Christian Linux OS that wasn't

2006-10-12T00:03:00.000-05:00

Jesux. Yes, that's right. No, it's not some atheist's anti-Christian linux mad science project that escaped from the lab and is now running loose in the wild. Though you might think that with one or two glances at what could be called a horrible name (at least from a Christian perspective). By "wasn't" in the title I meant to infer its continued "lack" of existence, not reason for (almost) existing.

It's actually Christian in intent, with an even more oddball pronunciation (Hay-sooks???), and a not so surprising stillborn delivery. Sorry, for being critical, but I have to be honest (Where do people get these ideas? And perhaps more importantly, how on earth do I dig this stuff up from the bowels of the Internet?). OK, I admit---I am blogging this simply to waste electrons, internet bandwidth, distract otherwise weary eyeballs, and steal visual stimuli processing time in your brain just for reading this--so I can produce the thought in your head, this blog entry just wasted my precious time! Sorry about that. Really.

Three word summary of my review: just plain silly.

*EDIT* Found out this was a hoax (see "More Christian Linux stuff" above)

The Word FM

2006-10-11T23:34:00.000-05:00

I really feel like I should link to the other Christian radio station I listen to here.

Book Review of Don Piper's 90 Minutes in Heaven

2006-10-11T23:21:00.000-05:00

Challies Dot Com has an interesting book view on an interesting book by an interesting person named Don Piper who claims and wrote a book about a visit to heaven, titled 90 Minutes in Heaven. I just happened to hear an interview tonight with Don Piper himself on the local radio station KBJS in the Jacksonville, TX area (Haven Today with Charles Morris). I was impressed with Don Piper's warmth and sincerity, but not his heaven or his so-called visit there. To borrow from the Challies book review I linked to in the title of this post, a Christian describing a Christless heaven just bothers me for some reason (and I can state personally that he did not mention seeing Christ once in his so-called heavenly journey, which is troubling to say the least).

Baptists and Calvinism article

2006-10-05T17:49:00.000-05:00

James White links to a very interesting article by John Orlando on "Baptists and Calvinism."

Ubuntu Christian Edition

2006-10-04T23:24:00.001-05:00

Ubuntu 6.06 Linux, for Christians.

Faith Browser

2006-10-04T23:24:00.000-05:00

Firefox, for Christians.

The Christian Nation Myth

2006-09-20T17:14:00.000-05:00

This is really beginning to bother me. America has never been a Christian nation, and never will be. Such an idea is a logical impossibility, if Scripture such as Matthew 7:13 means anything at all. That verse states (NASB), "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it." Furthermore, history itself invalidates this conception. In addition to the article linked above, there are other good articles on this as well.

FFRF: Is America a Christian Nation? No.
AU: Is America a 'Christian Nation'? No.
Biblical Discernment Ministries: Is America a "Christian" Nation? No.
Atheism.About.Com: America a Christian Nation? No.
Skeptic Tank: Is America a Christian Nation? No.

And in the interest of fairness, I will post an article which is not as supportive of my views as I would like.

Catholic Education: Is America a Christian Nation? Yes and no.

Please understand, I am a Christian. I do not endorse any of the above sites necessarily, except wherein I find agreement with their views. Explicitly, for the purposes of this blog post, that means I endorse the view that the belief of America being a Christian nation is a myth. As serious Christians, we really ought to practice our holy faith and devotion in reality as we find it, not as we would like it to be (and I sincerely desire that this myth were completely truthful instead!). I for one believe that the Scriptures which speak of being "Salt and Light" in Matthew 5:13-16 are much more important than earthly political identifications and partisan struggles anyway. Or at least, they SHOULD be.

e-Sword on Linux, revisited

2006-09-20T14:21:00.000-05:00

Finally got it to work as desired on Linux. Still can't install any modules, so I did the next best thing, which is copying the e-Sword folder from the Windows side to the Linux side, and adding the appropriate DLLs needed as Wine overrides (riched20, msls31). The registry had to be updated to point to the new e-Sword location, too. But now it works almost perfectly, pop-ups and all.

Sylvania Church

2006-09-18T00:00:00.000-05:00

This is my church. And our sermons are generally available on iTunes. You can directly access the podcast feed by clicking here.

Chicago Statement of Inerrancy

2006-09-11T23:33:00.000-05:00

This is excellent. This post originally had BGCT in the title, and I must admit there are some good points about the BGCT, but I want to personally reaffirm my belief in Biblical inerrancy and my immediate disagreement with anyone (BGCT or not) who denies inerrancy. Belief in inerrancy simply isn't optional in my opinion.

The Village Church Podcast

2006-09-11T23:24:00.000-05:00

This is what I wished I had in the last blog post.

Matt Chandler of the Village Church

2006-09-10T20:05:00.000-05:00

Recently I discovered Matt Chandler of the Village Church, Highland Village, TX. He preached two services at the FOCUS 2006 in Arlington, TX, put on by the BGCT to the best of my knowledge. In short, he is an excellent expository preacher with contemporary application.

Malcom Ellis Revival Ministries

2006-09-08T00:21:00.001-05:00

Malcom Ellis evangelism ministry.

Grace And Truth Enterprises

2006-09-08T00:21:00.000-05:00

Conrad Murrell's G.A.T.E. ministry.

Thoughts on Genesis 2:1-4

2006-08-31T22:47:00.000-05:00

First Thoughts on Genesis

2006-08-22T13:02:00.000-05:00

I really did

2006-08-22T02:12:00.000-05:00

I really did read Genesis 1 today.

I really did mean to blog about it.

I really did get distracted with...like, things and stuff.

Especially as I notice that my today above should have been "yesterday" because it is now past 2 AM in the morning, and I am extremely tired tonight (this morning!) so it will not be done until later. Much later.

I really did use those pathetic excuses.

I really did expect sympathy, and/or understanding.

I really did.

But that was then. This is now. It's simply too late to care. :)

Welcome to my Theological Blog

2006-08-20T13:39:00.000-05:00

Greetings to anyone coming from my Byroniac blog (which will now host only my non-theological interests, mainly in the areas of computing and such). If you didn't come from there, I am very surprised. However you got here, welcome and enjoy your stay. :)

I will begin blogging my way through the Old Testament and posting my discoveries in the Scriptures along the way. My goal is not to uncover new truths in old treasure, but new treasures in old truth, with the Holy Spirit of grace and the confessions of the saints of history as my guides. I feel that God has drawn me to the Old Testament in recent days, and I want to study this great truth He has preserved for us and illuminated in the New Testament. Please pray for me in my journey. And constructive comments are always welcome.

(Edited: typos and such)