I object

Phil over at Team Pyro raises a number of valid and important questions in the context of behavior (and the thoughts behind it) that some Christians evince around political issues.

To wit:

• Is it OK for pastors to use their pulpits to organize voters rather than teach the Bible and proclaim the gospel?
• Is it OK that when the average unbeliever today hears the word evangelical, he thinks of a voting bloc rather than anything spiritual?
• Is it OK that most evangelicals are overwhelmingly on the same page politically, but their movement is doctrinally so diverse that they can't even agree what the gospel is?
• Is it OK that the average evangelical could not give a coherent, biblically sound summary of the gospel or a theologically accurate explanation of justification by faith—yet be more worried about an Obama presidency than they are about the disintegration of their own testimony?

Phil continues:

If we take George Barna's data at face value (and I don't recommend that, but even a nuanced interpretation of his statistics would probably bear this out), the typical "evangelical" hasn't got a clue what the biblical idea of redemption is about. He isn't really sure he needs to be "saved" from anything other than the wave of immorality and economic crises liberal policies have foisted upon us. He believes the work of God in this world is all about a handful of highly-publicized moral issues involving sins other people commit. And he is convinced the first and most important remedy for our culture's moral meltdown is government-imposed legislation.

And even goes so far as:

As a Christian, I have a more important message to proclaim than "God hates fags," and I know a better, more long-term remedy for drunkenness and all its associated evils than Prohibition ever managed to be. The gospel is what Christian ministers ought to be known for, not for getting themselves arrested barricading clinic doors or screaming hateful slogans at their political opponents. Yes, I do realize most politically-oriented pastors and evangelical organizations do not go that far, but the evangelicals in the political arena who are most savvy about public relations tend to be the very ones who have perfected the art of compromise. It's really pretty hard to think of evangelical organizations or church leaders who are deeply involved in political causes and who are also known for being clear and uncompromising heralds of gospel truth. The two things simply don't work well together [emphasis courtesy of Live As If].

And to close the deal, so to speak:

But if we're talking about doing ministry (as opposed to sheer political lobbying) then once we've established that homosexuality is an abomination, the rest of the message we are obliged to proclaim as ambassadors of Christ is the good news of how sinners can be redeemed from the guilt and bondage of those sins and be reconciled to God. If we focus our energies instead on secular legislative "remedies," we are simply not doing what Christ called us to do.

I don't think it's a complex issue at all.

And my guess is that if you look back in history and contemplate the question of prohibition vs. the sin of drunkenness (instead of gay partnerships and constitutional amendments defining what marriage is)—even if you only consider the pragmatic side of the issue—you'll probably see the point.

In short, there's a reason Spurgeon's preaching is still relevant and powerful today, but Billy Sunday looks like a bad parody.

You're right, Phil, its not a complex issue at all. It's simple, like all great answers: not simplistic, but simple for sure

Help Someone Be a Sole Survivor!

This was originally brought to my attention by Anne Jackson of Flower Dust.  This effort is a worthy one and I am joining Anne in asking you to support this awesome charity!

Nashville, TN -- November 7, 2008 -- Soles4Souls, the international charity dedicated to providing free footwear to those in desperate need, has announced plans to launch a new fundraising website, www.50000shoes.com.  The charity is challenging bloggers and social media users to raise funds for 50,000 pairs of new shoes in 50 days.

Through the new world of blogging, emailing, twittering, and through many other forms of online media, the non-profit hopes to achieve not only the fundraising goal, but also to spread their mission far and wide. The Soles4Souls www.50000shoes.com charity challenge will be live on Monday, November 10, 2008 and end on Wednesday, December 31, 2008. 

"We have been utilizing the basic Web-based marketing tools such as e-mail blasts, social networking and YouTube videos.  However, this website, www.50000shoes.com, is the natural evolution of our viral marketing plan," said Soles4Souls Founder and CEO, Wayne Elsey. 

"A strong grass-roots effort, combined with an effective web-based social marketing platform, will allow Soles4Souls to form online community in a creative manner while being effective with raising funds and helping those in need," he said. 

Both the tech savvy and the computer challenged can visit www.50000shoes.com to download their choice of four (4) Soles4Souls banners ad and blog widgets.  Using the tools provided, users will be able to easily email, blog, or twitter the challenge to friends, family and co-workers as well as ask everyone to continue spreading the message.

"This is a huge challenge to meet a huge need.  We want to virally attack the issues of poverty and make it simple for the end user to play a role in it," Elsey stated. 

Donating is easy and takes just a click and a couple of minutes.  It requires no shipping, no wrapping and no trips to the post office. The monetary donation is small with $5.00 buying two pairs of new shoes.  Anyone can click and give, and all donations are tax-deductible. 

After 50,000 pairs have been donated, one person (with a guest of their choosing) will be selected at random to deliver the shoes they purchased to someone in need on one of Soles4Souls' trips to Mexico! 

"Can you imagine what it would be like to personally give someone their very first pair of shoes?! We look forward to connecting the tangibility of handing someone a pair of shoes with the virtual world of the Internet," Elsey said. 

Social networking has become a very powerful communications tool; however, no one knows when life will hit hard or where a disaster will strike.  One day you have everything you need; the next you may only have your life.  A pair of shoes can help people begin the rebuilding process.  Shoes not only bring hope, but in millions of cases they can save lives.  It is estimated that Americans have 1.5 billion pairs of unworn shoes lying in their closets while over 300 million children around the world have never owned a pair of shoes.  This is an opportunity to "Step Up" and to help Soles4Souls with their mission of "Changing the World, One Pair at a Time" with "One Click at A Time." 

About Soles4Souls

Nashville-based Soles4Souls™ facilitates the donations of both new and used shoes, which are used to aid the hurting worldwide. Since its inception, Soles4Souls has distributed more than 3.5 million pairs (or one pair every 23 seconds) to people in 61 countries, including Honduras, Romania, Thailand, and the Sudan.  The charity has been featured on CNN Headline News, NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams, ABC News, FOX, CBS, and hundreds of regional outlets around North America.  Soles4Souls is a 501(c)(3) recognized by the IRS; donating parties are eligible for tax advantages. Visit www.giveshoes.org for more information. 
 
 

For more information please contact:

Chris Carmichael, Soles4Souls, 615-391-5723 ext 143, chrisc@giveshoes.org

Kim Dettwiller, Soles4Souls, 615-330-5656, kimd@giveshoes.org

Uh, guys?

This was just too funny to pass up... The site is not one I would necessarily recommend, but after seeing it, noticed there is a "G-Rated Pics and Movies Only" option which makes the site funny and, apparently, safe for viewing.


And for those of you using Vista, enjoy this:

Parenting Fail

The video is "Parenting Fail" and I do not know what happened to the child, but a dance competition is the last place one should be irresponsible with one's kids.



Ouch!

This is just too humorous to pass up

"LHC (Large Hadron Collider) Forces Bookmaker to lower odds on the existence of God":

 

http://idle.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/11/05/1516236

 

 

Gee, ya think God is worried the scientists might find something out?

Does anyone know?

The past 24 hours have been filled with sadness, hope, joy, despair and worse -- and better.  I refer to the reactions (as opposed to responses) that so many have had since the election results.

With that in mind, I believe the situation begs important questions:

Do people around you know that you are a Christian, based on how you have responded or reacted to the recent election results? 

If yes, how, and if no, why?

In light of this I have put together some links that will be beneficial for you to read.  This is not an exhaustive list; rather it represents a few of the links/blogs which I have visited in an attempt to find out how others have been responding from the Christian (and the occasional just-intelligent) perspective.  I look forward to hearing from you on these:

• http://www.flowerdust.net/2008/11/05/dont-rely-on-obama/

• http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2008/11/election-day.html

• http://thepoint.breakpoint.org/

• http://www.worldmag.com/webextra/14617 ("Honoring the lesser king")
  

• http://thepoint.breakpoint.org/2008/11/what-on-earth-i.html#more ("What on Earth is the Christian Worldview Argument FOR Obama?")

• http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/11/021999.php

Thank you

Pyromaniacs: Election Day

From Dan at teampyro: Just amazing how little today's election has meaning in context of what God did to and for me when he Elected me . . . just ... amazing.

Today's American election takes place (normally) every four years on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November.

The election I'm thinking of took place once only, before the foundation of a world (Ephesians 1:4).

Today's election involves votes cast by millions of people of wildly varying circumstances, characters, levels of intelligence, and worldviews.

The eternal election only had three participants: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, each the quintessence of perfection in power, wisdom, holiness, and goodness (Ephesians 1:3-14).

Today's election requires that I take into account the career, character, accomplishments, stated convictions, and proposals of the candidates. My vote must be earned, in my estimation.

The eternal election actually is not only irrespective of (Romans 9:11), but contrary to the deserts of its objects. It is an election "that we should be holy and blameless before him" (Ephesians 1:4). If that is the objective (or outcome) of the choice, then what were we before that choice, if not altogether unholy, and blameworthy?

Wow ....

A refresher course, Part III

"2. The Reformed Faith is Predestinarian
The term "Reformed," for some reason, early became attached to the Swiss branch of the Reformation (Zwingli, Bucer, Bullinger, Calvin), and eventually became synonymous with "Calvinist." The most controversial teaching of these men was their doctrine of predestination, and that is often seen as the chief distinctive of Reformed teaching as over against other forms of evangelicalism. In 1618-1619, an international Reformed synod meeting at Dordrecht (or Dordt) in the Netherlands was presented with five "points" summarizing the teachings of Jacob Arminius ("Arminianism"). In opposition to those, the synod adopted what have been called the "five points of Calvinism," summarizing its doctrine of predestination. These points are popularly summarized by the initials of that fine Dutch flower, the TULIP: Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, Perseverance of the Saints.
We should not look at the five points as a summary of the Reformed system of doctrine. At Dordt, the five topics were in effect selected by the Arminians, not the Calvinists. The five points are actually a summary of "what Arminians don't like about Calvinism," rather than a summary of Calvinism itself. They summarize, not Calvinism as such, but the controversial aspects of Calvinism. I suspect that had the synod been asked for an actual summary of the Reformed faith, they would have structured it rather differently-- more like the Belgic and Westminster Confessions.
Controversial points are not necessarily the most fundamental concerns of a system. In the case of the Reformed faith, the doctrinal system is far more than five points; it is a comprehensive understanding of Scripture, and thus a comprehensive world-and-life view. I shall try to summarize that in the next section.
Here, however, I would like us to look briefly at the "five points." Although their centrality can be exaggerated, they are nevertheless certainly important, and often misunderstood.
My treatment here will not begin to anticipate the detailed analyses of your later courses in systematic theology, but I trust it will start you in the right direction. Let us look at the five in turn:
(1) Total Depravity: Although fallen persons are capable of externally good acts (acts that are good for society), they cannot do anything really good, i.e., pleasing to God (Rom. 8:8). God, however, looks on the heart. And from his ultimate standpoint, fallen man has no goodness, in thought, word, or deed. He is therefore incapable of contributing anything to his salvation.
(2) Unconditional Election: When God elects (chooses) people for salvation, therefore, he does not choose them because of anything in them. He doesn't choose them because of their own goodness, or even because he foresees they will believe, but simply out of his totally unmerited favor-- out of grace (Eph. 2:8, 9).
(3) Limited Atonement: This is the most controversial of the five, because of Bible
passages apparently teaching that Christ died for every individual. See, for example, 2 Cor. 5:15, 1 Tim. 4:10, 1 John 2:2. There are "universal" dimensions of the atonement: (a) it is for all nations, (b) it is a recreation of the entire human race, (c) it is universally offered, (d) it is the only means for anyone to be saved and thus the only salvation for all people, (e) its value is sufficient for all. Nevertheless, Christ was not the substitute for the sins of every person; else, everybody would be saved. For the atonement is powerful, efficacious. It does not merely make salvation possible; rather it actually saves. When Christ "dies for" somebody, that person is saved. One of the apparent "universal atonement texts," 2 Cor. 5:15, makes that point very clearly. Thus he died only for those who are actually saved. The biblical concern here is more with the efficacy of the atonement than with its "limitation;" perhaps we should call it "efficacious atonement" rather than "limited atonement," and, having then lost the TULIP, develop through genetic engineering a flower we could call the TUEIP. But of course efficacy does imply limitation, so limitation is an important aspect of this doctrine.
(4) Irresistible Grace: Grace is not like a box of candy that you can send back if you don't want it. Grace is divine favor, an attitude of God's own heart. We cannot stop him from loving us, if he chooses to do so. Nor can we stop him from giving us blessings of salvation: regeneration, justification, adoption, sanctification, glorification. His purpose in us will certainly be fulfilled, Phil. 1:6, Eph. 1:11.
(5) Perseverance of the Saints: If you are born again by the Spirit of God, justified,
adopted into God's family, you cannot lose your salvation. God will keep you: John 10:27-30, Rom. 8:28-29. Perseverance does not mean that once you profess Christ you may sin all you please and still be saved. Many people have professed Christ hypocritically and have later renounced the Christian life. Those who apostatize, and do not return to embrace Christ from the heart, die in their sins. But if you have confessed Christ from the heart, you will certainly persevere, for you will not be dominated by sin, Rom. 6:14.
3. The Reformed Faith Teaches the Comprehensive Covenant Lordship of God
Let me now proceed to a more comprehensive summary of the Reformed system of
doctrine. What I will argue is this: the Biblical God is the "covenant Lord," and all his work in creation and salvation is a working out of his covenant Lordship. "God is covenant Lord," therefore, summarizes the biblical message. The Reformed faith can also be summarized in this way: all the essential elements of the Reformed faith can be seen as outworkings of God's covenant Lordship. The fact that "covenant Lordship" is central to Scripture and also to Reformed theology is a major argument in favor of Reformed theology as the best formulation of scriptural teaching.
You will discover that "covenant" has been defined differently by different theologians, even within the Reformed camp. But the following seems to me to capture the essential elements of the biblical covenants between God and man. A "covenant" is a relationship between a "Lord" and a people7 whom he has sovereignly called to be his. The people may be called the Lord's vassals or servants. He rules over them by his power and law and brings upon them a unique blessing (or, in some cases, a unique curse). To better understand "covenant," therefore, we must better understand "Lordship."
The Meaning of Lordship
"Lord" represents, first of all, the mysterious Hebrew term YHWH (generally pronounced "Yahweh," sometimes found as "Jehovah" or "Lord" in English translations). It is somehow related to the verb "to be," as in the "I AM" of Ex. 3:14 (note the presence of YHWH in verse 15). Besides Ex. 3:12-15, there are several other passages in the Scripture that seem in some measure to be expounding the meaning of that mysterious name. See Ex. 6:1-8, chapters 20, 33, and 34, Lev.
18-19, Deut. 6:4ff, Isa. 41:4, 43:10-13, 44:6, 48:12f. In the New Testament, Jesus takes the name kurios, a Greek term used to translate YHWH in the Greek Old Testament. As He takes that name, he takes the role that Yahweh had in the Old Testament as the Lord, the head of the covenant. In my mind, that is one of the most powerful Scripture proofs of the deity of Christ.
Therefore, certain passages in the New Testament are also important to our understanding of the biblical concept of Lordship, such as John 8:31-59, Rom. 10:9, 1 Cor. 1 2:3, Phil. 2:11.
In my lectures on the Doctrine of God, I shall examine these passages in some detail to show you how they combine to teach a certain concept of divine Lordship. In this paper, however, I shall merely present the conclusions of my study. You will find it edifying, however, to examine these passages, to see how the following concepts are interwoven through them.
My conclusion is that Lordship in Scripture involves three aspects: Control, Authority, and Presence.
(1) Control: The Lord is one who is in total control of the world. When God redeems Israel from Egypt he does it with a strong arm and mighty hand. He controls all the forces of nature to bring curses upon Egypt and to defeat the forces of the greatest totalitarian ruler of the time. See Ex. 3:8, 14, 20, 20:2, 33:19, 34:6, Isa. 41:4, 43:10-13, 44:6, 48:12f.
I have already expounded this biblical theme in connection with the doctrine of predestination. It should also be mentioned that, not only salvation, but also the entire course of nature and history, is fully in God's control. Eph. 1:11 and Rom. 11:36 state this truth specifically, and many passages of Scripture relate various happenings to God's direction."

A refresher course, Part II

"What, then, is the Reformed faith? In what follows, I will argue that (1) the Reformed faith
is evangelical, (2) the Reformed faith is predestinarian, and (3) the Reformed faith teaches the comprehensive covenant Lordship of Jesus Christ.

1. The Reformed Faith is Evangelical
It is often difficult for Bible-believing Protestant Christians to know what to call themselves. "Christian" itself, even "Bible-believing Christian," can be too vague, even misleading (see above discussion). "Orthodox" suggests priests with beards. "Conservative" sounds like a political position or a temperamental stodginess rather than a religious conviction. "Fundamentalist" today is a reproach, suggesting anti-intellectualism, though it has in the past been applied to some very great Christian scholars.

I think the best term to describe all Bible-believing Protestant Christians is the term "evangelical," though that term also has become somewhat ambiguous through history. It was used by the Lutheran reformers to indicate the character of their movement, and to this day in continental Europe the word "evangelical" is more or less a synonym for "Lutheran." In the English-speaking world, however, the predominant use of "evangelical" stems from the revivals of the "evangelical awakening" in the eighteenth century under the preaching of John Wesley, George Whitefield, and others. Wesley's theology was Arminian, Whitefield's Calvinist; so the evangelical movement itself had both Arminian and Calvinistic elements.

Many denominations in the English-speaking world were profoundly influenced by this movement.

In the nineteenth century, many denominations which had earlier been influenced by the evangelical movement became liberal. It was not unusual to hear people like the liberal Charles Briggs described as "evangelical;" "liberal evangelical" was not at that time considered an oxymoron. One still hears that phrase in reference to the English theological scene, though their usage is not consistent on that point. But in America, the term has since World War II been generally limited to theologically conservative positions. After that war, a number of conservative Christians came to the conclusion that "fundamentalism" was a discredited concept, and they adopted the term "evangelical" as a self-description, reverting to something like the eighteenthcentury usage. Many of these, such as Carl F. H. Henry, Harold John Ockenga, and J. Howard Pew were Calvinistic in theology; others were not. Thus "evangelical" became an umbrella-term, covering both Reformed and non-Reformed Christians who held high views of Scripture and adhered to the "fundamentals of the faith."

Not all Reformed people have been willing to accept the label "evangelical." For one thing, Reformed people have sometimes opposed revivalism, although some great revival preachers, like Whitefield, have been Reformed. Thus some Reformed people have been reluctant to accept a label which arose out of a revivalist context. For another thing, many Reformed people do not want to be joined to Arminians under a common label, believing that the differences between the two types of theology are too great. Thus, for some Calvinists, including Cornelius Van Til, "Evangelical" means "non-Reformed Protestant."

I reject this usage, despite the example of my mentor Van Til. That usage is unhistorical, because the word has, historically, included Calvinists. More important, it seems to me that we do need some term which unites Bible-believing Protestants, and the only label suitable for that purpose is "evangelical."

And in my view, the Reformed and the Evangelicals are united on many significant doctrinal points, arguably on the most important ones. Thus, I maintain, the Reformed faith is evangelical.

What are the main beliefs of evangelical theology? An evangelical, in my definition, is one who professes historic Protestant theology. That includes the following beliefs:

(1) God is a person, infinitely wise, just, good, true and powerful, the ultimate reality,
exclusively deserving religious worship and unquestioning obedience, who made the world out of nothing.

(2) Man, made in the image of God, willfully disobeyed God's command, and thereby
became worthy of death. From that time on, all human beings save Jesus Christ have been guilty of sin before God.

(3) Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, became man. He was (literally, really) born of a virgin. He worked miracles. He fulfilled prophecy. He suffered and died for our sin, bearing its guilt and penalty. He was raised physically from the dead. He will come again (literally, physically) to gather his people and to judge the world.

(4) Salvation from sin comes to us not by our good works, but by receiving the free gift of God by faith. Saving faith receives the sacrifice of Christ as our sacrifice, as our only basis for fellowship with God. And such saving faith inevitably motivates us to obedience.

(5) Scripture is the word of God, which makes us wise unto salvation.

(6) Prayer is not mere meditation or self-improvement, but a genuine conversation with our creator and redeemer. In prayer we praise God, give thanks, ask forgiveness, and make requests which bring concrete changes in the world.

These statements might be called "the fundamentals of the faith." They represent the
central biblical gospel, and on that gospel, Reformed people are united with all evangelicals.

It hurts me when I hear Reformed people saying that "we have nothing in common with Arminians." In fact, we have the biblical gospel in common with them, and that is a great deal. I would certainly argue that Arminian theology is not consistent with that gospel. But I cannot doubt that most of them believe that gospel from the heart.

In this respect, Reformed people not only stand with their Arminian brothers and sisters in confessing biblical truth, but they also stand with them against common corruptions of the faith.

We stand with all evangelicals against secular humanism, the cults, the New Age movements, and the liberal traditions in theology. By "liberal" I mean any kind of theology which denies any of these "fundamentals." In this sense, I include as "liberal," not only the modernists of J. Gresham Machen's day,6 but also the neo-orthodox tradition (Barth and Brunner, the "new modernists" according to Van Til) and the more recent movements such as liberation theology, process theology, and pluralist theology. The more recent movements are often contrasted with liberalism, but just as I believe we need a term to describe all Bible-believing Protestants, so I believe we need a term to describe professing Christians who deny the one or more of the fundamentals; and "liberalism" is the best term for that purpose.

Let me summarize some formulations typical of the liberal tradition in categories
corresponding to statements (1)-(6) above:

(1) God is "beyond personality," "beyond good and evil," does not demand obedience or punish sin or answer prayer.

(2) Sin is not disobedience to a law external to man, but alienation from others and from one's own true humanity.

(3) Jesus was a man who was in various ways aligned with God. Literal miracles and
resurrection are impossible, but they are symbolic of some higher reality.

(4) Salvation comes not through the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ, or through faith in Christ as the exclusive way of salvation. Either all are saved, or the "saved" are those who adhere to various ethical and political programs.

(5) Scripture is a human writing, fallible and prone to error, which somehow
communicates a divine message.

(6) Prayer is essentially self-referential.

As we see the evangelical gospel in stark contrast to the liberal denial of that gospel, it is important that we take a clear stand. I would especially urge students who are starting their course of theological study to take these issues personally. This is the time when you must be clear as to your own relation to God. Do you believe that the God of Scripture really exists? that he is the majestic Lord of heaven and earth? Do you believe that you are personally guilty of sin and deserve only his fierce anger and eternal punishment? Are you trusting in your own works (which may include church attendance, Christian service, intellectual correctness) to save you, or only in the perfect righteousness of Christ?

If you have never answered this sort of question, I implore you for Christ's sake to answer it now! Not everyone who comes to seminary is a believer in this sense. It is easy to deceive yourself when you have been going through the motions of the Christian life. As you study at seminary, it will become more and more difficult to go back to basics in this way. As you become yourself a theological expert, you may become proud of your achievement, and therefore impatient with anybody who suggests that you need to become as a little child and put your whole trust in the wisdom of another. "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- not by works, so that no one can boast," Eph.2:8, 9."

A refresher course, Part I

Today was a good day to start becoming familiar again with the fundamentals of what we generally refer to today as "Reformed Theology."

With monergism being an awesome portal for so many things Christian, the reformed theology section was a logical starting point for me.

From a John Frame essay on Reformed Theology:

...The Reformed faith is a wonderful discovery for many Christians. I have heard many people testify that when they began to study Reformed theology they saw for the first time that the Bible really made sense. In other forms of theology, there is a lot of artificial exegesis: implausible divisions of verses, rationalizing "hard passages," imposing extra-scriptural schemes on the text. Reformed theology takes Scripture very naturally, as the authors (human and divine) evidently intended it to be taken. There are, of course, difficulties within the Reformed system as in others. But many people, when they begin to read the Bible under Reformed teaching, experience an enormous increase in comprehension and in confidence. The Word of God speaks to them in greater power and gives them a greater motivation toward holiness.

What is Reformed Theology?

Reformed theology...

...presupposes God's Word alone as our ultimate authority.
...stresses the sovereignty of God, that is, His reign over all things, meticulously determining (Eph 1:11) all that comes to pass (i.e. God is never taken by surprise). [Editor: James MacDonald likes to say that "God rules the universe with his feet up on his desk!]
...ephasizes a Christ-Centered proclamation of the gospel, that salvation is wholly of God, by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone as revealed in the Scripture alone to the Glory of God alone.
...views the Bible as a redemptive-historical organic unfolding of revelation which is structured by three covenants (redemption, works and grace).

It goes without saying that those in the Reformed Tradition hold to the doctrines of grace (the five points of Calvinism), man's helpless condition apart from Christ, the necessity of evangelism and the work of the Holy Spirit who (monergistically) quickens the dead to life through the preaching of the word as God turning their heart of stone to flesh, and opening their eyes to the excellencies of the gospel (uniting them to Christ). In other words, RT stresses the way the objective, written Word together with the inner, supernatural ministry of the Holy Spirit work together. For the Word without the illumination of the Holy Spirit remains a closed book. We (the church) cast forth the seed of the gospel and the Holy Spirit germinates it, so to speak, with the blood of Christ bringing forth life in people from every nation, tribe, language, and people (Rev 14:6). RT traces its historical and theological lineage back to the theology of Christ, Paul, Augustine and to the Protestant Reformation of the 16th Century.

Because an explanation properly rendered (and by men better and smarter than I) of what Reformed Theology consists in, I'll render this message in multiple sections.

Thanks for your patience!

One of these is not like the other

Does God love everyone, or just those whom he has chosen?

Yes.

John MacArthur:

So an important distinction must be made. God loves believers with a particular love. It is a family love, the ultimate love of an eternal Father for His children. It is the consummate love of a Bridegroom for His bride.

It is an eternal love that guarantees their salvation from sin and its ghastly penalty. That special love is reserved for believers alone. However, limiting this saving, everlasting love to His chosen ones does not render God’s compassion, mercy, goodness, and love for the rest of mankind insincere or meaningless.

When God invites sinners to repent and receive forgiveness (Isa. 1:18; Matt. 11:28-30), His pleading is from a sincere heart of genuine love. “‘As I live!’ declares the Lord God, ‘I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways! Why then will you die, O house of Israel?’” (Ezek. 33:11).
Clearly God does love even those who spurn His tender mercy, but it is a different quality of love, and different in degree from His love for His own.

Bark for Barack!

Looks kind of original, right? Cute, maybe?




But wait, someone already used that theme . . . let's see, where could it have come from?














Alexander Rodchenko was a Soviet-era (propaganda) artist. Some of his work on is on display at the Hayward gallery and runs until 27th April 2007, if you are in London check it out.


Rodchenko used photo montage to enhance his images to create more powerful images that would be used for propaganda for the USSR.

Yeah, I want this guy as my next President.

Breathe -- You're on Holy ground

Because I Suck

Earlier today I was tempted to revel in the accomplishments done this summer: some things were done that were really cool and never would I have been doing them 6 months ago. Things like: intervening to keep my oldest brother from losing his house; stepping into the marriage of friends to save it from destruction by sin; sharing (generally) Godly wisdom with my other brother to keep him from falling off a figurative cliff.

Not bad.

And then I was reminded by the Holy Spirit of how I never could have done any of these things if it hadn't been his will and empowering of me to do his will.

Ouch.

Ok, kind of humbling, but then being reminded of what his word says about me was just uncool:

Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
(Rom 8:8 ESV)

Big Ouch.

I sucketh.
Big Ouch, big time.

But then the cool part happened. Because God was kind enough to remind me that that was only part of the story, he took me to another spot in his word:
but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
(Rom 5:8 ESV)

Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.
(Rom 5:9 ESV)

For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.
(Rom 5:10 ESV)

More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
(Rom 5:11 ESV)

Constant condemnation isn't cool, but neither is making much of myself. Maybe there really is a better way . . .

Who is John Galt?

Standards.

Some people have them, some don't . . . who do you want to support?

Shut up -- you can't say that!

Recently a good friend suggested reading Anne Jackson's blog and her refreshing honesty and candor in dealing with issues is way cool.

Have you been there? Please go -- amazing site, it is. . . really!

Enough

I have had enough. I just can no longer be quiet while watching the Obama campaign spin its lies and deception (with the help of the media, no less) and just let it happen.

What will it take for McCain to actually fight for a victory??? Why is he afraid to stop being afraid and start being fearless??? This race is his to lose, unless he starts doing something constructive, and soon.

An Obama presidency is not something to look forward to -- just as Jimmy Carter's presidency is not something to look back on fondly; people are forgetful, I think, of just how bad things were back then, how sanctimonious Carter and his liberal cronies were, and how miserable most everyone was -- "misery index" anyone? Do you really think a conservative (leaning, at least) presidency of McCain would give into the same sort of analysis rather than leadership?

There's a key distinction between Republicans and Democrats: the latter are content to inventory, collate, catalog and analyze their situation while proclaiming how bad things are. Republicans see the situation and exercise the leadership necessary to change the situation, not merely catalog the situation and bemoan the lack of a solution . . . so why, again, do people want an inexperienced man like Obama to be president?

When I was a kid . . .

When I was a kid, phone calls were carried over wires and TV went through the air...

What Caused the Crisis on Wall Street?

When the Bible Blows Your Mind

Hello,

This material is from John Piper's Desiring God website, and is, I believe, useful to remind ourselves that while it may sometimes seem to be contradictory from one passage to another, the Bible actually is not.

The takeaway is this:

The Bible teaches us to expect mental jolts when we think about God. It teaches us that our familiar ways of seeing things may be replaced.

I humbly invite you to read the article and share any thoughts/insights you have.

For myself, I especially appreciated the reference to Colossians 3:12 and how that command may be useful when reading scripture that may not fit one's preconceived notions of who God is.

Peace,
Lawrence


If you wish to be removed from this mailing list, please reply to this email with  "REMOVE" in the subject line.