Well, we're back in SoCal and I've been getting my footing back at the job and preparing to jump back into classes. Later today I hope to make a post if things cooperate. Until then, check out this video.
Here are a few of my thoughts:
1. Those are the best 4 singers they could find at Pensacola?
2. The songs seems to be a total contradiction, almost a joke. It sounds like someone wrote it to mock the idea of free will. I mean, we're watching it in my office and laughing because it sounds so absurd.
3. Someone better keep John Calvin and Jim Schettler away from each other in Heaven, if both will be there.
Showing posts with label Preference and Principle. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Preference and Principle. Show all posts
Friday, January 05, 2007
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
A Christian's Reaction to Nancy Pelosi
I'm sure that most of you who are reading this post are a little shocked over Tuesday's elections. I think most of us expected the republicans to lose the house, but what happened was far bigger than what I expected. We had to watch Cokie Roberts try to do everything she could to contain her excitement on the evening news last night, and watch the local political reporter, Ms Bebitch (that's seriously her name), admit she was excited and thrilled. So much for unbiased reporting.
But after I recovered from the illness inducing reporting, I began to think about how this will affect the Christian community. One of the big downsides of making Republican = christian is that when our guys don't get the office, we feel defeated and confused. One of the worst things that could happen is for Christian's to walk around discouraged and depressed. Was our faith in our leaders? Psalm 20 says that we are not to place our trust in powers, but in the Lord our God.
the problem with Christian's becoming so consumed with being politically active and trying to reform the country morally is that when it doesn't happen (which it never will) they feel failure. The real purpose, to glorify God and proclaim his name, becomes secondary. And often the possibility for our real purpose is sacrificed because politics is so divisive. That's why I'll never put a campaign sticker on my car. that's why i'll never call myself a republican. I'm a Christian, and that's how I'll vote. That's why I try to make a joke of it with my fake campaign shirt for Steve Bozell "Vote for me or I'll sue you". Politics have become so divisive that they create a wall before the Gospel is even presented.
So what should our reaction to this all be? I have often wondered if this big movement to pray for the government will continue when socialists or democrats take over. But last time I checked, I Timothy 2:1-4 applies to whoever is in charge. "First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."
Titus 3:1: "Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work,"
Romans 13:1 "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
I Peter 2:13-14 "Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people."
And I don't think I need to go into who these people's rulers were. Abortion may not have been a huge issue then, but burning people alive on stakes was. So this morning I will be thankful for Ms Speaker Pelosi. And i will not be discouraged because my mission is to proclaim Christ and him crucified.
But after I recovered from the illness inducing reporting, I began to think about how this will affect the Christian community. One of the big downsides of making Republican = christian is that when our guys don't get the office, we feel defeated and confused. One of the worst things that could happen is for Christian's to walk around discouraged and depressed. Was our faith in our leaders? Psalm 20 says that we are not to place our trust in powers, but in the Lord our God.
the problem with Christian's becoming so consumed with being politically active and trying to reform the country morally is that when it doesn't happen (which it never will) they feel failure. The real purpose, to glorify God and proclaim his name, becomes secondary. And often the possibility for our real purpose is sacrificed because politics is so divisive. That's why I'll never put a campaign sticker on my car. that's why i'll never call myself a republican. I'm a Christian, and that's how I'll vote. That's why I try to make a joke of it with my fake campaign shirt for Steve Bozell "Vote for me or I'll sue you". Politics have become so divisive that they create a wall before the Gospel is even presented.
So what should our reaction to this all be? I have often wondered if this big movement to pray for the government will continue when socialists or democrats take over. But last time I checked, I Timothy 2:1-4 applies to whoever is in charge. "First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."
Titus 3:1: "Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work,"
Romans 13:1 "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
I Peter 2:13-14 "Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people."
And I don't think I need to go into who these people's rulers were. Abortion may not have been a huge issue then, but burning people alive on stakes was. So this morning I will be thankful for Ms Speaker Pelosi. And i will not be discouraged because my mission is to proclaim Christ and him crucified.
Monday, October 02, 2006
Of Preference and Principle Explained
Most of you have probably seen the new title and the new focus of my blog. And a lot of you are probably wondering what in the world it means. Well, here is an explanation as well as a preview of some of the things that I would like to be doing on my blog in the future.
The phrase 'preference and principle' is actually a question. It is asking the question whether our conviction is a preference or a principle. Christianity today is full of people who draw lines in the sands over things that are not rock hard principles, but only personal preferences. For instance, the way a church leads worship is a very controversial subject. Many people are really turned off by the drums or a guitar. Some people think we should sing hymns only. Some people think that a piano is all that should play or that we should even sing without instruments.
These beliefs are often thought to be hard principles that every Christian should hold to, when in reality they are actually personly preferences when it comes to music and worship. I know I have been guilty of pressing my own preferences on someone else and mistaking them for principles. This is exactly what the Pharisees did. They made the extra fence around the law and called in principle. If anyone broke the extra laws they created to protect the law, they were considered to have broken the law itself.
Preference and principle will be exercises of discernment in our world. Ephesians 5:10 says that we are to discern what is pleasing to the Lord and we know that we are to test that which we come across to see whether it matches the will of God. I will be applying this test to various movements, books, thoughts, and whatever comes up.
The phrase 'preference and principle' is actually a question. It is asking the question whether our conviction is a preference or a principle. Christianity today is full of people who draw lines in the sands over things that are not rock hard principles, but only personal preferences. For instance, the way a church leads worship is a very controversial subject. Many people are really turned off by the drums or a guitar. Some people think we should sing hymns only. Some people think that a piano is all that should play or that we should even sing without instruments.
These beliefs are often thought to be hard principles that every Christian should hold to, when in reality they are actually personly preferences when it comes to music and worship. I know I have been guilty of pressing my own preferences on someone else and mistaking them for principles. This is exactly what the Pharisees did. They made the extra fence around the law and called in principle. If anyone broke the extra laws they created to protect the law, they were considered to have broken the law itself.
Preference and principle will be exercises of discernment in our world. Ephesians 5:10 says that we are to discern what is pleasing to the Lord and we know that we are to test that which we come across to see whether it matches the will of God. I will be applying this test to various movements, books, thoughts, and whatever comes up.
Friday, March 10, 2006
Discern All Things
This last week has been an eye opening time for me. It seems like I have been discovering particular beliefs about teachers I had a lot of respect for that have largely disappointed me. First, I ran across some pretty inflamatory comments from Ergun Caner, who I had a lot of respect for. He spoke in chapel when I was in chapel and is the Dean at Liberty. And here I thought Liberty was making some good strides. But he comes out and makes his anti-Calvinism very clear, calling it a virus. He went on to blast Calvinists for not caring about evangelism, which isn't exactly a new accusation, but is also one that is usually blown out of proportion.
Then I was doing some reading for my NTI class and was reading about the Two-Source Theory of the synoptic Gospels. Basically what this says is that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source in writing their Gospels (imagine Matthew using Mark to write down how he got saved). Almost all of Mark is found in those two and many NT scholars want to say that Matthew and Luke were dependent upon Mark. Then they say that there is this infamous 'Q' text that they also relied on, where they don't agree with Mark. This is completely made up and a creation of their own imagination. It has done to the point to where there is a concordance on 'Q' and a 'Theology of Q' even though no Q text actually exists. I could write on this more later if you guys have an interest in learning more about it, but this is enough to show you that they are tearing away at the inerrancy of Scripture.
But they don't see it that way. They see it that way. They see it as completely acceptable that God could have inspired the writers in this way, but as you investigate this in a deeper way, you see how insulting this view really is. The sad thing is, that this view is the majority view today. A quick look at history clearly shows that NO church father thought this. In fact, there is almost a unanimous agreement that Matthew wrote his Gospel first. It wasn't until Source and Historical Criticism spawned around the 18th century that these views started to be tossed around.
Sure, maybe these people don't think this is attacking inerrancy, but I shutter to think what it will do to future generations who are raised to think its ok to think that the Gospels aren't completely true. Its ok to think that Matthew was actually the author of the Sermon on the Mount, not Jesus. Its ok to think that Jesus' words as he sent out the disciples weren't actually from that time, but words from a larger span of time. They even talk about how Mark is more 'archaic' than the others and Matthew and Luke are improvements on it. Explain to me how one can even think that you can improve upon the Word of God. This may jive with the way that you think, but if you raise the next generation of the church with this state of mind, where are they going to run with it. Next thing you know, radical groups like 'The Jesus Seminar', who took it upon themselves to find the real words of Christ in the Gospels, will be much more common.
The men who I discovered believe in this Two-Source theory are D.A. Carson, Douglas Moo, and Lean Morris, all leading NT scholars today.
These discoveries and revelations have led me to remind myself that it is not in these particular men that I have put my trust, but in Christ alone. It is my personal responsibility to study all things out, to invest myself in the Word, and to discern all things.
Then I was doing some reading for my NTI class and was reading about the Two-Source Theory of the synoptic Gospels. Basically what this says is that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source in writing their Gospels (imagine Matthew using Mark to write down how he got saved). Almost all of Mark is found in those two and many NT scholars want to say that Matthew and Luke were dependent upon Mark. Then they say that there is this infamous 'Q' text that they also relied on, where they don't agree with Mark. This is completely made up and a creation of their own imagination. It has done to the point to where there is a concordance on 'Q' and a 'Theology of Q' even though no Q text actually exists. I could write on this more later if you guys have an interest in learning more about it, but this is enough to show you that they are tearing away at the inerrancy of Scripture.
But they don't see it that way. They see it that way. They see it as completely acceptable that God could have inspired the writers in this way, but as you investigate this in a deeper way, you see how insulting this view really is. The sad thing is, that this view is the majority view today. A quick look at history clearly shows that NO church father thought this. In fact, there is almost a unanimous agreement that Matthew wrote his Gospel first. It wasn't until Source and Historical Criticism spawned around the 18th century that these views started to be tossed around.
Sure, maybe these people don't think this is attacking inerrancy, but I shutter to think what it will do to future generations who are raised to think its ok to think that the Gospels aren't completely true. Its ok to think that Matthew was actually the author of the Sermon on the Mount, not Jesus. Its ok to think that Jesus' words as he sent out the disciples weren't actually from that time, but words from a larger span of time. They even talk about how Mark is more 'archaic' than the others and Matthew and Luke are improvements on it. Explain to me how one can even think that you can improve upon the Word of God. This may jive with the way that you think, but if you raise the next generation of the church with this state of mind, where are they going to run with it. Next thing you know, radical groups like 'The Jesus Seminar', who took it upon themselves to find the real words of Christ in the Gospels, will be much more common.
The men who I discovered believe in this Two-Source theory are D.A. Carson, Douglas Moo, and Lean Morris, all leading NT scholars today.
These discoveries and revelations have led me to remind myself that it is not in these particular men that I have put my trust, but in Christ alone. It is my personal responsibility to study all things out, to invest myself in the Word, and to discern all things.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)