42: Simply the Best

(mental block today...maybe after I do this I can actually study... )

Opening Day is April 3^rd, which really should be a National Holiday, don't ya think? In honor of that momentous event, on study breaks, I've been reading Baseball blogs, watching Baseball games [a friend gave me a subscription to MLB.TV--can't thank him enough for that--dude, you need an organ at some point in the future--Arnold's got dibs on the kidneys, but anything else...], dusting my McFarlane figures, remembering that coveting is a sin, etc., etc. So I figure for a Friday post, might as well spend a little time talking about the best player around.

Now, it's no secret I'm a Yankee fan, but even if I wasn't, I would be in awe of this man

The sight of that man on the mound has got to be one of the worst things an opposing team can see. It generally means that what technically is a 9-inning game has just become an 8. This man, is of course, Mariano Rivera. aka, Mo, The Sandman (time to go to sleep opponents--from his theme song "Enter Sandman"), The Equalizer (from Roger Clemens), The Hammer of God.

His numbers are astounding...check out SI's nice summary. Last year alone--43 out of 47 Saves! An ERA of 1.38--his lowest ever. James Varghese summarizes last year this way (while projecting this year):

Last year, at the tender age of 35, Mariano posted one of his finest seasons ever. If you take out his misadventures against Boston in his first two appearances last year, his line for 2006 becomes: 1.17 ERA, 9.0 K and 1.8 BB per 9, .12 HRs a game and a 5.13 K/BB ratio. He also put up a line that I will never forget. On the road last year, he gave up one earned run in 35 innings (that's a 0.26 ERA with a 32/5 K/BB ratio). Maybe it was his decision to forgo pitching in the winter leagues during the offseason, maybe it was the implementation of a two-seam fastball into his arsenal, maybe he just found the fountain of youth. It might be a mixture of all three but whatever he's been doing, I hope he keeps doing it because it's worked.

1 Earned Run in 35 innings on the road! Mind-blowing to say the least. You can understand why Tom Kelley says, "We don't want to face him any more. He's too good. He belongs in a higher league. He should be banned from baseball."

And yet, how does he describe what he does? "I get the ball, I throw the ball and then I take a shower." He's a man of humility, a man of faith. He funded the building of a church in Panama City a few years back, he's said he plans on becoming an evangelical minister when he retires. From a recent article in The Hartford Courant:

It is Sunday morning at Legends Field, and Rivera has just come from chapel. His faith is never far from his thoughts, and at this moment he finds himself going through a thick three-ring binder filled with his baseball cards that someone has given him. They date from the early 1990s, when he was just out of Panama and pitching in Class A, and he began reliving it all.

"I've been blessed," he says softly. "You think about it, Mo doesn't have a big frame. Mo doesn't have a big breaking ball, Mo doesn't have different pitches. And yet Mo has done the job all those years. How have I done that? I am that person, and I tell you without God I couldn't have done it. That's why I never talk about myself."

His favorite Bible passage is Philippians 4:13 and he has "Phil 4:13" stitched on his glove.

"You know what it says?" he asks. "'I can do all things through Christ, who strengthens me.' It doesn't say, 'I can do some things.' It says all things."

I love Derek Jeter, A-Rod's great (in the regular season), Bernie's a hero, Giambi impressed the heck out of me in last year's comeback season, Jorge's great. But they're all human, they make mistakes, they have bad plays. I know those same things apply to Mariano, but when he throws a bad pitch, when he loses a game...it's so rare that it's hard to believe. He's just so good, so archetypical, that anyting less than perfection is a shock.

I remember a couple years ago, trying to impress upon Frodo and Samwise the importance of paying attention to him (it was late, they were bored, yet determined to finish watching whatever game it was), "Now guys, this is Mariano Rivera. He's the best at what he does. You probably won't see someone this good again." I love watching any 2 teams play..it's like a great painting or an epic poem (George Will can describe the poetry of the game better than I can, so I won't try), watching the Yankees is a joy, getting to watch Rivera is the best recreation around. And hey, he's the last man to wear number 42: Douglas Adams and Jackie Robinson combined!

I'll toss this back to Varghese from YanksBlog to close:

What can possibly be said about Mariano? Perhaps...I wish I had more hands so I could give him 4 thumbs up! No, for Mo, only the highest honor is worthy. That's right: I Heart Mariano. Anything less...would be uncivilized.

Carl Trueman at his best...

Pithy, humorous-yet-serious, and dead right...from Reformation21: Schiavo again.

Gospel Morality

The true light in which redemption should be habitually contemplated is that of a Divine institute of Holiness. Its immediate end is to restore the union between ourselves and God which sin has broken. It starts out with the great thought that the Happiness of an intelligent and moral creature is not something foreign, not the possession of an outward and separate good, not shining courts nor splendid halls, nor any other princely equipage of state, but the exercise of its own energies in God. To be happy it must be in sympathy with the Author of its being. Upon this lofty eminence the whole scheme is erected, and all its arrangements are directed to the achievement of two results--the removal of those judicial consequences of sin which repel God from the sinner, and of those moral obstructions which repel the sinner from God. Jesus, and the Daysman betwixt them, comes in and lays His hand upon them both. He bears our sins in His own body on the tree, and thus reconciles God to us; He cleanses our hearts by the washing of regeneration, and thus reconciles us to God; and that first friendly interview of the arties takes place at the foot of the Cross when we believe in Jesus. This whole scheme involves the moral system--the system, if you please, of Divine philosophy--upon which the government of God is conducted. It is the ethical system of the universe, and the Gospel is the only means, accordingly, by which we can attain true integrity. In rejecting it we are not rejecting crowns and sceptres; we are rejecting the very essence of virtue, and it is idle to pretend to a profound reverence for rectitude when we disregard the only means by which we can be restored to it. In this moral aspect I am anxious to recommend it to you. All your present excellencies are dead works, and when the influences which now embalm and preserve the corpse are gone, it will putrefy and stink. The first step in real moral improvement is faith in the Son of God. When that step is taken we begin to live; until then we are dead in trespasses and sins.

-- James H. Thornwell

Arnold (formerly known as Kidney Kid) Update 3/22 (posted late)

Had another visit with Arnold's nephrologist this week (backstory links here). He's still pleased, but the kidney function is down to 48%. Not a huge drop, but a drop nonetheless. However, his great-grandma was quick to point out that her nephrologist tells her that kidneys have good and bad days, so perhaps the blood was drawn on a bad day. Basically the doc thinks we're in a period where he'll be hovering in the 50%ish area for function--bouncing around that number for awhile and then getting worse. No guess at a timetable at this time. Still, he's pleased and isn't asking us back for 4 months...so no worries at this time.

Part of the reduced function is just due to growth--he's putting on more muscle, etc. 'Tho even there, we're seeing some slowdown there--he used to be in the 50th percentile for head size and height--now in the 25th. Still in the 50th for weight, tho'. However, the nephrologist tends to go with quick and dirty measurements, so I'm not putting too much stock in these figures 'til he sees his pediatrician in a few days.

Otherwise, he's doing well--still a bit lagging in the talking department, but he's making progress. His temper is developing quite well, and his puppy dog expression is, too. On the whole, still good natured, loves to help his "Daa-ee" with a few daily routines, and jumps out of his skin when his mother comes home.

So that's the state of the kid. Thanks for your interest and prayers--they're working.

Why do you think I'm overly self-concscious?

So the bell in my headset goes off, letting me know someone had pulled up to the menu board last night.

"Thanks for choosing McDonald's, how can I help you?"
"Um, gimme a second to think."
30+ seconds tick off"Hey, I think I've changed my mind."

Now this is very odd, people normally just drive off if they do that--usually gunning their engine as they do so, as if to express anger that our menu and their late night cravings (and/or cash) didn't match up.

"Sorry to hear that, have a nice night."
"Don't worry, it wasn't your voice or anything...you didn't do anything wrong."

And they drive off politely.

What the *BLEEP* is wrong with my voice?!?!?

Thank You, Jonah!

I've been neglecting the Noise lately, and it's been bugging me...still have a few irons to get out of the flames...so as I sip a cup of Joe to help me get going, I'm reading some political blogs (note to self: get coffee filters tonight or tomorrow's gonna be ug-ly, with a capital ugh). And Jonah Goldberg comes through for me, I gotta get one of these.


(if I ever got around to doing one of those topic indexes, this'd go under "Random Nonsense to Keep the Blog Going")

Footnote to below

If you ever hear me say something about posting an outline into blogger...please shoot me.

Oh, yeah, a snippet of that sermon will be showing up at the Jonathan Edwards blog, if you're interested.

God Glorified in Man's Dependence

Way, way back in January, I posted a quotation from Jonathan Edwards that prompted a question from girlfriday (which she reminded me about a few times, and then probably decided I didn't care about answering/forgot about or what have you). But my memory is long, 'tho my time is short. But finally, here is my summary/outline of the sermon that quotation came from "God Glorified in Man's Dependence" (btw, it was Edwards' first published sermon). Hopefully this helps answer the question. If not...I'll take another stab at it between now and July (probably) :)

1 Corinthians 1:29-31: That no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

Introduction:
This text helps us to see why God "chose the foolish things of the world to confound the wise..." (v. 22), "That no flesh should glory in his presence." From this we observe:

1. God's goal in the disposition of things in redemption is that man should glory only in God, and not himself.
2. This goal is met by "that absolute and immediate dependence which men have upon God in that work." This dependence is seen in:
   1. All good that they have is in and through Christ ("made unto us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption")
   2. It is God that has given us Christ ("who of God is made...")
   3. It is God that gives us faith whereby we close with Christ, so that we may receive these benefits (see a).

Edwards summarizes his introduction by stating, "So that in this verse [v. 30] is shown our dependence on each person in the Trinity for all our good. We are dependent on Christ the Son of God, as he is our wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption. We are dependent on the Father, who has given us Christ, and made him to be these things to us. We are dependent on the Holy Ghost, for it is of him that we are in Christ Jesus; it is the Spirit of God that gives faith in him, whereby we receive him, and close with him."

Doctrine:
"'God is glorified in the work of redemption in this, that there appears in it so absolute and universal a dependence of the redeemed on him.'--Here I propose to show, 1st, That there is an absolute and universal dependence of the redeemed on God for all their good. And 2dly, That God hereby is exalted and glorified in the work of redemption."

1. The nature and plan of our redemption is such, that the redeemed are directly, immediately, and entirely dependent upon God for all of redemption. He is the cause/origin of all the good they receive; he is the channel through which it is obtained; and he is the good itself given.
1. All the good that the redeemed have is from God: he is the author of it, he is the first (and only proper) cause of it. God provided a Savior and Redeemer for us--Jesus is from God as God's only Son, but he's also from God in that God gave him to us, anointed him, appointed him as mediator. God gave the Savior, and God accepts the Savior. This is from God: that Christ becomes our, we are brought to and untied to him; we receive faith to close with him; we receive all the benefits that Christ purchased. God pardons, justifies, delivers, cleanses us from our filthiness, changes us. God gives the redeemed all their wisdom, holiness, excellence. The Holy Spirit is God and it's through his work and indwelling that these are conferred. Also, these goods come from God in that the Spirit proceeds from the Father (as well as the Son).Yes, God uses means to confer grace on the soul's of men--but God gave the means, and he makes them efficacious: the Scriptures; the sacraments (again, their efficacy is dependent upon him); ministers of the Gospel.
1. The redeemed have all from the grace of God--it's of mere grace that God have us his Son.
1. The greatness of this grace is seen in proportion to:
1. the excellency of what is given--the gift is infinitely precious because of his inherent infinite worth and because he was "infinitely near and dear" to God.
2. the benefit we have given us--it's a doubly infinite benefit: we're delivered from infinite/eternal miser and given eternal joy
3. the humiliation and expense of the method and means by which a way is made for our having the gift--he gave him to dwell amongst us, in our nature, in like infirmities; in a low and afflicted state; moreover as slain.
2. The grace of God in giving this gift is free--there was nothing obliging God to give it. He could've rejected man as he did the rebellious angels, but while we were enemies--before we repented--he gave us this gift. It was from God's love ('tho we were not attractive and there was no hope of it being returned), from mere grace, that Christ's benefits are applied--no merit in us.
3. Men depend more on God's grace now than before the fall. Pre-fall, he depended on God's goodness giving the reward for his obedience (God wasn't under any obligation to promise anything to Adam). But now we depend on his grace for much more: not just to glorify us (as Adam), but to deliver us from Hell and his wrath. Adam depended on God to reward his righteousness from his goodness and grace. We depend on God to give us that righteousness, to pardon our sin, and release us from the guilt of it--and this only comes from his free and sovereign grace. Not only are we more dependent upon God's grace, but we're dependent on more of it--it takes a greater degree of grace for the unholy to be made holy, than it took for Adam to be created holy.
4. Our dependence is more obvious, too--because our insufficiency and helplessness is more apparent now than it was before the fall. "It is more apparently free and without merit in us, because we are actually without any kind of excellency to merit, if there could be any such thing." "We are not only without any true excellency, but are full of, and wholly defiled with, that which is infinitely odious. All our good is more apparently from God, because we are first naked and wholly without any good, and afterwards enriched with all good."
2. The redeemed have all from the power of God--the great power of God is seen in bringing sinners from their low state, from depths of sin to the exalted state of holiness (Eph 1:19).
1. We are dependent on the power of God in every step of redemption: to convert us, to give us faith in Christ; to give us a new nature; to preserve us in a state of grace (1 Peter 1:5). Man is dependent upon God for every exercise of grace, for increasing in holiness, doing good works, perfecting grace, for the raising of the body to life.
2. Man was depended on God's power before the fall, too, but moreso now. God's power is needed to do more for us, and more of it is needed. It took power to make man holy, and now moreso, because there is opposition and difficulty in the way. Additionally, it is a more glorious exercise of power to uphold a soul in a state of grace and holiness, to preserve it until it is brought to glory, while there is so much sin resisting that work, and Satan is opposing it too.
2. The redeemed are also depended on God for all good, because it all comes through him. He's the author and source of the good (see 1), but he's also the medium, the conduit of all the good. The wisdom, happiness, eternal life, grace, holiness, etc. comes from God via a Mediator. And the Mediator isGod--whom we have an absolute dependence upon.
1. Adam didn't depend on him this way—he was to have eternal life through his own righteousness--so he partly depended upon himself (though his righteousness was from God, but it was his), it wasn't an immediate dependence upon God. But now the righteousness we depend on isn't ours--it's Christ's.
3. The redeemed have all their good in God. God is all our good.
1. Their objective good in God (the external thing that we possess and enjoy). By our redemption we come into the possession of God himself—he's the highest good, the sum of all the goods Christ purchased. He's the inheritance of the saints; our wealth, treasure, life, food, dwelling place. We have none in heaven but God.
1. "The glorious excellencies and beauty of God will be what will forever entertain the minds of the saints, and the love of God will be their everlasting feast. The redeemed will indeed enjoy other things; they will enjoy the angels, and will enjoy one another: but that which they shall enjoy in the angels, or each other, or in anything else whatsoever that will yield them delight and happiness, will be what shall be seen of God in them."
2. Their inherent good in God (the excellency/pleasure in the soul itself). Inherent good is either excellency of pleasure.
1. The redeemed have these as they are caused by him, and in him. God puts his own beauty, his own holiness, his moral image in them (2 Pet. 1:4, Heb 12:10). The saints are beautiful and blessed by a communication of God's holiness and joy as the moon is brightened by the sun's light.
2. Saints have both their spiritual excellence and blessedness are a gift the of Spirit, and are theirs as he lives in them. He becomes a fountain of holiness and joy.
3. Here's the foulness of good that the redeemed receive in Christ:they partake of the Spirit, and in that they have communion with the fullness of Christ. The Spirit is the sum of the blessings Christ died to purchase, he's the subject of the Gospel promises (Gal 3:13,14; Lk. 24:49), he's what was promised to Christ, so that when we had finished the work of redemption, he could bestow it on all that the had redeemed (Acts 2:13).
2. God is glorified in the work of redemption by there being so great and universal of the dependence of the redeemed on Him.
1. Man has a great need and opportunity to notice and acknowledge God's perfections and all-sufficiency, and the more we're dependent upon them, the more notice we take of them, the more we focus on them. The things we're most concerned with, are the things we pay most attention to--particularly when it comes to those things we're dependent upon--those "especially tend to command and oblige" our attention. Because we're so dependent on God (in the persons of the Trinity) and his perfections in so many respects, he and our glory are in our view.
1. Similarly, we have greater occasion to take notice of God's all-sufficiency, when all our sufficiency is thus every way of him. "So much as the dependence of the creature is on God, so much the greater does the creature's emptiness in himself appear; and so much the greater the creature's emptiness, so much the greater must the fullness of the Being be who supplies him."
2. Having all from God, shows the fullness of his power and grace; our having all through him, shows the fullness of his merit and worthiness; and having all in him, shows the fullness of his beauty, love and happiness.
2. God's glory is shown by comparing it with the creature's--as we're totally and completely dependent on God, we see that we're nothing and God is all. It's as we see this (and not try to make ourselves equal--or less empty--in our eyes) that we can give God the glory due his name.
3. Because our dependence upon God is so total and absolute, he is to be the object of our undivided "respect" (i.e., worship, reverence). "If we had our dependence party on God, and partly on something else, man's respect would be divided to those different things on which he had dependence. Thus it would be if we depended on God only for a part of our good, and on ourselves, or some other being, for another part: or if we had our good only from God, and through another that was not God, and in something else distinct from both, our hearts would be divided between the good itself, and him from whom, and him through whom, we received it." But we have no opportunity for this now.

Use:

1. We see the "marvellous wisdom of God" in the plan of redemption: he's taken man's fallenness, miserly, fallen state to an occasion of the greater advancement of his own glory, in the display of the utter dependence of man upon God. "And each person of the Trinity is equally glorified in this work: there is an absolute dependence of the creature on every one for all: all is of the Father, all through the Son, and all in the Holy Ghost. Thus God appears in the work of redemption as all in all."
2. Those doctrines and schemes that are in any respect opposite to such an absolute and universal dependence on God, take from his glory and thwart the plan of our redemption. The schemes seek to put the creature in place of God in any of the respects described above, to exalt man into the place of Father, Son, or Spirit in redemption.
1. Yes, they may talk of a dependence on God, but they deny a dependence that is absolute and universal. Dependent for some things, but not all. For example: they grant dependence on the Father for giving the Son, and on the Son for his work, but not entirely on the Spirit for conversion, and coming to Christ. Or they grant dependence on God for the means of grace, but not entirely for the benefit and success of those means.
2. "Now whatever scheme is inconsistent with our entire dependence on God for all, and of having all of him, through him, and in him, it is repugnant to the design and tenor of the gospel, and rob it of that which God accounts its lustre and glory."
3. This shows us one reason that faith is how we partake in redemption: there is included in the nature of faith, an acknowledgment of our utter dependent on God in it. The soul that believes, depends entirely on God for all salvation. "Faith abases men, and exalts God; it gives all the glory of redemption to him alone."
4. We're thus exhorted to exalt God alone, to give him all the glory of redemption. We are to work to understands and increase in the sensibleness of our great dependence on God. This doctrine leads us to exalt God alone--by trust, by reliance and by praise. "Let him that glorieth, glory in the Lord."

I trust this isn't what Whedon has in mind

Lee Goldberg points to this post by Mark Evanier pointing to this short demo for a Wonder Woman TV show. No, not the Lynda Carter one...something far, far, different. Apparently the producer of the 60's Batman show thought he could do something comedic with everyone's favorite Amazon (not the book seller grown out of control).

So, why do you think this series never got made?

Follow-Up to last Friday's post

Well, my Plantar Fasciitis is back--the drugs and the time in South Carolina wore off. And it's worse than ever...really distracting me from pretty much everything. Takes me over a day to recover from a shift at work, and less than 2 hours at work to shoot downhill. Anyhow...that and other things were making work unbearable, and affecting life outside of work--particularly dealing with kids and trying to study.

Soooo, I quit my job. I have 5 shifts left. Hopefully that'll allow me to pass my courses this term, and not be an unbearable, um, bear at home.

So there's the update on that post. Thanks for the prayers.

One of my favorite blogs

Hopefully you've all looked over at my blogroll under "Friend's Blogs" and wondered something like, "Jonathan Edwards has a blog? Isn't he too...oh what's the word...dead for that?" and then clicked on the link just to see.

If you haven't, shame on you. Do so immediately (or after you get done reading this post). It's a blog run by my pal TEXpresby, a PCA pastor from (you guessed it) Texas. TEX has this wonderful ability to find fantastic quotes--long and short--inspirational, convicting...far better than chicken soup for the soul.

Anyhow, I bring this up because due to things like hurricanes, pastoring, preaching, fathering, etc. that blog has quieted down somewhat over the last few months. Well, TEX has brought me on board to contribute some nuggets that I stumble across. The major benefit of this is that it seems to have inspired TEX to throw up his first post of 2006--a trend I hope contintues. :)

I don't mention this in the interest of self=promotion, but to promote Edwards, Spurgeon, Ryle and Friends--great stuff to be found in them, folks.

Sing, Sing a Song....

Okay, Arnold isn't exactly picking up the whole talking thing that quickly, the last couple of weeks have seen some great progress, but he's still a far cry from chatty.

But tonight he did something better than utter a sentence. He apparently wasn't satisfied with the hymn we sang at the end of family worship, so as we're all going our own ways, I start getting ready for work, brothers running around enjoying a few seconds before math and penmanship homework, etc., he starts singing. And not just random noises. He starts singing "Holy, Holy, Holy." pretty much the whole first stanza...

Utterly blew me away. "From the mouths of babes..."

How Awful Goodness Is

From a sermon on Biblical Ethics:

He that stands beneath the Cross and understands the scene dares not sin; not because there is a hell beneath him or an angry God above him, but because Holiness is felt to reign there—the ground on which he treads is sacred, the glory of the Lord encircles him, and, like Moses, he must remove the shoes from his feet. The Cross is a venerable spot. I love to linger around it, not merely that I may read my title to everlasting life, but that I may study the greatness of God. I use the term advisedly. God never appears to be so truly great, so intensely holy, as when, from the pure energy of principle, He gives Himself, in the person of His Son, to die, rather than that His character should be impugned. Who dares prevaricate with moral distinctions and talk of death as a greater evil than dishonour, when God, the mighty Maker, died rather than that truth or justice should be compromised? Who, at the foot of Calvary, can pronounce sin to be a slight matter? Here, then, lies the most impressive sanction of revelation. Not content to promulgate the law with absolute certainty, to put under tribute the whole resources of the invisible world, to lay its hand upon eternity and make heaven and hell its ministers, it rises yet higher and seeks to impress us with a subduing sense of the sacredness of right—to make us feel how awful goodness is; it reveals its inherent greatness, unveils its ineffable glory. It does not describe it, but shows it; and we return from the Cross with emotions similar to those of Moses when the name of the Lord was proclaimed, and the goodness of the Lord passed before him in the cleft of the rock. It is the scheme of redemption which crowns the ethical teachings of the Bible. The lesson is sealed at the Cross; there, and there only, do we shudder at sin for its own sake, and reverence right for itself.

-James H. Thornwell

For those of you who are praying types...

I've got a major decision coming down the pike in the next couple of days--pretty sure I've made up my mind, actually, but if I'm heading in an utterly foolish direction, a divine 2x4 upside my head would be quite handy...

WBC: Canada vs. USA

Can I defect now? I can say "eh," I know Bob and Doug McKenzie, I own a couple of tuques, I like Candian singers (Bryan Adams, Alanis, Avril...), they just elected a conservative....

8-6 fer cryin' out loud!!! Thank you, Jason Varitek for saving us from being obliterated.

(who ever thought they'd see me thanking Varitek for anything??)

Logging "The Wedding Singer" as Legal Research

MARCH 6--In what is surely a first for the federal judiciary, a Texas bankruptcy judge has quoted from the Adam Sandler film canon in a recent opinion. Dismissing a motion due to "incomprehensibility," Judge Leif Clark cited a scene from "Billy Madison," Sandler's 1995 comedy, in a footnote to a February 21 court order.

Read the rest here.

Best line in the whole movie...well worth being cited again and again :)

It's Funny Because It's True (or it could be anyway)

This story is almost certainly satire (given it comes from a satire site), but you never can be sure: Jobless Rate for Christian Satirists Skyrockets as Churches Beomce Parodies on Their Own

A twenty year veteran of the Christian humor business, Carmichael was at the height of his game when suddenly the line between satire and reality began to blur this last year. The pivotal moment came when Carmichael mocked up a fake "Biblezine for Girls" and everyone thought it was real. Said Carmichael, "It had Britney Spear’s photo on the cover with the headline: 'Hit Me, Jesus, One More Time: Finding God’s Truth in Pop Song Lyrics'. I knew I was in trouble when Christianity Today thought I was submitting an ad from Family Christian bookstore. Worse yet, Zondervan wanted to sue me for stealing the cover idea for their upcoming 'Hey, Girlfriend!' Bible. How was I supposed to know?"

Notes on the Dad Front

First things first: The Kidney Kid shall henceforth be called Arnold. Just doesn't seem right to tag him with a nickname based solely on his disability. Okay, so naming him for a precocious child-actor who came to fame because of his jowliness and his impaired grown due to kidney disease pretty much does the same, but hey...he was funny. Next goal: teaching The Kidne...er, Arnold a catchphrase or two.

Secondly, Arnold turned two yesterday! Have paused to meditate on God's grace throughout those two years a lot over the last few days. When he was 2 weeks old we expected to go in for a major surgery about this time. Mercifully, it's not now (tho' that would give me an excuse for being so far behind in school...ah well, can't have everything, eh?)--sure, it's looming out there somewhere. But when he's older, can be talked to about what's going on, when he's stronger. (For newer readers who have no idea what I'm talking about, scanning this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and (finally!) this, --in order--should help [thank you, Technocrati for finding those for me!]) But he's walking' working on talking' he's got a great personality, a fierce temper that's a walking monument to his father's depravity; he idolizes Frodo, loves the Princess and Samwise; and other than the whole only having .25 kidney thing is very healthy. We had too many dark nights in the beginning, but for the most part now never think of the kidney nonsense and just enjoy him. Truly an act of providence (and God restraining our hearts from panic and paranoia).

Not much to say on the Princess front. She's adorable, she can only speak in giggles (or so it seems), has her Daddy pretty much wrapped around her finger, and is bursting at the seams to try her hand at reading, writing, 'rithmatic, and particle physics.

Samwise is..., well, Samwise. He's addicted as ever to videogames, a little slow on the thinking through things part, loyal to a fault, normally cheerful as all get out, frequently off in his own little world, and a voracious reader.

I actually pulled out the old "if everyone jumped off a cliff, would you want to?" line on Frodo yesterday. He laughed. He thought it was hilarious. Oh my, I have so much work to do with this one. Don't know where to begin :)

Fun with Broadband

A few things to watch for fun/thought (I'll leave it to you to decide which category each fits in):

• Dog Jokes
• McPassion
• Sleepless in Seattle As a Horror Flick
• Thank You For Smoking trailer
• A Scanner Darkly trailer 2
• In Your Eyes Live
• and you just can't get enough of this one...

Christianity Not a New Religion

(yeah, yeah, another post not by me...soon)

It is a great mistake to say that Christianity, as over against the old dispensation, was a "new religion"; indeed, it is a mistake to say that Christianity is a religion at all, among other religions. On the contrary, there is just one revealed religion, and the revelation that is at the basis of it is recorded in both the Old and New Testament. The Old Testament saints were saved in just the same way as that in which the New Testament saints are saved--namely, by the death of Christ--and the mans by which the Spirit of God applied to them the benefits of Christ's death was exactly the same as the means by which the same Spirit applies those benefits to Christians today--namely, faith. The Old Testament saints, like Christians today, received the gospel of the grace of God; and, like the New Testament saints, they received it by faith. The only difference is that the gospel was proclaimed to the Old Testament saints by way of promise, while to us it is proclaimed by way of narrative of what has already been done. Immediately after the Fall of man, the plan of God for salvation began to be executed--with the promise contained in Gen 3:15--and the men who are saved in accordance with that plan are not adherents of "a religion" among other religions; they are not men who have built upon a common human fund of "religion" certain special religions known as "Judaism" and "Christianity," but they are men to whom God has supernaturally revealed and supernaturally applied His saving work. That one revealed "religion" does not differ form the religions of mankind merely in degree; its supremacy does not consist even in being the one perfect religion as over against the imperfect ones; but it is different from the religions of mankind because, while they represent man's efforts to find God, this "religion" is built upon the sovereign and gracious and entirely unique act by which God found man and saved him from the guilt and power of sin.

--J. Gresham Machen

History of Religion

The Scribbler was so struck by this observation by Terry Johnson she read to me today:

The whole history of religion is a history of idolatry: God conceived of falsely and worshipped wrongly. It does not encourage us to think highly of our ability to get things right.

Hopefully she'll comment a little on it--and not just because she really needs to post something--I find it quite profound

Good reminder

Nothing new here, but needs to be said again:

But only the shallowest reading of the Epistles can possibly lead a man to think that the Apostle’s appeal to the Old Testament was merely an argumentative device--useful in defeating the Judaizers but not valuable in the Apostle’s own mind. Nothing could be further form the fact. As a matter of fact, to Paul as well as to our Lord Jesus Himself, the written Word of God was decisive in all controversy. People who make "the teachings of Christ" instead of the whole Bible the seat of authority in religion are doing despite to the teachings of Christ themselves; and people who make what they wrongly call "the living Spirit," in opposition to the written Word, an independent source of our knowledge of God are dong despite to that blessed Holy Spirit by whose gracious ministration the written Word has been given unto men. Let it never be forgotten that the real source of life for the Church is the holy Book; when the Church seeks life apart from the Book, as it is doing today, then it always faces, as it faces today, a terrible loss of power. If the Bible were rediscovered, as it was rediscovered at the time of the Reformation, we should have in the church today the same new life as that which then set the world aflame.

--J. Gresham Machen

Shall I Call It?

Not dead yet. Just very, very busy. Have many things to say. Just no time.

Hopefully next week. Stay tuned for some fun, some theology, some baptism, and who knows what?

This reminds me of a scene from one of my favorite movies, can't resist posting the dialogue (thanks to google, don't have to type it):
The Dead Collector: Bring out yer dead.
[a man puts a body on the cart]
Large Man with Dead Body: Here's one.
The Dead Collector: That'll be ninepence.
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn't: I'm not dead.
The Dead Collector: What?
Large Man with Dead Body: Nothing. There's your ninepence.
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn't: I'm not dead.
The Dead Collector: 'Ere, he says he's not dead.
Large Man with Dead Body: Yes he is.
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn't: I'm not.
The Dead Collector: He isn't.
Large Man with Dead Body: Well, he will be soon, he's very ill.
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn't: I'm getting better.
Large Man with Dead Body: No you're not, you'll be stone dead in a moment.
The Dead Collector: Well, I can't take him like that. It's against regulations.
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn't: I don't want to go on the cart.
Large Man with Dead Body: Oh, don't be such a baby.
The Dead Collector: I can't take him.
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn't: I feel fine.
Large Man with Dead Body: Oh, do me a favor.
The Dead Collector: I can't.
Large Man with Dead Body: Well, can you hang around for a couple of minutes? He won't be long.
The Dead Collector: I promised I'd be at the Robinsons'. They've lost nine today.
Large Man with Dead Body: Well, when's your next round?
The Dead Collector: Thursday.
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn't: I think I'll go for a walk.
Large Man with Dead Body: You're not fooling anyone, you know. Isn't there anything you could do?
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn't: I feel happy. I feel happy.
[the Dead Collector glances up and down the street furtively, then silences the Body with his a whack of his club]
Large Man with Dead Body: Ah, thank you very much.
The Dead Collector: Not at all. See you on Thursday.
Large Man with Dead Body: Right.

A Momentary Burst of Enlightenment

Kim Riddlebarger has long been my favorite White Horse Inn host (despite his eschatological writings), but I could never put my finger on exactly why.

Now I can.

annoyed...

I want to say something about last night's episode of Bones, which might lead to a discussion of character development in fiction (esp. if the literary type lurkers would speak out). But after what happened last week, I just don't feel comfortable doing that.

rats.

Coming sooner...

New York Yankees Reporting Dates:
Pitchers & Catchers: Tomorrow. And Jorge's already at it--who da man?
First Workout: Feb. 17
Position Players: Feb. 21
First full workout: Feb. 22 -- Oh, to be in Tampa next week!

Meanwhile, over at SI, Tom Verducci makes a compelling case to make Jeter the lead-off man, not Damon. Easily the most thought provoking article I've read all week (says a lot about my week--tho' I expect rusty to fix that later on today).

Last, but not least, this from the "Are they Trying to Give me a Coronary?" Department:

Other teams, possibly including the Yankees, are watching to see what happens with Sammy Sosa and the Nationals.

10 yrs ago today

(about to the minute, iirc. Right after Final Jeopardy) The Scribbler told me she had nothing better to do for the next 60-70 years then to hang out with me.

Quite possibly the happiest moment of my life.

Then the M*A*S*H theme song started playing in the background. Good thing I don't believe in omens, 'cuz that title...(I don't believe in omens, do I?)

Love ya, honey.

Not Pro-Life Enough

Huckleberries Online pointed me to this article on the Idaho Statesman's website (for now, I'll pass up remarking on the strangeness of depending on a Spokane, WA based newspaper blog to keep me abreast of local politics).

A Canyon County anti-abortion activist and father of 16 says he's more than a month into a hunger strike that will end either with his death or the state adopting a law saying that human life begins with conception.

Is this man so addled that he doesn't see the utter hypocrisy of this?

[He and his wife have] attended a number of churches--Baptist, Nazarene, Assembly of God and others--— but their study of the Bible directs their daily lives. She drives him to appointments, brings him things he can't find because of his weakened eyesight, helps him up when he falls. She supports him in the hunger strike--even if it leads to his death.

"Whatever he has to do to serve the Lord, he has to do," she said. "I hate to give him up, but he has to serve the Lord."

How is this serving the Lord? Somebody tell me...where has God commanded that we kill ourselves as a type of extortion/blackmail? Am pretty sure the command reads:

You shall not murder (Exodus 20:13).

And that includes murder of self. You cannot take a stand for righteousness by sinning.

May God have mercy on this man, and wake him from this folly and rebellion.

Coming soon....

Pitchers and Catchers report next week. The rest of the roster soon after that.

April 3--Opening Day.

My goal is to have at least 2 of the three paper/essay/etc. that I have due this term done by than. (and maybe, mayyyybe, the 4 longer posts I've been working on for the last week, to)

Ed: the Next Generation

A few weeks ago, TV Guide's Matt Roush wrote:

No one dies in the pilot episode of the mid-season charmer Love Monkey..., and that has me worried. Can CBS and its audience embrace an hourlong show that dares to exist outside the world of the crime-drama procedural?

I laughed when I read that, and then I realized he's probably right. But, hang it all, I don't care. I'm going to enjoy this burst of creativity and diversity over on the Eye as long as it lasts.

Here's the set-up. Show centers around Tom Farrell--who's basically Ed Stevens--everyone's favorite bowling alley lawyer (and I'm not just saying that because Tom Cavanaugh plays him...but it helps)--except his job is less plausible, he's a record executive with an ear for talent.

Actually, I'm kidding a bit there. This show is a lot more plausible then Ed ever could've--or should've--been. The supporting characters (ex-NFL player sportscaster pal; token hip and black bud; plastic surgeon friend/brother-in-law; cute and platonic gal pal; sister) are just as quirky and witty, but not as strange. Not totally sold on all the supporting characters/cast, but I like them. Jason Priestly's plastic surgeon Mike Freed character is Judy Greer's Brandy are the exceptions there. Bang up job there. I can't believe I just said that about a 90210 alum. Gotta go take a shower...

Having Tom work in the music industry provides: a reason for a great soundtrack, some good characters--both for one-shot and longer stories--and some great cameos (LeAnn Rimes, Aimee Mann, and Ben Folds--ya!).

So far the one constant in the music industry is Tom's new find, Wayne, played by Teddy Geiger. Wayne's very, um, John Mayer-esque. But, unlike Mayer, I like to listen to him. Dunno how much of Geiger there is in Wayne. But if the real new artist's record sounds like the fictional artists...I'm all over it.

So, Love Monkey. Tuesdays on CBS before CSI:*.* No blood, no cool camera effects, no cops. Just nice people.

Two-Pronged Christianity, pt. 1

"Christianity," wrote J. Gresham Machen, "begins with a triumphant indicative." Christianity begins with an announcement, a proclamation—and not a proclamation to convince, to persuade or motivate. But a simple statement of facts: "that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures," (1 Corinthians 15:3-4).

For Machen, this was the first mark that separated the religion of Biblical Christianity from the religion of Liberalism, which began with a series of tasks—exhortations to make the listener a better person. Machen saw that for what it truly is, a non-Christian religion.

No, Christianity begins in the indicative. It begins with news—and not just any news—but good news. "Good news," the phrase is at once a victim of both overuse and disregard. We hear the term so much it’s about as meaningful as ordering Small Diet Coke to go with your Bacon Ultimate Cheeseburger. From time to time we must force ourselves to go back and think about what it is that makes this news so good.

That the thrice holy God, out of His won good pleasure and free grace sent His only Son into this sin-darkened and sin-loving world. That He delivered His Son into the power of men so that they might murder Him. That this shed blood would be a propitiation for the sins of those that God had known, loved and chosen before the foundation of the world. That God’s only Son, freely and willingly gave up the glory He possessed to come into this world, to be found in appearance as a man. To be despised, scorned, conspired against, persecuted, to teach those who wouldn’t understand, to teach those who would reject his instruction. To then lay down His life as a sacrifice for many, enduring the humiliation and pain of the Roman cross, and to die—reconciling us to God in His death. That three days later, he rose from the dead, ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father. That from His Father’s side, he sent the Holy Spirit to apply this redemption he accomplished to haters of God. That those to whom the Spirit applies this redemption, He gives faith and repentance unto life. That those chosen by the Father are called, justified, adopted and sanctified, and at the resurrection be made perfectly blessed in the full enjoying of God to all eternity.

This is the beginning. This is the foundation. Without this you have some system of moralism with Jesus Christ as chief exemplar. Without constant reference to this news in our preaching, teaching, thinking and meditation we will not be able to function as believers. We might be nice people, good neighbors, fine citizens…but we will not be Christians.

One of those days...

Slow day around the house today, but have to get plugging away at various projects and can't get to the blog. Yesterday, was supposed to be a major homework and blogging kind of day--have 3 longer posts in the works...and, well, obviously nothing happened.

But I needed a little break from final preparation on my Sunday School lessons on the Muslim doctrine of God (what? I hear you all saying, tear yourself away from that?!?), so figured I'd give you a little insight into me. I'm often asked why I call this White Noise, instead of something more sanctified, or Latin. 1. Because I really like the novel quoted above. (sorry, bluewoad) 2. Because well, it describes my brain.

Eh? Howz that? You ask. Maybe the following two lists will give you some insight. If not, oh well, it gave me soemthing to do.

Current playlist:

1. Short Skirt/Long Jacket - Cake
2. It's the End of the World as we Know It - REM
3. Take Me Away - Eowyn
4. (Can't Get My) head Around You - The Offspring
5. Took My Place - Third Day
6. Right Now - Van Halen
7. Mexico - Lost Dogs
8. My Happy Ending - Avril Lavigne
9. One Angry Dwarf and 200 Solemn Faces - Ben Folds Five
10. Adding to the Noise - Switchfoot
11. Firefly Main Title
12. California - Hawk Nelson
13. Weather Girl - The Choir
14. Taylor - Jack Johnson
15. Superman's Song - Crash Test Dummies
16. All Because - Tree 64
17. Eight Easy Steps - Alanis Morissette
18. About Love - The Choir
19. Battlestar Galactica Main Title

Books that arrived on my doorstep within the last 24 hours:

• Yahweh, Jehovah, or Allah--Which is God's Real name? - Shabir Ally
• 101 Clear Contradictions in the Bible - Shabir Ally
• The Qur'an - Translated by Abdullah Yusaf Ali
• Wages of Spin - Carl A. Trueman
• The Baptism of Disciples Alone - Fred Malone
• Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace - Paul Jewett

Geeking Out OPC-style

Just received the latest publication from the good people over at Solid Ground Christian Books--Notes on Galatians by J. Gresham Machen.

As always, nice publication. Good quality paperback, nicely formatted. And pretty darn cheap. Something that my formerly favorite reprint company could learn from (with all due respect to Mr. Kistler).

The bulk of the book are exegetical notes on Galatians 1:1 - 3:14, with some translation notes by the master, and misc. other things. This is gonna be a fun read :)

Beyond Paedo

When my then fiancé and I first started attending the church we now belong to, we were warned by a well-intentioned relative that, "they baptize babies, you know." Well, yes, we did know that. We also knew this church would baptize teens, thirtysomethings, and octogenarians if opportunity presented itself. However hazy on the details, that warning does point to the general perception of the Presbyterian/Reformed view of the sacrament-—that we’re only focused on baptizing infants.

And, we must admit, all too often, we perpetuate the stereotype. Our conferences, books, tracts and other teaching materials focus all too often on words like "infant" or "paedo-" and feature cute pictures of smiling newborns and pastel colors. Of course, the name for our position, "paedobaptism" does not help either. I’m not sure when that label was first applied, but it was a mistake to let it stick. (I half-way expect polymathis to hit me with an answer to this in the comments).

Let’s take a quick look at the Reformed Confessional Standards. How much emphasis do they place on infant baptism?

• It’s about ¼ of the Belgic Confession’s Article 24, "Holy Baptism"
• The Heidelberg Catechism has 6 questions on Baptism, only 1 of which mentions infants
• The Second Helvetic Confession devotes 1 of its 6 paragraphs on Baptism to the subject (in passing, I’d note that paragraph is against the Anabaptist position, not a positive teaching on the doctrine)
• Our Larger Catechism mentions it in 1 of 3 questions
• Our Confession gives one of its seven paragraphs on Baptism to the idea (with a passing reference in another)

It is also interesting to note that on the whole, the topic of infants is the last thing mentioned by the Reformation-era standards.

What’s the point of this survey? As Lyle Bierma wrote recently,

The proportion of space is significant. It suggests that from the perspective of the confessions, there is no such thing as a separate doctrine of infant baptism, only a doctrine of baptism—a baptism of which adults and infants alike are the legitimate recipients. Whether one is an adult being baptized after conversion or an infant being baptized before conversion, the situation is basically the same…Both are called to embrace those promises [of forgiveness and the Holy Spirit] by faith, the adult immediately, and the infant as he or she grows older. Both are saved, not by their baptism, but by God’s grace as they live in faith and obedience as members of the covenant community. The confessions speak of only one doctrine of baptism, therefore, because there is only one covenant, one people of God, one promise, one set of conditions, and one covenantal sing—for adults and children alike.

What really separates us from our baptistic brethren is not that they withhold baptism from their children; it is our doctrine of baptism. Who we consider to be the objects of baptism comes out of that, it does not determine it.

Some Rules (well, one) on Baptism Posts

Okay, I'm going to try something reckless here...I'm going to start an occasional series of posts on baptism. Now, I know a number of my readers are going to disagree with me on this stuff--not that there's anything wrong with that ("nothing at all," echoes George from across the table).

Here's the catch--we're not going to be having any extended baptism debates here. While I'm eager for them, I just don't have the time/energy for them right now. I'm tempted to not allow comments on them, but will keep them open to allow questions/clarifications/feedback. As soon as things get heated, I will delete comments. Maybe this summer I'll be up to it and will post some inflammatory words to get a debate going with those in the deep end of the pool.

New Journal

Jeff Downs has released first edition of the Countercult Apologetics Journal. Head on over and have a read--looks like some interesting stuff! Jeff was kind enough to ask me to do a review of that Robret Millet book I was live-blogging last summer before I got sick (and I don't think the two were related, but ya never know).

Speaking of Millet, he and Greg Johnson will be doing their thing again in Boise. Rodney King theology at its finest. At least this year I know about it weeks in advance, rather than months after the fact or too late to get it off work.

Cleaning up the Current Stuff

Okay, I know it's silly, but just about every blog has to have a "what am I reading/listening to/watching right now" section--it's a rule somewhere. And, as the conformist that I am, I've got it over there in the middle column, looking all pretty. Sadly, the books part hasn't changed much in months. Well, I'm throwing in the towel..I'm just never going to finish The Last Disciple by Hannegraaff and Brouwer or Tongues Aflame: Learning to Preach from the Apostles by Roger Wagner (well, not in the foreseeable future anyway). No disrespect to Wagner, pretty good book, but I can't seem to stay focused on it. And I just cannot force myself to finish the last 100 pages of Disicple. Horrible, horrible book. And I wanted to like it--the eschatology seems right (wow...what a concept), but the writing, the characters, the plots...I'd rather watch the last couple of seasons of ER or Reba.

As for music...not addicted to anything at the moment...any suggestions?

Oh, and I'd be remiss if I didn't add, that I'd like to put The Two-Minute Rule by Robert Crais and Sea Change by Robert B. Parker in that column. If you'd like to help keep things changing around here... :)

there's something wrong with me...

I'm behind schedule on...well, pretty much everything...so why is it that I'm prepared to spend good time doing this?

The T-Shirt Says It All

Finally saw Serenity tonight. Gorgeous film. I loved the series, but this...wow. They really brought their A game. The dialogue didn't crackle the way that Whedon's usually does--but he was going for a slightly broader audience this time (I never had doubts about his Wonder Woman flick, but I have less now)

There was a rawness, a humanity to this that no Star Trek movie, and most of the Star Wars films didn't touch (maybe bits of Empire). The deaths (and there were some) meant something; the sacrifices, the nobility--they were real. Can't say that for many things on TV or in the theaters today.

River rocked. Still would give a limb for Kaylee. Would like to be half the Shepherd that Book was. Wash and Mal still make me laugh.

Not going to attempt a real review, or even what passes for one 'round these parts. Can't do the film justice. It made me laugh, made me jump, made me angry, inspired and left a smile on my face. Can't ask for much more out of a cowboy in space movie.

Too many good lines to recount, but one'll stick with me for awhile: "If you can't do something smart, do something right." I should get that on a pillow or something.

Malkin's blogging too much lately

Can't keep up with her...but man, I feel compelled to (thankfully still waiting for a couple textbooks to arrive, so it's not like I'm deliberately ignoring homework). One stop shopping for blog-reading.

• We have this bit of insightful commentary:

  Meanwhile, potty-training my son is like dealing with post-9/11 liberals. No matter how much patient educating and explaining you do to convince them to take responsibility for their actions and prevent future disasters, the end result is always the same: soiled pants.

• This interesting post on the WMD.
• Some tech-culture commentary on the Google-China deal
• And we darenot forget what Michelle does best: exposing our weaknesses on the southern border. If "The War at the Border" and "The War at the Border: Escalation" don't cost you some sleep, you aren't reading closely.
• And then hits the cultural high-brow note here (a note I should aspire to).
• and much, much more...why are you wasting time with my blather? Just read Malkin!

100th Episode

Smallville reaches the magic 100 mark tonight. (not sure why it's magic anymore, used to be the point at which shows went into syndication, iirc, it's not that anymore)

Anyway, this is the show we've all been anticipating/dreading since the season opener. To satisfy Jor-El returning Clark's powers to him (a la Superman II), someone close to him will die (unlike Superman II). Who will this person be? Someone standing close to Clark? or someone truly close to him? Well, someone from the opening credits. Maybe more than one someone. Supposedly no one on the cast saw it coming 'til they got the script (gotta be a sucky way to find out you're unemployed).

Anyway, will be at work with someone meets their doom. Hope my VCR (how much of a throwback am I? Video cassette?) does its job tonight. Won't be going online 'til I've had the chance to watch it, as a good chunk of the internet will be talking about this. If my VCR doesn't do its job, well, let's just say you won't be seeing me update the blog or check my email for a few months :)

My greatest fear is that it will be Chloe. Scribbler and I aren't sure if we're coming back for a Chloe-less Smallville (we will, we'll just gripe for a couple weeks). Lois is safe, ditto for Lex. I bet Ma is, too. Jonathan...hmm..tough call. But he's almost too obvious w/the long-term heart condition, hate-hate relationship with Jor-El. Lionel? Ha. Not close to clark at all. That leaves Lana. Oh my, I hope it's Lana. She's a drag on the show, the Clark-Lana relationship hasn't had zip for awhile. And we all know the relationship is doomed (see Lois). We'll know in a couple hours how much I think like a TV writer (there's part of me that opes I don't think much like one)

Things that made me LOL today

in no particular order:

• The latest from Purgatorio (h/t The Riddleblog)
  
• That is not my blog--in particular this and this and this (h/t Petty Athanasius)

That quote...

Okay, okay, okay...you can stop harassing me. A few days ago (well, a couple of weeks and change) I put a quotation up, with the promise of revealing the author soon. And then silence ensued--part of that was due to the fact that I was busier than a one-legged man in a butt-kicking contest. Another part of it was due to the fact that I was intending on using it in the sermon I had to preach for class on 1/13, and I was reserving comment on it 'til I was done with that. (and another part is shear laziness, I'm sure).

Sorry Rusty, it was not Princess Di who wrote that. Nor was it little ol' me. And maybe using a Bible Code-type hermeneutic you could find a chicken curry recipe there, but I'm not sure. And as for Internet Lutherans...well, I'm sure the original author would deal with them in such a way as to make Steve Hays look like kitty cat. It was by the stalwart Robert L. Dabney, from the book Sacred Rhetoric. Currently published under the title Evangelical Eloquence by the Banner of Truth.

Here's the quotation w/a little context--Dabney is discussing the subjects of sermons--the type of sermon to be preached. Should they all be doctrinal? Should they all be practical? Dabney says no to both. Part of his argument for a balance between the two in preaching included that quotation. Here it is with the rest of the paragraph:

The practical definition of Christianity has been fully accepted by us. Its end and aim is holy living [author's footnote: "Eph. i.4; Titus ii.14, et passim"]. Of this holy life, the law of God is the rule. The believer justified in Christ does not, indeed, look to the law for his redeeming merit; but he receives it as his guide to the obedience of faith and love, as fully as though he were still under a covenant of works. He therefore needs practical instruction, as really as the unbeliever. It must stimulate and direct him in the Christian race, and make him a "peculiar person, zealous of good works." The exclusive preaching of doctrine to professed Christians tends to cultivate an Antinomian Spirit. The exclusive inculcation of duties fosters self-righteousness. The edification of the Church, then, demands the diligent intermixture of both kinds. This precept may be confirmed by the remark, that, as the motives and obligations of all duties are rooted in the doctrines, so the best illustrations of the doctrines are by their application to the duties. The two are inseparably connected as grounds and conclusions, as means and end; and their systematic separation in your instructions would leave your hearers incapable of a correct understanding of either.

The part that struck me is of course the part that struck the commenters: "...but he receives it as his guide to the obedience of faith and love, as fully as though he were still under a covenant of works." The words are jarring to our ears (and, I'm willing to bet Dabney's original audience). We instinctively recoil, "'Covenant of works? Oh, no, no, no. Even if you accept the outdated notion of a Covenant of Works, we know that under the New Covenant we have nothing to do with such a thing." Well, yeah, I do accept the covenant of works, and I'm not arguing that we should consider ourselves under it--nor does Dabney. I want to emphasize, Dabney is by no means arguing for moralism, if you didn't catch that in the above quotation. He later stresses, "It is only the morality of the Cross which the Christian pastor should teach."

But think of it this way: let's say, we were under a Covenant where our performance did decide our eternal state. Where our understanding, our adherence to a code of morality or a list of duties was the sole determining factor in whether we had life everlasting, or perpetual punishment. Now, given those conditions: how fully would we receive and embrace that code/list as our guide to obedience?

But, thank God, that is not the condition we are in. "The believer justified in Christ does not, indeed, look to the law for his redeeming merit" (or any other kind of merit). By God's free grace, we have been called, justified, adopted, and more. But in love we are to obey that same Lord, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments" (John 14:15); "If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. Whoever does not love me does not keep my words" (John 14:23,24). If we love Him, would we not therefore embrace this same code with more ardor, more fervor than we would out of fear of punishment/hope of reward? Especially when we remember, that "this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome." (1 John 5:3)

Okay, there are (some) of my thoughts on the quotation. Feel free to throw some back at me.

P. S. Before I forget, while I'm talking about Dabney's book on preaching. His comments on political preaching were worth the price of the book. Should probably get it printed in pamphlet form and mail copies to everyone who attends one of those "Justice Sunday" events. If someone kindly reminds me in a few days, I'll post parts of it.

Thought for the Day - 1/11/06

God is glorified in the work of redemption in this, that there appears in it so absolute and universal a dependence of the redeemed on him. - Jonathan Edwards

The absolute sovereignty of God is a corollary of the absolute dependence of man. Similarly, the corollary of a partial dependence is a partial sovereignty and a partial sovereignty is ultimately no sovereignty at all.

Not doin' it on our own...

But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ's gift. Therefore it says, "When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men." He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.) And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love. Ephesians 4:7-16

Of the many great gifts that our gracious Lord and Savior has given us, perhaps the most overlooked are those mentioned in v. 11 "the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers." Why are they given? The Apostle tells us, "to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God…"

It doesn’t take an ecclesiastical genius to see that the unity of faith and knowledge of the Son have not been reached (much less the rest of the list). So it’s easy to see that we still need those gifts. Now we have the apostles and prophets work preserved for us in the Scriptures—and most Christians have little problem remembering to be thankful for them.

But what about the rest? What about the evangelists, the pastors and teachers? What about those working to equip the saints for the work of ministry? Those who throw themselves into building up the body of Christ? How often do we think of them as gifts from the risen and ascended Christ? How often are we thankful for them?

Not just those that we see and hear week after week (hopefully), but all those who from the time of the apostles and prophets have labored to build up Christ’s body to the measure and fullness of Christ?

While in class today, listening to a godly professor cull the accumulated wisdom and teachings of many throughout the centuries to equip we future ministers (D.V.) to equip others. How little I’ve thought of that treasure lately. My fellow elders, my friends in the ministry, my professors, and all those giants on whose shoulders we stand (and a few midgets, too, it must be admitted). How gracious and generous our Lord is!

How pathetic, how shortsighted—how unappreciative, how ungrateful are those who disdain them. Lone Ranger Christians despising the gifts that Christ gave and gives now that he is on high.

May God save me—and his church—from this spirit, and help us to embrace and to utilize their work.

New Blog

Natalie Teeger's blogging--yay! Okay, I'd have rather read Sharona's blog, but this is close enough. (and I have to admit Natalie's really growing on me)

Discuss amongst yourselves

I'm going to leave the author and my take on this out of it for the moment, want to hear some chatter from my readers (even you who don't comment that often--especially you!), read this quote yesterday and I've been chewing on it since.

[Christianity's] end and aim is holy living [author's footnote: "Eph. i.4; Titus ii.14, et passim"]. Of this holy life, the law of God is the rule. The believer justified in Christ does not, indeed, look to the law for his redeeming merit; but he receives it as his guide to the obedience of faith and love , as fully as though he were still under a covenant of works.

Stranger in a Strange Land

If you took all the OPCs in Utah and Idaho, put them on a plane and brought them to the meeting room of the PCA church I attended tonight here in SC, there'd still be room for visitors. It was hard on my system (in a good way). On the other hand, the PCA church I attended this morning was smaller in attendance than my own. And both of them (and a few other PCA's in the area) have their own buildings.

Just can't imagine that embarrassment of riches in the Pacific Northwest....

How's this for a Resolution?

As I'm reading a commentary in preparation for a paper, I read the following: "James carries forward some of the central aspects of Jesus' message and teaching...This continuity with Jesus' teaching is relatively rare within the New Testament."

I showed kletois this line and he replied, "Are they reading the same leather bound book we read??" And you really have to wonder sometimes what book is being read by some of these guys. Although there is a bevy of evidence that they're reading something—and that's certainly commendable.

Thankfully, while I was writing that paper, I was able to read (and utilize) several other writers who were reading the same book. And more than that they handled the book correctly—which is of vital importance.

Chrysostom, Augustine, Calvin, Owen, Watson, Manton, Boston, Hodge, Thornwell, Ryle, Machen, Moo, Morris—for all the differences that exist between those people, there is one common bond—they're men of the Book. Men who read and handle the Word of God with reverence, respect, and understanding.

We're awash in a culture that hates that Book, and hates those who follow it. That hatred is becoming more and more apparent everyday. Even those who are supposedly on the side of the Church are showing more and more how they're not on our side. It seems every time you turn around another wolf is spotted behind a pulpit, hawking "Christian" wares, deceiving the sheep.

There's precisely one way to eliminate the influence of the wolves. One way to survive the hatred—in all the current and upcoming manifestations. Become people of the Book.

We need to read the Book, study the Book, hear the Book preached responsibly every chance we have. We need to spend time with other people of the Book as models and guides—whether we can only know them in print, or if they're across town.

We have to get into the Book and get the Book into us.

A Year with My Children in the Bible

The clan just finished going through this survey of the Bible--sure, it's a day early, but we did double duty so I could be around for the end. Not the greatest survery of the Bible around, I'm sure--but it's pretty good. Spends too little time on some things, too much on others, in my not so humble opinion. But on the whole, sound, balanced, age appropriate (even good for the 'rents). Got my kids thinking about somethings for sure--things I wouldn't have bothered with (but am glad Cromarty did). I know my quiver liked it--they howled like banshees when we discovered a few days were missing in October (I asked Evangelical Press for the text of those days, knowing that was a long shot--that very day they sent a replacement copy, free--that's customer service).

We ended today with the following reading. Great way to finish off.

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away." And he who was seated on the throne said, "Behold, I am making all things new." Also he said, "Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true." And he said to me, "It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment. The one who conquers will have this heritage, and I will be his God and he will be my son. Revelation 21:1-7

Notes from the Sick Ward

Had really planned on a blog-splosion while I was on break. But got fairly distracted by several things around the house, reading for the Winter Term, and now a cold from h-e-double hockey-stick--which has taken out the whole household (tired would probably insert a covenant-head joke here, but it started with the Princess and then moved on to the Kidney Kid, which is a shame, because his joke would be funny).

Took the Kidney Kid in today, got a steroid shot to help his croup. Seems to be working. He's actually sleeping tonight, as is mommy. That's a major plus.

Have gotten some intersting reading done--many books started, none finished yet. Depending how tomorrow goes, I could have a few knocked off. Have got more sleep in the last few days than I have in the last few months. Very strange experience.

Hopefully will have a few things to say in the next couple of days. And next week--since I will have gobs and gobs of stuff to do, expect me to blog about a bazillion words a day.

Sounds & a Sight of the Weekend

Things over heard that brought (and still bring) a smile to my face:
Frodo, yesterday morning, "After breakfast, let's play Mario Baseball." He's very excited about the new videogame. Samwise (poster child for video game addiction). "No, I want to play with my Narnia toys." He would only stop playing with those to open packages and eat. The latter was generally forced.

Scribbler to Princess, "Come here and bring Lalanie [Cabbage Patch Doll]. You need to take the adoption oath. Repeat after me...I promise [something, something]..." Princess just stares at her. Scribbler to Lalanie, "Oh, it's okay, Lalanie, I'll love you." Princess giggles, "Mommy, it's just a doll."

Frodo, thanking everybody, making sure his siblings did, too.

The Kidney Kid, giggling. A lot. And then some more.

Image of the day:
I get a blanket from the inlaws, use it for a minute as a pillow as we're watching something on TV.

Here's the catch--it's still in the original packaging as I do that.

The results? here.

The Application of Christ to the Soul

Of all these great doctrinal things, there still remains one lesson to be learned—-how to apply Christ rightly to your soul. Learn that and you have everything. If you have learned this well, you are a great theologian. For the right application of Christ to the sick soul, to the wounded conscience, and the diseased heart, is the fountain of all our felicity, and the well-spring of all our joy., In order to understand how this application operates (provided that you want Christ in your soul), think of what the presence of your soul within you does to this earthly body, to this lump of clay. It is by the presence of the soul that it lives, moves, and feels. As the soul gives to the body, life, movement, and sensation, so Christ does the very same thing to your soul. Have you ever grasped and applied Him to yourself? As the soul quickens the body, so He quickens the soul, not with an earthly or temporal life, but with the life which He lives in heaven. He makes you live the same life which the angels live in heaven. He makes you move, not with worldly motion, but with heavenly, spiritual and celestial motions. Again, He inspires I you not outward senses, but heavenly senses. He works within you a spiritual feeling, that in your own heart and conscience you may find the effect of His Word. Thus by the conjunction of Christ with my soul, I get a thousand times a greater benefit than the body does by the soul, for the body by the presence of the soul gets only an earthly and temporal life, subject to continual misery, but by the presence of Christ in my soul, I see a blessed life, I feel a blessed life, and that life daily increases in me more and more. Therefore the ground of all our perfection and blessedness consists in this conjunction and so even if you lived as long as Methuselah, and spent your whole life seeking, yet if in the last hour you were to get this conjunction, you would think your labour well worth it, for you would have gained enough. If you have gained Christ, you have gained everything with Him. Thus the applying of Christ to your soul is the fountain of all your joy and felicity.

Now let us see how we get this conjunction. This is a spiritual conjunction, hard and difficult to be acquired or procured. How then is it brought about? What are the means God uses in this conjunction, and what are the means man uses in it in order to get Christ, to put Christ Jesus in our soul, and to make Christ Jesus one with us? There is one means employed on God’s part-—God helps us to get Christ; and another means employed on our part. On the part of God, there is the Holy Spirit, who offers the Body and Blood of Christ to us. On our part there must also be a means employed, or else when He offers, we will not be able to receive. Therefore there be faith to our souls to receive what the Holy Spirit offers, to receive the heavenly food of the Body and Blood of Christ. Thus faith and the Holy Spirit are the two means employed in this spiritual and heavenly conjunction. By these two means, by faith and the Holy Spirit, I receive the Body of Christ--The Body of Christ is mine, and He is given to my soul.

--Robert Bruce
"The Lord's Supper in Particular"

Amen!

Preach it, Brother Frazz!

What the ... ?

When I got in this morning I had an email waiting for me from my wife, subject line simply saying, "WHAT?" And then there was some nonsense about Johnny Damon signing with the Yankees. I was unusually tired, so I didn't bother to go to snopes.com and show she'd fallen for some Internet hoax. Puh-leez. The guy's on record (May of this year, in fact).

But no. Johnny Damon is...(oh this is hard to type)...a...a...(be strong, you can say this) a Yankee.

The man has no arm. How is this an improvement over Bernie? Better at offense. We don't need offense...we need defense! You know, getting the ball from the outfield to the men on base quickly...that kind of thing.

This is a bad move. This is a stupid move. Sure, there's a little "in your face" action for the RS Nation (how'd they become a nation anyway? 1 lousy championship in decades and they're a nation??? Oh wait...the Yankees have an Empire. Never mind) This is all about George, his ego and his checkbook. Sorry Joe, sorry Cash. I know, I just know you weren't behind this. I trust you can pick make some lemonade from this lemon.

Okay, okay, he's a great lead-off hitter. Jeter's great at moving guys over a base. So that's going to make things interesting at the top of the order. Good 1-2 combo. I will not complain about that. But fielding...you gotta be kidding me!

First response at a Yankee messageboard I read from time to time, "Dear *** Noooooo" followed shortly by "It's better than a five year deal" (only four). My favorite response, "instead of 'We're just a bunch of idiots.' he will have to say 'We are just a bunch of consummate professionals.'"

And it's not just Yankee fans saying this, Joy of Sox says:

New York is paying for what Damon was, not what he will be. There can be no doubt that his four years in Boston will turn out to be far more productive than his four in the Bronx.

Damon's the original Idiot, the hirsute anti-Yankee who drilled the grand slam to ice Game 7. Yankee fans hate this guy. Now they have to pretend to like him, just like they're doing with Randy Johnson.

Red Sox Chick opines:

He's a great lead-off hitter. No argument there. But that is pretty much it. Everything else is either bad or annoying and yet the Red Sox fans embraced him. I have a feeling the same won't happen in New York.... Not the team. I mean it's a little lousy for the team...but I'm not worried in that regard. They'll find a centerfielder who can actually throw the ball to the infield.

IMPORTANT NOTE: I got the links to these blogs from my wife's blog. I do not consult these on a regular basis.

Here's what bugs me the most, a few quotes from the new acquisition:

They were coming after me aggressively. We know George Steinbrenner's reputation. [Yeah, heard you say that back in May when discussing your pending Free Agent status. You said you knew they'd come hard and with money and you essentially said "doesn't matter, never gonna happen"]He always wants to have the best players. He showed that tonight. [You arrogant punk!]He and Brian Cashman came after me hard. Now I'm part of the Yankees and that great lineup. We're going to be tough to beat.["We"? "We"? Slow down, kemo sabe. Not sure it's "we" yet. You know how long it took Roger to earn his 'stripes? Took A-Rod longer (some say he hasn't earned 'em yet!) You have no fans in NY. Watch the pronouns, cowboy]

and

Our policy with the Yankees is to go out and win, and we're going to try to bring another championship to them. They haven't had a championship since Chuck Knoblauch was there when they had a great leadoff hitter so I think the leadoff role has been underappreciated. A good leadoff hitter is tough to find and I think New York just found the best leadoff hitter in the game.[Nice bit of analysis re: Knobby--you probably had to pay someone for it, or Cashman told you that little fact. But that kind of pride and aggrandizement belongs in the WWF, not in Yankee stadium. You're a pretty good player amongst some great ones--and in the shadow of greater. Shut up and go tend to your hair-do, caveman]

Ah well, at least I got to read this in a Boston Globe column this morning.

So now your Boston Red Sox have no center fielder, no shortstop, and no first baseman to go along with no Theo Epstein and no clue. It's fair to say this is becoming a winter of discontent in Red Sox Nation. Ben and Jed and Craig and Larry and Tom and John and Crosby, Stills & Nash can spin this anyway they want, but Sox fans can't escape the conclusion that there's chaos at the top. The Josh Beckett trade bought some goodwill and glad tidings, but losing Damon to the Yankees is a devastating blow to the foundation of the Nation.

The Sox won't recover from this one easily. In an already dismal offseason, they've now lost their center fielder and their leadoff hitter. They've also lost a local icon, a rare favorite of teenage girls and fanboy bloggers. Losing Damon hurts them on the field and in the arena of popular opinion. And losing Damon to the Yankees compounds the damage. When Alex Rodriguez got away a couple of years ago, Sox fans were fairly quick to scorn A-Rod and move forward.

Losing Damon won't draw the same reaction. The Idiot center fielder is Johnny Angel with Sox fans and his production in pinstripes will be a personal affront to Red Sox fans around the world.

Schadenfreude may not be nice, but it can be fun.

Prediction: We will get 1-2 good years out of him, and then we'll be right back where we were with Bernie in '04 and '05. The A-Rod deal was over the top (and so far, not really that effective). The Johnson deal was dumb (see this post-season and June-July). This deal was wrong.

A Few Comic Strips for your Perusal

Not sure how many of you read Boondocks, but it's frequently hilarious (and fairly thought provoking). Incidentally, Cartoon Network's new animted show based on the strip is pretty good, too. Anyway, last week's story arch was fantastic: great job showing the unusual mix between Santa and Christ that happens all too easily in our culture: Monday's is a must read; Tuesday's starts to take it in a different direction; Wednesday's is freakishly perceptive--how many kids have this understanding?; Thursday's and Friday's get a bet pedantic; and Saturday's brings us back to Tues. ending the story perfectly.


Partially Clips ("a web comic for grownups")--is usually worth a read, but Ordering Soda is a classic.

And if you haven't stumbled across The Pet Professional yet...give it a look, probably best to start at the beginning.

Big News

Haven't had much to say the last few days, not sure why. But hopefully that'll change over the next few.

When I got home from work tonight (technically, this morning) I had waiting for me some big news. I'm a commissioner to this year's General Assembly of the OPC. [gulp] Downside: another week away from wife and kids. Upside: get to see presbyterianism in action at the broadest level, and get to play my small part. :)

2005 in Review

Back in college I picked up a book by James Lileks, Notes of a Nervous Man or something. Struck me as sort of a poor man's Dave Barry (my estimation at the time). Don't get me wrong, I liked it. A shadow of Barry is still better than just about anything. Anyhow, mostly lost track of him right after that.

Stumbled on to him a time or two since online, but didn't seem to be as funny as that book. But thankfully, Not So Fast pointed me to his year in review for 2005: A 2005 Rollick. Couple of highlights:

Pope John Paul II dies. To the horror of many, his successor turns out to be Catholic.

John Bolton is nominated to be U.S. ambassador to the U.N., despite his moustache.

The 1,587th death in Iraq provokes no major display of eye-catching graphics in the Western media, as it is not a round number.

Harriet Miers is nominated for the Fairfax school board. No, wait—the Supreme Court. ...Miers’s nomination is withdrawn after it is revealed she was actually a cyborg, sent from the future by Karl Rove’s son to revitalize the conservative base. She is disassembled and put in storage.

Just a couple, the rest is well worth reading....

Isn't it Ironic, Don't Ya Think?

McDonald's too tempting for WTO protesters

McDonald's, the very symbol of globalisation, is used to having its windows broken during violent protests at World Trade Organisation (WTO) summits, but not in Hong Kong where one group met for breakfast on Thursday.

O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!

Finished with my Hermeneutics final about an hour ago. Am free to hang out with the family and read what I want 'til Jan. 3 (minus a couple days with the family for travel, etc.).

This term was a lot more draining for me than the last couple--odd, because my responsibilities at church were lessened, my work hours were a little shorter. Oh well. It's over, praise the Lord. Now I can prepare for what's coming.

Will try to blog something more, um, material tomorrow. Sorry cent, know you hate these "this is where I am" posts.