Finding God's Will

I know, it seems like all I do is paste quotations anymore, but figured I owed ya a sampling from the Kilpatrick book.

Evangelicals spend much time and energy trying to find what they call "God's will." God's will is defined as something that God wants very much for your life but that he refuses to share with you directly. Evangelicals believe it is their job to figure out what he is thinking through prayer, fasting, Bible reading and watching The O'Reilly Factor.

Finding God's will is like living with a mute and uncooperative spouse who won't reveal what he or she wants and who is becoming more anxious, angry, and sad by the moment. It can take years to fully ascertain God's will for one's life, and even after it has been discovered, one must still carry it out with a level of uncertainty and a persistent suspicion that one id doing one's own will instead of God's will. In evangelical circles, one is not allowed to have a will. If one discovers that one's will still exists, one must ask God in treacly worship songs for one's will to be overcome and obliterated.

Almost as Handy as The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

But the last thing that would apply are the word's "Don't Panic" in large, friendly letters on the cover. A Field Guide to Evangelicals and Their Habitat by Joel Kilpatrick (whom you know from Lark News: A good source for Christian news) is quite the handy guidebook. The premise is fairly straightforward, and can easily be figured out from the title. It's a very funny satirical introduction to the strange North American creature called the "evangelical."

We're told how to recognize Evangelicals in the wild, what kind of fun they have, how they worship (priceless), how they mate, how they educate their young, etc. It also includes a handy glossary of Evangelical Terms--and of course, the words to Footprints and The Legend of the Sand Dollar. Absolute must have's to understand Evangelicals.

As with all satire, there's some parts that really miss--but there are parts that are direct hits. Overall, it's well worth the time worth several chuckles--and the occasionally out-loud laugh.

It's really best to not read this book straight through. The humor wears a bit thin if you do, actually gets grating. Take it in bits and pieces here and there, and it'll stay fresh.

Oh yeah, if you don't appreciate the humor in Credenda/Agenda--skip this. Kilpatrick's satire isn't as sharp (his tongue is more blunt, not serrated), but while it's not the same style, it is the same genre.

(H/T to kletois for pointing out that my original title was garbledygook)

Evangelism Notes

Not sure if anyone will be intersted, but here's the notes we'll be using for Sunday School today on Evangelism. Drawn a lot of this from Will Metzger's Tell the Truth: The Whole Gospel to the Whole Person by Whole People, probably the best book on evangelism written in the last century or so.

Principles of Evangelism

Humble Boldness
The Christian is to be bold in his witness, in his evangelism, in his living before God and man; because we proclaim the word of the Almighty God. Yet, we are to be humble—for it is only through the grace of God that we are Christians—it is despite who we are, not because of who we are. Colossians 4:5-6: Conduct yourselves wisely toward outsiders, making the best use of the time. Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person.

While 'speaking the truth in love' (Eph. 4:15) must be our objective, this entails commitment. There is more to truth than articulation. Truth demands living and obeying, commitment to Christ and God’s absolute truth. Such a commitment must penetrate and inspire all of our activities, including sometimes asking serious questions, as has been suggested above. The divine model of communication and dialogue is redemptive in nature. The incarnation and death of the Lord Jesus Christ is the outworking of God’s purpose to reconcile men to himself by dealing with their personal sin, which involves the removal of their objective guilt. – Bassam M. Chedid

Principles of Evangelism

The crucial thing to remember in evangelism is the distinction between our responsibility and God’s. Our task is to faithfully present the gospel message by our lives and our lips. Any definition of our task that includes results is confusing our responsibility with God’s prerogative, which is regeneration. Picture a fragile, thin-stemmed wine glass. Now think of a rock the size of a basketball. Imagine lifting that rock and dropping it onto that delicately constructed glass. Shattered. We too will be broken if we try to carry something that only God can carry. We plat and water; God gives the increase (1 Cor. 3:5-9). We may reap—but only when God has brought the grain to maturity. – Will Metzger

Will Metzger draws 5 principles for evangelism from the teaching of Martyn Lloyd-Jones:

1. The supreme object of the work of evangelism is to glorify God, not to save souls.
2. The only power that can do this work is the Holy Spirit, not our own strength.
3. The one and only medium through which the Spirit works is the Scriptures; therefore, we "reason out of the Scriptures" like Paul did.
4. These preceding principles give us the true motivation for evangelisms—a zeal for God and a love for others.
5. There is a constant danger of heresy through a false zeal and employment of unscriptural methods.

The Kind of Person God Uses in Evangelism:
Based on studying 2 Corinthians 4-5, Metzger lists the following characteristics of Paul and his ministry:

• Christian service and witness is based on our calling, not just our gifts. We are a new person of character (4:1).
• As Christians, we don’t lose heart in spite of the spiritual blindness of those we care about or temptations from failure in our personal lives. We don’t resort to deception, pragmatism or water down God’s word (4:2).
• We put the truth (Christ is Lord) up front and speak to the conscience, hoping to be both a mirror for others to see themselves and a window through which they can see Christ (4:3-4).
• Our sight comes from the light that has changes us internally, a knowledge revealed, not figured out by us because we’re smarter or better than others (4:5-6)
• God uses us because we are weak; that therefore any “strength” that others see must come from outside us—from Christ. We have given up a self-centered life to pass on life to others (4:7-12)
• Our newfound belief compels us to express it. Witness is not optional (4:13-15).
• We have a different perspective and look at the present in light of the future (transient vs. permanent). Paradoxically, this makes us ore, not less involved in this world. Also, we now see a reason for suffering (4:16-18).
• We now have confidence and energy because of the resurrection of our body, which lies ahead. We don’t put down roots in this world, for even our body is a tent. We’re aliens and God has made us long for eternity. So we live by faith with our one goal of pleasing God. We love him and fear him. But this fear is the affectionate reverence by which children accommodate themselves to the Father’s will (5:1-15).
• We look at people differently—not with the worlds standards but as Jesus saw them. We are driven to love because we have been loved by Christ. We’ve been re-created and given a mission. We are ambassadors representing our King and speaking what he tells us: “be reconciled to God” (5:16-20).
• Christians not only know the gospel message, they implore people to respond (5:21).

Watch Your Language
As we’ve mentioned before, we want to be careful and not use “Christian-ese”—while this is true of evangelizing in general, it is particularly true with cultists and others who share Biblical terminology. Metzger suggests we have prepared a list of definitions to use in these kinds of conversations. We should use synonyms or a short phrase (not using any of the other words in this list). Start with this list: lost; saved; born again; repent; justified; atonement; righteousness; spiritual; holy; sin; salvation; saving faith; redemption; believe; God; gospel; the finished work of Christ on the cross; receiving Christ.

Other Scriptures to Remember:

• 1 Peter 3:15-16 but in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.
• 2 Timothy 2:23-25 Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth,
• James 3:13-17 Who is wise and understanding among you? By his good conduct let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom. But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth. This is not the wisdom that comes down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice. But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere.

Finished it

It's better written than the last book. But, on the whole...humbug. Not sure if it's a convoluted conspiracy tale wrapped up in an excuse to spout off about religion, or a bunch of religious hooey wrapped up in an excuse to write a convoluted conspiracy tale.

Gonna sit on that one a few days, do think I want to write some about this. Hopefully have something sort of different to offer.

Just Shoot Me Now

Langdon stared at the picture, his horror now laced with fear. The image was gruesome and profoundly strange, bringing with it an unsettling sense of déjà vu. A little over a year ago, Langdon had received a photograph of a corpse and a similar request for help. Twenty-four hours later, he had almost lost his life inside Vatican City. This photo was entirely different, and yet something about the scenario felt disquietingly familiar.

I know the feeling.

Actually, Brown's showing a greater degree of subtlety so far than I thought he was capable. Still, the first few chapters are disquietingly familiar--practically carbon copies of Angels & Demons

(don't worry, after I vent my spleen about the aesthetic problems with this thing, I'll hop on to an extended post about Brown and religion....which, y'know, nobody's doing...)

Morning Diversions

• Following Challies's command, I put down my Coke or coffee and took a look at Prosperity Praise. Then I laughed, I cried, I resisted calling and ordering...
• Kim Riddlebarger once again proved that despite having a messed up eschatology, he is likely the most insightful theological blogger around (esp. see his final point).
• Peter David returns the sliver of hope I had for X3, while the headline (don't read further 'cuz of spoilers) from Harry Knowles took away.
• Can't believe I forgot to link this last week.
• Lastly, can't help but notice no one's stepping up to help me out, c'mon people...where's the love?

Permanently Suspended

Seventeen days later, and I'm finished. In my defense, I also had to prepare for a sermon, some bible study lessons, some Sunday School lessons, and 5 tests. No way should this have taken that long. As Chandler Bing once said, "I feel violated. And not in a good way."

There's this thing in literature, sort of a social contract between readers and writers, called the "suspension of disbelief." It's a willingness of a reader or viewer to suspend his or her critical faculties to the extent of ignoring minor inconsistencies so as to enjoy a work of fiction. For example we all agree to accept that a geek who was bitten by a radioactive spider, becomes a super-strong man who can stick to walls and things so we can enjoy the movie/comic. Or we all agree to accept that a mouse making motor noises could propel a toy vehicle. Or that Amber Valletta could be attracted to Kevin James. Or that William Shakespeare was literate. I could go on.

But this book pushes things too far. Just cannot accept pretty much any of it. It's easier to believe that the Red Sox won the World Series within the last decade than it is to accept this plot. I won't go into details...hate spoilers...but this is a mare's nest of a story line.

And the writing, it has all of the panache and creativity of an episode of Hunter during its last year. From the torturous murder at the beginning to the "sexy" and "funny" scene at the end (if it's ever filmed, Stephen J. Cannell's name has to show up on the screen), it was enough to make me pull my hair out.

Here's a sample of the genius that is Dan Brown:

The Vatican switchboard is located in the Ufficio di Communicazione behind the Vatican post office. It is a relatively small room containing an eight-line Corelco 141 switchboard. The office handles over 2,000 calls a day, most routed automatically to the recording information system.

Tonight, the sole communications operator on duty sat quietly sipping a cup of caffeinated tea. He felt proud to be one of only a handful of employees still allowed inside Vatican City tonight.

Do we need any of those things I underlined? This is a throw-away character. Nothing about him matters and he'll not be seen again after the next page.

Towards the end of page 4 thru the top of page 6, we're treated with a large "info drop" telling us everything we're going to need to know about the protagonist. It's like one of those scenes in Asimov where the newbie to the culture is told by a veteran everything about how a spaceship (or whatever) works. Now that's kind of annoying, but at least there are characters interacting...maybe a little development or something. Here, nothing like that. Just the narrator telling us all sorts of nifty things about Langdon. Maddening.

Oh, and my question from day 1? "How did Dan Brown ever convince someone to publish this trite, tripe-filled, self-indulgent, first draft?" Still no idea. None at all.

And yet again contempt has driven me to a rant, not the review I set out to do. Sorry.

On to The Da Vinci Code--maybe you've heard of it.

oh yeah...SOUL PATROL! SOUL PATROL! SOUL PATROL!

I've Had It!

I need a new nick to chat with...for the past, 9 years or so, I've used a nickname I got back in junior high. However, just reading it, you pronounce it wrong...like with many nicknames, it really only works if you know the original. And I'm sick 'n tired of the jokes about me spelling it wrong, and jokes made based on mis-pronouncing it.

So, I need to discard it...just have no idea with what. Am feeling rather unimaginative right now. So, readers (all 6.4 of you), I'm looking for suggestions--some ideas I've had are: Thornwell, ThisGuy, Zaphod, TVsFrank. Not so sure about any of those. Needs to be 10 letters or less. No use of my real name, s'il vous plaît.

A broad road of liberty and joy

A heart that loves the Lord will leap for joy at the prospect of a day with him. Doesn't a child love to have a day with his father? Of course the worldly will loath giving any time to God. The self-absorbed will regret any day spent in his presence. Without love for God such a requirement will seem narrow and a heavy burden. but for the godly it is a broad road of liberty and joy. There is an entire day each week liberated from my ordinary recreations and labours to serve the lover of my soul and to be with him.

--Walter Chantry

By Popular Demand... (updated)

...and for a limited time only:
My sermon on Hebrews 12:18-29 from last week (for those of you new to this InterWeb thingy: left click to listen, right clock to download).

(okay, it wasn't really popular demand, one guy said, "dude, post it. I'd love to listen."

Yeah, that would've helped...

from The Corner:

GENERAL CONSENSUS [Jonah Goldberg]
Around here is that Bush's speech needed a lot more frickn' cowbell.

...a nation without borders, a nation without a viable conservative party, and a nation without enough cowbell.

Daily Dose of Culture

History and art all at once: The Evolution of Dance



(H/T: My sister and those emailing this around her workplace--which I won't identify so the taxpayers supporting it won't get mad)

Security in Truth

The world, the flesh and hell all conspire by glossing falsehood to seduce us to perdition. A covering is spread upon the grave and the pit, and the ways of sin are adorned with all that can please the eye, fascinate the ear or enchant the heart. Our security against these danger is conviction of the truth. The Word of God, which is preeminently the truth, and in which a truth-loving heart will lead us to rest, dissipates the spell reveals the snare and delivers from the lot. It paints life in its true colours, tares the mask from the face of guilt, disrobes the world of its gorgeous drapery and points to Him who is emphatically the way, the truth and the life. All the rays of moral truth ultimately centre in the Cross of the Redeemer; and we never reach the summit of wisdom until we attain that life which is alike the knowledge of the Father and of His Son Jesus Christ. Every one, says the Saviour, that is of the truth heareth My voice. None perish but those who love darkness rather than light. A deceived heart turns them aside.

--James H. Thornwell

Taking the plunge

Did something today I've never done before. I delivered a sermon with less than a full manuscript--far less, mostly talking points. Dr. Carrick at GPTS (and I understand, Dr, Pipa, too) insists upon it, but is gracious to Homiletics I students, and lets us get away with more. Dabney said (paraphrasing) that preaching isn't reading. That those who read sermons, aren't preaching--no matter how well they may read. Dr. Carrick says an integral part of preaching is "thinking on your feet."

So, today, I studied up, and thought on my feet. Slightly more rambling that I would want, definitely longer than I normally go, but on the whole, not bad for a first time. With less than a minute to go, I drop the last page of notes...2 notes to go, I let it drop figuring I can wing it, and realizing that the last 2 things I had to read on that page really wouldn't be helping me...in fact, the two talking points that I thought would lead me into a self-evident conclusion, weren't going to lead me anywhere, so I just leave the paper down there, and try to come up with a conclusion on the fly. Really thinking on my feet, Dr. Carrick!

And unlike every other time I've mentioned feet in the last year or so, there wasn't intense pain involved. Just a lame-o conclusion.

How could I forget to write a conclusion? Hate just leaving ideas hanging in empty space...

Oh well, it went okay (on the whole). A few very kind people from the congregation today said it was helpful (S.D.G.!!!!) But doubt I'll be posting that audio file anywhere for download :) Can only get better, right?

Cleaning up with GREAT pleasure

I'm probably the only one who cares, but it makes me feel very, very good to wipe out a few items from the current book list:

• Gateway to the Middle Ages: Monasticism by Eleanor S. Duckett
• The Baptism of Disciples Alone by Fred Malone
• Guide to Thomas Aquinas by Josef Pieper

only one of those was worth the effort, only one of those was written by an apparently Christian person, and one makes me think of Dorothy Parker's famous line, "This is not a book to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force."

I'll leave it to you to guess which is which.

Nice post

Of course, I sit through Tuesday's debacle (and I'm not referring to McPhee's laughable collapse), and then last night I miss (due to mlbtv feed issues and a family engagement) this gem! Oh well, rubber game's tonight. I'm going to focus on the fact that Wakefield is 4-5, 3.05 in 17 games at Yankee Stadium and ignore the his 8-12 record with a 4.47 ERA in 40 career games vs. the Bombers.

But that's not why I started this post. While reading the YanksBlog wrap-up, I was struck by a couple of sentences:

Roughly as improbable as Schilling saying the words "no comment."

and

Ortiz gets a leaking hit from the Yankees' patented "Shift for Ortiz but when he hits it to the right he's somehow safe" shift.

Succinct, 100% spot-on, and funny. Wish I could write like that.

Literally laughed out lout...

(which I needed to do after watching Vent, reading Malkin and other political blogs)

Tim Challies points to this in today's A La Carte: You Know You're A Homeschooler When...

Started it for the 2nd Time

Gonna finish it, too. Good distraction from studies--and pretty good motivation to get back to work, 'cuz I sure don't want to spend too long in this thing. Here's what I want to know: How did Dan Brown ever convince someone to publish this trite, tripe-filled, self-indulgent, first draft? Much less a sequel? Angels and Demons is just...bad.

I know, I know, I'm in the minority here. H. C. Contra Mundum, etc. Or people are just going to accuse me of not liking Brown 'cuz I'm religious and therefore am against anyone who's next book is going to be full of pot-shots at Christianity. Sorry, no. I assure you, on my Lolita-loving, Tarantino-adoring, Mark Leyner-relishing, Kevin Smith fan-boy honor--this is just poor writing. Ed Wood wouldn't shoot this stuff.

I had a point when I started this...seem to have lost track of it. So pure is my hatred for this. Guess we'll just chalk this one up to a random venting and move along.

Pop Quiz

I'd put this in the comment section below, but then it hit me that probably no one would read that, so...

First thing…a little tip for anyone who does this kind of thing for their own blog…write the page number somewhere! There’s 30 minutes I’m not getting back…

Anyway, the quotation is from L. M. Grensted’s work A Short History of the Doctrine of the Atonement (incidentally, it's a pretty nice piece of work). Luther has built upon Anselm’s work and Melanchthon and others refine and perfect Luther. "It is here that we first find in a developed form the Penal theory of Atonement." And that’s where Grensted gives us that quote. It’s that concept of the Penal Theory of Atonement that underlies the Augsburg Confession, and is fleshed out and refined in the development of Confessional Protestantism.

In that case, not sure it’s fair to say it’s "missing" things like the active obedience of Christ, so much as it is important to note that such a concept isn’t there.

Han Shot First!

Sure, by the end of the day, every geek's blog in the world will be reporting this, so it won't be news to most of you, but I gotta post this.

(patched together from multiple sources, plagiarism and copyright infringement abounding no doubt)

From September 12th to December 31st of this year, in response to overwhelming demand, Lucasfilm Ltd. and Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment will release attractively priced individual two-disc releases of Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. Each release includes the 2004 digitally remastered version of the movie, as well as the original theatrical edition of the film. That means you'll be able to enjoy Star Wars as it first appeared in 1977, Empire in 1980, and Jedi in 1983.

The original Ewok party! The real cantina band!

That sound in the background is Rusty sobbing uncontrollably.

This just in...

(thanks to fodey.com for the paper)

Public Service Announcement

For some reason my boys weren't reminding me about this three times a week (starting in February) this year, so I'd totally forgotten about this:

If we'd dropped the ball on this, maybe you did, too.

Be sure to drop by your local shop!

Research Help...

Do any of my readers have the tapes to the Sproul vs. MacArthur debate on baptism? I listened to it once--right after it was released on tape, what was that '99? (good to have a reminder that winning a debate isn't necc. a sign that you're right) There's a line Sproul uses early on (as I recall) in his presentation that I'd like to use this week for a paper.

Them's Fightin' Words

What I hope to demonstrate is that the hermeneutical error that establishes infant baptism is also found in dispensationalism, modern-day Theonomy, and a normative view of worship that misunderstands and misrepresents the regulative principle.

--Fred Malone,
The Baptism of
Disciples Alone, p. 2

Obviously, there's not a lot there to chew on--nor am I going to retype his evidence for that assertion. Just thought I'd throw that out there for ya'll to chew on.

Pop Quiz Time

Orthodox, Heterodox, or Heresy? Why? You tell me.

Justice demands the punishment of sin. Therefore the attitude of a just God towards the sinner can only be one of wrath. But if the punishment is endured to the uttermost by One who adequately represents the sinner, justice e is satisfied and God's mercy towards the sinner can have free play. The thought is wholly Godward, and that from the assertion of which the early fathers shrank is now boldly proclaimed. By the death of Christ God's attitude towards man is actually changed. Wrath is transformed to love. Mercy is the result of Calvary, or, at least, is freed by the Cross from the necessity of enforcing the stern obligations of justice.

Mail Call

Don't ya love it when you forget you ordered something and it just shows up in your mailbox out of the blue? Yesterday, in addition to the platinum credit card offers (yeeeeah, right) I received the latest DVD from The Apologetics Group, Marks of a Cult: A Biblical Analysis.

As you see from the cover, apparently mathematics is cultic. As a liberal arts kind of guy, I always not-so-secretly suspected that, but it's good to have proof. Sorry Kletois, Scribbles, and Ministerius Tobeus. :)

As with their Amazing Grace: The History & Theology of Calvinism, the DVD is well made, informative, and just a tad over-produced. They don't spend quite as much time with the graphics and music--or in the uncomfortably long skits--in this DVD. The "Talking Head" experts they had were all top-notch and well used ('tho I think they could've used a little more Dr. White and a little less of a couple of others, but that's just personal preference). Well worth the time to watch--for a good primer on what is a cult, some basic teachings of some of the major cults around us, and some quick Biblical responses.

By the way, for readers in my neck of the woods: inspiration struck me about halfway through watching this yesterday (I was multi-tasking...not shirking too much on the deadline stuff) and our Bible Study voted to watch this starting next week. Giving me a few more hours as I wrap up this term. It's bite-sized enough for the kids who attend to get something out of, and meaty enough for some good discussion for the adults. We will only take 2 weeks on this one, so don't miss out!

Inspired by the Expanding Ones

one of my all time faves:

The Guppy
by Ogden Nash

Whales have calves,
Cats have kittens,
Bears have cubs,
Bats have bittens,
Swans have cygnets,
Seals have puppies,
But guppies just have little guppies.

Ordinary Means for a Great Day

What then is the first key to a Christian family's spiritual health?...Simply, the first and primary key to your family's spiritual health is a commitment to the weekly public worship services of the church. The most important single commitment you have to make to ensure your family's spiritual well-being is to regular, consistent attendance at public worship.

Sound far-fetched? I'll say it even stronger. I have yet to meet a person for whom it could not be said that all of his problems, personal, marital, familial, or vocational would not be solved by such a commitment. I do not believe that the person for whom this is not true exists. By saying so, I do not minimize the seriousness of the problems that people face. Rather I maximize our confidence in the power of the gospel. So I'll say it again: we do not know of anyone of whom it could not be said, if only he were in worship week in and week out, fifty-two weeks a year, year after year, his problems would be basically solved.

More and more I'm convinced that Terry Johnson is 100% right there. I grow in this confidence weekly, if not daily. I see the positive (and negative) proof in my life and the lives of others. I see people, families, souls destroyed by lack of this commitment; and people, families, and souls built up, restored, and made whole--not to mention holy--by this commitment. [N.B. please note he said "services"--that's plural, that's all of 'em]

It's not the programs, it's not the conferences, special speakers, books, events, CDs...it's not the "WOW! Factor." Nothing zippy or dramatic that brings lasting spiritual growth. It's the ordinary stuff.

Ordinary Means. (not ordinary as in dull, ordinary as in normal) Church attendance; the Word read and preached; baptism; the Lord's Supper; prayer; singing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs; fellowship and discipline. The routine, the week-in and week-out work of the Church. That's how Christian people, Christian families, Christian disciples are built.

Yesterday was one of those days that underlined this for me. Highlight of the day was something I'd long prayed for: a new family in our church repented of their former Baptist life and had the remainder of their household baptized. In the morning, our pastor preached a decent sermon (not his best, but decent). In the evening, our seminarian gave our pastor some much needed time off to care for himself and a sick family and delivered an okay exhortation (some improvement there...but far to go). Singing of great songs of the faith. Lots of fellowship--the relaxed chit-chatty kind, the encouraging kind, the iron sharpening iron kind. Sadly, no Lord's Supper this week--that would've sealed it as a perfect day--we're still a 1x a month. But hey, we'll get there...

And now, because of that, I have no doubt that I can get through this many deadline/little sleep/many miles of travel/big stress week without a scratch.

Glory to God for the ways he takes care of His own with the ordinary things.

Evangelical Hypocrisy

Tim Challies nails it. A+ Moves to the top of the class (not a big move for Tim, but still, trying to praise the guy...)

UPDATE: link fixed, thanks travelin'fool

Happy April 15th

"A man condemning the income tax because of the annoyance it gives him or the expense it puts him to is merely a dog baring its teeth, and he forfeits the privileges of civilized discourse. But it is permissible to criticize it on other and impersonal grounds. A government, like an individual, spends money for any or all of three reasons: because it needs to, because it wants to, or simply because it has it to spend. The last is much the shabbiest. It is arguable, if not manifest, that a substantial proportion of this great spring flood of billions pouring into the Treasury will in effect get spent for that last shabby reason."

--Nero Wolfe

Q&A Time

On April 14, 1648 the Westminster Assembly of Divines presented its Catechisms to Parliament.

These two documents are some of the best tools for Christian teaching ever produced since the time of the apostles--probably safe to eliminate "some of" there, come to think of it.

Richard Baxter wrote,

If the Westminster Assembly had done nothing more than produce the Shorter Catechism they would be entitled to the everlasting gratitude of the Christian church...next to the Bible, it was probably the best book in the world.

G. I. Williamson concurs

The Shorter Catechism was the final product of the Assembly and-in my judgment at least-its crowning achievement. The Christian church in nearly two thousand years has produced nothing better than this Catechism, and it has few, if any, equals.

Here's an article I wrote in '03 on the subject of catechesis (back when I was capable of doing more than short blogish things)--didn't spend a lot of time on formatting, etc. So it's kinda ugly.

Big Day

Frodo's moved up from T-Ball this year--now in Machine-Pitch ball. Major step. Had an exhibition game Saturday that displayed how much he has to learn this year. First real game was Monday--that didn't go so well, either.

But tonight...Strike Out in the first (couple of foul tips), RBI Double in the 5th, and a Lead-Off Single in the 6th. 2 Runs scored.

Proud Papa doesn't quiet say enough.

At this rate I'll be a Unitarian in May

Tonight I attended a worship service of a cult, then went to a Wesleyan-Arminian institution, to use their Roman Catholic resources (and a couple of neo-orthodox ones, too) to help me write a paper for my Confessional Presbyterian seminary.

lightness

Lighter day...just editing and reading. Tomorrow is reading, studying and writing, tho. So..ack. (soooo grateful that my inlaws just donated a spare coffee pot to us...ol' reliable gave up the ghost today.) But today, it's all about a couple of easily-made deadlines.

In honor of the lightness of the day, here's some funnies:

• 'bout sums it up...
• Yesterday's Pearls before Swine
• Classic Boondocks on the entertainment value of white people part 1 and part 2
• The Problem with Mnemoic Devices

Not a post on the Lord's Day

ooops...got a little distracted by my devotional reading today...Archibald Alexander's Thoughts on Religious Experience and a nap that got a bit out of control this afternoon. Didn't quite get to the whole switching the Day of Rest post like I'd intended. Very sorry.

Ah well, at least I don't have to deal with another firestorm this week :) (feel free to keep the other going).

BTW, the Alexander book is just what I needed to read. Experimental/Experiential (take your pick), thoughtful, great mix of orthodoxy and orthopraxy, Calvinism with shoe leather. Basically, Alexander is looking at the Christian life--conversion, both in childhood or later--what's it really like? What should we see/not see? What's the nature of regeneration? He sees so clearly the danger and weaknesses of religious movements/practices that were still in their nascent form in his day, and sadly we can now see "all grown up." If only the church (both presbyterian and others) had listened...

Congrats to polymathis!

Sounds like a rough couple of days, but very much worth it.

The Lord's Day: Does God Have to Repeat Himself?

The first objection I heard to a Reformed lesson on the Christian Sabbath/The Lord's Day was, "Y'know, the 4^th commandment is the only one of the Ten Commandments not repeated in the New Testament." I've heard it too many times to count in the 9.5 years since. And of all the objections to the observance of the Day of Rest that I encounter, this is the...well, can't think of a polite way to say this, it's the lamest. It's also very odd that this is generally spouted by the same people that are generally pretty worked up about the posting (or lack thereof) of all 10 in public buildings. Wouldn't it be more consistent for them to slip an ellipsis in between "in vain" and "V. Honor" (maybe ellipses don't look good in marble?)? But I digress...

[sidebar: this is why I love the informal nature of blogs, I don't have to run to my thesaurus to come up with a nice way of saying that idea is vacuous and foundationless. I can just call it lame--and I can ramble at will :) ]

I have a two-fold, un-scholarly response to this "objection." There are probably more that could be given, but these work for me.

1. So what? How many of us parents have ever uttered, "How many times have I told you..."? Once was enough for Ward and June Cleaver, shouldn't it be enough for our Heavenly Father? How many times does God have to say something for it to stick?

For that matter, does this rule apply only to the 10 Commandments? Off the top of my head, I don't remember something like, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth." (Gen 1:28) showing up anywhere after, "The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ..." [feel free to fill up the comments section with evidence that my memory is faulty...I'll gladly eat those words.]

Instead, why don't we just rest on, "the grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever" (Is. 40:8)? And we shouldn't forget, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished" (Matt 5:17-18).

2. Bzzzzt! Sorry, thanks for playing. Are you sure you've read the thing? 'Cuz it's all over the place. Especially in those first few books--y'know the ones with all the red letters.

Jesus spent a whole lot of time correcting misapprehensions regarding the Sabbath, did he not? Why spend all that time doing so, if he was just going to eliminate the whole thing in a couple of years? Why would his apostles bother recording these teachings if they were obsolete by the time they set pen to papyrus? Why does he assert his lordship over the day, when it's time is almost gone?

I just stumbled onto this passage by Iain D. Campbell (while looking for something else) that fits perfectly right here.

But over what is Jesus claiming lordship? Over an Old Testament icon which he was intending to demolish? It makes no sense at all to say that the Sabbath was merely an Old Testament provision, one of the shadows and types which were to be done away in Christ. For Jesus to claim sovereignty over the Sabbath implies that the Sabbath remains under his jurisdiction.

It seems to me that we often fail to do justice to this great statement on the lips of Jesus. How can the Sabbath be altogether dispensed with by Jesus if he is Lord over it? Jesus does not say that he was Lord of the Sabbath, but that he is Lord of the Sabbath! If language means anything, then in Mark 2:28, Jesus is implying the permanent nature of the Sabbath as something over which he, as universal and eternal Son of Man has absolute authority. The day is his, as much now as ever. As long as Jesus continues to be Son of man, he continues to be Lord of the Sabbath.

This is no indication, of course, of which day is to be marked out as the Sabbath in the New Testament age. That has to be established on other grounds. But it is a clear indication of the fact that Jesus has not abrogated the Sabbath--he has not cast it into some Old Testament oblivion. The thinking that suggests that the Sabbath is gone cannot be accommodated with the claim the at Jesus makes here. If he is Lord of the Sabbath, then the Sabbath remains.

Jesus claims Lordship over the day, he attacks the legalistic misapplications of the Law by the Pharisees and other hypocrites. But He keeps the Sabbath. And He expects us to do the same.

One more example of presence of the 4^th Commandment in the New Testament, and I'll call this rant done. Hebrews 4:9 tells us, "So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God." That word translated "Sabbath rest" (sabbatismos) is a nifty little hapax legomenon that shows up in its verb form in the Septuagint, describing observing/keeping the Sabbath. Why use this word, in the middle of a passage about rest where the author had been using katapausis? Dr. Pipa sums it up pretty well:

The uniqueness of the word suggests a deliberate, theological purpose. He selects or coins sabbatismos because, in addition to referring to spiritual rest, it suggests as well an observance of that rest by a "Sabbath keeping." Because the promised rest lies ahead for the New Covenant people, they are to strive to enter the future rest. Yet as they do so, they anticipate it by continuing to keep the Sabbath.

A. W. Pink puts it in starker terms:

Here then is a plain, positive, unequivocal declaration by the Spirit of God. "There remaineth therefore a Sabbath-keeping." Nothing could be simpler, nothing less ambiguous. The striking thing is that this statement occurs in the very epistle whose theme is the superiority of Christianity over Judaism; written to those addressed as "holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling." Therefore, it cannot be gainsaid that Hebrews 4:9 referred directly to the Christian Sabbath. Hence we solemnly and emphatically declare that any man who says there is no Christian Sabbath takes direct issue with the New Testament Scriptures.

Let's repeat that last sentence one more time for emphasis: "Hence we solemnly and emphatically declare that any man who says there is no Christian Sabbath takes direct issue with the New Testament Scriptures."

'nuff said.

(sure, there's a whole lot of issues I left untouched on this topic. This one bit of bombastic turgidity can't cover it all...hopefully I'll get to those sometime.)

at my wit's end

Last night I was looking at how much I have to accomplish in the next 26 days, and it freaked me out. I knew it was all coming, but it crystalized for me then.

I honestly expect to fail. I'm not going to get it all done. But will do what I can to prove myself wrong.

The crunch of deadlines, the horribly realistic prediction, and the dread what of comes after that has left me churlish, testy, and irritable at best. (I won't go into the worst)

Expect this blog to pretty much go into a coma for awhile, except on Sundays--I might throw up a Lord's Day reflection or two (as my restrictive legalistic point of view prevents me from doing my homework)*, I have to curtail my online activity greatly. Not greatly. Almost totally. If you need me, pop off an email, I'll get to you sometime.

Simmer Down Scribbler & SpideyGeek

It's just for a few days for the start of the season...

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)