A couple of days ago I offered a brief summary of post-NT writings (Clement thru Augustine) that expected Jesus' return, the resurrection and judgment in their future. This is a 15 page .doc that I will make available to whomever asks -- by Email, please.
I just discovered an explanation of why they missed it. I hope you'll read it.
While on this subject, here is my observation that when it comes to the Holy Spirit, preterists are no different than futurists:
I find it interesting that preterists (I'm one) make a big deal about who would see the parousia/resurrection/judgment (PRJ) -- recognizing that it was Jesus' generation, not any subsequent (post-70) readers.
Yet, these same preterists, thru the imposition of themselves into the text by assuming the role of antecedent of the second person pronouns, fail to apply the same criteria to the promise of the Holy Spirit:
1) the promises Jesus made in the "upper room" were to the Apostles specifically. Nowhere do we find the same promises being made to disciples in general.
2) the reception of the HS promised in Acts 2:38 was not simultaneous with baptism, as Acts 8:14-18 demonstrates. Reception of the "gift" was thru the "laying on of Apostolic hands."
3) in the "upper room" Jesus explains that the HS would be a temporary (note the use of "little while") substitute for Jesus during his absence -- the 40 years between his ascension and parousia.
4) the HS is absent in the New Jerusalem of Rev 21:10 - 22:5 (the post-PRJ church); a substitute is not necessary since the resurrected church (the kingdom) is in the very presence of Father/Son.
5) subsequent "days to come" saints rely on the past work of the HS as proof of the 1st century events; being in the presence of God continually negates the need for another, temporary non-God/Christ representative.
27 February 2009
25 February 2009
Antecedentitis
While reading McKnight's book (see last blog),
as he introduces his study of women in ministry,
he makes this statement (emphases mine):
My dependence on the Spirit is based on my belief that the Holy Spirit did, in fact, give guidance/remembrance/knowledge to the Apostles and that, in turn, resulted in the writings we have collected together as the New Testament.
as he introduces his study of women in ministry,
he makes this statement (emphases mine):
Here is just one of thousands of examples of a writer/speaker assuming to be the antecedent of Biblical pronouns. No where following these Upper Room words of Jesus to his Apostles is this promise made to any other disciple. This promised "guidance/remembrance/knowledge" was required of the Apostles as they prepared the church for the parousia/resurrection/judgment to come -- in their lifetime.Jesus told us the Spirit would guide us, and this book is an attempt to sketch how that guidance works itself out for many of us. Here are Jesus’ words, which I will quote before we look at the biblical exceptions that provide a map for our guidance: “But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come” (John 16:13).
Do we believe this? I do. Do you? To believe this verse we must have the confidence to strike out in conscious dependence on the Spirit.
My dependence on the Spirit is based on my belief that the Holy Spirit did, in fact, give guidance/remembrance/knowledge to the Apostles and that, in turn, resulted in the writings we have collected together as the New Testament.
How we read the Bible
Jay Guin has been reading this book and offers his review. I was impressed enough to get an Etext copy (see below).
The Blue Parakeet: Rethinking How You Read the Bible
Author: Scot McKnight
Synopsis: The Blue Parakeet is author Scot McKnight’s deeply reasoned, compelling statement of how to read the Bible in a new evangelical generation. In re-examining the Bible, McKnight provides an exciting “Third Way” that appeals to the millions in today’s church who long to be authentic Christians, but don’t consider themselves theologically conservative or liberal.
Available: January 2009
Zondervan has it in hardcover for $19 (+P&H) or Etext for $15
Using McKnight’s categories, Jay expands on each. Click on “Naïve Approaches” for the entire Guin offering.
The Blue Parakeet: Naive Approaches
McKnight suggests that different people take different approaches to taming parakeets.
Retrieval
Some churches read the Bible to retrieve everything that was practiced in the First Century. If the early Christians met in homes, we should do the same. If they enjoyed table fellowship each week, so should we. If they washed feet, so should we. Indeed, some see all commands as perpetual.
Tradition
McKnight suggests that we first must learn to read the Bible “with tradition.” We don’t read the Bible bound by tradition, but neither do we ignore tradition.
Morsels of law
Some of us see the Bible as morsels of law. We sniff around the book looking for commands to obey (and to impose on others), ignoring the boring poems, history, and prophecy. After all, it’s the obedience that matters.
Morsels of blessings and promises
Some of us think the Bible was written to give us a daily emotional lift. We feed ourselves encouraging, positive verses each day, hoping for promises and blessings because of our positive thinking.
Mirrors and inkblots
McKnight writes, “Some people read the Bible as if its passages were Rorschach inkblots.” (page 48). Republicans find trickledown economics. Democrats find gay rights. Legalists find laws. The emotionally needy find emotional comfort.
Puzzling Together the Pieces to Map God’s Mind
Many of us, especially the scholars among us, want to find the system hidden underneath the story and develop a systematic exposition of what God really meant. Hence, we find the Bible reduced to a “pattern” or a systematic theology.
Maestros
Another mistake we often make is to pick one Biblical character and declare him a maestro — the ultimate expert on God’s will — and read all the rest of the Bible through his eyes.
The Churches of Christ
Well, McKnight has pegged us pretty well — and lots of others, too. We are guilty of all of the above, aren’t we?
The Blue Parakeet: Rethinking How You Read the Bible
Author: Scot McKnight
Synopsis: The Blue Parakeet is author Scot McKnight’s deeply reasoned, compelling statement of how to read the Bible in a new evangelical generation. In re-examining the Bible, McKnight provides an exciting “Third Way” that appeals to the millions in today’s church who long to be authentic Christians, but don’t consider themselves theologically conservative or liberal.
Available: January 2009
Zondervan has it in hardcover for $19 (+P&H) or Etext for $15
Using McKnight’s categories, Jay expands on each. Click on “Naïve Approaches” for the entire Guin offering.
The Blue Parakeet: Naive Approaches
McKnight suggests that different people take different approaches to taming parakeets.
Retrieval
Some churches read the Bible to retrieve everything that was practiced in the First Century. If the early Christians met in homes, we should do the same. If they enjoyed table fellowship each week, so should we. If they washed feet, so should we. Indeed, some see all commands as perpetual.
Tradition
McKnight suggests that we first must learn to read the Bible “with tradition.” We don’t read the Bible bound by tradition, but neither do we ignore tradition.
Morsels of law
Some of us see the Bible as morsels of law. We sniff around the book looking for commands to obey (and to impose on others), ignoring the boring poems, history, and prophecy. After all, it’s the obedience that matters.
Morsels of blessings and promises
Some of us think the Bible was written to give us a daily emotional lift. We feed ourselves encouraging, positive verses each day, hoping for promises and blessings because of our positive thinking.
Mirrors and inkblots
McKnight writes, “Some people read the Bible as if its passages were Rorschach inkblots.” (page 48). Republicans find trickledown economics. Democrats find gay rights. Legalists find laws. The emotionally needy find emotional comfort.
Puzzling Together the Pieces to Map God’s Mind
Many of us, especially the scholars among us, want to find the system hidden underneath the story and develop a systematic exposition of what God really meant. Hence, we find the Bible reduced to a “pattern” or a systematic theology.
Maestros
Another mistake we often make is to pick one Biblical character and declare him a maestro — the ultimate expert on God’s will — and read all the rest of the Bible through his eyes.
The Churches of Christ
Well, McKnight has pegged us pretty well — and lots of others, too. We are guilty of all of the above, aren’t we?
24 February 2009
Christians and the Pledge
Here is an offering from a Christian libertarian (what else could a child of God be?). Those of you who have a bumper sticker, Love It or Leave It , on you car need not read further.
Christians and The Pledge of Allegiance
Posted by Greg. Monday, February 16, 2009
The Pledge of Allegiance, which was first introduced in 1892, is the traditional start of the day for most schoolchildren in the USA. I, like many before and following me, have said the pledge literally thousands of times. It is a part of American culture.
Only in recent years have I actually considered the pledge, and what it really means. In this article I would like to share some thoughts about the words and effect of the pledge, and consider whether I, as a libertarian and a Christian, should be reciting them or not. I will not consider the history of the pledge, because that is largely immaterial to the question at hand - whether I should be saying the pledge of allegiance.
My consideration is primarily from a Christian libertarian viewpoint. It is my hope, however, that a non-libertarian Christian will find enough truth in this to be able to agree with my conclusion.
Go here for the body of the essay.
Christians and The Pledge of Allegiance
Posted by Greg. Monday, February 16, 2009
The Pledge of Allegiance, which was first introduced in 1892, is the traditional start of the day for most schoolchildren in the USA. I, like many before and following me, have said the pledge literally thousands of times. It is a part of American culture.
Only in recent years have I actually considered the pledge, and what it really means. In this article I would like to share some thoughts about the words and effect of the pledge, and consider whether I, as a libertarian and a Christian, should be reciting them or not. I will not consider the history of the pledge, because that is largely immaterial to the question at hand - whether I should be saying the pledge of allegiance.
My consideration is primarily from a Christian libertarian viewpoint. It is my hope, however, that a non-libertarian Christian will find enough truth in this to be able to agree with my conclusion.
Go here for the body of the essay.
22 February 2009
NT commandments
I read nearly every day someone claiming that Christians MUST OBEY every command in the NT since the entire NT is the GOSPEL. Over the past year, I've gone thru the four gospel accounts and highlighted every imperative uttered by Jesus. One of these days, I'll reproduce them in some sort of document. In the mean time, here are a few commands in the NT that MUST be obeyed by those who claim that the entire NT is the gospel to be obeyed:
Do you lift up hands in prayer (1 Tim. 2:8)?
Do you call elders to anoint the sick (Jas. 5:13)?
Do you wash disciples’ feet (John 13:12)?
Do you greet with a holy kiss (Rom. 16:16)?
Do you sell all and give to the poor (Mk 10:21)?
Do you invite friends to your feast (Matt. 19:21)?
Do you share all good things (Gal. 6:6)?
Do you sell your coat and buy a sword (Lk. 22:36)?
Do you give to everyone who begs (Lk. 6:30)?
Do you judge not, condemn not (Lk. 6:37)?
Do you pray the Lord’s Prayer (Matt. 6:9)?
Do you desire to prophesy (1 Cor. 14:1)?
Do you pray in the Holy Spirit (Jude 20)?
Of course, we recognize most of these as being occasional. As I wrote the other day, I believe that the entire NT is occasional and must be read that way. When I read a command or note some practice (example) I ask myself if this is for all time or for just the original readers. Yes, I do recognize many as being universal, but NOT because they are written on the page.
Do you lift up hands in prayer (1 Tim. 2:8)?
Do you call elders to anoint the sick (Jas. 5:13)?
Do you wash disciples’ feet (John 13:12)?
Do you greet with a holy kiss (Rom. 16:16)?
Do you sell all and give to the poor (Mk 10:21)?
Do you invite friends to your feast (Matt. 19:21)?
Do you share all good things (Gal. 6:6)?
Do you sell your coat and buy a sword (Lk. 22:36)?
Do you give to everyone who begs (Lk. 6:30)?
Do you judge not, condemn not (Lk. 6:37)?
Do you pray the Lord’s Prayer (Matt. 6:9)?
Do you desire to prophesy (1 Cor. 14:1)?
Do you pray in the Holy Spirit (Jude 20)?
Of course, we recognize most of these as being occasional. As I wrote the other day, I believe that the entire NT is occasional and must be read that way. When I read a command or note some practice (example) I ask myself if this is for all time or for just the original readers. Yes, I do recognize many as being universal, but NOT because they are written on the page.
21 February 2009
Original Sin
I'm indebted to Brent Auvermann (queueball/qb) in Amarillo for directing me to this series on Original Sin which the author denies), a very thought provoking series to say the least. Being neither a psychologist nor theologian there is some therein that is beyond my total comprehension. BUT, it is a fascinating read. If you are not inclined to click thru the nine installments, I have consolodated them into a single HTML file of 346kb which I'll send via Email upon request to duffrdan@sbcglobal.net .
A Must-Read Blog Series
Posted by queueball on 13 February 2009
Dr. Beck has completed it as of Friday morning, and it’s outstanding. It consists of about 10 posts, scholarly but easy to read, on the topic of “original sin.” Those of you who have been intrigued by the intersection of Christian ethics with such things as Peak Oil, biophysical limits, and ecological footprint will find a lot of echoes, and some interesting and tidy synthesis. And not a little provocation, if you’re wedded to a bunch of simplistic notions of sin and atonement.
Start here, and don’t stop until you’ve read them all. They’re that good.
qb
A Must-Read Blog Series
Posted by queueball on 13 February 2009
Dr. Beck has completed it as of Friday morning, and it’s outstanding. It consists of about 10 posts, scholarly but easy to read, on the topic of “original sin.” Those of you who have been intrigued by the intersection of Christian ethics with such things as Peak Oil, biophysical limits, and ecological footprint will find a lot of echoes, and some interesting and tidy synthesis. And not a little provocation, if you’re wedded to a bunch of simplistic notions of sin and atonement.
Start here, and don’t stop until you’ve read them all. They’re that good.
qb
20 February 2009
Presuppositions
Presuppositions certainly color our understanding of any text, certainly the NT. We all have them. 99% of 2nd century and later readers have one presupposition in common: the assumption that the original writing was for OUR benefit and therefore, it is acceptable to assume to be the antecedent of second person, both singular and plural, pronouns (which process I call ANTECEDENTITIS).
Here are just a few examples where ANTECEDENTITIS demonstrates itself:
"You shall not finish going through the cities of Israel, until the Son of Man comes." (Matt. 10:23)
"From now on, you shall be seeing the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven." (Matt. 26:64; Mk. 14:62; Luke. 22:69)
“Now these things …were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.” (I Cor 10:11)
When Christ who is your life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory. (Col 1:4)
“May your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (I Thess 5:23)
“I charge you …that you keep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (I Tim. 6:14)
“You too be patient; strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand.” (James. 5:8)
Most readers understand the following pronouns as being the Apostles:
You are witnesses of these things. And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high. (Luke 24:48,49)
And while staying with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me; for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” (Acts 1:4-8)
When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. 2 And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. 3 And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. (Acts 2:1-4)
But now it gets sticky. Having recognized the 1st century-only application of the preceeding verses, we suddenly impose ourselves into the following texts:
If you love me, you will keep my commandments. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you. (John 14:15-17)
“These things I have spoken to you while I am still with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. (John 14:25,26)
I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you. (John 16:12-15)
And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation. (Acts 2:38-40) Here is application of vs. 38: Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles' hands, he offered them money, saying, “Give me this power also, so that anyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 8:14-19)
O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith— (Gal 3:1-5)
Therefore whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you. (1 Thess 4:8)
I myself am satisfied about you, my brothers, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge and able to instruct one another. (Rom 15:14)
Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, and you are that temple. (1 Cor 3:16,17) These are plurals -- the congregation, not individuals.
There is a lot written about the modern Christian being led by the Spirit. There are only three instances of this:
Others are meant for we subsequent readers only through application of an exegesis built upon “principle” seeking -- such as "lay by in store" and "on the first day of the week when we were gathered together to break bread" and the application of "speaking to one another in psalms, humns and spiritual songs" to some kind of congregational assembly.
Here are just a few examples where ANTECEDENTITIS demonstrates itself:
"You shall not finish going through the cities of Israel, until the Son of Man comes." (Matt. 10:23)
"From now on, you shall be seeing the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven." (Matt. 26:64; Mk. 14:62; Luke. 22:69)
“Now these things …were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.” (I Cor 10:11)
When Christ who is your life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory. (Col 1:4)
“May your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (I Thess 5:23)
“I charge you …that you keep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (I Tim. 6:14)
“You too be patient; strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand.” (James. 5:8)
Most readers understand the following pronouns as being the Apostles:
You are witnesses of these things. And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high. (Luke 24:48,49)
And while staying with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me; for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” (Acts 1:4-8)
When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. 2 And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. 3 And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. (Acts 2:1-4)
But now it gets sticky. Having recognized the 1st century-only application of the preceeding verses, we suddenly impose ourselves into the following texts:
If you love me, you will keep my commandments. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you. (John 14:15-17)
“These things I have spoken to you while I am still with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. (John 14:25,26)
I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you. (John 16:12-15)
And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation. (Acts 2:38-40) Here is application of vs. 38: Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles' hands, he offered them money, saying, “Give me this power also, so that anyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 8:14-19)
O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith— (Gal 3:1-5)
Therefore whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you. (1 Thess 4:8)
I myself am satisfied about you, my brothers, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge and able to instruct one another. (Rom 15:14)
Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, and you are that temple. (1 Cor 3:16,17) These are plurals -- the congregation, not individuals.
There is a lot written about the modern Christian being led by the Spirit. There are only three instances of this:
Luke 4:1 And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness
Romans 8:14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.
It is certainly true that those 1st century Christians were led by the Spirit because they were sons. We must be very careful to universalize this -- as we saw in Acts 8, there were sons of God who were NOT led by the Spirit. It seems clear to me that the leading of the Spirit was just another sign/wonder of Spirit possession.
Galatians 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
This is an unfortunate printing of Paul's text. The translators clearly see this as a Holy Spirit passage, but I firmly believe that it is not. See my earlier post: The Christian and His Fruit
Many other scriptures to those 1st century Christians are clearly not meant for subsequent Christians.Others are meant for we subsequent readers only through application of an exegesis built upon “principle” seeking -- such as "lay by in store" and "on the first day of the week when we were gathered together to break bread" and the application of "speaking to one another in psalms, humns and spiritual songs" to some kind of congregational assembly.
12 February 2009
Darwin's birthday
Putting aside comments on Lincoln, I direct your attention to Darwin. Here is an essay by my favorite atheist, Fred Reed, that discloses many of the weaknesses of natural selection evolution:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed27.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed27.html
11 February 2009
Video Games and Eternity
I do spend a lot of time playing Freecell and 42 (the single best simulation I've ever seen).
This is causing much soul-searching. How 'bout you?
Video Games and Eternity
Thursday, Feb 5, 2009
(By Austin Duncan)
Today's post is excerpted from our new staff book, Right Thinking in a World Gone Wrong. It is taken from Austin's chapter giving a pastoral perspective on video games.
From the most complex games to solitaire on your cell phone, games take time. Much of what can be said about video games in this regard could also be applied to other aspects of electronic entertainment—such as blogging, watching television, and surfing the internet. When large amounts of time each day are devoted to these activities, it means that in fact large portions of life are being wasted. Regarding television in particular, John Piper says this, “No one will ever want to say to the Lord of the universe five minutes after death, I spent every night playing games and watching clean TV with my family because I loved them so much. . . . Television is one of the greatest life-wasters of the modern age” (Don't Waste Your Life, 119-120). The same could easily be said about video games.
Due to their computerized complexity, today’s video games often require days to master and weeks to beat. A game that only costs forty or fifty dollars to purchase may actually cost hundreds of hours in wasted time. In many games, the player’s character develops as he advances through the virtual storyline, becoming more skilled and better equipped. Yet, players themselves gain little more than carpel tunnel symptoms and an otherwise useless knowledge of fictional weaponry.
Time invested in such pursuits is lost, and cannot be reused for things that matter. Hours that could be spent working, praying, reading, serving, fellowshipping, evangelizing, or just thinking, are instead wasted on activities that have no lasting value. God’s Word teaches us that time is precious (Ps. 90:12; cf. 39:4–5). Using it wisely is an issue of good stewardship. We must not forget that our lives are not our own, we belong to Christ (1 Cor. 6:20). When we waste time consistently, a few hours each day, we waste the very lives we have dedicated to Christ.
One of the central themes of the book of Ephesians is the “walk” of the believer. It is a metaphor the apostle Paul used to represent living. Believers are to walk in good works (Eph 2:10), in love (5:1–5), in holiness (5:6–13), and in a way consistent with their calling (4:1–16). They are also to walk in a way that is purposeful and wise. Paul writes this, “Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, making the best use of the time, because the days are evil. Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is.” (Eph 5:15–17). Paul’s point here is not strictly about time management (in terms of better scheduling), but life management (in terms of making the most of every opportunity to honor, serve, and worship God). The one who walks wisely will view his or her limited time in this life in light of eternity, taking advantage of every opportunity to bring glory to God.
Back to Pulpit Magazine Index
This is causing much soul-searching. How 'bout you?
Video Games and Eternity
Thursday, Feb 5, 2009
(By Austin Duncan)
Today's post is excerpted from our new staff book, Right Thinking in a World Gone Wrong. It is taken from Austin's chapter giving a pastoral perspective on video games.
From the most complex games to solitaire on your cell phone, games take time. Much of what can be said about video games in this regard could also be applied to other aspects of electronic entertainment—such as blogging, watching television, and surfing the internet. When large amounts of time each day are devoted to these activities, it means that in fact large portions of life are being wasted. Regarding television in particular, John Piper says this, “No one will ever want to say to the Lord of the universe five minutes after death, I spent every night playing games and watching clean TV with my family because I loved them so much. . . . Television is one of the greatest life-wasters of the modern age” (Don't Waste Your Life, 119-120). The same could easily be said about video games.
Due to their computerized complexity, today’s video games often require days to master and weeks to beat. A game that only costs forty or fifty dollars to purchase may actually cost hundreds of hours in wasted time. In many games, the player’s character develops as he advances through the virtual storyline, becoming more skilled and better equipped. Yet, players themselves gain little more than carpel tunnel symptoms and an otherwise useless knowledge of fictional weaponry.
Time invested in such pursuits is lost, and cannot be reused for things that matter. Hours that could be spent working, praying, reading, serving, fellowshipping, evangelizing, or just thinking, are instead wasted on activities that have no lasting value. God’s Word teaches us that time is precious (Ps. 90:12; cf. 39:4–5). Using it wisely is an issue of good stewardship. We must not forget that our lives are not our own, we belong to Christ (1 Cor. 6:20). When we waste time consistently, a few hours each day, we waste the very lives we have dedicated to Christ.
One of the central themes of the book of Ephesians is the “walk” of the believer. It is a metaphor the apostle Paul used to represent living. Believers are to walk in good works (Eph 2:10), in love (5:1–5), in holiness (5:6–13), and in a way consistent with their calling (4:1–16). They are also to walk in a way that is purposeful and wise. Paul writes this, “Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, making the best use of the time, because the days are evil. Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is.” (Eph 5:15–17). Paul’s point here is not strictly about time management (in terms of better scheduling), but life management (in terms of making the most of every opportunity to honor, serve, and worship God). The one who walks wisely will view his or her limited time in this life in light of eternity, taking advantage of every opportunity to bring glory to God.
Back to Pulpit Magazine Index
Bood recommendation
Here is a thouroughly delightful book about a 7th grader who is hated by his teacher and his 16-year old sister. Check out this review then get it from your library:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/books/review/Stone-t.html
Happy reading.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/books/review/Stone-t.html
Happy reading.
Lincoln and the Constitution
Here is my last post on Lincoln -- his trashing of the Constitution.
The Mythical Lincoln
by Thomas J DiLorenzo
Every February 12 Americans think they are celebrating Lincoln’s birthday. But what they are really celebrating is the birth of the Leviathan state that Lincoln, more than anyone else, is responsible for bringing about. No wonder federal politicos have made his birth date a national holiday, engraved his face is on Mount Rushmore, built a Venus-like statue of him in Washington, D.C., and put his mugshot on the five dollar bill.
More than 130 years of government propaganda has hidden this fact from the American people by creating a Mythical Lincoln that never existed. Take, for instance, the fact that everyone supposedly knows – that Lincoln was an abolitionist. This would be a surprise to the preeminent Lincoln scholar, Pulitzer prize-winning Lincoln biographer David Donald, who in his 1961 book, Lincoln Reconsidered, wrote that "Lincoln was not an abolitionist." And he wasn’t. He was glad to accept on behalf of the Republican Party any votes from abolitionists, but real abolitionists despised him. William Lloyd Garrison, the most prominent of all abolitionists, concluded that Lincoln "had not a drop of anti-slavery blood in his veins."
Garrison knew Lincoln well. He knew that Lincoln stated over and over again for his entire adult life that he did not believe in social or political equality of the races, he opposed inter-racial marriage, supported the Illinois constitution’s prohibition of immigration of blacks into the state, once defended in court a slaveowner seeking to retrieve his runaway slaves but never defended a runaway, and that he was a lifelong advocate of colonization – of sending every last black person in the U.S. to Africa, Haiti, or central America – anywhere but in the U.S.
Garrison and other abolitionists were also keenly aware that the January 1863 Emancipation Proclamation freed no one since it specifically exempted all the areas that at the time were occupied by federal armies. That is, all areas where slaves could actually have been freed.
Historians have portrayed the Mythical Lincoln as a man who brooded for decades over how he could someday free the slaves. Nothing could be more absurd. According to Roy Basler, the editor of Lincoln’s Collected Works, Lincoln never even mentioned slavery in a speech until 1854, and even then, says Basler, he was not sincere.
When Lincoln first entered state politics in 1832 he announced that he was doing so for three reasons: To help enact the Whig Party agenda of protectionist tariffs, corporate welfare subsidies for railroad and canal-building corporations ("internal improvements"), and a government monopolization of the nation’s money supply. "My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman’s dance," he declared: "I am in favor of a national bank . . . the internal improvements system, and a high protective tariff." He was a devoted mercantilist, and remained so for his entire political life. He was single-mindedly devoted to Henry Clay and his political agenda (mentioned above), which Clay called "The American System."
Lincoln once announced that his career ambition was not to free the slaves but to become "the DeWitt Clinton of Illinois." DeWitt Clinton was the governor of New York in the early nineteenth century who is credited with having introduced the spoils system to America and supervising the building of the Erie Canal (which became defunct in a mere ten years because of the invention of the railroad).
Moreover, Lincoln destroyed the most important principle of the Declaration – the principle that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Southerners no longer consented to being governed by Washington, D.C. in 1860, and Lincoln put an end to that idea by having his armies slaughter 300,000 of them, including one out of every four white males between 20 and 40. Standardizing for today’s population, that would be the equivalent of around 3 million American deaths, or roughly 60 times the number of Americans who died in Vietnam.
As H.L. Mencken said of the Gettysburg Address, in which Lincoln absurdly claimed that Northern soldiers were fighting for the cause of self determination ("that government of the people . . . should not perish . . .": "It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. The Confederates went into the battle free; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision of the rest of the country."
Another Lincoln myth was that he "saved the Constitution." But this claim is an outrage considering that Lincoln acted like a dictator for the duration of his administration and showed nothing but bitter contempt for the Constitution. Even Lincoln’s idolaters, like historian Clinton Rossiter, author of the book, Constitutional Dictatorship, referred to him as a "great dictator" who had an "amazing disregard for the Constitution . . . that was considered by nobody as legal."
The Dictator Lincoln invaded the South without the consent of Congress, as called for in the Constitution; declared martial law; blockaded Southern ports without a declaration of war, as required by the Constitution; illegally suspended the writ of habeas corpus; imprisoned without trial thousands of Northern anti-war protesters, including hundreds of newspaper editors and owners; censored all newspaper and telegraph communication; nationalized the railroads; created three new states without the consent of the citizens of those states in order to artificially inflate the Republican Party’s electoral vote; ordered Federal troops to interfere with Northern elections to assure Republican Party victories; deported Ohio Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham for opposing his domestic policies (especially protectionist tariffs and income taxation) on the floor of the House of Representatives; confiscated private property, including firearms, in violation of the Second Amendment; and effectively gutted the Tenth and Ninth Amendments as well.
As Dean Sprague correctly pointed out in Freedom Under Lincoln, all of these dictatorial acts were bad enough, but their real, long-term effect was to "lay the groundwork" for such unprecedented acts of coercion as military conscription and income taxation.
Hundreds of books have been written about Lincoln the humanitarian, a soft and gentle man. But from the very beginning of his administration he intentionally waged a cruel and unbelievably bloody war on civilians as well as soldiers. As early as 1861, Federal soldiers looted, pillaged, raped and plundered their way through Virginia and other Southern states, completely burning to the ground the towns of Jackson and Meridian, Mississippi, Randolph, Tennessee, and others. Historian Jeffrey Rogers Hummel estimates that some 50,000 Southern civilians were killed during the war, and this number, even if it is exaggerated by a multiple of two, most likely includes thousands of slaves. In his March to the Sea, General William Tecumseh Sherman boasted of having destroyed $100 million in private property and that his "soldiers" carried home another $20 million worth.
In his memoirs Sherman wrote that when he met with Lincoln after his March to the Sea was completed, Lincoln was eager to hear the stories of how thousands of Southern civilians, mostly women, children, and old men, were plundered, sometimes murdered, and rendered homeless. Lincoln, according to Sherman, laughed almost uncontrollably at the stories. Even Sherman biographer Lee Kennett, who writes very favorably of the general, concluded that had the Confederates won the war, they would have been "justified in stringing up President Lincoln and the entire Union high command for violation of the laws of war, specifically for waging war against noncombatants."
Henry Clay’s American System had been vetoed as unconstitutional by virtually every president beginning with James Madison. But as soon as Lincoln took office, with the Southern Democrats absent from Congress, it was finally put into place, literally at gunpoint. In 1857 the average tariff rate was 15 percent, according to Frank Taussig’s classic, A Tariff History of the United States. The Morrill Tariff more than tripled that rate to 47 percent and it remained at that level for decades.
The National Currency Acts nationalized the banking system, finally, and lavish subsidies to railroad-building corporations generated the corruption and scandals of the Grant administrations, just as Southern statesmen had predicted for decades. Income taxation was introduced for the first time, along with an internal revenue bureaucracy that has never diminished in size. All of these policies put a great centralizing force into motion and were the genesis of the centralized, despotic state that Americans labor under today.
The biggest cost of the Lincoln’s war was the death of federalism and states’ rights, the value of which was expressed by John C. Calhoun several decades earlier when he said: "The great conservative principle of our system is in the people of the States, as parties to the Constitutional compact, and our opponents that it is in the supreme court . . . . Without a full practical recognition of the rights and sovereignty of the States, our union and liberty must perish." And they did.
February 12, 2002
The Mythical Lincoln
by Thomas J DiLorenzo
Every February 12 Americans think they are celebrating Lincoln’s birthday. But what they are really celebrating is the birth of the Leviathan state that Lincoln, more than anyone else, is responsible for bringing about. No wonder federal politicos have made his birth date a national holiday, engraved his face is on Mount Rushmore, built a Venus-like statue of him in Washington, D.C., and put his mugshot on the five dollar bill.
More than 130 years of government propaganda has hidden this fact from the American people by creating a Mythical Lincoln that never existed. Take, for instance, the fact that everyone supposedly knows – that Lincoln was an abolitionist. This would be a surprise to the preeminent Lincoln scholar, Pulitzer prize-winning Lincoln biographer David Donald, who in his 1961 book, Lincoln Reconsidered, wrote that "Lincoln was not an abolitionist." And he wasn’t. He was glad to accept on behalf of the Republican Party any votes from abolitionists, but real abolitionists despised him. William Lloyd Garrison, the most prominent of all abolitionists, concluded that Lincoln "had not a drop of anti-slavery blood in his veins."
Garrison knew Lincoln well. He knew that Lincoln stated over and over again for his entire adult life that he did not believe in social or political equality of the races, he opposed inter-racial marriage, supported the Illinois constitution’s prohibition of immigration of blacks into the state, once defended in court a slaveowner seeking to retrieve his runaway slaves but never defended a runaway, and that he was a lifelong advocate of colonization – of sending every last black person in the U.S. to Africa, Haiti, or central America – anywhere but in the U.S.
Garrison and other abolitionists were also keenly aware that the January 1863 Emancipation Proclamation freed no one since it specifically exempted all the areas that at the time were occupied by federal armies. That is, all areas where slaves could actually have been freed.
Historians have portrayed the Mythical Lincoln as a man who brooded for decades over how he could someday free the slaves. Nothing could be more absurd. According to Roy Basler, the editor of Lincoln’s Collected Works, Lincoln never even mentioned slavery in a speech until 1854, and even then, says Basler, he was not sincere.
When Lincoln first entered state politics in 1832 he announced that he was doing so for three reasons: To help enact the Whig Party agenda of protectionist tariffs, corporate welfare subsidies for railroad and canal-building corporations ("internal improvements"), and a government monopolization of the nation’s money supply. "My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman’s dance," he declared: "I am in favor of a national bank . . . the internal improvements system, and a high protective tariff." He was a devoted mercantilist, and remained so for his entire political life. He was single-mindedly devoted to Henry Clay and his political agenda (mentioned above), which Clay called "The American System."
Lincoln once announced that his career ambition was not to free the slaves but to become "the DeWitt Clinton of Illinois." DeWitt Clinton was the governor of New York in the early nineteenth century who is credited with having introduced the spoils system to America and supervising the building of the Erie Canal (which became defunct in a mere ten years because of the invention of the railroad).
Moreover, Lincoln destroyed the most important principle of the Declaration – the principle that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Southerners no longer consented to being governed by Washington, D.C. in 1860, and Lincoln put an end to that idea by having his armies slaughter 300,000 of them, including one out of every four white males between 20 and 40. Standardizing for today’s population, that would be the equivalent of around 3 million American deaths, or roughly 60 times the number of Americans who died in Vietnam.
As H.L. Mencken said of the Gettysburg Address, in which Lincoln absurdly claimed that Northern soldiers were fighting for the cause of self determination ("that government of the people . . . should not perish . . .": "It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. The Confederates went into the battle free; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision of the rest of the country."
Another Lincoln myth was that he "saved the Constitution." But this claim is an outrage considering that Lincoln acted like a dictator for the duration of his administration and showed nothing but bitter contempt for the Constitution. Even Lincoln’s idolaters, like historian Clinton Rossiter, author of the book, Constitutional Dictatorship, referred to him as a "great dictator" who had an "amazing disregard for the Constitution . . . that was considered by nobody as legal."
The Dictator Lincoln invaded the South without the consent of Congress, as called for in the Constitution; declared martial law; blockaded Southern ports without a declaration of war, as required by the Constitution; illegally suspended the writ of habeas corpus; imprisoned without trial thousands of Northern anti-war protesters, including hundreds of newspaper editors and owners; censored all newspaper and telegraph communication; nationalized the railroads; created three new states without the consent of the citizens of those states in order to artificially inflate the Republican Party’s electoral vote; ordered Federal troops to interfere with Northern elections to assure Republican Party victories; deported Ohio Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham for opposing his domestic policies (especially protectionist tariffs and income taxation) on the floor of the House of Representatives; confiscated private property, including firearms, in violation of the Second Amendment; and effectively gutted the Tenth and Ninth Amendments as well.
As Dean Sprague correctly pointed out in Freedom Under Lincoln, all of these dictatorial acts were bad enough, but their real, long-term effect was to "lay the groundwork" for such unprecedented acts of coercion as military conscription and income taxation.
Hundreds of books have been written about Lincoln the humanitarian, a soft and gentle man. But from the very beginning of his administration he intentionally waged a cruel and unbelievably bloody war on civilians as well as soldiers. As early as 1861, Federal soldiers looted, pillaged, raped and plundered their way through Virginia and other Southern states, completely burning to the ground the towns of Jackson and Meridian, Mississippi, Randolph, Tennessee, and others. Historian Jeffrey Rogers Hummel estimates that some 50,000 Southern civilians were killed during the war, and this number, even if it is exaggerated by a multiple of two, most likely includes thousands of slaves. In his March to the Sea, General William Tecumseh Sherman boasted of having destroyed $100 million in private property and that his "soldiers" carried home another $20 million worth.
In his memoirs Sherman wrote that when he met with Lincoln after his March to the Sea was completed, Lincoln was eager to hear the stories of how thousands of Southern civilians, mostly women, children, and old men, were plundered, sometimes murdered, and rendered homeless. Lincoln, according to Sherman, laughed almost uncontrollably at the stories. Even Sherman biographer Lee Kennett, who writes very favorably of the general, concluded that had the Confederates won the war, they would have been "justified in stringing up President Lincoln and the entire Union high command for violation of the laws of war, specifically for waging war against noncombatants."
Henry Clay’s American System had been vetoed as unconstitutional by virtually every president beginning with James Madison. But as soon as Lincoln took office, with the Southern Democrats absent from Congress, it was finally put into place, literally at gunpoint. In 1857 the average tariff rate was 15 percent, according to Frank Taussig’s classic, A Tariff History of the United States. The Morrill Tariff more than tripled that rate to 47 percent and it remained at that level for decades.
The National Currency Acts nationalized the banking system, finally, and lavish subsidies to railroad-building corporations generated the corruption and scandals of the Grant administrations, just as Southern statesmen had predicted for decades. Income taxation was introduced for the first time, along with an internal revenue bureaucracy that has never diminished in size. All of these policies put a great centralizing force into motion and were the genesis of the centralized, despotic state that Americans labor under today.
The biggest cost of the Lincoln’s war was the death of federalism and states’ rights, the value of which was expressed by John C. Calhoun several decades earlier when he said: "The great conservative principle of our system is in the people of the States, as parties to the Constitutional compact, and our opponents that it is in the supreme court . . . . Without a full practical recognition of the rights and sovereignty of the States, our union and liberty must perish." And they did.
February 12, 2002
10 February 2009
Celebration of Abe LIncoln
I am thankful for a 6th grade teacher who, contrary to the state provided text books, told us about the real Lincoln -- a near-rabid racist. Here is an essay that tells part of the true story of that "fabled" president -- fable indeed!
No other American story is so enduring.
No other American story is so comforting.
No other American story is so false.
-- Lerone Bennett, Forced Into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream.
Mr. Lincoln The Racist by Al Benson Jr.
It is amazing to see how many blacks today continue to revere the
memory of Abraham Lincoln as though he had actually done something for them. Of
course many whites do the same thing. In fact, there is an entire cottage
industry operating nowadays, consisting of people, many of whom are academics,
whose entire goal in life seems to be the attempted beatification of "Saint
Abraham." Most of this foolishness is due to the fact that, in our government
schools, we have been taught a laughable, shoddy imitation of history. The facts
must never be allowed to get in the way of the fantasy.
Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation is a dubious document that has been
widely touted as having "freed the slaves." It didn't. It was aimed at the
slaves in Confederate territory where Lincoln had no legal authority. Slaves in
both states and territory controlled by Mr. Lincoln's dictatorial regime
remained firmly in bondage until the 13th Amendment freed them, several months after Mr. Lincoln's demise. Even Lincoln, himself, admitted the proclamation was a war measure and probably would not have passed any sort of constitutional muster. So who did it really free? No one, that's who. It was never intended to "free"
anyone. It was excellent propaganda and that was it. Period!
Several years ago, columnist Joseph Sobran wrote (http://www.sobran.com/columns/2002/020117.shtml):"When Lincoln finally did grab the slavery issue in 1854, he again followed (Henry) Clay in advocating gradual emancipation, combined with a program of colonization--resettling former slaves outside of the United States. He expressly opposed political and social equality for Negroes in this country. They should be equal all right, but not here...Lincoln's segregationist views are soft-peddled, shrugged off, explained away, or simply ignored...the Fantasy Lincoln must be maintained at all costs."
And this is exactly what many establishment scholars today do. They maintain the
cottage industry that promotes the "Fantasy Lincoln" while conveniently ignoring
his racist views--views they seem to find abhorant in anyone else yet perfectly alright in Mr. Lincoln.
So far as Lincoln's overt racism, let us go right to the horse's mouth
as it were, and find out what the great emancipator said himself. In the
Lincoln-Douglas debates, which took place in 1858, while debating in Ottowa, Illinois on August 21st of that year, Mr. Lincoln stated, quite plainly, that:
Lest one be tempted to think that this Lincolnian sentiment was a mere abberation, a slip of the tongue on his part, let's note Lincoln's comments in his speech at Charleston, Illinois on September 18, 1858. Here, dealing again with the same question, Lincoln said:"I have no disposition to introduce political and social equality between
the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two,
which in my judgment will probably forever forbid their living together on
terms of respect, social and political equality, and inasmuch as it becomes
a necessity that there should be a superiority somewhere, I, as well as
Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior
position;"
"I will say then, that I am not nor have ever been in favor of bringing about in
any way, the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I
am not, nor have I ever been in favor of making voters of the negroes, or
jurors, or qualifying them to hold office, or having them to marry with white
people...there must be the position of superior and inferior, that I as much as
any other man am in favor of the superior position being assigned to the white
man."
And he repeated, again, this exact same sentiment in the debate in Quincy,
Illinois on October 13th. You do have to admit that Mr. Lincoln's racism
did remain constant.
When I read about all the Northern (and some Southern) liberals that so
deftly condemn Southern folks for their racism, I often wonder why they seem to
forget to condemn Mr. Lincoln for his racism. And why do they conveniently
forget to condemn the North for its racist attitudes--because the North had them
every bit as much as did the South. Why is Southern "guilt" to be pointed out
and exclaimed over while Northern "guilt" for the same "crime" is simply
ignored? You don't supposed there is just a teeny bit of anti-Southern bias
among the liberals and their court historians do you? Naw--that could never
happen--could it???
Professor Thomas DiLorenzo, in his excellent book The Real Lincoln noted that:
"The Republican Party, led by Lincoln, was in favor of Southern slavery because
its leaders feared the spectacle of emancipated slaves residing in their own
Northern states. Lincoln's own state of Illinois had recently amended its
constitution to prohibit the emigration of black people into the state, as had
several other Northern states. Most Northern states had adopted Black Codes that
discriminated in the most inhumane ways against freed blacks. Such
discriminatory laws existed in the North decades before they were adopted in the
South. There were very few blacks in the North in 1861, and most Northern voters
wanted it to remain that way."
Black Codes in the North for decades before the South adopted them? Wonder
why your "history" book never mentioned that. I never read about that when I
went to school. Maybe they sort of forgot to put it in my history book. You say
it wasn't in your's either? Oh my!
So most black folks as well as the white liberal race-baiters continue to pay
homage to a man that displayed all the habitual racial attitudes they claim to
hate in all the rest of us--but, somehow, in the sainted Mr. Lincoln, it's all
forgivable. Do you detect, ever so slightly, just a bit of a double standard
here?
More about the real Lincoln:
http://albensonjr.com/mrlincolnthesocialist.shtml
http://albensonjr.com/mrlincolntheinfidel.shtml
End
09 February 2009
Great movie for all
As a longtime fan of Sidney Poitier, I ordered an unknown (to me) title from Netflix:
The Simple Life of Noah Dearborn.
He and the supporting case are wonderful.
This is a film for lthe entire family.
Dan
The Simple Life of Noah Dearborn.
He and the supporting case are wonderful.
This is a film for lthe entire family.
Dan
07 February 2009
Jesus' religion
It's a sad fact that most students of the Bible are totally ignorant of what happened between Malachi and Jesus. Those 400 or so years produced great changes in how Jews practiced their religion. These changes are accessable to all in the extant writings from that period. Here is a short essay on the significance of the history and literature:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/tgc-documents/journal-issues/15.3_Beckwith.pdf
http://s3.amazonaws.com/tgc-documents/journal-issues/15.3_Beckwith.pdf
06 February 2009
Nature of Scripture
While reading the many comments to the iMonk blog I came across these two contributions that pretty much sum up my view of scripture:
The Bible is, according to Barclay---
“I. A faithful historical account of the actings of God’s people in divers ages; with many singular and remarkable providences attending them.
II. A prophetical account of several things, whereof some are already past, and some yet to come. [of course, as a preterist I believe that all HAS happened - Dan]
III. A full and ample account of all the chief principles of the doctrine of Christ, held forth in divers precious declarations, exhortations and sentences, which, by the moving of God’s Spirit, were at several times, and upon sundry occasions, spoken and written unto some churches and their pastors.Nevertheless, because they are only a declaration of the fountain, and not the fountain itself, therefore they are not to be esteemed the principal ground of all Truth and knowledge, nor yet the adequate primary rule of faith and manners”
Robert Barclay, Apology, Third Proposition
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here is a comparative analogy for how God reveals himself to the world and one that I believe makes the obsessive need to believe in Biblical innerancy seem odd. Nearly all Christians would agree God uses human men and women to make Himself known to others. Likewise, most would readily acknowledge the depth of imperfection in those same people. If God is able to use imperfect people to reveal himself, why would he be limited by a less than perfect Bible? By less than perfect, I simply one that is not inerrant as commonly defined. The demand for this kind of innerancy easily leads to honoring (or making an idol of)the book before Christ. The scripture itself becomes a means by which we shield ourselves from the living presence of God. In a well intended effort to honor God, we dishonor him. In trying to protect Him, He is weakened. He is not weakened or limited in Himself of course, but we inadvertently provide the means for ourselves and others to keep Christ at a distance. We make ourselves sovereign through our demand that a particular view of scripture is the key by which God acts.
What I’m writing here will look to some like liberalism, but is nothing of the sort. Liberalism says the world must be understood according to the rational reasoning of men and women. The argument for innerancy is more nearly related to liberalism than the one I advocate, for it presupposes a sort of enlightenment logic by which scripture must conform to. In contrast to this, the living presence of the Holy Spirit makes alive the words of scripture to a reader open to hearing, and Christ is thereby made alive in her through a vital, life giving, and life forming relationship.
This way of approaching scripture is, I feel, far more worshipful and honoring to Christ than the commonly held views of Biblical innerancy.
The Bible is, according to Barclay---
“I. A faithful historical account of the actings of God’s people in divers ages; with many singular and remarkable providences attending them.
II. A prophetical account of several things, whereof some are already past, and some yet to come. [of course, as a preterist I believe that all HAS happened - Dan]
III. A full and ample account of all the chief principles of the doctrine of Christ, held forth in divers precious declarations, exhortations and sentences, which, by the moving of God’s Spirit, were at several times, and upon sundry occasions, spoken and written unto some churches and their pastors.Nevertheless, because they are only a declaration of the fountain, and not the fountain itself, therefore they are not to be esteemed the principal ground of all Truth and knowledge, nor yet the adequate primary rule of faith and manners”
Robert Barclay, Apology, Third Proposition
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here is a comparative analogy for how God reveals himself to the world and one that I believe makes the obsessive need to believe in Biblical innerancy seem odd. Nearly all Christians would agree God uses human men and women to make Himself known to others. Likewise, most would readily acknowledge the depth of imperfection in those same people. If God is able to use imperfect people to reveal himself, why would he be limited by a less than perfect Bible? By less than perfect, I simply one that is not inerrant as commonly defined. The demand for this kind of innerancy easily leads to honoring (or making an idol of)the book before Christ. The scripture itself becomes a means by which we shield ourselves from the living presence of God. In a well intended effort to honor God, we dishonor him. In trying to protect Him, He is weakened. He is not weakened or limited in Himself of course, but we inadvertently provide the means for ourselves and others to keep Christ at a distance. We make ourselves sovereign through our demand that a particular view of scripture is the key by which God acts.
What I’m writing here will look to some like liberalism, but is nothing of the sort. Liberalism says the world must be understood according to the rational reasoning of men and women. The argument for innerancy is more nearly related to liberalism than the one I advocate, for it presupposes a sort of enlightenment logic by which scripture must conform to. In contrast to this, the living presence of the Holy Spirit makes alive the words of scripture to a reader open to hearing, and Christ is thereby made alive in her through a vital, life giving, and life forming relationship.
This way of approaching scripture is, I feel, far more worshipful and honoring to Christ than the commonly held views of Biblical innerancy.
05 February 2009
Reading recommendations
I'm going to start making reading recommendations here on the blog. That gives my two readers the choice of looking at the recommendations or not. I'll use Email to notify of additions to the blog.
Michael Spencer, the internetMonk has prompted a lively exchange with his latest on how scripture can and is misapplied:
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/believing-the-bible-a-place-to-start-or-stop#more-2797
I received yesterday a book that is a must read for those interested in the past and present of Churches of Christ, written by a member of one of the best known preaching families of the "conservative" twig of the Church of Christ branch of Christianity.
Todd Deaver, yes, Roy's grandson and Mac's son, has written a short book, Facing our Failure: The Fellowship Dilemma in Conservative Churches of Christ. The book documents the extreme diversity of views held by traditional brethren who are in fellowship with each other. These brothers, often preachers and writers, disagree over the scriptural boundaries of fellowship. They differ on which practices are biblically authorized and which are sinful. They even disagree over which issues we must be right about in order to be saved. The one thing they seem to have in common is a belief that ficelity to God requires us to be right on ALL these matters. And yet, in spite of their crucial differences on these very issues [instrumental music, praise teams, handclapping, praying to Jesus, female translators, wearing a veil, qualifications of elders or divorce/remarriage], they somehow remain in fellowship with each other.
Depending upon direct quotes from dozens of these preachers, writers, professors (copious footnotes [thanks, Todd, for not using ENDnotes]), Todd shows how inconsistent their extension of fellowship is; i.e., two brothers hold that the guilty spouse in a divorce can remarry -- one is a constant speaker at lectureships in Memphis, Henderson, Montgomery and the other is never invited to speak.
The book is available for <$15 from the author:
Todd Deaver
320 Poplar Creek Rd
Oliver Spgs, TN 37840
or you can email:
ptdeaver@yahoo.com
Michael Spencer, the internetMonk has prompted a lively exchange with his latest on how scripture can and is misapplied:
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/believing-the-bible-a-place-to-start-or-stop#more-2797
I received yesterday a book that is a must read for those interested in the past and present of Churches of Christ, written by a member of one of the best known preaching families of the "conservative" twig of the Church of Christ branch of Christianity.
Todd Deaver, yes, Roy's grandson and Mac's son, has written a short book, Facing our Failure: The Fellowship Dilemma in Conservative Churches of Christ. The book documents the extreme diversity of views held by traditional brethren who are in fellowship with each other. These brothers, often preachers and writers, disagree over the scriptural boundaries of fellowship. They differ on which practices are biblically authorized and which are sinful. They even disagree over which issues we must be right about in order to be saved. The one thing they seem to have in common is a belief that ficelity to God requires us to be right on ALL these matters. And yet, in spite of their crucial differences on these very issues [instrumental music, praise teams, handclapping, praying to Jesus, female translators, wearing a veil, qualifications of elders or divorce/remarriage], they somehow remain in fellowship with each other.
Depending upon direct quotes from dozens of these preachers, writers, professors (copious footnotes [thanks, Todd, for not using ENDnotes]), Todd shows how inconsistent their extension of fellowship is; i.e., two brothers hold that the guilty spouse in a divorce can remarry -- one is a constant speaker at lectureships in Memphis, Henderson, Montgomery and the other is never invited to speak.
The book is available for <$15 from the author:
Todd Deaver
320 Poplar Creek Rd
Oliver Spgs, TN 37840
or you can email:
ptdeaver@yahoo.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
