Beside the Still Waters

The Heavens are the Work of Your Hands

2011-07-22T16:49:00.006-04:00

The Jehovah’s Witnesses who have been visiting me, who are usually pretty good at coming up with at least some quasi-plausible answer to most Trinitarian passages I bring up, have simply fallen to pieces with the latest couple.

In the hope that some reasonably skilled Witness apologist out there will follow the keyword trail (Jehovah, Witnesses, Watchtower, trinity, cult)—I really hope I can reengage TJ— and can offer some response, I pose the following question:

How, from a non-Trinitarian perspective, is it possible to reconcile this passage:

Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb: “I am the LORD, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself…” Isaiah 44:24 (emphasis mine)

With this one:

For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. Colossians 1:16 (emphasis mine)?

Or this passage:

Thus says the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, “…it was my hands that stretched out the heavens, and I commanded all their host. Isaiah 45:11-13 (emphasis mine)

With this one:

But of the Son he says… “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;” Hebrews 1:10 (emphasis mine)?

Wilson on Taco Stands

2010-02-18T08:56:00.001-05:00

This is precious. I just can't resist.

On or About the Night Prior To Christmas

2009-12-09T21:56:00.003-05:00

Whereas, on or about the night prior to Christmas, there did occur at a certain improved piece of real property (hereinafter "the House") a general lack of stirring by all creatures therein, including, but not limited to a mouse.

A variety of foot apparel, e.g. stocking, socks, etc., had been affixed by and around the chimney in said House in the hope and/or belief that St. Nick a/k/a/ St. Nicholas a/k/a/ Santa Claus (hereinafter "Claus") would arrive at sometime thereafter.

The minor residents, i.e. the children, of the aforementioned House were located in their individual beds and were engaged in nocturnal hallucinations, i.e. dreams, wherein vision of confectionery treats, including, but not limited to, candies, nuts and/or sugar plums, did dance, cavort and otherwise appear in said dreams.

Whereupon the party of the first part (sometimes hereinafter referred to as "I"), being the joint-owner in fee simple of the House with the parts of the second part (hereinafter "Mamma"), and said Mamma had retired for a sustained period of sleep. (At such time, the parties were clad in various forms of headgear, e.g. kerchief and cap.)

Suddenly, and without prior notice or warning, there did occur upon the unimproved real property adjacent and appurtent to said House, i.e. the lawn, a certain disruption of unknown nature, cause and/or circumstance. The party of the first part did immediately rush to a window in the House to investigate the cause of such disturbance.

At that time, the party of the first part did observe, with some degree of wonder and/or disbelief, a miniature sleigh (hereinafter "the Vehicle") being pulled and/or drawn very rapidly through the air by approximately eight (8) reindeer. The driver of the Vehicle appeared to be and in fact was, the previously referenced Claus.

Said Claus was providing specific direction, instruction and guidance to the approximately eight (8) reindeer and specifically indentified the animal co-conspirators by name: Dasher, Dancer, Prancer, Vixen, Comet, Cupid, Donner and Blitzen (hereinafter "the Deer"). (Upon information and belief, it is further asserted an additional co-conspirator named "Rudolph" may have been involved.)

The party of the first part witnessed Claus, the Vehicle and the Deer intentionally and willfully trespass upon the roofs of several residences located adjacent to and in the vicinity of the House, and noted that the Vehicle was heavily laden with packages, toys and other items of unknown origin or nature. Suddenly, without prior invitation or permission, either express or implied, the Vehicle arrived at the House, and Claus entered said House via the chimney.

Said Claus was clad in a red fur suit, which was partially covered with residue from the chimney, and he carried a large sack containing a portion of the aforementioned packages, toys, and other unknown items. He was smoking what appeared to be tobacco in a small pipe in blatant violation of local ordinances and health regulations.

Claus did not speak, but immediately began to fill the stocking of the minor children, which hung adjacent to the chimney, with toys and other small gifts. (Said items did not, however, constitute "gifts" to said minor pursuant to the applicable provisions of the U.S. Tax Code.)

Upon completion of such task, Claus touched the side of his nose and flew, rose and/or ascended up the chimney of the House to the roof where the Vehicle and Deer waited and/or served as "lookouts." Claus immediately departed for an unknown destination.

However, prior to the departure of the Vehicle, Deer and Claus from said House, the party of the first part did hear Claus state and/or exclaim:

"Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night!" Or words to that effect.

~Anonymous, Esq.

Mezzo Cammin

2009-11-27T09:44:00.002-05:00

Half my life is gone, and I have let
__The years slip from me and have not fulfilled
__The aspiration of my youth, to build
__Some tower of song with lofty parapet.
Not indolence, nor pleasure, nor the fret
__Of restless passions that would not be stilled,
__But sorrow, and a care that almost killed,
__Kept me from what I may accomplish yet;
Though, half-way up the hill, I see the Past
__Lying beneath me with its sounds and sights,--
__A city in the twilight dim and vast,
With smoking roofs, soft bells, and gleaming lights,--
__And hear above me on the autumnal blast
__The cataract of Death far thundering from the heights.

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow (1842)

Yawn...Stretch

2009-11-10T17:17:00.001-05:00

Not quite ready to wake this blog again, but I feel the time may be near.

Calvin on I Peter 1:1

2009-06-24T14:22:00.001-04:00

To the elect, or the elected. It may be asked, how could this be found out, for the election of God is hid, and cannot be known without the special revelation of the Spirit; and as every one is made sure of his own election by the testimony of the Spirit, so he can know nothing certain of others. To this I answer, that we are not curiously to inquire about the election of our brethren, but ought on the contrary to regard their calling, so that all who are admitted by faith into the church, are to be counted as the elect; for God thus separates them from the world, which is a sign of election. It is no objection to say that many fall away, having nothing but the semblance; for it is the judgment of charity and not of faith, when we deem all those elect in whom appears the mark of God’s adoption. And that he does not fetch their election from the hidden counsel of God, but gathers it from the effect, is evident from the context; for afterwards he connects it with the sanctification of the Spirit As far then as they proved that they were regenerated by the Spirit of God, so far did he deem them to be the elect of God, for God does not sanctify any but those whom he has previously elected.

The Goal

2009-05-08T09:44:00.002-04:00

...till we all attain unto the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a fullgrown man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ...

My First Sermon at COPC

2009-03-18T21:45:00.004-04:00

March 8, 2009

Calling All Non-Presbyterians

2009-02-01T13:30:00.004-05:00

Do wet babies put you out of sorts? Do rapture gain-sayers get up your ire? Do you think that Calvin should be read only if he's accompanied by Hobbes? If so, I could use your help.

I'm planning a study series for this summer aimed at helping folks at our church better explain and defend from Scripture some of the distinctives of presbyterianism. I'd like to focus, in particular, on those reformed/presbyterian doctrines or practices which non-presbyterians find the most bizzare, mystifying, and perhaps even offensive.

What I could use from you, therefore, my non-presbyterian brethren, are your lists of these objectionable doctrines and practices. Perhaps I can phrase it this way: What are the top ten reasons you would not join a reformed and/or presbyterian church?

Anonymous responses are more than welcome.

CDP at the New BRDhouse

2009-01-30T20:27:00.002-05:00

Hey Yocals, If you haven't yet been out to Englewood to the new and improved BRDhouse coffee shop/music store, you really ought. And for a perfect excuse, you can come out Saturday night, February 7th at 8:30 and hear Curt, Tom, and me sing. We ourselves are neither new nor improved, but some folks still find us tolerably entertaining.

Just Passing One On

2008-12-27T15:18:00.001-05:00

Quite Possibly the Most Ignored of All Christ's Commands

2008-12-11T15:13:00.002-05:00

Now I beseech you, brethren, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

The Poem to Which My Book Fell Open This Morning

2008-11-05T10:33:00.004-05:00

...............London, 1802..................

Milton! thou should'st be living at this hour:
England hath need of thee; she is a fen
Of stagnant waters; altar, sword, and pen,
Fireside, the heroic wealth of hall and bower
Have forfeited their ancient English dower
Of inward happiness. We are selfish men;
Oh raise us up, return to us again
And give us manners, virtue, freedom, power.
Thy soul was like a star, and dwelt apart;
Thou hadst a voice whose sound was like the sea:
Pure as the naked heavens, majestic, free,
So didst thou travel on life's common way,
In cheerful godliness; and yet they heart
The lowliest duties on herself did lay.

William Wordsworth

I Passed

2008-10-31T08:28:00.001-04:00

Who is "Babylon The Great"?

2008-10-29T15:39:00.004-04:00

In which city was Christ was crucified? Why does John never refer to that city by name? (11:8)

Why is this city, instead, called “Sodom and Egypt”? (11:8)

Why is it also called “the great city”? (11:8)

What does the image of a harlot symbolize in the prophets, and why is this symbol applied to Babylon? (14:8)

Outside of which city is the winepress of the wrath of God trodden? (14:19)

Why, in preparation for the judgment of Babylon, do armies cross the Euphrates and gather in Israel? (16:12-21)

What great city is divided by an earthquake in the final bowl judgment? (16:19)

Why are the saints told to come out of Babylon? (18:4)

Why is Babylon referred to by the same name as the city in which Christ was crucified ? (18:10; 11:8)

Why is the destruction of Babylon said to be a judgment on behalf of saints, apostles, and prophets? (18:20)

Why is Babylon judged for blood that, according to Jesus, was all to be required of Jesus’ own generation? (18:24; Luke 11:47-51; Matthew 23:29-39)

Why is the city which comes down from heaven after the destruction of Babylon called the New Jerusalem? (21:2)

Autumn '08

2008-10-14T20:19:00.000-04:00

Evangelism Linebacker

2008-09-29T03:10:00.001-04:00

HT: Tim

A Few Storm Pictures

2008-09-18T19:07:00.005-04:00

My next-door neighbor's house

Where I usually park my cars (but for fear of my large tree)

Where I moved my cars (so my tree wouldn't fall on them)

And How Can They Preach Without a Place to Be Heard?

2008-09-02T10:49:00.002-04:00

When the first-century evangelists went out, they took the gospel message to the temple, to the synagogue, to the marketplace—places where people where accustomed to hearing public proclamations and engaging in public discourse.

Do equivalent places exist in our present society? If so, what are they? If not, how do we adjust our evangelistic strategies to compensate for the lack of such fora?

To the One Who Overcomes: Part 2

2008-09-01T21:54:00.005-04:00

Enthusiasm for present topic appears to be waning (both in the readers and in the writer), so I'll offer one last installment and then move on.

Jesus revealed to John that those saints who were faithful unto death in the Great Tribulation would be arrayed in white garments (6:11; 7:13), that they would serve God continually in his temple (7:15), that they would not be hurt by the second death (20:6), and that they (and they alone) would be raised to sit upon thrones and reign with Christ for a thousand years (20:4-5).

Jesus promised the saints of the seven churches that those saints who were faithful unto death in the tribulation which they were experiencing would be arrayed in white garments (3:5), that they would serve God continually in his temple (3:11), that they would not be hurt by the second death (2:11), and that they would sit upon thrones and reign with Christ (2:27).

Why would Jesus have promised to give to the saints of the seven churches of Asia the blessings that were to be given to the martyrs coming out of the Great Tribulation?

To the One Who Overcomes

2008-08-18T21:57:00.009-04:00

My brethren have pointed out, and I think rightly, that God’s tarrying in the fulfillment of his promises does not, generally speaking, indicate any slowness on his part, regardless of how long the delay may seem to man. I believe that II Peter 3:1-9 makes this particular conclusion of theirs inescapable.These friends go further than I am yet willing, however, and add that even when Jesus specifically tells the churches in Asia that the things he is revealing to them “must soon take place” and that “the time is near,” all he really means to say is that the fulfillment will be soon from his own perspective, not necessarily from theirs, though these churches, and every person born until the end of history, should nevertheless act like the things could possibly be fulfilled at any time.

As I’ve indicated, I do not yet find their explanation of Christ’s words here convincing, but I certainly haven’t budged them with mine. So perhaps, the best thing to do is to move on to my next point.Rather than lay all my cards out on the table right away, however, I think I’ll begin with a question, one I’ve discussed here a few times in the past. My noble adversaries will know right away where I’m going with it, but I’ll see if I can bait them therewith nonetheless. Here it is:

According to Revelation 20:4-6, the first resurrection, in which the saints will be raised to reign with Christ-- will that resurrection include anyone other than those saints who are martyred in the Great Tribulation?

The Things that Must Soon Take Place

2008-08-09T15:26:00.009-04:00

Probably most ignored in the book of Revelation are the words that appear at the very beginning and at the very end of the prophecy:

The revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place…Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near. 1:1-3

And he said to me, “These words are trustworthy and true. And the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must soon take place. 22:6

As I have pointed out before, the book of Revelation was written to seven churches that were in Asia at the time the prophecy was revealed. Jesus told those churches, the very churches that were in Asia at that very time, that the things he was revealing to them had to happen soon. He assured those same churches that the time was near.

Imagine someone in one of those churches at the time who, after reading these words, would have been so bold as to say that the things prophesied in the book were going to happen much later or saying that the time of their fulfillment was far off. Wouldn't such a person have been directly contradicting the words of Christ? Yet, somehow, the majority of today's evangelicals would say that such a person would have been correct.

It really is as simple as this: Jesus said that the prophecies were soon to come to pass; most of us say that they were not. How can this be?

The Big Week

2008-07-28T09:19:00.002-04:00

I leave this morning to take up temporary residence in a cheap hotel a couple of blocks away from where I'll be taking the Ohio Bar Exam this week. Eight hours Tuesday, eight hours Wednesday, and four hours Thursday. If you think of it, please pray for me; pray especially that I'll do better than I deserve to do. I'd really like not to have to take this again.

To the Seven Churches that are in Asia

2008-07-22T20:58:00.002-04:00

First, a word about method. Although I can certainly appreciate how much one can add to a discussion of the book of Revelation by multiplying references to Josephus or Irenaeus or, on the other hand, to current news reports, and though I know that every scripture must ultimately be interpreted in the context of all the other scriptures, I am inclined—in light of my present time limitations, and in keeping with my belief that the best place to begin the study of a text is with the internal cues of the text itself—I say, I am inclined to limit the scope of the present discussion to somewhat narrower bounds.

And so, for this series of posts, I will be doing my best to use arguments based solely upon the text of Revelation itself. And if, along the way, anyone should be pleased to join in the discussion, I will be asking you to abide by this same rule of evidence; that is, only arguments based upon specific texts from the book of Revelation will be admissible in this particular case.

And now, with that out of the way, my first rather elementary and obvious point goes something like this: the book of Revelation was written to seven real churches in seven real cities at the time the prophecy was written. To the men and women in those churches at that time, the words spoken, the warnings announced, and the promises made were fully applicable and absolutely true.

Let me be clear: I do not here say that the book is not also directed toward or applicable to other churches in later generations; I merely argue at this point that, regardless of any future generations to which one might believe the words, warnings, and promises of this prophecy to be directed, these were at least true and applicable to those seven churches, in those seven cities, at that particular time.

The primary audience of the book of Revelation is indicated very early in the introduction:

John to the seven churches that are in Asia. (1:4)

I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet saying, “Write what you see in a book and send it to the seven churches, to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea. (1:10-11)

No real difficulty here. These prophecies we are reading two millennia after they were recorded were originally received, written, and sent by the apostle John to seven real churches that were in seven real cities at the time.

The historical reality of these seven churches is manifested in much more depth in the section immediately following the introduction. Here, Christ, addresses each particular church in turn, referring in each address to specific events these real people in these real churches in these real cities had already experienced by the time Jesus was speaking to them.

To the angel of the church in Ephesus write…(2:1)…you cannot bear with those who are evil, but have tested those who call themselves apostles and are not, and found them to be false (2:3). He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches…(2:7)

And to the angel of the church in Smyra write…(2:8) I know your tribulation and your poverty (but you are rich) and the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan (2:9). He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches …(2:11)

And to the angel of the church in Pergamum write…(2:12 )… and you did not deny my faith even in the days of Antipas my faithful witness, who was killed among you…(2:13) He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches…(2:17)

And to the angel of the church in Thyatira write…(2:18) But to the rest of you in Thyatira, who do not hold this teaching, who have not learned what some call the deep things of Satan…(2:24) He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches…(2:29)

And to the angel of the church in Sardis…(3:1)…you have still a few names in Sardis, people who have not soiled their garments (3:4). He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches…(3:6)

And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write…(3:7)…you have kept my word about patient endurance…(3:10). He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches…(3:13)

And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write…(3:14). I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot…(3:15) He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches…(3:22)

These seven letters reveal even more clearly that Christ is not here just addressing churches in general, but specific churches in a specific context.

Following, of course, these seven letters, comes the bulk of the prophecy itself, a relation of the things that were soon to come to pass. At the end of these prophecies, Jesus once again brings attention back to the intended audience, reminding the modern reader of the book’s original context.

I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches…(22:16)

So, to repeat my rather obvious point once more, whether or not these seven churches were also intended to serve later generations as paradigmatic examples or as types, we can at least be sure that, in its original context, the book of Revelation was written to these real people in these real churches who had, at the time the book was written, already been undergoing some real experiences. These people could clearly and with one hundred percent certainty know that Christ was speaking specifically to them, and addressing the very real situation in which they all found themselves.

In other words, whatever message the book of Revelation presents, that message was especially true for the people in those seven churches to whom it was first presented.

Why Will You Not Wait?

2008-07-21T06:18:00.002-04:00

Louis Gaussen, writing in 1840:

"While anatomists have been unable to explain the use of the liver in the human body, or of antennae in that of insects, they have not on that account found nature in fault; they have put it all to the account of their own ignorance. Why, then, when you happen not yet to have discovered the use of something that is said in the Scriptures, do you lay the blame on any but yourselves, and why will you not wait?"

God-Breathed: The Divine Inspiration of the Bible

Four Textually-Based Reasons for Reading the Book of Revelation as History: A Preview

2008-07-16T22:00:00.005-04:00

1. The events prophesied in the book of Revelation were to take place soon after the prophecy was given.

2. The book of Revelation was written to seven real churches that were in seven real cities at the time the book was written.

3. The tribulation prophesied in the book had already begun to be experienced by those churches in those cities at that time.

4. The eschatological blessings promised in the book were promised to those churches in those cities at that time.

Fourteen Years Ago Today

2008-07-15T15:44:00.010-04:00

Interesting Trend

2008-07-14T22:06:00.003-04:00

Perc. Search Term
3- 20.00% brad peppo
2- 13.33% rev 20 preterist satan
1- 6.67% preterist gog magog
1- 6.67% beside the still waters
1- 6.67% night sky cafe troy ohio
1- 6.67% preterist 1000 year
1- 6.67% apocalyptic laguage preterism
1- 6.67% preterist why i am not presbyterian
1- 6.67% preterist millennium
1- 6.67% former preterists
1- 6.67% beside the still waters blog
1- 6.67% preterist view of millenium

I don't normally see a great deal of traffic on this blog, but a recent keyword analysis of the few search-engine hits I have been getting lately has begun to present a fascinating pattern-- especially since this is the only post I've ever written on preterism. Perhaps it's time for some more discussion on the matter. Maybe I'll try to fit something into my bar-study breaks.

All Ends of the Earth

2008-07-09T05:54:00.003-04:00

All ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the LORD,
and all the families of the nations shall worship before you.
For kingship belongs to the LORD, and he rules over the nations
Ps. 22:27

No, It Isn't.

2008-06-28T16:31:00.000-04:00

Good for the Soul

2008-06-18T10:39:00.002-04:00

"I Galileo, in the seventieth year of my age, on my knees before your Eminences, having before my eyes, and touching with my own hands, the Holy Scriptures, abjure, curse, and detest the error of the Earth's movement."

June 28, 1633

2008-06-17T07:19:00.002-04:00

Open your mouth for the mute,
for the rights of all who are destitute.
Open your mouth, judge righteously,
defend the rights of the poor and needy.
Pr. 31:8-9

Schindler Recap

2008-06-10T21:29:00.002-04:00

Main points per Danny's request:

1. Terri Schiavo was a living human soul who was unjustly and barbarically put to death by the state on the basis of a standard of evidence lower than that enjoyed by mass murderers and by a means that would be criminal if used upon an animal.

2. The tolerance of abortion in this country has facilitated a more pervasive culture of death which has already led to legally sanctioned euthanasia and which, if unchecked, will produce even more horrific results.

3. The inclusion of food and water in the definition of "extraordinary care" and the absolutely arbitrary and non-medical diagnosis of "persistent vegetative state" are annually allowing thousands of cognitively disabled people in this country to be starved and dehydrated to death.

4. Somebody has to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves.

It was a very moving presentation.

Terri Schiavo's Brother to Speak in Troy

2008-05-29T13:53:00.005-04:00

Next Sunday, June 8, Stand True Ministries, a Christ-centered pro-life organization, will be hosting a Celebration of Life Banquet at Night Sky Cafe in Troy. The event will feature keynote speaker Bobby Schindler, brother of Terri Schiavo.

Tickets to the event are $15. Cost includes a full buffet dinner catered by Night Sky. The banquet will begin at 6:00 p.m. Please come out to hear Mr. Schindler and to learn more about Stand True Ministries. Let me know if you're interested, and I'll tell you how to get tickets.

Oh Yeah

2008-05-06T20:58:00.004-04:00

I just finished my last law school exam ever. Saturday morning I graduate, and Saturday afternoon I throw the biggest party I've ever hosted. Everyone who reads this is invited. It's an open house from 1-5 at my place. Wine, cheese, and chocolate will be served (pop available for the Baptists and Brethren). Gypsy Jazz music will be enjoyed. RSVP's appreciated. Hope to see you.

Just Peachy!

2008-04-22T20:11:00.003-04:00

This week I had the pleasure of seeing the first blossoms appear on one of the fruit trees I planted last year (the peach). Still just leaves on the others, and still another four years before I get any fruit to speak of from any of them. Nevertheless, I found it exciting.

Away Game

2008-04-13T23:29:00.001-04:00

Eric and I have moved our discussion of Calvinism over to his blog.

True or False?

2008-04-09T13:19:00.000-04:00

God can save whomever he wants, whenever he wants.

Hooray! Sap!

2008-03-03T14:44:00.004-05:00

Finally noticed some good flow from a broken branch today. Tapped my first three trees. Taste is already a little buddish. Hope I didn't wait too long.

Mercy Upon Whomever He Wills: Part I

2008-03-02T19:29:00.005-05:00

It has been stated that, in order to accomplish his purposes, God will sometimes show mercy even to men who have hardened their own hearts. It has been suggested, however, that even if God does have mercy upon such men, this mercy will only be effective if they are willing to accept it. The implication, then, is that the fulfillment of God’s merciful purposes upon hard-hearted men is, to some degree at least, dependent upon hard-hearted men’s willingness to accept God’s mercy.

Let us imagine a scenario in which God’s attempt at showing mercy is met with the kind of resistance here described. Let us imagine that God sets his attention upon some hard-hearted man, determining that, instead of further hardening him, he will have mercy upon him. He offers his mercy to the man, only to find that the man is unwilling to accept it. What are to become of God's purposes? Are they to be thwarted? What are we to suppose that God might do in such a situation?

It would seem there are only two things God can do. He could just give up, deciding not to accomplish his purpose and perhaps move on to some hard-hearted man more willing to accept his mercy. But what if God really insisted upon having his way in a particular case? What if he was truly adamant about accomplishing his merciful purposes in this particular hard-hearted man? Would God’s determination be of any avail? Would there really be anything God could do in such a situation?

We might first consider what success here would require. If God’s mercy can only be effective upon men who are willing to receive it, then, of course, the only way he could accomplish his purpose would be to make the man willing to receive his mercy. But this is a tall order; after all, we’re talking here about a man who has already hardened his own heart. We’re taking about someone who wants to do evil, who has committed himself to do it, someone who has decided to reject God. How could God possibly make such a person willing to accept his mercy?

Certainly, the only way God could ever make a man (especially a hard-hearted man) willing to do something he was formerly unwilling to do would be to change his heart. Men's desires are determined by their hearts. Pure, soft hearts give rise to good desires, and defiled, hardened hearts give rise to evil desires. Therefore, if God is to have any hope of accomplishing his merciful purposes in a hard-hearted man, if God should ever expect to make a man willing to receive his mercy, it can only be through changing his hardened heart.

But would God ever go so far as to change a man’s heart? Would God really take a man who desires evil and cause him to desire good? Would God really ever be so bold as to tamper with a man’s will?...

My Wife to My Two-Year-Old Daughter

2008-02-27T16:50:00.005-05:00

Mama: "So Corina, who do you think will win the primary, Clinton or Obama?"
Corina: "Clinton."
Mama: Then, who do you think will win the election, Clinton or McCain?"
Corina: "Clinton."
Mama: "Well, what do you think Clinton will do for our country?"
Corina: "Um...make it crunchy."

Perhaps.

And Whom He Wills, He Hardens

2008-02-22T21:58:00.005-05:00

It has been granted, in the course of previous discussions, that God sometimes hardens the hearts of certain men, sometimes even to the point of leaving them unable to believe (John 12:39-41). It has been asked why God would do such a thing, and it has been answered that God hardens those who first harden their own hearts. Those, it is said, who desire to do evil and have committed themselves to do it, God will harden. I’m fully willing to grant this notion as an independent truth—I don’t believe that God has ever hardened a soft-hearted person—but I do not see how it even begins to answer the question of why God hardens certain men and not others.

Many men have, at one time or another, hardened their hearts; many have desired to do evil; many (dare I say all?) have at some point fully committed themselves to do what is wrong. But certainly, God has not hardened all of these. Upon some—praise his name—upon some such hard-hearted sinners, God has had mercy. But if some who harden their hearts are further hardened, and others who harden their hearts are nevertheless shown mercy, how can man’s hardening his own heart be considered the determinative factor in God’s decision as to whom he will further harden? It cannot.

We could speculate as to other possibilities. Perhaps those upon whom God has mercy are the ones who have only hardened their hearts a little bit, and the ones whom God further hardens are those who have hardened their hearts a lot. Maybe God uses a kind of Mohs scale for measuring the hardness of one’s heart: 1-5 you get mercy, 6-10 you get further hardened. But surely, we can recognize this as unbiblical nonsense. The scriptures, not to mention our own personal experiences, are replete with examples of God saving the most despicable sinners and passing over otherwise “decent” people. Often it seems, in fact, that the harder man’s heart is in sin, the bigger is his fall into grace.

But if God’s decision to harden or to have mercy is not dependent upon the fact that some have hardened their hearts, if it is not dependent upon the degree to which some have hardened their hearts, what is it in man that determines his choice? I suggest that as long as we insist upon asking the question this way, we will never find the answer, at least not in scripture.

For when the scriptures address the question of why God further hardens one hard-hearted man and has mercy upon another hard-hearted man, they do not leave us to speculate; they tell us plainly: God’s decision has nothing to do with the men themselves. It does not depend upon anything men do—either good or bad (Rom. 9:11); it does not depend on anything they will; it does not depend upon any way in which they exert themselves; it depends upon God who has mercy (Rom 9:16). And upon whom does God have mercy? He has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills (Rom. 9:18). He makes his choice for one reason: that his purpose in election might stand (Rom. 9:11).

If we are in any sense human, a proper understanding of these verses cannot fail to disturb our senses of fairness. In fact, it might be said that if we aren’t outraged by Romans 9, we haven’t fully understood it. For if we have truly grasped Paul’s meaning, we will be inevitably led to the question he anticipates: Why does God still find fault? For who can resist his will? (Rom. 9:19). That is to say, if God's choice of whom to harden and upon whom to have mercy, has nothing to do with man, but everything to do with God's choice, how can he justify punishing those he hardens? But our answer to this unavoidable question cannot be based on our finite, feeble, futile conceptions of what we think God ought to have the right to do with his own lumps of clay. Our answer to the question must be the same as Paul’s: Who are we to answer back to God?

Some Lovely Quotes from the Founder of Planned Parenthood

2008-02-20T18:05:00.001-05:00

"The campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics."
Margaret Sanger. "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda." Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.

"Eugenics is … the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.
Margaret Sanger. "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda." Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.

"Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race."
Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.

"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
Margaret Sanger's December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon's Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.

2008-02-20T08:05:00.003-05:00

SNOW DAY! WOO-HOO!!!

Answer to Pastor Eric's Most Recent Question

2008-01-31T13:30:00.001-05:00

Ultimately the Pharisees rejected Jesus because they had been foreordained to do so (Acts 2:23). But humanly speaking, I think one of the important catalysts in their rejection of Christ was that Jesus was insufficiently anti-gentile for their tastes.

First of all he was perceived to be from Galilee of the Gentiles, from whence everyone knew no real prophet was to arise (John 7:52).

Second, he made them murderously upset, to the point of trying to throw him off of a cliff, when he said things like:

I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, whenthe heavens were shut up three years and six months, and a great famine came over all the land, and Elijah was sent to none of them but only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow. And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian (Luke 4:25-29).

Or when he said:

I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. (Matt 8:11)

But especially when he said things like:

Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits. (Matthew 21:43-46)

This failure to adequately hate the gentiles was also a key reason for the Jews continuing to reject Christ even after his ascension. As Paul found out when he told the Jews that Christ had said to him,

'Go, for I will send youfar away to the Gentiles.'

Luke relates that,

Up to this word they listened to him. Then they raised their voices and said, “Away with such a fellow from the earth! Forhe should not be allowed to live (Acts 22:21-22).

The Pharisees wanted a Messiah, not to save the Gentiles, but to destroy them. And when it appeared that Jesus had other plans, they wanted no part of what he was offering. The idea of Gentiles inheriting right along with, or even in place of any Jews, was anathema, and no one who held such ideas could possible be sane, much less the true Messiah.

Replacement Theology: A Satanically Inspired Sign of the Last Times.

2008-01-26T20:23:00.000-05:00

No posts of my own lately, so I thought I'd link over to a discussion I'm having with the good Pastor Eric. I don't think he'll mind.

All Right....I'm In.

2007-12-18T21:32:00.000-05:00

Friday Night at the BRDhouse

2007-12-18T14:34:00.000-05:00

Curt, Tom and I are performing live at the BRDhouse again this Friday evening, December 21st. We'll get started around 8 and play till around 10. For those who have heard us in the past...well, we are getting better! The BRDhouse is on 48 just about a mile south of the Englewood Meijer. They have really yummy coffee.

You Alone Are God

2007-12-12T05:23:00.000-05:00

There is none like you among the gods, O Lord,
nor are there any works like yours.
All the nations you have made shall come
and worship before you, O Lord,
and shall glorify your name.
For you are great and do wondrous things;
you alone are God. (Ps. 86:8-10)

No Longer Strangers and Aliens

2007-12-04T12:48:00.000-05:00

The second chapter of Ephesians has been the source of much debate (especially between dispensationalists and covenantalists) as to the exact nature of the relationship between Israel and the Church. The specific question I’d like to address in this post is one that I’ve recently been batting around with the good Dr. Shearer; that is, as gentile believers, are we biblically warranted in considering ourselves citizens of Israel? Dr. Shearer has said that we are not; I believe that we are.

I begin with Paul’s expression in Ephesians 2:19, where he tells his gentile readers, So then you are no longer strangers and aliens… Here Paul indicates what we presently are not. We are not strangers and aliens. What he does not answer in this sentence, however, is the question, strangers and aliens from what? We are given a little help, however, in the phrase no longer. That from which we are no longer strangers and aliens must be that from which we previously were strangers and aliens. And what was that?

Here, Paul is very clear; for he has already specified in verse 12 that, before Christ, gentiles were alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise. The commonwealth of Israel was that in which Israelites were counted citizens. The covenants of promise were that which defined what Israel was to inherit. Being alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, then, we gentiles were excluded from citizenship therein, and being strangers from the covenants of promise, we were excluded from inheritance thereunder.

If then, this is the sense in which gentiles were strangers and aliens at one time, it is precisely in this same sense that we are strangers and aliens no longer. Therefore, viewing verses 12 and 19 together, we must conclude that gentile believers are no longer strangers and aliens specifically with respect to the commonwealth and covenants of Israel. And here, then, is the point: if we are no longer strangers and aliens with respect to the commonwealth of Israel, how can we be other than citizens thereof? And if we are no longer strangers and aliens with respect to the covenants of Israel, how can we be other than partakers therein?

The God Who Works Wonders

2007-11-30T08:46:00.000-05:00

I will remember the deeds of the LORD;
yes, I will remember your wonders of old.
I will ponder all your work,
and meditate on your mighty deeds.
Your way, O God, is holy.
What god is great like our God?
You are the God who works wonders;
you have made known your might among the peoples.
(Ps 77:11-14)

Beary cool.

2007-11-28T18:47:00.000-05:00

Ohio bear-sightings on the rise!

Blessed be the Lord

2007-11-24T06:54:00.001-05:00

Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel,
who alone does wondrous things.
Blessed be his glorious name forever;
may the whole earth be filled with his glory!
Amen and Amen!

Let Us Press on to Know the Lord

2007-11-20T10:41:00.000-05:00

Come, let us return to the LORD; for he has torn us, that he may heal us; he has struck us down, and he will bind us up.

After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him.

Let us know; let us press on to know the LORD; his going out is as sure as the dawn; he will come to us as the showers, as the spring rains that water the earth.

Make Your Face Shine Upon Us

2007-11-17T07:41:00.001-05:00

May God be gracious to us and bless us
and make his face shine upon us,

that your way may be known on earth,
your saving power among all nations.
Let the peoples praise you, O God;
let all the peoples praise you!

Let the nations be glad and sing for joy,
for you judge the peoples with equity
and guide the nations upon the earth.

Let all the peoples praise you, O God;
let all the peoples praise you!

The earth has yielded its increase;
God, our God, shall bless us.
God Shall bless us;
let all the ends of the earth fear him!

No Plans Tonight?

2007-10-26T10:38:00.000-04:00

Come out and hear the Curtis Duncan Project at the BRDhouse coffee house in Englewood. 8ish-10ish?

Wow

2007-10-24T12:11:00.000-04:00

I just...well...untitled

2007-10-22T21:02:00.000-04:00

Help My Unbelief

2007-10-19T12:20:00.000-04:00

Now for a little burden-shifting.

It has been stated a number of times in this discussion that all a Christian has to do to receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit is to believe and seek, and perhaps tarry. Here, then, is the catch-22 in which I find myself: I simply don’t believe.

Let me clarify my unbelief. I do believe that the first generation of saints received the baptism almost exactly as my pneumatic brothers have described it: it appears to have been frequently experienced subsequent to conversion; it appears to have been universally given to all who were converted; it appears to have been invariably accompanied by supernatural manifestations. No problem there.

I do not deny the possibility that God still does such things; I do not even deny the possibility that God could some day do so to me. But what I do not believe, and what it seems I would be required to believe if I were to receive the blessing, is that God will do so to me.

What is the cause for my unbelief? I do not believe that faith is effectual unless it is based upon the explicit promises of God. And though I see, for example, that God universally promises salvation to all who put their faith in Christ, though I see that he universally promises that as many as die in Christ will be raised with him, I have yet to see where he universally promises that all who are converted will experience this supernaturally-manifested baptism of the Holy Spirit.

I cannot receive, you say, until I believe God's promise. I cannot believe, I say, until I have heard his promise.

Help my unbelief.

Another Question for Pastor E

2007-09-23T14:49:00.000-04:00

What do the scriptures teach to be the necessary and sufficient conditions for receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit?

In other words, how would you finish this statement: In the New Testament, a person was baptized in the Holy Spirit if and only if...

Canoe Trip '07

2007-09-23T14:27:00.000-04:00

Concession #1 (The Last, of Course)

2007-09-11T23:08:00.000-04:00

The term apostle is used in scripture to refer to more than just the Twelve and Paul.

It is most certainly applied to Barnabas (Acts 14:4,14).

It is most probably applied to James (Gal. 1:19) Silvanus, and Timothy (I Thess. 2:6).

It may be applied to Andronicus and Juni(us)(as)(a) (Rom 16:7)

Several possible explanations and implications bouncing around in my head. But for now, I’ll just let the fact stand.

All Right, Pastor Eric.

2007-09-07T21:41:00.000-04:00

I’m ready to start talking about the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

If you don’t mind, I’d like to begin with some questions, but before that, how about a plan? I figure we can do this in two parts. I’d like to begin by working through our differences as to the nature of this phenomenon as it was actually occurring in the apostolic…excuse me...what shall we say? in Bible times? before the close of the canon? Well, perhaps I’ll just pick an arbitrary dividing line: how about before Jesus’ generation passed away? Anyway, what I’m trying to say is, how about we treat this in terms of what the nature of this baptism was then (whenever then was) and then later discuss the nature of the baptism as it may or may not occur now. I realize that your position will largely rest upon there being no difference between the two.

Ah, here we go…how about we begin by discussing the nature of this phenomenon solely as it is presented in the pages of scripture and then, only after dong so, consider how his phenomenon may or may not have changed since those scriptures were written? How does that sound?

Sorry about the stream-of-consciousness post. Not much time for revision these days.

Just Couldn't Pass This One Up

2007-09-07T17:11:00.000-04:00

Quote from Administrative Law class:

The Lord's Prayer: 66 words.
The 10 Commandments: 179 words.
The Gettysburg Address: 286 words
The Declaration of Independence: 1,300 words
The U.S. Government regulations on the sale of cabbage: 26,911 words.

How the Story Begins

2007-08-11T23:46:00.000-04:00

The beginning of the story of Christ is a beginning unlike any other. For unlike the subject of other stories, we cannot look back to Christ’s beginning: all we can do is look back to him as being the beginning. The beginning of his story is itself the beginning of all beginnings. For he himself is the beginning, he is the alpha, he is the first.

In the beginning, before the foundation of the world, before all things—indeed, before all time—Christ was.

Christ was in the beginning, but he was never alone. He was with God, in the presence of God, and God loved him. He was with God, loved by God, and, thus, distinguishable from God. Yet at the same time, he was indistinguishable from God: he was the very image of the invisible God, the exact imprint of his nature. He existed in the form of God and enjoyed equality with him. What God was, Christ was. He himself was God.

In the beginning, Christ was. He was with God. He was God.

Being God, Christ possessed in himself the glory of God. He shared glory with him who says he will not give his glory to another. Christ was the radiance of God’s own glory so that, through him, God himself was glorified.

This then, is how the story begins. In the beginning, before the foundation of the world, before all things, before all time, Christ was. He was with God. He was loved by God. He shared glory with God. He was God.

One-Man Salvation Army Band

2007-08-06T17:18:00.000-04:00

I saw Phil perform this song at Promise Keepers in Indianapolis some years back (Yes, I went. And no, the tossers of beach balls and paper airplanes didn't even take a break for a performance of this calibre.)

This is worth watching all the way through. Note, of course, that everything you hear (even the vocal backup at the end) is being laid down via pedals through one mic and one guitar, and with a sum total of only nine fingers.

Enjoy.

HT: Blog and Mablog

Minnesota Roots

2007-08-02T10:14:00.001-04:00

This past week, the kids had the opportunity to experience some of their Minnesota heritage. Here are some pictures from the Duluth leg of the trip.

In front of the barn where their great-great-grandfather kept cows

At the coney-joint where their great-grandfather ate as a kid

On the Lake Superior shore, up at Two Harbors

What Has Christ To Do With Any Covenant?

2007-07-28T21:00:00.000-04:00

It has been stated in some of the recent discussion that, although the covenant may have been an important way in which God dealt with his people in the past, the coming of Christ has rendered the arrangement somewhat less relevant. The suggestion seems to be that, even though “covenant” is a biblical term, the concept has very little to do with the work of Christ; or perhaps, if it is somehow connected with Christ, it is really not all that pertinent to our salvation. I would suggest, on the contrary, that Christ has everything to do with God’s covenants, past and present, and that the New Covenant especially is a very important part of the salvation we have in Christ.

I pass over, for now, a discussion of Christ’s relationship to the former covenants made in the Old Testament. Many volumes have been written, and many more could still be written, on how Jesus is the focal point of God’s covenants made with Abraham, with Israel, with David. Many of these connections are obvious on the face of the matter, though some require deeper study. But for the present, I would like to turn my attention to the New Testament. What does Christ have to do with what the scriptures call the New Covenant? And how important is this covenant in the whole scope of our salvation?

First of all, the establishment of the New Covenant was one of the primary purposes for which Christ shed his blood on the cross. We see this from the first celebration of the Lord’s Supper in which Jesus referred to the cup as “my blood of the covenant” (Mt. 26:28; Mk. 14:24) and as “the new covenant in my blood” (Lk 22:21; I Cor. 11:24). Hebrews also tells us that the reason Christ had to die was that the New Covenant could not have been put into effect without the shedding of his blood (Hb. 8:16-17). The New Covenant, then, is a work initiated and inaugurated by Christ, particularly through his death.

Second, the New Covenant is a work that continues to be mediated by Christ (Heb. 8:6). It is an arrangement that he perpetually guarantees and administrates (Heb 7:22). It is through this covenant that he continually intercedes for the saints before God (Heb 7:25). The New Covenant, then, is the work of Christ from beginning to end, he being both its founder and perfecter (12:2). It is founded upon his sacrificial death and perfected through his heavenly intercession. The covenant, then, far from being an atrifact with which Christ did away, is an arrangement which he died to ratify and a relationship that he lives again to mediate.

The importance of this covenant becomes even clearer when we look at the specific aspects of our salvation that are provided through it. It is through this covenant in Christ that our sins have been forgiven (Mt. 26:28; Rom. 11:27; Heb 8:12; 9:15, 22). It is through this covenant in Christ that God has become our God and we have become his people (Heb 8:11). It is through this covenant in Christ that we are able to draw near to God (Heb 7:25). It is through this covenant in Christ that we are sanctified (Heb 10:29). It is through this covenant in Christ that God’s laws have been put into our minds and written upon our hearts (Heb 8:11). It is through this covenant in Christ that our consciences have been purified to serve God (Heb 9:14). It is through this covenant in Christ that we are to receive our promised eternal inheritance (Heb 9:15) In short, it is through this covenant in Christ that we are saved (Heb 7:25).

Why would it be, then, in light of all these things, that someone would think that covenants are merely Old Testament arrangements which Christ set aside at his coming? How could someone say that after the death of Christ, we are no longer saved by covenants? If we are saved by something other than God’s covenant, then certainly, we are saved by something other than the work of Christ-- the scriptures will not allow the two to be separated. God thought that this covenant was worth the blood of his Son; certainly it is worth more attention than evangelicals tend to give it.

A Brief Aside

2007-07-20T13:07:00.000-04:00

Almost inevitably, discussion of covenant theology turns to a consideration of end times prophecy. While it is true that covenant theology tends to be more or less consistent with particular eschatological views, the validity of covenant theology does not therefore stand or fall, for example, with pre- post- or amillennialism; indeed men who consider themselves covenantal can be found in each of these camps.

Nevertheless, it often happens that covenant theology is criticized by non-covenantalists for its approach to biblical prophecy. Non-covenantalists, it is argued, interpret prophetic passages literally, while covenantalists interpret them figuratively, especially, it is thought, when a literal interpretation of a passage would produce a conflict with the pre-conceived covenantal framework.

Putting the issue of covenantalism aside for a moment, it does not appear to me that the real difference between conflicting views of the end times can be characterized simply as one side interpreting passages literally and the other side interpreting them figuratively. Indeed all eschatological views claim to interpret literal passages literally and figurative passages figuratively. The dispute, of course, is over which passages are which.

Take, for example, the differences between pretribulational and preterist eschatology (preterism being the view that much of biblical prophecy was actually fulfilled in the first century). Consider how literally or how figuratively a preterist would have to treat the scriptures in order to come to the following conclusions or how figuratively or literally a pre-tribulationalist who have to treat the scriptures to avoid them. Do the scriptures not literally say that:

before the apostles went through all the towns of Israel, the Son of Man came (Mt 10:23)?

before some men who had been standing with Jesus had tasted death, the Son of Man came in his kingdom (Mt. 16:28), and the kingdom of God came with power (Mk. 9:1 Lk. 9:27).

by the time of Jesus’ transfiguration, Elijah had already come (Mat. 17:12; Mk. 9:12)?

before the generation to whom Jesus was speaking passed away, all the events prophesied in the Olivet Discourse came to pass (Mt 24:34; Mk 13:30; Lk. 21:32):?

the gospel was preached to all nations (Mt 24:14)?

the abomination of desolation stood in the holy place (Mt 24:15)?

there was a great tribulation such had not been from the beginning of the world nor never will be again (Mt 24:20)?

the Son of Man came on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory (Mt 24:30)?

the Son of Man sent out his angels and gathered his elect from the four winds (Mt 24:31)?

from the time of Jesus’ first coming onward, He was seen seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven (Mt. 26:64)?

before Jesus ascended into heaven, he had already been given all authority in heaven and on earth (Mt. 28:18)?

while the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians was being written, the man of lawlessness was already being restrained (II Th 2:7)?

while John was writing his first epistle, it was already the last hour, for many antichrists had already come (I Jn. 2:18)?

while the book of Revelation was being written, the things that were prophesied in it were soon to take place (Rv. 1:1; Rv. 22:6) and the time for them was near (Rv. 1:3)?

while the book of Revelation was being written, Jesus’ coming was soon to occur (Rv. 3:11; 22:7; 22:12, 21)?

while the Book of Revelation was being written, Jesus was already ruler of the kings on earth (Rv. 1:5)?

while the book of Revelation was being written, Jesus had already made the saints a kingdom and priests to his God and Father (Rv. 1:6)?

while the book of Revelation was being written, John was already a partaker in the tribulation and the kingdom that were in Christ (Rv. 1:9)?

while the book of Revelation was being written, Jesus had already received authority over the nations to rule them with a rod of iron (Rv. 2:26-27)?

while the book of Revelation was being written, Jesus had already conquered and had already sat down with his Father on his throne (Rv. 3:21)?

while the book of Revelation was being written, the temple was still standing (Rv. 11:1)?

the only saints raised to life for the millennial period are those who die as martyrs in the great tribulation (Rv 20:4-5)?

Now are pretribulationalists really willing to employ a literal interpretation with passages like these? If not, how can they claim to be THE literalists over aginst these covenantal yayhoos? Whatever advantages pretribulational eschatology might have over a view like preterism, the freedom to interpret passages literally does not appear to be one of the strongest.

Let Me Count the Ways

2007-07-19T20:59:00.000-04:00

Today some dear brothers asked me what I thought was to be gained by focusing so heavily on the doctrine of God’s covenant. I was able to name a few things on the spot, but having had time for a little more reflection, I offer a few additional ideas. The following is a more extensive (though certainly not exhaustive) list of biblical teachings which, I believe, can be understood in much greater depth when viewed in terms of God’s covenant. Indeed, there are some teachings on this list which, in my humble opinion, cannot be fully appreciated apart from such an understanding.

Please do not read me as saying that the covenant is the only important or even the most important doctrine in the Bible or that, without this knowledge, a person will utterly fail to grasp the scriptures. I simply propose that the doctrine is immensely valuable and worthy of much more attention than it typically receives in modern American Evangelical circles. I know that by merely listing these doctrines, I will not have proven the value of a covenantal understanding; that will take much more time. But I hope that by presenting this list I can at least make it clear why I believe the doctrine is so important.

It is my firm conviction that a proper understanding of God’s covenant is essential to a proper understanding of:

the cross work of Christ

the heavenly ministry of Christ

the true nature of salvation

our identity as God's people

our relationship with God as his people

the promises of God toward his people

the duties of God’s people toward God

the blessings for obedience and penalties for disobedience

the relationships of God’s people with one another

the true nature of church

the relationship between the church and Israel

the position of saints’ children before God

the nature of scripture in general

the relationship between the Old and New Testaments

the unfolding of biblical history

the final goal of human history

I intend first to take up the covenantal nature of Christ’s work on the cross.

So What's Your Story?

2007-07-15T21:25:00.000-04:00

The Scriptures present a story-- the story of God’s dealings with the human race. They tell us why God is dealing with mankind, what specifically He is doing, how He is doing it, where the story presently stands, and how it all will end. The scriptures, however, do not always present this full story in the most easily recognizable form. These core questions are not usually answered all in one place or in so many words. Rather, as we read the scriptures, we develop summaries, particular versions of the story, if you will.

As ought to be painfully obvious, not everybody who reads the scriptures comes up with the same summary of the scriptural story. Different interpreters and schools of interpreters come up with different versions, different answers to these core questions. Some of these versions, though they vary in certain respects, are still more or less compatible with one another. Many, however, are more in conflict; some are simply irreconcilable.

Differences in versions of this overall story are frequently the reason why Christians find themselves unable to agree on smaller particulars. This, of course, is because, having formed such summaries, we then use them as interpretive frameworks which we inevitably bring to bear upon every particular passage we read. Every issue is viewed through the lens of our version of the story. Many theological disagreements, then, are truly irresolvable unless the underlying conflict between the different versions is addressed.

This, certainly, is even more difficult than it sounds. There are some kinds of disagreements that can be resolved with reference to a single passage. “Christ had fourteen apostles.” “No, I believe he had twelve.” Let’s look it up…Ah you’re right. It was twelve.” Conflicts between different versions of the scriptural story, however, take immense amounts of time to resolve, because resolution requires treatment, not of one or two passages, but of the entire scriptures taken as a whole. Few people have the patience for this breadth or depth of discussion.

So what do we do? Do we dispense (pardon the pun) with forming versions of the story? This, of course, is entirely impossible. Versions of the scriptural story are like worldviews: it’s not a matter of “if” you have one; it can only be a matter of “which” one you have. Our task, then, is to strive for the right version of the story. Sure. That’s easy. Which one is the right one? The overly simple answer is that the right version, the right summary of the story of God’s dealing with mankind, can be none other than the version presented by the scriptures themselves. It cannot be one that is imposed upon the scriptures from the outside. Our task, then, is to work, to labor, to toil, to let the scriptures speak for themselves, to derive from them and from them alone, the story they tell as a whole.

Now to the point: Covenant theology is one version of the story of God’s dealing with mankind. It is similar to some versions; it is very different than others. Again, the differences between the covenantal view and non-covenantal views are the cause, I’m sure, of many hundreds of more particular theological disagreements. Covenant theology is not an idea that can be proven with reference to a single, certainly not even to a dozen passages. It is, like every other version of the scriptural story, a summary that men claim to have derived from the totality of scripture. It is therefore an idea that takes a whole, whole, whole lot of time to work through, and even more time to impress itself upon those who as of yet do not accept it. However,--and you knew I was coming to this-- covenant theology, I firmly believe, is the version of the story of God’s dealing with mankind that best comports with the totality of scripture, the version that is presented by the scriptures themselves.

What, then, according to covenant theology, is the story told by the scriptures, the story of God’s dealing with mankind? Why, according to this version, does God deal with mankind? what is he doing? how does he do it? where are we now? and how does it all end? There are, indeed, even different versions of the covenantal version, the distinctions between which would take a lifetime to investigate; but here’s a very humble summary of my very humble take on the matter:

Covenant theology teaches that God, in His dealings with mankind, is ultimately seeking to glorify Himself in His Son. To that end he has undertaken to redeem fallen mankind in Christ. God unfolds this redemptive work primarily through series of covenants whereby he takes certain men to be His people and takes His rightful place as their God, promising Himself and His blessings to them and requiring faith and obedience from them. In former days, God made these covenants by the shedding of animal blood and with certain families and nations, particularly with Israel. But He has now, in these last days, made a final covenant through the blood of Christ, a covenant into which men from every nation may be joined, and a covenant under which Jew and Gentile become fellow heirs of the of promises and fellow citizens of the commonwealth of Israel. Through this final, eternal and perfect covenant, God will ultimately redeem all nations. At the final consummation of history, all will be His people, and to all He will be God.

Now, of course, many who consider themselves to be non-covenantal may agree with most, if not all, of what I’ve said in this summary. The devil, as they say, will certainly be in the details, and it is into those details that I propose to go… in due time.

In the meantime, my most beloved non-covenantal brethren, consider this question: what’s your version of the story?

Little Ones

2007-07-09T22:20:00.000-04:00

Pastor Wright has made the point that just because the former covenants were made with heads of households and their children, this does not prove that they were made with the children as children. Perhaps, by itself, it does not. There are certainly, however, other pieces of evidence that do come much closer to providing complete proof. One that I mentioned in the previous comment thread is that children, males at least, were required by the terms of the covenant to receive the sign of the covenant at the ripe old age of eight days. To fail to do so was not to miss out on the covenant, it was rather to break the covenant.

Here are some passages that speak more plainly to this issue:

"You are standing today all of you before the LORD your God: the heads of your tribes,your elders, and your officers, all the men of Israel, your little ones, your wives, and the sojourner who is in your camp, from the one who chops your wood to the one who draws your water, so that you may enter into the sworn covenant of the LORD your God, which the LORD your God is making with you today, (Deut. 29:10-12).

When all Israel comes to appear before the LORD your God at the place that he will choose, you shall read this law before all

Israel

in their hearing. Assemble the people, men, women, and little ones, and the sojourner within your towns, that they may hear and learn to fear the LORD your God, and be careful to do all the words of this law, and that their children, who have not known it, may hear and learn to fear the LORD your God, as long as you live in the land that you are going over the Jordan to possess." (Deut. 31:11-13)

And afterward he read all the words of the law, the blessing and the curse, according to all that is written in the Book of the Law. There was not a word of all that Moses commanded that Joshua did not read before all the assembly of Israel, and the women, and the little ones, and the sojourners who livedamong them. (Josh. 8:34-35).

These passages make it quite clear that the Mosaic covenant, like the Abrahamic Covenant was made with the Israelites and their children, not as future adults, but as little children.

Gig at the BRD House

2007-07-09T17:22:00.001-04:00

Just a reminder that CDP will be singing at the BRD House in Clayton Friday evening. Should be fun. Come on out.

What Were The Ancient Saints to Expect?

2007-06-27T22:48:00.000-04:00

The Noahic covenant was made with the house of Noah and his offspring (Gen. 9:9). The Abrahamic covenant was made with the house Abraham and his offspring (Gen. 17). The Mosaic covenant was made with the house of Israel and his offspring (Deut. 29:10). The Levitical covenant was made with the house of Levi and his offspring (Jer. 33:21). The Davidic covenant was made with the house of David and his offspring (II Chr. 13:5).

Each time God initiated a new stage in the development of his relationship with His people, he entered into covenant both with the heads of household and with their descendants. This is a very clearly established pattern.

Nor did the Old Testament scriptures give any indication that this pattern would change in the age to come. In fact, the prophets who announced beforehand the days of Messiah clearly proclaimed that God would follow this same principle when he established the New Covenant.

"And as for me, this is my covenant with them," says the LORD: "My Spirit that is upon you, and my words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouth of your offspring, or out of the mouth of your children's offspring," says the LORD, "from this time forth and forevermore." (Isaiah 59:21)

I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me forever, for their own good and the good of their children after them. I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them. And I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me. (Jeremiah 32:39-40).

They shall dwell in the land that I gave to my servant Jacob, where your fathers lived. They and their children and their children's children shall dwell there forever, and David my servant shall be their prince forever. I will make a covenant of peace with them. It shall be an everlasting covenant with them. (Ezekiel 37:25-26)

As he looked ahead, then, the ancient Israelite had every reason to believe that, just as God had always included children in the covenants he made in the past, so would He continue to do in the future.

Just a Cool Picture of Jesse Fixin' to Whomp One

2007-06-27T21:16:00.000-04:00

You Know Your Family Is Way Too Focused on Star Wars, When...

2007-06-24T16:28:00.000-04:00

...while having red marker scrubbed off of her almost entirely colored arms, your two year old daughter protests, "No hank you! No hank you! I Darf Maw!"

What Do You Think We'll Find?

2007-06-22T22:50:00.000-04:00

In the last post, I highlighted these four points.

1) In the OT, God’s covenants with his people were established with entire households.
2) In the OT, The children of God’s people were entitled, from birth, to the promises of the covenant.
3) In the OT, The children of God’s people were bound, from birth, to the duties of the covenant.
4) In the OT, fathers among God’s people were required to bring their children up in the covenant.

True to good Calvinist form, I want to note a fifth point that I believe might also be helpful in examining the present question:

5) In the Old Testament, outsiders who desired to enter into covenant with God brought their households along with them.

We see this, for example in Exodus, 12:48:

If a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised. Then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it.

When a gentile, an outsider, desired to partake of God’s Passover, that meal that symbolized the fulfillment of God's covenant promises, when he wanted to leave his alien status behind and become as a native of the land, he was required to take for himself the sign of God’s covenant, the sign of circumcision. But note that, just as Abraham did not enter into this covenant alone, so too, the proselyte was required to apply this sign to all the males of his household (Presumably, by the way, because ALL these would be partaking of the meal).

So, it would seem, this same principle that is established at the initial formation of God's covenant (that these covenants are household affairs), also applies to the later inclusion of outsiders. As I say, I believe this paradigm could be somewhat illuminating as we begin to consider the New Testament’s teaching on these same issues.

Considering, then, the five points highlighted above, when we put them all together, I don’t see how we can avoid the conclusion that, in the Old Testament, children born to parents in covenant with God were, by virtue of their very birth, themselves in covenant with God.

And here, of course, is the next step: What if we find that these same five things are true in the New Testament? What if the New Covenant is initiated with entire households, what if outsiders are brought in to this covenant with their households, what if children born into these households are treated as heirs of the promises and obligors to the commands of the covenant, what if we find that the same duty is laid upon fathers to bring their children up in the covenant? If all these things should be found true in the New Testament, how can we avoid the conclusion that, in the New Testament, just as in the Old, children born to parents in covenant with God are, by virtue of their very birth, themselves in covenant with God?

Doug Wilson on the Church Calendar

2007-06-20T10:24:00.000-04:00

Defining Our Days

Abraham's Covenant Children

2007-06-12T21:53:00.000-04:00

I think yo-mama has, in the last comment thread, given me a very good place to pick up:

To shed light on the question, I'd ask another question: to what degree were children of believers in the old covenant to be treated as members and participants in the covenant of God? Then, how has this changed (if at all) in the new testament? The answer to the first is simple--to the highest possible degree. This may be helpful since things were more explicit in these regards in the OT.

Some observations from the Pentateuch to put some meat to her very helpful comment:

When God established his covenant with Abraham in Gen 17, He was also explicitly making this covenant with Abraham's children throughout their generations forever. These children were, therefore, by their very birth, to be considered within the bounds of that covenant, and all the males were automatically to receive circumcision as the sign thereof. We read in Gen 18 that this arrangement carried with it the obligation upon Abraham to "command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice"

From the day that children were born into these covenant households, then, they had claim on the promises of the covenant (that God would give them a land) and were bound by the duties (to keep the LORD's ways). Their fathers had the responsibility to command them in these ways. Again, none of this was dependent upon anything other than their being born into Abraham's family. This same arrangement is established to each of the patriarchs in turn (Gen 26).

It seems to me that in this foundational example, we see the essential elements of what it means to be in covenant with God. When I say that someone is in covenant with God, I mean that they are 1) rightful claimants of the promises given and 2) proper subjects of the duties proscribed. Again, this was presumed to be true of Abraham's descendants as soon as they were born.

These same principles hold true through the rest of the Torah. God's covenant with his people developed and new promises and new duties were revealed, promises and duties connected with the Passover (Ex 12), with the priesthood (Ex 30) and certainly with Israel's stay at Sinai (Ex. 20), all of which were automatically to be passed on from father to son. Moses reiterated these truths as Israel was preparing to enter the promised land (Deut 6).

So, to what degree were children of believers in the Old Covenant to be treated as members and participants in the covenant of God? Yo-mama's answer appears quite consistent with what I've been able to find in the Pentateuch: to the highest possible degree. Each child born into an Israelite household was-from his very birth- presumed to be 1) entitled to inheritance of all the promises and 1) obligated to performance of all the duties of that covenant.

I want to press on through the Psalms and prophets before considering to what extent (if any) this arrangement has been altered with respect to the New Covenant. I'd also like first to consider Rev's question about the status of those leaving the covenant from the perspective of the entire OT. The phrase "cut off from his people" is the only thing that comes to mind so far.

The Curtis Duncan Project

2007-06-06T07:17:00.000-04:00

We'll be singing out at Taffey's in Eaton Friday night from 8 till around 10:30. We'll also be in Clayton at the BRDhouse cafe on xxxxxx. Come on out.

CORRECTION: We'll be at the BRDhouse on Thursday June 21.

Any Difference at All?

2007-05-22T21:49:00.001-04:00

All right. I believe I'm satisfied with this form of the overall question:

To what degree are the young children of professing believers to be treated (on that basis alone) as members and participants in the covenant people of God?

I suppose it would make sense to begin by examining the question of fact before discussing the question of degree.

So what scriptural evidence is there that such children have any degree of membership or participation in God's covenant people? What scriptural basis is there for making any distinction in this regard between children born into believing households and those born into unbelieving households?

Come on. We're moving too slowly for Margaret.

The Future of Presbyterianism in North Dayton: A New Hope

2007-05-19T16:32:00.001-04:00

Girded for Action

Younglings in Training

The Destiny of Unbelief

So What About Our Children?

2007-05-16T22:30:00.000-04:00

I'd like to start thinking through some issues about the children of believers.

Some Christian traditions baptize their children before any profession of faith; others dedicate them instead. Some traditions have been known to encourage their children to "sow their wild oats" and let them come to their own decision to follow Christ later in life; others treat them as functional believers from birth. Some traditions allow young children to partake in the Lord's supper, others adamantly forbid them. In some traditions, parents express great anxiety about their children's salvation and are only relieved when their children have made a "credible" profession of faith; in others, they are satisfied with their children's simple trust in whatever their parents tell them to believe.

There are a whole host of issues wrapped up in these different approaches to children, several foundational doctrines underlying each perspective. A Christian's view of his children will be intimately connected with his understanding of the true nature of the church, the true nature of God's covenant with his people, the relationship between the Old and New covenants, the nature of the sacraments, the nature of true faith and conversion and so on and so forth. I'm beginning to think that in many ways, one's doctrine of children can reveal almost the entirety of that person's theology.

Here's what I'm after in this initial post. I want to try and determine what the real points of difference are between these various understandings of the children of believers and their relationship to the church. How are we to frame the question? What is the crux of the matter, the point of stasis?

Is it a matter of young children being members/ non-members of the church? partakers/non-partakers of God's covenant with his people? different/no different from the children of pagans? capable/incapable of true faith? Is it a question of what the default assumption should be? out until proven to be in/in until proven to be out? Are they to be treated as Christians? pagans? some third category?

Maybe the question is as simple as this: as Christians, should we treat our young children as if they are Christians or non-Christians?

I'm not ready to start talking about the answer yet. What do you see as the question? If we had to identify one central issue, one point of disagreement upon which all of these practical differences are based, what would it be? One side says that the children of believers are X, the other side says that they are non-X. What's the variable here?

Quote from Contracts Class

2007-05-04T16:20:00.000-04:00

"You can steal a lot more from someone with a pen than you can with a gun."

So true.

Finals Start Tomorrow

2007-04-27T20:59:00.000-04:00

Hope to be back in service around the 8th of May.

JURORS NEEDED!

2007-04-16T20:57:00.000-04:00

This Friday at 4:00 p.m., a group of law students from U.D. will be participating in a mock trial downtown at the Common Pleas court building. (My side is representing a defendant in a pretend wrongful death suit). We have all of our witnesses, but we're still short a few jurors. If anyone is free and is interested in serving, or in just coming to observe, let me know. It should be a whole lot of fun, and we could really use the help.

Shameless Plug

2007-04-12T12:00:00.000-04:00

The Curtis Duncan Project- a folky-rocky-oldies-maritime and-occasional-Disney-tune acoustic band, in which I perform a humble part (high harmony)- will be performing tomorrow night (Friday) at Taffey's coffee house in Eaton. We usually get started at around 8:00 and wind down around 10:00. People say we don't sound that bad. Great coffee. Nothing better to do? Come on out.

Sex, Nudity, and Movies

2007-04-10T10:24:00.000-04:00

I know I had promised earlier that I would chip in my two cents in the whole sex and nudity in movies discussion. The following is a tardy and somewhat unorganized list of some points I believe ought to be considered in this issue. My thoughts are primarily directed to Christian men and are focused upon the impropriety of their watching sexually explicit scenes in movies.

1. Consider, first and foremost, the Lord and Master who has purchased you with his own blood. We are not our own, our eyes are not our own. We and they belong fully to Christ, and we have no right to use them in any way which displeases him.

2. Consider what it is you are actually doing. Sometimes, simply describing an activity helps us understand its true nature. What are you really doing when you watch such a scene? Simply stated, you are paying money to watch a real man and a real woman take off their clothes and pretend to engage in sexual activity for a movie camera. The technical term for this is voyeurism.

3. Consider your own purity. I know that most men who justify watching this kind of material say that seeing unclothed women pretend to have sex doesn’t bother them. By this I imagine they mean that it doesn’t tempt them to lust. If you’re saying this…you’re lying, at least to yourself. If you’re saying this and you’re not lying, you probably need some sort of medical attention. If you are saying this, and you’re not lying, and you do not need medical attention, then you need to find some better way to use your eunuch status for the kingdom.

Usually discussion of this issue only gets as far as the previous point, as if the possible negative effects upon the male voyeur are the only or the most important consideration. However, there is much more to be considered.

4. Consider the rights of your wife. Your wife or future wife has the right to your exclusive sexual attention. Furthermore, she has the right not to be continually compared to your mental collection of images of the mostly plastic bodies of all the women you’ve been watching on the big screen. When you put yourself in a position to see such things, you are sinning against her (Eunuchs, see the end of point 3).

5. Consider the dignity of the woman you are watching. Scripture is clear that, outside of marriage, looking upon a woman’s nakedness is a shame and dishonor to her. Again, the film medium does not change the fact that this is a real woman, whose real nakedness is being exposed to anyone who is willing to pay the $9.50. The fact that she does so willingly to get your money does not give you the right contribute to that dishonor.

6. Consider the woman’s husband or father. Remember the golden rule? Few of us, if we really thought about it, would want millions of men paying to see our wives or daughters take off their clothes and pretend to have sex with another actor. Yet many are willing to pay to borrow other men’s wives and daughters for the purpose. Again, I’m sure some actresses have husbands and fathers desensitized enough not to let such a thing bother them. That does not mean that you are wronging them any less.

7. Consider your own daughters. Be prepared for the difficulty of explaining to your young girls why they shouldn’t do for other men what you’ve been paying other girls to do for you.

Carriage Hill Farm

2007-04-03T21:29:00.000-04:00

For Corina's birthday we went to see some amooles (animals).
These are some of my favorite pictures from the day.

Promised Land

2007-04-02T21:26:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, by unanimous decision, our congregation voted to purchase a four-acre building site on the corner of Farrell and Dixie Drive in Vandalia. Thanks be to God!

Visitor

2007-03-25T19:40:00.000-04:00

Came home from church today to find this fellow catchin' some ZZZ's right beside our front door. Not a good place for the kids to find him.

I began to nudge him gently with a stick to encourage him to find another place to rest.

This appeared to rile him a bit.

With some more encouragement, he crawled up to the top of the window...

...and then copped this whole, "This good enough for ya!?" attitude.

But it wasn't.

After some slightly less gentle prodding, he flew away. Very neat to watch.

Birthdays

2007-03-24T19:15:00.000-04:00

This week my amazingly creative wife threw together a double birthday bash for the kids and their friends. Brayden is presently in the grips of a renewed planet obsession, and Corina is really into Pooh. The party was planned accordingly.

Hundred Acre Crib

Solar System Race Track (complete with asteroid belt)

Planetary Grub (Yes, we know Pluto has been disqualified)

Food for the Pooh-Crew

Orbiting Planeteers (Samantha wanted to be the Sun.
Surprisingly enough, Brayden insisted on being Mercury)

Pooh-Crew Rockin' Out the Rosie

Whole Gang Chowin' Down

Quite a time.

A Thousand Words

2007-03-22T11:54:00.000-04:00

Yeah, this pretty much sums up my life right now.

Perhaps I'm Completely Missing Something

2007-03-17T16:29:00.000-04:00

Screenit has given the new movie 300 an "extreme" rating for sex and nudity. Its stated reasons for doing so are too embarrassing for me to even summarize in this post. If you're even considering going to see the movie, I would recommend checking out the review. If you're not thinking of seeing it, I would recommend not even reading the review.

Would anyone mind sharing his thoughts as to how a Christian man can justify going to see such a movie? You can post anonymously if you wish.

Sweet Surprise

2007-03-15T06:01:00.000-04:00

Last week, I broke a branch off of one of our silver maples in order to hang up a finch feeder. A couple of hours later, the broken branch was dripping like a leaky faucet. I tasted the sap and was surprised to find it very sweet. Just for kicks, I placed a small metal bowl under the drip and was again surprised to find it half full in just under two hours. After a little online reading, I learned that even though the best sap is found in sugars and blacks, silver maples can produce a decent syrup as well--I had always considered the trees overgrown weeds. Very excited with my new discovery, I brought the sap in and boiled it in a skillet-- over-boiled it, as it turned out, and instead of syrup, ended up with a wonderfully tasty hard candy. The next morning I set out another bowl, and this time was able to boil my three cup harvest into just enough syrup for one glorious pancake.

I'm hooked. Yesterday I ordered my first set of taps from Yankee Grocery . I don't know if they'll arrive before the flow starches up, but at least I'll have them for next year.

Translating Poetry into Prose

2007-03-08T12:33:00.000-05:00

Another exercise we do in rhetoric is to translate a piece of poetry into prose. This helps students develop a better sense of the differences between the two forms, gives them practice at creating prose apart from having also to generate the ideas, and allows them to develop better insight into the poetic piece itself. Recently, I had the seniors write a prose rendition of Ben Jonson’s poem, “On My First Son,” a marvelously moving piece in its own right. Here is the original:

Farewell, thou child of my right hand, and joy;
My sin was too much hope of thee, lov'd boy.
Seven years thou wert lent to me, and I thee pay,
Exacted by thy fate, on the just day.
Oh, could I lose all father now! For why
Will man lament the state he should envy?
To have so soon 'scaped world's and flesh's rage,
And if no other misery, yet age!
Rest in soft peace, and, asked, say, Here doth lie
Ben Jonson his best piece of poetry.
For whose sake henceforth all his vows be such
As what he loves may never like too much.

And here is a conglomeration of what struck me as the best student adaptations of each line:

Goodbye, my son, my Benjamin, and all my joy. I always dreamed of what you would be, what you would accomplish, and in this I sinned. God lent you to me for seven years, and now I must return to him what is His. Today he requires payment of your life, and it must be given back to Him. Oh, if only I could lose all fatherly instincts and feelings. Why am I sorrowing for you when I should be jealous of your state? You were so fortunate to have escaped the world young and without experiencing its miseries. Rest in peace and quiet, my son, and know that you are and will forever remain my greatest and most prized piece of poetry. For your sake, I promise that I will never again love anything too much.

The 100 Acre Fireswamp

2007-03-05T19:43:00.000-05:00

One of the exercises I like to do with rhetoric students is to have them imitate sentence patterns. For this exercise, we take sentences or group of sentences and break them into their various clauses and phrases, then we write a new sentence that uses the same structures and order to express entirely different ideas.

Many times, we take these models from the grand speeches we're analyzing, other times (as will soon be evident) we adopt prose that, if somewhat more lighthearted, is at least very well known. In fact, the following adaptation (by one of my lovely seniors) is based on a passage so familiar, I think I shan't post the original.

Piglet, friendship is the most important thing in the 100 Acre Wood-- except for eating honey: ooey, gooey, and golden, where the honey is fresh and the bees are angry, it's amazing, so good-- but that's not what was talking about; I was talking about having friends, and as we all know, to have friends is to be happy.

The original?

To Witnesses: To Make Much Of Christ

2007-03-03T15:35:00.000-05:00

I have, in my discussions with TJ, come to have a better grasp of the bottom line: Jehovah's Witnesses say that Jesus Christ is unworthy of worship because they believe he is of merely limited worth. I cannot refrain from addressing this.

First, I want encourage Witnesses to just relax a little bit. It seems to me that they have set themselves on a quest for which there is really very little cause. They don't need to keep wearing themselves out going door to door and spreading the good news of Christ’s inferiority, reminding Christians that they ought not to worship Christ or telling them that they ought to restrain themselves from esteeming him so excessively. If they would just take a look around they would note that Christ is not really in all that much danger of even being discussed in most churches, let alone of being esteemed too highly. Yet these crusaders insist on pressing forward with this noble task.

How have the Witnesses come upon such pious revelation, anyway? How have they discovered that Christ is of merely limited value? It is, they say, because Christ is not the Father; he is begotten of the Father. And how can one who is begotten of the Father, and who is not the Father himself, be worthy of infinite love, honor, and devotion? But of course, this is foolishness. Far from being any indication of Christ’s limited worth, the fact that Christ is begotten of the Father is proof that his worth could not possibly be limited. And why is that? Because in begetting the Son, it pleases the Father that all the fullness of his divinity should dwell in him (Col 1:19; 2:9). That is, all the fullness— not some of his fullness, not all of a portion, all of his fullness.

Really, then, the Witnesses’ error is rooted in their inadequate esteem for the Father's divinity. Is the Father’s worth in any way limited? Of course not. How then can that infinite worth be limited just because he has caused it to dwell in his Son whom he has begotten? It cannot. In effect, then, to limit the worth of the Son is to limit the worth of the limitless Father who is pleased to have his limitless fullness dwell in his Son, and that without any limit whatsoever. This, of course, is why we are told to honor the Son, even as we honor the Father and why we are told that if we do not honor the Son we do not honor the Father (John 5:22-23).

But the Witnesses, perhaps, are wiser than God, and more concerned for his glory than he is himself. But God is not jealous of any worth we should recognize in Christ. Why should he be? It is his own worth. It is his own fullness dwelling in Christ. It his own divinity which he has fully begotten in him. The more men love and honor Christ, the more glory the Father receives. It is unreasonable, then, to think that the Father would want Christ's praise to be limited or his esteem to be restrained.

Ponder, furthermore, the arrogance involved in believing that one even has the capacity to overvalue Christ. How can we love him too much whose love for his people exceeds our ability to understand it (Eph 3:19)? How can we give too much to him by whom, through whom, and unto whom all things were created and in whom all things consist (Col 1:16-17)? And how can we give ourselves too fully to him who wholly gave himself up for us (Gal 2:20)? We are not able to honor Christ according to a fraction of his worth. To persuade men to hold back any portion of their love, esteem, and devotion from Christ is more than just academically mistaken. It is blasphemously immoral. I sincerely pray that God would have mercy on the souls of those laboring so hard to lead men so far astray.

The State of the Case (As I See It)

2007-02-25T14:59:00.000-05:00

TJ,

I keep going back to Matt’s earlier comment that on this narrow issue of “worship” it might be too difficult for either of us to get much traction. That may eventually prove true, but I’m not quite ready to let it drop. You’ve been a valiant adversary, and you have definitely challenged me and forced me to refine my thinking upon some particulars. Be that as it may, I still cannot see how those words and deeds rendered Christ in the fifth chapter of Revelation can constitute anything less than divine worship.

I can’t get past it: the highest angels and heavenly elders fall down before Christ with harps and golden bowls filled with incense (which symbolize the prayers of the saints) and sing songs of his worthiness. Then, joined by all the angels in heaven and every other created thing in the universe, they attribute to him everlasting blessing and honor and glory and dominion. They end by falling down before him and rendering him proskynesis.

As you have pointed out, there have been instances in which particular men and angels have received a lesser kind of proskynesis, one that did not rise to the level of worship. But surely, you have to admit that no one besides Jehovah (be he man or angel) had ever before appropriately received anything approaching the scope or extent of reverential treatment here rendered to Christ. I challenge you to point to a single instance that even begins to compare.

When the Israelites did such things to Jehovah, whether or not they used the name “God” in a particular instance, they were worshiping Jehovah. When the Canaanites did such things to Baal, whether or not they specifically credited him with creation, they were worshiping Baal. When the Romans did such things to Caesar, whether or not they recognized other divine persons to which he was submissive, they were worshiping Caesar.

If, therefore, you’re going to claim that those doing these same things to Christ were not, in fact, worshiping him, your burden of proof is going to be quite heavy. I think you’re going to have to do more than point out that Christ is not here called “God” (for elsewhere he is clearly so called). And I think that you’re going to have to do more than point out that he is not here credited with creation (for elsewhere he is clearly so credited). And I believe that you’re going to have to do more than point out that he was submissive to the will of the Father (because I don’t see how that changes anything).

Simply put, despite what has said thus far, I still cannot see how these activities, which in every other imaginable context would be immediately recognized as worship, are not here to be so considered.