All I have to say is … Who brings a cockatoo to work, let’s it out of the cage, accidentally allowing it to get loose? Yes, there was a cockatoo flying around at work today on the 2nd floor. And when I heard it chirping, I stood up, and all of a sudden, it flew right over my head and landed on the blinds nearby. Good stuff. Isn’t there something in the HR policy about this? Well there will be now … good grief, do we have to define every possible thing you can and cannot do at work? Man our culture has lost all common sense. Regardless, that was quite hilarious.
Month: July 2007
What is at stake in the debate over limited atonement? Well, ultimately the Gospel itself is. This is the very thing John Owen went to painstaking lengths to demonstrate in his book The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. How? Well, did Christ die to make salvation possible for all merely, not securing anyone’s salvation for sure, or did He die to actually and effectually save those given to Him by the Father, accomplishing everything necessary to save them, including the granting of faith and repentance? Particular redemption answers the two questions, for whom did Christ die, and what did Christ actually accomplish on the cross for those for whom He died (we believe He purchased not only the ends – salvation, but even the means to that end in the cross, that is Gospel preaching, New Birth, and the granting of repentance and faith by the Holy Spirit). J.I. Packer, from Concise Theology, does a great job in this short excerpt of explaining the other potential theories concerning the work of the cross and how none jive with the Biblical data the way this doctrine does.
————————————————————————-
“I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me–just as the Father knows me and I know the Father–and I lay down my life for the sheep.” – John 10:14-15
Definite redemption, sometimes called “particular redemption,” “effective atonement,” and “limited atonement,” is an historic Reformed doctrine about the intention of the triune God in the death of Jesus Christ. Without doubting the infinite worth of Christ’s sacrifice or the genuineness of God’s “whoever will” invitation to all who hear the gospel (Rev. 22:17), the doctrine states that the death of Christ actually put away the sins of all God’s elect and ensured that they would be brought to faith through regeneration and kept in faith for glory, and that this is what it was intended to achieve. From this definiteness and effectiveness follows its limitedness: Christ did not die in this efficacious sense for everyone. The proof of that, as Scripture and experience unite to teach us, is that not all are saved.
The only possible alternatives are (a) actual universalism, holding that Christ’s death guaranteed salvation for every member of the human race, past, present, and future, or (b) hypothetical universalism, holding that Christ’s death made salvation possible for everyone but actual only for those who add to it a response of faith and repentance that was not secured by it. The choices are, therefore, an atonement of unlimited efficacy but limited extent (Reformed particularism), one of unlimited extent but limited efficacy (hypothetical universalism), or one of unlimited efficacy and unlimited extent (actual universalism). Scripture must be the guide in choosing between these possibilities.
Scripture speaks of God as having chosen for salvation a great number of our fallen race and having sent Christ into the world to save them (JOHN 6:37-40, 10:27-29, 11:51-52; Rom. 8:28-39; Eph. 1:3-14; 1 Pet. 1:20). Christ is regularly said to have died for particular groups or persons, with the clear implication that his death secured their salvation (JOHN 10:15-18,27-29; Rom. 5:8-10, 8:32; Gal. 2:20, 3:13-14, 4:4-5; 1 John 4:9-10; Rev. 1:4-6, 5:9-10). Facing his passion, he prayed only for those the Father had given him, not for the “world” (i.e., the rest of mankind, JOHN 17:9,20). Is it conceivable that he would decline to pray for any whom he intended to die for? Definite redemption is the only one of the three views that harmonizes with this data.
There is no inconsistency or incoherence in the teaching of the New Testament about, on the one hand, the offer of Christ in the gospel, which Christians are told to make known everywhere, and, on the other hand, the fact that Christ achieved a totally efficacious redemption for God’s elect on the cross. It is a certain truth that all who come to Christ in faith will find mercy (JOHN 6:35,47-51,54-57; Rom. 1:16, 10:8-13). The elect hear Christ’s offer, and through hearing it are effectually called by the Holy Spirit. Both the invitation and the effectual calling flow from Christ’s sin-bearing death. Those who reject the offer of Christ do so of their own free will (i.e., because they choose to, Matt. 22:1-7; JOHN 3:18), so that their final perishing is their own fault. Those who receive Christ learn to thank him for the cross as the centerpiece of God’s plan of sovereign saving grace.
Live Earth: How shall I describe it? Democratic National Convention, one in a long line of hippy fests, possible political front for Al Gore’s Presidential bid in the near future, “Green” Woodstock, the largest hypocritical organized event in the world, GE fluorescent light bulb marketing campaign (via NBC), NBC-backed partisan political push for the Democrats, hybrid marketing campaign, excuse to go to a concert and drink yourself in the ground, a “progressive” excuse to protest an infringement of the climate on our constitutional rights (even if it is a theory), a reason for artists to be in the spotlight and market their music, a reason to be entertained for fans, a false way of feeling like you are making a difference when you are simply adding to the alleged problem by attending, a sham, a convenient way for the super rich and famous to be telling all of us peons what we should be doing and not be doing it themselves.
And no, Leonardo, there is no consensus in the scientific community on the issue. Why the fabrication? There is in fact a great divide. What a giant lie this whole thing is … and Al Gore, in the name of inclusion of all people from all types of backgrounds, you are excluding all those who disagree with you, like me and half of the scientific community. For pollution to be cut down at the levels it needs to be to reverse any supposed climate change caused by man, all construction and industrial production from all sectors of the world must cease immediately. And … purchasing carbon offsets is going to do the job? Really? I’m at a loss, basically this sums it up: Al Gore, people will go to anything where there are stars, music, beer, and a reason to protest; that does not necessarily mark success though in your fight at the phantom that is global warming. Makes my head hurt …
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/ … 027517.ece
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/f … ge_id=1879
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id … _article=1
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/07/washi … nted=print
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 01_pf.html
http://www.davidwesterfield.net/comment … 614-095935
http://www.davidwesterfield.net/comment … 516-094518
http://www.davidwesterfield.net/comment … 410-110051
http://www.davidwesterfield.net/comment … 203-004902
“Paul had preached the Gospel throughout Galatia, founding many churches which after his departure were invaded by the false apostles. The Anabaptists in our time imitate the false apostles. They do not go where the enemies of the Gospel predominate. They go where the Christians are. Why do they not invade the Catholic provinces and preach their doctrine to godless princes, bishops, and doctors, as we have done by the help of God? These soft martyrs take no chances. They go where the Gospel has a hold, so that they may not endanger their lives. The false apostles would not go to Jerusalem of Caiaphas, or to the Rome of the Emperor, or to any other place where no man had preached before as Paul and the other apostles did. But they came to the churches of Galatia, knowing that where men profess the name of Christ they may feel secure.”
– Martin Luther in his commentary on Galatians Chapter 1.
In this excerpt, Luther compares the false teachers in Galatia with the Anabaptists of his time during the Reformation, who were not willing to take the Gospel to the hard places (the Catholic provinces in Europe as he states), but rather desired to congregate with other Christians only. It is clear, at the very least from Luther’s assessment, that the Anabaptists’ actions of not going to the hard places with the Gospel, as he says, parallels that of the false teachers in Galatia. I’m not knowledgeable enough to say whether or not Anabaptists were indeed false teachers (they were definitely at the very least synergists, which says a lot), but I also don’t necessarily agree with everything Luther said either. Regardless, this is off topic … you could call the Anabaptists unwillingness to go to the hard places with the Gospel the “Reformation Christian Bubble” I guess, just as we have our own in America, which is why this amply applies. It is very tempting to only surround ourselves with believers. But it is in my opinion the modern church in America should listen to Luther when he says believers who only congregate together and do not go out into the world with the Gospel (the workplace, areas where unbelievers congregate, bars, the big cities vs rural areas) where there is hostility towards the Gospel and God’s glory, are paralleling the actions of the false teachers mentioned in Galatians. If these actions continue, we risk becoming totally irrelevant in our society, at which our culture will further digress into even more depravity. Those believers who totally separate themselves from society are not willing to be scorned for their faith in Christ. It is apparent by their actions. Instead they become puffed up with pride that they may somehow be polluted by worldliness if they go to those places, when really this is an excuse to escape persecution at the hands of those who hate the Gospel. At the heart of this belief system is legalism, the idea we are approved by God because of our works. And isn’t it ironic this is the very heresy Paul is refuting in Galatians, that had entered the church there by false teachers? I’m being sarcastic, it’s not at all ironic, because beliefs and actions go hand in hand.
I constantly hear preachers, teachers and others within our Christian culture who condemn the actions of unbelievers (many times yelling at them in public; still not understanding how a heart changed by Christ can do this) and have not the Christ-like courage to befriend them, be kind to them in Christ, in order to share the Gospel, in order that they may be restored to the glory of God through the Gospel by the work of the Holy Spirit. Instead these professed believers publicly persecute unbelievers by calling them names, bashing them with the poison of asps that is on their lips. I read one quote recently on a comment to a blog from someone stating, “As a Christian, I’m sick and tired of this Babylonian culture around us!” Well, let us love this “Babylonian culture” by entering their lives and preach the Gospel to them then! Many professed believers are quicker to condemn the actions and behaviors of unbelievers than preach the Gospel to them. But just as Paul says in Romans 10:13-15, “For ‘everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’ But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent?” In His High Priestly prayer to the Father in John 17:15, Jesus prays, “I do not ask that you take them [the disciples] out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one.” And then He goes on to say in verse 18, “As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world.” So our calling is not to remove ourselves from the pagan culture surrounding us, but to enter it and embrace these people as those who need the Gospel desperately, without which they are lost forever, and share it with words and actions, by entering into their lives, no matter how messed up it may be.
Might I remind all of us as well, that we as believers need the Gospel just as they do, everyday, for progression in our faith in Christ. We do not start with the Gospel and then “move on” by trying harder. Rather we start, progress and finish with the Gospel. Just as we gave up on our works when we came to faith in Christ, so also we lose confidence in ourselves and abilities and look to Christ more and more for these things, provided in the cross. Even as believers, we are broken sinners in need of restoration and healing that can only be found in Christ and His work for us, not through “trying harder” to become moral. Everyday, we need a spiritual heart-change by the Holy Spirit to turn from sin and replace it with Christ. Believers and unbelievers alike are sinners. Is the believer better than the unbeliever even after being saved? No! Then what is the difference? The grace of God alone making us to differ, not that we earned it or merited it at all, but based upon His own purpose and grace to us in Christ purposed from the foundation of the world, He has made us alive spiritually to see the truth of the Gospel and beauty of Christ. May He do the same to our unbelieving friends! May we take this wonderful message of salvation to those who are in bondage and captivity to the work of Satan by loving them with the Gospel at the expense of ourselves and our comfort, even though our culture may be detestable. And of course the world is morally detestable … how do you think the perfect Son of God felt everyday of His life on earth submerged in a world of sinning? Do you not think it vexed His soul on a scale we cannot even fathom? And yet who did He hang out with the most? The “Sinners” and “tax collectors”, the “Samaritans”, those considered to be on the outside of the faith as professed by the Pharisees. He poured Himself out even unto death in obedience to the Father to bring people to Himself, to deliver us from the wrath of God by His blood! May we have the same mind as that of Christ by taking this message of the cross and redemption thereby to those within our culture, even if it injures us! May we enter culture, not reject it, for the sake of Christ and His Gospel.
“For I am not ashamed of the Gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes…” – Romans 1:16
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/07/02/o … decisi.php
This was Obama speaking about Bush granting clemency to Scooter Libby. Really? I’m sorry but last I remember it was absolutely within the bounds of the law for the President of the United States to grant clemency. So I guess I’m not understanding what the bad politics are. Can someone explain this to me? What kind of politics must change? I guess Obama means to say he desires to rewrite laws so that a President cannot grant clemency? If that is the case, what other laws does he want to change that have existed for over two hundred years? Where does it stop? I’m sorry, Obama, but the bad politics do not just exist on the Republican side. There is much corruption coming from your own party as well.
List of President Clinton’s pardons: http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.htm
Clinton’s explanation for why he pardoned: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/18/opini … 1183521600
And I submit to you, as a conservative, that Clinton was absolutely within the law to pardon the people he chose to. So what’s the problem with Bush pardoning someone? He has the right to do so.
This just shows that most of the leftist leaders in this country simply hate Bush not for any logically consistent reason, even when he performs the legal duties of his office, but they simply find joy in the hating of this President, because it promotes their political agenda.
Pelosi: “The president shows his word is not to be believed” http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/ … 2-20-24-17
Hillary: “In this administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice” http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/ … 2-20-24-17
Thanks to www.DrudgeReport.com for the links …
“How can the existence of evil, physical and moral, be reconciled with the benevolence and holiness of a God infinite in his wisdom and power?
This is the question which has exercised the reason and tried the faith of men in all ages of the world. Such is the distance between God and man, such the feebleness of our powers, and such the limited range of our vision, it might seem reasonable to leave this question to be answered by God himself. If a child cannot rationally sit in judgment on the conduct of his parents, nor a peasant comprehend the affairs of an empire, we certainly are not competent to call God to account, or to ask of Him the reason of his ways. We might rest satisfied with the assurance that the Judge of all the earth must do right. These considerations, however, have not availed to prevent speculation on this subject. The existence of evil is constantly brought forward by skeptics as an argument against religion; and it is constantly in the minds of believers as a difficulty and a doubt. While it is our duty to obey the injunction, “Be still and know that I am God,” it is no less our duty to protest against those solutions of this great problem which either destroy the nature of sin or the nature of God.”
“The third method of dealing with this question is to rest satisfied with the simple statements of the Bible. The Scriptures teach, (1.) That the glory of God is the end to which the promotion of holiness, and the production of happiness, and all other ends are subordinate. (2.) That, therefore, the self-manifestation of God, the revelation of his infinite perfection, being the highest conceivable, or possible good, is the ultimate end of all his works in creation, providence, and redemption. (3.) As sentient creatures are necessary for the manifestation of God’s benevolence, so there could be no manifestation of his mercy without misery, or of his grace and justice, if there were no sin. As the heavens declare the glory of God, so He has devised the plan of redemption, ” To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places, might be known by the Church the manifold wisdom of God.” (Eph. iii. 10.) The knowledge of God is eternal life. It is for creatures the highest good. And the promotion of that knowledge, the manifestation of the manifold perfections of the infinite God, is the highest end of all his works. This is declared by the Apostle to be the end contemplated, both in the punishment of sinners and in the salvation of believers. It is an end to which, he says, no man can rationally object. ” What if God, willing to shew his wrath (or justice), and to make his power known, endured with much long suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: and that He might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared unto glory.” (Rom. ix. 22, 23.) Sin, therefore, according the Scriptures, is permitted, that the justice of God may be known in its punishment, and his grace in its forgiveness. And the universe, without the knowledge of these attributes, would be like the earth without the light of the sun.
The glory of God being the great end of all things, we are not obliged to assume that this is the best possible world for the production of happiness, or even for securing the greatest degree of holiness among rational creatures. It is wisely adapted for the end for which it was designed, namely, the manifestation of the manifold perfections of God. That God, in revealing Himself, does promote the highest good of his creatures, consistent with the promotion of his own glory, may be admitted. But to reverse this order, to make the good of the creature the highest end, is to pervert and subvert the whole scheme; it is to put the means for the end, to subordinate God to the universe, the Infinite to the finite. This putting the creature in the place of the Creator, disturbs our moral and religious sentiments and convictions, as well as our intellectual apprehensions of God, and of his relation to the universe.
The older theologians almost unanimously make the glory of God the ultimate, and the good of the creature the subordinate end of all things. Twesten, indeed, says’ it makes no difference whether we say God proposes his own glory as the ultimate end, and, for that purpose, determined to produce the highest degree of good; or that He purposed the highest good of his creatures, whence the manifestation of his glory flows as a consequence. It, however, makes all the difference in the world, whether the Creator be subordinate to the creature, or the creature to the Creator; whether the end be the means, or the means the end. There is a great difference whether the earth or the sun be assumed as the centre of our solar system. If we make the earth the center, our astronomy will be in confusion. And if we make the creature, and not God, the end of all things, our theology and religion will in like manner be perverted. It may, in conclusion, be safely asserted that a universe constructed for the purpose of making God known, is a far better universe than one designed for the production of happiness.”
Taken from The Existence of Evil by Charles Hodge at http://www.mbrem.com/apologetics/chodge-evil.htm
“There is [a] reason we need a different definition of sin for postmodern people. They are relativists, and the moment you say, ‘Sin is breaking God’s moral standards,’ they will retort, ‘Well, who is to say whose moral standards are right? Everyone has different ones! What makes Christians think that theirs are the only right set of moral standards?’ The usual way to respond to this is to become sidetracked from your presentation of sin and grace into an apologetic discussion about relativism. Of course, postmodern people must be strongly challenged about their mushy view of truth, but I think there is a way to move forward and actually make a credible and convicting gospel presentation before you get into the apologetic issues. I do it this way, I take a page from Kierkegaard’s The Sickness Unto Death and I define sin as building your identity—your self-worth and happiness—on anything other than God. Instead of telling them they are sinning because they are sleeping with their girlfriends or boyfriends, I tell them that they are sinning because they are looking to their careers and romances to save them, to give them everything that they should be looking for in God. This idolatry leads to drivenness, addictions, severe anxiety, obsessiveness, envy of others, and resentment.
I have found that when you describe their lives in terms of idolatry, postmodern people do not offer much resistance. They doubt there is any real alternative, but they admit sheepishly that this is what they are doing. I have also found that this makes sin more personal. Making an idol out of something means giving it the love you should be giving your Creator and Sustainer. To depict sin as not only a violation of law but also of love is more compelling. Of course a complete description of sin and grace includes recognition of our rebellion against God’s authority. But I’ve found that if people become convicted about their sin as idolatry and mis-directed love, it is easier to show them that one of the effects of sin is to put them into denial about their hostility to God. In some ways, idolatry is like addiction writ large. We are ensnared by our spiritual idols just like people are ensnared by drink and drugs. We live in denial of how much we are rebelling against God’s rule just like addicts live in denial of how much they are trampling on their families and loved ones.”
– Tim Keller
http://www.westerfunk.net/archives/theo … ern%20Age/