Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in randphoenix's LiveJournal:

[ << Previous 20 ]

Wednesday, June 29th, 2011
2:10 am	I'm tired of having sweet dreams about you... dreams of us being together, or getting together. Dreams of forgiveness, of love. It's been near to a year since we parted ways...and yet, for some reason, I still love you and miss you almost as much as when you left. I've grown since then; gotten stronger...and yet, I still miss you. I tried testing the waters with you again. You shot me down. In the dream, you said things that led me to believe that we may one day be together again. I hope against hope that this is true in reality, and not just in my dreams. But, even if it is only in my dreams....at least you're there in them. At least I get to see you again there. For all that I've grown, I'm pathetic....... (2 Comments |Comment on this)
Sunday, June 5th, 2011
1:41 am	Sympathy I find it kind of sad that I can most sympathize with my father now that he's gone. While he was alive and hurting us, it was hard to sympathize with him. He was "other." He was someone on drugs; I would never do that! And, by God's providence, I have not done drugs. I've only drank alcohol a few times in my life, and have never smoked. So I don't really know what it's like to waste away... to ruin my mind on medications... And yet, I can sympathize with my father. While I may not know the sting of medication abuse, I know something of the sting of addiction...of corruption. I know what it is like for your body to burn; for your every impulse to cry out for pollution..for your flesh and your wicked heart to crave betrayal so much that you feel that if you don't get gratification, you'll die. I know something of the excuses you tell yourself. I know something of the lies you tell; the stained glass window you become. I know something of poisoning those you love with the brew of your sin...of hearing the betrayal in their voice...of seeing the hurt in their eyes...and knowing you caused it. Knowing that you've pushed them away with your filth and corruption. And yet, I know something of what it's like to know all of this...and still have moments, moments too often, where you can't seem to help yourself. And even as I type that, the enemy snickers. I CAN help myself. And yet, when the blood begins to boil with the need, and when the moods begin to change and the heart begins to race and the sweat begins to pour....it's so easy to forget the God who purchased you. It's so easy to forget the gospel. It's so easy to forget the one you've hurt. You feel like you'll forget anything and everything just for that payoff....and yet... it never comes. It's like a cosmic letdown. So you hurt the ones you love, you lie to yourself and to others... and that's where I can sympathize with Dad. I feel like I understand him posthumously. If I could just have one moment again with him, I'd hug him. I'd tell him I'm sorry for my judgmentalism. I'd tell him that I love him, and that I understand some of his struggle and I understand his feelings of aloneness. But here is where Dad and I differed. For Dad, much of the problem was outside. It was the way he was raised or the scars of those close to him who harmed him or the hardness of life. Even when he admitted his problem was him, he then often deflected again, or instead blew up on himself. The wounds he had received and the wounds he had given became larger than anything else for him... and so the bitterness was, in the end, what consumed him. Bitterness at others and bitterness at himself. I can understand this, too. I am so often tempted to bitterness. I am so often wanting to blame my childhood or society or my depression. I can't be this way. I can't blame. I can't let bitterness claim me. And here is where the good news of the gospel comes in. The work that Christ has started, He will complete. Even if bitterness seems to sometimes get the upper hand, Christ is yet the victor. Even when my future seems bleak, as if I'll follow in the path of my father: Christ is yet the victor. And instead of that being bad news, that is good news, because this victor has already passed his verdict on me: not guilty. And so, I can understand my dad. I can sympathize with him. But it is my prayer that the gospel will not let me follow him, but rather my Savior. (Comment on this)
Thursday, April 14th, 2011
4:33 am	I had a wonderful dream where you loved me and wanted to be with me again...it was sweet, wonderful, lovely, beautiful, and cute. Until I woke up. Why do I have most of my good and sweet dreams of you now that you're gone? I guess it's because I miss you...and love you. (Comment on this)
Thursday, August 12th, 2010
3:56 am	Hey Girl, by Billy Joel Hey, girl, I want you to know I'm gonna miss you so much if you go And hey, girl, I tell you no lie Something deep inside of me's going to die If you say "So long" If this is "Goodbye" Oh, oh, oh, oh Hey, girl, this can't be true How am I supposed to exist without you? Hey, girl, now don't put me on What's gonna happen to me when you're gone? How will I live How can I go on? How can I go on? Oh, oh, oh, oh Hey, girl, now sit yourself down I'm not ashamed to get down on the ground And beg , beg you to stay Don't go away Hey, girl No, I beg ya, please don't go away (1 Comment |Comment on this)
Thursday, May 27th, 2010
7:31 am	An Open Letter to Sin To Sin, I hate you. I have heard that you are planning to kill me. Is that how it's gotta be? Fine. God and I are plotting your death. Could you do me a favor and die in a chemical fire? I'd appreciate it. Thanks. You fail at life, Charlie (Comment on this)
Tuesday, May 18th, 2010
8:27 am	Infant Baptism in the Confessions Another line of argumentation is that the entirety of the Reformed church understood infant baptism to be the true position of the church. It wasn't really until 1689, in the London Baptist Confession (which is basically just the WCF with a couple of slightly different chapters) that infant baptism was really denied (this is not counting the Anabaptists, who were altogether bad). This line of reasoning may not be totally convincing to the non-Reformed, but oh well. Here is what some of the main confessions say about infants and baptism: Belgic Confession, Article 34 For that reason we detest the error of the Anabaptists who are not content with a single baptism once received and also condemn the baptism of the children of believers. We believe our children ought to be baptized and sealed with the sign of the covenant, as little children were circumcised in Israel on the basis of the same promises made to our children. And truly, Christ has shed his blood no less for washing the little children of believers than he did for adults. Therefore they ought to receive the sign and sacrament of what Christ has done for them, just as the Lord commanded in the law that by offering a lamb for them the sacrament of the suffering and death of Christ would be granted them shortly after their birth. This was the sacrament of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, baptism does for our children what circumcision did for the Jewish people. That is why Paul calls baptism the "circumcision of Christ."^ Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 28 Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person. IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized. V. Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it: or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated. VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time. Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 165. What is baptism? A. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein Christ hath ordained the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, to be a sign and seal of ingrafting into himself, of remission of sins by his blood, and regeneration by his Spirit; of adoption, and resurrection unto everlasting life; and whereby the parties baptized are solemnly admitted into the visible church, and enter into an open and professed engagement to be wholly and only the Lord’s. Q. 166. Unto whom is baptism to be administered? A. Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him, but infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, are in that respect within the covenant, and to be baptized. Heidelberg Catechism Question 74. Are infants also to be baptized? Answer: Yes: for since they, as well as the adult, are included in the covenant and church of God; and since redemption from sin by the blood of Christ, and the Holy Ghost, the author of faith, is promised to them no less than to the adult; they must therefore by baptism, as a sign of the covenant, be also admitted into the christian church; and be distinguished from the children of unbelievers as was done in the old covenant or testament by circumcision, instead of which baptism is instituted in the new covenant. 2nd Helvetic Confession, Chapter 20 ANABAPTISTS. We condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that newborn infants of the faithful are to be baptized. For according to evangelical teaching, of such is the Kingdom of God, and they are in the covenant of God. Why, then, should the sign of God's covenant not be given to them? Whey should those who belong to God and are in his Church not be initiated by holy baptism? We condemn also the Anabaptists in the rest of their peculiar doctrines which they hold contrary to the Word of God. We therefore are not Anabaptists and have nothing in common with them. Luther's Large Catechism Here a question occurs by which the devil, through his sects, confuses the world, namely, Of Infant Baptism, whether children also believe, and are justly baptized. Concerning this we say briefly: Let the simple dismiss this question from their minds, and refer it to the learned. But if you wish to answer, then answer thus:- That the Baptism of infants is pleasing to Christ is sufficiently proved from His own work, namely, that God sanctifies many of them who have been thus baptized, and has given them the Holy Ghost; and that there are yet many even to-day in whom we perceive that they have the Holy Ghost both because of their doctrine and life; as it is also given to us by the grace of God that we can explain the Scriptures and come to the knowledge of Christ, which is impossible without the Holy Ghost. But if God did not accept the baptism of infants, He would not give the Holy Ghost nor any of His gifts to any of them; in short, during this long time unto this day no man upon earth could have been a Christian. Now, since God confirms Baptism by the gifts of His Holy Ghost, as is plainly perceptible in some of the church fathers, as St. Bernard, Gerson, John Hus, and others, who were baptized in infancy, and since the holy Christian Church cannot perish until the end of the world, they must acknowledge that such infant baptism is pleasing to God. For He can never be opposed to Himself, or support falsehood and wickedness, or for its promotion impart His grace and Spirit. This is indeed the best and strongest proof for the simple-minded and unlearned. For they shall not take from us or overthrow this article: I believe a holy Christian Church, the communion of saints. Further, we say that we are not so much concerned to know whether the person baptized believes or not; for on that account Baptism does not become invalid; but everything depends upon the Word and command of God. This now is perhaps somewhat acute, but it rests entirely upon what I have said, that Baptism is nothing else than water and the Word of God in and with each other, that is, when the Word is added to the water, Baptism is valid, even though faith be wanting. For my faith does not make Baptism, but receives it. Now, Baptism does not become invalid even though it be wrongly received or employed; since it is not bound (as stated) to our faith, but to the Word. For even though a Jew should to-day come dishonestly and with evil purpose, and we should baptize him in all good faith, we must say that his baptism is nevertheless genuine. For here is the water together with the Word of God, even though he does not receive it as he should, just as those who unworthily go to the Sacrament receive the true Sacrament, even though they do not believe. Thus you see that the objection of the sectarians is vain. For (as we have said) even though infants did not believe, which, however, is not the case, yet their baptism as now shown would be valid, and no one should rebaptize them; just as nothing is detracted from the Sacrament though some one approach it with evil purpose, and he could not be allowed on account of his abuse to take it a second time the selfsame hour, as though he had not received the true Sacrament at first; for that would mean to blaspheme and profane the Sacrament in the worst manner. How dare we think that God's Word and ordinance should be wrong and invalid because we make a wrong use of it? Therefore I say, if you did not believe then believe now and say thus: The baptism indeed was right, but I, alas! did not receive it aright. For I myself also, and all who are baptized, must speak thus before God: I come hither in my faith and in that of others, yet I cannot rest in this, that I believe, and that many people pray for me; but in this I rest, that it is Thy Word and command. Just as I go to the Sacrament trusting not in my faith, but in the Word of Christ; whether I am strong or weak, that I commit to God. But this I know, that He bids me go, eat and drink, etc., and gives me His body and blood; that will not deceive me or prove false to me. Thus we do also in infant baptism. We bring the child in the conviction and hope that it believes, and we pray that God may grant it faith; but we do not baptize it upon that, but solely upon the command of God. Why so? Because we know that God does not lie. I and my neighbor and, in short, all men, may err and deceive, but the Word of God cannot err. Therefore they are presumptuous, clumsy minds that draw such inferences and conclusions as these: Where there is not the true faith, there also can be no true Baptism. Just as if I would infer: If I do not believe, then Christ is nothing; or thus: If I am not obedient, then father, mother, and government are nothing. Is that a correct conclusion, that whenever any one does not do what he ought, the thing in itself shall be nothing and of no value? My dear, just invert the argument and rather draw this inference: For this very reason Baptism is something and is right, because it has been wrongly received. For if it were not right and true in itself, it could not be misused nor sinned against. The saying is: Abusus non tollit, sed confirmat substantiam, Abuse does not destroy the essence, but confirms it. For gold is not the less gold though a harlot wear it in sin and shame. Therefore let it be decided that Baptism always remains true, retains its full essence, even though a single person should be baptized, and he, in addition, should not believe truly. For God's ordinance and Word cannot be made variable or be altered by men. But these people, the fanatics, are so blinded that they do not see the Word and command of God, and regard Baptism and the magistrates only as they regard water in the brook or in pots, or as any other man; and because they do not see faith nor obedience, they conclude that they are to be regarded as invalid. Here lurks a concealed seditious devil, who would like to tear the crown from the head of authority and then trample it under foot, and, in addition, pervert and bring to naught all the works and ordinances of God. Therefore we must be watchful and well armed, and not allow ourselves to be directed nor turned away from the Word, in order that we may not regard Baptism as a mere empty sign, as the fanatics dream. Lastly, we must also know what Baptism signifies, and why God has ordained just such external sign and ceremony for the Sacrament by which we are first received into the Christian Church. But the act or ceremony is this, that we are sunk under the water, which passes over us, and afterwards are drawn out again. These two parts, to be sunk under the water and drawn out again, signify the power and operation of Baptism, which is nothing else than putting to death the old Adam, and after that the resurrection of the new man, both of which must take place in us all our lives, so that a truly Christian life is nothing else than a daily baptism, once begun and ever to be continued. For this must be practised without ceasing, that we ever keep purging away whatever is of the old Adam, and that that which belongs to the new man come forth. But what is the old man? It is that which is born in us from Adam, angry, hateful, envious, unchaste, stingy, lazy, haughty, yea, unbelieving, infected with all vices, and having by nature nothing good in it. Now, when we are come into the kingdom of Christ, these things must daily decrease, that the longer we live we become more gentle, more patient, more meek, and ever withdraw more and more from unbelief, avarice, hatred, envy, haughtiness. This is the true use of Baptism among Christians, as signified by baptizing with water. Where this, therefore, is not practised, but the old man is left unbridled, so as to continually become stronger, that is not using Baptism, but striving against Baptism. For those who are without Christ cannot but daily become worse, according to the proverb which expresses the truth, "Worse and worse-the longer, the worse." If a year ago one was proud and avaricious, then he is much prouder and more avaricious this year, so that the vice grows and increases with him from his youth up. A young child has no special vice; but when it grows up, it becomes unchaste and impure, and when it reaches maturity, real vices begin to prevail the longer, the more. Therefore the old man goes unrestrained in his nature if he is not checked and suppressed by the power of Baptism. On the other hand, where men have become Christians, he daily decreases until he finally perishes. That is truly to be buried in Baptism, and daily to come forth again. Therefore the external sign is appointed not only for a powerful effect, but also for a signification. Where, therefore, faith flourishes with its fruits, there it has no empty signification, but the work [of mortifying the flesh] accompanies it; but where faith is wanting, it remains a mere unfruitful sign. And here you see that Baptism, both in its power and signification, comprehends also the third Sacrament, which has been called repentance, as it is really nothing else than Baptism. For what else is repentance but an earnest attack upon the old man [that his lusts be restrained] and entering upon a new life? Therefore, if you live in repentance, you walk in Baptism, which not only signifies such a new life, but also produces, begins, and exercises it. For therein are given grace, the Spirit, and power to suppress the old man, so that the new man may come forth and become strong. Therefore our Baptism abides forever; and even though some one should fall from it and sin, nevertheless we always have access thereto, that we may again subdue the old man. But we need not again be sprinkled with water; for though we were put under the water a hundred times, it would nevertheless be only one Baptism, although the operation and signification continue and remain. Repentance, therefore, is nothing else than a return and approach to Baptism, that we repeat and practise what we began before, but abandoned. This I say lest we fall into the opinion in which we were for a long time, imagining that our Baptism is something past, which we can no longer use after we have fallen again into sin. The reason is, that it is regarded only according to the external act once performed [and completed]. 81] And this arose from the fact that St. Jerome wrote that repentance is the second plank by which we must swim forth and cross over after the ship is broken, on which we step and are carried across when we come into the Christian Church. Thereby the use of Baptism has been abolished so that it can profit us no longer. Therefore the statement is not correct, or at any rate not rightly understood. For the ship never breaks, because (as we have said) it is the ordinance of God, and not a work of ours; but it happens, indeed, that we slip and fall out of the ship. Yet if any one fall out, let him see to it that he swim up and cling to it till he again come into it and live in it, as he had formerly begun. Thus it appears what a great, excellent thing Baptism is, which delivers us from the jaws of the devil and makes us God's own, suppresses and takes away sin, and then daily strengthens the new man; and is and remains ever efficacious until we pass from this estate of misery to eternal glory. For this reason let every one esteem his Baptism as a daily dress in which he is to walk constantly, that he may ever be found in the faith and its fruits, that he suppress the old man and grow up in the new. For if we would be Christians, we must practise the work whereby we are Christians. But if any one fall away from it, let him again come into it. For just as Christ, the Mercy-seat, does not recede from us or forbid us to come to Him again, even though we sin, so all His treasure and gifts also remain. If, therefore, we have once in Baptism obtained forgiveness of sin, it will remain every day, as long as we live, that is, as long as we carry the old man about our neck. And so, as we see from just the few examples above, the catechism and confessions all confessed that infant baptism was a good, biblical, and right thing. Stay tuned! I'm going to bring more! (Comment on this)
Monday, May 17th, 2010
8:21 am	A Baptismal Adventure, part 2 Wow, it's been quite a long time since I posted anything about my adventures in studying the subjects of baptism. I suppose I should post some sort of update about it, even though I'm pretty sure Missy is the only one who reads this anymore. XD So I've been reading a lot more about infant baptism and believer's baptism. I read through the entirety of "The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism," and have read a few articles on the subject also. I have to say that the arguments I once found a little inconclusive I now find pretty convincing. I can make a pretty strong case for paedobaptism now, as my friends Drew and Phillip can tell you. The first step to understanding paedobaptism is a Covenantal perspective. If one is a dyed in the wool dispensational premillenarian, then of course infant baptism is not going to be all that convincing. Perhaps one day I should post something on eschatology and soteriology, just to get the ground work all settled. However, let me take a few stabs at the defense of infant baptism right now. First line of defense is the fact that the Bible is strangely silent about a supposed change from infants being inthe covenant to now them being out of the covenant. Now, some might say that it is implicit by the "only by faith" thing in the NT. Perhaps, but I believe that the OT Jews were saved in the same way that people are saved now: by faith in the Messiah. Their faith was looking forward and our faith looks back (though a case can be made that our faith looks forward as well as back). Either way, we're all saved the same way: by the cross of Christ. So one can't say that just because one is saved by faith in the NT, that we can't enter infants into the covenant. Here, I believe, is the fundamental misunderstanding in the minds of most baptistic types: they confuse being in the covenant with being saved. I do not believe these things are the same. They WILL be in the future. But right now, as Jesus Himself says, the Kingdom of God has wheat and tares growing up together (which, by the way, is an argument against the idea of a future golden age with Christ ruling on earth). Another way we know that being in the covenant doesn't mean being elect or saved is the evidence of the Hebrews passages (and the 2 Peter passage) about falling away from faith. Hebrews 10:29-30 says: "How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said, 'Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,' And again, 'The LORD will judge His people.'" This is interesting. There are a number of ways this verse can be interpreted. Most Pentacostal\Arminians would interpret this verse by saying that one can lose their salvation. Most others would say that this verse is talking about those who appear to be saved, but are not. Obviously we can rule out a loss of salvation. I don't believe in that, and I don't think the Scriptures anywhere teach it. However, I think we can also rule out the nominal Christian here. How do I say this? I say this because of the way the verse is worded. Notice in the verse that it doesn't say that they just APPEAR to be in the covenant. It actually says that the person was sanctified by the blood of the New Covenant. This is VERY interesting! Now, once again, I do not believe the "sanctified" here means saved. So what does it mean? For this, we turn to 1 Corinthians 7:14. It is talking about a believer married to an unbeliever. It argues to stay with the unbeliever, because the believing spouse "sanctifies" the unbelieving one. How does Paul know this? Because the children of such believers are called "holy." Once again, the "holy" is not meaning saved, but rather "set apart." So from these two passages, we know a few things. One, that children of believers are "sanctified" in some way or another. Two, that those "sanctified" are in the new covenant, and in some way bought with the blood. Three, that those who are in the new covenant can be lost. Four, that God will judge His people, which in conjunction with Romans 8:1 presents yet another problem. What am I trying to say here? I am trying to say that Christ bought a PEOPLE for Himself, not just a group of individuals. Most (if not all) credobaptists are that way because they have not fully understood the covenant nature of salvation. This is why one student to whom I talked at RTS said: "I don't think you can truly be Covenant and Baptist. There are no REAL Reformed Baptists." I may not agree quite so strongly with the gentleman, but the point is pretty valid. Well, I think I will have to continue this another time. This is getting to be rather long! (7 Comments |Comment on this)
Friday, May 14th, 2010
12:36 pm	Thoughts on Cheater Today, as usual, as I walked into the teacher's lunch room, the television had the show "Cheaters" playing. For those of you who don't know anything about the show, the show's premise is basically this: Someone who suspects their significant others of cheating contacts the show, who then stakes out the alleged cheater via private detectives for a few days. Then they show the evidence, wait until the cheater is with the "other person," and take the guest on the show to confront both the cheater and their "cheatee." This show usually is sad to me, but it was heart-breaking today. You see these people on here who are filled with sin and brokenness...airing their depravity for the nation to see. What could inspire someone to not only find out about an instance of infidelity, but to broadcast it on television? And there's always such anger and rage... for good reason! But rarely do you even get a hint of grace. There is no forgiveness in such shows: forgiveness rarely makes good television. I had to fight the urge to cry while seeing this show. To see my fellow educators (not many of them, I admit, but some of them) reeled in by this show, taking such humor in stories of depravity and dysfunction and brokenness...it made the urge to cry even worse. What would grace look like in both the guest on the show and the cheater? If the guest looked at the cheater, with the cheatee still right there...and said, no doubt with tears in her eyes, "I love you. I forgive you. This breaks my heart, but it will not kill my love or compassion for you." What would that do to both of them? Would it melt the heart of the cheater? Would it phase them at all? And what would it look like to the watchers? Doubtless, ratings would drop. Nobody wants to see it in our disgusting culture. We love the fights, the hair pullings, the emotional evictions of the cheater. What a hopeless world we live in apart from the gospel! No wonder I am baffled by how much unforgiveness I see in the teens I teach. They don't really even have a category for forgiveness! Why don't they? Well, mostly because they themselves are sinners, but secondarily because they have never seen such grace and mercy modeled to them by their parents or by the culture! I am in no way trying to condone adultery or infidelity; I hate it! I am saying, however, that the lack of grace in our culture is what is killing our marriages, our relationships in general, and the very fiber of our nation. And I wonder what it is doing to our churches. (Comment on this)
Monday, March 29th, 2010
4:28 pm	My Song Here is my "assignment" for an English class. "Whate'er My God Ordains Is Right" 1. Whate’er my God ordains is right, Holy His will abideth. I will be still whate’er He does, And follow where He guideth. He is my God, Though dark my road. He holds me that I shall not fall Wherefore to Him I leave it all 2. Whate’er my God ordains is right, He never will deceive me He leads me by the proper path, I know He will not leave me I take, content, What He hath sent His hand can turn my griefs away And patiently I wait His day 3. Whate’er my God ordains is right, Though now this cup in drinking May bitter seem to my faint heart, I take it all unshrinking My God is true, Each morn anew Sweet comfort yet shall fill my heart And pain and sorrow shall depart 4. Whate’er my God ordains is right, Here shall my stand be taken Though sorrow, need, or death be mine, Yet I am not forsaken My Father’s care Is round me there He holds me that I shall not fall And so to Him I leave it all What this song means objectively: That though trials and hardships strike, and though God may call for these things to strike us, He will not forsake or leave the Christian to this state. He will comfort them and He will call them to joys so great that their sorrows seem like nothing in comparison. How this song has impacted me: On the night my father committed suicide, I stood outside the house for hours until the medical examiner arrived. I paced back and forth, singing through tears and through the deepest shock and sorrow I have ever experienced in my life. This song brings comfort on multiple levels: 1. In that I can never say "If only I had done this..." God is in command of time; not me. I need not blame myself for "what could have happened." 2. That even in this horrendous tragedy, God will lead me to a better place. God will be my comforter and my Father. I will not fall, because He holds me. Sorry, I do not have a link to the actual music... except for the site with lyrics and a short clip of the song: http://www.igracemusic.com/hymnbook/demos/WhateerMyGodOrdains.mp3 (Comment on this)
Thursday, December 10th, 2009
2:43 pm	A Gospel Centered Christmas: An Apologetic Ok, so I decided: instead of printing up several pages of lyrics and reasons why I constructed the CD the way I did, I thought I'd rather just type it up here and just print up the web address to this site. When I first thought about composing this CD, I wanted it to be something of a Christmas narrative in a CD. I wanted it not just to sing about Christmas, but in a real way to actually TELL the story of Christmas. To do that, I had to order the songs pretty specifically in a chronological way so as to tell the story of Christ. And so, this is the flow of the CD as I have it and as I think I'll keep it: 1. The cry of Israel waiting for Christ. 2. The preexistence of the Son with the Father. 3. Of the incarnation of the Logos, the Son of God. 4. The call of the angels to see and witness the God-Man infant. 5. The wonderment and response of the shepherds and witnesses at his infancy. And that's the story of Christmas, but as you'll soon notice on the CD, I included other stuff. I wanted to include not just His birth, because that is where most evangelicals leave Jesus when they think about Christmas. Advent season is more than just about a cute baby Jesus in a manger and angels singing. It is about the gospel: that God did not leave us in our rebellion, but stepped down and wrapped Himself in flesh, to live a perfect life, and to die the death that we deserved. This, then, was the focus of this CD: the gospel. The good news of Christ's victory over sin and death which is then imputed to us through faith, and then the expectant hope of His return. This is why the Advent season has a candle for expectation. We do expect the Christ to return in glory to judge the living and the dead. We do expect His coming to bring the fullness of what only was inaugurated at His first advent; a new heavens and new earth, and His people made new in resurrection bodies. So here is the song order of this CD, reflecting that, and the words to the songs. I will also include, where necessary, an explanation as to why a specific song is included at that specific place. O Come O Come Emmanuel O come, O come, Emmanuel And ransom captive Israel That mourns in lonely exile here Until the Son of God appear Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel Shall come to thee, O Israel. O come, O come, Thou Lord of might, Who to Thy tribes, on Sinai's height, In ancient times did'st give the Law, In cloud, and majesty and awe. Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel Shall come to thee, O Israel. O come, Thou Day-Spring, come and cheer Our spirits by Thine advent here Disperse the gloomy clouds of night And death's dark shadows put to flight. Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel Shall come to thee, O Israel. O come, Thou Key of David, come, And open wide our heavenly home; Make safe the way that leads on high, And close the path to misery. Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel Shall come to thee, O Israel. This song is from the 12th century, and is a hauntingly beautiful hymn about the expectant hope of God's people for a Messiah to come and rescue them. This could be used as a hymn hoping for the second Advent, but I decided it fit the scheme I have here for the first Advent. Come Thou Long Expected Jesus Come, thou long expected Jesus, born to set thy people free; from our fears and sins release us, let us find our rest in thee. Israel's strength and consolation, hope of all the earth thou art; dear desire of every nation, joy of every longing heart. Born thy people to deliver, born a child and yet a King, born to reign in us forever, now thy gracious kingdom bring. By thine own eternal spirit rule in all our hearts alone; by thine all sufficient merit, raise us to thy glorious throne. Of The Father's Love Begotten Of the Father's love begotten Ere the worlds began to be, He is Alpha and Omega, He the Source, the Ending He, Of the things that are, that have been, And that future years shall see Evermore and evermore. O ye heights of heaven, adore Him; Angel hosts, His praises sing; Powers, dominions, bow before Him And extol our God and King. Let no tongue on earth be silent, Every voice in concert ring Evermore and evermore. Christ, to Thee, with God the Father, And, O Holy Ghost, to Thee Hymn and chant and high thanksgiving And unending praises be, Honor, glory, and dominion, And eternal victory Evermore and evermore. This song speaks, as you can see, of the glories and merits of Christ with the Trinity, and speaks His eternality. He never had a beginning or an end. I figured that this would be a good place to start songs of His Incarnation. Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence Let all mortal flesh keep silence, and with fear and trembling stand; ponder nothing earthly-minded, for with blessing in his hand, Christ our God to earth descendeth, our full homage to demand. King of kings, yet born of Mary, as of old on earth he stood, Lord of lords, in human vesture, in the body and the blood; he will give to all the faithful his own self for heavenly food. Rank on rank the host of heaven spreads its vanguard on the way, as the Light of light descendeth from the realms of endless day, that the powers of hell may vanish as the darkness clears away. At his feet the six-winged seraph, cherubim, with sleepless eye, veil their faces to the presence, as with ceaseless voice they cry: Alleluia, Alleluia, Alleluia, Lord Most High! This is by far my favorite Advent hymn, for its creedal language and solemn tone. This tune promotes reverence and silence before a holy God, and is inspired by Habakkuk 2:20 - "Let all the earth keep silence before Him." My favorite line is "as the Light of Light descendeth," as it reminds me of the Nicene creed which says that Christ is the "Light of light, very God of very God." Which would make sense, since records place this hymn's writing at around the 4th century. O Holy Night O holy night! The stars are brightly shining, It is the night of Our dear Saviour's birth. Long lay the world In sin and error pining, 'Til He appear'd And the soul felt its worth. A thrill of hope The weary world rejoices, For yonder breaks A new and glorious morn. Fall on your knees! O, hear the angels' voices! O night divine, O night when Christ was born; O night divine, O night, O night Divine. Truly He taught us To love one another; His law is love And His gospel is peace. Chains shall He break For the slave is our brother; And in His name All oppression shall cease. Sweet hymns of joy In grateful chorus raise we, Let all within us Praise His holy name. Christ is the Lord! O praise His Name forever, His power and glory Evermore proclaim. His power and glory Evermore proclaim. Angels We Have Heard On High Angels we have heard on high Sweetly singing over the plain And the mountains in reply Echo back their joyous strain Gloria In Excelsis Deo! (Glory to God in the Highest!) Gloria In Excelsis Deo! Shepherds why this jubilee? Why your joyous strains prolong? What the gladsome tidings be Which inspire your heavenly song? Gloria In Excelsis Deo! Gloria In Excelsis Deo! Come to Bethlehem and see Him Whose birth the angels see Come adore on bended Christ, our Lord, the newborn King! Gloria in Excelsis Deo! Gloria In Excelsis Deo! O Come All Ye Faithful* Oh, come, all ye faithful, Joyful and triumphant! Oh, come ye, oh, come ye to Bethlehem; Come and behold him Born the king of angels: Oh, come, let us adore him, Oh, come, let us adore him, Oh, come, let us adore him, Christ the Lord. Highest, most holy, Light of light eternal, Born of a virgin, A mortal he comes; Son of the Father Now in flesh appearing! Oh, come, let us adore him, Oh, come, let us adore him, Oh, come, let us adore him, Christ the Lord. Sing, choirs of angels, Sing in exultation, Sing, all ye citizens of heaven above! Glory to God In the highest: Oh, come, let us adore him, Oh, come, let us adore him, Oh, come, let us adore him, Christ the Lord. Yea, Lord, we greet thee, Born this happy morning; Jesus, to thee be glory given! Word of the Father, Now in flesh appearing! Oh, come, let us adore him, Oh, come, let us adore him, Oh, come, let us adore him, Christ the Lord. The version on the CD doesn't have a couple of the verses listed here, but since this song is SO good in its entirety, I included all the words. What Child Is This What Child is this who, laid to rest On Mary's lap is sleeping Whom angels greet with anthems sweet While shepherds watch are keeping This, this is Christ the King Whom shepherds guard and angels sing Haste, haste to bring Him laud The babe, the Son of Mary Why lies He in such mean estate Where ox and ass are feeding Good Christian fear for sinners here The Silent Word is pleading Nails, spear shall pierce Him through The cross be borne for me, for you Hail, hail the Word made flesh The babe, the Son of Mary So bring Him incense, gold, and myrrh Come, peasant, king to own Him The King of Kings salvation brings Let loving hearts enthrone Him Raise, raise the song on high The virgin sings her lullaby Joy, joy for Christ is born The babe, the Son of Mary Who Is This Who is this, so weak and helpless, Child of lowly Hebrew maid, Rudely in a stable sheltered, Coldly in a manger laid? ’Tis the Lord of all creation, Who this wondrous path has trod; He is God from everlasting, And to everlasting God. Who is this, a Man of Sorrows, Walking sadly life’s hard way, Homeless, weary, sighing, weeping Over sin and Satan’s sway? ’Tis our God, our glorious Savior, Who above the starry sky Is for us a place preparing, Where no tear can dim the eye. Who is this? Behold him shedding Drops of blood upon the ground! Who is this, despised, rejected, Mocked, insulted, beaten, bound? ’Tis our God, Who gifts and graces On His church is pouring down; Who shall smite in holy vengeance All His foes beneath His throne. Who is this that hangs there dying While the rude world scoffs and scorns Numbered with the malefactors Torn with nails and crowned with thorns? 'Tis our God who lives forever 'Mid the shining ones on high In the glorious, golden city Reigning everlastingly This song is where the movement goes from the nativity narrative to the whole of Christ's life. We must be reminded that Christmas is not simply about the nativity, but about the cross and the Christ on that cross. Your King Has Come There was a man of God named Simeon He was righteous and devout His faith it did not waver This man had no doubt But he cried to God, "When will You Reconcile Yourself with man?" The Spirit moved him to the temple courts Where he met the great I AM Chorus: Rejoice! Rejoice! Immanuel! Your King has come to you, O Israel! Rejoice! Rejoice! Immanuel Has come to thee, O Israel! Sovereign Lord as You have promised Dismiss Your servant now in peace For my eyes have seen Your salvation Now joy shall never cease Light of revelation to the Gentiles This little baby will be Your people Israel will be glorified I see Immanuel in front of me! Chorus We no longer have to worry Salvation's not a distant hope God has done what He said He would Sin's license has been revoked Death no longer has its power The serpent's head's been crushed Don't wait another hour And see dust return to dust But instead... Rejoice! Rejoice! Immanuel Your King has come to you O Israel! Rejoice! Rejoice! Immanuel, Shall come again, O Israel! O come, O come, Immanuel! This song is my new favorite Christmas song. It comes from the story in Luke about the servant of the Lord named Simeon who had been told by God that he would not die until he saw the Messiah, and then he did! What joy and hope he must have had holding the Light of Light in his very hands! This song is pure gospel! Glorious Light Glorious light, see the dawn of salvation Angels in white fill the skies with their wondrous songs Awakening mirth, with news of His birth Join the hymns of the highest heavens Long has the world fought the song of the angels Heavenly music is drowned by a warring world Yet hope burns a light that shatters the night Turn your heart to the call of glory Chorus: Glory to God in the highest Peace to men on earth Come and adore Him with wonder Christ, Lord of Heaven and Earth There is a day all creation has longed for When all of time has been spent and the Lord returns His song will repeat as Heaven completes Promised peace which will fill the nations Chorus x 2 Lo, He Comes Every eye shall then behold Him Robed in dreadful majesty; Those who set at naught and sold Him, Pierced and nailed Him to the tree, Deeply wailing, deeply wailing, Shall the true Messiah see. Chorus: Lo! He comes with clouds descending, Once for favored sinners, slain; Thousand thousand saints attending, Swell the triumph of His train: Hallelujah! Hallelujah! God appears on earth to reign. Now redemption, long expected, See in solemn pomp appear; All His saints, by man rejected, Now shall meet Him in the air: Hallelujah! Hallelujah! See the day of God appear! (Repeat chorus) Yea, amen! Let all adore Thee, High on Thine eternal throne; Savior, take the power and glory, Claim the kingdom for Thine own; O come quickly! O come quickly! Hallelujah! Come, Lord, come! Come, Lord, Come! (Repeat chorus) Joy to the World Joy to the world, the Lord is come! Let earth receive her King; Let every heart prepare Him room, And Heaven and nature sing, And Heaven and nature sing, And Heaven, and Heaven, and nature sing. Joy to the earth, the Savior reigns! Let men their songs employ; While fields and floods, rocks, hills and plains Repeat the sounding joy, Repeat the sounding joy, Repeat, repeat, the sounding joy. No more let sins and sorrows grow, Nor thorns infest the ground; He comes to make His blessings flow Far as the curse is found, Far as the curse is found, Far as, far as, the curse is found. He rules the world with truth and grace, And makes the nations prove The glories of His righteousness, And wonders of His love, And wonders of His love, And wonders, wonders, of His love. This is debatable as to whether it's a first or second Advent song, but I think it fits either, and so I put it here. Celtic Christmas Blessing NOW MAY THE FRAGRANCE of His peace Soar through your heart like the dove released: Hide in His wings, oh weary, distant soul, He'll guide your spirit home. And may His love poured from on high Flow to the depths of your deepest sigh; Oh come and drink from the only living stream And on His shoulder lean. And may the hope that will not deceive Through every pain bring eternal ease; There is no night that can steal the promises His coming brings to us. So may His joy rush over you; Delight in the path He has called you to; May all your steps walk in Heaven's endless light Beyond this Christmas night. And the last song on the CD should be a benediction to those who listen. May the love of God and the grace of Jesus Christ and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Merry Christmas and Happy Advent Season. (1 Comment |Comment on this)
Monday, August 24th, 2009
3:39 pm	John 1:1 and Greek Exegesis  "En arche hen ho Logos, kai ho Logos hen pros ton Theon, kai Theos hen ho Logos." Ioannen 1:1 (John 1:1) Woodenly translated: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word."  I want you to first note that Theon and Theos seem to be different words. This will become important soon. Theon and Theos are the same word in different cases. English has cases, but we don't change the word for cases. However, Greek changes the word depending on what use it has in the sentence.  For instance, theos is the "lexical form" of the word, and it is Nominative, which means it is the subject of the sentence. In English, you may have a sentence: Bill threw the cat. Bill is the nominative; however, we don't change words to reflect their purpose in the sentence. Greeks did. And since word order doesn't reflect order of purpose (the subject isn't always before the verb in Greek. Word order doesn't matter in that regard,) you have to know what the nominative of the sentence is to know the subject of the sentence. Theon is the accusative case of theos, and you can think of accusative as the direct object. In the above sentence, the ball would be the direct object.  There is also the dative case, which you may think of as the indirect object. If the sentence was "Charlie threw the theology book at Brandon," Brandon would be the indirect object, because he was receiving the direct object. In English, you always know the dative by words like "to, with, or at." Anyways, how is this important? Note the first part of the sentence: "The Word was with God." In this sentence part, God is Theon, which means He is the direct object. The Word, Logos, is in the nominative, and so He is the subject of the sentence. However, when we go to "kai Theos hen ho Logos," God AND the Word are the subject of the sentence.  This doesn't make sense! In any language, there can usually be only ONE subject to a sentence. This is, of course, unless you have an equative verb in there. An equative verb is a verb like "is" or "was" or "will be" or "am." It is taking two nouns and creating an equal sign between them. "God IS good." "I AM ugly." The noun which is equal to the one before the verb is called the predicate nominative, which is why Logos and Theos are both nominative and seem to be the subject.  The equative verb here is hen, which means "was." It is the past tense, third person form of eimi, which we looked at earlier in John 8:58.  And so we have an equative verb, which is creating an equal sign between God and the Logos, Jesus. Now, note that there is a "ho" (pronounced like in hot, not as in a loose woman) before the Logos and not before Theos. "Ho" is a definite article, it simply means "the." In Greek, if there is no definite article, you should ALMOST always translate with an "a," which leads many Jehovah's Witnesses to translate John 1:1 - "and the word was A god." However, there are rules where you do NOT translate it indefinitely, and this is the case here. Listen to the expertise of Daniel B. Wallace, an excellent Greek scholar: QUOTE: In English the subject and predicate nominative are distinguished by word order(the subject comes first). Not so in Greek. Since word order in Greek is quite flexible and is used for emphases rather than for strict grammatical function, other means are used to distinguish subject from predicate nominative. For example, if one of the two nouns has the definite article, it is the subject...When a predicate nominative is thrown in front of the verb, by virtue of word order it takes on emphasis.  A good illustration of this is John 1:1c...We know that 'the Word' is the subject because it has the definite article, and we translate it accordingly: 'and the Word was God.'...why was theos thrown forward?...why does it lack the article? In brief, its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: 'What God was, the Word was" is how one translation brings out its force. Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word...with the person of 'God'(The Father).  That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has; lack of the article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father. John's wording here is beautifully compact! It is, in fact, one of the most elegantly terse theological statements one could ever find. As Martin Luther said, the lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism. And so we see, the way John writes the opening verse of his great gospel shows not only the divinity of Christ and the oneness of BEING, but also the distinction of PERSON. Just another argument for the Trinity.  (1 Comment |Comment on this)
3:32 pm	John 8:28, Greek Exegesis, and YOU     If you look up in the fourth gospel, the gospel of John, in the 58th verse of the 8th chapter, something interesting occurs. The context of this passage is a discussion on Abraham. Jesus begins his discussion with the statement that those who believe in Him will know the truth, and that shall set them free. The Pharisees respond that they are Abraham's children, and have never been enslaved. This is interesting, considering that they are largely ignoring their Babylonian, Greek, and Roman captivity. They have spent more time under the heel of a foreign oppressor than they have as free men, and yet they say they have never been captive. Christ clarifies by saying that the freedom He gives is freedom from death and sin. He tells them that what He tells them is from His father, and what they are doing is from their father. The Pharisees, thinking that Abraham was their father, tell Jesus so. "Abraham is our Father," they say. Christ tells them that if their father was Abraham, they would believe on Christ. Because they do not, they are rather children of the devil.  The Jews, mollified by this, accuse Him of having a demon. Jesus defends Himself by saying that He honors His Father by what He says and does, and that if anyone believes in Him, they would gain eternal life and never die.  The Jews, mystified by such an audacious claim, say to Him:  "Now we know that You have a demon! Abraham died, as did the prophets, yet You say, ‘If anyone keeps my word, he will never taste death.’ Are You greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do You make Yourself out to be?" Jesus responds that Abraham rejoiced to have seen Christ's day. He looked forward to it and saw it as a prophet, and was glad. The Jews respond to this by saying: "You are not 50 years old, and have You seen Abraham?" And now the point of our little study. Jesus responds with either terrible grammar or an outstanding claim: "Amen Amen, before Abraham was, I AM!" And the Jews wanted to kill Him. Now, what is the deal here? Well, to figure out the deal, we first must look at the Greek. What Jesus says is this: amen amen lego humin, prin Abraam genesthai, ego eimi. A very wooden, rough translation would be: Amen, Amen, I say to you, before Abraham was begotten, I am. Now, why the I am? Why not, as the Jehovah's Witnesses do, translate it "I have been?" Is there no equivalent in the Greek? There is, I assure you. Jesus picks His words carefully, and John records them carefully.  Let's look at the last two words to really get what Jesus is saying here. As in some other languages, sometimes the verb in the sentence carries with it the subject. For example, ballo means "I throw." gennao means "I beget." Luo means "I loose." You get the idea. Eimi means "I am." Now, in this way of speaking, you do not need a personal pronoun: one is included in the verb. However, often Greek writers (and speakers) would include the personal pronoun for reasons of emphasis. So Jesus is emphasizing what He's saying here. It's important and it carries special significance.  Why not translate it "I have been?" Because "eimi" also is the first person, active, PRESENT TENSE verb. There is a verb for "I will be" and one for "I have been." There is also a passive "be" verb. It is not exactly that Jesus was limited in His options.  Knowing all of this, look to the response of the Jews. They picked up stones to kill Him. Why? If He was simply a poor grammarian, wouldn't they just laugh at Him? They knew He was claiming something special. We see their reasoning in John 10:33 and 39. They wanted Him dead or arrested because they knew He was claiming the divine name. I AM. EGO EIMI. (Comment on this)
Wednesday, August 19th, 2009
10:09 am	WOW  I just downloaded the new Keity and Kristyn Getty CD....here, have some lyrics! Creation Sings the Father's Song Creation sings the Father's song;  He calls the sun to wake the dawn  And run the course of day  Till evening falls in crimson rays.  His fingerprints in flakes of snow,  His breath upon this spinning globe,  He charts the eagle's flight;  Commands the newborn baby's cry.       CHORUS  Hallelujah!  Let all creation stand and sing,    "Hallelujah!" Fill the earth with songs of worship;     Tell the wonders of creation's King.      Creation gazed upon His face;  The ageless One in time's embrace Unveiled the Father's plan  Of reconciling God and man.  A second Adam walked the earth,  Whose blameless life would break the curse,  Whose death would set us free  To live with Him eternally.     Creation longs for His return,  When Christ shall reign upon the earth;  The bitter wars that rage  Are birth pains of a coming age.  When He renews the land and sky,  All heav'n will sing and earth reply  With one resplendent theme: The glories of our God and King!  (Comment on this)
Sunday, August 16th, 2009
5:16 pm	A Baptismal Adventure Part 1  It's been a while since I've written anything on here... but I guess I'd like to chronicle for those who read the journey I've been on recently, and where it's taken me.  Thus far, the journey has been something of a difficult one, knowing that the position I'm slowly coming to accept and embrace is by far the minority view for most of my friends and most of my old classmates at Trinity. But before I get into that, I should give the background of this story:  About a few months before I entered RTS, a church member gave me a book on baptism from a credobaptist point of view.  I told him I would read through it, believing already in credobaptism.  I figured that this book would give me a few more arguments on the side of credobaptism and would strengthen me in that position. And I needed to work through these things.  You see, I was and am torn between two denominations: Baptist (Reformed Baptist) and Presbyterian.  I have liked the Presbyterian form of church government and the history behind the Presby church...but I did not believe in paedobaptism.  How to reconcile these two things?   This may not seem like a big issue for some.  For some, it may even seem like a bit of denominationalism poking through.  To someone who has no aspirations to be a pastor, I suppose the decision is not too difficult at first.  However, baptism is a sacrament.  It must, according to Scripture, be administered rightly.  If the Presbies are right, then Baptist churches are doing a sacrament incorrectly.  The other side is true if the Baptists are right.  Furthermore, for a man wishing to go into pastoral ministry, the decision as to what denomination you want to be is a very big decision.  For me, i could not just write this off as unimportant, especially considering that if I went the Pres route, I would need to begin going "under care" for ordination relatively soon. And so I decided to study the matter more thoroughly.  After all, Reformed people for centuries had been baptizing babies; they had to have an intelligent reason for doing so, even if it was an incorrect reason.   So I started by actually reading the book my fellow church member gave me a while back.  It was written by a man named Fred Malone.  Upon first beginning the book, I saw that he had a number of what I had thought were pretty good points.  However, as I continued reading, I kept getting distracted by the subtle denominationalism I saw in the book.  While I understand that credobaptism defines the Baptist denomination, I woudn't say that being Baptist makes you somehow superior or whatever.  As I continued reading, also, I found that basically his argument came down to one point: that Presbyterians are wrong by taking the Westminster's statement of "necessary and good inference" and applying it to Baptism. Perhaps I should back up a bit and explain.  There are two ideas in terms of worship.  One is called the regulative principle.  This basically says that whatever is not commanded in Scripture is forbidden.  Only that which is commanded specifically in Scripture is allowed; or at the very least is a "good and necessary inference" from Scripture.  I am not sure I totally agree with this, but that is not really the point here.  I equally unsure that even churches claiming to follow the regulative principle actually DO follow it.  I mean, there are a number of basic, common things that all churches do that aren't specifically commanded or inferenced from Scripture.   Then you have the other principle: Normative principle.  This says that anything that is not forbidden in Scripture is then allowed.  Once again, I really don't think this is the right path either.  There are a number of things that are not specifically forbidden in Scripture that I would not think helpful or good in a church service (rock concerts and roller skating rinks, to name a couple).   Now, Malone argues that if we are truly going to follow the regulative principle (as he does and he assumes most Presbies do also), the only commanded and exampled subjects of baptism are disciples.  Never is it commanded in Scripture that we baptize babies.  Never is it shown in Scripture that babies are baptized.  So how dare we Presbyterians do such a thing? This is where regulative princple-following Presbies would claim that there is a good and necessary inference from the OT to the NT in baptizing babies.  Malone then spends most of the book arguing how wrong this idea is, and that it is an inference that is neither "good" or "necessary."   My questions about the regulative principle aside, I really am baffled that this seems to be his only argument.  Really?  Is this the most powerful argument one can summon?  I mean, it is kind of a good argument...but really?   I was obviously unconvinced.  And so I picked up "The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism" edited by Gregg Strawbridge. This book has been, so far, pretty durned good at inspiring ideas without actually having too many arguments (yet).  Admittedly, I am maybe 3 chapters into the book, but it is been exceedingly helpful so far to spur on thoughts about baptism in general. For instance, one of the long debated things about circumcision to baptism is that circumcision required only physical birth to enter the Old Covenant.  This is not true!  As a matter of fact, you have over and over God commanding the Israelites to purge the "false Jews" from among their midst by death sentence or exiling.  Circumcision was always to be a physical sign of an inward change.  Sound familiar? Anyways, I'll have part 2 later.  This has been taking me longer than I expected.   (9 Comments |Comment on this)
Monday, October 27th, 2008
1:35 am	A Short Story His eyes fluttered open after it seemed to be an eternity.  His body awoke to crushing agony; tendrils of fiery pain coursed throughout his body, searing him in his entirety.  This was true of course, except for his legs, from which he no longer had any sensation.  His mind went back to an hour prior.  He had left his "home" after seeing his father, and had left in an emotionally upset state.  His heart raced in his chest as he pulled away from the house that had once been a home to him, from the man who had once been his father.  Tears stung his greenish eyes as he began to think of all the pain that had been dealt to him by this person.  As he drove down the highway in this state, it was due to his amuck emotions and his sleepiness that he did not notice what was up ahead. He did not notice the truck until it was too late.  At a green light, he began to turn left, only to hear the honking of a horn.  A truck had blown his red light, and was barreling towards his small, silver car at high speeds.  Time slowed down as he saw the large truck approach, the headlights beaming like dual suns in his eyes, the horn and engine sounding ominous as they got closer.  Then the impact.  The truck struck the driver's side door, right where he was sitting, crushing him and sending the car flying back into oncoming traffic.  This put him directly in the path of a minivan, who hit his car after trying to brake.  It was over in seconds, happening so fast that the pain didn't initially keep up.  He felt his consciousness seeping out of him slowly, and he struggled vainly to stay awake.  There were things he needed to do still, things he still needed to say.... Which left him where he was.  He had to have been unconscious for only a few minutes; there were no ambulances or police cars.  Nobody had even come by to check on him.  Perhaps they saw the mangled heap of metal that was once his car and assumed the worst.  Not too far off a conclusion, from the pain warring in his body.  He knew then that this was it, that it was time to go Home.  Strangely, he felt little fear, and a kind of expectancy. There was, however, some regret.  He wished he could see his friends one last time.  He wished he could really take them each aside and tell them what they've meant to him in his life.  He wished he could tell his dad that he loved him, and that he forgave him.  They say that when you are about to die, your life flashes before you eyes.  This did not happen to him as he had expected.  Few moments of his life played before his memory.  No, the possible future was what plagued him.  He wearily looked for his phone, desperately wanting to make at least one call.  He wanted to call her, wanted to tell her that he loved her... that everything was going to be alright, and that she should not be sad.  He found his phone, though just beyond the reach of his fingers.  Pinned as he was to the crushed parts of his vehicle, he could not reach it, though for a moment he struggled and tried.  Tears squeezed out of his eyes.  He wished that he could hug her once more, could tell her all the things he was unable to tell her. He would have told her that he trusted her, finally, and that all in all, he was confident in her and that he had faith in her. Despair wracked him momentarily.  The melancholy passed, though, when he realized his homecoming.  He realized that, all in all, his life was not that bad.  He had known true friends.  He had known good times.  He had known love.  More importantly, though, he was heading home to his Lord.  With these thoughts he comforted himself as his head began to fill with an eerily pleasant fuzzy feeling.  His lips twitched with their last energy into a contented smile, and as his eyes fluttered closed, he whispered his last words and began his true life. (8 Comments |Comment on this)
Saturday, August 23rd, 2008
3:30 pm	"I cannot endure it.." I sat this Saturday, in a dark corner of a dark, abandoned room, alone with my insecurities, alone with my perceived failures, alone with my selfishness and my anger at situations... This crushing, debilitating depression had come as a result of something that had happened the previous day.. More or less, it took the form of an overwhelming sense of "I have failed." The things I had desired to undertake were no more. All of my efforts had come to no avail. Ever since my Christian walk began, it has been my greatest endeavor to try and teach people to know what they believe and why they believe it. It has been my heart's cry above all else to teach people to not be inundated by the trends of this world or the movements of trendy American Christianity. For reasons into which I cannot go, I feel I have failed in astounding measure. Have I truly? I don't know. I don't know how much of this is my own natural proclivity toward depression and how much of this is truth. Either way, I sat in that room, sobbing into my hands quietly, wishing for nothing more than to go Home. Why had I tried? Why DO I try? I seem to make little to no headway. Probably 99% of this lack of forward motion is my own fault. I know that I am harsh, and a very hard person from which to learn and even harder just to be around. I am over opinionated, overzealous, and at frequent times insensitive and unkind. But whatever the reason, I sat there wondering why I should continue. Part of what I would be doing as a pastor and teacher would be the same things at which I was and am currently failing! What hope could I possibly have to change anyone? What hope could I possibly have to make any sort of difference at all? Doctrine is unimportant to the average person. People are willing to sweep all sorts of the foulest doctrines under the rug in an attempt to not be intolerant or not be confrontational or not be divisive. So why try? The average person is NOT GOING TO LISTEN. Even people you think might be listening are probably not, and you probably are making little difference. So what do I do? What did I do? Well, after sobbing to myself, I called a friend for prayer.. And he reminded me of my own personal hero in the Scriptures. I claim to have many heroes, but in my "heart of hearts" (I always wonder where that phrase came from!) my truest Scriptural hero is Jeremiah. For 40 years the man preached without a single convert! What loneliness he must have felt! He was mocked, beaten, arrested, put in stocks, put in a cistern, watched his city destroyed, and was taken away to Egypt. He was not even allowed the comfort of marriage! What loneliness the man must have felt! What angst! But my friend reminded me of the true reason why I do this, and it was preached this past Sunday at FEPC: Jeremiah 20:7-11 "O LORD, You have deceived me and I was deceived; You have overcome me and prevailed. I have become a laughingstock all day long; everyone mocks me. For each time I speak, I cry aloud; I proclaim violence and destruction, because for me the word of the Lord has resulted in reproach and derision all day long. But if I say, 'I will not remember Him or speak anymore in His name,' then in my heart it becomes like a burning fire shut up in my bones; and I am weary of holding it in, and I cannot endure it. For I have heard the whispering of many, 'Terror on every side! Denounce him; yes, let us denounce him!' All my trusted friends, watching for my fall, say: 'Perhaps he will be deceived, so that we may prevail against him and take our revenge on him.' But the LORD is with me like a dread champion; therefore my persecutors will stumble and not prevail. They will be utterly ashamed, because they have failed, with an everlasting disgrace that will not be forgotten." How often have I told my Arminian opponents that we preach the gospel not to save the lost, but because He is worthy to be preached! Is He no less worthy to be taught in discipleship? Are His doctrines any less worthy to be taught in the "classroom" or in the personal conversation, or in the lively debate? No, no, and a thousand times, NO! So while depression still grips me, I have a goal and a hope in mind. Though inability stings me and my apparent failure looms over me, He is still my dread champion, and He will see me through. Even if NONE come to feel the burning passion I feel in my bones, I will endure...because He holds me. Because He is worthy to be preached. Because His truths are worthy to be taught. "Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy, to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen!" Jude 23-25 (2 Comments |Comment on this)
Monday, August 18th, 2008
3:10 pm	Just Divided Over What They "Just" Want God To Do Macon, Ga - It is a typical Sunday morning at Temple Baptist Church in Macon. Sunday School has just started when Andrew Carney, the teacher of the Pioneers adult class stands up to take prayer requests. After a few minutes of taking requests he says "Brother Henderson, would you open our time of prayer, and after a few minutes or so, I'll close us." Over the next ten or so minutes the class members pray, "Lord, just help us to grow...Lord, we just want to worship you today...we just want to reach out to the community more," etc. As the time of prayer closes uneasiness amongst the members sets in. One can easily tell that there is some kind of tension in the room.   What is happening these days at Temple Baptist is a phenomenon that is beginning to show up in many other places in Evangelical America. For years now, people have been asking God to "just" do this or to "just" do that, and now tensions are beginning to arise among church members about what they think God should "just" be doing. "When I pray I ask him to 'just bless us,'" said Dianne Boutwell, a member of Temple. "I think that covers everything. We don't need to be limiting him in any other way." But some disagree. "Since it's obvious that God only does one thing at a time, I think it's important that we ask him to 'just help us evangelize more'" said Ronnie Williams, another member. "But it's hard to pray that when all these other people are praying against me with all of these other requests." Indeed at Temple Baptist on any given Sunday one can hear over 100 different 'just' requests. Some pray "just grow us," while others pray "just lead us." Other requests include "just make us more mindful of the needs of others" and "just help us to remember who we are." The disagreements have become so severe now that the church is in danger of splitting in different directions. "We at a critical point here" said Pastor Perry Adkins. "I for one pray that we would 'just be united' but I know that there are those who disagree with me. If we're going to survive we need to come together as one on what we think God ought to be doing right now. I know he's just waiting for us to tell him, but he's getting all of these different requests." The church plans to hold a special congregational meeting this upcoming Sunday evening to discuss the issue. Adkins went on to comment, "Right now I'm praying that things will just go well. In fact, I've heard several other people pray the same thing lately, so maybe we're getting on track here." (1 Comment |Comment on this)
2:38 pm	A Post For Crash to Translate Here's one, Crash:  Pardon me, sir, but do you have any Grey Poupon? (2 Comments |Comment on this)
Monday, August 11th, 2008
12:08 pm	Blogging in Tongues Produces Interesting Results Daytona Beach, Fl - About a year ago Mark Heinburger got "inspired." After a number of his friends started using various free "blog" websites to post occasional thoughts, pictures and even video clips, Heinburger decided that he too needed to join the blogosphere. After searching through several different free blog sites he made a decision to join one. All that was left to do was to choose a theme for his blog and topic for his site. "I went for a pretty basic theme" said Heinburger. "I didn't want anything too flashy. I've seen so many blogs out there with all kinds of flashy crazy colors and graphics, but that's not what I'm about. So I just wanted mine to be plain with just a few little pictures here in there." All was going well for Heinburger until the time came for him to actually make his first post. "I sat in front of a blank screen for several hours" stated Heinburger. "I just didn't know where to begin. As a Christian I wanted to say something important and useful but I've never been much of a writer." As the time passed Heinburger started a number of different posts only to become frustrated, erase them and start over again. This situation went on for several days until finally, late one night Heinburger claims he received a "revelation." "I just sat in front of the computer and suddenly the most amazing thing happened" said Heinburger. "I just started typing, just anything, just whatever came to my mind. It just kept coming and coming without stopping. I didn't know what was happening to me." When it was over Heinburger realized that had typed a rather lengthy post, but with one major distinguishing factor; it was all in "tongues." He quickly posted his words and went to sleep. He awoke the next morning and received quite a surprise. "I woke up and checked my email to see that I had almost 50 comments on my first post" he said. "I checked my stats and over 2000 people have visited my site in just the day. All of these people were visiting my site and posting their interpretations of what I had written in tongues." An excerpt from one of Heinburger's post along with an interpretive comment reveals the following. "skdit bhwosidth sdkh ! weiu ueif ywqplcxnf duwiel! dhsido? sdlkjq0gjn, sdld, tqnod, thewioghs wehros q wepop hfow!" To which one commenter interpreted. "The Cubs are NOT going to win the 08 World Series!" Heinburger continues to make daily "prophetic posts," and his site continues to grow in popularity in the blogosphere. "This is my spiritual gift" Heinburger went on to say. "I've never spoken in tongues, but I guess I'm called to blog in tongues." TBNN learned that Heinburger has also been approached by several major book publishers about writing a book entirely in tongues. (Comment on this)
11:55 am	An Interview with a Sovereign Santa This came from www.tominthebox.blogspot.com, another satire site. NORTH POLE - Every once in a while, TBNN has the great privilege of interviewing a famous person. Today we are sitting down with one of our favorites, Santa Claus. We at TBNN freely admit that we believe in Santa, and sitting down with old Father Christmas up here in the Arctic only confirms that. TBNN: We are honored to be here. Should we refer to you as Saint Nicholas, Father Christmas, Kris Kringle, or something else? Santa: You can call me whatever you like. Santa is just fine. Have some milk and cookies. TBNN: Thanks. We are amazed that you are able to get presents to all these different people all around the world in just one night. How can you possibly do it? No offense, but you are a bit old and you're not in the best physical shape, so how does it happen? Santa: No offense taken. I do need to lay off the Christmas cookies, but Mrs. Claus is just such a good baker. Anyway, I see where your confusion about the gifts comes in. The reality is that I actually don't deliver most of the presents that you see on Christmas. I would guess that about 15-20% of Christmas presents actually come from my sleigh. TBNN: (Shocked expression on our faces) Sorry, but we still don't understand. Santa: Let me back up a bit. After Christmas, I take a break for about two months. Mrs. Claus and I holiday in Florida with the rest of the old people. The elves go off to Cancun. Toward the end of March, back here at the North Pole, I decide who will get presents from me at Christmas. The decision is up to me. No one influences me in my decision. Then we start putting the gifts together. It takes a long time. TBNN: Wow. Growing up, we always heard the little jingle, "Making a list, checking it twice; gonna find out who's naughty or nice..."? Is there any truth to that? Santa: I have no idea where that song came from. As if kids could be good enough to earn Christmas gifts?! What a bunch of baloney. Maybe their parents made it up in the hope that it would motivate them to behave in school or something like that. TBNN: We are still a little confused. Can you explain? Santa: Sure. Each year I choose who will get presents. I only give gifts to people who believe I am real. How do they believe? They are the ones I show myself to. So both their belief in me and their gifts come from my hand. They can't earn it. TBNN: We had always wondered why some kids get more stuff than others. This also explains why there are no gifts at all in some parts of the world. Santa: You're right about that. There are plenty of well-behaved kids in countries like Afghanistan. However, no one there believes I exist, and I haven't yet decided to go there. I may do so, but that is my sovereign choice. TBNN: Some folks continue to feel like they deserve presents. What do you say to that? Santa: That's nonsense. Nobody deserves anything good from me. I simply give gifts to those who believe; and they can only believe because I chose them to believe. I never looked into the future to see who would believe and then chose them. That's just silly. TBNN: So you don't "woo" anyone to believe. Santa: What does "woo" mean? TBNN: Forget it. That was a stupid question. Santa: Look, I'll try to make this simple for you. No one deserves any presents. I simply choose who gets them. The gifts are limited to those I choose. When I give gifts, no one rejects them. I keep those who believe in me so that they never stop believing. TBNN: What about all the gifts that don't come from you? If only 15-20% are from you, then where do all the rest come from? Santa: Haven't you ever gone to Wal*Mart, Sears, or Target at this time of year? How do you think they stay in business? This whole "present thing" has gotten out of hand with everyone giving to everyone else. Very little of it actually has anything to do with belief in me. TBNN: What do you think of people who buy gifts for others but do not believe? Santa: I refer to them as "False Santas." Interestingly, children are much more willing to believe in me, but their parents and school teachers "educate" them out of their belief. So I guess they never really believed in the first place. TBNN: Some people say this isn't fair. You only give to some, but not to all. What do you say to that? Santa: How am I obligated to give good to anyone? They don't believe in me unless I cause them to. It would be fair for me to stay in my warm igloo on the night of December 24th with Mrs. Claus. If I choose to give out presents to whomever I will, then that's just a free gift from me. Why do people have such a hard time with that? TBNN: One last question for you. Where do the elves come from? Santa: They're just my messengers and helpers. I don't really need them, but they are handy to have around. (1 Comment |Comment on this)