I had the honor of responding to a recent email entirely about the gospel. I hope this is encouraging for you =)
---------------------------------------------------------------
I am not out to start a fight. I just want both sides to the story. I am not a fan of tit for tat ridicule I see on both Protestant and catholic blogs. I just want to make an informed decision based on fact and reason. I am a fallen away christian, but I have decided religion should be the most important thing in my life, so I am searching for answers. 1.)evn though the 7 books in the catholic bible(Judith, Tobit, etc. are not in prot. ones, are they the work of God? I must add I found comfort and felt closer after i read them. Is that wrong. I met a priest who was a nice guy, and he told me he didn't care what denomination I was, he just wanted me to be closer to God. He was not anti-prot. as I thought they all were, and he told me to keep going to my Baptist church. The guys I read on the cath. apoli. on the internet were down right mean, as were alot of the prot. Are we not all followers of Jesus? Very confused. Even alot of the prot. guys were ripping each other. Mt head is spinning. I don't know who to believe?
---------------------------------------------------------------
My response:
Paul,
First of all, let me just say that I am honored to be able to respond to your email because you touch on the most important issue in life: true religion.
I’ll respond to your email as best I can but the more I know about what specific questions you have and what issues you are struggling with the better I’ll be able to interact with you.
Contrary to liberals who are ever ready to share their opinions, conservatives on both sides of the Protestant and Catholic isles would argue that the differences between the two perspectives are of the utmost importance. We are not talking about peripheral issues that have no meaningful impact, but rather issues that focus on the gospel of Jesus Christ. Roman Catholics would say that the Protestant gospel is false, just as Protestants would say that the Roman Catholic gospel is false.
Now to the main thrust of your email: Which of these two religions is true, and which possesses the true gospel of God?
Paul the Apostle began his letter to the saints at Rome by describing the gospel as “the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” (Romans 1:16, NASB). If we are to believe that Paul was here correct in his assertion that the gospel is the power of God for salvation to all who believe, then having a right view of the gospel must be our foremost concern. All other issues pale in comparison because it is only through the gospel that God has chosen to save sinners from a life and the consequences of our sins. Were it not for the Lord’s intervention, we would be hopelessly left to bear the guilt and punishment for our sins.
While there are many important issues dividing Protestants and Roman Catholics, I’ll spend most of my time in this email focusing on the differences between the two gospels. I will also offer a Biblical defense of the Protestant view of the gospel from the Bible.
The great divide that exists between the Protestant and Roman Catholic gospel is centered around the doctrine of justification. So I ask the question: how is a sinner justified, or declared not guilty of his sins, before God?
The Catholic catechism defines justification this way: “The grace of the Holy Spirit has the power to justify us, that is, to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us "the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ" and through Baptism.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1987). We see here a summarized statement that sinful man is justified through faith and through baptism. It is important to remember that justification and sanctification are considered one and the same by Rome, therefore it shouldn’t surprise us that justification is considered an ongoing process, completed only after death and Purgatory. Ludwig Ott has this to say on the subject: “Without a special revelation nobody can with certainty of faith know whether or not he has fulfilled all the conditions that are necessary for achieving justification" (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma Rockford Ill.: TAN Books and Publishers, 1974, p.262). A sinner may never fulfill all the requirements to be justified; it may increase, decrease and even be lost. The Catholic Catechism also teaches that we may increase in our sanctification through our merits. The Holy Spirit gives prevenient grace that enables all of mankind to respond and cooperate with God’s grace. Justification is then a cooperative effort between God’s grace, which makes a way of salvation possible, but in the end it is up to man’s will and personal merits that earn salvation for him.
By contrast, the Protestant view of justification is solely a work of God’s grace and not a cooperative effort between God and man. Because of Adam all of mankind is spiritually dead to the things of God, unable even to respond to the gospel. Man is so affected by sin that he cannot repent or believe in the Savior. The Holy Spirit must give grace for believers to respond, though a key difference here with Rome is that when the Holy Spirit gives grace to a sinner it accomplishes the task to its fullness. I could say it another way: God never fails to save a sinner whom He has decided to save. Through the hearing of the gospel (the message of Christ) the Holy Spirit raises the dead sinner to spiritual life, who then believes in Jesus Christ and is justified of his sins. Because of our complete inability to save ourselves, or to do anything pleasing in God’s sight (even repentance and faith), Protestants emphasize that salvation is by grace alone. Justification is a legal declaration made by God in His law court at a point in time, and not a process. We are not justified by works of any kind, be that works of Law or personal merits, but solely by faith. Therefore, the basis for our right-standing before God is not because of our own merits but because of the merits of Jesus Christ, imputed to us (considered to be ours) through faith. Justification can not be increased or lost because one‘s right-standing before the Lord is not based on man‘s work. This is a completely different idea compared to Rome’s view of an infused righteousness within man as an ongoing process.
Where in the Bible do we see this view of justification by faith alone, and not by works at all? Firstly, I would strongly encourage you to familiarize yourself with the epistles to the Romans and to the Galatians because they are on the subject of justification.
In Romans, Paul spends the first few chapters demonstrating that all men are deserving of the wrath of God because of sin. Both Jews and Gentiles are addressed in these chapters, and Paul makes sure to point out that both works of the Law and personal merits cannot make up for the consequences of sin. We are completely lost, unable to have a right position before our Creator. Then finally, in Romans 3:21-31 we have one of the most beautiful sections in all of Scripture explaining how God saves dead sinners through faith. In verse 28, Paul writes, “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.” (NASB). Or again, Romans 5:1, “Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” (NASB).If Paul was going to add anything necessary to ensure our justification he would have mentioned in here.
Next, Paul continues on his argument in chapter 4:1-8: “What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." 4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: 7 "BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN, AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED. 8 "BLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE LORD WILL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT.””
Abraham, the Father of our faith, was not justified by works but through faith. The righteousness of God was made known to Abraham through faith. Paul makes the contrast between the one who works and the one who does not work, and it is to the one who does not work that is justified of his sins. God justifies the ungodly, not the godly. He credits righteousness to those not working but having faith in Christ. The contrast between faith and works must be noted because they are given as though polar opposites.
To the Galatians, Paul wrote this: “nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.” (Galatians 2:16, NASB).
The distinction between the Protestant - and I believe, Biblical - gospel with the gospel taught by Roman Catholicism is immense. The Counter-Reformation led by the Roman Church completely reject this Biblical understanding of the gospel in their Council of Trent and gives us a good idea of how Rome views the Evangelical perspective; Canon IX: “If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.”
In conclusion, Protestants agree with the Scriptures that say sinners are justified through faith alone, and not by works. Rome says that we are justified through faith and works.
Obviously, I’ve given you a lot to think about so I’ll leave it here and eagerly await your response.
Because of the finished work of Christ,
Casey (Rusty) Ryan
AOMin
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Monday, November 30, 2009
Free Will and 2 Peter 3:9
The following is my response to an AOMin email. Enjoy =)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jason,
Thanks for your email and your interest in the subject of Calvinism. The single greatest point I would like to begin with is one that you stated in your email: "I've just always assumed we have free will." In other words, one of your presuppositions is that men have "free will." Two questions seem to logically follow this statement: (1) How do you define "free will;" (2) Upon what basis do you say that men have "free will?"
In my experience, most folks tend to define "free will" to mean the following: an inherent ability within sinful man to be able to spiritually accept or reject the gospel of Jesus Christ. Not only does the Bible not define the term "free will" in this way, but it simply does not define it at all. I would suggest that the Bible very clearly teaches the opposite of the definition I listed above. In fact, the Word of God emphatically teaches that because of our fallen state we are unable to repent and believe, or perform any spiritually-pleasing act before God's sight.
Because I want to zone in on your question relatively soon, I'll list a handful of passages on the subject with a book recommendation or two for further study. Ephesians 2:1-4, John 6:37-44, Romans 3:10-11, Romans 9:10-18. Two books that I would recommend to you are The Potter's Freedom and Drawn by the Father both authored by James White.
Now onto your question: "How does a Calvinist explain 2 Peter 3:9? It says God doesn't want "anyone to perish", "but everyone to come to repentance". How can that be if God has predetermined who will perish, and who will be saved? Unless he is drawing everyone to him, which can't be true." If you will allow me, note that this question is only indirectly related to man's ability, or lack thereof, to spiritually come to Christ in faith. However, I think it is a perfectly valid question regarding the Calvinist perspective on predestination: If God has foreordained those whom He would save, how can He also desire every person who has ever lived or ever will live to be saved?
I'll give you my conclusion first, then explain my reasoning in how I interpret this passage. My conclusion is simply that God does not desire to save every person who has ever lived or ever will live. How can I say this in light of 2 Peter 3:9? I think the answer is actually in the text ... but we must pay attention to the pronouns.
The Apostle Peter starts off this epistle addressing a particular audience when he writes: "Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:1, NASB). This same audience is being addressed in chapter 3, but a contrast between a second group is made throughout the chapter. After reminding this group of Saints that this is his second letter written for them (vs 1), he then introduces a distinct group of people he describes as "mockers," "scoffers," and "ungodly men." This second group, a group of unbelieving men, are referred to using pronouns such as "they" and "them."
After such a clear distinction can be seen between the Christians ("beloved," "you") and the non-Christians ("their," "they") we arrive at verse 9. If you follow the pronouns, and the distinction that Peter himself is making in the text, the questions can then be asked: Who is God patient towards? Who does God not desire to perish? The simple answer is that God is patient towards the "you," and He does not desire the "any" and "all" to perish. The question then becomes: Who is the "you," "any," and "all?" Without inserting a foreign meaning onto the text (commonly called "eisegesis") Peter is referring to Christians. God is patient in His coming for the sake of His elect people, and desires that all of His chosen ones will be saved. Other explanations of this text make the "you," "any," and "all" mean something that is foreign to the context.
I hope this was helpful for you. Please let me know if you would like to discuss this further, or have any further questions.
Because of Christ,
Casey (Rusty) Ryan
AOMin
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jason,
Thanks for your email and your interest in the subject of Calvinism. The single greatest point I would like to begin with is one that you stated in your email: "I've just always assumed we have free will." In other words, one of your presuppositions is that men have "free will." Two questions seem to logically follow this statement: (1) How do you define "free will;" (2) Upon what basis do you say that men have "free will?"
In my experience, most folks tend to define "free will" to mean the following: an inherent ability within sinful man to be able to spiritually accept or reject the gospel of Jesus Christ. Not only does the Bible not define the term "free will" in this way, but it simply does not define it at all. I would suggest that the Bible very clearly teaches the opposite of the definition I listed above. In fact, the Word of God emphatically teaches that because of our fallen state we are unable to repent and believe, or perform any spiritually-pleasing act before God's sight.
Because I want to zone in on your question relatively soon, I'll list a handful of passages on the subject with a book recommendation or two for further study. Ephesians 2:1-4, John 6:37-44, Romans 3:10-11, Romans 9:10-18. Two books that I would recommend to you are The Potter's Freedom and Drawn by the Father both authored by James White.
Now onto your question: "How does a Calvinist explain 2 Peter 3:9? It says God doesn't want "anyone to perish", "but everyone to come to repentance". How can that be if God has predetermined who will perish, and who will be saved? Unless he is drawing everyone to him, which can't be true." If you will allow me, note that this question is only indirectly related to man's ability, or lack thereof, to spiritually come to Christ in faith. However, I think it is a perfectly valid question regarding the Calvinist perspective on predestination: If God has foreordained those whom He would save, how can He also desire every person who has ever lived or ever will live to be saved?
I'll give you my conclusion first, then explain my reasoning in how I interpret this passage. My conclusion is simply that God does not desire to save every person who has ever lived or ever will live. How can I say this in light of 2 Peter 3:9? I think the answer is actually in the text ... but we must pay attention to the pronouns.
The Apostle Peter starts off this epistle addressing a particular audience when he writes: "Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:1, NASB). This same audience is being addressed in chapter 3, but a contrast between a second group is made throughout the chapter. After reminding this group of Saints that this is his second letter written for them (vs 1), he then introduces a distinct group of people he describes as "mockers," "scoffers," and "ungodly men." This second group, a group of unbelieving men, are referred to using pronouns such as "they" and "them."
After such a clear distinction can be seen between the Christians ("beloved," "you") and the non-Christians ("their," "they") we arrive at verse 9. If you follow the pronouns, and the distinction that Peter himself is making in the text, the questions can then be asked: Who is God patient towards? Who does God not desire to perish? The simple answer is that God is patient towards the "you," and He does not desire the "any" and "all" to perish. The question then becomes: Who is the "you," "any," and "all?" Without inserting a foreign meaning onto the text (commonly called "eisegesis") Peter is referring to Christians. God is patient in His coming for the sake of His elect people, and desires that all of His chosen ones will be saved. Other explanations of this text make the "you," "any," and "all" mean something that is foreign to the context.
I hope this was helpful for you. Please let me know if you would like to discuss this further, or have any further questions.
Because of Christ,
Casey (Rusty) Ryan
AOMin
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Trouble Loving My Enemies
Do you have someone in your life that is difficult to be around because of some negative aspects to their personality? For you, this might be an acquaintance you’re forced to bump into every so often, a coworker, a friend’s girlfriend (or boyfriend), or even someone who frequents the same Starbucks as you at the same times. That one person could be described as rude, overbearing, mean and nasty, or may even touch on the verge of hateful. I have such a person in my life; a person who easily fits into the descriptions listed above.
I say all of this, and it really does sadden me that I have this kind of relationship with this person. Someone who acts this way cannot be called my friend, and I don’t think it a stretch to recognize that this person is my enemy. Not by choice – I don’t think I would choose to ever have an enemy with a fellow human being. Yet I find myself at odds with this person on a regular basis and for no good reason. The amount of thought and energy I have spent to try and understand why this individual treats me so is beyond me, and I am at my wits end.
Today I found myself praying to God: “God, why does so-and-so hate me without cause?” Then again: “God, I need Your help if I am to truly love my enemy.”
That is my goal today. To focus on what it means to love an enemy and how this can be done.
During my internal battle (and it is a terrible onslaught of a war) the Holy Spirit brought to mind our Lord’s statement from the Sermon on the Mount:
Beyond doubt, you can rest assured that I am to not be taken advantage of. Any amount of kindness or compromising should not include being walked all over, or slapped around. Rather, as Jesus provides a handful of unique examples, we may use creative means to bring out the shame in what they are trying to do to us without crossing a line, thus behaving sinfully like our enemies. My remaining sin would love it if our responsibilities ended there, because I could then rejoice at justice being done, without sinning, but not … “going the extra mile” … as it were =).
We are not only to avoid abuse or creatively point out sinfulness, I believe we are to love those trying to do these things to us. This does not simply mean an emotion – although an element of understanding and compassion should be at play here. After all, we would act no differently apart from God’s free grace! We are to truly love our enemies. This is what I find a difficult task: I must not become like my enemy. I am not permitted at any point to hate this person in my heart, thus becoming a murderer in God’s eyes. I cannot attempt to harm this person’s reputation, though this has been attempted by this person. I certainly cannot treat my enemy poorly.
Above all this, I am to do good to my enemy! Even when I know it might be shoved back in my face, I am to do good to this person. The thought of doing this does not please me in the slightest. Why do you think that is? Iiii think it’s because deep down in my innermost being I don’t believe my enemy deserves to be treated well by me. There it is. There it is. My true thoughts and intents are revealed there, and this is one reason why I struggle in loving this enemy. Isn’t it the point that none of us deserve grace – that is what makes grace … grace. It’s free. It can’t be earned. Grace is undeserved.
Since I received free grace from the Lord God, not because of anything in me, then shouldn’t I do likewise for others?
God’s Holy Spirit brought one other verse to mind:
Thanks for reading ya'll,
Rusty
I say all of this, and it really does sadden me that I have this kind of relationship with this person. Someone who acts this way cannot be called my friend, and I don’t think it a stretch to recognize that this person is my enemy. Not by choice – I don’t think I would choose to ever have an enemy with a fellow human being. Yet I find myself at odds with this person on a regular basis and for no good reason. The amount of thought and energy I have spent to try and understand why this individual treats me so is beyond me, and I am at my wits end.
Today I found myself praying to God: “God, why does so-and-so hate me without cause?” Then again: “God, I need Your help if I am to truly love my enemy.”
That is my goal today. To focus on what it means to love an enemy and how this can be done.
During my internal battle (and it is a terrible onslaught of a war) the Holy Spirit brought to mind our Lord’s statement from the Sermon on the Mount:
“43You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.' 44But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matthew 5:43-48, NASB).Once having read this passage the Holy Spirit would never again let me off the hook with my enemies =). It seems clear to me from the earlier context of this chapter that we are not to let folks take advantage of us simply because we are Christians, and yet from these verses we are required to love those who would try to. This is very much the circumstance that I find myself in. A person I am forced to interact with on a consistent basis who treats me poorly, though unprovoked. How am I to respond to such treatment, and what is my responsibility as a Christian?
Beyond doubt, you can rest assured that I am to not be taken advantage of. Any amount of kindness or compromising should not include being walked all over, or slapped around. Rather, as Jesus provides a handful of unique examples, we may use creative means to bring out the shame in what they are trying to do to us without crossing a line, thus behaving sinfully like our enemies. My remaining sin would love it if our responsibilities ended there, because I could then rejoice at justice being done, without sinning, but not … “going the extra mile” … as it were =).
We are not only to avoid abuse or creatively point out sinfulness, I believe we are to love those trying to do these things to us. This does not simply mean an emotion – although an element of understanding and compassion should be at play here. After all, we would act no differently apart from God’s free grace! We are to truly love our enemies. This is what I find a difficult task: I must not become like my enemy. I am not permitted at any point to hate this person in my heart, thus becoming a murderer in God’s eyes. I cannot attempt to harm this person’s reputation, though this has been attempted by this person. I certainly cannot treat my enemy poorly.
Above all this, I am to do good to my enemy! Even when I know it might be shoved back in my face, I am to do good to this person. The thought of doing this does not please me in the slightest. Why do you think that is? Iiii think it’s because deep down in my innermost being I don’t believe my enemy deserves to be treated well by me. There it is. There it is. My true thoughts and intents are revealed there, and this is one reason why I struggle in loving this enemy. Isn’t it the point that none of us deserve grace – that is what makes grace … grace. It’s free. It can’t be earned. Grace is undeserved.
Since I received free grace from the Lord God, not because of anything in me, then shouldn’t I do likewise for others?
God’s Holy Spirit brought one other verse to mind:
“If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.” (Romans 12:18, NASB).The scenario that the Apostle Paul describes here is a possible scenario (“if”), but is a noble goal, nonetheless. “So far as it depends on me” Christians are to be at peace with everyone. The question then is: Have I done everything I can to make peace with my enemy? Up to this point, God has not ordained that I get along with this person, which may mean there isn’t anything I can do to gain my enemy’s favor. However, this does not mean that I should not try everything to make peace. Blessed are the peacemakers.
Thanks for reading ya'll,
Rusty
Monday, August 17, 2009
A Government Option Becomes the Only Option
President Obama is out and about, traveling through the Southwestern states, attempting to convince Americans of the validity of his health care reform ideas. If you’ve been following the news at all you know that many of these town-hall meetings with the President and state senators aren’t going overly well. People are getting angry, so much so that these events have turned into shouting matches. While I am all for disagreements being handled in a civil manner, I can’t entirely blame people for being angry.
Health insurance is already too expensive and is expected to become even more expensive! Anyone who thinks through the consequences of instituting a national health insurance company for 47 million people knows that no private insurance company can hope to compete with the government! Why is this so? Because no insurance company in the United States insures 47 million people! The government will literally put private insurance companies out of business. I’ve wondered what the insurance company I work for will do if and when a national insurance company comes about – I can’t speak dogmatically at this point, but I am willing to bet that we’ll pull out of dealing with health insurance altogether.
Obama claims that he can provide health insurance for 47 million uninsured Americans – and all who desire to switch to the government option – while only taxing the “wealthiest Americans,” and on top of all this the costs of health care will be reduced. How in the world is he going to accomplish all this? Does anyone seriously believe that by taxing the super rich we can cover the enormous costs of health care for 47 million people? Doesn’t it seem logical that health care costs will increase because the bill will no longer be through private companies but now the bill would be sent to the government with a seemingly endless supply of money?
Do you know the worst part about this plan? 47 million people would just be the beginning of who utilizes this government insurance. Large corporations would stop providing private insurance deals because “well, we’re already being taxed by the government for insurance … why not use that instead?” I cannot even begin to imagine the domino effect this would have on the insurance and health care industry. Eventually, the government would end up as the majority insurance provider to which most Americans would become dependent on. Taxes would increase if the government insures 47 million people; I don’t think we are ready to consider how much taxes would increase to pay for 300+ million people. The potential costs are staggering.
Sunday afternoon I read an article in The New York Times that explained the story of an English gentleman who needed to make an appointment with a doctor. He called his government approved doctor’s office to make an appointment, and they estimated they could see him in 4 months. FOUR MONTHS! But then he informed them, “Oh, I’m a private, not a public, patient.” The receptionist responded, “Terrific! We can fit you in tomorrow.” England’s national health insurance has been the most important cause to decrease the quality of their health care. The English government has limited funds and therefore must ration health care to the extent that wait times are outrageously long. But as we see in this instance, those who choose to use private insurance are able to achieve quality care in a timely manner.
It is one thing to want every citizen to have health insurance. But using the government is not the answer. What we really need is meaningful health care and health insurance reform that will allow transitions for policies between jobs and/or insurance companies. I think it’s time for our President to consider reforming the private sector rather than increasing nationwide government dependence. I think the President is beginning to see how unpopular his plan is amongst the average citizen. One can only hope.
Rusty
Health insurance is already too expensive and is expected to become even more expensive! Anyone who thinks through the consequences of instituting a national health insurance company for 47 million people knows that no private insurance company can hope to compete with the government! Why is this so? Because no insurance company in the United States insures 47 million people! The government will literally put private insurance companies out of business. I’ve wondered what the insurance company I work for will do if and when a national insurance company comes about – I can’t speak dogmatically at this point, but I am willing to bet that we’ll pull out of dealing with health insurance altogether.
Obama claims that he can provide health insurance for 47 million uninsured Americans – and all who desire to switch to the government option – while only taxing the “wealthiest Americans,” and on top of all this the costs of health care will be reduced. How in the world is he going to accomplish all this? Does anyone seriously believe that by taxing the super rich we can cover the enormous costs of health care for 47 million people? Doesn’t it seem logical that health care costs will increase because the bill will no longer be through private companies but now the bill would be sent to the government with a seemingly endless supply of money?
Do you know the worst part about this plan? 47 million people would just be the beginning of who utilizes this government insurance. Large corporations would stop providing private insurance deals because “well, we’re already being taxed by the government for insurance … why not use that instead?” I cannot even begin to imagine the domino effect this would have on the insurance and health care industry. Eventually, the government would end up as the majority insurance provider to which most Americans would become dependent on. Taxes would increase if the government insures 47 million people; I don’t think we are ready to consider how much taxes would increase to pay for 300+ million people. The potential costs are staggering.
Sunday afternoon I read an article in The New York Times that explained the story of an English gentleman who needed to make an appointment with a doctor. He called his government approved doctor’s office to make an appointment, and they estimated they could see him in 4 months. FOUR MONTHS! But then he informed them, “Oh, I’m a private, not a public, patient.” The receptionist responded, “Terrific! We can fit you in tomorrow.” England’s national health insurance has been the most important cause to decrease the quality of their health care. The English government has limited funds and therefore must ration health care to the extent that wait times are outrageously long. But as we see in this instance, those who choose to use private insurance are able to achieve quality care in a timely manner.
It is one thing to want every citizen to have health insurance. But using the government is not the answer. What we really need is meaningful health care and health insurance reform that will allow transitions for policies between jobs and/or insurance companies. I think it’s time for our President to consider reforming the private sector rather than increasing nationwide government dependence. I think the President is beginning to see how unpopular his plan is amongst the average citizen. One can only hope.
Rusty
Monday, August 10, 2009
Conversation with a Latter-day Saint
[The following is part of a continuing conversation between a Latter-day Saint (David) and myself about the Trinity and absolute monotheism. David's portion appears first then followed by my response.]
Rusty:
I did a little research regarding those passages in Isaiah … Here Jehovah (Jesus Christ), is declaring that he is the God of Israel. He always has been the God of Israel and always will be their God … The only God they will ever have anything to do with … After reading Isaiah 43:10 are you concluding that the Father and the Son are one personage?
They are one in purpose, perfectly united ... If you're not one, then you're not mine ...
I hope we don't wind up citing the passage ... "God is a spirit... " Some like to cite that verse and put a big period at the end of it. However, there is no period at the end; the verse goes on to say … "and those that worship me, must worship me in spirit and in truth."
In other words, in these verses, the meaning of the word "spirit" refers to truth and righteousness. The old explanation goes like this: If the word "spirit" in these verses meant "no body; no parts" in essence a mist or a cloud, then the second verse "worshiping in spirit", would mean that we would have to leave our bodies at home to worship him! Yikes!
Here are some thoughts about the passages from Isaiah: Persons who object to the Church say, "What about Isaiah 43:10 where it says there were no Gods before Jehovah and will be none after him? Jesus and his Father have to be the same, and there is only one God." Let us look at that verse.
“Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.” (Isaiah 43:10)
In chapter 43, God is talking about the relationship between him and the Israelites. He uses the analogy of a trial in which he calls witnesses. In verse 3, he declares he is the God of Israel, and in subsequent verses he reassures the Israelites of this relationship. In verse 9 he challenges the nations of the earth to bring forth their witnesses of their gods, and in verse 10 he declares that the Israelites are his witnesses of his work and of the salvation which he is providing. Not only are they his witnesses but his servants because they do his work among the children of the earth. As his servants, he wants the Israelites to understand he is their God. In verse 10 when he said, "before me there was no God formed" he is saying he has always been the God of Israel. When he said, "neither shall their be [any] after me" he is saying he will always be the God of Israel. Thus, we see the context of that verse is that Jehovah always has been and always will be the God of Israel. That verse does not address the question whether Jesus and the Father are the same or are separate. As mentioned above, since Jesus and the Father are perfectly united, it is appropriate to refer to them as "one God".
Those who object also ask, "How about Isaiah 44:8?" Let us look at that verse. “Hear ye not, neither be afraid; have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.” (Isaiah 44:8)
This verse is a continuation of the "trial" dialogue we just discussed. Jehovah is the God of Israel, and "there is no God" besides Him. As with the other verse, this passage concerns the relationship between God and Israel and does not address the nature of the Godhead.
By the way, back to the mission field in South America. You would not believe how many people gave me that "deer in the headlights look", when my companion and I asked them who the Savior was praying to in the Garden of Gethsemane! If the Father and the Son were one personage!?
Take care,
David
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David,
Thanks again for the reply. I apologize for the length of this email, but found that I couldn't do justice by subtracting from its current length. Please read this over carefully as each point will be important to our discussion.
I think it might be helpful for both of us to make sure we are on the same page in our understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. Briefly, I would summarize this doctrine as follows: Within the one Being that is God, there eternally exists three coequal and coeternal Persons; namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
There are 3 essential foundations to the doctrine of the Trinity, and the Bible supports each of these foundations. First, absolute monotheism - there is only one true God in existence. Second, there are three distinct Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Third, the three divine Persons are coequal and coeternal. This means that the three Persons have existed from eternity as divine Persons (not simply their matter having eternally existed). This also means that the three Persons are coequal in nature; they all share the One Being of God. Each of the three Persons are equally God. It would be inappropriate to try to divide God's Being up into thirds, like a pie chart. No, rather, each divine Person is fully God and shares the one Being of God.
A helpful analogy of understanding what is meant by "Being" and "Person" is crucial when discussing this definition. Let me begin by using my cell phone as an example. My cell phone has being. It exists. But it has no personality. There is no person sharing its being. Now, I can ask my cell phone how it is doing, but no matter how much I talk to the phone it will never once respond to me. Why? Because it can't reason. The cell phone has no person within its being to recognize itself, or communicate. Now, if you will allow me, I'll use you, David, as an example. You are one being, and within your being there is only one personality sharing your being: the person of David. God also has one being. However, rather than one person sharing His being, He has 3 persons within His one Being.
What the doctrine of the Trinity does not mean is that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all the same Person. The Father is the not the Son; the Son is not the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is not the Father – or any which way you want to put it. The Bible teaches the three persons are distinct. Each of these Persons can say “I” of Himself, and can address the other Persons. So when you mention that on your mission you encountered folks who were befuddled by Christ praying to the Father, the answer is simple: Christ was praying to the Father. Christ was not praying to Himself. Yes, that means that the three distinct Persons, sharing the one Being of God, communicate with one another.
One final note, and then I will be done with definitions =). I agree with you that the three distinct Persons are one in purpose, but this is not what I mean when I say that there is only one true God. I mean that there is only one true God in existence, and not three gods or three beings (or more).
You seem to hint in your preemptive strike against John 4:24 ... =) ... that the Father and the Son are separate beings, separate persons, each with their own respective bodies, and therefore “God is spirit” cannot mean that God is spirit, but rather that God has a physical body. This is an important point of disagreement between us. However, I would point to John 4:24, because Christ is talking with the Samaritan woman (which was not a reputable practice for the Jews) about the fact that since God is spirit the worship of Him is not dependent on the location ... as would soon be revealed with the coming of the Holy Spirit. "Spirit" does not mean "truth and righteousness." Spirit means spirit, and in fact "God is spirit" is literally what the Greek says here and is a qualitative description of God's very nature. Well, what is a spirit then? Jesus, when he rose from the grave, spoke to his alarmed disciples by reminding them that "a spirit does not have flesh and bones," and was painstakingly clear that He was physically raised from the dead and not a spirit.
The trouble I think Latter-day Saints sometimes have with understanding the doctrine of the Trinity is that you think of God as an exalted man, with a body as tangible as man's (LDS teachings). The Bible clearly says that God is not a man, but rather His very essence is spiritual, and therefore is not a human being.
You might ask, "Well how can God manage to exist like that? I don't understand..." I don't believe the finite can fully understand the infinite. In other words, we are limited by time and space, but God is not. You and I are limited in our power and our abilities, but God is not. So just because we don't fully grasp something about God does not mean it is not true. The question you need to ask yourself is: does the Bible teach the doctrine of the Trinity? Each of the three foundations I listed above are crucial, and I believe it is on these that we must focus our conversation.
Isaiah 43:10 is one text that supports the Biblical teaching of absolute monotheism. I do not believe that this passage, or the section in Isaiah 40-50, is simply teaching that God is the only God for the Israelites to worship. No, the reason the Israelites were to limit their worship to God is because He is the only true God in existence. This section of Isaiah is, as you rightly describe it, the trial of the false gods. God says in so many ways that He is the only true God in existence. When we consider Isaiah 43:10, He says of Himself, “Before me there was no God formed.” The word “formed” means “to create.” But as the passage continues we discover that there will be no Gods after God either.
The LDS faith teaches contrary to this very text: there were gods formed before God, and there will be gods formed after God.
In closing, I have 2 questions for you:
(1) In light of the fact that God says that there were no gods created before Him, and there will be no gods created after Him, how can you believe that there were, and there will be?
(2) How can this passage make sense from an LDS perspective, considering that “LORD” refers to Jehovah (Jesus) and “God” refers to Elohim (Father)? In other words, if we were to interpret this passage in light of LDS thinking it would read as follows: “Before Me [Jesus] there was no [Father] formed, And there will be none after Me.” (Brackets MINE).
I look forward to your response.
Casey (Rusty) Ryan
AOMin
Rusty:
I did a little research regarding those passages in Isaiah … Here Jehovah (Jesus Christ), is declaring that he is the God of Israel. He always has been the God of Israel and always will be their God … The only God they will ever have anything to do with … After reading Isaiah 43:10 are you concluding that the Father and the Son are one personage?
They are one in purpose, perfectly united ... If you're not one, then you're not mine ...
I hope we don't wind up citing the passage ... "God is a spirit... " Some like to cite that verse and put a big period at the end of it. However, there is no period at the end; the verse goes on to say … "and those that worship me, must worship me in spirit and in truth."
In other words, in these verses, the meaning of the word "spirit" refers to truth and righteousness. The old explanation goes like this: If the word "spirit" in these verses meant "no body; no parts" in essence a mist or a cloud, then the second verse "worshiping in spirit", would mean that we would have to leave our bodies at home to worship him! Yikes!
Here are some thoughts about the passages from Isaiah: Persons who object to the Church say, "What about Isaiah 43:10 where it says there were no Gods before Jehovah and will be none after him? Jesus and his Father have to be the same, and there is only one God." Let us look at that verse.
“Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.” (Isaiah 43:10)
In chapter 43, God is talking about the relationship between him and the Israelites. He uses the analogy of a trial in which he calls witnesses. In verse 3, he declares he is the God of Israel, and in subsequent verses he reassures the Israelites of this relationship. In verse 9 he challenges the nations of the earth to bring forth their witnesses of their gods, and in verse 10 he declares that the Israelites are his witnesses of his work and of the salvation which he is providing. Not only are they his witnesses but his servants because they do his work among the children of the earth. As his servants, he wants the Israelites to understand he is their God. In verse 10 when he said, "before me there was no God formed" he is saying he has always been the God of Israel. When he said, "neither shall their be [any] after me" he is saying he will always be the God of Israel. Thus, we see the context of that verse is that Jehovah always has been and always will be the God of Israel. That verse does not address the question whether Jesus and the Father are the same or are separate. As mentioned above, since Jesus and the Father are perfectly united, it is appropriate to refer to them as "one God".
Those who object also ask, "How about Isaiah 44:8?" Let us look at that verse. “Hear ye not, neither be afraid; have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.” (Isaiah 44:8)
This verse is a continuation of the "trial" dialogue we just discussed. Jehovah is the God of Israel, and "there is no God" besides Him. As with the other verse, this passage concerns the relationship between God and Israel and does not address the nature of the Godhead.
By the way, back to the mission field in South America. You would not believe how many people gave me that "deer in the headlights look", when my companion and I asked them who the Savior was praying to in the Garden of Gethsemane! If the Father and the Son were one personage!?
Take care,
David
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David,
Thanks again for the reply. I apologize for the length of this email, but found that I couldn't do justice by subtracting from its current length. Please read this over carefully as each point will be important to our discussion.
I think it might be helpful for both of us to make sure we are on the same page in our understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. Briefly, I would summarize this doctrine as follows: Within the one Being that is God, there eternally exists three coequal and coeternal Persons; namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
There are 3 essential foundations to the doctrine of the Trinity, and the Bible supports each of these foundations. First, absolute monotheism - there is only one true God in existence. Second, there are three distinct Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Third, the three divine Persons are coequal and coeternal. This means that the three Persons have existed from eternity as divine Persons (not simply their matter having eternally existed). This also means that the three Persons are coequal in nature; they all share the One Being of God. Each of the three Persons are equally God. It would be inappropriate to try to divide God's Being up into thirds, like a pie chart. No, rather, each divine Person is fully God and shares the one Being of God.
A helpful analogy of understanding what is meant by "Being" and "Person" is crucial when discussing this definition. Let me begin by using my cell phone as an example. My cell phone has being. It exists. But it has no personality. There is no person sharing its being. Now, I can ask my cell phone how it is doing, but no matter how much I talk to the phone it will never once respond to me. Why? Because it can't reason. The cell phone has no person within its being to recognize itself, or communicate. Now, if you will allow me, I'll use you, David, as an example. You are one being, and within your being there is only one personality sharing your being: the person of David. God also has one being. However, rather than one person sharing His being, He has 3 persons within His one Being.
What the doctrine of the Trinity does not mean is that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all the same Person. The Father is the not the Son; the Son is not the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is not the Father – or any which way you want to put it. The Bible teaches the three persons are distinct. Each of these Persons can say “I” of Himself, and can address the other Persons. So when you mention that on your mission you encountered folks who were befuddled by Christ praying to the Father, the answer is simple: Christ was praying to the Father. Christ was not praying to Himself. Yes, that means that the three distinct Persons, sharing the one Being of God, communicate with one another.
One final note, and then I will be done with definitions =). I agree with you that the three distinct Persons are one in purpose, but this is not what I mean when I say that there is only one true God. I mean that there is only one true God in existence, and not three gods or three beings (or more).
You seem to hint in your preemptive strike against John 4:24 ... =) ... that the Father and the Son are separate beings, separate persons, each with their own respective bodies, and therefore “God is spirit” cannot mean that God is spirit, but rather that God has a physical body. This is an important point of disagreement between us. However, I would point to John 4:24, because Christ is talking with the Samaritan woman (which was not a reputable practice for the Jews) about the fact that since God is spirit the worship of Him is not dependent on the location ... as would soon be revealed with the coming of the Holy Spirit. "Spirit" does not mean "truth and righteousness." Spirit means spirit, and in fact "God is spirit" is literally what the Greek says here and is a qualitative description of God's very nature. Well, what is a spirit then? Jesus, when he rose from the grave, spoke to his alarmed disciples by reminding them that "a spirit does not have flesh and bones," and was painstakingly clear that He was physically raised from the dead and not a spirit.
The trouble I think Latter-day Saints sometimes have with understanding the doctrine of the Trinity is that you think of God as an exalted man, with a body as tangible as man's (LDS teachings). The Bible clearly says that God is not a man, but rather His very essence is spiritual, and therefore is not a human being.
You might ask, "Well how can God manage to exist like that? I don't understand..." I don't believe the finite can fully understand the infinite. In other words, we are limited by time and space, but God is not. You and I are limited in our power and our abilities, but God is not. So just because we don't fully grasp something about God does not mean it is not true. The question you need to ask yourself is: does the Bible teach the doctrine of the Trinity? Each of the three foundations I listed above are crucial, and I believe it is on these that we must focus our conversation.
Isaiah 43:10 is one text that supports the Biblical teaching of absolute monotheism. I do not believe that this passage, or the section in Isaiah 40-50, is simply teaching that God is the only God for the Israelites to worship. No, the reason the Israelites were to limit their worship to God is because He is the only true God in existence. This section of Isaiah is, as you rightly describe it, the trial of the false gods. God says in so many ways that He is the only true God in existence. When we consider Isaiah 43:10, He says of Himself, “Before me there was no God formed.” The word “formed” means “to create.” But as the passage continues we discover that there will be no Gods after God either.
The LDS faith teaches contrary to this very text: there were gods formed before God, and there will be gods formed after God.
In closing, I have 2 questions for you:
(1) In light of the fact that God says that there were no gods created before Him, and there will be no gods created after Him, how can you believe that there were, and there will be?
(2) How can this passage make sense from an LDS perspective, considering that “LORD” refers to Jehovah (Jesus) and “God” refers to Elohim (Father)? In other words, if we were to interpret this passage in light of LDS thinking it would read as follows: “Before Me [Jesus] there was no [Father] formed, And there will be none after Me.” (Brackets MINE).
I look forward to your response.
Casey (Rusty) Ryan
AOMin
Friday, August 7, 2009
Lunch-Time Conversations
There are some occasions that seem to be random but really aren’t. They may start off by recurring intermittently but given enough time become daily activities. One such occasion is something I eagerly await every day, and it happens around noontime. Oftentimes I will get off work and have approximately half an hour to kill before I make the trek to my next job. During this timeframe there are 2 customers who visit us on their lunch breaks to sip on coffee or tea.
My interactions with these 2 middle-aged gentlemen began by sitting down on one of the comfy chairs adjacent the three other comfy chairs. It seems to be their custom to invite those rambunctious enough to participate in with their conversations. I was invited to one of their conversations and the tradition has continued for a month now. Each of us brings a book that we are presently reading – which is a commonality that cannot be overlooked. In fact, the desire for learning, reasoning with one another, even debate is something we all share. Most of all, we each have a strong desire for good conversation.
Earlier in the week I was able to briefly share some thoughts from the biography about Jimmy Carter, but ended up learning a great deal from these men who lived through the 70’s.
Movie recommendations are also an integral part of our dialogue each day. On Monday they mentioned two films that are, according to them, classics and a “must see.” The first is “The Avengers,” followed by “Glenn Gary, Glenn Ross.” Yesterday they were anxious to see if I had made time to watch both the films. I chuckled and told them that I’d order them this weekend.
Customers like these make my time at Starbucks completely worthwhile, and this is precisely the kind of “third place” environment we are famous for providing as a company. This is why we have succeeded as a coffee and tea shop while others have failed. There is something about meeting friends, family or even strangers to talk about what is most important to you. The closest resemblance in history seems to be the Salons (not for hair) in France leading up to the French Revolution. People would gather to discuss and debate social, political and religious ideas.
I hope that I might act as salt and light to these men, choosing my words carefully because I represent the God of the universe.
Rusty
My interactions with these 2 middle-aged gentlemen began by sitting down on one of the comfy chairs adjacent the three other comfy chairs. It seems to be their custom to invite those rambunctious enough to participate in with their conversations. I was invited to one of their conversations and the tradition has continued for a month now. Each of us brings a book that we are presently reading – which is a commonality that cannot be overlooked. In fact, the desire for learning, reasoning with one another, even debate is something we all share. Most of all, we each have a strong desire for good conversation.
Earlier in the week I was able to briefly share some thoughts from the biography about Jimmy Carter, but ended up learning a great deal from these men who lived through the 70’s.
Movie recommendations are also an integral part of our dialogue each day. On Monday they mentioned two films that are, according to them, classics and a “must see.” The first is “The Avengers,” followed by “Glenn Gary, Glenn Ross.” Yesterday they were anxious to see if I had made time to watch both the films. I chuckled and told them that I’d order them this weekend.
Customers like these make my time at Starbucks completely worthwhile, and this is precisely the kind of “third place” environment we are famous for providing as a company. This is why we have succeeded as a coffee and tea shop while others have failed. There is something about meeting friends, family or even strangers to talk about what is most important to you. The closest resemblance in history seems to be the Salons (not for hair) in France leading up to the French Revolution. People would gather to discuss and debate social, political and religious ideas.
I hope that I might act as salt and light to these men, choosing my words carefully because I represent the God of the universe.
Rusty
Monday, August 3, 2009
The beauty of the Ant
The other day walked by an ant hill and my first response was to cover the hill with my feet. For some reason I decided to take a closer look and I discovered one single ant left outside the now-closed hill. This ant began to take a single grain of sand at a time away from the covered hill in order to reopen the passage way. It was an instant epiphany! This ant was not taking any orders. It was not taking time to decide if it wanted to do the job that I gave it. It was not working for any perceived future reward. It was doing what it was wired to do with all diligence.
"Go to the ant, O sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise..." (Proverbs 6:6)
"Go to the ant, O sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise..." (Proverbs 6:6)
Friday, July 31, 2009
No Such Thing as a Hyphenated American
This might come as a shock to some of you, but I am politically conservative. *gasp* !!!!!!! Like a good conservative Republican I try to be aware of current events, and even go so far as to listen to political talk-radio while driving. My two favorite shows happen to be at the same time on different stations: Rush Limbaugh and Michael Medved. El Rushbo is pretty arrogant and a bit obnoxious, but ya know what? More often than not he is extremely right, and he falls on the conservative side of things far more often than his colleagues. Medved provides more thought-provoking topics of conversation, at least I think so =). In fact, there are three books I’ve read because of his recommendation: a book on the Crusades, his own The 10 Big Lies About America (which I just finished), and a book about Jimmy Carter and the 1970’s.
There are literally dozens of topics that I may end up blogging about over the next few weeks from “The 10 Big Lies About America,” but I wanted to focus on just one of them today. Michael Medved has a chapter responding to the myth that “America Has Always Been a Multicultural Society.” In this chapter he quotes part of a speech made by the beloved Theodore Roosevelt in 1915:
Now don’t get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with “celebrating” one’s heritage, or identifying and appreciating one’s familial background. But when I think about my friends, classmates and coworkers, and how they choose to identify themselves, it isn’t primarily as an American. Many blacks overemphasize their African-ness. Many whites overemphasize their European-ness. The problem arises when one is more proud of where they’ve come from rather than where they are.
“Cultural Diversity in Education” was one perhaps the single greatest waste of time in my entire life. I remember the professor asking the class one day: “How many of you think racism is a major problem in America today?” Everyone’s hand shot up, except mine. Immediately, I could feel the scornful looks from various individuals in the classroom, including the professor who couldn’t believe her eyes. Puzzled, she asked me why I didn’t think racism was not a major problem in America. I answered: “Because the vast majority of Americans are openly opposed to racism, the Federal and state governments are opposed to racism, and we now have laws protecting against racial discrimination. Sure, there are racists in America, but they are widely condemned throughout the land.” My professor happened to be black, and tried to hide just how offended she was, but continue on with our conversation. “Well, I have been mistreated by many people because of my black-ness,” she said. I expressed my sympathies, but reiterated that the greater majority are opposed to people thinking less of someone simply because of the color of their skin.
That group of students was essential in pointing out to me just how much racism is not a problem. Americans are so opposed to racism that all education majors are required to take courses like “Cultural Diversity in Education.” If we would simply recognize that racism was a huge problem in America, and at the same time admit that we have – for the most part – overcome racism we would begin to stop thinking of people in terms of ethnicity at all. Shouldn’t our goal be to instill in our fellow citizens that we are all equal in value because of our shared humanity, rather than because of our different ethnic backgrounds? Why is it that blacks, whites, Hispanics, Asians or any other ethnicity are all equal? Is it not because we are all human? If you’re like me, you’re thinking to yourself, “Yup. No duh, Case.” Haha. The problem is that many liberals do not think this way. It’s true that they believe all peoples are equal in value but they arrive at this conclusion by celebrating ethnicities, rather than recognizing ethnicities all share a common humanity.
Three of four years ago I began to take great interest in my own family history and ethnic heritage. Part of my heritage is Irish, and I am uber proud of my Irish-ness (just ask Scott, who was forced to listen to hours upon hours of Irish tunes on repeat). I have made the mistake of focusing too much on my ethnicity, rather than identifying myself primarily as an American. Never fear, I’m not about to stop enjoying my Irish-ness, but I do plan on clarifying that I am an American first, and Irish second. My loyalty is to this nation, which still represents the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Thanks for reading this American’s thoughts,
Rustyrust
There are literally dozens of topics that I may end up blogging about over the next few weeks from “The 10 Big Lies About America,” but I wanted to focus on just one of them today. Michael Medved has a chapter responding to the myth that “America Has Always Been a Multicultural Society.” In this chapter he quotes part of a speech made by the beloved Theodore Roosevelt in 1915:
“There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans. Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all…. The one absolutely certain way of brining this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic. There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else.” (Pgs. 103-104).What cut me to the quick was when I learned that this speech was made to a group of Irish Catholics. The annotation I made in the margins of this page reads: “Never thought about it that way before.” Honestly, I hadn’t. Having been raised in the public school system, and taken an innumerable amount of college courses, I guess I’ve been more influenced to believe that one’s national identity is not first as an American citizen, but rather in one’s ethnic heritage.
Now don’t get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with “celebrating” one’s heritage, or identifying and appreciating one’s familial background. But when I think about my friends, classmates and coworkers, and how they choose to identify themselves, it isn’t primarily as an American. Many blacks overemphasize their African-ness. Many whites overemphasize their European-ness. The problem arises when one is more proud of where they’ve come from rather than where they are.
“Cultural Diversity in Education” was one perhaps the single greatest waste of time in my entire life. I remember the professor asking the class one day: “How many of you think racism is a major problem in America today?” Everyone’s hand shot up, except mine. Immediately, I could feel the scornful looks from various individuals in the classroom, including the professor who couldn’t believe her eyes. Puzzled, she asked me why I didn’t think racism was not a major problem in America. I answered: “Because the vast majority of Americans are openly opposed to racism, the Federal and state governments are opposed to racism, and we now have laws protecting against racial discrimination. Sure, there are racists in America, but they are widely condemned throughout the land.” My professor happened to be black, and tried to hide just how offended she was, but continue on with our conversation. “Well, I have been mistreated by many people because of my black-ness,” she said. I expressed my sympathies, but reiterated that the greater majority are opposed to people thinking less of someone simply because of the color of their skin.
That group of students was essential in pointing out to me just how much racism is not a problem. Americans are so opposed to racism that all education majors are required to take courses like “Cultural Diversity in Education.” If we would simply recognize that racism was a huge problem in America, and at the same time admit that we have – for the most part – overcome racism we would begin to stop thinking of people in terms of ethnicity at all. Shouldn’t our goal be to instill in our fellow citizens that we are all equal in value because of our shared humanity, rather than because of our different ethnic backgrounds? Why is it that blacks, whites, Hispanics, Asians or any other ethnicity are all equal? Is it not because we are all human? If you’re like me, you’re thinking to yourself, “Yup. No duh, Case.” Haha. The problem is that many liberals do not think this way. It’s true that they believe all peoples are equal in value but they arrive at this conclusion by celebrating ethnicities, rather than recognizing ethnicities all share a common humanity.
Three of four years ago I began to take great interest in my own family history and ethnic heritage. Part of my heritage is Irish, and I am uber proud of my Irish-ness (just ask Scott, who was forced to listen to hours upon hours of Irish tunes on repeat). I have made the mistake of focusing too much on my ethnicity, rather than identifying myself primarily as an American. Never fear, I’m not about to stop enjoying my Irish-ness, but I do plan on clarifying that I am an American first, and Irish second. My loyalty is to this nation, which still represents the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Thanks for reading this American’s thoughts,
Rustyrust
Friday, July 24, 2009
The Half-Blood Prince
The beginning portions of this post will not contain spoilers for HBP, and I’ll give a warning before the spoilers are let loose =)
July 14th was one of the most memorable movie-going experiences I’ve had. Myself and Emily, and Cory and Melissa waited in line for the showing all day. We arrived around 10am, chick-filet for breakfast, starbucks, and then joined the line outside. It was only a few moments when the manager came out to let everyone inside – boy oh boy were we thankful we could be inside since it was already beginning to boil.
Our group was 3rd in line and we had a bench; our day was off to a fantastic start! Within a few minutes Melissa and I decided to get into our costumes, me into my Quidditch costume, Melissa into a Hogwarts school uniform costume. Gotta say that they were the best costumes, by far =).
We brought a Harry Potter 20-Questions game, a simplified magic-like Harry Potter board/card game which we spent 40 minutes trying to figure out and was much too difficult to play, but a fun amount of time nonetheless. Of course we made friends with our fellow waiters-in-line and ended up playing a group game of Silent Football. It was hilarious, haha. I can tell you right now it musta been quite the sight seeing adults dressed in Harry Potter costumes spitting at each other or thrusting elbow’s in one another’s face, all the while remaining fairly silent =).
Our auditorium was allowed in to be seated at 6pm. Not only were we able to save enough seats for the rest of our party but we had a wonderful spot right in the middle.
12:01am grew ever closer and you could feel the electricity begin to build in the auditorium. People were excited, and with good reason! I think it was 2 years ago that OoTP came out?
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince was overwhelmingly my favorite of the Potter films. Many non-die-hard fans, but who’ve followed the movies, have said that they wished there was more action. But die-hard fans, and those who’ve read the books, loved it.
What made the HBP so much better? The most noticeable improvement was the actors’ and actresses’ ability to perform. Their acting had improved with each new film, and was incredibly noticeable here. My brother, Dvorák, who is not Radcliffe’s biggest fan, said even he did a great job.
SPOILERS TO FOLLOW! THOSE WHO HAVEN’T SEEN THE MOVIES AND READ ALL SEVEN BOOKS SHOULD CONTINUE AT THE SPOILER BREAK – (Will appear in caps below)!!!!!!!
At this point I’ve seen the HBP twice, and my favorite part as of now is when Ron is overcome by Ramilda Vane’s (sp?) love potion. His stupefied expression and that stupid grin kept me laughing. Then there was Radcliffe who got me laughing once he took the “Liquid Luck” potion. Sitting on that over-sized stool in Hagrid’s hut, clapping and smiling was truly the equivalent of roflberry pwncakes!
Harry and Ginny’s romance has begun full swing, and I’m sure all the girls loved that =). Hey, I did too! She sure is aggressive, but I’m pretty sure Harry needed someone like her. Those of us who know the ending of book 7 are probably prone to agree with me?
What I felt was lacking most of all were key elements from the spectacular battle scene near the end. I’ll need to re-read the book, but the way I remember that scene in my head was with more Death Eaters. Also, where was Hagrid?! Was he burning in his hut?! I was hoping to see countless spells bounce off of his half-giant thick skin. Still, the scene was enjoyable.
I completely forgot about Bill and Fleur. Also, here’s a question to the reader: do you think that Lupin and Nymphadora’s romance was too revealed in this movie? Should they have waited to develop it until they reveal it more fully in book 7?
END OF SPOILERS
Honestly, I cannot wait to find an excuse to see this movie again. Maybe I ought to be more clever and just come up with something =). This will undoubtedly be the best-selling blockbuster of the year.
Thanks for reading ya’ll,
The Rusted One
July 14th was one of the most memorable movie-going experiences I’ve had. Myself and Emily, and Cory and Melissa waited in line for the showing all day. We arrived around 10am, chick-filet for breakfast, starbucks, and then joined the line outside. It was only a few moments when the manager came out to let everyone inside – boy oh boy were we thankful we could be inside since it was already beginning to boil.
Our group was 3rd in line and we had a bench; our day was off to a fantastic start! Within a few minutes Melissa and I decided to get into our costumes, me into my Quidditch costume, Melissa into a Hogwarts school uniform costume. Gotta say that they were the best costumes, by far =).
We brought a Harry Potter 20-Questions game, a simplified magic-like Harry Potter board/card game which we spent 40 minutes trying to figure out and was much too difficult to play, but a fun amount of time nonetheless. Of course we made friends with our fellow waiters-in-line and ended up playing a group game of Silent Football. It was hilarious, haha. I can tell you right now it musta been quite the sight seeing adults dressed in Harry Potter costumes spitting at each other or thrusting elbow’s in one another’s face, all the while remaining fairly silent =).
Our auditorium was allowed in to be seated at 6pm. Not only were we able to save enough seats for the rest of our party but we had a wonderful spot right in the middle.
12:01am grew ever closer and you could feel the electricity begin to build in the auditorium. People were excited, and with good reason! I think it was 2 years ago that OoTP came out?
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince was overwhelmingly my favorite of the Potter films. Many non-die-hard fans, but who’ve followed the movies, have said that they wished there was more action. But die-hard fans, and those who’ve read the books, loved it.
What made the HBP so much better? The most noticeable improvement was the actors’ and actresses’ ability to perform. Their acting had improved with each new film, and was incredibly noticeable here. My brother, Dvorák, who is not Radcliffe’s biggest fan, said even he did a great job.
SPOILERS TO FOLLOW! THOSE WHO HAVEN’T SEEN THE MOVIES AND READ ALL SEVEN BOOKS SHOULD CONTINUE AT THE SPOILER BREAK – (Will appear in caps below)!!!!!!!
At this point I’ve seen the HBP twice, and my favorite part as of now is when Ron is overcome by Ramilda Vane’s (sp?) love potion. His stupefied expression and that stupid grin kept me laughing. Then there was Radcliffe who got me laughing once he took the “Liquid Luck” potion. Sitting on that over-sized stool in Hagrid’s hut, clapping and smiling was truly the equivalent of roflberry pwncakes!
Harry and Ginny’s romance has begun full swing, and I’m sure all the girls loved that =). Hey, I did too! She sure is aggressive, but I’m pretty sure Harry needed someone like her. Those of us who know the ending of book 7 are probably prone to agree with me?
What I felt was lacking most of all were key elements from the spectacular battle scene near the end. I’ll need to re-read the book, but the way I remember that scene in my head was with more Death Eaters. Also, where was Hagrid?! Was he burning in his hut?! I was hoping to see countless spells bounce off of his half-giant thick skin. Still, the scene was enjoyable.
I completely forgot about Bill and Fleur. Also, here’s a question to the reader: do you think that Lupin and Nymphadora’s romance was too revealed in this movie? Should they have waited to develop it until they reveal it more fully in book 7?
END OF SPOILERS
Honestly, I cannot wait to find an excuse to see this movie again. Maybe I ought to be more clever and just come up with something =). This will undoubtedly be the best-selling blockbuster of the year.
Thanks for reading ya’ll,
The Rusted One
Friday, July 17, 2009
My List of Sins
I determined that I would not write again about Spiritual-Mindedness until I have finished that fantastic read, but it is completely affecting what is on my mind (no pun intended) and therefore you can expect my articles on spiritual subjects to be heavily influenced because of what John Owen has to say =) …
One of the recent realizations the Lord has made new to me is that I cannot stop sinning unless I have the aid of the Holy Spirit. When I first became a Calvinist, one of the new questions I asked was: “So if God saves apart from the cooperation of man, does he also sanctify without our cooperation? Or is my personal holiness dependent upon me?” Quite an interesting question, eh?
Eventually, I came to understand that even our sanctification is completely the work of God, but I’m not quite sure I have consistently experienced the truthfulness of that. While considering the myriad of Christian truths discussed by Owen in Spiritual-Mindedness, I began to understand a bit more of just how sinful I am. The truth is that for a long time I haven’t considered myself all that bad. After all, I could compare myself to someone else – an unbeliever, or a “weaker” Christian – and I’d feel better about my spiritual state. But once I began to examine my life with God’s awesome holiness, or with the standard recorded in His Word, I recognized my disgusting and wretched state before Him. The Lord requires perfection, and I daily fail at attaining that mark.
Considering how much light God has given to me, I have even less of an excuse than the average Joe who has not been raised in a Christian home, raised in the Church, and in a land where I have easy access to the Scriptures. I have far less of an excuse! I thought about Romans 7, where the Apostle says of himself, “Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?” (Romans 7:24, NASB). I began to think this about myself.
If all that I’m saying is true of me, and may be true of you, how might we answer the Apostle Paul’s question? How can we be free of this body of death? If we claim to be Christians but continue on sinning, shouldn’t our primary concern be to increase God’s reputation by living a life according to His precepts? I have spent a lot of time trying to figure out how I might stop from sinning, and I found that I am totally, completely, utterly, 100% unable to stop sinning by my own ability.
The only solution to our sins is God. This is true of all aspects of salvation: being foreknown by God before the foundation of the world, being predestined by Him, being called by Him, being justified by Him, being sanctified by Him, and finally, being glorified in the likeness of Christ’s glorification. Is that not the teaching of Romans 8:28-30?
Jesus says in John 15:5, “I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing” (NASB). If Jesus meant what he said here, how can we hope to keep from sinning unless it is by his power?
I did something that I was reluctant to do: I made a list of sins that I do. Looking at that list is difficult because it is a reminder of my sinfulness, and frankly, it would be much easier to pretend that everything in my life is A-okay. But everything in my life is not okay. It dawned on me that while I have periodically prayed for God’s help to overcome these sins, I had not really believed that God would do anything. Deep down I was still dependent upon myself and my own power and ability. I was like the man in James 4, “You do not have because you do not ask. You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, so that you may spend it on your pleasures” (NASB).
God’s Holy Spirit will not answer prayers according to our will. The Holy Spirit answers prayers that are in accordance with God’s will. Personally, I can tell you that the only times I do anything good, or don’t do anything bad, is because of God’s grace alone. The road is long, the pathway narrow, but I know that the Lord desires for me to live a certain way and is continuing to work in my life. When I trust in His ability to rule in my heart it is amazing what He does.
One of the members at my church has prayed a prayer for years that I would like to pray for myself: that God would make me a trophy of His grace … for His own name’s sake.
Sola Gratia, and, Soli Deo Gloria,
Rusty
One of the recent realizations the Lord has made new to me is that I cannot stop sinning unless I have the aid of the Holy Spirit. When I first became a Calvinist, one of the new questions I asked was: “So if God saves apart from the cooperation of man, does he also sanctify without our cooperation? Or is my personal holiness dependent upon me?” Quite an interesting question, eh?
Eventually, I came to understand that even our sanctification is completely the work of God, but I’m not quite sure I have consistently experienced the truthfulness of that. While considering the myriad of Christian truths discussed by Owen in Spiritual-Mindedness, I began to understand a bit more of just how sinful I am. The truth is that for a long time I haven’t considered myself all that bad. After all, I could compare myself to someone else – an unbeliever, or a “weaker” Christian – and I’d feel better about my spiritual state. But once I began to examine my life with God’s awesome holiness, or with the standard recorded in His Word, I recognized my disgusting and wretched state before Him. The Lord requires perfection, and I daily fail at attaining that mark.
Considering how much light God has given to me, I have even less of an excuse than the average Joe who has not been raised in a Christian home, raised in the Church, and in a land where I have easy access to the Scriptures. I have far less of an excuse! I thought about Romans 7, where the Apostle says of himself, “Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?” (Romans 7:24, NASB). I began to think this about myself.
If all that I’m saying is true of me, and may be true of you, how might we answer the Apostle Paul’s question? How can we be free of this body of death? If we claim to be Christians but continue on sinning, shouldn’t our primary concern be to increase God’s reputation by living a life according to His precepts? I have spent a lot of time trying to figure out how I might stop from sinning, and I found that I am totally, completely, utterly, 100% unable to stop sinning by my own ability.
The only solution to our sins is God. This is true of all aspects of salvation: being foreknown by God before the foundation of the world, being predestined by Him, being called by Him, being justified by Him, being sanctified by Him, and finally, being glorified in the likeness of Christ’s glorification. Is that not the teaching of Romans 8:28-30?
Jesus says in John 15:5, “I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing” (NASB). If Jesus meant what he said here, how can we hope to keep from sinning unless it is by his power?
I did something that I was reluctant to do: I made a list of sins that I do. Looking at that list is difficult because it is a reminder of my sinfulness, and frankly, it would be much easier to pretend that everything in my life is A-okay. But everything in my life is not okay. It dawned on me that while I have periodically prayed for God’s help to overcome these sins, I had not really believed that God would do anything. Deep down I was still dependent upon myself and my own power and ability. I was like the man in James 4, “You do not have because you do not ask. You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, so that you may spend it on your pleasures” (NASB).
God’s Holy Spirit will not answer prayers according to our will. The Holy Spirit answers prayers that are in accordance with God’s will. Personally, I can tell you that the only times I do anything good, or don’t do anything bad, is because of God’s grace alone. The road is long, the pathway narrow, but I know that the Lord desires for me to live a certain way and is continuing to work in my life. When I trust in His ability to rule in my heart it is amazing what He does.
One of the members at my church has prayed a prayer for years that I would like to pray for myself: that God would make me a trophy of His grace … for His own name’s sake.
Sola Gratia, and, Soli Deo Gloria,
Rusty
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
The Weary and Heavy-Laden
Have you ever felt the weight of your sins? Do you know what it means to have your guilt overcome you to the point of desperation? How about a godly sorrow and a hatred for what you’ve done? I’m not just talking about the fear of getting caught and of what other men might say if they only knew the real you. I’m talking about gaining a meaningful understanding about how wretched you are before the sight of the one holy God.
I have experienced this before, and it is a frightening thing to feel the weight of my sins before the infinite God, Maker of heaven and earth. There is good news for those of us who have felt such a burden! In fact, Christ calls us to him: “Come to me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light” (Matthew 11:28-30, NASB).
What has amazed me about the unlimited wisdom of God displayed in the gospel of His Son, is who and how God has chosen to save. Earlier in Matthew, Jesus is giving instructions to his disciples as they go out to preach that the kingdom of God is at hand. One thing that I thought was odd is that Christ instructs the disciples not to go to the Gentile cities or to the Samaritans, but only to Israel (10:5-6). Obviously, the gospel is meant for all peoples today, but Christ’s purpose at that time was not meant to reach every individual. Applying that to today – where the gospel is meant for all people everywhere – we know that the gospel is heard by everyone the Lord so intends.
The Lord knew and knows all things, including the persecution his followers would face. He even forewarns them of the difficulties to come: “Behold, I sent you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves. But beware of men, for they will hand you over to the courts and scourge you in their synagogues; and you will even be brought before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles” (Matthew 10:16-18, NASB).
Amazingly, many who heard the preaching of Christ and even saw many miracles did not and would not repent and believe in Him. Our Lord took special notice of those who heard and saw the most and declared the coming judgment upon them for their lack of faith. In fact, Sodom would be better off during the Final Judgment than these present unrepentant cities!
Immediately following this pronouncement of judgment by Christ, he gives thanks to the Father for keeping hidden spiritual truth from the wise and intelligent but making it known to infants (Matthew 11:25). What a truly remarkable prayer! This is perfectly in line with the rest of the Scriptures – consider Paul’s statements to the Corinthians, as one example.
Does it not amaze you that the King of the universe has withheld spiritual understanding from those our world considers wise? God has not chosen to save those human beings we would expect an almighty God to save. But because of His own sovereign will (11:27), the infants of the world are born again to be freed from the bondage of sin and its consequences, and are now slaves of the Lord Jesus Christ!
Only those who are weary and heavy-laden with the weight of their sins are willing to come to Christ. The question might be asked, “Who is weary and heavy-laden with their sins?” And this is a fair question. Answer: the one having dealings with God’s Holy Spirit, who convicts sinners of their sins. It is not enough to say that you have felt conviction of your sins at one point in time. It is not enough to have moments where you regret particular sins. You must recognize your wretched and helpless state before the only true God and come to Him through faith alone, trusting fully in His ability to deliver you from a life and consequences of sin.
If you do not feel the weight of your sins, I implore you to consider your ways, your thoughts, your heart. You know how sinful you are, especially compared to the perfection of the triune God. Beg Him to cause you to hate your sin. Admit that you have no love for God and that you are utterly dependent on Him if you are to have salvation.
I would like to conclude with this: if you have not heard the good news about Jesus Christ, or even if you have but do not find yourself believing, I would love to talk with you sometime. The invitation is there =)
Thanks for reading,
Casey
I have experienced this before, and it is a frightening thing to feel the weight of my sins before the infinite God, Maker of heaven and earth. There is good news for those of us who have felt such a burden! In fact, Christ calls us to him: “Come to me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light” (Matthew 11:28-30, NASB).
What has amazed me about the unlimited wisdom of God displayed in the gospel of His Son, is who and how God has chosen to save. Earlier in Matthew, Jesus is giving instructions to his disciples as they go out to preach that the kingdom of God is at hand. One thing that I thought was odd is that Christ instructs the disciples not to go to the Gentile cities or to the Samaritans, but only to Israel (10:5-6). Obviously, the gospel is meant for all peoples today, but Christ’s purpose at that time was not meant to reach every individual. Applying that to today – where the gospel is meant for all people everywhere – we know that the gospel is heard by everyone the Lord so intends.
The Lord knew and knows all things, including the persecution his followers would face. He even forewarns them of the difficulties to come: “Behold, I sent you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves. But beware of men, for they will hand you over to the courts and scourge you in their synagogues; and you will even be brought before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles” (Matthew 10:16-18, NASB).
Amazingly, many who heard the preaching of Christ and even saw many miracles did not and would not repent and believe in Him. Our Lord took special notice of those who heard and saw the most and declared the coming judgment upon them for their lack of faith. In fact, Sodom would be better off during the Final Judgment than these present unrepentant cities!
Immediately following this pronouncement of judgment by Christ, he gives thanks to the Father for keeping hidden spiritual truth from the wise and intelligent but making it known to infants (Matthew 11:25). What a truly remarkable prayer! This is perfectly in line with the rest of the Scriptures – consider Paul’s statements to the Corinthians, as one example.
Does it not amaze you that the King of the universe has withheld spiritual understanding from those our world considers wise? God has not chosen to save those human beings we would expect an almighty God to save. But because of His own sovereign will (11:27), the infants of the world are born again to be freed from the bondage of sin and its consequences, and are now slaves of the Lord Jesus Christ!
Only those who are weary and heavy-laden with the weight of their sins are willing to come to Christ. The question might be asked, “Who is weary and heavy-laden with their sins?” And this is a fair question. Answer: the one having dealings with God’s Holy Spirit, who convicts sinners of their sins. It is not enough to say that you have felt conviction of your sins at one point in time. It is not enough to have moments where you regret particular sins. You must recognize your wretched and helpless state before the only true God and come to Him through faith alone, trusting fully in His ability to deliver you from a life and consequences of sin.
If you do not feel the weight of your sins, I implore you to consider your ways, your thoughts, your heart. You know how sinful you are, especially compared to the perfection of the triune God. Beg Him to cause you to hate your sin. Admit that you have no love for God and that you are utterly dependent on Him if you are to have salvation.
I would like to conclude with this: if you have not heard the good news about Jesus Christ, or even if you have but do not find yourself believing, I would love to talk with you sometime. The invitation is there =)
Thanks for reading,
Casey
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Why do any choose to follow Christ?
A great Christian friend of mine tagged me in a note asking for thoughts on how one is converted to Christianity. I thought the discussion totally worthy of some attention and posted the following thoughts:
Justin,
What a most wonderful subject, brother =). Before I offer my thoughts I wanted to say thanks for bringing this up because it has been the focus of my mind and my heart for a few weeks now. Even more so, however, Christian people need to be reminded of our conversion and ought to be concerned about such things as the (whuh oh, here’s a fancy phrase =)) Ordo Solutus … the Order of Salvation. My understanding of the Ordo Salutus has changed over the years and has, as a result, greatly impacted my life.
As a Christian, the way in which sinners are converted to Christianity continues to affect me.
I’m not sure I can put a number of “steps” together describing how I view the conversion process, but I think I can handle scribbling down some bullet points.
(1) First, I believe that because of the Fall of Adam every single human being will not and cannot make positive advancements towards God and the gospel. The Scriptures teach that men are willfully in rebellion against God, and are in fact called God-haters. We are all children of wrath by nature and love our sin, and we are dead to the things of God. Were the choice of salvation left to unregenerate sinners, we would always choose to remain in our sin – every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
(2) Why and how does anyone believe? Because of the work of the Holy Spirit. God’s Spirit raises sinners from spiritual death to spiritual life. This then produces faith. Faith does not produce regeneration to newness of life, but is rather a gift from God that comes naturally to the one who has been born again. Just as Lazarus naturally came forth after Jesus raised him from the dead, even we, after having been raised to life will naturally have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
(3) The Holy Spirit uses means to accomplish conversion. He does not just transfer information into someone’s brain and –POOF- they believe that information. No. God sends preachers to boldly and clearly proclaim His gospel in every land. This means that there are certain things one must comprehend before they can believe: God, sin, Hell, grace, the gospel, etc.
(4) God always convicts the sinner of his sin so that he recognizes his great need of a perfect savior. It is this point that has really struck home for me as of late … that a true conversion is one which involves a sorrow, worry and a hatred for their sins. The sinner’s heart ought to be greatly troubled by their wicked ways, so much so that they wonder how they might be redeemed from the wrath to come. The answer is found in Jesus Christ, and is plain to those the Holy Spirit causes to be born again.
(5) My final thought is this: an individual may wrestle with the gospel because of particular circumstances, arguments, religious beliefs, or other various perspectives. But the God of the Bible is a perfect Savior, and He saves to the uttermost without our cooperation. When He grants saving grace to someone and calls them out of the tomb he cannot help but come forth in believing expectation because it is in their new nature to do so. And no amount of false beliefs can stop God’s mighty hand. This means that God receives all the glory for it. Truly, salvation is wholly of the Lord our God.
Casey
Justin,
What a most wonderful subject, brother =). Before I offer my thoughts I wanted to say thanks for bringing this up because it has been the focus of my mind and my heart for a few weeks now. Even more so, however, Christian people need to be reminded of our conversion and ought to be concerned about such things as the (whuh oh, here’s a fancy phrase =)) Ordo Solutus … the Order of Salvation. My understanding of the Ordo Salutus has changed over the years and has, as a result, greatly impacted my life.
As a Christian, the way in which sinners are converted to Christianity continues to affect me.
I’m not sure I can put a number of “steps” together describing how I view the conversion process, but I think I can handle scribbling down some bullet points.
(1) First, I believe that because of the Fall of Adam every single human being will not and cannot make positive advancements towards God and the gospel. The Scriptures teach that men are willfully in rebellion against God, and are in fact called God-haters. We are all children of wrath by nature and love our sin, and we are dead to the things of God. Were the choice of salvation left to unregenerate sinners, we would always choose to remain in our sin – every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
(2) Why and how does anyone believe? Because of the work of the Holy Spirit. God’s Spirit raises sinners from spiritual death to spiritual life. This then produces faith. Faith does not produce regeneration to newness of life, but is rather a gift from God that comes naturally to the one who has been born again. Just as Lazarus naturally came forth after Jesus raised him from the dead, even we, after having been raised to life will naturally have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
(3) The Holy Spirit uses means to accomplish conversion. He does not just transfer information into someone’s brain and –POOF- they believe that information. No. God sends preachers to boldly and clearly proclaim His gospel in every land. This means that there are certain things one must comprehend before they can believe: God, sin, Hell, grace, the gospel, etc.
(4) God always convicts the sinner of his sin so that he recognizes his great need of a perfect savior. It is this point that has really struck home for me as of late … that a true conversion is one which involves a sorrow, worry and a hatred for their sins. The sinner’s heart ought to be greatly troubled by their wicked ways, so much so that they wonder how they might be redeemed from the wrath to come. The answer is found in Jesus Christ, and is plain to those the Holy Spirit causes to be born again.
(5) My final thought is this: an individual may wrestle with the gospel because of particular circumstances, arguments, religious beliefs, or other various perspectives. But the God of the Bible is a perfect Savior, and He saves to the uttermost without our cooperation. When He grants saving grace to someone and calls them out of the tomb he cannot help but come forth in believing expectation because it is in their new nature to do so. And no amount of false beliefs can stop God’s mighty hand. This means that God receives all the glory for it. Truly, salvation is wholly of the Lord our God.
Casey
Monday, June 22, 2009
A&D, Night at the Museum 2, and UP
Please forgive the lateness of this entry, but I’ve been preoccupied with some other things on my plate. What better way to start off the summer than with a light hearted blog of movie reviews? Two out of these three films I was, quite frankly, expecting to very much dislike, but I ended up enjoying them very much.
Angels and Demons (A&D) was the sequel to The DaVinci Code (TDC), and I would be dishonest if I said TDC didn’t strongly influence my preemptive feelings towards A&D. TDC book was fast-paced, exciting … a real thriller. But – you knew there had to be a “but” =) – it was filled with so many historical errors and unfounded claims that it should be considered a-historical. If you’re wondering, the author did intend for the reader to understand all historical discussion to be perfectly factual. This is why TDC is a dangerous work. The movie of the TDC was incredibly boring. So-so acting. Lengthy stretches of dialogue. Boooring.
I was hoping for more from A&D, and my expectations were pretty low. Plus, I fully expected the movie to attack Christianity throughout. Instead, the movie was very much in favor of true-religion. It also was very anti-Catholic in a fair way, and who can argue with that? Oddly enough, I thought the movie brought out time and time again how the Roman Catholic Church was not infallible by pointing to their condemnations of Galileo and other scientific advancements. If the Roman Church was infallible how could they be so often wrong about numerous scientific areas, such as the world being round? Ewan McGregor does a superb job; an absolutely wonderful performance.
The original Night at the Museum was okay. Funny, but not knee-slapper funny. Night at the Museum 2 was a huge step up comedy-wise. It wasn’t that Ben Stiller was suddenly more humorous, but rather everyone else in the film was. Honestly, I was laughing so much my sides hurt. Without mentioning any spoilers: the scene where Stiller’s character and Pharaoh are arguing is one of the funniest moments I’ve seen in the cinema. It is also fairly romantic, and Amy Adams pretty much stole the show. Hands down, the movie proved to me that she is an extremely talented actress. I don’t know of anyone else who coulda pulled off that script as well. This is a clean, good and funny movie. Highly recommended.
Last but not least, well actually, it is least (but still good), is the movie UP. Unfortunately, I did not have the chance to view it in 3-D, which would have made the experience even better. But still a great show. I had heard the movie was sad, in fact, depressing! I was not looking forward to seeing UP. The story is very much about real life things, and I appreciate that. It is romantic, sentimental and very heartfelt. Yes, I did laugh. Let me just say that the dogs, in every scene, are too good.
Still so many movies to look forward to: Transformers, the Half-Blood Prince, and GI Joes. Am I missing anything?
Thanks for reading,
Rusty
Angels and Demons (A&D) was the sequel to The DaVinci Code (TDC), and I would be dishonest if I said TDC didn’t strongly influence my preemptive feelings towards A&D. TDC book was fast-paced, exciting … a real thriller. But – you knew there had to be a “but” =) – it was filled with so many historical errors and unfounded claims that it should be considered a-historical. If you’re wondering, the author did intend for the reader to understand all historical discussion to be perfectly factual. This is why TDC is a dangerous work. The movie of the TDC was incredibly boring. So-so acting. Lengthy stretches of dialogue. Boooring.
I was hoping for more from A&D, and my expectations were pretty low. Plus, I fully expected the movie to attack Christianity throughout. Instead, the movie was very much in favor of true-religion. It also was very anti-Catholic in a fair way, and who can argue with that? Oddly enough, I thought the movie brought out time and time again how the Roman Catholic Church was not infallible by pointing to their condemnations of Galileo and other scientific advancements. If the Roman Church was infallible how could they be so often wrong about numerous scientific areas, such as the world being round? Ewan McGregor does a superb job; an absolutely wonderful performance.
The original Night at the Museum was okay. Funny, but not knee-slapper funny. Night at the Museum 2 was a huge step up comedy-wise. It wasn’t that Ben Stiller was suddenly more humorous, but rather everyone else in the film was. Honestly, I was laughing so much my sides hurt. Without mentioning any spoilers: the scene where Stiller’s character and Pharaoh are arguing is one of the funniest moments I’ve seen in the cinema. It is also fairly romantic, and Amy Adams pretty much stole the show. Hands down, the movie proved to me that she is an extremely talented actress. I don’t know of anyone else who coulda pulled off that script as well. This is a clean, good and funny movie. Highly recommended.
Last but not least, well actually, it is least (but still good), is the movie UP. Unfortunately, I did not have the chance to view it in 3-D, which would have made the experience even better. But still a great show. I had heard the movie was sad, in fact, depressing! I was not looking forward to seeing UP. The story is very much about real life things, and I appreciate that. It is romantic, sentimental and very heartfelt. Yes, I did laugh. Let me just say that the dogs, in every scene, are too good.
Still so many movies to look forward to: Transformers, the Half-Blood Prince, and GI Joes. Am I missing anything?
Thanks for reading,
Rusty
Friday, June 12, 2009
Page Five
My pastor came over to talk with me a couple weeks back and plopped down a book in my lap titled Spiritual-Mindedness by John Owen. He told me he wanted to get me a book to thank me for helping teach our high school and junior high classes. Pastor Fry is such a great guy.
For whatever reason I haven’t gotten around to reading anything by the famous John Owen, although his The Death of Death in the Death of Christ has been on my reading list for years. He was one of the greatest Puritans and I was sure the book would be a terrific read and an encouragement.
Once I finished the latest WoW book I was reading I began Owen’s work. By the time I made it to page 5 I felt an intense amount of conviction and knew I would write a blog about this book. As of right now I’m on page 30, and I love it. Never before have so few words impacted me this greatly, or swayed me in so many areas.
Here’s one portion from page 5:
I don’t know about you, but when I read those words I honestly stopped to think. I really wanted to examine my own life to see whether I truly believed or not – something I’ve done periodically throughout my adult life. If the Devil and his co-fallen angels can mentally assent to God’s truth then surely other fallen creatures can as well. I did not want that to be true of me. Not for one moment.
Owen’s application from James of the man who looks at himself in a mirror but forgets what he looks like also aided me in understanding just what that passage meant. Sure, I’ve read it before, and probably even used it in one of my lessons. But I don’t think I fully grasped what James was getting at. How many times have I read the Bible, prayed, or heard a sermon and immediately afterwards put thoughts of God out of my mind? I’m taking James’ words as a warning to those of us who let this happen, because as Owen goes on to say, the Christian naturally thinks about spiritual things.
Owen continues in a later chapter:
Shortly after this, he makes the point that men may think about spiritual things when they have outward influences, like sermons, to give them spiritual ideas. But the true Christian needs no external influences for his thoughts to turn to God and His truth. Spiritual-mindedness is natural for the one who has been born by the Spirit.
As I’ve asked myself, let me now ask you: do your thoughts naturally turn towards spiritual things? Or do you rely on others, church, sermons, or whatever else it might be to cause you to think about God?
Pastor Fry will often say to our congregation: “I assume that you prayed throughout the course of this week…” Why would my pastor say such a thing? Because he knows that the one truly believing in Jesus will pray. Prayer is not a duty to be quickly fulfilled, but rather a joy that is as necessary as the food we eat.
The Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthian church to examine themselves to see if they were truly in the faith. I believe Christians today should examine themselves as well, unless they find, as Paul said, they fail the test?
I’ll end with this: “So our thoughts are the best and surest way of showing us what we are in ourselves. ‘As a man thinks in his heart, so is he’ (Prov. 23:7)” (Pg. 7, Bold Mine).
Thanks for reading,
Casey
For whatever reason I haven’t gotten around to reading anything by the famous John Owen, although his The Death of Death in the Death of Christ has been on my reading list for years. He was one of the greatest Puritans and I was sure the book would be a terrific read and an encouragement.
Once I finished the latest WoW book I was reading I began Owen’s work. By the time I made it to page 5 I felt an intense amount of conviction and knew I would write a blog about this book. As of right now I’m on page 30, and I love it. Never before have so few words impacted me this greatly, or swayed me in so many areas.
Here’s one portion from page 5:
“Many greatly deceive themselves when hearing the word preached. They agree with the holy truths in their understanding and assent to them as good ‘ideas’. But these truths are not allowed to impress themselves on their consciences nor to judge their present state and condition before God. They think they believe, but in reality they do not. They hear, understand, assent to, and often approve of the things preached, but still they do not believe them so that the truth rules in their hearts. If they really believed the truth as they say they do then they would judge themselves in the light of it. They are like a man who looks at himself in a mirror, and then goes away and immediately forgets what he has just seen (James 1:23-24). They hear the word and agree with it, but their minds are so filled with other interests that they soon forget what they have heard” (Pgs. 5-6).
I don’t know about you, but when I read those words I honestly stopped to think. I really wanted to examine my own life to see whether I truly believed or not – something I’ve done periodically throughout my adult life. If the Devil and his co-fallen angels can mentally assent to God’s truth then surely other fallen creatures can as well. I did not want that to be true of me. Not for one moment.
Owen’s application from James of the man who looks at himself in a mirror but forgets what he looks like also aided me in understanding just what that passage meant. Sure, I’ve read it before, and probably even used it in one of my lessons. But I don’t think I fully grasped what James was getting at. How many times have I read the Bible, prayed, or heard a sermon and immediately afterwards put thoughts of God out of my mind? I’m taking James’ words as a warning to those of us who let this happen, because as Owen goes on to say, the Christian naturally thinks about spiritual things.
Owen continues in a later chapter:
“The well the Samaritan woman drew water from was a lifeless, earthly thing, of no use unless buckets and ropes were used to draw the water to the surface. But the ‘living water’ Christ gives bubbles up continually within us and is for our spiritual refreshment. This is the secret of the person who is a new creation in Christ and who has a new spiritual nature. The Spirit with his graces is the source of true spiritual life in believers. This spiritual spring bubbles up of itself without the need of any outward influences to draw it into holy, heavenly, spiritual thoughts. The spiritual man has within him a spiritual spring which ‘naturally’ bubbles up spiritual thoughts and desires” (Pgs. 11-12).
Shortly after this, he makes the point that men may think about spiritual things when they have outward influences, like sermons, to give them spiritual ideas. But the true Christian needs no external influences for his thoughts to turn to God and His truth. Spiritual-mindedness is natural for the one who has been born by the Spirit.
As I’ve asked myself, let me now ask you: do your thoughts naturally turn towards spiritual things? Or do you rely on others, church, sermons, or whatever else it might be to cause you to think about God?
Pastor Fry will often say to our congregation: “I assume that you prayed throughout the course of this week…” Why would my pastor say such a thing? Because he knows that the one truly believing in Jesus will pray. Prayer is not a duty to be quickly fulfilled, but rather a joy that is as necessary as the food we eat.
The Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthian church to examine themselves to see if they were truly in the faith. I believe Christians today should examine themselves as well, unless they find, as Paul said, they fail the test?
“But let us not think that we can truly examine ourselves and arrive at the right conclusion about ourselves without the help of God. We need to pray with the Psalmist, ‘Search me, O God, and know my heart; try me, and know my anxieties; and see if there is any wicked way in me, and lead in the way everlasting’ (Psa. 139:23-24)” (Pg. 20).
I’ll end with this: “So our thoughts are the best and surest way of showing us what we are in ourselves. ‘As a man thinks in his heart, so is he’ (Prov. 23:7)” (Pg. 7, Bold Mine).
Thanks for reading,
Casey
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
A Fantastic Tale, Full of Adventure
This is one of the most sought-after events of the year, hosted by a highly regarded company in its industry. Her products have tested the limits of popularity and leave their customer base with an ever growing desire for more. To what am I referring? Blizzard’s annual celebration conference: BlizzCon 2009, August 21-22 in Anaheim, CA.
A number of us were lucky enough to make it to last year’s BlizzCon and we all decided to repeat our geeky experience. There was only one problem: 20,000 tickets, but tens of thousands (maybe more) who wanted them. Pulling some stereotypical “Casey-isms,” I did my research. Why? … I had to know what I was up against and how to best accomplish the rigorous task of purchasing tickets. Last year the tickets sold out in about 12 minutes! I was determined to again be one of those people.
Since Blizzard only sells BlizzCon tickets at their online store, you can imagine what might happen when thousands upon thousands upon thousands try to visit a website at once. Last year the website continuously crashed upwards of two days =). Twas quite the mess.
This year, they upgraded their system and set up a queue once you login to their website. It worked much better. I tested the queue days before the release of the first batch of tickets which would be on March 16th with my preferred browser, Google Chrome. Both Chrome and Firefox were giving me a hassle so I decided to use IE *sigh* - but it worked! I also set the homepage to the Blizzard Store, and had links on the toolbar directly to the BlizzCon tickets page, to the BlizzCon main page and even to the BlizzCon forums so that I might stay up to date on what was goin on – didn’t wanna miss any updates from a “Blue” =).
Initially, they didn’t announce at what time they would be selling the tickets on the 16th, so I was planning to stay up all night to refresh the page. Thankfully, late Friday night they announced they would be selling them at 9am PDT. This allowed me and my brother (who was also going to buy a set of tickets) to get some shuteye. Both Cory and myself were up by 8am and started checking the page. With twenty minutes to spare, I was continuously refreshing the page … still not fully trusting that Blizzard would begin selling at 9am on the dot. Turns out I was right, and they went up for sale at approximately 8:58am.
Immediately I joined the queue and selected to buy 4 tickets. Already I was in 3000th place! I quickly called Cory to see where he was at, and he wasn’t too far behind me. We both were able to secure our tickets, which was followed up by calling the rest of our party.
The tickets sold out after about 28 minutes, I believe. The second batch was sold on the 30th, and are now sold out. Of course, some are selling tickets on Ebay for a significant profit margin =)
This year: me, Emily, Cory, Melissa, Scott, Mindy, Mrs. Nelson and Jennifer.
I believe I speak for our entire party when I say: and verily, much w00tage did thus fill the land =)
Upholding Dalaran by the power of the Kirin Tor,
Rusty
A number of us were lucky enough to make it to last year’s BlizzCon and we all decided to repeat our geeky experience. There was only one problem: 20,000 tickets, but tens of thousands (maybe more) who wanted them. Pulling some stereotypical “Casey-isms,” I did my research. Why? … I had to know what I was up against and how to best accomplish the rigorous task of purchasing tickets. Last year the tickets sold out in about 12 minutes! I was determined to again be one of those people.
Since Blizzard only sells BlizzCon tickets at their online store, you can imagine what might happen when thousands upon thousands upon thousands try to visit a website at once. Last year the website continuously crashed upwards of two days =). Twas quite the mess.
This year, they upgraded their system and set up a queue once you login to their website. It worked much better. I tested the queue days before the release of the first batch of tickets which would be on March 16th with my preferred browser, Google Chrome. Both Chrome and Firefox were giving me a hassle so I decided to use IE *sigh* - but it worked! I also set the homepage to the Blizzard Store, and had links on the toolbar directly to the BlizzCon tickets page, to the BlizzCon main page and even to the BlizzCon forums so that I might stay up to date on what was goin on – didn’t wanna miss any updates from a “Blue” =).
Initially, they didn’t announce at what time they would be selling the tickets on the 16th, so I was planning to stay up all night to refresh the page. Thankfully, late Friday night they announced they would be selling them at 9am PDT. This allowed me and my brother (who was also going to buy a set of tickets) to get some shuteye. Both Cory and myself were up by 8am and started checking the page. With twenty minutes to spare, I was continuously refreshing the page … still not fully trusting that Blizzard would begin selling at 9am on the dot. Turns out I was right, and they went up for sale at approximately 8:58am.
Immediately I joined the queue and selected to buy 4 tickets. Already I was in 3000th place! I quickly called Cory to see where he was at, and he wasn’t too far behind me. We both were able to secure our tickets, which was followed up by calling the rest of our party.
The tickets sold out after about 28 minutes, I believe. The second batch was sold on the 30th, and are now sold out. Of course, some are selling tickets on Ebay for a significant profit margin =)
This year: me, Emily, Cory, Melissa, Scott, Mindy, Mrs. Nelson and Jennifer.
I believe I speak for our entire party when I say: and verily, much w00tage did thus fill the land =)
Upholding Dalaran by the power of the Kirin Tor,
Rusty
Statement from the White House
Hat tip to Dr. James White who posted this on his blog:
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary ___________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release June 1, 2009
LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER PRIDE MONTH, 2009- - - - - - -BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PROCLAMATION
LGBT Americans have made, and continue to make, great and lasting contributions that continue to strengthen the fabric of American society....
Due in no small part to the determination and dedication of the LGBT rights movement, more LGBT Americans are living their lives openly today than ever before. I am proud to be the first President to appoint openly LGBT candidates to Senate-confirmed positions in the first 100 days of an Administration. These individuals embody the best qualities we seek in public servants, and across my Administration -- in both the White House and the Federal agencies -- openly LGBT employees are doing their jobs with distinction and professionalism.My Administration has partnered with the LGBT community to advance a wide range of initiatives. At the international level, I have joined efforts at the United Nations to decriminalize homosexuality around the world. Here at home, I continue to support measures to bring the full spectrum of equal rights to LGBT Americans. These measures include enhancing hate crimes laws, supporting civil unions and Federal rights for LGBT couples, outlawing discrimination in the workplace, ensuring adoption rights, and ending the existing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in a way that strengthens our Armed Forces and our national security....NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2009 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month. I call upon the people of the United States to turn back discrimination and prejudice everywhere it exists.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of June, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.
BARACK OBAMA
------------------------------------------------------
For our regular reading audience, commentary is not necessary. You know how unbiblical this is. This is discrimination that gives a super-rights status to everyone but straights and Christians. What good can the promotion of sinful lifestyles bring about? Nothing … nada. I don’t know about you, but I am extremely thankful our God is in control of all things, especially every step by our leaders.
Rusty
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary ___________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release June 1, 2009
LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER PRIDE MONTH, 2009- - - - - - -BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PROCLAMATION
LGBT Americans have made, and continue to make, great and lasting contributions that continue to strengthen the fabric of American society....
Due in no small part to the determination and dedication of the LGBT rights movement, more LGBT Americans are living their lives openly today than ever before. I am proud to be the first President to appoint openly LGBT candidates to Senate-confirmed positions in the first 100 days of an Administration. These individuals embody the best qualities we seek in public servants, and across my Administration -- in both the White House and the Federal agencies -- openly LGBT employees are doing their jobs with distinction and professionalism.My Administration has partnered with the LGBT community to advance a wide range of initiatives. At the international level, I have joined efforts at the United Nations to decriminalize homosexuality around the world. Here at home, I continue to support measures to bring the full spectrum of equal rights to LGBT Americans. These measures include enhancing hate crimes laws, supporting civil unions and Federal rights for LGBT couples, outlawing discrimination in the workplace, ensuring adoption rights, and ending the existing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in a way that strengthens our Armed Forces and our national security....NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2009 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month. I call upon the people of the United States to turn back discrimination and prejudice everywhere it exists.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of June, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.
BARACK OBAMA
------------------------------------------------------
For our regular reading audience, commentary is not necessary. You know how unbiblical this is. This is discrimination that gives a super-rights status to everyone but straights and Christians. What good can the promotion of sinful lifestyles bring about? Nothing … nada. I don’t know about you, but I am extremely thankful our God is in control of all things, especially every step by our leaders.
Rusty
Monday, June 1, 2009
Half Right
One of my two suggested activities for our trip to Washington was visiting Mark Driscoll’s church. From the beginning, I’ve read his books and listed to his sermons. I even follow the guy’s blog from time to time. I’ve had a renewed interest in him ever since his “Acts 29” network of churches has become rather popular in Phoenix.
We mapquested. We came. We saw.
I had expectations, and quite honestly, it was better than I thought it would be. Once inside, I couldn’t help but chuckle at how much it looked like BlizzCon. The room was dark with blue spotlights shining along the walls. There were at least eight projection screens: six leading up to the front and two at the front. My rough guess would be that the room can hold around 3000 people, and it ended up being packed that particular Sunday morning. We went to the second service and were a bit disappointed that Mark Driscoll was traveling. One of the other pastors did preach in his place, and it is to that sermon, as well as Mark Driscoll’s usual ministry that the title is attributed.
Everyone was asked to stand as they read from the Psalter – I was pleasantly surprised at this point. We sang a song or two, both of which were excellent. A little too showy, with guitar solo’s etc, but the song content was spot on.
Then we arrived at the sermon. It was … well, even now I’m uncertain how I feel about it. It was about half right. This does also mean that he was half wrong in his methodology and in the content of what was said. Here’s another rough estimate: 7 minutes is the total time spent reading and interacting with the Scriptures, including an explanation of its historical background. What I mean by this is that for the rest of the 53 minutes (it was quite a long sermon) he spent on rabbit trails and eisegetically applying untruths to the text. He focused quite a bit of time explaining his understanding of how to balance theology and doctrine with experience. In the end, he sided with strong leanings towards emotionalism and experience – and apparently, “charismatic” is the healthy balance between crazy Pentecostals and Cessationists.
Our post-service experience involved going into the bathroom to check out the tile … remember that in Radical Reformission Driscoll talks about how even the tile in the bathroom should be culturally relevant to better reach the world. It was a pasty brown color and didn’t seem any more appealing than any other bathroom =).
Definite attempts were being made to appear “cool” to the world, and it was fascinating to see Mark Driscoll’s philosophy being played out. Emily’s conclusion served me better than all my dramatic formulations when she said, “That felt like an oversized high school youth group.” I laughed … a lot … when she said that. But you know what? She’s right. For those of us who have grown up in mega churches where the services are geared at attracting young people, we know exactly what she means.
This brings me back to the title of this entry: Half Right. The sermon especially, but the whole experience was only 50% good.
Let me ask a provocative question: if a pastor, like Mark Driscoll, delivers sermons that are only about half beneficial – with the other half giving negative effects – would you say such a man is qualified for the ministry?
Thanks for reading,
Casey
We mapquested. We came. We saw.
I had expectations, and quite honestly, it was better than I thought it would be. Once inside, I couldn’t help but chuckle at how much it looked like BlizzCon. The room was dark with blue spotlights shining along the walls. There were at least eight projection screens: six leading up to the front and two at the front. My rough guess would be that the room can hold around 3000 people, and it ended up being packed that particular Sunday morning. We went to the second service and were a bit disappointed that Mark Driscoll was traveling. One of the other pastors did preach in his place, and it is to that sermon, as well as Mark Driscoll’s usual ministry that the title is attributed.
Everyone was asked to stand as they read from the Psalter – I was pleasantly surprised at this point. We sang a song or two, both of which were excellent. A little too showy, with guitar solo’s etc, but the song content was spot on.
Then we arrived at the sermon. It was … well, even now I’m uncertain how I feel about it. It was about half right. This does also mean that he was half wrong in his methodology and in the content of what was said. Here’s another rough estimate: 7 minutes is the total time spent reading and interacting with the Scriptures, including an explanation of its historical background. What I mean by this is that for the rest of the 53 minutes (it was quite a long sermon) he spent on rabbit trails and eisegetically applying untruths to the text. He focused quite a bit of time explaining his understanding of how to balance theology and doctrine with experience. In the end, he sided with strong leanings towards emotionalism and experience – and apparently, “charismatic” is the healthy balance between crazy Pentecostals and Cessationists.
Our post-service experience involved going into the bathroom to check out the tile … remember that in Radical Reformission Driscoll talks about how even the tile in the bathroom should be culturally relevant to better reach the world. It was a pasty brown color and didn’t seem any more appealing than any other bathroom =).
Definite attempts were being made to appear “cool” to the world, and it was fascinating to see Mark Driscoll’s philosophy being played out. Emily’s conclusion served me better than all my dramatic formulations when she said, “That felt like an oversized high school youth group.” I laughed … a lot … when she said that. But you know what? She’s right. For those of us who have grown up in mega churches where the services are geared at attracting young people, we know exactly what she means.
This brings me back to the title of this entry: Half Right. The sermon especially, but the whole experience was only 50% good.
Let me ask a provocative question: if a pastor, like Mark Driscoll, delivers sermons that are only about half beneficial – with the other half giving negative effects – would you say such a man is qualified for the ministry?
Thanks for reading,
Casey
Friday, May 29, 2009
Seattle, in All Her Glory
It’s hard to believe that I was gone for five days on vacation. Rarely do I take vacations, and ever rarer for five glorious days =).
Emily was planning a trip to Washington a number of months ago and invited me to come along with her. Truly, a terrific idear. Kudos to you, Emmie. This was especially important because Emily grew up in Washington State and would be able to show me around, meet her friends and more of her family.
Our trip included, but not limited to, Seattle, Tacoma, Olympia, Bremerton and the Hood Canal (that may or may not be considered a city *ignorant smirk*). One of Emily’s close friends, Crisslee, was our gracious host located in Tacoma. It is a charming city with an innumerable number of mom-and-pop shops. We ate there on more than one occasion; the customer service was terrific.
Seattle was almost a two day experience, which was well-deserved. I still remember the drive into the city from Tacoma: lots of traffic on the one freeway in, with lots of these things they call “skyscrapers.” One of my goals was to take a picture of every Starbucks in sight, which means I’ve prolly acquired dozens and dozens of these photos – more often than not with more than one Starbucks in view along with another coffee shop! It was hilarious. Oh, and we had coffee. Every day. Many a time. I don’t think I’ve consumed that much coffee over such a brief span of time.
My next impression of Seattle was of how much was going on throughout the city. Of course there are tourists, but also those hard at work, protestors, lots of people walking, and people engaged in conversation. I probably spoke with five or six different protestors along one of the busier streets: people protesting the War in Iraq, advocates for Palestinian rights, same-sex marriage, cult religions, and Christian street evangelists.
In Seattle, but moreso in Olympia, I could immediately sense (not supernaturally) spiritual and moral decadence. The homosexual community is openly unashamed of their lifestyle, to the point where it was flaunted all over town, and in creative ways. Honestly, I didn’t know so many guys dressed like that. Because of my sometimes diverse audience, I suppose I should add that I do not hate homosexuals at all. But I do believe what the Bible says about it: it is a sinful and unacceptable lifestyle. God is our Creator – we, His creatures – and He has the right to define our behavior, including our sexuality. Obviously, I felt terribly sad for the rampant promotion of sin throughout this beautiful state, especially in these two cities. I’m certain that if I lived there, I would spend much of my time seeking productive conversations with the many opponents to the gospel.
So overwhelming was the rampant sinful behavior in Washington that I am now praying this culture doesn’t spread throughout the rest of our nation. It would be our undoing. May God be merciful to our nation and grant a reformation and revival.
How could I go to Seattle and not visit Pike’s Place Market??? I mean, come on! I work for the best coffee shop on earth (and now having added many more coffee shops to the list, I can say that with greater confidence =)). We waited in line for twenty minutes to get inside the first Starbucks. Any guesses what I ordered? The famous trio of black singers was outside … singing. They were great! We walked through the entire fish market where I bought these deep-fried donuts recommended by my manager (another native to Seattle), and saw the famous fish-throwing market.
Probably the most important part of the trip was getting to meet Emily’s brother and sister in law, along with her grandparents. Pretty sure I hit it off with all of ‘em, even though I’m Reformed. *whew* … *tries to look more confident* … I mean! Was there any doubt?!?! =)
Overall, it was a swell time, and I’m sad to be back to reality =). Pics to come on fb, soon.
Thanks for reading,
Bainton
Emily was planning a trip to Washington a number of months ago and invited me to come along with her. Truly, a terrific idear. Kudos to you, Emmie. This was especially important because Emily grew up in Washington State and would be able to show me around, meet her friends and more of her family.
Our trip included, but not limited to, Seattle, Tacoma, Olympia, Bremerton and the Hood Canal (that may or may not be considered a city *ignorant smirk*). One of Emily’s close friends, Crisslee, was our gracious host located in Tacoma. It is a charming city with an innumerable number of mom-and-pop shops. We ate there on more than one occasion; the customer service was terrific.
Seattle was almost a two day experience, which was well-deserved. I still remember the drive into the city from Tacoma: lots of traffic on the one freeway in, with lots of these things they call “skyscrapers.” One of my goals was to take a picture of every Starbucks in sight, which means I’ve prolly acquired dozens and dozens of these photos – more often than not with more than one Starbucks in view along with another coffee shop! It was hilarious. Oh, and we had coffee. Every day. Many a time. I don’t think I’ve consumed that much coffee over such a brief span of time.
My next impression of Seattle was of how much was going on throughout the city. Of course there are tourists, but also those hard at work, protestors, lots of people walking, and people engaged in conversation. I probably spoke with five or six different protestors along one of the busier streets: people protesting the War in Iraq, advocates for Palestinian rights, same-sex marriage, cult religions, and Christian street evangelists.
In Seattle, but moreso in Olympia, I could immediately sense (not supernaturally) spiritual and moral decadence. The homosexual community is openly unashamed of their lifestyle, to the point where it was flaunted all over town, and in creative ways. Honestly, I didn’t know so many guys dressed like that. Because of my sometimes diverse audience, I suppose I should add that I do not hate homosexuals at all. But I do believe what the Bible says about it: it is a sinful and unacceptable lifestyle. God is our Creator – we, His creatures – and He has the right to define our behavior, including our sexuality. Obviously, I felt terribly sad for the rampant promotion of sin throughout this beautiful state, especially in these two cities. I’m certain that if I lived there, I would spend much of my time seeking productive conversations with the many opponents to the gospel.
So overwhelming was the rampant sinful behavior in Washington that I am now praying this culture doesn’t spread throughout the rest of our nation. It would be our undoing. May God be merciful to our nation and grant a reformation and revival.
How could I go to Seattle and not visit Pike’s Place Market??? I mean, come on! I work for the best coffee shop on earth (and now having added many more coffee shops to the list, I can say that with greater confidence =)). We waited in line for twenty minutes to get inside the first Starbucks. Any guesses what I ordered? The famous trio of black singers was outside … singing. They were great! We walked through the entire fish market where I bought these deep-fried donuts recommended by my manager (another native to Seattle), and saw the famous fish-throwing market.
Probably the most important part of the trip was getting to meet Emily’s brother and sister in law, along with her grandparents. Pretty sure I hit it off with all of ‘em, even though I’m Reformed. *whew* … *tries to look more confident* … I mean! Was there any doubt?!?! =)
Overall, it was a swell time, and I’m sad to be back to reality =). Pics to come on fb, soon.
Thanks for reading,
Bainton
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Because I Say So
When all the voluminous arguments are brushed aside, this, in a nutshell, is the underlying presupposition held by the Roman Catholic Church to defend her ultimate authority. No, I’m not exaggerating one bit. This really is the “end all, be all” of arguments for the Roman Catholic.
I’ve asked more than one Roman Catholic the following question: “Why should I accept that the Roman Catholic Church is the ultimate authority on earth?” Answers may vary depending on the depth of study of the individual, but here are a few of the more common answers: (1) church history validates Rome’s claims, (2) an unbroken Apostolic succession of Pope’s beginning with Peter, and (3) because of the Bible. One, two and three … usually in that order, or at least with the authority of the Bible given last.
The responses become even more muddled when I add on the following qualifier to the end of my question: “Why should I accept that the Roman Catholic Church is the ultimate authority on earth, as opposed to the Jehovah’s Witnesses Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, or the Prophet and Apostles of the Latter-day Saint Church?”
Here is an honest and an overwhelmingly fair question: are we to just accept Rome’s claims about herself, no questions asked?
Consider with me for a moment the 3 arguments posed by Roman Catholics in defense of “Mother Church,” and you will begin to see how easily their line of thinking begins to unravel.
First – church history validates Rome’s claims? It is all-too-often claimed by Roman Catholics, especially Protestants who wind up converting to Romanism, that once they began studying church history they are amazed at how “Catholic” the church fathers sound. Usually what this means is that many of the early church fathers use terms Roman Catholics are familiar with and, using anachronism, interpret the meanings of these words as Rome presently defines them. For example, the term “Catholic” didn’t (and doesn’t) mean “the Roman Catholic Church.” “Catholic” simply means “universal,” which does not pose any problem for the Protestant who believes local churches make up Christ’s worldwide collection of saints. But the Roman Catholic who has his anachronism-goggles on will only see what he wishes to see, and therefore interprets “Catholic” as though the early church was referring to a single church, and not the Biblical understanding of the universal body of believers scattered around the world amidst local churches.
Furthermore, the real reason this argument astounds me is because they act as though church history presents a single church … in Rome … with the majority of professing Christians agreeing with present-day Roman Catholic beliefs. Anyone with a cursory understanding of church history laughs at such a claim. The only thing most professing Christians in history agreed on was monotheism, and even then Arianism reigned supreme for a time.
This brings out another point: if Rome claims church history as her ally, wouldn’t the history books have to present a unified, or at least a majority opinion for most of history, agreeing with their current doctrines? What I have found when I’ve pressed this issue is that Rome can’t (or won’t) claim all of church history, but only the parts they agree with. A clear example of this is with the famous Augustine, loved by Protestant and Catholic alike. Roman Catholics love him for his view of church authority in dealing with the Donatists, while Protestants love his view of Predestination and sovereign grace. Obviously Rome disagrees with Augustine’s pre-Calvinistic view of Predestination, so they can’t honestly say they agree with all of Augustine. In light of this, how can they honestly claim church history defends her? They want to pick and choose, all the while pretending that the church fathers “unanimously” agree with her.
Second – beginning with Peter as the first Pope, there was an unbroken succession of an Apostolic Papal authority? There is no evidence, whatsoever, that Peter ever went to Rome. We have to trust Rome and even her “unwritten oral traditions.” I’m not kidding. Unwritten. Oral. Traditions. If they’re unwritten, umm, how can one know what those traditions were? You just have to trust “Mother Church” on that one. That’s it. There is one interesting fact that I’ve not yet heard a meaningful response to: there was a plurality of bishops at the church in Rome in the first and second centuries. This is important because according to the Roman Catholic Church Peter was the (singular) Bishop/Pope in Rome, and there was only ever a single Bishop/Pope in Rome since that time.
The best argument for the cessation of the gift of Apostleship is that the purpose for this role in the Church was to lay the foundation (Ephesians 2:20). Welp, that foundation has been laid my friends, and Christ has been glorified in His Church for 2000 years (Ephesians 3:21) with walls, a ceiling, windows, door, antechamber … you get the idea. To claim that Apostles were continuously being given implies that the foundation needs to continuously be laid, which is not how any building is made. The foundation is laid and then one starts building.
Third – the Bible establishes Peter as the “rock” which means he will begin the unbroken Apostolic succession at a church 1500 (?) miles away from Jerusalem as the ultimate authority in all things on earth and as the personal representative for Christ until the end of all things. This is always a tricky argument for a Roman Catholic to make because it is an appeal from a source that they believe is unclear and receives its authority from the Church.
Since I’ve dealt with the “Peter = the rock” argument in a previous post, I won’t spend time on that here. But just for the sake of argument, let’s say that in Matthew 16 Jesus does say (though he doesn’t), “I say that you are Peter, and you are the Rock upon which I will build my Church…” Then what? How does Rome make “Rock” equal “the unbroken Apostolic succession at a church 1500 (?) miles away from Jerusalem as the ultimate authority in all things on earth and as the personal representative for Christ until the end of all things”? Leaps and bounds must be made between unconnected dots to make sense of how Rome chooses to interpret this passage.
After engaging each of these arguments, I have heard 2 epistemological questions that are an indirect appeal to the ultimacy of Rome: (1) “So you don’t believe in the authority of Christ’s Church?” and (2) “Oh Come on. Rome is clearly Christ’s Church. Come on.”
To epistemological question #1, I would simply say that yes, each of Christ’s local churches have a real authority. But the Church (comprised of local churches around the world) receive their authority from the God-breathed Scriptures. They themselves are not the ultimate authority. Rather, like good pillars, they hold up the truth which is found in the Bible.
To question #2, I would ask, so you expect me to trust in Rome just because you or she says so? And again, what makes Rome different than the authority in Salt Lake City or in Chicago?
No matter which way one begins a conversation with a seriously minded conservative Roman Catholic, the discussion will always find its way back to epistemology, ultimate authority issues and one’s presuppositions. This is what truly divides Roman Catholicism from Protestantism: Sola Scriptura vs. Sola Ecclesia – that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith, vs. the Roman Church is the sole infallible rule of faith.
Thanks for reading,
Casey
I’ve asked more than one Roman Catholic the following question: “Why should I accept that the Roman Catholic Church is the ultimate authority on earth?” Answers may vary depending on the depth of study of the individual, but here are a few of the more common answers: (1) church history validates Rome’s claims, (2) an unbroken Apostolic succession of Pope’s beginning with Peter, and (3) because of the Bible. One, two and three … usually in that order, or at least with the authority of the Bible given last.
The responses become even more muddled when I add on the following qualifier to the end of my question: “Why should I accept that the Roman Catholic Church is the ultimate authority on earth, as opposed to the Jehovah’s Witnesses Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, or the Prophet and Apostles of the Latter-day Saint Church?”
Here is an honest and an overwhelmingly fair question: are we to just accept Rome’s claims about herself, no questions asked?
Consider with me for a moment the 3 arguments posed by Roman Catholics in defense of “Mother Church,” and you will begin to see how easily their line of thinking begins to unravel.
First – church history validates Rome’s claims? It is all-too-often claimed by Roman Catholics, especially Protestants who wind up converting to Romanism, that once they began studying church history they are amazed at how “Catholic” the church fathers sound. Usually what this means is that many of the early church fathers use terms Roman Catholics are familiar with and, using anachronism, interpret the meanings of these words as Rome presently defines them. For example, the term “Catholic” didn’t (and doesn’t) mean “the Roman Catholic Church.” “Catholic” simply means “universal,” which does not pose any problem for the Protestant who believes local churches make up Christ’s worldwide collection of saints. But the Roman Catholic who has his anachronism-goggles on will only see what he wishes to see, and therefore interprets “Catholic” as though the early church was referring to a single church, and not the Biblical understanding of the universal body of believers scattered around the world amidst local churches.
Furthermore, the real reason this argument astounds me is because they act as though church history presents a single church … in Rome … with the majority of professing Christians agreeing with present-day Roman Catholic beliefs. Anyone with a cursory understanding of church history laughs at such a claim. The only thing most professing Christians in history agreed on was monotheism, and even then Arianism reigned supreme for a time.
This brings out another point: if Rome claims church history as her ally, wouldn’t the history books have to present a unified, or at least a majority opinion for most of history, agreeing with their current doctrines? What I have found when I’ve pressed this issue is that Rome can’t (or won’t) claim all of church history, but only the parts they agree with. A clear example of this is with the famous Augustine, loved by Protestant and Catholic alike. Roman Catholics love him for his view of church authority in dealing with the Donatists, while Protestants love his view of Predestination and sovereign grace. Obviously Rome disagrees with Augustine’s pre-Calvinistic view of Predestination, so they can’t honestly say they agree with all of Augustine. In light of this, how can they honestly claim church history defends her? They want to pick and choose, all the while pretending that the church fathers “unanimously” agree with her.
Second – beginning with Peter as the first Pope, there was an unbroken succession of an Apostolic Papal authority? There is no evidence, whatsoever, that Peter ever went to Rome. We have to trust Rome and even her “unwritten oral traditions.” I’m not kidding. Unwritten. Oral. Traditions. If they’re unwritten, umm, how can one know what those traditions were? You just have to trust “Mother Church” on that one. That’s it. There is one interesting fact that I’ve not yet heard a meaningful response to: there was a plurality of bishops at the church in Rome in the first and second centuries. This is important because according to the Roman Catholic Church Peter was the (singular) Bishop/Pope in Rome, and there was only ever a single Bishop/Pope in Rome since that time.
The best argument for the cessation of the gift of Apostleship is that the purpose for this role in the Church was to lay the foundation (Ephesians 2:20). Welp, that foundation has been laid my friends, and Christ has been glorified in His Church for 2000 years (Ephesians 3:21) with walls, a ceiling, windows, door, antechamber … you get the idea. To claim that Apostles were continuously being given implies that the foundation needs to continuously be laid, which is not how any building is made. The foundation is laid and then one starts building.
Third – the Bible establishes Peter as the “rock” which means he will begin the unbroken Apostolic succession at a church 1500 (?) miles away from Jerusalem as the ultimate authority in all things on earth and as the personal representative for Christ until the end of all things. This is always a tricky argument for a Roman Catholic to make because it is an appeal from a source that they believe is unclear and receives its authority from the Church.
Since I’ve dealt with the “Peter = the rock” argument in a previous post, I won’t spend time on that here. But just for the sake of argument, let’s say that in Matthew 16 Jesus does say (though he doesn’t), “I say that you are Peter, and you are the Rock upon which I will build my Church…” Then what? How does Rome make “Rock” equal “the unbroken Apostolic succession at a church 1500 (?) miles away from Jerusalem as the ultimate authority in all things on earth and as the personal representative for Christ until the end of all things”? Leaps and bounds must be made between unconnected dots to make sense of how Rome chooses to interpret this passage.
After engaging each of these arguments, I have heard 2 epistemological questions that are an indirect appeal to the ultimacy of Rome: (1) “So you don’t believe in the authority of Christ’s Church?” and (2) “Oh Come on. Rome is clearly Christ’s Church. Come on.”
To epistemological question #1, I would simply say that yes, each of Christ’s local churches have a real authority. But the Church (comprised of local churches around the world) receive their authority from the God-breathed Scriptures. They themselves are not the ultimate authority. Rather, like good pillars, they hold up the truth which is found in the Bible.
To question #2, I would ask, so you expect me to trust in Rome just because you or she says so? And again, what makes Rome different than the authority in Salt Lake City or in Chicago?
No matter which way one begins a conversation with a seriously minded conservative Roman Catholic, the discussion will always find its way back to epistemology, ultimate authority issues and one’s presuppositions. This is what truly divides Roman Catholicism from Protestantism: Sola Scriptura vs. Sola Ecclesia – that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith, vs. the Roman Church is the sole infallible rule of faith.
Thanks for reading,
Casey
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
A Change in the Timeline
For a few moments I just sat there in the theater, mulling over JJ Abrams’ latest masterpiece. Did I like the fact that the story was so very different than the traditional version? I wasn’t prepared for a completely different timeline, but once my brother, Cory, emphasized the new timeline – therefore allowing for a Star Trek reloaded – I was put at ease. I’ve seen it twice, actually, mostly because of different company accompanying me. Each cinematic experience brought me something unique and exciting. Until this film, I believe that Star Wars: Episode III has had the best special effects, but this … this movie blows Star Wars’ FX out of the water. Wasn’t Lucasarts behind the FX of Star Trek? I walked into my high school Sunday school class laughing, knowing that the same students who mocked me for wanting to see Star Trek would most likely end up seeing it now that everyone is giving it a great report.
X-Men Origins: Wolverine wasn’t as well done a film, but I personally enjoyed this more than Star Trek. People’ve informed me that some details in the story were different, but I didn’t catch any myself. It seemed to get a slow start, but once the ball got rolling it wouldn’t stop. I loved every minute of it, especially Wolverine’s development in deciding to be one of the good guys. That will always be my favorite trait that he possesses: incredible ability yet an unwavering sense of doing the right thing. Wolverine cares about justice. He may be angry, but he tries to do what he thinks is right. I went home from the midnight showing and read the first X-Men comic that the cartoon series was based on – Season 1 and 2 are on DVD btw. I just found that out this week and purchased Season 1! My excitement meter went through the roof. All I know is that my girlfriend now compares me to Hugh Jackman’s hotness, which is totally unfair! =)
Following four months of reading too much non-fiction, like Bart Ehrman or Romanist apologists, I have finally made some time to read some fiction novels. Normally I try to switch between fiction and non-fiction, but I am going to attempt to read the entire Warcraft series. Previously, I would chuckle at the thought of reading such things, but I finally caved at the 2008 BlizzCon where I purchased the War of the Ancients trilogy. It was phenomenal, and captivated my imagination in a way greater than Lord of the Rings ever did. There are eight or nine Warcraft books, one which recently came out in print. Establishing the chronological order has been somewhat difficult, but I believe I’ve got the general order down. If you enjoy fantasy fiction novels at all, you will certainly enjoy the World of Warcraft stuff.
Thanks for reading,
Bainton
X-Men Origins: Wolverine wasn’t as well done a film, but I personally enjoyed this more than Star Trek. People’ve informed me that some details in the story were different, but I didn’t catch any myself. It seemed to get a slow start, but once the ball got rolling it wouldn’t stop. I loved every minute of it, especially Wolverine’s development in deciding to be one of the good guys. That will always be my favorite trait that he possesses: incredible ability yet an unwavering sense of doing the right thing. Wolverine cares about justice. He may be angry, but he tries to do what he thinks is right. I went home from the midnight showing and read the first X-Men comic that the cartoon series was based on – Season 1 and 2 are on DVD btw. I just found that out this week and purchased Season 1! My excitement meter went through the roof. All I know is that my girlfriend now compares me to Hugh Jackman’s hotness, which is totally unfair! =)
Following four months of reading too much non-fiction, like Bart Ehrman or Romanist apologists, I have finally made some time to read some fiction novels. Normally I try to switch between fiction and non-fiction, but I am going to attempt to read the entire Warcraft series. Previously, I would chuckle at the thought of reading such things, but I finally caved at the 2008 BlizzCon where I purchased the War of the Ancients trilogy. It was phenomenal, and captivated my imagination in a way greater than Lord of the Rings ever did. There are eight or nine Warcraft books, one which recently came out in print. Establishing the chronological order has been somewhat difficult, but I believe I’ve got the general order down. If you enjoy fantasy fiction novels at all, you will certainly enjoy the World of Warcraft stuff.
Thanks for reading,
Bainton
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Self-Idolization
At one time I was an education major at Arizona State University. Ah yes, those were the days, the glory days where my higher education time was spent covering the importance of self-esteem in the lives of our future students. Far too much time [Master Kenobi], if you ask me. To add pain to my misery, just when I imagined we had exhausted all possible tangential approaches to the subject, my professors would find another creative means by which to tackle the issue. Quite frankly, it was draining, and you can bet this was one of the reasons why I later changed to a different major.
Was it really such a bad thing for us to spend time preparing future educators to instruct America’s children to have greater self-esteem? I believe it was the most significant waste of my education thus far, and in fact, was harmful – or will be harmful – to America’s children.
Why do I say this? Because I’m not a believer in self-esteem. If you check up on a current definition of the term you will likely find at least one that includes something involving a “realistic” view of oneself. Yet, this is not how the term is practically used an applied. In each of my college textbooks, and in my years on this planet, it seems to me that the common understanding of this term means that folks have a greater appreciation of themselves, whether this is realistic or not.
How this practically works out in the education system looks something like this: little Johnny is upset. Why is Johnny upset? Because he is failing in P.E. due to misbehavior … that’s right, Physical Education. What would our educators recommend to Johnny and Johnny’s parents? Why, Johnny simply needs an improved view of himself, and he will certainly start to behave in P.E.! If he learns to value himself even more he will start to do better in class!
While this story is lacking in development, diagnosis and application, this is a fair representation of the situation or one analogous to it. Is Johnny’s problem that he is lacking self-esteem? Is the solution that he needs an even higher view of himself? I would suggest that were Johnny to have an even higher view of himself he might then defend his misbehavior in class. Why shouldn’t he if his view of the self only improves?
The concept of self-esteem has always bothered me, though I couldn’t quite put my finger on it until I began to understand the Doctrines of Grace (Calvinism), especially that first point which says that the whole of human beings are totally depraved. As mentioned earlier, some definitions explain self-esteem as having a realistic view of oneself, but I believe that the understanding and application winds up being a very unrealistic view of oneself and of human beings in general. Promoters of self-esteem tend to believe that human beings are basically good and have capabilities to make true positive advancements. Another presupposition held by self-esteem advocates is functional atheism. Why? Because you better leave God out of the equation with regards to your mental health.
Does this not resound well with the wisdom of the world? It sounds like wisdom to say that the answer to all of our problems begin and end with man … precisely what sinners want to hear. No wonder this sort of terminology has exploded with popularity in recent decades! It is as if we’ve discovered the answer to all of our ails! … US!
Such audacity belongs to humankind to even begin to believe such notions. Who do we think we are to be able to diagnose our problems without the Creator? Yet, here we are, clay in the hands of the Potter, pretending there is no Potter, and somehow we’ve reached the conclusion that we have all the answers.
Have I still not convinced you that self-esteem is the completely wrong approach towards identifying and solving mankind’s mental health issues? Think back to any time you’ve been upset about something. Anything at all.
Now think on why you were upset or unhappy? Isn’t the root cause of your upset-ed-ness or unhappiness because you believe you deserve better circumstances? Were we to apply self-esteem to your situation, you would think even more highly of yourself, and would be prone to increase in your anger. On the contrary, were you to consider a Biblical perspective, you would thank God you didn’t receive what you deserve – death and Hell that very moment – and you would increase in humility and thankfulness towards God.
Every moment of life is a moment undeserved. Every happy experience is one undeserved. Each joyous pleasure is one undeserved. It is only from a Christian worldview that properly solves our mental health issues, and not the worldly wisdom that suggests that we have higher mountains to climb in our pride and arrogance.
Thanks for reading,
Case
Was it really such a bad thing for us to spend time preparing future educators to instruct America’s children to have greater self-esteem? I believe it was the most significant waste of my education thus far, and in fact, was harmful – or will be harmful – to America’s children.
Why do I say this? Because I’m not a believer in self-esteem. If you check up on a current definition of the term you will likely find at least one that includes something involving a “realistic” view of oneself. Yet, this is not how the term is practically used an applied. In each of my college textbooks, and in my years on this planet, it seems to me that the common understanding of this term means that folks have a greater appreciation of themselves, whether this is realistic or not.
How this practically works out in the education system looks something like this: little Johnny is upset. Why is Johnny upset? Because he is failing in P.E. due to misbehavior … that’s right, Physical Education. What would our educators recommend to Johnny and Johnny’s parents? Why, Johnny simply needs an improved view of himself, and he will certainly start to behave in P.E.! If he learns to value himself even more he will start to do better in class!
While this story is lacking in development, diagnosis and application, this is a fair representation of the situation or one analogous to it. Is Johnny’s problem that he is lacking self-esteem? Is the solution that he needs an even higher view of himself? I would suggest that were Johnny to have an even higher view of himself he might then defend his misbehavior in class. Why shouldn’t he if his view of the self only improves?
The concept of self-esteem has always bothered me, though I couldn’t quite put my finger on it until I began to understand the Doctrines of Grace (Calvinism), especially that first point which says that the whole of human beings are totally depraved. As mentioned earlier, some definitions explain self-esteem as having a realistic view of oneself, but I believe that the understanding and application winds up being a very unrealistic view of oneself and of human beings in general. Promoters of self-esteem tend to believe that human beings are basically good and have capabilities to make true positive advancements. Another presupposition held by self-esteem advocates is functional atheism. Why? Because you better leave God out of the equation with regards to your mental health.
Does this not resound well with the wisdom of the world? It sounds like wisdom to say that the answer to all of our problems begin and end with man … precisely what sinners want to hear. No wonder this sort of terminology has exploded with popularity in recent decades! It is as if we’ve discovered the answer to all of our ails! … US!
Such audacity belongs to humankind to even begin to believe such notions. Who do we think we are to be able to diagnose our problems without the Creator? Yet, here we are, clay in the hands of the Potter, pretending there is no Potter, and somehow we’ve reached the conclusion that we have all the answers.
Have I still not convinced you that self-esteem is the completely wrong approach towards identifying and solving mankind’s mental health issues? Think back to any time you’ve been upset about something. Anything at all.
Now think on why you were upset or unhappy? Isn’t the root cause of your upset-ed-ness or unhappiness because you believe you deserve better circumstances? Were we to apply self-esteem to your situation, you would think even more highly of yourself, and would be prone to increase in your anger. On the contrary, were you to consider a Biblical perspective, you would thank God you didn’t receive what you deserve – death and Hell that very moment – and you would increase in humility and thankfulness towards God.
Every moment of life is a moment undeserved. Every happy experience is one undeserved. Each joyous pleasure is one undeserved. It is only from a Christian worldview that properly solves our mental health issues, and not the worldly wisdom that suggests that we have higher mountains to climb in our pride and arrogance.
Thanks for reading,
Case
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)