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
Friday, May 29, 2009
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
Monday, May 4, 2009
Loveless Intellectualism... or is it?
Greetings to all!
I write to you this evening from the zenith of the internet, with the wisdom found at the base of a coffee cup. For when the mind is energized, the body too will become so, and indeed the hands are soon to follow. It is with hope that I approach my first of many (Lord willing) blog posts. Hope that the mental energy (read: caffeine) captured in the dark, swirling bitter of coffee will find its way from mind, to body, to hands, and finally through keyboard and out to you.
Although I should probably do the obligatory autobiographical first post, I, in this case, will take the road less traveled. Let us pray it makes all the difference. (Thanks, Rob Frost). I will instead dive right into a stick that has been firmly planted in my crawl for several years now.
There is a perception in popular Christian culture that doctrine and theology is for the intellectual Christian. That the “deep bible stuff” is best left to the theologians and biblical scholars, but not for the “common” believer. Nothing could be further from the truth. I believe these thoughts stem from two misunderstandings. The first and most basic is a misunderstanding of the word doctrine. The second is a lack of understanding of the practical application of theological principals, and what the bible actually says about doctrine itself. It is important to overcome these issues, because when one gains a more through understanding of scripture their walk with God (and life in general) is only ever enhanced.
“Just give me Jesus. You can take your loveless intellectualism elsewhere!”
If you disagree with my next statement your gut reaction might be to stop reading or head right for the comment section and blast me into oblivion, but please bear with me. Jesus loves doctrine, and if you love Jesus you too will love doctrine. Jesus was full of doctrine, so much so that it poured out of Him. During His earthly ministry Jesus was constantly giving us doctrine.
“Alright I get it! So why do you say that Jesus loved doctrine?”
At this point I’ll turn to Merriam-Webster for some insight.
Doctrine
-noun
1. Teaching; instruction.
2. That which is taught; what is held, put forth as true, and supported by a teacher, a school, or a sect; a principle or position, or the body of principles, in any branch of knowledge; any tenet or dogma; a principle of faith; as, the doctrine of atoms; the doctrine of chances.
Doctrine is teaching! Jesus taught us things, He gave us doctrine… constantly. What I’m saying is, any time Jesus opened His mouth to teach us something He was providing us with doctrine. The Bible itself is a book of teaching, a book of doctrine. When you say, “Jesus loves me” you are expressing doctrine, the doctrine (teaching) of God’s love for His elect.
Jesus said of the Pharisees, "Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS,
BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
‘BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME,
TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'
"Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men."
–Mark 7:6-8 ~ NASB
In other words, Jesus is saying the Pharisees worship God in vain because they are teaching the precepts of men as if they were the commandments of God. Jesus is equating the commandments of God to doctrine, and the precepts of men to hypocrisy.
“Ok so doctrine is teaching, I’ll give you that one. But what I’m talking about is all that other stuff you guys get all worked up about. Like dispensationalist or covenant theology, infusion or imputation, you know that kind of stuff. Who cares!? Does it change my relationship with God at all?”
You already know what I’m going to say, so this time I’ll spare you the dramatic build-up. The answer is yes, those things (and many others) vastly change our relationship with God. In fact believing one way or the other on some of these issues is the difference between being a heretic and a true child of God.
“If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.”
–1 John 1:8 ~ NASB
If you don’t believe in the doctrine of Original Sin (Adam sinned, and sin is passed to all men from Adam, therefore all sin) the truth is not in you. If you read the context of the verse it’s very clear here that “truth is not in us” means you are not covered by the blood of the Lamb of God, you are not saved. But, “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” –1 John 1:9 ~ NASB
To confess your sin you first have to believe you are a sinner. What you believe, and why you believe it, is of massive importance.
“But avoid worldly and empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus,”
–2 Timothy 2:16-17 ~ NASB
What gangrene is leading to further ungodliness?
“men who have gone astray from the truth saying that the resurrection has already taken place…”
–2 Timothy 2:18a ~ NASB
They were changing the doctrine of the resurrection so that they were able to say it had already taken place. As I’ve already pointed out, this is called gangrenes and ungodly! Is it not the believer’s goal to be more Godly?
“… holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.”
–Titus 1:9 ~ NASB
This is instruction to the elders of the church. Sound doctrine is to exhort believers, and refute those who contradict the doctrine.
“Ah ha! Back to my original point. This doctrine stuff is for the elders of the church!”
Keep reading a little further down:
“But as for you, speak the things which are fitting for sound doctrine.”
–Titus 2:1 ~ NASB
If you read the rest of the qualifications for elders in Titus chapter 1 you might notice something interesting. These are qualities we expect to see in all Christians, not just the “super” Christians.
God’s doctrine is important for all Christians to understand. All 10 commandments are doctrine. Salvation by grace through faith in Christ Jesus alone is doctrine. I guess my point is “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” –2 Timothy 3:16-17 ~ NASB
With empty mug in hand,
Scott
Homosexual Super-Rights and the Thought-Police
Dun worry, the title is more succinct than when I began: “Homosexual Super-Rights, the Thought-Police, and the All-Encompassing yet Overly-Vague ‘Hate Speech’ Idear.”
See what I mean? *Innocent grin*
I was first informed of the hate speech bill by a customer Friday morning, and I, like the Aldaran system, was completely blown away. The very moment I had access to a computer I did a quick search and sure enough, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a bill that would make hate speech illegal. What is hate speech exactly? That’s the thing, the bill isn’t overly clear in defining its terminology but does seem to assume it has an inherent meaning. What I can say is that hate speech laws that have passed in Europe or Canada are being applied primarily to stop freedom of speech against any verbal opposition towards homosexual marriage or homosexuality in general.
What sort of ramifications have there been in places like England or Canada? Up to this point, pastors have been fined and spent time in jail for preaching against homosexuality – get this – in their own churches, for quoting the Bible. And there it is. These are outrageous attacks against the freedom of religion and freedom of speech. None of these pastors supports the killing of gays and lesbians. None of these men support violence against the homosexual community. But their words were considered “hate speech” and therefore illegal.
I honestly never thought I would see the day when this kind of legislation would draw such support here in our nation. How wrong I was. Maybe a bit naive. There are people who want nothing more than to silence those who condemn homosexuality as wrong or … sinful.
Never in my life have I been so concerned about a particular new legislation as this bill. It still has to receive the Senate’s approval, and finally, President Obama’s – it shall likely receive both.
While spending time with close Christian friends and family over the weekend, many excellent conversations were had about this bill, which allowed me to further develop my thoughts about this subject. I was anxious for Sunday when I could talk with a friend of mine who has helped shape my political viewpoints: Rich Pierce. The first chance I had I asked Rich his opinion on the whole issue. His response changed my entire thinking on the bill and I am excited to tell you what he told me. In a nut shell, Rich explained that he hopes the bill passes the Senate and is signed into law by the President. It isn’t that he wants Christians to lose the freedom of speech or religious practice, but in so doing, the Democratic Party would be shown to discriminate against opposing viewpoints, and that they would in effect be denying their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.
Rich added that the government would be sued, likely by Jay Seculo, and kept in the courts for 10 years before it made it to the Supreme Court, only to be shot down as unconstitutional by the high court. It has the potential to be a great victory for personal liberties, the Constitution, and for the freedom of expression – especially of religion.
From that vantage point, I cannot help but agree with Rich.
There are those conversations that change your mind or your thinking on an important issue in a few moments. This was one of those conversations for me. Thanks Rich.
What is startling to me is that the Democratic Party is filled with men and women who desire to discriminate justice. Same-sex marriage advocates argue that conservatives want to discriminate against gays by not allowing them to marry. I defend the rights of homosexuals, and argue that they have the same rights as heterosexuals: to marry a member of the opposite sex. What homosexuals want is to redefine marriage to mean something it has never meant in our society, or in Western Society. What homosexuals want are super-rights. They want to define words however they want, and society does not function in this way. They make an absurd argument.
“See! See! This is the kind of hate speech I’m talking about!” cries the homosexual community. Why is the expression of an opposing viewpoint assumed to be hateful? I say all of this without hating homosexuals; rather, I love homosexuals. I try to be friendly towards homosexuals, just as I try to be friendly towards heterosexuals. From my perspective, both groups are sinful, but only one of these lifestyles is declared unacceptable by God. It seems to be asking too much of the political Left to recognize that disagreement of opinion doesn’t equate hatefulness.
But even if I was being hateful … even if I did hate gays … should the government try to play the thought-police by monitoring my opinions? Does the government have a right to tell me what I can and cannot say? Think about the slippery slope this is. What if the government outlawed pro-homosexual speech? Would the Left be okay with that? You can be your bottom dollar liberals would not endorse such a thing. On the other side of the political isle, no mainstream conservative is arguing for the silencing of pro-homosexual speech. And it is in this that we see the double standard.
Is it too much to ask for consistency?
Psalm 12:1 reads, “Help, LORD, for the godly man ceases to be, For the faithful disappear from among the sons of men.” (NASB).
May we, like the Psalmist, seek the Lord’s help in this fascinating time where the ungodly reign supreme. They strut about just like those later described in this psalm. What can the righteous do? We can watch and pray, boldly proclaiming the gospel of peace to our friends, family and coworkers. God’s plan is unfolding and we can rest assured that He will continuously be glorified in His Church throughout all generations (Ephesians 3:21). Our Lord has also promised that everything that happens, the good and bad, are meant for the good of His people. Therefore, how can we not express our thanksgiving to God, knowing that even wicked legislation is ultimately due to God’s ordained will?
Thanks for reading,
Rusty
See what I mean? *Innocent grin*
I was first informed of the hate speech bill by a customer Friday morning, and I, like the Aldaran system, was completely blown away. The very moment I had access to a computer I did a quick search and sure enough, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a bill that would make hate speech illegal. What is hate speech exactly? That’s the thing, the bill isn’t overly clear in defining its terminology but does seem to assume it has an inherent meaning. What I can say is that hate speech laws that have passed in Europe or Canada are being applied primarily to stop freedom of speech against any verbal opposition towards homosexual marriage or homosexuality in general.
What sort of ramifications have there been in places like England or Canada? Up to this point, pastors have been fined and spent time in jail for preaching against homosexuality – get this – in their own churches, for quoting the Bible. And there it is. These are outrageous attacks against the freedom of religion and freedom of speech. None of these pastors supports the killing of gays and lesbians. None of these men support violence against the homosexual community. But their words were considered “hate speech” and therefore illegal.
I honestly never thought I would see the day when this kind of legislation would draw such support here in our nation. How wrong I was. Maybe a bit naive. There are people who want nothing more than to silence those who condemn homosexuality as wrong or … sinful.
Never in my life have I been so concerned about a particular new legislation as this bill. It still has to receive the Senate’s approval, and finally, President Obama’s – it shall likely receive both.
While spending time with close Christian friends and family over the weekend, many excellent conversations were had about this bill, which allowed me to further develop my thoughts about this subject. I was anxious for Sunday when I could talk with a friend of mine who has helped shape my political viewpoints: Rich Pierce. The first chance I had I asked Rich his opinion on the whole issue. His response changed my entire thinking on the bill and I am excited to tell you what he told me. In a nut shell, Rich explained that he hopes the bill passes the Senate and is signed into law by the President. It isn’t that he wants Christians to lose the freedom of speech or religious practice, but in so doing, the Democratic Party would be shown to discriminate against opposing viewpoints, and that they would in effect be denying their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.
Rich added that the government would be sued, likely by Jay Seculo, and kept in the courts for 10 years before it made it to the Supreme Court, only to be shot down as unconstitutional by the high court. It has the potential to be a great victory for personal liberties, the Constitution, and for the freedom of expression – especially of religion.
From that vantage point, I cannot help but agree with Rich.
There are those conversations that change your mind or your thinking on an important issue in a few moments. This was one of those conversations for me. Thanks Rich.
What is startling to me is that the Democratic Party is filled with men and women who desire to discriminate justice. Same-sex marriage advocates argue that conservatives want to discriminate against gays by not allowing them to marry. I defend the rights of homosexuals, and argue that they have the same rights as heterosexuals: to marry a member of the opposite sex. What homosexuals want is to redefine marriage to mean something it has never meant in our society, or in Western Society. What homosexuals want are super-rights. They want to define words however they want, and society does not function in this way. They make an absurd argument.
“See! See! This is the kind of hate speech I’m talking about!” cries the homosexual community. Why is the expression of an opposing viewpoint assumed to be hateful? I say all of this without hating homosexuals; rather, I love homosexuals. I try to be friendly towards homosexuals, just as I try to be friendly towards heterosexuals. From my perspective, both groups are sinful, but only one of these lifestyles is declared unacceptable by God. It seems to be asking too much of the political Left to recognize that disagreement of opinion doesn’t equate hatefulness.
But even if I was being hateful … even if I did hate gays … should the government try to play the thought-police by monitoring my opinions? Does the government have a right to tell me what I can and cannot say? Think about the slippery slope this is. What if the government outlawed pro-homosexual speech? Would the Left be okay with that? You can be your bottom dollar liberals would not endorse such a thing. On the other side of the political isle, no mainstream conservative is arguing for the silencing of pro-homosexual speech. And it is in this that we see the double standard.
Is it too much to ask for consistency?
Psalm 12:1 reads, “Help, LORD, for the godly man ceases to be, For the faithful disappear from among the sons of men.” (NASB).
May we, like the Psalmist, seek the Lord’s help in this fascinating time where the ungodly reign supreme. They strut about just like those later described in this psalm. What can the righteous do? We can watch and pray, boldly proclaiming the gospel of peace to our friends, family and coworkers. God’s plan is unfolding and we can rest assured that He will continuously be glorified in His Church throughout all generations (Ephesians 3:21). Our Lord has also promised that everything that happens, the good and bad, are meant for the good of His people. Therefore, how can we not express our thanksgiving to God, knowing that even wicked legislation is ultimately due to God’s ordained will?
Thanks for reading,
Rusty
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)