I have recently had some stimulating conversations with Ron Frost who has shared his views on historical theology, God’s sovereign goodness, and Trinitarian love. His conversation stimulated some further reading which, in my judgment, would be extremely valuable for you to read if you are a follower of Jesus. This ongoing ‘battle’ in the ‘church’ world is theological at the core. It is a ‘picture of God’ debate that goes to the heart of our conceptions about the nature, person, and work of God. So, to make a drastic understatement, it is important. I find myself deeply grieved at the way God is currently being portrayed in popular emerging calvinist movements. My hope is that you would “study to show yourself approved to God,” and be a Berean (Acts 17:11). This means, as a Jesus follower, you must test John Piper’s theology against scripture (which Piper would want). So, listen to what Piper and McCall say, as my favorite prof Gerry Breshears would say, ‘with your finger in the text’.

Here are three articles on God’s sovereignty. Two articles by Thomas McCall, assistant professor of Biblical and systematic theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. One article by John Piper's on His theology of God's sovereignty. They appeared in the Fall 2008 issue of Trinity Journal. McCall writes first (Thomas McCall, "I Believe in Divine Sovereignty", Trinity Journal 29/2 [Fall 2008] 205-226), followed by Piper's response (John Piper, "I Believe in God's Self-Sufficiency: A Response to Thomas McCall", Trinity Journal 29/2 [Fall 2008] 227-234), and then McCall offering a final critique (Thomas McCall, "We Believe in God's Sovereign Goodness: A Rejoinder to John Piper", Trinity Journal 29/2 [Fall 2008] 235-246). McCall makes a compelling case against the typical Calvinist view of divine sovereignty (which amounts to exhaustive divine determinism), represented by Piper, and for a more biblically-oriented (as opposed to a Westminster Catechism oriented, ie. Piper) view of God's sovereignty, which does justice to his power, love, and goodness.

I have been hearing about some friends recently who have been forsaking the narrow path in favor of the broad. It is really sad to see people leaving Jesus.

Satan is a liar and we need to resist him.
I liked this blog by Mark Driscoll on Fighting Temptation.

N.T. Wright makes the simple point that no Jew would have called Jesus of Nazareth Messiah if He had only been crucified. Jews would have been prone to see Jesus as one cursed by God as He hung on the tree. The fact that some 10,000 jews 50 days after Jesus crucifixion, in Jerusalem, came to worship Him as Messiah, makes the case for Jesus bodily resurrection highly plausible. Any other theories about explaining this historical fact are much less plausible than the message of those 10,000...He is Risen! For no Jew, and especially not 10,000, and especially not in Jerusalem (the very city Jesus was crucified), would believe Jesus was Messiah unless God had raised Him from the dead. Plausibility is person relative, but I must argue that in the case of the resurrection to adopt any other theory other than the Resurrection theory is to adopt a theory that is persuasively less plausible.

Here is the video by N.T. Wright on the Resurrection of Jesus.

Also, you should check William Lane Craig’s site.

Antony Flew, British philosopher, Oxford professor, and leading champion of atheism for more than fifty years, honestly followed the evidence and renounced his naturalistic faith in 2004.

The Sydney Anglicans website hosts this podcast audio discussing and reviewing Antony Flew's book: The Big Picture: There is a God - Antony Flew MP3 Audio here.

More Antony Flew posts here. William Lane Craig comments on Flew's change of mind here. Here is an exclusive interview (PDF) Antony Flew had with Gary Habermas. Video of Flew's discussion with Habermas and N.T. Wright and Habermas' debate with Flew can be found here.

Dr. Stephen Meyer and Dr. Richard Sternberg recently debated Dr. Michael Shermer and Dr. Donald Prothero on the topic of "Has Evolutionary Theory Adequately Explained the Origins of Life?" See how the debate went here.

Also, Dr. Stephen Meyer's latest book, The Signature in the Cell, was recently voted "book of the year" by the book reviewers at the Times Literary Supplement (TLS) in London!!? Furthermore, the book reviewers left out some of the year's most pro-Darwin books such as Richard Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth and Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True. Read more here.

Signature in the Cell was previously named one of the top ten best-selling science books of the year by Amazon.com.

Also, Dr. William Lane Craig recently debated evolutionary biologist Francisco J. Ayala on the topic "Is Intelligent Design Viable?" You can listen to this debate here.

I really wish Dawkins would man up (put His cup on) and Debate Craig, Meyer, or Sternberg. According to Craig, “Dawkins keeps denying His requests for a debate.”

The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread. (1 Cor. 10:16-17)

Paul is referring to the unity the body of Christ possesses in the communion meal. This meal has been instituted by God in the Passover, and brought to the fullness of expression by the Lord Jesus the night before He willingly went to the cross to be our Passover lamb.

Paul is appealing to the church to see Christ as its head. Not any apostle, or super-apostle, but Jesus! With Jesus as our individual and corporate head we will not engage in leader worship, nor divisiveness. If Jesus is seen in His exalted state the church will be unified in mission and worship, not divided. This is what the Spirit, and so Paul, desires. Paul is giving an indicative historical redemptive truth in 17c when He says, “we all partake of that one bread.” This is doctrine! Paul is laying down an essential doctrine that radicalized his theology and worldview! He called on the church in Corinth to be as radicalized in their thinking about Jesus as He was. This ‘we all partake of one bread,’ truth is what the church needed to understand.

Scripture teaches that Jesus is the true bread. Jesus said, “and the bread which I give is my flesh which I shall give for the life of the world,” and again, “I am the bread of life” and “if anyone eats of this bread, He shall live forever,” and again, “whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.” (Jn 6:22-59)

Bread in Jewish circles always meant life. The wilderness wanderers lived daily by ‘bread from heaven.’ When David was hungry with His men, He went for the bread! Bread sustained and catalyzed life. So when Jesus came into the world it should not surprise us that He refers to himself as the bread from heaven. Jesus is using a metaphor to help us understand that when He comes down from heaven it is to bring life to the world! (Jn 3:16-17). So where should we go for spiritual life? We should go where Jesus told us to go, to Him!

When Jesus speaks of His body as bread, He is referring to how in His bodily death and resurrection; He is life for the world. Jesus is life. Do you want life abundantly now in the Spirit and on into eternity? Jesus death and resurrection means our death to the law which produced sin and death, and resurrection to a new age wherein God is dispensing His grace and mercy to all who in response to the Spirit call on Him for this in faith.

As believers we take of Jesus flesh. Those who trust in Jesus will benefit salvifically in the resurrection to come. Why? Because Jesus broken body on the cross, and shed blood, mean eternal life for the world. This eternal life is for all who believe, whether jew or greek, for the same Lord is rich to call on Him, for ‘Whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”

So Paul is filling the church with the leaven of His gospel, which He proclaimed so that she would be unified in mission, worship, and Spirit. He did want the church partaking with false spirits or false christs. The Spirit, and so Paul, wanted the church to be a pure, unadulterated bride for the true Jesus without wrinkle or spot. In order for this to come about, the divisions and leader worship had to go. Paul knew that preaching Jesus Christ as the, “one bread we all partake of,” would eradicate the Christian caste system at Corinth which reflected a false religion and not the gospel! Paul knew that preaching the true and only Jesus would help the church rid herself of all the false gods, and false ideas she held to. Paul knew that preaching the true Jesus would impel the church to worship, love, serve, and be on the mission of Jesus by the power of the Spirit.

We could use more people like Paul in the church today who make Jesus, His person and work, the answer to all our problems.

I have recently undertook studying foreknowledge. The theologians of the early church emphatically denied that foreknowledge implies any predetermination of events. Justin Martyr, for example, said, “What we say about future events being foretold, we do not say it as though they come about by fatal necessity.” In other words, this means that just because God knows what is going to happen before it happens does not necessarily mean that God has caused it to happen.

Augustine came to deny foreknowledge based on His conception of how God and time interact (which I do not believe finite humans were ever meant to understand. Take a lesson from Job. Also see is 55:8-9, Rom 11:32-34.) Augustine argued that God lives in eternity where all things are present. For God, then, there is no past or future. Hence he would not know things before they happened, since he would see all events from the vantage point of an eternal “now.” Augustine, of course, did not deny God’s knowledge of all things, even of things that are still in the future from a human vantage point. Following Augustine, Calvin and his followers to this day maintain that God knows all events precisely because he sovereignly determines what is to happen in human history right down to the tiniest detail (referred to as meticulous providence). This view, in my opinion, is no different from the Greek philosophers view of fate! In Greek philosophy, ‘Fate’ rigidly controlled all future events, including not only the events of human history but also the fortunes of the gods, and the miseries of man. Occasionally, a future event might be known by the gods and revealed to people, but such foreseen events could in no way be altered (Fatalism). I am waiting for a calvinist to explain to me the difference between meticulous providence (MP) and fatalism (there isn’t one).

Fatalism is absurd. If MP is fatalism than MP is absurd, If MP is not fatalism then I am mistaken and am in need of correction.

Other theologians, (who presupposed Augustines theory of an eternal “now” to be true, and reacted against it) feared that foreknowledge destroyed human freedom and responsibility. So what conclusions did they come to? They insist that God does not know future events certainly or completely. This is modern process theology which conceives of God as growing and developing along with nature and man. This God, it is argued, can at most know only those events that have already taken place. Hence the future remains open and uncertain for God as well as for man.

Process theology is absurd.

I think, the biblical position is one that maintains a distinction between foreknowledge and decree without conflating the two. The bible seems to distinguish foreknowledge from the foreordination of certain events (not all events meticulously). While salvation of the world through Jesus death, and human history in broad outline, are predetermined by God, I would argue that not every detail is predetermined. Therefore, God can foreknow an event without directly decreeing that event to take place. This maintains the distinction scripture makes between foreknowledge and predestination (Rom 8:28), foreknowledge and election (1 Pet 1:2), and foreknowledge and decree (Acts 2:23).

This view of providence is referred to by Gerry Breshears as the ‘ship theory’ of providence. God is the captain of the ship of history, all humans are on it, some of the crew members have rebelled (demons), some of the passengers are rebelling with them (sinners), some of the crew have not rebelled (angels), and some of the passengers are living faithfully to the captain (saints). God is driving history to its appointed end and it will reach the final destination along with some key stops along the way (Abraham, Exodus, Davidic Kingdom, Return from Exile, Incarnation, Death and Resurrection of Jesus, Pentecost, Return of Jesus, Final Judgment, New heaven and New earth).

So I searched the apostolic Fathers on Foreknowledge and Here is what resulted from the search. Martyr uses the word three times in His writings (Below). Irenaeus uses the word twice (Below). One Irenaeus uses it in the context of a marcion heresy which was teaching that God hardened Pharoahs heart capriciously (sound familiar?). I have left a reference at the end of each quote so you may find these if you are interested. I quote the apostolic fathers not to prove that this is what the bible teaches. For the apostolic fathers may have well been wrong. I quote them however, in observation that, they were contemporaries of 1st century. This gives us a good indication of what the early church thought about these issues, and it surely gives us a good indication of what these two men thought.


Justin Says:

For among us the prince of the wicked spirits is called the serpent, and Satan, and the devil, as you can learn by looking into our writings. And that he would be sent into the fire with his host, and the men who follow him, and would be punished for an endless duration, Christ foretold. For the reason why God has delayed to do this, is His regard for the human race. For He foreknows that some are to be saved by repentance, some even that are perhaps not yet born.In the beginning He made the human race with the power of thought and of choosing the truth and doing right, so that all men are without excuse before God; for they have been born rational and contemplative. (Early Church Fathers 1.1.6.1.0.28).

Justin Says:

So that what we say about future events being foretold, we do not say it as if they came about by a fatal necessity; but God foreknowing all that shall be done by all men, and it being His decree that the future actions of men shall all be recompensed according to their several value, He foretells by the Spirit of prophecy that He will bestow meet rewards according to the merit of the actions done, always urging the human race to effort and recollection, showing that He cares and provides for men. But by the agency of the devils death has been decreed (Early Church Fathers 1.1.6.1.0.44)

Justin Says:

Pilate sent to him by way of compliment Jesus bound; and God foreknowing that this would happen, (Early Church Fathers 1.1.6.3.0.103)

Irenaeus in His

Refutation of the Arguments of the Marcionites, Who Attempted to Show that God Was the Author of Sin, Because He Blinded Pharaoh and His Servants.

“But,” say they, “God hardened the heart of Pharaoh and of his servants.”

If, therefore, in the present time also, God, knowing the number of those who will not believe, since He foreknows all things, has given them over to unbelief, and turned away His face from men of this stamp, leaving them in the darkness which they have themselves chosen for themselves, what is there wonderful if He did also at that time give over to their unbelief, Pharaoh, who never would have believed, along with those who were with him? As the Word spake to Moses from the bush: “And I am sure that the king of Egypt will not let you go, unless by a mighty hand (Early Church Fathers 1.1.7.1.4.30)

Irenaeus in His

Man is Endowed with the Faculty of Distinguishing Good and Evil; So That, Without Compulsion, He Has the Power, by His Own Will and Choice, to Perform God’s Commandments, by Doing Which He Avoids the Evils Prepared for the Rebellious.

But God, foreknowing all things, prepared fit habitations for both, kindly conferring that light which they desire on those who seek after the light of incorruption, and resort to it; but for the despisers and mockers who avoid and turn themselves away from this light, and who do, as it were, blind themselves, He has prepared darkness suitable to persons who oppose the light, and He has inflicted an appropriate punishment upon those who try to avoid being subject to Him. Submission to God is eternal rest, so that they who shun the light have a place worthy of their flight; and those who fly from eternal rest, have a habitation in accordance with their fleeing. Now, since all good things are with God, they who by their own determination fly from God, do defraud themselves of all good things; and having been [thus] defrauded of all good things with respect to God, they shall consequently fall under the just judgment of God.

I recently read an article on foreknowledge in JETS. As I was reading, I sensed the Spirit saying, “Be careful not to delve into things men do not know.” I was alarmed. I do not have this happen a lot, but sensed that the Spirit was ringing an alarm in my head. That is my subjective experience.

Here are some objective statements about foreknowledge I pulled together from bibleworks!! If you disagree with them then please let me know.

The form ‘proegno’ (IAA) is used twice in the Bible.

Romans 8:29, “Those whom He foreknew” (Indicative, Aorist, Active)
Romans 11:2 “God has not cast away His people whom he foreknew” (Indicative, Aorist Active)

Here is what Daniel Wallace says on this aorist.

Presents action as a whole; summary tense; takes a snapshot of the action; past time in the indicative
A. Constative Aorist: views the action as a whole, taking no interest in its internal workings; describes the action in summary fashion (557-58)

When you search the lemma (root of the word) the word appears 4 other times in the bible.

2 in the context of people knowing someone (Acts 26:5) or something (2 Pet 3:17) beforehand.

Acts 26:5 “They knew (proginoskontes) me from the first” (Prtc, Pres. Active)
2 Pet 3:17 “You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand (proginoskontes), beware that you are not carried away with the wicked.”

2 times in the context of ‘decreeish’ language which is as pertinent to the C&A debate as Romans 8:29.

1 Pet 1:2 “Elect according to the foreknowledge (prognosin) of God”
Acts 2:23 “Jesus, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge (prognosei) of God.”

Often you will hear that the greek ‘proegno’ (foreknowledge) is connected with the hebrew word ‘yada’ (to know, love).

So the argument goes.

Foreknowledge (proegno) cannot be simple prescience.
To know in the OT ‘yada’ is to love.
When Paul says ‘proegno’, He is thinking ‘yada’.
Therefore foreknowledge is better translated ‘forelove’

This argument is based on Paul conceiving of the hebrew word ‘yada’ when He uses the greek word ‘proegno’

The issue I am trying to work through is that nowhere in the greek Old Testament is the word ‘proegno’ or ‘prognosin’ or ‘proginoskontes’ found. It is simply lexically not in the septuagint (greek translation of the OT). So how can calvinists connect it with ‘yada’?

Jer 1:5 Is often appealled to because God says to Jeremiah before I formed you in your mother’s womb I knew (hebrew ‘yada’) you. So which word do the septugint translators choose here? They transalte the hebrew ‘yada’ here into the greek ‘epistamai’ where we get epistemology from.

I hope to find some information on the word ‘prognosin’ from 2nd temple literature and Moulton and Milligan.

The Spiritual gifts are given by the will of the Spirit to individual members (1 Cor. 12:11). All the individual members are part of a collective whole, namely “the body of Christ.” The body of Christ is made up of many individual members. This is a beautiful metaphor Paul is using to describe our corporate connectedness, while maintaining individual identity, so that He can call on the Corinthians to both individually and corporately respond to Jesus imperative to be “unified in love” (1 Cor. 13ff.).There is equality in the corporate spiritual body of Jesus, though there is diversity in gifting. The Spirit distributes these gifts to individuals so that the body of Jesus may be built up in unity. Those in Corinth began to esteem some gifts as greater than other gifts. This elitism brought division within the body at Corinth. It became a Christian “caste-system” which Paul sought to correct in Corinth.

It is clear that from Paul’s framework, as He conceptualizes this metaphor, those who are partakers of the Spirit are now under the Lordship of Christ. How does the Lordship of Christ manifest itself in Paul’s body metaphor? Paul calls Jesus the “head of the body” (Col 1:18, Eph 2:22). We must then think of the head of the body as the Lord of the church. These cannot be bifurcated; they are conterminous (share the same sphere of boundary).

Now imagine if the members of your body (feet, hands, legs, eyes, etc.) no longer lived under the “Lordship” of your head (mind, controlling center). What would that be like? If I tell my leg to move, and it does not move, that leg is not under my Lordship, that leg is paralyzed and not moving at my command. If I tell my hand to pick up the hot coffee on the desk, and instead my hand slaps the coffee onto the ground, then my hand is being disobedient to my head, that hand is rebellious and not listening to my command. This sort of dysfunction in a physical body would leave anyone unable to function properly in the world. Is the “body” of Jesus any different? If I am reading Paul’s metaphor right, I do not think it is.

Paul believed Jesus was radically living His powerful life through the corporate church by the Spirit (Rom 8:11ff.). Paul furthermore believed that the church was Jesus body, and that this body was to, like any physical body, take its directions from its head. If the church will then listen to Jesus commands and obey these commands of Christ, regardless the cost, the church will see Jesus moving by His Spirit in the world for the fulfillment of the great commission, the spoiling of Satan’s goods, the salvation of the nations, and the glory and praise of God.

What then are Jesus commands? The three most prominent commands are;

1. Love God with all your heart soul and mind.

2. Love your neighbor as yourself

3. Go and make disciples of all nations teaching them to obey Jesus commands.

Realize Jesus commands you to do what He will enable you to do by the Spirit. Therefore genuinely seek God with all your heart for life-change in these areas. As you and others in the church begin to obey Jesus in these areas, we as the church will see Jesus move in this world like He wants to, by the Spirit through the church.

Graham Cole was interviewed by Justin Taylor here about His forthcoming book “God the Peacemaker: How atonement brings shalom.”
Cole is a professor at Trinity in Deerfield. I enjoyed this comment by Him in His interview with JT.

“Penal substitution provides a good example. It seems to me that following the biblical plotline, the first note struck is the Christus Victor one (i.e., the defeat of evil) in the protevangelium (first gospel) set out in Genesis 3:15. But how is the evil one defeated? The grounds of accusation need to be removed that stand against us, and the fear of death that is the devil’s tool needs to be addressed as well. The cross of Christ disarms the evil one by removing the grounds of accusation against us (Col 2). Christ died in our place (1 Peter 2)), experienced the righteous divine wrath that we deserve (Rom 5) and so, if we are in Christ, there is no condemnation (Rom 8). Because we stand clothed in Christ’s righteousness we will not face the divine judgment of the great white throne for our sins (Rev 20). Our names are in the Lamb’s book of life. The fear of death, which lies in judgment, is thereby addressed (Heb 2). Evangelicals in my view need to do more justice to the Christus Victor theme and in so doing find that penal substitution is integral or central to it.”

His forthcoming book which I am very excited to read is here

I have been reading Leon Morris lately. It has been very encouraging to me.
Leon Morris received his Ph.D. at the University of Cambridge on the subject which became his first major book, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross. For me it has been a breath of fresh-air to read a Biblical Theologian speak of the major themes of the cross. Morris takes each word and traces the hebrew and greek, LXX and NT root of that word. He then draws out the Apostles thought forms for preaching the cross. Personally, I have been wrestling through what happened on the cross in all of its significance for the past several years. This personal wrestling came about as a result of some transgression I willfully, rebelliously, committed in my life when I was 22 yrs. For the past several years I have struggled to forgive myself for it, and the accusing voice has never stopped lying to me. So I decided not to ignore the lie, but to see if there was any substance to it. As, I read the text, and thought about what Jesus accomplished on the cross, I have come to discover that there was no substance to the lie. It was false! It would be like someone telling you 2+2=5, and then you researching and realizing, “No...2+2=4”. I realized that nothing can separate me, or anyone else for that matter, from the Love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. The biggest doctrine to impact me personally in this book by Morris is the doctrine of Reconciliation. After so clearly transgressing against my Father and alienating myself willfully from Him, I wondered to myself, “will He take me back again?” The answer I have found in scripture according to the cross, which is God’s means of reconciling the world, is YES! He pleads with me to return to Him, though I have transgressed, and committed spiritual adultery against Him, He pleads with this transgressor, “return to me!”

If you are interested in reading Dr. James Deyoung’s ETS paper on Reconciliation

Here is the outline of Leon Morris’ book.
1. Redemption
2. Covenant
3. The Blood
4-5. Propitiation
6. Reconciliation
7-8. Justification.
9. Conclusion

A bibliography of Leon Morris work, with some downloadable PDF’s.
Another book by Morris I read recently is “Testament of Love” This book traces the idea of the Love of God in both testaments. The Hebrew, LXX & Koine. Morris shows that God is chesed’ for Israel and the Nations.

Michael Behe wrote the book “Darwin’s black box” in 1998 arguing that Darwin could not see the cell (His black box). Darwin did not know the intricacies and complexities of the cell as scientists do today. Behe argues that when Darwin wrote in His “Origin of Species, By means of Natural Selection:Preseveration of favored races in the struggle for life” (Which was a gross scientific advocation for Racism as much as a theory of micro and macro mutation within species, but that is for another post) “If it could ever be demonstrated that any complex system existed which could not possibly have been formed, by numerous, successive, slight modifications, then my theory absolutely breaks down.” Behe is arguing that there are indeed demonstrable complex systems which are irreducibly complex (the cell, bacteria flagellum, giraffe neck, skunk, blood clotting, etc.), and that therefore Darwin’s theory does break down on some level. Behe’s new book “Edge of Evolution” discusses some of these issues further.

Sean Mcdowell wrote a great article on “Is Postmodernism a myth?” On what Sean says, I heartily agree. I personally think fideism (not postmodernism) is the primary paradigm (when it come to religion) among the emerging generation. Fideism being that “faith is separate from fact” the “faith-fact” dichotomy is an arbitrary part of a 21st century paradigm. Postmodernism is really an objective assertion that objective truth is unknowable. Postmoderns may say so in religious or ethical matters, but they would never say math or science is subjective or relative. I think postmodernism is a demonic smokescreen for those who wish to not intellectually engage in the classical categories of philosophy like metaphysics, and epistemology. So I would definitely recommend that you read Sean’s post! Also I have been reading “Reasonable Faith” by William Lane Craig. This is the best defense of the Christian paradigm, and Jesus the Lord and Christ, I have personally ever read. Lastly, if you are into apologetics and learning about arguments for the existence of God, the reliability of the Old & New Testaments, the Historicity of Jesus life-death-and Resurrection, prophecy, archaeological discoveries, and the like you must watch the flash curriculum videos at this site. They are very concise and informative, I will recommend them to many people for years to come. I have also embedded the page on my site here.

Tags: rants, thinking, upset, stoked, blessed, wierd worldwierd world

Tim Keller is sharp as a tac, thank to Jesus working in Him.
In the below quote he contrasts "The Gospel", w/ "Religion".
here's a link to some sermons, I also found out He is 6’4” tall:


RELIGION: I obey-therefore I’m accepted.
THE GOSPEL: I’m accepted-therefore I obey.


RELIGION: Motivation is based on fear and insecurity.
THE GOSPEL: Motivation is based on grateful joy.


RELIGION: I obey God in order to get things from God.
THE GOSPEL: I obey God to get to God-to delight and resemble Him.


RELIGION: When circumstances in my life go wrong, I am angry at God or my self, since I believe, like Job’s friends that anyone who is good deserves a comfortable life.
THE GOSPEL: When circumstances in my life go wrong, I struggle but I know all my punishment fell on Jesus and that while he may allow this for my training, he will exercise his Fatherly love within my trial.


RELIGION: When I am criticized I am furious or devastated because it is critical that I think of myself as a ‘good person’. Threats to that self-image must be destroyed at all costs.
THE GOSPEL: When I am criticized I struggle, but it is not critical for me to think of myself as a ‘good person.’ My identity is not built on my record or my performance but on God’s love for me in Christ. I can take criticism.


RELIGION: My prayer life consists largely of petition and it only heats up when I am in a time of need. My main purpose in prayer is control of the environment.
THE GOSPEL: My prayer life consists of generous stretches of praise and adoration. My main purpose is fellowship with Him.


RELIGION: My self-view swings between two poles. If and when I am living up to my standards, I feel confident, but then I am prone to be proud and unsympathetic to failing people. If and when I am not living up to standards, I feel insecure and inadequate. I’m not confident. I feel like a failure.
THE GOSPEL: My self-view is not based on a view of my self as a moral achiever. In Christ I am “simul iustus et peccator”—simultaneously sinful and yet accepted in Christ. I am so bad he had to die for me and I am so loved he was glad to die for me. This leads me to deeper and deeper humility and confidence at the same time. Neither swaggering nor sniveling.


RELIGION: My identity and self-worth are based mainly on how hard I work. Or how moral I am, and so I must look down on those I perceive as lazy or immoral. I disdain and feel superior to ‘the other.’
THE GOSPEL: My identity and self-worth are centered on the one who died for His enemies, who was excluded from the city for me. I am saved by sheer grace. So I can’t look down on those who believe or practice something different from me. Only by grace I am what I am. I’ve no inner need to win arguments.


RELIGION: Since I look to my own pedigree or performance for my spiritual acceptability, my heart manufactures idols. It may be my talents, my moral record, my personal discipline, my social status, etc. I absolutely have to have them so they serve as my main hope, meaning, happiness, security, and significance, whatever I may say I believe about God.
THE GOSPEL: I have many good things in my life—family, work, spiritual disciplines, etc. But none of these good things are ultimate things to me. None of them are things I absolutely have to have, so there is a limit to how much anxiety, bitterness, and despondency they can inflict on me when they are threatened and lost.

Don’t let sin silent you in speaking about Jesus! Instead, let scripture, which is inspired by God, be used by the Spirit in your life to make you more like Jesus the Son. I would really like to be more like Jesus, and the Holy Spirit would really like me to be more like Jesus too. If you are a believer you as well want to be more like Jesus, and the Spirit wants you to as well. What a glorious truth that God’s powerful will is that we be more like Jesus. I recently finished memorizing Colossians, and it was very much about Jesus! Paul records an early church Hymn (1:15-20) about Jesus. Paul says Jesus is the one He preaches (1:28) for the goal that people would become more like Jesus (1:29). He does not want His readers in Colossae, Laodicea, or anywhere else for that matter to be carried away like the spoils of war (2:8) in believing good sounding arguments that are not about Jesus. Jesus is in fact God in the flesh (2:9) and so believers in Jesus do not need anything else other than...Jesus (2:10). Because of the work of Jesus, the Father identifies believers in Jesus as “hidden in Christ” (3:3). Since God so identifies us with Jesus we will be found on the day of judgment as holy, blameless, and above reproach (1:22). That is if we remain steadfast in the faith and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel (1:23). The whole point of Paul writing His letter was to warn and encourage this new faithful church to continue to trust in Jesus and not be moved. That is definitely, most definitely, a message for us!! We as believers in Jesus have been identified with Jesus (3:3), saved from our enemies by Jesus (2:14-15), reconciled to God by Jesus (1:21-22) and are therefore to remain trusting Jesus (1:23). Where else can you go? He alone has the words of eternal life!

Let me also issue a challenge to any who are reading this. Why don’t you pick a book of the NT and memorize it? Many Jewish and Muslim followers have the Quran or Torah memorized. Why should not people who follow Jesus memorize the New Testament? There are 260 chapters in the New Testament with a total of 7,957 verses. If you memorize 4 verses a day, you would have the entire New Testament in 5 years!! Just think 5 years from now you would have the New Testament memorized and the Holy Spirit would use the scriptures to make you more like Jesus.

I am so deeply encouraged by my Exegesis class right now. I deeply want to learn how to read scripture well, and help others read it well, as well. I am a big advocate of entire book memorization as an aid in interpretation, and I am beginning to think it is even more important as we seek to do exegesis well. It just gives a good grid to the interpreter to have the book memorized. This bible has helped me memorize just because of it’s compactness/cleanness, and it is only $5 right now, but be warned..its a NKJV!!! It was Calvary Chapel’s fault, but there is no way I can switch from the NKJV to sumin else now. I read other translations, and enjoy the eclectic greek text, and the majority text. I have also really enjoyed studying textual criticism these last weeks. Especially in light of Bart Ehrman’s recent rise in popularity. I like the critique Dan Wallace gives of Bart. I also linked the book image above, it is $12 on CBD and it is a great introduction into a complicated field. I sometimes feel like Indiana jones or someone on the goonies when I read/think on/do textual criticism and it definitely brings out the exploring little boy in me.

Fideism is an epistemological theory that maintains that faith is independent and separate from reason. Fideism maintains that one does not need to have reasons for faith. For faith is, according to fideists, irrational. This has created a great divide in the minds of our popular culture. It can be referred to as the FAITH-FACT dichotomy. This faith-fact dichotomy consequentially leads to sentiments among large numbers of people like “Why do people keep saying that one religion is right, and one wrong? This is so dumb! Can’t people see that all this religious intolerance is ruining society and keeping the world from moving towards human progress, peace, and safety for all.” In the mind of the fideist, religion is not something to be argued about, or debated, just individually preferred. The word fideism comes from fides the latin word for faith and literally means faithism. Since faith is not actually factual then faith should not be argued, defended, or debated for, “No religion should say it is right and others are wrong.” This conclusion follows logically from the fideistic premise. It is this premise that must be critiqued. There are different theories of truth. The correspondence theory of truth is truest to reality, though the other theories have strengths as well. The correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world, and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world. Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs. This type of theory attempts to posit a relationship between thoughts or statements on the one hand, and things or facts on the other. It is a traditional model which goes back at least to some of the classical Greek philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. This class of theories holds that the truth or the falsity of a representation is determined solely by how it relates to a reality; that is, by whether it accurately describes that reality. As Aristotle claims in his Metaphysics: "To say that [either] that which is is not or that which is not is, is a falsehood; and to say that that which is is and that which is not is not, is true"

Are you really reading this blog right now? The Correspondence theory of truth would say, “you are really reading this blog this very moment” and that propositional statement would be defined as true since the statement corresponds to reality. If while you are reading this blog, someone was to say, “You are not reading the blog right now,” that propositional statement would be defined as false since it does not correspond to the fact that you really are reading the blog. Therefore, since language has meaning, humans can make propositional statements that correspond to reality as it exists. Therefore, faith that is not based on reality is faith based on fiction. Faith based on fiction is false and therefore should be abandoned. If it is true that there is no facts that establish our faith, than our faith is fact-less and should be abandoned since it does not correspond to reality. If our faith is based on facts that correspond to reality than our faith should be embraced, not because it feels good, but because it is true to reality and to not embrace reality is to embrace fiction. Fiction should be abandoned and reality should be believed.

Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, and Joseph smith all made propositional statements. The question that must be asked is, Did any of those men make true statements about reality? This must be investigated, critically.

If Jesus statements about His incarnation, life, death, and resurrection were never stated or are not accurate to reality there is no reason to follow Jesus for He would be a liar, or lunatic and the christian faith would be based on fiction. If Jesus statements about Himself were accurate and correspond to reality as it exists, we have every reason to fall at His feet and worship Him alone, because He has shown us what reality is really like.

I have just finished memorizing Galatians and have spent the last couple weeks really immersing myself in the message of the book. I do not say this here to boast, but to share that the way I personally understand books of the bible best is by meditating upon them and memorizing the entirety of them. I begin to get a general context for the whole letter as I work my way through the different sections. I also receive a general understanding of the flow of the argument of the book, the big picture begins to make sense, and then the little details do as well. Paul’s attitude toward the church which was being “led astray” and his attitude toward the leaders who lead astray is different. His attitude towards the church is shock, concern, and worry that they do not understand the point of the Law and the new life of adoption they have received through the Holy Spirit. Paul’s attitude towards the leaders is “wishing, they would cut off there penises.” Paul is adamant that the Galatians are nor longer to find there relational access point to God through the law. They are instead adopted into the very family of God and are to relate to Him, through the Spirit, in light of His salvation historical work through Jesus, by faith. Jesus has come in the perfect “time” and Paul, as well as all who have been baptized into Christ, have been crucified with Christ and it is no longer they who live but Christ who lives in them. Paul wants to make sure that the Galatians do not set aside God’s salvation from the curse of the law. How has God saved these Galatians from the curse of the law? He has enacted a new way of relating to Him, by faith, through the Spirit. Paul’s shock comes in understanding that since God has made something better, how can the Galatians go back to relating to God through the former? Paul has derogatory things to say about the law; He calls the law Hagar. He says the law gives birth to bondage. He says the law is a tutor for little kids, but after we “grow up” we don’t need it any more. He calls it “weak and beggarly elements.” Paul says that “those who attempt to be justified by law have fallen from grace, and become estranged from Christ!” It is theological error to look to the law for salvation. Paul said He “withstood Peter to His face” in front of a bunch of people. From all this data, I gather that Paul really believed that Jesus death (which He boasted in) changed the way we relate to God. It is God’s will to deliver us from this present evil age through the new covenant (not old covenant) promises in Christ, which Paul adds were even given to Abraham, and those who truly want to be sons of Abraham, will relate to God by faith as well. Those who want to be in bondage, immature, cursed, estranged from Jesus, and associated with Hagar (unclean) should go on relating to God through the law. Those who want to be free, mature, blessed, adopted by Jesus, and associated with Abraham and the true Israel of God should begin sowing to the Spirit and relating to God by faith.

This is a really good outline on Galatians by Richard Longenecker

1. SALUTATION (1:1–5)
2. REBUKE SECTION (1:6–4:11)
3. OCCASION FOR WRITING/ISSUES AT STAKE (EXORDIUM) (1:6–10)
4. AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL STATEMENTS IN DEFENSE (NARRATIO) 1:11–2:14
5. THESIS STATEMENT (1:11–12)
6. EARLY LIFE, CONVERSION AND COMMISSION (1:13–17)
7. FIRST VISIT TO JERUSALEM (1:18–24)
8. SECOND VISIT TO JERUSALEM (2:1–10)
9. THE ANTIOCH EPISODE (2:11–14)
10. THE PROPOSITION OF GALATIANS (PROPOSITIO) (2:15–21)
11. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT (PROBATIO) (3:1–4:11)
12. RIGHTEOUSNESS APART FROM THE LAW: AGAINST LEGALISM (3:1–18)
13. ARGUMENTS FROM EXPERIENCE (3:1–5)
14. ARGUMENTS FROM SCRIPTURE (3:6–14)
A. Ad Hominem Theological Arguments (3:15–18)
B. The Believer’s Life not “under Law” but “in Christ”: Against Nomism (3:19–4:7)
15. THE PURPOSE AND FUNCTION OF THE LAW (3:19–25)
16. NEW RELATIONSHIPS “IN CHRIST” (3:26–29)
17. AN ILLUSTRATION OF RELATIONSHIPS (4:1–7)
18. PAUL’S CONCERN FOR THE GALATIANS (4:8–11)
19. REQUEST SECTION (4:12–6:10)
20. EXHORTATIONS AGAINST THE JUDAIZING THREAT (EXHORTATIO, PART I) (4:12–5:12)
21. PERSONAL APPEALS (4:12–20)
A. The Hagar-Sarah Allegory (4:21–31)
22. HOLDING FAST TO FREEDOM (5:1–12)
23. EXHORTATIONS AGAINST LIBERTINE TENDENCIES (EXHORTATIO, PART II) (5:13–6:10)
24. LIFE DIRECTED BY LOVE, SERVICE TO OTHERS, AND THE SPIRIT (5:13–18)
25. THE WORKS OF THE FLESH AND THE FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT (5:19–26)
A. Doing Good to All (6:1–10)
26. SUBSCRIPTION (6:11–18)

Some of the good things about the “new calvinism.”

Four Ways 'New Calvinism' is So Powerful

• Old Calvinism was fundamental or liberal and separated from or syncretized with culture. New Calvinism is missional and seeks to create and redeem culture.
• Old Calvinism fled from the cities. New Calvinism is flooding into cities.
• Old Calvinism was cessationistic and fearful of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. New Calvinism is continuationist and joyful in the presence and power of the Holy Spirit.
• Old Calvinism was fearful and suspicious of other Christians and burned bridges. New Calvinism loves all Christians and builds bridges between them.

Tags: rants, thinking, upset, stoked, blessed, wierd worldthinking