How to critique, from Dr. James White

Not often do I completely rip off someone else's work for the sake of this Blog. However, today is going to be an exception. I have to say that Dr. White is an incredibly smart yet humble man and that when he critiques someone we should take notice not only of what he says, but how he says it. I want to direct you, reader, to his blog for a critique of William Lane Craig's view of middle knowledge.

Welcome back.

I want to point out several things. First is the biblical emphasis that the post has, the repeated statement of being grieved at the sub-biblical nature of Middle Knowledge (Molinism). I think that this speaks to not only how but why we critique someone else who claims to be within the Christian faith. First, is the relation of their teaching to biblical revelation, in other words, how does what this person says relate to Scripture (our guide). Second, the critique focus upon the effect of the theology on those who embrace it. In this case, Dr. White is saying the theology in question points people away from scripture. Finally, he responds with his desire for repentance toward God for this sub-biblical theology/philosophy.

The Gospel centered focus of this gives all of us something to look toward as an example of how we should critique those whom we disagree. In a someone practical way I believe that we can rightly apply Philippians 4:9 to Dr. James White.

A Grace Gem by J. R, Miller

If you don't get Grace Gems, I highly suggest that you do. They are both challenging and encouraging at the same time, and they give a picture of what Christians have thought and said in the past. They often go by author, and I have to say that J.R. Miller is quickly become someone I deeply respect. Here is today's devotion for your consideration.

(J. R. Miller, "The Beauty of Quietness" 1903)

"They will be like dew sent by the Lord." Micah 5:7

The lives of godly people are sometimes compared to the dew. One point of likeness, is the quiet way in which the dew performs its ministry. It falls silently and imperceptibly. It makes no noise. No one hears it dropping. It chooses its time in the night when men are sleeping, when none can see its beautiful work. It covers the leaves with clusters of pearls. It steals into the bosoms of the flowers, and leaves new cupfuls of sweetness there. It pours itself down among the roots of the grasses and tender herbs and plants. It loses itself altogether, and yet it is not lost. For in the morning there is fresh life everywhere, and new beauty. The fields are greener, the gardens are more fragrant, and all nature is clothed in fresh luxuriance!

Is there not in this simile, a suggestion as to the way we should seek to do good in this world? Should we not wish to have our influence felt--while no one thinks of us; rather than that we should be seen and heard and praised? Should we not be willing to lose ourselves in the service of self-forgetful love, as the dew loses itself in the bosom of the rose--caring only that other lives shall be sweeter, happier, and holier--and not that honor shall come to us? We are too anxious, some of us, that our names shall be written in large letters on the things we do, even on what we do for our Master; and are not willing to sink ourselves out of sight--and let Him alone have the praise.

Our Lord's teaching on the subject is very plain. He says: "Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full." That is, they have that which they seek--the applause of men.

"But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." The meaning would seem to be, that we are not to wish people to know of our good deeds, our charities, our self-denials; that we should not seek publicity, when we give money or do good works; indeed, that we are not even to tell ourselves what we have done; that we are not to think about our own good deeds so as to become conscious of them; not to put them down in our diaries and go about complimenting ourselves, throwing bouquets at ourselves, and whispering: "How good I am! What fine things I have done!"

This is an insightful test of our lives. Are we willing to be as the dew--to steal abroad in the darkness, carrying blessings to men's doors, blessings that shall enrich the lives of others and do them good--and then steal away again before those we have helped or blessed awaken, to know what hand it was that brought the gift? Are we willing to work for others . . .
without gratitude,
without recognition,
without human praise,
without requital?

Are we content to have our lives poured out like the dew--to bless the world and make it more fruitful--and yet remain hidden away ourselves? Is it enough for us to see the fruits of our toil and sacrifice--in others' spiritual growth, and deeper happiness; yet never hear our names spoken in praise or honor--perhaps even hearing others praised for things we have done?

If you go about doing good in simple ways, in gentle kindnesses, not thinking of reward, not dreaming of praise, not hoping for any return--you are enshrining your name where it will have immortal honor! Our lesson teaches us that this is the way we are to live--if we are followers of Christ!

Husband and Wives as Christ and the Church

I was doing dishes this evening and I was simply musing on something, and I figured I would put it up on here for consideration. I would especially ask for a few wives ( maybe even my own) to comment.

In Ephesians 5, Paul likens the Husband and Wife to Christ and the church, and says that wives are to submit to their husband's as they submit to The Lord. Now in general if Jesus were to ask you to do something, and you were to fail to do it (ie, the 3 and prayer on the Mt. of Olives) it would be sin. My thought was, does this follow with the husband wife relationship or is Paul simply saying that this is the seriousness with with you are submit to your husband.

So ladies, If you husband asks you to clean the house, make dinner, have sex, whatever, is it in your mind that you are to submit to him as to Jesus. Do you think you are to submit to the request as if Jesus was asking?

As a note, I have no conclusion, or statement either way, I am not looking for my wife to do something, but I am posing a serious theological question.

A discussion of Heb 1:1-2, with an Outlawpreacher

On twitter, I have been having a discussion with a guy by the name of pastornar abbout Hebrews 1:1-2, and it's relation to direct revelation from God to us(you). Keep in mind that twitter limits you to 160 characters, several of which go toward the persons name, ect...

"I believe the Scriptures say that in these last days he has spoken to us in/thru his Son.... If the Head of the Body cannot directly communicate with the Body we have a weak, sick, handicapped Body."

Now he is referencing as you can tell, Hebrews 1:1-2.

Here is what that text says, (ESV) Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.

Simple questions here:
What is then tense of Spoken, I would say past.
Did God speak to your fathers by the prophets? Unless you are Jewish, No.
Did the author of this text mean for it to imply that Christ is actively speaking to the people via special revelation? I Would say no, and here is why --

According to Vincent's Word Studies, the literal greek rendering of the phrase 'in these last days' is "at the last of these days." Notable Commentator John Gill says about this -

[...] the Alexandrian copy, the Complutensian edition, and several other copies, read, "in the last of these days": perfectly agreeable to the phrase באחרית הימים, used in Gen_49:1 to which the apostle refers, and in which places the days of the Messiah are intended; and it is a rule with the Jews, that wherever the phrase, "the last days", is mentioned, the days of the Messiah are designed: and they are to be understood not of the last days of the natural world, but of, the Jewish world and state;[...]

Clearly the time period of Christ was the 'last days' for the Jewish nation and for temple based Judaism with the destruction of the temple in 70 AD.
The question that should follow in our minds then is, Does this passage speak of direct personal special revelation from Christ to all individual Christians, or is it speaking about God's revelation of the Gospel through his son? Given the direct context I would submit that the later interpretation is more accurate to what the author had in mind when writing this text.

Biblical Modesty v. Legalist Dress Codes

I think that the topic of biblical modesty for women is one that is both of prime importance and practical significance. To that end, I would like to submit a view to be considered, namely that a legalistic dress code is equally sinful when compared to immodest dress.

"Being more conservative than scripture is no more praiseworthy than being more liberal than scripture." - Doug Eaton

The problem of the legalistic dress code is that it does not allow two important things. First, it denies woman's ability to live the gospel out in their dress, and instead it forces women back under the law. Second, it defines what is 'modest' generally in terms of Historical American dress, and thus, defines the bible's concept by our culture. Let me give an example. The blog Modesty tells us that " Modest dress is dressing in dresses or skirts [...]" it continues to say that if a women isn't covered from neck to ankle, with full sleeves that "she is dressing like a harlot." I would love to hear this women try to give a biblical guideline, for someone of a non-american culture. I also loved the womans statement after showing some photo's that when asked about these womens dress she states, "If he is a real godly man he will tell you that these women look like harlots." The arrogance that is present is staggering.

Looking at the Bible:

The bible speaks of modesty at several points, most clearly, 1 Tim 2:8-10. It is also noteworthy, that women in Proverbs 31 is never said or give a specific mode of dress other then she is clothed with fine linen and purple (ESV).

I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness--with good works. (1 Timothy 2:8-10 ESV).

The questions to be answered are, what is respectable apparel, and what is costly attire? I don't think that these questions have a specific answer, and by that I mean that the answer is different for different cultures. In some cultures, that may mean neck to ankle, in others it may mean something less. I can only imagine that standard being applied to places where weather would make that impossible, or where it is still only hide that is used for coverings. My point is this, we must allow the gospel to define modesty for us, not a set of rules. We need to function from grace and in a manner that is set at glorifying God, not obeying the law.

Eugene Peterson, Author of The Message Bible

I am well aware that people know my thoughts on The Message Bible (See image for reference) but I have to say that the author of said work, Eugene Peterson, has written something that I think is Perfectly Brilliant. So without delay here are Eugene Peterson's comments on the Church and Pastors...

For a long time, I have been convinced that I could take a person with a high school education, give him or her a six-month trade school training, and provide a pastor who would be satisfactory to any discriminating American congregation. The curriculum would consist of four courses.

Course I: Creative Plagiarism. I would put you in touch with a wide range of excellent and inspirational talks, show you how to alter them just enough to obscure their origins, and get you a reputation for wit and wisdom.

Course II: Voice Control for Prayer and Counseling. We would develop your own distinct style of Holy Joe intonation, acquiring the skill in resonance and modulation that conveys and unmistakable aura of sanctity.

Course III: Efficient Office Management. There is nothing that parishioners admire more in their pastors than the capacity to run a tight ship administratively. If we return all phone calls within twenty-four hours, answer all the letters within a week, distributing enough carbons to key people so that they know we are on top of things, and have just the right amount of clutter on our desk—not too much, or we appear inefficient, not too little or we appear underemployed—we quickly get the reputation for efficiency that is far more important than anything that we actually do.

Course IV: Image Projection. Here we would master the half-dozen well-known and easily implemented devices that that create the impression that we are terrifically busy and widely sought after for counsel by influential people in the community. A one-week refresher course each year would introduce new phrases that would convince our parishioners that we are bold innovators on the cutting edge of the megatrends and at the same time solidly rooted in all the traditional values of our sainted ancestors.

(I have been laughing for several years over this trade school training with which I plan to make my fortune. Recently, though, the joke has backfired on me. I keep seeing advertisements for institutes and workshops all over the country that invite pastors to sign up for this exact curriculum. The advertised course offerings are not quite as honestly labeled as mine, but the content appears to be identical—a curriculum that trains pastors to satisfy the current consumer tastes in religion. I’m not laughing anymore.)

from Working the Angles: The Shape of Pastoral Integrity (pp. 7-8), As quoted by Matt Chandler.

Event Review : Hellhouse

Backstory: The Church, Andy specifically, received an invite from a semi-local church who for Halloween was putting on a 'hellhouse.' When I first heard about the event, and saw the postcard/flier I was less the enthusiastic to be sure. I find no pleasure in putting ones self into frighting situations for entertainment. However, when I read the accompanying letter with tickets, I was attracted.

The Letter boasted that 1 in 4 people going through this pray a prayer of salvation, and 25% of those are for the first time! (notice that out of 16 people, 4 "make a decision" and 3 of those have done it before...). It seemed that I would be going to the Hellhouse after all, to see if it was indeed an effective evangelistic tool, what the Gospel presentation was, ect... (all those minor theological issues) I felt it to be wise to take along someone, and go figure there were two tickets.

Into The Hellhouse: I will note that I was a bit distracted, it was a cold (mid 40's) evening and we arrived at the hellhouse at about midnight Halloween night (so technically this morning). As a personal note, an event center is not a strictly understood indoor venue per se, and a jacket would have been a wise addition to the lone t-shirt I was wearing. There was a line when we arrived, which is to be expected, however, it wasn't a long one. We waited just about 30 minutes to enter. Walking through the double doors covered with what seemed to be black plastic sheets of some sort, it was difficult to see, and we were guided as a small herd to the center of the room, it was then that I first noticed our tour guides, they were 'demons' In the center of the room was a young lady (teen) in a casket. The main tour guide (again, demon) began telling us how we would all end up like this some day, and that it was his goal to make it sooner rather then later.

The next room was a bathroom, with a teen boy sitting on the toilet. The tour guide began to explain how much he enjoyed suicide. A drama was played out where a demon lead the young man essentially from life problems ( girlfriend issues, Sports teams, absent father) to the point of suicide. The end was predictable, with the young man shooting himself, and the demon rejoicing. (no blood/guts). The before entering the next room the demons (about 4 or 5 that traveled with the group, began telling us about their next scheme, Sex. As we entered the next room, I was shocked; the setup was that we would be seeing a boyfriend and girlfriend after prom, with her parents away, and they were in love (dating all of three weeks). In a bed, was a shirtless young man, and a clothed young lady (presumably of High School age) making out, hardcore. The tour guide calls for the execution of the pearl of her virginity. This is followed by her hearing the tour guide and the boy getting down to business so to speak. She under the blanket she removes her shirt, and the couple have simulated sex. The demons dance in pleasure sing, "that's the way I like it, uh-huh, uh-huh." The boy leaves, and the girl is left alone, weeping.

The next room was an accident scene, where 3 had died, and one young man, had lived. He falls out of his car, with a beer bottle, weeping. Paramedics arrive, and explain that the other people are dead. The scene ends with the demons rejoicing. We are then ushered it to a party scene. A girl was encouraged to remove some clothing, and drink. She passed out, and some boys said they would have their way with her. However, the demons spoke not of the rape, but of the drinking.

The next room, from my understanding is a staple at all hellhouses and that is the abortion room. I have to say that it was not overly realistic, but there was gore. Mostly a screaming girl and an uncaring doctor... The demons rejoiced at the death of infants. The room that followed, was perhaps the most striking of the entire experience, and it was the newly emptied womb, the mother, and four manifestations of the dead child, as a young child, a teen, a bride and as an old women. This was combine with a weeping mother and the "angel of the future."

The next room was, hell. It was stereotypical, demons torturing people for pleasure, Satan as the king, he even had a throne. The general message was that it was Satan's goal to get you there. We were then ushered into a room that had 5 floor to ceiling coffins. We were put into them and the were locked on both sides. After a short time the opposite door opened to a bright, all white heaven, complete with Jesus and Angels. Jesus had no throne but stood and addressed us. The final place we were taken into was the 'decision' room. One of the youth pastors addressed as and basically made an alter call.

The Christian Perspective I think that there are several things that were extremely problematic about this Hellhouse. First, It presented an essentially dualistic view of God and Satan. Demons seemingly had the power to kill man, and God was absent. Second, The Gospel was absent. At no point was there a clear presentation of the forgiveness of sin. We were told that if your name is found in the book of life you will not parish, however, this is far from a clear gospel presentation. Moreover, the concept of repentance was also absent. There was plenty of law preaching, what sin was, was clear, but the concept of repentance was just not spoken about. However, it was only briefly mentioned of such sins as lying, cheating, stealing, and in some respects i don't think that this brief mentioning of the law really hit people. That said, it seems that if you haven't have premarital sex, or killed someone with a car, raped someone, gotten hammered, had an abortion, the law missed you. These are problems, but the width of condemnation wasn't wide enough.

The next issue is the couple in bed. Now, I am not sure if they were a married couple, which is my hope. If not, the problem is huge, and clear. Also, The Gospel in the decision room was so weak and anemic that it hardly recognizable. The message of do you know where you are going when you die, is not the Gospel. I wonder what the 1/16 first time responders really responded to. Was it the Fear of God's Wrath? I don't think so. Was it brokenness over their sin? I don't think the presentation definitionally warranted the belief that we have sinned against a holy and righteous God. I struggle with the presentation of the powerful Satan, and the yearning God.

Concluding Thoughts: The Hellhouse was an interesting experience. Would I say it is an effective evangelism tool? Maybe. There were significant issues with this one, that made it problematic, however, I think that it could be done in such a way as to present truly biblical views. That said, I don't think that it takes the place of preaching the forgiveness of Sin in Jesus' name. I struggle with the tactic in general. I don't think it is by definition sinful. I would be interested to see the results v/ cost, as well as a defense of charging people to enter. Overally, I rate the event a 2 out of 10 for evangelistic value, Gospel Centered, and Biblical Accuracy.