There have been some very minor changes since the last time I posted. We now live in South Dakota, I’ve got a new job (doing the same thing), and I cut off about a third of my left middle fingernail.
That about covers it. Questions?
You’d think with all that activity that I’d have something insightful to pass along, some profound spiritual meditation, or some entertaining diversion. Truth be told, there’s been far too much going on for anything to have taken place.
If you still need your amusement fix, try tracking Dan tracking deer. Meta-hunting.
“Education is fundamentally religious. Consequently, there is no question about whether a morality will be imposed in that education, but rather which morality will be imposed. Christians and assorted traditionalists who want a secular school system to instill anything other than secular ethics are wanting something that has never happened and can never happen.” The Case for Classical Christian Education, Doug Wilson
Thanks, Travis, for making me aware of the Whitehorse Podcast. A discussion of note from the latest:
[CP]: The whole weight of Biblical evidence is on that God condemns sinners. The bible continually says that we’re judged for what we do. Sure, Adam landed us in a terrible mess, and that’s not good. But the idea that God condemns you because of what Adam did and not what … it’s just … I find it strange. Strange.
[MH]: For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many.[15] ... The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.[17] ... For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.[19] (Romans 5, NIV)
[CP]: Certainly the infant from the mother’s womb is not hellbound for sin, which is what you’re saying.
[MH]: Absolutely.
[CP]: Hellbound from day one … mmhmm … that’s real nice.
[audience laughs]
[MH]: It’s not real nice, but we don’t let niceness dictate to us the revelation of God. God speaks to us in very stark terms, sometimes terms frankly that terrify me and keep me awake at night, but He is God and He can declare what is so in the universe.
[CP]: Yeah, sure, but it arises from your tight little system with which you manipulate the texts.
CP: Clark Pinnock
MH: Rev. Dr. Michael Horton (two too many titles?)
Pelagianism – “God would never, in fact, could never, if He’s a righteous being, command from a creature a behavior or response that the creature is not inherently able to perform.”
Note: I’m not supporting pelagianism, I’m just happy to have found a concise definition of it, and am making sure I can find it in the future.
Last night, Kate and I were discussing honor and the near absence of it in our culture. It’s still there to an extent, but any display of honor seems to be a flat and token obeisance, not a living obedience. So it’s interesting that this was one of the first things I read this morning, a quote from a book by Doug Wilson:
“Put another way, the Bible does not tell us whether the British or the American military salute is ‘more proper’ than the other. But it does require the fact of the salute. Expressions of honor are common to all human societies, and the Bible requires that we honor others and maintain such expressions of honor. To allow cultural expressions of honor to fall into disuse and to forget them is to lose the vocabulary of obedience. Then, when we find ourselves needing to obey, we have lost the means to do so. Consequently, we must distinguish between the position that says (correctly) that expressions of honor may vary and the position that says there is no such thing as an expression of honor.”
I’d be happy to find how “the Bible requires that we honor others and maintain such expressions of honor” is backed up scripturally, but it makes sense: without a full understanding of honor, how can one be obedient?
We’ve been reading a lot in 1st and 2nd Samuel, and there are plenty of references to honor. For those of us who have been so disconnected from the biblical honor system, the examples of honor that David gives seem fragmented and inconsistent. Given that David wasn’t perfect, it’s obvious that a good deal of his actions weren’t perfect either. But how do we draw a teaching from the material, when it’s not obvious to us when he’s acting out of honor, and when he’s acting out of selfishness?
Keep reading, I guess.
Because I just upgraded 4 installations of it in as many minutes.
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. – 1 John 2:2
Note: I’m not advocating any type of universalism here. I’m preparing to revisit the Calvinist doctrine of Limited Atonement at some point in time, and I wanted to have some notes on hand.
Earthly pleasure is acceptable to God as long as one realizes that anything we regard as pleasure is entirely subservient to His Will. As soon as we allow a pleasure to distract us from God, we have crossed over into sin. Conversely, when we can take pleasure in something while realizing it’s insignificance in comparison with God, it becomes immediately apparent that the pleasure is simply a gift of God’s Provision and Blessing.
Let’s say I’m eating a piece of apple pie, the best I’ve ever tasted, and God sits down right next to me and tries to initiate conversation. This is, of course, assuming that God’s Holy Presence isn’t enough to kill a man. If I totally ignore what is quite obviously the True God sitting right next to me, in order that I can fully concentrate on eating this great pie, I’m clearly in the wrong. However, if I were to drop my fork immediately, understanding the Divine Presence waits for no man’s pie (and why should it?), I can see nothing at all wrong with picking up the fork and finishing the pie when God’s through with me, thinking to myself: “I just talked to God. The mind reels. And hey, this is great pie!”
That’s a pretty simple example. There are holes in it and it doesn’t convey the idea completely. Who could say that they’d still be in the mood for pie after that? Who’s to decide when God is “through with” them? Was it Dutch Apple Pie? It is sufficient to say God is infinitely more important than any simple earthly pleasure, but I don’t think God would despise us for our pleasures if we kept that in mind and acted in accordance with it.
Last night while Kate fought aliens in her parent’s upstairs, I had a religious discussion with a hindu and a Christian of Asiatic origin. The question was asked “It’s clear that in the Old Testament, God set boundaries and limitations upon man, defining what he could or could not do/eat/etc. My question is: Why those particular things? What does not eating pig have to do with religion?”
I now consider this question somewhat nonsensical, but what intrigues me is the reaction from my companions. They looked at each other gravely, then both looked to me and the hindu said: “You know where this discussion is going, don’t you?” And then I woke up without finding out where the discussion was going. Anybody have any answers?
I am willing to make a half-hearted promise that sometime soon this site will look a lot less similar to Kate’s.
[Update: Now it does (doesn’t … whatever).]
Until then, please don’t mention it.
Hi. How are you? I’m doing fine. I had to struggle with not using third person there: “We’re doing fine.” Because although you may have thought that I was speaking for my family, I would have been speaking for myself using an entirely overused literary gimmick. So three cheers for speaking correctly.
Hello again. This is another paragraph. This is how things work, block of text, space, block of text, on and on until all the words blur into a greyish mass and end up peering back at you, wondering, who is that? What do they want? Why do they make so much noise?
Paragraph 3. I’ve been around, of course. Just … well, I’d like to say busy, but I don’t really feel that I’ve been busier than normal. Maybe I have, I guess I’m not the one to ask. I’ve been too distracted. “By what?” is a good question, but I’m inclined not to answer it. I just don’t know.
So here we are. (Ah! Not third person though, I’m referring to you, dearest reader, as well.) I moved over to Textpattern because Wordpress decided to stop rendering my index page. Being technologically inclined, I should have at least made an attempt to get to the source of the problem, but frankly, things were bad between Wordpress and I. It was time to move on.
Oh hey. At work I got a new workstation. A Mac even. I’m kind of torn between being extremely appreciative (which I am), absolutely satisfied (which I am) and somewhat peeved that it took this long to get. I won’t go into it. It’s not worth it. But there it is. Actually, here it is. Quite the beast.
Finished Mere Christianity and have moved onto some Francis Schaeffer which is reading a whole lot like McCoy, and I’m not sure if that’s because he’s got one of those contagious styles or because McCoy cribbed a lot of his work. I’ll leave the decision as an excercise for the reader.
And right now I’m heading to bed. Goodnight.
Previous
Nov 12, 2006
Category: 