As a Grade 9 student I debated with a friend in gym class whether one should save himself or herself until marriage. I said yes. That was in 1996. In 2001 on a youth trip the discussion arose again, and I argued for chastity until marriage. I spoke in 2004 at my university about the joys of sexual abstinence.
It’s 2007 and my views haven’t changed. As they shouldn’t. I am a Christian, after all.
There has been a recent flurry of articles (connected mostly with the publishing of two books), which claim that young people are saying no in increasing numbers.
This is, of course, heartening – although the emphasis in so many of the articles that this has NOTHING to do with religion is bizarre.
I’m not convinced secularists are capable (in a spiritual dimension) to abstain until marriage. But it is good they are trying.
The comments posted below an article in today’s Globe and Mail are amazing.
Nearly all argue that virginity is not especially important – and some even argue that abstaining is immoral!
They are, of course, dead wrong. This issue is not one up for debate: Celibacy in singleness and faithfulness in marriage.
“Not having sex for any reason (excluding physical ailment) is not normal or healthy,” wrote Gordon Biddy.
Josh Gould said, “In an age when most people are not married until their mid- or more often their late 20s, waiting until marriage isn't a very sound plan.”
Oye.
How true Thomas Watson’s words ring, when he wrote, “Original sin has defiled the heart. The heart is deadly wicked. In the heart are legions of lusts, obdurateness, infidelity, hypocrisy, sinful estuations; it boils as the sea with passion and revenge.”
Source: Thomas Watson, A Body of Divinity (1692), Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, p.145.
Siri Agrell, “Chaste by choice” The Globe and Mail, 26 July 2007. Accessed 26 July 2007. Available: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070726.wxlvirgins26/BNStory/lifeMain/home
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Thwarted..again
I’ve been thwarted – once again.
The lyrics from Sanctus Real’s song I’m Not Alright are fitting.
Can I lose my need to impress?
If you want the truth, I need to confess
I’m not all right
I’m broken inside
And all I go through
It leads me to you
Burn away the pride
Bring me to my weakness
Until everything I hide behind is gone
And when I’m open wide
With nothing left to cling to
Only you are there to lead me on
Cause honestly, I’m not that strong
The lyrics from Sanctus Real’s song I’m Not Alright are fitting.
Can I lose my need to impress?
If you want the truth, I need to confess
I’m not all right
I’m broken inside
And all I go through
It leads me to you
Burn away the pride
Bring me to my weakness
Until everything I hide behind is gone
And when I’m open wide
With nothing left to cling to
Only you are there to lead me on
Cause honestly, I’m not that strong
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Nick Vujicic
Nick Vujicic is just six days older than me.
Nick, an Australian who is a motivational speaker, says his objective in life is to preach the gospel to the world…and he has done just that! To, apparently, over a million people.
He has an amazing testimony.
Nick was born without legs or arms.
Yet, he manages to live independently.
Praise God for His faithfulness in providing for Nick. May He continue to bless and encourage Nick as he shares his message with people around the world.
Nick, an Australian who is a motivational speaker, says his objective in life is to preach the gospel to the world…and he has done just that! To, apparently, over a million people.
He has an amazing testimony.
Nick was born without legs or arms.
Yet, he manages to live independently.
Praise God for His faithfulness in providing for Nick. May He continue to bless and encourage Nick as he shares his message with people around the world.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Alan Weisman
At the very least Alan Weisman is honest. Honest about the logical conclusions that stem from a secular Darwinian evolutionary worldview. Few of his cohorts are as blunt as he is.
An article in The Globe and Mail profiled his book today, which details a world without people.
“It's a crafty paradox, and an oddly satisfying way of soothing the anxieties that the save-the-planet crowd necessarily trade in,” writes journalist John Allemang. “We can appreciate the wonders of the natural world much more when we're not in the picture.”
Now. Mr. Weisman is not a theologian, a scientist or a historian. He’s a journalist. His opinions are interesting, but odd. It’s secular humanism sans the humanism.
The crux of his argument is not novel per say – for humans have rebelled against God since the Fall – and have revelled in what a post-human world may look like. Take, Earth Abides, a popular post-apocalypitc science fiction book published in 1949, for example.
The author of the article makes an observation more ironic then perhaps he is aware. “The prospect of the Last Judgment is less compelling now,” he writes. “As fewer people fit their lives to God's judgment, some other kind of warning has to be devised to remind more earthbound consciences of where all our human vanities are leading.”
Such ‘earthbound consciences’, however, is ultimately vain.
Walt O’Brien makes this observation in the comments section of the article: “Messianic medievalism, which this writer promotes, comes down to one simple practical joke based on the concept of: "Your life is worth nothing, and life is meaningless, so you must do this for me." It is slavemaking in its most basic form and the launching concept for every religious war in human history.”
Indeed, his anti-human views are almost Calvinistic in pessimism, but lack the hope of redemption in Christ.
Mr. Weisman fails to make a distinction between humans and animals (which is again, another logical deduction in the evolutionist worldview).
Such a worldview may take different shapes, but it is not new.
Jonathan Edwards said in 1753, “The dreadfulness of their depravity appears in that they are so sottishly blind and ignorant. God gave man a faculty of reason and understanding, which is a noble faculty. Herein he differs from all other creatures here below. He is exalted in his nature above them, and is in this respect like the angels, and is made capable to know God, and to know spiritual and eternal things. And God gave him understanding for this end, that he might know him, and know heavenly things and made him as capable to know these things as any others. But man has debased himself and has lost his glory in this respect. He has become as ignorant of the excellency of God, as the very beasts.”
Indeed, because the hearts of the unregenerate are darkened by the condition of human sin, they are incapable of understanding truth. Mr. Weisman is a prime example.
I started by staying that his views logically stem from his worldview. But, it’s not completely logical. As someone noted in the comments section, “This kind of anti-human thinking is the core of modern environmental extremism. True believers should logically lead the way and eradicate themselves. But they don't.”
Sources:
John Allemang, “Author sees happy ending without humans” The Globe and Mail, 21 July 2007. Accessed 21 July 2007. Available: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070720.wworld0720/BNStory/Entertainment/home
Jonathan Edwards, Natural Men in a Dreadful Condition, February 1753, Accessed 21 July 2007. Available: http://www.biblebb.com/files/edwards/dreadful.htm
An article in The Globe and Mail profiled his book today, which details a world without people.
“It's a crafty paradox, and an oddly satisfying way of soothing the anxieties that the save-the-planet crowd necessarily trade in,” writes journalist John Allemang. “We can appreciate the wonders of the natural world much more when we're not in the picture.”
Now. Mr. Weisman is not a theologian, a scientist or a historian. He’s a journalist. His opinions are interesting, but odd. It’s secular humanism sans the humanism.
The crux of his argument is not novel per say – for humans have rebelled against God since the Fall – and have revelled in what a post-human world may look like. Take, Earth Abides, a popular post-apocalypitc science fiction book published in 1949, for example.
The author of the article makes an observation more ironic then perhaps he is aware. “The prospect of the Last Judgment is less compelling now,” he writes. “As fewer people fit their lives to God's judgment, some other kind of warning has to be devised to remind more earthbound consciences of where all our human vanities are leading.”
Such ‘earthbound consciences’, however, is ultimately vain.
Walt O’Brien makes this observation in the comments section of the article: “Messianic medievalism, which this writer promotes, comes down to one simple practical joke based on the concept of: "Your life is worth nothing, and life is meaningless, so you must do this for me." It is slavemaking in its most basic form and the launching concept for every religious war in human history.”
Indeed, his anti-human views are almost Calvinistic in pessimism, but lack the hope of redemption in Christ.
Mr. Weisman fails to make a distinction between humans and animals (which is again, another logical deduction in the evolutionist worldview).
Such a worldview may take different shapes, but it is not new.
Jonathan Edwards said in 1753, “The dreadfulness of their depravity appears in that they are so sottishly blind and ignorant. God gave man a faculty of reason and understanding, which is a noble faculty. Herein he differs from all other creatures here below. He is exalted in his nature above them, and is in this respect like the angels, and is made capable to know God, and to know spiritual and eternal things. And God gave him understanding for this end, that he might know him, and know heavenly things and made him as capable to know these things as any others. But man has debased himself and has lost his glory in this respect. He has become as ignorant of the excellency of God, as the very beasts.”
Indeed, because the hearts of the unregenerate are darkened by the condition of human sin, they are incapable of understanding truth. Mr. Weisman is a prime example.
I started by staying that his views logically stem from his worldview. But, it’s not completely logical. As someone noted in the comments section, “This kind of anti-human thinking is the core of modern environmental extremism. True believers should logically lead the way and eradicate themselves. But they don't.”
Sources:
John Allemang, “Author sees happy ending without humans” The Globe and Mail, 21 July 2007. Accessed 21 July 2007. Available: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070720.wworld0720/BNStory/Entertainment/home
Jonathan Edwards, Natural Men in a Dreadful Condition, February 1753, Accessed 21 July 2007. Available: http://www.biblebb.com/files/edwards/dreadful.htm
Friday, July 20, 2007
Archbishop Akinola
The Times of London recently published a fascinating interview with Archbishop Akinola of Nigeria, who has been demonized by many in the liberal faction of the church.
His life experiences are certainly much different than his opponents. For instance he said, “Another uncle of mine was not thinking well of me. He was going to sacrifice me for a ritual to make money.”
Not too many Westeners can say they narrowly escaped murder – let alone murder by a family member as a sacrifice.
The Lord has seen fit to double the church in Nigeria under his leadership, whose views are actually liberal by Nigerian standards.
Some of his comments are breathtakingly refreshing and reassuring. “Our unity will never be at the expense of truth, of the historic faith,” he said.
“We have not broken the law. It is your churches that are breaking the law. You are the ones breaking the rules. You are the ones doing what should not be done with impunity. We are saying you cannot sweep it under the carpet. Maybe in the past you could get away with it, but not any more. We have aged. So we are not breaking away from anybody. We remain Anglicans. We are Anglican Church. We will die Anglicans. We are going nowhere.”
And the people said – Amen!
And, to top it all, he was interviewed barefoot.
Praise God for Archbishop Akinola’s faithfulness, courage and humbleness.
Source:
Ruth Gledhill, “For God’s sake,” The Times of London. 5 July 2007. Accessed 19 July 2007. Available: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2026348.ece
His life experiences are certainly much different than his opponents. For instance he said, “Another uncle of mine was not thinking well of me. He was going to sacrifice me for a ritual to make money.”
Not too many Westeners can say they narrowly escaped murder – let alone murder by a family member as a sacrifice.
The Lord has seen fit to double the church in Nigeria under his leadership, whose views are actually liberal by Nigerian standards.
Some of his comments are breathtakingly refreshing and reassuring. “Our unity will never be at the expense of truth, of the historic faith,” he said.
“We have not broken the law. It is your churches that are breaking the law. You are the ones breaking the rules. You are the ones doing what should not be done with impunity. We are saying you cannot sweep it under the carpet. Maybe in the past you could get away with it, but not any more. We have aged. So we are not breaking away from anybody. We remain Anglicans. We are Anglican Church. We will die Anglicans. We are going nowhere.”
And the people said – Amen!
And, to top it all, he was interviewed barefoot.
Praise God for Archbishop Akinola’s faithfulness, courage and humbleness.
Source:
Ruth Gledhill, “For God’s sake,” The Times of London. 5 July 2007. Accessed 19 July 2007. Available: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2026348.ece
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Hebrews 6:6
…if they then fall away, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding Him up to contempt.
There is a falling away that is irreversible (1 John 5:16), although according to 1 John 2:19, anyone who makes the decision to abandon the Church was not really a member of the faith, although they seemed to be. By renouncing their faith in Christ they declare that the cross is not a holy sacrifice for others’ sins (and their own), but the deserved execution of a guilty criminal (10:29).
According to the Reformation Bible editors, “Such apostates have returned to a point where the Cross does nothing but condemn them as accomplices in murder (Acts 18:5,6).”
There is a falling away that is irreversible (1 John 5:16), although according to 1 John 2:19, anyone who makes the decision to abandon the Church was not really a member of the faith, although they seemed to be. By renouncing their faith in Christ they declare that the cross is not a holy sacrifice for others’ sins (and their own), but the deserved execution of a guilty criminal (10:29).
According to the Reformation Bible editors, “Such apostates have returned to a point where the Cross does nothing but condemn them as accomplices in murder (Acts 18:5,6).”
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Modest Dress
Now, I know one shouldn’t gloat.
But.
"Looking `wild' and acting `wild' are supposed to be empowering, but more often they lead to misery, especially for young women who quickly learn to put their emotions in deep freeze to do what is expected," wrote Wendy Shalit in a book called Girls Gone Mild.
This observation, of course, is not exactly earth shattering; especially for someone in the evangelical subculture and committed to the Christian worldview.
Yet, Mrs. Shalit is not a Christian. Rather, she was raised as a secular Jew (Please see edit note at the end of the posting). And that’s what makes her two books - which according to a Toronto Star article published today, are about ‘young women reclaiming their self-respect’ and ‘rejecting promiscuity and the hypersexuality of popular culture and fashion’ – so interesting.
The article was one of those that the editors at getreligion.org identity as having a religion ghost between the lines.
“The truly empowering message today, Shalit believes, is that it's okay to dress and behave modestly, to set boundaries and to say no”.
Well….duh.
Now, I’m not trying to be facetious. Such a message is indeed empowering, but for faithful Christians, Jews and Muslims (especially!), covering-up isn’t exactly a novel concept.
It is encouraging, however, that secularists are taking notice and reassessing the value of a sexualized culture.
"I'm challenging their whole world view," she says, about the traditional feminist tenet that being openly sexual empowers women.
She explained that women in the 1960s who believed it was important to flaunt their features are surprised to learn that their rebellion has passed onto younger, and younger girls.
Again, there’s nothing especially unique about her observation. Evangelicals have decried the unhealthy and immoral ramifications borne out by the sexual revolution for decades.
And this is where the posting was supposed to end.
But it won’t, because according to a recent Newsweek article there is two interesting tidbits of relevant information the Toronto Star reporter left out.
Mrs. Shalit, may have grown up as a secular Jew, but is now an Orthodox Jew. She’s even married to a rabbi! Talk about a MAJOR religion ghost.
And in the Newsweek article Mrs. Shalit points out that many girls she profiles are, in fact, motivated by religion. (Surprise, surprise)!
So then. Perhaps this new modesty movement isn’t really all that new – expect to urbane, secular Toronto Star reporters.
Sources
Judy Gerstel, 'How the `bad' girl became good' The Toronto Star. 18 July 2007. Accessed 18 July 2007. Available: http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/236893
Jennie Yabroff, "Girls Gone Mild(er)" Newsweek. 23 July 2007. Accessed 18 July 2007. Available: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19762075/site/newsweek/page/0/
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Moral Confusion
Os Guinness is a wonderfully perceptive observer of North American culture. In his book Unspeakable: Facing Up to the Challenge of Evil, he argues that the common understanding of evil is muddled – to the point that many are hesitant to say evil exists.
After the school shooting at Virginia Tech this spring, several commentators were quick to point out that some were at a loss to explain the horrific events, because they refuse to identity any act, or anyone as evil.
Mr. Guinness writes, “That Americans could be confused over the word evil, and the controversies to which it leads, should not be surprising. The nation with the most radical view of evil at its core – embedded in the separation of powers in the Constitution – has been shown to have current views of evil that are weak, hesitant, contradictory, and far from shared. ‘Whatever became of sin?’ Karl Menninger asked his fellow Americans a generation ago. The tough-minded realism of the traditional American view of evil defined under God as sin has softened into evil defined before the law as crime, and then degenerated further into low self-esteem – the infamous ‘hole in the soul’ that was the poster problem of the eighties and nineties.”
He goes on to explain several factors that have led to this shift in the public’s view of evil to create “the sorry state of moral illiteracy and intellectual cowardice in which we find ourselves in”
“Progressivism in philosophy and politics has replaced evil with utopian views of human goodness and led people and whole societies to believe that people are truly getting better and better on an ever-upward march to peace and prosperity,” he writes. “Polyannaism at the level of popular culture has given many Americans a constitutional prospensity to look on the bright side of everything and plaster life with rainbows and smiley buttons.”
Further, “And most recently, postmodernism, with its insistence on relativism and its drive to unmask truth claims as disguised bids for power, has spawned legions of people who pronounce all judgments of evil to be judgmental and evil themselves. Some have even acted as if it were worse to judge evil than to do evil.”
Mr. Guinness also suggests that, “philosophy has not lived up to its promise of illuminating life with reason.”
Unfortunately as moral certainties fade we find ourselves peering into the heart of darkness incapable of appropriately addressing the problem of evil.
Source: Os Guinness, Unspeakable: Facing Up to the Challenge of Evil, San Francisco: Harper SanFrancisco, 2005, pp.7-8.
After the school shooting at Virginia Tech this spring, several commentators were quick to point out that some were at a loss to explain the horrific events, because they refuse to identity any act, or anyone as evil.
Mr. Guinness writes, “That Americans could be confused over the word evil, and the controversies to which it leads, should not be surprising. The nation with the most radical view of evil at its core – embedded in the separation of powers in the Constitution – has been shown to have current views of evil that are weak, hesitant, contradictory, and far from shared. ‘Whatever became of sin?’ Karl Menninger asked his fellow Americans a generation ago. The tough-minded realism of the traditional American view of evil defined under God as sin has softened into evil defined before the law as crime, and then degenerated further into low self-esteem – the infamous ‘hole in the soul’ that was the poster problem of the eighties and nineties.”
He goes on to explain several factors that have led to this shift in the public’s view of evil to create “the sorry state of moral illiteracy and intellectual cowardice in which we find ourselves in”
“Progressivism in philosophy and politics has replaced evil with utopian views of human goodness and led people and whole societies to believe that people are truly getting better and better on an ever-upward march to peace and prosperity,” he writes. “Polyannaism at the level of popular culture has given many Americans a constitutional prospensity to look on the bright side of everything and plaster life with rainbows and smiley buttons.”
Further, “And most recently, postmodernism, with its insistence on relativism and its drive to unmask truth claims as disguised bids for power, has spawned legions of people who pronounce all judgments of evil to be judgmental and evil themselves. Some have even acted as if it were worse to judge evil than to do evil.”
Mr. Guinness also suggests that, “philosophy has not lived up to its promise of illuminating life with reason.”
Unfortunately as moral certainties fade we find ourselves peering into the heart of darkness incapable of appropriately addressing the problem of evil.
Source: Os Guinness, Unspeakable: Facing Up to the Challenge of Evil, San Francisco: Harper SanFrancisco, 2005, pp.7-8.
Friday, July 13, 2007
The Chief Good
"God is the chief good, and the enjoyment of God forever is the highest felicity of which the soul is capable. Let it be the chief end of our living to enjoy this chief good hereafter. The highest elevation of a reasonable soul is to enjoy God forever. It is the enjoyment of God that makes heaven. The soul trembles as the needle in the compass, and is never at rest till it comes to God. Though the state of glory be compared to a feast and is set out by pearls and precious stones, yet these metaphors are only helps to our faith, and to show us that there is superabundant joy and felicity in the highest heaven; but they are nor carnal but spiritual delights.
Our enjoyment will be in the perfection of holiness, in seeing the pure face of Christ, in feeling the love of God, in conversing with heavenly spirits; which will be proper for the soul, and infinitely exceed all carnal voluptuous delights. We shall have a lively sense of this glorious estate. A man in a lethargy, though alive, is as good as dead, because he is not sensible, nor does he take any pleasure in his life; but we shall have a quick and lively sense of the infinite pleasure which arises from the enjoyment of God: we shall know ourselves to be happy; we shall reflect with joy upon our dignity and felicity; we shall taste every crumb of the sweetness, every drop of that pleasure which flows from God.
We shall be able to bear a sight of that glory. We could not now bear that glory, it would overwhelm us, as a weak eye cannot behold the sun; but God will capacitate us for glory; our souls shall be so heavenly, and perfected with holiness, that they may be able to enjoy the blessed vision of God."
Source: Thomas Watson, A Body of Divinity (1692), Edinburgh, The Banner of Truth Trust: 2003, p. 24.
Our enjoyment will be in the perfection of holiness, in seeing the pure face of Christ, in feeling the love of God, in conversing with heavenly spirits; which will be proper for the soul, and infinitely exceed all carnal voluptuous delights. We shall have a lively sense of this glorious estate. A man in a lethargy, though alive, is as good as dead, because he is not sensible, nor does he take any pleasure in his life; but we shall have a quick and lively sense of the infinite pleasure which arises from the enjoyment of God: we shall know ourselves to be happy; we shall reflect with joy upon our dignity and felicity; we shall taste every crumb of the sweetness, every drop of that pleasure which flows from God.
We shall be able to bear a sight of that glory. We could not now bear that glory, it would overwhelm us, as a weak eye cannot behold the sun; but God will capacitate us for glory; our souls shall be so heavenly, and perfected with holiness, that they may be able to enjoy the blessed vision of God."
Source: Thomas Watson, A Body of Divinity (1692), Edinburgh, The Banner of Truth Trust: 2003, p. 24.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Moore Reasoning
Russell Moore’s recent column about global warming is excellent. A few weeks ago he testified before the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on religious views on global warming.
He writes, “My main concern is not the neo-pagan pantheism of some environmentalist spirituality. Instead, it is an evangelical utopianism that believes, in the words of one evangelical leader, that we can "restore Eden" through legislative means. I am also deeply suspicious of the kind of doomsday scenarios laid out for us by Al Gore and others in a kind of secular Left Behind series.
He continues, “The universe is cursed, and the universe groans under the burden of this curse (Rom 8:19-22). That doesn't mean that we simply give the earth over to the ravages of its birth-pangs, anymore than we can cite the curse of literal human birth-pangs as reason not to comfort a mother in delivery. It does mean, though, that we understand the limits of "saving the world" in this time between the times. And it means that we understand that, whatever the environmentalists tell us, humanity is not a "cancer" on the earth...or a "virus," or a "fever."
The last few lines are fantastic.
“Let's take care of the earth, protect the natural order,” he writes. “But let's remember that the world is not ultimately rescued by politicians or musicians or filmmakers or scientists. The world is saved by blood, not Gore.”
Amen!
Source: Russell Moore, "Blood, Gore, and Global Warming," The Henry Institute For Evangelical Engagement, 9 July 2007. Accessed 11 July 2007. Available: http://www.henryinstitute.org/commentary_read.php?cid=398
He writes, “My main concern is not the neo-pagan pantheism of some environmentalist spirituality. Instead, it is an evangelical utopianism that believes, in the words of one evangelical leader, that we can "restore Eden" through legislative means. I am also deeply suspicious of the kind of doomsday scenarios laid out for us by Al Gore and others in a kind of secular Left Behind series.
He continues, “The universe is cursed, and the universe groans under the burden of this curse (Rom 8:19-22). That doesn't mean that we simply give the earth over to the ravages of its birth-pangs, anymore than we can cite the curse of literal human birth-pangs as reason not to comfort a mother in delivery. It does mean, though, that we understand the limits of "saving the world" in this time between the times. And it means that we understand that, whatever the environmentalists tell us, humanity is not a "cancer" on the earth...or a "virus," or a "fever."
The last few lines are fantastic.
“Let's take care of the earth, protect the natural order,” he writes. “But let's remember that the world is not ultimately rescued by politicians or musicians or filmmakers or scientists. The world is saved by blood, not Gore.”
Amen!
Source: Russell Moore, "Blood, Gore, and Global Warming," The Henry Institute For Evangelical Engagement, 9 July 2007. Accessed 11 July 2007. Available: http://www.henryinstitute.org/commentary_read.php?cid=398
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Glorifying Via Food
“We glorify God, when we have an eye to God in our natural and in our civil actions. In our natural actions; in eating and drinking. 1 Cor. X 31. ‘Whether therefore ye eat or drink, do all to the glory of God.’ A gracious person holds the golden bridle of temperance; he takes his meat as a medicine to heal the decays of nature, that he may be the fitter, by the strength he receives, for the service of God; he makes his food, not fuel for lust, but help to duty.”
I’ve never thought of food in this manner before.
Source:
Thomas Watson, A Body of Divinity (1692). Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth, 2003, p. 16.
I’ve never thought of food in this manner before.
Source:
Thomas Watson, A Body of Divinity (1692). Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth, 2003, p. 16.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Happy B-Day John!
John Calvin was born on July 10, 1509 in France.
Here is a passage he wrote on prayer:
To prayer, then, are we indebted for penetrating to those riches which are treasured up for us with our heavenly Father. For there is a kind of intercourse between God and men, by which, having entered the upper sanctuary, they appear before Him and appeal to his promises, that when necessity requires they may learn by experiences that what they believed merely on the authority of his word was not in vain. Accordingly, we see that nothing is set before us as an object of expectation from the Lord which we are not enjoined to ask of Him in prayer, so true it is that prayer digs up those treasures which the Gospel of our Lord discovers to the eye of faith. The necessity and utility of this exercise of prayer no words can sufficiently express. Assuredly it is not without cause our heavenly Father declares that our only safety is in calling upon his name, since by it we invoke the presence of his providence to watch over our interests, of his power to sustain us when weak and almost fainting, of his goodness to receive us into favour, though miserably loaded with sin; in fine, call upon him to manifest himself to us in all his perfections. Hence, admirable peace and tranquillity are given to our consciences; for the straits by which we were pressed being laid before the Lord, we rest fully satisfied with the assurance that none of our evils are unknown to him, and that he is both able and willing to make the best provision for us.
Source:
John Calvin, “Of Prayer” The Institutes of the Christian Religion.
Available: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/prayer.iii.ii.html
Here is a passage he wrote on prayer:
To prayer, then, are we indebted for penetrating to those riches which are treasured up for us with our heavenly Father. For there is a kind of intercourse between God and men, by which, having entered the upper sanctuary, they appear before Him and appeal to his promises, that when necessity requires they may learn by experiences that what they believed merely on the authority of his word was not in vain. Accordingly, we see that nothing is set before us as an object of expectation from the Lord which we are not enjoined to ask of Him in prayer, so true it is that prayer digs up those treasures which the Gospel of our Lord discovers to the eye of faith. The necessity and utility of this exercise of prayer no words can sufficiently express. Assuredly it is not without cause our heavenly Father declares that our only safety is in calling upon his name, since by it we invoke the presence of his providence to watch over our interests, of his power to sustain us when weak and almost fainting, of his goodness to receive us into favour, though miserably loaded with sin; in fine, call upon him to manifest himself to us in all his perfections. Hence, admirable peace and tranquillity are given to our consciences; for the straits by which we were pressed being laid before the Lord, we rest fully satisfied with the assurance that none of our evils are unknown to him, and that he is both able and willing to make the best provision for us.
Source:
John Calvin, “Of Prayer” The Institutes of the Christian Religion.
Available: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/prayer.iii.ii.html
Monday, July 09, 2007
Spurgeon's Humour
Charles Spurgeon, known for his Scripture-soaked sermons, was also known for his humour. I love this anecdote he describes in a lecture to his seminary students.
A gust of fresh air through the building might be to the people the next best thing to the gospel itself, at least it would put them into a fit frame of mind to receive the truth. Take trouble on week days to remove the hindrance arising from foul air.
In my former chapel, Park Street, I mentioned to my deacons several times my opinion that the upper panes of the iron-framed windows had better be taken out, as the windows were not made to open. I mentioned this several times, and nothing came of it; but it providentially happened one Monday that somebody removed most of those panes in a masterly manner, almost as well as if they had been taken out by a glazier.
There was considerable consternation, and much conjecture as to who had committed the crime, and I proposed that a reward of five pounds should be offered for the discovery of the offender, who when found should receive the amount as a present. The reward was not forthcoming, and therefore I have felt it to be my duty to inform against the individual. I trust none of you will suspect me, for if you do I shall have to confess that I walked with the stick which let the oxygen into that stifling structure.
Source:
Charles Spurgeon, “Attention!” Lectures to My Students(1875). Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978, p. 139.
A gust of fresh air through the building might be to the people the next best thing to the gospel itself, at least it would put them into a fit frame of mind to receive the truth. Take trouble on week days to remove the hindrance arising from foul air.
In my former chapel, Park Street, I mentioned to my deacons several times my opinion that the upper panes of the iron-framed windows had better be taken out, as the windows were not made to open. I mentioned this several times, and nothing came of it; but it providentially happened one Monday that somebody removed most of those panes in a masterly manner, almost as well as if they had been taken out by a glazier.
There was considerable consternation, and much conjecture as to who had committed the crime, and I proposed that a reward of five pounds should be offered for the discovery of the offender, who when found should receive the amount as a present. The reward was not forthcoming, and therefore I have felt it to be my duty to inform against the individual. I trust none of you will suspect me, for if you do I shall have to confess that I walked with the stick which let the oxygen into that stifling structure.
Source:
Charles Spurgeon, “Attention!” Lectures to My Students(1875). Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978, p. 139.
Sunday, July 08, 2007
Terminuns ad quem
It is glorifying God when we aim purely at His glory. It is one thing to advance God’s glory, another thing to aim at it. God must be the Terminus ad quem, the ultimate end of all actions. Thus Christ, John vii 50, ‘I seek not mine own glory, but the glory of Him that sent me. A hypocrite has a squint eye, for he looks more to his own glory than God’s. Our Saviour deciphers such, and gives a caveat against them in Matthew vi 2, ‘When thou givest alms, do not sound a trumpet.’ A stranger would ask, ‘What means the noise of this trumpet? It was answered, ‘They are going to give the poor.’ And so they did not give alms, but sell them for honour and applause, that they might have glory of men; the breath of men was the wind that blew the sails of their charity; ‘verily they have the wind that blew the sails of their charity; ‘verily they have their reward.’ The hypocrite may make his acquittance and write, ‘received in fully payment.’ Chrysostom calls vain-glory one of the devil’s great nets to catch men. And Cyprian says, ‘Whom Satan cannot prevail against by intemperance, those he prevails by pride and vainglory.’ Oh let us take heed of self-worshipping! Aim purely at God’s glory.
Source: Thomas Watson, A Body of Divinity (1692) Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2003, pp. 10,11.
Source: Thomas Watson, A Body of Divinity (1692) Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2003, pp. 10,11.
Saturday, July 07, 2007
07/07/07
Even in a post-Christian society, there’s something about triple sevens that speaks to people. Many chose to get married today. Others decided to throw a global concert for a ‘climate in crises’. It’s not to raise money, but to spread the word.
Good for them.
I am increasingly concerned, however, that environmentalism is morphing from a well-intentioned grassroots movement, to an ideological religious worldview.
Reusable bags are now the rage at my store. (Apparently at other grocery stores as well, which are increasingly flaunting them as a marketing strategy – and as a way to reduce their bag expenses.)
I’ve been struck by the confessional and critical nature of many of the bag users. So many people, especially recently, tell me in an apologetic and confessional manner that they use reusable bags, but had forgotten to bring them into the store.
Self-righteousness has also seeped into some of the bag-users. Twice last week I was asked WHEN (not if) the store would be eliminating plastic bags entirely. It’s a valid question, as the proposition has been badgered about in Toronto, but their tone reeked of snobbery. Another customer even accustomed the person behind them in line because he was not going to use reusable bags!
Such a sneering attitude is unfortunately often borne out of religious fundamentalism.
Apparently, a new fundamentalism has arrived.
Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus is also concerned.
“As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism,” he wrote in the Financial Times. “This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.”
He continued, "I agree with Professor Richard Lindzen from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who said: 'future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age'".
Source: Vaclav Klaus, 'Freedom, not climate, is at risk.' The Financial Times. 13 June 2007. Acccessed 7 July 2007. Available:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/9deb730a-19ca-11dc-99c5-000b5df10621.html
Good for them.
I am increasingly concerned, however, that environmentalism is morphing from a well-intentioned grassroots movement, to an ideological religious worldview.
Reusable bags are now the rage at my store. (Apparently at other grocery stores as well, which are increasingly flaunting them as a marketing strategy – and as a way to reduce their bag expenses.)
I’ve been struck by the confessional and critical nature of many of the bag users. So many people, especially recently, tell me in an apologetic and confessional manner that they use reusable bags, but had forgotten to bring them into the store.
Self-righteousness has also seeped into some of the bag-users. Twice last week I was asked WHEN (not if) the store would be eliminating plastic bags entirely. It’s a valid question, as the proposition has been badgered about in Toronto, but their tone reeked of snobbery. Another customer even accustomed the person behind them in line because he was not going to use reusable bags!
Such a sneering attitude is unfortunately often borne out of religious fundamentalism.
Apparently, a new fundamentalism has arrived.
Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus is also concerned.
“As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism,” he wrote in the Financial Times. “This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.”
He continued, "I agree with Professor Richard Lindzen from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who said: 'future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age'".
Source: Vaclav Klaus, 'Freedom, not climate, is at risk.' The Financial Times. 13 June 2007. Acccessed 7 July 2007. Available:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/9deb730a-19ca-11dc-99c5-000b5df10621.html
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Psalm 115:1
Not to us, O Lord, not to us, but to your name give glory, for the sake of your steadfast love and your faithfulness! (Psalm 115:1 ESV)
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Atonement
Christ, in dying, intended to accomplish what He did accomplish: to take away the sins of God’s elect, and to ensure that they would all be brought to faith through regeneration and preserved through faith for glory. Christ did not intend to die in this efficacious sense for everyone.
In discussing the atonement, some say that Christ died for all, and that all without exception will be saved. This is an actual universalism. A second doctrine is that Christ died for all, but that His death has no saving effect without an added faith and repentance not foreseen in His death. In other words, He died for the general purpose of making salvation possible, but the salvation of particular individuals was not included in His death. This is a hypothetical universalism. The third doctrine is that although Christ’s death was infinite in value, it was offered to save only some, those who were known beforehand. This is limited or definite atonement.
Scripture does not teach that all will be saved, ruling out actual universalism. The other two views do not differ about how many will be saved, but about the purpose for which Christ died. Scripture addresses this question. The New Testament teaches that God chose for salvation a great number of the fallen race and sent Christ into the world to save them (John 6:37-40); 10:27-29; 11:51,52; Rom. 8:28-39; Eph. 1:3-14, 1 Pet. 1:20). Christ is said to have died for a particular people, with the clear implication that His death secured their salvation (John 10:15-18; 27-29; Rom. 5:8-10; 8:32; Gal.2: 20; 3:13, 14; 4:4,5: 1 John 4:9, 10, Rev. 1:4-6; 5:9,10).
The free offer of the gospel, and the commandment to preach the good news everywhere, is not inconsistent with the teaching that Christ died for His elect people. All who come to Christ will find mercy (John 6:35, 47-51, 54-57; Rom. 1:16; 10:8-13). The gospel offers Christ, who knows His sheep. He died for them; He calls them by name, and they hear Him.
- Editors of the Reformation Study Bible
In discussing the atonement, some say that Christ died for all, and that all without exception will be saved. This is an actual universalism. A second doctrine is that Christ died for all, but that His death has no saving effect without an added faith and repentance not foreseen in His death. In other words, He died for the general purpose of making salvation possible, but the salvation of particular individuals was not included in His death. This is a hypothetical universalism. The third doctrine is that although Christ’s death was infinite in value, it was offered to save only some, those who were known beforehand. This is limited or definite atonement.
Scripture does not teach that all will be saved, ruling out actual universalism. The other two views do not differ about how many will be saved, but about the purpose for which Christ died. Scripture addresses this question. The New Testament teaches that God chose for salvation a great number of the fallen race and sent Christ into the world to save them (John 6:37-40); 10:27-29; 11:51,52; Rom. 8:28-39; Eph. 1:3-14, 1 Pet. 1:20). Christ is said to have died for a particular people, with the clear implication that His death secured their salvation (John 10:15-18; 27-29; Rom. 5:8-10; 8:32; Gal.2: 20; 3:13, 14; 4:4,5: 1 John 4:9, 10, Rev. 1:4-6; 5:9,10).
The free offer of the gospel, and the commandment to preach the good news everywhere, is not inconsistent with the teaching that Christ died for His elect people. All who come to Christ will find mercy (John 6:35, 47-51, 54-57; Rom. 1:16; 10:8-13). The gospel offers Christ, who knows His sheep. He died for them; He calls them by name, and they hear Him.
- Editors of the Reformation Study Bible
Monday, July 02, 2007
Imperative Social Service
It is customary in the democratic countries to
deplore expenditures on armaments as conflicting
with the requirements of social services. There
is a tendency to forget that the most important
social service a government can do for its people
is to keep them alive and free.
-
Air Chief Marshal J.C. Slessor
Source: Department of National Defence, Canadian Forces Aerospace Doctrine, Ottawa, 2006.
deplore expenditures on armaments as conflicting
with the requirements of social services. There
is a tendency to forget that the most important
social service a government can do for its people
is to keep them alive and free.
-
Air Chief Marshal J.C. Slessor
Source: Department of National Defence, Canadian Forces Aerospace Doctrine, Ottawa, 2006.
Sunday, July 01, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
