miscellāneus

We Can Do Nothing

2010-06-28T09:08:00.004-05:00

Picking up the theme of my previous post, written a number of months ago, I have to tell about an experience I had yesterday. We were saying our farewells to a number a visitors to our worship service.

It had been an extraordinary time of worship and celebration. One of the missionaries we support is a Wycliffe Bible translator. Our church has known her for over 35 years, and her family is deeply embedded in the DNA of our church. She had just come home after completing the translation of the New Testament into the Maithili language, a tongue spoken by a people group of 22 million people in Nepal and India. This was an historic occasion, and we celebrated it with her and many of her acquaintances and relatives present with us.

As I was standing near the exit where people say there good-byes and God bless yous to the preacher, one gentleman stopped to commend me on the emphasis I gave in my prayers (there was no sermon on this day). He said, "You are right. We can do absolutely nothing. There's nothing we can do." He said it so very solemnly. I knew it meant a lot to him to share something with me that was so important to him. So I thanked him and he was on his way. For what he had in mind, he was probably right.

But two things happened to me internally. The first thing is this. Often people will say to me, as they leave, "I especially liked that part where you said..." and they will quote something I said, although I never said that.

The second event can best be described as an inner conflict. Theologically, the statement is wrong. I KNOW that there is no salvific merit in any of my actions in God's eyes. I know that it is God who works in me both to will and to do of his good pleasure. I know and believe the Word where it says, "apart from me you can do nothing." I get that.

But did you realize that even Jesus said this of himself? "By myself I can do nothing" (John 5:30). "I do nothing on my own" (John 8:28).

Now, Jesus did not have a sin nature to contend with. But even with a pure nature, He pointed to the fact that as the Father's Son, he was completely dependent on His Father for everything that He was to do.

Thus, we should be that much more aware of how dependent we are on Christ our Lord. We are far from sinlessly perfect; thus we have a strong bent inside of us that wants its independence from anything that sounds like the submission/obedience dynamic.

On the other hand, there are other declarations in Scripture that say things such as Paul's words. "I can do everything through him who gives me strength" (Phil 4:13). Had I whispered those words into our visitors ear in response to his words, I'm sure he would have agreed wholeheartedly.

So here is my point. The Bible nowhere says "We can do nothing." Everywhere where this is implied, there are modifiers.

Think of those heros of Bible translation in Nepal and India. For decades, day after day they would work on learning an obscure language, building contacts with key national figures who grew up in the language. Then they began to translate one paragraph at a time. It would have to be tested and retested. New fonts had to be developed by their IT department. Typesetting. Printing. Proof-reading. Publishing. Packing. Shipping. There was so much that needed to be done. Now how does that phrase sound. "Brother, we can do nothing.."

But they did it. It's not that they did nothing. It's that they did nothing apart from Him. But IN HIM, they gave it their all.

If we are standing in the right place, there are all kinds of things we can and should do. We must do.
By standing in the right place, I mean understanding and believing with all of my heart that God is Sovereign and I owe Him my all.
By standing in the right place I mean that I believe Jesus Christ atoned for all of my sin(s), and there is nothing left for me to do to "top off" any kind of payment to God by my works, penitence or devotion. Jesus indeed, "paid it all".

But now, on this side of Calvary we can and must be doing. In His strength, of course. In His name, to be sure. But we dare not be passive; there is so much to do. Let's maintain balance in our theology.

My Mess is Bigger Than your Mess

2009-11-05T10:02:00.000-05:00

In reading the blogosphere, the places I stop and read the most are Christian websites that have a reputation for linking me to great resources or those who make their research available for lesser scholars like myself. Being a part of the Reformed tradition myself, (okay, I am only a four-pointer, much in line with Calvin himself  ) I see a lot of blogs and websites that are written by those who are solidly reformed. I have one rather strange observation to make.

There are a good number of otherwise great Christians out there who are all claiming to be the chiefest of sinners. I get that there can be a plurality of chiefs. But there can only be one “chiefest of sinners”, and seeing as St Paul coined that phrase and applied that title to himself, all other ‘chiefest of sinners’ are frauds – a sin they can add to their long list.

Seriously, I understand that a thorough reading of the epistle to the Romans and the Institutes of John Calvin will teach us to know ourselves and to understand just how lost and depraved we are, apart from the merits of Christ. I havc no qualms with anyone experiencing levels of humility that rival the depth of a snake’s belly or the significance of an earthworm or gnat. But there is always a sneaking suspicion niggling in the back of my somewhat cynical mind that someone describing himself this way is really competing for the top prize for piety. I think it’s quite okay to be honest and to tell people.. “I’m a mess. That’s why I needed Jesus.” But it all begins to sound silly when we start competing over the question, “I’m a bigger mess than you are.” What’s the point in that?

Yes, let’s strive to be humble, but lets not self-consciously talk about the levels of humility we have attained. Like any other communicable attribute of our Lord, when we take our eyes off of the object of our faith and focus on the fruits of our faith, we’ve missed the point.

On Oral Tradition

2009-10-29T09:12:00.005-05:00

"For books to be read are not so profitable for me as the living voice that even until the present day resounds on the lips of their authors." -Papias
This statement was quoted to me as an argument for the validity of the Roman Catholic doctrine of Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition is what Catholics believe is the second stream of Divine revelation.
From the Official Catechism:

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."

Thus, if the Magisterium says that Sacred Tradition holds to the perpetual virginity of Mary, then it must be believed, because it bears the same authority as the written Word of God.
Here is what Bauckham says in his book "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses".

Once again, we should notice a key implication of Papias' words; he does not regard the Gospel traditions as having by this date long lost a living connection with the eyewitnesses who originated them. Whether these eyewitnesses were still living would not matter if the oral tradition were essentially independent of them. Papias assumes that the value of oral traditions depends on their derivation from still living witnesses who are still living witnesses who are still themselves repeating their testimony. Now that these are few, second hand reports of what eyewitnesses now dead used to say are valuable, but Papias' whole statement implies that the value of oral tradition decreases with distance from the personal testimony of the eyewitnesses themselves.

(Bauckham, p.29)

How One Came Back

2009-10-12T17:35:00.007-05:00

A.N. Wilson used to be an atheist. Wrote books and all that. He came back to the Christian faith. It is interesting to read what factors compelled him to accept the resurrection of Christ after all.

http://tinyurl.com/ddwppd

Here is another article by him.

http://tinyurl.com/cox4r2

I concur with what he says:

Gilbert Ryle, with donnish absurdity, called God "a category mistake". Yet the real category mistake made by atheists is not about God, but about human beings. Turn to the Table Talk of Samuel Taylor Coleridge - "Read the first chapter of Genesis without prejudice and you will be convinced at once . . . 'The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life'." And then Coleridge adds: "'And man became a living soul.' Materialism will never explain those last words."

Truth Stranger than Fiction

2009-09-22T11:09:00.002-05:00

With regularity, I find that sceptics and others who are eager to debunk Christianity will find something that from a human point of view is highly improbable and use it to support their ongoing unbelief and in some cases outright hostility against Jesus Christ and His teachings.

The objection that has been getting a lot of mileage ever since Tom Harpur’s book, The Pagan Christ hit the bookstores has to do with the alleged similarities between a lot of the older mythical gods of the Greeks and Jesus Christ. “Because some of the events are similar, and because there isn’t a whole lot of evidence of Christ's existence,” they say, “the existence of Christ must be placed in the same category of myth.”

Aside from the upside down logic of this thinking, it needs to be pointed out that improbability does not make a very good case. Let me show you an example out of our more recent history.

Let us say that in 1000 years from today, someone finds records of a George Bush, President of the USA in the late 20th century. Someone else on the other side of the country finds records indicating that there was a George Bush, President of the USA in the early part of the 21st century. It seems someone is getting their wires crossed.

Further to that, one discovers that George Bush fought a war with Iraq, but stopped at the Kuwait border, and that Saddam Hussein survived the war and continue to persecute his own people. The other archaeologist disputes those findings, saying that George Bush did indeed invade Iraq, and that Saddam’s atrocities were stopped, and that he was unceremoniously hung on the gallows and died like the dog he was.

Whom to believe?

The fact is that both claims were correct. Father and son were both presidents. And of course, we know the rest of the story because we were there. We were all eyewitnesses, through our TV’s, of the events that transpired.

But had we seen this kind of story out of Biblical history, the critics would all shake their heads. “Copycat history.. highly improbable thast there were 2 George Bushes, and even more unbelievable that they both wagewd wars on the same person and country, with different outcomes... can’t happen!” And books would be written, seminars would be held, debates would ensue.

Improbability does not a proof make. We know that now.

Is this what Paul meant by Foolishness?

2009-06-11T09:18:00.003-05:00

We are told in the letter to 1 Corinthians that the Gospel is "foolishness to those who are perishing" (1 Cor 1:18). Some people understand that to mean that it's okay to be foolish. Take the following true story as an example.

An attendant in the hospital is alone in the elevator with a vulnerable and very anxious female patient. The whirring sound of the elevator and the beep that announces each passing floor are the only sounds she hears. She is on a gurney, staring at the ceiling thinking whatever patients think about when facing the surgeon's knife. Her mouth is dry, due to a pre-op shot she has had. She is being transported to the seventh floor. That's where all 24 Operating Rooms are (called theatres back then). That's where she is going to undergo serious surgery. She has been "prepped". The attendant is a Christian. He is convicted about his pastor's sermon on evangelism the previous week. He thinks this is his moment. Oblivious to her condition, he bends over her, inches from her face and says, "If you should die tonight, and find yourself at heaven's gate, and they ask you the question, "Why should we let you into heaven.." What would you say?"

Although I have altered some details in the story, it does depict a real event. This attendant and I worked together in the operating rooms and he actually got fired for inappropriate comments to patients after the Director of Nursing received several complaints from patient families. He claimed it was persecution. It wasn't so much that he was sharing his faith, but that he was imposing his faith to a captive audience at the most inappropriate times and in very inappropriate ways. He was not attracting people to Christ. He had a knack of repelling them.

So when Paul says that the gospel of God is foolishness to the Greeks, is this what he meant? Did he mean for us to be foolish? Or can we be wise about how to share Christ with our world?

The Camel's Nose

2009-05-27T09:16:00.003-05:00

From Gleanings by D. Appleton

I love this poem!

An Arab Fable
Once in his shop a workman wrought
With languid hand and listless thought
When through the open window’s space
Behold! – A Camel thrust his face.
“My nose is cold,” he meekly cried,
Oh let me warm it by thy side.”

Since no denial word was said,
In came the nose, in came the head
As sure as sermon follows text
The long excursive neck came next,
And then, as falls the threatening storm
In leap’d the whole ungainly form.

Aghast, the owner gazed around
And on the rude invader frowned
Convinced as closer still he pressed
There was no room for such a guest,
Yet more astonished, heard him say,
“If inconvenienced, go your way,
For in this place, I choose to stay.”

Oh youthful hearts, to gladness born,
Treat not this Arab lore with scorn
To evil habit’s earliest wile
Lend neither ear nor glance nor smile,
Choke the dark fountain ere it flows,
Nor even admit the Camel’s Nose.

The Nuts and Bolts of Conflict

2009-05-12T08:30:00.003-05:00

As I look back on this morning, I notice that several small squabbles took place in our home. They were nothing serious; this level of quarrel-lite happens frequently, I must confess.

1. I was reading my Bible on the couch. My daughter wanted to watch the morning news. My dear wife was trying to talk to me over the noise of the TV. I experienced frustration. I didn't listen to her, telling her I was reading. I took my laptop, exasperated, and went off into the reading room to avoid the TV and to finish reading in silence and solitude. A voice whispers in my head, "Aren't I the holy one this morning?"

2. We have three cars in the driveway, all in a row. My wife needs to leave for work, but her car was at the top of the driveway. All three of us have a different agenda and schedule. Again, the tension levels rise, as everyone's different agenda comes to the surface and manifests itself. One is in the middle of applying some makeup artistry to her face in the bathroom, the other (me) is lost somewhere in Israel's theological problems in the book of Isaiah. The third agenda needs urgently to leave for work if she is to be punctual. We all reluctantly plod out to our cars, grumbling to ourselves, start our engines, and exit the driveway in order to let Carole get to work on time.

I go back to my Bible reading after moving my car and this is on McCheyne's reading schedule: (I read with the immediacy of that all too familiar mirror effect.) "1. What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don't they come from your desires that battle within you? 2. You want something but don't get it. You kill and covet, but you cannot have what you want. You quarrel and fight. You do not have, because you do not ask God. 3. When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures."

Two things were driven home to me. One was personal: i.e. Although we were a long way from fighting, the serious conflicts are made out of the SAME STUFF! Having conflicting desires.. and when one party will not sacrifice their agenda for another, we have a serious problem.

The second one applies to our church. This underlined the necessity for all of us to experience the SAME DESIRES in the church. We have read recently that the problem with churches is not the lack of Vision, but rather too many visions. When everyone has their OWN desires of how things ought to be, or if everyone has their own set of expectations from the church, and if their expectations are not based on Scriptures, we will experience quarrels and fights and conflict.

As we all learn (through prayer and communing with our God) from the same Source what He wants us to be passionate about, we all, slowly but surely, arrive on the same page. And we will begin working in unity, with one heart and mind for the sake of the Gospel.

Werner

Spirit cuts through clutter

2009-03-16T15:12:00.000-05:00

Giving can be an act of consecration
By Werner Peters | Special to ChristianWeek

Typing away on my laptop today reminded me of an incident I dare not forget. Years ago I was one of the very first to own a computer in the small town where I once served as a pastor. Then--as now--it was easy to get addicted to the many distractions a computer offers.

Buying the computer put me in debt, but I felt a strange impulse to do something that seemed irrational. I became aware that a children's Bible camp needed a computer, and I felt impelled to give my brand new computer to this ministry. I wasn't certain this urge was of the Lord. It certainly was not something I wanted to do.

I sat on the idea for a few days, wanting to be sure that it wasn't fleeting. Besides, I did not want to part with my computer. On the other hand, it was becoming addictive. So perhaps, I thought to myself, the Lord wanted it out of my life. I finally picked up the phone with a sigh and called the camp. To my surprise, the director there told me that someone else had given them a brand new computer just that week and they did not need another one.

Now what was I going to do? I decided to sell the computer pay off my debt. I got ready to go downtown to place an ad in the local newspaper, still puzzled about this "leading" I felt was from the Holy Spirit.

On the way out of the office I met an older believer (we'll call him John) who asked me what I was up to. I told him about my strange experience with the computer and informed him I was going to sell it. "Please don't go to place that ad," he replied. "I might be interested in buying the computer. What would it cost if I bought one just like it in the store?" (In those days we paid $1,200 to $1,400 for a computer with only one megabyte of ram and perhaps a 40 megabyte hard drive--and an amber screen.)

"John? You want a computer?" It was very unusual, particularly in those days, to see a 75-year-old man getting into computer technology. But he was a businessman and I figured he must want it for his business.

So I didn't run the ad. A couple of days later John came by my office and pulled out a roll of one hundred dollar bills. He counted them out--12 crisp new ones. I was preparing to pull things apart and help him out to the car with the various components when he said, "Wait a minute. Now the computer is mine, right?"

"Right," I said. "It's all yours. Let me help you carry it to the car."

"Well," he said, "I want you to have it."

I didn't quite understand him. I asked him to repeat what he just said.

"I want you to keep it. I am giving it back to you! I am convinced that the Lord was telling me to help you with your debt, so I bought your computer and I am giving it back to you. It's a gift."

It's one of the strangest experiences I have ever had with an "impulse." But I learned that giving something away is sometimes simply a roundabout way of consecrating something to the Lord and using it only in service for Him. That is the lesson I learned that day.

Dr. Michael Haykin on MacLaren

2008-09-22T10:40:00.001-05:00

Just this past weekend I heard Dr. Michael Haykin, and htought his presentations made the entire day worthwhile. I have found a PDF document online by him that reviews a book by MacLaren. Some may find this helpful.
sbjt-122_haykin.pdf (application/pdf Object)

2008-08-18T15:33:00.000-05:00

My friend David writes:
It's now beyond doubt that limited atonement was never a core doctrine of Reformation. Nor was it an essential doctrine of the Reformation. Indeed, it was not even a doctrine of the Reformation. The only candidates we have could be Bucer and Knox. For Knox there is no affirmation or assertion for limited atonement in his works that I know of; for sure, no express denial of it either. For Bucer, some secondary sources argue that he held to it, but I have seen statements which indicate he took the standard Augustinian line.

So apart from these two possible candidates for limited atonement, its not present in all the original Reformers.

Its just not there.

We welcome any responses that can show otherwise.

Is God at Odds with Jesus in His Intentions?

2008-07-27T20:25:00.004-05:00

Next, Reymond offers this:

It is unthinkable, because of the essential and teleological unity of the Godhead, to suppose that Christ’s sacrificial work would conflict with the overall salvific intention of the Father in any way.

In other words, if it can be proven that the Father's intention is only to save the elect, then it would be purposeless for the Son to die for the elect PLUS others. Jesus came to do the Father's will; therefore He would not act in a way that the Father's will had not decreed.

The answer to this objection is quite simple. God has revealed his desire that everyone be saved.

David: Scripture also displays God as willing and desiring by will revealed that all men be saved. Within the Will of God there is will secret, and will revealed. The work of Christ exhibits both these dimensions within the Godhead.
God is not in conflict at all. See Scudder, Charnock, Daniel and Lane on this.

Did Christ ever pray for the non-elect?

2008-07-27T19:05:00.006-05:00

The fifth line of evidence that Reymond offers is the common observation that I have heard several times from high Calvinists. Jesus only prays for the elect. He doesn't pray for the non-elect. This is a sure sign that Jesus did not intend to die for the sins of the non-elect. Otherwise, there would exist an inconsistency between his work of intercession and his sacrificial work. Sure enough, In John 17, Jesus prays,

9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. 10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.

My response: Isn't this partially an argument of silence? How are we to know WHY Jesus did not pray for non-believers at this point? One of the reasons offered to me was that Jesus would in no way pray for the non-elect, because those would be unanswered prayers, and it is inconceivable that any of Jesus' prayers would go unanswered by His Father.
David observes: And who were the ones given there in John 17? The 11 disciples are the ones given. The disciples were not a reference to the elect as a total class. And secondly, in verses 21-22 he does pray for the world, as follows:

20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

Werner: Jesus is praying that through the unity of the ELECT, the world may believe in Him! This is an incredible thing. Here is a distinction between ALL those who will believe in Jesus and the world in general. Jesus prays for the unity of all believers (i.e. the elect) so that the world may believe! Reymond's evidence is non-existent at this point.

Reymonds Evidence for Particular Atonement

2008-07-26T20:17:00.004-05:00

Next, the author uses these evidences.

God’s Redemptive Love Not Inclusive of Fallen Angels and The Irreversible Condition of Lost Men Already in Hell When Christ Died

Presenting fallen angels as evidence for a point about redemption is just plain irrelevant and totally speculative.

Here is his argument about those already condemned in eternity.

Unless one is prepared to say that Christ gave all the dead a second chance to repent (some would say a “first chance”), it is impossible to suppose that Christ died with the intention of saving those whose eternal destiny had already been sealed in death, who were at the time of his death already in hell. He clearly did not die with the intention of saving them.

David's Answer: This is a complete caricature and just plain unreasonable. Christ came into this world to save the world, i.e. the living. Christ was never sent into the realm of the dead. God loved the world that he sent his Son into the world to save the world. There is no mention of the realm of the dead. But now this is true: while a man was alive, in the realm of the living, he was an objective of redemption. Death closes the door though to the man who dies unrepentant.

Reymond says

It is difficult to believe that the Triune God intended Christ’s death for every man, woman and child, the blessing of which is enjoyed upon condition that they believe in him, when he has not arranged for everyone to hear the gospel.

David: This would negate the doctrine of the Revealed will (for example, The Lord is ...not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance) as much as the general reference of the atonement. The fact that God told us to go to every creature, as a duty, seems to counter his reference. So, rather than viewing the fact that some are not able
to hear as our failure to obey God's command to preach the gospel to every creature, Reymond uses this to prove that Jesus did not die for every creature to whom we are commanded to go with the "good news".

Response to Robert Reymond's Ten Lines of Evidence

2008-07-25T22:26:00.020-05:00

Quite recently, I received a paper entitled, Ten Lines of Evidence for the Doctrine of Particular Redemption, by Robert Reymond. I have never heard of Reymond, but a quick trip to Google tells me he is a Ph D from Bob Jones University (is that a Calvinistic school??). He is a former prof at both Covenant Theological Seminary and Knox Theological Seminary. He now preaches in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. It is obvious from his article that Reymond is a Hyper-Calvinist. For a good article on what Hyper-Calvinism is, check out what Phil Johnson (a solid five point Calvinist) says.

Hopefully, in the next few posts, I will post a point by point response to his Ten Lines of Evidence. David, my helpful online brother has already provided me with a good response, and I will be posting his contributions as well. I will always identify who the speaker is.

So here we go with his first argument which he entitles, The Particularistic Vocabulary of Scripture .

What he is referring to, of course, is the fact that some Bible verses tell us that Christ died in particular for believers, who are described as the church, his sheep, the elect, etc. Here is an example.

21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins”(Mt 1:21).

In my presentation, I dealt with this category of verses using this particularistic language by pointing out the logical fallacy that is often committed here. Don Carson speaks about this fallacy in his book, Exegetical Fallacies. It is the fallacy referred to as the Negative Inference Fallacy. He puts it this way.

"It does not necessarily follow that if a proposition is true, a negatve inference from that proposition is also true. The negative inference MAY be true, but this cannot be assumed." (Exegetical Fallacies, p. 101)

Here is a plain example of a negative inference.

a. All Big and Tall people can shop at that store
b. Raymond is neither big or tall
c. Therefore Raymond cannot shop at that store.

My conclusion (c) is not valid, because my particularist vocabulary did not go far enough. It is not exclusive vocabulary. I did not say ONLY Big and Tall people can shop at that store.

This is by far the most common exegetical mistake that supporters of Limited Atonement are making. They take the particular vocabulary of the New Testament and make it exclusive.

Reymond sees this and he does not commit the negative inference fallacy. Here is what he says.

It is true, of course, that logically a statement of particularity in itself does not necessarily preclude universality.

But then he goes on to try to prove that this category of texts where believers are mentioned in particular is still evidence of a particular atonement.

Reymond says:But it should also be evident that one of these particularizing terms—the “elect”—clearly carries with it the
implication that some are excluded from the saving intention and salvific work of Christ.
David responds: the term elect only denotes specificity and emphasis, not particularity and in no way denotes exclusivity. So if we say, Christ died for all men generally, but for the elect especially, then his argument is incorporated into our paradigm and we can say thanks for the input. This argument would work against someone who said Christ died for all in the exact same way, with no differentiation at all.

Werner: Along the same line of argumentation Reymond then turns to the passage in John 10, where Jesus speaks about His sheep. And he says, incredibly:

...how does it come about that one is his sheep? By believing on him? Not at all. Jesus said to the Jews, not (as it is often represented): “You are not my sheep because you do not believe,” but: “You do not believe because [ὅτι, hoti] you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to [believe] my voice; I know them, and they follow me” (John 10:26–27).

This is very telling. He claims that we do not become his sheep by believing. This is classic hyper-calvinism. He wants to emphasize the sovereignty of God to the extent that he wipes all human responsibility off the board. There is certainly plenty of other clear texts making belief the condition necessary to become His sheep.

Granted, Jesus says plainly in this chapter that the good shepherd gives his life for the sheep. Without resorting to the Negative Inference, how does this demonstrate that Jesus did not die for the sin of the world? This passage does not preclude that whosoever will may become his sheep by faith. This text certainly delineates sheep that belong to Jesus (believers) from those that do not belong to Him. And clearly, belief is a hallmark of those who belong to Him. But to infer from this that it is impossible for these other sheep to become his sheep by believing in Him is reading 20th century theology back into a first century inspired text.

It is as if the atonement as a standalone component is what makes them his sheep. Let's hear what WGT Shedd has to say about the atonement"

It may be asked: If atonement naturally and necessarily cancels guilt, why does not the vicarious atonement of Christ save all men indiscriminately, as the universalist contends? The substituted suffering of Christ being infinite is equal in value to the personal suffering of all mankind; why then are not all men upon the same footing and in the class of the saved, by virtue of it? The answer is because it is a natural impossibility. Vicarious atonement without faith in it is powerless to save. It is not the making of this atonement, but the trusting in it, that saves the sinner: "By faith are you saved" (Eph. 2:8); "he that believes shall be saved" (Mark 16:16). The making of this atonement merely satisfies the legal claims, and this is all that it does. If it were made but never imputed and appropriated, it would result in no salvation.

Here is David's comment:
Lets grant that they do not believe because they are not his sheep. Lets convert the terms thus: you do not believe because you are not the children of Abraham. The point is, the “true” children of Abraham would have the faith of Abraham.

Next Reymond says:
Another example is Ephesians 5:25, where Paul teaches, first, that Christ loved the church and gave himself for it. From this juxtaposition of these two verbs, it may be inferred both that the church enjoyed a special existence and a standing before Christ such that he “loved” her prior to his “giving” himself for it, and that his love for his church was the motivating power behind his “giving” himself for it. Second, Paul teaches that the husband is to love his wife just as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it. But if Christ does not love his church in a special way, different in kind from the way he loves all other people, and if the husband is to love his wife just as Christ loved the church, then the husband is to love all other women in the same way that he loves his wife—surely a grotesque ethic! For Paul’s comparison to have any meaning for his readers, Christ’s love for his church must be construed as a special particularizing, distinguishing love.

Werner: He seems to admit that Jesus Christ loves sinners who are not a part of the church(in a different sort of way, just like I ought to have a general love towards all other women. Not so grotesque after all!) Does Christ have a special love for the Church? Or course He does.
David:There is the point then. All this could preclude is the denial of the claim that Christ died in a special way for the elect. :-)

Stay tuned... more to come.

Pardon Me: You have a Petal Missing.

2008-07-25T06:59:00.006-05:00

Well, one of my summer projects has come and gone.. but I will continue to work on it for months to come. Hopefully my blog will reflect the work I am doing on the topic of Unlimited Atonement.

Last night (July 24th) I met with about 20 people, some of whom are pastors and church planters who had raised the question with me several months ago, so I began to do some research and found some fascinating work being done by David who possibly has the most extensive collection of quotations from pre-reformers, first generation reformers and post-reformers that exist anywhere on the web or in print. He doesn't write much of his own stuff per se, but just categorizes these quotes according to topics such as "The Sincere Offer", "Double Jeopardy". He is breaking new ground, and I will be unashamedly riding his coat-tails, so to speak.

I 'met' David on the web years ago. He and I were members of a theology discussion email list. At the time he was a convinced High Calvinist. The action on that discussion list got pretty hot at times. John MacArthur's right hand man, Phil Johnson was a contributor at that time, and of course they are all convinced 'five pointers'. I think I held my own, but I tired of the endless discussions and arguments. I was told by one strict Calvinist that if I did not accept Limited Atonement, I was likely not even saved. To be fair, I should add that THAT particular participant was banned from the list. I stopped following the discussions at that time. That was years ago. There are some email list members who are able to disagree rigorously and yet be affirming as a brother. David was one of those types. There are others who cannot disagree without making use of the well known ad hominem.

Recently, I started tracking discussions there again, and there was David, once an ardent High Calvinist, now arguing for a form of unlimited atonement. He had changed his viewpoint. He has since started a blog where he almost daily puts up new material. So I have taken up correspondence with him again (now that we are on the same side).

A lot of those quotations on his blog are written centuries ago in language that may be difficult to decipher, so over time I would like to mine his blog for the jewels (or precious metals, if you will) and present them in a simpler style. He has said in am email to me,

The blog is meant to be a raw-materials ammo-dump for folk to come and use.

Some might ask, "Why focus on such a narrow issue? Aren't there more important issues to deal with?"

My answer:
1. It becomes an important issue once it affects the area of evangelism (is the offer of salvation a sincere offer if Christ did not die for all?)

2. It is a huge area of interest, but can also become a point of fellowship/division. I have an email from a pastor who extends a general kind of fellowship to me, but would withhold "church fellowship" because I do not believe in particular atonement. I suppose that means he would have a coffee with me at Tim Horton's as a brother in Christ, but I would not be able to break bread with him around the Lord's Table. Perhaps someone can clarify what "church fellowship" means. The so-called doctrines of Grace can be held so ungraciously at times.

3. The question has been a theological area of interest for me for a long time now. Since I first heard of the controversy, I have wanted to get to the bottom of it. So finally I would like to put it all down in a structured manner. Hopefully it will be of help to some of you.

4. I am not aware of any other Canadian Christian who is digging deeply into this issue. If you know of any work being done by a Canadian in this area, please let me know.

5. Lastly, my work is not a reflection of any official position taken by the Associated Gospel Churches of Canada, my involvement in the Doctrine and Credentials Committee notwithstanding. Our denomination takes no position on either side of this question.

Feel free to leave your comments as I get the topic fired up. We are going to be here for awhile.

Werner

Projects for this Summer

2008-06-26T21:06:00.003-05:00

Looks like a busy summer shaping up.

1. Electric car project. I bought a used car, had the motor removed and through the summer and fall, I will be replacing the gas motor with an electric motor and a large bank of batteries. This will drain my other bank, but hopefully, you will see a grin on my face as I drive by those gas stations.

2. This next week, I will spend the entire week at the cottage. No, it's not a vacation. I will be working on drafting a constitution for our newly structured church.

3. I am developing a seminar that will present (hopefully) the biblical and historical reasons why I am only a four-pointer. A couple of internet acquaintances are helping me on the research for this. There is a huge amount of material to wade through. WHen the date for the seminar is set, I will post it here.

If it Sounds Too Good...

2008-06-18T21:14:00.004-05:00

Whatever the motive, it seems that pastors and other Christian workers are easy marks for the promise of a quick return on the dollar. Is it because "love believes all things.. hopes all things" or because we are naive that we fall for these promises?

As of the beginning of June, news of the Banyan Tree Foundation was making the rounds (google it). The Banyan Tree Foundation (BTF) had been a registered charity and offered to give you a tax deductible receipt for an amount much greater than the actual donation. They did this by 'lending' the donor the balance of the amount. It would take an accountant to explain the scheme. I have read several newspaper articles, and listened to a radio feature describing the mechanics, and I still didn't quite get it.

The CRA, after allowing these deductions for several years, have now disallowed them, and are currently going after the donours for back taxes to the total tune of over 60 million dollars! What's worse, charities that were promised big money for years to come are having to seriously curtail their operations and personnel because money that was pledged to them by BTF is not coming through.

In the last few years, I have heard stories repeatedly of this Christian or that pastor who has lost his savings to investment plans that promised a high guaranteed return.

One would think that Christians, of all people, would recognize that there are no financial guarantees in this life, ever. And just because someone comes to see you and uses his Christian label to build credibility, by no means makes his plan a sound investment. Due diligence and the old adage, "If it sounds too good to be true... it is" still applies.

I am Baffled...

2008-06-18T18:11:00.006-05:00

This just recently in the news: a psychic tells an EA that a girl in her class whose name begins with a "V" is being abused. The EA tells the school authorities who in turn call in the Children's Aid. Oh yes, the girl in question is autistic and non-verbal.

These are our educational leaders making these kinds of judgment calls. I can understand that we had better be safe than sorry when it comes to the topic of abuse of children. But I cannot understand anyone, never mind an educator, acting like this on the word of a psychic. The mother of the autistic child is withholding the child from school for the time being.
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Canada/2008/06/18/5910691-sun.html

Reading for Nuggets

2008-03-22T09:49:00.002-05:00

Following a Bible reading plan is a good thing. Recently I have re-discovered McCheyne's Bible Reading Schedule which is designed such that you will read the Bible through in a year, while reading the New Testament and the Psalms thorough twice in that same amount of time. The surprising thing about this schedule is that it only takes about 15-20 minutes per day.
Of course it does me no good if I am not paying attention to what I am reading. That's the part about routine reading that I don't like. So this morning I focused on finding something that has not occurred to be before in every section of my reading, to see if there was indeed, something new, or something that speaks to me in a new way.

Sure enough; there is. SO I will try to remember to blog those items, and if they are a blessing to you, then great! Maybe it will encourage you to read regularly as well.

In John 12, just before the week of Passion begins, Jesus says something that struck me forcefully. “When a man believes in me, he does not believe in me only, but in the one who sent me. 45 When he looks at me, he sees the one who sent me."
NIV (Jn 12:44-45).

In one sense, Jesus said this because He and the father are One. In the ensuing days Jesus said to his disciples, "If you have seen me you have seen the Father." But in another sense, it would also be right to assume that we are to take on the character of the one who sent us. Didn't Jesus also say to his disciples, "As the Father has sent me, so send I you"?
And in that sense it made me wonder: Do others see the One who sent you?

On another note, recently I have quit contributing to a discussion forum called soonet.ca. It's a discussion forum for people who live in Sault Ste Marie, Ontario or are somehow connected with the city. I lived in that area for most of my adult years, so I was a regular participant and was responsible along with another Christian or two for getting a section in that discussion forum for religious threads.

One of the ironies of that move was that the non-believing crowd complained long and hard about religious discussions in the general area because they were always the most hard fought debates.
n
But when we started our own religious column, many of the non believers followed us there and continued to harass and mock the Christians. (Funny how they never mocked the Buddhists, Pagans or Wiccans or New Agers. Never. It's also odd how in the general area, the discussions were quite heavily moderated. Whenever insults and mockery occurred, moderators stepped in and deleted or edited posts. But in the religious forum, the mockery and insults went on and on and on with little to no moderation. My requests to moderate the place myself went unheeded.)

Be that as it may, aside from the time commitment it was I have come to the realization that more damage was being done that good. It seemed that God's honour was being dragged through the mud more often than not, so I left, still wondering whether it was the right decision to make. And this morning I read:

“Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult; whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse.
8 Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you; rebuke a wise man and he will love you.
(Pr 9:7-8).

Those verses characterise perfectly the tenor of most public discussions about matters of faith.

Morgenthaler and the Order of Canada

2008-02-20T19:10:00.002-05:00

First a housekeepig detail. As soon as possible, I will cease advertising for Google. I was astonished to see an ad from them with the copy, "Why the rapture is a lie". I don't want to encourage my readers in the wrong direction. Enough said about that.

What moves me to write today is simply to point out that if Morgenthaler gets the Order of Canada, it would be another sign that we are living in the last days. The last verse in Romans 1 talks about those who encourage others to live without moral restraint. ANd we would be cheering on the worst kind of evil; the murder of thousands upon thousands of unborn children.

I don't know what difference polls make, but please take part in this poll anyway if this issue matters to you.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/v5/content/poll/static/nationalPoll.htm.

Catching Up!

2007-12-19T22:05:00.000-05:00

Well, I am back at it. Back at school, that is. I'm still nibbling away at a Master's degree, and it feels like a race against time. I say that because the more 'mature' I become, the greater the struggle to focus on the topic, or to organize a topic. I prefer to think that this happens because I have too many things going on in my head, rather than call it an age thing. At the same time I feel like it is getting more and more important for me to learn. I'm 57, but I still feel like I am just getting started. (Does that feeling ever go away?)

I am driven to learn for several reasons. I think meeting the Lord someday might have something to do with it. I want to discover what is really true and I want to be at rest for the right reasons. I hate the thought of resting on an illusion. Illusory hope works temporarily but it does me no good in the valley. It really isn't about the need for certainty. It goes deeper than that, I think. It almost feels like something organic. To discover those reasons, I feel the need to, at least mentally, extricate myself from my evangelical culture and reach back into history. I'm reading a lot of the Church Fathers, and I am actually reading Roman Catholic Catechism. After all, if I call myself a Protestant, I need to be correctly informed just what it is I am protesting.

I discovered that my former criticisms of the Catholic church were rather shallow, and some of them were straw men. I am just as convinced an evangelical as I always was, but I feel like I can discuss the issues with a bit more credibility now and a bit more irenically.

From October to December I took a theology course that looked at the Evangelicals and Catholics Together movement started by men like Charles Colson, J. I. Packer, John Neuhaus and other well know leaders in both denominations. It was very enlightening to read the documents and discuss them together in class. Perhaps I will post some of that work on the blog if there are any requests.

One clear impression was made by all that reading. The scholars involved sure try hard to find language that will accommodate both sides, and one would almost have to be a lawyer to pick up what IS being said, and what IS NOT being said. After all is said and done, the movement does not seem to be turning into anything official. And the unofficial word is that at least one of the major movers on the Catholic side of the discussion admits that a lot less was achieved than what might appear on all that paper.

Having taken that course, my one take-away is this: I still want to know how I can meaningfully connect with churches in our area with whom I do NOT disagree doctrinally or practically. Shouldn't it AT LEAST begin there? Jesus' prayer in John 17 for the unity of his disciples was not meant to remain a mysterious unity that is not to be manifested until we are changed into His likeness. He told us that our unity (which is to be patterned after the unity of the Father and Son) will have tremendous apologetic value.. “so that the world may believe that you have sent me.”

This haunts me. We reject the throne of Rome but we elevate and exalt individualism instead of Jesus. And I feel alone in these thoughts. Ecumenism is such a dirty word in evangelical circles. The evangelical church is plagued with protectionism. No one talks about it because most of our churches call transfers from one church to another growth. It is one of those elephants in the living room. We rejoice to see new faces at our worship services, but few people ask, “Are the lost and hurting being reached with the message of hope?” (I say this, recognizing that other churches have benefited from people transferring OUT of our congregations into theirs. It's all zero-gain or loss for the body of Christ).

Yet, what would this unity that Christ had in mind look like? Surely it means more than getting together for a joint Good Friday service. And it cannot mean the kind of unity that is often attempted with ministerial associations where meetings are prefaced with “Let's ignore what divides us.” Okay, it isn't stated quite that bluntly. But that is essentially what is meant.

I think one place to start would be to find churches who want to be missional for the sake of the kingdom rather than for their own survival. The thought already makes me weak in the knees. It is a daunting task. I know about board meetings, committee meetings and congregational meetings. I know how difficult it is to share a vision that requires a kind of big gulp faith. And to persuade a group of leaders to take that big gulp step of faith with you is not easy.

That's why it has to start with prayer. What would God have us to as a group of churches that cannot be done unless we do it together? What “big, hairy, audacious goals” would He have undertake, not for the sake of being audacious, but for the sake of the big God whom we serve? What needs doing in our city that would both meet a practical need and at the same time cause people to say, “There is a God after all!”

An Incomprehensible Event

2007-06-19T14:08:00.000-05:00

While watching the news today, the commentator was reporting on a tragic event in the U.S. A fire had claimed the lives of 9 firefighters. These firemen had wives, children, siblings, parents and other loved ones. The loss and the grief that surrounds this event is immeasurable.

The news commentator said something interesting and telling. She referred to the event as something incomprehensible. My ears perked up. Incomprehensible? Why incomprehensible? The fire was sad, tragic, heart-rending, but it is totally comprehensible. It’s pure physics. Everything about the fire and the deaths of these men is indeed comprehensible.

“Ahh, but wait a minute,” you say. She is not talking about physics. She is talking about the ‘why’ question. Why did this have to happen? The assumption behind it is that there is some purpose to the lives of these men, the fulfillment of which lies in some transcendent being’s control.

We cannot escape it, can we? No matter how hard we purge our secular institutions of religion, we smuggle the terms in anyway. An event like this can ONLY be incomprehensible if there is a transcendent purpose to life. If life is nothing more than a long chain of genetic accidents and only the strong survive, and if that belief comes naturally, then the last thing you might say about this horrific accident is that it is incomprehensible.

It is very telling that it’s incomprehensibility is one of the first things that naturally occurs to us. Dawkins would say it’s the result of a meme; a kind of virus of the mind. I say that if it’s genetic, God created it. Who knows? Maybe atheism is the meme?

My Vegetable Oil Days and My Flirt with Postmodern Journalism

2007-06-17T08:33:00.001-05:00

My Flirt with Postmodernism

My experiment with a vegetable-oil powered diesel car was a one-year adventure. I had bought a VW Passat diesel, and installed the necessary equipment to enable it to actually run on used (but filtered) vegetable oil. I was getting my used oil from places like The Mandarin Restaraunt.

Interested people would stop and ask me questions about my renewable (and recycled) fuel. A friend of mine (a ministry colleague) heard about the vegetable oil process and actually used the filtration process as an illustration in a talk he was giving to his congregation. Before we take communion, he said, we need to ensure that “the dirt is filtered out”, and he used my process of filtering out used vegetable oil through a pair of denim blue jeans as an analogy.

One of the people listening to him that day was a student of journalism at Ryerson. The story piqued her interest and she got my contact information from him, and gave me a call.

“Do you mind if I come over and do an interview with you,” she asked?

“Not at all,” I responded. Before the week was out, she showed up with another classmate and professional camera equipment. It took a couple of hours, but I showed her how it was done, and she plied me with many questions. It was my 15 minutes of fame, I thought.

A few weeks later, I got a call from CBC Radio. They had heard of my greasy ways, and wanted to interview me for some Saturday morning entertainment program. Once again, I agreed to be interviewed, but this would not be a student who is learning to do interviews. This would now be the real thing. I was going to be heard by 500,000 people, she told me. “Wonderful,” I thought. Maybe I could even slip in the location of our church or something similarly surreptitious and get some free advertising.

“We’ll call you back,” she said. She did, within a week.

“We have it all ready,” She said. “The dialogue is written out. Now, you have to understand that we’ve spiced it up a little. And we have fictionalized it in order to make it more entertaining.”

“Wait a minute,” I was still trying to process the phrase ‘the dialogue is all written out’ and when she used the word ‘fictionalized’ I started getting dizzy. I saw my second 15 minutes of fame slipping through my grasping fingers.

“I don’t understand, you’ve scripted a dialogue? You’ve written out what I am going to say,” I ask incredulously?

Without skipping a beat, as if they do this every day, she said, “Yep.” (Implied, “Did this plebe actually think we were going to let him speak his own mind on national radio! How naïve!”)

Another question, because it finally occurred to me what she meant by ‘fictionalized’. “Umm, excuse me, but are you saying that I will have to say things that are actually not true about myself?”

“Yes.” She was on the phone, but I could hear her blank stare. And I am thinking to myself, “I can’t believe this. She knows I am a preacher, and she wants me to go on the airwaves to tell things about myself that are untrue.”

“I’m sorry, but I really don’t think I can do this. Thank you for thinking of me though.” I had to say something to bring closure to this embarrassing affair while I hung up the phone.

Being totally unnerved, I emailed a journalist acquaintance of mine, and explained what happened to me. “Is this normal operating procedure in your industry?”

He assured me that it was unethical and no, it was not normal.

My experience has left me doubtful though. Now, every time I turn on the radio, I wonder….. can I believe what I hear?

The Glory, The Rest of the Story

2007-05-03T14:21:00.000-05:00

A couple of posts ago, I wrote a story about an experience and an answer to prayer at Fairhavens. I told about a family I met that had gone through some seveere difficulties. Last Friday, I met this family and asked them to look the story over for accuracy, etc. The mother went home, read the story, and sent me the rest of the story. The daughter has gone to be with the Lord now, but my, what a story that took place behind the scenes. I will post what she wrote, unedited comments in between my post; her comments will be italicized.

Finally have found the time to sit down and comment. First of all, I did a cut and paste of your article to comment on specific things.. so now.. the rest of the story.
All week we had guests there from a group home that took care of individuals with special needs; people who were pretty seriously challenged from a developmental point of view. Sometimes they would behave in ways that were not wrong, but just kind of socially awkward
One of them walked up to me during the course of that day, stuck out his hand with a big grin on his face, shook my hand and with difficulty and a brilliantly shining face said, “I believe in Jesus. Do you?”
And God whispered in my ear, “Do you see the glory?”

That was the Christian Horizons group. They are such special people. Some of them came from Christian Horizons group homes, some live with family and come for the holiday, I work in a Christian Horizons group home just north of Oshawa. Such a privelege to be working for a Christian organization that provides supports (homes and day programs) for more developmentally challenged people than any other organization in Canada. They are mainly in Ontario but in the last few years God had been expanding their ministry into third world countries.
I sat down at a table where I met a small girl. She was in a motorized wheelchair.

She walked by herself until early in 2004 when she started to have problems. She had gotten the wheelchair the year previously because she was having dizzy spells.... several months after she got it they discovered the dizziness was caused by high seizure drug levels. In March of 2004 she was in hospital and rehab for about 12 weeks because of severe pain in lower back and she had lost her appetite, fat stores and muscle mass. The dietican worked hard with her trying to increase her appetite but nothing worked. On a really good day she got 400 calories from food... and half of those would be from chocolate. A psychiratist was called in.. they thought that maybe she had a death wish. He was sure that she definitely wanted to live. The feeding tube was finally put in, totally against her wishes. No cause for the pain was found until March 2005 when she was losing feeling in the right leg, using her walker but still falling a lot and losing bladder and bowel control. It was then that a large spinal glioblastoma was found and removed two days later. They couldn't get it all.(not sure I have the right name, but it is normally found in brain and always fatal. Three months of radiation sometimes gives an extra 3 months.. Deb wanted nothing to do with it) She was given 1 - 3 years but I think that timing is more accurate from counting from the time she first had the symptoms a year before surgery.

Looked to be about 11 or 12 years old. Probably weighed all of 70 pounds. Her mother was sitting there as well. I forget the diagnosis of this girl.. but she wasn’t expected to live past her 16th birthday, and she is 29.

Good guess on the weight. She was actually around 60 lbs when she left hospital in May. She was diagnosed with neurofibromatosis when she was a baby. It is a geneitc disease passed on by one parent. I was born with it and had a 50% chance of passing it on but was not told anything about it when I was diagnosed except that it was a cosmetic problem and could be dealt with by having the growths removed. Neurofibromatosis affects a lot of people but can cause no problems or many... no knowing how it will manefest itself.
Deb had very slow development, scoliosis diagnosed at 10 months, problems with attention in school, seizures finally diagnosed around age 12 (after three or more years of misdiagnosis) brain tumors diagnosed at 14. She had many spinal surgeries throughout the years, starting when she was almost 6 until she was 18. She had three brain surgeries to remove tumors in different parts of the brain over a six year span, the first one when she was 14
She was never actually given any life expendancy. One doctor filled out a form for us for something she needed (can't remember but probably her disability pension) and handed it to me and pointed out that it was not sealed. (He had talked his way through the entire form until one question and then he had looked up at me and went back to filling it out...so I assumed that he wanted me to read it) On the line that said "Prognosis" he had filled in "eventually fatal"

She can’t eat. She uses a feeding tube. She can’t control a number of her bodily functions. But she thrives on the life of Jesus, and her face shone. And God whispered in my ear: “Do you See the glory?”

She was able to enjoy a few bites by mouth of finely chopped or pureed food but not anywhere near enough to keep her alive. She had no control over bowel and bladder, her legs were paralzed. After the surgery they were unable to get her off the ventiator so a "temporary trach" was put in. It was felt that the shorter pathway to the lungs would help with the breathing so that she would be able to breath on her own. That worked but then they couldn't get her off the oxygen. Removing the trach was no longer an option. For several days efforts were made to teach her how to block the trach so she could talk but she was successful saying only a word or two a few times. They checked and found out that one of her vocal cords was damaged. So she no longer talked..(talking had been her passion.. she could talk your ear off with stories about this and that). though occassionally someone would hear a faint "bye"..or "hi". I think that only some very special friends at camp had that honour.

Our dream had been to spend summer at camp as we always had and I was determined it would happen..... but how... our trailer is very small and very hard to even pass someone in it.. How in the world would we carry her through the narrow doorway and get her safely on the nearby bed? We investigated getting another trailer but that was out of our means.
We did not have to worry. What is it the bible tells us about God answering before we even ask???
John Frieson, his wife and youngest child and Sheila came from camp to visit when Deb got out of hospital John told us that the camp was giving us a motel room and meals for the first two weeks of camp. What a surprise and total blessing. That would give us time to see how camp life was going to work and to see how we could adapt things to get Deb into our trailer. We did not have to worry about that either! We were offered the add- a -room of a friends trailer for the rest of the summer. The teenage boys using it were willing to give it up and sleep outside in a tent. Those friends were absolutely indispensible when it came to getting Deb in and out of bed three or four times a day.

The next concern was all the equipement.
5 tall oxygen tanks to be sure there would be enough for a week at a time.
compressor that really heats up space
feeding machine (small and very portable)
Diapers for the summer
Wet wipes
Feeding tube food for the summer
medications..seizure and pain
Syringes for feeding tubes
Wheelchair
She would need her wedge for the bed for feeding times, once we had the offer of the add-a-room Terry went home and brought up her hospital bed.
cleaning supplies for the trach which had to be cleaned daily.
suction tubes for the trach (needing suctions several times a day, new tube each time)
suctioning machine
two portable oxygen tanks
The list goes on and on.

I took a whole carload up of consumable supplies and filled the top two bunks in the trailer a few days ahead of time. Then my brother filled his trunk, back seat and front passenger seat and helped us get up there. We had the loan of a van and had ramps to get Deb in her wheelchair into the van. All the back passenger seats were removed and all her equipment went with us, with the exception of the large oxygen tanks, the supply company delivered them directly to the camp and came each week to refill them. We kept two in the add-a-room and two on the deck. we had the fifth one in the chapel in case her portable ones needed filling after chapel was over each day.

Our whole family thought we were crazy... we would be so far from help if something went wrong. But we were fairly sure this was what she would want. She had not smiled for weeks. On the way to camp she stayed awake most of the way (normally slept a lot) and smiled a bit. You should have seen her at the barbeque that night. As people came to say high to her she beamed from ear to ear. My brother sat there with his mouth gapping open, He couldn't believe it. He said he was going home and telling the whole family that we had made the right decision for sure 'This is where she BELONGS!!!!"

We had nursing staff 5 nights a week and would go back to our own trailer to sleep, two way radio by our side.
One night she almost died..... that is another story i will tell you if you are interested but I am running out of time right now.

I meet her father. He walks with great difficulty. He tells me he has Cerebral Palsy, but still works as a custodian at a school.

He does have a limp and on a few rare occassion has had a severe flairup of arthitis in his hips which makes walking hard but not a lot of problems with walking normally. The Cerebral Palsy was not even diagnosed until he took a tumble and injured his shoulder. He was born very premature (they say just over a lb) so it is certainly a miracle that he even lived.

As we talk about the things of the Lord, his face shines, and as he shared his life story with me, one heartache after another spills out. His financial situation is lousy because of the never ending health care needs he faces. Finally he tells me his wife was now diagnosed with the same diagnosis the daughter in the wheel chair had,

I do have the same neurofibromatosis but not at all the same prognosis as Deb. Neurofibromatosis has caused very few problems in my life other than little tumours on the skin and a suspicion now and then that there could be nerve involvement in one elbow.

but his greatest grief, get this, his greatest grief is that his oldest daughter is not walking with the Lord. His oldest daughter is the only physically healthy one of the family.

The tears are overflowing his eyes as he is telling me this. His face is glowing with the love of Christ, because his tears are not tears of sorrow and grief, they are tears of love for the Lord as he talks about how the Lord has sustained him,
God indeed in the ONLY reason we were able to go through this time with such peace. He carried us and sent so many carring people to help in the practical things. Home care had provided the nurses 10 hours/ 5 nights a week.. most came from an hour or more away. They also provided a PSW 7 days a week for two hours each day for her bedbath. She had two different ones but one came the majority of the time. Deb had had this same PSW the previous year. I asked her if she knew anyone who could do laundry for me (we had some support money we were allowed to spend on whatever needs she had) She came back the next day and said she would do it... she was already working 50 to 60 hours a week. Every day I had at least one huge basket . Some days when she was really busy her husband would do it.
the Lord whispers in my ear, “Do you see the glory?”
It shines so brightly I don't know how anyone could miss it!!!!

I met people that week whose circumstances are terrible; whose health problems would put many of us into despair; whose financial lives are nonexistent.
And hands down, they displayed evidence of an abundant life that many others whose lives appeared to be pleasant and “normal” didn’t have.
And I have learned another lesson about what the abundant life really means.
Amen and amen!!!!

Thank you so much for sharing your site with us... and for your story. I means so much to know that Deb's life touched so many people... and it continues to do so even in her death.
Love
Terry and Darlene

Thanks so much for opening up your life, Darlene and Terry. Many of us cannot imagine going through what you have faced. But you are a vivid reminder of the power of God's grace.

God and Dentists

2007-04-20T15:31:00.000-05:00

One day as I was sitting in the dentist chair, C.S. Lewis reminded me again of an apt analogy. He says that humans have a tendency to treat God like a dentist. We only go to Him when it hurts.

As a youngster, I also remember discovering the potency of a couple of aspirins when I had a toothache. It was easier taking two aspirins for the symptom than it was going to the dentist for the root cause (no pun intended, really!) Anything to kill the pain, anything to put off the inevitable encounter with needle and drill. But inevitable it was.

It makes me wonder how it makes dentists feel, knowing that they are the last people on the planet we want to see; at least not in that context.

I often wonder too, how God must feel when we treat Him as a crisis manager, but not as One whose involvement in every area of our lives is regarded as absolutely essential. If I had a nickel for every time I heard some agnostic blame God for the pain of evil, I could make a real difference for orphans in Haiti. Have you noticed that each time a disaster occurs, we ask about God's whereabouts, but seldom do we stop to give God the credit when things are going well?

Blaming God for evil is like blaming the dentist for my extraction (I know, the analogy breaks down, so don't stretch it too far). I might have prevented today's painful extraction by being diligent 25 years ago with some preventative action.

In similar ways, a lot of crises in our lives can be prevented by maintaining and nurturing a positive relationship with God during the good times. There is a warning in Deuteronomy that was given to the Jews as they waited on the east side of the Jordan River. God said to them through their leader Moses, "When the LORD your God brings you into the land he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to give you- a land with large, flourishing cities you did not build, houses filled with all kinds of good things you did not provide, wells you did not dig, and vineyards and olive groves you did not plant- then when you eat and are satisfied, be careful that you do not forget the LORD, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery" (Deut 6:10-12).

The obvious lesson is this. When things go well, we tend to forget God. We forget to give credit where it's due. And as soon as we experience a downturn, our instinctive reaction is to look up and ask Him why. What odd creatures we are.

Imagine that someone comes to your door one day to give you $50. At first you are extremely suspicious, but finally you accept it, after you satisfy yourself there are no strings attached. The same person comes by the next day, with another $50. This happens every day for the next 30 days. On the 31st day, your benefactor doesn't show up. How would you react? Some people would shrug their shoulders and say, "I knew it wouldn't last."

Others would experience anger and disillusionment. Still others would have counted on this money to such an extent that they are now in trouble, because they maxed out their credit card due to the generosity of the stranger. Happily, some would be genuinely grateful for what it was when it lasted.

Believe it or not, that's how many folks treat God. Let someone experience His grace for a few days, and when the storms come, suddenly God's the villain!

The only way out of this cycle is to view God as the most important Being in our lives. He is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent. He created mankind (you and me) in order to be His image bearers (according to Genesis 1). Nothing can be as important as getting to know this God. And He regarded getting to know us as so important that He created a wide open door of access to himself. He wants us to use that access, not just when we have a "toothache". Excuse me, it's time for another Advil

Do You See the Glory?

2007-04-13T10:34:00.000-05:00

Some time ago, I was at a family conference at a Christan Retreat Center. I don't remember the particulars, but while there I found myself interacting one day with a believer who had obviously been impacted by the 'Toronto Blessing'. He seemed to be somewhat disappointed that I was not experiencing or promoting a more dynamic view of Christianity. I am more of an introvert and you have to look closely to see me smiling. It's how I'm wired. I'm just not all that excitable.

He had obviously been a part of the Airport Vineyard thing, where people have dramatic PHYSICAL manifestations of what they believe to be the Holy Spirit. He wanted to influence me in that direction, and insisted that we were totally missing out, because obviously, we aren’t experiencing any of THAT glory.

The rest of that day, I asked the Lord to show me where the glory is. If (as Paul declared in 2 Corinthians 3) this ministry that we have is MORE glorious than the glory the likes of which Moses experienced, I didn't see it.

All week we had guests there from a group home that took care of individuals with special needs; people who were pretty seriously challenged from a developmental point of view. Sometimes they would behave in ways that were not wrong, but just kind of socially awkward.

One of them walked up to me during the course of that day, stuck out his hand with a big grin on his face, shook my hand and with difficulty and a brilliantly shining face said, “I believe in Jesus. Do you?”

And God whispered in my ear, “Do you see the glory?”

I sat down at a table where I met a small girl. She was in a motorized wheelchair. Looked to be about 11 or 12 years old. Probably weighed all of 70 pounds. Her mother was sitting there as well. I forget the diagnosis of this girl.. but she wasn’t expected to live past her 16th birthday, and she is 29.

She can’t eat. She uses a feeding tube. She can’t control a number of her bodily functions. But she thrives on the life of Jesus, and her face shone. And God whispered in my ear: “Do you See the glory?”

I meet her father. He walks with great difficulty. He tells me he has Cerebral Palsy, but still works as a custodian. (I have learned since that worked at a nursing home and then at a drug company, doing custodial work. Several years ago the plant doctor decided that the job was too hard on him physically and recommended that he be put on a disability pension). As we talk about the things of the Lord, his face shines, and as he shared his life story with me, one heartache after another spills out. His financial situation is lousy because of the never ending health care needs he faces. Finally he tells me his wife was now diagnosed with the same diagnosis the daughter in the wheel chair had, but his greatest grief, get this, his greatest grief is that his oldest daughter is not walking with the Lord. His oldest daughter is the only physically healthy one of the family.

The tears are overflowing his eyes as he is telling me this. His face is glowing with the love of Christ, because his tears are not tears of sorrow and grief, they are tears of love for the Lord as he talks about how the Lord has sustained him, the Lord whispers in my ear, “Do you see the glory?”

I met people that week whose circumstances are terrible; whose health problems would put many of us into despair; whose financial lives are nonexistent.

And hands down, they displayed evidence of an abundant life that many others whose lives appeared to be pleasant and “normal” didn’t have.

And I have learned another lesson about what the abundant life really means.

The Paradoxes of Faith

2007-03-29T21:14:00.000-05:00

(I will begin to republish some older articles that I thought had been lost long ago but are still quite relevant!)

In a religious forum discussion, one of the participants raised the issue of paradoxes in the Bible. Apparently Kierkegaard, the father of existentialism, uses the story of Abraham and Isaac as an irrational paradox that invites us to respond with a faith that leaves reason out of the equation. Abraham was commanded by God to sacrifice Isaac, his son of promise in his old age. The claim being made with this story is that the Christian faith is something that should NOT be given a rational basis at all; that our faith is (and ought to be) a blind leap of faith. The assertion is that Christians should not waste so much energy attempting to 'prove' anything about their faith, because faith and reason are antithetical. "If you can prove it, it can't be faith", seems to be a prevailing sentiment, particularly among the postmodern crowds. Mark Twain apparently said, "Faith is believing something you know ain't so!"

I am reminded of a story that I personally heard from Dr. John White, a physician and psychiatrist who spent his early years as a missionary in Bolivia. He was stationed in an isolated region of the country, and had no access to modern medical equipment or help. One day, his young toddler son was playing outside when he tripped and fell on his face, striking his chin on a rock on the ground. His chin was split open, and he required immediate medical attention. But his father the physician had no anesthetic equipment or drugs with him. However, he realized that unless he acted immediately, infection would certainly set in. There was no time to wait for a plane to come and fly him out of the jungle to a modern hospital. That would have taken days to arrange. With loving care, they laid the screaming child on the table. First they cleaned the wound. That was painful enough, but then came the hard part. The father would now have to stitch up the gaping wound, without benefit of any painkillers. Now imagine the father as he begins to stitch up the child, all the while causing the child more pain than he has ever known in his life. Mother and assistants all hold the child down so the procedure can be done safely. The child's eyes look up frantically at the face of the father from whom he has only ever known love and acceptance, but now the child's eyes are full of abject terror as he feels nothing but unbelievable pain from the hands of his 'loving' dad.

At this very moment, the reassuring "I love you" from father and mother falls on deaf ears. How can this be love by any definition of the word? As Dr. White shared this story, there wasn't a dry eye in the house, as he invited us to imagine not only how the child felt, but how the father felt at that point. This is a great paradox from the child's point of view. More than that; it was a contradiction in the mind of the child, and no amount of reasoning would satisfy. In reality from an adult point of view, the father's actions were anything but irrational. The paradox is resolved from the adult point of view. The parent knows that at this point, love demands that the child's medical condition needs to be looked after in the most expeditious way, even if that way means pain and misunderstanding on the part of the child. Love at this point is NOT caving in to the screaming, superficial demandingness of the child, who is only interested in avoidance of pain and restoration of comfort. God often allows our faith to be tested in this way. Sometimes things happen to us the likes of which leave us wondering about the rationality of our God and our faith. As we try to figure things out, we need to remember that after all, our God did say, "My ways are higher than your ways, and my thoughts are higher than your thoughts." He did not say his thoughts were irrational. They are simply beyond ours. Otherwise God would merely be one of us. Think about it.

More on the "Lost Tomb" Circus

2007-03-14T07:52:00.000-05:00

From the email bag..

Dear Professors and other Bloggers

I’d like to report something of potentially great interest with respect to assessing the Jesus tomb theory offered by Simcha Jacobovici and Charles Pellegrino (and, by extension, James Tabor).

Many scholars have demonstrated the glaring weaknesses of this theory with respect to the inscriptions, the names themselves, the shaky logic, etc. And despite the clear, coherent response to the statistical framework and analysis offered by my friend Randy Ingermanson, the public continues to be bludgeoned with the “improbability” of it all. Well, it appears that having the names of Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Matthew, and Martha (“Mara”) on ossuaries at one location isn’t as improbable as Jacobovici, Pellegrino, and Tabor would have the world believe.

I want to draw your attention—and the attention of scholars and interested parties who read your blog—to a SECOND site that has all those names. In 1953-1955, Bellarmino Bagatti excavated the site of Dominus Flevit (“The Lord wept”) on the Mount of Olives. The excavation uncovered a necropolis and over 40 inscribed ossuaries – including the names of Mary, Martha, Matthew, Joseph, Jesus. These ossuaries are not, as far as I can tell, in Rahmani’s catalogue. I’m guessing the reason is that they are not the property of the Israel Antiquities Authority (see Rahmani’s Preface). The necropolis was apparently used ca. 136 BC to 300 AD. Here is a link that discusses the site. A few scanned pages of Bagatti’s excavation report (written in Italian) can be found here as well.

I’ll be tracking down this report (and perhaps buying an Italian dictionary). I found this information last night (actually 2:00am) while working on my portion of a lengthy response to the Jesus tomb theory (to be co-authored with Randy Ingermanson). I didn’t want to wait until that was done to alert scholars to this so we can collectively look at this data. It appears that the statistical odds touted in such assured terms have taken a sound beating – fifty years ago.

There’s one more really intriguing thing about the Dominus Flevit site. It is referenced by Jacobovici with respect to his argument about the cross symbol’s antiquity, and Bagatti’s book is in his bibliography. And yet he and Charlie Pellegrino somehow overlooked the fact that ossuaries were found at that site with all the names accounted for. One can only guess whether the omission was due to careless scholarship or an effort to deceive the public.

Mike Heiser, PhD
Academic Editor, Logos Bible Software

Whom Are We to Worship?

2007-03-11T07:20:00.000-05:00

Several times in my ministry through the years I have had a person say to me something like, "Nowhere does the Bible tell us to worship the Son directly. We are to worship the Father in the name of the Son." It would ring true with me in my earlier years, because I had always felt a discomfort in addressing Jesus directly. I still haven't understood that feeling, but it was the same feeling that I had when I began to pray in English instead of my mother tongue (German).
But others I have talked to have confessed to that same discomfort.

It may be that because I have always been taught to pray to the Father in the name of the Son, it felt like I was crossing a line. Perhaps it's the same line I crossed when I first stopped using King James pronouns in addressing God in my prayers.

But psychological reasons aside, I can think of some legitimate reasons for this teaching.

Jesus prescribed prayer for his disciples in a certain way. He said:
Matthew 6:9-11 9 "This, then, is how you should pray: "'Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, 10 your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. 11 Give us today our daily bread..." and so forth.

We are also instructed in several Scriptures to direct our gratitude and praise to God.

For example: Colossians 3:17 17 And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.

Ephesians 5:19-20 Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, 20 always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The obvious question then becomes: Did Jesus intend for us to always only to pray exclusively to the Father? I don't think so.

Although there are several verses telling us who to address in prayer, we do have some examples of worship and prayer to Jesus that are not protested.

So here are the questions I brought to the biblical text:

1. Do we have any examples of humans in the New Testament praying to Jesus and worshiping Him?

Yes, we do. And the Lord Jesus does not object. He accepts their praise.

a. He was worshiped in his infancy.

Matthew 2:2 2 and asked, "Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him."

Matthew 2:11 11 On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him.

b. He was worshiped in His adult life.
John 9:37-38 37 Jesus said, "You have now seen him; in fact, he is the one speaking with you." 38 Then the man said, "Lord, I believe," and he worshiped him.

Matthew 14:30-33 30 But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, "Lord, save me!" 31 Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. "You of little faith," he said, "why did you doubt?" 32 And when they climbed into the boat, the wind died down. 33 Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God."

c. He was worshiped in His post-resurrection state.

Matthew 28:8-10 8 So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9 Suddenly Jesus met them. "Greetings," he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. 10 Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me."

Matthew 28:16-17 16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted.

Luke 24:51-53 51 While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven. 52 Then they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. 53 And they stayed continually at the temple, praising God.

2. Are we instructed anywhere to worship Jesus? Not exactly. Not directly, that is.

a. But angels are instructed to worship Him.
Hebrews 1:5-6 5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father"? Or again, "I will be his Father, and he will be my Son"? 6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him."

b. We ARE instructed to pray to Him.
John 14:13-14 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

c. And we will certainly be worshiping Him in the future. If what happens in the following description is not worship of Christ, then you can call me a heretic.

Revelation 5:11-12 11 Then I looked and heard the voice of many angels, numbering thousands upon thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand. They encircled the throne and the living creatures and the elders. 12 In a loud voice they sang: "Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!"

Whatever the final answer, I prefer to err on the side of honouring the Son as I honour the Father. After all, Jesus said in John 5:23

He who does not honour the Son does not honour the Father, who sent him.

If you disagree, I would like to hear your reasons. But then I might just pull out some heavyweights, like John Owens and a few other Puritans who would likely really be concerned that this is even a question that is up for discussion!

Do They Read Blogs in Heaven?

2007-03-05T19:45:00.000-05:00

How does this happen? The first few years of my spiritual re-awakening were also 'years I spent in vanity and pride'. In my case, when I sing that well known hymn, I am singing about the time AFTER I connected with my Saviour, not before.

I have always looked at my late teens as a turn-a-round point in my life. It was the late sixties. Everyone was on a search of some sort. That's the time I felt that God turned my life around. It had been going nowhere; yet I knew that there was a purpose to life. I had just been too laid back to go after it.

I was a miner in Thompson, Manitoba, and through a series of circumstances, I dedicated my life to the pursuit of God. I met another guy my age who was an authentic example for me. I saw up close that it was possible for someone like me to live for Him.

Yet, I had this radical and impulsive streak. (It was the age of radicalism, remember?) I joined a small group of Christians which was meeting in a home and decided, under its influence, that every other denomination and organized church was somehow substandard. These people claimed that they were the closest thing to a New Testament church that existed. I believed them. No other church seemed to care about a biblical ecclesiology.

We were the elect, the chosen people. We were the ones who did things the New Testament way. We broke bread every Sunday, our ladies wore head coverings (although they wore the pants at home!) and the Holy Spirit led our meetings; there was no presiding officer or pastor. Everything was to be spontaneous and when people asked us what we called ourselves, well, we were just plain Christians. We dared not call ourselves Plymouth Brethren! That's what other people called us. We wanted to be the people who 'gathered to the name of Jesus Christ'.

At the young age of 19, I had become a Pharisee.

I left the small church that I had first attended (although they needed all the help they could get in that mining town). I told the pastor why I was leaving, and I told him how wrong it was to do church the way they were doing church. I left, not regarding the pain and grief I caused in my family or friends.

I lived with my brother and sister in law. I told them how wrong they were.

And I visited with another pastor, and told him how wrong he was. The man's name was George Nelner (His name will come up again). He didn't try to argue much with me. I had my pet verses and I knew how to use them, and I felt very smug as I left his office, because once again it was confirmed in my mind just how right I was and how wrong the whole ecclesiastical system was. (Why it never dawned on me how arrogant I had become, I will never know. I think it had something to do with the illusions that happen when there is a timber in one's eye; see Matthew 7)

Fast forward. I moved from Thompson back to Winnipeg, began fellowshipping with those brethren who were responsible for the effort in Thompson. There was a lot of good Bible teaching there. A lot of people there truly loved the Lord. But there was also an elephant in their living room that no one had the nerve to point out. Group denial is a powerful thing. There were times in those meetings when I had a stirring deep within that said, "This is spiritual pride and it stinks."

I had spiritually distanced myself from my friends and had alienated some of my family with my smug self righteousness. They knew me best, and they did not buy my self-righteous act for a minute; yet they had patience with me; my father most of all. I think my father knew that I just needed time to grow. And with time, I did. I think I know what it must be like coming out of a cult. I was summoned to a meeting one evening. It was with the elders (they really did seem austere and ancient). They read out of the book of Revelation, the passage that tells of the church of Philadelphia. It was the one church that did not receive any criticism from the Lord. Here are the words they read:

"See, I have placed before you an open door that no one can shut. I know that you have little strength, yet you have kept my word and have not denied my name. 9 I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars-- I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you. 10 Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole world to test those who live on the earth. 11 I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take your crown. Revelation 3:8-11

They looked at me and asked, "Do you deny that we are the church Jesus was talking about?"

"Yes," I said, "I deny that this is the Philadelphian church."

The next Sunday I was 'read out of the meeting'. Excommunicated.

I walked out of the Gospel Hall that day, dazed but free.

I was free from a systemic kind of pride that overshadowed these groups of people. But pride as a property of our individual natures doesn't surrender that easily. Although this was a good beginning the Lord had to teach me a few lessons yet.

Fast forward another few years. My sister (who is only a year older than I am) had a series of very difficult circumstances that I will not detail in a public blog. She had also experienced the judgmentalism of some Baptist deacons who had shamed her without knowing her circumstances. Through their actions they made it very difficult for her to ever darken the door of a church again. Many Christians understand this dynamic. There are many 'walking wounded' whose church should have been their safe place. Unfortunately the church can also be a place where the deepest wounds occur.

My sister moved from Toronto to Calgary with her two children. There, with a lot of uncertainty, she, with her children and her partner sought out a church, and I was happy to hear that they had found a place where they were accepted and loved. Not long after that I was invited to their wedding.

The man who officiated the wedding and had become their pastor was none other than George Nelner. I am so grateful that my sister did not find a church led by someone with an attitude that I had displayed to George Nelner that day in Thompson. The grace that this man exuded was evident in his speech and his actions. He personified the words that Jesus spoke to the woman caught in adultery (John 8). "Neither do I condemn you. Go, and leave your life of sin."

Oh yes. George Nelner died this last month. He's gone to his heavenly home. I heard news of this, and it began to stir some of these memories in me. I wish that I could have done a better job of apologizing for being such an arrogant twit in his office so many years ago. I should have thanked him for being so gracious to my sister and brother in law. I can only hope they read blogs in heaven. George, this is me, making things right.

Jesus’ Tomb: What’s all the Fu$$ about?

2007-02-27T19:16:00.000-05:00

We are coming up on Easter. Every year, like clockwork, another conspiracy theory hits the media that seeks to cast doubt upon the claims of Jesus Christ. Last year it was the DaVinci Code. In years prior, the Jesus Seminar annually published their latest doubts about Christ. This year, it’s a blockbuster. They claim to have found the bones of Christ. None other than famed producer of ‘The Titanic’ who proclaimed to be ‘the king of the world’ James Cameron, is producing the film with the Discovery Channel behind him.

If you happen to run across anyone who actually believes the documentary that will be airing shortly, please keep these facts handy. (I cobbled these points together quickly from a perusal of various news agencies and blogs).

Ten Top Reasons This Can’t be the Jesus We Know

1. Joseph and Mary were from Nazareth, not Jerusalem. They would likely not have been buried in Jerusalem.
2. It is very doubtful Joseph and Mary had a tomb. They were poor peasants. Normally poor peasants don't get these kinds of tombs.
3. The names, Mary, Joseph AND Jesus (read Joshua) were as common as our names Tom, Dick and Jane. One scholar says that in Jesus’ day, over 40% of the women were named Mary or some derivative of it. Among the about 1,000 ossuaries from biblical times unearthed in Jerusalem, six carry the inscription ''Yeshua,'' or Jesus. Of those, two are engraved with the words ''Jesus, son of Joseph.''
4. The archaeological establishment is labeling this claim as ‘bunk’.
5. The DNA evidence can only tell them if those who are represented in these ossuaries are related to one another.
6. There was a swirl of controversy surrounding the ossuary supposedly containing the bones of James. It is now considered a modern forgery. It was purported in this new documentary to have been stolen from this tomb. Yet it has been considered a forgery, putting the authenticity of this whole group of ossuaries in doubt.
7. Esteemed academics like William Dever says, “Specialists have known about these ossuaries for years. The fact that it's been ignored tells you something. It would be amusing if it didn't mislead so many people."
8. Another blogger asks this question. “How likely is it that the early Christians built and sustained a tomb of Jesus if they — at the same time — were declaring his resurrection and ascension, and were undergoing persecution for the following him? What this tomb requires is a long-term preservation of the remains of the members of Jesus’ so-called family. Unlikely to the extreme.”
9. Hollywood. Need we $ay more?
10. And the final reason this can’t be Jesus’ tomb… He is risen!!

For further reading:
Ben Witherington
Bock's Blog
James White
Andreas Kostenberger

A New Name and a White Stone

2006-10-22T06:45:00.000-05:00

You all know that my niece died unexpectedly a couple of weeks ago. Lisa had some pretty tough struggles. She was diagnosed with fibromyalgia and diabetes along with numerous other physical maladies. She also struggled in her soul with questions of worth and significance and had some mental disorders that were difficult for us to understand and treatment was hit and miss. And so, although her death was unexpected and painful to the family, it was also a release at the same time, because she has a brand new existence, and is totally healed of all of her health issues.

But back in the days of her struggles, an artist in her church gave her a painted white stone, with a cross painted on it. It was just a small stone that might be used as a paperweight.

My sister showed me that stone while I was there in Calgary. We wondered out loud what the significance of that white stone might be. And it came to me immediately.

In Revelation 2:17 Jesus is addressing one of the seven churches. He says,

”He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give some of the hidden manna. I will also give him a white stone with a new name written on it, known only to him who receives it.”

I am learning that there are a couple of theories about the white stone.

http://www.lookingforlewiscarroll.com/whitestone.pdf
http://www.sermoncentral.com/sermon.asp?SermonID=72835 (the author of this sermon injects his errant theological views to 'colour' his research about the white stone.)

A comment here:
‘The Romans of New Testament times had a token of hospitality between two friends, which consisted of a tile of wood or stone, which was divided in half. Each person wrote his name on one of the two pieces, and then exchanged that piece with the other person. These were often kept and handed down from father to son. To produce the counterpart of one of these pieces would guarantee the hospitality of a real friend’

Against this identification, though, is the fact that Revelation does not mention stones being swapped, only that one is given. However, it does fit in well with the idea of being granted to eat of the hidden manna in the previous clause of the verse.

To eat with someone in the context of Biblical times was to enter in to a covenant relationship with them. Hence I Cor 11:20-22 - a love feast/communion meal was a time of sharing with one another and thus entering into covenant relationship with each other through Christ and because of Christ.

Similarly, that Jesus permits those in Pergamum to partake (Revelation only says ‘give’ without indicating consumption, however) of the hidden manna would indicate that they become united in covenant relationship through their participation in Him (who is the true manna - see above).

Each participant, Jesus regards as a special guest and a white stone is given upon which a name is written given to Him by God (see, for instance, Is 62:2, 65:15) to allow Him to enter freely into that great and final banquet (Rev 19:7, Mtw 22:1-14).
http://home.clara.net/arlev/pergamum.htm#14

The white stone, as far as we can tell, had two meanings. One was that a white stone was used as a vote of acquittal. A vote for NOT GUILTY!

If you received a black stone, it meant you are guilty. If a black stone was cast in a decision, it was a vote of guilt. In fact, it is probable this is where the expression "to be black-balled" comes from.

The other meaning was that the white stone was a token of admission. If you were invited to a feast, you may receive a white stone, which you would show the porter as you enter the hall or the place of the feast.

In either case, the meaning is precious. I want to track down sources on this theme, and hope to revisit this topic with more research.

The new name generally signifies a new destiny. Although I don't think many people heard about it, at the memorial service we took that white stone and placed it in the hands of Lisa in the coffin, as a powerful symbol to the family, and a statement to the principalities and powers that she belongs to the Lord and none other. She has been acquitted of all of her sins, and she has a glorious new destiny!

And that is a tremendous comfort.

PS. If any of my readers find interesting sources of info or legend about The White Stone, please share them with me. I would be most interested in seeing your information.

Persecution Coming to the West?

2006-10-20T17:53:00.001-05:00

Thursday, October 19, 2006

Persecution is Coming to the West
Concealed Affliction May Soon Turn Into Open Persecution

By Wolfgang Polzer
Special to ASSIST News Service

BLANKENBURG (ANS) -- Persecution is coming to the West. Under the guise of tolerance Bible believing Christians of all confessions are subjected to suppressive intolerance, warns a declaration issued at the Ecumenical Confessional Convention in Blankenburg, East Germany.

The event with 130 Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox representatives was convened by the evangelical missiologist Prof. Peter Beyerhaus. The so-called Blankenburg Proclamation speaks of a dangerous anti-Christian influence on legislation, academic life and school education.

Scientists, who believe in God as the creator, were subjected to public defamation. Christians, not willing to compromise their faith, had to face ridicule, intolerance, stigmatization and career obstacles.

The declaration refers specifically to the plight of German homeschoolers. Approximately 150 families were subjected to fines or jail, because they refused to send their children to state registered schools and thus broke the German law.

According to the proclamation this “concealed affliction” may soon turn into open persecution. The threat could come from several directions - from globalization favoring the formation of totalitarian regimes, from growing syncretism, and from Islam.

Europe could be subjected to an enforced Islamization accompanied by the introduction of Sharia law. This danger was increased by the fact that the indigenous population is shrinking.

The proclamation also makes reference to the correlation between faith and suffering. It was part of the nature of the Christian faith to endure disadvantages and persecution for Christ’s sake. The 20th century had been the bloodiest in church history.

According to estimates by human rights organizations 200 million Christians suffer discrimination for their faith. Every year 170,000 Christians die a martyr’s death.
Wolfgang Polzer (56), is senior news editor of the Evangelical News Agency idea, Wetzlar (Germany), which he joined in 1981. In all, he has spent 30 years in Christian media. Wolfgang can be contacted by e-mail at: Wolfgang.Polzer@idea.de.
** You may republish this story with proper attribution
Click here for the source

Why the Pain? A Theodicy from a Baby

2006-10-17T07:49:00.000-05:00

In meeting with various individuals, I am learning that questions about theodicy are the ones being asked most frequently; i.e.“If God loves me so much, why doesn't He make the pain go away?"

I don't know the immediate answer to that question. But, if God is purely good, then I must believe that any trial that comes my way has a bigger purpose than I realize.

Let me tell you a true story that has helped me to accept some pain that I didn’t understand.

It happened when our firstborn daughter was only 5 months old. We were on our way to visit a friend one day. It was in the middle of winter. Snow was piled up all over the place. The baby was all wrapped up and just her sparkling eyes and red pug-nose were showing through the hooded bunting bag she was wearing. We loved that baby so much. We felt we could easily die for her to save her life if need be.

Walking towards the house, we discovered that the sidewalk was very slippery. Just before we reached the door of the house, my wife, who was carrying the baby, slipped and fell. It was a nasty fall, and I can see it in slow motion yet. Her feet went out from under her and shot forward. She instinctively clutched the baby close to her, and did not let go. She could have saved herself or at least made the fall a little less painful, but that would have meant dropping the baby in order to minimize her own pain or risk of injury. She landed on hard, jagged ice with a bone-crunching thud on her left hip. It caused her excruciating pain. Upon impact, our baby, who was up until this point in a perfect state of contentment, panicked. Her mouth opened wide with a scream of shock and some pain at being jarred out of her sleepy comfort zone of existence.

What I remember most about that moment was that her scream then turned from shock into anger and was directed at US. She was frightened and angry, and for the life of her, she couldn't understand WHY her parents, from whom she has only known warm fuzzies and overabundant love, would suddenly do this to her! Of course, at that stage in her development, we couldn't explain to her that her Mom absorbed far more pain than the baby could imagine, in order to save the baby from real injury. All the baby could possibly know was what she experienced in her own world.

Although the analogy falls short because God doesn’t have accidents, it is helpful. We often direct our anger and frustration at God, without having a clue about what the Lord might be experiencing. I believe He does experience grief, and certainly the pain and anguish He experienced on the cross is something we can only appreciate from a great distance. Yet He did it for us. I often think that whatever He allows into my life, is something like that fall on the ice. And that perhaps this trial, this particular pain is to prevent me from going in a direction that would be far worse in terms of destruction and damage. And even if I don’t understand it, I can accept it, because I know His intentions towards me are always, without exception, loving and good. Think about it.

"Isaiah 53:4 4 Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted."

The joy of 'older age'

2006-10-17T07:41:00.000-05:00

Being a 'grandpa' isn't so bad. There's an upside.

Spiritual Blindness

2006-10-15T22:57:00.000-05:00

I was browsing a book entitled, "In His Image" by Dr Paul Brand and Philip Yancey and learned something that fascinated me. He speaks of people who had recovered their sight after living their lives in blindness. The process of learning to actually make sense of what they saw is a long and tedious process. Indeed, some of his patients even (sadly) expressed a preference to being blind.

He relates how depth perception and other kinds of spatial dimensions present real problems to the newly sight-recovered. Some were not able to distinguish shapes, such as the difference between forks and spoons. Another experiment revealed that some could not distinguish between circles, squares and triangles. One spouse could not recognize his wife by sight. He had to touch a small area of her cheek before he recognized her as his wife.One patient walked off the edge of a building, not having any depth perception.

This brought to mind an incident in a most powerful way in the Gospels. Jesus heals a blind man. The Blind Man is miraculoulsy healed; his eyes are opened but he says he sees men like trees walking. He could not distinguish between the shapes of humans and trees.

Something else I learned from Paul Brand is that size differentiation is very difficult for such a person. One blind person saw no difference in size between his mother and a book.

So it is no wonder that Jesus touched the Blind man a second time. As some commentators have observed, Jesus' first touch was not an imperfect healing. His first touch healed his eyesight. His second touch healed his brain so that he could make sense of the optics that were making its first impressions through the optic nerves. The blind man had no referents nor previous knowledge to differentiate between men and trees.

The implications of all of this on spiritual blindness? How necessary it is to follow through on discipleship. Young Christians who are first enlightened by Jesus Christ need to learn to understand what they see. They acquire a new world view that comes with the new birth and everyting looks differently.
.
John 1:4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

If the physical analogy carries over into the spiritual, it is no wonder that God has to bring life to a person by instilling faith in the heart. In the real world, the images that are seen by a newly healed sighted person don't make any sense. It must be similar in a spiritual sense. Here a passage from 1 Corinthians2 to think about.

The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.[c] 14The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Whose Image Do You See?

2006-10-13T15:16:00.000-05:00

No doubt most readers of Scripture have had this kind of experience. You've read the same passage many times in your lifetime. In fact, your familiarity with the passage keeps you from gaining new insights. When it happens, that's when you slap your forehead with an "Oh yeah! Of course! Why didn't I see that?"

It happened to me the other day. Jesus is being asked a trick question. Here is the passage:

15Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. 16They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. "Teacher," they said, "we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. 17Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"

18But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, 20and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"

21"Caesar's," they replied.
Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

22When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.

The question, "Whose portrait is this?" is key. Of course, it was a likeness of Caesar.
It was on the basis of the image that Jesus then said the following words:

"Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

The question I never asked was, "What is God's?"

Well, I did ask it, but then answered all too quickly due to my 'familiarity' with the story. I would normally answer, "Everything is God's."
But Jesus' answer points to something far more focused and specific.

What (or who) else was present in this incident with a stamped image of its maker? The very Pharisees, who sought to entrap Jesus were now trapped.

They themselves bore the marks of their Maker in their very being. Humans are made in the image of God, just as the coin was made in the image of Caesar. Jewish religious leades would have instantly recognized the trap they themselves had fallen into.

Jesus had turned tables on them, and left them sputtering. Of course! Their loyalty to God was to take priority over every other loyalty. Thus, pay to God what is God's due. You belong to Him by way of creation. Give Him your all and be doubly His by way of redemption. This is precisely why Christianity is such a boon for democracies (inner restraint) and a threat to totalitarian regimes.

(With thanks to Vishal Mangalwadi for this insight)
Werner

Why Does Evil Mystify?

2006-09-14T19:52:00.000-05:00

The shooting in Montreal is all over the news. Everyone is asking the 'why' question. I am absolutely amazed that people are reacting so incredulously. Yet, whenever another boundary or another taboo is dismissed by society, our experts all in one accord debate until the cows come home and assure the unthinking masses that 'this video game depicting violence won't harm anyone' or some similar rationalization. When you plant stinkweed in the spring, you cannot expect to harvest roses. Seems kind of fundamentally obvious. You have to be brilliant to miss it, I guess.

I believe Augustine was right. Evil is a privation of good. When you argue that lights are not necessary, you have to be blind to be mystified at where the darkness came from. Darkness didn't come from anywhere. It is simply goodness that has fled.

The question people ought to be asking is not, "Where did this evil come from?" Rather they ought to be asking, "Where has the goodness gone and why?"

-Werner Peters

Introduction

2006-09-09T21:07:00.000-05:00

I tried to find a less pretentious sounding URL for this blog. There are hardly any English names available, so Scriptorum it is; the place where Scribes used to do their writing. I hope to be able to post resources and links for those on a similar journey to mine. Miscellaneus points to my varied interests, from photography to theology.

-Werner Peters