Wrongful Life?

A woman is suing after a failed abortion resulted in birth. How sick is our culture when someone's life necessitates compensation?

When asked to give a lecture at Harvard comparing the poverty of India and the wealth of the United States, Mother Teresa flipped the labels. India, she said, is rich with spiritual hunger and culture. The United States is impoverished: only a poverty of soul would kill the unborn for convenience.

Presuming on Grace from a Holy God

Sproul's sermon here is one of the most moving I have heard. In one sermon, Sproul puts the entire Old Testament "Angry" God in perspective. How often we confuse grace and justice. At times, God gives us justice and we cry out for "fairness" and justice, when we really are angry God gave us justice when we wanted grace. "I have mercy on whomever I will have mercy"

click on listen and you can download the mp3.

In What Sense God is Ineffable.

While teaching on St. Augustine in adult Sunday School I had the class read and discuss this passage from St. Augustine's "On Christian Doctrine". How often do we think about what leap it is for God to accept our praise as he is truly unspeakable? And for that matter who even writes about stuff like this anymore? IT got some great discussion going. The class seemed to really enjoy it. See for yourself;

Chapter 6.—In What Sense God is Ineffable.
6. Have I spoken of God, or uttered His praise, in any worthy way? Nay, I feel that I have done nothing more than desire to speak; and if I have said anything, it is not what I desired to say. How do I know this, except from the fact that God is unspeakable? But what I have said, if it had been unspeakable, could not have been spoken. And so God is not even to be called “unspeakable,” because to say even this is to speak of Him. Thus there arises a curious contradiction of words, because if the unspeakable is what cannot be spoken of, it is not unspeakable if it can be called unspeakable. And this opposition of words is rather to be avoided by silence than to be explained away by speech. And yet God, although nothing worthy of His greatness can be said of Him, has condescended to accept the worship of men’s mouths, and has desired us through the medium of our own words to rejoice in His praise. For on this principle it is that He is called Deus (God). For the sound of those two syllables in itself conveys no true knowledge of His nature; but yet all who know the Latin tongue are led, when that sound reaches their ears, to think of a nature supreme in excellence and eternal in existence.

The Lost World

The term unevangelized here means: has never had exposure to the gospel.

The Decline of Dispensationalism?

Is Dispensationalism in Decline? Or dead as some less objective commentators might suggest? I was surprised that the purported academic center of dispensationism is actually not as big on it as it used to be. On a recent CNN special, DTS was shown as such, though more moderate than more fanatical adherents on TV like John Hagee. But one student said most students on campus wouldn't be able to define dispensationalism. Thoughts?

DTS

I'm off to Dallas Theological. Thought it had a nice list of alumni:
Andy Stanley
Tony Evans
Chuck Swindoll
J Vernon McGee

Maybe I can just be smart by association...

A brief history of the Christmas tree

"Let them over whom the fires of hell are imminent affix to their posts laurels doomed presently to burn: to them the testimonies of darkness and the omens of their penalties are suitable. You are a light of the world, and a tree ever green. If you have renounced temples, make not your own gate a temple." - Tertullian

apparently Tertullian was no fan of "converting" pagan rituals. With many, mostly ignorant, claims that Christianity is nothing more then an adaptation of paganism I think he may have been right. Either way go to the following link for a very nice brief history of the Christmas tree

Scofield

I visited another church, and found my Scofield Bible had much more piercing spiritual insight than the pastor. Others may know Peter thrice is asked "Do you love me?" by Christ after the resurrection. Scofield points out the first two times Christ asks if Peter "agape"'s Him. Agape is "that love which the law demands". Peter replies he "phileis"'s Christ. Christ asks if we love God with perfect divine love, and Peter replies he loves Christ passionately as his friend, but not perfectly as the Law calls for as he did before he denied Christ three times. When Peter replied he did not twice, the third time, Christ asks Peter if he phileis's Him and Peter replies “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love (phileis) You.” This was not Peter's frustration at being asked three times (as some have interpreted), but Christ condecending to our abilities, giving us grace as we cannot fullfil the command to love God perfectly and Peter being accepted by grace in his imperfect love. We are not accepted by Loving as the Law demands, but by our personal relationship with Christ as our Savior, as he stoops to conquer.

Iran and the Anti-Christ?

I know I am being way too contemporary for a blog named "Dead Theologians." But current events reminds me of just after 9/11 when Jon Stewart said he was using the book of Revelation as a checklist...

In God We Trust

In God We Trust

in God we trust
and the government is on His shoulders
in God we trust
through democracy and tyranny alike
in God we trust
He uses both good and evil men

in God we trust
so we fight for peace and He fights for us
in God we trust
even when He fights us for someone else
in God we trust
even when He looks like the enemy

in God we trust
even though our hearts are bankrupt
in God we trust
for more than just the value of our dollar bills
in God we trust
but there’s no gold behind these notes of reserve

in God we trust
even through our great presumption
in God we trust
even though He favors no nation-state
in God we trust
even when the blessing is a curse

Deja Vu

If Protestant Church Structure has a major flaw, it is that it is too dependant on individual leaders in churches. Ever since he was named one of the most powerful Evangelicals by Time, I have not been a fan of Ted Haggard. Not to kick him while he's down, but early on he actually reminded me of Jimmy Swaggard: an emotional, theologically-light, health and wealth preacher. Now the similarity seems to be more clear. Though I hope it is not true.

Pre-Mourning

If you were to ask me who my favorite Senator is, I would be quick to answer: Rick Santorum. I have already begun my pre-mourning of his impending loss in Pennsylvania. The loss is great. He was one of the few Senators that wrote a book that actually made you think. The intellectual heft of “It Takes a Family” is daunting compared to Obama, Hillary, and Edwards’ books. Anyone who has read and actually understands and cites Russell Kirk, Alexis de Tocqueville, Immanuel Kant and Allan Bloom deserves a moment of silence while fading from Public Office.

Should I have faith in my faith?

No I should have faith in Christ. Packer (who is just old not dead) put it well when he wrote;


One of the unhealthiest features of protestant theology today is its preoccupation with faith, that is, viewed man centeredly as a state of existential commitment. Inevitably, this preoccupation diverts thought away from faith’s object… Though the Reformers said much about faith…their interest was not of the modern kind. It was not subject centered, but object centered, not psychological but theological, not anthropocentric, but christocentric

J.I. Packer, “Sole Fide: The Reformed Doctrine of Justification, in Soli Deo Gloria, (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1976) 20.

Dawkin’s Arguments against God.

I’m only about on page 140, but I thought I would give you Dawkin’s four main arguments against God as best I can make out:

1. Argument from Superiority.

a. I am really smart
b. I don’t believe in God
c. Therefore, God does not exist.
[Dawkins has other smart friends and people who call him smart whom he loves to quote who will attest to this]

2. Argument from name-calling [Logically, this should be a part of Argument one, but he spends so much time doing it, it deserves a unique category]

a. What are you, stupid?
b. Therefore, God does not exist.
c. Seriously, if you think God exists you are ignorant and prejudiced (pg. 66), no smarter than a gardener (56), full of hate speech (23), not rational (11), awed in ignorance (117) uneducated and unintelligent (102), laughable (99), disreputable (97) and unsophisticated (94).

3. Argument against Scripture

a. I have a couple of examples of Scripture being contradictory or unhistorical which a first year theological student can defend against. (pg 92-95)
b. Therefore, God does not exist.

4. Argument from the Design of the Designer

a. Who made God?
b. Therefore, God does not exist.
c. Don’t cite supernatural or beyond or above nature stuff, that’s not fair, just trust me, Nature is all there is.

Dawkins God

I decided I needed to investigate the other side a little more. I have weighed many arguments dealing with evolution. The best being Kenneth Miller's "Finding Darwin's God". Miller comes from a semi-Open theist position. The value of his book is not, however, in his conclusions, but is in challenging many of my assumptions. I am more amazed at the Providence of God when he is not the "God of the Gaps" that many evangelicals squeeze Him into.

But I have not read full tome from an atheistic perspective. I am starting to read Dawkins new book "The God Delusion" (his Summa Theologica, so to speak). He also has a mini-series entitled "the root of all evil," about religion. You can grasp his subtle position. We'll have to see what this anti-theistic guy Dawkins has to say. I need to be challenged...

A Story of Homecoming

Return of the Prodigal Son

I have finished this fine book by Nouwen called "The Return of the Prodigal Son". I give it my recommendation even though the author is not dead. First my criticisms.

I part company at least somewhat with the author that we are all sons of God and inherently good. As a protestant that should not be a surprising difference for me to have with a Catholic. I think his insights are still good however because as Christians we are given the spirit of adoption and thus given a new family and a new reputation to live up to. So if one were to view the prodigal son story as story of fellowship with our father (as opposed to just a simple gospel / conversion story) then I think his insights only need minor qualifications.
The art observations are very cool. As someone who is not very artsy it does wear old. The observations from scripture hold my attention better, but I find very little fault with his using art as an illustrative tool. All in all that is a welcome portion of the book.

Ok what is just plain good about the book? The comments on the elder son hit me in a way I needed. I felt liberated to live and serve freely in my fathers house with joy and without resentment. Also the call to love like the father loves is certainly a high goal worth setting. This book is short and easy to read, but it is deep rich and packed with spiritual insights that are very refreshing to the soul!! It will help you to identify well with each character of perhaps Jesus' most famous parable.

Reformed comeback

Well I do hope there are more exciting things then this going on in the church today. But the upswing in Calvinism is something that I think is exciting and pretty cool. As they say sound living flows from sound doctrine. I know Piper was very helpful to me to understand the Glory of God and the importance of making God my treasure and source of Joy. While I have problems with Reformed theology on some levels it is so much better then most of what else is out there. It is deep, rich and God centered. I hope that the end of this story is correct. My take is that Reformed theology often does try to hard to fit scripture into it's system at times. It seem to me it does not simply let the Bible speak, most notably on God's promises to Israel. But that being said, I LOVE CALVINISM!

Pope must die

Still I do not understand the "hurt" if the Pope was simply saying stop trying to kill us so we can talk. But this is encouraging to read in a story about a group calling for the Pope's death. Has it come to this? That I think wow he is a great guy for saying the Pope should not die?

Larger Islamic groups in Britain said they accepted the Pope's apology. Inayat Bunglawala of the Muslim Council of Britain said: "The Vatican has moved quickly to deal with the hurt and we accept that.

"It was something that should never have happened - words of that nature were always likely to cause dismay - and we believe some of the Pope's advisers may have been at fault over his speech."

Pope in Effigy

This is getting to predictable. Will these Islamo fascists types every get it? If you are angry that someone suggested your religion is violent should one respond by burning the person in effigy in protest?? hmmmm... This will prove them wrong!

I am not even convinced that the Pope was saying what they think he was saying, it appears to me he was just discussing history of thought around the subject. I am again reminded too of how different religions really are. As John Piper pointed out a few months back being mocked really is the essence of Christ's work, not Mohammad’s. Which would explain why I think Sarah Silverman is right when she says (paraphased) we all know it is safe to make fun of certain groups. Christians are not going to hunt you down and kill you. But others would respond in a manner that makes it hard to have a rational discussion.

I am eager to see what the Pope does next in response to calls for an apology. I can see it now "After seeing myself burned in effigy I see the serious error in my comments that suggested that Mohammad has only brought violence to the world. I deeply regret my foolish words."

The Pope and ID

A honest debate on intelligent design is something I would love to see. I love that the Pope is considering this. I love science and all it has to offer, no doubt. But it seems so many in science have such an narrow view. Do I really have to only think thoughts that are empirical? Should I (or can I) really live on science alone? My soul cries out for something more, but not less. So let's debate and explore the origins of the universe on scientific and philosophic and whatever grounds we can find to search out the questions of life. Peter Kreeft has some good arguments here that while I do not buy into all of them are certainly worth exploring.