Pentecost Sunday

Pentecost Sunday coming up May 19th.  Πεντηκοστή (or the "fiftieth") always falls 50 days after Pascha (or Passover) and 10 days after Ascension Sunday.  Before I go any further it would be important for me to disclose that I'm not a big Church Calendar guy.  I like it, I think its good to have these bench marks through out the year for us to remember these very significant themes and events.  As it turns out my tradition follows from the Puritan Separatist movement who didn't think very highly of these liturgical devices.  I think it would be a good idea to revisit our reasons for ignoring some of these liturgical practices but that is neither here or there.     

Pentecost Sunday commemorates the work of the Holy Spirit through the Apostles on the day of Pentecost as the preaching of the Word lead to a multitude of believer Baptisms.  Luke records this amazing event of church history in Acts 2.  How about we re-read it in commemoration of Pentecost Sunday.     

Ascension Sunday

Yesterday was Ascension Sunday on the Church Calendar.  It comes 40 days after Πάσχα (or Paska grk.) commemorating the incarnate Son of God:

"and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great might that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all". (Ephesians 1.19-23)

As believers this is important theology for us reminding us the Christ has Ascended and now sits at the right had of God the Father where He is currently ruling and reigning till his return.  What are some implications of this?  

2K HITS!!!

Hey i-kone has reached 2000 thousand hits.  Most blogs get that in a day but i'm ok with that.  :)

Piper On The Life And Ministry Of Charles Spurgeon

Beards of Ministry

Stephen Hawking M-akes A Case For Big Bang Cosmology With Out God

Recently Stephen Hawking gave a presentation on Big Bang cosmology at the California Institute of Technology where he announced-among other things-that our universe didn't need any divine help to burst into being.

I'd start out by saying I do respect Hawking as a Scientist and a person.  Having said that i'm always leery about scientists who venture outside their specialized fields of expertise to draw conclusions that are outside of their sphere of understanding.  Hawking is intelligent and that is not in question here.  What I am questioning is the validity of using an empirical out look on the world and attempting to answer questions about God.  Discussion's about the validity of God's existence are more conceptual in nature and not empirical which makes empirical arguments an exercise in "putting the cosmological cart before the horse."

Tell me your thoughts.

Church for Atheists: Does This Not Reinforce The Idea That Man Is A Creature That Worships?

Mike Aus is the founder of Houston Oasis, a congregation of non-believers who come together on Sunday morning to draw strength   “Just because you don’t believe in God does not mean you do not need to get together in community and draw strength from that,” said Mike Aus, a former Lutheran pastor.  While they don't believe in God they do subscribe to a creed:

At Houston Oasis we think:

* People are more important than beliefs.

* Only human hands can solve human problems.

* Reality is known through reason, not revelation.

* Meaning comes from making a difference.

* Labels are unimportant.  

* Everyone should be accepted wherever they are as long as they are accepting in turn.

You can check out their website at http://houstonoasis.org/

Baptist Theologians Not Wanted In Baptist Colleges For Being Baptist?

Collin Garbarino has an interesting peace in First Things about an interesting phenomenon of Baptist professors being dropped from their institutions for being Baptist.  Its an interesting read and I found the comments below even more interesting.  Let me know what you think.  Click here.

What's the Difference Between Praise Choruses and Hymns?

Alligator Fridays!

Im not sure what to make of this.  Apparently if you have a strong hankering for alligator and happen to be celebrating lent you are free to have it.  As it turns out the alligator is in the fish family?

Calvin on Lent

Lent has gained some popularity among evangelicals.  Personally I am indifferent to the practices of lent depending on the reason one is exercising it.  But, out of curiosity I decided to read what Calvin had to say on the subject.  His take below:

  20. Then the superstitious observance of Lent had everywhere prevailed: for both the vulgar imagined that they thereby perform some excellent service to God, and pastors commended it as a holy imitation of Christ; though it is plain that Christ did not fast to set an example to others, but, by thus commencing the preaching of the gospel, meant to prove that his doctrine was not of men, but had come from heaven. And it is strange how men of acute judgment could fall into this gross delusion, which so many clear reasons refute: for Christ did not fast repeatedly (which he must have done had he meant to lay down a law for an anniversary fast), but once only, when preparing for the promulgation of the gospel. Nor does he fast after the manner of men, as he would have done had he meant to invite men to imitation; he rather gives an example, by which he may raise all to admire rather than study to imitate him. In short, the nature of his fast is not different from that which Moses observed 
when he received the law at the hand of the Lord (Exod. 24:18; 34:28). For, seeing that that miracle was performed in Moses to establish the law, it behoved not to be omitted in Christ, lest the gospel should seem inferior to the law. But from that day, it never occurred to any one, under pretence of imitating Moses, to set up a similar form of fast among the Israelites. Nor did any of the holy prophets and fathers follow it, though they had inclination and zeal enough for all pious exercises; for though it is said of Elijah that he passed forty days without meat and drink (1 Kings 19:8), this was merely in order that the people might recognise that he was raised up to maintain the law, from which almost the whole of Israel had revolted. It was therefore merely false zeal, replete with superstition, which set up a fast under the title and pretext of imitating Christ; although there was then a strange diversity in the mode of the fast, as is related by Cassiodorus in the ninth book of the History of Socrates: “The Romans,” says he, “had only three weeks, but their fast was continuous, except on the Lord’s day and the Sabbath. The Greeks and Illyrians had, some six, others seven, but the fast was at intervals. Nor did they differ less in the kind of food: some used only bread and water, others added vegetables; others had no objection to fish and fowls; others made no difference in their food.” Augustine also makes mention of this difference in his latter epistle to Januarius.

There is much to say on the subject.  Just not today :)

Garry Wills on the Priesthood

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

I have always believed that Gary Wills should stop being Roman Catholic for the simple fact that he's running out of good reasons to remain RC.  Perhaps I should read his book Why I Am A Catholic.  Or perhaps I can just assume he enjoys living in a dichotomy between what he says he believes and what he actually believes.  That's what is interesting about RC.  One does not necessarily have to believe in its dogmas as long as she is willing to formally agree with the Papacy.

On that note.  What was that rather strange discussion of Hebrews? From my understanding of Hebrews the author (Wills is correct, while we have some good candidates of who might have written Hebrews we don't really know for sure) is addressing a problem of apostacy within that Church.  It seems that many joined the Church but for some reason regressed back in to their previous religion which happened to be a Hellenistic informed Judaism.  So the author sets out to explain that Jesus is superior to Moses and the way to salvation, hence His priesthood.  Where did Colbert get the idea that this was a proof text for human priests?

Let me know if you know the answer to this.



  

Are Christians Monotheists in Their Practical Life?

Its been some time since I posted, ironically before the holidays.  But, i'm back in the saddle to amuse, entertain, and confound mostly myself of this blog.  So no more delay.

I was laying in bed tonight wanting to get some sleep and I kept thinking about a trinitarian theology of justice (I realize that's strange but its perfectly normal for me).  So rather than lay there fretting over it I decided to get up and look at one of the locus communis on this topic The Trinity by Karl Rahner.  One caveat before I go any further.  If you are new to the Christian faith or still learning about the faith I don't recommend Rahner as a source for you.  As I was reading away I came across something interesting he said and it got my attention viola! a blog post was born. 

So here is what Rahner had to say.

“Despite their orthodox confession of the Trinity, Christians are, in their practical life, almost mere ‘monotheists’.  We must be willing to admit that, should the doctrine of the Trinity have to be dropped as false, the major part of religious literature could well remain virtually unchanged”.  

“We may hope that any material could be pressed into service in the attempt to destroy once and for all the false conception that a ‘speculative’ doctrine of the immanent Trinity may perhaps be conceivable today, that it is a completely idle and irrelevant undertaking, possessing neither spiritual nor religious interest to the modern Christian and theologian”

Now I am curious, does anyone believe this might be true?  I will even settle for a feeling.  Does anyone feel that there is a possible hint of truth here?  And the reason I ask is quite legitimate.  From my perspective, as I look around at Churches today especially contemporary evangelical types, I do see Rahner's thesis being demonstrated practically.  Now I am not saying that contemporary evangelicals are self consciously Modern in their theology.  But, I do get the impression they view the trinity as "something we we believe" but not to be central to or inculcated in the life of the church.

Am I being too harsh?  It's not intentional.  I raise this question out of genuine concern.  Moreover, I believe many of the ecclesial problems evangelicals experience today can be answered with a return to a healthy understanding of the ontological trinity.  What says you?

Jon Stewart on The Gospel

Jon Stewart decided to weigh in on Bill O'Reilly's statement that Christianity is not a religion but a philosophy. Irreverent sarcasm aside I agree with Stewart up to the point where he said he would get an "A" in Jesus' philosophy class.  That is the point behind Christianity.  None of us would get an "A" because to do so would require perfect obedience both inward and outward to the law of God.  So Jon, "Barukh ata (expletive)" we are all in serious trouble because we don't meet the righteous demands of God's law.  That is why we believe Jesus the Son of God who died on the cross for our sin and "who ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father and who will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead whose Kingdom will have no end."  Jon this invitation is open for you and anyone one else.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The War on Christmas: Friendly Fire Edition - Bill O'Reilly's Philosophy
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

Book Review

In the Great Commission our Lord asks us to do three things: go into all the world and make disciples, baptize them in the Trinitarian formulation, and teach them.  One and two are pretty straight forward and executed on fairly well by the church today.  However, teaching can be something called in to question.  Are we as the body of Christ proficient in this area?  Or to be more specific, is what we are teaching what our Lord had in mind?  D.A. Carson has written, "I fear that the cross, without ever being disowned, is constantly in danger of being dismissed from the central place it must enjoy, by relatively peripheral insights that take on far too much weight.  Whenever the periphery is in danger of displacing the center, we are not far removed from idolatry" (The Cross and Christian Ministry).

In the The Cross Centered Life CJ Mahaney explains the centrality of the cross in Christianity then explains how this is lived out daily.  He offers suggestions to better assist the believer by memorizing the gospel, praying the gospel, singing the gospel, consider the gospel's impact on you, and study the gospel.  Why the heavy emphasis on the gospel?  It's like Carson said, it is imperative that we keep the central things central so that it doesn't get replaced by the peripheral. 

Never the less The Cross Centered Life is a good book and well worth the read.   

Quote of the Day

"All around us we see Christians and churches relaxing their grasp on the gospel, fumbling it, and in danger of letting it drop from their hands altogether." John Stott Guard the Gospel

Euthyphro Dilemma and the Nature of God

Lets think about philosophy for a minute because I think there has been some confusion over some key metaphysical issues in theology.  In Plato’s Euthyphro a dialogue takes places between Euthyphro and Socrates over the nature of piety.  Euthyphro begins throwing out different definitions for piety which Socrates socratically dismisses in a way that only Socrates can.  For our purpose we want to focus in on the second definition that Euthyphro gives.  Here he says that “piety is what all the gods love, and impiety is what all the gods hate.”  What is interesting is what Socrates says in response, “do the gods love piety because it is pious, or is it pious because they love it?”

Socrates’ question is one of those locus classicus questions some times referred to as the “Euthyphro Dilemma.”  What Socrates is getting at if I might amplify is:

Q.1 God command X because it is morally obligatory.

Or

Q.2 X is morally obligatory because God commanded it. 

How one answers these questions has much to say about her understanding of God.

Q.1 assumes that X is independent of God.  That is to say that moral actions are right or wrong in themselves.  This was the understanding that both Socrates and Euthyphro both agree on, the gods love piety because it is pious.  Having made their appeal for Q.1 necessarily means they must reject Q.2 on the basis that the god’s loving the pious does not explain why the pious is the pious.  Or in our example above God commanding X does not explain X.  Lastly, both Q.1 and Q.2 cannot both be true because to say that “God commands X because it is morally obligatory and X is morally obligatory because God commands it” is circular reasoning.  In either case Socrates’ initial question goes unanswered.  Namely, what is the nature of moral laws?

The problem is in Socrates’ question itself “do the gods love piety because it is pious, or is it pious because they love it?”  It creates an either / or situation or false dilemma without the possibility of a third option.  Namely, that the nature of morality is God Himself.  God is moral and is the standard of morality therefore when it comes to moral laws He looks only to Himself.  Q.1 fails to answer the question because it assumes moral laws are independent of God.  If moral laws are independent of God then they exist outside of God requiring God’s obedience.  Thus these moral laws would be deified above God and command His obedience.  Moreover he would then lose His God like qualities and cease to be God.  This latter view of the problem as a false dilemma was articulated early on by Augustine, Anselm and Aquinas.  The bottom line is that God does not conform to nor does he create moral laws.  Rather His very nature stands for them.

Who's Testimony; Ours Or Christ's?

I get the impression that contemporary evangelicals are at a loss for words when it comes to sharing with the unbelieving world. Aside from the various understandings of what exactly the Gospel is, there seems to be a lot of conversation that leans toward personal testimony. There is nothing wrong with giving ones personal experience however it is a bit problematic when that becomes the emphasis.


Why does this happen? That is to say why would anyone place emphasis on their personal experience as an evangelistic tool. Many have found that offering up the objective content of the Gospel is typically met with some sort of refutation. Not being able to respond results in an embarrassing situation. Or the exact opposite could happen where the refutation leads to a rebuttal then further refutation, add some emotions and now we have a heated debate, also another embarrassing situation. As a result many have come to believe that personal experience is a better way of going because "its unassailable". "It happened to me, I know it, therefore it cannot be refuted".

There are a couple problems with this. The first and vary obvious is someone might want to believe their personal testimony is irrefutable, after all it was their experience so it happened to them and no one else can refute it. If that is true and religious experiences are validated based on the individual having experienced it then that standard must be applied across the board to all religious experiences such as adherents who claim to have experienced a blue skinned Krishna.

Those who advance these type "irrefutable subjective truth statements" are not willing to extend the application to other religious experiences that do not line up with their belief system.  This reduces the nature of truth to a stipulated standard which is not characteristic of the nature of truth.  Any proposition is open to critique. This is especially the case if it is being used to advance some other proposition like Christianity is ultimately real/true. We must keep in mind that God is a rational God and is the standard for right reason. He creates on a representational model therefor all men are created in His image possessing among other things powers of reason. Therefor believers have no reason to shirk from responsible reasoning.

When our Lord left his disciples he left them with explicit responsibilities to disciple (or evangelize), Baptize in the Trinitarian formulation, and to teach them all that He commanded (Matthew 28.16-20). When we evangelize we are sharing the “good news” that is what the word means. What is the good news of all scripture? Paul says,

[15:1] Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, [2] and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. (1 Corinthians 15:1-2 ESV)

Why do we share the “good news”? Paul explains that it is the power of God for salvation. My personal testimony of how I received God’s grace might be useful in a cumulative case for Christianity but the means by which hearts are changed is Christ’s testimony the Gospel of Christ. If we are going to use “evangelistic tools” to win people to Christ, it is important that we use the tools that we have been given.

ESV Online Bible Steps Up Its Game

If your a fan of the ESV you are really going to like esv.org.  The folks at Crossway have added more tools to its online Bible making it a top notch resource for online Bible study.  Take a few minutes and check it out.  Tell me what you think.  It does require an account but set up is free.  I think you'll really like this.

Sermons on MP3

This is awesome.  Monergism.com has compiled a data base of sermons on every chapter in the Bible.  The sermons are delivered by some out standing solid pastors.

No this does not give you an excuse to stay home for church.

The link is http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/byscripture.html