Posts from — October 2000
just taking this opportunity to wish my very beautiful fiancee a happy birthday.
happy birthday, wonderful!
October 31, 2000 No Comments
Behavior can be reduced to biology, biology can be reduced to biochemestry, and biochemestry can be reduced to chemestry. Chemistry, in turn, can be reduced to physics. And physics, of course, can be reduced to theology.
i encourage you all to visit www.scottraymond.net. there are some really cool things there, and it’s alot prettier than my little blogger. just make sure you come back!
October 26, 2000 No Comments
my friend sco – at least, i guess it’s okay to call you friend, right sco? – posted something kind of interesting on his site.
True greatness is measured by how much freedom you give to others, not by how much you can coerce others to do what you want. I remember praying a prayer when I was very young, not much more than a baby myself. “God is great. God is good. Let us thank him for our food. Amen.” Well, I’m here to say amen to that. God’s greatness and goodness are measured by the fact that he gives us choices. He doesn’t require us to thank him for our food. (In case you hadn’t noticed.) God is not a Modernist. He doesn’t view us as nails. God expects us to behave like carpenters. Indeed, he gave us a carpenter as an example.
but something struck me as not-quite-right about what is quoted above. sco is probably gonna think i am the grumpiest, pickiest person on earth because i’m never agreeing with him. but hear me out, folks…
“God’s greatness and goodness are measured by the fact that he gives us choices.“
that is line that gets me. because i don’t believe it is true.
god’s greatness and goodness are not measured by any relation to us. nothing of the sort. god IS great and god IS good, for no other reason than he is god. it is impossible for god to not be good or great. if god never allowed for any human choice to be made, he would nonetheless be a good and great god. and what if one day we were presented with several options of things we could do… would this somehow make god better that day than previous times when we didn’t have a choice, or few choices?
now… the fact that god has given us different choices in life demonstrates his goodness and greatness, it reveals it and makes it known. but it doesn’t measure it or define it.
this seems to be something that is pretty widespread in our day and age. and that is the attempt to bring god into the creation. to make god a part of creation, which is clearly not the case. people want to make god somehow accoutable to them, to say that god depends on us pathetic creatures for his existence or goodness or greatness or for him to be able to work out his will in creation. and this just isn’t what the scriptures teach. they teach that god exists outside of creation, that he is infinite eternal and unchangeable.
that’s what i think, and i’m just a hammer helping to nail the future down.
October 25, 2000 No Comments
megan and i were reading this the other night, and i had left my nasb (regular) bible at work, so we were reading from the niv. and its this translation that caught my attention in this passage.
1 Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children
2 and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.
3 But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people.
4 Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving.
5 For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person–such a man is an idolater–has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient.
the point we both talked about is verse three, where paul tells us not to have even an hint of sexual immorality. that would be pretending to be gay as a joke, or wearing clothes that are even a little immodest. and the same strictness goes for any impurity or greed. and the reason given is because it’s not proper for us, as children of god redeemed by christ. a little further down pauls says that these types of things are out of place for us to do.
have you ever seen that movie big? with tom hanks? remember the part where he was at that big fancy party, and picked up the baby corn and started eating it like it was regular corn on the cob. that was pretty funny. but it wasn’t proper. it was out of place. similar to how our sin is in our lives.
i think, though, a more appropriate example would be a father, hosting his daughters 16th birthday party, lines up the girls and rapes them. that is much more akin to our sin before god. although still not as heinous. god hates sin. he truly hates it. we cannot understand how much he hates it.
but as we understand that more, how much greater is the joy that we have been forgiven our sins. every last one of them; past present and future. they are as far from us as the east from the west. amazing is our god!
have you ever considered how amazing and wonderful the gospel really is? that god, from all eternity made this plan of redemption and has carried it out thus far, and will continue to do so until the end? that the second person of the trinity came to live amongst us and died for us? ‘amazing love, how can it be that my king should die for me…’
amazing is right. sometimes i’m just completely awe struck by the incredible grace and mercy the lord has on us. how is it possible? how can he love me, a wretched sinner that doesn’t ever seem to stop? i don’t know. i don’t know why he chose to love me and to die for me, but i know that god the father loves me now, today, because i am cloaked in the perfect righteousness of our lord jesus christ. and what a comfort that is. a comfort i can’t even completely understand…
let me just quote one of my favorite men in all the world, andrew peterson:
“be glad…. be glad down to your very bones that our god loves us that much”
October 19, 2000 No Comments
with the release of the new caedmon’s call cd, i feel the need to post this new blog.
reasons why don chaffer is a closet calvinist* (a new series)
reason number: 1
the album: to chase away the birds (buy it!)
the song: if you want to get free
last verse (or prechorus or whatever this section of the song is called…)
And the smell of our sacrifices
still fills up my head
There’s just a few left at the altar, Lord
all the rest of them fled
And we’ve cried and we’ve tried
We’ve sweat and we’ve bled
But we don’t just need atonement
We need to be raised from the dead
we don’t just need atonement, we need to be raised from the dead. it isn’t enough for christ to die on the cross for the sins of all men everywhere through all history. you see, that accomplishes nothing because every last one of us is sinful to the core and totally depraved. in short, we will never ever choose christ without god regenerating our hearts, thus causing us to choose him. so you see what i mean when i say that it accomplishes nothing? i’m saying no one would get saved if god didn’t work in us to choose him. we are dead in our trespasses and sins. dead! have you ever seen a dead man get up out of the grave? of course not. the point is clear.
* by saying don is a closet calvinist, i don’t mean that he’s really a calvinist and pretending to the world he isn’t. i just mean that he says things that are very biblical, but holds to a theological position that is very unbiblical. he clearly reveals the inconsistency of the arminian position. nothing against don. i love the man and his music.
October 12, 2000 1 Comment
this is a quote i recently read on a board some place…
“The reason that an artist paints is not because he or she possesses the physical capability to draw and paint. A painter, or a musician, creates his or her art because he or she has a deep love for beauty.”
i call this “giving in to feminism”.
what is the point of all the he-or-shes? i just think it’s lame that someone has to put all that garbage in there and muddle the point up. there is no misunderstanding when you say ‘an artist paints. he does this because…’ there is no intention of claiming that all artist’s are men, or that women cannot paint. to say otherwise is just giving in to the feminist agenda. which is a problem that is growing and growing, even in the church. and i’m not just talking about things that are clearly unbiblical, such as woman pastors or elders, but other, more subtle, ways.
another related blurb:
i heard, on the radio the other morning, this lady talking about woman lawyers. they were saying that women don’t feel like they have as much opportunity for advancement. i don’t know if that’s true or not, but what i want to focus on is a quote from this one woman lawyer. she said that when she first started her career as a lawyer, a certain public official told her that she should stay home and take care of her children. and then, three years later, this same public official announced that this woman was one of the top lawyers in the county, or area or something. and i just found that to be annoying. the fact that i believe women that are mothers and have families shouldn’t be out having a career (especially one demanding as law) says nothing about the level of competency in that woman being a lawyer. she could very well be the best lawyer that ever lived, but that doesn’t change the fact that she should be at home, raising her children and taking care of her family. that is the woman’s role, not the income (or suplemental income) earner.
[UPDATE] for more information concerning this topic, i suggest you start by reading douglas wilson’s book ‘reforming marriage’. it is very reasonably priced at canon press.
October 1, 2000 No Comments