tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-149165672024-03-07T10:15:37.826-08:00I-Need-Sheet-MusicBruce Shttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05271841789688939384noreply@blogger.comBlogger160125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14916567.post-37613400265942096142007-02-09T16:07:00.000-08:002007-02-12T14:55:26.846-08:00<span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >I succumbed to pressure and moved this whole blog to wordpress.</span><br /><br />The new locale is <a href="http://ineedsheetmusic.wordpress.com">http://ineedsheetmusic.wordpress.com</a><br /><br />For some annoying reason, wordpress won't accept any none alpha-numerics. So, the all important hyphens are gone from my catchy domain name.Bruce Shttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05271841789688939384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14916567.post-14039070577486941112007-02-06T21:34:00.000-08:002007-02-06T21:39:41.856-08:00<span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >Christian Mind Paper - Part V </span><br /><br />I start to show the weaknesses of this paper with this post. A not insignificant portion of the paper is quotes. And here I include a fairly big one. Doing this is frowned upon.<br /><br /><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 200%;" align="left"> The covenantal of redemption taken as a whole has its referent in Zechariah 6. Meredith Kline interprets this passage as follows:</p> <p style="margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in; line-height: 200%;" align="justify"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, Times, serif;"><span style=""><span style="font-style: normal;">The covenantal origins of the royal grant to Christ go back before the making of the covenant with David to the intratrinitarian counsels before the world was, back to a primal divine pact. Though the covenants made between God and man in the course of human history were determined upon in eternity in the all-embracive divine decrees, the actual covenanting between the parties does not occur until the creature party is on the scene. However, since all parties of the intratrinitarian covenant are present at the determination of the eternal decrees, that decretive predestinating is at the same time an actual eternal covenanting of the persons of the Godhead with each other with respect to their relationships in all that they decree concerning creation and redemption. </span></span>It was in that eternal covenant that the cosmic kingdom of glory was granted to the Son as the reward for his faithful execution of the work the Father gave him to do (cf. Luke 22:29; John 17:4, 5). This covenantal commitment to the Son was renewed in the course of the historical administration of the Covenant of Grace.<sup> </sup>It came to earthly expression in the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants: Christ was the promised seed of Abraham to whom pertained the promise of kingship and kingdom (Gal. 3:16) and Christ was the son of David to whom the dynastic promises of the Davidic covenant were directed. What Zechariah 6:9-15 prophesies is the Father's fulfillment of the eternal covenant by bestowing the promised kingdom grant on the Son who came to earth as Jesus, the Christ of God, the son of David, the son of Abraham (Matt. 1:1), and obediently carried out the stipulated task.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote1anc" href="#sdfootnote1sym"><sup>1</sup></a> </span> </p> <div id="sdfootnote1"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote1sym" href="#sdfootnote1anc">1</a>Meredith Kline “The Exaltation of Christ” Online: http://www.kerux.com/documents/keruxv12n3a1.asp</p><br /><p class="sdfootnote">Note that the above footnote points to the whole article.<br /></p><p class="sdfootnote"><br /></p> </div>Bruce Shttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05271841789688939384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14916567.post-35981677360049510812007-02-02T18:05:00.000-08:002007-02-02T18:07:11.405-08:00<span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >Christian Mind paper: Part IV.</span><br /><br /><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 200%;" align="left"> Scriptural support for the covenant of redemption is not difficult to produce nor is it difficult to assert that the evidence thus marshaled does in fact constitute solid indicators that such a covenant took place.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote1anc" href="#sdfootnote1sym"><sup>1</sup></a> First, Scripture is replete with the predestinarian electing by the Father of sinners. Beginning as early as Genesis 3:15 God pronounces a curse on the seed of the serpent (which eons later we discover the referent to be humans<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote2anc" href="#sdfootnote2sym"><sup>2</sup></a>) thus immediately splitting all of Adam's progeny into two distinct groups. In Genesis 4:26 we see that God carves out of history those who, by calling on his name, are his covenantal servants.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote3anc" href="#sdfootnote3sym"><sup>3</sup></a> God's graphically displays his election and reprobation via the Noahic oracle in Genesis 9:25-27<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote4anc" href="#sdfootnote4sym"><sup>4</sup></a>. Further narrowing continues through the genealogies of Shem, Eber and climaxing in Peleg in Genesis 10:25 where God outright states that he is dividing the earth up along these family lines<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote5anc" href="#sdfootnote5sym"><sup>5</sup></a>. This leads to the election Abraham and the subsequent election of Issac over against Ishmael, and of Jacob over against Esau. New Testament corroborates this electing process, most notably in Acts 13:48. The covenant of redemption asserts that God elects these as gifts to be an inheritance for his Son who agrees to earn these gifts. Scriptural support for this is found in John 6:38-40 as well in Psalm 2:6-9. Indeed, these verses are difficult if the covenant of redemption is denied.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 200%;" align="left"> Jesus Christ the God-Man pledged to fulfill the covenant of works in order to make the covenant of grace possible. In other words, he promised to become a man, taking on his flesh and his nature. Essentially, as the second Adam, he would assume <i>posse peccare</i> and <i>posse non peccare</i>. He also promised to obey the law – both the natural law that resides in all men and the specific law given to Israel. Finally, he promised to go to the cross as propitiation for the sins of those elect. In this way, Christ's active obedience to the law, his perfect righteousness, might be given as an act of grace to those elect whose active disobedience as covenant breakers has, as well, been forgiven. The chair passage for this in Scripture is the high priestly prayer of Jesus to the Father in John 17. In this passage no fewer than nine times Jesus refers to those whom God has given him. In John 17:4 he explicitly refers to his having accomplished the work that he was assigned; and in John 17:12 he refers to successfully guarding those for whom he was responsible - an allusion to Adam's failure to guard the garden, a charge he was given in Genesis 2:15. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 200%;" align="left"> The covenant of redemption spells out a pledge made by the Holy Spirit as well. It is here that we can most easily begin to see the value of the covenant of redemption as a lens into our systematic theology. Our entire doctrine of the Holy Spirit falls into place when one considers that nearly all the Spirit does is directly tied to his inter-trinitarian pledge. Drawing from Berkhof's Systematic Theology we see four primary tasks that the Spirit must perform. The first task is entirely in relation to the man Jesus Christ. The Spirit must bring him into existence as a man via the virgin Mary. He also must anoint him (Mt. 3:17 ) with the result that Jesus has the Spirit without measure (John 3:34).<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote6anc" href="#sdfootnote6sym"><sup>6</sup></a> Second, the Holy Spirit inspires the writing of Scripture (2 Peter 1:21). Third, the Holy Spirit is the immediate agent of the regeneration (John 3:6-8) and the sanctification of the elect (1 Corinthians 3:16; 2 Thessalonians 2:13). Fourth, he builds, guides and teaches the church (John 16:13,14; Ephesians 1:13, 2:20-22; ).<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote7anc" href="#sdfootnote7sym"><sup>7</sup></a></p> <div id="sdfootnote1"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote1sym" href="#sdfootnote1anc">1</a>Steven Baugh, “The Covenant of Redemption in Galatians 3:20”, WTJ 66,1 (2004), 49-70. Dr. Baugh tackles the tough Gal 3:20 and defends his thesis that even this verse supports the Covenant of redemption.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote2"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote2sym" href="#sdfootnote2anc">2</a>See John 8:42-45.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote3"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote3sym" href="#sdfootnote3anc">3</a>It is especially important to note that being elect into God's covenant in no way obviates the sinful nature of the elect. All the elect have this in common: they all trust in the promise of God to fulfill all that as covenant Lord he has spoken.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote4"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote4sym" href="#sdfootnote4anc">4</a>In addition to displaying his reprobation and election, he foretells the bringing in of the gentiles represented by Japheth into the covenantal family of God fulfilled in Acts 11:1-18.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote5"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote5sym" href="#sdfootnote5anc">5</a>It is important to remember that this election is a spiritual operation and the physical ancestry that one may trace is not truly in view.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote6"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote6sym" href="#sdfootnote6anc">6</a>The idea that the Spirit is the director of the drama is very apt when one considers his role as the third person of the covenant of redemption.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote7"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote7sym" href="#sdfootnote7anc">7</a>Louis Berkhof, <i>Systematic Theology</i>. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1932), 98.</p> </div>Bruce Shttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05271841789688939384noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14916567.post-48146354065404883032007-01-29T19:03:00.000-08:002007-01-29T19:07:47.645-08:00<span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >Christian Mind paper part the third: Covenant of Redemption<br /></span><br /><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 200%;" align="left"> Reserving the covenant of redemption for a separate treatment is warranted because many Christian Theologians, as noted in part above, restrict the covenant concept to only those “transactions” that occur in Biblical history and therefore don't consider what is typically referred to by this covenant as a covenant in any sense at all. Consequently, it is dropped from the discussion. However, though not explicitly named a covenant of redemption, the WCF points to the intratrinitarian commitment that lays the groundwork for the works principle manifested in the covenant of works and the plan of redemption (which itself is based on Christ fulfilling his covenant of works made with the Father):</p> <p style="margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 200%;" align="left"> It pleased God , in his eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, his only begotten son, to be the mediator between God and man, the Prophet, Priest and King, the Head and Savior of his church, the Heir of all things, and Judge of the world: unto whom from all eternity give a people, to be his seed, and to be by him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote1anc" href="#sdfootnote1sym"><sup>1</sup></a>. </p> <p style="margin-right: 0.5in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 200%;" align="left"> And further in the confession:</p> <p style="margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 200%;" align="left"> The Lord Jesus, in His human nature thus united to the divine, was sanctified, and anointed with the Holy Spirit, above measure, having in Him all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge; in whom it pleased the Father that all fullness should dwell; to the end that, being holy, harmless, undefiled, and full of grace and truth, He might be thoroughly furnished to execute the office of a Mediator and Surety. Which office He took not unto Himself, but was thereunto called by His Father, who put all power and judgment into His hand, and gave Him commandment to execute the same.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote2anc" href="#sdfootnote2sym"><sup>2</sup></a></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 200%;" align="left"> The covenant of redemption is different from all other covenants on three counts. The first is that it is the only covenant that is made not between God and man, but between the persons of the trinity. The second is that it is the only covenant not named as such even if implicitly.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote3anc" href="#sdfootnote3sym"><sup>3</sup></a> Thirdly, the covenant of redemption, precisely because it was not initiated at some specific place and time in the history of creation is not a covenant whose defenders can point to a specific passage that details it fully.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 200%;" align="left"> Essentially, the covenant of redemption is a works covenant. The pledge “this I will do” forms the basis of the covenant. God the Father elects a rebellious covenant breaking people for himself which he promises to give as an inheritance to his Son. God the Son promises to work as the second Adam (and as the true Israel) in order to reconcile the rebellious elect to the Father. God the Spirit promises to effectually bring these rebellious elect to saving belief in the Son. </p> <div id="sdfootnote1"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote1sym" href="#sdfootnote1anc">1</a>WCF Ch. 8, P1.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote2"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote2sym" href="#sdfootnote2anc">2</a>WCF Ch. 8, P3.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote3"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote3sym" href="#sdfootnote3anc">3</a>The Davidic covenant of 2 Sam. 7 is not named a covenant during the historical event when it is announced but is referred to as a covenant in Psalm 89:3. Likewise, the Adamic covenant of works is referred to as a covenant in Hosea 6:7.</p> </div>Bruce Shttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05271841789688939384noreply@blogger.com32tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14916567.post-28041352794753747502007-01-24T22:05:00.000-08:002007-01-24T22:20:17.128-08:00<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 200%;" align="left"><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >Here is part II of the paper. </span><br />You probably should not skip this part since it contains definitions of "covenant".</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 200%;" align="left"><br /></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 200%;" align="left">Meredith Kline has provided impetus in this direction in his concluding sentence in the introduction to his seminal <i>Kingdom Prologue Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview</i>. “By unfolding and developing that infrastructure [Biblical Theology], Kingdom Prologue performs, in part, a prolegomenon function for the program of Biblical Theology, while also serving the enterprise of systematic theology by contributing very directly to the formulations of covenant theology.”<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote1anc" href="http://www2.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=14916567&postID=2804135279475374750#sdfootnote1sym"><sup>1</sup></a> This paper attempts to tackle the other side of Kline's coin. He is mostly concerned with Biblical Theology. I will attempt to demonstrate how the covenant idea is a servant of systematic theology.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 200%;" align="left"> Before moving ahead to the proper defense of my thesis, I will conduct a brief survey of the covenant idea. This will provide a definition of covenant that I will use to discuss the thesis of this paper. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 200%;" align="left"> O. Palmer Robertson describes a covenant as a bond in blood sovereignly administered. Robertson is motivated by his conviction that the phrase 'to make a covenant' is literally 'to cut a covenant' and primarily via the term “cut”, carries with it a clear reference to blood. He makes a reference to such covenants where the phrase 'cut a covenant' is present in those made between men<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote2anc" href="http://www2.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=14916567&postID=2804135279475374750#sdfootnote2sym"><sup>2</sup></a>. And he makes reference to such covenants initiated by God toward man. Significantly, Robertson neglects to include the covenant of redemption in his treatment of covenants.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 200%;" align="left"> John Murray holds the view that the covenant concept is all about grace. <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);"> </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Murray arrives at this position because he essentially denies the existence of any covenant of works. The Adamic covenant he contends is no covenant at all, not having been so named in scripture.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote3anc" href="http://www2.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=14916567&postID=2804135279475374750#sdfootnote3sym"><sup>3</sup></a> Further, he sees the Adamic “administration” as well as the Sinaitic covenant as fundamentally gracious. </span> </p> <p style="margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 200%;" align="left"> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Scripture always uses the term covenant, when applied to God's administration to men, in reference to a provision that is redemptive or closely related to a redemptive design. Covenant in Scripture denotes the oath-bound confirmation of promise and involves a security which the Adamic economy did not bestow. . . .The Mosaic covenant was distinctly redemptive in character and was continuous with and extensive of the Abrahamic covenants.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote4anc" href="http://www2.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=14916567&postID=2804135279475374750#sdfootnote4sym"><sup>4</sup></a> </span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; line-height: 200%;" align="left"> What is notable about both of the above views is that neither is really suitable as a lens through which to view Scripture or to do theology. These views are restrictive in that they don't account for all the data. By excluding the covenant of redemption from the discussion, both Robertson and Murray truncate the broadest possible sweep of the covenants. So also, by excluding the covenant of works from the discussion, Murray seriously hamstrings the covenants, rendering them useless as a lens as well.</p> <p style="line-height: 200%;"> <span style=""><span style="font-style: normal;">When all the data is accounted for, a more useful definition of covenant emerges. This is what Meredith Kline has done in providing his definition that covenant is a divinely sanctioned commitment.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote5anc" href="http://www2.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=14916567&postID=2804135279475374750#sdfootnote5sym"><sup>5</sup></a> As befitting a wide-angle lens, Kline's definition is broad as it is succinct. His view stretches the scope of covenant to extend before time and into eternity. Kline then goes on to show his definition to include two basic kinds of covenants, one of works and one of grace.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote6anc" href="http://www2.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=14916567&postID=2804135279475374750#sdfootnote6sym"><sup>6</sup></a></span></span></p> <p style="line-height: 200%;"> <span style=""><span style="font-style: normal;">We must remember that Kline is not an innovator on the point of two covenants. His definition is useful and I commend it assured that he is in step with the reformation.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote7anc" href="http://www2.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=14916567&postID=2804135279475374750#sdfootnote7sym"><sup>7</sup></a> Space prevents me from listing the work of those reformers who had a similar understanding of the covenants. In summary though, the divines who formulated the Westminster Confession attest to a broadly held view of the covenants as follows: </span></span> </p> <p style="margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in; line-height: 200%;"> The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience. Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein He freely offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote8anc" href="http://www2.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=14916567&postID=2804135279475374750#sdfootnote8sym"><sup>8</sup></a></p> <div id="sdfootnote1"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote1sym" href="http://www2.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=14916567&postID=2804135279475374750#sdfootnote1anc">1</a>Meredith Kline, <i>Kingdom Prologue Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview</i>. (Eugene Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2004), 7.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote2"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote2sym" href="http://www2.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=14916567&postID=2804135279475374750#sdfootnote2anc">2</a>See Gen 21:27-32. 2 Sam 3:12-13.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote3"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote3sym" href="http://www2.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=14916567&postID=2804135279475374750#sdfootnote3anc">3</a>John Murray, <i>Collected Writings</i> <i>of John Murray Volume 2</i>. (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1977), 49. Hosea 6:7 notwithstanding. Murray contends that this verse may have other interpretations but fails to offer any. See footnotes 6,7,8,9 and 10 starting on page 282 of <i>Covenant Theology</i> by Jeong Koo Jeon for a detailed exposition of Hosea 6:7. Interpreters have produced “they, like men”, “they, like man”, “they, like mankind”, “they, as at Adam”, “they, like Adam”, “they, in their land”. The Septuagint translates the Hebrew “<span style="font-family:Bwgrki;">ws anqrwpos</span> ”. Additionally, Murray avoids discussion of Isaiah 24:5 in his treatment. This verse has been used by Meredith Kline and others to defend the works principle and the associated covenant of works. See <i>Kingdom Prologue</i>, page 14.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote4"> <p class="sdfootnote" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote4sym" href="http://www2.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=14916567&postID=2804135279475374750#sdfootnote4anc">4</a> <i>ibid</i> p. 50.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote5"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote5sym" href="http://www2.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=14916567&postID=2804135279475374750#sdfootnote5anc">5</a>Kline, <i>Kingdom Prologue</i>, 2.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote6"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote6sym" href="http://www2.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=14916567&postID=2804135279475374750#sdfootnote6anc">6</a>For more on the covenant of works and the covenant of grace see Meredith Kline's “Covenant Theology Under Attack”, Online: http://www.opc.org/new_horizons/Kline_cov_theo.html</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote7"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote7sym" href="http://www2.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=14916567&postID=2804135279475374750#sdfootnote7anc">7</a>Geerhardus Vos, <i>Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation</i> (<span style="font-size:85%;">Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 1980</span>), 234-242. Here Vos provides an excellent tracking of the history of the development of covenant theology.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote8"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote8sym" href="http://www2.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=14916567&postID=2804135279475374750#sdfootnote8anc">8</a>WCF Ch. 7 P2,3.</p><br /><p class="sdfootnote"></p><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Note that in the above section, Dr. Horton docked me for not citing all my assertions. And, amazingly, Dr. Horton caught my Greek error in footnote 3 where I failed to correct the wrong form of 's' or sigma that ends the word <span style="font-style: italic;">anthropos</span>. He went over this paper with a fine toothed comb. Also, Dr. Horton liked my phrase "as befitting a wide-angle lens". I think that phrase all by itself rescued the paper from mediocrity.</span><br /></div>Bruce Shttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05271841789688939384noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14916567.post-63794692197712454142007-01-20T17:36:00.000-08:002007-01-20T17:41:41.552-08:00<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" > The Bible is a very big book. </span><br /></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 200%;">Its sheer size, its varied genres, its obtuse nature have prevented many Christians from finding in it the special revelation that its author has intended for us to have. Is the Bible a magic book of lucky charms, a manual for successful living, a violin upon which you can play any song that comes to mind? Affirmative answers to these questions guarantee failure to truly apprehend the special revelation of God that is contained within its pages. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 200%;"> Many express the mantra that Christianity is not a religion but a personal relationship with God. Correlated with this view is the idea that the primary purpose of the Bible is to provide a guide for entering into this personal relationship. The idea of personal relationship then is used as a lens with which one understands the Bible. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 200%;"> Little better is a central dogma approach. This method accentuates one doctrine over against all others. For example, some see the Bible primarily speaking about God's sovereignty and as a result highlight so-called Calvinism. Others, recognizing the immense importance of justification settle on it as the hinge doctrine of the Bible. Other examples of this abound.<span style="color:#ff0000;"> </span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 200%;"> Rather than go into detail explaining why these approaches quickly fail to deliver on their promises, I suggest a different approach and a different and considerably more ambitious goal: The best way to approach Scripture and more specifically systematic theology is through the lens of the covenant because God himself is a covenantal God.</p><br /><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size:78%;">I am considering posting my Christian Mind paper in its entirety. Why? I just got it back and reread it. I like it. So did the prof.</span><br /></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 200%;"><br /></p>Bruce Shttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05271841789688939384noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14916567.post-77708292276400931372007-01-18T20:52:00.000-08:002007-01-18T21:17:36.031-08:00<span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >Or maybe not.</span><br />I was just notified that my services will not be needed at the drug and alcohol rehab center. This is the reason I was given for being dismissed: <span style="font-style: italic;">the elders decided that they wanted to keep the leadership of the Bible Study within the Crossroads' community. It's one of the places--along with Sunday evening worship--where we maintain community and communicate a vision with them, so the elders thought it right to maintain some direct relationship to that leadership.</span>Bruce Shttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05271841789688939384noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14916567.post-21141552836724102172007-01-05T21:50:00.000-08:002007-01-05T22:04:54.729-08:00<span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >Coming soon</span><br />is a series of posts that may be unlike all my other series. All my other series had this in common. They all were never finished. But I have committed to leading a Bible study at a drug and alcohol rehab center in Vista, Ca. I plan to put each outline up weekly on this blog as I proceed through the "study".<br /><br />I have chosen the gospel of Mark. I have committed to 9 weeks. That works out to about 2 chapters per week.<br /><br />I plan to emphasize to those in attendance that we won't be studying the book as much as hearing it. I hope to conclude the whole series by having the whole book read to them in one sitting. This feature I am going to conceal until the end. It may turn out not to be such a good idea. But if they get hooked on hearing God's covenantal summons in Mark, I may feel it a good way to conclude the session. We'll see.<br /><br />Thanks to my friend, Mike, whose shoes I will be filling at this facility while he takes a break and gets ready for when he resumes in mid-spring and who made this opportunity possible.<br /><br />On the seminary front, a month or so ago, I tentatively made up my mind to drop out of the MDiv program and switch to a shorter program. Doing this would amount to bailing out on ordination. As of the last few weeks, I have changed my mind. I will continue to pursue the MDiv and ordination.Bruce Shttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05271841789688939384noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14916567.post-16677016226126485692007-01-01T22:07:00.000-08:002007-01-01T22:08:59.531-08:00<span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Note the new look.</span></span><br />I really hated that old one. It is true that "blogspot" stinks though. Note that my profile (the one that never worked and about which I whined a long time ago) now works.Bruce Shttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05271841789688939384noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14916567.post-65823775797443244272006-12-29T16:50:00.000-08:002006-12-29T17:07:24.599-08:00<span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >I finished the fall semester at school</span>.<br />It was very grueling because of my weak paper writing skills. On the plus side, though, I met some new friends. That is the bonus I get for being on the 10 year plan. I meet triple the number of classmates than the normal student.<br /><br />Here is a snapshot of my Christian mind class in list format:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Three covenants</span><br />1) Covenant of redemption<br />2) Covenant of works<br />3) Covenant of grace<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Three speech act aspects</span><br />1) locution<br />2) illocution<br />3) perlocution<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Three kinds of knowledge WRT God:</span><br />1) univocal - Our knowledge is identical to God's knowledge - this one is not possible<br />2) analogical - Knowledge of what God is like, but not what he is<br />3) equivocal - No intersection of our knowledge with God's is possible - (we're not that bad off)<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Three things God is</span>:<br />1) <span style="font-style: italic;">Principium Essendi</span><br />2) <span style="font-style: italic;">Principium Cogniscendi</span><br />3) <span style="font-style: italic;">Principium Loquendi</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Three states of man:</span><br />1) <span style="font-style: italic;">posse non peccare</span> -Adam (trans: posse = possible; peccare = to sin)<br />2) <span style="font-style: italic;">non posse non peccare</span> - us in this present age<br />3) <span style="font-style: italic;">non posse peccare</span> - us in the consummation age<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Three ladders of human ascent to attain the beatific vision: </span>(if you are doing these, stop)<br />1) mysticism<br />2) theological speculation<br />3) merit<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Three things you must do to be a theologian (from Luther)</span><br />1) Study<br />2) Pray<br />3) Suffer<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Four models for understanding how theology works</span><br />1) cognitive-propositionalist<br />2) experiential-expressivist<br />3) cultural-linguistic<br />4) canonical-linguistic<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Three views on apologetics (philosophies of knowledge):</span><br />1. Classical (Rationalism)<br />2. Evidentialist (Empiricism)<br />3. Presuppositionalist (Covenantal)<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Four approaches to scriptural hermeneutics</span><br />1) Covenantal-Eschatalogical<br />2) Text-Sense<br />3) Authorial Discourse<br />4) Narrative<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Four anxieties</span><br />1) Ancient age - anxiety over death<br />2) Medieval age - anxiety over guilt<br />3) Modern age - anxiety over meaninglessness<br />4) Postmodern age - anxiety over truthlessness<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Collection of duos: </span><br />1) Creator vs. creature<br />2) ontological vs. ethical<br />3) overcoming estrangement vs. meeting a stranger<br />4) under-realized eschatology vs. over-realized eschatology<br />5) theology of glory vs. theology of the cross<br />6) seeing vs. hearing<br />7) law vs. gospelBruce Shttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05271841789688939384noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14916567.post-1164502180462156322006-11-25T16:37:00.000-08:002006-11-25T16:49:40.483-08:00<span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >Long time no post, eh?</span><br />Well, I've been busy. I am writing my paper for the WSCAL Christian Mind class I am taking. I was thinking about things and I 'fessed up to Big D the other day that when I dropped out of college to embark on a career of serious drug use back in 1970, the primary contributing factor for dropping out was that in my major, which was Political Science, the biggest part of getting graduated was writing all the papers that were required. I hated writing papers and the easiest way out of writing them was to quit. So I did.<br /><br />So here I am again. I tried to get an early start so I began this project about a month ago. I still have a week left and I hope to finish by Monday night. That will give me a few weeks to catch up on reading and study for the final.<br /><br />I have a friend from WSCAL who is in my Christian Mind class who says once he gets his thesis, his outline and his secondary resources lined up, he can spit out his 15 or so pages in about 3 hours. And I believe him.Bruce Shttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05271841789688939384noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14916567.post-1162830944190645302006-11-06T08:34:00.000-08:002006-11-06T08:35:44.230-08:00<span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >If Hussein's</span><br />hanging is done in public (which I believe it will be) will you watch it on youtube? Yea or nay?Bruce Shttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05271841789688939384noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14916567.post-1162356572869988122006-10-31T20:20:00.000-08:002006-10-31T20:49:33.036-08:00<span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >Revelation as new awareness:</span><br />This is a modern sounding view. It goes something like this. Revelation is a breakthrough to a higher level of consciousness as humanity is drawn to a fuller participation in the divine creativity. We become co-creators with God.<br /><br />Unlike the private, mystical religion as inner experience or encounter of the individual with God, this view shares the mysticism but is more corporate in its outlook. As we participate in the great movements of history revelation heightens and enlarges our understanding of the transcendent, of the divine. This is like seeing yourself fall into step with a movement and in it find truth.<br /><br />God never reveals himself from outside by intrusion but from within by stimulation and enrichment of the human psychic current. The sound of his voice being made recognizable by the fullness and coherence it contributes to our individual and collective being. It leaves your autonomy completely intact. Revelation isn't rearranging your furniture, it is just turning the light on. It enlarges your sense of who you are.<br /><br />This view then is characterized by discovery of already known truth, or re-cognition. Not the acquiring of new truth. We uncover in the poor, for example, what Jesus is and why it is that we are drawn to the poor. We discover why it is that we identify with a cause because we recognize Jesus in it. <br /><br />This can be seen in many ways. An example that might strike a chord is the religious right seeing God revealed in the nationalism via the symbol of the American flag. An example is liberation theology. Here, we see Jesus as embodied in the poor. We align ourselves with this movement and in doing so get swept up in this as our revelation of God.<br /><br />Another example is Jane Fonda. She purports to be a Christian. What has happened is that she has made the discovery that Jesus was a feminist. (Woman at the well, the woman caught in adultery, having such great love for women when it was unpopular to do so, etc. etc.) So, she sees that Jesus now aligns with what she holds dear. Therefore she now blesses Jesus as acceptable to her while her autonomy is stronger than ever. She now recognizes Jesus as the purveyor of truth, something she was in the dark on prior to making this discovery. This feels like revelation to her.<br /><br />One left.Bruce Shttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05271841789688939384noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14916567.post-1162181793052536832006-10-29T19:39:00.000-08:002006-10-29T20:16:33.606-08:00<span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >A quick stab at Karl Barth</span>:<br />Barth really disliked the liberalism that elevated pietistic personal internal experience of the divine [so called] over other means of revelation. Barth attempted to stomp it out by positing the idea that God is so transcendent, so wholly other, that any revelation in a general sense is unattainable. The pietistic view holds to a hyper-immanent view of God. It had gained such a deep foothold in the church that this immanence trumped any doctrinal, systematic formulation of revelation rendering it worthless in comparison to the value and existential meaning of the revelation gained by this personal experience (contentless and incommunicable though it may be). Barth's hyper-transcendence was a reaction to this.<br /><br />At the root of this view is the idea that God is so qualitatively different from his creatures that any overlap, any revelation, imparted to us, for example by analogy, is out of the question. He maintained that the only true revelation, the only true point of intersection between God and man, was in the person of Jesus Christ.<br /><br />The nick-name for this view, besides being called neo-orthodoxy, was dialectic theology. The reason for this name comes from how Barth solves the problem of this radical creator-creature antithesis. He solves the problem by declaring that revelation comes in a <span style="font-weight: bold;">moment of revelation</span>. This is the moment in time when God is immediately and directly revealing himself in a univocal way. It is not that a moment of hyper-immanence occurs. The pietists claimed to experience this hyper-immanence on a permanent and ongoing basis, but significantly, it was a kind of immanence that was spatial. A kind of immanence that had to do with locating God within at a specific point in space, i.e. within me. With Barth it was a kind of immanence that has to do with univocity with respect to knowledge. God revealing himself not merely by locating himself within a person, but by allowing the creature to attain an understanding of the person of Jesus Christ.<br /><br />In his view the Bible only contained revealed truth in moments of divine inspiration that the reader might get when encountering Jesus Christ in the text. Hence the idea of letting the Bible fall open and reading the first text to hit your eye. This is probably a caricature of Barth but one can see how the idea could be attributed to him. [I personally believe this idea of closing your eyes and pointing to a verse is more attributable to the idea that the Bible is a magic book of lucky charms than anything else].<br /><br />Hence the term dialectic. A swing from hyper-transcendence to hyper-immanence.Wholly other, wholly hidden to wholly revealed.<br /><br />Two more to go.Bruce Shttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05271841789688939384noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14916567.post-1162010088666792102006-10-27T21:16:00.000-07:002006-10-27T21:34:48.720-07:00<span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >Will this be yet another</span><br />series that I don't complete? I hope not. But, due to extenuating circumstances, the series may have to wait a little bit. (If Barth were not so hard to capture, this would not be bogging down).<br /><br />In the mean time, I just had to post this quote:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">I have found that while evangelicals claim to believe in absolute truth and an authoritative Bible which governs all of life, they do not live like they say they believe. They say they believe the Bible is the Word of God, but somehow, strangely, the Bible always says what satisfies their</span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"> personal psychological and emotional needs. They say they worship an awesome God, but their deity is not one to be feared, because He is pretty much nonjudgmental, always quick to point out your good qualities, and will take whatever He can get in terms of your commitment to Him. He’s “God lite”—not the imposing deity before whom Israel trembled at the foot of Mt. Sinai, but the sort of deity who is always there to give you fresh supplies of upbeat daily therapy. And as for God’s people, well, they are really just like everyone else—no more holy or righteous than the rest of us. Put them in the crucible of character, and they’ll fold like a cheap suitcase.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">Watching sermons reduced to PowerPoint presentations or listening to one easily forgettable praise song after another makes one long for an evangelical willing to stand up, Luther-like, and proclaim his opposition to the latest survey of evangelical taste. So anxious is evangelicalism to copy the culture of hotel chains and popular music that it loses what religious distinctiveness it once had.</span><br /><br />Now, had he been observing the kind of church in which they resemble going to court where you stand before the judge and hear him pronounce the sentence of death on you for your incurable and repeated capital offenses, followed by the remarkable sentence of pardon in Jesus Christ due to his active obedience and his propitiating death on the cross, I venture to say he might have written something different.Bruce Shttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05271841789688939384noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14916567.post-1161917721597698592006-10-26T19:30:00.000-07:002006-10-26T19:55:21.650-07:00<span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >You'll have to forgive</span><br />me for not keeping up the pace. The fourth view is quite difficult to convey, unlike the first three which were simple and easy. To answer my sister, who wants to see a both/and solution, she is getting abit ahead. The deal is that the first three won't allow this. Each one is what it is because they all exclude any other options. By definition, the third approach to revelation rejects the objective nature of the first two. The first two, by definition, have no place for the pure subjectivity of the third.<br /><br />All I can do at this time is introduce the fourth view. This view is a reaction to the third. The third view is the hallmark of classic liberalism that flourished in the mid 19th century - especially in Europe. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Schleiermacher">Friedrich Schleiermacher</a> is the poster boy for the movement.<br /><br />Early in the 20th century, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Barth">Karl Barth</a>, in an attempt to restore the church to orthodoxy and bearing an extreme dislike for liberal Christianity, formulated his views. He rejected both the objectivism of the first two views and rejected the subjectivism of the third view. (Seemingly dashing Barbara's hopes of a felicitous blending of the two). Barth courageously stood up to the liberalism rampant in Europe, defying the trends and was eventually exiled by Hitler. He is most famous for his response to a reporter's query about, after all was said and done in his illustrious and difficult career as a theologian, what he knew for sure. His response was: "Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so".<br /><br />As soon as I figure out what his view of revelation was, I will report it here.Bruce Shttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05271841789688939384noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14916567.post-1161660006482440592006-10-23T19:18:00.000-07:002006-10-23T20:21:48.046-07:00<span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >Revelation as inner experience:</span><br />God as guest. Neither a body of truths nor a series of events, revelation is a matter of privileged communion with God. It assumes immediate experience. Immediate means unmediated experience. Directly with God. His spirit and my spirit. The naked God. God is spirit and when my spirit merges with God's spirit we have communion. (Nicely put by the refrain: "You ask me how I know he lives, he lives within my heart." Editorial note: Notice the key phrase "how I know". The question <span style="font-style: italic;">how do you know</span> is even below what a doctrine of revelation is all about. This song provides not just a view of revelation, but it also is an epistemology. <a href="http://www.hymns.me.uk/i-come-to-the-garden-alone-favorite-hymn.htm">This song</a> expresses this view of revelation even better, especially the last line of the chorus.)<br /><br />Revelation is interior because God, not having phenomenal existence, (meaning God doesn't exist in the physical world in any sensible way) can only reveal himself to spirit.<br /><br />This stress on the interior of man's spirit is aided by the practice of spiritual disciplines. There the goal is to facilitate going deeper within where the merging of God's spirit with our own results in finding the Lord inside.<br /><br />Revelation doesn't come in the form of a doctrine, an external announcement. Revelation comes in the form of an inward experience. A sharp distinction is drawn between faith as the acceptance of revelation and belief as the acceptance of doctrine.<br /><br />The content of this revelation is neither publically announced events which have taken place outside us in history nor publically presented interpretations of those events. It is to find God revealed personally within and desires foremostly to know only God. It does not desire to <span style="font-weight: bold;">know</span> <span style="font-weight: bold;">about</span> <span style="font-weight: bold;">God</span>, but only to <span style="font-weight: bold;">know God</span>.<br /><br />In sum, the site of revelation is within us. The site of revelation is not outside of us. The indwelling Christ is the highest authority in this model - the Christ within, not the Christ without. The contrast is the outer word, the external word versus the inner word, the Holy Spirit, who speaks to our hearts.Bruce Shttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05271841789688939384noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14916567.post-1161579651861815412006-10-22T21:25:00.000-07:002006-10-22T22:00:51.906-07:00<span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >Revelation as history or</span><br />God as actor. This view maintains that God reveals himself primarily in his great deeds, especially those which form the major themes of Biblical history. The Bible and the official teaching of the church are considered to embody revelation only to the extent that they are reliable reports as to what God has done. So the real revelation takes place in the form of acts, actions. Only actions are in a proper sense revelation. So, for example, the Exodus event is a revelation. The words about the Exodus, the reports about the Exodus are human fallible witnesses to the events. It is the events that are revelation. What's revelatory is the event itself. Words are not revelatory, actions are. And the interpretation of those events are not revelatory.<br /><br />Properly stated it works like this: "The revelation to which scripture attests is a self manifestation by God in historical events, not information about God stated in divinely stated doctrines or concepts."<br /><br />The recurrent theme in this approach is the priority of event over interpretation. It wants to be rigorously objective. It gives a lot of space to event. Creeds and doctrines in this view depend upon the prior events of revelation from which they are derived. The events are always richer than what can be said about them. There are no revealed truths. However a naked historical event is not in itself revelation. It is only revelation when the events are understood as disclosures of God.<br /><br />The Bible is not primarily the word of God but the record of the acts of God together with the human responses elicited by those acts.<br /><br />For example, you have to start with the humanity of Jesus and work your way to his deity, not the other way around. A Christology from below not a Christology from above. And to do that you start with the resurrection. Christianity stands or falls with the resurrection of Jesus. That is the act of God <span style="font-style: italic;">par excellence</span>. That's the most significant act of God. Redemptive events in history don't belong to a salvation history, they just belong to world history. And it [Jesus' resurrection] is a self interpreting event. Jesus is raised from the dead on the third day and this is a <span style="font-weight: bold;">fact</span> that can be read off the surface of world history. It ought to be written in history books just like the battle of Waterloo.<br /><br />So, again, the Bible is a report of these events. It is not in and of itself revelation.Bruce Shttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05271841789688939384noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14916567.post-1161447288960851692006-10-21T08:53:00.000-07:002006-10-22T08:26:44.796-07:00<span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >Is this what revelation is?</span><br /><br />Revelation as doctrine, or God as teacher. Revelation according to this view is principally found in clear propositional statements attributed to God as authoritative teacher. Basically this is the view of Roman Catholic neo-scholasticism, Thomism (i.e. Thomas Aquinas) and also of protestant evangelicalism. Revelation for these orthodox evangelicals is thus equated with the meaning of the Bible taken as a set of propositional statements each expressing a divine affirmation valid always and everywhere. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_F._H._Henry">Carl Henry</a> states that God is revealed "in the whole canon of scripture which objectively communicates in propositional verbal form the content and meaning of all God's revelation. - God's revelation is rational communication conveyed in intelligible ideas and meaningful words; that is, in conceptual verbal form." Henry approvingly quotes <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Clark">Gordon Clark </a> "aside from imperative sentences, and a few exclamations in the Psalms, the Bible is composed of propositions." Henry writes, "theology consists essentially in the repetition, combination and systematization of the truth of revelation in its propositionally given biblical form."<br /><br />Note: the reference above to "protestant evangelicalism" refers to it in its broadest sense. That is, mainline protestant denominations (liberals) and also the broad spectrum of conservative (red state) believers. This is an assertion which you as an individual with your own opinion may not agree with. EDIT: By that I mean you might not agree that this is the predominant view held by Protestant evangelicals.Bruce Shttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05271841789688939384noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14916567.post-1161406587538508452006-10-20T21:38:00.000-07:002006-10-21T08:53:11.326-07:00<span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >You have all heard, read or believed </span><br />that revelation comes in two flavors. One is general revelation. This revelation is available to all via creation (nature) and bears with it no redemptive stamp. The other is special revelation. This revelation is called special for at least three reasons. One is that it is directly associated with the Bible. Another is that it takes faith somehow to appropriate it, which faith is not available to all. The third is that its content is in all ways about redeeming dead sinners, reconciling them to God.<br /><br />I don't know about you, but I have recently had reason to question (put under a microscope) my own understanding of this special revelation. First, how has it, this special revelation, transpired in my own mind and understanding? Second, as a result of this, I have begun to ask whether this "revealing" that is supposed to have been transpiring has in fact actually done so in my own case. You should not equate this questioning with doubting. This is an entirely different thing. You would think this "revelation" would be a constantly ongoing, astounding, earth shattering thing in one's "walk". Or is it just a one-time deposit that you live on. Revelation must be different from learning, mustn't it? Or is it?<br /><br />Anyway, stay tuned for a few quick suggestions as to what this revelation is or how it works. Maybe you can identify yours as I try to identify how various people have tried to explain how this works.Bruce Shttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05271841789688939384noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14916567.post-1159925566918206082006-10-03T18:28:00.000-07:002006-10-03T18:32:46.956-07:00<span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >What do you think</span><br />of this short article?<span style="font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:-1;color:#000000;"><i><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">“[T]hou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.” </span></i><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">Revelation 3:1</span></span><p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span style="font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:-1;">Many churches (both conservative and liberal) lack any real <i>life</i>. They go through the motions of religion, but they experience little of holy supernaturalism in their Sunday meetings — or any other time, for that matter. There is almost no passion. Shouts of praise and joy, tears of love and repentance, hands raised in holy supplication — these are too emotional; too individualistic; too immature; well, too <i>embarrassing</i>. We must at all costs have a respectable and sophisticated religion, and our power has declined as our respectability and sophistication have escalated.</span></p><p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span style="font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:-1;">In this sense, our churches bear little resemblance to the primitive Church we encounter in the Bible. </span></p><p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span style="font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:-1;">They also bear little resemblance to its world-conquering exploits.</span></p><p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span style="font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:-1;">Recently I’ve spoken with members of what is generally regarded as the most conservative Presbyterian denomination in the nation. They’re told me that their churches are filled (make that, <i>half</i>-filled) with mostly elderly saints and that their Sunday “worship” (I’ve yet to find in the Bible any proof that Sunday is specially designed for worship) is all done decently and in order — and with absolutely no life. </span></p><p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span style="font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:-1;">Meanwhile, the sanctuaries of many charismatic and evangelical churches are glut with youth. The errors of these churches are many and obvious. The attraction of these churches is also obvious: breezy entertainment, lowest-common-denominator theology, superficiality — and <i>life</i>. We do well to recall that we can purge the entertainment, ratchet up the theology, and correct the superficiality in living churches.</span></p><p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span style="font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:-1;">But we can’t resuscitate ecclesiastical corpses, no matter how theologically pristine they are.</span></p><p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span style="font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:-1;">Our older denominations (again, both conservative and liberal) are dying. Denominationalism, with all of its bureaucratic tentacles and well-oiled machinery, will probably expire within a century. This death will be healthy for the Church, which did not begin with denominations and has never needed them. The local Church as the covenant community of saints and its weekly Lord’s Day celebration of the His resurrection and His call to victory trump comatose denominationalism every time.</span></p><p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span style="font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:-1;">A living Church is a Church replete with holy passion and answered prayer and ecstatic joy and potent tears and vexing problems and theological arguments and all the other things that make for life.</span></p><p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span style="font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:-1;">“Pro-life” should denote more than anti-abortion.</span></p><p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span style="font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:-1;">It should also denote anti-ecclesiastical corpses.</span></p><p>Thumbs up or thumbs down? Any guess as to who wrote it? </p>Bruce Shttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05271841789688939384noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14916567.post-1159250207017162352006-09-25T22:40:00.000-07:002006-09-25T22:56:47.056-07:00<span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >I am sitting in my </span><br />chair studying while listening to what is probably in my top three of favorite operas, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idomeneo">Idomeneo</a>, by Mozart. So, I take a quick break and cruise over to <a href="http://www.drudgereport.com/">drudgereport.com</a> and see a link to <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/09/25/060925192943.tqohhg8j.html">this article</a>.<br /><br />This more or less proves that I don't pay much attention to the libretto, which in this case is sung in Italian.<br /><br />And on a completely different topic, I have a question for one of my readers who absolutely must know its answer. Is U2's Bono's name pronounced so as to rhyme with Sonny Bono, or more like bonnet or bon-fire or St. Bonaventure or I'll have one of those bon-bons, or bon-voyage or [shall I stop?]?<br /><br />Chris Berman on Monday night football, introduced the halftime show which, he said, consisted of U2 and Bonno.Bruce Shttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05271841789688939384noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14916567.post-1158729491710061422006-09-19T22:07:00.000-07:002006-09-19T22:18:11.786-07:00<span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >I decided to lock down</span><br />my transcriptions of the Christian Mind class I am taking. Email me if you want the password. I am generally making these available to family, friends and other WSCAL students.<br /><br />Incidentally, my previous post was very nearly my last:<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4855/1365/1600/spinach.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4855/1365/320/spinach.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a> This is the exact date and supplier of the e-coli spinach. It was in our fridge waiting to go in one of our lunch salads. Deb heard a voice that shouted out: "<span style="font-weight: bold;">Give this to him and collect the insurance</span>!!" Hearing this she immediately knew it was the alluring voice of the devil and she tossed it in the garbage. I made her dig it out for this photo.Bruce Shttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05271841789688939384noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14916567.post-1158263373603386832006-09-14T12:41:00.000-07:002006-09-14T22:43:40.316-07:00<span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >Not much forthcoming</span><br />from my pen, huh? Well, I have been real busy with school. I am recording all the lectures for the Christian Mind class I am taking. Then I transcribe the lectures to file which I am posting at my <a href="http://classnotes.wordpress.com/">classnotes.wordpress.com</a> blog. Eventually I will get the actual tapes up for listening. I highly recommend that all my friends take a listen (or read them for now). It will help you know the Bible better and secondarily, it will help you know me better. Remember that they arrive in reverse order so if you want to start at the beginning, you should scroll down.<br /><br />What I had been planning on doing is writing a small piece on each of the parallel verses between Job and the NT. I may get to that but at the moment, transcribing the recorded lectures is quite time consuming. Plus, soon I will be officially behind on my reading for that class. The only reason I am not behind already is that I started reading the assigned books last summer.Bruce Shttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05271841789688939384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14916567.post-1157515741579165202006-09-05T21:03:00.000-07:002006-09-05T21:09:01.613-07:00<span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >Here's a quote from a</span><br />recent article about the San Diego Charger linebacker (Steve Foley) who was shot [with bullets] in his most recent altercation with authority figures (in this case an off duty cop).<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0); font-style: italic;">Foley was shot near his home in Poway, an upscale San Diego suburb.<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">I just thought you might like to know that I found Poway to be a little too, shall we say, downscale for my tastes and moved out 20 months ago.<br /><br /><br /></span></span>Bruce Shttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05271841789688939384noreply@blogger.com2