Scribblings
Category

By In Scribblings

Loving Better on Valentine’s Day

In my room, hidden away in a shoebox are all the love letters that I wrote to my wife while we were dating. Most of them are embarrassing, bad poetry mixed with terrible sentimentality and lack of masculinity. If you wanted to make me blush then get some of these and post them on the web.  However, there is  one piece of paper I am proud of. After we got engaged, we spent a summer counseling kids at a camp out in Oregon. It was a good summer, but also a hard one.  I was not ready to care for a woman.  We were not married yet, which added to the tension. I was generally selfish and arrogant, which made me a hard fiance.  As I worked through my own selfishness I decided to try to love her better.  Naturally I went to I Corinthians 13, the love chapter.  I wrote down on a sheet of paper each characteristic of love Paul mentions in verses 4-7. Then I wrote specific ways I would try imitate that love in my relationship with my bride to be. Here are some examples:

Love is patient/long suffering-I will not interrupt her when she talks. I will not be upset when she is late to meet me. I will keep my hands off of her and wait patiently for marriage.

Love is not rude-I will speak kindly to her. I will not make fun of her or her views on things like movies. I will be attentive when I am around her family and respect them.

Love rejoices with the truth-I will rejoice when she is more righteous in an area than I am. When she shares what she learns from reading Scripture I will listen, assuming that God has something for me in what she is saying.

I listed at least ten specific things I would do for each characteristic of love that Paul mentions in I Corinthians 13:4-7.  Many of them are trite, but they expressed a desire to be more godly. The total came to almost four pages of lined paper. At family worship this morning we read this passage. I was reminded of how wonderful and how painful that text is.  Paul cuts us up with the Word.

Love is Patient 2

Perhaps this Valentine’s Day you should take some time and examine how well you are loving those around you. How are you treating your spouse, your children, your parents, your friends? Make a list of all those traits Paul mentions, patience, kindness, not irritated/easily provoked, not seeking your own, bearing all things, etc. Then list some specific ways you would like to change. Ten per item is too many. My exuberance got the better of me in that cabin nineteen years ago. Now I realize how hard it is to improve in one area, much less ten.  So list one specific way you would like to be more patient. One way would stop rejoicing in iniquity/wrongdoing. One way you should stop being puffed up.  Keep the list somewhere you can look at it, perhaps in your Bible or journal. Pray over it. Work at it. It will not make you more spiritual overnight. It is not going to taste as good as chocolate or smell as good as that dinner you are planning for your wife or look as good as what you plan on wearing this evening. But it may be the best thing you can do on Valentine’s Day for those you love.<>siteсоздание визиток цены

Read more

By In Scribblings

Theologizing on Pipe-Smoking with Joffre Swait

<>mobile online gameраскрутка а анализ

Read more

By In Scribblings

Wendell Berry: Standing By Words

standing by words

“In order for a statement to be complete and comprehensible, three conditions are required:

1.) It must designate its object precisely.

2.) Its speaker must stand by it: must believe it, be accountable for it, be willing to act on it.

3.) This relation of speaker, word, and object must be conventional; the community must know what it is.

These are still the assumptions of private conversations…We assume, in short, that language is communal, and that its purpose is to tell the truth.”

–Wendell Berry, “Standing By Words”<>mobi onlineраскрутка а этапы

Read more

By In Scribblings

What do you sing in your Church?

Leave aside what you should sing outside of Church. I don’t have the energy to discuss that issue at this point, but I do have a few observations about music in the Church. I am not arguing for the superiority of a particular genre, though I think a good case could be made for favoring one genre over another. Rather, in this post I am arguing for the necessity of a robust conversation about music in the Church.

[col grid=”2-1 first”]

But now bring me a musician. When the musician played, Yahweh’s hand came on him.

 

[/col]

The Bible speaks eloquently about music. Music exorcises and terrorizes evil powers. It offers a platform for God’s people to speak to God. Yahweh demands that we sing to Him new songs. The combination of this remarkable testimony illustrates the majestic musical experience between God and man in sacred history. If we were to speak more theologically, we could say that God sung the world into existence and thus created a musical people for His own possession.

The Church is a singing community. It is elevated by voices that exalt and sing to her Lord.

Since music plays such a central role in the life of God’s people, why has music been so minimized in Church life? Of course, certain ecclesiastical expressions make music central in worship, but that music is typically set aside for talented musicians; a form of musical elite. And while in these congregations parishioners do sing, they are not encouraged to sing. The congregation itself is not put in the uncomfortable position to be sanctified by music because music is given to rather than participated in.

[col grid=”3-1 first”]

Sing praise to Yahweh, you saints of his. Give thanks to his holy name.

 

[/col]

Music needs to be participatory. It needs to be challenging. It needs to be sanctificational. Tell me what you sing in Church and I will tell you what you believe.<>уникальность контента аоптимизация работы а

Read more

By In Scribblings

Rediscovering the Sacraments

If ever there was a topic that is undeservedly neglected in the modern evangelical and Reformed world, it is surely the doctrine of the sacraments. This is surprising, to say the least, since Scripture teaches that in baptism we are united with Christ in his death and resurrection (Romans 6), and Jesus himself promised to give his flesh as bread for the life of the world (John 6). Perhaps bread, wine, and water are a bigger deal than we might have thought.When something so significant is neglected, that neglect must be addressed.

That’s why we’re delighted to be welcoming Peter Leithart to London later this Spring to speak at two conferences on the subject of the sacraments.

The first conference is for the whole church, and takes place on Saturday 28 March. Here, Peter will take us back to the Scriptures, and show us what the Bible really teaches about Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Could we be missing something very significant? Is it possible that rediscovering the Bible’s teaching about the sacraments could help us grow in personal godliness and Christian maturity, deepen the relationships within our churches, and strengthen our evangelistic witness to the world?

The second conference is aimed particularly at Ministers, church leaders, and theological students, and is on Monday 30 March. On this occasion, Peter will be be considering this topic in some depth, exploring its biblical basis, theological contours, and connections with other systematic loci such as soteriology, eschatology, mission and ecclesiology.

For more information, please visit www.northlondonchurch.org.

Guest Post by Rev Dr Steve Jeffery, Minister at Emmanuel Evangelical Church, London, England (BlogFacebookTwitter)<>обслуживание интернет атехнология раскрутки ов

Read more

By In Scribblings

Interpretive Maximalism and James B. Jordan

Last night we had the honor of attending the send-off party for the Jordan family. Jim and Brenda Jordan have been dear friends of mine and my church community for some time. During my first three years as pastor I had the privilege of working side-by-side with Jim at Providence. He was especially encouraging in that first year. Not only did he add his tremendously musical gifts to our congregation, but his Sunday School series for those three years were life-changing.

Part of what Jim Jordan brings to the table is a life-long commitment to Sola Scriptura. He is, to borrow John Frame’s language, a true biblicist. He bleeds biblical theology. The fact that he does not simply repeat old slogans and the sheer fact that he is so innovative in the field of biblical theology make him a target to many.

His book Through New Eyes offers a profoundly rich theology of symbols; a theology, which if embraced, will make Bible studies not only fascinating, but will make the student of the Bible enlivened to read the Bible again and again and to find connections that affirm the remarkable oneness of biblical revelation.

Jim Jordan goodbyeMany have attached the hermeneutic of interpretive maximalism (Hence IMax.) to James Jordan’s theology. In his 1990 article What is Interpretive Maximalism, Jordan affirms that this hermeneutic contrasts with the minimalist interpreter. David Chilton is his famous Revelation commentary was the first to apply directly the rich nature of Jim’s theology to John’s inspired account. Jordan himself had already given a clear example of that hermeneutic in his Judges commentary, which Chilton references.

In fact, in his Judges commentary he contrasts his approach to the modern evangelical one:

“We have to explain this [i.e., the business about types and prophecies] in order to distance ourselves from the interpretive minimalism’ that has come to characterize evangelical commentaries on Scripture in recent years. We do not need some specific New Testament verse to `prove’ that a given Old Testament story has symbolic dimensions. Rather, such symbolic dimensions are presupposed in the very fact that man is the image of God. Thus, we ought not to be afraid to hazard a guess at the wider prophetic meanings of Scripture narratives, as we consider how they image the ways of God. Such a `maximalist’ approach as this puts us more in line with the kind of interpretation used by the Church Fathers.”

So, part of James Jordan’s controversial hermeneutic is an attempt to affirm the inherent beauty of the Old Testament narrative without depending on some New Testament affirmation. Further, as Jordan writes, IMax. offers a richer Old Testament narrative, since the typological images offer a fuller and more robust picture of Christ in the pages of the pre-AD 70 world.

Jordan sees the grammatico-historical interpretation to be valid, but incomplete without the aid of a rich biblical theology. And this was part of what led his break with some of the well-known theonomic figures. Jordan writes:

I think that those who take this kind of typology seriously are the only people doing justice to the Biblico-theological dimension of interpretation, and my criticism of the Bahnsen-Rushdoony type of “theonomy” is precisely that I don’t think they do justice to this dimension. In common with most of my teachers, I believe that the grammatico-historical “methods” of interpretation need to be complemented by Biblico-theological considerations, and that is what I have sought to do in my own work. (On “theonomy” see James B. Jordan, “Reconsidering the Mosaic Law: Some Reflections — 1988,” available from Biblical Horizons.)

In conclusion, James Jordan uses the term maximalist as a way of communicating that the Bible reader can gain more (the maximal amount) from the pages of Scripture than they can ever imagine. The Bible is given to us by the Holy Spirit, and the Spirit does not waste his breath. His inspired data is not given simply to fill in empty space, but to provide a fuller and more beautiful portrait of the Gospel.<>обособленное определение эторазработка а визитки цена

Read more

By In Scribblings

C.S. Lewis on Mere Liberty and the Evils of Statism

David J. Theroux, founder and president of The Independent Institute and the C.S. Lewis Society of California, discusses the writings of C.S. Lewis and Lewis’s views on liberty, natural law and statism.

The presentation was the keynote talk at the first annual conference of Christians for Liberty, that was held at St. Edwards University in San Antonio, TX, August 2, 2014.

The talks starts out with:

For decades, many Christians and non-Christians, both “conservative” and “liberal,” have unfortunately embraced an ill-conceived, “progressive” (i.e., authoritarian) vision to wield intrusive government powers as an unquestionable and even sanctified calling for both domestic and international matters, abandoning the Judeo-Christian, natural-law tradition in moral ethics and economics. In contrast, the Oxford/Cambridge scholar and best-selling author C. S. Lewis did not suffer such delusions, despite the gigantic and deeply disturbing advances and conflicts of total war, the total state, and genocides that developed during his lifetime.

Lewis’s aversion to government was clearly revealed in 1951 when Winston Churchill, within weeks after he regained office as prime minister of Great Britain, wrote to Lewis offering to have him knighted as “Commander of the Order of the British Empire.” Lewis flatly declined the honor because he, unlike the “progressives,” was never interested in politics and was deeply skeptical of government power and politicians, as expressed in the first two lines of his poem “Lines during a General Election”: “Their threats are terrible enough, but we could bear / All that; it is their promises that bring despair.”

Lewis had held this view for many years. In 1940, he had written in a letter to his brother Warren, “Could one start a Stagnation Party—which at General Elections would boast that during its term of office no event of the least importance had taken place?” He further stated, “I was by nature ‘against Government.’

See the video here:

 <>разработка а визитки цена

Read more

By In Scribblings

For the Healing of the Nations

healing nations

The Davenant Trust should be commended for the production of For the Healing of the Nations. Edited by W. Bradford Littlejohn and Peter Escalante, the essays which comprise the book came out of Davenant’s 2nd Annual Convivium Calvinisticum, a conference which focused on “creation, redemption, and Neo-Calvinism.”  While each essay is salient to the point of the book, each essay also stands on its own as a valuable contribution to its field.  Over the next few weeks, I’ll post a few quotes from the book which might be of particular interest to our readers. This first quote comes from James Bratt’s first essay in the book, one which gives an overview of Abraham Kuyper’s life and thought. Says Bratt of Kuyper’s unique leadership:

“Through all these twists, turns, and variations, Kuyper consistently pursued a matched pair of ideals: to revitalize the pious faithful to reclaim the full scope of their Calvinistic heritage, especially its public compass, and to direct the ensuring force against liberal hegemony in politics and culture, thus bringing the full influence of Christian witness upon the Dutch nation. His chief distinction from contemporary and preceding movements of this sort was twofold. On the one hand, over against traditional establishmentarian types, Kuyper did not seek to push his initiative through official ecclesiastical institutions or to press a Christian pattern on everyone regardless of conviction. On the other hand, vis a vis sectarian revivalists, he was not content with proceeding by ‘spiritual’ change via interpersonal relations. That is, in a modern society ideological pluralism had to be represented, but the individualization and privatization of faith had to be avoided. Kuyper’s margin of excellence therefore was calling Christians to attend to the structural, institutional, and philosophical dimensions of their witness, both for the welfare of the cause and for the responsibility of their public performance.”

Additionally, Bratt offers seven principals which encapsulate Kuyper’s project. These include:

1) Principal psychology

(2) The Antithesis

(3) Common grace

(4) Sphere sovereignty

(5) Ideological pluralism

(6) Democratic populism

(7) The Kingdom of God<>online mobile gameпродвижение ов на украине

Read more

By In Scribblings

Fathers, Send Your Sons to Battle

“When God gets excited about his sons, he wants to send them into battle. He sends his sons into the fray. ‘This is my son!’ he announces proudly, and then he sends him to face Satan.’This is my son!’ and he sends him to battle demons. ‘This is my son!” He sends him t o face false accusations, to be mocked, spat upon, and beaten to a bloody pulp. When God loves his sons, he sends them into battle. If God did not spare his own Son in his love, how much more so will he love all of his beloved sons. His love is not aimless; it is not sadistic. His love rejoices in the glory that comes after the battle, the glory of victory, and preeminently  the glory of communion with him.” (Pastor Toby Sumpter in Job Through New Eyes: A Son for Glory)

In this section of Pastor Sumpter’s book he is answering the question, “Why did God point Job out to Satan?”  The scene disturbs us. Satan comes to God and God puts a big bull’s eye on Job’s back (Job 1:8).  We look at that and say, “I hope God never does that to me.”  “I hope I never reach the status of blameless and upright or God might send Satan my way.” I like Pastor Sumpter’s answer to this dilemma. Job is a good, God-honoring man. But  that is not enough. God wants to move Job from “good” to “very good.” God delights in Job and therefore God sends him to the front lines. Job is a righteous man so God kicks him out of the nest. Job is like Christ: a true, faithful son who must suffer.

Job-Dore

No thought from this book struck me like this one. I have six sons. I want them to seek glory, the glory that a faithful servant of God gets. I want them to delight their Father in Heaven. I want them to walk by the Spirit and trust in Christ. But like so many fathers, I do not want them to suffer. I don’t want them to go through what Job went through. I do not want them to be mocked, hated, despised, suffering. I do not want to see them in pain. I do not want them to lose what they hold dear. I do not want them to wallow in dust and ashes. In short, I want them to take the Devil’s bargain in the wilderness: glory, but no cross (Luke 4:5-7).

Fathers, if we are to raise sons like the Son then we must send them into battle. We must watch them suffer, bleed, and die. We must not live in fear.  We must not hide them. We must not shield them from the world, the flesh, and the Devil.  Too many fathers do this, especially homeschooling fathers. Instead, we must give our sons the tools, the weapons to fight.  We should put a sword their hand and tell them, “Son if you want to be like Jesus you must fight, suffer, bleed, and die, but in the end you will be raised.”  We must love them enough to send into the fray.  If we delight in our sons then we will rejoice when they enter the  battle.<>консультант на бесплатнораскрутка гугл

Read more

By In Scribblings

The Lord’s Supper: A Weekly Meal

Barth

Karl Barth on celebrating the Lord’s Supper weekly:

“In those circles which embraced the Reformation, the sacramental Church of Rome was replaced by a Church of the Word. Very soon, preaching became the center of worship and the celebration of the sacrament came to occupy a more restricted place, so that today in the Roman Church, the Church of the sacrament, preaching has little significance, while in the Reformed Church the sacrament, while it exists, does not form an integral and necessary element of worship. These two positions are in effect a destruction of the Church. What meaning can there be in preaching which exalts itself at the expense of the sacrament, and does not look back to the sacrament which it should interpret? Our life does not depend on what the minister may be able to say, but on the fact that we are baptized, that God has called us. This lack has indeed been recognized, and attempts have been made to fill it by various means (reform of the liturgy, beautifying worship with music, etc.). But these palliative measures are bound to fail because they do not touch the real issue.

Those who advocate such methods of renewing the forms of worship take their stand—mistakenly—on Luther. But he, seeking to retain all that was of value in the Roman liturgy, gave first place to the Lord’s Supper. Calvin, also, consistently emphasized the necessity for a service of Communion at every Sunday worship. And this is precisely what we lack today: the sacrament every Sunday… Only when worship is rightly ordered, with preaching and sacrament, will the liturgy come into its own, for it is only in this way that it can fulfill its office, which is to lead to the sacrament. The administration of the sacraments must not be separated from the preaching of the gospel, because the Church is a physical and a historical organism, a real and visible body as well as the invisible, mystical body of Christ, and because she is both of these at once. 

There is no doubt that we should be better Protestants if we allowed ourselves to be instructed in this matter by Roman Catholicism; not to neglect preaching, as it so often does, but to restore the sacrament to its rightful place…. A good Protestant will allow himself to admit this, and at the same time will insist on good preaching.”[1]

 



[1] Karl Barth, The Preaching of the Gospel (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963) 25-26

<>game for macкак проверить индексацию страниц

Read more