I love the article on what is wrong with the SBC here.

Here is the response I wrote that I think was censored by the site…..

This post seems to exemplify the problem more than provide a solution, in my view. Every one of the six points is sufficiently vague that only those “in the know” and the real Southern baptists will know exaclty what is being discussed.

A Calvinist will read 1-5 and think that they should be telling people how homophobic complementarian positions are founded on sound biblical doctrine and that they should now step up and go out there to let people know that the world is coming apart and we need to get past the basics here. And while they are at it, they should not reminiss about the old days where gays were not allowed and women knew they place without asking.

And the non-Calvinist will feel that it is good that we finally will allow the message of love and acceptance be the norm, and for those who do not show the love we will have to discipline them, somehow, to show that their old fashioned and non-biblically based ideas will not have a place in the SBC of the future.

The only group you chose to ourgroup explicitly was the post moderns who you totally presented a characiture that is not even close to what it means to be a post modern.

This is what is wrong with the SBC.

I live in rural Virginia and was a trustee, finance member, occasional lecturer in service etc of a church that existed (as I later learned) because of the constant fear that the Calvinists would come in and try to take over the church. They were so fearful of that, and continue to be, that they hid the actual founding documents from the members so that no one can come in and force a vote on theology.

Add to all of that the Baptist Banner rag that circulates around the state http://www.baptistbanner.org/

And there you have a culture of ingrouping some, while a subversive element of Calvinists intent on trying to take the denomination over and political publications like the Baptist Banner meant to further consolidate the position with the Republicans.

What’s wrong with the SBC? Sheesh. Open your eyes.

Afterward I also added something like the following, though I did not save the exact text I wrote.

….additionally, the SBC has had a rather public and well documented political battle for control of the the denomination over the past several decades. What makes us think that the battles would not continue? Here is a good summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Baptist_Convention_conservative_resurgence

I have written before (A New Universalism, No One is going to Heaven) about the relationship between heaven and our life after death.  In that post I came down quite clearly on the side that heaven is not a place where we are going to go, but is the place where god lives.  I also supported that through an analysis of every verse in the New Testament where heaven is mentioned.

But, many people look at the thief on the cross and believe that Jesus is indeed referring to heaven when he says “today you will be with me in paradise”.  This says a couple of things.  First, it says that it will be today  and second that Jesus will be wherever this place is located.

N.T. Wright has discussed his view of life after life after death on many occasions and most notably (for common folks like us) in his book Surprised by Hope which I highly recommend.  In there he does refer to this life after death as being in paradise, and in being with Jesus.  I believe that Wright comes down on the side that it is still a bit of a mystery since all we have are sign posts pointing to what that future will be like, and no clear pictures of the actual location.

I also watched this video N.T. Wright – Rethinking Life After Death today.

In it Wright again discussed his view on heaven, hell, the resurrection and what the core beliefs about these subjects for Christians today.  I recommend that as the best summary I have seen on the subject.  But there is something else he discusses that I found quite useful.

Literal or Metaphor?

In the video, starting at about 12:30, he discusses the use of the words metaphorical and literal as it relates to the bible and interpretation.  I find myself regularly debating the meaning of various parts of the bible and find that much of the controversy comes down to whether people think they should be interpreting a particular part as metaphor or literally.  Wright says:

“There is a problem with those words, literal and metaphoric, those are words about the way words work.  If we want to talk about the actual realities we ought to talk about concrete and abstract.  Things are either concrete, in the sense that they are actually there, solid, or they’re abstract, in which case they are ideas.”

Now that offers a bit different perspective on the debate because it gives us new vocabulary to use about the contents of particular passages.  He uses the example of Daniel 7 that has a part where 4 monsters will come out of the sea and Danial discusses what these monsters are like.  Clearly everyone would read that and recognize that there will not be 4 actual monsters coming out of the sea, those are not concrete parts of the metaphor.  But the fact that there are four of them is something that we would start to believe refers to four actual things.

People get hung up on stating that something is metaphor or literal.  This gets particularly nasty when someone refers to something like Genesis 1 as poetry.  There are many who will argue that Genesis 1 does not fit the definition of what poetry looks like in ancient Hebrew.  And I think they may be right.  But they go on to say, therefore, it cannot be metaphor and must be read literally.  At that point I disagree and Wright helps me with the language he uses in this video.

Genesis 1 is largely abstract representations of concrete happenings, in my view.  It may not be poetry, and it may be inappropriate to refer to it as only metaphor, but it seems that the concrete and abstract language applies wonderfully.

Wright does not use Genesis as the example in the video, he uses the rapture text.  He clearly feels the Thessalonians text is talking about an abstract idea, not something concrete.

I hope that this language can help.

I posted a page on the site documenting Dr. Albert Mohler’s speech on “Why the Universe Looks So Old.”

Page is here.

I disagree with his conclusion that we have to believe in 6 literal days of creation, but find his argument interesting and logical.  In the end he says that the universe indeed does look old, and he does not know why.

I am a bit late getting started on my garden, but I think I will be able to whip it into shape pretty quickly.  Here are pictures of my garden plot, my tractor and tiller.  Should whip it into shape in no time!

I have been told that it is not exactly fair to have comments on my blog blocked when I post on other people’s blogs.  I simply have the system set to shut down comments after 7 or 30 days, I forget which, because I get many more spam comments than actual blog comments.  I will try to keep one thread open for comments at all times so people can post about me here.

I welcome others to post dissenting opinions.  I certainly post dissenting opinions on other people’s blogs and would hope that people would give me the courtesy to engage me here too.  God bless.

The younger Piper has posted about the Jeremy Lin phenomenon.  While I don’t have a problem with a basketball player being a Christian, here is an example of how the Calvinist stance in the world of seeking the “glory of god” goes astray.  I could not post a reply on his site, but was able to post this reply on Justin Taylor’s blog.

Barnabas Piper was onto something, but then he went wrong.

Yes, he was totally right that it is OK for people to compete while supporting the dignity of their opponents. He says “The truest forms of competition are not those which seek to humiliate another person or self-aggrandize.” I was on board with this.

He starts to go wrong with the attitude saying “But tension does not correlate to contradiction.” I believe Barnabas is now pushing the envelope, because a tension necessarily means that there is a tension, that there is friction, that there is a problem here or at least the warning signs of a problem. But Barnabas says no to that.

The pinnacle of the error comes at the end

“He is required to pursue excellence in the profession of basketball. Excellence is what all followers of Christ are called to pursue no matter the endeavor. God gave us talents and we are called to use them – for his glory, not our own.”

Really. Christians are supposed to be excellent no matter the endeavor? Clearly Barnabas would not support your endeavor being abortions, right? Or how about it being killing? Or, let’s say, misleading people with bad theology?

If using our talents in this world to their fullest is excellence regardless of the endeavor glorifies god then you have one sick god.

The endeavor is the thing that identifies alignment with god, not the outcome. Barnabas misses the boat.

What I see time and again is that this orientation around seeking to glorify god routinely ends up being a way to glorify the follower.  Barnabas is not right on this.

Having said all of that, I have nothing against Lin playing basketball, if he plays fair.  But to say his playing is something that promotes the glory of god misses all the things that Jesus said about who is blessed and who is not.  Barnabas Piper is wrongheaded in this.

Using our talents for to their fullest glorifies us.  Using our talents to promote god’s purposes glorifies god.

I’ve recently stumbled across a video series that is well done and insightful in regards to dispelling the theory that certain features of life are irreducibly complex, and therefore, must have been created.  This is an argument that I just  wish that my brothers in Christ would simply give up.  The more I see illogical arguments for the existence of god the more I wish they would just go away.

There is no proof for God, and irreducible complexity isn’t even close to respectable.  If you have not heard of irreducible complexity then it is better if you just don’t, but if you want to, here is a good article on it  Irreducible Complexity.

IC has been put forth to aid in the defense of the bible indicating that the earth is only 10,000 or so years old, or, if it is older, that god designed the life about that long ago.  This Young Earth Creationism (YEC) view is dangerous to Christianity.  It is dangerous because it forces people to believe in something that is contradicted by all evidence here on earth.  I personally believe that the universe was indeed created by god, and he did it roughly 14 billion years ago and has used evolution as his mechanism to create all forms of life.  God is Great!

But this pseudo-science is trying to undermine the majesty of god’s creation by making up arguments that have no basis.  These videos encapsulate many of the best arguments that I have seen against this ill informed approach.

Irreducible Complexity: Cut Down to Size

and

Rebuttals: irreducible complexity

Enjoy.

Kevin DeYoung, a Calvinist, has a post on his blog that I greatly enjoyed today.  This post and position is a great example of how two people could agree on a conclusion, but disagree on everything else.  I agree with the title of his post, but nothing else.

DeYoung’s post Why We Must Be Unapologetically Theological is a post who’s title sounds like something I would write.  I am a big fan of truly understanding the Majesty and mystery of Christan faith.  But once I get past the title, things go down hill quickly.

If you want the nutshell of this, just look at the graphic on his post.  It says “theology is simply the part of religion that requires brains”.  Wrong Kevin.  Theology is about Jesus and the gospel and is here for everyone.

1.  DeYoung says:

God has revealed himself to us in his word and given us his Spirit that we might understand the truth.

While I could agree with this on the surface, DeYoung is viewing this in a wild way.  First, he assumes that the only revelation of god is scripture, so he subordinates the Holy Spirit to the bible!  Wow, how can a Christian do such a thing.

2…. then the most important defense of his truth

The New Testament places a high value on discerning truth from error.

Well, I certainly believe that the New Testament is there to do exactly that, to tell us what is true.  But DeYoung goes no further in this point, he simply continues to say that we must guard truth, but does not say how to tell trutth.

3.  Now, to diminish Jesus teachings…

The ethical commands of the New Testament are predicated on theological propositions.  So many of Paul’s letters have a twofold structure.  The beginning chapters lay out doctrine and the latter chapters exhort us to….

Here is where DeYoung really begins to miss the idea.  He is assuming that the idea of the new testament is contained in the letters of Paul.  But that is just not true.  Paul talked about the most important aspects of Christianity with the people face to face.  He is clarifying, in general, fringe elements of the ideas in his letters.  There are a couple of exceptions, most notably 1 Cor 15, but in general Paul does not discuss the actual gospel.

4. Now to tell people that God is Love is not good enough, we must know that he is good to us through other means…

Theological categories enable us to more fully and more deeply rejoice in God’s glory.  Simple truths are wonderful.  It is good for us to sing simple songs like “God is good”……But he is also pleased when we can sing and pray about how exactly he has been good to us in the plan of salvation and in the scope of salvation history…….

Wow, I don’t even know what to say about this since this is loaded with code-speak for Kevin’s weird version of theology.  Kevin, the primary message is that god is good.  But as you can see in the quote DeYoung is immediately ready to tone it down and limit it by saying we need to understand exactly how…..  Now if I was saying this it would clearly be implying that the how is through Jesus and god’s love.  But for DeYoung, it is some complex web of him hating us and sin and finding mercy and yada yada yada

5…. now we find out that god is good because he has divine wrath to us (!)

Theology helps us more fully and more deeply rejoice in the blessings that are ours in Christ…..But how much fuller and deeper will your delight be when you understand that salvation means election to the praise of God’s grace, expiation to cover your sins, propitiation to turn away divine wrath, redemption to purchase you for God, justification before the judgment seat of God….

What?  OK, Jesus is here for all, and one could easily argue for the least, well, that’s just what Jesus says.  But DeYoung has to resort to a bunch of Christian gobbledygook that makes no sense.  Kevin, do you really thing that the Lord of the universe needs for us to understand election, propiation and such?  Do you really thing god wants us to fear him?!?!?!  OK, let me sing the praises of the propiation of God’s Wrath!  That’s enough to get me up in the morning.

That may be your god Kevin, but its not mine.

6.  …and this paragraph in its entirety:

Even (or is it especially?) non-Christians need good theology. They may not thrill to hear a dry lecture on the ordo salutis. But who wants dry lectures on anything? If you can talk winsomely, passionately, and simply about the blessings of effectual calling, regeneration, and adoption, and how all these blessings are found in Christ, and how the Christian life is nothing more or less than being who we are in Christ, and how this means God really does want us to be true to ourselves, but ourselves as we were born again not as we were born in sin–if you give non-Christians all of this, and give it to them plainly, you’ll be giving them a whole lot of theology. And, if the Spirit of God is at work, they just might come back looking for more.

OK, I get the idea that he is saying that great oration is not the point and I agree with that.  But Paul, the Calvinist prophet, has routinely said that what he does, simply, is preach Jesus, and Jesus crucified.  I have come to realize that Calvinists turn everything around to be something about them instead of something about Jesus and this is a great example.  Come on ” the blessings of effectual calling, regeneration, and adoption”  what is that?  I study this stuff all the time and I can’t tell you what he is talking about.  Nonsense.

DeYoung is so wrapped around the axle of his own theology that he has totally lost the ability to say something that relates to real people.  Even worse, he has neglected the actual teachings of Jesus enough that he considers the teaching to be “predicated on theological propositions” therefore you need to know those before you know Jesus.  Poppycock.  DeYoung has lost touch with reality.

I have found my beef heaven.  Between my wife and children (five of us, from college to eighth grade) I am the only one still eating beef, and that is quite unfortunate since I have finally figured out how to make roast beef the way I like it.  The way I like it is to resemble rare prime rib, and I had yet to figure that out.  But now I have!

I bought a 4.75 lb rump roast today at the local Food Lion since I did not want to drive the 20 miles to a store with good meat.  Originally I thought that I would get the butcher to cut me some thick cuts of the porterhouse on sale, but when I asked him to cut something thicker than 0.5 inches he said that he already cut all he is allowed to day.  What a shame.

Here is what I found:

• Preheat the oven to 500
• Put the meat in a shallow dish with plenty of garlic powder, Worcestershire sauce, and pepper
• Cut onion rings and put them on the meat
• Cook the meat for 15 to 20 minutes (about 5 minutes per pound) at 500.
• Turn the oven off, and cook it for another 15 to 18 minutes per pound (Do Not Open the Oven Door!)
• Take it out, let it set for 15 minutes, cut and enjoy!

Now there are a couple of notes here.  First, when I say do not open the oven door, I mean it, do not open the oven door, even for a peek.  The idea is to keep the heat in the oven and let it cook.  I read a bunch of commentary on this approach and see that some people have an oven that automatically starts to vent when you turn it off.  To ward off that problem I just lowered mine to 200 degrees instead of turning it all the way off.

I also made a horseradish sauce to go with it.  A heaping tablespoon of prepared horseradish (not the sauce kind) with another 2 level tablespoons of sour cream, and some dill week works great.

This was absolutely great.  The picture is the one I made tonight.  I wish I would have known how to do this 30 years ago.  Good luck and let me know if you tried it!

Dave

It has been awhile since I have posted, but it has been because I have been busy and not lazy.  As far as thoughts, ideas and Christianity, I have read or am reading a couple of books.

First, I cannot recommend too highly Scot McKnight’s new book, The King Jesus Gospel.  This book largely makes the whole concept of my site irrelevant since it tells the true story of the gospel.  Exactly what I was looking for.

Next, I was intrigued by the historical Jewish approach toward many of our modern problems.  Richard Friedman and Shawna Dolansky have written a very readable book about subjects such as homosexuality, abortion, women, capital punishment and the earth (actually that covers the whole thing).  Their book, The Bible Now looks at the bible in the context of having to make decisions about these issues in today’s environment.  Although there are no new testament considerations since the authors are Jewish, the book is a must read for those of us who want to understand these decisions and absolutely required for those who hope to influence others.

I have also started to study the letter of James.  Although I already had the Tyndale version of the Doublas Moo commentary on James, I was looking for something a bit up to date.  For those who do not know, Moo has written two versions of a commentary on James and apparently I have been reading the inferior of the two.  After talking with appropriate theologians, I got Scot McKnight’s (I really like Scot) fairly recent and quite comprehensive tome on James.  If you want a comprehensive study I highly recommend it.  The historical and biblical research and interpretation is impressive.

I have also been trying to finish Scot’s Community Called Atonement, but that repeatedly goes to the back in light of the more recently publish works.  But it is quite good and recommend it.

I also have read and re-read a couple of times the John Piper response to N.T. Wright’s book on Justification.  The Future of Justification, A Response to N.T. Wright is a Calvinist rebuttal to the new perspective exposition of Tom Wright.  I am not a 5 point Calvinist, actually I am a zero point Calvinist, but I often find that counter arguments to concepts provide good illumination into the context under scrutiny.  In this case I am just further reinforcing my view that the Calvinist movement simply misses the point as to what Christianity is all about.

I have also read twice, Pope Benedict’s wonderfully illuminating book Jesus of Nazareth: From the Baptism in the Jordan to the Transfiguration.  I know that many of my protestant friends will be reluctant to read  an obviously Catholic book, but it is well worth it.  This book is not full of church dogmatics, rather it is full of substantiated reason and exegesis of the core biblical texts.  Well worth the time.

I also went through N.T. Wight’s Paul for Everyone Paul for Everyone: 1 Corinthians (New Testament for Everyone) with a study group of a couple months and found it amazingly useful.  Reading Tom Wright’s translation of the bible has me waiting eagerly for his new, personal translation.  The Kingdom New Testament: A Contemporary Translation actually has come out!  As I am writing this I just ordered it, I can’t wait.  (and as I am still writing I got confirmation from Amazon that the book is on its way!)

The reading pile has gotten bigger with various other titles, but the one I most looking forward to is the classic by Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged.  I am into the first couple of chapters and quite entertained.

I hope you all enjoy some of these as much as I have.