Ask any dispensationalist whether or not Christ is reigning now and his answer would be a definite "yes"--followed quickly by a "but." "Yes, Jesus is reigning now, but his kingdom won't be fully realized until he begins his millennial reign on the throne of David after the Great Tribulation."
That may sound at first like a reasonable theological argument. After all, we Christians who have experienced salvation, but still find ourselves in a fallen, sinful world, are familiar with the concept of "the now and the not yet." The dispensational view of the kingdom, however, is completely wrong.
One of the many complaints I have against dispensationalism is that it essentially robs Christ of his kingdom. It denies what scripture tells us is a present reality.
I ran across an interesting post at Theology Online, entitled "Dispensationalism's Kingdomless King," that addresses what Peter, Paul, and Jesus himself had to say about the kingdom. Check it out here.
Pay special attention to the quote from Peter's sermon at Pentecost. The Apostle explains to us exactly what David was foretelling in Psalm 110, a passage typically used by the dispensationalist as evidence of a physical millennial reign.
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Jumping into the Eschatological Fray: Revelation and "the Rest of the Dead"
No one has done more to agitate the Christian blogosphere lately than John MacArthur. He opened the 2007 Shepherd's Conference earlier this month with a scathing little speech on the subject of "sovereign election, Israel, and eschatology," in which he implied that those who don't subscribe to premillennialism are somehow denying the doctrine of election. (For an analysis of that speech, check out Jason Robertson's Fide-O post.)
James Kime of Lion Crest Inn is one blogger who is fired up by what happened at the conference. He sees MacArthur's speech as a preemptive strike against amillennialism--a theological "shock and awe" campaign, if you will, against the doctrinally challenged.
It is clear that Mr. Kime doesn't like amillennialists. "Amillennialists should be ashamed of themselves for the reckless manner in which they treat so many biblical texts," he writes. And he thinks he has found the silver bullet capable of stopping these heretical monsters dead in their tracks.
Take a look at his March 25 post. He addresses Revelation 20:4-5 and its reference to "the rest of the dead." According to Kime, "This text presents a problem for amillennialists, but they do not seem to grasp why. Each time I engage them on this point, the conversation takes a different turn. Basically, they stop the conversation."
So, it would seem that Revelation 20:4-5 is the secret weapon in the premillennial arsenal. It is the argument to end all arguments. Let's take a look at that passage (using the NKJV as quoted on Kime's blog):
But note his insistence that the resurrection in question can only be a physical one. Is it? If the believing dead have already been raised physically in verse 4, John could have just said that he saw "those who had been beheaded." He didn't. He wrote about seeing "the souls of those who had been beheaded."
Now, one could argue that the word "soul," as used elsewhere in scripture, means "person" or "life," but that doesn't fit the context. Is the author suggesting that he saw "the people of those who had been beheaded" or "the lives of those who had been beheaded"? No. If John's use of the word "soul" meant "person" or "life," then it would have made much more sense for John to simply refer to "the souls who had been beheaded," but that isn't what the text says. What John is witnessing in his vision in verse 4 can only be in the spiritual realm.
Before moving on, perhaps we should take a look at verse 6: "Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years."
From this we know that unbelievers do not have a part in the first resurrection. After all, verse 6 says that those who take part in it are "blessed and holy." So, if the first resurrection John is talking about in verses 4 and 5 can only be physical, we must therefore conclude that when John mentions "the rest of the dead" living again at some point after the thousand years, he is referring to a second physical resurrection. However, support for two physical resurrections cannot be found anywhere in scripture. In fact, that view is refuted quite soundly.
One reason we know that the first resurrection is spiritual can be found in 1 Corinthians 15:50. Here, the Apostle Paul writes that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." The physical resurrection comes later. When? Paul tells us in verse 52 that it will be "in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet."
In Acts 24:15, we learn "there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust." This is referring to a single, final bodily resurrection.
Jesus himself spoke in terms of one spiritual resurrection and one physical resurrection: "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live" (John 5:24-25, emphasis added). This is the first, or spiritual, resurrection. Jesus then goes on to say in verses 28 and 29 that "all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth--those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation." This is the physical resurrection.
That is reiterated in Revelation 20:11-13, when all of the dead at once are raised physically to stand before God in judgment. Those whose names are not found in the Book of Life will be cast into the lake of fire, which is the second death. And as we saw in verse 6, the second death has no hold on those who experienced the first (i.e., spiritual) resurrection.
The reigning of the saints with Christ in Revelation 20:4 is the realization of the promise made earlier in 3:21: "To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne." This is in direct contrast to "the rest of the dead" (i.e., the unbelieving dead) in 20:5 who are not allowed to live or reign during the thousand-year period. They are raised--that is, their souls are reunited with their bodies and they "live again"--for the final judgment (20:11-13) before suffering the second death in the lake of fire.
I am neither a scholar nor a theologian. I am nothing more than a sinner saved by grace. But I think I have read and studied enough to see that Revelation 20:4-5 can hardly be considered a refutation of amillennialism. Naturally, men like James Kime think that makes me reckless. However, I would argue that premillennialists are the ones who "should be ashamed of themselves for the reckless manner in which they treat so many biblical texts." Ripping passages out of context and rendering them inconsistent with the rest of scripture in order to justify our own preconceived notions is never a good thing.
James Kime of Lion Crest Inn is one blogger who is fired up by what happened at the conference. He sees MacArthur's speech as a preemptive strike against amillennialism--a theological "shock and awe" campaign, if you will, against the doctrinally challenged.
It is clear that Mr. Kime doesn't like amillennialists. "Amillennialists should be ashamed of themselves for the reckless manner in which they treat so many biblical texts," he writes. And he thinks he has found the silver bullet capable of stopping these heretical monsters dead in their tracks.
Take a look at his March 25 post. He addresses Revelation 20:4-5 and its reference to "the rest of the dead." According to Kime, "This text presents a problem for amillennialists, but they do not seem to grasp why. Each time I engage them on this point, the conversation takes a different turn. Basically, they stop the conversation."
So, it would seem that Revelation 20:4-5 is the secret weapon in the premillennial arsenal. It is the argument to end all arguments. Let's take a look at that passage (using the NKJV as quoted on Kime's blog):
- 4And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
- According to amillennialism, when a person becomes saved he immediately starts reigning with Christ is this kingdom. Further, they assert that the coming to life in verse 4 is a spiritual resurrection.
Verse 5 says that another group of people will not live again until after the thousand years. If the second group (the rest of the dead) is supposed to be believers, then you have a group of believers who DO NOT immediately start reigning with Christ. If they are unbelievers, you have them given life at the end of the thousand years, thus teaching universalism.
There is nothing within the context to say that the coming to life in verse 4 is spiritual. Further, there is nothing within the context to say that verse 4 is spiritual and verse 5 is a physical resurrection.
The fact is, the resurrection in verse 4 is described as happening when Christ returns. To make that into a spiritual resurrection does much harm on the status of believers between their death and physical resurrection.
But note his insistence that the resurrection in question can only be a physical one. Is it? If the believing dead have already been raised physically in verse 4, John could have just said that he saw "those who had been beheaded." He didn't. He wrote about seeing "the souls of those who had been beheaded."
Now, one could argue that the word "soul," as used elsewhere in scripture, means "person" or "life," but that doesn't fit the context. Is the author suggesting that he saw "the people of those who had been beheaded" or "the lives of those who had been beheaded"? No. If John's use of the word "soul" meant "person" or "life," then it would have made much more sense for John to simply refer to "the souls who had been beheaded," but that isn't what the text says. What John is witnessing in his vision in verse 4 can only be in the spiritual realm.
Before moving on, perhaps we should take a look at verse 6: "Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years."
From this we know that unbelievers do not have a part in the first resurrection. After all, verse 6 says that those who take part in it are "blessed and holy." So, if the first resurrection John is talking about in verses 4 and 5 can only be physical, we must therefore conclude that when John mentions "the rest of the dead" living again at some point after the thousand years, he is referring to a second physical resurrection. However, support for two physical resurrections cannot be found anywhere in scripture. In fact, that view is refuted quite soundly.
One reason we know that the first resurrection is spiritual can be found in 1 Corinthians 15:50. Here, the Apostle Paul writes that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." The physical resurrection comes later. When? Paul tells us in verse 52 that it will be "in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet."
In Acts 24:15, we learn "there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust." This is referring to a single, final bodily resurrection.
Jesus himself spoke in terms of one spiritual resurrection and one physical resurrection: "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live" (John 5:24-25, emphasis added). This is the first, or spiritual, resurrection. Jesus then goes on to say in verses 28 and 29 that "all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth--those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation." This is the physical resurrection.
That is reiterated in Revelation 20:11-13, when all of the dead at once are raised physically to stand before God in judgment. Those whose names are not found in the Book of Life will be cast into the lake of fire, which is the second death. And as we saw in verse 6, the second death has no hold on those who experienced the first (i.e., spiritual) resurrection.
The reigning of the saints with Christ in Revelation 20:4 is the realization of the promise made earlier in 3:21: "To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne." This is in direct contrast to "the rest of the dead" (i.e., the unbelieving dead) in 20:5 who are not allowed to live or reign during the thousand-year period. They are raised--that is, their souls are reunited with their bodies and they "live again"--for the final judgment (20:11-13) before suffering the second death in the lake of fire.
I am neither a scholar nor a theologian. I am nothing more than a sinner saved by grace. But I think I have read and studied enough to see that Revelation 20:4-5 can hardly be considered a refutation of amillennialism. Naturally, men like James Kime think that makes me reckless. However, I would argue that premillennialists are the ones who "should be ashamed of themselves for the reckless manner in which they treat so many biblical texts." Ripping passages out of context and rendering them inconsistent with the rest of scripture in order to justify our own preconceived notions is never a good thing.
Friday, March 23, 2007
Some Eschatological Resources
Friday, March 16, 2007
Ligonier's 2007 National Conference Live Online
In case you weren't able to attend the Ligonier Ministries 2007 National Conference, "Contending for the Truth," you can view it live online. Just click here and complete the free registration form to start watching.
John MacArthur is speaking right now on "The Challenge of Science." The other featured speakers are R. C. Sproul, R. C. Sproul Jr., Ravi Zacharias, Al Mohler, and my pastor, John Piper. The full conference schedule can be found here.
John MacArthur is speaking right now on "The Challenge of Science." The other featured speakers are R. C. Sproul, R. C. Sproul Jr., Ravi Zacharias, Al Mohler, and my pastor, John Piper. The full conference schedule can be found here.
Saturday, March 03, 2007
Democracy vs. Orthodoxy
I've written often about the perils of the Democratist Temptation, that the pursuit of global democracy, which is in reality a cover for American hegemony, is in fact anti-Christian at its core.
In a brief essay, R. J. Rushdoony writes that the doctrine of infallibility is inescapable, that every philosophy has either explicitly or implicitly an infallible word. Therefore, if the infallibility of Scripture is denied the concept is merely transferred to something else.
When Rushdoony was writing, Marxism as an ideology and the Communist Party institutionally frequently served as proxies for God. But democracy is also one possible substitute. "From ancient times its (democracy) essential faith has been summed up in the Latin motto, vox popula vox dei, 'The voice of the people is the voice of God.' This new god--the people, or democracy--speaks infallibly in and through majorities...Not surprisingly, every movement towards democracy has been a direct or indirect attack on Christian orthodoxy. Because democracy has an explicit doctrine of infallibility, it is necessarily and logically hostile to a rival doctrine of infallibility, and the claims of Scripture are either implicitly or explicitly denied."
Of course, the voice of the people is typically made incarnate through self-serving elites who "speak" on their behalf and wield power through the mechanism of the state. But to speak infallibly, the state requires total power. Thus as infallibility is transferred to "the people" or the state, other attributes of God, such as omnipotence and omniscience flow to those entities, too.
The goal of the modern state is total control, total planning, which is a secular variation of the doctrine of predestination. Rather than holding to God's eternal decree, modern man, including not too few churchmen, frequently puts his faith in the state. Slowly such faith will erode, and the edifice built on such shaky foundations will collapse.
"Because the modern state, in all its variations, is based on Rousseau's concept of the infallible general will, it is moving steadily towards totalitarianism, seeking total power over man," says Rushdoony. Though we can rest in God's sovereignty, our call is to extend the lordship and dominion of Christ in all spheres of life, working through word and deed to spread the Gospel. "We are therefore in a state of war, war between heaven and humanism, war between the Almighty God and the totalitarian state, war between the scientific planners, predictors, and controllers, war between God and all those who deny His infallibility."
In a brief essay, R. J. Rushdoony writes that the doctrine of infallibility is inescapable, that every philosophy has either explicitly or implicitly an infallible word. Therefore, if the infallibility of Scripture is denied the concept is merely transferred to something else.
When Rushdoony was writing, Marxism as an ideology and the Communist Party institutionally frequently served as proxies for God. But democracy is also one possible substitute. "From ancient times its (democracy) essential faith has been summed up in the Latin motto, vox popula vox dei, 'The voice of the people is the voice of God.' This new god--the people, or democracy--speaks infallibly in and through majorities...Not surprisingly, every movement towards democracy has been a direct or indirect attack on Christian orthodoxy. Because democracy has an explicit doctrine of infallibility, it is necessarily and logically hostile to a rival doctrine of infallibility, and the claims of Scripture are either implicitly or explicitly denied."
Of course, the voice of the people is typically made incarnate through self-serving elites who "speak" on their behalf and wield power through the mechanism of the state. But to speak infallibly, the state requires total power. Thus as infallibility is transferred to "the people" or the state, other attributes of God, such as omnipotence and omniscience flow to those entities, too.
The goal of the modern state is total control, total planning, which is a secular variation of the doctrine of predestination. Rather than holding to God's eternal decree, modern man, including not too few churchmen, frequently puts his faith in the state. Slowly such faith will erode, and the edifice built on such shaky foundations will collapse.
"Because the modern state, in all its variations, is based on Rousseau's concept of the infallible general will, it is moving steadily towards totalitarianism, seeking total power over man," says Rushdoony. Though we can rest in God's sovereignty, our call is to extend the lordship and dominion of Christ in all spheres of life, working through word and deed to spread the Gospel. "We are therefore in a state of war, war between heaven and humanism, war between the Almighty God and the totalitarian state, war between the scientific planners, predictors, and controllers, war between God and all those who deny His infallibility."
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
A Not-So-Shameless Plug
I am blessed to have married into a very musical family, and my lovely wife, Dawn, happens to be a wonderful singer. With that, I would like to invite you to check out her debut CD, Because I Love You.
This collection features her interpretations of such all-time favorites as "Pennies from Heaven" and Gershwin's "Our Love Is Here to Stay" (where she is joined by yours truly), in addition to refreshing renditions of Norah Jones' hit "Come Away with Me" and Al Green's "Let's Stay Together." Dawn also demonstrates her song-writing talent on the album's title track.
Here is a track listing along with a few audio samples:
So, if you'd like to help out a good cause, if you're looking for a perfect Valentine's Day gift, or if you just like good music, check out Because I Love You. Click here for ordering information.
This collection features her interpretations of such all-time favorites as "Pennies from Heaven" and Gershwin's "Our Love Is Here to Stay" (where she is joined by yours truly), in addition to refreshing renditions of Norah Jones' hit "Come Away with Me" and Al Green's "Let's Stay Together." Dawn also demonstrates her song-writing talent on the album's title track.Here is a track listing along with a few audio samples:
- My Love Song to You
- 'Deed I Do
- Come Away with Me
- Pennies from Heaven
- But Beautiful
- I'm Confessin' (That I Love You)
- Embraceable You
- Let's Stay Together
- Our Love Is Here to Stay
- Because I Love You
- Let's Fall in Love
- Someone to Watch over Me
- Everything Happens to Me
- They All Laughed
So, if you'd like to help out a good cause, if you're looking for a perfect Valentine's Day gift, or if you just like good music, check out Because I Love You. Click here for ordering information.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Christian Liberty in a Nutshell
What does it mean to be free? Many people think that being a Christian means having to adhere to a list of dos and don'ts. And based on what we see and hear from many fundamentalists, that would seem to be the case.
After all, Romans 6:17-18 says, "But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness." But the Christian life is one of liberty, and being a "slave of righteousness" is about being free to serve Christ.
I think the essence of Christian liberty can be summed up in Galatians 1:10: "For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ."
Submitting to the Lordship of Christ means that we are free to serve him without worrying about pleasing others. For if we go through life trying to live up to everyone else's expectations, we are doomed to failure. It's an impossible task. In trying to please one person, we will certainly offend someone else. Being a slave to righteousness eliminates that problem. In other words, having only one Master is more liberating than having many.
Now, one can argue that it is even more impossible to live up to God's expectations. Well, yes, that's true. But that is what grace is all about. Through the cross, Christ's righteousness has become our righteousness. The need to live up to a particular standard has already been taken care of.
As Christians, we have been given a blessed gift. May we all learn to live a life of liberty in Christ Jesus.
After all, Romans 6:17-18 says, "But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness." But the Christian life is one of liberty, and being a "slave of righteousness" is about being free to serve Christ.
I think the essence of Christian liberty can be summed up in Galatians 1:10: "For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ."
Submitting to the Lordship of Christ means that we are free to serve him without worrying about pleasing others. For if we go through life trying to live up to everyone else's expectations, we are doomed to failure. It's an impossible task. In trying to please one person, we will certainly offend someone else. Being a slave to righteousness eliminates that problem. In other words, having only one Master is more liberating than having many.
Now, one can argue that it is even more impossible to live up to God's expectations. Well, yes, that's true. But that is what grace is all about. Through the cross, Christ's righteousness has become our righteousness. The need to live up to a particular standard has already been taken care of.
As Christians, we have been given a blessed gift. May we all learn to live a life of liberty in Christ Jesus.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
10 Rules for Effortless Bible Reading
The following is from a sermon by Mark Gladwell entitled "Profitable Bible Reading":
- 10 Rules for Effortless Bible Reading
- Always read at night when you're tired.
- Open the book at random; your chances of striking a genealogy are pretty good.
- Never read more than five verses at a time; you might get the idea of a story.
- Tackle the most difficult passages first; they will encourage you to give up more quickly.
- Don't have a system; you might know where to start.
- Fill your bookshelves with translations; they prove it's too hard to understand.
- Never make notes; you might remember something.
- Never share what you read with others; speech often brings thoughts into focus.
- Never attempt a group Bible study; confusion might disappear.
- Whatever you do, never, never become a regular daily reader; it might affect the way you live.
- Author unknown
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Perseverance of the Saints
(Okay, so the title might be a little misleading. Just indulge me.)
Though they lost the NFC championship,
the Saints have every reason
to feel good about their Chicago trip
and their most illustrious season.
For four decades the team has fought
against great odds and shame.
And for too long, it seems, they've sought
to win just one big game.
So never in our wildest dreams
did we ever think we'd see
the Saints among the best of teams -
number two in the NFC!
No, the Saints won't go marching in.
There'll be no Super Bowl.
But loyal fans have cause to grin:
Their team has found its soul.
Now let this thought quell the urge
to feel down and shed a tear.
Don't groan or sing a mournful dirge,
'cause they're going all the way next year!
Though they lost the NFC championship,
the Saints have every reason
to feel good about their Chicago trip
and their most illustrious season.
For four decades the team has fought
against great odds and shame.
And for too long, it seems, they've sought
to win just one big game.
So never in our wildest dreams
did we ever think we'd see
the Saints among the best of teams -
number two in the NFC!
No, the Saints won't go marching in.
There'll be no Super Bowl.
But loyal fans have cause to grin:
Their team has found its soul.
Now let this thought quell the urge
to feel down and shed a tear.
Don't groan or sing a mournful dirge,
'cause they're going all the way next year!
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Young, Restless, Reformed
"Calvinism is making a comeback - and shaking up the church."
In case you missed this excellent Christianity Today article (I can't believe I'm saying that), you can read it online here.
In case you missed this excellent Christianity Today article (I can't believe I'm saying that), you can read it online here.
Thursday, December 21, 2006
The Devolution of Evolution
"Evolution is a joke." So writes Gary DeMar.
And he's right. In order to believe in evolution - and we're talking macro-evolution here - one would have to believe that it's possible to get life from inanimate matter through natural processes, something that science has proven to be impossible.
DeMar explains:
If you're looking for the punchline to the joke that is evolution, try looking to scripture. Genesis 1:1 is a good place to start.
And he's right. In order to believe in evolution - and we're talking macro-evolution here - one would have to believe that it's possible to get life from inanimate matter through natural processes, something that science has proven to be impossible.
DeMar explains:
- A study of the history of science will show that at times science itself has been an impediment to scientific advancement. For example, after Italian biologist Francesco Redi (1626–1697) successfully challenged the dogmatism of spontaneous generation which had been for so long based on Greek "science," some scientists still clung to elements of the outmoded theory. Even when additional experiments by Louis Pasteur (1822–1895) showed that "microscopic beings must come into the world from parents similar to themselves," skepticism remained. Ernst Haeckel (1834–1919), a chief proponent of Darwinism, stated in 1876, 25 years after Pasteur's famous experiment, "If we do not accept the hypothesis of spontaneous generation, then at this one point in the history of evolution we must have recourse to the miracle of a supernatural creation." Haeckel chose spontaneous generation even though there was no empirical evidence to support it because he did not like the alternative - belief in God. Don't be surprised by Haeckel's irrationalism. Despite the evidence to the contrary, a number of high profile modern-day evolutionists have constructed their theory of origins on the rejected premise that life as we know it today developed (evolved) from non-life.
If you're looking for the punchline to the joke that is evolution, try looking to scripture. Genesis 1:1 is a good place to start.
Friday, December 15, 2006
Christmas Verses
In the spirit of the season, I thought I'd share some of my favorite "Christmas" verses (most of which are not taken from the traditional scripture passages we normally hear quoted this time of year):
- Galatians 4:4-5
"But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons."
John 1:1, 14
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ... And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth."
Romans 8:3-4
"For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit."
Isaiah 9:6-7
"For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this."
1 Timothy 3:16
"He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory."
Philippians 2:5-8
"Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross."
Hebrews 2:16-17
"For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people."
Thursday, December 14, 2006
The Unknown Wonders of Creation
NewScientist.com has a fascinating article entitled "13 Things that Do Not Make Sense." You will definitely want to read the full article, but here are some brief excerpts:
But what I find most interesting of all is that while scientists admit there are things they just don't know, they will readily assert that there is no God - that the universe in which we live came about purely by chance. If anything, this list serves as an example of man's finite mind. The more we learn, the more we learn how much we really have yet to learn. And if we are pursuing knowledge for selfish reasons (i.e., for reasons other than glorifying the Creator of all things), then it is as King Solomon said: "I have seen everything that is done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a striving after wind. ... For in much wisdom is much vexation, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow" (Ecclesiastes 1:14, 18).
- The placebo effect
Don't try this at home. Several times a day, for several days, you induce pain in someone. You control the pain with morphine until the final day of the experiment, when you replace the morphine with saline solution. Guess what? The saline takes the pain away. ... - The horizon problem
Our universe appears to be unfathomably uniform. Look across space from one edge of the visible universe to the other, and you'll see that the microwave background radiation filling the cosmos is at the same temperature everywhere. That may not seem surprising until you consider that the two edges are nearly 28 billion light years apart and our universe is only 14 billion years old.
Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, so there is no way heat radiation could have travelled between the two horizons to even out the hot and cold spots created in the big bang and leave the thermal equilibrium we see now. ... - Ultra-energetic cosmic rays
For more than a decade, physicists in Japan have been seeing cosmic rays that should not exist. Cosmic rays are particles - mostly protons but sometimes heavy atomic nuclei - that travel through the universe at close to the speed of light. Some cosmic rays detected on Earth are produced in violent events such as supernovae, but we still don't know the origins of the highest-energy particles, which are the most energetic particles ever seen in nature. But that's not the real mystery. ... - Belfast homeopathy results
Madeleine Ennis, a pharmacologist at Queen's University, Belfast, was the scourge of homeopathy. She railed against its claims that a chemical remedy could be diluted to the point where a sample was unlikely to contain a single molecule of anything but water, and yet still have a healing effect. Until, that is, she set out to prove once and for all that homeopathy was bunkum. ... - Dark matter
Take our best understanding of gravity, apply it to the way galaxies spin, and you'll quickly see the problem: the galaxies should be falling apart. Galactic matter orbits around a central point because its mutual gravitational attraction creates centripetal forces. But there is not enough mass in the galaxies to produce the observed spin. ... - Viking's methane
July 20, 1976. Gilbert Levin is on the edge of his seat. Millions of kilometres away on Mars, the Viking landers have scooped up some soil and mixed it with carbon-14-labelled nutrients. The mission's scientists have all agreed that if Levin's instruments on board the landers detect emissions of carbon-14-containing methane from the soil, then there must be life on Mars.
Viking reports a positive result. Something is ingesting the nutrients, metabolising them, and then belching out gas laced with carbon-14. ... - Tetraneutrons
Four years ago, a particle accelerator in France detected six particles that should not exist. They are called tetraneutrons: four neutrons that are bound together in a way that defies the laws of physics. ... - The Pioneer anomaly
This is a tale of two spacecraft. Pioneer 10 was launched in 1972; Pioneer 11 a year later. By now both craft should be drifting off into deep space with no one watching. However, their trajectories have proved far too fascinating to ignore.
That's because something has been pulling - or pushing - on them, causing them to speed up. The resulting acceleration is tiny, less than a nanometre per second per second. That's equivalent to just one ten-billionth of the gravity at Earth's surface, but it is enough to have shifted Pioneer 10 some 400,000 kilometres off track. NASA lost touch with Pioneer 11 in 1995, but up to that point it was experiencing exactly the same deviation as its sister probe. So what is causing it? ... - Dark energy
one of the most famous, and most embarrassing, problems in physics. In 1998, astronomers discovered that the universe is expanding at ever faster speeds. It's an effect still searching for a cause - until then, everyone thought the universe's expansion was slowing down after the big bang. "Theorists are still floundering around, looking for a sensible explanation," says cosmologist Katherine Freese of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. "We're all hoping that upcoming observations of supernovae, of clusters of galaxies and so on will give us more clues." ... - The Kuiper cliff
If you travel out to the far edge of the solar system, into the frigid wastes beyond Pluto, you'll see something strange. Suddenly, after passing through the Kuiper belt, a region of space teeming with icy rocks, there's nothing.
Astronomers call this boundary the Kuiper cliff, because the density of space rocks drops off so steeply. What caused it? The only answer seems to be a 10th planet. We're not talking about Quaoar or Sedna: this is a massive object, as big as Earth or Mars, that has swept the area clean of debris. ... - The Wow signal
It was 37 seconds long and came from outer space. On 15 August 1977 it caused astronomer Jerry Ehman, then of Ohio State University in Columbus, to scrawl "Wow!" on the printout from Big Ear, Ohio State's radio telescope in Delaware. And 28 years later no one knows what created the signal. "I am still waiting for a definitive explanation that makes sense," Ehman says.
Coming from the direction of Sagittarius, the pulse of radiation was confined to a narrow range of radio frequencies around 1420 megahertz. This frequency is in a part of the radio spectrum in which all transmissions are prohibited by international agreement. Natural sources of radiation, such as the thermal emissions from planets, usually cover a much broader sweep of frequencies. So what caused it? ... - Not-so-constant constants
In 1997 astronomer John Webb and his team at the University of New South Wales in Sydney analysed the light reaching Earth from distant quasars. On its 12-billion-year journey, the light had passed through interstellar clouds of metals such as iron, nickel and chromium, and the researchers found these atoms had absorbed some of the photons of quasar light - but not the ones they were expecting.
If the observations are correct, the only vaguely reasonable explanation is that a constant of physics called the fine structure constant, or alpha, had a different value at the time the light passed through the clouds.
But that's heresy. Alpha is an extremely important constant that determines how light interacts with matter - and it shouldn't be able to change. Its value depends on, among other things, the charge on the electron, the speed of light and Planck's constant. Could one of these really have changed? ... - Cold fusion
After 16 years, it's back. In fact, cold fusion never really went away. Over a 10-year period from 1989, US navy labs ran more than 200 experiments to investigate whether nuclear reactions generating more energy than they consume - supposedly only possible inside stars - can occur at room temperature. Numerous researchers have since pronounced themselves believers. ...
But what I find most interesting of all is that while scientists admit there are things they just don't know, they will readily assert that there is no God - that the universe in which we live came about purely by chance. If anything, this list serves as an example of man's finite mind. The more we learn, the more we learn how much we really have yet to learn. And if we are pursuing knowledge for selfish reasons (i.e., for reasons other than glorifying the Creator of all things), then it is as King Solomon said: "I have seen everything that is done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a striving after wind. ... For in much wisdom is much vexation, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow" (Ecclesiastes 1:14, 18).
Monday, December 11, 2006
A Tale of Two Christmas Sermons
I recently compared two sermons that were both based on Matthew 2:1-12:
Both speak about treasuring Christ, but they are hardly the same sermon. One is topical and one is expositional. Can you tell which is which?
Both speak about treasuring Christ, but they are hardly the same sermon. One is topical and one is expositional. Can you tell which is which?
Thursday, November 30, 2006
A Brief Thought About CCM
Contemporary Christian Music continues to dominate the religious airwaves and even filters into the secular mainstream. I will readily admit that I don't care too much for CCM. There are only a handful of CCM artists (Michael Card and Steve Taylor being among my favorites) that I have ever cared to listen to, and frankly it doesn't seem like I've missed out on much.
Jeffrey Tucker, editorial vice president of Mises.org, wrote about CCM in an essay entitled "Suffering, Thy Name Is FM Radio":
I recall what a fellow student told me back in college: "We don't need more Christian rock musicians; we need more rock musicians who are Christians." His point was that good music and Godly music aren't necessarily synonymous. We don't have to settle for bad music just because the lyrics happen to be about God. Why can't we have both? Wouldn't a more God-glorifying combination be intelligent, edifying lyrics sung to an equally intelligent and edifying tune?
Jeffrey Tucker, editorial vice president of Mises.org, wrote about CCM in an essay entitled "Suffering, Thy Name Is FM Radio":
- How can I describe this stuff? It's like bad rock, bad pop, bad country, bad everything all rolled into one. The voices are all bad. They have this cheesy little vibrato that seems designed to sooth but only annoys. The instrumentation is all canned. All songs begin softly with whispered nothings about some personal problem you don't care about. They grow and grow with choruses featuring long notes. Cymbals and trumpet flourishes arrive at the high points. They end with some victorious flourish. A dated rock beat backs it all. The words are completely vacuous. The sentiment is cheap. The melodies are childish. If religion were this thin, it's a wonder anyone goes along with it at all! This is truly bad music in every way.
Give me the cultural authenticity of rap. I'll take the phony philosophy of the college station blues. I'll tap my toe to the Village People. Put on a Sting re-tread. I'll take another 688 bars of saxophone improvisation. I'll even suffer through an old-time country crooner. But please please, can't somebody do something about Christian contemporary music? I know what I was thinking and feeling: This stuff is the bane of the entire radio dial.
I recall what a fellow student told me back in college: "We don't need more Christian rock musicians; we need more rock musicians who are Christians." His point was that good music and Godly music aren't necessarily synonymous. We don't have to settle for bad music just because the lyrics happen to be about God. Why can't we have both? Wouldn't a more God-glorifying combination be intelligent, edifying lyrics sung to an equally intelligent and edifying tune?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
