Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. ~1 Peter 5:8
In addition to the excellent book on apologetics I have been reading, authored by Dr. Greg Bahnsen, I have also had my nose in another book written by John MacArthur entitled Our Sufficiency in Christ. In it, he exposes the modern day obsession of Christians with Satan. His analysis, in my judgment, is spot on.
MacArthur opines, "I am amazed at the number of Christians being drawn into the burgeoning "spiritual warfare" movement. I am convinced it represents an unhealthy obsession with Satan and demonic powers. Judging from the turnouts, thousands of Christians really believe that if they don't attend a spiritual warfare boot camp and learn some strategy for fighting demons, Satan will have them for breakfast." (MacArthur, Our Sufficiency in Christ, p. 214)
Now take careful note what MacArthur is and is not saying. He is saying that he believes that this participation in the spiritual warfare movement is unhealthy and represents a foolish obsession with Satan within the Christian community. He is not saying that spiritual warfare is a fiction and does not exist.
He continues: "Is that true? Is there some secret strategy to be learned from "experts" in the art of spiritual warfare? Do Christians need to study mystic teachings for confronting and commanding evil forces, "binding" the devil, "breaking the strongholds" of territorial demons, and other complex strategems of metaphysical combat? Is it simplistic to think that the basic armor described in Ephesians 6 is sufficient to keep us from being breakfast for Satan?" (MacArthur, Our Sufficiency in Christ, p. 215)
The short answer is, why do we need to be trained by certain incantations to get rid of Satan? I will also propose another idea that needs to be considered. Is Satan omnipresent like God? That is, is Satan available to be everywhere all at once? If so, then many evangelicals may be right, Satan attacks them all the time. However, what Scripture do we have that supports this idea? Simply put, we have none. Scripture never tells us that Satan is omnipresent. It does tell us, however, that God is. My conclusion is that yes, Satan does go after the saints, but not all at once at the same time.
MacArthur continues, "Absolutely not. One of the glorious truths of our sufficiency in Christ is that we are alredy more than conquerors in the great cosmic spiritual warfare (Rom. 8:37). Satan is already a defeated foe (Col. 2:15, 1 Pet 3:22)." (MacArthur, Our Sufficiency in Christ, p. 215)
Why then are we so obsessed with Satan? Is he our enemy? Yes, absolutely. Are we supposed to seek him out and defeat him? Nope. In fact, Christ already defeated him via his work. Let us see what the Scriptures have to say about this topic.
Colossians 2:15: He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.
Matthew 12:25-29: Knowing their thoughts, he said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand. And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. Or how can someone enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house.
In fact, I would argue strongly that Christ already has bound Satan. That does not mean that Satan doesn't exist or that Satan doesn't stir up strife or attack the saints. But it does mean that Christ, through His work, has defeated him already. The idea that God is trying really hard to defeat Satan and He needs our help to do it is absurd. Satan is already defeated. He is already bound. He has not once been able to rally the whole world together to make war against the saints since the work of Christ was completed at Calvary.
MacArthur continues, "Certainly we are involved in an ongoing "struggle...against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places" (Eph. 6:12). But Christ is already the Victor in this spiritual war. When the apostle Paul wrote to the Ephesian Christians, he was not suggesting that they view their conflict with the powers of darkness as a battle whose outcome still hung in the balance. He was telling them they needed to "be strong in the Lord, and in the strength of His might" (v. 10); to "stand firm" (vv. 11, 13); to use the spiritual armor - truth, righteousness, the gospel of peace, faith, salvation, and God's Word - to resist the schemes of the devil. They were to fight from a position of victory, not out of fear that Satan might make them toast." (MacArthur, Our Sufficiency in Christ, p. 215)
How different this is than what is commonly portrayed and practiced today!
"Nor was the apostle suggesting that the church should infiltrate confrontations with evil principalities and powers. There's no need for Christians to seek to engage Satan in combat. Nowhere in Scripture are we ever encouraged to do so. On the contrary, we are to "be of sober spirit, [and] be on the alert," for he (Satan) prowls around like a roaring, devouring lion (1 Pet 5:8). After all, who is after whom?" (MacArthur, Our Sufficiency in Christ, p. 215-216)
Excellent insight here from MacArthur. We are never commanded to seek out Satan and engage him. Why would a Christian ever want to do that? I'll let MacArthur have the final word.
"Since Satan is pursuing us, how do we keep from becoming instant breakfast? Certainly not by chasing after him, hunting him down, attempting to bind him, commanding him, or rebuking him with some incantation. We simply "resist the devil and he will flee" (James 4:7). Why? Because the One who indwells every believer is greater than the devil (1 John 4:4) - and all the powers of hell know it (Matt 8:28-32).
That a movement so obsessed with Satan and his minions could suddenly gain popularity among Bible-believing Christians is proof of the influence mysticism has had in the church. Many of the tactics these self-styled experts in spiritual warfare are advocating have no Scriptural warrant whatsoever. They are the fruit of mysticism run amok. Those who advocate them speak as if they had great authority, but the truth is you won't find biblical support for most of the techniques they recommend. Where does Scripture indicate, for example, that Christians should band together to wage prayer wars against crime and traffic jams or exorcise phenomena like the Bermuda Triangle?
Worst of all, such teaching actually encourages Christians to dabble in demonic affaris or to live in fear and superstition. That is exactly contrary to God's design. We are to equip ourselves for spiritual warfare by becoming experts in righteousness, not by focusing our thoughts and energies on the enemy and fearing his power (Phil 4:8, Rom 16:19).
To put it another way, our sufficiency in Christ fits us for the battle. The spiritual resources we gain in Him are sufficient to sustain us in the face of the enemy - apart from any maneuvers that might be learned in some spiritual warfare seminar. "We are not ignorant of his schemes" (2Cor 2:11); we have a greater power indwelling us (1 John 4:4); and we have God's own promise of absolute security in Christ (Rom 8:38-39)." (MacArthur, Our Sufficiency in Christ, p. 216-217)
Indeed, it is Christ alone who has won the victory over Satan, sin, and death. Only in Him - and not by seeking out Satan and engaging Him - are we victorious. Precisely because He alone is the Victor. It's not "me and God against the devil." Satan is not sovereign, God is. Christ alone has already won.
9/12/12
How Serious is it to get Original Sin and the Fall of Man Correct? Deathly Serious.
I’ve been aware that there has always been a group of
persons claiming the name of Christ who deny original sin and the fall of man. It's not like these ideas are new.
What I was unaware of is just how openly prevalent it is now days. I’ve run into many
of these folks online lately, so I am compelled to speak about this topic. The
more I think about the topic, the bigger of a deal it clearly becomes. Not that
it’s becoming any worse than it already is, but you see quite clearly what
other foolish stances people derive from this denial of these core Christian
doctrines.
If I can see OK, what I have been seeing lately is that a
denial of original sin and the fall of man results in an entire superstructure
of theology that is completely wrong and unbiblical. For the sake of ease here,
I will stick to the core belief superstructure at the root of this denial:
Pelagianism.
Pelagianism basically can be summed up in six points. Here
they are.
1.
Even if Adam had not sinned, he would have died.
2.
Adam's sin harmed only himself, not the human
race.
3.
Children just
born are in the same state as Adam before
his fall.
4.
The whole human race neither dies through Adam's
sin or death, nor rises again through the resurrection
of Christ.
5.
The Mosaic Law is as good
a guide to heaven as the Gospel.
6.
Even before the advent
of Christ there were men
who were without sin.
These were the six main ideas espoused by Pelagius, a 5th
century English monk, and his close associate, Caelestius. Now, when we look at
them as a whole, they all make sense within the framework of Pelagian theology.
Namely, if we deny original sin and the fall, they fit together.
#1: Even if Adam had not sinned, he would have died.
This assertion disregards the integrity of the original
creation. God said it was good, but He created Adam in a body of death anyways.
Scripture tells us that death itself is part of the curse that was rendered to
the whole creation as a result of Adam’s sin.
Yet this assertion makes sense within Pelagianism due to the
fact that Pelagians deny that the fall of man affected everyone else post-Adam.
Why? It’s based on evidence of the fact that everyone post-Adam has died (save
for Enoch and Elijah). Thus, death cannot be a result of sin, since that would
mean that there would be zero people who have ever lived perfectly and never
sinned. Thus, Adam had to be mortal pre-fall to account not only for sinless
living, but also to account for the fact that infants and small children, who
are not sinners, die all the time. So, this makes sense in Pelagianism because
death cannot be the result of sin, since Adam’s sin does not apply to anyone
other than Adam, and people who are innocent die all the time.
#2: Adam's sin harmed only himself, not the human race.
This is explained mainly in the last point, but again,
within Pelagianism, this makes perfect sense. This is in essence a denial of
the Christian doctrine of the fall of man. Adam had his own fall, which began a
process of spiritual dying (but not physical, because that has nothing to do
with sin). Likewise, we all have our own personal falls that starts our own
process of dying spiritually. But we certainly are not sinners by nature, we’re
only sinners after we choose to sin.
#3: Children just born are in the
same state as Adam before his fall.
Here is the blatant and outright denial of the doctrine of
original sin. Not much else needs to be said here, but this ties in directly
with the first two.
#4: The whole human race neither dies through Adam's sin or death, nor rises
again through the resurrection of Christ.
I will allow Pelagian writer Lewis Loflin to answer this one: “This is the real reason why Christianity needs the Original
Sin doctrine. If Original Sin is false as the Old Testament shows and there are
clearly men who overcame sin without faith in Jesus, then by our own efforts we
can achieve this task. Thus we don't need Christianity, its institutions, and
leaders to control our lives. One is Jesus' own relatives prior to His birth.”
In short, we don’t need Christ to save us. We enter
into life by keeping the commandments. Loflin also accuses the apostle Paul of
inventing the “inherited sin” doctrine. In short, Paul is wrong, in his view.
He also denies the bodily resurrection, saying: “Adam was expelled from the
Garden for the express purpose he would not be made immortal. It seems God
never intended humans to be immortal, which throws any idea of life after death
(bodily resurrection) into question. Pelagius was right on this count.”
Pretty much (in his view) everything Paul said was
wrong and was nothing more than a perversion of the Old Testament.
#5: The Mosaic Law is as good
a guide to heaven as the Gospel.
Of course it would be, because we are capable of keeping it
perfectly in Pelagian theology. Thus, there is no need for Christ unless you
first go and screw it up by sinning and then after you sin, you still retain
all that natural and moral ability to throw yourself on Christ for forgiveness.
This is a denial of the Gospel. It opens up an additional way of salvation.
#6: Even before the advent of Christ
there were men who were without sin.
Pelagians will quote a couple Old Testament references to
try to prove this, but none of the references they quote say anything of the
sort. Numbers 14:24 is invoked, which says “But my servant Caleb,
because he has a different spirit and has followed me fully, I will bring into
the land into which he went, and his descendants shall possess it.” Next
up is 2 Kings 22:2: “And he did what was right in the eyes of the Lord and walked in all the way of David his father, and he did not turn
aside to the right or to the left.” This one is speaking of King Josiah.
The Pelagians will even go as far as to say that Abraham was sinless pre-Christ
because God called Abraham His friend (Isa 41:8) and Daniel “beloved” (Dan
9:23, 10:11)
So those are the six major points in
Pelagian theology. Zero of them are historically Christian and zero of them get
the human condition, or God, correct. In short, the Pelagians, just like any
other false religion, wrest passages everywhere from their context, force them
to mean more than they are actually saying, or make them mean something they aren’t
saying at all.
Regarding the Apostle Paul’s writings, I
have seen Pelagians take two approaches. One approach is the one Loflin takes;
to say that Paul was just dead wrong. Loflin sees, then, that Paul does teach
original sin and the fall of man. The other approach, which is more common, is
to try to reinterpret Paul to fit with Pelagianism. I’ve seen a couple efforts
in this regard and it just doesn’t work.
Here is a sampling of what some councils
and confessions have said about Pelagianism over the years.
Council of Carthage (418 AD)
That whosoever says that Adam, the first man, was created mortal, so that whether he had sinned or not, he would have died in body—that is, he would have gone forth of the body, not because his sin merited this, but by natural necessity, let him be anathema. (Canon 1)
That whosoever says that Adam, the first man, was created mortal, so that whether he had sinned or not, he would have died in body—that is, he would have gone forth of the body, not because his sin merited this, but by natural necessity, let him be anathema. (Canon 1)
Council of Orange (529 AD)
If anyone denies
that it is the whole man, that is, both body and soul, that was "changed
for the worse" through the offense of Adam's sin, but believes that the
freedom of the soul remains unimpaired and that only the body is subject to
corruption, he is deceived by the error of Pelagius and contradicts the
scripture which says, "The soul that sins shall die" (Ezek. 18:20);
and, "Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to anyone as obedient
slaves, you are the slaves of the one whom you obey?" (Rom. 6:16); and,
"For whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved" (2 Pet. 2:19).
(Canon 1)
If anyone asserts
that Adam's sin affected him alone and not his descendants also, or at least if
he declares that it is only the death of the body which is the punishment for
sin, and not also that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one
man to the whole human race, he does injustice to God and contradicts the
Apostle, who says, "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man
and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men
sinned" (Rom. 5:12). (Canon 2)
And thus according
to the passages of holy scripture quoted above or the interpretations of the
ancient Fathers we must, under the blessing of God, preach and believe as
follows. The sin of the first man has so impaired and weakened free will that
no one thereafter can either love God as he ought or believe in God or do good
for God's sake, unless the grace of divine mercy has preceded him. (Conclusion)
Augsburg Confession
(Lutheran 1530 AD)
Our churches
condemn the followers of Pelagius and all others who deny that original sin is
truly sin. Such people argue that humans can be justified before God by their
own strength and reason. This lessens the glory of Christ’s work and its
benefits. (Art 2, 3)
We condemn the
Pelagians and all others who teach that without the Holy Spirit, by the power
of human nature alone, we are able to love God above all things. Or that by our
own power we can do the commandments of God according to the substance of the
act. (Art 18, 8)
Belgic Confession (Reformed 1561 AD)
We believe that by the disobedience of Adam original sin has been spread
through the whole human race.
It is a corruption of all nature-- an inherited depravity which even
infects small infants in their mother's womb, and the root which produces in
man every sort of sin. It is therefore so vile and enormous in God's sight that
it is enough to condemn the human race, and it is not abolished or wholly
uprooted even by baptism, seeing that sin constantly boils forth as though from
a contaminated spring.
Nevertheless, it is not imputed to God's children for their condemnation
but is forgiven by his grace and mercy-- not to put them to sleep but so that
the awareness of this corruption might often make believers groan as they long
to be set free from the "body of this death." (Rom 7:24)
Therefore we reject the error of the Pelagians who say that this sin is
nothing else than a matter of imitation.
Canons of Dort (Reformed 1618-19 AD)
Who teach that in election to faith a
prerequisite condition is that man should rightly use the light of nature, be
upright, unassuming, humble, and disposed to eternal life, as though election
depended to some extent on these factors.
For this smacks of Pelagius, and it clearly calls into question the words
of the apostle: We lived at one time in the passions of our flesh, following
the will of our flesh and thoughts, and we were by nature children of wrath,
like everyone else. But God, who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with
which he loved us, even when we were dead in transgressions, made us alive with
Christ, by whose grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with him and
seated us with him in heaven in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages
we might show the surpassing riches of his grace, according to his kindness
toward us in Christ Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved, through
faith (and this not from yourselves; it is the gift of God) not by works, so
that no one can boast (Eph. 2:3-9).
So how serious are the denials of original sin and the fall of man? Deathly
serious. Serious to the point where the followers of such grievous errors are
preachers of another Gospel and peddlers of something far outside of Christianity.
When these core doctrines are incorrect, an entire superstructure of false
theology slides in to take the place of the Scriptural report, as we have seen
above. Getting the beginning wrong, the rest falls like dominoes in a row, and you end up getting everything wrong. And it amounts to an outright denial of Christianity.
8/24/12
The Near Misses - Listing #32 - #26 On My Jersey List
So here we go. These are all of my jerseys that were very close to making the cut of the top 25. I have listed all of those that are within 2 points. Here are all the 78s and 79s in my
collection, in reverse order - 32 up to 26.
#32: Philadelphia Flyers White Reebok Premier Winter
Classic Jersey
Jersey Type: 17. It’s a Reebok premier, so this one is set
in stone.
Jersey Condition: 19. I’ve only worn this pristine jersey a
couple times. It looks new.
Logos: 17. I do like the Flyers logo and scheme, but it can’t
go higher than 17 here, as there are numerous ones I like better and rank
higher. Yet, a 17 is a good score.
Personalization: 0. Well, it’s a blank, what can I say? Now,
if I were to personalize this jersey with a fair to decent player, it would be
knocking on the door of the top 10. If I were to personalize it with a really
good player, it leaps into my top 10 - as it should. Imagine a Chris Pronger on
the back of this jersey. That would be a solid 8 and put it at an 86. That
would put it at #6 on my list. But for now, it remains blank.
Color Scheme: 8. I like the orange, white, and black color
scheme they have going in Philadelphia, and I especially like that they are
making more use of the orange these days. Orange, black, and white isn’t the
best though, in my opinion, so it gets an 8.
Tradition/History/Longevity/Rarity: 17. It’s a classic team,
but not original 6. That being said, it has to get an extra point or two here
simply for being a Winter Classic jersey, even though the Flyers immediately
made this jersey their standard road jersey in the years following the Classic
in Boston.
Total Score: 78
#31: New York Islanders White CCM 4 Hamrlik Jersey
Jersey Type: 15. It’s a CCM replica. Enough said.
Jersey Condition: 18. It’s in really good shape, but I
bought it used and it’s been worn a few times. Overall though, no flaws, so 18
seems right here.
Logos: 16. I like the Islanders logo and scheme (other than
the orange thing they trotted out in the mid 2000s). It’s not great, but it’s
still a pretty decent logo and scheme. I like the Flyers logo slightly more, so
16 here for the Isles. They also have some interesting shoulder patches on
these jerseys. It’s like an orange and blue bar code. Different, to be sure,
but it works.
Personalization: 6. Roman Hamrlik has been around forever it
seems. He’s a good solid defensive defenseman. A 6 might be a small slight
here, but he’s definitely not more than a 7 here. I went with 6, since he’s
certainly above average. Anyone that stays in the league that long has to be.
Color Scheme: 8. Pretty much similar to the Flyers. Orange,
white, and navy blue this time. Not too bad, but not the best either. They do
well with it on their white jerseys - and their home blues.
Tradition/History/Longevity/Rarity: 15. The Islanders aren’t
an original 6 team, but they’ve been around for some time and had a sweet run
of Stanley Cups back in the early 80s before Gretzky, Messier, and Coffey and
the Edmonton Oilers took over. 15 works here for me. It’s not a rare jersey by
any stretch and the tradition, history, and longevity don’t rival some other
teams.
Total Score: 78
#30: Detroit Red Wings Red CCM Home Jersey
Jersey Type: 15. A standard CCM replica. Nice jersey.
Jersey Condition: 19. This one is in great shape. It looks
new.
Logos: 18. I like the Winged Wheel. Hate the team, but that’s
irrelevant. I’m trying really hard to be objective here! It’s a good classic
Original 6 logo with staying power. One of the best in the league.
Personalization: 0. As we speak I’m getting this one
personalized with a 24 Probert. He’s gotta be worth 8, as he is the best goon
in NHL history. Not a Hall of Famer though, so I can’t go more than 8. This
jersey rockets way up the list with the personalization.
Color Scheme: 9. Well done. Really well done. They do the 2
color look just about as good as you can in Detroit.
Tradition/History/Longevity/Rarity: 17. Original 6 home and
away jerseys get a standard 17 in this category. This one is no different. Slap
a Probert on the back and give it 8 more points and this guy shoots up into the
top 10. I am anxiously awaiting the completion of it. If I went with Yzerman,
Gordie Howe, or Nick Lidstrom I would have to add 10. I just wanted a Probert.
How can you not?
Total Score: 78
#29: Vancouver Canucks Blue CCM Vintage Stick and Rink
Jersey
Jersey Type: 17. CCM Vintages get 17 here. They’re a good
heavy jersey; well made.
Jersey Condition: 18. I got it new and have worn it a fair
amount. It has no major flaws - it’s just been worn a fair amount.
Logos: 17. I like the old simplicity of this logo. It’s not
top notch, but it’s pretty darn good. 17 is a good number here.
Personalization: 0. It’s blank, so it gets el zippo. Bruce
has this same jersey with Luongo on it. I can’t imagine that one not hitting
his top 20, but we shall see.
Color Scheme: 8. I like it of course, but on the other hand,
blue, green, and white isn’t the greatest combination. Thankfully, they
minimized the green on this jersey (not a fan of blue and green combo) and
ended up with a jersey that is a majority dark blue with white. 8 is right
here.
Tradition/History/Longevity/Rarity: 18. This one has to get
a high score, it’s a throwback jersey, although the Canucks recently trotted
out a similar version of this jersey as their alternate jersey. By no means can
this score perfectly, but I’m certainly not afraid to slap a big number on it
here. And I did.
Total Score: 78
#28: Montreal Canadiens White Reebok Premier Away Jersey
Jersey Type: 17.It’s a Premier, so 17 is the set in stone
score here.
Jersey Condition: 17. I got this brand new and it now has
some light staining on it. For some reason, white Reebok premiers tend to pick
up dust and stains like it is their job. Other than that, this one is pristine.
I need to give it a good cleaning and see if the score here cannot go up. If it
does, this jersey is in the top 25.
Logos: 19. Anyone that argues that the Canadiens C with the
H is not one of the best logos in the NHL needs to have their head examined. I
don’t think it’s the absolute best logo in the league (Bruce, I think, does),
but it’s definitely top 3 in my book. 19 all day on this one.
Personalization: 0. I really should slap a player on this
one and disrupt my top 10.
Color Scheme: 9. I’d give it a 10, but I can’t, since I am
of the firm opinion that the Canadiens look better with the horizontal striping
around the jersey (like on their home reds). So, 9 it gets. The red, white, and
blue works. That’s probably why it’s a common scheme in the NHL.
Tradition/History/Longevity/Rarity: 17. I gave all the
Original 6 standard jerseys a 17 here for consistency. The only thing they aren’t
is rare, but the tradition and longevity for them are unrivaled.
Total Score: 79
#27: Chicago Blackhawks Black Pro Player Mid 2000s
Alternate
Jersey Type: 16. This is one of those heavyweight Pro Player
jerseys that I love. 16 is the number that Bruce and I agreed upon for the Pro Player.
Jersey Condition: 18. I got it used, but there really isn’t
a thing wrong with it. It’s just been worn. Love this jersey. Did I mention I
am a Blackhawks fan?
Logos: 19. I would give it a 20, but I won’t. I think the
two best logos in the NHL are the Indianhead of the Chicago Blackhawks and the
Maple Leaf in Toronto. The only thing holding me back from slapping a 20 on
this one is that I think the Hawks logos look best on red or white. Those two
jerseys both got 20s in this category.
Personalization: 0. Sadly, this one is blank. It would be
sweet with Patrick Sharp and the assistant captain’s A on it, right?
Color Scheme: 9. I love the Hawks color scheme. The way they
use it is done to perfection. However, the red and white versions of this
jersey are better than the black one. Thus, this gets a 9.
Tradition/History/Longevity/Rarity: 17. It’s an Original 6
alternate jersey that looks exactly like the regular jerseys. Easy 17 here. I’m
interested to see where Bruce’s black jersey here lands. He’s got it
personalized with the captain, Jonathan Toews.
Total Score: 79
#26: San Jose Sharks White Reebok Premier 14 Cheechoo
Jersey
Jersey Type: 17. Reebok Premiers score 17.
Jersey Condition: 19. This one is in great shape. I got it
brand new and have only sported it 5 or 6 times. It’s essentially new.
Logos: 16. The Sharks logo is OK. It’s actually pretty good,
but it’s not top of the line as far as NHL logos go. So, a 16 seems right here.
Personalization: 7. Jonathan Cheechoo would get a 5 or a 6
from me here if it weren’t for one season where he potted 50 goals. The 50 goal
season is enough to bring him up to a 7. Other than that one season, he didn’t
do much.
Color Scheme: 7. It’s not a bad color scheme, but the
addition of the golden orange-ish color as a highlight brings the scheme down a
point in my book. My favorite Sharks jerseys ever are the original ones they
skated with back in the 90s. Don’t get me wrong, the golden orange-ish
highlight actually works with this jersey. But it’s not the greatest color
scheme in the world. 7 is OK.
Tradition/History/Longevity/Rarity: 13. It’s the Sharks.
First of all, the franchise is what, 20 years old or so? Secondly, what have
they done? They’ve went on a run of playoff appearances, but they’ve garnered a
high seed and choked more often than not. I love this jersey. It’s sharp
looking and personalized, but it’s a near miss to the top 25.
Total Score: 79
Those are all of the near misses. All of them are excellent jerseys in their own right and many would surely vault up the rankings if they were personalized. Time will tell on the final rankings of these jerseys.
8/23/12
Hockey Jerseys! How I Rank Them
One of my favorite hobbies, as well as pastimes, is the
sport of hockey. I never actually played organized hockey, but we played a lot
of local ice rink hockey and pond hockey growing up. But I’ve always been a fan
of the sport. What better trophy is there in sports than the Stanley Cup? What
other sport openly allows players to police themselves with legal fighting
within the game? A buddy of mine and myself are going to stack up our top 25
jerseys against each other and see where they come out. It should be a pretty
close race. This first post is going to lay out my rating scale for jerseys and
give you an example of how I would rate a jersey.
My rating scale is a numerical value assigned to 6 different
categories that add up to an aggregate score of 100 points that I deem to be
important in the worth of a hockey jersey. Without further adieu, here is my
rating scale I have concocted.
Category #1: Jersey Type: 15 Points
As you know, there are many clothing manufacturers and not
all of them are the same quality. The same is true for hockey jerseys. Here are
my rankings.
To score a perfect 15 in this category, a jersey must be an
on the ice authentic. Sadly, I don’t own any of these, and Bruce I believe has
only one. Thankfully, there are some pretty high quality replica jerseys out
there. Jerseys that would score a perfect 15 in this category are the current
NHL on-ice jersey the Reebok Edge, as well as older on-ice versions, such as a
CCM Ultrafil, CCM Authentic, or Koho Authentic. These jerseys are the highest
quality and almost always come with a fight strap.
The next rung down the ladder are the top notch replica jerseys.
The current Reebok Premier is a good one. I have a bunch of these as will be
shown when I reveal my ranking list. I also assign CCM Vintage jerseys,
CCM/Reebok replicas (that’s one jersey they made for a short time when the NHL
was transitioning from CCM to Reebok), and the excellent heavy duty Koho
replicas with the vented sides. Jerseys in this category are not authentic, but
they’re good. I also chuck in good old replica CCM jerseys and pro player jerseys here. I give jerseys in this category 13 points a piece - only a 2
point deduction.
I slot the overseas CCM jerseys in a 12 point category along with the good knock-off jerseys.
I assign 11 for Maskas and 10 for Starters. Both are lesser quality.
I also reserve another category for other jerseys made by
other companies. I have a Finland national jersey made by who knows who. So, I
assign a numerical value based on its quality.
Category #2: Jersey Condition: 15 Points
The condition a jersey is in is a big deal. I leave a little room for subjective play in
this category, but not much. If a jersey is brand new with the tags still on
it, it gets a 15. And that is the only way it gets a 15. Since I wear my
jerseys (yes, all of them), I only have one of these right now.
If a jersey is in pristine condition and is mint, I give it
13-14 points, depending on just how flawless the jersey is. These jerseys will
have no noticeable flaws and will, for all intents and purposes, look pretty
much new.
If it is in good to very good condition, I’ll slap it with
11-12 points. The jerseys here might be just worn from age or have some minor
blemishes, but nothing major. They’re in nearly excellent condition and to the
untrained eye, not viewing the jerseys up close, they will appear to be nearly
new.
If a jersey is in OK condition with some blemishes, I’ll give
it 8-10. If it has some noticeable flaws, it scores 5-7 in the fair range. It
takes a pure rag to score between 1-4 in the poor range. I have a couple of
these, but rest assured, they’re nowhere near my top 50.
Category #3: Logos/Layout/Scheme: 20 Points
This is where it starts getting subjective. In this category
I look at how the logos used on the jersey, including front patch, shoulder
patches, and other “special” patches, and how they work with the jersey. I
score them based on the logo itself as well as how it works with the overall
layout of the jersey. Essentially I take the entire collection of patches on
the jersey and grade them as a whole. I don’t dock points from a jersey for
having only one patch (the Montreal Canadiens normal home and away jerseys have
only one, for instance), but I may add points to a weaker jersey if it has some
sort of special patch(s) on the sleeves or chest.
This tends to get subjective because there are certain logos
and patches I like a heck of a lot more than others. I tend to favor
simplicity, although I’m biased towards traditional logos and such. Original
six teams get a high nod from me. I love the Chicago Blackhawks, Montreal
Canadiens, and Toronto Maple Leafs logos and layouts - and even the Detroit Red
Wings (even though I despise the Red Wings). If you want a non original six
team that I like regarding their logo, look no further than the Calgary Flames.
I think the Flames have put out some excellent jerseys over the years. I can’t
stand the new metallic arena football looking jerseys with gaudy logos. I don’t
like the logos of the Nashville Predators or Carolina Hurricanes.
I put a big number on this too, because with hockey jerseys,
looks are important.
Category #4: Personalization: 10 Points
Of course, the majority of my jerseys are not personalized
and have no name or number on them. They will score a 0 in this category. I
didn’t want to put too big of a number on this category, since it could then
skew the rankings too much for my liking. For instance, I could have a
personalized jersey of the Carolina Hurricanes or something (I don’t) end up
being ranked higher than a sharp looking Winter Classic jersey with no name or
number on the back. But in this system with a low number on personalization,
that won’t happen.
So how do I score this? Fairly simple, really. If the player
on the back is a Hall of Famer or an All-Time Great, the jersey will get a 9 or
a 10. A jersey with Wayne Gretzky or Mario Lemieux is an obvious 10. I’ll give
a 9 to other Hall of Fame players who are not in the Gretzky/Lemieux class.
A current NHL star or excellent player will get a 7 or 8
from me in this category. Not only do I take into consideration how talented
the player is, but also if they’ve won the Cup, performed in the playoffs on a
high level, and things like that. I may make an exception for a player that has
been playing for many years in the league and is still playing - but only if
that player is a slam dunk Hall of Famer. I may give that one a 9. For example,
I have a Capitals Alex Ovechkin jersey. By anyone’s standards, love him or hate
him, he’s a superstar in the league now. He gets an 8. I also have an old
Canucks alternate jersey with Todd Bertuzzi on it. Bertuzzi is a good player,
but he’s an example of a 7 for personalization.
A good NHL player who is average to above average past or
present gets a 5 or 6 here, while a common player will get a 3 or 4. I have a
penguins Winter Classic jersey with Max Talbot on the back. Even though Talbot
has some serious sentimental value for me (he scored 2 goals in game 7 at
Detroit in the Cup finals and the Pens beat the Wings 2-1), he still gets a 5.
He’s a 3rd line player who has never been considered to be a star in
the league.
Personalization is important and really completes a jersey,
but that does not mean that there will be no blank jerseys (logos and patches
but no name and number) in my top 25. A hockey jersey collection is an evolving
process and list, but at last count, 7 of my top 25 jerseys are not personalized,
although if I did get any of them personalized, it would blow up my top 10
(there is only one blank in my top 10. The first blank jersey makes an
appearance in the #7 spot). The blank jerseys that hit the top 25 are excellent
jerseys that will be awesome when a name and number are added.
Category #5: Color Scheme: 10 Points
This is quite subjective too, which is why I only slap a
maximum of 10 points on this category. Simply put, I take into account not only
the colors on the jersey, but also how they use them. For instance, the New
York Islanders skate out with blue, orange, and white more or less. That’s a
decent color combination, but I prefer the blue home and white road jersey over
the orange alternate they trotted out not so long ago. Simplicity and classic
color schemes trump some of the newer gaudy foolishness that some teams have
resorted to.
Category #6: Tradition/History/Longevity/Rarity: 20 Points
This is the category that separates the best from the best.
I take into account the tradition of the jersey here, so I’ll be more apt to
score the blue and orange Oilers jersey higher than the navy and copper one
they wore for around a decade. I’ll also take into consideration if the team
hoisted the Stanley Cup in that jersey, had winning seasons, or were perennial
contenders. The history and longevity of the jersey counts here too. Has the
jersey been around for 50 years or 2?
Finally, I take into account the rarity of the jersey. If I
were ever to get a hold of a Cleveland Barons jersey, that would be super rare.
I won’t deduct points for a jersey not being rare if it scores well in the
other criteria in this category, but I will add some points to a jersey that
scores poorly in the other criteria if it is rare and tough to get your hands on.
This is a catch-all category. how does the jersey look on? How does it feel?
8/9/12
Lookin' Through the Corridor of Time - Or Not
Without question, one of the biggest battleground texts in
the entire Bible between predestinarians and non-predestinarians is Romans
8:29-30. What does this passage teach? Does it teach that God looked through
time and then predestined certain individuals based on what he foresaw? Or does
it teach that God chose to know certain individuals in a salvific sense and
thus predestined them based upon His choosing to know them relationally? There
is also a third (albeit rare) interpretation of the passage that holds that the
passage is talking only about those whom had lived and subsequently died in
Christ before the epistle to the Romans was written. For sake of brevity, I
will only be treating the two major interpretations, since the third also
defaults to something very similar to the advance prescience view. Does the
passage teach an advance prescience of God, who looks through time and then
predestines based on what He has seen and infallibly knows? Or does it teach
sovereign election here?
The text in question reads, “For those whom he foreknew he
also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he
might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he
also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he
justified he also glorified.” -Romans 8:29-30 (ESV)
The battle is fought mainly around the word “foreknew.” This
word by itself in our English translations of Scripture can easily be
interpreted in either manner to support either interpretation. The problem is
that in English we have the words “know” and “knew,” and these words can mean
both “head knowledge” as well as “intimate relational knowledge” as well as “personal
knowledge.” So the word can be used, and indeed is used, to mean “have
knowledge of” as well as “to know relationally” or “to love intimately.”
Scripture uses the latter quite liberally. Matthew 7:23 where Jesus says “I
never knew you,” is a prime example. It is only when we look at a) what the
Greek language states in the original writing, and b) the rest of the passage,
does the proper interpretation come to light.
First, if we look at the Greek here, we see that every
action word that Paul uses here is what is called an aorist active indicative.
In English terms, these are active verbs that occurred in the past that have a
permanent significance. Simply put, God is the active agent here and the words
foreknew, predestined, called, justified, and glorified are all the actions
done by God. God foreknows, God predestines, God calls, God justifies, and God
glorifies. And, whoever He has foreknew, predestined, called, justified, and
glorified stand in those states as well. Paul’s usage of the aorist here is an
interesting choice; most likely used to show that the predestination of God’s
elect is as good as done, since it is grounded not in our actions but in God’s
actions. This fact alone speaks volumes against the advance prescience view
since if this were talking about God’s omniscience the word foreknew would be a
noun (and that still could swing to either view depending on interpretation -
see 1Peter 1;2 for example), not an active verb; and if it were talking about
God looking through time the action would be “looking” or “seeing,” as opposed
to “knowing.” But it does not say that God looked and saw the actions of
persons and that is His basis for predestining them. Simply put, if parts of
speech have any say in the proper interpretation of this passage (and they do),
the meaning is clear. God is making a choice to know certain persons. Those he
foreknew. God chose to know people. God does not need to look through time to
see and find out something that He already knows. He is God. He does not learn
from outside sources by observation.
Second, if we look at what the verse is saying it creates
major roadblocks for the advance prescience viewpoint. We can point out from
the beginning of the verse that the passage is speaking about persons, not the
actions of persons. It does not say “That which he foreknew.” Thus, it is not
referring to God looking and seeing actions of persons. Namely, it is not
saying that God looked and saw that certain persons would exercise faith. Faith
would be an action on the part of the person. But the passage says that God
knows persons themselves.
Next, we can point out that there is a problem with the
advance prescience view here when we analyze the relationship between “called”
and “justified.” Advance prescience advocates would claim that God calls
everyone. Yet the passage here says that “…those whom he called he also
justified…” Therefore, we can conclude that the persons who are called are also
justified, which means this can only be referring to the regenerate and not the
unregenerate, since the unregenerate are not justified. It cannot be referring
to what theologians refer to as the external call, which is the preaching of
the Gospel. Not everyone who hears the Gospel is justified. In fact, most
people reject it.
We also can point out that predestination precedes calling
in this passage. If calling preceded predestination, then a much better case
could be made for the advance prescience view. We could then assume that
predestination is based upon calling (even though the external vs. internal
call would still be a problem). But the text places predestination first,
meaning that it precedes calling. Since those who he predestines are called,
justified, and glorified, we can then conclude that only those who are
predestined are called. This creates the idea that not everyone receives this
internal call. The advance prescience view claims that persons are predestined
based on the faith that God knows they will exercise. But we can also conclude
from the passage that not only are all the predestined called, but all the
predestined are also justified and all the predestined are also glorified.
Since justification is by faith, we conclude that only the predestined will
ever have faith, since clearly from the passage, only the predestined are
justified and only the predestined are glorified.
Herein lies the biggest fundamental difference between all
forms of non-Reformed theologies and Reformed theologies. Reformed theology
sees faith as the result of God’s predestination, not the cause of it. R.C.
Sproul sums up the Reformed view. “Reformed theologians understand the golden
chain as follows: From all eternity God foreknew His elect. He had an idea of
their identity in His mind before He created them. He foreknew them not only in
the sense of having a prior idea of their personal identities, but also in the
sense of fore loving them. When the Bible speaks of “knowing,” it often
distinguishes between a simple mental awareness of a person and a deep intimate
love of a person. The Reformed view
teaches that all whom God has foreknown, He has also predestined to be inwardly
called, justified, and glorified. God sovereignly brings to pass the salvation
of His elect and only His elect.
Thus far, I have dealt directly with Romans 8:29-30, but I
would be remiss to not point out that the advance prescience view suffers from
drastic topical theological problems as well. Namely, if the advance prescience
view is true, God is looking through time to get information on who will follow
His plan of salvation. This is more than just a small problem. In short, this
view has God gaining information from His creatures. This means that God, in a
real sense, gains information from us. Gaining information is called learning.
Does God learn from his creatures? I certainly hope not, because that means God
gains information and learns from sources outside of Himself! That, I would
assert is to make God imperfect and in all actuality, destroy His omniscience.
If this is true, is God really perfect in all His ways and attributes?
We can also rightly raise the question: “What’s the point of
predestination?” If God looks through time and sees who will come to Him and
then bases His predestination on that, why does God need to predestine at all?
Whether or not God predestines, these same people are going to come to Him
either way, right? Advance prescience advocates may respond to this in one of
two ways. The first way is to respond that God predestines the plan of
salvation. He predestines those that will come to Him to glory. The obvious
problem here as it pertains to Romans 8:29-30 is that it conflicts what the
passage is saying. The passage is clear: “Those” He foreknew. And then, “those
He predestined He also called…” It is speaking of persons here, not of a
general plan. The advance prescience advocates would be correct to point out
that the goal of predestination is the glorification of his people. They are to
be conformed to the image of Christ. However, the passage indicates that God
predestines persons to this goal, as opposed to predestining the goal and then
the persons based on His prescience, knowing they will cooperate with Him.
The second manner in which the prescience folks can answer
here is that God looks through time, sees who will cooperate with Him, and then
predestines these people to hear the Gospel and be called to Christ. But this
defaults to sovereign election and no prescience advocate should use this
argument, as it proves the Reformation doctrine - the exact position they are kicking so hard to disprove. Does God predestine an
advantage to the elect because He knows they will cooperate? How could this be
anything other than sovereign election?
The main objections to the Reformed view of Romans 8:29-30
(as well as Romans 9 and Ephesians 1:3-14 and 2:1-10 for that matter) are that
this view makes God arbitrary as well as a capricious despot. I will allow R.C.
Sproul to answer this charge as the final word in this entry:
“Paul reminds the Romans of what God had declared to Moses: ‘I
will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on
whomever I will have compassion.’ The principle is that of the sovereignty of
God’s mercy and grace. By definition grace is not something God is required to
have. It is His sovereign prerogative to grant or withhold it. God does not owe
grace to anyone. Grace that is owed is not grace. Justice imposes obligation,
but grace, in its essence, is voluntary and free.
The ground on which God chooses the objects of His mercy is
solely the good pleasure of His will. Paul makes this clear: ‘Blessed be the
God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every
spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as he chose us in Him
before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame
before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ
to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will…’ (Eph 1:3-5)
That God chooses according to the good pleasure of His will
does not mean that his choices are capricious or arbitrary. An arbitrary choice
is one made for no reason at all. Though Reformed Theology insists that God’s
election is based on nothing foreseen in the individuals’ lives, this does not
mean that He makes the choice for no reason at all. It simply means that the
reason is not something God finds in us. In His inscrutable, mysterious will,
God chooses for reasons known only to Himself. He chooses according to His own
pleasure, which is His divine right. His pleasure is described as His good
pleasure. If something pleases God, it must be good. There is no evil pleasure
in God.”
4/16/12
America the Unbeautiful
America the Unbeautiful (The Short Version!)
As I find myself inundated with political campaign ads and propaganda from both of our major political parties overloading my senses and my brain lately, it has been hard not to ponder on the state of Christianity in America and how American ideals and American politics have crept in to our religion. I see that the more I look at the situation, the more striking parallels that I find between what churches in the United States are pitching and what our American ideals and values are. America is the land of the self-made man, the rugged frontiersman, and the enshrined rights of the individual. This, I think, has spilled over naturally into our theology. Whereas the Puritans brought Reformed orthodoxy to the New World, by the time of the birth of our nation, the newly founded United States wasn’t really Christian. It more closely resembled the Deism of the Enlightenment than orthodox Christianity. The movement from the original Puritan settlers to the Deism and Unitarianism that ruled the day in the late 18th century is easily traced and observable from an historical study of the topic. But then again, as we will see, Puritan orthodoxy doesn’t really jive with American values and ideals.
One common myth that we must dispel from the outset is that the United States was founded by a bunch of Christians. That idea is just not true. Thomas Jefferson was a deist, Benjamin Franklin coined the popular phrase “God helps those who help themselves,” which is completely against the Christian Gospel, and John Adams, our second president, spoke about “this awful blasphemy,” regarding the deity of Christ. To be sure, there was some respect for Judeo-Christian values, but the founding fathers as a whole were not Christians. Historically speaking, we ought not be deceived that the founding fathers were a bunch of believers seeking to glorify God.
So what American dogmas have crept in to Christianity in the United States? If we backtrack to some traditional American ideals, we certainly can see that one of them is the personal rights of the individual. How does this manifest itself in professing Christians? Very simply put, many people confuse the enshrinement of individual freedom with biblical theology. One of the most central Christian dogmas in America is freedom of choice; or free will, if you will. While this piece is not a rant against free will and is not intended to be a Calvinist deriding Arminianism, I do believe that American ideals in this area have severely tainted the theological ideas of many professing American Christians. No matter what a person’s stance on human freedom, biblical Christianity emphasizes through and through the primacy of the grace of God and the finished work of Jesus Christ. Professing American Christians, however, are quick to defend their right to choose. But what about God’s right to choose? It seems that He gets lost in the matter most of the time while the will of the individual gets made into the central dogma. It becomes all about me and my choice instead of God and His grace. No matter what view of the will a person holds to; any way you slice it, it’s not the central dogma in Christianity.
This view not only perverts our theology but trickles into every area of Christianity. Instead of preachers standing tall in the pulpit and proclaiming God’s one-sided divine rescue from sin and death, many of them appeal to human activity. To be sure, human activity is involved. It takes a person proclaiming and a person to respond, but when the methods become geared towards an appeal to freedom of choice, the methods end up being decidedly humanistic. Salvation itself, which Scripture proclaims is an act of God, is turned into the proper use of exhorting, appealing, and means. Now salvation ends up being dependent on the preacher guiding people through the proper methods. Looking back through American history regarding Christianity, the second awakening was the result of such ideas. Led by men such as Charles Finney, traditional Christian doctrines were thrown to the wind and persuasive techniques and unbiblical inventions that assumed personal freedom rushed to fill the void. But it should be no wonder to us that this has happened and continues to happen, since these are the values that American democracy has instilled in us. No matter if a person is politically liberal or conservative, we’re all Americans and we’re all affected by the culture in which we live. Conservatives argue continually regarding the second amendment and our right to bear arms while liberals appeal to the woman’s right to choose in the area of abortion. God, however, is not running a democracy. At least that’s not the kingdom - or King - described to us in Scripture. Americans favor a God, like our president that we can elect; not a sovereign King who is infinitely freer than us who elects His own. That idea doesn’t jive with American ideals. No wonder people get defensive when you tell them you hold to the biblical doctrine of election. It goes not only against our American ideals, but against our fallen nature that craves autonomy and control - even over God. We’re Americans; we demand our right to choose!
Fast forward to 20th and 21st century America and we find many of the same ideals that the country was founded on, but we find some new ones that have crept in. The first one that is worth addressing is consumerism. Consumerism seeks to pitch Jesus Christ and the Gospel as a product to be peddled, including the proper sales pitch. The aforementioned Charles Finney once quipped that “A revival is not a miracle, or dependent on a miracle in any sense. It is a purely philosophic result of the right use of means.” Pastors and evangelists end up looking more like businessmen than ambassadors of grace. So much for the Gospel being the power of God for salvation as Scripture tells us. We Americans are shoppers. We try product after product and are inundated with commercial pitches to buy one thing or another. Why not use this approach with Christ? Try Jesus! You might end up liking Him and what he offers. You can just try something else later if you don’t like Him. How much different is this from our core American ideals really? Not so much, I would argue. Constructing Jesus as a product is yet another attempt to persuade the chooser by painting the commodity in the best light. Dress Him up the best you can and more people might choose Him seems to be the reasoning. Even professing Christians treat churches like products. How often do you hear of someone going “church shopping?” If you don’t like the music at one church, no problem. Just find another one. Evangelicals are notorious for that. But what of God’s methods? What about the method he has prescribed in Scripture? Romans 10:5-17 is a much better method than what the modern evangelist offers. Gimmicks are for the birds, but God’s Word never returns void (Isaiah 55:11). The problem in American Christianity is not our lack of pitching Jesus in the best consumerist fashion, but that our Gospel is human centered. We’ve managed to reverse everything, kicking God out of His throne room and anointing ourselves as the true sovereigns. Contrary to consumerist Gospel, Jesus does not need to be justified before the unbeliever; softened to something other than God and painted in a light that appeals to shoppers at a mall. On the contrary, it is the sinners who stand naked and wretched before God who need to be justified.
The final topic I would like to touch briefly is the specifically American ideal of self-esteem. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness right? Another major deviation from Christianity is the self-esteem Gospel. Robert Schuller is probably its most well-known proponent. The very popular Joel Osteen also teaches a form of this type of Gospel, combined with the prosperity and health and wealth teaching. Granted, we ought not view Jesus as a massive buzz kill because He’s not. He doesn’t come to make us dreary and glum. Nevertheless, Jesus Christ’s main purpose was not to come to Earth in human flesh to make us happy and feel good about ourselves. He came to save sinners. Yet, in America, our right to choose mentality manifests itself in another manner. Namely, many of us make decisions based on how happy something will make us. What’s in it for me, we ask. If it isn’t useful (consumerism) it better make us happy and make us feel good about ourselves (self-esteem). But then, what message can possibly be better than the message of salvation by grace alone via the work of Jesus Christ? What message can possibly be better than one that tells us how we, condemned sinners, can be right with God?
So tell it like it is. The Gospel is offensive to the unregenerate, but it is the method God Himself has given us. People have too much sinful pride (don’t we all?) to want to hear that they are wicked and condemned because they are sinners, and that God Himself must rescue them apart from their best human efforts. It’s not our Gospel to change, meld, or dress up to suit the needs of the listener by way of appealing to their preferences in order to allow the sovereign chooser a better chance to accept Christ. It doesn’t work that way. We preach, the Holy Spirit gives life, and sinners are united to Christ. God’s method is the best method. After all, it’s a safe bet to say that God probably knows a little bit more in this area than we do. It is His work and His Gospel. It’s dangerous to change it and the result is a whole bunch of false American Gospels.
It’s difficult to get our culture and ideals out of our religion, because we are in some senses products of our culture. But we must. God defines the terms and He is gracious enough to tell us how to spread that news and the means of grace He uses to save His people. Matthew 28:18-20 and Romans 10:5-17 is a great start. For the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16), not the power of man unto self-salvation. For our God saves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)