NOTE: A question appeared this evening about two Ky preachers. I made two factual errors in my answer. I have never met or heard the one I said I’d met and heard- completely thinking of someone else- and I said the other was dead, which was incorrect. Very bad error on my part, and my apologies to both and to the questioner. Easy to get mixed up when you’ve been out of circulation for 17+ years.
I’m done. Wow. Over 130 questions. Thanks to all who participated. This was great fun.
NOTE: Remember that you will see the “older comments” link at the bottom of the comments now.
What is there one significant difference between Old Calvinists and the New Calvinists? If so, what?
Without a doubt the New Calvinists are much more focused on soteriology only, rather than seeking to implement a fully formed reformed version of Christianity. Many of the new Calvinists have little idea what Calvinism represents more than what they’ve heard from Piper or Sproul. Many of the new Calvinists are Baptistic, of course, which makes that difference understandable.
I have two questions:
1) In a culture which increasingly denies the existance of sin and guilt what is the role of the Gospel?
2) Post-modernism is becoming the dominant worldview in our culture. In your opinion is this good or bad and what ought to be the churches response?
Thanks.
1. This simply comes down to the one major issue we always are talking about: God. If there is a God who has revealed himself in Jesus- and that is our presupposition and message- then we really don’t have a lot of choice about how we relate to the philosophical flavor of the day. And we can’t expend a lot of energy trying to make categories reasonable so that the idea of God fits. We simply say “This is the foundation of our faith: The Trinitarian God, and here are the categories that flow from that.” So all these categories comport with God and God is our great topic. At that point, I’d suggest you won’t do better than Keller’s book.
2. I think worldview analysis and shorthand philosophy is of limited usefulness. Evangelicals are enamored with postmodernism, meanwhile philosophers are saying its a stale and passe’ theory. We can’t make our response to our culture oblivious to these things, but I don’t know of a single instance where they are determinative. The human heart hungers for love, significance and relationships in every age and culture. The first century Christians didn’t do much philosophical analysis. We need to create communities of love, service and clear, simple Gospel communication. The changing philosophical tides are secondary.
What’s your favorite baseball movie and why?
Not an easy question. I love the mythic quality in the The Natural, but I have to say Bull Durham probably captures the many different aspects of the game and its mysterious hold over fans and players better than any other film.
There are days when Major League I is hard to beat though
Are there parts of the Bible from which you find it hard to preach? For example, I’m reading through Isaiah now and keep thinking what could I preach from this?
Absolutely. I do a chart with my students where I divide the Bible into Mountains, hills, the plains and the wilderness. the mountains are the high points of the story of the Gospel. The hills are important and highly applicable, but not as essential. The plains are instructive and interesting. The wilderness has long stretches that only provide the background or larger context of the story.
So I don’t believe the history of the divided Kingdom preaches like the story of Abraham. It all needs to be put in context. The Bible’s usefulness isn’t “flat.” There is definitely a varied terrain.
In the NT Peter comes off as a bit of a screwup who loses a debate to Paul and learns about ignoring ritual purity at the house of a Gentile (as I recall). He betrays Jesus, puts foot in mouth, and basically only kicks butt on Pentecost, then disappears early in Acts. Paul, meanwhile, despite describing himself as sinful, is never apologetic, is always right in his theology, and is always assured that he’s doing right. Did we get a biased picture courtesy of Paul’s more learned and literate associates?
I think you make a very important point.
We have two kinds of literature about Paul: his own letters and Luke’s history of the early church. Paul is very self-deprecating in several of his letters and is clear that he’s not perfect. “Chief of sinners.” Thorn in flesh to restrain his ego. Romans 7 etc.
Acts is more hagiographical. No doubt.
Peter’s flaws are, on the other hand, an essential part of his “witness.” His fallenness and struggles, his betrayals and thickness all provide the canvas for the entire church to see their weakness and the need of every disciple for grace, grace and grace.
Both men are just men, but their differing presentations serve purposes in the text.
Do you have any thoughts or opinions about Christianity in Australia?
No next to nothing. I’m impressed by the Sydney Anglicans as I have heard them. I use 2 Ways to Live as the primary evangelism took in my ministry.
When Professor David Opderbeck posts this story on his blog:
“Garret’s arms twist at sharp angles. His eyes, vacant and unfocused, stare fixedly away into a void, veiled windows to a soul suddenly plunged into primordial darkness. His brain fires primeval charges summoned from deep within the tohu wa bohu, his body tensing and releasing with their staccato rhythm. Slowly the seizure subsides and he comes back, my little boy again inhabiting the body that betrayed him.
Nothing messes with your theology more than your own child’s disability. My boy has “epilepsy and apraxia of speechâ€: a diagnosis that tells me what I already know, that he has seizures and can’t process language. We communicate with some halting words, some signs, some pantomime. We medicate and wonder when the seizures will strike again, if they will ever cease.
In the dark watches of the night my soul cries out to the Lord: If he “cannot hear, how can the preacher share the good news with him,†to follow up on St. Paul’s vexing question in Romans 10? What is “faith†for a boy with a miswired brain? What is “hope†for the man whose heritage is shattered by rogue synaptic currents no one can control or predict?
Jaideep’s arms twist at sharp angles. His eyes, vacant and unfocused, stare fixedly into a void. His brain fires its last chaotic charge, the death rattle shuddering to a stop. Born on the trash heaps of Mumbai, dysentery and malnutrition absorb him into their hoary embrace. He lived and died a Hindu without hearing of the carpenter from Nazareth. Where were faith, hope and love for this eikon of God? Is he any less precious than my epileptic apraxic boy?
God of the mucky stable afterbirth, bearer of sharp-glassed leather on bare back, wearer of spit and thorns, whose arms were twisted at sharp angles fastened with nails, abandoned, god-forsaken Son with agonized cry for eternal perichoretic dance interrupted by Death’s convulsions: how will you redeem this suffering? Do you hear Garret and Jaideep’s cries?”
…what should the christian response and stance be toward Jaideep’s life and death? Toward Opderbeck’s son?
The suffering here is profound. My commentary on it would be a trivial addition to such prose. Some things are best left unsaid. We should learn from the example of Jobs friends, whom God said sinned by running their mouths about suffering.
If you could invite any five individuals, dead or alive, to join you for a dinner party, who would you invite, and why?
I’m going to deal with alive, to narrow it down.
Robert Capon if he’s still around.
Everett Ferguson.
Pete Rose
Harrison Ford
Gordon Lightfoot
If Capon comes, are doing the cooking?
“Pete Rose”
Wow. It reveals you as a hard core baseball fan. Yet I have to feel you’d talk more about his later life.
What is the air speed velocity of an unladen swallow?
With or without the 70′s mustache? Before or after a meal? What planet?
I need more detail.
The “correct” answer is: “African or European.”
And, here is the detail: http://www.style.org/unladenswallow/
I liked the new look but the wife wants the goatee back. I say, “Yes, dear” and it comes back tomorrow.
Ed
LOL!
African or European?
Thank you, Ken.
What? I don’t know!
Aiiieeee!!!!!
I am coming from a paedobaptist perspective but I do not think an “age of accountability” is required for the credobaptist position. Whats your take on this?
I consider the age of accountability to be a bit of useful mythology, and nothing more. Credo churches should set a minimum age for church membership and let God sort it out beyond that.
Here’s my question: Is it already saturday?
On the ISS where I’m blogging from, yes.
What are the movie sources for all the clips at the beginning of the Internet Monk Radio Podcast?
I’m not listening but…
Some guy on Will and Grace says the 10 dollar words line
Belushi has 7 years of college in Animal House
The mom on 70′s show has the sinner children quote
Tom Hanks in league of their own says no crying in baseball
Some guy in the Simpson’s has the Moose line
The Moose line is from Family Guy.
If you reject infant baptism AND age of accountability, how are young children regenerated and “saved”?
Abraham, not baptized babies, is the New testament model for all questions of faith.
Regeneration is not discussed instrumentally in the NT apart from the word of the Gospel. “Washing of the word” is a text both credos and paedos use, emphasizing different views of whether water is a symbol or an instrument.
Sorry. I don’t understand your answer. Can you elaborate?
Where does a 6 month old of Christian parents go if she dies? Why?
Don’t want to seem to belittle this question, but it’s a bit out of the league of this q and a.
Is there any group of Christians that do not believe the infant goes to heaven? I’m not aware of any unless they are some weirdo hyper predestination Calvinists, but I’ve never heard that defended or advocated.
Even the Pope clarified the RC view on “limbo” to basically eliminate it.
I can’t adequately answer why infants go to heaven in this space, but every group I know of, no matter their view on baptism, would answer this the same way. And if someone has access to the “age of accountability” they should tell the rest of us what it is.
Fair enough. I just wondered what you believed on this.
I don’t tell anybody that babies automatically go to heaven. I just say that I don’t know and trust in the character of God. I would venture to say that the baby HAS TO somehow be regenerated… because otherwise the logical consequence is that there would be unbelievers in heaven. I’ve yet to hear what I feel is an adequate response to this. Infant baptism just makes more sense to me… and I scoffed at the idea for years. It’s a complicated topic for sure.
Sadly, I come across people all the time who believe that children (including all aborted children) go to Hell. You answer this line of question as best they can be. Thanks!
How do you wrestle with issues of Old Testament accuracy and what that means for Christianity’s narrative? (Moses, etc…) I keep getting tripped up there and stuck there.
Accuracy?
I don’t measure scripture by anyone’s standards of accuracy. I allow scripture to be exactly what God designed it to be in the form and time and language he choose. I have no interest in verifying its “accuracy” beyond its own testimony to being God’s word to us.
I’m pretty much a Barthian on those issues.
It’s not a scientifically accurate text. It’s a narrative of salvation and revelation.
I agree with that – but the narrative of Christianity seems to lose it’s meaning if it’s not strictly historical, no? At least I was raised being told “Christianity is a historical faith – these things in the OT happened, they teach us XYZ about who God is and who we are and God’s plan for the world” so I’d like them to be real and not just story…really really really would like that. I wonder about how to pass on a faith to my children that can’t say ‘these things really happened’.
Who determines what is strictly historical? How many historians differ on major aspects of the meaning of the term “historical?” It’s giving science the final vote on meaning.
Christianity is a historical faith, but the Bible isn’t a scientifically historical book. How do we ever know that David killed Goliath “historically?” Hold out for the autopsy?
It’s not just a story. It’s a true story, and the author of the meaning of truth is its author. It is what it is, not what we say it is.
These things “really” happened, but not because of anyone’s vote for verification.
This is the route the Creationist takes. In my view, it ends in despair.
Amen to that.
Well said. A liberating answer.
“Barthian”
For those of us not nearly as far along in our reading and understanding as others, have you considered making up a cheat sheet (glossary) of terms like this for those of us who don’t know them?
Of course I could see it as a source of attacks as folks show up to tell you how wrong you are about xyz.
Or you could do the Google.
how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie roll pop?
I’ll send it to the lab. Van Til will get right back to you.
The world may never know…
None. You just bite down and enjoy the results.
I can see too many variables to give an answer. (and I won’t list them due to ickiness factors). I recommend a DIY test.
You have a new adult convert to Christianity. What’s the first 5-6 books you have him/her read?
I’m not all that concerned about their reading at this point. I want relationships and conversations. Lots of questions. Lots of out of the building stuff in people’s lives. Meals. Visits. Games. Prayer. Worship.
if he reads, I’d say The Call by Os Guinness is very important. Jesus I never Knew by Yancey. The God I Love by Tada. Everyone’s Guide to Mark by Wright. Gospel for Real Life by Jerry Bridges. Something else by Yancey, maybe on suffering or prayer.
Why the gospel of Mark and not one of the others?
Shortest. Most vivid. Least teaching to wade through. Basic outline of biggest questions for a new Christian.
I would worry a bit about the Wright’s book on Mark for a new Christian (although I loved it). His theory the part of the original text is missing is very unsettling. Its not that the conversation is bad it’s just not something I would want to expose a new Christian too.
I actually think it is scary to long time Christians who’ve been taught about Scripture in such a way that would make such a possibility shocking. New Christians, one would think, would tend to accept it as face value.
I agree that Mark is missing its original ending, but that can be found in Matthew. See Edwards commentary on Mark.
We can’t hide the truth of textual criticism. Ehrman is getting in major hits on us because we have. The text isn’t the original. It’s copies with variables. No other way to see it.
No one has asked me anything that the people who monitor my blog for various entities will find the least bit useful. Good job.
entities?
A carefully chosen word.
When you hear about churches that open up multiple sites, and have the preaching done via video by a preacher who (depending on the church) lives in the area or out of state, are you cool with that or greatly concerned? And why?
I think it’s a very effective model of church extension, but can be a very bad model of pastoral ministry. I don’t think it’s what Jesus had in mind as leadership, but I think the passion to communicate is sincere. I couldn’t do it and I wouldn’t recommend it, but I have no issue with those who find it meaningful.
Doesn’t this response presuppose the identity of the pastor and preacher, something certainly a given in our culture but not biblically mandated? Wouldn’t such a model of multiple geographically separated campuses presuppose the presence of pastoral ministers in each campus, in addition to the preacher/teacher? And if that is so, would that alleviate some of your concerns?
Thanks for answering both my questions, Michael.
My church is forging ahead w/multi-site, but with live preaching. If you are going to do multi-site, I would think that making it local, with live preachers who know the area and its culture and their congregations – and can therefore speak to the issues that particular group of Christians are dealing with – is the best way to go.
May God bless this work.
The one that I was involved in Del Cerro Baptist in San Diego failed.
And, was the ’80s pop music’s golden age or its black hole?
Mixed bag. I liked the Call, The Alarm, U2, Simple Minds, Peter Gabriel, that whole thing, but that was about it. Bad time for acoustic music.
If Mars Hill Seattle and Mars Hill Grand Rapids were to throw down, who would win?
Depends on the sport. In bowling, MHGR. Gladiatorial combat? MHS.
You said churches should set a minimum age for membership. What do you considet am appropriate minimum age, and does that imply that people below that age should not be baptized?
I think if you check with European Baptist practice, it is 13-16. Spurgeon said 12 I believe. I’d have to think on that one.
You have to realize that you can’t bring a paedobaptist understanding and apply it to us Baptists. We view children as our children and to be raised in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, but we put baptism and full church membership where paedobaptists put confirmation.
I realize that – I am a European Baptist
I guess what I am getting at is this: it makes sense to have a minimum age for the assumption of adult membership responsibility, akin to confirmation or bar mitzvah. But assuming that age is 12, does it make sense to tell an 8 year old who has made a serious faith committment that no, you cannot be baptized for another 4 years? Is the connection between baptism and formal congregational membership really as clear in Scripture as we Baptists make it out to be?
I agree completely. It is a very hard matter. But here in the states. SBC churches baptize 3 and 4 year old routinely. That’s completely at odds with what we believe about the nature of the church. For our tradition, conversion is the sovereign work of God and a child can have faith, but baptism and the LS are prerequisites to church membership and discipline. Again. we don’t do confirmation. For us it is an adult culture in the church.
Just a side note that the statement would more correctly be “where Western paedobaptists put confirmation.” The Orthodox baptize, chrismate, and communion infants all during the same service. (Chrismation is what became Confirmation in the West.)
What do you think of Unitarian Universalists?
Loaded question. I can’t generalize about individuals. Christians are neither unitarians nor universalists, so I don’t consider them to be orthodox Christians. I’m happy for those who have found it meaningful, but I don’t want to comment on UU as a group. I really only know a few.
Sorry. Should have asked about UUism, not UUists. What do you think of the -ism?
As I said, not orthodox Christianity. Beyond that, take your pick of any major Christian essential. They would deny it as orthodox Christianity understands it.
……is this question and answer exercise a dry run for a hopeful Larry King interview …
Sure. I’d love to do to him what he does to others.
What is your understanding of the gospel? In five sentences…
God created.
Man sins.
Jesus saves.
We believe.
God reigns.
“Wolf likes this”
Oops, no, this is not Facebook. So instead: AMEN!
I like this too, Michael!
How would the reformed folks react to the moral failure of one of their leading lights? Disallusionment? Kick him to the curb? Eat a bit of crow? Retweet whatever Mark dever says about it?
Depends on the reformed denomination and the moral failure. I’d say with compassion and a desire to see person and family restored to wholeness, but it would be the end of all ministry. No doubt.
Do you have an opinion on whether or not Christians should only marry other Christians? Is the “unequally yoked” verse about this or is that particular interpretation twisted and/or blown out of proportion(perhaps by to try and control teens and their raging hormonnes)? Should someone’s Christian faith be the highest priority in evaluating a potential mate, or are other things more imporant?
Nate
I believe a shared Christian faith is an essential, but I don’t believe that passage is primarily about marriage. It may have an extended application to marriage. The NT never considers that Christians would choose to marry a non-Christian, but are told to remain with unbelievers in a marriage before conversion.
I consider it the highest level on incompatibility, and I won’t marry couples if they are not both Christians.
Are you going to sell T-shirts with that cool iMonk caricature on it?
Picture isn’t my property. Sorry.
Why are you following Jesus (under the assumption, of course, that you are following Jesus)?
Great question. Because I believe the God who is the answer to my existence has invited me to know him forever as he has revealed himself exclusively in Jesus. To know Jesus is to know God. Jesus reveals the God who is there.
“To know Jesus is to know God. Jesus reveals the God who is there.”
Amen to that, Michael!
Why do you believe this? Is it coming strictly from the Bible or from personal experiences and/or other literature as well?
I believe this because I believe the resurrection of Jesus is a fact of history that is convincing of who Jesus really is and what he means.
Also because of my personal experience of God as he has showed me what it means to know him. All agree that Jesus is a great revelation of God. But when you look at the resurrection, you see he IS God, come to us in human form.
If you became an international missionary, in which country would you want to preach first, and why?
Wherever my gifts would be useful for the task of supporting the church planting movement Jesus began. I assume that would be somewhere teaching basic Bible. I’m not the missioanry type, so someone else would have to evaluate and make that decision.
I’m on the mission field now, doing my part for the Kingdom, here in SE Ky.
Earlier today (or probably yesterday by the time I finish typing this with my 2 index fingers) in the comment thread attached to the interview with Dr. Tarico you said: “…[I] would put the blame for shifting the discussion to morality firmly at the feet of Christians, who have spent centuries saying that no one but themselves could be truly moral. Of course, the Gospel refutes that completely.” I would really like to explore the idea of the Gospel refuting moral exclusivity. Can you point me in the general direction of verses that discuss this? Thanks!
Roy,
I really can’t, other than to tell you to explore basic Christian theology on the place of morality in relation to the Gospel. Any books by Eugene Peterson, Micharel Horton, Jerry Bridges or Paul Zahl. it’s the Biblcial view of sin as taught all over, esp in Galatians and Romans.
Thanks! Yeah, Romans was what popped into my head as soon as you mentioned the idea on the other thread. I’ll try to get a look at some of the authors you’ve mentioned.
Do you like dogs?
I love certain dogs, yes. I have a half Cairn, half Scottie named Maisie.
Oh! No fair! I was actually waiting till midnight to post my question.
Well anyways, since 2004 God has been slowly showing me what grace is and I slowly began to realize that most churches don’t preach it (none it seems in my area – South Florida). So to make a short story long, my husband and I stopped going to church a few months ago. We just got fed up with all the guilt and manipulation and lack of grace being taught at church. Now we are not sure what to do. Not sure if we made the right decision. The biggest plus is that now for the first time in 20 years I get to sleep in on Sunday morning which is kinda nice.
I don’t believe we “have” to go to a denominational church to be a Christian. I know there are certain parts of the Christian’s life that must be done in community. It’s not for me to say what that community must be like exactly, but the fact is that the Christian life has a community aspect. Very foundational and very basic. Doesn’t need a megachurch or anything like that. God will, at different times in our journey, bring us to different kinds of communities. I would urge you to find a place that provides the basic encouragement and equipment for living the Christian life: teaching, prayer, missions, sacraments, ministry to one another. Maybe you will find something quite different in every way. Maybe you will help someone start something or you will start something yourself. But don’t turn the Christian life into indiviualism. It is a community. Jesus was very clear and the NT is even more clear.
Y’all may enjoy Larry Crabb’s new book “Real Church” on this topic.
This is a fun thread! OK. Which of the questions above did you most enjoy answering?
I’m enjoying them all. I like the unusual ones more than the difficult ones.
What advice would you offer to a young Bible College Graduate who feels called to go into ministry in a Small Rural Church and has started looking for one?
Strongly consider if this is the right way to go. Go on some mission experiences to areas that would stretch you. Rural churches are difficult to pastor and break many pastors and destroy many ministry families. Consider church planting or being bi-vocational in an area that needs a pastor but cannot afford one.
….imonk..we know that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God..but now that we have come to the knowledge of God and enjoy full communion with Him and are indwelled by the Holy Spirit why the need to keep rehashing the scriptures?
Our story has constant relevance. We don’t hear it the same way throughout life, and we shouldn’t retell it as if we haven’t heard it before. But we should live in it, throughout the year/years, and let it talk to us, shape us throughout life. It’s our air, water and food. It’s what the spirit uses. We do live in repetition according to the Bible. We have to find ways to make that natural and helpful, not tedious. Harder than many think. I love the rhythm of the Church year and the lectionary providing the Spirit’s soundtrack for life’s many changes.
There are some people who say that if you want to have your character transformed then „the love of God will take care of everything“ – and I like that idea very much. Then there are others who say that without spiritual formation and practice of spiritual disciplines your character will not be changed – I am thinking here about Dr. Willard – and I like his books too. Any thoughts on this? Thanks very much, and thanks very much for your blog!
Jesus taught spiritual growth by particular processes. Some individual. Some communal. It wasn’t a course, however. It was imitating him and going through experiences meant to teach about him and his mission. Much of it was reflecting on the presence of the Kingdom and the meaning of the person of Jesus. The key thing is to approach discipleship as Jesus did: a long term, communal, reflective process. For us, it will be centered in scripture and life/mission.
Are you aware of David Bentley Hart and what are your thoughts on his writings?
Haven’t read him yet. Hope to soon.
Are you still committed to the value of lectionary preaching? If you were a preaching pastor would you do this? Do you do this in your ministry now?
I preach in a series of some kind with a strategy we develop for what we want our students to hear. Since we are evangelistic in nature, we major on apologetics, basic gospel, basic Bible.
If I were in a church I would use the lectionary, but would do occaisonal series as needed and through books in Ordinary time.
I’m considering enrolling in seminary or a Christian university with a masters program. I’m involved in cross-cultural outreach (my wife is Mexican, and we attend a Spanish-language church). Would you recommend an M.A. in Missions, followed by an M.Div., or just go straight for the M.Div., with a missions emphasis in my electives? I know the M.A. would get me an advanced degree quicker (36 hours). But I don’t want to just take that route for the quicker degree if I’ll have to start the hour counting all over for the M.Div. I’m 40 and would like to finish before retirement.
Totally depends on the school and core content in the program. I did a 3 year M.Div and most of it was a waste of time. I’d get to the shortest, most intensive program I could, if I were going that route. I wish I had done a university MA in the humanities and simply apprenticed. At least half of my MDiv was filler, but SBTS wasn’t the same school it is today back in the early 80s.
You commented that full Universalism is not orthodox Christianity, but any thoughts on the “wider hope”?
Additionally, how much wood could a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
I am part of the wider hope, and I think Christians should be huge optimists about the Kingdom. But I can’t avoid the clear teaching of scripture that not all will be in the Kingdom and some are in hell.
Wider Hope is defined several ways. For me, it’s similar to the RC view: Histiorical knowledge of Jesus is not necessary to saving faith. See Abraham for details. Faith can respond to whatever amount of true revelation we have. That is not an endorsement of other religions btw. Just saying that Cornelius was not lost when Peter knocked on his door. Just didn’t know the name of Jesus yet.
Watchbloggers, bring it on.
Good thoughts. Thanks, Michael.
On second thought, my first question might give fodder to a certain few watchbloggers. You won’t hurt my feelings if you mod it.
What do you think are the top 5 most prevading myths in Evangelicalism today? (btw dig the new site!)
The victorious Christian life
Biblical Principles make things work better
Non-Christians are bad
Jesus is all about church growth
Well known pastors and preachers are telling the truth.
I could go all day on that one.
great, thanks!….how about you top 20 then?
Monk,
Will Barry Bonds make the Hall of Fame? Should he? Just for the record, I cheered him and his dad a million times, in both the best ballpark in the world–and the worst.
Hmmm. He should. Will he? I don’t know. He’s not going about it wisely. There are two ways in: Writers votes and Vets Committee. I can’t see how he gets either today. But maybe he will find some humility and stop lying in a few years.
BTW, I think Pete Rose will get into the Hall on the Vets committee soon.
Worst ballpark… Yes, both Bobby and Barry did play in the Kingdome. There were two years of interleague play between the Giants and Mariners before Safeco was built that allowed Barry to play there. Good call
Biblically, what does the term “wordly” mean? The reason I’m asking is because I’m in the middle of a discussion with friends about this, one point of view says that when the Bible says something is “worldly” it refers to something sinful, while the other point of view says, ‘no, something that isn’t sin can still be worldly in a Biblical sense.’ So I guess the real question we’re getting at is -
is there ever a Scriptural basis for something being wrong for a Christian, not because it is sinful, but because it is worldly?
I think the term simply means in reference to the social reality that is opposed to God, in contrast to the new community of the Kingdom. It is humanity opposed to God, in a general “outside the community” sense. It is a helpful way of thinking at points, but Christians have always gone too far with it. Paul in the Corinthians letters says “you can’t leave the world.” I assume some were trying to do so.
I’d say that worldly is a descriptive. If someone is a “friend of the world,” they have an alliance with the world of unbelief that may be unwise. Sinful would depend on other factors.
For example, it may or may not be wise of me to go to an R-rated movie that depicts lots of sin. But I don’t think you could say it is sin per se. I couldn’t be that specific at a distance. But there are questions to be asked.
Separationism, however, is a Christian mistake if it comes to dominate our way of living. We are not to be separate but to have normal relationships, jobs, etc. At the same time, we need to exercise wisdom personally and corporately. It’s a narrow and subjective line.
What is Van Til drinking these days? Domestic or Import?
Van Til is living in Florida and doesn’t write.We hope he is going to come back here to St. Sadies and resume his former job, but he’s apparently discovered that he’s a hit with the ladies.
What is the most rewarding aspect of blogging for you? The most aggravating?
Success as a writer after 8 years of blogging is rewarding.
Being a helpful part of many person’s discovery of the Gospel is rewarding. Making new friends.
Encouragement from others for what I do is rewarding.
Being threatened with losing my job is aggravating. Being monitored by people looking to get me in trouble at my job is aggravating. People who want me to be way too involved in their personal lives is aggravating.
Being asked questions that could be answered via Google is aggravating.
Assuming I know about situations I am totally ignorant of is aggravating.
how do you deal, in a way that honors God, with a pastor who is not as intelligent as his congregation but thinks and acts like he is the smartest one present and the only one who knows anything of worth, and subsequently tries to do everything himself (regardless of his incompetency) instead of trusting in the skilled members of the congregation who sincerely wish to help and serve God & their church community?
I talk to the elders and see if that’s a real problem or a personality conflict I am having. As you describe it, you don’t have much concrete to complain about. You need some less abstract complaints and something substantial and specific. But let the elders decide if his style of relating and working is damaging to the congregation.
i opted to leave out the specific details in my question…but concrete complaints do exist in abundance…and many of the more knowledgeable members of the congregation (especially those skilled in audio, visual, music, computer tech) have brought these issues up to the elders repeatedly over the last year before leaving the church in exasperation… it’s difficult to make the elders understand why it’s so frustrating (they are not skilled in tech or music, either, but they are aware that they are not, and readily defer to those in the know, instead of constantly messing up the systems with clumsy attempts to prove that they can do it)….but our elders are approachable, and we do talk with them.
I am not a calvinist but – where do you agree and disagree with calvinist soteriology?
I do not believe in Limited atonement as Calvinists teach it. That’s the main story.
I also believe many Calvinists turn election as discussed in scripture into functional hyper Calvinism.
Mostly, I don’t find Calvinism as interested in the Gospel as it is in the sovereignty of God.
Please don’t ban me forever for getting this wrong, but… are you a Reds fan?
If so, I’m going to the Giants/Reds game next Friday night in SF. If you’re listening, maybe I can yell loud enough to be picked up by the crowd mike.
Do you like minor league ball better than major league ball? Why/why not?
I am a Reds “fan,” whatever that means. Sort of like being a fan of roadkill.
I enjoy the Big Show, but the minors often have the most enjoyable experience of the game for a family. I love a cool evening at Louisville Slugger Field. But the competition and the story is never the same at the minors. Everyone want out of that league
Do you ever fear that God is an incomprehensible other and that we are just kidding our self’s when attribute quality’s to him like love and justice. The words often seem to mean entirely different things when applied to God than if we were to attribute them to Human beings? I am thinking of concepts like original sin, limit atonement and the existence of horrible pain in this life and eternal suffering in the next.
Peace
Steve in Toronto
God is incomprehensible and other apart from revelation. Jesus is the only revelation of God we have. This is a tension regarding scripture. For me, scripture is the verbal setting of the revelation in Jesus. Jesus IS inspiration and revelation. What I know of God is what I know of him.
Now strictly speaking, I do know concepts, words, etc. But Jesus is the only dependable word I have on the ultimate meaning of these things. So I don’t look at God’s OT justice, for example. I look at his justice/mercy in Jesus. That is THE final Word that gives the others meaning.
This is essential, otherwise, Christians drive themselves into despair with theology.