A Passionate Reformation

A Surprising Illustration of Sin

2009-08-01T22:56:00.000-07:00

An incredible demonstration of how sin works comes from a surprising place: the movie Coraline. In Coraline a girl with a mundane life living in a mundane countryside with fairly mundane neighbors and less than desirable and often distracted parents discovers a parallel reality in which everything that is mundane in her life is far more colorful. Her garden is more colorful, the food is better, her mother - nicknamed the “Other Mother” - is cuter and more loving giving Coraline anything she wants, her father is a talented pianist and super friendly, her room is decorated with talking animals and living pictures, her neighbors are suddenly more interesting and inviting, even the creepy bully down the street is friendly and fun. It doesn’t take Coraline many visits to this parallel reality for her to realize that it is the more colorful and interesting reality, the one in which her desires are gratified instantly, that she wants.

However, after a very short while Coraline discovers that her “Other Mother” is really a wicked evil witch who has designed this parallel and distorted reality to lure her into a trap, a literal spider’s web, in which Coraline must forfeit her soul to loving her “Other Mother” forever. Suddenly instead of a cuter mother Coraline is owned by a curvy wicked spider-like woman. Her parallel reality of a brilliant father turns out to be a squat and deranged slave of the witch. All of what is best in the parallel reality not only turns out to be an illusion but largely is an illusion that is wicked and bent on one thing: claiming Coraline’s soul for its own.

Whether the writer of this movie intended for the analogy to play out this way or not I don’t know. What I do know is that sin, that Satan, is exactly like this. Sin and Satan offer a tasty, better looking, more enjoyable alternate reality. For a while, this reality really does taste better but there is a terrible price to pay: you must forfeit your soul if you intend to keep on enjoying it. You will forfeit your soul to the “Other Mother” (i.e. Satan), as numerous other souls have, if you insist on trading what is real for that which is a tasty but short lived illusion.

I caught some very inappropriate themes and stupid Eastern elements in this movie, secular film is not very redeemable, but I certainly intend on using this illustration more than once!

Fear God!

R. D. Thompson

Bernard Ramm on Ethics

2009-07-01T19:31:00.001-07:00

Bernard Ramm makes an excellent observation in his book on Christian ethics The Right, The Good and The Happy. It is an observation that I make over and over. Christianity is a life system, a whole way of living, that involves the whole person. Just listen,

"Christian ethics is interested in virtue and character because being a Christian is a total way of life. A total way of life for the Christian means the acquisition of many virtues. It is the life of a man of character, a man of God. In biblical language these virtues are called fruits of the Spirit of God (Gal. 5:22) and constitute the functioning principles of a man of character."

There are some very interesting arguments from Ramm all over this book. One thing I have always heard when it comes to doing good and doing right, making the correct moral decision, is that "ethics can be developed from reason, or intuition, or experience, or analysis [and] there is no need for recourse to religion for the foundations, principles, or sanctions of ethics." I well remember Richard Dawkins, and many others, saying that things are intrinsically good in and of themselves and that it is possible to live morally and make "good" decisions based simply on intrinsic good. Ramm makes an incredible observation to refute this though. Listen to this,

"From the standpoint of the Christian doctrine of God, God is good. God's commands are good commands. To speak as if good were intrinsic and needed no reference to God is to deny that God is a good God. It is to create a false and contradictory problem. A good God reveals to man those ethical principles that are good. The good is good because it comes from a good God, and a good God orders and decrees only the good. From this standpoint Christian ethics grows out of the goodness in God and therefore ethics cannot be separated from theology."

I think even if you don't believe in God, if your standpoint is not that of the Christian doctrine of God, you must give some answer as to where morality stems from and, thus, from whence come your ethical mores. One final unrelated but excellent quote is as follows,

"A Christological ethic must be built from the Christ of the total witness of the New Testament. A Jesus cut down to our likings and our presuppositions and our sentimentalities is not the Jesus of the New Testament."

We need to look carefully at our foundation for ethics, because, as Ramm says, "Biblical religion without ethics is a contradiction." Christ is God. God is sovereign. God is good. That is a pretty solid basis for ethics! Praise the Lord!

R. D. Thompson

13 Weeks: Fingers, toes, arms, legs, spine, skull, heartbeat.

2009-05-18T14:36:00.000-07:00

Today my wife and I saw the first ultrasound. There were all the necessary appendages and parts that make...well...a human. That was a human on that screen. A human. It rang throughout my head repeatedly while we watched that little bundle of "cells" roll around in there. That simply does not look like just a little bundle of cells. It isn't: it's a human being with the ability to move and interact with outside forces. When we tried to look at the face it intentionally turned away from the sensor that allows you to see the baby and wouldn't turn back around again allowing us only to see the back. I can see the Thompson obstinance surfacing already.

How can our nation allow, condone and defend the blatant and obvious killing of the unborn? What is wrong with us? How can this happen? That is all I thought about when we were looking at that screen. My wife and the midwife were cooing about how I must be excited that that was my baby. Sure. It's my baby. I'm having a baby (via my wife of course). I'm totally adjusted to that fact. Of course it's my baby. I wasn't thinking about it being my baby but was thinking rather about the fact that there was no possible way of believing that it could be anything else than an obviously human baby!

Simply seeing that ultrasound made it all the more obvious. This lends credence to the clear statistic: most women who see an ultrasound don't get abortions. No wonder the abortionists are scared of the ultrasound. It is simply too obvious that what's in that womb is not just a biological ordeal. It is clearly not just another machine among more machines. Naturalism simply doesn't hold up under the ultrasound.

This simply must stop. I am on the verge of being prepared to do whatever is necessary (shy of taking away more human lives) to defend the unborn human lives that are shamelessly destroyed every day.

If it does not stop there is only one obvious result: human life will be devalued to the point that MY life will no longer hold any value and YOUR life will no longer hold any value. This is naturalism pure and simple, the belief that life is simply just a pile of pulsating flesh and nothing more, that it is just a machine.

We must not stand by watching friends,

R. D. Thompson

Robinson Crusoe: Daniel Defoe's Shipwrecked Puritan

2009-05-05T14:08:00.000-07:00

I have to admit. Even though Graeme told me to expect a Puritan I still wasn't sure. I Did NOT expect to read SUCH a puritan when I read Daniel Defoe's Robinson Crusoe. Defoe obviously trained to be a Presbyterian pastor. His whole theme is resignation to Providence...the theme of my whole life for the last four years.

Unfortunately, Graeme used the quote I had intended to use. This must needs be the checkered pattern workings of Providence directing me to a different quote so I chose to show this gem off. Listen here,

In a word, the nature and experience of things dictated to me, upon just reflection, that all good things of this world are no further good to us than they are for our use; and that, whatever we may heap up indeed to give others, we may enjoy as much as we can use, and no more. The most covetous, griping miser in the world would have been cured of the vice of covetousness if he had been in my case; for I possessed infinitely more than I knew what to do with. I had no room for desire, except it was of things which I had not, and they were but trifles, though, indeed, of great use to me. I had, as I hinted before, a parcel of money, as well as gold as silver, about thirty-six pounds sterling. Alas! there the nasty, sorry, useless stuff lay! I had no manner of business for it; and I often thought with myself that I would have given a handful of it for a gross of tobacco pipes; or for a hand-mill to grind my corn; nay, I would have given it all for a sixpenny-worth of turnip and carrot seed out of England, or for a handful of peas and beans and a bottle of ink. As it was, I had not the least advantage by it, or benefit from it; but there it lay in a drawer, and grew moldy with the damp of the cave in the wet seasons. And if I had had the drawer full of diamonds it had been the same case; they had been of no manner of value to me, because of no use.

Excellent quote. That is basically how I feel all the time. I really don't need this money, this computer, or this car. I just need enough to eat and live: both of food and of the Word of God. That is exactly what Robinson Crusoe finds out. You ought to give this book a read for certain.

Loving the Providential Caretaker with you friends,

R. D. Thompson

Paul R. House: "Don't Mess With the Virgin's Protector"

2009-05-02T12:20:00.000-07:00

I just recently finished Paul R. House's commentary on 1 and 2 Kings. Aside from being appropriately technical (actually citing relevant source material, a rarity in the commentary world) House is wonderfully warm and applicative.

As Sennacherib besieges Jerusalem, bent on destroying Hezekiah for his anti-Assyrian policy, Rabshekah, a messenger of Sennacherib, states to the listening mass of Jerusalem on behalf of Sennacherib,

Do not let Hezekiah persuade you to trust in the LORD when he says, 'The Lord will surely deliver us; this city will not be given into the hand of the king of Assyria.'...Has the god of any nation ever delivered his land from the hand of the king of Assyria? Where are the gods of Hamath and Arpad? Where are the gods of Sephavarim, Hena and Ivvah? Have they rescued Samaria from my hand? Who of all the gods of these countries has been able to save his land from me? How then can the LORD deliver Jerusalem from my hand? (2 Kgs. 18:28-35)

What is the problem with this? Indeed, Samaria fell with supposed trust in YHWH so why would not Jerusalem fall to Sennacherib? Had Hezekiah not turned to YHWH it seems likely that they would have fallen, but Hezekiah did turn to YHWH and the result is both miraculous and incredible: Assyria loses 185,000 men and fails in its attempt to make Hezekiah pay for his anti-Assyrian policies. God's response is clear enough through Isaiah the prophet,

This is the word that the Lord has spoken against [Sennacherib]: "The virgin daughter of Zion despises you and mocks you. The Daughter of Jerusalem tosses her head as you flee. Who is it that you have insulted and blasphemed? Against whom have you raised your voice and lifted your eyes in pride? Against the Holy One of Israel!" (2 Kgs. 19:21-22)

Sennacherib wasn't messing with non-existent gods. Sennacherib was messing with YHWH, the Holy One of Israel, the Almighty Sovereign of the universe. House well notes,

God's response begins with the promise of a reversal of fortunes. Assyria has been oppressing Judah, and certainly expects to continue doing so. Their king has mocked Judah's king and Judah's God. But everything will soon change. Jerusalem is personified as a virgin daughter who tosses her head in disdain at the proud, once-powerful Assyrians, who believe they have made themselves great. Indeed they have been great, but their repuatation will not be "enhanced" by the rape of this virgin. Why? Because in insulting the virgin they have insulted the virgin's protector, who happens to rule the universe. (House 369-370)

Lesson? Don't mess with YHWH. Worship YHWH. Turn to YHWH in times of trouble because only YHWH, the Holy One of Israel, can deliver in the face of incredible opposition.

Loving the Sovereign with you friends,

R. D. Thompson

John Rosemond on Being a Good Husband

2009-04-26T12:36:00.000-07:00

I found the most incredible article in our newspaper today by John Rosemond. How our editor won't lose his job I don't know. Rosemond noted a thing that is very close to my heart: Dads should work at being better husbands instead of obsessing over being the perfect dad.

I have always been concerned that no one chorused with my somewhat harsh statement that I make to my wife often. It goes like this, "I'm not losing you to our children. We will give those kids to a babysitter as often as possible. We will not lose our marriage. As soon as they can be left alone with a babysitter for multiple hours, we're out." I have gotten some funny looks for that but I have to think that it's true. I have seen far too many husbands and wives who have children and suddenly never talk to each other. No more flirting, no more building up, no more talking, just get those kids taken care of. Usually this descends into incessant bickering, no major screaming matches, just bickering, and if there is one thing I hate more than all things when I look at a marriage it is a couple bent on bickering constantly.

Rosemond nails it,

"Forty-plus years ago, men (I am aware I'm speaking in general, but nonetheless accurate, terms) understood that one became a good father by devoting oneself to being the best husband one could be. Those men came home from work not to get down on the floor and play with their children, but to catch up with their wives.
Today's men (and I speak in general terms again) are trying so hard to be good dads that they've all but forgotten how to be husbands. (In all fairness, however, today's typical wife is acting as if she took a vow on her wedding day that said, 'I take you to be my husband until children do us part.')"

Yeah that's about right. Now why would this be? Don't miss this,

"My theory is that all too many men have bought in and therefore caved in to feminist propaganda to the effect that we're insensitive aggressors who only want to subjugate women and children so they will not hinder the progress of the patriarchy or some such nonsense. In the process of cooperating in this emasculating, a father ends up providing his kids with a second mother of sorts.
The only vestige of masculinity that remains in his fathering is the high-five he frequently gives his kids. But the high-five completes the transformation: He's no longer a truly masculine father, and he's no longer an adult either. He's his kids' best buddy. Ergo, he will not discipline them for fear of damaging the relationship — which further damages his relationship with his wife.
The more I think about it, the more convinced I become that the good old days — when dads came home fully prepared, at a word from their wives, to strike terror into their children — were far preferable to the current state of affairs.
Is it too late to bring back the patriarchy?"

Incredible. Listen well friends and don't abandon the most beloved person you will ever have just to "be a better parent." Being a better parent means being a better spouse.

Loving Christ with You Friends,

R. D. Thompson

A Rehahsh of 12 December 2008

2009-04-25T12:29:00.000-07:00

Recently I posted a link to an article by William Saletan. You can view it here.

Somehow, it received the most aggressive comment anything on this blog has ever received. The comment reads,

"An Embryo Liberation Front ought to be established to unshackle those trembling, quivering persons, presently imprisoned in frosty tombs by evil-slut progenitors who won’t submit to morality. We should burst in to an Embryo Storehouse to tip trays on floors, letting us enjoy the spectacle of protoplasm bidding for freedom.

Saletan should be in a secure Centre, sat beside a man who believes he’s Napoleon, murmuring ‘I’m a pretty embryo’ as a Nurse gently strokes his hands. Those who share his beliefs would be consigned to such places if faith-driven insanity were appropriately treated as madness.

Enamoured of. Israel-loving. The Gospel of the Sovereign Grace of God."

I have no idea what Matt was implying in the last sentence other than, possibly, pointing out what he meant by "faith-driven insanity." I think that the insanity, the madness, is more likely to be found on the other end in this case. It is insanity, pure madness, to devalue human life to the point that the embryo is just a little lump of nothing! Now, I'm not one to get in blog controversies. I don't like them. But such ad hominem aggression deserves a gentle and loving response. I say this

"That may be the oddest and most aggressive comment this blog has ever encountered.

I wonder, is it insanity to protect the dignity of a human life? Is it insanity to express concern over the growing and nation-wide disdain for the human reproductive processes? Is it insanity to call out in desperation to an increasingly immoral and rudderless society that sees the embyro as little more than a lump of cells fit only for scientific testing? Is it insanity to protect human life of which yours is included? I would imagine that a person of your persuasion believes in social goodness and working for the good of society. If you continue to hold to the unfounded BELIEF that Christians and those who protect the dignity of the embryo are merely deluded and insane you will continue to see the degradation of society until the society is left in utter oppression and NO human life is considered dignified.

You have a weak position when all you can do is hurl insults from outside the walls.

The only thing worse than being blind and deluded is actually being blind and deluded while standing outside the camp accusing everyone else of being blind and deluded.

Is your life, YOUR life, worth anything? Think carefully because how you answer that question bears very much on whether your own worldview is consistent. If the embryo is nothing more than a lump of cells to be toyed with and disposed of you yourself are nothing more than a lump of cells to be toyed with and disposed of.

That you would see that truth is very close to my heart."

Anybody have anything else to say?

Loving the Whole Person (as Christ Does) with You Brethren,

R. D. Thompson

More Andrew Murray on Hebrews

2009-04-21T12:00:00.001-07:00

Murray continues to delight me in this commentary on Hebrews. There are definitely places where his reading of the OT and NT are a little too "Reformed" for me (Replacement Theology and so on) but on the whole this commentary is a gem. This quote caught me,

"Christ seated on the throne in heaven means our being actually brought, in the supernatural power which the coming of the Holy Spirit supplies, into God's holy presence, and living there our daily life. It was because the Hebrews did not know this, because they had rested content with elementary truths about faith and conversion, and then the life in heaven after death, that they had so signally failed. Truly to know Jesus at the right hand of God would be the healing of their diseases, the restoration to the joy and strength of a life in accordance with their heavenly calling."

Great stuff.

Let Us Know, Let Us Press on to Know Christ,

R. D. Thompson

If Christ is Lord Why Are You Speeding?

2009-04-20T19:17:00.000-07:00

This is a question that really is near and dear to my heart. If there is anything that makes me sick about Christian witness it is that Christians rarely think about seemingly insignificant things like this. I say seemingly insignificant because, really, how fast you go on the road is a dead give away to how you feel about submitting to authority and the authority of the state. What makes me further disgusted is that terms such as driving like a "grandma"are often projected onto myself and others when we obediently attempt to go the speed limit. I do say attempt because I am by no means immune to driving a bit faster than I ought; usually when I get into the car angry.

Now, I must explain why this is so dear to me. I began to come to a realization that loving Christ meant obeying all of His commands as zealously as possible (by His zeal and not my own of course) while I had a job delivering pizzas. Pizza delivery is by far one of the best jobs on the planet but there is one problem: you need to get pizzas delivered quickly. So quickly that most cops understandingly ignore everything you do between 10 and 15 MPH over the speed limit. I occasionally passed cops who were clocking me at well over 15 MPH above the posted limits without them even batting an eye. I thought at the time that it was the coolest thing ever and proceeded to blaze around town all day every day. I distinctly remember driving 75 in a 45 or pushing that 25 limit to 30 as often as possible.

I also happened to street race on a consistent basis.

I am well acquainted with the temptation to speed.

But I began to realize that defying the laws of the state was the equivalent of defying the clear statement of Paul in Romans 13:1, "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God." It is very straight-forward: any defiance to the laws of the state, assuming those laws don't violate human dignity or God's command to worship Him alone, amount to a defiance of Holy Scripture's teaching concerning obedience to governmental institutions.

Think about that the next time you let your lead foot weigh heavy on the pedal. The state that upholds and sets a speed limit was instituted by God. Thus the speed limit is rightly upheld by a government, however apostate, that is sanctioned and appointed by God.

Breaking the speed limit (or blatantly defying any state appointed law) amounts to breaking God's law and presents a witness to the world that we believe that God is a rebellious, lying hypocrite. If Christianity is truth for all of life this extends deep into the realm of the Christian's relation to state and demands our attention now. Even 1 MPH over the speed limit is a defiance of God sanctioned law.

Conclusion? Let us be wise on the roads and in our relation to the state!

Loving Christ with you friends,

R. D. Thompson

p.s. See my message on the sidebar entitled "Obey Authorities" for a verbal exposition of that text in Romans 13. It may be worth your time :-)

More Murray

2009-04-19T11:41:00.000-07:00

Well...Murray is like the rest of his generation in splitting the OT and the NT just a little too sharply. However, that doesn't degrade the greatness of the next quote,

"Someone may be tempted to think that these are theological mysteries too deep for the ordinary Christian, and not needful for our Christian faith and life. And they are inclined to ask [sic], of what importance it can be to a simple believer to know all this?

My brother think not thus.

It is all important that we know the glory of Jesus.

The more the soul is filled with that glory, and worships Him in it, the more it will see with what confidence it can count upon Him to do a divine and supernatural work in us, and to lead us to an actual living fellowship with God as our Father. Oh, let us not be so selfish and mean as to be content with the hope that Jesus saves us, while we are careless of having intimate personal acquaintance with Him. If not for our sake, then for God's sake, for the sake of His infinite love and grace, let us seek to know aright this blessed Son whom the Father has given us. Let us turn away from earth, let us meditate and gaze and worship, until He, who is the outshining of the divine glory, shines into our very heart, and He, to whom the Father hath given such a place as the Creator and Upholder and Heir of all, take that place with us too, and be to us the beginning and the centre and the end of all." (Emphases mine).

That is what I have been saying to lazy Christians for three years now. We desperately need to know Jesus Christ and that knowing will not come through over-emotionalized (mind you don't misunderstand me, our emotions must be involved in our faith) sappy, contentless verbalizations about a Jesus who is someone less than God and was only interested in healing social ills. Theology is a study that all Christians must engage in and, dare I say, do engage in right now. It is not just for the scholars: it is for everyone. What is more is that everyone is a theologian but what it boils down to is whether or not you're a good theologian.

Theology linked with delight and warm faith in God through the substitutionary mediating work of Christ will lead to a deeper relationship with God. Do not skip out on growing your brain in the knowledge of God.

Let us study tirelessly friends,

R. D. Thompson

Worth the .50 Cents I Guess!

2009-04-18T22:17:00.000-07:00

I picked up, among 200 or so other titles, a commentary by Andrew Murray on the book of Hebrews at the Emmaus book sale today (softcovers .25, hardcovers .50, special books $1-$2). Usually my book sale books wait for another day but I had never realized that Murray had written commentaries and because Hebrews is so close to my heart I picked it up to flip through it.

The next couple quotes made it worth my money and the 3.5 hours of sleep I got before I had to wake up to be first at the door,

"What the Hebrews needed is what we need. Not in ourselves or our efforts is salvation, but in Jesus Christ. To see Him, to consider Him, to look at Him, as He lives in heaven, that will bring the healing...It is Christ Jesus we must know better. It is He who lives today in heaven, who can lead us into the heavenly sanctuary, and keep us there, who can give heaven into our heart and life. The knowledge of Jesus in His heavenly glory and His saving power; it is this our Churches and our Christians need. It is this the epistle will bring us, if we yield to that Spirit who speaks in it, to reveal in us. It is therefore, with great confidence that I invite all who long for the rest of God, for a life in the holiest of God's love, for the [sic] fulness of faith and hope and love, to take up the study of the epistle, with the confident assurance of finding in its revelation of what Christ and His salvation are, the deliverance from sin and sloth, the joy and strength of a new life."

And further,

"God hath spoken! When man speaks it is the revelation of himself, to make known the otherwise hidden thoughts and dispositions of his heart. When God, who dwells in light that is inaccessible, speaks out of the heights of His glory, it is that He may reveal Himself. He would have us know how He loves us and longs for us, how He wants to save and to bless, how He would have us draw nigh and live in fellowship with Himself."

And again,

"God hath spoken! The words of men have often exerted a wonderful and a mighty influence. But the words of God--they are creative deeds, they give what they speak. 'He spake and it was done.' When God speaks in His Son, He gives Him to us, not only for us and with us, but in us. He speaks the Son out of the depth of His heart into the depths of our heart. Men's words appeal to the mind or the will, the feelings or the passions. God speaks to that which is deeper than all, to the heart, that central depth within us whence are the issues of life."

And finally,

"God hath spoken in His Son! The living Jesus, come forth from the fiery furnace of God's holiness, from the burning glow of everlasting love, He Himself is the living Word...In the beginning God spake: 'Let there be light! and there was light.' Even so now He speaks with creative power in His Son, and the presence and the light of Christ become the life and the light of the soul."

I suppose I'll read this book I paid 50 cents for if I must. How did I not know Murray wrote about more than prayer?

Loving the Glorious Christ with you friends,

R. D. Thompson

Why I Listen to Techno Music

2009-04-14T11:04:00.001-07:00

I was really frustrated the other day in class. I was also very unimpressed. A teacher whom I hold the utmost respect for made the unfortunate comparison between John Cage, whose music is intended to convey total chaos and meaninglessness, and modern techno. While I certainly don't deny that some techno has surely grown out of the deconstructionist movement and is, therefore, making a blatant point against a Christian worldview of order and meaning, I think that there are some very good reasons why a Christian can enjoy (good) techno as an art form.

Keep in mind: I don't think someone who has left the club scene or who has experimented with certain forms of trance and drugs mixed together or who has been deep into house and hardcore styles as a part of their depravity should necessarily be listening to techno music. The thing is, there are many people who come out of prostitution, or being a corporate monster, or being a lying politician, or being a pornographer who will never touch those things again and yet that does not make the basic form of those things (sex, business, politics, photography) necessarily bad in and of themselves. Anything that is turned over to the lordship of Jesus Christ (in its basic God given form and not its twisted forms) can be used for good and can be used to glorify God. Sex can be used to glorify God in its God given form. Business can be used to glorify God. So likewise can art be used to glorify God.

I firmly think that listening to techno/electronic music is useful because it is beautiful.

Now, there are some things that still need to be said in justifying (not rationalizing) the above statement.

First, most modern techno is not a reflection of chance happenstance and deconstruction. Even bands who are overtly "deconstructionist" in their music, like Justice, Trentemoeller, or an indie artist like Farben, can't actually live up to their title and worldview even inside of the medium they are using to convey that worldview. Why, you ask? This is where the comparison between Cage and modern techno made me just a little frustrated. The original men who were attempting to communicate that everything was a chance occurrence literally put a completely and totally random amalgam of sounds and instruments (or no sounds at all e.g. Cage's 4'33) into their deconstructed "music." Cage made his music without any beat or rhythm. You could never have set up a metronome to his music...ever. However, most modern techno does not make a random amalgam of sounds and for most of it you can set up a metronome which will keep a perfect beat. Even the seemingly "random" sounds that an artist like Trentemoeller inserts every so often are all inserted on beat in proper rhythm, and in the proper harmonizing key, to the rest of the song. All decent techno and dance music, that people actually like, has a common underlying rhythm that is catchy and attractive. It is fun to listen to and in many cases has an almost otherwordly quality to it. This rhythm denies chance and it denies the idea that there is a world of disorder and randomness. Any music that is ordered, even if it is stripped down to basic rhythm, contradicts a worldview of chance and deconstruction. People should think about these things before they condemn techno based on its supposed worldview.

Second, Techno can be beautiful art and should not be anathematized just because it has a catchy beat. So many Christians talk about a "devil's beat" but such a thing does not exist. God made music. Period. What you do while you are listening to that music does not make the music bad. Does techno music in itself drive you to drugs or speeding or sex? I doubt it seriously. In my personal experience I have been more likely to go towards worldliness when the music has overt sexual themes or ideas in it lyrically than when there has been a driving beat. Just because it makes you want to move doesn't mean that it's from Satan (unless it means you move into a bump-n-grind...not good)! I want to move when I listen to Bach. I want to move when I listen to Gregorian chant. I want to move when I listen to any classical artist. I want to storm a castle when I listen to Prokofiev. I want to go and see the mountains and be a cowboy when I listen to Aaron Copland. However, most Christians would be ok with that music because it is wordless and played on a string instrument. I advise you go listen to good techno. You'll find that most of it is wordless. You will also find that most of it is beautiful.

Third, and finally, many Christians would then object to my saying it is beautiful. It would go something like this, "Just because it is beautiful and otherworldly doesn't make it good. In fact, it makes it, possibly, even worse." Well...quit listening to all music then. Music is made to be enjoyed simply because it is beautiful and enjoyable. Techno satisfies a primal urge for stripped down beat and rhythm (just like any set of bongos or a djembe would). It often transports the listener to that almost separate realm where good music often takes us. BUT...so does classical, indie, rock, jazz, and any other decently made music. If you are going to object to the inherent and driving rhythmic beat found in techno music then you'd better be ready to defend why you yourself listen to any kind of music ever penned.

Techno is an odd style, no doubt, but I personally have fallen in love with the outstanding rhythms of Andy Hunter and Trentemoeller. I have very carefully analyzed why I listen to techno and have ultimately arrived at the decision to continue listening to techno for two reasons: it is beautiful and, ironically contradicting what some of it is meant for, it conveys a world of order and consistency that very few genres convey. The beauty found in (some) techno and electronic is obvious and the ugly and depraved things people may do while listening to it shouldn't drive us away from listening to it. God made beautiful things. Thus, I think it right that we at least give this genre an ear.

Note: there is a decent reason NOT to listen to techno. If you simply don't like it, don't listen to it. I personally abhor country music but that doesn't mean I am about to condemn someone else who may like good country (not the stuff where all they talk about is sex and murder :). Further, if your conviction is that techno music raises in you the desire for depraved things: avoid techno music. It is that simple. Don't rationalize, don't try and find a way to listen to techno, don't take this post and make it your banner to do what ruins your conscience. Really, these things ultimately depend on the heart and where your heart is at. If you think it's a sin or it is causing you to sin (or you if you don't even care and just listen to it because you think it's cool): AVOID AND REEVALUATE WHY YOU ARE LISTENING TO IT!

Do keep in mind though that God never gave a form for beautiful music to fit!

Loving God With You Brethren,

R. D. Thompson

Jesus: Power Over All Realms

2009-03-10T13:38:00.000-07:00

One of the greatest truths that has made the greatest impact on me for the duration of my salvation (2187 days so far) has been the magnitude and grandeur of the supremacy of Christ.

I recently had the opportunity to open the breaking of bread at my assembly and shared the following truths which have made a serious indent in my thinking about Christ and have drawn me to love Him more.

In not so exact words and after reading Mark 4:35-41:

"We come together to worship the Lord Jesus at this meeting for what again? To remember His death and what his propitiatory sacrifice has done for us. So why am I reading a portion of Scripture that has seemingly little to do with the actual cross of Christ? Because dear friends, I simply could not hinge my eternity on Christ and His sacrifice at the cross of Calvary if Jesus Christ was just a man and not the Supreme Ruler of the universe. He was a man, no doubt there, and if He was not a man I certainly have no hope. But He was also God, and Mark is bent on making that absolutely clear to us here. Just look at the three realms over which Christ reigns in this and the following passages.

First, Christ is the ruler over the natural realm. Here they are, all in a boat going over to the 'country of the Gerasenes' and a vicious storm kicks up. After Jesus is woken up to come and help them and with the mere three words, "Peace! Be still!" everything comes to a head. The disciples look at him in total astonishment and say, "Who then IS this, that even the wind and sea obey Him?" It is wise to note the context here. In Psalm 107:23-29 which I will only briefly reference the Psalmist makes clear that only God can calm a storm. In reference to God the Psalmist says in verse 29, "He made the storm be still, and the waves and the sea were hushed." Further, in Psalm 89:9 the Psalmist says of God, "You rule the raging of the sea; when its waves rise you still them," and again of God says in 65:7, "By awesome deeds you answer us with righteousness, O God of our salvation...who stills the roaring seas, the roaring of their waves..." What do you think Mark is getting at then when he shows Jesus calming the seas? Jesus is God. Period. Why do you think that the sailors were so freaked out? Jesus is God. But Mark doesn't end there. He wants to make absolutely certain that we get it. So he writes down the question of the apostles when, completely astounded, they say, "Who then IS this?" and that is the question Mark plans to answer. Not only is Jesus the Ruler of all things natural he is the ruler over all things spiritual.

Second, Christ is the ruler over the spiritual realm. So they get over the sea and here is this nutso demon possessed guy. It is a fairly familiar story but Mark makes it plain that Christ rules this realm. The demon possessed guy runs up to him and knows exactly who He is, "What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me!" (5:8). Again, Jesus, with a simple act of permission, denoting that he rules the demons, allows Legion to go into the pigs. Jesus is God. Why? Because only God rules the spiritual realm with such power.

But Mark does not end there. Third, Christ is the ruler over the physcial realm. Now we come to this fellow Jairius who comes to Jesus begging, "My little daughter is at the point of death. Come and lay your hands on her, so that she may be made well" (23). Mark gives us a double whammy with his sandwich technique as on the way to Jairus' house a woman who has a euphemistic "discharge of blood" says simply, "If I touch even his garment I will be made well" (28). Mark is pretty clear here too, "Immediately the flow of blood dried up" (29). After this astonishing revelation that Christ is exuding power we get to Jairus' house where th situation is bleak, "You daughter is dead. Why trouble the Teacher any further?" (35). Mark shows us, without any shadow of a doubt, that Jesus Christ is the supreme ruler of the physical realm when, with the two words, "Talitha cumi!" Jairus' daughter, "immediately...got up and began walking" (41-42). Jesus is God because only God could raise a dead girl with two words.

Jesus is God because only God could calm the storm with three simple words, signifying His supremacy over the natural realm, give permission to a demon to go into pigs instead of torture them, signifying His supremacy over the spiritual realm, and exude and control the power to heal any ill and raise a dead girl with two simple words, signifying His supremacy over the physical realm.

Once again, what has this to do with the cross? With salvation?

No one but God would have laid His own life down of His own will and taken it right back up again! None but God Himself could have saved us from God Himself! We have no hope, no hope at all, if Jesus is not God!

What does this mean? We can praise God, we have something to praise Him for, at the foot of the cross on Sunday morning because it was pure and sheer divinity, in fact, THE Divinity, that got up on that cross to absorb God's wrath on our behalf. Praise God that He is God and thus we can rest and glory and joy in His sin-bearing sacrifice on the cross!

Amen and Amen!"

So anyway. That was a couple Sundays ago. I love Jesus, because Jesus is God!

Loving Christ with you friends,

R. D. Thompson

The Last Month

2009-03-03T16:51:00.000-08:00

I have been incredibly worn out and on the edge of burnout with a side of serious fatigue.

Example, I have been sleeping 7-8 hours a night and within 4 hours of waking up I need another 2-3 hour nap and have a complete inability to keep my eyes open...and then I sleep 7-8 hours again at night. I don't think it's habit, I think it's stress...which I have quite a lot of.

So pray for me.

No time for blogging seriously unfortunately.

I'll be back soon. I've been inspired to write a whole bunch of things but exhausted and without time. I get spring break soon so I will probably get something up then.

Missing the blog scene :(

R. D. Thompson

Paperbackswap!

2009-02-09T21:02:00.000-08:00

No seriously, if you haven't signed up for PBS yet you really must.

List of books I have pulled from there so far (after three weeks!):

The Meaning of the Millenium: Four Views - Robert Clouse
Dialogical Apologetics: A Person-Centered Approach to Christian Defense - David K. Clark
Letters of Francis A. Schaeffer
The Communicator's Commentary: Acts - Larry J. Oglivie
The Communicator's Commentary: 1, 2 Thessalonians; 1,2 Timothy; Titus - Gary Demarest
Longfellow: A Rediscovered Life - Robert Calhoun
Reasons for Faith - John Gerstner
The Essential Calvin and Hobbes - Bill Watterson
The Calvin and Hobbes Lazy Sunday Book - Bill Watterson
The Second Coming: Signs of Christ's Return at the End of the Age - John Macarthur
The Little Flowers of St. Francis - Raphael Brown
Francis A. Schaeffer: Portraits of a Man and His Work - Lane T. Dennis

Yep...for approximately $2 a book that sounds like a good deal to me :) Especially since books like The Communicator's Commentary by Demarest (hardcover, lists at $20), Reasons for Faith by Gerstner (out of print and $25 minimum) and Calhoun's Longfellow (a 2005 title!) are no easy come-by for $2.

I think you'll notice too that you can even find Calvin and Hobbes! Something that I am beginning to realize is integral to the sanity of any serious student (I must laugh or I tend to degrade into gray unfeeling clouds every day!)

So, thanks Graeme for all the recommends to this place and if all of the rest of you aren't in yet YOU SHOULD BE!

Praising God in All Things!

R. D. Thompson

Sam Storms Interview

2009-02-02T12:53:00.000-08:00

I got to sit in (and photograph!) an interview with Sam Storms that DG did this morning. I have no idea when the interview will be available but you can least see some photos :)

Minneapolis This Week

2009-02-01T18:26:00.000-08:00

Kuyper on Calvinism and Art

2009-01-28T19:16:00.001-08:00

I Found a gorgeous quote in some of Abraham Kuyper's lectures.

"That artistic ability, that art capacity, as such, can have room in human nature, we owe to our creation after the image of God. In the real world, God is the creator of everything; the power of really producing new things is His alone and therefore he always continues to be the Creative Artist. As God, He alone is the original One, we are only the bearers of His image. Our capacity to create after Him and after what He created, can only consist in the unreal creations of art. So we, in our fashion, may imitate God's handiwork. We create a kind of cosmos, in our architectural monument; to embellish nature's forms, in sculpture; to reproduce life, animated by lines and tints, in our painting; to transfuse the mystical spheres in our music and poetry. And all this because the beautiful is not the product of our own fantasy, nor of our subjective perception, but has an objective existence, being itself the expression of a Divine perfection."

I love the part about "In the real world, God is the creator of everything." That is important because, historically, Kuyper was dealing with a hardcore Modernism that believed in the real world but totally divorced God from it and believed only in the real world. They divorced art, relationship, sex, and everything else that is so important to life, from God and from the supernatural. Thus, for Kuyper to say, "In the real world, God is the creator of everything," and then connect art to God was unthinkable in a Modernist mindset. This is why I like Kuyper so much, he genuinely believed that, in the words of Francis Schaeffer, "Christianity is truth for all of life," and refused to foolishly divorce Christianity from the surrounding culture, understanding that art is a gift of God and real engagement with the real problems and questions of the culture was necessary and must not be shirked. In fact, after reading about Kuyper and hearing some of what he has said, I am near convinced that Schaeffer didn't say anything new and "borrowed" everything he learned and said from Kuyper. I have always thought he was a prophet with a fresh message but most of what he said I have found in Kuyper. Interesting really...there is nothing new under the sun.

Soli Deo Gloria

R. D. Thompson

How To Build a Library

2009-01-19T13:26:00.000-08:00

This weekend our library reached 1,000 books. This is fairly surprising since I used to hate books and avoided them at all costs. Since the spiritual revival in my life in 2005 I have been on a Bible and book reading/buying tear and have seen this massive growth from one baby bookshelf of around 30 volumes. Truthfully I probably haven’t spent over $3,000. Also, I have finally given in and allowed myself to be coined a collector. However, this is not like a stamp collector or a coin collector. I am collecting a reference library for the spiritual benefit of myself and those around me. It’s a collection that is meant to be used and battered not protected under glass. That said, if you want to borrow a book, send me a line and see if I have it and if I do I’ll loan it to you. My library is meant to be used :)

Now, let me just give some brief advice on how to build a library.

Get friendly with your local librarian (probably at your local seminary bookstore, bible college, or just plain library). By this I mean, make friends. A real librarian already has all the connections you could possibly ever want to make and having them as a friend means you have immediate access to a wealth of knowledge you don’t have and a person who knows how to get books inexpensively and easily. 
Try out www.paperbackswap.com. This hasn’t been of much use to me because you get out of it what you put into it and I haven’t put much into it. However, Graeme Pitman has raked books in this way and they haven’t just been measly paperbacks. $2 a book sounds like a pretty good deal to me.
 
Check www.half.com and www.abebooks.com. Sometimes, on a good day, you can find exactly what you’re looking for incredibly cheap. Shipping is fairly expensive though and doesn’t make some books worth it. 
Find your local used bookstores and all used bookstores within a hundred miles. Now, there are a few kinds of these. The ideal is a bookstore that doesn’t believe the books they have are pure gold. I hate these kind. I mean, these books are USED not brand new. That means: avoid a bookstore that has the word “rare” in it’s description of itself. Also, look in the major metropolis near you. Inevitably, someone has a used bookstore and usually, especially in the downtown areas, they are very good. 
Find the book sales in your area (or really anywhere in the continental states) and figure out how you can get to them. Colleges are pure gold if you can figure out when they have their sales. Garage sales are sometimes pretty good too. Check your classifieds to see if any sales specifically mention books and go there. 
Go to Goodwill or any other local donation facility. I know, you think, “Wait, those dumps have books?” Yes. They often have very, very good books for the cost of a gum ball. I have been astounded at what people virtually throw away at these places. Recently I pulled Josephus’, “Jewish War,” and Roland Bainton’s “Here I Stand: Martin Luther,” for a quarter and a dollar respectively in excellent condition. There is gold in those places and that’s no joke. Sure, you have to touch each and every book in that mess title for title but it’s worth it in the end since you pay $15 for a load of books that would have cost $200 brand new. 
Have fun and don’t get snobby. Josephus’ “Jewish War” may not be in rare hardcover form with no markings in it but it’s still Josephus’ “Jewish War.”

Have fun searching and if you have any advice for me, please give it. I’m always looking for cheap books!

R. D. Thompson

The Song of Hiawatha

2008-12-30T15:29:00.000-08:00

I read Evangeline this month and fell immediately in love with Longfellow. He is dramatically overlooked. Frost gets too much credit as the premier American author. No one, no one I have ever read, conveys the spirit and sense of the American idyllic landscape like Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. I would not know or care about poetry if it were not for this man.

This is a spiritual blog right? So why am I talking about poetry? Christians need to reclaim good poetry and song-writing. We, of all people, should know and have the deepest and most dramatic feelings for the things God has made. We should love the creation and be fluent in praising God for it, because it was His idea. Good verse, for some reason I don't understand yet, communicates the beautiful and the terrible stronger even than does good prose.

This said, I just finished The Song of Hiawatha. It is a poem I heartily recommend. It is a beautiful and intricate introduction into the idolatrous workings of the American Indians and, in a way, communicates the tragedy of our having destroyed them. It is also a masterpiece of idyllic writing taking place next to Lake Superior (Gitche Gumee) and basically throughout America. Passages like this are what made me fall in love with poetry,

"By the shore of Gitche Gummee,
By the shining Big-Sea-Water,
At the doorway of his wigwam,
In the pleasant Summer morning,
Hiawatha stood and waited.
All the air was full of freshness,
All the earth was bright and joyous,
And before him, through the sunshine,
Westward toward the neighboring forest,
Passed in golden swarms the Ahmo,
Passed the bees, the honey-makers,
Burning, singing, in the sunshine.
Bright above him shone the heavens,
Level spread the lake before him;
From its bosom leaped the sturgeon,
Sparkling, flashing in the sunshine;
On its margin the great forest
Stood reflected in the water,
Every tree top had its shadow,
Motionless beneath the water."

Incredible. This reflects every sense and every emotion I have ever felt in the wilderness of the Great Lakes and pushes down into my deepest thoughts with its beautiful meter and rythmic explanations. I have seen the fish glisten in sunshine, the bees buzz through the forest, and felt the summer morning fresh in its new dawning. We ought to re-embrace poetry of this sort and claim it for the glory of God. We ought to write poetry that makes people say, "I've been there," and long to be there again.

Soli Deo Gloria,

R. D. Thompson

One Reason School Can Be Bad

2008-12-29T21:15:00.000-08:00

One reason school can be bad is because you cram loads of information into your head which you have no intention of ever remembering.

The greatest of all my triumphs in school has been passing the dreaded biology with an A. How I did it I will never know. The funny thing is...I remember nothing. I was just going through my old quizzes and found an answer I recorded on a quiz from memory. Just listen to this,

"The T&T complex serves to cover the actin filament inhibiting the myosin head from attaching and contracting. When a nerve impulse hits the synapse on a muscle, Acetycholine distributes over the plasma membrane which causes an action potential that spreads through the T-tubles. When the T-tbules depolarize Ca is released by the sarcoplasmic reticulum into the cytoplasm. Ca attaches to the troponin complex and displaces tropomyosin allowing the myosin head to attach to actin and contract."

Um...excuse me?

I pray to God I remember my theology better than that answer which I have utterly forgotten!

What is an actin filament?

Soli Deo Gloria,

R. D. Thompson

My Year In Photos

2008-12-29T13:20:00.000-08:00

Thank God for Al Mohler

2008-12-18T15:44:00.000-08:00

Hope you read Mohler today. If you didn't you must. He speaks on the topic of how more and more evangelicals are stepping out of evangelical bounds and proclaiming that there are many paths to heaven. He gives such a coherent reason for this dangerous universalism,

"The disappearance of doctrinal understanding and evangelical demonstration can be traced directly to the decline in expository preaching and doctrinal instruction. A loss of evangelistic and missionary commitment can be fully expected as a direct result of this confusion or repudiation of the Gospel."

Yeah that's just about it! Love it.

Also, go check out his interview with Lisa Miller on NPR in debate over her incredibly controversial Newsweek cover story on what the Bible "really says" about homosexuality. Note well what she says about the Bible and how coherent Mohler sounds next to this woman. Note also that the only conservative Christian caller who made any sense totally rocked Lisa Miller when he said she may as well say the Bible is legitimizing polygamy! She had no words...none. She couldn't speak! Mohler said, "Well his line of reasoning sounds fantastic."

Mohler is great. Give him your ears.

R. D. Thompson

Ask My Mom Sometime...

2008-12-16T22:58:00.000-08:00

William Saletan - Embryo Freezing is Immoral!

2008-12-12T07:18:00.000-08:00

I recently discovered William Saletan of Slate.com via R. Albert Mohler Jr. I recommend reading some of his articles, they're brilliant and a much needed voice in the world of popular liberal thought.

While cultural commentary is not particularly my forte, today's article bears mentioning.

Speaking of IVF and the "problem" couple's face when it comes to allowing it to be adopted, or really when it comes to do SOMETHING with it, Saletan shows that the reason the couple has a "crisis" is because they never thought through what to do with the embryo afterward.

This shows a massive disdain, a serious overlooking of the consequences of creating a human life.

"The patients and doctors are preoccupied with making a baby. If you get one, congratulations. Anything extra is an afterthought."

Of course, as Christians we know this attitude is corrupt (I know nothing of the status of Saletan's soul so I refer primarily to myself and the main readership of this blog).

Brilliantly,

"We treat the leftovers as raw material, available to be used or thrown away. But they aren't raw material. Eggs and sperm are raw material. Embryos are what we make with that material. They're us."

It is disgusting to me that this argument even has to be made over and over again. Of course this is the way life works but no one even thinks about it anymore. On the side with abortion you have women (and men!) who want to have sex and never be held responsible for anything and then here you have people who are obssessed with simply making a baby but care little what happens once it's made, or at least don't think about what to do once it's made. They refuse to be held responsible.

The article is stimulating no doubt. Give it a good look.

Loving the unborn to the glory of God,

R. D. Thompson

The Gospel in Three Minutes

2008-12-11T23:42:00.000-08:00

December Photos

2008-12-11T18:51:00.000-08:00

BE CAREFUL WHILE KISSING!

2008-12-10T09:57:00.000-08:00

Why on earth does Reuters think this is news? Moreover, why is it number six in popularity for news of the day right to next to economic crisis and Greek rioting?

Do be careful when you kiss,

"While kissing is normally very safe, doctors advise people to proceed with caution."

Thanks for the news Reuters. I think a hearty LOL is appropriate here.

Wow...

R. D. Thompson

Advent Songs Free CD...Incredible

2008-12-07T18:32:00.001-08:00

This stuff rocks. Not your standard Christmas arrangements.

I only paid a dollar...I'd pay more if I could. This album is seriously incredible.

Do I Really Walk Around With My Nose In a Book?

2008-12-01T11:00:00.000-08:00

It's been a good year when I can point to a stack of books longer than my gangly arm and say without blushing or lying, "I read every one of those books." It lends a certain satisfaction to look back at all of the books I set out to read and, in astonishment, realize that by the grace of God I read them all! I have a passion for reading and I want you to read too so I thought I'd let you in a bit on what went through my hands this year. You will notice in the following list that I am not a stuffy old geezer who never touches anything but theology. There is a healthy balance between strong theological books and fun fiction. I have two categories: books I read cover to cover and books I read heavily in. I skipped books I read lightly in because then the list would be longer than my leg and my arm combined. Those don't really count anyway.

Cover to cover Non-Fiction:
(1) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2 vols. - John Calvin
(2) The Bondage of the Will - Martin Luther
(3) Francis Schaeffer: A Biography - Colin Duriez
(4) The End of Reason - Ravi Zacharias
(5) Israel and the Church - Ronald Diprose
(6) Culture Shift - R. Albert Mohler Jr.
(7) Who Needs Theology? - Stanley Grenz and Roger Olson
(8) Across the Spectrum - Gregory Boyd
(9) Do Hard Things - Alex and Brett Harris
(10) Walking From East to West - Ravi Zacharias
(11) Art and the Bible - Francis Schaeffer
(12) Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood - Eds. John Piper and Wayne Grudem
(13) Discovering Biblical Equality - Eds. Ronald Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothius
(14) Understanding the Church - Eds. Joseph M. Vogl and John H. Fish III
(15) Essentials pf Missionary Service - Ken Fleming
(16) Through Gates of Splendor - Elisabeth Elliot
(17) What In the World is God Doing? - Gordon Olson
(18) George Mueller - Richard Steer

Most memorable of this list was: The Bondage of the Will by Martin Luther, Israel and the Church by Ronald Diprose, Francis Schaeffer by Colin Duriez, The Institutes of the Christian Rleigion by John Calvin, and Walking from East to West by Ravi Zacharias.

My all time favorite of the year for non-fiction was The Bondage of the Will by Martin Luther.

Most awful of this list was: Discovering Biblical Equality compiled by Eds. Pierce and Groothius.

Why I read non-fiction this year: Because I LOVE to learn new things!

Positions I changed because of what I read: I think I may seriously prefer the Lutheran method of interpreting the Bible through the lens of Law and Gospel. . .happy birthday to me I'm a Lutheran?!

The Top Ten Non-Fiction Books I Started But Didn't Finish Yet Fully Intend To:
(1) Italy: A Short History - Harry Hearder
(2) The Italians - Luigi Barzini
(3) Europe Today and Tomorrow - Joseph Ratzinger
(4) Solomon Among the Postmoderns - Peter J. Leithart
(5) L'abri - Edith Schaeffer
(6) Christianity and Liberalism - J. Gresham Machen
(7) What's So Great About the Doctrines of Grace? - R.D. Phillips
(8) Future Israel - Barry Horner
(9) Letter to a Christian Nation - Sam Harris
(10) The Gospel According to Jesus - John Macarthur

Cover to Cover Fiction:
(1) The Lord of The Rings - Tolkien

The Two Towers
The Return of the King

(2) Keeping Holiday - Starr Meade
(3) His Dark Materials - Philip Pullman

The Golden Compass
The Subtle Knife
The Amber Spyglass

(6) The Chronicles of Narnia - C.S. Lewis

The Magician's Nephew
The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
The Horse and His Boy
Prince Caspian
The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
The Silver Chair
The Last Battle

(7) The Shack - William P. Young
(8) Island of the Blue Dolphins - Scott O'Dell
(9) Five Novels by P.G. Wodehouse

The Return of Jeeves
Bertie Wooster Sees it Through
Spring Fever
The Butler Did It
The Old Reliable

(10) Five Novels by Agatha Christie

The Mirror Crack'd
A Caribbean Mystery
Nemesis
What Mrs. McGillicuddy Saw!
The Body in the Library

Most memorable of this list was: The Last Battle by Lewis, Nemesis by Agatha Christie, Keeping Holiday by Starr Meade, and The Golden Compass by Philip Pullman.

My all time favorite of the year for fiction was The Golden Compass by Philip Pullman.

Most awful of this list was: The Shack by William P. Young (poor literature and heresy).

Why I read fiction this year: Because during the wildness of school suicide wasn't an option!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Book That Most Shaped Me This Year a.k.a My Book of the Year: The Bondage of the Will by Martin Luther

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As I said, this was an excellent year. Looking back I never would have supposed I could read so many books. It's amazing. Praise God. A little lesson before I go. Don't think about how many books you want to read. Sure, make a list, but then never look at it again. Just read. Five pages a day equals 1,820 pages in a year. That means YOU could read the Institutes of the Christian Religion in FIVE PAGES A DAY OVER THE COURSE OF LESS THAN ONE YEAR! Wanna know how long that takes? About twenty minutes if you're slow and about ten if you're mid range. Chances are, five won't be enough and you'll want to read ten. Ten pages a day is 3,640 pages in a year. That basically covers The Lord of the Rings and The Chronicles of Narnia. It really isn't that hard to read. I promise. If you do just a little bit every day you will feel both productive and will learn great amounts. This of course, is not part of your Bible reading. You must not read more than you read your Bible! READ YOUR BIBLE! READ GOOD BOOKS!

Soli Deo Gloria!

R.D. Thompson

Evangeline: You All Should Read It

2008-11-30T15:50:00.000-08:00

I know you all believe that I just say this about every book I ever read. It isn't true. I only recommend the books I like. You're all like, "Oh he ALWAYS says, 'This book is amazing!'" Sure...but I never said, "This book is junk," after I read The Shack, or What In The World Is God Doing?, or What Love Is This?, or the myriads of other pieces of not-so-amazing writing I go through per year. Contrary to popular opinion I do not recommend every book I read.

You should all read Evangeline by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. It makes incredible bed time reading. It will amaze you with its astounding alliterations. It will make your face glow and your mind wander with its beautiful idyllic descriptions. You are being seriously "gypped" if you don't read this. It really isn't hard either. I found it more like entertainment than obligation.

I, therefore, am periodically going to place my favorite sections of Evangeline in posts on occasion. You will love them.

Recently I had the privilege of preaching in a church in Acadiana in Louisiana. I used to think that anyone from Louisiana was a "hick" but after this trip have totally changed my mind. Louisiana is one of the most beautiful states, with one of the most interesting subcultures, and some of the greatest food, I have ever encountered. And I have encountered a lot. Amazingly, I picked up Evangeline with no previous knowledge of what it was about. It is about the exile of the French from Nova Scotia to various places in the US. Louisiana was one of these places. Longfellow's description fit my brief experience exactly and made me wish I wasn't in Dubuque freezing with two inches of snow. Just listen to his idyllic rendering of this lovely place,

“Welcome once more, my friends, who long
have been friendless and homeless,
Welcome once more to a home, that is better
perchance than the old one!
Here no hungry winter congeals our blood like
the rivers;
Here no stony ground provokes the wrath of
the farmer.
Smoothly the ploughshare runs through
soil, as keel through the water.
All year round the orange groves are in
blossom; and grass grows
More in a single night than a whole Canadian
summer.
Here, too, numberless herds run wild and un-
claimed in the prairies;
Here, too, lands may be had for the asking,
and forests of timber
With a few blows of the axe are hewn and
framed into houses.
After your houses are built and your fields
are yellow with harvests.”

I have never read poetry I liked. I love this. This described exactly how I felt about Louisiana. Exactly. I mean, minus the numberless herds that aren't there anymore and the free land, I loved every inch of that poem. I promise you will too. Stay tuned for more incredible excerpts.

Loving the Truth with a capital T (which encompasses poetry!),

R. D. Thompson

God and Mumbai

2008-11-28T07:41:00.000-08:00

Do not think that God does not care and that He does not plan on using Mumbai somehow. Do not think that God is using this to judge those sinful Muslims and Hindus. Do not think that God does not have His almighty sovereign hand in, on, and over Mumbai. Grumbling, fury, and rebellion get us nowhere with Him from whom we should accept both good and adversity (Job 2:10).

What end do tragedies like Mumbai serve? As with theTower of Siloam and Pilate's human sacrifices they are there to remind you and me and all people that, "unless you repent, you will all likewise perish," (Luke 13:3).

All things belong to Him. All things are under his sovereign orchestration. All things are upheld by the "word of His power," (Heb 1:3). From the death of Naomi's husband and sons (Ruth 1:1-5, 13, 21) to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans whom God unbelievably "raised up," (Hab 1:6) God knows it all and holds it all in the palm of His hand.

As Abraham Kuyper has famously stated, "there is not one square inch over which the risen Christ does not say 'Mine!'"

Rather than responding in rebellion, fury, and despair respond with weeping for the dead, sorrow for the lost, and praise to God who, "is good and does good," (Ps 119:68) whether it is through the gospel spoken to the poor or through the gun of a terrorist.

Perhaps this should even be a wake up call to you and I of India's desperate need of missionaries.

The Bible does not allow us to degrade God and get Him "off the hook" when it comes to things like Mumbai, He is sovereignly in charge, but it does call for our worship of the benevolent, personal, great, mighty, powerful, and holy God of the universe whose rock solid hope we can rejoice in even in the greatest of tribulations (Rom 5:3-5) and most certainly calls us to repentance so that we do not perish in the same way.

Soli Deo Gloria

R. D. Thompson

Why I Love Doc Fish

2008-11-25T22:18:00.000-08:00

1) He pastors me intellectually as well as practically.

2) He preaches with authority (Greek text in hand!)

3) He loves his wife and it is obvious.

4) He doesn't mind being harangued by me and my friends for his quirks and happily returns the favor.

5) He is a good friend.

6) He has always helped me in my sermon making!

R. D. Thompson

One Does Not Simply

2008-11-21T22:27:00.001-08:00

The Paramount Practicality of Looking to Christ for Assurance

2008-11-18T09:48:00.000-08:00

Assurance is, without a doubt, the greatest struggle I will ever deal with in my life. I use the present tense there because this is still something I labor with. I labor with it with all my might. Why? Because even though I know I'm saved God is still holy, and righteous, and just, and I still sin!

Calvin, always of great benefit in the enunciation of beautiful Scriptural truths, says this,

"God, who is the highest righteousness, cannot love the unrighteousness He sees in all. All of us, therefore, have in ourselves something deserving of God's hatred. With regard to our corrupt nature and the wicked life that follows it, all of us surely displease God, are guilty in His sight, and are born to the damnation of hell."

Are we screwed up? Yup. It always bothers me when people "Hate the sin but love the sinner." This is exactly how Christians should live. But it stings me when people say that that is how God acts. God does not just hate the sin and love all sinners. God hates the sinner. That is why, if he remains a sinner he will spend eternity in hell suffering physical, eternal, conscious torment. Hence, we should tremble. If we do not tremble before God in light of this truth we will never understand the gospel and will never find any hope in God. This is rough truth no doubt but Calvin does not leave it there (praise God it never ends there),

"But because the Lord wills not to lose what is his in us, out of his own kindness he still finds something to love. However much we may be sinners by our own fault, we nevertheless remain his creatures. However much we have brought death upon ourselves, yet he has created us unto life. Thus he is moved by pure and freely given given love of us into grace. Since there is a perpetual and irreconcilable disagreement between righteousness and unrighteousness, so long as we remain sinners he cannot receive us completely. Therefore, to take away all cause for enmity and to reconcile us utterly to himself, he wipes out all evil in us by the expiation set forth in the death of Christ; that we, who were previously unclean and impure, may show ourselves righteous and holy in his sight."

I find this repeatedly to be the constant theme of my life. I pray, "God, I've got nothing. I come with nothing. I have no righteousness. I shouldn't even be in your presence arrogantly believing that I the finite should be speaking to you the infinite. I should be dead even in thinking about it. But here, look, I have Jesus. He is holy. May I therefore come into your presence and rest in you since He is holy?" You know what the answer is every time? "I sacrificed my Son that you could come into presence and enjoy rest. You are a sinner, and I do not easily forget sins, but you are covered by the blood of my Son. I will choose to see His righteousness over your sin. Enter." I am beginning to think that real assurance comes from the fact that every day, every single day, is marked by a struggle with sin in which we come and lay prostrate before the God who created us and beg for mercy through Jesus and find it given again, and again, and again. Calvin again,

"Therefore, by his love God the Father goes before and anticipates our reconciliation in Christ. Indeed, 'Because he first loved us" [I John 4:19], he afterward reconciles us to himself. But until Christ succors us by his death, the unrighteousness that deserves God's indignation remains in us, and is accursed and condemned before him. Hence, we can be fully and firmly joined with God only when Christ joins us with him."

So what's the key to being sure? What's they key to real lasting hope?

"If, then, we would be assured that God is pleased with and kindly disposed towards us, we must fix our eyes and minds on Christ alone. For, actually, through him alone we escape the imputation of our sins to us - an imputation bringing with it the wrath of God."

That is what the gospel is about: the death, resurrection and mediating work of Jesus Christ. When it all seems futile and like I am failing miserably and shall never earn my way to heaven I should look up and realize I will never earn my way to heaven! No kidding! It's all found in Jesus. My hope is in Jesus. No one, especially myself, will find a reconciled and peaceful audience with the Father lest it be through the shed blood of Christ. Hallelujah!

He died for our sins. He brings us to God. We can be assured of this.

R.D. Thompson

Does This Post Even Need Text?

2008-11-14T22:14:00.000-08:00

The Roman Church Started Right

2008-11-13T09:54:00.001-08:00

I believe that the Roman Church started in the right place and that, contrary to some overly strong and frightened Protestant opinions, many of the Roman leaders through the middle-ages and into the Reformation were saved. Now that doesn't mean that I think all of them were saved and that I think the Pope was a good guy. For the most part, He wasn't a good and godly guy at all and the Church (yes I capitalized that for a reason) fell into decay under his leadership and HAD to be reformed.

Now that's a statement that is going to make people mad, especially those of us who are so Protestant that the name "Roman Church" makes hackles raise and shouts of "dirty Ecumenical!" begin ringing throughout the land as happens when any Protestant dares to sympathize. Now hang on just a minute and bear with me because I'm not the only one in on this opinion. In fact I'm in good company with none other than John Calvin!

In a chapter titled, "The Condition of the Ancient Church, and the Kind of Government in Use Before the Papacy" Calvin notes some interesting figures in Church history who usually take a little more flack than they should saying things which I don't know if we all realize they said. He also notes that the ancient Church's primary goal between Paul the Apostle and around Gregory the Great was the preaching of the gospel and the distribution of money to and care for the poor.

For instance you have Gregory the Great (Pope 589-604) saying such wonderful things as,

"A bishop dies if no sound is heard from him; for he calls upon himself the wrath of the hidden Judge, if he goes without the sound of preaching."

Indeed, Gregory knew that the Church was in trouble around his time because he also says that,

"When Paul testifies that he is clean of the blood of all [Acts 20:26], by this statement we are convicted, we are constrained, we are shown guilty - we who are called bishops, we who (besides possessing our own evils) add also the deaths of others. For we kill many as we, lukewarm and silent, see going to their death each day."

Do you know what amazes me so much about that statement? Gregory was not just some fat pope "drinking wine out of a bowl and sitting on lush cushions" and totally ignoring the needs of the people both spiritually and physically. Gregory KNEW there was a problem and last I checked KNOWING the problem is a major part of the battle. The Church had forgotten what it meant to be the Church in spiritual and physical testimony and he knew it. Calvin, of all people, in immediate confirmation of these statements says,

"He calls himself and others 'silent,' for they were less constant in their work than they should have been. Since he spares not even those who half fulfilled their office, what do you think he would have done if anyone had ceased entirely? Therefore, it was a principle of a long standing in the church that the primary duties of the bishop were to feed his people with the Word of God, or to build up the church publicly or privately with sound doctrine."

Even Calvin realizes it. The Church was doing what is supposed to be doing and was, in fact, the Church prior to the Reformation. Ford Lewis Battles, English translator of Calvin's "Institutes" says it obviously,

"Note that Calvin views the age of Gregory as between the ancient purity of the church and its medieval decay."

Some people are far too quick to dismiss anything that happened between Constantine and Luther as "Just the Roman Catholics," and figures that none of them were saved or had anything to contribute. In my humble historical understanding this seems a terrible and completely illiterate historical naivete. We should be very careful not to just dump everything that happened in the years prior to the Reformation as useless in our understanding of the Church as she is.

Not that there weren't problems, but what age of the Church hasn't had problems? I think if you consider it closely we are in much the same position as they were with corrupt and overly dominant leaders who are in it for money or fame. But what people fail to understand is that there were holy God fearing people (the Albert Mohlers and Paul Washers of today) who understood these problems and spoke against them. Calvin again,

"And so this song is often sung there to bishops and deacons, that they should remember that they are not handling their own goods but those appointed for the need of the poor; and if in bad faith they suppress or waste them, they shall be guilty of blood. Accordingly, they are admonished to distribute these goods to whom they are owed, with the greatest awe and reverence, as if in God's presence, without partiality. Hence arise those grave protestations in Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine and other bishops like them, by which they affirm their uprightness among the people."

What did these guys who called the Church out to holiness say?

"Cyril, when famine seized the province of Jerusalem and the distress could not otherwise be relieved, sold vessels and vestments, and spent the money on poor relief. Similarly, Acacius, Bishop of Amida, when a great multitude of Persians was well nigh dying from famine, calling together his clergy, delivered this famous speech: 'Our God needs neither plates nor cups, for he neither eats nor drinks." Then he melted the vessels to obtain both food and the price of ransom for the pitiable folk. . .Experius, bishop of Toulouse in his day. . .carried the Lord's body in a wicker basket and his blood in a glass vessel, but suffered no poor man to hunger."

Wow. It would be amazing if we had more leaders whose belief and strong and wonderful doctrine actually led them to the place where these guys lived who, supposedly, ruined the Church! You're not even ready for the next bit. Calvin nails iy by saying,

"What I just now said about Acacius, Ambrose states about himself, for the Arians reproached him for having broken the sacred vessels to ransom prisoners, he used this wonderful excuse, "He who sent out the apostles without gold also gathered churches without gold. The church has gold not to keep but to pay out, and to relieve distress. What need to keep what helps not? Or are we ignorant of how much gold and silver the Assyrians carted off from the Temple of the Lord [II Kings 18:15-19]? Would it not be better for the priest to melt it to sustain the poor, if other aid is lacking, than for a sacrilegious enemy to bear it away? Will not the Lord say, 'Why you allowed so many needy to die of hunger? Surely you had gold with which to minister sustenance. Why were so many prisoners carried off and not ransomed? Why were so many killed by the enemy? It were better for you to preserve the vessels men than of metals.' To these you cannot give reply, for what would you say? 'I was afraid lest the temple of God lack ornament.' He would reply: 'The sacraments do not require gold, nor do those things please with gold that are not bought with gold. The ornament of the sacraments is the ransom of prisoners.'"

Why on earth do we just skip out on stuff like this? We shortchange ourselves historically if we ignore the greats of the past with stupid phrases like, "Augustine wasn't saved."

The ancient church and, believe it or not, some of the Roman church got some things right friends; let's not be too quick to dismiss them. I had always had a hunch that this was the case but it didn't really click until I read some of this stuff. Calvin one last time, "To sum up, what the same man [Ambrose] said in another place we see to be very true: 'Whatever, then, the church had was for the support of the needy.' Likewise: 'The bishop had nothing that did not belong to the poor.'"

I do not excuse the tragedies of the Roman church. I do not excuse the corruption of the papacy. I do not deny that justification is by faith alone and that one is not saved without being justified before the totally holy and totally righteous God. I do, however, think that we should stop committing the Protestant naivete, and it is driven by fear really, of ignoring what was said between the fourth and sixteenth centuries.

This would be very unwise and I caution you against it. Go read Bernard, or Francis of Assisi, or Gregory the Great, or Ambrose, or Augustine, or Chrysostom, or Anselm, or any of the other numerous wonderful Christians in the medieval ages and I think you will find far more of the gospel than you realize.

Loving our wonderful holy God with you brethren (and sistren!),

R.D. Thompson

In order to preach to pop culture you need to know pop culture

2008-11-12T07:57:00.000-08:00

Driscoll does it all the time. How involved should we be?

The Best Lead Line Ever

2008-11-07T08:30:00.000-08:00

Do you have a favorite lead line? You know, the opening line that simply forces you to keep reading? Mine is from "The God Who is There"

"The present chasm between the generations has been brought about almost entirely by a change in the concept of truth."

You Must Go See This

2008-11-03T19:50:00.000-08:00

CLICK HERE FOR DYING WORTHY VIDEO!

Go. Now. Watch. Die laughing.

Secular Music

2008-10-27T17:13:00.000-07:00

To tell you the truth, I cannot stomach some of the reasons people come up with for watching raunchy and disgusting TV shows and movies. "But it's FUNNY," they say (The Office, That 70's Show, Friends when it was popular, Family Guy, The Simpsons). "I just like it," they say (House, and other overly dramatic and stupid shows of the like). These are the least thought out excuses I have ever heard, even though the last one is not necessarily wrong as you will soon see.

I take a purely Schafferian view of art movies and most of the well thought secular music of today. There is something, particularly about music, that holds the finger to the pulse of the culture at large. Not artists who are only in it for money (like Britney Spears...blech) but artists who ditch labels so they can make their music, movies, and art the way they want to how they want to. These people are making an incredible value statement, and dare I say a worldview statement, simply by making their music independently. These people, generally, have something to say and love music because music is wonderful and if we would prefer not to remain ignorant to just what the young people dying for truth believe today we would be wise to introduce ourselves to it.

Not only that but some art, especially good art, is to be enjoyed simply because it is good art and then critiqued and only then possibly rejected. Just listen to Schaeffer,

"A work of art has a value in itself. For some, this principle may seem too obvious to mention, but for many Christians it is unthinkable. And yet, if we miss this point, we miss the very essence of art. Art is not something we merely analyze or value for its intellectual content. It is something to be enjoyed. The Bible says that the art work in the tabernacle and the temple was for beauty. . .As a Christian we know why a work of art has value. Why? First, because a work of art is a work of creativity , and creativity has value because God is the creator. . .Second, an art work has value as a creation because man is made in the image of God, and therefore man can not only love and think and feel emotion, but also has the capacity to create."

And further,

"Many modern artists, it seems to me, have forgotten the value that art has in itself. Much modern art is far too intellectual to be great art. . .[they] seem not to see the distinction between man and non-man, and it is a part of the lostness of modern man that they no longer see value in the work of art as a work of art. I am afriad, however, that as evangelicals we have largely made the same mistake. Too often we think that a work of art has value only if we reduce it to a tract. This too is to view art solely as a message for the intellect."

To tell you the honest truth I listen to a lot more secular music than your average fundamentalist Christian attending a Plymouth Brethren Assembly. I won't go near movies or TV (I have willingly only watched Ratatouille, Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, Luther and one episode of The Office because I was on an airplane in the last three years) but I listen to greats of our day (of course by greats I may mean totally obscure independent artists who sound great) every day. Like who? To name only a few Postal Service, Jack Johnson, Bob Dylan, Dave Brubeck, Norah Jones, Her Space Holiday, Andy Hunter, Juno Reactor, George Winston, Kaki King, Trentmoeller, Telepopmusik, DJ Shadow, and many others. I am not in poor company either. Would you believe Mark Dever listens to and quote, "loves" Jack Johnson? Or that Josh Harris and his brothers do the same?

Mind you, we need to be very, very careful how we put this into practice. Schaeffer again,

"Not every creation is good art. Nor is all that man makes good either, intellectually or morally. So while creativity is a good thing in itself, it does not mean that everything that comes out of man's creativity is good. For while man was made in the image of God, he is fallen. Furthermore, since men have various gifts and talents, everyone cannot create everything equally well. However, the main point is that creativity is a good thing as such."

I think it is wise that we move past our ugly fundamentalist roots in this area and listen to the man who could give that caution but who also actively listened to Jefferson Airplane and The Beatles (and ENJOYED it), the man who considered himself largely a separatist but who watched the art films of his day and perused and understood (and ENJOYED) the work of Salvador Dali (who was the most messed up of the surrealists), the man who ached for the lostness of these souls and longed with every ounce of his being to bring them into the fold of God which in no small way required his interaction with them and enjoyment of them.

Secular artists are not speaking into a vacuum and are not speaking for no reason. Much of their art is of a far greater and superior quality to most Christian art and they are asking far deeper questions than most Christians are asking which is proved almost every day when I listen to Christian music or look at sappy Christian "art" or read some of the awful modern Christian writing that passes for fiction. I believe we ought to very carefully, cautiously, and discerningly be engaging in secular music and art 1) because a whole lot of it is fantastic in and of itself and 2) because we do a disservice to the people we preach to by alienating ourselves from them in this way.

Not that you won't get the gospel across if you don't, but it is a whole lot more helpful, and even introduces new evangelism inroads, if you understand this cultural pulse.

Loving our wonderful Christ who died "on our behalf" with you brethren,

R.D. Thompson

October Photos

2008-10-25T20:54:00.001-07:00

Only 3 Bullets

2008-10-20T07:07:00.000-07:00

Let the reader be warned, stupid hunting stories are about to commence so read forward only if that sort of thing interests you.

I finally shot an elk and I finally shot an animal in less than 15 bullets.

Storytime:

When I was 13 I shot my first deer. I got a little excited and ran up to the edge of a gully and saw deer on the other side about 900 yards away. After opening fire (at 900 yards) on any animal that I saw in my scope (otherwise known as flock shooting) I had expended 6 bullets and, as far as I could tell, had not actually hit anything. We ran down the canyon to where the animals had run and they were all waiting nicely to see what we were and why we were chasing them (deer are stupid doncha know?) so I opened fire again (at about 200 yards this time) and expended 6 more bullets...without visibly hitting anything. So the deer got the point that time and all we saw was a rather large grey streak (the whole herd) vanish away over a ridge some 2000 yards away. I didn't try to shoot that time. We went up on the hillside to look down and see if I had hit anything for some bizarre reason and, voila, I had...7 times...in various random places. I will never know how I hit the same animal 7 times when I was flock shooting but hey, I was 13, and it was amazin.

Sadly...the stories of my quick trigger finger don't end there. Like the time I did the exact same thing the next year and somehow managed to get a deer shooting wildly at 1000 yards, uphill, across a canyon. Or the time I gut shot a 5 point buck at 50 yards and then subsequently missed every shot I tried to make up as it ran away (missed at 100, then 150, then 200, then 250, then it vanished into the trees.) Or the time I aimed 8 feet over the back of an elk because I thought it was 800 yards away when it was really only about 100. Or the time I did finally shoot an antelope in 15+ bullets as it ran away from me.

So...I actually killed my animal in 3 bullets this time...and 1 of them wasn't necessary.

I was tracking through the woods at a place I knew there were elk way up in a huge mess of trees, fallen trees, and undergrowth. You really couldn't see more than 200 yards at best in that mess so I wasn't more hopeful than sneaking up on their beds (I had done it before in this specific place...unsuccessfully of course after I made an errant shot that hit nothing but trees.) I had left my dad and brother about 15 minutes earlier on the road when I heard gunshots ring out just over the hill from me...right where dad and brother were...dang. But then the herd that they had shot at ran over the hill...right at me. Unfortunately, the animals had my wind so before I could see anything more than the lead bull (7 points of gorgeousness that I couldn't shoot) charge through the tree 20 yards away from me they had scattered into 2 herds and run away from me. But that wasn't the end by any means. Dad and brother had taken a number of animals out of the herd so this herd was in confusion looking for its lost members. That meant it was a great time for me to make a calf call. THAT confused them. Was I the missing calf or was I a dangerous hunter? The cows of the herd proceeded to check out my credentials by repeatedly calling me to the herd and the bulls furiously bugled back and forth to try and get the herd reunited. No animals would walk to me though. That meant I had to go find them...in thick undergrowth...with a top visibility of 200 yards at best and a low visibility of about 10 yards at worst. Elk are smart, they know (somehow) to stay just out of sight ahead of you and make calls back at you as they try and figure out what you are. I had the wind this time and moved slowly towards them. However, every time I would set to shoot one of the blasted things they would prance another 50 yards away out of sight. This happened about 10 times when a calf made the unfortunate mistake of standing in a gap in the trees about 200 yards away from me. Now, this had happened 6 times in the proceeding nonsense but I could never see a head. Number one rule while hunting in undergrowth: if you can't see a head, don't shoot it. The DOW doesn't accept stories about how you accidentally shot a 7 point bull in the forest when you meant to shoot a cow because you couldn't see the head. Anyway, this elk had made the unfortunate mistake of NOT prancing away just as I got set to shoot. I took my deep sniper breath and calmly (for the first time in my life) squeezed the trigger. After the shot rang out...the animal didn't move...it just looked at me. I took another shot and didn't see the animal in my scope anymore. Something similar had happened last time I was in these woods so I cautiously walked up the hill in case it was standing there looking at me still. I figured that, as usual, I had entirely missed the beast and it had run away and I would expend ANOTHER 12 bullets before I would actually kill anything. As I walked up and looked around I spotted it. I almost couldn't believe it...it was laying down, looking at me, obviously wounded. Well it was still alive so I had to finishe the job, which I did, and then stood in utter disbelief. I had actually harvested my animal in 3 bullets and when I had quatered the animal I found out that 1 of the shots wasn't necessary as I had hit the first time in the front quarter and the second time in the back quarter.

My hunting friends (dad, brother, and grandpa) couldn't believe it. Their jaws dropped. Their standard fun making for my trigger happy days are ended.

I had a good weekend :) This was also the first time I praised the Lord for providing meat for me and my family. That note was always missing in past trips.

soli deo gloria (even in the simple things like hunting!),

R.D. Thompson

Humorous: How To Win A Debate

2008-10-14T07:54:00.000-07:00

Argue about the meaning of words, conjunctions, prepositions, and so on in minute detail (This is sometimes necessary in good debate but usually just turns into sophism.)
Shout
Bang the table
Tell the audience, "Clearly, obviously, without a doubt, plainly the other team is wrong."
Appeal to the audience's intelligence. Like, "While correct in many things the other team is intellectually short-sighted in blah, blah, blah..." This convinces the audience to take your side because who wants to be intellectually short-sighted?
Appeal to the original languages (this is useful only if A] you have a debate about the Bible and B] your opponents don't KNOW the original languages.)
Never, EVER, ask your opponents or the audience an open ended question unless you know they will blunder. It just lets them talk more than you. That's bad when you're on a schedule. You should be doing all the talking.
ALWAYS jump on open ended questions that the opposing teams ask you and try to give as long an answer as possible. This means you're talking more and they're talking less.
Use obscene amounts of Scripture without referencing the context or even reading the verses.
Use a sandbag argument that doesn't really matter and appeals to the emotions that way when your opponents waste 10 minutes talking about your sandbag argument they use up all their time on useless arguments, not your real argument.
Claim that you won the debate in the final rebuttal (this is why having final rebuttal pays off for me almost every time.) If you leave them with the words, "Because the other team has failed to address point A and point B of in our arguments they have proved their view incoherent and have failed to convincingly win this debate. On the other hand, our position blah, blah, blah..." This is helpful because it also appeals to intelligence.
Do none of these so that the audience can recognize that you are doing them, otherwise they'll see the through the ruse and sympathize with the other team. MODERATION! KNOW WHEN TO BACK OFF AND WHEN TO GO FOR THE THROAT!
Never, EVER try to argue like this with your wife.

These are how you win debates when you're assigned to argue a side you don't agree with. Being intimately acquainted with both sides is a must, but rhetoric always helps! Don't ever argue like this for something you believe in, people WILL see the ruse.

Too bad so many of us argue like this all the time for stuff that really matters,

R.D. Thompson

A Day At Swiss Valley

2008-10-13T21:19:00.000-07:00

Review Over at Puritanical

2008-10-13T14:35:00.000-07:00

Hey friends, I have a book review on Martin Luther's Bondage of the Will up over at Puritanical, the review outlet of Graeme Pitman and myself.

Check it out here or at the link above.

Also, if you are a decent writer, please tell me and I will ask you to do a review of a theological book. We need writers who are actually interested in reading and then writing about what they are reading! Duh!

Lovin' books with you all,

R.D. Thompson

Aug/Sep Photos

2008-10-09T14:06:00.000-07:00

A Humorous Old Testament Write-Up

2008-10-08T19:50:00.001-07:00

Every week at Emmaus, the school which attend, in my Old Testament Survey class, we're required to turn in a written report on a question pertaining to the text we read that week. My beloved professor posed this question:

" Write a personal response to Psalm 15 as it gives instruction for your life as a student at Emmaus."

I, being the unfortunate Puritan influenced smart aleck that I am, responded as follows:

"How indeed shall I remain steadfast and ere immovable at this the swan song of my Emmaus sojournings? Further still, how ought I indeed to dwell in the tabernacle of the Lord? How indeed shall I ever rest in His holy mountayne? Or, to put it simply, how shall I thus enter heaven? Psalm 15 answers these basic inquiries with a most sure and certain response. As I have long tarried ere on the Emmaus properties I have surely found a most troubling thing: when I act in the secret counsels of life in a way aberrant to the holy Scriptures (and the holy handbook) my bed is oft drowned in tears for the pains which I do indeed suffer at mine own hands. For this reason doth David exclaim that, “he that walketh uprightly,” shall be the man who doest enter into the Lord’s holy Tabernacle. I shouldst likewise infer, he that walketh uprightly with the Holy Scriptures as they pertain to the holy handbook firm in his mind shall be a happy man. He that doeth all in accordance with the Law of Glock in his secret counsels, and worketh towards holiness in working righteousness while attending this beloved institution, and alway sayeth the truth of God to himself in his dailie doings shall be a happy Emmaus student, or so thus I have found in my various experiments and thus I believe shall carry me onwards to the end of, not only my Emmaus sojournings, but to the end of all life and breath. But David dost not only address the outward positive workings of righteousness but also the outward ceasing of sin. Indeed, while tarrying at Emmaus I have found that those who, “slandereth with the tongue,” behind the backs of their acquaintances oft come to a nasty end. This simply shall not do for a devout saint of Christ or Emmaus attendee. To graduate, or truly to enter heaven, one must not, “doeth evil to his neigbour,” for indeed this shall thus prove us finally vain and outside of the Tabernacle and holy mountayne. Finally, David doth give the most wise counsel to wisely endeavor in choosing those who shall be with you al the days of his (Emmaus) life. We shall not, sayeth David, commend that most evil and profane man who walkest not in the counsels of the Almighty. Rather, sayeth he, we shall giveth our honour, affection, and acquaintance unto the godly who “feareth the Lord.” One must not, likewise, squander one’s finances upon that evil gayne of gambling and trifling with the wanton pleasure of robbing his fellow man from a bet. Not only is this contrary to the Law of the Lord but it is a most vile abomination of the Law of Glock and, shouldst one deign to invest in such an unwise endeavor, he shall thus rightly find himself before that most feared committee of student judicial affaires.

Thus shall the student of Emmaus dwell and prosper."

My wife's exact quote was,

"Wow, it's sure a good thing that he knows you!"

"Wow" is right...

Enjoying the serious moments and the humorous ones with you brethren,

soli deo gloria

R.D. Thompson

Calvin on Satan

2008-10-07T12:25:00.000-07:00

I sure do love Calvin's Institutes and they have been a balm to my soul and a sweet pleasure which I have been delightedly getting college credit for! How awful is that?

I love to share what I read, it is probably my number one "ministry," primarily for the fact that I am in no way original in my theology and could certainly not articulate these things as well as my predecessors or as well as our fathers.

So, like a hungry man leading another man to bread, let me share with you Calvin's Scripture saturated view of God, Satan, and the believer's assurance of victory:

"Satan is clearly under God's power, and is so ruled by his bidding as to be compelled to render him service . Indeed, when we say that Satan resists God, and that Satan's works disagree with God's works, we at the same time assert that this resistance and this opposition are dependent upon God's sufferance. I am not now speaking of Satan's will, nor even of his effort, but only of his effect. For inasmuch as the devil is by nature wicked, he is not at all inclined to obedience to the divine will, but utterly intent upon contumacy [a stubborn refusal to obey authority] and rebellion."

Further,

"But because with the bridle of his power God holds him bound and restrained, he carries out only those things which have been divinely permitted to him; and so he obeys his Creator, whether he will or not, because he is compelled to yield him service wherever God impels him."

So what good does this to the Christian?

"As far as believers are concerned, because they are disquieted by enemies of this sort, they heed these exhortations: 'Give no place to the devil' (Eph. 4:27). 'The devil your enemy goes about as a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour; resist him, be firm in your faith' (I Peter 5:8-9), and the like. Paul admits that he was not a free man from this sort of strife when he writes that, as a remedy to tame his pride, he was given an angel of Satan to humble him (II Cor. 12:7). Therefore, this exercise is common to all the children of God."

And here is where it gets sweet and becomes laced with joy,

"But because that promise to crush Satan's head (Gen 3:15) pertains to Christ and all his memebers in common, I deny that believers can ever be conquered or overwhelmed by him. Often, indeed, are they distressed, but not so deprived of life as not to recover; they fall under violent blows, but afterward they are raised up; they are wounded, but not fatally; in short, they so toil throughout life that at last they obtain the victory."

It is as my friend (through his books, not in person) John Piper says,

"Satan can rough us up but cannot damn us. I do not take lightly the threats, but they are not ultimate. They are limited. You can always say, Jesus is superior in strength and he died so that no accusation can hold against his people. The great accuser, liar, murderer has been exposed. He has been defanged. He can hurt us by gumming us, but his poison is gone. We cannot die. We cannot lose the battle that God fights for us with the death and resurrection of his Son. All authority in heaven and on earth belongs to Jesus. Lay hold on him. Speak his sovereign name. Trust his power and mercy and blood and righteousness implicitly."

This is one of those startling, astounding, and beautiful truths of the gospel. Satan has a whole lot of power to beat on us, to hurt us, to maim us, and to just bully us around in general, but he cannot win.

Jesus won and now I'm ultimately safe and free from Satan in Him.

Hallelujah,

R.D. Thompson

Calvin on Providence

2008-10-06T17:44:00.000-07:00

Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion is a gold mine that I think we belittle and ignore too much. Just listen to Calvin on Providence,

"Yet, when that light of divine providence has once shone upon a godly man, he is then relieved and set free not only from the extreme anxiety and fear that were pressing him before, but from every care. For as he justly dreads fortune, so he fearlessly dares commit himself to God. His solace, I say, is to know that his Heavenly Father so holds all things in his power, so rules by his authority and will, so governs by his wisdom, that nothing can befall except he determine it. Moreover, it comforts him to know that he has been received into God's safekeeping and entrusted to the care of his angels, and that neither water, nor fire, nor iron can harm him, except in so far as it pleases God as governor to give them occasion."

People bash the doctrine of the sovereignty of God but I say that sovereignty is an eminently practical and wonderful doctrine to rest in because it means that ultimately God is genuinely in control. No Open Theist or Arminian (not equating those two don't worry) has this comfort so deeply or so joyously.

Loving Our Wonderful God With You,

R.D. Thompson

Who Hardens Whom?

2008-10-04T19:43:00.000-07:00

There is a major debate over whether or not Pharaoh hardened himself or whether God hardened him. I think if you just read the Bible plainly it seems pretty obvious,

Exodus 3:19-20, "But I know that the king of Egypt will not permit you to go, except under compulsion. So I will stretch out my hand and strike Egypt with all of my miracles which I shall do in the midst of it; and after that he will let you go."

4:21, "The Lord said to Moses, 'When you go back to Egypt see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders which I have put in your power; but I will harden his heart so that he will not let you go."

6:1, "Then the Lord said to Moses, 'Now you shall see what I will do to Pharaoh; for under compulsion he will let them go, and under compulsion he will drive them out his land.'"

7:3-5, "But I will harden Pharaoh's heart that I may multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt. When Pharaoh does not listen to you, then I will lay My hand on Egypt and bring out My hosts, My people the sons Israel, from the land of Egypt by great judgments. The Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord, when I stretch out My hand on Egypt and bring out the sons of Israel from their midst."

7: 13, "Yet Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he did not listen to them, as the Lord had said."

7:22, "[A]nd Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he did not listen to them, as the Lord had said."

8:15, "But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and did not listen to them, as the Lord had said."

8:19, "But Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he did not listen to them, as the Lord had said."

8:32, "But Pharaoh hardened his heart this time also, and he did not let the people go."

9:7, "Pharaoh sent, and behold, there was not even one of the livestock of Israel dead. But the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, and he did not let the people go."

9:12, "And the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he did not listen to them, just as the Lord had spoken to Moses."

9:16, "But, indeed, for this reason I have allowed you to remain, in order to show you my power and in order to proclaim My name through all the earth."

9:34 - 10:1, "But when Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the thunder had ceased, he sinned again and hardened his heart, he and his servants. Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he did not let the sons of Israel go, just as the Lord had spoken through Moses. Then the Lord said to Moses, "Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his servants, that I may perform these signs of mine among them."

10:20, "But the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he did not let the sons of Israel go."

10:27, "But the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he was not willing to let them go."

11:9-10, "Then the Lord said to Moses, 'Pharaoh will not listen to you, so that My wonders will be multiplied in the land of Egypt.' Moses and Aaron performed all these wonders before Pharaoh; yet the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he did not let the son's of Israel go out of his land."

14:4-5, "Thus I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and he will chase after them; and I will be honored through Pharaoh and all his army, and the Egyptians will know that I am the Lord.' And they did so. When the king of Egypt was told that the people had fled, Pharaoh and his servants had a change of heart toward the people, and they said, 'What is this we have done, that we have let Israel go from serving us?'"

14:8, "The Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and he chased after the sons of Israel as the sons of Israel were going out boldly."

14:17-18, "But as for Me, behold, I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians so that they will go in after them; and I will be honored through Pharaoh and all his army, through his chariots and his horsemen. The the Egyptians will know that I am the Lord, when I am honored through Pharaoh, through his chariots and his horsemen."

From the get-go, from 3:19, 4:21, 6:1, and 7:3-5, God made it plain that He was the one doing the hardening and that He would be the one making Pharaoh do stuff under compulsion. There really is no way around it, every phrase that says that Pharaoh "hardened his heart," is governed by the opening of the book. God told Moses he would harden Pharaoh's heart and that Pharaoh would let them leave only under compulsion before Moses ever left Midian.

Indeed, 9:34 - 10:1 is of greatest importance in understanding this. Who hardened whom? While it says that Pharaoh and his servants hardened their own hearts, it promptly responds, "Just as the Lord had spoken through Moses!" When did the Lord speak through Moses? Oh that's right, back in 3:19, 4:21, 6:1, and 7:3-5. Not only this but then the Lord claims responsibility for the same hardening that Moses attributes to Pharaoh only a verse earlier! For what purpose? "That I may perform My signs among them."

From first to last, the sovereign hand of God is wielded for one purpose and one purpose only, the glory of God. God hardened Pharaoh so that the nation of Israel and the nation of Egypt would not be in doubt as to who God was and is and so that those respective nations would throw themselves prostrate before Him in awe and worship.

Thus, the sovereignty of God in hardening Pharaoh's heart is eminently practical because it brings to a deep heart knowledge of God's greatness and His majesty and our smallness and depravity. It shows how little we can control anything and how little and weak and non-existent our so-called "will" is.

According to Exodus, this should lead to only one thing: Worship and adoration of the Almighty.

Indeed when all was said and done, Moses could only say in Exodus 15:11-13, "Who is like you among the gods, O Lord? Who is like You, majestic in holiness, awesome in praises, working wonders? You stretched out your right hand, the earth swallowed them. In your lovingkindness you have led the people whom you have redeemed; in your strength you have guided them to your holy habitation."

Therefore, the purpose of the sovereign working of God in both believers and unbelievers, in working salvation and in damning to hell, in hardening and in softening hearts to believe and to work, in keeping all of Israel's livestock and in killing all of Egypt's livestock, in killing all the Egyptian firstborn and keeping all the Israelite firstborn, in leading Israel through the Red Sea safely and in destroying Pharaoh and his army completely in the Red Sea, indeed, in controlling both good and evil causes, is to the magnification of His majesty and the glorification of His greatness.

If our response be anything but worship it is a wrong response. The sovereignty of God in the power to harden and soften hearts is a terrifyingly majestic truth and it demands that we bow low to the King of the universe.

Would you do this? May I plead with you to bow to the almighty, soverign, ordaining, hardening, softening, merciful, wrathful, loving, prescient, ominpotent God of the universe rather than rebelling and saying such an untruth as, "God permitted Pharaoh to harden his heart." This is unbiblical and, dare I say, contrary to the whole point of Exodus 1-15.

God hardened Pharaoh so that you and I would worship. So let me plead with you, please worship this all-controlling and wonderful God!

Soli Deo Gloria

R.D. Thompson

Have We Come Full Circle?

2008-08-04T22:17:00.001-07:00

There was once a day, a couple thousand years ago, when pragmatic relativism reigned. In the Roman Empire in the early days of Christianity it could have been said, though it may not have been coined quite the same way, "What's good for me is good for me and what's good for you is good for you."

Let us examine a brief testimony to this. In the early years of what would eventually become known as Christianity, many gods were worshiped by the Romans and many religions were allowed in the empire. There was indeed a god for everything. What is interesting is that you could have believed in any of these gods and worshiped in any form you desired and in fact held to any strange religion so long as you kept the peace, sacrificed to the local deities, and paid due respect the deity of the emperor. So long as you kept social peace and bothered no one you were an accepted part of society. You could have worshiped any god you pleased and practiced any religion you desired just as long as you kept to yourself about it and allowed society to run. This is why the Christians were persecuted on the odd charge of "atheism": because they refused to worship any but the one true and living God. In the Roman's minds they did not have enough gods. Indeed, for them to enter the cultural milieu of the Roman Empire and announce that there was indeed only one truth and that there was indeed only one way was a direct affront to the lackadaisical idea that one could worship whatever god one might choose so long as he worshiped the local deities and kept social peace.

Is this not the same position in which we find ourselves? Have we not in fact come in a full circle back to this point? Have the philosophers really come to a new form of thinking in postmodernism?

From 313 A.D. forward the one true and living God was simply the assumed normative for thought. This came about, not only through Constantine's Edict of Milan but also through the strenuous and tireless efforts of men who were Christians who fought the cultural milieu and fought to establish a Christian culture instead. Men like the early apologists and later fathers. These men spoke into the vacuum of Roman society that there was a real tangible reality to be found in the gospel and that this reality defined all of life. These men worked so hard that eventually one day Rome became a Christian empire whether for the better or for the worse.

Is this not what we find ourselves moving towards? While all truth has truly in a sense been lost to the modernists who killed us and who killed all rational thinking which led to postmodernism it would seem to me that we have come full circle. Where there was little need for a whole generation of apologists from 313 A.D. to the Renaissance there has been a surge of great apologists speaking to a defunct and decadent society in which one may worship any god he so desires so long as he pays tribute to the gods of politics and does not disturb the social peace. This sounds terribly repetitive. Have we not trod this ground before?

My suggestion is that, just like the apologists of old and the fathers after them, we stick to our guns and stand for the absolute tangible reality of the biblical gospel and the absolute tangible reality that God is reality. The apologists made their arguments from all they had: the Bible. They were reasonable arguments, they were cogent arguments, and they were spoken into a confused and lost generation in which "the only heresy was to say that there was heresy."

We should not be surprised at the state of thought in today's world and we must not, indeed we dare not conform to it. It is as Solomon once said, "There is nothing new under the sun." The postmodern conception of truth, if indeed it can be called that, is nothing fresh. It is nothing fresh for the only "truth" to be that there is no truth. It is nothing fresh to exclaim, as did Pilate in his air of scepticism, "What is truth?"

For these statements to be uttered once more and these thoughts to be thought once more has rocked four generations of Christians back on their heels in confused surprise. Ignorant of the fact that this is nothing new there has been much condemnation and hiding inside of our calm little sects in Evangelicalism, primarily out of fear if I am correct, and this is a great sin. There has likewise been an extreme conformity to this "new" conception of truth and it is likewise just as dangerous a sin. We must, as the apostles, as the apologists, and as the fathers, speak of the absolute tangible reality of the gospel of Jesus Christ. To Pilate Jesus simply said, "For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth." To which Pilate asked, "What is truth?"

Truth is put into one simple verse by Christ Himself, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no one comes to the Father but by me." Christ himself is the truth. His birth, life, death, resurrection, current reign, and eventual theocracy are truth. His revealing of the almighty powerful and sovereign God is truth. His revealing the sin of man in a clear light is truth. His solution for that sin, the cross, is truth.

Have we not come full circle? In a world desperate for truth, though they may not look it, and as in the Roman Empire, we must do as the men of old and stand on the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ as inerrantly inspired in the Bible.

Let us do no other.

A lui sia la gloria in eterno,

R.D. Thompson

The Return

2008-08-04T09:17:00.000-07:00

After many months away from this blog I have at last decided to return. For any who have been here before you may have noticed that I "slightly" tweaked my blog to be a bit more...attractive.

I have little to blog about right now but there shall certainly be more soon.

My sermons are now available on the right sidebar for download or just for streaming. I recommend downloading them.

A lui sia la gloria in eterno,

R.D. Thompson

Are The Emmaus Faculty Calvinist?

2008-05-14T11:19:00.000-07:00

Over at Puritanical recently I received a question (in the comments section of a post) that I think it would be good for me to address. A certain Central Bible Chapel asked, "Do you see the faculty and leadership as a whole at Emmaus leaning towards calvinism and reformed theology?"

I answer below.

Central,

I understand your concern in asking this question. I cannot tell whether you are asking it hostile-like or just as a question so I will answer it just as a question.

I am well aware that this is a topic (unfortunately) of hot debate among the "Peculiar People". Before I came to Emmaus I was warned by some well meaning friends, "Don't go to Emmaus they'll just make you Calvinist!" This was always said with a grimace and gasps. I therefore came to Emmaus terrified that I would be indoctrinated into this awful system of Calvinism.

I tell my friends now that Emmaus had zero impact on my becoming Reformed in my Soteriolgy and I mean zero.

I think it is best to let our president speak for himself. President Kenneth Alan Daughters has recently said this, "Our teaching is moderate, falling in the spectrum between consistent Calvinism and Arminianism. Our faculty is not loyal to either doctrinal system. We seek to be biblical in our explanation of relevant texts, balancing all that God's Word says on the subject. We do not indoctrinate our students in a negative manner. We teach them to think critically, and equip them with the tools to exegete the biblical passages themselves. Our professors teach from their own perspectives and are respectful of the views of our students as we seek to understand the Scripture together. As a faculty we represent the range of beliefs found in North American assemblies."

I think it is good to be forthright: Emmaus has professors that lean Calvinist. BUT Emmaus also has professors that lean Arminian! Neither side predominates and neither side makes demands or fights with the other side. In fact, I almost speak as if we have a divided faculty and like this is an issue. I have been here 6 years and I would honestly say that among the spectrum of our faculty this is a non-issue!

I heard a girl at one of our DEW weekends say that she couldn't come to Emmaus because someone told her that the profs teach only hardcore Predestination here. I laughed aloud when I heard that. Sure we talk about Predestination and some teachers more than others, but even in classes the professors disagree with each other and the students debate it (though I can only remember 2 instances where the topic actually came up).

No, Emmaus faculty and leadership as a whole does not lean towards Calvinism. And to say that they did as a whole would be laughable. It would be like looking at Notre Dame and saying that because George Marsden and Mark Noll teach there Notre Dame must be a Protestant Presbyterian Reformed grad school. Which we all know isn't true since Notre Dame is a Catholic/Secular school and loudly professes to be so on their website.

So you may ask, how did I become Reformed? I had a friend who came to Emmaus a lover of John Piper and he introduced me to Piper. I have read and listened to Piper (and therefore Jonathan Edwards, Augustine of Hippo, John Owen, Francis Schaeffer and many many more) for years now and am convinced that the Reformed view of Soteriology is Biblical. I personally would love to see our assemblies embrace a passionate and graceful Calvinism (not the Dave Hunt kind, which is a gross misrepresentation of Calvinism) and would especially like to see our youth embrace a Reformed Soteriology. My professors may speak for themselves on this issue, some would agree, some would disagree, a great example of the spectrum of beliefs at Emmaus.

I'll tell what Emmaus did make me was a passionate Dispensational Pre-millennial and a passionate Biblicist! THOSE things are definitely weaved into every class at Emmaus.

soli deo gloria

RDT

Why Oh Why Does Ryan Always Wear Black?

2008-03-31T21:20:00.000-07:00

For some reason people don't like it when I wear black, which I do often. They all need a reason for why I dress up and carry a generally somber appearance. Besides the simple answer that I do it because I respect the good doctors and authorities that are around me and the standard among them is to dress snappy and appropriately for a professional culture, may I add that there is little reason to dress and act like everything is great when hundreds and thousands of babies are mutilated at the whim of a mother's "freedom of choice". One day, when I'm heaven, I'll be happy to wear neon pink or happy green and lavender if thats what suits the purpose and the praise, but for now, lets realize that there is a somber world we live in and that while we take great joy in the realization that Jesus Christ is Lord, King, Substitute, and therefore Savior, that God is the Almighty Benevolent and Electing Sovereign of the universe, and that we have the incredible "hope of glory" in Christ Jesus, life is a somber ordeal. We are still weighed down with sin, we are still in our earthly bodies, we are not yet in heaven, we see hundreds of thousands of precious, sweet, little human lives taken in the name of our "freedoms".

What good is it to walk around like everything is wonderful when there is cause for groaning? Yes of course, I know there is also great cause for joy if you noted the above words. I think Johnny Cash would suit this situation beautifully,

Well, you wonder why I always dress in black,
Why you never see bright colors on my back,
And why does my appearance seem to have a somber tone.
Well, there's a reason for the things that I have on.

I wear the black for the poor and the beaten down,
Livin' in the hopeless, hungry side of town,
I wear it for the prisoner who has long paid for his crime,
But is there because he's a victim of the times.

I wear the black for those who never read,
Or listened to the words that Jesus said,
About the road to happiness through love and charity,
Why, you'd think He's talking straight to you and me.

Well, we're doin' mighty fine, I do suppose,
In our streak of lightnin' cars and fancy clothes,
But just so we're reminded of the ones who are held back,
Up front there ought 'a be a Man In Black.

I wear it for the sick and lonely old,
For the reckless ones whose bad trip left them cold,
I wear the black in mournin' for the lives that could have been,
Each week we lose a hundred fine young men.

And, I wear it for the thousands who have died,
Believen' that the Lord was on their side,
I wear it for another hundred thousand who have died,
Believen' that we all were on their side.

Well, there's things that never will be right I know,
And things need changin' everywhere you go,
But 'til we start to make a move to make a few things right,
You'll never see me wear a suit of white.

Ah, I'd love to wear a rainbow every day,
And tell the world that everything's OK,
But I'll try to carry off a little darkness on my back,
'Till things are brighter, I'm the Man In Black

Let us not be too foppish and cavalier about the gravity of the situation that surrounds us.

soli deo gloria

R.D. Thompson

The 10 Books That Changed How I View My God, Myself, and My Hope

2008-03-28T08:57:00.000-07:00

Over the next few weeks I will be saying a thing or two on these books and why they have been the most affective books in my aged 22 years.

This is the order in which I read them (or read in them),

1. Jonathan Edwards on Knowing Christ
2. God is the Gospel - John Piper
3. Hebrews: The Epistle of Warning - John Owen
4. Jonathan Edwards: A New Biography - Iain Murray
5. Brothers We Are Not Professionals - John Piper
6. God Transcendent - J. Gresham Machen
7. Evangelicalism Divided - Iain Murray
8. Trilogy - Francis Schaeffer
9. Understanding End Times Prophecy - Paul N. Benware
10. Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood - Eds. John Piper and Wayne Grudem

Obviously, I'm only 22 so this list will change over the next lifetime...praise the Lord!

Open Theism: A Response To A Comment

2008-01-26T21:31:00.000-08:00

Well...I had hoped I would never have to deal with an internet controversy again, but it appears that I have to.

I recently commented on a friend's blog concerning "Free Will vs. Determinism. I can't say that I was overly impressed with what Kevin said (not that it was bad but seriously, a paragraph and a poem simply won't do just to try and make peace in a 1900 year old debate) but it was his friend, Evan, whom I both agreed with and objected to.

It is to Evan that this response must go. It seems that Evan is possibly (no pun intended) an Open Theist. I do not know this for sure but he sure hits a keyword of Open theology and demands an answer. Says Evan,

"And enters the Hellenistic thought with an appeal to consequences. So, just reiterate, there is no verse that definitively and specifically says that God knows all our decisions prior to our decision making process. And there are passages that suggest that God hasn't known what people's decisions would be. In light of this, where are the verses that you believe define meticulous control specifically of all people's decisions?"

There are some incredibly touchy keywords here. Attacking me for "Hellenistic thought" (a common concern for Open proponents), God knowing decisions "prior" to their occurring (again, the future is open in Open theology), and especially the term "meticulous control" hint to me that maybe Evan has been reading some Greg Boyd or John Sanders, or perhaps he has recently acquired some William Hasker or David Basinger. Or maybe his pastor is an Open Theist. I know not. But I do think that Evan's question deserves a winsome (and theological!) answer. It will not do to hide away with my tail between my legs after being called a Hellenist thinking in terms of meticulous control. Otherwise known as a Calvinist in some circles (especially the Open Theist circles).

First, I am a Calvinist, lets just be plain with it, and I do not apologize for being a Calvinist. I see there being an incredibly strong theme of God having meticulous control of future decisions, knowing them both possibly and definitely. That is, the future is not open to any millions of possibilities any one of which a human may choose without God seeing (much less ordaining) prior to its occurrence. That is, I believe the Bible resoundingly proclaims that God knows the future and ordains definitely what happens in it.

Second, I understand the ache of the Open Theist to know a loving God and realize without a shadow of a doubt that many Calvinists have been cold and brutal, or just plain cowardly, in their holding to Calvinist principles. I am attempting not to fulfill this stereotype and respond in love. I apologize in advance if any part of my response fails to be winsome and loving. This does not mean that I will not unflinchingly proclaim the truth of the Bible.

Thus, let me proceed.

Evan begins by accusing me of holding Hellenistic thought with appeal to consequences. I originally said,

Though I disagree that the Bible doesn't say God doesn't [know] all of men's choices, He must if He is to remain the God of order and not the God of chance.

I believe that this is what Evan responded to. To begin with, appealing to consequences has little to do with Hellenistic thought. And holding an immutable God who does not change has little to do with Hellenistic thought (I anticipate this one, Evan did not actually object to this, but if he called me a Hellenist for consequences he would call me a Hellenist for this to). In fact, simply throwing it out there that I am being Hellenistic is little more than a disguised ad hominem. It is very popular nowadays to just accuse anyone thinking in a "Western" linear fashion that they are so influenced by the Greeks that their theology has been compromised. It is almost to be accompanied by a gasp from whoever hears and meant to send those arguing in such a fashion packing with a blush and apologies. No friend, I have not been influenced by the Greeks in this way, I have been influenced by a much older line of thinking which has passed down through the ages: Judaism. Indeed, the Jews have held that God must be the God of order and not chance from their founding as God's people. The rabbis have long held to what I am accused of stealing from Philo. Moses knew it on the mountain, Job knew it in the whirlwind, and Jeremiah knew it in the broken city. The rabbis have long held it and continue to hold it. Having addressed this accusation (albeit briefly), almost reductionisticly), we must see that this is not the main issue at all. It actually borders of a sarcastic jab. But, I must admit that a portion of my comment to which Evan responded was foolish and a sarcastic jab so maybe I deserved it. It is a small thing. Let us proceed to the real issue.

What Evan objects to is that I have said I believe the Bible says that God knows and controls defintively and meticulously what all of men's future decisions will be. For this, he says, there is no verse. In fact he appeals to the verses which say God does not know man's choices beforehand (probably Jonah 3:10, Isaiah 38:1, 2 Kings 20:1, 5-6, Exodus 32:14, and Genesis 6:5-6, 22:12 et al). I believe that these verses must be explained but I do not have time or space to attempt to explain every facet of those verses. There are many arguments to come at them and say that in fact they have nothing to do with God's omniscience (like for instance, those verses aren't even talking about or teaching anything about omniscience, that isn't even the subject of the story of Abraham, or Jonah, or Hezekiah). In fact that is not what has been asked if me. I am to give verses that say God has meticulous control and knows our future decisions definitely.

So here it goes. If one looks at the spectrum of Scripture there are many verses that imply this kind of control. Shall we mention them all? I do not think so. I shall try not to use these verses out of context, or just as proof texts, but I think they are pretty important in this debate.

How about Psalm 139:1-4?

1LORD, You have searched me and known me.
2You know when I sit down and when I rise up;
You understand my thought from afar.
3You scrutinize my path and my lying down,
And are intimately acquainted with all my ways.
4Even before there is a word on my tongue,
Behold, O LORD, You know it all.

Or perhaps Ephesians 1:3-5, to which there are many parallells in the New Testament (33 or so in fact),

3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ,

4just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him In love

5He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,

Maybe we could go back to Isaiah and look there. Isaiah, in condemening the Israelites and their whoring with idols dares them to prove that the idols know and control the future as he does,

41:23 - Declare the things that are going to come afterward, that we may know that you are gods; Indeed, do good or evil, that we may anxiously look about us and fear together. [i.e. if the idols can declare the things that are going to come afterward, than they are indeed gods. This they cannot do, thus...?]

41:45-26 - 25"I have aroused one from the north, and he has come;
From the rising of the sun he will call on My name;
And he will come upon rulers as upon mortar,
Even as the potter treads clay."
26Who has declared this from the beginning, that we might know?
Or from former times, that we may say, "He is right!"?
Surely there was no one who declared,
Surely there was no one who proclaimed,
Surely there was no one who heard your words.

[i.e. God did, the idols didn't, they could not do so, they are not God who both knows and declares from the beginning!]

42:8-9 -
8" I am the LORD, that is My name;
I will not give My glory to another,
Nor My praise to graven images.
9"Behold, the former things have come to pass,
Now I declare new things;
Before they spring forth I proclaim them to you."

46:8-11 - 8"Remember this, and be assured;
Recall it to mind, you transgressors.
9"Remember the former things long past,
For I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is no one like Me,
10Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times things which have not been done,
Saying, 'My purpose will be established,
And I will accomplish all My good pleasure';
11Calling a bird of prey from the east,
The man of My purpose from a far country
Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass.
I have planned it, surely I will do it.

Shall we go on? Shall we mention Romans 8-9? Or 1st Peter 1:18-20? Or every verse in Isaiah 40-48? Or Matthew 16:21? Or Acts 2:31? Or Jesus own words in John 13:19,

"From now on I am telling you before it comes to pass, so that when it does occur, you may believe that I am He.

Indeed, the Bible is full of the language of Meticulous Sovereignty! It is packed with the all knowing God knowing the future definitely. It is packed with the glorious Almighty (LOVING!) God meticulously knowing and controlling all things.

If we are to read these texts honestly and in a "plain vanilla" hermeneutic, we must come to one and only one conclusion: The classical definition of omiscience is the Biblical definition of omniscience!

soli deo gloria,

R.D. Thompson

Schaeffer and Machen

2007-12-18T11:33:00.000-08:00

I was watching Schaeffer's How Should We Then Live? last night and came across pure gold,

If there is no absolute by which to judge society, society is absolute.

This of course is the climate we live in. He spoke of this one sentence directly after showing that arbitrary law had snuck into western culture. He basically points to the Roe v. Wade decision concerning abortion and shows that indeed, arbitrary law is alive and well in America.

People do not believe that there is an absolute and they therefore have no basis to make any laws much less moral laws. So Roe v. Wade was made essentially in a vacuum with no real moral absolute on which to base the deicison. So what essentially is the measuring rod to make the choices in our immoral and godless age? Society.

Thus, society becomes the absolute.

A dangerous thing if you think about the constantly shifting moral wasteland of America and the West.

On a similar note, I have been hard at Machen's Christianity and Liberalism in which he shows that Liberal "Christianity" and the Orthodox Stream of Christianity simply are not the same thing. He approaches several issues head on. One of the greatest issues of course is doctrine. I was taken aback quite a bit when he pointed out that the problem in Liberalism was the that they had a problem with doctrine. They would say essentially, "Christianity is a life, not a doctrine! Away with doctrine! Let's get back to Jesus!" Sounds familiar doesn't it? Before I point any fingers I should note what Machen says,

"[This assertion] is radically false, and to detect its falsity one does not even need to be a Christian."

He points out strongly,

"The Christian movement at its inception was not just a way of life in the modern sense, but a way of life founded upon a message. It was based, not upon mere feeling, not upon a mere program of work, but upon an account of facts. In other words it was based upon doctrine."

This, of course, is absolutely true. Yes Christianity is a life and a life indeed but to do away with doctrine, and dogmatic doctrine for that matter, does away with the life itself.

I am most astounded because what the liberals said of old, "Do away with doctrine! Christ unites! Doctrine divides!" is exactly what my friends say now. Not just my friends, but the whole Emergent movement (it's not a conversation, when you have thousands of members, your own conference, a website, and books being titled An Emergent Manifesto, you're a movement) is wrapped up in this very heresy.

I do not do away with the entire Emergent movement, but when men echo the liberals of old by saying such things as,

"Doctrine is a wonderful servant but a horrible master."

I tend to listen up and red flags start flying.

Machen nails the issue over an over. For the sake of brevity I will not pepper you with tons of quotes. He moves through the stream of historic orthodoxy and points first to Paul. Did Paul think doctrine was necessary? Of course he did, any fool who reads Romans knows this. So what of doctrine in Paul then?

"Certainly, then, Paul was no advocate of an undogmatic religion; he was interested above everything else in the objective and universal truth of his message. . .Paul was not interested merely in the ethical principles of Jesus; he was not interested merely in general principles of religion or of ethics. On the contrary, he was interested in the redeeming work of Christ and its effect upon us. His primary interest was in Christian doctrine, and Christian doctrine not merely in its presuppositions but at its centre. If Christianity is to be made independent of doctrine, then Paulinism must be removed from Christianity root and branch."

So basically, if you want to really believe that you can be a Christian and get out of hashing out doctrines and taking stands, you need to chuck Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, the Letters to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon out of your Bible.

Are you comfortable with that Emergent people?

So then what? Well, we got rid of Paul. So now we can really live as we are supposed to live. Now we just look to the early church and live like they did. A real 1st century Christianity. Lets just get back to the teaching of primitive Christianity.

Problem,

"What is it that forms the content of that primitive teaching? Is it the general principle of the fatherliness of God or the brotherliness of man? Is it a vague admiration for the character of Jesus such as that which prevails in the modern Church? Nothing could be further from the fact. 'Christ died for our sins,' said the primitive disciples, 'according to the Scriptures; he was buried; he has been raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.' Form the beginning, the Christian gospel, as indeed the name 'gospel' or 'good news' implies, consisted in an account of something that had happened. And from the beginning, the meaning of the happening was set forth; and when the meaning of the happening was set forth then there was Christian doctrine, 'Christ died' - that is history; 'Christ died for our sins' - that is doctrine. Without these two elements, joined in an absolutely indissoluble union, there is no Christianity."

Well. . .dang. Now what? "Oh," said the liberals, "but Jesus was not wrapped up in the rightness or wrongness of doctrines. He was a great moral teacher and taught ethical principles to live by as a marginalized peasant." Machen again,

"Jesus certainly did not content Himself with the enunciation of permanent moral principles; He certainly did announce an approaching event; and He certainly did not announce the event without giving some account of its meaning. But when He gave an account of the meaning of the event, no matter how brief that account may have been, He was overstepping the line that separates an undogmatic religion, or even a dogmatic religion that teaches only eternal principles, from one that is rooted in the significance of definite historical facts ; He was placing a great gulf between Himself and the philosophic modern liberalism which today incorrectly bears His name."

In other words, Jesus taught doctrine. He knew He was the Messiah, he proclaimed it in tangible real words as abrasively as it could be proclaimed. Even at the Sermon on the Mount, where he uttered such beautiful ethical principles was,

"A stupendous theology, with Jesus' own Person at the centre of it, [and was] the presupposition of the whole teaching."

Oh! I must mourn that so many of my friends abandon doctrine or believe the right doctrines yet do not allow it to impact their beings. I must weep when my friends say,

"What need is there, then, of defining 'effectual calling,' what need of enumerating 'justification, adoption and sanctification and the several benefits which in this life do either accompany or flow from them'?. . .Should not our trust be in a Person rather than in a message; in Jesus, rather than in what Jesus did; in Jesus character rather than in Jesus' death?"

What does Machen say of this?

"Plausible these words are - plausible, and pitifully vain."

And again,

"Certainly we shall remain forever in the gloom if we attend merely to the character of Jesus and neglect the thing that he has done, if we try to attend to the Person and neglect the message. We may have joy for sadness and power for weakness; but not by easy half-way measures, not by avoidance of controversy, not by trying to hold on to Jesus and yet reject the gospel. What was it that within a few days transformed a band of mourners into the spiritual conquerers of the world? It was not the memory of Jesus' life; it was not the inspiration which came from past contact with Him. But it was the message, 'He is risen.' That message alone gave the disciples a living Saviour; and it alone can give us a Saviour today. We shall never have vital contact with Jesus if we attend to His person and neglect the message; for it is the message which makes Him ours."

Friends, please hear this plea, we will do no good in the world or in eternity if we ditch doctrine or are indifferent to the great teachings of the Bible. We will be nothing more than silly foppish nothings if we remove doctrine from our lives.

Machen says most profoundly and I think most relevantly for us,

"Indifferentism about doctrine makes no heroes of the faith."

Indeed to abandon doctrine is to abandon, "not only Paul, not only the primitive Jerusalem Church, but also Jesus Himself." In this moral wasteland we must cling to our absolutes. Our absolutes are found in objective statements of truth within the Bible that were meant to be studied, learned, expounded, and defended. We must stop allowing society to norm our minds as the only absolute, and start allowing great doctrines of God to permeate our thinking.

To do otherwise is a disservice to the gospel and leads down the slippery slope to liberal heresy.

soli deo gloria

R.D. Thompson

Francis Schaeffer: Thesis and Antithesis Don't Equal Synthesis

2007-12-08T21:28:00.001-08:00

Francis Schaeffer continues to blow me away. I am left astounded continually when I read his works. Earlier this summer I read The God Who Is There for pure and sheer enjoyment. I was left without breath the book was so good. Recently I have been enjoying Perkins or occasionally Starbucks with a friend just to talk about our lives and how we got to where we are. This of course involves talking about our spiritual journeys, an incredibly uncomfortable topic for those brought up in a society where speaking about one's private spirituality is certainly not the norm.

For instance, I may just disagree with something you have experienced. I may just look at you and tell you that the experiences you have had reflect deep problems in your thinking. I may just look at you and tell you that if you keep going that way you will end up where the liberals ended up. I may just tell you you're wrong. Or you may do the same to me.

This of course is infuriating. In today's culture personal spirituality must never be attacked and personal experience must never be negated. "Authentic" pursuit of "god" is enough in today's relative culture to apparently make anyone acceptable to whatever deity one worships. This makes you a good person and no one should be allowed to impede into your privacy to tell you, "I have a thesis and what you believe is the antithesis to my thesis, you are in the wrong."

The greatest heresy, it would seem, is calling anything a heresy.

Thus, when my friend and I arrived at the fork in the road concerning methodology and epistemology (how we come to know what we know and how we know what we know) Francis Schaeffer immediately popped into my head.

My friend said, in essence, "I do not believe that anyone can truly know that something is true. You only say that Christianity is true because you have come to believe it through your limited experiences and from your personal perspective, however, the Buddhist is really doing the same thing and they believe based upon their one experience of knowing. I do not have to believe Jesus Christ is the truth just because you believe this is so. Your knowledge of this truth does not validate it as true any more than the Buddhist's sure knowledge that he is true."

This of course addresses things that Schaeffer drives at in the very first chapter of The God Who is There. He opens with one of the greatest lead lines of all time, "The present chasm between the generations has been brought about almost entirely by a change in the concept of truth." This is precisely what my friend needs to hear. The concept of truth is under attack.

Schaeffer stunningly launches into an explanation of his present situation (which sounds frighteningly like our present situation and exactly what my friend said) in explaining that one day there was a concept of truth that went like this, "All A is A and all Non-A is Non-A and therefore A cannot be Non-A and Non-A cannot be A." This is the concept of thesis and antithesis. The concept that there is an absolute objective linear truth and that thesis and antithesis make a contrast.

There was a day when everyone believed this to be the case. No one doubted that there was a thesis and an antithesis. Everyone would have agreed that to say that A and Non-A could go together was preposterous and ridiculous. But they could not agree on what the correct thesis was. They tried again and again but for the life of them no one could figure out what the right one was.

This is because they started at fallible finite man and built from there.

Somewhere along the line after yet another someone had claimed that their thesis was the correct thesis the philosophers realized that this wasn't working for them. So some guy named Hegel showed up and said that thesis and antithesis shouldn't equal contrast, they should equal synthesis.

In other words, there are no absolute truths, there is no "right" thesis, only many ideas that may result in synthesis.

Of course, you can see how this is damaging. This leaves us reeling. Not only is there no longer a basis for truth, there is no truth. Schaeffer called it The Line of Despair.

My friend, really quite a few of my friends, could use a good solid dose of this truth. It is ridiculous to believe even for a moment that A and Non-A could be the same thing. A and Non-A are mutually exclusive, and therefore one or both of them must be wrong.

Schaeffer issues one of the greatest challenges I have ever faced in my life,

Those standing in the stream of historic Christianity have been especially slow to understand the relationships between various areas of thought . When the apostle warned us to, "keep ourselves unspotted from the world," he was not talking of some abstraction. If the Christian is to apply this injunction to himself he must understand what confronts him antagonistically in his own moment of history. Otherwise he simply becomes a useless museum piece and not a living warrior for Jesus Christ.

And this after only two chapters! Schaeffer must have been a prophet,

Soli Deo Gloria!

R.D. Thompson

Al Mohler on the Changing Cultural Climate and Moral Relativity

2007-11-19T11:57:00.000-08:00

A good word from Mohler today,

Our current challenge is not only to tell the truth about homosexuality, but to recover any notion of a moral norm when it comes to sexuality. That will take more intellectual energy than the evangelical movement has yet devoted to this task.

See the full article here.

Separation: A Tough Decision

2007-08-06T10:23:00.000-07:00

I have been reading through some of Gresham Machen's sermons recently in the book God Transcendant which is a mighty little book containing some wonderful sermons. Today I read one called "The Separateness of the Church" which speaks of a topic which has been close to my heart this summer and speaks of something I am sure was close to Machen: Ecumenism.

I started this summer by reading Iain Murray's Evangelicalism Divided which more or less tracks Ecumenism in Britain and America. I had no idea how relevant the issue would be for me but I have been in an argument with a friend recently concerning the so called "Limited Atonement" in which my friend says that if we do not come to an agreement on this doctrine than we have no unity and must part ways. I am all for standing for doctrine in a world of shifting sands and a church of silly Ecumenism but for two solid Christians to part ways over the extent of the of the atonement seems a bit much to me. My friend of course defines unity from John 17, "I pray Father that they may be one as you and I are one." I have no problem with this and I long for the unity of which Jesus speaks but I do yet have a problem. I don't think that perfect agreement on the extent of the atonement is quite what Jesus was talking about, or if it was, it isn't expected to be absolutely fulfilled on this planet or in this age. This is the issue: Ecumenism. You see, if I say, "We can agree to disagree on this" I sound Ecumenical to him, in fact I begin sounding Ecumenical to myself.

Let this be my sounding point, I feel that Christians should never be ultra tolerant or even a little tolerant of a world comprised of insidious Postmodernism.

I have a similar problem with my school librarian. I love my school librarian, he is one of the coolest people I know and I call him the "Iain Murray of the Brethren" because of his hair and the way he talks and how much he knows about books and controversies. But the problem I have with my librarian is the same problem I have with my friend only with the roles reversed. He takes the stance of George Mueller and the Bristol Brethren and says that he will for the moment "bear with their infirmities" when it comes to the issues which break unity. However, I feel that when the strongest Protestant in the Anglican world goes and joins in with a load of Catholics we shouldn't be simply "bearing with their infirmities" we should be fighting for the faith. The same goes for Protestant Liberals and Emergent Church Postmoderns.

Here is where Machen comes in,

"[The apostles as new Christians] were living Christian lives because they were devoted to Christian truth. 'Ye turned to God,' says Paul, 'from idols to serve the living and true God; and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.' That was the secret of their Chistian lives; their Christian lives were founded upon Christian doctrine - upon theism ('the living and true God'), upon christology ('His Son...whom He raised from the dead'), and upon soteriology ('which delieverd us from the wrath to come'). They kept the message intact, and hence they lived the Christian life."

Further,

"If the sharp distinction is ever broken down between the church and the world, then the power of the church is gone."

I believe this wholeheartedly. We should not let the little things in that quietly destroy the church and as Machen was saying, "Make the salt lose its savor." We should contend earnestly for the faith. But I am simply not sure where the line is drawn, it is such shady line, and I hate shady lines. I want to be separate from the world, clearly separate from the world, but I also don't know how I am going to avoid losing one of best and only friends over the issue of the extent of the atonement. I have no desire to return to the recycled Liberal Ecumenism of the Emergent world but I also have no desire to go down the road of small, tiny, sectarian, 20 person and shrinking churches where if you don't agree with every jot and tittle of the unspoken doctrines of the church you don't go to that church.

Decisions, decisions.

For the glory of the almighty risen Savior,
R.D. Thompson

Until September

2007-05-19T11:49:00.000-07:00

Well This has been an enjoyable last few months of writing. I think I will take a few months before I begin writing again. When school is going it is easier for me to focus on cultural commentary. My summer plans are:

Preaching 2 sermons at my home church Asbury Community Chapel
Preaching a 5 sermon series on the book of Habakkuk in Lake Geneva
Photographing the Banner of Truth Trust's Minister's Conference
Doing some non-profit photography for Camp Elim
Photographing several weddings
Doing Greek and other assignments in preparation for next school year
Doing a personal assignment on lighthouses in Michigan for 4-5 days

My reading list includes:

The Life and Diary of David Brainerd, Jonathan Edwards
Meet the Puritans, Joel Beeke
The Reformed Pastor, Richard Baxter
The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God, D.A. Carson

As well as several commentary's on the book of Habakkuk the best of which I will eventual'y write a post on. I may put together all of my sermons into a sort of 5 post commentary on the book of Habakkuk with an emphasis on the word "may".

Closer Than He Realizes

2007-04-27T09:54:00.000-07:00

Surprisingly, David Von Drehle comes closer to the truth than most people realize, and perhaps even he himself realizes, in his Time Article It’s All About Him published this week post Virginia Tech. It is almost sickening how quickly the media, politicians, and various gun control groups fell on the Virginia Tech Incident and proceeded to hurl blame in all ways but one. It is heartbreaking that the very day that everyone began to hear about the killings, people were calling for “healing”. I don’t stand on any side in gun control issues and I think that an eventual call to healing would have been called for. But I always get so frustrated when popular media and people in general forget the one thing I said they failed to mention above, human nature.

Like I said, David Von Drehle almost gets it. He says, probably echoing hundreds,

I’ve lost interest in the cracks, chips, and holes and broken places in the lives of men like Cho Seung-Hui, the mass murderer of Virginia Tech. The pain, grievances, and self-pity of mass killers are only symptoms of the real explanation...They are raging Narcissists.

That is surprisingly clear, and while I’m not sure that David Von Drehle gets exactly to the heart of the issue he comes startlingly close. Killers are self centered, self, gratifying, self worshiping, self pitying maniacs who fulfill their need for further self worship by mercilessly murdering as many as they can. Video games? Sure. Bullying? Sure. Poor Security? Sure, but what is the real problem? Drehle puts it well,

Psychologists from South Africa to Chicago have begun to recognize that extreme self-centeredness is the forest in these stories, and all other things – guns, games, lyrics, pornography – are just trees.

Drehle is saying, essentially, that narcissism is “the problem”. Further,

Only a narcissist could decide that his alienation should be underlined in the blood of strangers. The flamboyant nature of these crimes is like a neon sign pointing to the truth. Charles Whitman playing God in his Texas clock tower, James Huberty spraying lead in a California restaurant, Harris and Klebold in their theatrical trench coats – they’re all stars in the cinema of their self absorbed minds.

I find it somewhat humorous, and also sad, that everyone is trying so hard to nail down the “motive”. What is the “motive”? We get closer and closer in Drehle’s article to what the actual “motive” is,

Earnestly and honestly, detectives and journalists dig up apparent clues and weave them into a sort of explanation. In the days after Columbine, for example, Harris and Klebold emerged as alienated misfits in the jock culture of their suburban high school. We learned about their morbid taste in music and their violent video games. Largely missing, though, was the proper frame around the picture: the extreme Narcissism that licensed these boys, in their minds, to murder their teachers and their classmates.

Going on,

[W]e must stop explaining killers on their terms. Minus the clear context of Narcissism, the biographical details of these men can begin to look like a plausible chain of cause and effect – especially to other Narcissists.

Drehle ends exactly how I would,

The real problem can be found in the killer’s mirror.

Now that sounds closer to a plausible answer then I have found anywhere heretofore. Write it down, put it in a book, use it as a proverb, the real problem friends is not with the guns, porn, video games, or TVs, though those all play a gigantic role in bringing these men and boys to Narcissism. And that is where I part ways with Mr. Drehle, maybe. I say maybe because Drehle doesn’t actually state anything other than a vague “self-centeredness” to the actual problem. Or necessarily even put himself in front of the mirror. I would say that what is called for here is, yes put the proper frame of Narcissism around the picture, but we need to, I dare say, we must, see what the frame is made of. We absolutely are forced to examine what the trees and dirt in the forest are made of.

What I am saying is this, the real problem with the whole world can be found in my mirror and in the mirrors of all living. The real problem is human sin. As humans we are infected (as Augustine would imply) because of what our representative Adam did in the Garden if Eden (as most Protestants would imply). I mix these two views because I personally feel a little of both, I feel infected even if in correct interpretation and theological terms I am not infected I have only been represented by Adam, who failed. Read Romans 5:12

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned…

Death came through Adam because of the sin of Adam and we all die because we sin. Well we have not all sinned exactly as Adam did, and we weren’t biologically there while Adam was sinning, and Adam wasn’t just a great example for us not to follow but Adam did represent us there in that garden and when God tested Him he tested the whole race, and Adam failed and died; as a consequence in his representation of us we failed, and die though we did not sin exactly like Adam.

We know this, all in Adam die. That’s us. We are the problem because we are inherently sinful and guilty, and as such we are condemned. We should turn our eyes for minute away from Cho Seung-Hui and look in the mirror and see that we aren’t very good people. In fact, we’re inherently depraved and sinful and by ourselves will most definitely die roasting in eternal deserved torment for our sin nature.

I say praise God. Why? Why on earth can anyone say praise God after what I just said. Because of the rest of the portion of Romans 5:12-19

If many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift of Jesus Christ abounded for many…if because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

I must stress this point, and this is why I emphasized it above, this is not talking about universalism. The all is not “all men everywhere no matter what” it is all in Christ. Look at the phrase, “those who receive” and you will see that this is not universalism. But what I am stressing is this, all men in Adam die, all men in Christ live.

Mass murderers need to look in their mirrors, but friends, we need to look in our mirrors too. I hope that David Von Drehle isn’t saying that if anyone looks in a mirror he is a narcissist, but I agree that if anyone looks to long in the mirror he is a narcissist. We need to look in the mirror, see that in Adam all die, and that that sin is inherent in ourselves, and understand that as such we deserve condemnation.

Do you know what we need to do after that? We need to look at Christ, God, Almighty, “through whom are all things and through whom we exist”. Because friends, if you or I receive the “abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness [found in Christ]” we will, “reign in life through the one man, Christ Jesus”. Receive Jesus who paid the penalty for your sins, Amen.

Being Changed From One Degree of Glory To Another by My Glorious Savior’s Face,

R.D. Thompson

Mortor...Not What Usually Ends Up On This Blog

2007-04-23T07:26:00.000-07:00

Absolutely everybody should see this at least once in their lifetime.

Where is God When The Shooter Opens Fire? Or What Would the Psychologists Have Said at Siloam?

2007-04-17T11:15:00.000-07:00

Being in a Bible college setting, I had no idea what happened at Virginia Tech until today. I haven't blogged in a while so I thought this would be a good time to do it.

The question, "Where is God?!" when evil things happen, is a perfectly legitimate, understandable, and, perhaps, necessary question. I assure you, those who showed up to Virginia Tech to counsel people psychologically, if they mentioned God at all, probably said something to the effect of, "God couldn't know, it wasn't his fault," or (more likely), "There is no God". The last one is surprisingly the most hopeless bunch of chatter imaginable (though most answers to the question have been a hopeless bunch of chatter). When the Tower of Siloam fell over and killed 18 people, what would today's psychologists who showed up to counsel grieving family members have said? Or when Pilate killed Galileans and mixed their blood with the blood of his sacrifices to Roman gods? Some may say, "The VT Incident is God's judgment on a sinful people" if they are Christian, others may have the responses I mentioned above. To this last answer I say, perhaps. But it is less likely that this is a judgment on particular people and more likely that it is exactly what Jesus said of the the tower of Siloam, "Were these Galileans greater sinners than all other Galileans because they suffered this fate?...Or do you suppose that those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them were worse culprits than all the men who live in Jerusalem? I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish" (Luke 13:4-5, italics added).

There is a very straightforward answer for the question, "Where is God when evil things happen?" it is the answer given by Scripture, "[He] rides upon the highest heavens, which are from ancient times" (Psalm 68:33). Where is God? God is in heaven, from whence he judges the heavens and the earth and will exercise his wrath upon men who will turn to His only way of salvation, Jesus. It is that salvation, that answers the inevitable question as to whether God is loving or not. Is God loving or not sinner? You you worthy of judgment? Absolutely, just because these souls at Virginia Tech have experienced massive tribulations does not mean that they are being judged any more than the masses dying from any variety of evil things, or the most natural, death. The reason that these become so tragic, is that we are all likewise trying to avoid death. Funny that millions will die today, but will not appear on television. 33 die in a violent way and we shout, "There is no God!" which simply is not true.

Jesus' ultimate answer to the Galilean's question about the ones Pilate had killed and the Tower at Siloam almost doesn't sound like an answer, "Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish". God has sent His Son into the world to save men from sins and to save them from what our one short death symbolizes, eternal death. In times of mass murders and wars, we must turn to Jesus, we must turn to the Almighty, we must trust His sovereign work in lives and believe that Jesus is, "The Way, the Truth, and the Life and [that] no one comes to the Father but by [Him]". Is there hope in the answer of the psychologists? No, there is no hope in God not knowing, or not being able to intervene, or not caring, or not existing. But friends there is hope in repentance, there is hope in God's sovereignty, there is Hope in Jesus. Turn to Jesus,

For His Sovereign Glory and None Else,
R.D. Thompson

Book Review: Brothers We Are Not Professionals

2007-02-22T09:06:00.000-08:00

Piper is probably my favorite modern writer and seems to have the most logical flow of thought in evangelicalism today. His Passionate Calvinism attracts many people and his ministry is changing lives and seeing converts by the extraordinary grace of God. I know that Piper is a controversial figure in the church for a few reasons

He uses the word Hedonism
He is New Covenant theology
He is a 7 Point Calvinist
He is Amillenial

Maybe I show my cards a little bit too much considering I go to a Dispensational school and attend a largely (99%) Dispensational church, but I sympathize greatly with New Covenant theology and call myself at the least Progressive Dispensational.
I wholehaertedly agree with the use of the word Hedonist whatever people may say and I (somewhat jokingly) ascribe to a 7 point system of Calvinism. These are things I feel have Biblical merit and are the arguments of Holy Scripture. As for the Amil' stance? I don't agree with it only because I go to a Dispensational school and know no better.

Those things said let's talk about John Piper's "Brothers". Firstly, I am not a pastor though I have preached on occasion. I don't think in my denomination we even have such a thing as a "Pastor" but we do have elders, and I have been and Lord willing will continue to be in leadership situations. When Piper says a "plea for Pastors" he really means a plea. I got this feeling throughout the book. It was as if Piper was begging the brothers to come back to true ministry. It could almost be called a modern day "Reformed Pastor" as it often kicked me in the rear. I think that Piper's point is stated throughtout the book but stated most plainly,

All...other so called Gods make man work for them. Our God will not be put in the position of an employer who must depend on others to make the business go. Instead he magnifies His all-suffiency by doing this work Himself. Man is the dependant partner in this affair, His job is to wait for the Lord.

This is essentially Piper's plea throughout the book. He touches some especially importat points calling Pastors (Elders I guess in my case) to avoid a Debtors Ethic (we owe God something), preach Justification by Faith, return to the study of the original languages, and read biography.

Probably the most influential chapter has been the chapter, "Brothers, Let the River Run Deep". In this chapter he says in wonderfully Piperian fashion,

Emotions are like a river flowing out of one's heart. Form is like the riverbanks. Without them the river runs shallow and dissipates on the plain. But banks make the river run deep. Why else have humans for centuries reached for poetry when we have deep affections to express? The creation of a form happens because someone feels a passion. How ironic, then, that we often fault form when the real evil is a dry spring

This is of course at the heart of Christian Hedonism, and we would be wise to listen. All pastors and preachers must foremostly be enamoured with God and satisfied by Him. I recommend the reading of John Piper's Brothers We Are Not Professionals as I would recommend Richard Baxter's Reformed Pastor, every leader type should read it.

For The Glory of The Risen Lord,
R.D. Thompson

Th Unfortunate Misunderstanding of Christian Hedonism

2007-02-08T07:18:00.000-08:00

There are many people who have unfortunately been too short sighted to give Christian Hedonism a chance. Many will hear the term Christian Hedonist and assume that this must be heresy and "How dare we use the term hedonist?!" Well there is no other term to use. We are all hedonists whether we like it or not. We all look for happiness whether we like it or not. Does that mean we don't suffer for the cause of the gospel because it hurts? Nay, it means that as we suffer for the cause of the gospel we do it happily, because the gospel makes us happy. Does that mean that as our worlds, or marriages, or friendships fall apart that we drift off into escapism and doing worldly things that make us happy? No, it means that no matter what or happiness is found in the gospel, not in physical comfort.
Stop misinterpreting. I agree with John Piper, in fact my heart sings with John Piper TO GOD (i.e. Piper is not my idol, he has to apologize publicly for things too), when I pursue joy at all costs. What will make me joyful? God. I refuse to accept this notion that joy is just a reaction to doing what is right. I know of far too many saints who have obeyed with a radiant face and made thousands of converts or suffered horrible tragedy and have loved God until the day they die, JOYFULLY. I have walked around with a long face for far too long, joy should be the main cause, reason, and call to believe this gospel of ours.
Whether you like it or not, everyone including Christians pursues joy with all of their heart. The druggie is pursuing joy, the homosexual is pursuing joy, everyone is pursuing joy, but they haven't found it. Those joys whither and fade.
The ultimate question is then not whether you will pursue joy (because you will) but who or what will be the object of your joy. And the answer to that is that there is only one existent being that will fulfill all joy, God. Look past the title friends.
For joy,
R.D. Thompson

Teaching Tolerance: Homosexuality For Middle Schoolers?

2007-01-29T20:31:00.000-08:00

I think there may have been a day when "fundamentalist" people were very angry about Sex Ed. I have read somewhere that the debate raged about what can or cannot be taught to our children in the way of sex and I know that it is still a somewhat contested issue. Unfortunately the newest issue of Teaching Tolerance Spring 2007 makes painstakingly clear that the debate over Sex Ed has become much, much, deeper.

I had before this day been unaware that such a magazine existed as Teaching Tolerance but have come to find that they are indeed a nice, glossy covered, well designed, widely read magazine. After all, Emmaus Bible College of all places has a subscription, they must be big if thats the case because we don't get secular magazines unless they are front and center (Time, Newsweek, etc...) So I thought since I haven't blogged in over a month I would put my feelers out and find what there was to think about and critique.

I didn't have to look very far.

As I said, in this quarter's issue of said magazine, Carrie Kilman writes "This is Why We Need a GSA", an article promising tolereance by allowing the Homosexual middle schooler a safe environment.

Now I am all for middle schoolers not being bullied. I don't think that people who have "alternative" sexual views should be hated and hate is not a Christian virtue, homosexuals need to be loved by Christians no doubt (I do feel that homosexuality should be condemned and that those participating in homosexuality face an eternal judgment but more on that later), but homosexual middle schoolers? Myabe I am misjudging Miss Kilman and Teaching Tolerance, but does it seem like maybe bullying isn't the agenda here? If bullying were the agenda why on earth doesn't she mention the countless nerds and glasses wearing awkward middle schoolers who are bullied every day? Where are the articles about that?

I think that first and foremost one thing should be absolutely and unblushingly be noted: Sex is being changed and emasculated from what it was once even among the secular.

Just take for instance what Miss Kilman says of the spotlighted Wisconsin GSA (GSA stands for Gay Straight Alliance),

Like most GSAs this one is part social, part support, part leadership development. "My stepmom says we're too young to know our sexuality," says Chad. Her comment prompts a round of groans, eye-rolling, and head-shaking. "We're not too young to know how we feel," says Nina. "It doesn't take a certain age to know yourself".

Ok now have I missed something, or did a little seventh grader, a seventh grader who knows zero about sex (apparently GSAs aren't about the mechanics of sex see quote ahead), just completely redefine sex? Yes she did. Even logical, everyday, non-Christian, some even non-conservative, people will tell you that sex and feelings are intertwined. Not only that, but there was once a day when seventh graders blushed to talk about sex, not scoffed at adults as knowing nothing. There are some interesting elements indeed in this article. I think this could be noted well,

That GSAs are about sex is a common misconception, says Juchems, from GSAs for Safe Schools. "When adults say that, we say, 'Actually you're confusing sexual activity with sexual orientation,' he says, 'You can talk about the feelings and identity without talking about the mechanics of sex"

Really? Thats possible? You really believe that curious seventh graders are not going to find out how the mechanics of theie orientation work outside of the GSA? Unbelievable.

It is a sad day, sex is no longer viewed with feeling-"orientation"-and sex act as one whole? Apparently feeling has nothing to do with sex anymore. The clear and present consequences of this is that feeling does have to do with sex and in speaking about sexual orientation you have a presupposition. Is this something that people are plainly turning a blind eye to? When I say "I like carrots, they taste good" I carry at least 12 or more presuppositions in the back of my head at all times, for instance I know that carrots are orange, what they taste like, what their consistency is, that they go well with ranch, what it tastes like to eat a carrot, and so on. Note that I am well aware of how carrots work. Not only this, but when I speak of my feelings for carrots, I have correlated memories to speak of carrots with, or at the very least, I have seen pictures of carrots and from others what carrots taste like.

To say that one can speak of their SEXUAL ORIENTATION and not have the mechanics in mind and presupposed is foolish, plainly, flatly, foolish. It is in fact, impossible.

My prayer is that we may begin to open our eyes and lovingly preach the gospel of Jesus Christ to a world that believes that sexual orientation has nothing to do with sex, and that feelings have nothing to do with sex.

For A Glorious Gospel,
R.D. Thompson

Glancing Back

2006-12-07T09:20:00.000-08:00

Lately many people around my school Emmaus Bible College have asked me why I dress in ties, suits, or at the very least a polo. I have to respond to them often that it is largely out of respect but there is another reason, a glorious reason.

When I was 17 this is what I looked like. That picture up there was taken at Camp Elim in Colorado 2 months before I got saved. The photo is a signification of the old life. It signifies all that has gone before and is a helpful reminder to the fact that I remain a sinner saved only by the grace of God through Jesus Christ. At one point here on this walk with Jesus I went back to dressing like that and even acting like the guy you see up there. But I have to tell you the truth. The hardcore punk rocking snowboarder is dead. He is a dead man. The Ryan that obsessed every waking moment of every waking day about fresh tracks and the next lap through the park is dead. What do I mean when I say that? How can he be dead?

I believe the Bible is the inerrant infallible word of God and that it can be read objectively and authoritatively as the judge of all moral actions and is the bar that determines whether we are right with God or aren't so naturally, I refer to the Bible.

Romans 6:1-11
What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is free from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised, is never to die again; death is no longer master over Him. For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives He lives to God. Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin but alive to God in Jesus Christ.

Some people have said to me, I believe both to my damage and to their own, that if it makes you happy it must be what God wants, therefore, do it often and whenever because God wants to see us happy. This is only a half truth. Snowboarding at one point in time made me happy and photograpy currently makes me happy, but they don't fill me. There was a day when what made me happy was snowboarding and I did it all the time. The above photo is an example of doing all that makes you happy whenever and however you want.

But I disagree with that last statement even. I do think that we should do what makes us happy all the time as much as possible. But when I was saved I found something out. All of the old happinesses as ends to themselves no longer make me happy. Photography doesn't make me happy eternally. Baseball, hockey, snwoboarding, whatever, no longer pleases every sense in me. Would you not say he is dead? That old man? But now I rejoice in salvation, I rejoice that God would save a wretch like myself stuck in a pit of a hole dying quickly and immanently cruising towards certain death on a snowboard.

And thus my saying it is only a half truth comes to light. If all you can do or if all I can do, is just to do stuff that has no saving value and is bathed in triviality, we are lost. If you or I would rather go "do something fun" than swim in the Bible our joys are in the wrong place. If the Bible and prayer aren't fulfilling and all of life isn't somehow saturated with God's word than we have lost the true focus and are in a terrifying situation and should expect the eternal judgement of hell. This is not to say that people aren't sinners. I forgot my Bible for many months at one point and had even forgotten most of what was in it. But when you are saved, true joy is found nowhere but in God. Even photography is pervaded with it now. When I turn to think that it is no longer I who live but Christ lives in me, then the value of what I do goes away rapidly and the value of who Jesus is comes to light. All I do is press the button when I photograph now. I didn't make the trees, birds, waterfalls, or anything in my photographs but Christ has made them. Therefore Christ's beauties are far greater. It is not longer I who live but Christ lives in me. I am no longer satisfied just to press the button on a camera, I must be satisfied in God or I will not be satisfied. Sure being satisfied in God has a lot to do with using our talents and enjoying a hobby, but they aren't everything. And I fear lest they should be.

So friends, the garb that I wear is respect towards adults it is true, but it also signifies a death. The ultimate death of sin that will occur when I die and am swept away to dwell with the living Christ.

Staring at the light of the gospel of the glory of God with you,
R.D. Thompson

New Blog Soon and Some New Books

2006-11-22T08:24:00.000-08:00

I find it somewhat humorous that I am mostly only writing to myself in this blog. But hey its at least a journal or something. Anyway, shortly I will be posting a new article on one of two subjects either a) An Apologetic Answer To Homosexuality or b) A Brief Exegesis Of Hebrews 2:1-4. These both will stem from research projects which I am doing for school.

I bought two new books both of which look to be promising,

Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul, Guy Prentiss Waters

Truth and the New Kind of Christian, R. Scott Smith

Right now my wife and I are on our 4 day sabbatical in the country (i.e. we're on thanksgiving break housesitting for a family that lives about 15 miles out of town.)

For His Glory,
R.D. Thompson

Reflecting On Being 1/4 Of The Way Home

2006-11-16T09:01:00.000-08:00

Have you ever been in the mountains during summer? If you can find it in yourself to go outside of your tent into the feezing temperatures of early morning you will find that there is a gentle mist settled on everything. Over the fields of manzania bush, fields of rocks, and ponds and streams, there hangs a mist. It is beautiful. But when the sun comes up and the air warms up, the mist vanishes in seconds.

Today I turn 21. This is the age where most kids are legal to drink. Some Christian kids can finally drink, and most kids get bored with drinking because its not illegal anymore. This is the legal age where you more or less can do anything you want to do (except rent a car) and there are no legal repurcussions.

And here I sit. Not 10 months ago I would have gone and had a few drinks. But life has completely changed. Life is totally different.

James says, "You do not know what tomarrow will bring. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes" (James 4:14). I think I can say that I understand this quite a lot better now. I'm not an old and hardened life veteren, but I get it a little better. If I live my life like a fool, like most of the world is living it drowned in a cool pitcher of Coors, I will look up at 77.6 years old (the average american male life span) and realize I wasted it. I have instead a terrifying promise found in Matthew 24:45-51,

"Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his master has set over his household, to give them their food at the proper time? Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes. Truly I say to you, he will set him over all his posessions. But if that wicked servant says to himself, 'My master is delayed,' and begins to beat his fellow servants and eats and drinks with drunkards, the master of that servant wil come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know and will cut him to pieces and put him with the hypocrites. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Life is a serious thing. We are not made to sit around and drink and get drunk and play poker and do little trivial things but to serve the Master. I was not made to waste hours surfing the internet for useless pieces of trivia. I was not made to shop at the mall for shoes hour after hour. I was not made to make a life built on the sinking sand of a high paying career. More than all things I must serve the Master. He has set us over His creation and now we must serve Him.

But then there also lies the promise of a wonderful eternity. Hebrews 6:11-12 says for "each one of you to show the same diligence to have full assurance of hope until the end, so that you will not be sluggish but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises." What is the hope laid out in that verse? Its in the end of the chapter in verse 19-20, "We have this [hope] as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner place behind the curtain, where Jesus has gone, as a forerunner on our behalf." Jesus promised by a God who cannot lie and has sworn and promised to us the hope of His Son. I have a hope for the end of my life. I have an anchor for the end of my life.

I may be 1/4 of the way to paradise today and if what James says is true I may be mere seconds from death. I may almost be home. James promises us that this is a wisp, a quickly passing life. I dare not get lazy and drunk and think that the Master is not coming home soon but I also dare to lay hold of the hope of an unchanging hopeful God who has promised us an eternity of happiness in Jesus.

For The Glory Of An Unchanging Swearing Promising God,
R.D. Thompson

Thomas Gataker and the Right Attitude About Humanity

2006-11-13T17:16:00.000-08:00

I read recently in a quote from Thomas Gataker in the book Puritan Profiles by William Barker,

"I thirst for thirstiness; I weep for tears;
Well pleased am I to be displeased thus;
The thing I fear is want of fear;
Suspecting I am not suspicious.

I cannot choose but to live, because I die;
And when I am not dead, how glad am I;
Yet, when I am thus glad for sense of pain,
And careful am, lest I should careless be;
Then do I grieve for being glad again,
And fear lest carelessness take care from me.

Amid these restless thoughts this rest I find.
For those who rest not here, there's rest behind."

-Thomas Gataker

This is the life of a believer. This is how I feel half of the time. Torn between gladness and sorrow. Split between careful and careless. Thirsting to be thirsty and not get lacadaisical. Weeping because I cannot weep for what I ought to be weeping for. I cannot make myself love those whom I ought, give what I ought, serve as I ought, and it causes a rift between the flesh and the spirit. Oh thank God for Jesus, the only way to love, serve, and give. It is Jesus to whom we lift praises saying with Paul,

"Oh wretched man that I am, who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!" (Romans 7:24-25)

Exalting In The Hope Of His Glory,
R.D. Thompson

Borders, Reuters, and The Gospel

2006-11-12T17:38:00.001-08:00

Yesterday I went to Borders just to get a view of things. I wish I hadn't. I am astounded at the state of our culture. Tonight I spent some time ever so briefly on Reuters (I am not too fanatical about news) because someone told me that in order to address issues in our culture you have to know what is going on. Once again, I am astounded at the state of things.

Homosexuality is pressed harder and harder. Ted Haggard got lost in sin. Democrats rule the house and senate. Richard Dawkins and and company continue the assault on God. The evangelical church is in disrepair. Episcopalians have a woman bishop.

And despite how much I profess and try to love Jesus, I still have sin problems.

It is sometimes depressing to look on and think, "They are winning the battle, it doesn't matter how many debates or cogent clear arguments we makes, we will lose". We still haven't cured cancer, AIDS, World Poverty, or Sin and they look on and triumphantly say, "There. See where your God goes?" In the case of Haggard we now face a massive charge of hypocrisy.

"This is where the rubber meets the road" is what a good friend of mine Kyle Fink would say. This is where faith happens. This is where faith in Jesus Christ and Him alone proves the power of God. And what a glorious faith we have. Our God says,

"All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth." (Matthew 28:18)
"As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall give praise to God" (Romans 14:11)
"Before Me there was no God formed, and there will be none after Me. I, even I, am the Lord, and there is no savior besides Me...even from eternity I am He, and there is none who can deliver out of My hand; I act and who can reverse it?" (Isaiah 43:10-13)
"He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation" (Acts 17:26)
"For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principlaities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the Love of God, which is in Jesus Christ our Lord." (Romans 8:38-39)
"For the scripture says of Pharaoh, 'For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth." (Romans 9:17)
"Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy able to destroy soul and body in hell." (Matthew 10:28)

The gospel goes marching on. No Richard Dawkins, Homosexual liberal, Democratic house, or fallen pastor can stop it. Like an imminent sunrise or a charging army the gospel of our our Lord Jesus Christ continues. Let the scientists speculate, Jesus is still Lord over all. Hebrews 2:8-9 says,

"For in subjecting all things to [man] he left nothing that is not subject to him. But now we do not yet see all things subjected to him. But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone"

The glory of God makes all the knowledge of Richard Dawkins look like a child's picture book. It makes all of the information trafficking on the Internet and television look like a half sentence in a library of books. It makes all things everywhere small and insignificant. And for us humans to look at that and say, "I'd rather not believe in you, you are too small" and elevate themselves to a heightened position where they decide what they do in the bedroom and with whom, and where they decide who fights what war, and where they decide their ultimate destiny, is ultimately just noise over a microphone. Never will it stand, never will it succeed. Jesus has won all and will continue to win all.

As He placed Pharaoh He will place democrats in the house, senate, and most likely the presidency. And for what? For His glory! Was Pharaoh a good guy? No! He was a dictator and a terrible person. Did God place Him? YES!

As He has appointed all men and their habitations and boundaries, He is due all respect. No power or principality can steal His glory. No power or principality can stop this gospel. Jesus will prevail and there will be a day when every knee bows and every tongue confesses Jesus is Lord whether they think they rule their eternal destiny or not. And then there will be judgment. Richard Dawkins will answer the Almighty and perish in eternal fire. We must not fear those who can kill the body, our God is far greater. Our Jesus is far greater.

Existing for His glory,
R.D. Thompson

Two New Books

2006-11-09T15:16:00.000-08:00

Picked up two new books in the last 2 days.

Reformed Expository Commentary: Hebrews . Phillips, Richard D. P&R: 2006.
Countering the Claims of Evangelical Feminism. Grudem, Wayne. Multnomah: 2006.

Fresh off the press for both of them. The Hebrews commentary is excellent and I would recommend it to anyone studying Hebrews. Especially preachers. A quick excerpt from his commentary on chapter 2:1-4 of Hebrews,

"We should fear to be separated from the anchor of God's Word, or to have any other hand on the wheel of our lives than the Captain of our salvation, who speaks in the Bible. To drift away is ultimately to invite the judgment God will inflict on those who neglect His saving message in Jesus Christ."

Grudem's book is equally as good. I haven't read any of it (I bought it 10 minutes ago) but this is what some of the men that blurbed it said,

"After the Bible, I cannot imagine a more useful book for finding reliable help in understanding God's will for manhood and womanhood in the church and the home" -John Piper

"This book belongs in the hands of every pastor, seminary student, and thinking layperson" -R. Albert Mohler Jr.

I have come to realize that generalizing when it comes to writing is a pretty solid way to buy books. If Rob Bell or Don Miller blurb a book, I either don't bother or know whats coming. Likewise when John Piper and Al Mohler both blurb on a book, it might be worth picking up. I don't have a very vast knowledge of who is who in this world but I know and trust both of them so it is well worth the money. I'll review both of those as I go along.

For Our Majestic God,
Ryan Thompson

ELF Meeting Recap and Thoughts

2006-11-07T09:26:00.000-08:00

Last evening I attended a meeting of the ELF which is a Tri-States group that meets and listens to fairly famed teachers, authors, and pastors. ELF I found out stands for Evangelical Leadreship Fraternal. It was extremely enjoyable to meet and fellowship with local men. A group from Galena headed by Gary Kirst puts this meeting together and there has been some power packed guys there, among them,

- D.A. Carson (last time)
- Steve Wellum (last night)
- Leland Ryken (next time)

The food was excellent, I sat next to Ken Fleming and we talked for a while. More than the food and more than the fellowship was the glorious message of the gospel relayed to us by Dr. Steve Wellum speaking on the topic "Substitutionary Atonment: A Biblical Teaching Under Fire". Mark Stevenson invited me to come after he saw my response - to what I feel is one of the biggest ordeals in Evangelicalism right now - on this blog.

In short Dr. Wellum produced a well thought summary of the problem and the deeper problems within the problem. First : The Problem,

People are ditching Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA from here forward) all over the place for a variety of reasons. The most prominenet of which are a) A compromise with society, we are a society of "Whatever is good for you is good for you" otherwise known as pluralism. b) Theological Illiteracy, we do what feels good and doctrine just gets lost. Doctrine is not just a "bag of marbles" which is how many people view it today. The church and many people are tending to "tinker with God" and change some things around very cleverly in the doctrines of wrath and sin. Ultimately however the cross is a "test case" for our theology.

Dr. Wellum went on to explain the many problems people have with PSA among them being: a) it makes God an unrighteous violent judge which He expressly says we must not be, b) it is just a "western" theory of things (which is exactly what I was responding to on my blog), c) it makes our salvation a mechanical transaction, d) it makes God unethical. These views are held either in part or in whole depending on who you read and talk to. Men like Joel Greene and Steve Chalke say that a bloody atonement theory is just "cosmic child abuse" and God is just a wrathful devil if we follow this view. Dr. Wellum made an excellent comment when he said, "penal substitution is not just a theory of the atonement...it is that which makes sense of scripture...nothing in the Bible makes sense without it."

From here I had a hard time keeping up in the note taking fashion as I was exhausted and my hand hurt so I only took down quotes and brief ideas but oh they are glorious quotes and ideas. I will be getting the message in full shortly on audia and I will either try to make it available or will directly transpose it for your intellectual delight.

The most important and fresh ways of saying the real problems with having problems with God being wrathful that he said was the idea that God is a judge. Its there in scripture (Duet 32:4, Gen 18:24) and we must not forget it. But God is not like a judge in a way. Or at least like an earthly judge. Because an earthly judge judges based on a law far separated from himself. But when judges based on a law, He is the law. God is His law and when He comes down off of that seat to take the penalty for what the law requires, HE makes the law, HE is the law, and only HE can satisfy the law. And this He does when He kills His only Son and essentially kills Himself for our sakes. This IS the gospel! Ok there will be more later.

For Our Bloodied Savior's Glory
Ryan

New Books and A New Blog Soon

2006-11-06T06:09:00.000-08:00

I bought a few new books yesterday. They are:

A Jonathan Edwards Reader
Becoming Conversant With The Emergent Church - Don Carson
Hymns of Truth and Praise (Also known as "The Black Book")
Evangelical Feminism - Wayne Grudem
Plain ESV Cross Reference Black Letter Bible - God

It was fun to buy books again. The Grudem book is making a stir so I figured I ought to get it and review it. As I read books, probably more during the summer, I will review them on here for your delight and for my memory. The more I read it seems the more I forget so I really need to keep a place for all of this stuff. I hope they are useful for you also.

I will have a new blog after today I am sure becuase I meet with Dave Glock to discuss the book we are reading Four Views on the Atonement ed. Eddy Beilby. Right now we are on the Christus Victor (Christ Our Victor) or Ransom view contributed by Greg Boyd. Its ok I guess, there are definitely some ransom verses in the Bible though I would be inclined to say that we are certainly not captive to Satan as God more or less has a leash on Satan when you read Job. It is good to note that it IS Greg Boyd our friendly neighborhood Open Theist that is writing this one so he levels down in my mind. It would be one thing if he were say, an Arminian and went with this one, I would at least feel like we are at least talking about something similar when I talk to Arminians.

Secondly I will be attending the local ELF (Evangelical L? Foundation) here in Dubuque and there is a speaker coming from Southern Seminary to talk about Substitution. I am sure this will evoke thought and a further blog. If you bother with this blog come back wednesday or thursday and I should have fresh thinking on here.

Sozetha!

Why Penal Substitutionary Atonement Cannot be a Remnant of the Western Legal System

2006-10-29T18:52:00.000-08:00

I recently heard an Emergent leader say that the Penal Substitutionary Atonement view of Christ was an outpouring of the western judicial system. Following him saying that someone asked the question, "Show me a verse or passage in the Bible in support for Penal Substitutionary Atonement". [I made a slight mistake here and after going back and reading what he said I realized that he really was wanting to know, not attacking, however, I also realize that there are many people that may well say there are no texts for Substitution so the rest of ths blog still stands] This is astounding. It is one thing to say that you do not agree with a view, it is entirely another to say that there is absolutely no support for the view, especially the view in question.

Without attacking anyone, without patronizing anyone, and without being guilty of ad hominem in arguing vehemently for the wrath of God I want to defend this wonderful doctrine as outspokenly and biblically as possible.

First please notice that I do say wonderful doctrine. I am in a cultural minority when I say that, because right now it is un-trendy to say that God is wrathful enough and hates sin enough to kill Jesus on our behalf. I really am a wholehearted proponent of this doctrine being equated with the Gospel. It is true and I intend to explain why.

First: What is the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement?
I won't go too deep into answer here. Most of those reading this will know what goes into it. This is how it goes. Man is screwed up and ultimately sinful and deserve to die (depravity but thats a different blog, Rom 3:23, Rom 6:23, Isa. 64:6), God's righteousness must be satisfied and his righteous law must be satisfied so Jesus came and recieved the punishment (penal) we deserved (substitutionary) and satisfied God (atonement) with His blood for us so that we may have his righteousness for our own and be able to stand before God.

This definitely assumes some things. God hates sin being one of them, God will punish sinners being another of them. So without going to far and typing too much I want to place one of my key texts.

Leviticus 17:11
For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.
Leviticus 17:14a
For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life.

This is Old Testament law mind you, but the principle is there. Nothing has changed from Israel's time. We still need blood to atone for us. We still need sacrifice to be atoned for. This is also blatant proof that blood atonement has been a doctrine since well before the western judicial system was ever in practice as Leviticus dates to around 1450 BC which is 800 years before the Greek judicial system even came into practice.

So the second question is then, how will atonement be made for our souls? Will we have to sacrifice an animal on an altar in order to be atoned for? The answer to this question is simply, no. No, because Jesus was that atonement for our souls. How can I prove that? The Bible. Yes friends it certainly does say in the Bible that Jesus was a sacrifice for our sins and that he satisfied God. So where? That is what I intend to prove.

Isaiah 53:4-12
4 Surely our griefs He Himself bore, and our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted. 5 But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed. 6 All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; but the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him. 7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted, yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, and like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, so He did not open His mouth. 8 By oppression and judegment He was taken away; and as for His generation, who considered that He was cut off out of the land of the living for the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due? 9 His grave was assigned with wicked men, yet He was with a rich man in His death, because He had done no violence, nor was there any deciet in His mouth. 10 But the Lord was pleased to crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, and the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand. 11 As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; By his knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, as He will bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore I will allot Him a portion with the great, and He will divide the booty with the strong; Because He poured out Himself to death, and was numbered with the transgressors, yet He Himself bore the sin of many, and interceded for the transgressors.

I do not know how anyone can possibly say that Jesus was not meant in the Leviticus 17 sense to be the atonement on our behalf. Please, please, please, look at the words in verse 10,

"But the Lord was pleased to crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering."

And please see the language in verse 11,

"As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied."

Jesus is the greatest guilt offering ever made and there is this text that says it loudly and clearly. I would further and emphatically like to note that there is loud and clear substitute language here and note the date of Isaiah, that being between 740 and 700 BC. This is again way before the western legal judicial system. I also doubt that Greek influence stretched at all into the Jewish way of life since the Greeks were pretty well taken with their own internal problems and Persia.

Finally for this blog I will note one last text. It isn't the only text and I promise that one day I will write a book that proves that there are far more than "seeds" of Penal Substitute ideas in Pauline Theology.

Romans 5:9-11
9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. 10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. 11 And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now recieved the reconciliation.

This is merely a taste of the Pauline thought of Substitution throughout his writings. I want to ask just a few questions on this one.

1. How are we justified from Romans 5:9?
2. What are we being saved from in 9?
3. Through whom are we saved in 9?
4. Who are we being reconciled to in verse 10?
5. Through what are we being reconciled in 10?
6. What are we doing in verse 11?
7. Is this possible to do without verses 9 and 10?

They are simple answers are they not?

That said I love Jesus. I pray for their sake that those who will talk like this, that is saying there is no mention of Substitution in the Bible or worse that Penal Substitution is simply a remanant of Western legal thinking, will come to realize just how dangerous this type of talking is. I will go so far as to say that you lose Jesus if you lose this doctrine. The Old Testament set of sacrifices become incoherent, Isaiah 53 becomes babble, and Jesus blood becomes what? I really would like to know. What is the point of that whole cross thingie if it wasn't for our hope? He is Lord and He was indeed pierced for our transgressions.

God's Church Needs Desperate Prayer

2006-10-27T11:40:00.000-07:00

Today our friends in the Presbyterians moved to "receive" a paper allowing new spinoffs of how to express "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" saying, "One reason is that language limited to the Father and Son 'has been used to support the idea that God is male and that men are superior to women'" View Here.
Here are some of the alternative ways that they have proposed a rephrase:

Mother, Child and Womb
Rock, Redeemer, Friend
Lover, Beloved, Love
Creator, Savior, Sanctifier
King of Glory, Prince of Peace, Spirit of Love

My personal favorite is the top one...it definitely doesn't make a vast turning of the tables or promote any sort of feminist agenda. Now the thing about this that Christians should have their ears perked to the most is, obviously, the Bible. What does the Bible say about these three? Well you could always turn to Jesus blatant use of Father in John 17,

"Father the hour has come..." (Vs1)
"Now, Father, glorify me..." (Vs5)
"Holy Father, keep them..." (Vs11)
"even as you, Father, are in me..." (Vs21)
"Father, I desire that they also..." (Vs24)
"O righteous Father, although the world..." (Vs25)

Strangely enough note male sonship language is used in the same passage,

"glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you" (Vs1)

Now this is strange that they would blatantly change a 2000 year tradition of not only people calling Jesus, Son, and calling God, Father but Jesus calling God "Father" and God calling Jesus "Son". Especially if it was indeed Jesus the Son of God who was Infinite Eternal Almighty Creator God and who in this passage and many, many, others seems to find it fitting to use the title Father and his own title Son. If Jesus called God, "Father" and even told us to pray, "Our Father..." to God why would some feminists in a fairly respectful denomination find the need to change his name. I would say that it is also interesting to note that the Greek word, "MAY - ter" is never once used of God but the word "PAH - ter" is used some 300 times and yes the Greek does matter but that is Textual Criticism not Trinity Name Change.
What a strange world this is we live in. Indeed, when approaching anyone you don't ever decide, "This person's gender is a threat to me so I will decide that He is really a She." If you walked up to president Bush and said, "Mrs. Bush how good to see you" and he saw that you were quite bent on making sure you thought he was a woman you would probably never meet him again or recieve a very happy anything from anyone. In fact, people would likely call you quite crazy. So lets start calling things what they are instead of changing their names to suit our purposes.
That said, we must pray for the church in America. The day has arrived and the hour is far passed when people started deciding to change a person's name, indeed the creator of the universes name, just because His gender is a threat to them. We must act in love, and it is not loving to let people walk around thinking it is OK or in any way permissable to call God "Mother" and Jesus "Womb". Stand for truth brothers. Stand for truth sisters. Stand for truth church.

Preview of Coming Attractions

2006-10-26T08:18:00.000-07:00

Very soon there will be a full article about Penal Substitutionary Atonement. I read a comment on Tony Jones blog that angrified me somewhat. As someone asked, "Show me a verse, reference, or anywhere in the Bible for Substitutionary Atonement" Tony himself doesn't believe in it and calls it a "western legal system" remnant.

This is obviously misguided and I long for people not to say things like that. So look forward to the next blog answering the question, "Is God Wrathful Enough To Kill Jesus For Us?" To which I will unanimously say, "YOU BET!"

Desiring God NatCon Photos

2006-10-16T15:23:00.000-07:00

Recently I photographed the Desiring God National Conference. It was a sheer privelege and joy to give to this amazing work of God. You can view the images at this link for Desiring God's website. As I said it was a privelege and one that I would repeat a thousand times over. I will soon be placing my own collection of DGM's NatCon images on this blog so come back soon!

Wells and Ryan

2006-10-12T15:22:00.000-07:00

This is David Wells and I. Dr. Wells wrote the book Above All Earthly Pow'rs which is an incredible analysis of Postmodernism and western culture. I encourage you to go get his recent message from the Desiring God National Conference Here.

A brief Exposition of Hebrews 1:1-2

2006-10-12T09:11:00.000-07:00

Hebrews 1:1-2 (NASB)

God after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His son.
I went for a walk as I meditated on this verse carefully thinking through its different parts. I think I am going to give a ten minute sermon on it so I will begin recording my observations and conclusions here.

As I walked some things resounded in my head. First,"God after He spoke" This in itself is wondrous. You have to convince so many people that God even exists but to convince them that He speaks is a whole different step. It is in fact a magnificent miracle that God spoke and that as we shall see God speaks period. When you take texts like "Then God said, 'Let there be light'" (Gen. i vs. iii), and, "Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind and said...'Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?'" (Job 38:1,4) Truly this is a magnificent God. One who speaks and the light of a sun a million times the size of the earth springs into being and shines light in an otherwise lightless existence, who asks us, "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?" So this God has spoken, but while God speaking is breathtaking, it isn't the main point in this passage. This leads us to ask what the word after is talking about so we move on, "Long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways". If God spoke long ago and this was all we had the 21st century man would have the right to ask the question "So what?" but it isn't all we have, however we will leave this question for a following verse. Let us begin this section with an observation. Observation: God spoke in prophets in many portions and in many ways. Question: What does it mean for God to speak in someone? I paced myself around the building of my school asking that question repeatedly. How did God speak in prophets? The first thing that came to my mind was Jonah (followed by Isaiah). Jonah went to Babylon and a) Pronounced judgement and b)Pronounced Solution. Isaiah a)Proclaimed a broken humanity b) Proclaimed a Glorious Sovereign Lord c) Proclaimed a coming solution to to the broken humanity. So essentially God spoke about Himself, about our falleness, and about how on earth that problem would be solved. If you read the Old Testement God was exceeding quick to speak (many times/portions) and spoke through prophets, dreams, catclysmic signs, and even donkeys (many ways). In summation, for God to speak in someone/thing was to reveal our need and His person in the ways that Heb 1:1 says (prophets, many portions, many ways) and He did it often.

Finally we come to "In these last days, has spoken to us in His Son" I mentioned earlier that it would be absolutely right to ask the question "So what?" if Long ago was all we had. This verse resoundingly smashes that question as it begins by speaking about these last days. Now the writer of Hebrews is writing to Hebrews right? And that was 2000 years ago right? So what in the world does last days mean? It means only this, that as the writer of Hebrews writes he has one thing in mind, What God did and what He is doing now. And while last days does have some significance of a catastrophic kind of last days that should be left for a different post. Suffice it to say that of greatest import here is that last days refers to the days we live in now. It is talking to us as the writer refers to a third generation of Christians when he uses the express word us. We are in the last days before Jesus comes back. We are the us he speaks about. This thought alone will prbably merit an offshoot blog but for now should remain unspoken. Last days quite resoundingly makes us see that this is it, this is the "last word" so to speak. God has spoken and that is it. It doesn't say, "In these last days God has spoken to us in His son and in our relative experience as autonomous individuals." It says, "[God] has spoken to us in His son".

So what does this mean to us? I'll tell you what it means to us. It means that there is no more revelation we need than that of Jesus Christ and Him crucified. It means that Jesus is God's final and last word. It means that all of those things spoken in prophets and dreams is gone. Jesus stands brightly at the center of the universe as the last spoken word to us. John Piper says this, "There is a silent rebuke in these words and it says 'Why do you look for other words? Is Jesus not enough?'." How many times I have thought, "Oh if God would just speak to me Himself like He did to Abraham then I would be able to obey." or "If God would just send an angel to tell me what to do then I could do it." The writer of Hebrews speaks with absolute finality when he says, "[God] has spoken to us". Its over! We don't need any more words than Jesus words! We are sinning in looking for God to speak to us in dreams and miracles (though I believe He still does these things), in looking for God to speak again. If we have our faith and hope in Jesus Christ than Our chains haven fallen off and our hearts are free, free to worship God through Jesus His final word.

Sadly questions never cease to come to my skeptics brain. But I will seek to squash these when I write again. The question that blasted through my mind as I walked and later sat with my Bible in solitude meditating on these verses was, "So...why do we listen to the Apostles writings if Jesus was God's final spoken word?" This I will not answer now but suffice it to say that Jesus finality does not destroy the validity of the Bible, it backs it.

Taking my Joy in God's Last Word

Ryan

Me And The Man

2006-10-11T07:04:00.000-07:00

This is a photo of Piper and I. It was glorious to talk to this great man of God. Had to remind myself repeatedly that he is no super star, only a man proclaiming the Gospel.

The Beginning

2006-10-11T06:29:00.000-07:00

So here I am...blogging again. Life has changed dramatically since I last blogged. Once there was a Ryan who slandered and used the internet to speak passionately, but not passionately for Jesus Christ. I was saved then but wrong.

This blog will be used solely for spreading passion about Jesus and especially reformed theology. Occasionally after I have read an exceptionally horrible or heretical book I will absolutely expose it on the internet. I may also address problems I see in cultural mindsets. However, the only agenda here is speak loudly and publicly about the Glory of God and the loving intra-trinitarian relationship with His only son Jesus Christ. There will be many words you may not understand and occasionally I will differ from stands other reformed men may have, HOWEVER, Jesus is Lord and God is Sovereign and by God's grace that will never be strayed from.