The Bad Stuff

I think everyone experiences rough patches and trials in their life. Now, you can mope around about these horrible things that God is inflicting on you. Or you can know that...

A) He is tempering you to get rid of the dross.
B) Disciplining you as a beloved child of God.
C) Allowing you to have a really funny story in 5 years time.

Woooh!

Still Unemployed?!!!

Vacation Log

Tuesday (Arrive in London, England)
Promptly took a nap once arrived into town. The hotel room was tiny. The beds were on wheels. The shower pressure was excellent. After nap, family and I went to the British Museum, where I feasted my eyes on the Rosetta stone. There were also a lot of paintings of Jesus. Following that, we went to dinner in China town. (lol, why are we not having fish and chips?)

Wednesday
Used Big Bus hop-on hop-off tours. (They suck, don't use them. Buses are way too infrequent.)
We went to the Tower of London. This was a fortress at some point or another. There were torture chambers. It was rainy. We also went to Kensington Palace. It was closed by the time we got there. For dinner, we went Italian. (Why not fish and chips!?!)

Thursday
We went to Windsor Castle, which had considerable Jesus stuff. I was very glad I read my reformation history book (see Book Library). We also went back to Kensington Palace... It was not as fun as I would hope. It was really...really...girly. Fish and chips for dinner!

Friday
We found that Notre Dame was too expensive to go in. So we went to St. Margaret's Cathedral instead. St Paul's cathedral was excellent. Very cool artwork. Also if you climb to the peak (500+ stairs), you'll get a lovely view of the city. Also went to the National Gallery, which I think was the highlight of Britain. There I feasted my eyes on treasures such as this and this and this. We went for incredibly expensive Indian food for dinner.

Saturday
Woke up at 4:30 AM thinking it was 7:30 AM. There is so much more daylight in London. Didn't help that none of my family had watches. We went to Bath to see a bathhouse. We also saw Salisbury, there is a church there. It houses a copy of the Magna Carta. Pretty cool stuff. Finally, saw stone henge. Everyone should go see it once in their life. In the evening, we took night pictures with my brother's camera. Spotlights accentuate peculiarities of monuments that one does not capture during the daytime.

Sunday
Chunnel it to Paris. First stop, this incredibly ghetto flea market which I wanted to leave immediately. It was hilarious... my mom was excessive in her vigilance for thieves, all of us wearing our safety belts, safe drinking water...etc. And in this incredibly sketch flea market where the people can't speak a lick of English and gangsters are idling on street corners, she wants to go around in shop.

Struggled a little bit with trying to get a phone card. Manage to call friends! Meet up with friends, and make new ones. We visit Notre Dame and following that have dinner. My parents chinese'd the bill, so my friends ended up ninja'ing Monday's bill. It was cool as they were all Christian and I had some spiritual discussions with some of them. Following that, checked out the Eiffel tower at night. If you go see it at night, make sure to watch it on the hours, as it will light up!

Monday
Through the busy streets of Montmartre and up the many many stairs to Sacre Coeur, a cathedral. Watch out for strange men offering to tie your hands with their friendship bracelet. I declined their offer. We also went to the Lourve. French museums need English signs. The Mona Lisa is definitely over-hyped. Arc De Triomphe & Champ D'elysee for a little while, followed by dinner at Chez Papa. Their Big salad is BIG! It's like meat dumped on two pieces of lettuce.

Tuesday
We went to Dorsey museum, I remembered it being a lot more fun when I visited the first time. It's okay. I brought a book. We saw Napolean's tomb at L'armee Museum. I need to learn more French History....well, history in general. Following that, we went to the Ridon Museum. He was the creator of the Thinker. You should check out his lesser known art, The Gates of Hell. Also went on a boat tour...which I fell asleep on.... and went to the top of the Montparnasse tower... could see all over Paris on that thing.

Wednesday
In the Chateau de Versailles, there is this absolutely stunning garden. I'm not talking some small garden in your backyard. I'm talking Louis XIV's kilometers of gardens. The Grand Chanel would be the perfect spot for a paddle boat + picnic date. My brother and I tried to do some shopping, but there was nothing affordable/eye-catching..with the exception of Uniqlo. Finally, we had a small good bye dinner with the young'ns. (My parents wanted to do their own thing.) Afterwards, we went for some ice cream. (Girls, you have to get Paris ice cream. They'll make it into a flower for you.) Jumping pictures at Notre Dame, followed by good byes.

Thursday
Flight back. Watched The Hurt Locker and read some books. It's amazing what you can get done while on a plane.

Random Thoughts:
- I find that my general knowledge of history embarrassing.
- The world is a big place.
- I need to learn another language.
- More adventures!
- After re-reading this post, incredibly difficult to read... Maybe I should master English first.

London Baby!

So much church history!

This was breathtaking in person.

Updates to follow.

Commentary Answer

In response to my question here. You can find the sermon transcript and the audio here. The quote I will be examining is below. It is his thesis statement of his sermon, so it's not like I am ripping him out of context. His entire sermon is centered around this quote:

"I choose to believe the Bible because it is a reliable collection of historical documents, written by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses. They report supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies, and they claim to be divine rather than human in origin.” - Voddie Baucham

When I first encountered this quote, my spider senses went off. I like Voddie. I remember hearing his series on Marriage and it wasn't half bad. I don't listen to him regularly, but he's playing for the right team. When reading over his sermon, I found myself agreeing with a lot of things in it. It is fantastic that we have eyewitnesses upon eyewitnesses, and supernatural prophecy adding to the internal consistency of the Bible. I think it definitely encourages Christians to hear that sort of stuff.

Let me say that a couple years ago, I would have agreed with this quote. It sounds really good, but hopefully my closer examination will point out some of its flaws. I have two issues which are large enough for me to say that I would disagree with this quote now. The first is the authority of Scripture. The second is the conversion of man. The two issues are intertwined, so I'll try my best to keep them separate.

When we talk about the authority of Scripture, we are talking about where we get our understanding of God from. Sola Scriptura (By Scripture Alone) was one of the reforming calls in the 16th century as the Protestants pulled out of the Roman Catholic church. So when we come to the doctrine of the Scripture and its authority. It's important. We have to be zealous in our defense of Scripture.

2 Tim 3:16 says that "All Scripture is God-breathed" that is that it comes from the very mouth of God. 2 Pet 1:20,21 says that "It was written by men moved by the Holy Spirit". These are the two main verses when talking about the doctrine of Scripture. It says the same thing...the Bible is from God. That is its authority.

What Voddie has stated here is that he "chooses to believe the Bible because it is a collection of historically reliable documents". This has moved the authority from the Bible itself to historical accuracy. This is called an evidential approach to Christianity, popularized by people like Lee Strobel and William Lane Craig. Again, for Christians it is great to hear that the Bible is historically accurate and relevant. But, in terms of our evangelism... it does a great disservice. We don't become Christians by thinking... "hey Christianity is historically accurate, so it's gotta be the way." Let me explain.

Eph 2:8,9 says that faith is a gift from God. Our very response to the gospel call is not even supplied by ourselves. It is from God! 1 cor 2:10-12 talks about the natural man and the spiritual man. The natural man without the Holy Spirit cannot discern the things of God. We need the help of the Holy Spirit. So to say that we "choose to believe in the Bible" is inaccurate. For believers must be born again before they will believe in God (John 3). By that time, although they may not agree with or be obedient to everything that the Bible says, they'll know that it is true.

So what does this mean? As Christians, we presuppose the Bible is true. We don't need to prove anything. We have faith in the Bible's truthfulness, because God has said it is truthful. At this point, you may argue. Hey! Isn't this a circular argument?

The Bible is true, because God says so. God says that He is true and the Bible is true within the Bible.

Yeah, it does sound kind of circular, doesn't it? But, all statements of authority are like that.

"Reason is my ultimate authority, because it seems reasonable for me to say so."
"Logic is my ultimate authority, because it seems like a logical approach."
"I know of no ultimate authority, because nothing seems to fit as an ultimate authority."

If it is the ultimate authority...how can it appeal to something else to prove that it is so? That would just make the other thing the ultimate authority. Side note: So a useful thing to do with non-Christians (especially with evangelism) is to challenge their presuppositions. We know that the Bible is true, and it has an explanation for logic, emotion, human frailty, good, evil, etc. which fits the reality of the world. Can they explain such things without stealing things from our worldview? (ie. Can you prove that rape is wrong without going to the Bible?)

The fact that the Bible is historically accurate is a bonus for the Christian believer. It adds more weight and volume to his belief, but the belief in the Bible has already been grounded on the presupposition that it is true. Even if someone knew nothing about the historical background of the Bible, he could grow solely off the Scriptures. You cannot say the same thing about using historical information.

You can't use an evidential approach, because it doesn't go in line with what Scripture says about conversion. With the evidential approach, there is the presupposition that if a man is presented with enough information, he'll choose Jesus. This is wrong. All of us are sinful and unable to do good without God's help (Rom 8:6-8). God regenerates us and then we believe. (John 3; Ez 36:26,27)

Now, I am not suggesting that evidence supporting the Bible's reliability is unimportant. Nor am I saying that this information doesn't have its place in evangelism. Rather, that this type of stuff is supplementary. It is only helpful for Christians, because non-Christians haven't received the special revelation of Jesus Christ. Non-Christians need to hear the gospel message, for that is what will save them (Rom 10:17).

Helpful resources:
Wayne Grudem's "Systematic Theology"
Joe Boot's "Why I Still Believe"

Reminicising

Preparing for captaining my next season of softball, when I stumbled upon my old team preparation stuff. Revisions of logos, team lists, and spreadsheets for Swiss Army. Good times. Good friends. It's surprising how much things have changed in three short years. I miss those times.

I look forward to what this year will bring. However, my frame of my mind is very different than last time. Not so much winning softball games, more about winning souls to Christ.

And if you permit me one minor outburst which I will repent of later....
"I am the bad ass of Microsoft Excel."

Woooh!

Unemployed!!!!

Psalms

I do not know enough Psalms.

Creation Thoughts

Courtesy of John MacArthur

Genesis and Naturalism: Cognitive Dissonance

You’ve probably heard of dissonance. It’s a term normally employed by musicians to describe disharmony and disagreement between sounds. There is another term called cognitive dissonance used to describe similar discord in the world of ideas and beliefs. Maybe that’s a good way to view the debate about origins in Genesis—cognitive dissonance.

The creation account in Genesis 1-3 demands to be taken at face value. Nothing about the text itself suggests it contains anything other than a faithful, literal, historical account of how God spoke the universe into existence—from nothing. That kind of literal hermeneutical approach to Genesis exposes all symbolic, poetic, allegorical, and mythical interpretations for what they really are, foreign ideas forced upon the text—but not without a cost, as discussed below. No honest handling of the biblical text can reconcile these chapters in Genesis with the theory of evolution or any of the other “scientific” theories about origins. The main thrust of the passage simply cannot be reconciled with the idea of naturalism.

Before we begin the discussion, here’s what John had to say about Genesis and naturalism in his book, Battle for the Beginning:

As humanity progresses through the twenty-first century, a frightening prospect looms. The church seems to be losing the will to defend what Scripture teaches about human origins. Many in the church are too intimidated or too embarrassed to affirm the literal truth of the biblical account of creation. They are confused by a chorus of authoritative-sounding voices who insist that it is possible—and even pragmatically necessary—to reconcile Scripture with the latest theories of the naturalists.

Of course, theological liberals have long espoused theistic evolution. They have never been reluctant to deny the literal truth of Scripture on any issue. But this trend is different, comprising evangelicals who contend that it is possible to harmonize Genesis 1-3 with the theories of modern naturalism without doing violence to any essential doctrine of Christianity. They affirm evangelical statements of faith. They teach in evangelical institutions. They insist they believe the Bible is inerrant and authoritative. But they are willing to reinterpret Genesis to accommodate evolutionary theory. They express shock and surprise that anyone would question their approach to Scripture. And they sometimes employ the same sort of ridicule and intimidation religious liberals and atheistic skeptics have always leveled against believers: "You don't seriously think the universe is less than a billion years old, do you?"

The result is that over the past couple of decades, large numbers of evangelicals have shown a surprising willingness to take a completely non-evangelical approach to interpreting the early chapters of Genesis. More and more are embracing the view known as "old-earth creationism," which blends some of the principles of biblical creationism with naturalistic and evolutionary theories, seeking to reconcile two opposing world-views. And in order to accomplish this, old-earth creationists end up explaining away rather than honestly exegeting the biblical creation account.

A handful of scientists who profess Christianity are among those who have led the way in this revisionism—most of them lacking any skill whatsoever in biblical interpretation. But they are setting forth a major reinterpretation of Genesis 1-3 designed specifically to accommodate the current trends of naturalist theory. In their view, the six days of creation in Genesis 1 are long ages, the chronological order of creation is flexible, and most of the details about creation given in Scripture can be written off as poetic or symbolic figures of speech.

Many who should know better—pastors and Christian leaders who defend the faith against false teachings all the time—have been tempted to give up the battle for the opening chapters of Genesis. An evangelical pastor recently approached me after I preached. He was confused and intimidated by several books he had read—all written by ostensibly evangelical authors—yet all arguing that the earth is billions of years old. These authors treat most of the evolutionists' theories as indisputable scientific fact. And in some cases they wield scientific or academic credentials that intimidate readers into thinking their views are the result of superior expertise, rather than naturalistic presuppositions they have brought to the biblical text. This pastor asked if I believed it possible that the first three chapters of Genesis might really be just a series of literary devices—a poetic saga giving the "spiritual" meaning of what actually occurred through billions of years of evolution.

I answered unapologetically: No, I do not. I am convinced that Genesis 1-3 ought to be taken at face value—as the divinely revealed history of creation. Nothing about the Genesis text itself suggests that the biblical creation account is merely symbolic, poetic, allegorical, or mythical. The main thrust of the passage simply cannot be reconciled with the notion that "creation" occurred via natural evolutionary processes over long periods of time. And I don't believe a faithful handling of the biblical text, by any acceptable principles of hermeneutics, can possibly reconcile these chapters with the theory of evolution or any of the other allegedly scientific theories about the origin of the universe.

Furthermore, much like the philosophical and moral chaos that results from naturalism, all sorts of theological mischief ensues when we reject or compromise the literal truth of the biblical account of creation and the fall of Adam.

I realize, of course, that some old-earth creationists do hold to the literal creation of Adam and affirm that Adam was a historical figure. But their decision to accept the creation of Adam as literal involves an arbitrary hermeneutical shift at Genesis 1:26-27 and then again at Genesis 2:7. If everything around these verses is handled allegorically or symbolically, it is unjustifiable to take those verses in a literal and historical sense. Therefore, the old-earth creationists' method of interpreting the Genesis text actually undermines the historicity of Adam. Having already decided to treat the creation account itself as myth or allegory, they have no grounds to insist (suddenly and arbitrarily, it seems) that the creation of Adam is literal history. Their belief in a historical Adam is simply inconsistent with their own exegesis of the rest of the text.

But it is a necessary inconsistency if one is to affirm an old earth and remain evangelical. Because if Adam was not the literal ancestor of the entire human race, then the Bible's explanation of how sin entered the world is impossible to make sense of. Moreover, if we didn't fall in Adam, we cannot be redeemed in Christ, because Christ's position as the Head of the redeemed race exactly parallels Adam's position as the head of the fallen race: "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive" (1 Corinthians 15:22). "Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous" (Romans 5:18-19). "And so it is written, 'The first man Adam became a living being.' The last Adam became a life-giving spirit" (1 Corinthians 15:45; cf. 1 Timothy 2:13-14; Jude 14).

So in an important sense, everything Scripture says about our salvation through Jesus Christ hinges on the literal truth of what Genesis 1-3 teaches about Adam's creation and fall. There is no more pivotal passage of Scripture.

What "old-earth creationists" (including, to a large degree, even the evangelical ones) are doing with Genesis 1-3 is precisely what religious liberals have always done with all of Scripture—spiritualizing and reinterpreting the text allegorically to make it mean what they want it to mean. It is a dangerous way to handle Scripture. And it involves a perilous and unnecessary capitulation to the religious presuppositions of naturalism—not to mention a serious dishonor to God.

Evangelicals who accept an old-earth interpretation of Genesis have embraced a hermeneutic that is hostile to a high view of Scripture. They are bringing to the opening chapters of Scripture a method of biblical interpretation that has built-in anti-evangelical presuppositions. Those who adopt this approach have already embarked on a process that invariably overthrows faith. Churches and colleges that embrace this view will not remain evangelical long.

Here’s the point: when we reject a literal hermeneutic of the creation account in Genesis, all kinds of theological mischief follows. With that thought in mind, discuss the ramifications of holding a naturalistic interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 as it relates to interpreting and applying the rest of Scripture. Remember, a naturalist is one who assumes the complete absence of supernatural and miraculous activity. Enjoy the thread!

To Minister

From the resurgence blogs...

Martin Luther, the 16th-century church reformer and theologian who helped spark the Protestant Reformation, listed eight qualities that a minister must have:

• Able to teach systematically
• Eloquence
• A good voice
• A good memory
• Knows how to make an end
• Sure of his doctrine
• Willing to venture body and blood, wealth and honor in the work
• Suffers himself to be mocked and jeered by everyone

John Newton, the 18th-century Anglican clergyman and writer of the famous hymn “Amazing Grace,” noted three indications of a call. First, a call to ministry is accompanied by “a warm and earnest desire to be employed in this service.” Second, a call to ministry is accompanied by “some competent sufficiency as to gifts, knowledge, and utterance.” And third, a call to ministry is accompanied by “a correspondent opening in Providence, by a gradual train of circumstances pointing out the means, the time, the place, of actually entering upon the work.”

George Whitefield, the 18th-century evangelist, gives this advice for those considering a call: “Ask yourselves again and again whether you would preach for Christ if you were sure to lay down your life for so doing? If you fear the displeasure of a man for doing your duty now, assure yourselves you are not yet thus minded.”

Charles Hodge, the 19th-century Reformed theologian, distinguished between intellectual qualifications, spiritual qualifications, and bodily qualifications, all of which must be present in a genuine call.

Robert L. Dabney, another 19th-century Presbyterian theologian, lists these qualifications:

• A healthy and hearty piety
• A fair reputation for holiness of life
• A respectable force of character
• Some Christian experience
• An aptness to teach