A Guy's Blog

Here I am.

2012-02-11T21:17:00.000-08:00

If they were watered...

2012-02-10T22:37:00.000-08:00

Rick Warren twits,

Twitter / Rick Warren: Stop expecting someone else to take responsibility for your growth."

Maybe if the so-called pastors actually preached the word, not about the word, not the word adorning their ideas, not the word in bits useful to their visions, not the word + their ideas, not the word + spices like adulterated wine, and not the word merely in hopes of growing numbers, but feeding sheep, then maybe, maybe the sheep would grow rather than wither and die in malnourishment and poisoning, trampled underfoot by the mobs brought in without a white gown and christened and assured falsely because of which the word of God is blasphemed while they mistake it for persecution for Christ's sake, and maybe then we could say that one plants, and the other waters, and of course then they would grow, that is, those who are sheep, while the numbers would shrink, with the false brethren being driven away by the stench of death which is the breath of life to all those being saved by God's intention.

And Hallelujah if it was unlike your teaching, trying to keep people from going out the back door when they do for all the right reasons, whether because they are not of His fold, or not regenerate yet, or because the preacher is a hireling, and not His undershepherd, no matter how influential, loved or interesting to the world, shocking, or massively followed, and they were driven out the front door, so that congregations of the dead--that were never alive, can be left that way, those given to Christ would be driven out to leave the dead to bury the dead; live Churches could be purged, whether by driving the false who blot their worship out, or converting them to new creatures, removing the stain, or even getting them who are genuine s voted out along with the true shepherds (perhaps in the name of discipline, and unity, and keeping peace "fort Christ"!) so they no longer need fret and morn in confusion at the disobedience that now passes for the way, or liberty, or Christian, and give thanks to God, and expose the counterfeits.

Maybe you haven't heard, but pastors are responsible for their flocks, and if not for growth, then they are, as was mentioned, for the things prerequisite to it.

Frankly, to the Warrenses of the world, someone else is responsible for the growth, whereas the sheep do nothing but hear Christ's voice, and word--the Father's, and follow, and abide, and that someone, is, GOD.

Dialogues & Conversations

2012-02-10T22:20:00.000-08:00

The following are interesting projects and sites, and not necessarily religious or irreligious. Links thereto is in no way intended to endorse or imply endorsement, agreement, or approbation thereof.

The Good Men Project (Will for the moment avoid commenting on the assumptions underlying the name and project.)

Time of original publication is set back by twenty minutes to make fall below another post of that day.

On fashion...

2012-02-04T11:14:00.001-08:00

My aunt and I are agreed: looks like a blanket with sleeves. I suppose inspiration is taken from the transition between togas and shirts. She disapproves, I'm undecided.

(pic to be reoriented later at a real computer with complete software functionality: would that KDE or Gnome ran on Android)

Changelog

2012-02-03T16:45:00.000-08:00

2012/02/03 - Added "On the Mortification of Sin in Believers" by John Owen to "Sheepfood".

Strange Resonance: Uppity Reformed vs. Gospel, and Jesuits vs. Franciscans

2012-02-02T20:36:00.000-08:00

I have this weakness for comparisons, especially when evoked unexpectedly by one thing or another that does not seem comparable, but something about the materials juxtaposed resonate:

Tuesday, 20 July 2010
Social class or the Gospel: pick only one (part 1)...

(Tim: This article originally appeared in ClearNote Fellowship's newsletter. If you'd like to be added to our mailing list, please send us an e-mail.)

Each time we sat under the ministry of our much-loved Iain Murray at the old Banner of Truth conferences, the Bayly brothers could predict at some point during the Q & A sessions Murray would strike a plaintive note, asking, “Why is there no evangelism in Reformed churches?” After a while, we realized it wasn’t a question, but a lament.

No one ever suggested he was wrong. The question brought on a guilty silence.

But if Reformed congregations don’t have new births, why aren’t our churches dying? Some pollsters even say the Reformed slice of the conservative Christian pie is growing. Doesn’t this prove Reformed men have changed their priorities and are giving themselves to evangelism--that we're all missional, today?

Sadly not. Our converts have simply moved up the social register. To keep our pews filled, we depend upon men and women raised in Christian homes getting their graduate degree and trading in their parents’ Arminian church for a more respectable Reformed congregation...

The Wesleyan or Southern Baptist moves up to Presbyterian. And there in his new Presbyterian church, our convert finds the accoutrements of his new social class wonderfully reassuring. It’s the church’s zip code, the minister’s Genevan gown or collar, the frequent repetition of those peaceful words ‘providence’ and ‘sovereignty,’ the high priority placed on the education of the congregation’s Covenant children, the preacher’s thoughtful message and splendid vocabulary, and of course the high classical style of music.

There's a quote I'm fond of that does a good job of summarizing that genre of books and articles that argues these matters of taste aren't taste at all, but doctrinal orthodoxy: "All an Englishman's preferences are a matter of principle." The quote is best pulled off with a fist hitting the table to emphasize that word 'principle.'

So are there any preferences in Reformed preaching and worship, or is it all principle?

Thinking class-wise, Reformed church culture is easily understood through the lens of the aversion to risk characteristic of the upper-middle class. Our converts don’t take pride in the foolishness of the Cross so much as the wisdom of Calvin and their senior pastor’s earned doctorate from somewhere across the pond.

But this is to flip on its head the focus of the Reformers who, recalling the Apostles were “uneducated and untrained men” (But this is to flip on its head the focus of the Reformers who, recalling the Apostles were “uneducated and untrained men” (Acts 4:13), boldly returned the text of Scripture and the liturgy of worship to the vernacular—what was then called “the vulgar tongue.”--retrieved 2012/02/02 from http://www.baylyblog.com/2010/07/tim-each-time-we-sat-under-the-ministry-of-our-much-loved-iain-murray-at-a-banner-of-truth-conference-the-bayly-brothers-c.html

cf. the following, which also speaks of preferences of where minds, eyes, and hands are present or employed

The Jesuits had sought to carry out their missionary activities within the framework of Japanese society and social values. They associated primarily with the upper classes, with a view to working their way down. The Franciscans were suspicious of the Jesuit approach. They were much less well informed concerning conditions in Japan and also much less discreet in their work.^[1] Instead of associating with the samurai, the Franciscans worked among the poor and forgotten, the sick and miserable, those at the very bottom of society. The Jesuits did not diguise their contempt for the ignorance and poverty of the Franciscans, the "crazy friars" (frailes idiotas) as they called them, and these sentiments were heartily reciprocated by the friars, who scoffed at Jesuit pretensions. -- p.137, "A Brief History of Japanese Civilization" by Conrad Schirokauer, (C)1993 Harcourt, Inc.

--

¹Betrays the author's views on approaches. Material preceding explains the delicate political arrangements and balance of power in Japan with great instability and how the Jesuits, wanting to ensure access to their market, and aware that other foreign religions (e.g. Buddhism) were disfavored/persecuted/outlawed, sought to make themselves gratae by ingratiation with the higher classes, in a sort of religious trickle-down theory by which they could both introduce and encourage a foreign faith but do so without opposition or being banned.

Experimental Faith: Analogies from Alzheimer's

2012-02-01T22:41:00.000-08:00

[The original idea was something of a little journal entry, the sort I put in text files rather than to paper. So please forgive the rough writing, especially features like pronomial "such" and suches, chains of thought, and whatever other features or hard-to-read narrative that was not originally meant for an audience, but as personal reflection; some adjustments were made to my file after initially writing for reading by others, but not really in attempt to ease things. I just thought my experiences might benefit or encourage some other Christian out there, some day, if put online, where it becomes available for any who might search: I have benefited so much from material others have put online that I thought I might also share something. I apologize for its roughness; more benefit might be possible if it were integrated with more explicit statements or names of theological doctrines, Christian teachings, and so on, but then I might have a book rather than overlong blog entry; maybe some day I will heavily edit this and expand on the experience with more explicit benefit to fellow Christians in mind, but before so doing I think I would ask for heavy investigation and checking by sound pastors of the material. I leave searching the Scriptures, therefore, as a layman, and husband to no one, to the reader or readers.]

I have meant to begin setting to record anologies to Christian religion with the experience here with my great aunt, but have been occupied with other matters.

She is reduced somewhat by Alzheimer's, though sometimes imperceptibly to any who do not company long with her. In a respect therefore, she could be likened to fleshly but ordinary man, seemingly living, going about his daily affairs and pursuing his own ends without really being a nuisance or harm to anybody. She is, however, utterly dependent on outside oversight and intervention to last long, to not starve to death, or starve her animals, whether by forgetting where food is, or continuously feeding them until food runs out, or by re-mixing old food into the new, such that the only choices to the animals are either starve or eat the poison: betwixt them I found they will first choose starvation than consume the concoctions she would produce: would that sinful man and Christians could discern unmixed from mixed teaching, ~~that~~what is true from perverted truth, just as the cats detect soiled meat. She herself, before my arrival, may have been eating, in the rare event she fed herself, spoiled food, and unaware: I found bags and bags of it, and on occasion she does suddenly and uncharacteristically begin making herself something, yet when she does I must go check and ensure it is not some morsel of spoilage that I overlooked or which was hidden so I was unaware--sometimes it is. It is a bitter experience because of recognizing, in the past, suddenly all that I had held dear and participated in with others, to be largely spoiled and deceiving, and harmful not only to myself, and to relationship with God, but to others I had held it all with, and to theirs. I have tried saying so to some of them, and some are willing, when I have time, to sit down and hear; others have in the past become offended or renounced discernment of the type or things being criticized; others have not responded to pleas and outreach, or for one reason or another, will no longer communicate.

The situation here can be likened to the spiritual dynamic between the preacher of life and the dead hearer. Despite her utter dependence, incompetence, and inability, she does not know otherwise, and when in any wise she should momentarily perceive other she burgeons with pride and protests that another should be doing something for her, 'treating her like an idiot', "like I'm stupid", "an invalid", and so forth, though no one is being other than gracious, loving, and so forth, (with occasional lost tempers gone with patience within the family that are quickly apologized for and solaced with hugs); tell her that she is indeed "losing some (a gracious understatement) memory" and she becomes irritated if not angry that she is 'being accused of being an imbecile' (or an idiot, or stupid, etc.). Likewise, the dead hearer of the good news, commanded to faith and repentance---obedience unto God turning from sin in sorrow or grief at his wickedness finally understood and repented of, not merely for the potential fiery consequences or the losses incurred in consequence of sin over a lifetime, but for truly despising hating sin as evil and fearful of losing the only good, who is God, because of it, and sorry for the hurt caused Him, not a turning unto Him for the benefits of a moral and nobler life, or any other thing but these--is not willful to believe and understand contrary his wicked nature and protests in anger, resentment, or mockery the word preached, unless God drags him unto Christ. Her condition is analogous to this, though on the physical level, as her degredation mixed with personal pride prevents her from accepting the truth of her condition like the nature of wicked or depraved man directs his will to reject the word of God.

Those with Alzheimer's are often found in a state of childishness--some outright, I have read, bluntly state things like "we all know people with this condition become children" (a forum for caregivers and families of people so afflicted)--or become like children, not so much in that significance mistakenly attached in the romantic and idealic modernity in which we live, that is of innocence, but as before, childishness: immaturity and increasing (rather than, as is the ideal for children who are growing physically but also mentally, decreasing) difficulty in understanding sound words given them, whether in counsel, or merely a truth to correct a misunderstanding, like this fact, "the cats are not hungry but have been fed four times already, once just ten minutes ago, by you". The situation can be likened to the spiritual dynamic between the genuine shepherd of Jesus Christ and the ignorant and proud sheep. Despite her loss of competence and ability, she is unaware that there is someone of greater insight and understanding, knowing things she does not, right beside her, and telling her out of love, not to deceive, defraud, or enslave her, but for her own good and preservation, and protection both from herself and from others (she would have had nearly new windows all replaced by now, responded to countless scam letters, etc.). She thinks otherwise, however, and lashes out.[1]

The same sort of scenario can also be considered like unto when deceived Christians, or those deluded to think they are Christians but who have accepted some other doctrine than Christ's which is a counterfeit of that genuine, are told of concern and for love of the truth that they evince the signs of ingenuineness and need a talking to, or to hear and repent, or at the very least carefully scrutinize themselves, and if they still bear those marks, receive sound instruction and counsel to come unto repentance, a situation not rare, I'm afraid, in our day though it has probably never been, albeit probably worse in our day than ever with the mass mediatizing of gospels and christs and fads and programs and church brands and cults and heretical denominations and associations and movements and exploded and unprecedent population in the world.[2]

The analogy is more fitting to sinful man than the ordinary child on the one hand in this, that she is still in full possession and recognition that she is not a child, but a woman who has lived a remarkable if not extraordinary life; an extended one, with much of which she might boast if given opportunity. On the other, to the immature Christian in need of discipline and oversight, because exactly those things she does require; or to the willfully ignorant and rebellious, or deluded, though inexactly, because she is now ignorant, and it will only increase (most likely), in becoming rebellious, and is deluded, sadly, because of her condition and the pride remaining in her heart.

Which leads to another consideration. I have heard my entire life that we ought know ourselves, and I agree: I agree to the extent I am permitted to warn people that such is possible only in the light of knowing God, and with greater precision, of knowing the biblical Christ who is God and man, but not sinful, fallen man, but rather what man ought to be; not ethical hippy Jesus, but sinless, irreproachable, unsearchably perfect and otherwise Jesus. The Jesus his own disciples could hardly come to grips with until after His death, resurrection, and subsequent explanation of the Scriptures to them after all those things shattered their own hopes and expectations for what Messiah should be or do in the world when first come. Insofar as it is preached we ought know ourselves to love ourselves, assert ourselves, realize ourselves, be independent, and so forth, I disagree.

I disagree for it is a spirit of pride which I have for a while, though I cannot quite remember as of writing when I started, seen as contrary to the poorness of Spirit characteristic of the righteous, also the mark of a true Christian in Jesus, not mere humility or brokeness, as many are humiliated or broken in this world, but in which their eyes are really set on the true God and not some vain imagining concocted to make the one whose name is I AM acceptable to themselves, to be believable so they may obtain salvation, or make a better more humanitarian and moral world, within reach of their own hope. Such knowing of the self is not knowing either of God or man as one ought to know, and probably the mark of unbelief irregardless whether a man professes to know Him.

I disagree even more strongly now that a woman who has known herself so well and so thoroughly for so long, vindicates herself tirelessly from "accusation" of "being an imbecile" when just told "sometimes you really do put the fannie pack in places other than where you are used to fetching it, because of forgetting, but don't worry, we'll help you find it" with "I DO NOT. I SHOULD KNOW. I KNOW MYSELF!!!" Or the same with regards cats already being fed, "THEY HAVE NOT. I HAVE BEEN FEEDING THEM FOR YEARS..." and whatever other situation one might encounter with her, and try to be truthful, sincere, and loving in explanation.

In dealing with someone like this, (besides some other deep losses of opportunities and openings foregone for belief and obedience in life), one also gains a greater sense and understanding of how costly selflessness can be, and what it really means: there is not much relationship here, what you do for someone today will likely not be remembered tomorrow, if five minutes later. Give a book or make a purchase of something she likes, takes a liking to, sets her sights upon, and in which for a moment she has a little joy, or when she comes upon it later, she might have joy again? Expect not to be remembered. Expect only, as the one who is near, to be the object of accusation and consternation; the one "hiding" or "hoarding" and therefore "preventing me from feeding my cats [read, babies]"; the one "stealing", or "taking jokes of hiding too far", "my fannie pack"; the one who "took my house and car keys" (though she has just lost them, or doesn't recognize them when held in her hand with her eyes looking right at them), and on an on...because I am here.

In part it is a brutal and tiresome lesson. Altogether, however, is a little bit of insight, from experience gained such that it becomes intuitive and known closely at heart, understood sensitively rather than just sterily in mind, by these analogies into some of what Scripture is talking about; some of what must be the relation and similar misunderstandings, and ignorant foolishness of man toward God who is a loving benefactor and kind keeper of His special possession. Biblical themes are constantly in front of my eyes as I interact with my aunt, deign to even silly demands, try to explain as she accuses but in vain, begin to do all I can for her help even as she yells "I never put my fannie there, I know it's not there" as I search to find it, or whatever, for her; withhold things like cat food so she does not bring them harm from overfeeding in the stead of caring for her beloved pets.

One of the analogies possible is of Jesus' command not to store up treasures on earth, or seek reward or recognition here (for which I had to do some thinking about whether or not to post this online, and consider out of what motives I do); I mentioned how one can expect to have no recognition, and not be remembered for anything done by her. There is, in fact, little relationship: there is to be sure something--once while leaving her with my grandmother for errands (who is nearby in town, very good since I am required at the moment to seek employment and must be able to take it at the moment any is offered by an employer) she became quite consternated that I was leaving: she cried, "who is going to take me out or home?!" It was as though she was about to be left alone, even with two other people right beside her--even if yesterday and the months before have all gone, and my name, somehow she recognizes dependence in some things, some times, if not for understanding incapability, at least because of legal necessity--there are days with rants about her keys and license being unjustly taken away, and without examination of her by specialists, though nones of these assertions is true, but simply put, she has forgotten it all.

Most importantly, I recognize how I am not God, or rather, how very separate from and other than God mere man is. I have lost a lot because of coming here to help; losing even more opportunity, but am pursuing obedience to love as Christ loves: she is a widow and needy; she would be dead by now if not for the intervention. I am, however, tired. I can lose my temper and have to walk away so as not to sin. I am unable to convince her most of the time of anything, because her condition prevents it. My love is imperfect, as is any man's, such that I have continuously to fight selfishness, or remind myself that even other, important things that I want or have to do, might have to be put on hold as she is here and needs me right now. I am overall powerless to do much more than making sure she has food for the belly, ensure she takes her medication, washes stitches, gets her house cleaned some, has and does not overfeed or mis-feed the cats, gets taken to socials or groups or events she likes, or ferried to stores she might wish to tread; it is impossible for me to heal or do much about her condition; anything one might do, perhaps getting someone like this to become very active for the neural benefits it bequeaths, requires her cooperation; I need help in all this, have to rely and call on family, and still need more assistance all the time; it is very lonely. God, on the other hand, does not grow weary, even though He rested; He does not tire or ever fail in perfect love, (love being the doing, and working all things towards, the good of the objects of His love); He does not require the hand of any man, nor takes any counsel from him; He does not need man's cooperation in anything, though He might choose to use men either against their wills or to use men in whom He has authored faith and grown obedience such that by the indwelling Spirit of Jesus Christ they cooperate with Him.

A rough, untitled poem

2012-01-30T20:20:00.000-08:00

It's not that I need something better than this
but what's right in the first place for my twist
of the truth in my heart to make it accomodate
all of the passions and affections to be sated
in the darkness of elation with what is hated
by the God Most High in all His Holiness, wonder
at the state of man who betrays with a kiss, not
bowing down in horror and reverence in confrontation
whence he ought to be convicted and sorrow in regret
not at what he has lost or what he might lose,
or what he might gain here, but that he does not choose
what is good in the sight of the one who is Truth
the hard road promised by He whom it behooved¹, to show
utter love out of goodness with mercies in grace
unto those Him rejected and nailed to that stake.

¹"taking up (for oneself)."

at the state of the man who doesn't kiss his feet

when he ought to be convicted and sorrow in regret

the hard road promised by He whom it behooved to show

A Modest Proposal

2012-01-21T13:56:00.000-08:00

Anyone who titles an essay with "A Modest Proposal" in part or whole and proceeds in attempt to persuade men with seriousness of reason shows an indubitable fault in literary education.

A Perspective on Education

2012-01-20T21:47:00.000-08:00

Perspective: Self-study often means poverty and lack of good pressures and oversight. It also means no need to please other men in your conclusions, however. For formal education is conformity, and education that is not formal, is not worth paying for; that which is not structured and rigorous, can be accomplished without the oversight from authorities worth paying. Education has always been a field of standards, and not infrequently standards that have little to do with things like truth, and more concern for politics, marketability, prestige, and accolades. I think it no surprise that Socrates taught open-air, and instilled anosognosia by asking many questions, rather than demanding students claim to know; I think it not good necessarily that any should deny the utility or even goodness of knowing something, for even Socrates, we can see, in his want sought to know. It is the false claimants to knowing that are the problem; we note that politics and education, or the politicians, and the democracy, in this very earliest of cases, do not mix well with knowing, or with truth, or rather, with the exhibition of their lacking knowing: they sentenced one who simply exposed the truth of their deficiency of knowing, exposing their vacuity, to death.

Happy Holidays

2011-12-24T08:36:00.000-08:00

By e-mail is sent me a link to Youtube, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln01p1M2cH0

Given that Christmas was established around this time to suit the interests of the empire, to coincide pagan hollidays, not to actually coincide with the birth of Jesus, though it does celebrate that, and given that when I have to consider what is worse, commercialization of a season of holidays, or commercialization of Jesus himself, the holy, incarnate God, son of God, and Messiah, who lives, tell me, is it really that bad for them to say "Happy Holidays", or for stores not to include pics and adulation of baby Jesus?

Whether some huffy folks like it or not, nowadays other pagan holidays, just as in ancient pagan times, are celebrated this time of year, only without the unseemingly acts that marred some of them back then: it just isn't surprising that non-Christians would come up with their own holidays when millions of others make this a festive time because of Jesus, and being a Christian, it (that non-Christians exist) does not offend me. Merry Christmas to all, and happy holidays too.

Reasons not to Read

2011-11-02T18:18:00.000-07:00

If you are a reader, it is hard not to have the time for it. I ~~spent~~ have expended years on buses with long hours at work, which ~~occupies time~~ quite effectively dominates one's time, and ~~at the end of the day, came~~ have come to understand why millions of boobs consider themselves too exhausted to do nought but watch the boob tube. (If you're wondering why I didn't read on the bus, try them some time: bumpy, liable to miss a stop if not paying attention, and if one dependent on them, you're liable to be sleeping on them as much as you're able. That's another consideration: you're less liable to miss a stop sleeping, which can be established as a very regular routine in which you wake at the right moments, than becoming absorbed in an activity like reading.)

~~I find it funny, however, that millions have eight to ten hours at work and thirty to sixty minutes to drive;~~ It's still "funny" to me, however, that millions have, at the least semi-, regular hours--between eight and ten at work, and from thirty to sixty minutes drive time--yet profess that they are stretched to the limit between keeping up with activities necessary to life at home, and those of the workplace. I was spending anywhere from twelve to twenty hours out, with several more for cooking and hygiene in, and hopefully--maybe-- sleep, when I considered myself so exhausted that I could honestly profess inability to do much beyond the basic essentials for living, tasks necessarily done for the job at home, and working on the job itself. Those days I got off early, I spent recouping for all those whose hours were so long that they were hazards to the health, and doing errands. Life was an endless series of labors, mostly just to maintain a job: it is still, in fact, but for a certain reason, I think will get easier. Physical labor is hard, but it's deadly without adequate rest. In it all I have even added aiding a great aunt with Alzeimer's to the mix, for which I have admittedly come close to losing my job (having moved so far from work before acquiring an auto, leaving little room for tiny, but consequential, unexpected issues to crop-up. Four hours of sleep also became one and a half to three, with four being best case scenarios).

The reason I think things will get easier, however, is that now I do have an auto. And now that I have an auto, I plan to get more sleep, so as to no longer burn so much of the candle, and from there to increase performance at work, because I have time to heal. After some period of recuperation, to begin reading again--heavily; not simply for information; nor, as Mortimer J. Adler would put it, simply for understanding; both are important; also, however, for productive ends--to learn practical things; nevertheless, I really desire to engage in reading for the first couple purposes, mostly the second. All that said, I was thinking of reasons that one might not read.

Reasons that one might not read:

1. As already mentioned, being too exhausted. I think I have studied Latin on the bus now for over a year, and I am only five chapters into a tiny little book, part 1 of three, I think, of the Oxford course. I purchased this book for a class at university from which I dropped out due to family issues requiring my leaving. The course was intensive, years ago (so I have forgotten most of what I studied only once in that class), and probably proceeded through five chapters in the first couple days. If you have ever been in a situation that you are so squeezed by circumstances that you hardly sleep, you probably know how it is to find oneself unable to form durable, long-term memories, at least for information unrelated to your immediate practical concerns (and even those might be insufficient to force the neurons to store anything).

2. Insufficient time. Fairly self-explanatory. I read plenty for amusement, even stuff I really wanted to remember and recall, also already explained. But this also includes expansion on what has been said: one might not merely be needy and pressed between difficult circumstances, but could be quite well off, yet required to fulfill other duties or responsibilities which demand one's attentions; in other words, "one has better things to do"; in the case of being needy, "one has more pressing demands".

3. To visit old matter after resting old opinions or recollections. I once was part of a religious organization that turned out to be abusive, and commonly heard from former members that they had trouble reading the Bible, something--to put in a very simplified way--they believed to be true (or in a more complex manner that can be orthodox coming from some, or meant to conceal unorthodoxy from the mouths of others, believed to contain truth). Partly from the way it would evoke bad old memories related to horrible teachings built upon wresting the Bible, merely trying to read their holy book was itself another bad experience, and evocative of experiences they did not want to re-live. Advice from folks experienced in helping such folks out included i. putting it down a while and perhaps allowing all that material to receded from immediate importance and memory, and ii. reading other translations less similar to the ones they knew from involvement in that organization.

Besides avoiding recall of traumatic experiences and episodes in life, one might stop for a while to put aside current opinions and prejudices and revisit once wiser (or maybe not), more open-minded or less prejudiced; or there, to bring a more skillful discipline of reading, involving those other reasons, to bear on a text. E.g. one who reads proverbs without much experience in life, may not benefit too greatly. Similarly, someone who reads a work on epistemology can probably benefit greatly from becoming familiarized with the subjects involved in that work. Any kind of philosophical work is due familiarity with its allusions and assumptions; social commentary, with the phenomena involved, or which its author assumes to be rightly understood in a certain way, or that his audience probably understands in a certain way, and therefore does not explain to the uninitiated, requires one to recognize those assumptions. Also, prejudices, that is, understanding something in a certain way before engaging it, though usually present, and although those who recognize their presence, and who are decent readers will work hard to "suspend belief" (so to speak), and step into the understanding of the writer bit by bit so as to read for to conceive of the real meaning of the text, and not for misconception, can have powerful influence upon understanding despite efforts and abilities, so removing from mind and attention those things which evoke them can cause their diminishment so as to engage a topic more freshly to achieve that goal of understanding in different dimensions, or from a ~~new~~ perspective new to the reader. Relating this to the churchy example above, many of the abused told of how they recognized that they were mis-taught the meaning or intent of a passage, and realized how that misteaching and mis-application could still filter into mind when reading some passage of Scripture; for this reason also did those who counseled them recommend other translations, at least to initiate the process of suspending assumptions about what they read, not to relegate formerly beloved versions to the discard pile.

4. ... I don't know that there is a fourth. Besides cheeky reasons or answers for parody, those above are quite broad, categorical reasons for the reader to stop reading which, I think, sufficiently exhaust the "good" reasons one might cease, at least for a time, to read.

Never satisfied: illustrating that proverb about man's insatiability...

2011-06-25T22:29:00.001-07:00

The song's been out a while, but every time I hear it I think of the proverb, "Hell and destruction are never full; so the eyes of man are never satisfied" (Proverbs 27:20 KJV).

--"Gold Guns Girls" is the fourth single from Canadian rock group Metric's fourth studio album Fantasies..." [Wikipedia]

(Discovering that my cheap computer speakers don't hold a candle to the cheap workvan speakers while I'm at it: this song is somewhat trance inducing for the harmonies and softness, contrasted by the language and material.)

It's one of those verses which translated as that above betrays Hebrew idiom, appropriately so given, as we know, our hunger for spectacle, but by extension, signifying man's extensive and unending desires.

I thought on this, after hearing this song today, about said desires, their throbbing passions, and how not only are they turned to evil, though once they were good, now corrupted by our natures, and thusly turned to violence and harm, but that one could speculate of their greatness, that it evinces a glimpse of how great is the Creator who made their possessors--yet captives, and so also is evinced by their intensities, yet like all good things misused, become evil.

So the language appropriate, "Sheol and Abaddon", death and destruction, the wage or reward and eternal abode of all sinful. Many admire men just for greatness and intensity of passion (mindedness) and desire. There are aspects of which we deem worthy and admirable , but also the caveat of the nature of man's mind and wishes, because of his current nature, and the means by which he will attempt to gain ills(the one even freaked out simply by the divisive label "Chrisi; even that desired which is of itself good, he intends often only for his own misuse, and so corrupts in his heart before obtainment.

I mentioned good turned evil. I meant that: once a friend invited me to a Church small group he attended, and I remember the head of this gathering asking a rhetorical question (i.e. he intended to go there but asked and wanted some group participation points), that is, "where does evil come from"; "It's merely the misuse of good", I said, and then he continued as though the origin of evil were still a problem, "we don't really know where...", as if evil were some abstract and intangible, reified entity, not really knowing what to do with that answer or not wanting to do so, which after all may seem so simple.

But the sudden impulse to move on disturbed the buddy, "but wait, he just answered it...", his voice just trailed off in something of shock to the response. Do we not see it, though, in the very opening pages of Genesis, where the lovely and desirable and good become twisted to misuse, when the weak sex is deceived to disobey God's command. Do we not see it when the Man listens to his wife--which is not a bad thing in itself, but in that which leads to disobedience--which is, and in so doing, ushering in sin and death not only over them, but upon all his posterity? Desire and the desirable, loveliness and love, good for and good use, all wrecked by ill use.

We hear this all the time: "Evangelicals" strike up conversations on sex and homosexuality, and point-out that sex is good, misuse--or use against its intent--is bad. Ancient Greeks understood this too, that is, that nature itself demonstrated an order to things, and deviation was a violation of the law.

But then we hear evil reified and entitied, rather than recognized as a potential qualification of any act, or synonyms such as bad, wicked, or ill, which is probably among the most appropriate due to the expression ill use, while evil perhaps remains viable for concordance, and ties to older, more obscure senses.

What gets lost is sight of why something is used well or to ill, and why that makes the use good or bad/evil/ill.

Unseen Rule

2011-02-23T15:24:00.000-08:00

World's poor, among all
seek not mammon
renounce avarice
and do not whine
or their use of you
shall have no end
the powers that be
do not know them
whoever they are
their reigns last not
as long as appears
undone before

it is evident.

untitled poem

2011-02-21T12:23:00.000-08:00

If I had a child

I would tell him that

information is

not wisdom, the wise

do not inundate

themselves, the deluge

does not carry them

as waves tossed by wind,

they do not follow,

seeking acceptance

or approbation,

by those who noise.

That knowing all is

not the essential

matter for acting

but rather gaps and

discriminating

consideration

are often better

for well-doing than

pretence to having

either sure command

or omniscience.

If any are interested in arcana and in Latin...

2011-02-11T12:55:00.000-08:00

I liked Spanish, in fact quite a lot. I started studying Latin in school but had to leave, and unfortunately my Spanish has suffered quite a lot since--worse for me because I used a lot of the knowledge gained there to peer into other languages with shared features. My only contact with native speakers often consists of people with vocabularies almost totally unlike that which is taught in schools, so though semi- regular, it doesn't help much. To use the words of a Columbian I was talking to, "I can't understand the Mexicans".

On the bus, to and fro work, I've taken up Latin again. I plan on devouring it heavily and then to move onto its linguistic aspects and development through to various modern Romance languages (hello again Spanish!). Following is a poem of "Catullus" written to himself and to a woman he calls "Lesbia" (in an earlier section) after the nom de plume of the famed Greek, strong-willed, intellectual "Sophos" (who is, by that appelation, implied to be like the famed Greek personality). My own Latin isn't progressed very far, the book reading is a heavily altered version of this, but I liked to look up the originals. It also has traits by which I can explain why I liked Spanish for cross-language purposes: even being classical Latin, an artificial literary dialect developed and maintained despite major difference from the spoken language, and thousands of years old, one can spy the imperfect by knowing the Spanish version, "uentitabas"; another example of cross-language insighting would be the uses of subjunctive in Spanish to express the beginning of something, which once is known, can be seen in other languages as well, whereas the beginner thinks a subjunctive is just some hard formed fixed to tell of hypotheticals or oughts: the beginning of the scene on the mount in the beatitudes (i.e. in Greek) for instance uses the subjunctive this way, (though it's never well translated into English). How interesting it will be, I think, to grapple with Classical, and then move into the Vulgate and related literatures where nonliterary Latin was purposefully employed to be more accessible to the masses, and compare that with Spanish and other romances.

The poem reveals that, just as in the days of Sophos, and just as in ours, lovers dealing treacherously and abandoning their mate, and the longing and perhaps bitterness that arises in the abandoned, was just as much a tragic part of life as now. It is, in fact, one of the great "secrets" of Roman times, that is, people think all the women were just cloistered up and suppressed from doing anything, when in fact in the empire sex relations were not altogether different than they are now; if there were restrictions on the fairer sex, there was nevertheless a period the modern woman, raised on feminist values and expectations (even most who deny being one who don't realize the changes that have taken place socially in the last several decades and how even the assumptions are very different from what they were before), might not mind--except for the greater hardship of living due to less developed technology--visiting or dwelling in if it were possible.

Actually, superficial readings of text and presumptions brought to it have, in the post-advent world, obscured these facts, even when knowledgeable authorities on history, Christian or otherwise, have tried to dispel such myths. Or put another way, bad apologetics by ignoramouses meant to accomodate secular and modernist tastes have betrayed known and valid history (lied) in the name and service, supposedly, of truth. All the more comical when when pretenses are made about politically incorrect passages in Scriptures about women not to offend the feminists in the audience of "believers", though to be fair many such preachers just don't know better, having received misinformation from commentaries perpetuating traditions of commentaries. It's for such reasons that many of the schools now considered the "Ivy League", e.g. Harvard, were founded, such that ministers would not be unlearned and so err. In such cases as un-pc passages of Scripture on women and how they've been popularly mishandled, just a glancing, cursory course of Latin which introduces one to the culture of the first century empire (in my case, first through Oxford's slim little course volumes), or a course dedicated to that culture, could dispel many myths though it might reduce the numbers of congregations and effectiveness of growing those numbers since, after all, what is Christian, genuinely Christian, is now truly and deeply offensive in our societal environment. E.g. rather than appearing to her ego some day, telling a woman about Christ, fail to tell her all about how God loves her and she's a princess and instead speak of wretchedness and adultery and you'll probably get slapped. I remember a group effort of friends putting out fliers on Valentines day telling girls how wonderful they are and how God loves them and the positive responses, but understand now from the context we live in and how those would be taken by the usual American narcissist that it should have made me wince.

Catullus 8

Miser Catulle, desinas ineptire,
et quod uides perisse perditum ducas.
fulsere quondam candidi tibi soles,
cum uentitabas quo puella ducebat
amata nobis quantum amabitur nulla.
ibi illa multa cum iocosa fiebant,
quae tu uolebas nec puella nolebat,
fulsere uere candid tibi soles.
nunc iam illa non uolt: tu quoque inpote,
nec quae fugit sectare, nec miser uiue,
sed obstinata mente perfer, obdura.
uale, puella. iam Catullus obdurat,
nec te requiret nec rogabit inuitam.
at tu dolebis, cum rogaberis nulla.
scelesta, uae te, quae tibi manet uita ?
quis nunc te adibit ? dui uideberis bella ?
quem nunc amabis ? cuius esse diceris ?
quem basiabis ? cui labella mordebis ?
at tu, Catulle, destinatus obdura.
--From, The poems of Catullus By Gaius Valerius Catullus, Peter Green.

<url of the above link for printing purposes: http://books.google.com/books?id=4qsYinaVXQ8C&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=catullus+obdurat&source=bl&ots=9CZW6a0T-O&sig=xGwQQvexhphJPrDqyijQYftkVRI&hl=en&ei=yJhVTbXQDZH4swO5jPWtBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CD0Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=catullus%20obdurat&f=false>

Reviving "Seva" as "Sevacious"

2011-02-09T14:26:00.000-08:00

Some time ago I wrote a poem which among other things utilizes several old[er] English terms now obsolete from usage as a means to revive them as "The Sciolist" desires. Of course, given I'm no famous poet, that could take a while, with some unknown means of that poem actually reaching broad circulation), and given the older forms and plays in the poem, I don't know that it's the best course for such resuscitation's. I wanted to make yet another link to "The Sciolist's" page with the list of terms he's seeking regeneration for, and then suggest a way to revive a suggested word that I did not poem, "seva". The proposal is simple, relying upon analogy of sound and tacking-on an ending, -acious . Savacious already has a ring in common with words like salacious, spacious, etc., and -acious words aren't unusual in English, e.g. vivacious and so on, and just Googling it turns up results showing that people already are willing to tack it onto unusual places (often for cheesy marketing purposes), though sometimes with much less tact than the sound of this combination (e.g. "Audi- acious" ). See also -ous to understand that the combination of word and part that I'm about to propose for "emotional intelligence" is something probably very acceptable to modern society, especially when applied to women, which I say given the text given by Harper in his proposal for the word,

SEVA - As a noun, it meant "mind, heart, spirit," but with a sense of perception, of knowing through the heart. It could serve as a word for the concept we fumble at with words like "emotional intelligence" or trivialize with phrases like "women's intuition."

though I'm unsure why he says this concept is "trivialized" when it's said to be a quality commonly or significantly noticed about women.

One might propose sev-i (pr. "say + vī" or "say+vee") but that's too close to "savvy", which merits remarking that perhaps the baser connotations of "salacious" might ruin "sevacious" as well: the sadder since the denotation of "salacious" is "salt" (i.e. "wise"), and where the "spicy" connotation of sexual perversion came from I can only guess as misuse (esp. given that salt is not spicy). The real point to "salacious" is that too much or too little salt, and something is ruined, and the wise are "salacious" because they understand this and how to apply. Pulling back from digression though, the combination not only allows for the word's revival as an immediate adjective, but also as one for state of being by simply tacking on "-ness" ("sevaciousness") another pattern common to modern English norms.

"Little" Errors in Sources Online: Chesterton's "The Last Hero"

2010-12-20T10:01:00.000-08:00

The world of the web is one where personal and source attribution are rare, making much of its content less more questionable, which is a shame because it is so rich. Online one finds "The Last Hero" by G. K. Chesterton in many places, but a difference I immediately noticed between submissions exists between them:

The wind blew out from Bergen, from the dawning to the day
There was a wreck of trees, a fall of towers, a score of miles away

vs.

There was a wreck of trees[_] and fall of towers a score of miles away,

(To the latter was added [_] to point out that the first also has a comma.) Notice that though a small detail, this is a difference of major significance. In the former version the grammar equivocates "wreck of" and "fall of", "trees" and "towers"; in the latter, that's less likely, though a possible interpretation: it's more ambiguous (which may have actually led, in the mind of a reader, to the former); the second version is actually the original according to this poem's inscription in actual books as opposed to what is found on the web, and the former is a version found online wherever the poem has been submitted by one "Tom Burrows",

<http://plagiarist.com/poetry/7777/>

<http://www.eliteskills.com/analysis_poetry/The_Last_Hero_by_G_K_Chesterton_analysis.php>

<http://www.eliteskills.com/c/15764>

Though the Burrows version is attributed (to Burrows), no source for the text is provided. And neither version, on any website I've found, gives an origin for the text as the site displays. This isn't a rant, however, at why it's bad to use online sources, or their supposed greater inaccuracies than print editions, etc.. The latter excerpted version, the correct one, is found online as well. I found it first on a site dedicated to getting Chesterton's works online, <http://www.gkc.org.uk/gkc/books/last_hero.html>, which if you think about it, might by the nature of its purpose be counted as more reliable (have *some* trust, but verify...) as long as the worker or workers are careful. But the best source found online was a scanned-in book of Chesterton's poems itself, found in Google books, <http://books.google.com/books?id=hEHQAAAAMAAJ&dq=the%20last%20hero%20chesterton&pg=PA142#v=onepage&q&f=false>, unfortunately buried under new editions and compilations made probably for little reason other than to have a copyright and profit off the man's work, (and also other mens' work in some books), and fortunately not un-viewable, as often even public domain works are in Google books, because of confusion caused to the machine by such editions. (Note I didn't count the scanned book by google as a or on a website; though it's accessed through a website, it's displayed through, not built as part of, that site.)

Rather than the web being some terrible source of information, those who use it must be critical handlers of their information and sources, similar with the works of academics and scholars, peer reviewed or not, which is controversial these days given that academia hates to having any doubt thrown upon its approved literature or consensuses. But it's very true: a community that puts trust in such things just because members thereof have jointly approved something, or just because of consensus, is one where critical thinking has been lost. This little exercise was just one in textual differences, resolved quickly by finding alternative versions, from which one could know that somethings wrong, and another avenue, either weighing the nature of the sites and their contributors, or finding a more primary source, could be pursued to provide more information, whether questions to ask or answers to the origin of differences or resolution to the question of authenticity.

Someone is Wrong on the Internet, Or Errors Online

2010-12-19T04:02:00.000-08:00

Whether someone or something, whether intentional ("wrong") or unintended ("[error] on the internet", though unintended errors are still wrong, and so the authors), this label or tag is tribute to xkcd 386. This post was published 2011-01-27 5:04MST but its publication date set to 2010-12-19 to push it below other posts with that label.

ON AMUSEMENTS, by Harvey Newcomb

2010-12-12T16:07:00.000-08:00

Hmmm... It's been many years since I've read this <http: 27="" www.gracegems.org="" young_man22.htm>, and upon a glancing review found that linking to it may lend recommendation that should not be given unqualified, for example:

VII. Engage in no amusement which unfits you for devotional exercises. If, on returning from a scene of amusement, you feel no disposition to pray, you may be sure something is wrong. You had better not repeat the same again.

How generally vague, subject to abuse, and presumptuous, hmm?

IX. Reject such amusements as are generally associated with evil. If the influences which surround any practice are bad, you may justly conclude that it is unsafe, without stopping to inquire into the nature of the practice itself. Games of chance are associated with gambling and drinking; therefore, I conclude that they cannot be safely pursued, even for amusement. Dancing, also, is associated with balls, with late hours, high and unnatural excitement, and dissipation; it is therefore unsafe. You may know the character of any amusement by the company in which it is found.

Writing is associated with evil propaganda, and let's not forget the tongue: silence everyone! In all seriousness (see Newcombe's rule VIII., "Engage in nothing which tends to dissipate serious impressions."), however, is it not the word itself that praises drink as a blessing from God, or is it not our Lord or instituted the drinking of wine in remembrance of him? Now if "drinking" with the modern sense, very common among the practitioners thereof, to get drunk, I would agree, but otherwise Necombe is to be avoided on this, perhaps in everything, according to the apostles themselves. "Games of chance"? If he knew his Voltaire he'd know there is no such thing, "chance is a word devoid of sense"; it's the faith in, looking to, the cards and the greed accompanying these games, as well as sinister principle of pursuing gain upon another's loss without effort expended by either end to actually produce anything whether tangible or in service, only "win", that makes "gambling" evil, not any element of "chance": otherwise you'd better put away your "Monopoly", folks, or any number of other harmless amusements whether boardgame or otherwise.

The judgment revealed, even if just by these few limited exerpts, is such that is not to be trusted, and so I don't think I'd recommend Mr. Newcombe as a great counselor any time soon, though perhaps as an interesting, sometimes worthwhile, Moralist...er, maybe for getting insight into the kind of shallow philosophical moralism that's common these days, and has been for centuries...er, perhaps that's too quick to speek and to harsh, so allow me to qualify with the following, "in these couple examples of advice".

Romantic or Stalker?

2010-12-06T21:33:00.000-08:00

This I found quite funny. I used to say to friends back at the university that a women call an insistent man they've rejected a stalker, and one whose attentions are welcomed, a romantic; some gals there would protest seriously to this description, other gals I know or have known who've actually entered real marriage bonds, however, agree wholeheartedly and laugh at the description. There's two that come to mind: one a gal in Fort Collins whose husband she thought a loser (in any romantic sense, at least) and rejected outright as a romantic partner, whom she shared many friends with and eventually relented to and with whom she's now quite happy; another who is my room mate's wife and a friend since middle school: he was a masterful debater throughout his youth, winning competitions, awards, and even political attention for it, and he had to argue her into even giving him a chance (mutual friends of hers and mine actually sat outside the door listening to him at this; these two very much like each other, though unfortunately for these friends and this fellow, they're -1- not all that close and -2- so dissimilar and aggravating to each other that they likely never will be).

Actually, given the legal environment of our day where you are guilty of a crime if even an innocent comment makes someone "feel" uncomfortable, the regulation of intimacy, and the criminalization even of consensual contact between two people where later one or the other claims some kind of environmental interference such that legally smart people require consent forms even from their spouses before engaging in any activity describable as sexual, it's no wonder we don't see more lasting marriages: the cheap, silly, shallow, easy ones where two idiots who have nothing more than attraction are all that can produce marriages because the other potential unions end-up with the romantic in jail or imprisoned (in the overwhelming number of cases, probably a male) because the object of their attention has been indoctrinated about their right to feel comfortable and never ever be bothered again after rejecting even the first time someone has dared even approach them. I guess that means we have to re-interpret old fables, that is, if our legalist preachers have their way, making all those old, celebrated literary pieces of initial rejection followed by re-appraisal become a source of forlorn hope and example of stupidity where potentially the persistent one is a fool who could, and even after acceptance still can be, liable to punishment, rather than moral edification where the "debate" is a worthwhile endeavor.

Language & Languages, Ancient Stuff

2010-08-10T14:50:00.000-07:00

LANGUAGE

The Effect of Language upon Thinking
The Importance of Words
the Theory of Dynamic Equivalence, Against

words
OnlineEtymologyDictionary
Thesaurus & Definitions

Ancient Stuff

The Ancient Library

[I had these items in a sidebare and took them into a post in order to contract the sidebar into a single link 2010-12-15 at 351pmMST, setting the publishing date and time to an earlier point in order to prevent the post from rising to the top of the blog.]

Music that Can Accurately be called "Christian", that is suitable for teaching one another and for praise in worship

2010-07-20T15:07:00.000-07:00

()

I had a widget in the blog sidebar and realized that it took a while to load, which slowed down the blog when it is loaded. It's a music widget and since it's worth having I decided to make a separate post devoted to worthwhile Christian music--you know, music that's Christian in Substance and not just in name. Here I've placed not only the widget, but intend to place other examples of genuinely Christian music. Right now this post will have to stay in a somewhat rought state, just dropping things on here (have things to do!), but it's a start.

The point is that, after a few more posts, this one will drop off the front page of the blog, meaning that loading the blog main page won't be slowed by the active content, but the content won't be lost from the blog, either.

Good Shepherd Band's "Wake Up Sleeper"; click the widget below to listen.

Matthew Smith's "Goodnight",

<a href="http://matthewsmith.bandcamp.com/album/goodnight">Goodnight by Matthew Smith</a>

to do:
- see http://www.baylyblog.com/music/

A Refreshing Blog by Some Ladies: Sola Sisters

2010-07-20T00:09:00.000-07:00

An excerpt showing the the spirit of the blog, the which, if it remains the same, and its qualities, the which things, if they are kept up, should show a site worth reading, particularly for ladies though, (you know, 1 Timothy 2:12),

It's bad enough that this modern Christian era has brought us the girlified "beggar Jesus," standing at the door of our hearts, hat in hand, just tap-tap-tapping and hoping against hope that we'll let him in to be Lord of our lives. Now we have Mark Galli, Senior Managing Editor at Christianity Today, presenting us with an even more slanderous, idolatrous view of God: God as a Divine Drama Queen. Writes Galli:
"I like a tranquil, even-keeled, self-controlled God. A God who doesn't fly off the handle at the least provocation.....When I read my Bible, though, I keep running into a different God, and I'm not pleased. This God says he "hates" sin. Well, he usually yells it. Read the prophets. It's just one harangue after another, all in loud decibels. And when the shouting is over, then comes the pouting.....This God is like the volatile Italian woman who, upon discovering her husband's unfaithfulness, yells and throws dishes, refuses to sleep in the same bed, and doesn't speak to him for 40 days and 40 nights."
What seems to help Mr. Galli find this "Divine Drama Queen" acceptable as "God," however, is the fact that this "God" only acts this way because he's just so crazy-in-love with this fickle, foolish, unfaithful man that he has created that He just can't help himself. His worshipful love of this man-creature, you see, makes him a little nutty.

No longer standing patiently at the door like the girlified beggar Jesus; according to Mr. Galli, God is now jumping up and down in front of your car like a crazy girlfriend you can't break up with. He/She just won't let go. Our supremely narcissistic, self-absorbed, navel-gazing postmodern era has produced a new version of God that perfectly reveals the nature of the culture from which it has sprung: Crazy Stalker Girlfriend God.

So no more polite God, standing outside of your door knocking. But hey, at least that "God" didn't require a restraining order. ... --from the Friday, July 16, 2010 post titled ""God" As A Crazy Stalker Girlfriend?"

Sola Sisters by Cathy Mathews & Christine Pack.

Comparative Linguistics for the Common Man (Comical): Jolin Tsai's Love Love Love, translation and English "sounds like"

2010-07-18T23:34:00.000-07:00

The Song with (Quite) Literal Translation

The Song with "How it sounds as English" Lyrics

Resources & Food For Sheep

2010-07-03T06:44:00.000-07:00

Food for Sheep ()

"Therefore girding up the loins of your mind, be sober and set your hope perfectly on the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;" (1 Peter 1:13 R-ASV)

(As with much on this blog, the plan is to update and re-organize and expand, etc. etc.: it's shared as a pointer to worthwhile things for fellow sheep, but is certainly is subject to revisions.)

THE GOSPEL ITSELF

The Power of God Unto Salvation by B.B. Warfield.
How surprisingly unwelcome the is gospel among those professing to be Christian in our day; it becomes merely a thing to be heard once, after which to be moved beyond to higher and greater things, rather than the most blessed and greatest of messages, most needful to be reminded and instructed constantly, most eagerly heard of all potential messages or teachings; how sorrowfully lacking are the many gospels presented in our day, either of power or of truth, and especially of Christ, whom to they may allude, or reference, or note in passing, or indeed guise such paucity by offering upon another Christ altogether, a counterfeit posed as the real thing. This book is none of these evils, and it is richly Christological.

Christology (About Christ)

See "The Power of God unto Salvation" above.

Theology (About God)

Sanctification (being made holy), and Mortification (Putting Sin to Death)

Of the Mortification of Sin in Believers (recommendation and excerpt here, "The lust he thought was dead..." (Baylyblog)

VARIOUS RESOURCES/MINISTRIES

* The GraceLife Pulpit (Bible Preaching)
* thefaithfulword.org (Doctrinal Research, discerning.)
* CIC & * SVC : are discerning, however, dispensationalist (though that's lead DeWaay to a very interesting investigation of the word "generation" in the NT!); SVC also perhaps poor on doctrine of Reprobation.
* Founders Ministries
* Eschatology

Blogs

blogs can be great for dealing with specific issues as they arise or become generally discussed, questions asked or that need to be asked by someone, and for seeing and assessing the spirit or spirits of the times, the general trends of thought, and the intereaction thereof with those of the past; they are versatile and typically more informal, accessible, personal (when very good); and the right ones have either authorities worth hearing or else people worth or pleasant for discoursing with.

* Against Heresies by Martin Downes

* Bayly Brothers (Bayly Blog)

* Conrad Mbewe (A Letter from Kabwata)

* Frank Turk (...And His Ministers A Flame of Fire)

* Guy Davies (Exile Preacher)

* Pyromaniacs (discerning, edifying, not afraid to be frank or of the consequences)

* "Reformation Theology" (blog)

* The Sacred Sandwiche (set to a fav') (brilliant, shining satire)

* Shane Trammel's Blog (worthwhile)

* Stand To Reason (thought provoking)

* Victor Edwards (X-Christianity) (thought provoking, unusual stuff I don't see elsewhere)

* WebTruth.org (throught provoking)

Duncan Forbes

Matthew Blair (the foolish galatian)

Tim Challies (Challies.com)

Specifically for Ladies

Sola Sisters (blog)

The Brave Lass (blog)

CONFESSION(S)

1. London Baptist* Confession of Faith"^*note; LBCF1689modernized and diagrammed
2. A Brief and Untechnical Statement of the Reformed Faith by Benjiman B. Warfield

CATECHISM

1. A Puritan Catechism by C.H. Spurgeon.
2. [Linking to the Heidelberg Catechism, hopefully soon]

Genuinely Christian--or Spiritual--Music

(click heading)
Last Rev. 2010/07/20

And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord;--Ephesians 5:18-19

Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God.--Colossians 3:16

You know, Christian in substance, not in name only; Music truly praising God, not in mere repetitious exclamations of our love for Him, or vague and empty general declarations about Him, but descriptive stuff from which one can actually learn; also numbers on of the Christian experience, yet not centered around man as so much is: it's not about the experience or its feelings, but what He does.

Other

The Bible, βιβλος (online), E-SWORD (free program with many modules)

Theology (much more work needed shortly), HistoricalTheology,Vol. 1, HistoricalTheology,Vol. 2

About Translations, (History, Philosophies, Reviews), Bible Researcher

On the King James Version

Vine's Expository Dictionary of NT Words

English Infinitive vs. Imperative Interrogative, or Interrogative Verb

2010-06-29T18:17:00.001-07:00

Actually, this is for EFLers (speakers of English as a foreign language) rather than directly for this Youtube video. SuperJMN writes,

"Please, somebody to write down the lyrics! They're not published yet".

The use of "to" before a verb in the situation that SuperMJN does use it makes the verb "infinitive" rather than "imperative" (a command); his actual intent, however, or what he wanted to communicate, was

"please, somebody write down the lyrics. They're not published yet"

That is [to say], a request in the form of a command (which is possible in English and indicated by his use of "please"); alternatively he could have written

"please, would someone write down the lyrics, they're not published yet"

Which as a request is purely in the form of a request; while the use of the auxiliary verb "would" is usually subjunctive, here it indicates a petition, approximately signifying "would you be willing to write down the lyrics, please"^[1] ("please" is added in that example only because SuperMJN's original Youtube comment contains it). I hope this is helpful to EFLers rather than offensive.
----

^[1] Which does include a "subjunctive" component. For spanish speakers, "subjunctivo".

in reference to:

"Please, somebody to write down the lyrics! They're not published yet :("
- YouTube - DC 2000 - Dreamin ´ (Don´t worry 2 much) (view on Google Sidewiki)

Contemporary or Modern (Recent) Christianities

2010-06-08T01:10:00.000-07:00

.
.
.
Neo-Evangelicalism
.
.
.

Romanism

2010-06-07T23:57:00.000-07:00

[Created to be ready to hopefully, incrementally, do justice to the subject.]

Rough Explanatory Essays,
The Fuzzy Label "Catholicism", how to define...

Christian Ministries to Catholics,
Berean Beacon
Reaching Catholics...

A Declaration Contra the Other spirits Purporting to Be of Christ

2010-06-07T23:28:00.001-07:00

Against the tide, the worldly spirit of the age that would be overwhelming were it not that God is ever greater, I forthrightly declare that the Christian life is not one that consists of social action, but rather faithfulness evincing the faith to Christ, that is, of uprightness in deed before God and men and in secret, because that deed is the adornment of Christ's doctrine, ergo the doctrine is just as important, indeed ~~has priority above,~~precedes the life, because without it there is no action at all that is of the faith: mere acting upon "faith" is not acceptable or sufficient, but the faith is necessary. When the Rick Warrenses, Hybelses, Schullers, or any number of their many minions, disciples, predecessors, or kindred spirits, traverse the world telling unbelievers they need only do well what it is that they are doing in [a vague] "faith", they show themselves and their words to be the empty wells that they are ashamed of the gospel, and makers of proselytes twice the children of hell. To say otherwise in any of these particulars is frankly a revolt against Christ Himself, who came to divide, and warned of false brethren and teachers who, He warned, come in sheep's clothing, and transform themselves into angels (messengers) of light: it is not that they all know it, but as the apostles warned, the many are themselves deluded, and lead their hearers into destruction.

I say therefore that it should come of no surprise that the fruit of these errant men and women the world over is to trample the sheep, mock the discerning, denigrate those who "criticize", and slander them as "divisive" and "sinful" to "question" their idol leaders and the ideas, beliefs, and causes they pursue and propagate: it is no surprise they openly and boldly lie in professing a faith and practice wrought solely from the Scriptures yet so obviously teach, believe, and act contrariwise; it is no surprise their self-appointed authorities harp, with pretense of humility and gentleness generally, but harshly when their game is spied by those who openly exposed them, on obeying and submission to authority, yet refuse themselves to be subjected to the sole authority for the faith and practice of the Church, the Scriptures, which they should preach faithfully, yet merely twist and use to adorn their own ideas, which self-serving and brainstorming they both encourage and celebrate: using the masses to their own ends, and not waiting upon the Lord patiently and in faith that whatever He wills, "thy will be done", presuming even to tell all what His will is, and reducing Him to mere images of men and idols which they would prefer, therefore rejecting genuine and proved theology because it is an inconvenience and contradiction to the image of god they wish to elevate before the eyes of men in order to draw followers after themselves to accomplish their own visions and dreams. It should come as no surprise that their lives and words blaspheme Christ, or cause others to do it; it should come as no surprise that they attempt to obscure the reality by attributing to God their own works and deeds and results, even though the fruits cannot stand in the test of His word, which is like fire to prove or destroy what is set before it; it should come as no surprise that theirs is another and impotent god and christ, effeminized and powerless to save the able sinner upon whose decision He is, they say, waiting; it should come as no surprise that they hate and scorn to be examined and critiqued thoroughly or accurately, and dismiss all in the name of a tolerance, encouragement, and acceptation of all who will just walk with them, whether or not professing Christ, though all the worse for those that do whom they should, like amongst themselves as professors, discipline for any and all aberrations or departures from the word.

It should come as no surprise that challenges to them like this, exposures, etc., they will roll their eyes at, laugh off, dismiss, and hold in contempt, though if it is true it means they are doomed yet, despite styling themselves as Christ's own, and reassuring themselves vainly and mortally in that very delusions. One could, on the one hand, be tempted to feel sorry for the many converts, as if they were victims, but that would be the same as feeling sorry for those marching into the hands of an angry God who will throw them into the abyss of fire, as if they were victims of their sin and not its perpetrators: the many converted to the counterfeit christianities are so by their willingness to believe what is false over that which is true, excusing about better marketing or presentation, or feeling them "more relevant" notwithstanding. Nevertheless, I do hope direly for many of these persuasions, as many of us have been sanctified out of the delusions, and in sin were shown mercy, so why should hope any less for them?

Contacting Me

2010-05-26T13:49:00.000-07:00

Grievances
If you know of anything unbiblical in the content of sites referenced (i.e. linked), or on my own pages, please alert me, and also the brothers of those sites, of the thing you detect, that I can investigate, and that they can investigate; please note, however, that contact solely to lodge complaint with matter disliked, without demonstration from the Scriptures, validly and accurately handled, of why the point or points in question are in error will be received as a mere statement of opinion, indicative of a disagreement without sound reason, and may for this be dismissed: insofar as I may make response in good faith with my current responsibilities, whether one that is personal or that points to further resources for your edification and serious perusal, so I hope to do: when the matters at hand demand that I should not, then I might not, though I hope in most cases to at least indicate some further reading that could address any complaints.

Being Helpful
In the event you discover some error, broken links, or other matters that require my attention (e.g. I could have spelled something wrong, and you want me to fix it: I don't mind, let me know!), well, let me know.

Commenting on a post/Adding to it/Saying "hi" because of it:
That's what the "comments" on a blog are for. : )

Making Contact
As for making contact: besides in comments to specific posts, anything extraneous to the rest, or for faster response, should be left in a or in comments to this post.

Backgrond of "Frode, Luba Fides"

2010-05-05T13:49:00.001-07:00

Ever spill your creative creative jucies? Explore th~~ine~~y tongue as late? Practice means bloody. A few years back, I decided to do some poeming,

^{"poeming", from the OED:} DERIVAT[E of "Poem"] poeming n. Obs. nonce-wd. the composing or reciting of poems; an instance of this. 1708 Brit. Apollo No. 84. 2/2 Loud Tawkings and *Poemings. 1716 J. SMEDLEY Saint Patrick's Purgatory 5 Past five Years away in Poeming, Punning, Insulting, Idling [etc.] --fair use, excerpted from dictionary.oed.com, entry "poem".

and while at it, revive some rather wonderful, abandoned words, use some older forms inspired by their use in the Bible (King James), words from Douglas Harper's ("The Sciolist") "Old English", here, <http://etymonline.com/columns/oldenglish.htm> which he argues should be revived and saved, some knowledge of older inflectional forms (from considerations and (perhaps from T.R. Lounsbury's "The History of the English Language" ) and tacking of them onto some words unusually; I do not recall exactly where I picked-up lea though should I, I'll tell; I did just find some entries for it here, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/lea. Although extraneous to the poem, for Christian interest I'll add another word to that list of 'The Sciolist" while I'm at it, Shamefastness, recommended by Michael Marlowe,

__Words that are normal and ordinary for the average modern reader inevitably convey only thoughts that are ordinary for such readers. But what if the things expressed in the original are not ordinary for modern American readers?
__Recently while giving a lesson on the topic of modesty I referred to 1 Timothy 2:9, where the Greek text has the phrase μετα αιδους και σωφροσυνης. These are words that ancient authors commonly used in their teachings about personal virtues, and they describe attitudes or states of mind, not merely (or even primarily) outward actions. The first noun here, αιδως, denotes a capacity to feel shame, in a good sense, as opposed to shamelessness or impudence. In modern English versions it is usually translated “modesty,” but “bashfulness” may sometimes be a more adequate way of expressing its connotations. John Wyclif’s “shamefastness” is nearly perfect, and would still be the best rendering if that word had not become obsolete. ⁽²⁹⁾ The second noun, σωφροσυνη, denotes an habitual self-regulation or moderation of desires and thoughts, as opposed to mania, self-indulgence and excess, and it is usually translated with “sobriety” or “self-control.” My purpose in referring to these words was to emphasize that “modesty” in the Bible is not merely outward compliance with some dress code, but a state of mind characterized by a capacity for shame and self-inhibition, and that the biblical authors connect this cultivated “sense of shame” with virtue and honor, especially in the case of women. This is a commonplace of exegetical writings, and it needs to be emphasized, because it is so foreign to the modern liberal ethos that dominates our society. ⁽³⁰⁾ My students on that occasion had copies of the NIV translation, and so I asked them to turn to that place, expecting to find something close enough to build the lesson on. But to my surprise, I found that μετα αιδους και σωφροσυνης was translated “with decency and propriety.” Evidently the translators felt that these prissy words would be in some manner equivalent to the original. ⁽³¹⁾ I suppose they are the sort of words that a modern American would fall back on when recommending clothing that is suitable for Christians. But they do not begin to convey the meaning of Paul’s words. People associate “decency” with conformity to minimum standards of social behavior, and “propriety” with things like proper etiquette, but Paul speaks of something much more personal — a virtuous sense of shame, coupled with self-control. The problem here is not just about an archaic word that needs to be updated, it has to do with an ancient moral concept that has no name in the modern idiom. I am not sure what should be done in this case. Even “modesty” seems very inadequate. Perhaps we need to reclaim the word “shamefastness.” But there is no use pretending that “decency” will convey the meaning of αιδως. The inadequacy of colloquial modern English in this instance brings to mind an observation of J.D. Michaelis:
Some virtues are more sedulously inculcated by moralists and philosophers when the language has fit names for indicating them; whereas they are but superficially treated of, or rather neglected, in nations where such virtues have not so much as a name. ⁽³²⁾
(The Blockquote from Marlowe above was Retrieved 2010-05-05 14:07 MST from http://www.bible-researcher.com/dynamic-equivalence.html#nota29)

Some explanation:
I see a lot of very emotional "love" poetry, but with little substance of shared basis for that love, and even less such that is Christian, so I decided I wanted to help remedy the situation; I also wanted, however, to give some clarification, polemical as it may be for a love poem, that Christ's way is not the broad swath in which everyone and their mother is claiming to be Christian, transforming into a therapeutic emotionalism to which even their god is tailored, and settled upon the simple word of Christ for the way, "narrow", and in defense of God's place in authorship of faith, indwelling work in the believers to all the good and also their perseverance, and promise of finishing His work, used "led". For enrichment it's worth adding, it is a walk, and the Scriptures throughout use "to walk with God" as indicative of a life of faith.

Old Skool Poeming

2010-05-05T13:49:00.000-07:00

A Poem from of Lover's (male) heart. Enjoy. [Poem and its annotations originally published on blogger at 3:01 a.m. MST on 4/14/08]

Frode, luba fides
by J. Bradley Bulsterbaum

Out upon the farmer's lea¹
amongst the grass upon the hay
I beside nesh² girl I keep
who shrithely³ comes beside to sleep

without a wit⁴ of nithe⁵ or scorn
wotting⁶ her beauty my eye holden⁷
resideth mickel⁸ more in things unseen
than fairhood⁹ and flesh which set o'er season¹⁰

she trow¹¹ love holpen¹² not by wiles¹³
but singlehood¹⁴ of eye our cræft¹⁵
faithcræft¹⁶ in douth¹⁷ Aeon's¹⁸ wit¹⁹ frode²⁰,
led walking down that narrow road.

|| ^{1 field} || ^{2 soft, weak (not in a despising or devaluing sense); also "timid" in other contexts} || ^{3 smoothly and gracefully} || ^{4 knowing/thought} || ^{5 "Malice, enmity, violence, persecution." Except perhaps "malice," none of the synonyms come close to the nasty sneer of niþe. from: http://www.etymonline.com/columns/oldenglish.htm} || || ^{6 she knowing} || ^{7 held} || ^{8 MUCH} || ^{9 fairness/BEAUTY} || ^{10 [indefinite span of] time, that is, over time} || ^{11 trusts/knows} || ^{12 helped/supported} || ^{13 schemes/cleverness} || ^{14 singleness, "singleness of eye" is Biblical, means "faithful" as in a single object of attention upon which one focuses in attention and adoration, and to whom one looks.} || ^{15 art, practice, what we do} || ^{16 art/practice of fidelity; faithfulness} || ^{17 as opposed to "youth", the age and experience beyond youth; adjective being used on Aeons'} || ^{18 Gr. for "ages", but personified; douth Aeons', as in wise Ages' where Ages is a name.} || ^{19 mental capacity/known/held/possessed, modified by}|| ^{20 "old" and "wise" simultaneously; wit frode or frode wit, meaning Aeons' old and wise mental/knowledge capacity; Aeons' wisdom, the wisdom of the ages

"luba"=love, "fides"=faithful, so "faithful love"}

[Background.]

Politics and Ambassadorship

2009-12-28T14:00:00.001-08:00

I think I'm like many, tired of the pretense, the facemaking, the charades; that is, of politicians: sure ordinary people do it as well, but they don't often hold directly the reigns over the lives of so many, either. I've interpreted observations to conclude that in large part either political party, for instance, is about thoroughly the same; both are also historically liberals (by which I mean 'modernist'), not conservatives, but one is somewhat moderate according to history, the other the modernists' fringe, (thus the 'moderates' of the former being more akin to extremists). (Superficially touching upon conservatives vs. liberally ostracized liberals calling themselves conservatives, see "Prejudices: A Philosophical Dictionary"[1] by Robert Nisbet, HUP (C) 1982)

There are also many observations one can make about the American system: the politicians, being careless with their restraints and eager to ignore them, spend us to death--we all know this; they promise entitlements which they fund through borrowing, which to provide through increased (and successful--it's both possible and legal to 'avoid', though not to 'evade', taxes, and especially easy for large corporations) taxation they still would likely not be able to fund: because to do that would mean the people would have to be productive in the first place, in order to be taxed.

The effect of entitling everyone is to sell everyone, in exchange for these 'benefits', into foreign hands. Meanwhile, supposed 'help' for business, such as the mom & pops, rarely is: there is hyperregulation on the dumbest of things in the name of protecting people which stymie new entries and favor vast mega corporations such that even monetary help really isn't help: to have a successful business today, one pretty much must sell into the larger system, which is so largely corrupt.

And there is no relying on the lawyers, the so-called educated, the charlatans to do anything about it: they are, after all, at the forefront of being unable 'to legislate morality', trendy as it remains so everyone may do what one thinks is right in his (or her) own eyes. Those referred to as 'elites' are those who know how the system works, as well as how to leverage social connections either to pull the strings of that system, or get around them, and tend to work within it and manipulate it to their own betterment, rather than to work to reform it for justice's sake. It's likely no accident that we have so many vague and overreaching laws that authors can write that 'professionals commit about three felonies per day without knowing it', because that is all the better to those who might need to seize upon someone when such is advantageous.

A decent quote about our form of capitalism by Victor Edwards (link to his blog in the right panel),

There is something rotten about America’s version of capitalism. Whatever the American system is, it is NOT free market capitalism: it is a highly regulated system designed to severely regulate and control any input except for capital. Translated, this means that money controls the nation.

I have to note that in large part throughout the whole world this sort of thing is true: America in all these respects is very similar to China, for instance. What Mr. Edwards says we all seem to realize, on some level or another, if not act on it: it's the reason so many 'seek influence', and often form coalitions to lobby so heavily in Washington.

On a global scale there is the problem of modernism, the largest form current being Marxist (though often no longer named). This totalitarian and absolutist hegemony is intolerant, despite liberalism's preaching of "tolerance", just as modernism has been since its inception centuries ago. It is irrational--dogmas override the proving of fruits and rational analysis, and everywhere imposes its anomous 'order' through the force of a gun, or rather by the legal systems it has concocted to ensnare and make life impossible for all who oppose it: just ask husbands and fathers everywhere about what was done to them when they were divorced--by an adulterous wife--and you will realize how disinterested today's rulers are in justice in anything but lip service.

It is always weird to discuss such generalities, there are so many sects, nuances, and specifics within those generalities that the generalities themselves are open to many counter assaults, but of course it needs to be done, to be considered, we must think. (http://xchristianity.blogspot.com/2008/02/huge-disconnect.html)

Talk to many Republicans, and one will hear of the Democrats who all want to steal our money and do all for us: not largely innaccurate, I don't think, for many of those politicians; talk to Democrats and Republicans are all baby-eating oil-mongering racist-bigotted knuckle-dragging dimwits. Also not always too innaccurate, but too much of a broad-brush and too prevalent: plenty are not so, though I have to admit, I can name few anymore. Sometimes the simpletonism has the accidental consequence of putting to rest the 'academic' (so-called) theories which are totally disconnected from reality which so many in the Democratic sect like to bandy about or impose. The same type of consequence, however, can work against Republicans, who too often having a superb grip (and faith) in Keynesian trickery, preach it without flinching, though in the long term such will destroy a nation; we don't, however, hear their opponents complaining so much about that beyond superficial jabs--afte rall, they are often beneficiaries.

Throughout the nation, there are, I think, many who are truly conservative, realistic, skeptical, and able to overturn such shody affairs: if they would only come to grips with the challening complexities under which we're operating, remember too that the world, especially a dynamic society, is also challenging, and then proceed knowing better ways to get elected: Ron Paul, despite being quite non grata among many, and even mocked, is a fellow one can point at as an example who, despite accomplishing little of his larger goals thus far (for he needs support of many, and the many aren't interested in being as principled and acting in conviction), has both a grasp on complexities, a mind for discernment, and a record of consistency with his convictions: many of which just happen to be wise.

To a Christian, of course, all these things are not a surprise, though we're not to be despodent or surrendered cynics: we're to confront immorality, individual, and corporate (produced by the dynamics between individuals, which proceeds unhindered and unstopped when any single individual refuses to speak-up or do anything about a perceived injustice), alike, everywhere: from the highest to lowest, from the least to greatest, in every realm too--secular and christian, since ours is a spiritual battle, and in all these things our enemies are spirits and their followers: doctrines and schemes besides Christ.

We will not accomplish some earthly kingdom or reign: His kingdom, His reign, is not of this earth, and is limited to those who are believing, those who believe; it extends to all who believe, and keeps them for Him, in faith and holiness, and they become witnesses and the persecuted for His glory, and for the elect's sake (which consequentially...all brings Him more glory). We are to be upright and holy for He who saved us demands it, and how can those indwelt by Him and the very Spirit of God who is called Holy, not thusly do?

This leads to ambassadorship: Paul calls us ambassadors for Christ; the original words used being one signifying in the ancient mind that an ambassador does all, and that only, which the one (in our case He) who he represents instructed of Him: all he does is towards those ends, and any harm brought the ambassador is considered to be made directly upon him he represents. Christians are to be wise ambassadors acting according to the word (rightly handled)--ministry itself is not a genuine ministry if not a ministry of the word--towards all men in every nation; it is not in the hopes of transforming the world, Christ promised it would not listen: and we see this with Paul who, for instance, was not eager to exhort the emperor to do 'social justice', but rather to preach unto him Christ Jesus Crucified and Resurrected.

The peace of our ambassadorship, of and in Christ, is not between men: it is between God and men who trust in Whom He hath sent, and upon that basis all in Him, all who do believe, may have peace with one another--but since their Lord is opposed by the world and rejected, so will they also be: this makes the influence-seekers among so-called evangelicals easily spied apostates, disobedients, and hypocrites who deceive their own selves as well as those around them to claim Christ, all the while trying to be the world's buddy, seem cool or relevant, etc., when fundamentally at the very core of all men is willful rejection of Christ and blinding of their hearts (minds) to the truth, which the carnal (the natural, i.e. not regenerate/born-again) man will not accept.

This, of course, could lead into the 'problem' of will vs. Sovereignty, the nature of the 'offer' of the gospel and whether 'offer' implies the ability of men to accept, i.e. the Pelagian/Arminian vs. Augustinian/Calvinist spiritual war, but before going there, because for now this is long enough for a itty bitty blog, I'll end this post.

[p.s. I REALLY need and want to review punctuation, both prescriptively as well as historic-descriptively, and go back through this to re-do things; it could also use much reflection on writing as written text, instead of spoken word: to keep the clear distinction between written and spoken English, which provides ever so much more lucidity.]

edited 28 Dec. 2009 and expected further editing to come.

- -

[1] Disclosure: I'm an Amazon.com affiliate, but haven not provided a link thereto using the type of link necessary to gain any benefit from clickthroughts/purchases through following that link.

A Miracle?

2009-12-01T16:12:00.000-08:00

Here.

Need accenting and special characters?

2009-11-05T14:46:00.000-08:00

If you're studying Greek, Hebrew, Latin, or some other language: something using accent marks, and have need of inputting those on a keyboard, check this out, http://cmpstuff.blogspot.com/2009/11/typing-accents-and-special-symbols-on.html.

Well, if you are using Linux: this happens to be among the easiest input methods I've found for keyboards. Doesn't discuss character direction and Hebrew directly, though...just some special characters and accent marks.

Ten Indictments

2009-08-31T23:48:00.000-07:00

Good Shepherd Band

2009-07-16T23:36:00.000-07:00

I added a widget for an Album by Good Shepherd Band called "Wake Up Sleeper"; they used a service called Noisetrade to get it online, and by clicking on CD cover on the widget (as opposed to the Tell/buy area) you can listen to samples. Obviously I wouldn't likely be putting it on my blog if it wasn't recommended, so enjoy!

Furthermore, one is able to listen to the whole songs on their own website, here.

Rough draft(?): OdeReply to the Beck of Popular Christendom

2009-05-31T16:05:00.001-07:00

Constructive input and opinions on the ending (the original or standing version?), welcome, (for your poetry snobs, I'm aware it has hard rhymes),

Why would I want this fellowship
of blasphemy in Jesus' name?
(Pelagius's children marching on.)

"Look at us, our mighty deeds,
what God had done through us as means"
(Common causes any could up-drum.)

In hordes build they, up earthly dreams
convert so many, to man-wrought schemes
like mercy's wrought according to their laws.

These earthly voids, their dusty wells
ring not the Bridegroom's wedding bells,
bid they 'come ~~and~~ live', and not die,¹

Twice-Childes of Hell.²

¹ Strange as it is, many teach a dying for their cause or purpose as a sort of way to gain purpose in this life, rather than a constant mortifying of one's own will and desires foremost for Christ in obedience to Him, which seems always to work-out being incompatible with the schemes of those who so exploit people in the name of God--often they are deluding themselves, the exploiters, that they're doing His Work, which fog of delusion is quickly exposed by light of the word's testing.
²was, Children of Hell

unCreative Commons

2009-05-14T01:04:00.001-07:00

I think it should be publicly stated that the ND CC license ("ND" means "No Derivatives"; whichever version of the license; 3.0 here) should not be called a "Creative" license; perhaps a "Commons" license, as something a person may distribute, but that's all. This especially since someone badges their work with a CC and gets brownie points, but it's not a CC.

A Day's Pearl

2009-04-05T23:54:00.000-07:00

I boasted, though a little boast, of the happines in my sorrows wrought by some ill health mental and physical-unbearable hives that keep driving me to prayer for which I was hungering, to pray to God not only for others, not only for myself, but also for an act in relationship towards/with Him, to my mother who believes prosperity-gospel teaching, hoping it might dent her delusion, disabuse her of the falsehood that keeps her trapped; a message about how Jesus himself told us rejoice in our sufferings; she sent a nonsensical message back "When in scripture you see suffering it usually has to do with trials of dealing with people and their wackiness". She continues, "If God were to get glory out of people getting and being sick, then Jesus wouldn't have gone around and healed people. Sickess is of the curse not the blessing. You need to find out what is wrong and be healed of it. Please go see a doctor...........Please!!!!!!!! Thank you :)~"

How strange to find happiness in failure, in sickness. How elevating to one's eyes to be in gratitude for suffering, though the results produce now be imperfect. One wants to put to words what is behind the delusion of her, and that of others blinded by falsehood, to diagnose man's heart and relieve the error such that they might turn in actuality to Christ in truth, genuinely, but such is not man's place or in his power; I am reminded again that we are helpless, as once I realized in confronting Mormons that I was facing a spiritual, demonic, wall and that nothing was or had been or could get through them, so interrupting every false statement with a challenge from the word, and then showing it in context in that text without wresting, they began to shake as those unsocialized as children such that they looked damaged, and with their shaking repeated over and over the Mormon mantra (called by them "my", they say, "testimony").

How similar the grasping of error, whether unto death, or mere error, but how common among men to hold fast to what is untrue, what is do the detriment of their souls and robbing of true riches. But this is my pearl for now, that is, that again I am reminded we are but helpless watcher's of God's work, and that His word is the power, unto action, conviction, condemnation, hardening, softening, enlivening/quickening, correction, direction, even salvation: not anything we might devise by cunning or observation or our own experience. This is my pearl for the day, that is, we are helpless, and must remember it.

An Abuse of Copyright Claiming

2009-03-31T19:45:00.001-07:00

From, http://www.marktwainproject.org/copyright.shtml,

In addition, texts edited by the Mark Twain Project and published by UC Press (such as, for example, the Project's 2003 edition of Adventures of Huckleberry Finn) are also protected, and may not be reproduced without permission.

I hope they know the mere slight editing, whether updating language, or punctuatorial, does not confer copyright on a work, but rather new substance must be added: a mere editorial reproduction of a work does not do this. If they've added annotations, for instance, these might be protected, but someone would need only strip them off.

And no, the justification for claims of copyright "well, it was costly for us", does not hold legal water. Thoughts? Corrections? Anyone?

Just a reminder post...

2009-03-25T05:45:00.000-07:00

...to myself that I left a comment here.

This is one of my favorite quotes on global warming, by the way:

I am not saying that the warming does not cause problems. Obviously it does. Obviously we should be trying to understand it better. I am saying that the problems are grossly exaggerated. They take away money and attention from other problems that are more urgent and more important, such as poverty and infectious disease and public education and public health, and the preservation of living creatures on land and in the oceans, not to mention easy problems such as the timely construction of adequate dikes around the city of New Orleans.(http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html)

[Exposing the] Emerging Church 101

2009-03-19T04:58:00.000-07:00

[updated 2009-10-11]

'Expose' has such negative connotations today; yet we either come to the light, or it will bear upon us, and we'll be exposed either way. The EC in large part refuses, hiding in ambiguity and doubt, refusal to speak clearly when asked hard things, double-speaking and feigning nicety while assaulting all who dare give criticism: throwing tantrums and denigrating those who dare not agree, while calling convicted and faithful believers the childish and stupid ones--openly to the world at that. And so,

Emergent Church 101 College Class [in 12 Parts]

If you want to watch, or start at, a certain chunk:
Part 1.__Part 2.__Part 3.__Part 4.
Part 5.__Part 6.__Part 7.__Part 8.
Part 9.__Part 10.__Part 11.__Part 12.

[terminate post for now...]

Some appropriate labels:
Doctrine, Dogma, False Doctrine, Heresy, Heretics, Heterodoxy, Subjectivism, Relativism, nonjudgmentalism, Doubters, False Brethren, Discernment, Church, Ecclesiology, Mysticism, Catholicism, Another Gospel, New Age, ideamen, Arrogance, he that hath a dream, wolves,

Truly Unifying, or Separation

2009-03-03T01:42:00.001-08:00

We Christians separate over truth.

We deny, for instance, Mormons the label "Christian" because we do believe in propositional truths, that terms are defined, that meaning is sure: Thus by "Christ" we mean someone different from who they describe, for instance.

But something else is troubling me. What about defining "soteriology"? Now, I know many may not know that term, so I'll put its definition simply: "about how to be saved", or "about salvation". With such a large landscape of those eager to get the word out about "Jesus" (define it) and so the world may here "how you can be saved" (define salvation), that should be near and dear to the heart.

Obviously this simple essential should be easily defined from Scripture, and held as one truth, one meaning, among all Christians, right? It also involves other components of consideration:

Theology: about God.
Christology: about Christ.
Anthropology: about Man.
etc.

And these, in turn, have other components that go by other fancy, but very useful, facilitating terms. Now, however, we turn to the situation: in reality, there's a wide disparity of believe in regards all these areas: even among the group that calls itself "evangelical".

Normally, in the event of diversity of beliefs, we should all be able to approach scripture together, strive after the same mind as commanded, contend for the faith, and conform to God's word in all these matters, so that we may, as Paul commanded, "speak the same thing". Not by just adopting this or that position just because, to present a united front that really isn't there in the soul of those professing it, which would be dishonest, right? After all, Colossians tells us we're to learn and come to a true/right/accurate knowledge of God (see the NASB's marginal notes on "knowledge", and also you might cf. the notes from the commentary of Jamiesson-Fausset-Brown, available online).

Yet, this pretensious political front is exactly what has happened: "Statement of Belief" you will find at Church after Church, repeating practically the same terms, but all vague: leaving the definitions up for grabs to all who adopt them, like diplomatic documents forged not out of unity of the mind, but by avoiding particulars allowing anyone they want to sign it: a political front, but no true, essential, spiritual and doctrinal unity. (Yes, "doctrine" can be applied to the world's affairs: the declarations made by the world are also doctrines, that is, doctrines, dogmas, undergird and are implied by such docs, for example, as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: there are ideas behind, imbued in, represented and expressed by such documents.)

What has become of the highly visible, preaching-itself, "Christianity"? It's motto is "Unity in Diversity": antithetical to biblical teaching; the same is the motto of the Bahai religion, for Indian Society (anything but united with its demeaning and wicked caste system), for practically every major socio-liberal organization on earth today. The old Christian application of that motto?

Unity despite various backgrounds.

A unity of origins, not beliefs, not opinions (the definition of "heresies"). It was once believed that the word dictated Christian belief/doctrine and practice, and was applicable and powerful for every area of life, inward and displayed (outward). Today these are speciously acknowledged, but implicitly and practically denied. It is not convenient: if we exegete Scripture accurately (draw teaching out of it, rather than using it at our own convenience, through sound hermeneutics) it is not so accomodating to modern liberal ideals of social justice and dogma; it is not so sentimental and fluffy: it neither castes humanity in the light of a poor victim of its own sin, nor God as one who is desperately awaiting the permission of those poor murders, adulterers, harlots, coveters, self-lovers, and so on, to come upon them with sweeping gushy love; it does not speak our "heart language"; nor fail to dare confronting almost every modern, well-beloved/dear, notion and pillar of the modern mind.

It does not present itself as to be desired in order to obtain intellectual and emotional fulfillment; a loving and wonderful, stronger, united family (actually Jesus warns He casts division into families); it does not promise anything but hardship, persecution, and suffering for Christ's sake ("tribulations"). It does not downplay any of its truths as non-essentials, as if the love of God which Jesus says is evidenced by obedience, involves only assent to what is deemed by the modern so-called Christian as "essentials" because they are seen as the bare minimums required for genuine salvation, though Scripture would contend the Christian will grow in the knowledge of the Lord and be brought into conformity, rather than stagnating and protesting further teaching when it comes to challenge what they hold dear, require what brings discomfort, ridicule, humiliation, and suffering.

Today wolves teach we must "make Christ attractive", and methods to "show how cool it is to be a Christian". Gone is the humble and unnoticed Christian who by virtue brings hatred upon him or herself despite being upstanding: being the stench of death so that without any prompting, the weight of damp heat the dislike is so intense, that even the unbeliever's smile and manners can't hide their seething dislike. Gone are the days that without trying to provoke anyone, the Christian yet brought upon himself persecution, merely by purity, in action, and profession: these days being provocative is seen as a virtue to "evangelize", while the biblical condemnation of needless offense of anyone is thrown under the bus (with Jesus) for not drawing and keeping large enough crowds. "Take this ordinary life", they sing to God, as if He is to be commanded, as dissatisfied and ungrateful as the world-in-general, evidencing their hatred for Paul's teaching to "remain in your present condition" (that of where one was found and saved), and to pray for the rulers "that we may lead a tranquil (or, peaceable) and quiet life in all godliness (or, piety) and gravity (or, dignity)" (1 Tim 2:2).

Rare is the humble and contrite spirit who serves the Lord with joy even when burdened with suffering, while common nowadays is the unending multitude that has no joy unless through another conference, another "Christian" concert (groups that avoid God's and Christ's name, and "Christianese" do to try to attract unbelieving audience...and evidence their shame, not proclamation, of Christ: often evidenced when they actually start talking about it, and preach other doctrines and gospels foreign to Scripture), or event, another "exciting" undertaking. :(

How awful to have millions upon millions of mouths crying "Jesus", and so few who know the one of which the Bible is talking about, at least, that is, from what we can see by comparing all this to Scripture.

I wish, that rather than trying to correct it all, that truly Christian believers would give-up their greeting of those who hold to other gospels and christs, and do as the word commands: separate, that they be not partakers, nor lend any legitimacy to the false prophets, goats, deceived, and so forth: let them hear our preaching of the truth from without, and if God so wills, be converted, and also therefore urged themselves to come out from among them.

Bad Form.

2009-02-28T12:47:00.000-08:00

[Lightly edited 4 March, 2009]

Modern translations, usually for reasons of style rather than translation, alter "and" into many other terms, but, for, so, then, etc., as they put it, as context seems to require. Frequently "and" is also dropped altogether.

But a good translation needn't do this: context will give the sense; if there even is one: these alterations often seem to color the translations and imply what is not original, whether consecutive order, or specificity, or introductions to what appears to be a conclusion, for instance "so" as in "therefore...". There are plenty of situations where using different words to render an underlying word is fine: "flood" vs. "deluge"? Doesn't matter, but often the "simple" things elude such choice without altering the text, and "and" is quite simple to render; so again, let the context indicate anything if it's there to be indicated.

The frequent dropping of "and" also leaves a jarring, disconnected, horrid text to read. There's no narrative flow, no appreciation of a progressing thought: instead of a train, we have a bumper-to-bumper traffic jam: disconnected thoughts in a series. I'm trying to read more modern versions in the OT, and it. jars. me. and. feels. like. I'm. grinding. my. teeth. for. ev.er.y. si.ng.gle. se.nt.tence. Like modern punctuating¹ that oversimplifies the situation rather than being literary and grammatical, [instead] all for style: thought is go--in...gng.....STOP. Okay thought is contin-u-ing STOP. Okay re-picking STOP up the STOP though. Picking-uSTOPp. thouSTOPougSTOPht.

Many of the changes seem made just because a few people don't like repetition of the use of "and", or because "authorities" protest using conjunctions at the beginning of sentences or too frequently (they don't now historical English, I suppose, or appreciate literature or device), though using them at the beginning, if such a problem, just suggests we ought not slovenly punctuate an originally unpunctuated text: punctuate for utility of conveying the text accurately, not stylistic tastes. And the specificity or nuances forced into the text by swapping something else in for "and" often just isn't there. The dropping of words is inappropriate: style be damned. I'll repeat: style be damned.

I'm not cursing: I'm using the hardest word of condemnation I know. Read the KJV sometime: it's not afraid to be so bold with such good-ol' terms, either. To hell with style when it interferes severely with accuracy.

¹ punctuating, not punctuation, indicating the act of punctuating, not the signs themselves.

Interesting: flood vs. deluge

2009-02-27T17:29:00.000-08:00

Literally, "flood" is related to "flow", and it's defined as merely a flow of water (connoting a lot, of course); "deluge" is from the verb "to wash away", "de"="away, "luge" is from "lavar"="to wash". The event referred to as "Noah's flood", with these in mind it tips my opinion in favor of using "deluge" rather than flood, particularly "God's deluge" rather than invoking "Noah", who was just a witness and obedient servant to build a ship and wait on the Lord's promised coming action.

I know I'm being very literal here, but something about "deluge" rings with me. The BBB and more liberally-minded "we should translate-for-the-uneducated/lazy" crowd would probably hate me for suggesting "deluge", but hey! My preference here comes from linking the etymological meaning of the word to the symbolism the flood embodies, namely, that God was washing-away the wickedness that so grieved Him. It's just artsy, not dogma.

It's like the guy who took-up complaint with the ESV Study Bible for linking some notes to certain used words rather than the context, which would be correct. I agree with the fellow on that point, but it is useful to note that linking certain words to certain teachings can also be a great way to help people remember something, and it's something people do naturally. Like when people remember the story by the words "Noah's flood", or like myself wanting us to invoke the significance behind recording that event in the Bible, by using the words "God's deluge". For one thing, with more accurate terminology and a little explanation, it ought (we'd hope) have those who would make God into a homeboy and a lovy-dovy sentimentalist who's just enamored with the poor helpless victimized-by-their-own-wickedness-people quake and repent of their false god. Yes, God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son: the same God is also aggrieved, angered, and full of wrath for that world, however: and the next deluge, His word promises, will be not with water, but fire.

Eastern Orthodoxy

2009-02-26T04:14:00.000-08:00

Eastern-Orthodoxy at Berean Beacon.

In recent years interest in the Eastern Orthodox Church among Christians has grown steadily and there have been a number of converts to this religious body. A prime reason for this interest has been the growing fascination with mysticism and ancient tradition which has permeated Western societies. Increasing numbers of Christians are coming into contact with Eastern Orthodox mysticism via the Emergent Church and the writings of the Orthodox "Church Fathers". There are many strands to Eastern Orthodox mysticism; this paper briefly examines a few significant areas such as Theosis, Hesychasm, the "Jesus Prayer", Spiritual Fathers and Light Mysticism.

Yours in the grace of the precious Savior,
Richard Bennett

1. The Seven Pillars of Orthodoxy
2. Orthodox Bishops High Priests
3. Just Say No
4. Icons Visions of a Spiritual World
5. Evangelical Issues for the Eastern Orthodox
6. Eastern Orthodoxy The Mystical Trap

Eschatology

2009-02-19T06:32:00.000-08:00

* Center for Biblical Theology and Eschatology

* Hyper- (full) preterism-A Heresy at Preterist Blog.

__"

[...] all of the “orthodox” eschatologies affirm exactly the 3 things that hyperpreterism denies. Hyperpreterism, in contradiction to 2000 years of Christian belief[,] claim[s] three things [...]
"

* A[n Evaluation] of Dispensationalism

[This post may receive additional links, updating, etc.; it has been ~~set to 2007-2-19, though published 19, Feb 2009 , to move it out of the way.~~ reset to its original publishing date, and was last modified 2010-06-08 at 4:02MST; I have considered setting the publishing date to dates of edit each time it is revisited in order that it should appear atop the blog so the edits be made known to any visitors, but currently reserve the beginning of such practice for a future date.]

Vine's Expository Dictionary of the New Testament

2009-02-15T15:33:00.000-08:00

Browsing through this little number, I keep hitting problems.

Perhaps it is the expository part. Perhaps it's the weak theology of the author's brethren (open) background; but I'm starting to think the "Expository" part of Vine's is not one of its best features, as it seems he eisegetes¹ his own meanings into some of the text too very often, and that it is more an enthusiastic approach to definitions than scholarly rigor.

Thus I would only approach using this resource very, very critically, using his definitions critically. (Repetition intended.) One example is the use of "predestined", where the author reads "middle knowledge" (scientia media) into the term, saying that God sees beforehand whether a believer will or will not believe, and yet I distinctly remember some very honest, rigorous, Arminian scholars saying (or perhaps I mis-remember and it was just non-Calvinist ones; I realize I need to re-dig-up those sources), as do Calvinists, that this is NOT the way the word is ever used in Greek (and other scholars concur). There are also passages that explicitly discount this theory, despite its popularity and currency among Arminians and philosophizing [neo]evangelicals.

I am, therefore, wholly removing the link to the resource and just leaving-up this warning page, not because I don't appreciate the work, not because of any Arminian tendencies, but because it seems each time I page through it that I find inaccuracies, I don't know how truly helpful it is to someone if they're not either studying Greek, or very familiar (read, practiced) with critical use of lexicons, concordances, commentaries, etc.; normally caveatted works are said to be "for scholars then", yet Scholars, believing scholars, don't really seem to give this work much stock, so far as I know; the trouble with telling people "read critically" is that to do so requires the background and experience in the matter to be read which the general populace will not know, and which would make a popularly aimed like "Vine's..." perhaps useless anyways. Thus, as I said I would, the link is stricken.

¹ To "eisegete" a text or word is to impute (read) meaning into it that's not original to it.

"Baptist"

2009-02-15T01:08:00.000-08:00

[The following is subject to much amendment and refining.]

The sad part of the term "baptist", is that it is associated with so much, and used so ambiguously. When used people think of "the baptists", but "the baptists" is a name applied to a broad and diverse range of people with varying beliefs. All evangelicals that do not baptize infants (kids fine, but not infants) are "baptists", using the proper definition of what the term designates!

There are "baptists" who are as different from one another as Roman Catholics from Conservative, Confessional Presbyterians. In fact, Reformed Baptists ("RB's") typically differ from Presbyterians only in that RB's reject (1) paedobaptism and the teachings associated with it, such as assumed/presumed regeneration of believers' children as unbiblical, anti-evangelical, and contrary to Christ, and also, (2) the failure of to recognize that the New Covenant has a discontinuity from the old, the law written on the heart of believers, and that community being composed only of such inscribed individuals (which is biblical), (3) the dominionist-like "magisterial" elements of the Westminster Confession. RB's also reject the remnants of Roman Catholicism found in Presbyterianism through the "continuity" sought with the Anglican's Church's 39 articles, which themselves sought to preserve a "Continuity" with the Church's thoroughly Roman past. (4) RB's also reject the remnants of Roman Catholicism in Reformed camps in the form of remaining Sacramentalism, especially in the form of "administering" the fuzzily-defined "means of grace": RB's, unlike Presbys-through-Rome, are perfectly willing to just sit-down and break bread in remembrance of the Lord (though still taking it seriously, of course), without the presence of the supposedly needed "properly ordained minister" to "administer" [God's] grace. In government, however, RB's are usually (for all practical purposes) Presbyterian without the addition of a bunch of supraecclesial levels beyond the individuals congregations, that is, they associate, not denominate (ARBCA is the exception--its Constitution describes a denomination, not an association), but they don't necessarily allow congregationalism's disorderliness. (That said, there should be elements in any and every Church's organization and relationships that would probably be deemed "Congregational" by most.)

There are also Arminian baptists, not a few stemming from anabaptist roots. There is the factious and proud arminian "Landmarkism" (a schismatic sect), such that there are groups called "Landmark Baptists" (another name is "Missionary Baptists"). There are "Southern Baptists", but this group is a great admixture of opposing views, goods, heresies...its historical teaching roots are in the Reformed Camp, as documentation shows, but with the waning of those doctrinal roots it has become not only the largest, one of the most mocked groups ever to call itself Christian: thankfully there are faithful ministers therein, however, striving in the good fight for the faith to overturn its departures. (Such as those who write for Founders.org and Founders blog.)

I write this because the term "baptist" is now associated with much disorderliness, nonsense, and what is outlandish. Unthinking, anti-intellectual, ascerbic-preaching, etc.. But it would be like accusing, throwing-together, all "paedobaptists" and giving them ridicule because the pope of Rome bedecked with glass lady-slippers, elaborate dress, (anyone want a jewel-studded chaucible, i.e. poncho, anyone?), and a gold and jeweled emperor's scepter makes for one of the most entertaining displays worthy of mockery ever to "grace" the human experience; a man claiming to be Christ's substitute and representative on earth, the Man who "had no comeliness", supposedly represented by that lavish and pompous head of that notorious and odious-to-the-sheep institution. Why would those who proclaim that there is no other name by which we must be saved than Jesus's be associated with those who teach that for salvation all who have the opportunity to know about the Pope must submit and be subject to the Pope? Why would those who preach the truth, that Christ is the head of the Church, not only in Heaven, but on Earth, be associated with he who declares himself the Church's earthly head?

So why, then, do people group "the baptists", when similar chasms of difference exist between certain groups? Why would the RB's who love and yet have mutual support with their Presbyterian brethren (though often RB's are also despised in one way or another by Presbyterians, example here) be grouped with the factious and ridiculous offshoots of Landmarkism? Why would the ambiguous heterodoctrinal Southern Baptist Convention be altogether associated with either of those?

Vine's Expository Dictionary of the New Testament

2009-02-15T00:00:00.000-08:00

Browsing through this little number, I keep hitting problems.

Perhaps it is the expository part. Perhaps it's the weak theology of the author's brethren (open) background; but I'm starting to think the "Expository" part of Vine's is not one of its best features, as it seems he eisegetes¹ his own meanings into some of the text too very often, and that it is more an enthusiastic approach to definitions than scholarly rigor.

Thus I would only approach using this resource very, very critically, using his definitions critically. (Repetition intended.) One example is the use of "predestined", where the author reads "middle knowledge" (scientia media) into the term, saying that God sees beforehand whether a believer will or will not believe, and yet I distinctly remember some very honest, rigorous, Arminian scholars saying (or perhaps I mis-remember and it was just non-Calvinist ones; I realize I need to re-dig-up those sources), as do Calvinists, that this is NOT the way the word is ever used in Greek (and other scholars concur). There are also passages that explicitly discount this theory, despite its popularity and currency among Arminians and philosophizing [neo]evangelicals.

I am, therefore, wholly removing the link to the resource and just leaving-up this warning page, not because I don't appreciate the work, not solely for Arminian or -like tendencies, but because it seems each time I page through it that I find inaccuracies, I don't know how truly helpful it is to someone if they're not either studying Greek, or very familiar (read, practiced) with critical use of lexicons, concordances, commentaries, etc.; normally caveatted works are said to be "for scholars then", yet Scholars, believing scholars, don't really seem to give this work much stock, so far as I know; the trouble with telling people "read critically" is that to do so requires the background and experience in the matter to be read which the general populace will not know, and which would make a popularly aimed like "Vine's..." perhaps useless anyways. Thus, as I said I would, the link is stricken.

We are all imitators

2009-02-14T01:27:00.000-08:00

Something that should humble us is that in some of the most important things in life, we are mere imitators. We learn from those we see, or who've gone before, etc., doing as they do.

We might seem to be original as we abstract atop our observations, combine and compare them, infer from them, reapply them, or (more usually) mix and mis/match them, but in the end: still imitators.

"But we ought be original", so you might say...but I want very much to learn from masters, to imitate the kind and benevolent, the faithful and salty, those who walk in light. There are many men to imitate, but the rule and measure, and the one to follow most of all, is Christ Himself, and foremost Him.

A Christian is not so much interested in all originality. There is little likelihood of success, in Biblical terms, if one decides to "be original" in one's approach in marriage, doctrines, holiness, etc.. In none of these does a man want to be novel. Of course presentation of things may vary--as original as thoughts may become in a society, or as the teachings of wolves become, do we have to be in spying the duplicity, and connecting the taken (read, captives/captivated) again to the old truth by shining it as light on the darkness they've received; therefrom we do something very unoriginal, just as our predecessors did repeatedly, we shepherd (whether by authority in the word and in preaching, or in lowly example of our own walks), them back to the old truth, the ancient paths, and warn our brothers, "abide therein".

The woods and promises

2009-02-08T03:46:00.000-08:00

Pro Veritas, Contra Mundum is a novel blog by "Cambria" shaping-up here. This post has a quote by C. S. Lewis that invoked a memory of an old favorite:

Whose woods these are I think I know.
His house is in the village though;
He will not see me stopping here
To watch his woods fill up with snow.

My little horse must think it queer
To stop without a farmhouse near
Between the woods and frozen lake
The darkest evening of the year.

He gives his harness bells a shake
To ask if there is some mistake.
The only other sound's the sweep
Of easy wind and downy flake.

The woods are lovely, dark and deep.
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.

~Stopping by the Woods on a Snowy Evening, by Robert Frost

I have to check from the book, when I get home, that I have the words right. And on the topic of promises, a lovely song with a virtuous theme (the video not important).

I know it's probably odd to write a not-so-serious post from a reminder stoked by such as serious post as the one with Lewis's quote on a blog titled "Pro Veritas, Contra Mundum". Isn't that the human mind, however, making connections? In this case being stoked to thoughts of a poem, which stoked memory of a song, two uninspired (by God, that is) works of art that are from the world, (though they their sentiments are arguably noble and unreproachable). :)

So on that note, there's a lot about "culture and Christ", and it's a subject I've had to deal with very personally, think about, etc., because of a Church with which I was involved and its teachings (I'm not now, which should give a hint). What I'll say to start is, Christians should be preaching God's word, Christ's teaching, and not founding entire sermons on cultural artifacts just to seem relevant. That's all, for now...

As to the subject Cambria is touching on, it is one of great interest to people: it is one which men with arduously attempt to philosophize to excuse God for the "criminal" behavior of saving some and not others: not a few people upon insisting that He does, indeed, neither save all, nor has to try, have said they could not worship that God, that I'd made Him into some terrible wicked thing (these are Christians). I understand from where they come from, but I cannot reconcile that place with Scripture, a place that reminds me of a Campus Crusade[r]'s testimony, who was taught inductive study, applied it to Romans 9, and became Reformed! thereafter--a stark rejection of Crusade's blatant Arminianism, if not Semi-Pelagianism, (something going by the name of the former quite often these days). I also think I've been guilty before, in this area, of simpletonism, such that I didn't recognize the difference of categories that in precise terms fall under such names as "volition", "agency", etc..

Anyway, a decent reply for those who protest that God would be a monster if He didn't want to save all, along such lines as "then he's making evil", or "[dot, dot, dot]" (strange because they start protesting along these lines, but we are, indeed, born evil, and it has nothing to do with their real item of protest--the supposed unfairness of saving some and not others), is simply pointing to Romans 9:20,

"Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou make me thus?"

What's funny about this, unlike the Christian philosophizers, is that it never attempts to defend God, His goodness is left unimpugned, assumed. One interesting blogger I know of There's a (but which I don't link to due to some troubling points in what the guy teaches¹), I once saw write an excellently essay demonstrating the inaccessibility and mystery of God's wisdom as revealed in the book of Job: I highly recommend that book (Job) on this subject.

--

^{1 The guy is one who'll make statements such as he know that the NT forbids women from teaching men, but in practice it is different, he says, since he's experience being blessed by the preaching of a female presbyter: he justifies all sorts of deviations from the word by stating things like the meaning/intent of the Biblical text, and application, are two different things, though very often the application is actually what he's challenging. A pastor who I have found so often to demonstrate excellent judgment, sober and prudent, had this to say (from personal familiarity of that other blogger's writing/teaching),}

^{"My impression of [...] is that he is more or less an old-fashioned "neo-orthodox" liberal. Up until about 1960, liberal biblical scholars did not usually pretend that the Bible supported all their liberal beliefs. They did tend to focus on things that they agreed with in the Bible, while keeping quiet about things they couldn't agree with, but when pressed on some point they usually just admitted that they didn't care much for what the Bible has to say about some things. That's where this guy is coming from. He wants people to appreciate certain things in the Bible that he likes.

After reading his blog for a couple of weeks some time ago, I stopped paying any attention to him. He is always trying hard to sound like some very profound and intellectual "maverick" theologian, sort of neo-neo-orthodox. But he seems to lack any real faith in the Word of God.}

^{I mention him at all because he's the guy who pointed-out Job in this capacity, and to acknowledge that I am very, like many my age, dependent upon teachers.}

ESV with Apocrypha has Arrived

2009-01-26T19:11:00.000-08:00

[This post subject to further revisions and refinements on what is not only a touchy subject, but one deserving of more precision and care for the verity and for charitas.]

_______The ESV is a generally useful translation of the Scriptures. I would not make it my main study bible, and it has some issues. (See this excellent review by Michael Marlow.) In the words of one fellow, the more liberal crowd of Bible readers has commonly made this version its "whipping boy"; I note they offer a lot of pedantic and unwarranted criticisms, and suggestions out of line with the version's principles; often calumniating it, though commonly enough right where it matches their otherwise beloved RSV, the RSV being the ESV's basis. This is quite sad.
_______Among more conservative demographics, however, and even those we might call neo-orthodox, (some of them, anyways), the ESV is doing quite well. In a move to secure the customerships of more conservative seminaries and academics, and perhaps the Roman, and Greek, Catholics as customers, Oxford has published the ESV with the Apocrypha (including both the Protestant/Catholic Apocrypha, and the Eastern Orthodox Apocrypha).

"The English Standard Version Bible with Apocrypha is certain to become the preferred Bible in more conservative divinity schools and seminaries, where the Apocrypha is studied from an academic perspective. And it answers the need of conservative Christians in general for a more literal version of these books." (Cambridge ESV with Apocrypha product page online)

Personally, I applaud the move because of the interest these books are to scholars, intertestamental students, and whatnot.

_______The Apocrypha, if you don't know, are books written in the interim period between the Old and New Testaments. Anciently they are not regarded as Scripture; during the Medieval period, some Western (Roman) Catholics began reading them as if they were; somewhere in history, Greek Catholics (Eastern Orthodox) also began regarding the Apocrypha regarded by the Roman Catholics, plus some, as Scripture.
_______The extra books were so regarded depending on the version used, the West due to presence in the Latin Vulgate, while in the East, due to presence in the Greek Vulgate (the Septuagint). Something important is to note that "canonical", "deuterocannonical", etc., in ancient writings, seemed to be used in more nuanced senses than today, with fine, developed, considerations of these matters absent today's thinking; this is especially significant since Catholics like to appeal to Augustine, who does not use the words as they do. When studied, I find the historical Protestants are heirs of this older, considerate, view of these books, perfectly in harmony, therefore, with the older catholic (miniscule "c") view of the books as generally acceptable for edification, but unacceptable for building or maintaining any doctrine. (Here is an interesting piece of writing on the subject!)
_______In the Reformation period the protestants set to inquire about the status of the Canon, and following the ancients' judgment, (though we're not to discount their own investigations in this matter from consideration), deemed these books, (in agreement with the ancient Jews and early Christians), as being outside the Canon of Scripture. Ever since, Rome has polemically accused the Protestants of criminal behavior, accusing them of rejecting "Scripture", and often depicting them as "missing out" on something; this is not upright or to be taken seriously, as the Protestants investigated the matter, and find themselves sided with authorities of the church that Rome ignores of necessity in order to assert her position.
_______Their line of inquiry looked to the Ancient Church's investigation of the matter, which was thorough, in both the Old and New Testaments, transcending and bypassing the rhetoric posturing of the Roman political hierarchy. By this the Protestants could hardly be accused, with any legitimacy, of actually contradicting the Church, "yea rather", they were returning to its sober judgment. Today, I have witnessed that the committed and serious Roman Catholics, when confronted with such data, such as,

"Jerome himself denied these are Scripture, and upon Origen's example and teaching, elucidated the name of this collection of books is "Apocrypha", after the custom of the Jews, a term meaning "hidden", properly, but applied to the books the Jews gave much respect, but did not regard as Scripture"

often retort with something like, "well Jerome was overruled by the Church". (!) I also see it often said, something like

"the Protestants use 'Apocrypha' to mean 'false', and they discourage the reading of these works".

These acerbically loaded accusations, however, totally ignore the Protestant writings, prologues, introductions, and scholarly works on these books. Luther, for instance, wrote

"Apocrypha, that is, books which are not held equal to the sacred Scriptures, and nevertheless are useful and good to read". (See 1, 2.)

The successive English Bibles, the protestant-Anglican (the preceding adjective since sometimes Anglicanism is more Roman than protestant, depending on the mood of the time) Church, the Dutch, etc., agree in this judgment, recognizing the importance of these works for historical data, and benefit for education, but not doctrine. They also ignore, however, the pastristics' use of "apocrypha", (which does on occasion have the sense false!).

The real rub for Catholics is that without these books, some of its doctrines fail either explicit, or implicit, support in Scripture, as if that ever mattered to post-Trent Catholicism, so it is an odd worry to see them express, when they have mountain ranges of such doctrines, and serious Catholic scholars, even the current Pope, unhesitatingly say that Scripture cannot support all of Rome's doctrines. Protestants are often accused of disregarding these books merely to do away with some doctrines. Yet again, the ancient Church is often in contention against Rome, though it claims continuity with it which agrees with the protestants, and it was their ancient cry that no doctrine shall be built upon extrabiblical books.

_______Today, I received my copy of the ESV with the Apocrypha. It's the standard ESV, with a short, fact-stating Preface, controversial about nothing so as, perhaps, to leave the version acceptable widely and ecumenically. It is a hardcover with sewn binding which arrived with a warning not to use the Bible as a holder of paper and Church bulletins lest they damage the sewn binding that was placed inside of course! Of interest to any Catholic, the Apocryphal books of this edition are placed in the back of the Bible, not interspersed into the Old Testament. I would have preferred they be placed between the testaments, for the intertestamental placement is more traditional (among Protestants), and emphasizes the period in which these books were written. Nonetheless, it is interesting to now have a modern, updated, rendition of these books in a literal form. The Apocrypha contained are those of both the Vulgate and the Septuagint. The preface says in part:

_____As with the Expanded Apocrypha of the RSV, the following edition of the Apocrypha also includes those books from the Septuagint that are in use among Orthodox Christians.
_____While the Entire text published in this Oxford University Press edition was examined for faithfulness to the original languages, the main points of interaction included updating archaic language, clarifying obscure words, removing inaccuracies, and bringing punctuation up to current American English standards. Three scholars well versed in the ancient language worked through assigned portions of the Apocrypha, namely:

_______ · David A. deSilva, Trustees' Distinguished Professor of New Testament Interpretation, Ashland Theological Seminary
_______ · Dan McCartney, Professor of New Testament, Westminster Theological Seminary
_______ · Bernard A. Taylor, Loma Linda University.

The whole was then edited by David Aiken (Ada, Michigan) to achieve consistency throughout.
_______The Göttingen Septuagint served as the textual base for all of the books except 4 Maccabees (which was translated from Rahlfs's Septuagint) and 2 Edras (which was translated from the 1983 Vulgate published by the German Bible Society).
_______We are pleased to offer this version of the Apocrypha to all those readers who wish to explore these ancient writings, which provide additional insight into the history and thought of the Jewish people during the centuries before the birth of Jesus Christ.

The Translation Committee
of the Apocryphal Books

_______The edition is quite thin, yet it has large type. The paper is good quality and opaque, having very little bleed-through of the text, (on this last point I give my caution, as I'm used to editions of Bibles that have heavy bleeding--such as the KJV/RV interlinear by Cambridge, so I may be a little out of the ordinary in evaluating that point[edit: I've seen other reviewers say there's more bleed-through than they'd like]). The large text will be be welcome to big readers and those with weary eyes. The book has no jacket. The appendices contain a table of weights and measures, and monetary units; three two-sided pages of note paper, (which is comical, but not unusual these days); and maps.

ISSUES:

The printing is disorganized to the uninitiated (that includes myself: must decipher...) and looks fragmentary. What connects to what...one does not necessarily know. The handling of the printing here is terrible. Perhaps it would not be so bad if this edition weren't so minimalist, skipping all intros and opportunities to convey some indication of what's going on!
_______Apocryphal Esther has various forms, Greek and Hebrew. In the Apocryphal Esther, I've encountered a problem: the printing in this edition of either does not indicate which is which, and generally leaves the reader who is not fully learned about the Apocrypha at a loss for what the heck is going on: why does the book start at chapter 11? Why does it have facing pages each with Chapters 3, 4, 5... Also, of interested to the Eastern Orthodox readers, the entire Greek Esther is printed, not just the Greek additions to the original Hebrew's version. Unfortunately, there are no introductions to the Apocryphal books whatsoever (or any of the ESV's introductions, actually), or cross-references.

Conclusion:
_______Other than these issues, this edition looks to be one that has already wildly, and widely, sold; Anglicans, Lutherans, and even Catholics have expressed interest. They delayed the release date because the pre-order numbers outran the supply. It looks as if there will be a much greater interest in the Apocrypha in the days ahead. Now if only people would take such an enthusiastic interest in handling Scripture carefully, and learning its doctrines, rather than reading it like a self-help therapeutic make-my-life-better book.

A Plea to Christians

2009-01-05T02:44:00.000-08:00

[There would be a great quote here by Martin Luther on "non-essentials", but nobody that's cited it gives the source.]

[There's be a great quote by Spurgeon here, perhaps, but nobody gives its source.]

Please brothers, CITE YOUR SOURCES!!!

Personally I do not like, necessarily, copying quotes, rather to look up the source then perhaps quoting the text from there.

Too much misinformation is spread through careless propagandizing of information without investigating it first and investigation is hampered by the lack of citation.

2011-12-24 Revised. Removed:

(t desire and the wherewithal to have “travelled about 7000 miles, in about 18 months, chiefly by foot,” Mr. Asplund recorded fand that should be done after ensuring it hasn't been removed from context to twist it in some way).(t desire and the wherewithal to have “travelled about 7000 miles, in about 18 months, chiefly by foot,” Mr. Asplund recorded fand that should be done after ensuring it hasn't been removed from context to twist it in some way).

Because it made no sense where it was and I do not know how it got there.

I just looked up the text and found it on a page about "Regular Baptists" here, http://baptistbulletin.org/?p=1077 and probably looked up something on religious history one day, came across this, and somehow introduced the material into this post, though I really am mystified as to how.

Microsoft is getting nervous...

2008-11-08T05:11:00.000-08:00

Trying to access Hotmail on Firefox using Linux, I get the "shiny" new live interface that doesn't detect my browser, so doesn't change to the "Classic view" (which is no longer possible to choose manually). Maybe they're just trying to beat-up Linux, since it works using Firefox on Windows; maybe they're just not caring anymore, and removed classic altogether; Mozilla indicates that Microsoft is trying to fix things... I can access it from a Windows PC, but from a linux or unix consol, it does not work.

Most everything works except...you cannot edit e-mails: not new, draft, nor replies: period.

I was going to do a temporary measure: forward all messages to gmail until things were fixed: Gmail just works. However when I attempted this, here's the reply I received:

You're only able to forward mail to a custom domain or an e-mail address that ends in hotmail.com, msn.com, or live.com. Please try again.

I don't know what you think, but forwarding is basic functionality expected of e-mail providers...and I'm pretty sure this is anti-competitive behavior: the stuff the EU keeps finding Microsoft, massively, for perpetrating against users: for which the company is now receiving heavy punishments and orders to open-up protocols and to document their API. I might've even paid for MS Mail in the future: now I'm just disgusted with the company, it never learns.

A Place for Response to a Comment...

2008-11-05T23:42:00.001-08:00

This post is a place made for a response to a comment where I asked a fellow a question regarding this comment, about a biblical phrase, which [comment] was:

The HCSB (Holman Christian Standard Version, 2003) has a note at 1 Sam. 25:22, "Lit. "of those of his who are urinating against the wall." Because this is an idiom for "men," I like that the HCSB chose that word as the text's translation. And yes, "men" may well be a better translation than "males".

I'm just curious about why "men" may be better than "males"; perhaps he means this because fellows like Rashi took this to mean anything with a phallus, (even dogs), although it actually just means male humans.

An Archive-Section for the Blog

2008-10-14T01:18:00.000-07:00

2011
Feb '11
Jan '11

2008-2010
Dec '10
Nov '10
Oct '10
Sep '10
Aug '10
Jul '10
Jun '10
May '10
Jan '10

Dec '09
Nov '09
Jul '09
May '09
Apr '09
Mar '09
Feb '09
Jan '09

Dec '08
Nov '08
Oct '08
Sep '08
Jul '08
May '08
Apr '08
Mar '08
Feb '08

(So I wanted a way to make a blog "archive" without using more than about a line of side-bar space. KISSing it, I've decided to make a post that I can hand-edit with the months, and so I present to you the Blog's Archive.

Unfortunately it's not a post I can make disappear and have called only by someone clicking on the "Archive" link to the right. That's okay, though, a little exposure and perhaps Google might take notice and implement features in blogger that are like this.)

Reprobation

2008-10-09T09:40:00.000-07:00

You likely may have no idea what "Reprobation" means: It is by many of today's standards a hard doctrine to swallow, but according to our predecessors one plainly expressed in scripture. Some say God merely lets people continue as they are (as SVC here, which is pastored by a discerning, though dispensational, brother, mind you), but here's why many before us said otherwise, explaining what this concept is from scripture:

The Sovereignty of God in Reprobation, by A.W. Pink.

Resources on the King James Version

2008-10-09T09:14:00.000-07:00

This is a post meant to be successively updated, and accessed from the side-bar. It was made to remove its links from cluttering that bar (the one to the right).

Significance, About, etc.
The King James Version (Bible Researcher)

Study
Quoting Michael Marlowe: "This is historically the most important version and it continues to be the most impressive literary translation of the Bible ever made. All serious students of the English Bible should make themselves thoroughly familiar with it."

KJV-Onlyism

[Examine] KJV-Only[ism]
"Against The Flood of Propaganda from King James Onlyism"
Westcott & Hort Resource Center: Two Frequently attacked men who's words are taken out of context by KJV-onlyists; those quotes are given in-context at this site, which is also trying to make their full works available (for scholarly-historical interest, though some would still apply today, mostly some of their doctrinal writing, works like their text-critical writing often does not)

A Study of Dispensationalism

2008-07-15T13:24:00.001-07:00

Dispensationalism is a system biblically wanting...

The term rendered by "Dispensationalism", for one, has nothing to do with time; so in Christianese use of the term as such, like in "in the prior dispensation" and "in the present dispensation", it is a fully corrupted use of the word; insofar as it is used as "in the prior stewardship", as in portraying God as giving man revelation to test him, let him fail, and then try-again, it also is a system rejecting both biblical continuity, that God tempts not man--He already knows the outcome; the point of this is that the entire system relies on this corruption, to divide-up the Bible into chunks and make it easier to eat those morsels, rather than understand it as a progressive single-continuum of God's sovereign will through History, which thus must be taken first given in milk, of course, then in bites, but finally whole, not forever simplifying.

Using "periods" to help teach Biblical History and Themes isn't improper: but the perversions inevitably led to by Dispensationalism aren't acceptable: and often self-defeating, as well as very apt to set the Bible on edge against itself; in Dispensationalism the literal is symbolic, the symbolic is literal; one must eschew the cues that give the indications of which is which, and the more distinctions you can create (vs. find) the better. It is also founded upon the idea of two distinct way to be saved: something wholly antithetical to Paul's message; yet it claims to be Pauline; it tries to divide the Church from Israel, ineffectively I might add...and fighting the Greek, Romans, Galatians, etc..

Interestingly, the modern origin, the fount, of Dispensationalism seems to have come originally as a newborn of a Spaniard Jesuit who was trying to explain why miracles were not longer happening, who's work in translation came into the hands of the systematizer [John Nelson] Darby, thenceforth, with Darby and through his successors, developing systematically until it growing-up to conceive its awful fruit: this is a system with many pillars easily toppled by the Scriptures it purports to uphold.

Below is a link to "A Study on Dispensationalism" by A. W. Pink; I made this post because I want to make a note: the site I link to has a few very useful and valuable materials, a great portion of the invaluable "Historical Theology" by Cunningham, the valuable works of R. L. Dabney, and other stuff. [It's also, very unfortunately, a KJV-onlyist site, a supporter of the idea of Baptist succession, and various other (scholarly lacking) ideas which have even been picked-apart by careful examination before. As to the "Baptist Successionism", I heard of a highly recommended examination of this thought, and I'll be picking it up, and pending review I may suggest it. Thus the site I'm linking to...I'm linking to this work that they've scribed and placed online, not the site wholesale: it has other useful stuff, A. W. Pink, Dabney, etc., but tread cautiously.]

One thing to note is that currently "Dispensationalist" thought is in heavy transition among many, though not all, Dispensationalists. A rising form of it is called "Progressive Dispensationalism" which is often, effectively, a wholly different system altogether than its predecessor, although sometimes it adherents defend their dispensationalism, in this form, as if it were the same thing.

Dispensationalism is heavily at conflict, even in the (nonprogressive) modern forms, with "Covenantal Theology", which itself can be exceptionally scriptural or miss the mark, (depending on how careful people are with handling God's Word); it's this "exceptionally scriptural" quality, however, that is within Biblical Covenantal Theology, that makes conflicting modern progressive-Dispensationalism a real concern: but the conflict is increasingly waning as Dispensationalists become more scriptural (thusly less dispensationalist); my circumstances are interesting in that as I became aware of issues surrounding this system I was treated to repeated exposure and encounters with the strains of it which continue opposed to Covenant/Reformation theology--I found consistent mishandling of Scriptures with these teachers, and that the adherents are often little more than cults: groups already full of Open Theism, of Synergism, of New Perspective type heresies, without even necessarily having read those works. They had older more established strains, which put modern Dispensationalists' claims, that I heard through their sermons, that only they had the ability to fend off modernism and heresies, as if grammatico-historic hermeneutics was their exclusive domain and development, rather than the standard practice of centuries, (yet in their hands a microanalysis of the texts to utter extremes far beyond than any genre often warrants), into new light.

The new challenge for truly sincere, childlike, Christians--coming-out of these mistakes as their theology is conformed with God's word, will be dealing with the poor uses of terms, and even more the likely resistance to letting go of them where they were used unbiblically.

Dispensationalism's historic forms, and remaining pillars that conflict with Paul, msust be resisted and opposed, and finally cast down into subjection: today there's tension as some Dispensationalists are increasingly becoming scholarly, rather than just followers of whoever fed them that system, so that they're handling the word with greater skill and propriety--and the more they do, the less Dispensationalist they seem to be.

Several I respect immensely are Bob DeWaay, Garey Giley, and John MacArthur, particularly for their discernment and zeal for the Word; interestingly older-line Dispensationalists have even questioned whether MacArthur is even Dispensationalist anymore, perhaps for good reason since the essence of that to which he espouses is often, anymore, more unlike it. One thing in common with all these men, however, is they are Reformed: a common thread, it seems, of discernment anywhere (another is that they are credoebaptists: another common thread among the warning voices these days in Christendom crying-out for discernment and holding to Scripture).

The following is an examination of that older (yet enduring) systematized form, which still has branches outstretched, who's roots caused a whole lot of mess for us all (many not even knowing it), by A. W. Pink,

A Study of Dispensationalism

Addendum: And just recently I learned of an effort by Reformed Christians to make opposition to this system more open, public, and "fight back", so to speak, with a site having been set-up, which states:

DISPENSATIONALISM HAS THROWN DOWN THE GAUNTLET: AND IT IS HIGH TIME THAT COVENANT THEOLOGIANS TAKE UP THE CHALLENGE AND RESPOND TO THEM BIBLICALLY.

That site has published the following,

Disputation of NiceneCouncil.com On
The Power and Efficacy of Dispensationalism
-or-
The Ninety-Five Theses Against Dispensationalism

Saints' Voices, "Liberty", and Separation

2008-05-29T02:53:00.000-07:00

Something from "Andy S", reformatted, who over on an OldTruth post wrote, "Here is something a professor at a Bible school gave me about tv" and posted:

"The television is my shepherd, my spiritual life doth want.
It maketh me sit down and do nothing. It leadeth me beside men of no faith.
It restoreth my desire for worldly pleasures.
It requireth all my spare time and keepeth me from doing the will of God,
because it presenteth so much foolishness which I must see.
It increaseth my knowledge of nonsense
and keepeth me from the study of the Word of God.

Yea, though I live to be a hundred,
yet the viewing of my television shall have first place in my life
as long as it doth operate,
for it is my closest companion.

Its sound and its picture, they comfort me.
It presenteth foolishness and folly before me continually
and keepeth me from surrendering my whole life unto God.
It anoints my mind with seeds of corruption
and fills my head with vanity, which profiteth me nothing;
my cup remains empty.

Surely, no good things will come of my life,
because I am devoted to my television,
which leaveth me no time to serve God acceptably.
Thus I will dwell in the House of Confusion[,] forever."

And another unsorted, but valuable question by a brother (bryan rieke) left there is [here missing the first sentence]:

i too have been musing what being "separated" looks like. i mean it has to look like stuff i do and dont do to some degree... no? it seems of late i have been hearing alot about our(christians) freedom in christ or christian liberty. conspicuously absent is talk of holiness though. christian liberty is great but i fear that liberty is cherished more than christ is, i.e., the things of christ treasured over christ himself.

I note that "liberties" in the NT often refers to that which some boasted in, for which they were admonished not to boast or parade-about at the expense of conscience or wrecking of weaker brothers and sisters; and some simply just did what was wrong, but tried to call it "liberties".

While not, at the moment, fully probing into "liberty", here's a sermon on "True and False Separation", by Bob DeWaay, though I'm not sure on the comments about the Law: http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/critical_issues_
commentary/archives.asp?bcd=5/5/2008

Could anyone else comment (correctly) on that (the law comments about certain points being done-away with)?

University Insaneness

2008-04-27T00:01:00.001-07:00

On another blog is a poster displaying a poster, and they say:

“All that it takes for prejudice to prosper is for good men to do nothing.” As you can see in this detail, this is an homage to Edmund Burke, who famously said “all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”

While I agree that there are prejudices which are not good things (racisms is a good example of "not good prejudices"), the way "prejudice" is used in Universities comes to encompass moral opinions which Universities disparage (to put it lightly): they say "tolerate anything" and yet then persecute those who disagree. : ( Anyways, the ironic thing is what Edmund Burke himself said about "prejudices": this is one of those nuspeak-twisted words that was once full of sagacity, used to mean those things which had been examined and judged according to knowledge and experience, with careful consideration: and this is still the way it is used when it is wrested to blur ignorant and bigotted opinions with moral ones that have carefully thought over and issue, and judged it, despite pc "moral consensus" and preferential metaphysical modernist disconnection from history. Here's what Edmund Burke said, I found this ironic. Happy reading:

We are afraid to put men to live and trade each on his own private stock of reason; because we suspect that this stock in each man is small, and that the individuals would do better to avail themselves of the general bank and capital of nations and of ages. Many of our men of speculation, instead of exploding general prejudices, employ their sagacity to discover the latent wisdom which prevails in them. If they find what they seek, and they seldom fail, they think it more wise to continue the prejudice, with the reason involved, than to cast away the coat of prejudice, and to leave nothing but the naked reason; because prejudice, with its reason, has a motive to give action to that reason, and an affection which will give it permanence. Prejudice is of ready application in the emergency; it previously engages the mind in a steady course of wisdom and virtue, and does not leave the man hesitating in the moment of decision, sceptical, puzzled, and unresolved. Prejudice renders a man’s virtue his habit; and not a series of unconnected acts. Through just prejudice, his duty becomes a part of his nature.–Edmund Burke, Reflections on the French Revolution.

[Below Added 2011-12-24]

Interestingly they say Burke is famous for saying "all that is necessary..." yet I wondered at the lack of citation anywhere, started looking online, and stumbled upon a like minded (I do not think I have ever published one, but I have like this author sat down, put a bunch of forms of a quote supposed to have been made by someone to paper or screen, then listed the various sources in which I could find them, whether on or off line, under each respective form, in search of citations and clues to where I might find an origin) reviewer, http://tartarus.org/martin/essays/burkequote.html. I dissent from statements that commonly known quotes need no be cited, since often they do else false attributions spread like cancer, and assertions that quotes that are genuine will only find a few deviant forms, knowing people, but enjoy the gist of his page.

I qualify that with stating that allusions to an author using his words, such as the examples given by this author, "workers of the world unite" (Marx) and "give us this day our daily bread" (Jesus) need not necessarily be cited, even in fact mythological conceptions and associations, e.g. a writer knowing that "all that is necessary..." is wrongly attributed to Burke, might nonetheless use those words because they express what he wants to say, and does not do wrong by using them, or even by failing in every instance of use to tell everyone they are not by Burke.

Anyway, there is an acronym used by those who haunt "Slashdot", a forum for nerds to discuss nerdy news, "RTFA", which means "Read the ****ing article", which is used commonly not only towards those who comment without reading the article, common because people go there to discuss not just the articles linked to but related things or whatever comes up in discussion, but even by many of themselvs after making stupid statements about the things being discussed they might not have if they had read the article, e.g. "I know, I know, RTFA". I just realized that I saw that blog post and skimmed the first section, then wrote this post. I then went to a copy of "Reflections..." and put down the quote. Upon going over the entire blog post, however, I find that its author...writes the same gist! I.e. dumb poster, given Burke's defense of prejudices. So "I know, I know, RTA".

if a tree falls to the ground...

2008-03-02T18:11:00.000-08:00

One great facet about the web is that you can publish to a possible audience of, well...most of the world (even though the percentage of internet users is relatively low, and accessibility so-so)...and still have, for all practical purposes, no readers (that you know of). : )

I kind of like it...gives me more time to think on things and keep revising...

R-ASV

2008-02-25T22:10:00.000-08:00

I thought I should explain "R-ASV" in the blog description area...in which I put a verse first. The "R" stands for "Revised". "ASV" stands for the version properly designated "Revised Version, American Standard Edition", which is popularly known as the "American Standard Version"; among seminaries it was known as the "Standard Version" and hence the reason the first revision of it was called the "Revised Standard Version". The "revision" I made is taking the old "wherefore" and substituting "therefore" (as you'll see in modern versions).

I like to use public domain resources when possible. Any changes in a work indicated as that work I indicate so someone can check into it if they desire: so there's the point of the "R".

Depending on how literal a version is I sometimes change-up. Usually for the more literal, the less only used as commentaries (if correct). I probably would have used the English Revised Version (the first edition of which the ASV is a second edition) but the ASV's punctuation here is better (by one mark) so I chose that one.

Comments on Marriage

2008-02-23T22:25:00.000-08:00

I had a post here...but it needs more scripture, as well as more interaction with the post it was commenting on over at this post. It was also too long, for the moment, and needs to be chunked-and-fleshed (i.e. broken up into parts, and then put meat on each part).

So back to being a slow, wee, blog. This post should be edited with a "forecast" of parts to come up that has thoughts on relational things between men and women...and most importantly, the Lord. : )

Misc. Drawer

2000-03-11T21:50:00.000-08:00

Note the stuff in here is not by presence necessarily endorsed or not, it's just here: a miscellaneous drawer is where one throws stuff in for possible, later perusal.

Politics? Sociology? Commentary? Polemic?
"101 'Cleared-Up' Contradictions In The Bible"
A Long Overview of John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion
Corrections to Battles' translation of Calvin's Institutes
C's Institutes, translation by Henry Beveridge
The Hall ofChurchHistory
The Carlyle Letters Online
Internet Modern History Sourcebook

Another example of something posted later than the timestamp in order to force it out of view because it's just for throwing things on and linking-to from the sidebar.

A Guy's Blog

Here I am.

If they were watered...

Dialogues & Conversations

On fashion...

Changelog

Strange Resonance: Uppity Reformed vs. Gospel, and Jesuits vs. Franciscans

Social class or the Gospel: pick only one (part 1)...

Experimental Faith: Analogies from Alzheimer's

A rough, untitled poem

A Modest Proposal

A Perspective on Education

Happy Holidays

Reasons not to Read

Never satisfied: illustrating that proverb about man's insatiability...

Unseen Rule

untitled poem

If any are interested in arcana and in Latin...

Reviving "Seva" as "Sevacious"

"Little" Errors in Sources Online: Chesterton's "The Last Hero"

Someone is Wrong on the Internet, Or Errors Online

ON AMUSEMENTS, by Harvey Newcomb

Romantic or Stalker?

Language & Languages, Ancient Stuff

LANGUAGES

Greek & Latin

Latin

Ancient Stuff

Music that Can Accurately be called "Christian", that is suitable for teaching one another and for praise in worship

A Refreshing Blog by Some Ladies: Sola Sisters

Comparative Linguistics for the Common Man (Comical): Jolin Tsai's Love Love Love, translation and English "sounds like"

Resources & Food For Sheep

Food for Sheep (var LastUpdated = document.lastModified;document.writeln ("Last Rev. " + LastUpdated);)

THE GOSPEL ITSELF

Christology (About Christ)

Theology (About God)

Sanctification (being made holy), and Mortification (Putting Sin to Death)

VARIOUS RESOURCES/MINISTRIES

Blogs

CONFESSION(S)

CATECHISM

Genuinely Christian--or Spiritual--Music

Other

English Infinitive vs. Imperative Interrogative, or Interrogative Verb

Contemporary or Modern (Recent) Christianities

Romanism

A Declaration Contra the Other spirits Purporting to Be of Christ

Contacting Me

Backgrond of "Frode, Luba Fides"

Old Skool Poeming

Politics and Ambassadorship

A Miracle?

Need accenting and special characters?

Ten Indictments

Good Shepherd Band

Rough draft(?): OdeReply to the Beck of Popular Christendom

unCreative Commons

A Day's Pearl

An Abuse of Copyright Claiming

Just a reminder post...

[Exposing the] Emerging Church 101

Truly Unifying, or Separation

Bad Form.

Interesting: flood vs. deluge

Eastern Orthodoxy

Eschatology

Vine's Expository Dictionary of the New Testament

"Baptist"

Vine's Expository Dictionary of the New Testament

We are all imitators

The woods and promises

ESV with Apocrypha has Arrived

A Plea to Christians

Microsoft is getting nervous...

A Place for Response to a Comment...

An Archive-Section for the Blog

Reprobation

Resources on the King James Version

A Study of Dispensationalism

Saints' Voices, "Liberty", and Separation

Food for Sheep ()