So I'll not be writing that series before I leave after all.
Really, I've not had much inclination to hang around the computer lately anyway...which is probably a good thing.
But I've been having a good time with friends, between adoption parties, going to see Prince Caspian, impromptu jam sessions, and siblings' baseball games.
We've had some amazing storms coming through Nebraska the last few days; you can see some pictures at the blog of a friend of a friend at http://sempre-dolce.blogspot.com. On Tuesday morning, I woke at 4 and couldn't go back to sleep, so stayed up watching the lightning and writing. My notes from that are over on my poetry blog. I wrote more than that, including some substantial progress on some lyrics I've had in my head for months now, but that song isn't finished yet. In the unlikely event I finish it today, I'll post it.
Otherwise, you'll have to wait till I return from Kentucky in 4 weeks. I leave tomorrow!!!! Check out the info on LTC here: http://www.goarmy.com/rotc/leaders_training.jsp
May our Lord be with you, and I'll see (or "see") you when I return. Continue growing in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Sola Gratia,
Colin
P.S. I do have one post set to go up automatically on 15 June, so check back sometime. :-)
Job 38
1Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
2Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
3Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
4Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
8Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?
9When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,
10And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,
11And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?
12Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place;
13That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?
14It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment.
15And from the wicked their light is withholden, and the high arm shall be broken.
16Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?
17Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death?
18Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all.
19Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof,
20That thou shouldest take it to the bound thereof, and that thou shouldest know the paths to the house thereof?
21Knowest thou it, because thou wast then born? or because the number of thy days is great?
22Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail,
23Which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war?
24By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth?
25Who hath divided a watercourse for the overflowing of waters, or a way for the lightning of thunder;
26To cause it to rain on the earth, where no man is; on the wilderness, wherein there is no man;
27To satisfy the desolate and waste ground; and to cause the bud of the tender herb to spring forth?
28Hath the rain a father? or who hath begotten the drops of dew?
29Out of whose womb came the ice? and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it?
30The waters are hid as with a stone, and the face of the deep is frozen.
31Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?
32Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?
33Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?
34Canst thou lift up thy voice to the clouds, that abundance of waters may cover thee?
35Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go and say unto thee, Here we are?
36Who hath put wisdom in the inward parts? or who hath given understanding to the heart?
37Who can number the clouds in wisdom? or who can stay the bottles of heaven,
38When the dust groweth into hardness, and the clods cleave fast together?
39Wilt thou hunt the prey for the lion? or fill the appetite of the young lions,
40When they couch in their dens, and abide in the covert to lie in wait?
41Who provideth for the raven his food? when his young ones cry unto God, they wander for lack of meat.
Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts
05 June 2008
12 May 2008
Counting Down
2 exams and 1 paper down, 1 exam (Geometry) and 1 paper (Freedom's) to go...Hua!!!
***
I'll be done with the semester by Wednesday, and am planning to go up to Carlos O'Kelly's today to see about working again for them over the summer, starting next week.
***
So...plans for the summer: work, go to LTC, spend as much time as possible with Nebraska friends (guys, I want to go hiking!!!!), leave around August 12th or so to drive out to Virginia.
***
I recently remembered a debate on the Civil Rights Act from US History...the Civil Rights movement was indubitably good, but the Act itself was debatably so, definitely on constitutional and arguably on political grounds. That is probably going to turn into a post, and one on which I'd like discussion.
***
On that note, please read this speech by John McCain on his philosophy of the judiciary. It is very encouraging to hear this, and I completely agree with it.
***
Summer reading list:
--Les Miserables (I finished Martin Chuzzlewit last week)
--Getting the Gospel Right (and discussing that with the friend who is graciously allowing me to borrow it)
--Pick Death of Death in the Death of Christ back up, and finish it.
--Finish The Perfectibility of Man
--Finish Calvin's Institutes...hopefully.
--Finish the Hornblower Series? Possibly?
--Finish Lone Survivor, on a Navy SEAL fighting in Afghanistan.
***
Mother's Day was great--the men made a church breakfast for the ladies, which was quite fun.
For the service, we had an "open letter to my Mom" day. I had not written out a letter beyond the card I got her (and gave her the day before), but I wrote down some points and practiced my extemporaneous speaking (Dr. Tallmon would be proud).
***
Mother's Day morning: My mom was playing Command and Conquer: Renegade, and picked up a flamethrower, when I insisted she wanted a more long-range weapon. So then I took the open elevator to the next floor (past the sniper who was stuck facing a wall), but it didn't go all the way up. I had to jump up and pull myself out of the shaft--but while I was trying to do so, my brother climbed on my back and clambered over me. All the while the bad guys on the next floor were looking at me with rather bemused expressions.
But I climbed up and started flaming the baddies with my own flamethrower, except they didn't fall. I realized that my hands were empty and I was making the "whoosh" sound with my mouth. The people didn't even look like bad guys anymore, but were still looking at me funny.
Then I woke up.
The weird thing is that I don't even play Renegade (let alone my Mom): I prefer the strategy style C&C games.
Anywho....
***
Something else kind of weird:
I think I went from being a covenant credobaptist with paedobaptist sympathies to a covenant paedobaptist with credobaptist sympathies Sunday afternoon...I have yet to awaken from that one. I'm still searching the Scriptures on that, but I think it finally sort of clicked.
By "covenant" baptist, generally, I mean the idea that baptism is a sign and symbol (signifying the spiritual reality) of God's covenant with His elect, the covenant of grace, which we receive by imparted faith. I still reject regenerative baptism of all sorts (Lutheran and Romanist) and think that the idea that baptism is a statement of the "commitment we've made to Christ" is just really shallow theology...
The difference between covenant credobaptists (Reformed Baptists) and paedobaptists (Presbyterian/Reformed) is fundamentally on if the children of believers are in some sense comprehended under the covenant of grace and are part of the visible church. The credobaptists say they are not in any sense under the covenant if they are not elect. The paedobaptists would not say that the children are necessarily elect, but are still a part of the covenant, much like all the Israelites were under the covenant without all being elect. In fact, they often draw a comparison between circumcision in the OT and baptism in the New (that's the part I'm still checking on).
***
I was asked last Monday if I believed in Limited Atonement or Unlimited Atonement. And I didn't realize until then how frustrating a question that is...phrased in those terms, there is no short answer. I would agree with Spurgeon that it is the atonement unlimited in extent that actually limits the effect of the atonement, so calling "Particular/Definite Redemption" "Limited Atonement" rather weights the question.
Short answer (free of the terms governed by polemical history) is this: I believe Christ died to redeem His spiritual Israel (the church), and He accomplished His purpose at the cross. I take this view from Scripture as a whole: from the Old Testament prophecies and the New Testament teaching on the intent and accomplishment of the atonement. Granted, there are several NT passages speaking of "all" and the "world," but the Greek words are not consistently used in a universal sense. On the contrary, in most of the passages that are not under debate, they are NOT used in a universal sense...in the context of the clear OT and NT teaching on election, and the teaching on God's purpose in the atonement, and in the context of the verses themselves, it is perfectly acceptable (I believe) to take the more specific application of the Greek words.
That said, I do believe that Christ is truly offered to "whomever will believe." The extent of the atonement one way or the other is never made the basis for NT evangelism, so the argument that we ("Calvinists" so-called) can't evangelize because we believe Christ did not die for all doesn't hold. Everyone (in this particular debate) agrees that everyone who believes is redeemed and everyone who does not believe does not receive the benefits of Christ's death. Though we disagree on the order (redemption or belief, and regeneration or belief), we agree on that much, at least.
Okay, I'm going to stop before I write another paper on this....
***
I'll be done with the semester by Wednesday, and am planning to go up to Carlos O'Kelly's today to see about working again for them over the summer, starting next week.
***
So...plans for the summer: work, go to LTC, spend as much time as possible with Nebraska friends (guys, I want to go hiking!!!!), leave around August 12th or so to drive out to Virginia.
***
I recently remembered a debate on the Civil Rights Act from US History...the Civil Rights movement was indubitably good, but the Act itself was debatably so, definitely on constitutional and arguably on political grounds. That is probably going to turn into a post, and one on which I'd like discussion.
***
On that note, please read this speech by John McCain on his philosophy of the judiciary. It is very encouraging to hear this, and I completely agree with it.
***
Summer reading list:
--Les Miserables (I finished Martin Chuzzlewit last week)
--Getting the Gospel Right (and discussing that with the friend who is graciously allowing me to borrow it)
--Pick Death of Death in the Death of Christ back up, and finish it.
--Finish The Perfectibility of Man
--Finish Calvin's Institutes...hopefully.
--Finish the Hornblower Series? Possibly?
--Finish Lone Survivor, on a Navy SEAL fighting in Afghanistan.
***
Mother's Day was great--the men made a church breakfast for the ladies, which was quite fun.
For the service, we had an "open letter to my Mom" day. I had not written out a letter beyond the card I got her (and gave her the day before), but I wrote down some points and practiced my extemporaneous speaking (Dr. Tallmon would be proud).
***
Mother's Day morning: My mom was playing Command and Conquer: Renegade, and picked up a flamethrower, when I insisted she wanted a more long-range weapon. So then I took the open elevator to the next floor (past the sniper who was stuck facing a wall), but it didn't go all the way up. I had to jump up and pull myself out of the shaft--but while I was trying to do so, my brother climbed on my back and clambered over me. All the while the bad guys on the next floor were looking at me with rather bemused expressions.
But I climbed up and started flaming the baddies with my own flamethrower, except they didn't fall. I realized that my hands were empty and I was making the "whoosh" sound with my mouth. The people didn't even look like bad guys anymore, but were still looking at me funny.
Then I woke up.
The weird thing is that I don't even play Renegade (let alone my Mom): I prefer the strategy style C&C games.
Anywho....
***
Something else kind of weird:
I think I went from being a covenant credobaptist with paedobaptist sympathies to a covenant paedobaptist with credobaptist sympathies Sunday afternoon...I have yet to awaken from that one. I'm still searching the Scriptures on that, but I think it finally sort of clicked.
By "covenant" baptist, generally, I mean the idea that baptism is a sign and symbol (signifying the spiritual reality) of God's covenant with His elect, the covenant of grace, which we receive by imparted faith. I still reject regenerative baptism of all sorts (Lutheran and Romanist) and think that the idea that baptism is a statement of the "commitment we've made to Christ" is just really shallow theology...
The difference between covenant credobaptists (Reformed Baptists) and paedobaptists (Presbyterian/Reformed) is fundamentally on if the children of believers are in some sense comprehended under the covenant of grace and are part of the visible church. The credobaptists say they are not in any sense under the covenant if they are not elect. The paedobaptists would not say that the children are necessarily elect, but are still a part of the covenant, much like all the Israelites were under the covenant without all being elect. In fact, they often draw a comparison between circumcision in the OT and baptism in the New (that's the part I'm still checking on).
***
I was asked last Monday if I believed in Limited Atonement or Unlimited Atonement. And I didn't realize until then how frustrating a question that is...phrased in those terms, there is no short answer. I would agree with Spurgeon that it is the atonement unlimited in extent that actually limits the effect of the atonement, so calling "Particular/Definite Redemption" "Limited Atonement" rather weights the question.
Short answer (free of the terms governed by polemical history) is this: I believe Christ died to redeem His spiritual Israel (the church), and He accomplished His purpose at the cross. I take this view from Scripture as a whole: from the Old Testament prophecies and the New Testament teaching on the intent and accomplishment of the atonement. Granted, there are several NT passages speaking of "all" and the "world," but the Greek words are not consistently used in a universal sense. On the contrary, in most of the passages that are not under debate, they are NOT used in a universal sense...in the context of the clear OT and NT teaching on election, and the teaching on God's purpose in the atonement, and in the context of the verses themselves, it is perfectly acceptable (I believe) to take the more specific application of the Greek words.
That said, I do believe that Christ is truly offered to "whomever will believe." The extent of the atonement one way or the other is never made the basis for NT evangelism, so the argument that we ("Calvinists" so-called) can't evangelize because we believe Christ did not die for all doesn't hold. Everyone (in this particular debate) agrees that everyone who believes is redeemed and everyone who does not believe does not receive the benefits of Christ's death. Though we disagree on the order (redemption or belief, and regeneration or belief), we agree on that much, at least.
Okay, I'm going to stop before I write another paper on this....
04 February 2008
Modesty in Marriage
I am not exactly well known for having thoughts on marriage, much less writing on it--my lack of experience, qualitative and quantitative, renders my authority in such an area dubious at best. But, there was a recent conversation on the ANGEL student discussion forum regarding propriety in marriage, precipitated by a comment I made that was deemed rather"old-fashioned." (I am finding that, even for a PHC student, I am very conservative on pretty much every count except my music). I am not going to repeat the conversation or its specific subject here, but I shall post two passages from recent readings that I think are relevant. The Peter passage is relevant, not for the injunction to be "submissive/subject," but for its discussion of modesty and beauty. Apologies to Patrick Henry, but "if this be prudery, gentlemen, let us make the most of it."
2 Peter 3:1-6 "1Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
2While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
3Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
4But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
5For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
6Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement."
From Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion (Book II, Chapter 8)
Section 44. Precautions to be observed in married life. Everything repugnant to chastity here condemned.
Moreover, when spouses are made aware that their union is blessed by the Lord, they are thereby reminded that they must not give way to intemperate and unrestrained indulgence. For though honourable wedlock veils the turpitude of incontinence, it does not follow that it ought forthwith to become a stimulus to it. Wherefore, let spouses consider that all things are not lawful for them. Let there be sobriety in the behaviour of the husband toward the wife, and of the wife in her turn toward the husband; each so acting as not to do any thing unbecoming the dignity and temperance of married life. Marriage contracted in the Lord ought to exhibit measure and modesty - not run to the extreme of wantonness. This excess Ambrose censured gravely, but not undeservedly, when he described the man who shows no modesty or comeliness in conjugal intercourse, as committing adultery with his wife.
Lastly let us consider who the Lawgiver is that thus condemns fornication: even He who, as he is entitled to possess us entirely, requires integrity of body, soul, and spirit. Therefore, while he forbids fornication, he at the same time forbids us to lay snares for our neighbour's chastity by lascivious attire, obscene gestures, and impure conversation. There was reason in the remark made by Archelaus to a youth clothed effeminately and over-luxuriously, that it mattered not in what part his wantonness appeared. We must have respect to God, who abhors all contaminations whatever be the part of soul or body in which it appears. And that there may be no doubt about it, let us remember, that what the Lord here commends is chastity. If he requires chastity, he condemns every thing which is opposed to it. Therefore, if you aspire to obedience, let not your mind burn within with evil concupiscence, your eyes wanton after corrupting objects, nor your body be decked for allurement; let neither your tongue by filthy speeches, nor your appetite by intemperance, entice the mind to corresponding thoughts. All vices of this description are a kind of stains which despoil chastity of its purity.
2 Peter 3:1-6 "1Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
2While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
3Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
4But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
5For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
6Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement."
From Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion (Book II, Chapter 8)
Section 44. Precautions to be observed in married life. Everything repugnant to chastity here condemned.
Moreover, when spouses are made aware that their union is blessed by the Lord, they are thereby reminded that they must not give way to intemperate and unrestrained indulgence. For though honourable wedlock veils the turpitude of incontinence, it does not follow that it ought forthwith to become a stimulus to it. Wherefore, let spouses consider that all things are not lawful for them. Let there be sobriety in the behaviour of the husband toward the wife, and of the wife in her turn toward the husband; each so acting as not to do any thing unbecoming the dignity and temperance of married life. Marriage contracted in the Lord ought to exhibit measure and modesty - not run to the extreme of wantonness. This excess Ambrose censured gravely, but not undeservedly, when he described the man who shows no modesty or comeliness in conjugal intercourse, as committing adultery with his wife.
Lastly let us consider who the Lawgiver is that thus condemns fornication: even He who, as he is entitled to possess us entirely, requires integrity of body, soul, and spirit. Therefore, while he forbids fornication, he at the same time forbids us to lay snares for our neighbour's chastity by lascivious attire, obscene gestures, and impure conversation. There was reason in the remark made by Archelaus to a youth clothed effeminately and over-luxuriously, that it mattered not in what part his wantonness appeared. We must have respect to God, who abhors all contaminations whatever be the part of soul or body in which it appears. And that there may be no doubt about it, let us remember, that what the Lord here commends is chastity. If he requires chastity, he condemns every thing which is opposed to it. Therefore, if you aspire to obedience, let not your mind burn within with evil concupiscence, your eyes wanton after corrupting objects, nor your body be decked for allurement; let neither your tongue by filthy speeches, nor your appetite by intemperance, entice the mind to corresponding thoughts. All vices of this description are a kind of stains which despoil chastity of its purity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
