Hmm...reading this post was way easier than actually reading the book. :-)
Nick
December 21, 2009
1:53 pm
Yes, Chesterton's writing style is more complex than most other writers. He actually requires one to mull over his various paradoxes instead of making it easy to simply assent and move on. This is why I often recommend that fans of Lewis begin with Heretics instead, as he is responding to a multitude of mistaken men within that work and he addresses each person individually. This makes it easier for those who prefer the strict clarity of argumentation to, what I think, is the fuller beauty and humor of Chesterton's prose and person. For those who are looking for an apologetics manual, I'd recommend you try other texts which are trying to fulfill that purpose. As Mr Chesterton notes in the preface, this book his first attempt at an "explanation, not of whether the Christian Faith can be believed, but of how he personally has come to believe it". Though it is an apologetic work (he's responding to those claiming that he hadn't made any truth claims), it's primarily a personal and philosophical text.. Please keep this in mind when reading this text, for if you're looking for apologetic zingers, though you will definitely find them, you risk turning the man's very large and coherent corpus into little more than a quotation machine. What a waste that would be.
However, for those wanting to start with Orthodoxy, I'd recommend the following outline which makes the organization of his text far more readily apparent:
http://www.nd.edu/~afreddos/courses/264/chester.htm
Kyle Plattner
December 21, 2009
2:01 pm
Nick: Good review and good resource. I am assuming Heretics responds to H. G. Wells, Bertrand Russell, and the like. Perhaps I will add it to my queue.
For a good apologetics start I enjoyed "Apologetics to the Glory of God" by John Frame - as I am a presuppositionalist.
For now it is on to "The Mortification of Sin" by John Owen.
Nick
December 21, 2009
3:20 pm
He is a fascinating writer. One of the things that drew me to him was the fact that he was rather close to many of the famous atheists of his day and often debated them publicly, particular George Bernard Shaw. Far too many defenders of the faith feel a need for vitriol and seething in their work. It always impressed me that atheists and Protestants alike found much reason to disagree with him, but still but still counted him a friend. It's also somewhat interesting that he didn't become Catholic until 14 years after this book was written. He certainly smells Catholic in this book, but then again Lewis normally does as well.
It surprises me that you took issue with his style of apologetics. In what way did you think it was more evidential? It seems to me that he is saying he knows that Christianity is true (ie sane) because the things it claims are true (ie sane), often in the most unexpected ways. The more he tried to say true things, the more he found himself saying Christian things.
Now I do have issues with the text, but it's helped me to remember that he's arguing about philosophy and worldview, not faith (as he thinks he is). This is often how his writings work (as the consummate amateur, one would hardly expect him to be so precise in his terminology). When he's arguing for "Christian faith" he's really arguing for Christian philosophy, when he's arguing against "Calvinism" or "Puritanism" he's really arguing against determinism (which is why, for him, Calvinism, naturalism, and Islam are all cut from the same cloth), etc. This probably isn't surprising given the time period, but this comment is growing far too long already.
Kyle Plattner
December 21, 2009
3:40 pm
Perhaps I have inappropriately labeled him an evidentialist yet I still would put him in a camp that does not presuppose the authority of God's word or assume the truth-suppressing nature of sinners. It appeared to me that the argumentation followed some measure of, "Christian Orthodoxy appears to hold the most facts" so that is why you should believe it as opposed to the presuppositional "God is, you are commanded to believe in him, and you suppress his truth - the evidence of which is in your inconsistent worldview."
Nick
December 21, 2009
3:55 pm
Thanks for the response. Just in case you weren't aware, there is a great site containing a number of Frame's articles:
http://www.frame-poythress.org/
I appreciate a lot of presuppositional critiques of various arguments, but I never found it all that helpful for understanding Scripture in a positive way and by and large think of it fuller forms as more or less Christian versions of deconstructionism. I have to admit that it reminds me a bit of what Chesterton's doing in this text. He's not necessarily arguing against their beliefs, but is instead forming a sane worldview that fits better with Christian beliefs.
Anyway, though, I tend to be rather skeptical of apologetics in general. It seems like those debates tend to turn into mindgames or prophetic finger pointing. But they do make for interesting discussions, I guess.
Nick
December 21, 2009
4:05 pm
It seems to me that saying "Christians doctrines are true, therefore you should believe Christian doctrines" is just commonsense. Going the next step and saying "[Christian doctrines are true:] God is, you are commanded to believe..." seems to be little more than acknowledging that there's more to say once you've acknowledged that there is a God and that he is the God that rescued Israel from Egypt, etc. The presupposition of this authority is what the confession of the faith is all about. I think he acknowledges this in the preface where he notes that he must be "unavoidably affirmative". True, he doesn't assume that the audience can fill in the gaps between their incorrect worldview and their need to confess the true Lord and thusly he takes the extra time to show them what a true worldview looks like. I guess I'm just not sure this would put him into an evidentialist position. He'd probably look a bit more like a classic apologeticist in the end, but I'm not exactly sure what that would mean.
Anonymous
December 22, 2009
11:56 am
What does that mean?? It doesn't make any sense to me
Kyle Plattner
December 22, 2009
12:06 pm
The denial of the biblical doctrine of God's wrath and indignation for sin makes the transgression of an infinitely holy God of little consequence. If sin is of little consequence we don't need to warn against it and it can be minimized to the prudishness of old men. If sin no longer exists we have completely changed the kingdom that the King came to set up by no longer needing the Christ who received the wrath for our sin. Christless Christianity begins by making God "less holy" and man "less sinful." And if those two truths are compromised then the cross becomes "less necessary." Consider the following quote by my hero Jonathan Edwards to explain the seriousness of sin:
A crime is more or less heinous, according as we are under greater or less obligations to the contrary. This is self-evident; because it is herein that the criminalness or faultiness of any thing consists, that it is contrary to what we are obliged or bound to, or what ought to be in us. So the faultiness of one being hating another, is in proportion to his obligation to love him. The crime of one being despising and casting contempt on another, is proportionably more or less heinous, as he was under greater or less obligations to honour him. The fault of disobeying another, is greater or less, as any one is under greater or less obligations to obey him. And therefore if there be any being that we are under infinite obligations to love, and honour, and obey, the contrary towards him must be infinitely faulty. Our obligation to love, honour, and obey any being, is in proportion to his loveliness, honourableness, and authority; for that is the very meaning of the words. When we say any one is very lovely, it is the same as to say, that he is one very much to be loved. Or if we say such a one is more honourable than another, the meaning of the words is, that he is one that we are more obliged to honour. If we say any one has great authority over us, it is the same as to say, that he has great right to our subjection and obedience. But God is a being infinitely lovely, because he hath infinite excellency and beauty. To have infinite excellency and beauty, is the same thing as to have infinite loveliness. He is a being of infinite greatness, majesty, and glory; and therefore he is infinitely honourable. He is infinitely exalted above the greatest potentates of the earth, and highest angels in heaven; and therefore he is infinitely more honourable than they. His authority over us is infinite; and the ground of his right to our obedience is infinitely strong; for he is infinitely worthy to be obeyed himself, and we have an absolute, universal, and infinite dependence upon him. So that sin against God, being a violation of infinite obligations, must be a crime infinitely heinous, and so deserving of infinite punishment.
Only an infinite God can become the substitute for our infinite transgressions. This is why we cannot stop preaching the biblical doctrine of sin and the penal substitutionary death of Christ.
*boom* What a way to start my Monday morning. Hallelujah is the highest praise.
"No Man, I ain't trying to make it..."
Powerful, powerful, powerful.
Anonymous
December 28, 2009
8:23 am
Sounds like Athanasius:
"God became man so that man might become god."
nick
December 28, 2009
8:25 am
oops...that last quotation was from me.
Kyle Plattner
December 28, 2009
8:29 am
It may sound like it in sentence structure, but the doctrinal differences are substantial. I would reject any doctrine close to deification.
kp
nick
December 28, 2009
8:36 am
It's a wonderful video, indeed. I love the concrete image of Jah's (Rasta influence?) 'soldiers' being posted in the valley of death.
nick
December 28, 2009
8:41 am
That doctrine was actually that of the Incarnation and is taken from the book that CS Lewis wrote the preface to. You might see them as being quite separate, but I wonder if Lewis did.
nick
December 28, 2009
8:51 am
It appears that the electronic text (including Lewis' introduction) can be seen here:
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/history/ath-inc.htm#ch_0
Personally, I tend to think that we should give one of the central, early works on the Incarnation (and on top of that, one that Lewis held in such high regard) a bit more attention and thought.
Kyle Plattner
December 28, 2009
8:53 am
Right, it is from Chapter 27 of Mere Christianity where he gives us no reason to believe that he would have held to any doctrine resembling that of the doctrine of deification, which is a LDS church teaching. From my reading of C. S. Lewis I believe I can say with some measure of confidence that Lewis held to a view that reflects Orthodox Christianity.
kp
nick
December 28, 2009
9:04 am
The quotation that I mentioned (that you dismissed as 'deification') is listed in the text that I linked to (Athanasius' 'On the Incarnation) and it is certainly not a LDS text in any way. There are far more Orthodox formulations of 'deification' or 'theosis' than the LDS has dreamed up (as can be found in the aforementioned work that was written in the 4th century). I'm sorry if I came across as saying anything about LDS misinterpretations, but my comment had absolutely zilch to do with that group. Don't let their own confused doctrines hide very true and Orthodox ones.
nick
December 30, 2009
10:28 am
Sounds like an interesting project. I wonder how these portrayals affected our worship. I wonder how our worship affected these portrayals.
anne
January 1, 2010
9:38 am
Kyle, considered reading, UnChristian by David Kinnaman, Gabe Lyons. I believe you will find the information useful.
Laura
January 4, 2010
11:16 am
loved this.
nick
January 8, 2010
3:38 pm
Absolutely! I might also add that the struggling, striving, and running after holiness seems to be an important part of how we are conformed to the image of Christ.
anne
January 9, 2010
9:43 pm
lol, libraries ARE wonderful :)
While a student at an institute, one of the instructors enjoyed me, as he said, 'because he liked seeing me actually USE the library'. I practically lived with the books :) lol
anne
January 13, 2010
1:11 pm
I like the title, Blind Men Need Spit ! and appreciate the pop out scripture verses as to not take away from the momentum of point/message!
Thank you for the reminder that we are justified in Him yet walking in sanctification with a trust worthy hope of seeing everything clearly as He promises :)
Thanks for posting this. As I read through your list of Attractional vs. Missional attributes, I was pleased to know where my church lands. It's amazing the impact a church can have in a city or village when it operates in this fashion. It's like God designed it that way or something..... ;-)
Kyle Plattner
February 1, 2010
3:46 pm
Amen John,
Thankful for how God is using you. I'm praying for you.
kp
anne
February 5, 2010
8:55 am
thought of this post when learning of this song/story...
http://apps.facebook.com/joshwilson/
Nick
February 15, 2010
4:27 pm
Thanks for posting these thoughts. I just had a couple of questions.
I believe this is the first time I've heard the phrase 'one intention' in this discussion. I think you're saying that the author's intended meaning(s) exhaust the meaning of an individual text. Is that right? So do you see the New Testament uses of the Old Testament as staying within intended meaning or message of the individual writers? What place do you think that we, as the church, are to give to more allegorical or moral interpretations of Scripture? It just seems like texts can have the ability to take on new meanings without destroying the old ones. Also, when writing we can (and do) stumble onto new meanings and (consciously) unintended strokes of genius. It seems that limiting meaning to intentionality can do unintended violence to the text.
You mentioned that the crucifixion and resurrection were objective events. I'm not sure why you're using the word 'objective' here. What would you think of as a 'subjective' event? In regards to objectivity in general I think that we should be careful so that when we respond to post-modernity, we don't fall into the trap of kneeling down to modernity.
Finally, I wonder about the use of 'meaning' in scriptural interpretation and wonder if we don't give enough credence to Christ's declaration that he himself is the truth. I wonder how we would need to reorient our hermeneutics if we saw the truth of scripture in its fulfillment in or recognition of the person of Christ instead of more scientific or historical understanding emphases. To say it more simply, a completely accurate history book might be a true description of what happened, but it would still not be true in the same way the Bible is true.
Kyle Plattner
February 15, 2010
4:55 pm
I tried to footnote the nuance that by 'one meaning' I recognize that authorial intent can be multiple meanings. My goal is to stray from the "this is what this text means to me" or sola ecclesia interpretive authority. Perhaps a failure on my part is not account for the reality of 'multiple fulfillments' that the author did understand but would be later revealed. However, because we have a closed canon I believe we can still lead into the text searching for authorial intent while keeping the whole of revealed Scripture within the scope of our hermeneutical lens. Better stated, we are searching for God's (the supreme author) intent.
If the meaning we are inserting into the text would be completely foreign to the original hearers I think we need to take great care that we aren't being anachronistic at best and turning texts upside-down at worst.
I fear the post-modern influence that tends to spiritualize or allegorize words when texts do not request such treatment.
If you wonder why I use an adjective like 'objective' in front of historical, look up the Jesus seminar and scholars like John Dominic Crossan.
Lastly, I affirm along with Jesus that he is indeed 'the truth' and that needs to be the meta-narritive that weaves all of Scripture together but when we get practical about coming to understand the meaning of Galatians or the Olivet Discourse abstractions are of little use.
The most significant difference between a history book and the Bible is its intended authority, sufficiency, and most of all its efficacy when the Spirit opens the eyes of our heart.
Kyle: Thanks for this thought-provoking yet easily read piece.
Nick: Maybe I'm missing something, but I would say that what you're describing regarding the "meaning" of scripture would be more accurately described by "application". The scripture means what the inspired author intended it to mean; no more and no less. We can apply that meaning/principal in different ways based on where we're at in our respective circumstances.
When the New Testament uses an Old Testament reference it is God's word clarifying itself. The Old Testament means what the N.T. says it means. It didn't mean one thing right up until the N.T. writer picked up his pen and changed it to mean another. I suppose one could argue that an O.T. passage had two meanings; one revealed and understood in O.T. terms and one revealed and understood in N.T. terms. That might take further development.
Nick
February 15, 2010
5:18 pm
Your footnote on 'one intention' was helpful, but I just wanted to make sure that I was understanding you correctly. I wasn't hung up on one meaning vs multiple meanings, but whether there could be meaning beyond what the author intended.
We are truly searching for God's intent, and I think we would both agree that God's intent sweeps far past the limited grasp of our own. That, I think, answers my previous question.
I was wondering why you called an event 'objective'. What is a subjective event? Perhaps using words like 'concrete' vs 'abstract' would be more helpful.
I'm not sure why seeing the mini-narratives (eg Galatians) as part of the meta-narrative (the incarnation [ie life, death, and resurrection of Jesus]) would be an abstraction of little use. At the very least, early church (by which I mean 100-325 or so) fathers often made use of the abstractions in their contemplation of scripture and the word. I hesitate to dismiss them so easily. As I mentioned earlier, it also appears that the New Testament writers were seeing Jesus in passages that hadn't previously been explicitly understood as Messianic (I'm thinking of some of the Psalms here). It seems that re-evaluating the intended meanings to see God's intent in our Lord is part of what we do in reading scripture. I really do appreciate the use of authorial intent in exegesis (I'm worried it sounds like I don't), but it does concern me when we consider that as the end of the road in our search for meaning.
Other religious works have testified to gods (or goddesses) involved in historical events (think Iliad or Mahabarata here) and were often considered to be authoritative and (in some situations) sufficient for their religious followers. I don't know of a religious group that saw some kind of divine guidance in their reading of these works. Of course, no modern historian would say that the Iliad, for example, is free from historical inaccuracy. Then again, modern historians tend to say the same thing about the Bible as well.
It seems to me that we err in placing the difference or significance of Scripture anywhere else than in the testimony to Jesus Christ.
Nick
February 15, 2010
5:27 pm
Luke, I think that I'm talking about Biblical 'interpretation'.
We can certainly say that the OT means what the NT says it means, and I'd be fine with that. I'm not as willing to say that the OT meant what the NT says it means. I think the complications come in when we want to use the approach that the NT takes in re-interpreting Scripture and applying that to interpreting other passages.
That is our goal here, right? Understanding the scripture rightly?
Nick
February 19, 2010
10:18 am
A wonderful call to humility. Thanks, Kyle.
anne
February 23, 2010
8:57 am
you are correct, this is an engaging worthwhile lecture. thank you for posting :)
anne
February 26, 2010
12:11 pm
direct and full of truth! thank you :)
Nick
March 4, 2010
9:55 am
Looks like a great new project. I look forward to seeing your commentary on them.
Steve240
March 6, 2010
7:02 pm
You might find the following blogs of interest about C.J. Mahaney and the group he leads, Sovereign Grace Ministries:
www.sgmsurvivors.com
www.sgmrefuge.com
They tell another side. Hope this helps.
Nick
March 9, 2010
3:39 pm
I love the intensity behind the "Do or die" approach. One can insert the message of the gospels and it seems to greatly restore the great urgency and need behind the commands: "Do repent and be baptized or die".
My impression of Osteen is that he's carrying on a pattern of thinking on atonement where Christ does something so that I don't have to. Christ carries my sins so that I don't have to. Christ goes to hell so that I can go to heaven. Christ dies so that I can live forever. Christ suffers so that I can live a happy and fulfilled life.
Nick
March 11, 2010
7:55 pm
Great video!
anne
March 16, 2010
10:15 pm
or -
at great cost to himself, he frees me
making much of me from himself
so that, I am kept with him forever
:)
Anonymous
March 17, 2010
7:35 am
Excellent heart-exposing question. We need to hang out again sometime. :-)
Nick
March 17, 2010
1:24 pm
Anne, that's a beautiful way to express the gospel.
traever
March 19, 2010
9:27 am
he's coming to t4g now in mid-april. you should come with us.
That's a very good point. To often, ministers use the 'gospel' as a kind of codeword, rarely defining it, rarely actually letting it out of its box, allowing the term to become so large and vague that no one really knows how to repeat it, let alone evangelize with it.
anne
March 20, 2010
7:57 am
Thanks for posting this! Knowing the difference between sanctification and justification is a key factor in my life. In ministry (and life; but what about life is not ministry), I've seen the lack of preaching and/or understanding of this truth as life threatening.
May you continue to seek, find, and know His truth both on the ground and above.
traever
March 22, 2010
8:17 am
hey, is that a really tough read? is he as hard as owen or can you actually get through it without your brain nearly dying of exhaustion?
Kyle Plattner
March 22, 2010
9:14 am
For me it was more difficult than Owen's Mortification of Sin, but I discovered that once you get in the Puritan mode you slowly adapt to the idioms and phraseology. It trains you to write like a puritan... which is rarely helpful:
Chiefly, that which is read furthest from the reaches of our minds proves to be supremely delightful while others on occasion, having such an unadorned simplicity, doth not express the excellencies of lucidity in language.
Today I came across this section of Augustine's letter to Proba that seemed to relate.
St Augustine's letter to Proba
We do not know how to pray as we ought
Perhaps you may still ask why St Paul said when we cannot choose words in order to pray properly, since it is impossible that he or those to whom he wrote should not have known the Lord’s Prayer.
Yet Paul himself was not exempt from such ignorance. When, to prevent him from becoming swollen-headed over the greatness of the revelations that had been given to him, he was given in addition a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to buffet him, he asked the Lord three times to take it away from him. Surely that was not knowing to pray as he ought? For in the end he heard the Lord’s reply, telling him why even such a great saint’s prayer had to be refused: My grace is enough for you: my power is at its best in weakness.
So when we are suffering afflictions that might be doing us either good or harm, we do not to know how to pray as we ought. But because they are hard to endure and painful, because they are contrary to our nature (which is weak) we, like all mankind, pray to have our afflictions taken from us. At least, though, we owe this much respect to the Lord our God, that if he does not take our afflictions away we should not consider ourselves ignored and neglected, but should hope to gain some greater good through the patient acceptance of suffering. For my power is at its best in weakness.
Scripture says this so that we should not be proud of ourselves if our prayer is heard, when we ask for something it would be better for us not to get; and so that we should not become utterly dejected if we are not given what we ask for, despairing of God’s mercy towards us: it might be that what we have been asking for could have brought us some still greater affliction, or it could have brought us the kind of good fortune that brings corruption and ruin. In such cases, it is clear that we cannot know how to pray as we ought.
Hence if anything happens contrary to our prayer, we ought to bear the disappointment patiently, give thanks to God, and be sure that it was better for God’s will to be done than our own. The Mediator himself has given us an example of this. When he had prayed, My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass me by, he transformed the human will that was in him because he had assumed human nature and added Nevertheless, let it be as you, not I, would have it. Thus, truly, By the obedience of one man many have been made righteous.
When you mentioned humility above, it reminded me of this passage from Orthodoxy.
"But what we suffer from to-day is humility in the wrong place. Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty has settled upon the organ of conviction; where it was never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed. Nowadays the part of a man that a man does assert is exactly the part he ought not to assert himself. The part he doubts is exactly the part he ought not to doubt -- the Divine Reason. Huxley preached a humility content to learn from Nature. But the new sceptic is so humble that he doubts if he can even learn. Thus we should be wrong if we had said hastily that there is no humility typical of our time. The truth is that there is a real humility typical of our time; but it so happens that it is practically a more poisonous humility than the wildest prostrations of the ascetic. The old humility was a spur that prevented a man from stopping; not a nail in his boot that prevented him from going on. For the old humility made a man doubtful about his efforts, which might make him work harder. But the new humility makes a man doubtful about his aims, which will make him stop working altogether."
Kyle Plattner
March 30, 2010
6:25 pm
I actually used part of that quote in the larger piece being referenced. I had to remove all of the footnotes but here it is in context:
During times when it is appropriate to debate doctrinal matters around the Scriptures with mature believers, it should be carefully monitored to ensure that it does not drift into a fruitless argument. Careful attention must be paid that the issue at hand remains the topic of dialogue as to not drift into the secret things of the Lord or begin making ad hominem attacks. Attention should be given to hearing out the other side with the goal of being able to be corrected or understand clearly where correction needs to be given. Frequently much of the struggle associated with discussing doctrinal disagreements centers around complaints about not being fully listened to. We seek clarity in our own position as well as our opponents. This is part of our responsibility to uphold truth with great concern as we serve him who is the truth. Even if brothers must depart in disagreement surely they will have a greater understanding and appreciation for what the other holds. This more comprehensive understanding of alternative views will allow us to view Scripture in light of multiple perspectives and thus aid our attempts at faithful exegesis.
To such a proposal for debate there will be some who undoubtedly call for a greater tolerance on such matters. However as we have discussed, unity at the cost of truth is no unity at all. So what of the pleas for tolerance? Have they no virtue? Undoubtedly the call for tolerance is a noble one, but we must define the sort of tolerance of which we speak. Primarily, we need to distinguish between what I will call a tolerant spirit and a tolerant mind. Tolerant in spirit indicates that a Christian should always be, loving, understanding, forgiving and forbearing others, making allowances for them, and giving them the benefit of the doubt, for true love “bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.” Tolerant in mind refers to the compromising of truths and convictions under the banner of tolerance. So the critical question becomes: how can we be tolerant in mind of what God has plainly revealed to be either evil or erroneous? In this sense we are not merely called to just tolerate those who disagree with us, rather we are called to love. The modern idea of tolerance in the mind is far from the Biblical understanding of love.
Tolerance of the mind is passive. Love is active. Tolerance can keep people at arm’s length in hopes of not ever offending them. Rather love embraces people where they are and ‘hopes all things.’ Tolerance tries to leave people alone as individuals. Conversely, love ushers people into a community of truth and compassion. Tolerance attempts to keep a safe distance between those in need of the truth that sets them free. Love pushes us to engage even to those who may be unlikeable. Tolerance avoids any confrontation in order to maintain a false unity. Love proclaims the truth boldly and graciously in order to bring about a Biblical unity while tolerance fails to introduce people to the all-satisfying savior under the banner of open-mindedness.
Undoubtedly there is some value in a modern push for open-mindedness, for we should always be open and tolerant in regards to keeping out ears open for truth. These are the matters on which Scriptures seems to speak unequivocally. And of course we must be careful to distinguish between Biblical doctrine and our fallible interpretation or formation of it. But when the Biblical teaching is plain, the push for an open mind is a sign of pride not humility, immaturity, not maturity. Indeed Paul calls those who are tossed around with every wind of doctrine children. G. K. Chesterton once observed in his book Orthodoxy:
What we suffer from today is humility in the wrong place. Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty has settled upon the organ of conviction, where it was never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed. We are on the road to producing a race of men too mentally modest to believe in the multiplication table.
Humility does not equate to an indifference about the Biblical gospel. As I began explaining in the beginning of this book, the open reception of God’s revealed truth over against the obscuring of it is recognizing our need for reliance on divine truth over our own opinions. We should not be fooled by accusations of holding strongly to clearly revealed truth, for such was the task of Christ and the Apostles. Thus we ought to treat appeals for open-mindedness with great care. G. K. Chesterton also wisely noted, “the object of opening the mind as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.”
The modern push for tolerance of the mind also seems to say to us, “if you must be dogmatic, then just keep it to yourself.” Another way in which this point of view is expressed is to urge us to be always positive, if necessary dogmatically positive, but to shy away from ever being negative. “Speak up for what you believe in,” we are urged, “but don’t speak against what other people believe.” While in reality we cannot faithfully teach sound doctrine as we are commanded without refuting those who oppose it. This creates controversy. Is controversy invariably wrong? Certainly Christ could not teach without creating controversy; what we taught was diametrically opposed to the teachings of Jews and Greeks. As we try to uphold his word he ought to expect the same.
It is key for us to remember Paul’s instruction that whether it is in season or out of season we are called to stand upon the word of God. Chiefly it is our common goal to unite around its truths without sacrificing love. It takes careful Biblical discernment to know when and how to speak up for truth. Our love for truth should translate into a love for people since it is truth that aligns them with the Creator they were created to serve. Remember Jesus’ words, “this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” Our desire is to know him and take care that others know him. This cannot be accomplished by hiding behind banners of a false unity or a passive tolerance. If we are truly concerned with the well being of people we must be concerned with truth. Subsequently if we become concerned truth we will begin to be concerned with unity since truth is the basis of unity.
Thanks for the larger offering, Kyle. Discussions about 'truth' and its relationship to 'unity' always seem to be right around the corner. I had a wonderful bible study over 1 Corinthians once that focused on these topics and the way Paul points out that our common goal (telos) and wisdom is that foolishness of the cross, of resurrection, thus bringing together unity and truth. One writer pointed out how Paul organizes these themes only to burst out in his discussion of resurrection. One writer tracked the themes of resurrection, the Spirit, and creation through the whole letter and then pulled back to point out that the Corinthians' unity lies in Christ. It's in our common life, living in the Spirit, from the Father, in the Son that we find our fulfillment in the death and resurrection of our King. At the time, I remember that it brought together so many themes that had seemed so disparate before...it just seemed so elegant. For of course, the truth that were exegeting from Scripture is Jesus Christ himself. Jesus as basis of truth and unity...seemed like a good start.
traever
March 31, 2010
8:14 am
the gosepl is anti-thetical to the world. whenever it is proclaimed in clarity we are accused of being polemic. this is a great example. to the world it is always unnecessary.
you'll never be able to run for office being clear of what you believe and why.
Though I'm a bit more optimistic about the ability of the gospel to redeem certain structures of the world, I think it's hard to deny that the power institutions around us (the governments, businesses, organizations, etc) have a vested interest in keeping the status quo. When Paul declares that Jesus is Lord, he's asserting that Caesar is not. That kind of rebellion is rarely looked upon kindly.
Love the video! Good luck with the moving process.
anne
April 7, 2010
5:36 pm
I DIDN'T KNOW SOMEONE WAS A SILLY AS ME ABOUT KEEPING GOOD BOOK CONDITIONS! I even take the covers off hard covered books as to not bend/tear/ the edges of even the covers :)
looks like you are on your way to moving them safely :)
hope your move goes well, and the atmosphere of this new place enhances your library :)
Brilliant! The gospel is Jesus Christ communicated, the church is the gospel made visible, made present, the ikon of Christ, the body of Christ.
traever
April 22, 2010
7:37 am
i haven't read the words yet but i was convinced as soon as i saw reagan
Anonymous
April 23, 2010
6:35 am
But it has to be so hard. It must be so uncomfortable. It must take a lot of time. It must take so much money. Why me God?
To the praise of the glory of His grace!
Amen.
anne
April 23, 2010
8:34 am
Thank you for posting Kyle.
Anonymous
April 26, 2010
3:20 pm
A wise man's heart inclines him to the right,
but a fool's heart to the left.
Ecclesiastes 10:2
Sounds like God's a Republican too.
anne
April 26, 2010
9:26 pm
well written points. thanks for posting.
~may you recognize the Body of Christ's walk in sanctification and commit to prayerful pilgrimage with them, as well.
Anonymous
April 27, 2010
12:04 pm
Soldiers also asked him, “And we, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Do not extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation, and be content with your wages.”
Luke 13:14
Sounds like He is a Libertarian.
anne
April 29, 2010
8:07 pm
kyle... you are interesting...
Where do you find these videos!? lol :)
traever
April 30, 2010
8:22 am
i love that song. i'm a white man.
Anonymous
May 4, 2010
8:58 pm
I know we serve a great God if he can bring people to Christ through evangelism tricks like this. And hopefully He will no matter how pathetic the attempt.
thanks for posting this article, kyle! i just recently found out about jennifer knapp, and i've also been sufficiently confused about the attitude towards homosexuality in the church. now i have some food for thought and prayer... both sides of the argument focus too much on the sinful lifestyle itself rather than the unrepentant heart. anyway, this was a great read and i'm thankful that you shared it.
Nick
May 14, 2010
6:55 pm
Looks very professional, Kyle! Congratulations.
Drew
May 15, 2010
8:37 am
Congrats Kyle! This looks like an interesting book and I wouldn't want to judge a book by its cover but the cover looks great as well!
traever
May 17, 2010
12:25 pm
sweet man, congrats. you need to keep me more filled in on stuff like this. how did i not know about it till now? that's awesome. and i love the subject matter.
anne
May 24, 2010
3:02 pm
Niiice !
will there come a time when you do share the rest with others ?
I watched this video today and while I do not agree with it, I think it has some interesting things to think about if you're able to convert it to His Truth...
http://www.ted.com/talks/elizabeth_gilbert_on_genius.html
This was a very insightful read for me being that over the past three days I have been experiencing supernatural powers from God. All because I decided to help God's children. And I realized helping them is so easy that all I have to do is merely be in another person's presence and I can feel the spirit of God giving me supernatural influence over that individual who I am connecting with.
Since God has revealed this to me, and to you, so far the most important thing is to help the children of God with my influence. And that goes for any and every person I can help, even if its a smile or a wave. Anytime I connect with God's people in a positive way it enriches their lives and the people they are connected to. In return for this God enriches my life and the people I am connected to.
I encourage you to be a blessing to everyone you encounter in any way you can. You have the power to change anyone's life with the power of God just by staying positively connected with them.
Comments to this entry
Luke K.
December 16, 2009
4:52 pm
God Bless
Luke K.
December 21, 2009
12:57 pm
Nick
December 21, 2009
1:53 pm
However, for those wanting to start with Orthodoxy, I'd recommend the following outline which makes the organization of his text far more readily apparent:
http://www.nd.edu/~afreddos/courses/264/chester.htm
Kyle Plattner
December 21, 2009
2:01 pm
For a good apologetics start I enjoyed "Apologetics to the Glory of God" by John Frame - as I am a presuppositionalist.
For now it is on to "The Mortification of Sin" by John Owen.
Nick
December 21, 2009
3:20 pm
It surprises me that you took issue with his style of apologetics. In what way did you think it was more evidential? It seems to me that he is saying he knows that Christianity is true (ie sane) because the things it claims are true (ie sane), often in the most unexpected ways. The more he tried to say true things, the more he found himself saying Christian things.
Now I do have issues with the text, but it's helped me to remember that he's arguing about philosophy and worldview, not faith (as he thinks he is). This is often how his writings work (as the consummate amateur, one would hardly expect him to be so precise in his terminology). When he's arguing for "Christian faith" he's really arguing for Christian philosophy, when he's arguing against "Calvinism" or "Puritanism" he's really arguing against determinism (which is why, for him, Calvinism, naturalism, and Islam are all cut from the same cloth), etc. This probably isn't surprising given the time period, but this comment is growing far too long already.
Kyle Plattner
December 21, 2009
3:40 pm
Nick
December 21, 2009
3:55 pm
http://www.frame-poythress.org/
I appreciate a lot of presuppositional critiques of various arguments, but I never found it all that helpful for understanding Scripture in a positive way and by and large think of it fuller forms as more or less Christian versions of deconstructionism. I have to admit that it reminds me a bit of what Chesterton's doing in this text. He's not necessarily arguing against their beliefs, but is instead forming a sane worldview that fits better with Christian beliefs.
Anyway, though, I tend to be rather skeptical of apologetics in general. It seems like those debates tend to turn into mindgames or prophetic finger pointing. But they do make for interesting discussions, I guess.
Nick
December 21, 2009
4:05 pm
Anonymous
December 22, 2009
11:56 am
Kyle Plattner
December 22, 2009
12:06 pm
A crime is more or less heinous, according as we are under greater or less obligations to the contrary. This is self-evident; because it is herein that the criminalness or faultiness of any thing consists, that it is contrary to what we are obliged or bound to, or what ought to be in us. So the faultiness of one being hating another, is in proportion to his obligation to love him. The crime of one being despising and casting contempt on another, is proportionably more or less heinous, as he was under greater or less obligations to honour him. The fault of disobeying another, is greater or less, as any one is under greater or less obligations to obey him. And therefore if there be any being that we are under infinite obligations to love, and honour, and obey, the contrary towards him must be infinitely faulty. Our obligation to love, honour, and obey any being, is in proportion to his loveliness, honourableness, and authority; for that is the very meaning of the words. When we say any one is very lovely, it is the same as to say, that he is one very much to be loved. Or if we say such a one is more honourable than another, the meaning of the words is, that he is one that we are more obliged to honour. If we say any one has great authority over us, it is the same as to say, that he has great right to our subjection and obedience. But God is a being infinitely lovely, because he hath infinite excellency and beauty. To have infinite excellency and beauty, is the same thing as to have infinite loveliness. He is a being of infinite greatness, majesty, and glory; and therefore he is infinitely honourable. He is infinitely exalted above the greatest potentates of the earth, and highest angels in heaven; and therefore he is infinitely more honourable than they. His authority over us is infinite; and the ground of his right to our obedience is infinitely strong; for he is infinitely worthy to be obeyed himself, and we have an absolute, universal, and infinite dependence upon him. So that sin against God, being a violation of infinite obligations, must be a crime infinitely heinous, and so deserving of infinite punishment.
Only an infinite God can become the substitute for our infinite transgressions. This is why we cannot stop preaching the biblical doctrine of sin and the penal substitutionary death of Christ.
Luke K.
December 28, 2009
8:01 am
"No Man, I ain't trying to make it..."
Powerful, powerful, powerful.
Anonymous
December 28, 2009
8:23 am
"God became man so that man might become god."
nick
December 28, 2009
8:25 am
Kyle Plattner
December 28, 2009
8:29 am
kp
nick
December 28, 2009
8:36 am
nick
December 28, 2009
8:41 am
nick
December 28, 2009
8:51 am
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/history/ath-inc.htm#ch_0
Personally, I tend to think that we should give one of the central, early works on the Incarnation (and on top of that, one that Lewis held in such high regard) a bit more attention and thought.
Kyle Plattner
December 28, 2009
8:53 am
kp
nick
December 28, 2009
9:04 am
nick
December 30, 2009
10:28 am
anne
January 1, 2010
9:38 am
Laura
January 4, 2010
11:16 am
nick
January 8, 2010
3:38 pm
anne
January 9, 2010
9:43 pm
While a student at an institute, one of the instructors enjoyed me, as he said, 'because he liked seeing me actually USE the library'. I practically lived with the books :) lol
anne
January 13, 2010
1:11 pm
Thank you for the reminder that we are justified in Him yet walking in sanctification with a trust worthy hope of seeing everything clearly as He promises :)
Bethany
January 19, 2010
11:06 am
Bethany
anne
January 26, 2010
9:35 am
JAE
February 1, 2010
3:28 pm
Kyle Plattner
February 1, 2010
3:46 pm
Thankful for how God is using you. I'm praying for you.
kp
anne
February 5, 2010
8:55 am
http://apps.facebook.com/joshwilson/
Nick
February 15, 2010
4:27 pm
I believe this is the first time I've heard the phrase 'one intention' in this discussion. I think you're saying that the author's intended meaning(s) exhaust the meaning of an individual text. Is that right? So do you see the New Testament uses of the Old Testament as staying within intended meaning or message of the individual writers? What place do you think that we, as the church, are to give to more allegorical or moral interpretations of Scripture? It just seems like texts can have the ability to take on new meanings without destroying the old ones. Also, when writing we can (and do) stumble onto new meanings and (consciously) unintended strokes of genius. It seems that limiting meaning to intentionality can do unintended violence to the text.
You mentioned that the crucifixion and resurrection were objective events. I'm not sure why you're using the word 'objective' here. What would you think of as a 'subjective' event? In regards to objectivity in general I think that we should be careful so that when we respond to post-modernity, we don't fall into the trap of kneeling down to modernity.
Finally, I wonder about the use of 'meaning' in scriptural interpretation and wonder if we don't give enough credence to Christ's declaration that he himself is the truth. I wonder how we would need to reorient our hermeneutics if we saw the truth of scripture in its fulfillment in or recognition of the person of Christ instead of more scientific or historical understanding emphases. To say it more simply, a completely accurate history book might be a true description of what happened, but it would still not be true in the same way the Bible is true.
Kyle Plattner
February 15, 2010
4:55 pm
If the meaning we are inserting into the text would be completely foreign to the original hearers I think we need to take great care that we aren't being anachronistic at best and turning texts upside-down at worst.
I fear the post-modern influence that tends to spiritualize or allegorize words when texts do not request such treatment.
If you wonder why I use an adjective like 'objective' in front of historical, look up the Jesus seminar and scholars like John Dominic Crossan.
Lastly, I affirm along with Jesus that he is indeed 'the truth' and that needs to be the meta-narritive that weaves all of Scripture together but when we get practical about coming to understand the meaning of Galatians or the Olivet Discourse abstractions are of little use.
The most significant difference between a history book and the Bible is its intended authority, sufficiency, and most of all its efficacy when the Spirit opens the eyes of our heart.
Luke K.
February 15, 2010
4:59 pm
Nick: Maybe I'm missing something, but I would say that what you're describing regarding the "meaning" of scripture would be more accurately described by "application". The scripture means what the inspired author intended it to mean; no more and no less. We can apply that meaning/principal in different ways based on where we're at in our respective circumstances.
When the New Testament uses an Old Testament reference it is God's word clarifying itself. The Old Testament means what the N.T. says it means. It didn't mean one thing right up until the N.T. writer picked up his pen and changed it to mean another. I suppose one could argue that an O.T. passage had two meanings; one revealed and understood in O.T. terms and one revealed and understood in N.T. terms. That might take further development.
Nick
February 15, 2010
5:18 pm
We are truly searching for God's intent, and I think we would both agree that God's intent sweeps far past the limited grasp of our own. That, I think, answers my previous question.
I was wondering why you called an event 'objective'. What is a subjective event? Perhaps using words like 'concrete' vs 'abstract' would be more helpful.
I'm not sure why seeing the mini-narratives (eg Galatians) as part of the meta-narrative (the incarnation [ie life, death, and resurrection of Jesus]) would be an abstraction of little use. At the very least, early church (by which I mean 100-325 or so) fathers often made use of the abstractions in their contemplation of scripture and the word. I hesitate to dismiss them so easily. As I mentioned earlier, it also appears that the New Testament writers were seeing Jesus in passages that hadn't previously been explicitly understood as Messianic (I'm thinking of some of the Psalms here). It seems that re-evaluating the intended meanings to see God's intent in our Lord is part of what we do in reading scripture. I really do appreciate the use of authorial intent in exegesis (I'm worried it sounds like I don't), but it does concern me when we consider that as the end of the road in our search for meaning.
Other religious works have testified to gods (or goddesses) involved in historical events (think Iliad or Mahabarata here) and were often considered to be authoritative and (in some situations) sufficient for their religious followers. I don't know of a religious group that saw some kind of divine guidance in their reading of these works. Of course, no modern historian would say that the Iliad, for example, is free from historical inaccuracy. Then again, modern historians tend to say the same thing about the Bible as well.
It seems to me that we err in placing the difference or significance of Scripture anywhere else than in the testimony to Jesus Christ.
Nick
February 15, 2010
5:27 pm
We can certainly say that the OT means what the NT says it means, and I'd be fine with that. I'm not as willing to say that the OT meant what the NT says it means. I think the complications come in when we want to use the approach that the NT takes in re-interpreting Scripture and applying that to interpreting other passages.
That is our goal here, right? Understanding the scripture rightly?
Nick
February 19, 2010
10:18 am
anne
February 23, 2010
8:57 am
anne
February 26, 2010
12:11 pm
Nick
March 4, 2010
9:55 am
Steve240
March 6, 2010
7:02 pm
www.sgmsurvivors.com
www.sgmrefuge.com
They tell another side. Hope this helps.
Nick
March 9, 2010
3:39 pm
My impression of Osteen is that he's carrying on a pattern of thinking on atonement where Christ does something so that I don't have to. Christ carries my sins so that I don't have to. Christ goes to hell so that I can go to heaven. Christ dies so that I can live forever. Christ suffers so that I can live a happy and fulfilled life.
Nick
March 11, 2010
7:55 pm
anne
March 16, 2010
10:15 pm
at great cost to himself, he frees me
making much of me from himself
so that, I am kept with him forever
:)
Anonymous
March 17, 2010
7:35 am
Nick
March 17, 2010
1:24 pm
traever
March 19, 2010
9:27 am
Nick
March 19, 2010
12:45 pm
anne
March 20, 2010
7:57 am
May you continue to seek, find, and know His truth both on the ground and above.
traever
March 22, 2010
8:17 am
Kyle Plattner
March 22, 2010
9:14 am
Chiefly, that which is read furthest from the reaches of our minds proves to be supremely delightful while others on occasion, having such an unadorned simplicity, doth not express the excellencies of lucidity in language.
kp
Nick
March 24, 2010
10:08 pm
St Augustine's letter to Proba
We do not know how to pray as we ought
Perhaps you may still ask why St Paul said when we cannot choose words in order to pray properly, since it is impossible that he or those to whom he wrote should not have known the Lord’s Prayer.
Yet Paul himself was not exempt from such ignorance. When, to prevent him from becoming swollen-headed over the greatness of the revelations that had been given to him, he was given in addition a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to buffet him, he asked the Lord three times to take it away from him. Surely that was not knowing to pray as he ought? For in the end he heard the Lord’s reply, telling him why even such a great saint’s prayer had to be refused: My grace is enough for you: my power is at its best in weakness.
So when we are suffering afflictions that might be doing us either good or harm, we do not to know how to pray as we ought. But because they are hard to endure and painful, because they are contrary to our nature (which is weak) we, like all mankind, pray to have our afflictions taken from us. At least, though, we owe this much respect to the Lord our God, that if he does not take our afflictions away we should not consider ourselves ignored and neglected, but should hope to gain some greater good through the patient acceptance of suffering. For my power is at its best in weakness.
Scripture says this so that we should not be proud of ourselves if our prayer is heard, when we ask for something it would be better for us not to get; and so that we should not become utterly dejected if we are not given what we ask for, despairing of God’s mercy towards us: it might be that what we have been asking for could have brought us some still greater affliction, or it could have brought us the kind of good fortune that brings corruption and ruin. In such cases, it is clear that we cannot know how to pray as we ought.
Hence if anything happens contrary to our prayer, we ought to bear the disappointment patiently, give thanks to God, and be sure that it was better for God’s will to be done than our own. The Mediator himself has given us an example of this. When he had prayed, My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass me by, he transformed the human will that was in him because he had assumed human nature and added Nevertheless, let it be as you, not I, would have it. Thus, truly, By the obedience of one man many have been made righteous.
Nick
March 30, 2010
6:11 pm
"But what we suffer from to-day is humility in the wrong place. Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty has settled upon the organ of conviction; where it was never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed. Nowadays the part of a man that a man does assert is exactly the part he ought not to assert himself. The part he doubts is exactly the part he ought not to doubt -- the Divine Reason. Huxley preached a humility content to learn from Nature. But the new sceptic is so humble that he doubts if he can even learn. Thus we should be wrong if we had said hastily that there is no humility typical of our time. The truth is that there is a real humility typical of our time; but it so happens that it is practically a more poisonous humility than the wildest prostrations of the ascetic. The old humility was a spur that prevented a man from stopping; not a nail in his boot that prevented him from going on. For the old humility made a man doubtful about his efforts, which might make him work harder. But the new humility makes a man doubtful about his aims, which will make him stop working altogether."
Kyle Plattner
March 30, 2010
6:25 pm
During times when it is appropriate to debate doctrinal matters around the Scriptures with mature believers, it should be carefully monitored to ensure that it does not drift into a fruitless argument. Careful attention must be paid that the issue at hand remains the topic of dialogue as to not drift into the secret things of the Lord or begin making ad hominem attacks. Attention should be given to hearing out the other side with the goal of being able to be corrected or understand clearly where correction needs to be given. Frequently much of the struggle associated with discussing doctrinal disagreements centers around complaints about not being fully listened to. We seek clarity in our own position as well as our opponents. This is part of our responsibility to uphold truth with great concern as we serve him who is the truth. Even if brothers must depart in disagreement surely they will have a greater understanding and appreciation for what the other holds. This more comprehensive understanding of alternative views will allow us to view Scripture in light of multiple perspectives and thus aid our attempts at faithful exegesis.
To such a proposal for debate there will be some who undoubtedly call for a greater tolerance on such matters. However as we have discussed, unity at the cost of truth is no unity at all. So what of the pleas for tolerance? Have they no virtue? Undoubtedly the call for tolerance is a noble one, but we must define the sort of tolerance of which we speak. Primarily, we need to distinguish between what I will call a tolerant spirit and a tolerant mind. Tolerant in spirit indicates that a Christian should always be, loving, understanding, forgiving and forbearing others, making allowances for them, and giving them the benefit of the doubt, for true love “bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.” Tolerant in mind refers to the compromising of truths and convictions under the banner of tolerance. So the critical question becomes: how can we be tolerant in mind of what God has plainly revealed to be either evil or erroneous? In this sense we are not merely called to just tolerate those who disagree with us, rather we are called to love. The modern idea of tolerance in the mind is far from the Biblical understanding of love.
Tolerance of the mind is passive. Love is active. Tolerance can keep people at arm’s length in hopes of not ever offending them. Rather love embraces people where they are and ‘hopes all things.’ Tolerance tries to leave people alone as individuals. Conversely, love ushers people into a community of truth and compassion. Tolerance attempts to keep a safe distance between those in need of the truth that sets them free. Love pushes us to engage even to those who may be unlikeable. Tolerance avoids any confrontation in order to maintain a false unity. Love proclaims the truth boldly and graciously in order to bring about a Biblical unity while tolerance fails to introduce people to the all-satisfying savior under the banner of open-mindedness.
Undoubtedly there is some value in a modern push for open-mindedness, for we should always be open and tolerant in regards to keeping out ears open for truth. These are the matters on which Scriptures seems to speak unequivocally. And of course we must be careful to distinguish between Biblical doctrine and our fallible interpretation or formation of it. But when the Biblical teaching is plain, the push for an open mind is a sign of pride not humility, immaturity, not maturity. Indeed Paul calls those who are tossed around with every wind of doctrine children. G. K. Chesterton once observed in his book Orthodoxy:
What we suffer from today is humility in the wrong place. Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty has settled upon the organ of conviction, where it was never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed. We are on the road to producing a race of men too mentally modest to believe in the multiplication table.
Humility does not equate to an indifference about the Biblical gospel. As I began explaining in the beginning of this book, the open reception of God’s revealed truth over against the obscuring of it is recognizing our need for reliance on divine truth over our own opinions. We should not be fooled by accusations of holding strongly to clearly revealed truth, for such was the task of Christ and the Apostles. Thus we ought to treat appeals for open-mindedness with great care. G. K. Chesterton also wisely noted, “the object of opening the mind as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.”
The modern push for tolerance of the mind also seems to say to us, “if you must be dogmatic, then just keep it to yourself.” Another way in which this point of view is expressed is to urge us to be always positive, if necessary dogmatically positive, but to shy away from ever being negative. “Speak up for what you believe in,” we are urged, “but don’t speak against what other people believe.” While in reality we cannot faithfully teach sound doctrine as we are commanded without refuting those who oppose it. This creates controversy. Is controversy invariably wrong? Certainly Christ could not teach without creating controversy; what we taught was diametrically opposed to the teachings of Jews and Greeks. As we try to uphold his word he ought to expect the same.
It is key for us to remember Paul’s instruction that whether it is in season or out of season we are called to stand upon the word of God. Chiefly it is our common goal to unite around its truths without sacrificing love. It takes careful Biblical discernment to know when and how to speak up for truth. Our love for truth should translate into a love for people since it is truth that aligns them with the Creator they were created to serve. Remember Jesus’ words, “this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” Our desire is to know him and take care that others know him. This cannot be accomplished by hiding behind banners of a false unity or a passive tolerance. If we are truly concerned with the well being of people we must be concerned with truth. Subsequently if we become concerned truth we will begin to be concerned with unity since truth is the basis of unity.
kp
Nick
March 30, 2010
8:55 pm
traever
March 31, 2010
8:14 am
you'll never be able to run for office being clear of what you believe and why.
Nick
April 1, 2010
11:39 am
Nick
April 4, 2010
12:09 am
Nick
April 5, 2010
8:16 am
anne
April 7, 2010
5:36 pm
looks like you are on your way to moving them safely :)
hope your move goes well, and the atmosphere of this new place enhances your library :)
Nick
April 17, 2010
1:27 pm
traever
April 22, 2010
7:37 am
Anonymous
April 23, 2010
6:35 am
To the praise of the glory of His grace!
Amen.
anne
April 23, 2010
8:34 am
Anonymous
April 26, 2010
3:20 pm
but a fool's heart to the left.
Ecclesiastes 10:2
Sounds like God's a Republican too.
anne
April 26, 2010
9:26 pm
~may you recognize the Body of Christ's walk in sanctification and commit to prayerful pilgrimage with them, as well.
Anonymous
April 27, 2010
12:04 pm
Luke 13:14
Sounds like He is a Libertarian.
anne
April 29, 2010
8:07 pm
Where do you find these videos!? lol :)
traever
April 30, 2010
8:22 am
Anonymous
May 4, 2010
8:58 pm
The cookie looks kinda gross actually.
angie
May 10, 2010
12:06 pm
Nick
May 14, 2010
6:55 pm
Drew
May 15, 2010
8:37 am
traever
May 17, 2010
12:25 pm
anne
May 24, 2010
3:02 pm
will there come a time when you do share the rest with others ?
I watched this video today and while I do not agree with it, I think it has some interesting things to think about if you're able to convert it to His Truth...
http://www.ted.com/talks/elizabeth_gilbert_on_genius.html
Kyle, may you continue creating and praising Him!
Jerlmichael Sykes
May 27, 2010
2:02 am
Since God has revealed this to me, and to you, so far the most important thing is to help the children of God with my influence. And that goes for any and every person I can help, even if its a smile or a wave. Anytime I connect with God's people in a positive way it enriches their lives and the people they are connected to. In return for this God enriches my life and the people I am connected to.
I encourage you to be a blessing to everyone you encounter in any way you can. You have the power to change anyone's life with the power of God just by staying positively connected with them.
I'll see you in Heaven!
JAE
June 8, 2010
10:41 am