www.bornagainblogger.com

I hate to bump myself, but this is too good to pass up. HT: Challies

This brouhaha is all about someone’s edits to a Wikipedia page. The editor in question spoke to a person named Reiser who was mischaracterized in the page. Edits were made according to Reiser’s wishes, but the were then erased by an employee of Wikipedia.

Hubris reigns supreme…as evidenced by this quote:

Tabletop parried: “We have a reliable source to this. What Peiser has said to *you* is irrelevant.”

So…let me get this straight. Your “reliable source” is more reliable than the person in question? Brilliant.

So far we’ve looked at Tim’s Biblical basis for discernment and his definition for discernment. The middle chapters enter into how to apply discernment as a believer.

Probably the most interesting section of the book is around p. 118. Tim quotes DA Carson and discusses two things.

First, How we look at what the Bible says about various things in our lives, and what the thrust of the Bible is. Here he quotes DA Carson’s discussion of keeping fit. The conclusion is that the Bible’s main thrust is not how to keep fit, but how to redeem mankind from their sin. Tim remarks, “While the Bible does not speak to every issue, every issue will somehow tie into God’s plan for the redemption of His people.”

This leads us to the conclusion that we need to examine everything we do, not necessarily in light of what the Bible says about it (though that is VERY important as well), but in light of how our behavior fits in with God’s plan of redemption. Since there are so many gray areas in life, this is somewhat of a paradigm shift for people like me, who like to perhaps compartmentalize what we read and apply it to our lives. Suddenly 1 Cor. 11’s treatment of long/short or covered/uncovered heads seems a lot less important, EXCEPT as it applies to God’s plan of redemption. The question goes from “Am I supposed to do this?” to “If I do this, will God’s will be done in my life?”

Second, Tim talks about getting back to the basics. He lists three stages of discernment:

1. Transformation
2. Application
3. Spontaneous Action

Tim makes the point, and rightly so, that these are intertwined with each other so that they aren’t progressive stages, but different ways of handling discernment. Each one is something that we can work on each day. However, our level of discernment makes itself most obvious in how we react spontaneously to things. This is where we can see the most obvious benefit. For example, how we react to blasphemy or coarse language or jesting is a good barometer of our discernment (and it shows me how far I have to go).

If you get a chance, I do recommend this book. He says things I don’t agree with, and as always any book should be read with an Acts 17:11 mindset.

This guy did a fantastic job reviewing Bible Software. His point of view is roughly the same as mine, and he comes to the same conclusion, which is nice. If you’re interested, take a look here.

Slice has an email from a reader with a paragraph that hits home as I discuss the whole Catholic thing with a couple of people via email. The email is about the Ravi Zacharias generic prayer to not offend controversy that’s been making the blogosphere rounds. However, one paragraph stuck out at me.

I suppose telling a lot of truth makes you a good Christian ministry, but apparently telling the whole truth makes you malicious.

During this discussion about Catholics, I’ve been accused of the following

• Equivocating
• Substituting doctrine for the Gospel
• Eager to catch people in presumed bad theology
• Stating that no one was saved before the reformation
• Overeager (her words) to group people as redeemable or unredeemable
• Judging the heart of people when it’s God’s job to judge the heart
• That I know no Catholics who are saved when she knows concretely some that are saved some who have a vibrant faith(notice the contradiction with the previous point)
• Arrogant (and harsh)
• Approaching Catholics with destruction rather than redemption

There might be more, but that’s a pretty good list. While some of these are true (7 and 9 and sometimes 3 if it’s particularly egregious), they aren’t the thrust of the discussion. What I’ve tried to do is point out the striking similarities between the Whore of Babylon in Revelation and the Catholic Church…and I’ve tried to point out the differences between the Catholic gospel and the Gospel of the Bible.

What I’ve learned from this is that I really have to teach my children the truth, as it is presented in the Bible. They HAVE to understand that the difference between a true and false statement can come in one simple word (Salvation by grace alone through faith alone vs the Catholic Salvation by grace alone through faith). Those seem so similar, but digging a little deeper sees works required for salvation (a fact admitted by my opponent in the argument, but not enough for an admission of a false gospel.

I think sometimes it’s easy to get complacent and just cruise along. But precise speech and writing in my children will produce precise thinking…and our God is definitely a God of infinite precision. I pray that He gives me the wisdom I so earnestly crave to raise my children in the fear of Him.

Also, I’m amazed that the importance of doctrine is downplayed so much, especially by a person who practices law for a living. I realize that doctrine has been belittled in more liberal and emergent churches, but I didn’t expect it from someone that is by all appearances a very strong, committed Christian. So MUCH of the Bible commands us to know and understand doctrine…here are a few samples….

Romans 16:17 (KJV)
¹⁷ Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

Titus 1:9 (KJV)
⁹ Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

Doctrine is, after the Gospel, the heart of what brings us together and allows us to tell truth from falsehood. To ignore it is to be willfully ignorant of what God commands here and in many other places. An article on doctrine that I read says there are 240 references to doctrine in the NT alone.

In the end, preaching the full Gospel is not malicious…we’ve been entrusted with the Gospel and not to preach it is an affront to God. In the end, I’ll offend the entire world if it pleases God.

Well, I’ve begun discussing the Catholic gospel vs. the Biblical gospel with a friend of mine (and an acquaintance of hers that I just met) via email. I suppose I could extract the emails to PDF, redact the contact info and post them here, but not until I obtain permission.

I really enjoy debates like this because they cause me to question my own beliefs. I’ve pulled up so much to read in this regard, and even stumbled across something by Peter Kreeft (who in my younger days I really enjoyed reading until I figured out he is Catholic) that explained how justification by faith is a purely Catholic doctrine and that man can do nothing to merit salvation.

Read the rest of this entry »

When I found out my parents were going to see this movie, I picked myself up off the floor (shock will do that to you) and decided I had to see it, too.

You see, my parents haven’t been to a movie since Star Wars.

Yes, that Star Wars.

No, the first time it came to the theaters.

Yes, 1977.

I know that’s almost 31 years ago. Now you can see why I was floored.

First, a select sampling of review quotes from Rotten Tomatoes, an online meta-review site. I’ve added my own parenthetical commentary (in bold) as well.

[I]n a saner universe… you could scoff at Stein and dismiss him and not give this propagandistic nonsense another thought. But… [y]ou need to see this movie because these people are not going away…

No, we’re not…but of course you don’t address Stein’s argument that scientific study is being suppressed. You spout “these people” like a 1950’s Alabama businessman talking about followers of Martin Luther King.

For a film about American freedom of expression and the necessity for open dialogue, it’s hard to imagine Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed being more one-sided, narrow-minded, and intellectually dishonest.

A little irresistible ad-hominem here….this same reviewer thinks Michael Moore is a good director and fair. Sounds like she might have a little problem with narrow-mindedness as well (as do we all, just that some of us admit it).

The movie itself is an example of design by faith and emotion rather than intelligence, defined as rationality grounded in proof.

The thing is, Stein never sets out to prove intelligent design. He just wants it to be an option for research. Of course, the “rationality grounded in proof” side of things (aka evolutionary theory) can, at best come up with aliens or crystals as a rationale for biogenesis.

The film shows that Intelligent Design should be on the table for discussion. But if you’re looking for ammo to argue your Darwinist friends under the table, look elsewhere.

This review hits home the point that Stein is not trying to PROVE anything, other than to put to light the ugly underside of academia in regards to the origin of life.

As for what I thought?

Well, I enjoyed the movie, but of course my worldview STARTS with intelligent design, via a knowable, omnipotent, self existent Supreme Being. I’ve already discarded evolution due to the flaws inherent in the theory.

The movie itself was pretty good. As a documentary it played a lot to the emotional side of things, interspersing interviews with footage intended to evoke an emotional response. However, Stein’s arguments are compelling, simply because the most damning evidence for his hypothesis comes from the subjects themselves.

By the way, if you think that Atheistic/Evolutionary worldviews have not killed more people than religion, you need to do some reading on Hitler and Stalin. Stein took on Hitler but he pretty much ignored Stalin, and Stalin is the far easier target, as Hitler had association with Catholics…

In some ways I’m no different from Richard Dawkins. I have a set of beleifs that I will not compromise. Like him, I’m closed minded about the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (we just came to opposite conclusions. Unlike Dawkins, I have a hope set before me that is incorruptible.

The second chapter of Tim’s book is The Challenge of Spiritual Discernment. Moving from God’s call to all of His elect to be discerning into the realm of the difficulty of growing in discernment, Tim points out some roadblocks along the way.

Among these is the current disdain for Theology and Systematics. Tim’s point about the necessity of a systematic approach to understanding God and doctrine hits home to someone like me. Many times, I find myself abandoning one project for another, trying to find something that interests me, rather than pursuing something to the end.

Systematic study also reminds me of a woman I recently talked to who said she liked to “Open her Bible and see what God had to say to her.”

I pointed out that our God is a God of order. He created the universe in a very ordered and precise fashion, and laid out history with prophecy and His sovereign will so that things happened at just the right time. I told her that our study of Scripture must be systematic if we are to understand all that God has to say.

In Chapter 3, we finally get to see how Tim defines discernment. I won’t spoil it for you here, but his definition is a very good one. He breaks down the words in the original language that are commonly used for discernment as well as breaking down his definition in depth. Here’s a good way to differentiate between knowledge, wisdom and discernment (p 57)

There seems to be a progression from knowledge, which refers to bare facts, to wisdom, which refers to understanding moral and ethical dimensions of facts and data, to discernment, which is the application of wisdom.

Now we have the foundation for applying discernment in the chapters ahead….stay tuned.

I actually discovered Tim Challies’ blog via the Pyromaniacs, the blog that has the distinction of being the only blog I commit to reading daily. I enjoy Tim’s blog, even though I don’t agree with him on everything (to agree with him on everything would be to essentially worship him, and I don’t think God, Tim or I would like that).

I eagerly read books on discernment, and having just finished John MacArthur’s Reckless Faith, I decided to dive into The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment next.

I think the author did a great job outlining the basics of Spiritual Discernment, and the first two chapters provide a great deal of good information for a Christian who desires godly discernment. Read my review of Chapter 1 after the break.

Read the rest of this entry »

One thing I’ve never done while blogging is write a book review. I read quite a bit (as much as I can) and have never really wanted to take the time to review a book. I decided to start doing occasional reviews of books, and think now would be a good time to start.

Instead of doing a “normal” book review, and discussing likes or dislikes with regards to the book I’m reading, I’m going to pull out points that help me think, or things that I’ve learned. I’m going to review a book a few chapters at a time, and pull out a few points from each chapter.

Rather than review all sorts of books, I’ll only review books that I would recommend in the first place. So there’s no need for a “read this or not” sort of grade at the end. If I review it, I think you should read it.

The first book I’m going to review is Tim Challies’ The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment.  Stay tuned for the first part of the review in the next day or so.

For those who are not familiar with the practice of Taqiyya, head on over to Wikipedia for a quick read and Google from there.

A “Charter” school in Minnesota is currently teaching children Islam with OUR taxpayer dollars. Here are some small samples of Taqiyya in action:

“TIZA does not endorse any religion,” he said.”

The State Department of Education said they would conduct more site visits and write to the State Department to find out more about the school’s sponsor.

TIZA requires all students to learn Arabic as a second language English. (sic)

State law requires the school to fly an American flag during school hours, however no flag flies outside of TIZA Academy.

Zaman told 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS he didn’t know how to work the flagpole.

Arabic language required? Don’t know how to work a flagpole?

Someone needs to remind this guy of Rev 21:8….sounds like the school would be a great place to hand out tracts