Catechism Thursday

How did God create man? 
God created man male and female, after His own image, in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, with dominion over the creatures.

(Gen. 1:27; Col. 3:10; Eph. 4:24; Gen. 1:28)

Technorati tags: Catechism, Christian, Reformed Baptist, Theology

Catechism Thursday

What is the work of creation? 

 The work of creation is God’s making all things of nothing, by the Word of His power, in the space of six days, and all very good.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
(Genesis 1:1 ESV)

By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.
(Hebrews 11:3 ESV)

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
(Exodus 20:11 ESV)

And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
(Genesis 1:31 ESV)

 

Technorati tags: Christian, Catechism, Reformed Baptist, Theology

Warning reading this blog could cause …

My friend Jeremy over at Doxoblogy finds the best blog toys I’ve ever seen.  He’s found this little rating system that tells you what your blog is rated based upon the number or times certain words appear in your blog. 

He orignally started out as PG-13 but with judicial uses of certain phrases got himself an R rating.  As for me well, let me just show you:

 

 

This rating was determined based on the presence of the following words:

• dead (14x)
• death (12x)
• hell (9x)
• dangerous (1x)

Made by an adult for adults or at least those with mature minds.  And allow me to remind you of this: Warning!

 

Technorati tags: Blog toys, humor, Jeremy, Doxoblogy

True Truth

So the conversation went like this:

Me: Truth exists its not dependent on whether I believe its correct or not its an objective standard. It conforms with reality.

John: Truth is subjective what is true for you isn’t necessarily true for me.

Me: Really? So one plus one equals three?

John: Well what is one? What is three? They’re just words they can mean anything.

Me: Really? Does your bank think that too? Your telling me that if it says that you have one dollar left in your account that means you actually have three?

John: well. . .

Me: You said: “They’re just words they can mean anything.”

John: They are, there is no meaning to them we assign meaning it can change on a whim.

Me: So how long have you been over drawn at the bank?

John: That’s not importanat right now.

Me: It is to your banker. I’ll say it again Truth exists it isn’t dependent on whether I believe it is correct or not its an objective standard. It conforms with reality.

John: Well people believed the earth was flat.

Me: See my previous statement, truth doesn’t depend on someone’s belief in it. It exists as an objective standard.

John: Well what about the four minute mile?

Me: Where are you going with this?

John: People said that it was impossible to break the four minute mile for them it was true. But then Roger Bannister broke the four minute mile and proved that it wasn’t true.

Me: Again what other people believed about something doesn’t necessarily make it true. See my definition again Truth exists as objective standard. It doesnt depend on whether I or anyone believes or feels about it. If something is true its true for everyone no matter what they believe or feel about it.

John: I don’t believe it.

Me: Sigh.

See Dan Phillips: Hello, Out there #1 on Truth

Technorati tags: Truth, Apologetics, Christian

Catechism Thursday

How does God execute His decrees?
God executes His decrees in the works of creation and providence.

(Gen. 1:1; Rev. 4:11; Matt.6:26; Acts 14:17)

Technorati tags: Catechism, Reformed Baptist, Theology, Christian

Do you REALLY believe Salvation is by Grace alone?

The Word of God proclaims that salvation is by God’s grace alone. Most professing Christians today will unreservedly avow that they too believe that salvation is by “grace alone”.  And that’s a good thing. However, there is reason to believe that the theology that is embraced by the vast majority of those who affirm the Reformation doctrine of  “Sola Gratia” is antithetical to the biblical truth; “Salvation is of the Lord.” (Jonah 2:9). What follows is a graphical representation of the understanding of the doctrine of salvation held by most Evangelicals today. It is hoped that this will aid many to think seriously about what they believe, at least intellectually, and realize that it does not represent in actuality the truth that “Salvation is of the Lord God; by His grace alone!”

Take up and read the rest…

 

Technorati tags: Gospel, Sola Gratia, Theology

Sweep the leg

I remember when the original Karate Kid came out, I was either or green or a blue belt in T’ang Soo Do and was traveling around with my instructor to these little point fighting tournaments in the state.  I was sitting in the locker room getting my gear on trying to psyche myself up for up coming fight  when some black belts wandered in from their last bout.  They were laughing and joking about a technique that one of them had pulled to win the match.  When one of them said that he should have tried the crane kick that Daniel-San did.  Then they burst into laughing. 

So when I saw this on You Tube I had a trip down memory lane and a good laugh.

 

Technorati tags: Karate Kid, You Tube, Humor

Martin Luther Myths

James Swan at AOMin.org has been kind enough to catalogue the top Martin Luther Myths.  Here is the entire list:

 

1. Luther Threw an Inkwell at Satan
   Recently I found a Jehovah’s Witness attempting to prove Luther was a psychopath. He brought up the story in which Luther hurled an inkwell at Satan. The story is not true. It first appeared towards the end of the sixteenth century, and is said to have been told by a former Wittenberg student. In this early version, the Devil in the guise of a monk threw an inkwell at Luther while he was secluded in the Wartburg. By 1650, the story shifted to Luther throwing the inkwell at Satan. Like any bizarre legend, the story morphed, and houses where Luther stayed had spots on the walls, and these were also said to be inkwells that Luther threw at the Devil.
2. Luther’s Evangelical Breakthrough Occurred in the Bathroom
   This same Jehovah’s Witness denigrated Luther by repeating a newer myth, that Luther’s understanding of Romans 1:17-18 came to him while in the bathroom in the tower of the Augustinian cloister. In the twentieth century, many approached Luther by applying psychoanalysis to his writings. Psychologist Eric Erikson took a German phrase uttered by Luther and interpreted it literally to mean Luther was in the bathroom when he had his evangelical breakthrough. Erikson concluded, from a Freudian perspective, Luther’s spiritual issues were tied up with biological functions. But, there was not a bathroom in the tower. The phrase Erikson interpreted literally in German was simply conventional speech. Luther really was saying that his breakthrough came during a time when he was depressed, or in a state of melancholy.
3. Luther Repented and Re-entered the Church on his Deathbed
   I’ve come across this one on popular Catholic discussion boards. No, it is not true. One of Luther’s early opponents popularized the account that Luther was a child of the Devil, and was taken directly to Hell when he died. Now though, more ecumenically minded Catholics hope for the ultimate in conversion stories. Luther died around 3:00 AM on February 18, 1546. His last words and actions were recorded by his friend Justus Jonas. Luther was asked, “Reverend father, will you die steadfast in Christ and the doctrines you have preached?” Luther responded affirmatively. Luther also quoted John 3:16 and Psalm 31:5. In his last prayer he said to God, “Yet I know as a certainty that I shall live with you eternally and that no one shall be able to pluck me out of your hands.” These are hardly the words of a Roman Catholic waiting to enter purgatory.
4. Luther’s Hymns Were Originally Tavern Songs
   Some involved in Contemporary Christian Music use this argument to validate contemporary styles of music being used in church: if even the great Martin Luther found value in contemporary music being used in Church, shouldn’t we likewise do the same? In actuality, Luther used only one popular folk tune, I Came From An Alien Country, changed the words, and named the hymn, From Heaven On High, I Come to You. Four years after he did this, he changed the music to an original composition.
5. Luther Spoke in Tongues
   Charismatic cyber-apologists have put this one out. They refer to an old quote from a German historian who stated, “Luther was easily the greatest evangelical man after the apostles, full of inner love to the Lord like John, hasty in deed like Peter, deep in thinking like Paul, cunning and powerful in speech like Elijah, uncompromising against God’s enemies like David; PROPHET and evangelist, speaker-in-tongues and interpreter in one person, equipped with all the gifts of grace, a light and pillar of the church…” Luther though held, “Tongues are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers. But later on, when the church had been gathered and confirmed by these signs, it was not necessary for this visible sending forth of the Holy Spirit to continue.”
6. Luther Added The Word Alone To Romans 3:28
   This is frequently brought up by the zealous defenders of Rome. Luther is said to have been so careless and outrageous with his translation of the Bible, he simply added words to make the Bible say what he wanted it to. Luther gave a detailed explanation of why the passage has the meaning of alone,and this explanation has been available online for years. This charge also shows an ignorance of church history. Roman Catholic writer Joseph A. Fitzmyer points out, “…[T]wo of the points that Luther made in his defense of the added adverb were that it was demanded by the context and that sola was used in the theological tradition before him.” Fitzmyer lists the following: Origen, Hillary, Basil, Ambrosiaster, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Bernard, Theophylact, Theodoret, Thomas Aquinas, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Marius Victorinus, and Augustine [Joseph A. Fitzmyer Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993) 360-361].
7. Luther Was an Antinomian and Hated the Law of God
   Recently a friend wrote me and said charges about Luther being an antinomian were circulating in his church. Luther’s theology indeed has a place for the law of God and its use in the life of a Christian. The law for Luther was dual purposed: it first drives one to see their sin and need for a savior; secondly it functions in the life of a Christian to lead one to a correct understanding of the good one ought to do. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Luther knows how important Moses and the law was in his theology. In Luther’s Small Catechism the Ten Commandments were placed first because he wanted people to understand that God is wrathful against sin. The negative prohibitions in the Ten Commandments clearly showed our need for a savior. Also in his Small Catechism, Luther suggests a daily regiment of prayer and includes a verbal reading of the Ten Commandments.
8. Luther Acted Like a Protestant Pope
   Catholic apologists perpetuate this one. They tend to reduce everything to a need for an infallible interpreter. They use highly rhetorical or polemical comments from Luther out of context, rather than those statements when Luther evaluates his value and his work. Toward the end of his life, Luther reviewed his work and stated, “My consolation is that, in time, my books will lie forgotten in the dust anyhow, especially if I (by Gods grace) have written anything good.” And also, “I would have been quite content to see my books, one and all, remain in obscurity and go by the board” [LW 34: 283-284].
9. Luther Was a Drunk
   The historical record nowhere documents Luther ever being drunk. It does provide evidence that he did drink alcohol, and that he enjoyed drinking. One needs only to survey the massive output of work that Luther produced to settle the matter that he was not an alcoholic, nor did he have a drinking problem. Luther preached and wrote against drunkenness throughout his entire life with vigor and force.
10. Luther Said Imputed Righteousness is Like Snow Covered Dung
   I saved this one for last, simply because I’m not sure if it’s a myth or not. It does seem to me like something Luther would’ve said: “Therefore let us embrace Christ, who was delivered for us, and His righteousness; but let us regard our righteousness as dung, so that we, having died to sins, may live to God alone” [LW 30:294]. “Explanation of Martin Luther: I said before that our righteousness is dung in the sight of God. Now if God chooses to adorn dung, he can do so. It does not hurt the sun, because it sends its rays into the sewer” [LW 34: 184]

11. Luther Had a Mental Disorder?
   The story goes that while listening to a Gospel lesson at mass on Mark 9:14-29 about an evil spirit being cast out, Luther fell to the floor in the choir of the monastery at Erfurt crying out, “It is not me, not me!” Luther is said to be crying out he was not demon possessed. Psychologist Erik Erikson wrote an entire chapter in his book Young Man Luther on this incident, concluding Luther had a mental disorder. The source for the story comes not from the pen of Luther, but rather from the writing of one of Luther’s earliest Roman Catholic opponents, Cochlaeus, who got the story third hand. Cochlaeus was devoted to destroying Luther. He would print anything he could find to use against him, whether true or not. Cochlaeus was convinced Luther was demon possessed and had been seen with the Devil. Cochlaeus stated of Luther, “…he knows the Devil well, and is in turn well known by him… he was even seen by certain people to keep company bodily with the Devil.”
12. Luther Said “Be a Sinner and Sin Boldly” Because Salvation is by Faith Alone and Works Do Not Matter
   More than a few Catholic authors have accused Luther of teaching a wanton lawlessness of sinning boldly. If justification is by faith alone, aren’t Christians then free to sin as much they want? In 1521 Luther wrote to Melanchthon and stated, “If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world.” Luther was prone to strong hyperbole. It’s his style, and this statement is a perfect example. Luther’s point is not to go out and commit multiple amounts of gleeful sin everyday, but rather to believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly despite the sin in our lives. Throughout his career, Luther taught that faith was a living faith. Luther stated, “Faith is a living, restless thing. It cannot be inoperative. We are not saved by works; but if there be no works, there must be something amiss with faith.” Luther also stated, “Accordingly, if good works do not follow, it is certain that this faith in Christ does not dwell in our heart, but dead faith.” Luther preached and taught this regularly.
13. Luther Took Books Out of the Bible?
   Luther’s translation of the Bible contained all of its books. Luther also translated and included the Apocrypha, saying, “These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.” He expressed his thoughts on the canon in prefaces placed at the beginning of particular Biblical books. In these prefaces, he either questioned or doubted the canonicity of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation (his Catholic contemporaries, Erasmus and Cardinal Cajetan, likewise questioned the canonicity of certain New Testament books). Of his opinion, he allows for the possibility of his readers to disagree with his conclusions. Of the four books, it is possible Luther’s opinion fluctuated on two (Hebrews and Revelation). Luther was of the opinion that the writers of James and Jude were not apostles, therefore these books were not canonical. Still, he used them and preached from them.
14. Luther Was “Extraordinarily Devoted to the Blessed Virgin Mary”?
   Normally Catholics vilify Luther. But, when it comes to Mary, Luther becomes a leader all Protestants should learn a great lesson in Mariology from. True, Luther said some nice things about Mary. Luther though saw the idol medieval theology had created. His abandoning of the intercession of the saints and his doctrine of justification significantly changes his Marian approach. Therefore, Luther was not devoted in any sort of Roman Catholic sense to Mary. True, he used the phrase Mother of God, but did so intending the rich Christ-centered usage of Theotokos when discussing the incarnation or Christ’s Deity. He also uses the term simply as a synonym for Mary, which was common in the sixteenth century. Perhaps the most startling aspect of Luther’s Mariology is his lifelong belief in her perpetual virginity. While holding this belief, Luther will not have Mary’s perpetually virginity extolled. He condemns those who venerate this attribute, and notes that it exists only to bring forth the Messiah. He abandoned the Immaculate Conception sometime after 1527. In 1532 he preached, “Mother Mary, like us, was born in sin of sinful parents, but the Holy Spirit covered her, sanctified and purified her so that this child was born of flesh and blood, but not with sinful flesh and blood.”
15. Did Luther Really Say ” Here I Stand”?
   The most famous of all statements from Luther might actually be one he never said. Standing before Emperor Charles V and Papal authorities, Luther refused to recant of the charges made against him and the books he had written. Defying Church and Emperor, his famous speech ends, “Here I stand; I can do no other. God help me.” While the earliest printed versions of this historic event include these words, they were not recorded on the spot. Luther’s famous biographer Roland Bainton suggests, “The words, though not recorded on the spot, may nevertheless be genuine, because the listeners at the moment may have been too moved to write” (Bainton, Here I Stand, 144).

HT James Swan

 

Technorati tags: Martin Luther, Apologetics, Christian, Myths

Catechism Thursday

 What are the decrees of God? 

 The decrees of God are His eternal purpose, according to the counsel of His will, whereby for His own glory, He has fore-ordained whatsoever comes to pass.

In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,
(Eph 1:11 ESV)

For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.
(Rom 11:36 ESV)

All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, “What have you done?”
(Dan 4:35 ESV)

Technorati tags: Catechism, Reformed Baptist, Theology, Christian

A Useful Lie

The Chimp-Human 1% Difference: A Useful Lie 06/29/2007
Jon Cohen made a remarkable admission in Science this week.¹ The popular notion that humans and chimpanzees are genetically 99% similar is a myth, and should be discarded. Since 1975, textbooks, the media and museums have emphasized this close similarity; but now, Cohen quoted a number of scientists who say the number cannot possibly be that small and probably cannot be quantified. Since the statistic has outlived its usefulness, it should be discarded.
The original claim by Allan Wilson in 1975 came from studies of base substitutions when genes were compared side by side. Other comparisons, however, yield very different results. Human and chimp genomes differ markedly in:

• Chunks of missing DNA
• Extra genes
• Number of chromosomes and chromosome structure
• Altered connections in gene networks
• Indels (insertions and deletions)
• Gene copy number
• Coexpressed genes

In this last measure, for instance, a 17.4% difference was found in genes expressed in the cerebral cortex. Cohen recalled the December 2006 paper from PLoS One where Matthew Hahn found a “whopping 6.4%” difference in gene copy numbers, leading him to say, “gene duplication and loss may have played a greater role than nucleotide substitution in the evolution of uniquely human phenotypes and certainly a greater role than has been widely appreciated.” (see 12/20/2006 entry).
But even that number is misleading. Different measures produce such different results, it is probably impossible to come up with a single percent difference that wouldn’t misrepresent the picture. Scientists are not sure how to prioritize the measures to study, because “it remains a daunting task to link genotype to phenotype.” Sorting out the differences that matter is “really difficult,” said one geneticist. A stretch of DNA that appears meaningless may actually be vital for gene regulation.
What’s most remarkable about this confession is how certain evolutionary biologists are evaluating the claim in hindsight. In the 1970s, it was considered a “heretical” view that our genomes could be that similar, but Cohen comments, “Subsequent studies bore their conclusion out, and today we take as a given that the two species are genetically 99% the same.” But “Truth be told,” he begins in the next sentence, the inaccuracy of the statistic was known from the start:

But truth be told, Wilson and King also noted that the 1% difference wasn’t the whole story. They predicted that there must be profound differences outside genes—they focused on gene regulation—to account for the anatomical and behavioral disparities between our knuckle-dragging cousins and us. Several recent studies have proven them perspicacious again, raising the question of whether the 1% truism should be retired.
“For many, many years, the 1% difference served us well because it was underappreciated how similar we were,” says Pascal Gagneux, a zoologist at UC San Diego. “Now it’s totally clear that it’s more a hindrance for understanding than a help.”

At the end of the article, Cohen quoted Svante Paabo, who said something even more revealing. After admitting he didn’t think there was any way to calculate a single number, he said, “In the end, it’s a political and social and cultural thing about how we see our differences.”

---

¹Jon Cohen, News Focus on Evolutionary Biology, “Relative Differences: The Myth of 1%,” Science, 29 June 2007: Vol. 316. no. 5833, p. 1836, DOI: 10.1126/science.316.5833.1836.HT Evan May