However, since my readership is slowly growing, much of the material should be new to the reader.
And comments are a huge part of my two blogs, and they almost always contain new content.
My blogs posts are never ever really duplicated.
There is some new content with this post, in the main body, as well.
From satire and theology:
How to blow-up your blog without thinking too much
'When someone leaves a comment on your blog, either completely ignore the comment, or better yet erase it later after it has been published. Make sure you come across to your readers with that 'What the hell do you want', type of attitude. Treat your blog commenters like they are telemarketers while your favourite television show is on.'
Remember, 'Stranger Danger'! (June 4, 2010)
'Use plenty of ad hominem personal attacks in all your articles and comments. If someone disagrees with you make sure you state that they must hate you and what you stand for with your blog. Imply you are the Blogosphere's Mother Teresa/Gandhi/non-resistant Mennonite as you use vicious ad hominem attacks against your readers that disagree with you in any major way.
Reason that it is okay for you to viciously attack your critics, because you are 'right' and since they are 'wrong' as they disagree with you, and they obviously must hate you.'
From satire and theology
Theocracy
'I am not suggesting theocracy, but the need for more rational common sense ways of looking at humanity and therefore how government should be run.'
'I would not desire for one religion to be favoured as those citizens outside of the religion could face persecution, and in the extreme case of a state church be considered to be committing treason.'
'I do not support any primarily human attempt at establishing theocracy.
A primarily human attempt at theocracy does not guarantee Biblically based rule through the guidance of the true God.'
'In the present age, I favour democracy over theocracy.'
From satire and theology
The non-conformist of the year awards
'Mr. Jackson is wisely not a supporter of the theory of macroevolution, however, if he saw my hairy friends Chucky and Deeaaaan, he may reconsider.'
From satire and theology
Recent comments on other blogs (because that is how I roll)
'Is gay the new black?
Biblically, it is natural to be black, but not natural to be homosexual.
Blacks are not condemned for being such, but homosexual acts are condemned.'
So, no gay is not the new black. (June 4, 2010.)
From thekingpin68
No surprise this is Canada
'I would have preferred to see the court state the obvious, that marriage traditionally has encompassed a man and a woman, and for good reasons. The union of a man and woman can, if normal health (and if they are of childbearing age (June 4, 2010)) is present, lead to the sexual production of a family. Homosexual marriage cannot lead to the production of a family unit, even if both partners are completely healthy. This is clearly a difference between heterosexual and homosexual unions, and as one critic argued, the latter are really homosensual unions.'
From thekingpin68
Arminianism and Free Will
'
Pelagianism
It must be noted that Arminianism is not Pelagianism. Pelagianism believes that human beings can achieve salvation from their own powers. It is believed that human beings can choose in free will, good or evil. Original sin was a bad example, and not inherited. Yarnold (1999: 435).'
'Arminianism holds to original sin and human corruption and that people are not able to do good without prevenient grace. Grider (1996: 80). Prevenient grace could be explained as preceding grace.'
'In my understanding the fallen human being has a limited free will that freely rejects God, and through the salvation process God enables the believer to freely follow Christ.
By limited free will I accept the idea that a fallen human being is free in the sense that he/she can be restored by God if elected (and regenerated (June 4, 2010)), but not free in a way the he/she could be saved through prevenient grace.'
From thekingpin68
Begging the question
'Begging the question would be if a person specifically argued the conclusion of an argument within a premise.'
Here are some additional sayings of mine:
'Life is fatastic'.
'Life is flabulous'.
'My floaters are a real problem of evil' (They will be gone very soon).
'Bloggers that do not want to reciprocally link can enjoy writing their own personal online diaries, unless they are already well-known in the field they are blogging about.'
'Excuse me, this is the web and you have a public blog, this means strangers can read your posts and comment.'
'Stranger Danger!'
'You can always turn comments off, and/or make your blog private'.
'You are a gentleman and a skull hair'.
'The radical fundamentalists and radical liberals tend not to support my work. My support mostly comes from moderate conservatives and moderate liberals. Mostly conservatives.'
'I am a moderate conservative.'
'I am so muscular I have a twelve pack.'
'Let's see, here in BC, we do not have a lot of police, do not have a large military, do not have a lot of hospitals, do not have a lot of freeways, and do not have a lot of rapid transit.
Yet we pay close to half of money earned to governments for taxes, plus sales taxes and other fees.
Where does all this money go? I think something is wrong.'
GRIDER, J.K. (1996) 'Arminianism', in Walter A. Elwell (ed.). Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
YARNOLD, E.J. (1999) 'Pelagianism', in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.
Happiness is a spice from Rick Beaudin. Below is some of Jeff Jenkins' work for my blogs over the last few years.
I won't tell a close friend that his being gay is unnatural. He tried to commit suicide once because he didn't want to be gay and his parents said he was going straight to hell. He might try to do it again.
ReplyDeleteI leave all those judgments between the individual and God. All I know is, at my absolute lowest, darkest of moments, my closest straight friends turned their backs on me and my 3 gay friends stepped up helped me get back on my feet financially (kept my car from being repossessed, paid my rent, bought groceries, kept my lights on, paid my phone bill, put gas in my car so I can get to job interviews, etc) was always available to talk when I called them, and even refused to be paid back once I got back on my feet. They did more for me then my family did, which was nothing, and I will never ever forget that. They have my love and support. Again, I leave all those judgments between them and God. I would like to think that in the end, He will judge them and me accordingly.
Thanks, Daij.
ReplyDeleteI can accept to a point what you are stating.
Firstly,
Romans 1 describes homosexual acts as unnatural:
Romans 1:26-27 (New American Standard Bible)
26For this reason (A)God gave them over to (B)degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, (C)men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
Secondly,
They will not inherit the Kingdom of God:
First Corinthians 6: 8-11:
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (New American Standard Bible)
9Or (A)do you not know that the unrighteous will not (B)inherit the kingdom of God? (C)Do not be deceived; (D)neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [a]effeminate, nor homosexuals,
10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will (E)inherit the kingdom of God.
11(F)Such were some of you; but you were (G)washed, but you were (H)sanctified, but you were (I)justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
Thirdly,
However, that being said, from Romans 3 we can see that all by nature and choice oppose God.
Romans 3:10-18 (New American Standard Bible)
10as it is written,
"(A)THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
11THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS,
THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;
12ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS;
THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD,
THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE."
13"(B)THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE,
WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING,"
"(C)THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS";
14"(D)WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS";
15"(E)THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD,
16DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS,
17AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN."
18"(F)THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES."
So, all who are elected, regenerated and brought into the Kingdom are coming from a position of being opposed to God by nature and choice.
But,
It is quite possible that some of these will be homosexuals that God will work on and this sin will be purged at death as will all sin in believers.
Lastly,
I agree that final judgment of persons is up to God.
Revelation 20 (Outside of Christ)
2 Corinthians 5: 10 (In Christ)
Philosopher's Mess:
ReplyDeleteI guess you were not paying too much attention. I do not allow ad hominem comments. So guess what? I will respond on my own terms.
'You use the term "natural" like it means morally good, but natural just means "what exists".'
Biblically the term in Romans 1: 26-27, φυσικὴν means according to Strong, physical, by implication, instinctive, natural. Strong p. 104.
I am dealing with the term in Biblical context.
'For instance, one time I say this show on meer cats, and one group of meer cats rushed another group of meer cat's little hole in the ground, and the attacking group devoured all the other group's new born children. This is natural. Dudes kissing eachother is natural.'
Convincing. Bravo. I am going to send you all my blog posts to critique.
'It exists and occurs in the NATURAL world. Saying, "homsexuality is unnatural" is a prescriptive statement, meant to influence future behavior. You wrongly treat it as a statement of fact.'
A person can have homosexual leanings (via corruption) and therefore commit homosexual acts (choice) in our present realm.
The Bible reasons both unnatural.
Christian theology accepts the idea of the fall (Genesis 3).
'Also, if you want to use the bible as a source for determing natural behavior then, necromancy, adultery, foretelling/prophecy, slavery, sex slavery, polygamy, polytheism, and a host of other things which your little brain would consider "weird" and "unnatural", and guess fu***** what they all can be considered NATURAL. So that is how much you s***.'
Oh what class you have. That really helps your cause as well.
So, I have almost four earned degrees related to the Bible and you are going to lecture me with your approach?
Who has a little brain when it comes to religious studies? Hmm.
Come back when you know more. Take a decade or two, perhaps. I doubt you have much experience in religious studies. Not all of the Bible is prescriptive, some of it is descriptive.
'So David from the Old Testament, won't be inheriting the Kingdom of God, because he adultered and fornicated, and adding insult to injury he adultered with the wife of one of his soldiers, and then plotted to have that man murdered, so that he could escape punishment?'
Not paying much attention are you?
What did I tell Daij?
However, that being said, from Romans 3 we can see that all by nature and choice oppose God.
So, all who are elected, regenerated and brought into the Kingdom are coming from a position of being opposed to God by nature and choice. But, It is quite possible that some of these will be homosexuals that God will work on and this sin will be purged at death as will all sin in believers.
'And idolatry? This one is the best, because every religious institution I have ever gone to has ALWAYS made an idol of Jesus, among other things. Through picture, statue, song, the figure of Jesus is worshiped as an idol. The Bible itself is treated as an idol-like object, venerated and made an object of supernatural worship, which explains your ignorant alleigence.'
You should go to a Reformed Church. More Biblical.
So you are qualified to lead a Bible study are you?
Bye, and do not post another comment unless you want to be nice and ponder on what I state and not just react.
I will simply delete your comments from now on.
Happy Weekend.
Well, as a Christian I'd say sin is sin, whether it's my girlfriend and I or 2 gay people.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to let God decide-
hopefully I can be forgiven too.
Hey Russ, quick comment on your response to the Philosopher's Mess, I want to compliment you on your respectful and intelligent response to this individual who obviously needs to research more on his ideas before presenting them in such a hostile manner.
ReplyDelete-Blogger Boy-
'Well, as a Christian I'd say sin is sin, whether it's my girlfriend and I or 2 gay people.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to let God decide-
hopefully I can be forgiven too.'
Thanks, Zombie.
Romans 3:23 (New American Standard Bible)
23for all (A)have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Romans 6:23 (New American Standard Bible)
23For the wages of (A)sin is death, but the free gift of God is (B)eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
'Hey Russ, quick comment on your response to the Philosopher's Mess, I want to compliment you on your respectful and intelligent response to this individual who obviously needs to research more on his ideas before presenting them in such a hostile manner.
-Blogger Boy-'
Thank you. Unfortunately that type of approach from secular critics is all too typical online.
Sadly everyone who says, I will simply let God sort it out and hope for the best will only end up sent to hell. God is clear, we must repent and cry out to Him, not simply live in sin, go against everything He says, then say, I hope He will forgive me in the end. He will not for give you if you do not ask to be forgiven, then if you ask, then you need to live as if you were. Do not go back to living in sin.
ReplyDeleteThen Daij, you will never read in the Bible, Jesus or the apostles keeping quite because they fear someone might commit suicide, According to James, we need to tell them in hopes that they will turn from their sin and repent, we are pulling people out of the fire so to speak.
Also Russ, I left a nice reply to loony. Rick b
Thanks, Rick. Kind of you to reply to Zombie and Daij.
ReplyDeleteI am going to inject my Reformed view here, which I can support Biblically.
1. God elects/chooses a person (Romans 8: 28-30, Ephesians 1: 4-12, John 6: 44).
John 6: 44 notes that no one can come to Christ unless the Father draws him or her in.
2. God regenerates a person and he or she is born again (John 3: 1-21).
The Holy Spirit is received with special public examples.
John 20: 22 (disciples), Acts 2 (Pentecost).
3. This regeneration includes the process of belief (John 3: 16, John 14: 6-7).
In conclusion, I reason Biblical repentance in a person follows God's election, regeneration and belief.
In Acts 2: 38 one is told to repent and then baptized to be followed by the gift of the Holy Spirit. This was a public display of the power of the Holy Spirit as in the gifting of it.
This would not hurt a Reformed position as God would use the call to repent as one method of influence over certain persons in order to regenerate to the point of belief and repentance. These persons would then show the signs of Pentecost within the New Testament era.
In many places in the New Testament a call to repentance is used by God as a tool to lead certain persons to a point where God will regenerate them (Matthew 4: 17, Mark 1: 15, Acts 3: 19).
Now certainly the unregenerate can repent of sin at times without being saved, but this is not Biblical repentance.
I agree with you only on the point that we need to repent and would add 1st John 1:8-9. Rick b
ReplyDeleteThanks my friend.
ReplyDeleteI think the Scripture speaks for itself. A Reformed view systematizes it in a reasonable fashion.
As noted, I think you need to have a look at Bondage and Liberation of the Will by John Calvin.
But anyway, I very much appreciate you reading through my views. Rick, you show a more open-minded approach than many.
As far as 1 John is concerned, Orr explains that in verse 7 there is a continual cleansing by the Holy Spirit which is separate from initial regeneration. The cleansing is a confirmation of being born again. So, in verse 8, we have sin and therefore we need to be cleansed. In verse 9, Orr explains that the confession of the believer works hand in hand with God's faithfulness and righteousness to forgive. Orr p. 1575.
ORR, R.W. (1986) ‘The Letters of John’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
There is the idea in Scripture that although sins are forgiven by the atonement for those in Christ, that Christians will be judged.
The Scripture here in 1 John is communicating primarily to believers and not non-believers.
Here are three examples in Scripture that may very well be describing believers that do not repent of all sins and lack works and will be judged accordingly, as I would reason in 2 Corinthians 5: 10.
1 Corinthians 3:10-15 (New American Standard Bible)
10According to (A)the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder (B)I laid a foundation, and (C)another is building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it.
11For no man can lay a (D)foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,
13(E)each man's work will become evident; for (F)the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work.
14If any man's work which he has built on it remains, he will (G)receive a reward.
15If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet (H)so as through fire.
Notice his work is burned up, but he is saved.
Hebrews 6:4-8 (New American Standard Bible)
4For in the case of those who have once been (A)enlightened and have tasted of (B)the heavenly gift and have been made (C)partakers of the Holy Spirit,
5and (D)have tasted the good (E)word of God and the powers of (F)the age to come,
6and then have fallen away, it is (G)impossible to renew them again to repentance, (H)since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.
7For ground that drinks the rain which often falls on it and brings forth vegetation useful to those (I)for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God;
8but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and (J)close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned.
Close to being cursed, and ends up being burned. It seems to be stating the same thing as 1 Corinthians. The works are burned up but the person is not cursed.
2 Peter 3:8-9 (New American Standard Bible)
8But do not let this one fact escape your notice, (A)beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and (B)a thousand years like one day.
9(C)The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but (D)is patient toward you, (E)not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.
Notice, YOU is being addressed. The author is communicating to Christians. He desires that they do not perish in the state of non-repentance.
These verses are troubling for the evangelical free will view.
God bless, Rick, and pray for financial blessings for you.
Hi Rick. I do ask God's forgiveness
ReplyDeletealmost every day- I'm not perfect,
I do forget to pray some days.
And I have asked Jesus to be my
Saviour years ago.
As to living in sin- unless you are the Lord himself you are living in sin too- just that our sins won't be held against us if we ask forgiveness for them and
for help in living better.
Can anyone say that at least one day in their life they haven't sinned? Rick if we're alive then we're sinning! Please don't pretend to be free of sin.
Zombie
Well, well, this post has ended up as controversial as the LDS post on thekingpin68. Not what I expected.
ReplyDeleteIt all started with a hit and run from a likely former Facebook 'friend'.
'Hi Rick. I do ask God's forgiveness
almost every day- I'm not perfect,
I do forget to pray some days.
And I have asked Jesus to be my
Saviour years ago.'
I have known you for roughly 18 years I think. You confess the Lord.
'As to living in sin- unless you are the Lord himself you are living in sin too- just that our sins won't be held against us if we ask forgiveness for them and
for help in living better.'
Those in Christ have sin atoned for and as well Christ was resurrected (1 Corinthians 15: 3-5).
However, all in Christ still stand before God for works in Christ (2 Corinthians 5: 10).
'Can anyone say that at least one day in their life they haven't sinned? Rick if we're alive then we're sinning! Please don't pretend to be free of sin.'
I struggle with sin and pray for help daily.
'Zombie'
Thanks, Zombie.
I was just outside going for evening walk on 116th. I was by the Fraserview Village Hall where I assume a wedding reception was taking place, heading east.
I saw from 50 feet away on 116th Street, past 227th, what I believe was a large cougar crossing the road from the south side to the north side. It was heading into the park by the seniors care home, the one where the young people have their smoking parties.
I cannot be 100% sure it was a cougar, but it looked like one in the dark and from a long distance. A white truck also heading south on 116th stopped and had a long look, and the truck passed me and was much closer to the animal.
The animal did not look like or walk like a dog, coyote or other.
It appeared huge.
I just thought in good conscience I needed to report this to the RCMP and I hope no one gets attacked by whatever this is.
I did so by email.
Hey Zombie, correct me where I am wrong, but I never said I am free from sin or am perfect. If I did say that then show me where, Other wise if you read that from what I wrote you can cut and paste the portion where you got that from what I said.
ReplyDeleteI can assure you I ma far from perfect and sin on a daily basis. Rick b
“How to blow-up your blog without thinking too much”
ReplyDelete'When someone leaves a comment on your blog, either completely ignore the comment, or better yet erase it later after it has been published. Make sure you come across to your readers with that 'What the hell do you want', type of attitude. Treat your blog commenters like they are telemarketers while your favourite television show is on.'
- Comments are one of the things most interesting in blogging…however the vast majority of people never leave a comment…particularly when they are coming from a search engine and not from a fellow blogger…and this is true whether you are a 50 hits a day blog or 10,000 hits a day blog…most people are not interested in comments…
That being said comments can make a difference in how a search engine sees your blog…and more so how people that leave you comments view you…
If I left all of the telemarketers (spammers) comments on my articles that would really pump up the number of comments…
Personally I love reading comments from my blogs and others…and I like to reply also…(I really like reading conversations between guests on my blogs) there are times when I will just let a comment stand…the question is what are you trying to accomplish with comments…
'- Comments are one of the things most interesting in blogging…however the vast majority of people never leave a comment…particularly when they are coming from a search engine and not from a fellow blogger…and this is true whether you are a 50 hits a day blog or 10,000 hits a day blog…most people are not interested in comments…'
ReplyDeleteAgreed.
'That being said comments can make a difference in how a search engine sees your blog…and more so how people that leave you comments view you…'
Interesting.
'If I left all of the telemarketers (spammers) comments on my articles that would really pump up the number of comments…'
Viagra...
Cialis...
'Personally I love reading comments from my blogs and others…and I like to reply also…(I really like reading conversations between guests on my blogs) there are times when I will just let a comment stand…the question is what are you trying to accomplish with comments…'
We are in basic agreement.
Cheers, LV.
Hi Rick. I felt that your initial
ReplyDeleteresponse to my post sounded
like you were dispensing condemnation.
quote: "Sadly everyone who says, I will simply let God sort it out and hope for the best will only end up sent to hell."
What I meant is that I'm going to
leave the judging and condemnation up to God. Maybe I should've provided some background on my
religious beliefs so I wouldn't have received a generic "clean up
your act, sinners" response.
Sometimes approaching an issue with
that point of view turns more people away from the Lord than
to Him.
There was only one perfect example,
Jesus, and Christians are fooling themselves to think they can approach how he lived and what he
accomplished for us. Yes we can all try harder, but the goal of a
sinless life is unreachable.
Zombee
Maybe what you saw was a baby Sasquatch??
ReplyDelete-Dr. Dolittle-
Doctor Dudelittle,
ReplyDeleteIt was walking on four legs like a big and very confident cat.
Thanks.
TSN
ReplyDeleteWell the World Cup related football fan baloney has started already...
'TEMBISA, South Africa -- Thousands of football fans stampeded outside a stadium Sunday before a World Cup warmup match between Nigeria and North Korea, leaving 15 people injured, including one policeman who was seriously hurt.
Several fans could be seen falling under the rush of people, many wearing Nigeria jerseys. The Makhulong Stadium in the Johannesburg suburb seats about 12,000 fans.
"At this moment we have 14 civilians that were slightly injured in the process, one policeman seriously injured," police spokesman Lt. Col. Eugene Opperman said outside the stadium.
Opperman said tickets for the match were given out for free outside the stadium.
"What then occurred was large groups of people gathered outside the gates wanting to come in and wanting to get free tickets. Unfortunately in the process, the gates were opened and there was a stempede," Opperman said.
Opperman said the injured were taken to a hospital and were being looked after.
FIFA said it had nothing to do with the ticketing.
"FIFA and the OC (local organizing committee) would like to reiterate that this friendly match has no relation whatsoever with the operational organization of the 2010 FIFA World Cup, for which we remain fully confident," FIFA said in a statement...'
'The Nigeria and North Korean football teams were lining up for the national anthems when the second surge happened. They had no idea what was going on outside.
The match was suspended for about 10 minutes shortly after the second half began, but it restarted with Nigeria leading 1-0. The Nigerians went on to win the match 3-1.
Security was also increased as the match went on.'
No wonder my Dad does not like me attending football matches when I go to Britain, and this is in South Africa which I reason could more risky.
Hi Russ,
ReplyDeleteI still enjoy your blog, though I rarely join in the fun of leaving comments. It always, especially with your commenters, gives me something to think about. As a side note: We were in Malaga on the night Beckham played and won his last game for Madrid Real--what a crazy night! We got to experience Futbol Madness--US soccer doesn't have the emotional outburst, and neither do basketball, baseball or football! I hope fans the world over stay safe, but having experienced fans excess, I am afraid there are more injuries to come!
Keep up the good work,
Jen
'Hi Russ,
ReplyDeleteI still enjoy your blog, though I rarely join in the fun of leaving comments.'
Thanks, Jen.
'It always, especially with your commenters, gives me something to think about.'
Well, we have my local friends, Chucky, Walter Thomas Franklin, and Zombie, plus we have from the USA, fellow bloggers, The Jeff, and The Hammer, plus others in North America and worldwide, most of whom are very appreciated, as long as they can be respectful.
We have Canadians that comment as well as Republican leaning American Christians and also some Democratic leaning American Christians and like-minded people from the UK. I also receive a few comments from mainland Europe, Australia and other parts of the world.
'As a side note: We were in Malaga on the night Beckham played and won his last game for Madrid Real--what a crazy night! We got to experience Futbol Madness--US soccer doesn't have the emotional outburst, and neither do basketball, baseball or football! I hope fans the world over stay safe, but having experienced fans excess, I am afraid there are more injuries to come! Keep up the good work, Jen'
I have seen Beckham play for both Manchester United and Los Angeles Galaxy, but have not as of yet seen Real Madrid or AC Milan play.
Most football fans are fine, but there is a destructive fan element.
Authorities both within football and law enforcement at times need to work on greater safety for events.
Whitecaps new MLS logo
ReplyDelete'I am so muscular I have a twelve pack.'
ReplyDeleteSome have replaced their six-pack with a keg.
Others have a six-pack hiding behind the meat and cheese.
'I would not desire for one religion to be favoured as those citizens outside of the religion could face persecution, and in the extreme case of a state church be considered to be committing treason.'
Christians in Communist China have been facing such persecution, of course. Oddly enough, they have asked that we not pray that their persecution would end. Apparently, they realize that persecution only makes them stronger.
Under Shari'a law, one religion would be favored over all others. Tragically, it would not be limited to that, however. One political viewpoint would be favored above all others. One ideology would be favored above all others. One style of dress (clothing) would be favored (and legally enforced) above all others (especially for women). One list of laws would be favored and enforced above all others. And Shari'a law would replace the existing law of the land, and the existing culture of the land would be wiped out and replaced, as well.
One person on Facebook, who lives in Egypt (a good example of how Islam wipes out the previous culture and leaves no trace of it, since Egypt used to be Christian/Coptic), commented on one of my Facebook Friend’s posts today and said the following, in part (I have tried to fix up the spelling and punctuation to an extent, in order to make it a little easier to read; words in brackets are my own):
“[I]…wish [you] to come and see the situation here inside Egypt. If we [try]...to fellowship and to pray with each other, in just minutes, police arrest [us] and thousands of Muslims destroy, looting and burning Christian homes, shops, properties, anything they can reach that Christian own, but as we have been in jail, we just convert it into a church. Hold on in Jesus and never give up.”
“…friends, I believe that God created us as a free people to believe and to worship him in freedom, but people make slaves of their brothers and sisters in humanity. The one who created the universe gives us all the freedom in worshiping Him, but look at how humans placed themselves in God's place, making it impossible for us just to build new churches, or even to renew the old ones, or even to pray inside our homes with our brothers and sisters. So I wish for the West to wake up before it is too late. Believe me, I don't want the West to see things like what is happening here. Just imagine as you and your brothers and sisters are praying inside a church, and near to six thousand or more armed with guns, swords and Molotov, who have the most evil teaching found inside human hearts, surrounding your church, and you haven't any thing to do; you just hold onto Jesus and pray to God to save His church, or when you see your priest left to die, bleeding in the public street for refusing to admit that Muhammad was the messenger of god, after Muslims cut off his hand, or your friends get killed by machine guns on Christmas night; many, many oppressed, persecuted Christians face every minute across Egypt, many poor and weak Christians are being oppressed and persecuted by Muslims; they’re just used to living in that manner; as I talk with them they answer me - (the government, the nation, and all the world seems to be against us; no one to stand with us; we haven't anything to offer for any strong country to help us; the world agrees to leave us as slaves and hostages in Muslim’s hands...we have many martyrs...but for us to pray that God end Islam, and to carry our cross in thankfulness and joy is the best thing to do). So stand for your freedom as you are able to stand.”
Bonjour! Karolyn Jacobs
ReplyDeleteCheers, Jeff.
ReplyDelete'Some have replaced their six-pack with a keg.
Others have a six-pack hiding behind the meat and cheese.'
Well, I have been doing daily 30-60 minute walks and 30-120 minutes of curls with 30 and 50 pound dumbbells.
I mentioned James 2 in my LDS post.
'From James 2:17, we know that faith without works is dead, and so a sign (not the only sign) of real Christian faith is to walk in good works.
But, I admit that it is possible that these good works can be limited as in the apparent example of a person saved with works burned up in 1 Corinthians 3: 12-15.'
I would point out that another and probably more important sign would be the confession of belief in the true God (1 John 2: 22-23).
I also just recently pointed it out in satire and theology comments that Hebrews 6 and 2 Peter 3 may very well provide similar concepts on Christian faith and lack of works as does 1 Corinthians 3.
I have noted several times as well that Ephesians 2 points out that we are saved by grace through faith unto good works. Works do not save us. See also 2 Timothy 1: 8-10.
Here in note form is an explanation of James 2.
Using:
CARSON T. (1986) ‘James', in F.F. Bruce (ed.),The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
-For Paul, faith has to do with legal justification before God, as in Romans and Galatians.
-For James, the meaning is somewhat different, as vindication is meant as in showing righteousness to God and humanity.
-In Paul, deeds of law are discussed, in regard to the topic of merit (and lack of).
-In James, faith has to do with love and obedience.
-James is concerned with the evidence for faith before God and persons.
-Paul states human beings are not justified by works.
-James does not contradict this in 2: 24.
-Legal justification and therefore salvation is not in mind here but rather justification and righteousness in works for one that already has saving faith.
-Carson mentions Calvin's idea that faith alone justifies (saves) but faith alone should never be alone.
My take:
Persons in 1 Corinthians 3, Hebrews 6, 2 Peter 3 and James 2 could all be considered to have dead or weak faith (James 2: 26, faith without works is dead).
Salvation or saving faith is not what is being discussed, rather works and lack of as a believer.
Additional:
This makes sense in light of 2 Corinthians 5: 10 where Christians that have their sin atoned for via Christ (Ephesians 2) are still judged for works.
Hmm.
Cher, Karolyn Jacobs
ReplyDeleteBonjour, bonjour, bonjour.
Désolé, je n'édite pas des commentaires avec les emplacements liés placés dans mes archives (le poteau sur les îles britanniques) qui apparaissent principalement pour le Spam. C'est pourquoi j'ai pris votre commentaire, supprimé le lien et signalé le commentaire dans mon dernier poteau. Je fais bon accueil aux commentaires qui favorisent des emplacements, y compris des blogs, mais seulement s'ils apparaissent pour l'enchaînement de potentiel et les buts apparentés.
Veuillez apprécier mes blogs de théologie, la satire et la théologie et les thekingpin68 et indiquent le monde au sujet de eux.
Oui, oui. Bye-bye.
Russ,
ReplyDeleteWell, we disagree on James 2 (i.e., something that is weak is not the same as something that is dead), and you left a comment, in part, regarding the World Cup on my blog site. Though I stated on my site that I have no interest in the World Cup, ironically, I just today received a DVD from "Athletes in Action" of their film, "The Prize - Chasing the Dream," which features 6 elite soccer athletes from around the world who share their stories of faith and how God has impacted their lives. It has been translated into over 48 different languages to be shown around the world. The film will also be broadcast on CBN WorldReach, SAT7 and Turk7 (Middle East & North Africa) and Enlace (Latin America).
'Well, we disagree on James 2 (i.e., something that is weak is not the same as something that is dead),'
ReplyDeleteJeff, this is a classic example of why commentaries and tools often need to be consulted and not simply or mainly a plain English reading when constructing complex theology.
As noted on thekingpint68 blog:
'The demons example in 2: 19, Carson states is in the context of divine awe, and says that the term dead faith should be better translated useless. p. 1542.'
CARSON T. (1986) ‘James', in F.F. Bruce (ed.),The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
Strong states the Greek word here for dead can be taken literally or figuratively. p. 65. This is in general terms for the use of the word.
STRONG, JAMES (1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.
νεκρά is the word for dead in 2: 17.
Just looking up Bauer he states the term here is dead, useless, so he agrees with Carson. p. 534-535.
Bauer states the context is that faith apart from deeds is dead as in useless. He notes that this similar term is used of the believer in Romans 8: 10. p. 534-535.
BAUER, W. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
Useless faith could be seen as weak faith in context. The terms and concepts are not identical. Weakness is implied as a theological concept.
The person shows no significant faith in the context James discussed.
This works with my view and that of some other scholars.
Plus a non-believer does not have dead faith, he or she has no faith.
'I just today received a DVD from "Athletes in Action" of their film, "The Prize - Chasing the Dream," which features 6 elite soccer athletes from around the world who share their stories of faith and how God has impacted their lives. It has been translated into over 48 different languages to be shown around the world. The film will also be broadcast on CBN WorldReach, SAT7 and Turk7 (Middle East & North Africa) and Enlace (Latin America).'
Cool.
Thanks for the help. This has been good to research.
(cont.)
ReplyDeleteCLARKE'S COMMENTARY agrees with Wesley:
"Verse 14. What doth it profit-though a man say he hath faith] We now come to a part of this epistle which has appeared to some eminent men to contradict other portions of the Divine records. In short, it has been thought that James teaches the doctrine of justification by the merit of good works, while Paul asserts this to be insufficient, and that man is justified by faith. Luther, supposing that James did actually teach the doctrine of justification by works, which his good sense showed him to be absolutely insufficient for salvation, was led to condemn the epistle in toto, as a production unauthenticated by the Holy Spirit, and consequently worthy of no regard; he therefore termed it epistola straminea, a chaffy epistle, an epistle of straw, fit only to be burnt.
Learned men have spent much time in striving to reconcile these two writers, and to show that St. Paul and St. James perfectly accord; one teaching the pure doctrine, the other guarding men against the abuse of it.
Mr. Wesley sums the whole up in the following words, with his usual accuracy and precision: "From chap. i. 22 the apostle has been enforcing Christian practice. He now applies to those who neglect this under the pretense of faith. St. Paul had taught that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law. This some already began to wrest to their own destruction. Wherefore St. James, purposely repeating, chap. i. 21, 23, 25, the same phrases, testimonies, and examples which St. Paul had used, Rom. iv. 3; Heb. xi. 17, 31, refutes not the doctrine of St. Paul, but the error of those who abused it. There is therefore no contradiction between the apostles; they both delivered the truth of God, but in a different manner, as having to do with different kinds of men. This verse is a summary of what follows: What profiteth it, is enlarged on, ver. 15-17; though a man say, ver. 18, 19; can that faith save him? ver. 20. It is not though he have faith, but though he say, I have faith. Here therefore true living faith is meant. But in other parts of the argument the apostle speaks of a dead imaginary faith. He does not therefore teach that true faith can, but that it cannot, subsist without works. Nor does he oppose faith to works, but that empty name of faith to real faith working by love. Can that faith which is without works save him? No more than it can profit his neighbour."
In contrast, I have heard, from personal testimony, that relying too much on commentaries can have negative effects. For example, what if someone chose to believe this commentary?:
Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament says this:
Verse 14:
"Can that faith save him ... ?
So stated as to require a negative answer, this is a refutation of the heresy that men are saved by "faith only." Note that James did not allege any deficiency in the man's faith, thus assuming that his claim was honest, but making his denial of the man's salvation to rest on the absence of works. It is clear enough that James did not here teach that the man was not justified "by faith," but that he could not be justified by "faith only."
Jeff, this is a classic example of why commentaries and tools often need to be consulted and not simply or mainly a plain English reading when constructing complex theology.
ReplyDeleteAnd so I have and do consult with commentaries and tools. The NIV commentators agree with me. GotQuestions.org agrees with me. You said yourself, Russ, that not all commentators agree on this, so really, it's a matter of choice to decide who you're going to believe.
Matthew Henry's Commentary says:
"No doubt, true faith alone, whereby men have part in Christ's righteousness, atonement, and grace, saves their souls; but it produces holy fruits, and is shown to be real by its effect on their works; while mere assent to any form of doctrine, or mere historical belief of any facts, wholly differs from this saving faith. A bare profession may gain the good opinion of pious people; and it may procure, in some cases, worldly good things; but what profit will it be, for any to gain the whole world, and to lose their souls? Can this faith save him? All things should be accounted profitable or unprofitable to us, as they tend to forward or hinder the salvation of our souls. This place of Scripture plainly shows that an opinion, or assent to the gospel, without works, is not faith. There is no way to show we really believe in Christ, but by being diligent in good works, from gospel motives, and for gospel purposes. Men may boast to others, and be conceited of that which they really have not. There is not only to be assent in faith, but consent; not only an assent to the truth of the word, but a consent to take Christ. True believing is not an act of the understanding only, but a work of the whole heart. That a justifying faith cannot be without works, is shown from two examples, Abraham and Rahab. Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness. Faith, producing such works, advanced him to peculiar favours. We see then, verse 24, how that by works a man is justified, not by a bare opinion or profession, or believing without obeying; but by having such faith as produces good works. And to have to deny his own reason, affections, and interests, is an action fit to try a believer. Observe here, the wonderful power of faith in changing sinners. Rahab's conduct proved her faith to be living, or having power; it showed that she believed with her heart, not merely by an assent of the understanding. Let us then take heed, for the best works, without faith, are dead; they want root and principle."
John Wesley's Explanatory Notes say:
Verse 14:
"It is not, though he have faith; but, though he say he have faith. Here, therefore, true, living faith is meant: but in other parts of the argument the apostle speaks of a dead, imaginary faith. He does not, therefore, teach that true faith can, but that it cannot, subsist without works: nor does he oppose faith to works; but that empty name of faith, to real faith working by love. Can that faith "which is without works" save him? No more than it can profit his neighbour."
Verse 19:
"Thou believest there is one God — I allow this: but this proves only that thou hast the same faith with the devils. Nay, they not only believe, but tremble - At the dreadful expectation of eternal torments. So far is that faith from either justifying or saving them that have it."
Verse 25:
"After Abraham, the father of the Jews, the apostle cites Rahab, a woman, and a sinner of the gentiles; to show, that in every nation and sex true faith produces works, and is perfected by them; that is, by the grace of God working in the believer, while he is showing his faith by his works."
(cont.)
And so I have and do consult with commentaries and tools.'
ReplyDeleteIf you wish to deal with theology on a serious academic level, in many cases, yes you must.
'The NIV commentators agree with me.'
Yes, and notice I do not quote the NIV, for the most part. It is an often criticized academic source.
The work is readable, but some question whether this is at times at the expense of accuracy.
Further, that is why I quote the Greek, the NASB and sometimes (rarely) King James.
'GotQuestions.org agrees with me. You said yourself, Russ, that not all commentators agree on this, so really, it's a matter of choice to decide who you're going to believe.'
Yes, not all commenters agree.
It is not a matter of choice primarily, but evidence. There is a difference.
I have gone to the Greek, done exegesis and provided commentary.
But anyway, I am not sure that what you provide really challenges my points. My commentators states similar to the following.
'We see then, verse 24, how that by works a man is justified, not by a bare opinion or profession, or believing without obeying; but by having such faith as produces good works. And to have to deny his own reason, affections, and interests, is an action fit to try a believer. Observe here, the wonderful power of faith in changing sinners. Rahab's conduct proved her faith to be living, or having power; it showed that she believed with her heart, not merely by an assent of the understanding. Let us then take heed, for the best works, without faith, are dead; they want root and principle."'
'Wesley
'Verse 19:
"Thou believest there is one God — I allow this: but this proves only that thou hast the same faith with the devils. Nay, they not only believe, but tremble - At the dreadful expectation of eternal torments. So far is that faith from either justifying or saving them that have it."'
I don't think these commentaries from what is quoted override or really strongly disagree with what I have provided.
'Luther, supposing that James did actually teach the doctrine of justification by works, which his good sense showed him to be absolutely insufficient for salvation, was led to condemn the epistle in toto, as a production unauthenticated by the Holy Spirit, and consequently worthy of no regard; he therefore termed it epistola straminea, a chaffy epistle, an epistle of straw, fit only to be burnt.'
The issue with Luther was also acknowledged by Carson.
'In contrast, I have heard, from personal testimony, that relyingtoo much on commentaries can have negative effects. For example, what if someone chose to believe this commentary?:'
Jeff, I have answered that objection previously. Four types of people, generalized for argument exist.
Regenerate and well-studied with Biblical Studies and related.
Regenerate and not well-studied with Biblical Studies and related.
Unregenerate and well-studied with Biblical Studies and related.
Unregenerate and not well-studied with Biblical Studies and related.
Conclusion, it is best to be in the first group for deeper understanding.
'Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament says this:
Verse 14:
"Can that faith save him ... ?
So stated as to require a negative answer, this is a refutation of the heresy that men are saved by "faith only." Note that James did not allege any deficiency in the man's faith, thus assuming that his claim was honest, but making his denial of the man's salvation to rest on the absence of works. It is clear enough that James did not here teach that the man was not justified "by faith," but that he could not be justified by "faith only."'
All commentaries need to be looked at critically. I have dealt with such issues.
I stand by my findings and favour a view consistent with Reformed theology. So, salvation is not the main issue at hand in context.
But, I am glad to see you consulting sources! Well-done.
Russ:)
For those of you who want to read more on the book of James, it is also discussed in the comments of my latest thekingpin68 post:
ReplyDeletethekingpin68
Well, Russ, we have found a couple or more things that you and I disagree on. But then, I think that any two humans on earth will eventually disagree on at least some point or subject or issue. And at least we agree on many points, and on the most important issues. Thankfully, in Heaven, we will be perfect.
ReplyDeleteHere is something I found that is sure to raise someone's dander. I just happened to be reading one of my books, and I found the following, which I thought was interesting:
"Islam is divided into two main branches as a result of disagreements over the qualification and selection of leadership after the death of Muhammad. Some argued that leadership was rightfully passed from Muhammad to a series of caliphs, or successors to the prophet. These caliphs were chosen and ruled by consensus developed among the elders of the community. Those who hold this view are known as Sunnis. Others held that to be legitimate, a successor must come from the prophet’s own family; the logical choice was Ali [reminds me of Muhammad Ali the boxer], Muhammed’s son-in-law. These became known as Shi’ites, or partisans of Ali. Quarrels between these rival groups resulted in the assassination of Ali. Hassan, Ali’s son, succeeded him; he was killed, as was his brother, HUSSEIN, who is still greatly honored among the Shi’ites as the lord of the martyrs."
(from “Reaching Muslims for Christ,” by William J. Saal, Foreword by Warren W. Wiersbe, pp. 37-38)
The name "Hussein" caught my attention. I further read this, which also seemed interesting:
“Islam has a significant following in the Afro-American community of North America. Originally a racial movement, the majority of Afro-American Muslims now belong to the mainstream of Islam.”
(Ibid, p. 39)
Then I decided to research the other two names for the current U.S. President.
I found this:
From BabyNames.com: "The meaning of the name "Barack" is 'Blessed.'The origin of the name "Barack" is African."
I also found this:
From WikiAnswers.com:
"In Persian or Farsi (The actual language of Iran and some other countries around Iran), "O bama" means 'He with us,' which, most of the time, is used for saying that 'the God [Allah] is always with us.'"
This YouTube video is also interesting:
Michelle Obama Admits Kenya is Barack Hussein Obama's Home Country
'Well, Russ, we have found a couple or more things that you and I disagree on. But then, I think that any two humans on earth will eventually disagree on at least some point or subject or issue. And at least we agree on many points, and on the most important issues. Thankfully, in Heaven, we will be perfect.'
ReplyDeleteThanks, Jeff.
Jeff, the James view is not isolated theology, but is part of my developing Reformed (evangelical) theology related to my theses work. I respect you for your continued openness to Reformed views as you were at least, somewhat, coming from a fundamentalistic evangelical understanding as in Bob Jones University teachings, etc.
Thanks for sticking with me and assisting.
'"Islam is divided into two main branches as a result of disagreements over the qualification and selection of leadership after the death of Muhammad. Some argued that leadership was rightfully passed from Muhammad to a series of caliphs, or successors to the prophet. These caliphs were chosen and ruled by consensus developed among the elders of the community. Those who hold this view are known as Sunnis. Others held that to be legitimate, a successor must come from the prophet’s own family; the logical choice was Ali [reminds me of Muhammad Ali the boxer], Muhammed’s son-in-law. These became known as Shi’ites, or partisans of Ali. Quarrels between these rival groups resulted in the assassination of Ali. Hassan, Ali’s son, succeeded him; he was killed, as was his brother, HUSSEIN, who is still greatly honored among the Shi’ites as the lord of the martyrs."
(from “Reaching Muslims for Christ,” by William J. Saal, Foreword by Warren W. Wiersbe, pp. 37-38)'
Yes. I have come across this information over the years.