Today’s Question is…“How many angels can you get on the…..” No, wait we’ve already done that.

How about this. It’s a good one. Really.

Part of our evangelical/revivalist tradition is the idea that one’s life should change when you become a Christian. We should have a testimony of a changed life, and a life tht matches the testimony. Serious Christians are often frustrated when they don’t see enough changes in the lives of those who profess faith. How much (or what kind of) “life change” should one see in the first few months of a NEW Christian’s life? Or is this whole concern an example of an errant theology of conversion and the Christian Life that looks at the wrong things for assurance?

btw- Denise’s question from two evenings ago is still in play, and kinda relates.

“And after all He’s done for us, we should love Him and try to please Him. Obedience is biblical! So where do we draw the line between a healthy desire to obey and legalistic attempts at obedience? And what’s the answer for this kind of legalism?”

I was born in Anaheim California in 1960 and spent the first thirty years of my life in the “land where nothing freezes”, picking pomegranates and oranges on the way to school. After a ten year sojourn in Western Colorado I found myself in Otter Tail County Minnesota, where according to Chippewayan lore there are two seasons: “Dog” and “Canoe”. I am un-degreed, but I’m known for playing well with others. Laurie and I have been married for nearly eleven years; we are best of friends and aspire to be professional vagabonds. Our inability to have children is our most profound loss. Professionally I’ve been a mental health worker on an inpatient psych unit, a bicycle mechanic, a body shop manager, a technical writer, a youth advocate for high-risk adolescents, a printer, a graphic artist, an underground utility locator and a manufacturing operations coordinator. After much intellectual promiscuity I answered the Father’s call at age thirty. My “warm fuzzies” come from being a son of God, a husband, an uncle (X30), a friend and paddling a canoe. O’Doul’s is my “brew of choice”, Amber when I’m feeling reckless. (The gene pool in which I swim inspires caution in this area…)

If you want some decent worship music, I suggest you buy the Passion’s latest project. Some guys got together and rearranged some old hymns, and its good stuff, all of it.

David Crowder does some okay stuff. He has his own renditions of “Come Thou Fount” and “All Creatures of Our God and King.” I think he does the “Doxology” too.

Fernando Ortega’s Our Great God is a solid song as well.

Russell: Thank you SO MUCH! Maybe now my sleepless nights will be over (JN).

Original stolen from ChristianityToday.com

The other day I was at my pub, I leaned back in the easy chair and discussed theology with my buddies. The bartender was late with the delivery of my drinks and I was nearly nodding off: This is the best place for ministry. Been a while I’ve had since … since … my last witnessing opportunity!

I was kicking it in my usual spot in the pub, wearing my denim pants and clutching a pint of creamy Guinness. Oh my gosh, I thought. This is my quiet time! Cold beer, worn pants and a t-shirt, big guys conversing in the dark pub, and a soft candle in the distance.

I’ve often told friends that my love of the brew, especially in the evening. “Like Heaven in a cup,” I’ve told them. Little did I realize I’ve been getting much-needed evening fuzzies by way of Arthur Guinness ! Yep, just me and Arthur (as in “a pint of”) kicking it in the pub.

perhaps you can see the frustration with their article

PWinn: Ahh – well, I have mixed feeling about their musical style too. But the disco album is nice. What does anyone think about Tree63?

Russell: Yeah, I’ve got several of the Newsboys albums, and it isn’t the theology about which I’ve got mixed feelings, it’s the music. I just prefer either harder or softer stuff, I guess!

Noel: There are plenty of other P&W songs to like, you just have to find them among the piles of crap. Some people don’t think it is worth it, but I think truly good music is worth finding. Some Brits have written some great songs recently, for example. Mostly Anglicans, I think.

Noel: HOW DEEP THE FATHER’S LOVE FOR US

While we’re (sorta) on the subject of praise & worship, I’ve got a question. There is one – yeah pretty much only one – praise & worship song I like, but I can never remember the name of it. And it doesn’t help that I can also only remember random snippits of lyrics. Anyway, does anyone know the name of a song that contains lyrcis such as:
“Why should I gain in His reward? I cannot give an answer….”
“It was my sin that held Him there…”
Gosh why can’t I remember any more? I can hum the tune, if that helps ;) Well anyone who can solve this mystery deserves a cookie.

I should know better than to remind you baseball fanatics about this, but thanks to you guys, I’m actually looking forward to the start of baseball season. At least, at $7 a ticket, I am. I wonder if my kids will believe that I like the sport? I’ll try!

Man, go without reading this for a couple days, and everything blows wide open…

I never spend enough time on the john to even read Foxtrot. Fastest bowels this side of the Mississippi.

I like James. It’s mostly Gospel. Really. I’m also going to side with some recent scholarly opinions that say that James antedates all the Pauline epistles. Note that James says “justified through works,” and Paul says “justified by faith.” The difference is not so much in how they use pistis as in dikaioo.

Ummmm…what else? Oh yeah, church music: you know, whatever happened to the old-fashioned idea of a denomination having a hymnal and one or more orders of service that everyone in the denomination used? Adding new hymns and subtracting old ones is a decision that should be made collectively, not on the whims of the “worship leader” planning for this week’s “dynamic experience.” Oh that’s right, we have to conform the Church to the world so that they’ll think we’re relevant and buy our coffee.

Newsboys theology:

when the toast is burned
and all the milk has turned
and captain crunch is waving farewell
when the big one finds you
may this song remind you
that they don’t serve breakfast in hell

when we donดt get what we deserve thatดs a real good thing
when we get what we donดt deserve
thatดs a real good thing

born to sin
and then get caught
all our good deeds
donดt mean squat

sell the Volvo
shred the Visa
send the cash to Ma Theresa
great idea
the only catch is
you donดt get saved
on merit badges

I was all excited about the title of David Crowder’s song “God of Wrath” and it got me thinking “Wow, someone finally wrote a song about the Real God.” then the lyrics happened:

God of wrath
God of love
God of Earth
And God above
God of hope
God of peace
God of you
And God of me [2x]

I’ve heard/seen Calvinists get really excited about Derek Webb, but I just can’t stand his sound.

PWinn: Newsboys are one of my guilty CCM pleasures. Love Liberty Disco! Whoooo!

Bill: Hee!

Russell: I’ve got mixed feelings about the Newboys, but the O.C. Supertones are fantastic. Caedmon’s Call is another great band, lyrically.

Of course, I listen to all kinds of crap.

One day every tongue will confess you are God One day every knee will bow, Still the greatest treasure remains for those who gladly choose You now.

Arggggggg. While I understand the writer of this song doesn’t suggest universalism it sure does sound like it. (Read a blog/interview few months ago). This is just one of many.

I always thought it would be cool to write an “honest” song.

I’ll praise you God
Awesome is your Name
Sing of your praises.
Just after the game.

God I’ll do you a favor
and love you forever
my heart is turned to you
while I wait for dinner.

I love you Jesus,
You never fret
Not like the Old Testament
when God got upset.

You love me as I am
I expect to change.
As I watch football
and sing of your fame.

Mercy is sweet
so greatly given
Won’t frustrate your plan God
So I’ll join You in Heaven

-Danny 2004©

(if you like Caemdon’s call check out Derek Webb’s solo stuff, reeks of calvinism, see “crooked deep down” and “thankful”).

One is practical – standing opens up the diaphragm, so people sing better than while sitting.

Is this where I point out that having the song projected results in better singing too because people have their heads up? (JN)

If I understand Kurt’s “flip side” here’s a few songs I’d like to see sung in church:

U2 – Still Havn’t Found What I’m Looking For (check out the Rattle & Hum tour video with the Harlem church version of this – its incredible)
Nickel Creek – Found Soul
U2 – Grace
Nickel Creek – You Don’t Have to Move That Mountain
U2 – Until the End of the World (about Judas)
Johnny Cash – When the Man Comes Around
Bob Dylan – Highway 61 Revisited
Peter Paul and Mary – Too Much of Nothing
PP&M – This Train
Johnny Cash – Personal Jesus
Bob Dylan – Saved
Anything by Over the Rhine. Even when (especially when?) they drop the S bomb or the F bomb.

How about nonCCM songs that could be CCM (based entirely on titles)?

The Cure – Just Like Heaven
Iron Butterfly – Innagaddadavida (In the Garden of Eden)
Neil Diamond – God Only Knows
RATM – know your enemy
Blur – #2 (Woo Hoo Song)

How about mostly theologically sound modern music:

Newsboys
Supertones

Michael: Excellent question. And my answer, too, is “Yes, most of them.” I’ve even come across some atrocious stuff in old hymns though most of the really bad ones have mercifully been lost to time and disuse.

Ken: I now must vomit.

Bill: I think we stand to sing for two reasons. One is practical – standing opens up the diaphragm, so people sing better than while sitting. The other is theological, but I can’t recall the passages exactly. The idea as I remember it is that there are several OT references to standing while singing. I could be really, really fuzzing that one, though.

My church’s evening service does old hymns most of the time, but with arrangements that make them not dirge-like at all. It’s mainly a shift in the rhythm.

While I actually like the song Above All, the theology of “thinking of me, above all” rankled me, even before I knew I was a Calvinist. It’s the Father’s glory, son! It ain’t hard.

How about the flip side? Songs that aren’t explictly Christian, but “fit” anyhow. Jim’s threatened to sing Tom Waits’ Come on Up to the House in church. If he does, I want a recording of it. I’m thinking that context is everything.

I disagree, Russell. The KJV is the only English version I looked at that translates the word in question as “goodness”. Even the extra-inspired ESV says “kindness”. I’m not just defending it because I love the song, either. Psalm 63:3 is also quoted at the end of the chorus – a line that I heard St. John (Piper) use in one of the most soul stirring sermons I’ve ever listened to.

Besides, we all read the Mohler quote about repentance the other day: it’s not about turning from sin but turning to Christ. What made me turn to Christ (answers about election aren’t allowed ;)? I’d say it was his lovingkindness, or steadfast love (I think these are Hebrew synonymns).

Bill, there’s some awesome old, doctrinally sound hymns that are being set to more modern music. I ordered the CD that Passion put out recently – all hymns AND the same basic tunes only jazzed up a bit. They’re rockin’.

I don’t get my panties as twisted about churchsing as I used to. If we are truly depraved, then the hideousness of our modern songs is evidence of the depths of our depravity ;-)

My problem with church music is the following:

Anything modern and with an upbeat tune is doctrinally weak at best and heretical at worst.
Anything old and doctrinally sound is usually dirge-like and makes one want to fling themselves off a bridge.
Standing is considered holier than sitting, therefore we stand for what seems like eternity while we sing.

I’ll think of more later.

PLEASE ban Above All. I HATE THAT SONG. Like a roooose… OH my gosh the drama!!!

Above All: Like a rose trampled to the ground, You took the fall, and thought of ME above all.

Should some songs be banned from church because they have poor theology?

Yes. Goofy, stupid theology has no place in the church of God. Period.

Next question.

Michael: Thanks for being courteous… for anyone who is curious, I don’t mind sharing details, I just don’t have them yet. Hopefully, I’ll know more tomorrow.

I would love to ban songs that are theological dungheaps. “Your kindness lord, leads us to repentance” – while this is available in the NIV, careful study shows that the KJV had it all along – His Goodness, that is His quality of being Good, leads to repentance. The implication in the NIV version is that somehow God smiles on our sin and therefore we want to repent. Havn’t figured out how that’s supposed to work. Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord we persuade men.

Yes. Most of them. I’m not joking.

I’ll pick a question from Danny’s blog today, and this can be our substitute, too late to do any good Question of the Day:

Should some songs be banned from church because they have poor theology?

Example. I will open up my heart and let the healer set me free.

Can you find the problems with this lyric? If you can not then I suggest you read “Bondage of the Will” by Luther.

Moderator not in a happy frame of mind post:

I’ll take the opportunity of Scott’s post- and this has no reference to Scott at all- to say something about prayer requests on the BHT.

If you request prayer, and say why, we will pray for that.
If you request prayer and don’t say why, we will pray for that.
If you request prayer, and don’t say why, I won’t ask you for more information. I’ll respect your intitial post, and the apparent desire for some privacy. I will encourage others to do the same. My Bible says that God knows these things and me knowing the details doesn’t add to the prayer at all.
If you want to share the reason for prayer in detail, I’ll not edit. Unless it gets really gross and I start feeling nauseous.
So please request prayer. I do and I will. But I am encouraging the fellows to not ask for more information on the blog. If you want to do so on email or AIM, please do so.

I’m not going into too much detail, but please keep me and my wife in your prayers over the next couple of days for a potentially serious medical thing.

Thanks.

Legalism is bad. It smells bad. I coined the definition that it is forced-sanctification. What should be the true internal Holy Spirit driven move toward holiness becomes the external suit wearing pharisaical white washing.

Paul handled the heretical view of antinomianism with MORE freedom. We are not to light up our bongs and sing Amazing Grace but understand that we now have freedom from Sin (Romans 6).

In the pub, I believe, we understand Romans 14 in an application sense. We have all the freedom (ie. eating bloody pigs on the Sabbath) but must sacrifice anything and everything so as not to make a brother stumble. I love the brew but only drink in the company of those brothers who understand. Is this compromising my belief? Sorta. Paul also said that he would “become all things to all men that he might save some”.

If say I won’t do something I am practicing piety. If told not to do something that is legalism. I believe much of the answer is understanding 1st John and the Salt we are to be. If we are corrupt in our actions we can only be trampled underfoot by men as being labeled hypocrites.

My intro: I am a young guy who is getting older. Started to “really” study theology 3 years ago. I am lay, I teach the highschool sunday school class. My kids don’t listen to me but I love them. Taught them “monergism” last week and tried to tackle the problem of evil a few weeks ago. I am a sysadmin and get some time to post/run my sites. I love Jesus, hate sin, love sin, and trying to squeeze me and my camel into Heaven. (put theology aside to understand). I enjoy the brew want to thank ya’ll for letting me hang out. See my bio for more info. I’ll try and stay on topic but the ADHD kicks in and then it’s all about motorcycles and diet soda.

You had an entry on dating on your blog a little while back. I read it, but I was wondering if you’d care to elucidate on when you think dating’s acceptable, if at all. Are you a “courtship” guy?

Also, I’ve noticed that you are not big on the Ref. doctrine of predestination and election. How do Lutherans reconcile God’s sovereignty and man’s freedom without becoming Arminian? Luther was quite against “free will”, no? “I was as a beast before you”... Either God rides man or the Devil does, right?

BTW – are you still at Rose-Hulman? A high school friend of mine is there, but I doubt you know him. How do you like Terre Haute?

Michael, I’ve had something come up, and won’t be able to post them (don’t have the AIM logs here at home.) If you’d prefer to do something else, mine can be deferred, otherwise could you post them from your log?

Michael (Denise): That’s an amazing quote. The funny thing is, it reminds me of a verse I can’t find right now that says more or less the same thing, but I think Scripture puts a completely different spin on it. As I recall, the verse says something like, “You compare yourselves to others and think you’re doing well. Compare yourselves to God and see how special you feel!” and the focus is on the unworthiness of our own efforts at righteousness, which I’ve always taken as a slam on trying to earn salvation by works.

Of course, your school info sheet seems to get the exact opposite point out of what seems like the same verse. Bummer.

Tom: That’s cool. I’ll try not to think too much about why it is that people who say bad things about Bush rarely want to deal with the factual response to those statements.

Philip:
I hadn’t made a comment on your extended entry because I’m just going to chill on politics for awhile. November is a long ways off anyway and this campaign is already getting nasty. I will say that the priest in your “smoking and prayer” vignette would make a great politician the way he flip-flopped.

On James:
One great thing about going to a liberal seminary: We’ll probably just leave it as James written in opposition to Paul (we haven’t got to James yet in NT, but I’m supposing here) and that will be that. No attempt to reconcile. Isn’t academia fun?

Jim,
If you like ’”should” on yourself’ as a great illustration, Albert Ellis talks about how people musterbate all the time.

Piper has an article on James and Paul. Piper’s whole Future Grace concept is this: The faith that saves treasures Christ. That treasuring Christ is the root of both justification and sanctification, which are both by grace, and purchased/insured by the cross of Christ.

In the DGM library, there are many articles on justification, sanctification and Future Grace.

BTW: Denise passed this along to me this morning. It’s the “quote of the day” on our school info sheet: “Don’t compare yourself to others; they are just as fouled up as we are. The goal is to be like Christ—perfect; anything less is inadequate.” This is the kind of encouragement evangelicals get all the time. No grace at all. No Christ at all except as a goal. Fear. Condemnation. Keep ‘em in line. The Gospel=a New law.

The “Law-Gospel-Law” paradigm described by Rosenblatt and Bridges is accurate. Grace is just too darned dangerous to be embraced. We really want to know that the Prodigal showed up the next week in a suit, ready to go to work. That the point is the GENEROUSITY of the Father just whizzes right past us.

JIM has the questions of the day, if he will post them.

PWinn, or maybe all, there was a serious error in my second serious question. What I meant to say, as a lurker pointed out, was that justification is “external” to the person justified (that is, we are justified not by anything intrinsic to ourselves), whereas sanctification is “internal” to the person (that is, the Spirit manifests Himself in us.) Reversing those was not intentional.

Question #1 was a response to the whole “faith that saves is the faith that works” line of reasoning. The apparent logic behind the teaching on the relationship between justification and sanctification that I’ve been taught is this:

• God justifies me in Christ when I confess and believe Him
• The Spirit enters into me as a result and indwells me, as a sign to me that I have entered the new covenant
• the Spirit manifests His fruit in my life, as an outward sign that I am one of the Israel of God

Understand, please, that things like this are behind some of my alledgedly “low” view of scripture. I know, somehow intuitively, that by grace through faith is something to shoot grandma over [for those unfamiliar with P. J. O’Rourke, read that as “to go to the mat over”]. At the same time, I’m mentally tired of spending years trying to find a hermeneutic method that makes sense of the parts of the NT (like James) that don’t make sense in that regard. I’ve been doing that for most of my life, and I feel compelled to move on.

I’m increasingly drawn to teachers who focus on the relational aspect of faith over the propositional. In part I think this is because they offer my brain [and, with respect to Josh, my kidneys] some relief from the pain of that exercise; another part, though, that’s equally important is that lately, especially, is that I keep meeting Jesus in other people (like Michael and others here at BHT, for instance.) If for the moment I have to lose some of the more incomprehensible parts of the Bible in order to “know Christ and Him crucified”, I’m not going to be too broken up; as far as I know, I haven’t been behaving improperly toward any virgins to whom I am betrothed, my daughters and wife all have long hair, and nobody I know of is sleeping with his stepmother (oh, the benefits of not having TV reception…) When everything is said and done, I rest on the incomprehensible love and immeasurable, horizonless grace of God, trusting Him to get me home, and look for the opportunity to be an agent of that same grace and love; not because I’m required to by a book, or because I’ve “should” on myself (one of Manning’s best illustrations, for those who get it), but because, well, because it feels right, like sola fide does.

Denise:

For me a long stare into the abyss and a reminder of the Law is the surest guard against legalism. If we truly understand what God requires of us to be accepted by Him, there’s no way we think we can do that even for a second. Even my righteousnesses are filthy. In that context, I just give up, and fuggetaboudit. My only hope is that Jesus will take me with Him, and I’m putting all my eggs in the Jesus basket.

People that try to keep the law in any sense, be they “Torah observant Christians” or orthodox Jews, or Pentecostals (who LOVE the book of James), should be seen as ignorant. I don’t mean this as a “slam” but if they really knew what the Law required, they would stop trying to keep it. A friend of mine is trying to be Torah observant. So, I’m wondering when she’s going to slaughter the goats to make atonement for her sins, and stone to death her disobedient children and anyone who picks up a fag of sticks on Saturday.

Bottom line, with this kind of grace there is somehow a level of love I can have toward God, and He toward me, because there are no expectations riding on our relationship. Obedience is the things you do out of love for Him, not the things you do to try to please Him. Those things are disobedience!

Bios:

Thanks for putting up my old bio. In it I mention the two other concerts that I want to see before I die, and I had forgotten about that. I have tickets to Nickel Creek for April 15th :) Isn’t that odd.

Moderator Note: I have removed a post here and sent it to the stated recepient as an email. It was a legitimate complaint, but it’s of a personal nature between two posters, so I’d like to keep it there. I’m going to do this a lot more often in the future, and bartenders can do the same to me if needed. Take the personal stuff outside unless it pertains to a larger discussion.

JUDSON, I’m so sorry to hear of the losses of these two men. We’ll be praying for their friends and families.

ALL, Today’s discussion of James seems like a good opportunity for me to bring up something I’ve had on my mind for a couple of days: legalism. People preaching grace and freedom always combat legalism with a reminder of how we are saved. Example: C. J. Mahaney, in his excellent little book, The Cross Centered Life, writes that legalism ”[is] an age-old foe to God’s plan of salvation through faith alone…Legalism is seeking to achieve forgiveness from God and acceptance by God through obedience to God.”

Sometimes, yes. I’ve known folks (Pentecostal) who believed you could be saved and if you sinned once and left that sin unconfessed, then died, you’d go to hell. But is that really what legalism means to most people?

Most legalistic people I’ve known (including me!) didn’t seem to really think they were saved by their works. (Though I agree with Mahaney that when we are legalistic we appear to be saying that by our actions.) But I think to many people it’s not so much a matter of salvation as it is living in a way that they think pleases God.

Think about a parent-child relationship. Most children don’t really believe that if they are bad they won’t be their parents’ child any more. But they do think, “Mommy and Daddy will be mad,” “They’ll punish me,” or “They’ll lecture me about how bad I am and how good my sister is and why can’t I be more like her.”

I think for many of us the tendency toward legalism isn’t “I won’t be a Christian any more if I screw up,” but “God won’t be pleased with me.” If that’s the case, then pointing to how we are saved by grace alone may not really help the legalistic person very much. “Of course I know that!” he’ll say. “But after all He’s done for me, how can I let Him down by sinning over and over? I must try to be good!”

And after all He’s done for us, we should love Him and try to please Him. Obedience is biblical! So where do we draw the line between a healthy desire to obey and legalistic attempts at obedience? And what’s the answer for this kind of legalism?

Bios updated from info gleaned from the archives and other sources. I actually found that most of you had bios posted at some point or another. Thanks for telling me. :-/

Anyhow, y’all know where to moan to if you need changes or corrections. Michael’s cell number should still be listed somewhere…

Before I start, here’s Time Magazine’s big piece on Rick Warren. Very positive, and his intention to help the poor and AIDS victims gets a big amen from me. God bless Rick Warren in that work.

James is an oddity in the New Testament. I’d like it much better if it were in the Old. In fact, maybe that’s the solution for me. I’ll just cut it out and put it in the Old Testament.

It’s not that the book isn’t full of great content for any Christian to put on his/her “to do” list. It’s not that the book isn’t full of prophetic light and help for being Christians who walk the walk rather than just talk the talk. It’s not that the book is all that different from the Sermon on the Mount, or other sections of the New Testament itself.

The problem is an apparent frontal assault on the idea of Justification by faith alone. Now if N.T. Wright is correct, there is no problem, as the NPP view of righteousness would fit in nicely in James. But if the classic reformation idea of righteousness is correct, and Galatians is on target to say we are declared righteous APART FROM works of the law, then James’s statment that we can’t be justified by faith alone is a problem.

(BTW- I continue to be amazed at how easily some of you fellows will tie up justification with sanctification. I’m not going to post Ryle or Rosenblatt again, but there is a reason Luther said that Justification is the doctrine by which the church stands or falls. Holy living don’t mean JACK in God’s declaration that I am right with him. The Prodigal won the pony when he had done exactly NOTHING right. And he got the calf, the robe, the ring and the party. I’ll let the Older Bro speak for himself, because he surely didn’t get the significance of the Father’s resurrecting of a dead boy as compared to his work in the fields.)

Piper, btw, says that FAITH WORKS. Faith is a worker, and he explains how in the “Future Grace” material. I recommend it.

My only viewpoint is that James really needs the light of the Final Word shined very brightly on what is clearly a lot of “Law” restated in the NT. You guys that have never been told by a hardcore Church of Christ or Holiness type that you must have works to be justified may not realize what can be done with this book. It sets a lot of folks down the path to works salvation and that is a worse error than antinomianism, which is just annoying.

Galatians is the clearer word on Justification….and on Jesus, imo. James is a NT application of OT law, and Prophetic ethics, but on faith and works it isn’t the Final Word, it’s a word that needs clarification by strong passages in Galatians, Romans, John and Hebrews.

It’s been a hard week. On St. Patrick’s evening one of our good musical friends was killed in a car accident, returning home from our weekly Irish session. Last night, an oilfield helicopter (just like the kind I ride every 3 weeks) went down in the Gulf of Mexico, with my next door neighbor piloting it. There is a chance he is still alive, but very very slim. The search is going from SAR to recovery phase already.

I wasn’t intimate with either, but I knew and loved both. Both were good men. Both leave behind wives and teenage daughters. Their names were Lloyd and Tim, and they’ll be missed.

A review of a visit to Saddleback Valley Church. (Thanks Danny)

A review of PDL. (Please don’t think I like Charles Finney!)

Noel, I can’t get into comments because blogroll is not working :-( and that’s choking the blog.

Political parties will never be perfect fits. PLEASE disavow yourself of the idea that one must find a party that perfectly reflects one’s preferences. (Including parties that can’t elect a dog catcher, despite their conservative credentials. The point of politics is to win elections. Not have conventions with people who agree on everything all the time.)

You may be a moderate or a libertarian Republican, and the good thing is the GOP is a much bigger tent than any other party. That also means more of us are unhappy than in any other party! But basic conservative principles unite us, and therefore we can win elections. Other parties are so narrow, or so opposed to diversity (find a pro-life Democrat!) that they find it difficult to appeal to independent voters, which is how you win elections.

So you can be a Republican and be unpredictable and diverse on issues, something Democrats can’t be, no matter what they say.

Dear BHT,
My roommate is a self-professed Democrat and I am a Republican with many Constitution Party sentiments. We typically avoid discussing anything political, for it would inevitably ruin our friendship. However, some things have proven unavoidable. Often I will make a comment and she will reply, “You are a Democrat!” But sometimes she will make a comment and I will say, “You’re such a Republican!” It seems to me that we agree on quite a few things. What is going on here? Are we both denying our inner political beliefs or do neither of us know our parties well enough to properly diagnose what anybody is?
Sincerely,
Confused in College

While I don’t know Brandy I am sure she is cool.

I think that the second answer is the “correct” one. What say you?

I shall answer you with Spurgeon’s answer. I cultivate my flowers and burn my weeds. – Spurgeon

As for reading while “contemplating” I suggest a copy of the Message, perhaps not for reading but wiping. (JN) I read theology as it is my “contemplating chair”. If I did read the Word there it would keep me there much more longer and then people would start to get worried.

Serious Answer #1 James uses an example further in history then Paul does. This is a huge point often missed. II.14 speaks of “faith” that doesn’t have works. Of course that kind of faith doesn’t save. It isn’t “sola fide nothing else and watch the game”. True faith, if connected to the Vine, brings FRUIT!

Serious Answer #2 We are not to judge those outside the “church”. If a member (regenerate or not) sins we are to deal with it. There should be an element of sanctification involved. Mind you that early converts were pagan as they come (speaking of gentiles) and so their “conversion” would be much more apparent than a jew or today’s humanitarian. We are to warn, correct, and encourage the body to seek Holiness and Fruit for we are commanded to be good stewards.

“There could have not been any doubt about what President Clinton’s intent was after he fired 60 Tomahawk cruise missiles at bin Laden in August 1998,”

Hmmm. What was his intent, Dickey? I know what Michael thinks about this episode from previous posts and I heartily agree. He was intent on looking like he was tough on terror even though he didn’t have enough of a BSD to take care of the matter once and for all.

Benoit:

Just to obfuscate things a bit, in college we had a long discussion of whether or not it was alright to read the Bible on the can. I haven’t been able to do it since, though I do read theology in the john.

Thats the only place I read the Bible. When I first started to take the book seriously and wanted to make sure I read it every day, that was the only consistantly QUIET and SECLUDED place where I could literally sit down for 1/2 an hour and just read. Well, not just read.

Recently I’ve stopped reading daily, but I still read theology there. If I can ever get myself a copy of the Message I’ll probably start reading again in a daily fashion. I just got tired of the “Yeah, yeah, read that before.” thing. I know, my problem, not His, but anyways, this is about crap.

Michael: Can we get a look-see at some of the other entries?

Jim: I’ll take a stab at some answers, but I must forewarn all that my thinking in this area is not very firm. I grew up in some heavily works-based environments, and the distinction between justification and sanctification in my mind may still not quite be fixed.

Serious answer #1a: Can you supply an example?
Serious answer #1b: I wouldn’t say he is exclusively addressing “faith working sanctification,” as he seems to focus at least a little bit on recognizing saving faith, as opposed to the dead, non-saving variety. I always think of the parable of the sower, but I must admit my reasoning on this is not completely resolved.

Serious answer #2: I might go further than that, and this will probably unleash the hounds of heaven on me, but I don’t tend to think of justification as working anything internal to a person. I don’t believe that anything literally changes, physically or otherwise, internally. Instead, the “effect” of justification is to change our standing with God, something that occurs outside of our temporal earthly focii of space and time. While justification benefits me immeasurably, I’m not sure it is done “to” me, but rather “for” me, to use the closest distinction I can muster in English.

Still, the answer is generally to counter that the existence of a counterfeit does not in any way decrease the value of The Real Thing, unless that counterfeit is accepted. And I frankly don’t think that the fruit of the spirit can be consistently faked. People try, but they fail. Of course, so do “real” Christians, but, well…

I’ll just point out that Paul faced a similar problem, and lays out a case for the Christian, though saved by grace regardless of any works, to not continue in sin. We “seek” sanctification to please our Creator, and it happens to help us all get along better at the same time.

Serious answer #3: I think you just have to post before iMonk does.

Mike B: I think you can classify that discussion as a symptom of “magic book” thinking, though Jim missed listing it earlier. I tend to read theology books on the pot instead, but mostly because I don’t have a separate bible for the W.C.

The answer is clearly the latter. Here is a great poem to that effect.

Just to obfuscate things a bit, in college we had a long discussion of whether or not it was alright to read the Bible on the can. I haven’t been able to do it since, though I do read theology in the john.

A man goes to his priest and says, “Father, I try to be a good Christian, but I also smoke. Is it all right if I smoke while praying?”

The priest frowns and replies, “My son, praying is a conversation with God; it is for the purification of the soul. It would be a shame to interrupt that with something as impure as smoking.”

The man thanks the priest and leaves.

A week later, the man comes back and asks the priest, “Father, I try to be a good Christian, but I also smoke. Is it all right if I pray while smoking?”

The priest smiles and replies, “My son, you may pray anytime.”

I think that the second answer is the “correct” one. What say you?

I scored 8 out of 14 on the fearsome quiz! Oh, it wasn’t a quiz? Oops!

Seriously, good stuff, and I don’t have any in the “No” column, though there are a few in the ”?” column so far.

Here’s our Josh Strodtbeck Photoshop Contest Winners

Third Place goes to Matthew Johnson:

Second Place to Noel Spencer

And first place to Kurt Nordstrom, with “Josh Goes to the Mega-Church.”

PWinn: I didn’t intend to DH the topic. Let me edit that.

But on Tim….yes :-) (JN)

Michael: As a point of order, if Tim announces that he believes that the similarity of sound between certain barnyard animals is the single element through which all Scripture must be viewed, will we automatically dead-horse that topic?

No, I’m just poking fun and not making any sort of comparison. Tim, I’m teasing, and Michael, don’t answer. Consider it dead-horsed.

Since Josh has written a full blown Confession of Faith to clarify his beliefs, I think all interested parties ought to read it. He really has done a lot of work and it deserves to be read. There is much to agree with and rejoice in.

Part I God’s Sublime Majesty, Creation, The Fall, The Old Covenant, The New Covenant, Jesus the Mediator, The Office of the Holy Ministry
Part II Baptism, The Lord’s Supper, Justification and Sanctification.
Part III The Office of the Keys, Fellowship and Discipline, Saints, Other articles.

Extremely helpful. I resonate with the Gospel part, but not at all with the “church” part, and since the LS is the bridge between the two, this isn’t surprising.

I found this sentence quite revealing as a presuppositional statement for the entire section on understanding the church: “The Lord’s Supper, which has rightly been called the “Sacrament of sacraments,” is the highest sacrament toward which all other means of life and discipline in the Church work.” I’m nowhere near this, and I can certainly understand that if this is what Josh believes, then really….we could (but won’t) DH the topic. So read away….and post your comments at HIS BLOG please.

I agree with Bill’s interpretation of James. Words can have two meanings, right? Why not the word “justified”? I justify the lines on my paper, I justify my faith to the world by my actions, and I am justified before God by Christ Jesus’ righteousness.

I will agree, though, that James can seem really annoying, especially today, when I am getting really angry that I can’t copy a poem out of a book due to copyright laws. That whole “the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God” verse makes it hard to justify my anger.

Besides, I don’t think it’s insane that God, who is holy, would want his sons to strive towards holiness. After all, how can we be the salt of the earth if we taste like s***?

Aside to Bart: FYI, Something’s gone wrong in Scotland. I trust you’ll correct things quickly.

All:

Serious question #1: If James means to describe the effects of faith working in sanctification, then why does he use the language of justification?

Serious question #2: If the effects of justification are internal to a person, beyond observable verification by humans, and beyond anyone’s ability in their own strength to produce in themselves but the effects of sanctification are external, observable, and can be consistently spoofed by any non-regenerate person with sufficient motivation to lead a “moral” life, then how is it proper for us to “seek” sanctification at all, or to base church discipline on observations of the external person?

Serious question #3: Can I propose tomorrow’s passage and questions?

To validate that these are in fact serious questions for me, I hereby pledge NOT to post counter-arguments of my own to anyone’s answers, but to restrict my posts to clarifying queries about any answers given.

Wait, Jim, put down that book of James and that lighter ;)

My take from James is simply this: Faith is all encompassing. When God grants us saving faith, He gives us the whole package. It does not merely change our minds, it changes our lives, our passions, our pleasures. For man to recieve God’s grace and remain unchanged is a bizarre concept. Are not our actions the expressions of that which motivates us?

Tom: You never did respond to my extended essay about Bush and the “war on terror,” so I again commend it to your attention, along with this old article written by a UK liberal. Not because I think that 9/11 grants President Bush a free hand to do whatever he wants, but because – as the author points out – given that free hand, President Bush exercised incredible restraint. It is worth remembering this as the political machine cranks up the usual spate of lies and misrepresentations on both side of the aisle.

Danny: I forgot to say, “Welcome,” so, um, “Welcome!” And keep up the funny stuff!

Jim: Thanks, it’s my favorite dance of all. The tango is nice, though. And I really don’t think James is saying “faith + [something].” It really seems to me like he is attempting to answer a question we’ve asked in here quite a bit. How do you identify a Christian? We go around and around in circles over creeds and confessions and sacraments and so on, but James says the answer is this: A Christian acts like one.

In the end, of course, God saves us, and whether I think so-and-so is saved makes not one wet slap of difference in his right-standing with God. But I don’t think James is truly disputing that.

Russell: I think James would like Bono, too. Except for the “tongue of fire” bit, of course.

Are we supposed to stop a conversation when the new day arrives? If so, just ignore this. If not, then this is my last and final terminating thought on the S&G thread.

The moral of the story is that Bono is on the right track with his Africa work even if he says the f-word on TV.

Danny: Out of curiosity, which book would you like to see added?

I do like the Didache but probably would also add the Book of Enoch. It’d throw a lot more discussion on election. I haven’t studied it in depth but 56:8d says “Sheol shall devour the sinners in the presence of the elect” which seems to coincide with Isaiah 66:24.

Even if the “Homicidal Psycho Jungle Cat” was included into the Canon I think that the Holy Spirit will draw out truths that we can apply to our lives. Make that three books I wanted added to the Canon.

Phillip: Nice hermeneutical hoop dance, but you’re still left with “faith + [something]”, and Paul still wants your ‘nads.

Bill: Esther certainly can be separated from the canon without violence. The book adds nothing doctrinally to Christian thought, in simply provides the legendary background for a Jewish feast that was added to those instituted in the Torah. For that matter, the constitution of the OT canon for Christians comes down which of many divergent historical paths one takes, as witness the entry for it in the Catholic Encyclopedia

James reminds me a lot of Proverbs. Is Proverbs incompatible with Christianity? No, of course not. Within the context of Christianity, it is easily understood as encouragement and instruction for Christians. That some people see it as standing on its own, telling them all they need to know about how to be a Christian, is not the fault of James, but of the reader.

James builds on the foundation of faith, and offers up a way to identify faith. We are fond of saying around that God saves whom He chooses, and that is true. We are also, many of us, fond of assuming that faith=salvation, but James seems to dispute that point, and I think there is some support for that. One can believe (“have faith”) without having “saving faith,” or right-standing with God. At least, that’s what James says. After all, even the demons believe (“have faith?”) and tremble, but it doesn’t help them.

So yeah, he uses the word “faith” in a different way then we tend to. But I like James. Some of my favorite verses are from James. And as I’ve said, it’s one of the best defense we have against anti-nomianism.

Bill: I think what people object to is mainly this: “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” (James 2:24)

Danny: Out of curiosity, which book would you like to see added?

My vote would be for either Hermas or The Didache.

With respect due Dr. Luther, it’s not that big a sweat at all. The faith that produces no works is not saving faith. Entirely consistent with Paul, and especially with Jesus. Yes, that’s not the entire Gospel, and yes, it can be faked. So what? That’s not our problem.

James mentions Jesus by name twice, but he also mentions God, the Lord, the Judge, etc numerous times. I think we are all (most) agreed that Jesus is all those things. Remember also that James, like all the other epistles, is written to Christians, or at least those calling themselves such, so we can assume they all know who he is talking about. Esther doesn’t mention God at all. Should we exclude it from the canon? Deuteronomy says that obedience is blessed. Job seems to say the opposite. Can they both be right? Jesus said that our words would justify us. Did the Gospel writer get that bit wrong?

Can we get all we need from James? No, but that is true of all of them.

If Paul and James say two contradictory things that are absolutely not reconcilable, how do you know which one is correct? The one you want to be correct?

“I maintain that some Jew wrote it [the Book of James] who probably heard about Christian people but never encountered any.” – Luther

“Many sweat to reconcile St. Paul and St. James, but in vain. ‘Faith justifies’ and ‘faith does not justify’ contradict each other flatly. If any one can harmonize them I will give him my doctor’s hood and let him call me a fool.” – Luther

Now that, I think, is what James was trying to get across to his churches. Loveless faith is absolutely useless; and anybody that comes along and says “We are justified by faith alone, and so you don’t have to be a loving person to go to heaven” is not telling the truth. – John Piper

There is then no wonder that James denies that salvation is connected with it. – John Calvin

I use to dislike the book of James. We used it for our a mission trip as our “unity book”. Many unbelievers like it for obvious philosophical reasons.

I like it the book now. It encourages me to study and understand faith. To grow in works and to hold the bar of Salvation higher than “intellectual knowledge”.

As for the Canon I’d like to see a book added and another one removed from the current 66 books but I think some people know better than me and until I know better I won’t. When people ask me about sola fide and James I tell them I ripped the book out because it was useless to the doctrine of Paul. The response is priceless.

I could use some prayer as I am speaking today to 80 some high school students about embracing the ministry. I have done very little public speaking and am freaking out. In my weakness He is strong.

Bill: First, I’ll concede that I was wrong to say that James doesn’t mention grace, as you point out. But the context shows that he’s miles away from the understanding of grace that emerges from the rest of the NT.

James 2:24 is a clear contradiction of Romans 4:1-5. James states that Abraham was made righteous by his action in the attempted sacrifice of Issac (James 2:21), but Paul says in Romans 4:10 that Abraham was considered justified before he was circumcized (Genesis 17), which was years before Issac was born(Genesis 21). Which book are you prepared to throw out? Paul’s theological opus, or a book which (a) considers grace a reward for behavior (humility), (b) only mentions Jesus by name twice, in passing, and© teaches salvation by works.

James is inconsistant with the rest of the NT, unless you apply the “Tweedle Dum” hermeneutic method (“When I use a word, it means what I want it to mean.”) It’s a curious mix of OT wisdom, Pharisee behavior code, with a bit of Christianity for icing. And if in fact the book was written and accepted very early in Church history, that actually supports my view; it puts Paul’s later writings in Romans, Ephesians, Galatians and Colosians in place as a corrective against the error that James had taught.