I played my 2nd round of golf yesterday. I now understand why y’all like the game. I put in my time/effort to appreciate it. Now it’s your turn to do the same for NASCAR. :)

PW: Welcome back. It really isn’t much fun without your rapier prejudic….wit :)

When I compare the evidence of maturity I see in the lives of the average parents with the evidence of maturity I see in the lives of the average childless couple, the contrast seems stark.

This is so darned similar to statements made about undersocialized homeschoolers that I am not going to touch it. It speaks volumes on its own. (Update: I lied)

“You are being selfish” is the single most useless, cheap and generalized piece of criticism that can be leveled at anyone for anything. If Mohler can’t come up with a positive statement in scripture, a compelling theological principle that can stand up to criticism or an obvious philosophical reason that can survive the onslaught of brains on the BHT, he should shut up. (And I know and like the guy.) When someone tells me I am being selfish, I know two things: They don’t know much about me or human beings in general (since we are all selfish all the time), and they have just run out of intelligent reasons to offer.

There are millions of good, decent, unselfish people who chose to not have children. What kind of a freakin’ bubble does Mohler live in to not see that? He has people on his staff that qualify! There are hundreds of SBC missionaries that qualify! Gadzooks! It’s idiotic.

And….if you are going to start slinging “Magic book” as an all purpose criticism, rather than use it as Jim and I do in reference to the doctrine of inspiration and the strange use of texts, then please warn us. Reading the parable of the Prodigal Son as an example of grace before confession is “Magic Bookish?” Like that’s NOT a major theme of DOZENS of parables?

And Jim and I are “turning on each other?” Hello??

Welcome back :)

Sometimes I fear for the future of our faith… on the issue of watching “South Park”, a guy posted this at a board I moderate:

It’s kind of sad that someone who’s supposedly a Christian would have to actually even ask if this show is appropriate for them to watch or not. I think the answers quite obvious or you wouldn’t even be asking. Sometimes I have to stop for a second though and remember that I’m a bit older then most of you and was once where a lot of you are now. I would never watch a show now that mock’s my faith (the fact that it mock’s all religions and not just Christianity makes it no better) though when I was the age many of you are, who know’s? After all I did once watch the Simpson’s. If you feel a little guilty about watching it though, there’s a reason for that.

Gee… he once watched the Simpsons. Hope he took a bath afterwards…

The Molher Article: I’m becoming happier every day that I get closer to leaving the SBC.

As of right now, the wife and I don’t have plans for kids. She’s nervous about the prospects of being a mom, and I can see myself as the stereotypical dad, wandering around the house monitoring light bulb usage. Our basic stance is “if God wants us to have kids, we believe that God is fully capable of getting around chemical contraception. We’ve placed it in God’s hands, and unless He puts the desire on our hearts to try to have kids, that’s the way it’s gonna stay. If He’d rather surprise us, then that’s great, too.

The problem I have is similar to the problems I have with young-earth creationists (some problems I believe Michael has echoed, nay – written plainly here)... mainly – that Molher is essentially making a test for fellowhip based on his interpretation of Genesis 1-3, and woe be unto he who disagrees with Al. I mean, when I read scripture, I notice a fair lack of verses that say, “And because they were married and did not reproduce, God smote them”. Yes, childlessness WAS used as a curse in the OT – mainly for a group of people whose social standing on earth was based in how many children they could produce.

Apparently, Al feels the same way.

I’ve often wondered what would have happened without the conservative resurgence. I think it would have been a mixed bag. A few thoughts….

1) Some of the seminaries would have been lost to the far left. No doubt. Everything going on in the radical theological left would have infested SEBTS, MWBTS and SBTS within a view years. Southwestern and New Orleans would have stayed conservative. Don’t know about Golden Gate. At least one major independent conservative school would have grown larger than some of the SBC seminaries. Probably Mid-America in Memphis.

Denominational voices like the Christian Life Commission and the BJCPA would have remained moderate to mildly liberal. Not solidly pro-life, which would have been preferable.

2) The political leadership of the denomination would have remained a war zone. I was at those meeting. (40,000+ in Dallas one year) and it was terrible. You hated to go. Much like the PCUSA GA now.

3) The alternative press would have kept the pot simmering.

4) Missions would have suffered. Missions has prospered under the current leadership, probably because of the absence of infighting.

5) The moderates have shown themselves to be well behind the curve on innovation and organization. The conservaitves, for all their errors, have been very innovative (too much so in some ways) and allowed the denomination to take new directions. That’s been good, IMO.

6) The stupidity of the conservatives would have still gone on, but from a slightly different platform. If they didn’t control the denomination, they would just use the large churches, indy seminaries, their press, etc to say the same things.

I will say the SBC conservative leadership, while it has some good guys, has featured some real whoppers.

7) Jerry Falwell, and a lot of other formerly indy Baptists, wouldn’t be in the SBC. Overall, letting so many fundies in the door at the national level would have been avoided. That would have been a good thing.

8) The national SBC really is a smaller entity than most imagine. The STATE conventions is where the action is, and they are still bitterly divided, BUT they have a better track record at working together through these situations. If we are going to have this fight, I think the division is handled better at the state level where most of the money is spent and decisions are made. The national SBC is more of a public relations operation than most people realize. Aside from the schools and the mission boards, it doesn’t do much.

9) If I could have picked the moderate leaders, things could have stayed the same :) As it turned out, the current CBF leaders are just too far left. I guess that means we may have lost the middle in this takeover the TRUE moderates. And that is a shame. But the conservatives were faced with a theological crisis in the seminaries, and I don’t blame them for acting. The SBC is the only major denomination to have reversed its liberal slide. All in all, the denomination is probably healthier this way, since many of those conservatives aren’t nut cases, but good, solid, theologically sound, good hearted leaders.

“Brother, this is all most necessary. But something else is more necessary still. I will sign this if you include at the top a call for the Lordship of Jesus Christ to be acknowledged over all our public affairs.”

WHY must our nation be a “Christian” nation? Yes, I love freedom but that could (in theory) come from an Atheist nation too. What changes for the Believer if we live in America or Sudan? More persecution? Sure. Say we live in America 30 years from now (if it is still around). There are drunken orgies in the street and infants are aborted up to a year after conception (90 day trial period). What changes for Believers? Our job remains the same. Show people the love of God, the heart of Jesus, and the change wrought by the Holy Spirit.

I see the anti-whatevers and I think “there are better places to focus our energy instead of forced morality”. :-/

Michael: I believe you are right about the minor point loss. This country is divided and we are tired of Bush. Everyone is. I am too now and just want the anti-SchrubCo to stop. Maybe a dose of the left, in power, is what we need to get us “back on course”.

Since I’ve been gone a week, I certainly shouldn’t walk back into the Tavern and start calling people names, right? I mean, I’m a nice guy, so I should be nice. I certainly won’t point out that the two anti-magic-book guys around here have turned on each other over the issue and now one of them is quoting Capon who is parsing verses in a very magic-bookish way to make his point. That would be rude! I’ll just wait until that whole thing implodes. (JN)

On Mohler: There is a huge overlap between the pool of home-schoolers and the “quiver-full” crowd, so I’ve heard stuff like this my entire life, and I go back and forth on it. I don’t buy the RCC-style idea that we should all have kids as fast as we can for as long as we can, though a goodly number of my objections are borne of pragmatism: I am the oldest of seven kids and my wife is the oldest of six. But I also do question—and I’m sorry for the opportunity for offense I know I am offering to Tom and other who have made similar choices—why someone deliberately chooses no kids at all. When it all boils down, Mohler’s examples seem to be of people reveling in selfishness, no?

Heck, we’re all selfish. My decision to have three kids instead of fourteen can be seen by some as selfish, I’m sure, though I think selfishness was far from our minds when we had three kids in 36 months. I’m selfish in choices I make every day, so I’m really not trying to point fingers on selfishness. BUT—and here is where I am probably being offensive despite my intention—few things seem to be as significant in the maturity of an adult as having children. When I think of what my wife and I were like before kids and compare that to now, I’m astounded, and I think that experience is common to most parents. When I compare the evidence of maturity I see in the lives of the average parents with the evidence of maturity I see in the lives of the average childless couple, the contrast seems stark.

There are exceptions, of course. I know parents who are still mind-bogglingly selfish, and the kids suffer for it. Because of that, I question Mohler’s focus even on the days when I accept his premise. Determined permanent childlessness is a symptom, not a problem in itself.

But despite exceptions, I think that most people can agree that the common major events that lead to the most dramatic increases in maturity in the average person are marriage and parenting. Sure, moving out on one’s own can be a big deal, as can graduation from high school and college and so on. But looking backwards, nothing seems to compare to marriage and parenting. They’re make-or-break events, and your life will change or your marriage or parenting will fail, period.

Anyway, I’ve drifted from my point, which is this: Doesn’t Mohler have a little bit of a point? Does it say anything about where we are as a society that organizations exist in many major cities to celebrate the choice to permanently remain childless? Given that I’m trying not to—and failing—sound like I’m saying, “I’ve got mine, where are yours,” what is the real reason we choose how many children to have? Heck, why did I really choose to snip-snip after having three?

I honestly think that we can make the right decisions for the wrong reasons, and it is that on which I think Mohler should have focused. Maybe it is a good thing that he-and-she never have kids, but is it a good thing that they make that choice because they don’t want to disrupt their vacation schedule? It’s a more complicated issue than Mohler seems to represent, but I think he’s not wrong in identifying selfishness as a problem in America.

I’ve been studying James lately. What a corker is that book! The standard James describes for Christian living is so far away from how I live and how I view life I’m inclined to dismiss it as a “right strawy epistle” and muster theological arguments about why the book doesn’t carry weight and so on and so forth. Still, with the distinction between Law and Gospel in hand, imagine what would happen if North American Christians really started to live as James suggests! Just James 1 is enough for me to realize that I suck pretty badly at “the righteous live that God desires.” It’s a good thing it isn’t a requirement!

Oh well, I’m babbling. Sorry to all!

Not being a Baptist (and being the one who provided Baptist jokes on this board a few days ago) I don’t know if I have the right to ask this question. But I will, and I did. I’m wondering if it’s such a good thing the conservatives “won” over the moderates in the Southern Baptist Convention. Now you have people pushing to get Baptists to pull their kids out of public schools, and seminary presidents confusing ancient cultural norms with Biblical mandate concerning childbearing. Of course, it isn’t confined to Baptists. Years ago, when I was attending an independent Charismatic church, there was one husband who felt convicted to have his vasectomy reversed (he and his wife had already had 4 kids, mind you) because he fell under this kind of teaching.

Bill said it very well. Do you WANT these type of people having children? I don’t. Live your lives, people. If it doesn’t include children, well, there are enough people who want them that I don’t think the planet will depopulate any time soon. As for the Baptists, quit trying to become part of a Jay Leno monologue, OK?

is deeply flawed. First off, he is not talking about deliberate childlessness within the context of Christian marriage, which is the only place where he might honestly have something to say. (note: he might still be wrong, but at least wrong in the right place) If deliberate childlessness is indeed a sin (IF) then decrying it to the non-Christian world is stupid and futile, much like decrying homosexuality to a non-Christian and non-caring audience. Secondly, he tells barren couples (whether they want children or not) that they are cursed by God. Not a good way to win friends and influence people. Third, he denies God’s sovereignty (inconsistent, for a well known calvinist). If God wants them to have kids, they will darn well have kids. Lastly, if the country is indeed full of selfish, narcissistic, uncaring pleasure seekers, then shouldn’t we be GLAD they aren’t reproducing?

Mohler takes a month off, and leaves us with this piece. BHTers will recall our debate over this. Mohler’s stock dropped big time in my book with this piece. Mohler’s failure to distinquish between “moral rebellion” and hundreds of reasons someone might not have all the children they possibly could is a real dufus move. A smart guy engages in some very simplistic- and pastorally hurtful- yammering.

Bill: I’ll be redundant and say that everyone on here should read Capon. The Divine Suspect. The Parable book(s). The Mystery of Christ. If you are brave, Between Noon and Three (but be warned, that one will nuke you.) There’s plenty of Capon in the Amazon used book section. Spend a buck.

I think anyone who cares about theology really owes it to themselves to take the guy on for a few days, because he’s done something pretty amazing: write fresh, interesting, challenging, knock-you-up-sida-da-head theology. You will disagree with him, you will agree with him, you will read your Bible, you will throw your Bible. It will be fun. I promise.

The quote comes from this talk and here’s a quote from the interview following.

Capon: Well, in the far country. You have to distinguish when he was in the far country and then when he came home. When he was in the far country, he made up his confession this way. “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you.” Correct. “I am no longer worthy to be called your son.” Correct. But then the third part: “Make me a hired hand in your house.” Incorrect. Wrong. It’s not a repentance. It’s a plan for life. His father could no more make him a hired hand. He would either be a dead son or a son raised from the dead, a lost son or a found son, but a son, not a hired hand. And the brilliance of Jesus as a storyteller is that the father kisses him, the boy, when he gets home. Before he makes his confession, the father kisses him, embraces him, accepts him. That’s the whole image of grace right there. Then the boy finally, in his father’s arms, makes the confession. He says, “Father, I’ve sinned against heaven and before you, and am no more worthy to be called your son.” Period.

The conclusion, Bill, comes from Capon’s reading of the parables of grace. Theologically, it’s rejecting transactionalism, hence my latest IM piece. Interestingly, I am getting mail from people with a Baptist view of the sacraments saying they don’t get my definition of a sacrament. It indicates to me that the “memorial” view has two sides, and with some people it may be seen more as a transaction than many of people might admit. Or at least, the sacrments as participations with/fellowship with Christ aren’t understood.

Capon’s view is that all of reality is sacramental, and that once we understand Jesus- once we realize that all things are reconciled in Jesus- then everything in scripture and elsewhere is interpreted through the grace of God in Jesus.

Jesus didn’t come to set up a religious system where you could get forgiveness. He came to proclaim forgiveness. Like the messenger in my essay, he didn’t come to say “Here’s how you can make Tiberias Lord.” He came to say “Tiberias is Lord. It’s the truth. Deal with it.” Hence, you are forgiven, says Jesus. Neither do I condemn you. Deal with it.

BTW- I am furiously proofing and editing that piece. Denise is away today, so any feedback from you proofreading types (via email) is welcome.

The Capon quote above is interesting. I don’t have any Capon books so I can’t really look this up. Does anyone know where he gets the idea that this proposition is in fact, accurate?

Canadian Election is upon us today and our church get’s to be a polling station (I love that!... free traffic!). Unlike our southern neighbours we have 3 parties to choose from (used to be four but the two “righ wing” parties joined up… well, actually, it is still four if you live in Quebec…. but I digress). Our Evangelical politicians get hammered in the press so they’ve been downplaying their affiliations the whole time. If the right wing parties don’t win today it could be rightly blamed on their religious and moral convictions which oozed out when they weren’t looking. :-)

I thought the best part of the Bazan article was the “left of the Democratic party left” part. He made some un-fans with that one. Not me, but people that think Republican is synonymous with Christian.

You might have missed this wonderful line in the post that Michael linked to a Pedro the Lion review a few days ago. The interviewer asked lead singer David Bazan why, in spite of the fact that they have almost no following within CCM and are downright offensive to most CCM listeners, they still play the Cornerstone festival:

“There’s a lot of people like me who haven’t totally forsaken their faith but are just really perplexed at the way it’s being practiced. We feel alienated and feel outraged about it and beaten down when we have to be around other people who supposedly believe what we believe. And so for those people we go back as sort of a solace for them.”

Bartenders, take note: if Bazan ever shows up in the tavern, his drinks are on me. In perpetuity.

Write it down. The iMonk said it here. BUSH WILL LOSE. By about 5 points. I won’t make the argument, just the prediction. Get ready for the Democrats America.

Awww geez, the Monk is posting Capon quotes on the top bar again. I feel that we all need to join hands and bow our heads. Whoever’s feeling mystical, light some candles. That can’t hurt. Lord, deliver our wayward brother Michael…

Actually, I think what’s scarier is that I may be starting to grok what you’re saying, Michael. Starting to agree, even. But you won’t turn me into an optimist, dangit. We Reformed Baptist types enjoy our pessimism.

“The Road” is vanishing from American Music.

“Christians have to stop desiring salvation for Anerica unless they are prepared to want a Savior for America.”- Douglas Wilson. I don’t agree with all of this reasoning, but I’m glad he is clearly making his point.

S.M. on the Good as New Bible. Sounds like Spong will be pleased with this.

Imagine this. A new IM article. I won’t try to describe it, because it’s very much a few tentative stabs in the dark, but the reason I write is to keep moving. In my summer faith crisis, this has been a helpful series of reflections. It’s slowly taking shape in my mind. Your feedback is solicited.

Ms.us also has a new post. Part II of my list of evangelicals who aren’t driving me crazy.

Best Friends

Okay, yeah, so some of the wording is kind of weird, but I thought it was neat despite that.

This team is 9.5 games out of first and 5 out of second in a division were they have been told their whole existence they will never win the pennant. They have won 13 of 14 this month, and are exciting to watch. They have many games vs the Red Sox and the Yankees ahead.

Pull for this team. If they were to get within striking distance in the second half, it would make one heck of a season. Remember the ‘69 Mets boys. Sweet Lou, don’t give up on the dream.

Jimmy Draper, head of the SBC’s publishing giant, Lifeway Resources (formerly the Sunday School Board) has a column where he says the SBC is a “frog in a kettle.” His two pronged diagnosis: Not enough urgency about baptisms, and younger ministers are locked out of the SBC power structure.

I have no interest in his predictable first point, but I find the second point fascinating. I’ll translate it all for you.

The conservatives who mounted the revolution from 79-the late 80’s feel they own the farm. They look upon younger SBC pastors as “late arrivals” who have no denominational loyalty and don’t want traditional SBC goals. Sort of a conflict between Texas SBC types (Jack Grahamers) and Rick Warren wannabes.

The route to power in the SBC is through appointment. It’s a good ol’ boys network of the highest order. Draper- who is a sharp cookie- is saying that the future of the deomination lies in letting the the younger men into the power structures. Committees. Trustees. Conference speakers and so on.

Draper sees the evangelical squabbling within the SBC as a kind of generational turf war over the “winnings” of the resurgence. Given where the power really is, I think he’s right. You won’t see the Rick Warren gang taking the SBC Presidency or any other substantive position any time soon. And that means networks like Saddleback and Willow Creek will loom even larger as denominational type identities for many churches.

What Draper is really saying: We are going to see a lot of $$ go away from the SBC if we don’t get the younger pastors onto the bus.

Jeff Jarvis’ take on Moore’s movie. Add it to your fact file. Excellent review.

Paul Johnson- my favorite historian- on Bill Clinton. (BTW—the early chapters of the book are interesting, especially to anyone raised in the same culture as Clinton, which I was, minus the drinking and wife beatings.)

From the WP:

Cheney said he “probably” used an obscenity in an argument Tuesday on the Senate floor with Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and added that he had no regrets. “I expressed myself rather forcefully, felt better after I had done it,” Cheney told Neil Cavuto of Fox News. The vice president said those who heard the putdown agreed with him. “I think that a lot of my colleagues felt that what I had said badly needed to be said, that it was long overdue.”

Cheney said yesterday he was in no mood to exchange pleasantries with Leahy because Leahy had “challenged my integrity” by making charges of cronyism between Cheney and his former firm, Halliburton Co. Leahy on Monday had a conference call to kick off the Democratic National Committee’s “Halliburton Week” focusing on Cheney, the company, “and the millions of dollars they’ve cost taxpayers,” the party said.

“I didn’t like the fact that after he had done so, then he wanted to act like, you know, everything’s peaches and cream,” Cheney said. “And I informed him of my view of his conduct in no uncertain terms. And as I say, I felt better afterwards.”

Haliburton Week. And then- read the article- they weep to reporters about the lack of civility. Cheney- get another beer on me. In private, up close, and to the point. To a hypocrite who calls you a profiteering murderer and wants you to roll over and ask for a belly rub. Disgusting.

For the theological basis of my endorsement of the VP’s choice of words, see the rigney essay that is beloved by cussin’ Christians around the world.

From “Our Problem With Grace.”

Everyone loves the story of Zacchaeus in Luke 19:1-10. There are two actions that make the story interesting. One is Jesus’ gracious and brash self-invitation into the home of a despised tax collector. The other is the declaration of a stunned Zacchaeus that he will give away half his worth to the poor, and return four times his unethical takings. (What an example for Americans!)

The teacher in me wants to give you the assignment of writing a modern evangelical version of this story. Here are some hints.

Jesus would have to be invited into Zach’s house by Zach himself, of course. Or knock on the door pleadingly before Zach lets him in. (The handle is on the inside.) Once there, Zach would promise to be a good tax collector from now on and share his testimony whenever he had the opportunity. He would buy lots of WWJD merchandise to remind him of what kind of tax collector Jesus would be. He might join a ministry of Christian tax collectors and form an accountability group. Of course, there would be the book deal.

Look closely. Jesus doesn’t require anything of Zacchaeus, but he gets a lot of obedience from him. Or at least, the declaration of obedience. I don’t really KNOW what Zach did after that dinner. I know what Jesus did, and as impressive as Zach’s promise is….it really doesn’t matter what he did. It doesn’t matter if he does all of what he promised, or does half, or takes a while to get around to it. The point is the grace of Jesus. Grace is the point. Not Zach’s obedience.

Doesn’t that just bug you? Admit it. Don’t you feel like Zacchaeus should have to be on a repayment schedule or something? Or can you buy it: Zach’s obedience is really beside the point?

Luther made it clear that where you find grace, there you find obedience. Piper makes it clear that it is the same apprehension of the worth of God that rests in faith and runs on promises. Horton and Rosenblatt have done excellent jobs delineating the doctrine of justification. Capon, in his study of the parables, pushes the distinction to the edge- so you can see it clearly.

All these folks understand that Macarthur’s project doesn’t help us. It leads us to despair. Do Macarthur’s books awaken the endangered soul? Maybe. I dunno. I do know that they drive thousands and thousands of sensitive conscienced, overly parented Christians into the waiting arms of legalism.

Spurgeon didn’t preach much on obedience and sanctification. He glorified God in the Gospel and related it to obedience. How many of the parables of Jesus distinquish obedience and faith for the sake of more obedience? A few. How many emphasize faith at the scandalizing of obedience? Many. There’s method to that madness.

What bothers me is I deal with lost people all the time, and they are far more attracted to obedience schemes than to the Gospel. Same with Christians. Hence, Jerry Bridges has balanced those books on holiness with books like Transforming Grace, Holiness by Grace and The Gospel for Real Life.

I grew up with a thousand sermons on obedience for good Christians. They could be reduced to a list of about 5 things important (or obnoxious) to fundamentalists. I decided long ago that the obedience produced by that kind of preaching isn’t from faith, it’s grown in the garden of guilt, fear and religious self-importance. It may produce some good things, but it’s not the cake. (With PW out gambling his savings away on a cruise, I can say cake all I want.)

Michael, on the other hand, I somehow still accept George MacDonald’s observation on the relationship between faith and obedience:

Faith and obedience are one and the same thing; what in the heart we call faith, in the will we call obedience.

The distinction, though, is that from what I understand, MacDonald isn’t saying, saving faith always manifests obedience in the believer so much as when faith moved out of my heart and into my will, it produces obedience. Beside the fact that it would appear that MacDonald understands obedience as responding to the inward voice of the Spirit rather than behaving in accord with the specific propositions of scripture.

I have to say, though, that the whole Lordship Salvation thing strikes me as parallel to something out of The Holy Grail: “How do you get to be Lord? I didn’t vote for you.” As if somehow sovereignty works everywhere but in my heart..

Danny hit’s the Gmail spot
Since Danny doesn’t put the “comments on” thingy on (shouldn’t that be on by default?) I need to say… how did you get a Gmail account? I’ve been lurking their page for months waiting to apply! I’ll give you a “high five” back if you tell me!

Baptists need love too
The only reason baptists are cheap is because they are poor from giving all their money to God! Of course, the same could be said for Mennonites, Alliance, Pentecostal (not the “name it and claim it” ones.. they throw money around to show off)... and for me…. shame.

The better browser
OK…. let’s admit it… using IE is a sign of spiritual bondage. Using OE is a sign of soul jeopardy.

Bill, the answers are: 2 canoes and a rowboat with an electric motor, and Trout Lake. Bring your family. I’ll email and we’ll work out details.

Michael, what bothers me most about MacArthur’s comment is how absolutely naive he is. I recommend he read Archibald Hart’s [book based on surveys he took of pastors and seminary students] and shut the h**l up.

Prester Scott responds to an ms.us post, and a good discussion follows. Thanks Scott.

BTW- David at Jollyblogger left a nice comment in the thread.

A wonderful article on Christianity and fiction at the newly designed WorldMag site.

I have a GMail account. :)

Jack has a new xanga. (Can’t call these things a blog, Jack. Sorry.) Guys, Jack used to blog here, but his wife caught him. A lesson for everyone to learn.

Today was the end of the second quarter. I flunked one of my 16. The POW-AH. I would feel bad, but most of my class did real well, and this gal just turned in zilch on purpose. Hey honey, if you want to trade 7 days for 9 weeks, be my guest. So now I need a decent American novel for the third quarter. There must be a list somewhere. Most of the kids left at 12:30, so I showed “Jeremiah Johnson” to the kids who were left. “Skin ‘im, pilgrim….and I’ll git ye another one.”

We leave on some family-in-Owensboro time Mon or Tues. OBI homecoming is tomorrow, which is a huge deal, but I really don’t do much. I help set up and take down. I eat once or twice. And I come home and work on sermons, except I already have my sermon for Sunday and can loaf. Noel is going back to Lexington this weekend to visit her mentor, go to TCPC and go to Bardstown to see a friend in The Stephen Foster Story. I’m reading the Clinton book. He doesn’t hide the fact he came from trashy people.

The passage says God has now spoken finally and uniquely in the incarnation of Jesus. Jesus is the Final Word. The rest of Hebrews underlines this again and again, as does all the NT. It’s the central message. This passage is every bit as important as John 1. A God who spoke in the past in various ways has now spoken the final and complete Word in the person of his incarnated Son.

What “dispy” assumptions are we supposed to find in this passage? It’s more of a challenge to people who believe in some form of continuing prophetic revelation. Do you mean cessationist? Help me get on the same page with you.

If you are asking how it applies to people who keep hearing from God, I guess I would say that if what they hear goes beyond what God reveals in Jesus, they’ve got a new religion on their hands. (See Joseph Smith for details.) If you mean people who say “God told me to buy a Camry and give it to Spencer,” then they are obviously hearing the voice of Jesus.

How do folks deal with this type of passage:

Heb 1:1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets,
Heb 1:2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;

In a non-dispensational way?

Michael: There is one more multiple choice option:

e) silence (doesn’t justify a response)

Far more civilized, imo, far more professional, far more grown up person-ish.

Jim: Do you have a boat there? I’ll try to make it up if I can. What lake is it again?

Reading several pages recently of the reformer’s writings on “the Christian life”. It seems they all agree with Jesus. Those who hunger and thirst for righteousness…..they shall be filled, eventually.

There, in the Believers I have met, who I respect, is an honesty with Sin that is not found, tmk, outside Christianity. They both love and hate sin. The sin goes deeper than just guilt. I agree with David. God’s law is awesome. But then I ask – why do we need it? Like Calvin I wonder about Heaven. Take away my flesh, which is a snare, and I’d be “good”.

Perfection, I don’t think, has ever been expected from a Believer. Just obedience. The perfection comes from the One who kept the Law for us.