Monthly Archives: January 2012

• 3 Comments

•

I'd like to be at one of them...

Here's the website.

T.D.Jakes drummed up a little extra controversy at the January 25th setting.

First, there was what was said (his history of modalism and current - possibly Trinitarian - beliefs)

Jakes: I believe the latter one is where I stand today. One God – Three Persons. I am not crazy about the word persons though. You describe “manifestations” as modalist, but I describe it as Pauline. For God was manifest in the flesh. Paul is not a modalist, but he doesn’t think it’s robbery to say manifest in the flesh....We need to humble both sides and say, “We are trying to describe a God we love.” Why should I fall out and hate and throw names at you when it’s through a glass darkly? None of our books on the Godhead will be on sale in heaven.

And there was what was NOT said (prosperity gospel)

The Elephant Room isn't perfect, and there are a few folks who will point out everything that Driscoll does wrong.

I believe that many of the Oneness folks also preach "health and wealth" - they go hand in hand.  I haven't watched the whole Elephant Room video, but people seem to be unhappy that "health and wealth" wasn't addressed more.

• 3 Comments

•

From "The Gender Blog"

The article is mostly good, but when the whopper comes...

Misconception #4: Submission is a right-a husband has the right to demand his wife's submission.

A husband does not have the right to demand or extract submission from his wife. Submission is HER choice-her responsibility... it is NOT his right!! Not ever. She is to "submit herself"- deciding when and how to submit is her call. In a Christian marriage, the focus is never on rights, but on personal responsibility. It's his responsibility to be affectionate. It's her responsibility to be agreeable. The husband's responsibility is to sacrificially love as Christ loved the Church-not to make his wife submit.

My thought is that a Christian man, who has married a woman who claims to be a Christian, has the right to expect her to act like one.  That includes being a submissive wife.

If he has not rights, then he is effectively in a hostage situation.  Not a pleasant place.

 

She is to "submit herself"- deciding when and how to submit is her call.

Agreed.

The "when" is when she says "I do" on the altar.

The "how" is "as unto the Lord."

Anything other than that is disobedience to the Law of Christ, Scripture and love.  It saddens me to see Kassian teach so.

 

 

 

• 1 Comment

•

this Resurgence post, "You Are Not Jesus" nails it.

the more I hear fake gospels, the more I long for the real one.

The gospel is the good news that God sent his perfect Son Jesus Christ to live, die, and resurrect on behalf of sinners, to save their souls and reconcile them to God.

As important as it is to do good works, care for the poor, nobody becomes a Christian and enters into eternal life because we gave somebody a sandwich; They get saved because they hear the preaching of the news of Jesus.

I love the way Paul explains it in Titus 2:10-11.  He gives the "law" (to do list) and then gives us the "done list"

"...but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior. For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people..."

It is because we have Christ, that we do good works.  But our good works are not the good news.

•

"The Case for Christmas" by Lee Strobel.

The best part of the books were

1) the interview with the historian that made the case for an early writing of the Gospels, and the book of Acts and

2) the interview with the Jewish man who set out to read the Old Testament, looking for prophesies of the Messiah, and found them fulfilled in the Jesus of the New Testament.

Other than that, a lot of the book was telling Christians what they already know.  It's a good book to know and have, because it lays "what we believe and why" out so clearly.

• 2 Comments

•

INDIANOLA, Iowa – Texas Gov. Rick Perry clarified his newly transformed position on abortion today, stating that the life of the mother is the only exception in which he’d support abortion.

He's being criticized by liberal bloggers for this "flip flop" - but if any of us are so set in our ways that we cannot shift our views after an interaction with another person who can make a good case for changing...well, ask if the same liberal blogger would have called it a "flip flop" if the flip and flopped in the pro-abortion direction?

I'm going to use words that I have used.

The circumstances of a person's conception does not dictate the worth of their humanity.

Even so, for the woman who finds herself in that circumstance, I can see why she would consider abortion a viable alternative to life.  Personal conviction may not need to dictate public policy.  Sometimes it does, but in the case of rape and/or incest...EGR.