Author Archives: MzEllen

•

We got up this morning to no hot water. It seems that in my messing around with the furnace I also did something unhelpful to the water heater and turned off the pilot light.

Tom got that lit again, so we do have hot water.

The furnace is making buzzing noises, but won't turn on.
- the thermostat does what the inside of the thermostat is supposed to do
- the fan on the furnace works (blows cold air)
- the motor buzzes, but it won't kick on.
- we have an electronic ignition, not a pilot light

I'm guessing that it might be the ignition (the furnace has a sticker on it with all the work its had done and it's had to have one ignition replaced at 3 years old and that was 3 years ago.

On the bright side, the house is holding heat very nicely. Two space heaters is keeping it "not quiet comfortable" - but comfortable with an extra layer. This will get us through until the beginning of the week, so I don't have to pay the surcharge.

😉

• 8 Comments

•

Yet another go-round in the blogosphere has me thinking. Thinking about relating and an interesting exchange we had in my class (at a secular college)

It's about the "L" in the TULIP - "limited atonement".

I believe that atonement is limited, so I'm not arguing that point at all. In either Arminianism or Calvinism - or any variation on either of the themes, atonement is limited - the controversy is whether atonement is limited by God or by man. (Strong's says atonement is "in the NT of the restoration of the favour of God to sinners that repent and put their trust in the expiatory death of Christ" - so clearly atonement is limited to believers). The divisiveness within the circles I read is more complicated than that, but again - that is not where my thoughts are.

Some folks say (my words) - "if you don't preach the "L", you're not preaching the whole Gospel." (or you're preaching a watered down Gospel)

My question is "why?" Why does this "L" cause so much disturbance in the peace between brothers and sisters?

Should the "L" make a difference in the way I treat unbelievers?

Should the "L" make a difference in the way I treat believers?

Should the "L" in TULIP affect my behavior more or less than the "L" in 1 Corinthians 13:13?

(I end up having to say a lot: "I live in a very special place.")

Here is the exchange:
(these are not the exact words, but it definitely hits the all the points)

I was in class (at a secular college) Tuesday night and we were going over the philosophy of Rene Descartes. The last class we had gone over Thomas Aquinas.

(I live in a very special place.)
There is a young man that often sits near me - it's a pretty small class - and Tuesday night we went back to talking about Aquinas. Somebody asked again about (the way Aquinas put it) "The problem of evil". That brought us to the tension between God's perfection and the existence of evil. That brought us to free will.

(I live in a very special place.)
A couple of people tried to explain evil in terms of free will.

The professor asked, "Why would a perfect God create man if He knew that they were going to sin?"

We heard the normal answers and one student answered, "So that He could send a Saviour. He knew that we were all going to sin and the only reason that we can be saved is because God sent Jesus."

In my weekly reflection writing, I've been very open about my theology, so the professor kind of looked at me...so I jumped in.

(I live in a very special place.)
"Well, I'm reformed. So any tension between free will and the sovereignty of God really doesn't bother me much." Everybody was looking at me.

"Why would a perfect God create man if He knew that they were going to sin?"

"Everything points to the glory of God. How can we know what Good is, unless we've seen evil? How can we understand light unless we've seen darkness? God is the only perfection that is."

The young man (I have gotten the impression that he might be a Buddhist or something of the sort) had moved right over next to me. "Are you really saying that we have to meet Satan before we can meet God?"

I looked right at him and said, "We all do. I did."

Somebody else said, "You have to know that you're a sinner before you can accept Christ."
A young woman added, "You have to be sorry that you're a sinner."

What would you call this exchange?
- The only perfect being is God.
- Everybody is a sinner.
- You have to be "sorry".
- The only way we can be saved is through Christ.
- All of this is for the glory of God.

But then again...I missed the "L" in TULIP.

So, what do you call this exchange? (and did I mention that I live in a very special place?)

•

My furnace quit today. And it's Friday and very, very expensive to call a furnace guy for an emergency call on a weekend.

Here are the blessings.

My house appears to be holding heat amazingly well.
We have doors to close off about half of the house. This is working.
We found two "tower" space heaters at Walmart on clearance.
These two (plus the one we had) should keep the downstairs livable.

The biggest blessing:
The furnace waited until nearly the end of March, so it is not "literally" freezing.

However...should some prayers go up and should God choose to "heal" my furnace, all the praise would go to Him.

😉

•

I turned the "little paper" in tonight-

I forgot I have parent-teacher's conferences this Tuesday and Thursday, so my after school work time on my larger paper is very reduced. So... 😉

My "reflection question" for next week is based on Rene Descartes: Is the idea of "God" clear and distinct?

• 4 Comments

•

I'd rather do just about anything else around the house rather than write my papers.

1) make a salad using Aristotle's "Four Causes"
2) research paper on "something or someone" during the Romantic Period.

#1 is due tomorrow
#2 is due Thursday.

I took the day off so that I could "work" on surfing around, procrastinating just a little bit longer. (Oh, and I enrolled in summer classes)

• 6 Comments

•

I thought I'd share some of the favorite posts I ran across this last week.

This is a "must read" if you are a believer looking to see Jesus.

Michael Spencer - well, just read.

Here's a little bit of what I'm hoping for: organization.

Signs of spring in the "frozen north".

These two gems come from the World of Sven

American Exchange Student: So in the medieval catholic system, supposing you did actually earn enough merit to get to heaven, what would you do when you arrived there?
Me: Well Aquinas taught that you could either go straight to heaven, or gamble your merit points and maybe win a speedboat.
AES: Really?
Me: Uh-huh.
AES: Woah. I never knew that.

It's a shame theologians don't write like this anymore:

Boso: I don't understand.
Anselm: That's because you're not as clever as me.
Boso: I see. You are so very wise Anselm.
Anselm: This is indeed true.
Boso: I concur.Yup...

😉

•

I've been pondering forgiveness and restoration (because of the possibility of running into a person that I'd rather not deal with.)

I'm a follower of Jay E. Adams and "From Forgiven to Forgiving" is a book that I turn to often. I not sure that I fully agree:

I agree that (in theory) Adams is right. But it can be difficult to implement - especially in - especially in a business or online world, or in a church community where church discipline is not practiced. I've also got a couple of thoughts that Adams does not (if I remember) fully address.

There is a difference between "holding a grudge" and "withholding forgiveness".

Holding a grudge is about your own emotions and refusing to move on. Bitterness and anger are "red flags" that you are holding a grudge. Grudges have nothing to do with "relationship" or "forgiveness". It's about the human desire to hold something over another person - for the sake of spite.

In the face of a repentant offender, to hold a grudge is a serious sin (and one of the sins that should make us doubt our salvation.)

Holding a grudge is easy and very human.

Withholding forgiveness is something different. Withholding forgiveness is about forgiveness and restoration. If you don't have glorifying God through forgiveness and restoration as the goal, you're not withholding forgiveness, you're holding a grudge.

The Bible says, "...and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors."

This is where many people disagree with Adams, believing rather that we are to forgiven whether or not the offender has indicated any repentance or willingness to not repeat the offense.) Adams makes a case that God is our example in forgiveness. As God forgives us, we forgive others.

In our repentance, we have the ability to bring others to repentance. When we are reconciled to God, we can bring others to reconciliation with God (us).

How do we become reconciled to God?

I'm also very torn myself. Being reformed, when are my sins forgiven? When is the slate wiped clean? Is it when I use the words "I'm sorry"? Or was it before the foundations of the earth were laid, when God chose me in Christ? And how do I model that?

If I have a particular sin that I struggle with "being sorry for", does God forgive that sin? If I want God to forgive all of my sins, whether or not I can be truly sorry, does God expect me to forgive the offenses of others, whether or not they are truly sorry?

(This is where I have an addition to Adams.) I believe there is also a place for withholding restoration (but perhaps not full restoration) if the safety, peace or welfare of a person or group is at risk. I'm not thinking one-time offenses or "little things" - the multitudes of offenses that love should cover. I'm thinking about either repeated "big" offenses (behavior that doesn't appear to indicate "repentance") or offenses that have such a high probability of offense that full restoration simply does not keep the safety and peace of others in mind. In cases like these, accountability (hand in hand with a commitment by the offender) is vital.

Withholding forgiveness is a set of behaviors aimed at causing the offender to know in their heart that they have hurt others and to cause them to "be truly sorry" and to make a commitment to turn from that behavior.

Withholding forgiveness is aimed always at reconciliation.

Withholding forgiveness always excludes bitterness. (You might also exclude anger, if you can. There is a place for righteous anger, but when confronting an offense in hopes of reconciliation, many times anger is best left behind.)

I believe that you can take this to the secular, although there cannot be full resoration to a "fellowship" that was never there. At best, you can reconcile to the status that you had before the offense.

This is Biblical. There are specific steps.

- you confront the person privately (I believe that if the offense was committed against a group of people or as part of a conversation, this can vary. If you immediately - within the same conversation - state the offense, this is perhaps the best way to take care of it immediately. Most reasonable people will see that they have offended and "take it back". End of story.)

- if the person does not listen - take two or three witnesses. (this is way harder on line.) With this small group of people, there are (hopefully) objective witnesses that will hear both sides, examine what was said and encourage both sides to reconciliation.

- if they still do not listen, take it to the group (or in a secular setting, to the group that both parties are a member of)

- if they still do not listen, forgiveness and restoration cannot (or should not) take place.

None of this is aimed at "punishing" the offender or perpetually holding them at arm's length. It is aimed at bringing the offender back into the relationship that you had before the offense - or perhaps a deeper relationship.

When I have practiced this - it works.

It is not easy and it is not about me.

• 3 Comments

•

Yesterday I came into work and my watch was sitting on my desk.

That wouldn't have been odd at all (I leave it places) but I had thrown it away the afternoon before. After I broke it (it's one of those bracelet kinds that springs open).

I found out the story - the custodian had seen the watch in the wastebasket and thought he could fix it. So he took it and figured it out and fixed it for me - and then put it on my desk.

This is a man that I rarely see anybody interact with, but he will see things that need fixing and just take care of it without being asked. It doesn't seem to matter to him if it's school stuff, or employee stuff or student stuff. Whether or not it's his job, he'll take care of the little, annoying things that I would just throw away.

This kind of thoughtfulness is such an encouragement.