Tag Archives: Theology

•

From Tom McMahon

tags: beatles, flow chart

~~~

More Americans are "pro-life" than "pro-choice" -

~~~

A great blog I discovered by a military wife

Found through "Obama doesn't "get" the military he commands" - a great post.

tags:  military, Obama, politics

~~~

On the other hand...

tags:  military, W., Bush, politics

~~~

Four Types of Theologians - from Parchment and Pen

"Where do you roast your marshmallows?"

tags:  Christianity, religion, theology

~~~

Well of course!  If there are too many books on the conservative best seller lists...give them their own list!  (That way they're not competing with the liberals...)

In a Nov. 9 entry on The Huffington Post that laments Fox News host Glenn Beck pulling a feat not done before - holding the number one spot on The New York Times' four lists: hardcover fiction, hardcover non-fiction, paperback non-fiction and children's - they suggest a separate category altogether, not for political non-fiction, but conservative non-fiction.

tags: conservative, books, Huffington Post, politics

~~~

How many people died at Fort Hood?  Fourteen...A grim reminder of the ones who are forgotten...

tags: Fort Hood, military

~~~

This is interesting...from the "religion of peace" and all...

Coworkers told police that Hamid's actions were out of the ordinary and that he had worked at the kiosk for years. (...) Through an interpreter, Hamid requested a public defender and was scheduled to appear in court at 9 a.m. Thursday where he is expected to enter a plea.

What's up with that?  He's been working at a mall in California for YEARS...and needs an interpreter to ask for an attorney?

tags:  Islam, politics, religion

~~~

Blackfive...another new blog I'm reading...

this post made me cry. - Lest we forget...

tags: military

~~~

For those who want a "level playing field" - here's a woman who...well...read.

tags: sports, disabilities

~~~

2009:

President Barack Obama recently told ABC News' Jake Tapper that he shares Pelosi’s belief that jail time is an appropriate punishment for not buying health insurance.

2008

And I think that it is important for us to recognize that if, in fact, you are going to mandate the purchase of insurance and it’s not affordable, then there’s going to have to be some enforcement mechanism that the government uses. And they may charge people who already don’t have health care fines, or have to take it out of their paychecks. And that, I don’t think, is helping those without health insurance.

and Pelosi dodges...

tags: health care, Obama, Pelosi

~~~

"Christian"?  Or "The Way"?

Both work for me...

tags: Christianity, religion, Jay E. Adams

~~~

I posted on this a long time ago...it wasn't well received then...or would be now I suppose.

Egalitarianism and Homosexuality:  Connected or Autonomous Ideologies?

Evangelical Christian organizations that hold to a complementarian view of gender roles, such as The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW), have expressed concern over a possible connection between an egalitarian view of male/female gender roles and homosexuality. For example, in the list of central concerns stated in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood-perhaps the most thorough defense of complementarianism-the authors declare, "We are concerned not merely with the behavior roles of men and women, but also with the underlying nature of manhood and womanhood themselves.

tags:  egalitarianism, complementarianism, homosexuality, Christianity, religion

~~~

Let's play:  One of these things is not like the other.

or...

"Why Can't Jill BIden Take Mrs. Utopia Shopping Sometimes?"

I like these guys...

tags: politics, fashion, Michelle Obama

~~~

via "Cruising Down the Coast of High Barbaree" who thinks this explains a lot...

“I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters. I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m gonna think I’m a better political director than my political director.” --BHO, 2008

tags: politics, Obama

~~~

"Why I Think Women Need to Study Theology"

I have a confession to make.  I am not fond of women’s ministry programs.  Don’t get me wrong, I love my sisters in Christ and enjoy fellowshipping with them.  But programs that involve some type of teaching, such as workshops or conferences, generally don’t appeal to me.  Why?  In my experience, gatherings to hear teaching have been little more than encouragement sessions to make us feel better about being “God’s women”.  Unfortunately, I find the same thing on women’s blogs, even ones that have been advertised as a place for serious thinkers.  There are a few exceptions, but generally, I find them lacking in rich theological substance.

tags:  women, theology, Christianity, religion

~~~

•

a link - Article by Gary Gilley

Includes quotes from Brian McLaren, Tony Campolo, Francis Schaeffer and others.

The "money quote":

I believe the Word of God has the power to transform our lives and lead us into godliness first and foremost because it makes that claim. The typical evangelical would likely pronounce a hardy “amen” to the above statement—unless and until the claims of the Scripture run cross-grain to the patterns of his life. When the authority of the Bible steps into the arena of his career, his personal habits, his psychological concepts, his finances, his marriage and family, his sports, his dealing with conflict, then suddenly the Holy Scripture is considered of no value and eliminated out of hand. After all, our friend reasons, what does the Bible have to say about such things? The answer—everything. Our friend retorts, it is an ancient book full of nice stories and good proverbs, suitable for worship services and funerals, but it has no reasonable bearing on everyday life, does it? The answer—the Bible, through the power of the Holy Spirit, says it can absolutely transform our lives—every aspect of our lives.

(I have had issues with Gary Gilley in the past...likely because he made so much sense in an area that I have had experience that contradicts his logic...and I don't care for "experiencial theology")

•

At least for the time being...I've got posts on all sorts of topics coming off my keyboard and I tend to enjoy blogs more where I don't have to scroll down a bunch to read all the new posts...so I'm going to try to "schedule" mine a little bit.

I've got a post on the "gift of tongues" in pagan religions (including Mormonism), I've got a post on Christ and church/husbands and wives/Adam and Eve.   I'd like to cover the life and times (and theology) of John Calvin.  And there's a lot of political stuff going on that is interesting (especially since Michigan has the worst single-state economy in the country...what Granholm has done for Michigan, Obama wants to do for the country.

There's also room for "randomosity".   Mostly I know that I can have a tendency to become a "one trick pony" and I'm not that.  A flexible basic outline keeps me from hyperfocusing.
Sunday seems good for Sola (Reformed stuff) - also, randomosity.
Monday (lunes in Spanish) seems to be the day for the links I've collected over the week.  I'm going to start adding links to my other "little" blogspot blogs, which include diet/exercise and what I'm reading.

Tuesday (I don't why) I'll think more philosophically.  Other world religions, deep thoughts about life and living.  Stuff.

Wednesday is a good day for the "gender" topic (and Wordless Wednesday)

Thursday...Thursday photo challenge (my favorite photo scavenger hunt) and politics

Friday, Fit Friday

Saturday:  TN Photo Hunt (my other favorite photo scavenger hunt) and  denominational stuff (although that can overlap with politics...and philosophy.  And gender).

Just so you all know...I'm enjoying blogging, but I love variety...

•

I am Reformed, but not rabidly so.  I believe the Solas and I  am pretty sure about TULIP (really sure about the "T").  I think that you could say that I'm "Calvinistic" in sotierology, but not in ecclesiology.
Since yesterday was 499 and we have a year until #500, it seems like a good idea to put a little bit of focus on Calvin and other Reformers.

Passions run high over religion...they always have and most likely always will.  We can attempt to look at history and theology as best we can.

I grew up Arminian (or at least mostly) and my entire family is in Arminian churches now.  My brother-in-law is a pastor and (on my husband's side) my sister-in-law is an elder.  Most of my adult life has been spent in Arminian churches.  I had been looking at the Calvinism v. Arminian debate for a while...then one day I was talking with my kids and asked them if they remember where and when they were saved.

My son knew.  Where he was, who was with him.

My daughter..."Mom, do you mean the first time, or all the rest of the times?"

That was when I started looking for a "Calvinistic" church.

• 5 Comments

•

From Toward An Egalitarian Ecclesia at Theology for the Masses (writing of 1 Timothy 2:12):

Interestingly enough, the history of translations of this passage is that the dominant translation of this word before WWII had to do with the violent treatment of men in the congregation – ‘usurping authority’ in the KJV is among the least obvious of these and even it has remnants of the idea.

The notion that "authority" was not seen in the the passage until WWII is wrong - especially reading the study notes and commentaries.

There weren't all that many translations:

...continue reading →

• 14 Comments

•

First, the basic definition of "heresy", since this is a word that has been used in connection with "subordinationism".

Heresy:

From merriam-webster:

1
  • a: adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma
  • b: denial of a revealed truth by a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church
  • c: an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma
2
  • a: dissent or deviation from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice
  • b: an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs or standards

I think it is important to understand that in order to have a "heresy", you have to have an authority to proclaim it OR to have an absolute, definitive theory, opinion, practice or doctrine to which to adhere (and be contrary to).

POINT: If you choose to level an accusation of "heresy", you should have an authoritative church body that represents "the Church" as a whole. If you cannot do this, you are choosing, either as a single person or small body, to proclaim orthodoxy and/or heresy outside of the "body" as a whole.

Accusations of heresy are serious business. False accusations are more serious yet. We should be very cautious when using such words as "heresy" or "blasphemy", lest we bear false witness against brothers and sisters in Christ.

I have little trouble examining doctrine against "historical proclamations" of heresy.  There was a time that was much closer to the cross and the apostles then we are now.  There was a time when the church was united; before the church in Rome and the Eastern Church separated.  Before that time, the young church had several councils that gathered together, examined Scripture and proclaimed "orthodoxy".

So...who decides?

A Church Council is an official ad hoc gathering of representatives to settle Church business. Such Councils are called rarely and are not the same as the regular gatherings of church leaders (synods, etc). An ecumenical council is one at which the whole Church is represented. The three major branches of the Church (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant) recognize seven ecumenical councils: Nicea (325), Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451), Constantinople II (553), Constantinople III (680), Nicea II (787). Further ecumenical councils were rendered impossible by the widening split between Eastern (Orthodox, Greek-speaking) and Western (Catholic, Latin-speaking) Churches, a split that was rendered official in 1054 and has not yet been healed. (from PBCC.org)

I'll let folks do their own search for the "seven ecumenical councils" - because which of the three major branches will cite different sources, yet all three branches recognize a group of seven councils on which all agree.

In short...if these seven councils agree that a doctrine is "heresy", all three major branches of Christianity today (Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) will agree.

The Seven Ecumenical Councils:

  • The Council of Nicea, 325
  • The Council of Constantinople, 381
  • The Council of Ephesus, 431
  • The Council of Chalcedon, 451
  • The Council of Constantinople II, 553
  • The Council of Constantinople III, 680
  • The Council of Nicea II, 787

To wrap it up, these seven ecumenical councils of the early church met to BOTH unite the church on essential doctrine and to separate those who teach heresy from those who teach truth.

I believe that if a teaching is not found (or condemned) in these seven councils, it becomes more difficult to level an accusation of "heresy". Again, we should be very careful when doing so.

•

CASE ONE:
Tim Challies is reviewing "The Radical Reformission". I really liked the book and Mark Driscoll has a lot of good things to say. One of my biggest problems (there are two) is his use of denigrating language toward groups of people. Not theology - people.

In the book (copyright 2004) Driscoll gives his list of people that "I used to not like". In that list, he admits that he was prejudiced against (among others) most of the deep south and that he has had to repent of sinful attitudes against these groups of people.

Since that time, I've listened to a lot of Driscoll's sermons (available on line). They are good sermons, yet (for me at least) they were lowered a notch by the use of certain terms that refer to a general group of people in a negative way.

My flesh says that it's fun to make fun of people - God says not.

The bottom line is - it's easy to get sucked into things that make us look good at the expense of others. If I wouldn't want my kids to use (insert term here) in a negative way, I shouldn't use it - and if I shouldn't use it - well, I want to be able to point to this man as a good example - even as a good example of how to respect other groups of people.

Words mean things... the words you use and how you use them...

AND ON A RELATED TOPIC:

A couple of posts ago I made a statement about a "senseless and meaningless debate". Yes - those words mean something and I meant them then and I mean them now. Take the situation - two women who are convinced that their position is correct - and one has stated so publically; for the record, I believe that my many hours, weeks, month and even years of study of this issue have led me to a "verdict" that no person will sway me from. God - yes. He's done it before and I'm sure that on other issues, He'll do it again.

Back to my "senseless and meaningless debate" (or we could call them "strife and disputes") statement.

Two people convinced that they are right, going over the same material for a third time, without much real hope of either side changing their mind. If this is not a fine example of "senseless", I could find a better one, but...(Remember the "definition" of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.)

I stand by that statement - the debate is (for these two people, at this time) senseless. Are either of the debaters senseless? I never said that. Was it implied? I didn't mean that - I am weary of this debate. Did I name the person that wished for me to address the points? Absolutely!

But - words do mean things - what I did say (although my intent was to express my weariness at covering the same ground again) is that Elena has no desire to listen, only to argue. Elena is convinced in her own mind that she is right. So am I. I might as well be cutting and pasting the same thing over and over - as might she. If Elena made that statement about me on her blog, it would be a true statement. That is what makes the debate senseless.

What this does mean is that I should be more careful of how my words are used. Even though I stand convinced that my words were true - my wording left an impression of disrespect. For that I am sorry.

• 1 Comment

•

Sola Scriptura
Solus Christus

If we believe that Scripture is our only infallible and ultimate authority for faith and things of faith, it follows that all other theology must flow from Scripture. When when theology comes from extra-Biblical writing and/or historical writings and/or tradition and cannot be backed up by Scripture, the theology must be discarded.

Solus Christus - Christ alone. By Christ's finished work on the cross, alone, are we saved.

There is no other mediator (or mediatrix) (1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus...

There is no other Redeemer (or redemptress) (Hebrews 9:15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant. )

John Calvin said in the Institutes of the Christian Religion, "Christ stepped in, took the punishment upon himself and bore the judgment due to sinners. With his own blood he expiated the sins which made them enemies of God and thereby satisfied him...we look to Christ alone for divine favour and fatherly love!"

The Heidelberg Catechism, Question 30 asks, "Do such then believe in Jesus the only Saviour who seek their salvation and happiness in saints, in themselves, or anywhere else? They do not; for though they boast of him in words yet in deeds they deny Jesus the only deliverer and Saviour: for one of these two things must be true that either Jesus is not a complete Saviour or that they who by a true faith receive this Saviour must find all things in him necessary to their salvation."